The Duke and Duchess of Sussex: Transition & Future

[HereditaryPrincess]

Originally Posted by ACO

I doubt it as he can no profit from it. He already changed all his accounts from all things Sussex and Royal. I’m sure for that reason. What’s likely to happen now is the BRF will Own the trademark to prevent others from using it cause they will.

Ah, I see. I didn't realise he had changed his account's content. Makes sense.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I personally find the transition announcement on the SussexRoyal website rather patronising towards the royal house;

https://sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/

The likes of the following comments in particular;

“While there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place.” - that “precedent” links to their own previous announcement last year.

Yes, they claimed that precedent before but never provided the appropriate precedent: which other royal members expect to regularly undertake foreign tours while earning a private income?

“which has understandably been a saddening for The Duke and Duchess and their loyal staff, given the closeness of Their Royal Highnesses and their dedicated team.” - the dedicated team they made redundant, and didn’t take anyone abroad with them.

Plus the patronising use of the words “as per the agreement” continually.

It's very much self-promotional.

They even thought it necessary to reference the queen's statement about 'remaining a valued part of Her Majesty's (the queen wrote 'my' - specifically not royal) family.

The facts can be presented in different ways and clearly (which they can do as it is their own website): they prefer to stress how important and royal they remain. For example, stressing that they remain HRH - even though they won't use it - that Harry remains 6th in line AND that the order of precedence doesn't change (formally he comes AFTER the earl of Wessex and the duke of Cambridge). The duke of Cambridge clearly has been promoted ahead of his uncles but it would make sense to not apply that 'promotion' to a non-working member of the family.

Another interesting note is the one about Security: it sounds as if the British tax payers might be footing the bill (which is understandable for the first trial period). The wording about the 'the Duchess' own independent profile' would suggest that the British have little to do with it (so why foot the bill? - IF they do) - anything related to Harry being the queen's grandson/prince of Wales's son makes sense - and given the threats they have received, security is a must. However, at one point I would think that them continuing to SEEK that international profile should lead to them at least contributing to the additional costs that come with that self-chosen profile (any basic security that would be awarded to other members of the royal family of course should be given to them as long as needed).

This part is also an interesting deviation from their stated wish. So, their office was largely supported by the Prince of Wales and he is not willing to continu paying for their office in their new capacity (that they euphemistically describe as 'reduced role'):

it was decided in January that their Institutional Office would have to be closed, given the primary funding mechanism for this official office at Buckingham Palace is from HRH The Prince of Wales.

I don't know what the main differences are between a Foundation and a non-profit? Would most Foundation not also be non-profits? Apparently, they still intend to have an 'entity' but not with the name and status of a 'Foundation' - they indeed stated that they were looking for 'innovative ways' to promote their causes (although this new ngo is 'in addition to their cause driven work' - so, what is it for; any thoughts?

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I personally find the transition announcement on the SussexRoyal website rather patronising towards the royal house

I agree with you on this. I'm bothered by this statement: "we had hoped to be allowed to share these details with you sooner."

While I understand their reason for wishing to release the information earlier they need to respect the fact that someone above thought otherwise.

Originally Posted by ACO

So all this was decided back in January. I had a feeling. So why couldn’t they just announce it then or with the more recent ones? Why was it dragged out? Anyways I’m glad this is settled for everyone’s sake.

I suppose it's possible the decision regarding the use of "Sussex Royal" wasn't made in January.

This is the what the website states [bold facing mine]:
"As The Duke and Duchess will no longer be considered full-time working Members of The Royal Family, it was agreed that use of the word ‘Royal’ would need to be reviewed as it pertains to organisations associated with them in this new regard. More details on this below."

This could mean a decision was made in January only to review the use of Sussex Royal. On January 21 Thomas Woodcock Garter King of Arms was quoted in The Times as stating "it would not be “satisfactory” if the couple were able to use the Sussex Royal title for their website."

Based on this I wonder if the final decision & the reasons behind it, hadn't been made, or presented to the Sussexes, during the January meeting.

[Alison H]

Any time I've seen adverts for things with after-dinner speeches - not that I can afford things organised by the likes of J P Morgan! - they've just said that the guest speaker will be whoever, not what they're going to be talking about. People come for the name, initially ... but then someone gets a reputation as a good or a bad speaker, and things can change.


That stuff on the website about there being precedent for others to seek employment and it being disappointing is definitely snarky. What's the sense of continuing to wash their dirty linen in public like this? They didn't get exactly what they wanted. That's life. You can't just make demands and expect everybody else to give into them without any sort of compromise. It looks rather childish and stroppy to word it like that.


"Foundation" suggests, although doesn't necessarily mean, a charity, which - in the UK, not sure about elsewhere - would have to be registered with the Charities Commission and meet a lot of rules. A non-profit organisation would more typically be something like a community centre or a golf club, which exists for the benefit of the people involved rather than for the benefit of others.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by ACO

I doubt it as he can no profit from it. He already changed all his accounts from all things Sussex and Royal. I’m sure for that reason. What’s likely to happen now is the BRF will Own the trademark to prevent others from using it cause they will.

If I understood the Sussexes' message correctly, the trademark has been 'given up'.

For the above reason, the trademark applications that had been filed as protective measures and that reflected the same standard trademarking requests as done for The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, have been removed.

[ACO]

They are giving it up. The family can and likely will take it or they risk anyone getting it and doing the very thing they claim they didn’t want especially in this review period.

[Somebody]

They mention the '12-month review' period 4 times. I wonder whether they are secretly hoping to get more out of it after the 12-month review period. They still seem to rather reluctantly accept the main decision that was made: which is that they can no longer be working member of the family.

Per the agreement The Duke and Duchess of Sussex understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties and not undertake representative duties on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen.

Originally Posted by Alison H

"Foundation" suggests, although doesn't necessarily mean, a charity, which - in the UK, not sure about elsewhere - would have to be registered with the Charities Commission and meet a lot of rules. A non-profit organisation would more typically be something like a community centre or a golf club, which exists for the benefit of the people involved rather than for the benefit of others.

Thanks, so they have more control over their NGO and less accountability.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I personally find the transition announcement on the SussexRoyal website rather patronising towards the royal house;

https://sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/

The likes of the following comments in particular;

“While there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place.” - that “precedent” links to their own previous announcement last year.

“which has understandably been a saddening for The Duke and Duchess and their loyal staff, given the closeness of Their Royal Highnesses and their dedicated team.” - the dedicated team they made redundant, and didn’t take anyone abroad with them.

Plus the patronising use of the words “as per the agreement” continually.

That first comment does seem a bit passive-aggressive.... I feel like Harry and Meghan sometimes say or write things that come off badly, that they didn't necessarily mean to convey.

[Somebody]

But if the BRF took it over it would not have been removed, I'd say. But I agree, it would be wise to protect it, at least for the near future to prevent misuse.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Somebody

They mention the '12-month review' period 4 times. I wonder whether they are secretly hoping to get more out of it after the 12-month review period. They still seem to rather reluctantly accept the main decision that was made: which is that they can no longer be working member of the family.

I feel the opposite. I think they want out of the year long trial period but know it’s part of the agreement. But it reads to me they rather not.

Who knows though.

It all kicks off soon as Harry has an engagement on Wednesday. So the countdown begins.

[ACO]

Yes they would. Harry and Meghan put in the claim. They have to remove them but the BRF can put on their own claim immediately. I would be shocked if they just allowed any common joe to own Sussex Royal. That would be stupid but who knows. Maybe they don’t care.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by ACO

I feel the opposite. I think they want out of the year long trial period but know it’s part of the agreement. But it reads to me they rather not.

Who knows though.

It all kicks off soon as Harry has an engagement on Wednesday. So the countdown begins.

What makes you think they'd rather not have such a 12-month review period?

The places where they put it, suggest to me that they might have hopes that they will be allowed back in in some official capacity:
* It is stressed in the following sentence: While there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place.
It doesn't really make sense to stress this review period unless you hope to also be allowed back in (as that is what according to you can be considered 'an option' - as there is a precedent for it in their eyes)

The next two mentions are related to Harry's military associations; it was never part of their plans to give it up and he lamented it in his speech at Sentebale. So, Harry seems to hope that he might keep those appointments after the review period - otherwise he could have given them up now. But instead he stresses that while he is not allowed to undertake any military engagements (of course he states it slightly more positively: he will not use it as they are in the gift of the Sovereign)

So, I see little evidence of them being in favor of not having a 12-month review period and not hoping to get more out of it than they do now (that doesn't mean that the BRF most likely also sees benefits in having such a review period).

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Alison H

"Foundation" suggests, although doesn't necessarily mean, a charity, which - in the UK, not sure about elsewhere - would have to be registered with the Charities Commission and meet a lot of rules.

In Liechtenstein for example, one of my favourite little monarchies, you can have a "for profit" foundation. Foundation in this sense just means, that somebody independent from the founder controls the finances. A little overview can be found here:
https://www.liechtenstein-business.l...ms/Foundations

I am in no way implying, that our runaway royals here are planning such a foundation, but for the record...

[poppy7]

I am surprised at the foundation news. I thought that is what they want. But that would really involve a lot of money...like Bill Gates distrubuting money to charities. Non profit means I guess they can fundraise for running costs too. They are smaller and really that is what they need. It will probably have a simple focus.

[Hans-Rickard]

I doubt Prince Harry will have any particular difficulty in finding things to do. Being the son of Charles and Diana attracts and will still do for many years. It’s not exactly that he needs to go up on a stage and introduce himself. We shouldn’t underestimate him. He haven’t been sitting on his ass and done nothing for 35 years. He is an experienced solider and an experienced charity leader. He knows perfectly what leadership is and he knows perfectly what managing is. And i don’t think he is dumb when it comes to economy. I don’t think his future is dark just because he has decided to not inagurate schools, hospitals and undertake official visits as a Prince of the United Kingdom anymore.

And i don’t think it’s out of the question that he in a few years time will be announced as Governor General or a Lieutenant Governor...

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

I doubt Prince Harry will have any particular difficulty in finding things to do. Being the son of Charles and Diana attracts and will still do for many years. It’s not exactly that he needs to go up on a stage and introduce himself. We shouldn’t underestimate him. He haven’t been sitting on his ass and done nothing for 35 years. He is an experienced solider and an experienced charity leader. He knows perfectly what leadership is and he knows perfectly what managing is. And i don’t think he is dumb when it comes to economy. I don’t think his future is dark just because he has decided to not inagurate schools, hospitals and undertake official visits as a Prince of the United Kingdom anymore.

And i don’t think it’s out of the question that he in a few years time will be announced as Governor General or a Lieutenant Governor...

I think when it comes to charm and skills at putting people st ease. Top notch. But really he has never managed or run anything. He has an idea and hires people to run it. Not that the ideas aren't great.

[Hans-Rickard]

Originally Posted by poppy7

I think when it comes to charm and skills at putting people st ease. Top notch. But really he has never managed or run anything. He has an idea and hires people to run it. Not that the ideas aren't great.

I think (and hope) he will get good help. There is certainly no shortage of people who wants to help him and cooperate with him. The biggest challange in these cases are usually finding the right people...

As i understand their office at Buckingham Palace will be closing, i doubt we will ever get to know a lot about exactly wich people works with him.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I personally find the transition announcement on the SussexRoyal website rather patronising towards the royal house;

https://sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/

The likes of the following comments in particular;

“While there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place.” - that “precedent” links to their own previous announcement last year.

“which has understandably been a saddening for The Duke and Duchess and their loyal staff, given the closeness of Their Royal Highnesses and their dedicated team.” - the dedicated team they made redundant, and didn’t take anyone abroad with them.

Plus the patronising use of the words “as per the agreement” continually.

That does not sound good imo.

They frankly sound unhappy and seem to feel this isn’t fair. I’m not familiar with a situation truly similar to what they announced.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

I think (and hope) he will get good help. There is certainly no shortage of people who wants to help him and cooperate with him. The biggest challange in these cases are usually finding the right people...

As i understand their office at Buckingham Palace will be closing, i doubt we will ever get to know a lot about exactly wich people works with him.

What does he need help for? Can all this palaver stop? I think that apart from the newspapers who enjoy the drama, everyone's sick of it...

Originally Posted by Erin9

That does not sound good imo.

They frankly sound unhappy and seem to feel this isn’t fair. I’m not familiar with a situation truly similar to what they announced.

what are they unhappy about now? That they can't use Royal? That they can't make money and be Royal workers? What?

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

I doubt Prince Harry will have any particular difficulty in finding things to do. Being the son of Charles and Diana attracts and will still do for many years. It’s not exactly that he needs to go up on a stage and introduce himself. We shouldn’t underestimate him. He haven’t been sitting on his ass and done nothing for 35 years. He is an experienced solider and an experienced charity leader. He knows perfectly what leadership is and he knows perfectly what managing is. And i don’t think he is dumb when it comes to economy. I don’t think his future is dark just because he has decided to not inagurate schools, hospitals and undertake official visits as a Prince of the United Kingdom anymore.

And i don’t think it’s out of the question that he in a few years time will be announced as Governor General or a Lieutenant Governor...

of course it is. Royals are not used in those jobs in commonwealth coutntries any more and have not been for a LONG time. Being the Son of Charles and Diana isn't cutting as much ice nowadays.. He has done 2 stretches of active duty as a soldier and has never had to earn his living. He's going to find it a lot harder than he thinks I suspect.

Originally Posted by poppy7

I am surprised at the foundation news. I thought that is what they want. But that would really involve a lot of money...like Bill Gates distrubuting money to charities. Non profit means I guess they can fundraise for running costs too. They are smaller and really that is what they need. It will probably have a simple focus.

Why? THey said they wanted to step back to earn a professional income. IMO funding charities may have been part of the intention but the main one was to earn money. And IMO the charity fund raising will take a second place to the earning money

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Erin9

That does not sound good imo.

They frankly sound unhappy and seem to feel this isn’t fair. I’m not familiar with a situation truly similar to what they announced.

Basically they thought they mattered. They thought they were a valuable commodity. They erre told. You're not that big. You're not that clever. We can survive without you but you know we will keep an eye because you can't exactly shame us. It would hurt anyone. Basically they were told they were a small cog that isn't even needed.