The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kenya said:
A few weeks ago when Meghan posted the note she received from the Deputy Ukraine Prime Minister, all her fans defended her from accusations that she was using HRH by pointing out that she didn’t use it, the DPM did. And I agreed with that. (I thought it was tacky to post the note, but that’s a different matter.) This, however, is her blatantly using a style she’s no longer entitled to use. It shows such utter disregard for HLMTQ and the agreement they entered into.

I’ve never felt strongly about whether she and Harry should lose their titles, as I think Parliament has better things to do with its time and energy. But this honestly makes me feel like it’s time for Charles to strip them of their styles and remove the HRH permanently. It’s apparent that Meghan is testing the fences and she deserves to get zapped.
Click to expand...
You know, I used to feel that way, wanted the titles removed. Now I don't. Simply because the titles (which I and I suspect many others don't recognise anyway) are so damaged and sullied by H&M's behaviour, they are in effect pretty worthless. Who would want to be created the Duke and Duchess of Windsor? Same goes with Sussex.

As ever, I go by my own judgment based on the pair's own actions and behaviour.

When MM pulls a stunt like this it just reminds everyone of what she threw away. I picked up that comment in a discussion elsewhere (not the press) and I agree entirely :)
 
Let us recall Meghans interview with Oprah. According to Meghan the formality continued behind closed doors, which was unexpected, sources are telling us that the friends of the couple use the HRH titles in private. She must like the formality behind closed doors.
The hypocrisy is eternal
 
pieve said:

I'm probably off-topic, but I just read in the Telegraph that Meghan sent Jamie Kern Lima a gift, along with a card that read "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex."
Unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me that Meghan can't use the title "Royal Highness."
Click to expand...
It’s more surprising that she signed a message to a friend with here full official title. Maybe as a memorabilia for the lady to cherish and show at the dinner parties? 😅
 
www.bbc.co.uk

Meghan using 'HRH' title but only in private

The Duchess of Sussex was seen using the HRH title on a gift card to a friend.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

So, if you pay for Meghan's jam (sorry, sauce), then you won't get anything saying HRH, because it's a business transaction. If she sends something to you as a gift, then you may get a note saying "With the compliments of HRH The Duchess of Sussex".

The card was shown in a video of a podcast hosted by Jamie Kern Lima, who said that when she had been "super-stressed" that Meghan had cheered her up by dropping round some ice cream and "home made strawberry sauce".

Do people normally use a compliments card when "dropping round some ice cream"?!

So, technically, she hasn't broken the agreement, but it just feels all wrong.
 
Alison H said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Meghan using 'HRH' title but only in private

The Duchess of Sussex was seen using the HRH title on a gift card to a friend.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

The article states:

Sources close to the California-based couple reject that this card was a breach of the agreement struck on their departure from royal duties.

According to sources, the couple do not use HRH in commercial or public settings - and this was only a private use of the title and was for a gift given more than a year ago.​


However, as the article correctly points out, the agreement did not make any distinction between commercial and personal, or public and private.

The Sussexes simply agreed to “not use their HRH titles”, full stop.


Statement from Buckingham Palace
[...]
The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.
​

Statement from Her Majesty The Queen

Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my...
www.royal.uk www.royal.uk

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will no longer actively use their HRH titles as they will no longer be working members of the family as of Spring 2020.​

web.archive.org

Spring 2020 Transition | The Official Website of The Duke & Duchess of Sussex

We are pleased to now be able to share with you an update on many of the details agreed at a meeting of The Royal Family in January 2020, which outlines The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s new roles, taking effect Spring 2020. We had hoped to be allowed to share these details with you …
web.archive.org web.archive.org
 
Alison H said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Meghan using 'HRH' title but only in private

The Duchess of Sussex was seen using the HRH title on a gift card to a friend.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

So, if you pay for Meghan's jam (sorry, sauce), then you won't get anything saying HRH, because it's a business transaction. If she sends something to you as a gift, then you may get a note saying "With the compliments of HRH The Duchess of Sussex".

The card was shown in a video of a podcast hosted by Jamie Kern Lima, who said that when she had been "super-stressed" that Meghan had cheered her up by dropping round some ice cream and "home made strawberry sauce".

Do people normally use a compliments card when "dropping round some ice cream"?!

So, technically, she hasn't broken the agreement, but it just feels all wrong.
Click to expand...
Seems like she is herself a little confused about when to use the title or when it is better not to?
 
Hallo girl said:
Let us recall Meghans interview with Oprah. According to Meghan the formality continued behind closed doors, which was unexpected, sources are telling us that the friends of the couple use the HRH titles in private. She must like the formality behind closed doors.
The hypocrisy is eternal
Click to expand...

If truth be told, authenticity has never been Meghan's strong point. I suspect many people struggle to believe a word that comes out of her mouth, or view any of her endeavours at face value.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
The article states:

Sources close to the California-based couple reject that this card was a breach of the agreement struck on their departure from royal duties.

According to sources, the couple do not use HRH in commercial or public settings - and this was only a private use of the title and was for a gift given more than a year ago.
Click to expand...
Bit of a ridiculous excuse, as she wasn’t supposed to be using the title a year ago, publicly or privately. This is also the second time she has used it recently- the first when she published a letter from Ukraine that introduced her that way.

Both uses seem like deliberately pushing that boundary with the British royal family.
 
HRHHermione said:
Bit of a ridiculous excuse, as she wasn’t supposed to be using the title a year ago, publicly or privately. This is also the second time she has used it recently- the first when she published a letter from Ukraine that introduced her that way.

Both uses seem like deliberately pushing that boundary with the British royal family.
Click to expand...
Oh yes the boundaries are being pushed alright. Funny how a gift from a year ago suddenly becomes known about just now.
 
Using or not using royal titles seems to be an ongoing issue for some royal families. I think for those who don't fulfill royal duties and have to or want to earn their own living, they should follow the rules that are set.
They have to put up with it, but usually don't. And why? Because their business model of earning their own money is based on being known as a royal member. Who, for example, would buy products offered by anyone? Märtha, Meghan and others use their royal connections for this, who else would know them and pay attention to them.

I would imagine that there are others with a royal background who don't need to constantly insist on their titles and still manage to earn their own living.
I admit though that a title how ancient it may be and even in a country like mine where titles officially were abolished, it still helps to make a career.
 
So, the original statement reads "The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family." Pretty straightforward right? However, the most important phrase in this sentence is "will not". Why? Because "will not" implies an action that The Sussexes have consented to, either by themselves, but more than likely under the encouragement of others. It doesn't, however, say "cannot", which would be an outright removal of permission. People may argue that "cannot" was implied, especially with the "as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family." However, it's not stated, and since the original statement had no problem using stronger restrictive language (As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments.), the "will not" in this case can be up to interpretation.

People of course can discuss what this means with regards to Meghan as the self-made woman who don't mean no man or royal connections to foster her career, but HRH The Duchess of Sussex is following the letter of the original agreement as it never said that she couldn't use her HRH, only that she wouldn't.

Anyway, HM The King is the only one with the power to actually strip the HRH from Harry (as Meghan only has her through him), but hasn't. People may argue that he has more important things to do or Harry and Meghan would play victim in the press. More important things haven't stop HM The King or HLM The Queen from making other title decisions, and why would Harry and Meghan whining to the press stop him?
 
hereditarytitles said:
Seems like she is herself a little confused about when to use the title or when it is better not to?
Click to expand...
It seems rather pretentious and unnecessary for dropping off a couple of pints of ice cream to a friend. Perhaps I need to step up my game by adding "Esq." to all my personal notes for friends. The three years I spent in law school were longer than Meghan spent in the royal family, so why not?

HenRach Dominion said:
Because "will not" implies an action that The Sussexes have consented to, either by themselves, but more than likely under the encouragement of others. It doesn't, however, say "cannot", which would be an outright removal of permission. People may argue that "cannot" was implied, especially with the "as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family." However, it's not stated, and since the original statement had no problem using stronger restrictive language (As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments.), the "will not" in this case can be up to interpretation.
Click to expand...
Anyone who was honest and a person of their word would not do it after agreeing not to, regardless of whether they were prohibited from doing it. Like they say, integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.
 
Kenya said:
It seems rather pretentious and unnecessary for dropping off a couple of pints of ice cream to a friend. Perhaps I need to step up my game by adding "Esq." to all my personal notes for friends. The three years I spent in law school were longer than Meghan spent in the royal family, so why not?


Anyone who was honest and a person of their word would not do it after agreeing not to, regardless of whether they were prohibited from doing it. Like they say, integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It shows a distinct lack of integrity and honor from her. Straightforward. There's no way to interpret her use of it as honorable without doing mental gymnastics.
 
RoyalNight said:
It’s more surprising that she signed a message to a friend with here full official title. Maybe as a memorabilia for the lady to cherish and show at the dinner parties? 😅
Click to expand...
I think she is showing her environmental credentials here. Clearly, she got a great deal on the notepaper and can’t bear not to use it up :)
 
Hallo girl said:
She is pushing the boundaries, I actually think she wants the titles removed so that they can play victim again.
Click to expand...
The King, as is the Royal way, should do nothing. As she becomes further and further from The Throne, her use of Royal titles will bring her more and more ridicule and make her even more of an anathema to most people. The Sussex's plan to remove themselves from the Royal Family should have continued - but it has not, therefore revealing their true colours.
 
pieve said:

I'm probably off-topic, but I just read in the Telegraph that Meghan sent Jamie Kern Lima a gift, along with a card that read "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex."
Unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me that Meghan can't use the title "Royal Highness."
Click to expand...
Odd, that as far as I recall none of those " friends ", who received gift's of her 'homemade', strawberry jam displayed such cards . Perhaps, much as the numbers on the jars then were not in order of the importance of the recipients in her friendship circle, there is no differentiation in a " gift " being accompanied with such a card displaying her married title ? I actually found her assertion about the emails not only rather sad, in respect to the fact that it implies she is convinced that without this evidence, her children will fall " victim to false narratives ", regarding her in years to come, but also that by publicising this stash of highly private emails, she is inviting hackers to steal and release them .
 
Last edited:
Tatiana Maria said:
The article states:

Sources close to the California-based couple reject that this card was a breach of the agreement struck on their departure from royal duties.

According to sources, the couple do not use HRH in commercial or public settings - and this was only a private use of the title and was for a gift given more than a year ago.

However, as the article correctly points out, the agreement did not make any distinction between commercial and personal, or public and private.

The Sussexes simply agreed to “not use their HRH titles”, full stop.
Click to expand...
It just seems incredibly odd to use HRH in private. Who needs to be known in this day and age (on paper, yet) as HRH when you are being a private person or among “friends” by definition? Not so sure how much it helped Princess Margaret.

I also notice the card was not even hand-signed “Meghan”, so people in the US are apparently supposed to know who “HRH The Duchess of Sussex” is, even when she alters the formula on her website.

It’s not a British title. It’s nothing to do with any place in the UK. It’s her brand, plain and simple. (The “HRH” must make it seem even more exclusive and luxurious.)
 
Interesting isn’t it- I can’t imagine many others in the BRF using their full titles to send a thank you note to a friend… but then they don’t perhaps feel the need to subtly remind everyone they are HRH and royal.

It smacks me as being similar to the line of thinking that we want to protect our childrens privacy so much that we left the Royal Family and moved away but once they can be HRH and Prince/ Princess we’ll absolutely use those titles.
 
tommy100 said:
Interesting isn’t it- I can’t imagine many others in the BRF using their full titles to send a thank you note to a friend… but then they don’t perhaps feel the need to subtly remind everyone they are HRH and royal.
Click to expand...
As the old saying goes - 'the people who care don't matter, and the people who matter don't care'.
 
taogg said:
Wallis was never actually an HRH, while Meghan is one, she just agreed not to use it. So technically she still has the title, even if it’s kind of weird for her to use it now.
Click to expand...
As I said, different circumstances. The idea that either woman would use HRH in private -- one because she doesn't have it, the other because she has agreed not to -- is what made me think of it.
 
GondorHasNoPants said:
As the old saying goes - 'the people who care don't matter, and the people who matter don't care'.
Click to expand...
“Those who matter don’t mind, and those who mind don’t matter”.

Isn’t it?

kalnel said:
As I said, different circumstances. The idea that either woman would use HRH in private -- one because she doesn't have it, the other because she has agreed not to -- is what made me think of it.
Click to expand...
In Wallis’s case, though, I don’t know if she determined on it, but we do know her husband (who did still have the HRH, was free to use it, and was very annoyed about the unequal treatment) insisted on it. (Whether that was because of her complaining isn’t as clear.)
 
Last edited:
GondorHasNoPants said:
As the old saying goes - 'the people who care don't matter, and the people who matter don't care'.
Click to expand...
100% this, I was actually trying to think of this exact saying for my post. That is so true on the case of the Sussex’s.
It is actually just not what the RF do- they have stationery printed with their monogram or residence at the top not compliment cards with their full titles listed (even if THEY are allowed to use them)
 
Kenya said:
It seems rather pretentious and unnecessary for dropping off a couple of pints of ice cream to a friend. Perhaps I need to step up my game by adding "Esq." to all my personal notes for friends. The three years I spent in law school were longer than Meghan spent in the royal family, so why not?


Anyone who was honest and a person of their word would not do it after agreeing not to, regardless of whether they were prohibited from doing it. Like they say, integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.
Click to expand...
I am a bit confused. I think they agreed to not use it in business ventures but I guess using it in private would be fine? (even if it’s odd to sign as HRH the duchess, particularly when outside the uk!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ista
  • Sticky
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, May 7, 2025--
4 5 6
Replies
162
Views
17K
Toledo
Toledo
Marengo
Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh and Family News and Events 12: March 2025 -
Replies
22
Views
2K
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
The Duke and Duchess of Bragança and Family 3: March 2025 -
Replies
21
Views
2K
Toledo
Toledo
Marengo
Earl and Countess of St Andrews and Family News and Events 2, Dec 2024-
Replies
3
Views
2K
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
Nicholas & Alina Maria de Roumanie Medforth Mills and Family, News & Events 3: March 2025 -
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom