[jet]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...thousands.html

Queen BANS Prince Harry and Meghan Markle from using lucrative 'Sussex Royal' brand that they hoped to use to build new lives because 'they simply cannot sell themselves as Royals’
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex spent tens of thousands of pounds on a new Sussex Royal website and their hugely popular Instagram feed
Couple sought to register Sussex Royal as global trademark for a range of items and activities, including clothing, stationery, books and social-care services
Also looked to set up a new charitable organisation – Sussex Royal, The Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex
But the Queen and senior officials are believed to have agreed it is no longer tenable for Harry and Meghan to keep the word 'royal' in their 'branding'

Good for the Queen, they shouldn't be able to capitalise on their royal status to make a ton of money (they are in talks with big banks and businesses, no less!)

They were paid £750, 000 last week for Harry to talk at a JP Morgan conference about the effect the death of his mother had on him. He has been roundly criticised for using Diana's death to make big bucks...

[Oliver_W]

:/ What'll he do when "if" they get divorced?

[LaLaLand]

Makes sense to me.

[LaLaLand]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex spent tens of thousands of pounds on a new Sussex Royal website and their hugely popular Instagram feed

Mhmm.

[Marsh.]

Tabloid bollocks.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...thousands.html



Good for the Queen, they shouldn't be able to capitalise on their royal status to make a ton of money (they are in talks with big banks and businesses, no less!)

They were paid £750, 000 last week for Harry to talk at a JP Morgan conference about the effect the death of his mother had on him. He has been roundly criticised for using Diana's death to make big bucks...

Harry can't do an interview but people who were nothing to her can cash in on her life and death ad nauseum.

Sounds about right from the British press.

[jet]

https://www.ran.org/issue/jpmc/

The science couldn’t be more clear. According to the latest UN climate report, we have less than 11 years to cut global emissions in half.

We followed the money. The data revealed that JPMorgan Chase, time and time again, is by far the worst funder of fossil fuels and fossil fuel expansion –– by a wide margin.

Since the Paris climate agreement, JPMorgan Chase’s $67 billion in finance for fossil fuel expansions is 68% higher than CitiBank, in distant second place. Clearly put, Chase is the world’s worst banker of climate change and we won’t back down until we stop them.

So much for the Sussexes stance on climate change...

[Marsh.]

That puzzle piece doesn't quite fit in the mis-shapen hole it's supposed to.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by jet

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...thousands.html



Good for the Queen, they shouldn't be able to capitalise on their royal status to make a ton of money (they are in talks with big banks and businesses, no less!)

They were paid £750, 000 last week for Harry to talk at a JP Morgan conference about the effect the death of his mother had on him. He has been roundly criticised for using Diana's death to make big bucks...

What's daily Hail excuse for cashing on Diana?

[parmnion]

I'm sure I heard on the news he keeps his army ranks..

Lounging about in Canada as his soldiers Polish brass...yeah, nothing royal about that at all

[Marsh.]

And I suppose lounging about in the UK on the taxpayer's dime was a better option?

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

And I suppose lounging about in the UK on the taxpayer's dime was a better option?

That was his privalige then..not now though.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I'm sure I heard on the news he keeps his army ranks..

Lounging about in Canada as his soldiers Polish brass...yeah, nothing royal about that at all

Why would he not keep his ranks? Military achievement can't be taken away.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by parmnion

That was his privalige then..not now though.

Earning an army rank is not a privilege, it's an achievement.

Every soldier keeps his rank for life unless they are court marshalled and stripped for a crime.
He may retire from active service but his rank remain

[jet]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

What's daily Hail excuse for cashing on Diana?

They are a newspaper in case you need reminded, like all the other newspspers who reported on her....Harry supposedly wanted privacy, but he gets on a stage and talks about his mother for mega bucks. William would never....

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Earning an army rank is not a privilege, it's an achievement.

Every soldier keeps his rank for life unless they are court marshalled and stripped for a crime.
He may retire from active service but his rank remain

I gave up at earning. Couldn't see for tears. .

[Toy Soldier]

All sorts of brands use the term "Royal" that have piss all to do with the royal family.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Great news, awful couple

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

All sorts of brands use the term "Royal" that have piss all to do with the royal family.

The point is though that senior royals aren't allowed to use their status to make big money.

....and businesses have to get permission first obviously

King, Queen or Royal

If you wish to use the name Royal, Queen or King in a company, you must seek permission from the Cabinet Office in London, the Scottish Government in Edinburgh, or the Welsh Assembly Government in Cardiff, depending in which UK jurisdiction your business is registered. You will have to include relevant information to support your case, e.g. the history or your business and/or future plans; a relevant association with the Government or Royal family; the relation of the sensitive word to a street name or surname; your business is an established public house (or similar) that has been using a particular business name for a considerable period of time.

[jet]

I wonder how long they will keep their Instagram site running. The vast majority of the comments are scathing on everything they put up. Many of the comments on this post of theirs are related to Harry's JP Morgan speech.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8MjqZQpfba/

[thesheriff443]

Harry on stage in front of the money obsessed bankers.

When I think of mummy it hurts, loud applause and shuffled off stage.

Absolute muppet.

[jet]

I think that may have been the final straw for the Queen and why it is reported she is taking their 'royal' status branding away.

[bitontheslide]

i think this case is very specific. They made a definitive decision to step back from royal life, it is the height of hypocrisy to then start a business with Royal in the name. It's hilarious that people actually try to defend it

[arista]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i think this case is very specific. They made a definitive decision to step back from royal life, it is the height of hypocrisy to then start a business with Royal in the name. It's hilarious that people actually try to defend it

Yes Good Points

[Ammi]

...for balance, it’s interesting to get a bit of an American take on this as well because obviously Canada is where they’re laying their hat down...this is a really good article in Forbes...

Ouch!

The Queen has just banned Harry and Meghan Markle from using "Sussex Royal." Apparently, they won't be allowed to sell themselves as "Royal" after stepping down as working members of the British royal family.

Game, set, match, I hear you say?

Not quite. In fact, the ban has left me scratching my head.

What was the Queen thinking?

Not only have the Duke and Duchess of Sussex spent tens of thousands of dollars on their Sussex Royal branding with a new website and Instagram page, but they've also registered Sussex Royal as a global trademark for a range of items including clothing, stationery, books, etc. And to top it off, Sussex Royal is the name of the much hyped "billion-dollar" earning charitable organization they were looking to establish—Sussex Royal, The Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Yes, but what about maintaining the integrity of the British royal family's brand? I hear you ask.

Brand integrity doesn't mean a brand straight jacket.

In case the Queen and her advisors haven't noticed, it's 2020. The Woke consumer (born in the mid-Nineties and early 2000s) has arrived, and the rules of the game have changed.

Yes, you have to remain true to who you are and what you believe in. I like to call that brand authenticity. But that doesn't mean you are inflexible to change, you don't reinvent yourself with the times, and you end up losing relevance with a new Generation-Z that thinks and feels very differently from previous generations. (An audience, by the way, that represents $150 billion of spending power in the United States and makes up a whopping 40% of consumers worldwide.)

Just look at what happened to Victoria's Secret.

In my 2015 interview with Business Insider, I predicted the demise of Victoria's Secret brand. The brand refused to embrace body positivity and continued to perpetuate "conventional" media ideals of beauty and what it meant to have a sexy body.

I have no doubt that Victoria's Secret also thought they were retaining their brand "integrity" too. That's before their parent company J Brand's share price tanked, and their integrity went out the window. Too bad.

So what can we all learn from this situation?

First off, allowing Harry and Meghan Markle to retain their "Royal" Sussex brand would have been an excellent opportunity for the entire British royal family brand. I have no doubt the dynamic inter-racial duo would have helped the royal family press refresh on the brand that is quickly losing relevance, especially in the USA. As I've said in my interview in with The Times, in 2017, the U.S. declined to go gaga over the royal baby. I'm not saying we haven't seen a temporary uptick in interest since the wedding and the royal exit fiasco. But as a whole, Millennials and Gen-Z are just not that into the royals.

Secondly, there is a greater need for innovation and entrepreneurialism in the marketplace—not to mention more forgiveness than ever before. Long gone are the days that the most prominent celebrities like Michael Jackson would emerge from their Neverlands once a year to do an interview with Oprah. Now audiences want full access to organizations and individuals, and they don't mind if they mess up with their brand extensions. They want to see it all.

Does anyone remember Mastercard's Kardashian Kard, the prepaid debit card? How about Cosmopolitan yogurt? That's right, the women's magazine Cosmopolitan, that launched a yogurt. Probably not.

Even if some of you do remember these brand mess-ups, today, it makes these brands more human. Vulnerability and flaws are where's it at for organizations and individuals today. And, leaders need to recognize that if they're not facing resistance or making any mistakes, they're probably not on the right path.

Last but not least, I'm a big believer in the age-old saying: “no risk, no reward.”

Audiences want to align with individuals and enterprises on a values level. And, a whole new breed of fan-appointed "Royals” have arrived. (Think David and Victoria Beckham or Beyonce and Jay-Z.) So, there's no sitting on the fence and playing it safe. Not in this climate anyway.

Twitter is abuzz with encouraging responses to the Queen's decision to ban Harry and Meghan Markle from using "Royal" in Sussex Royal.

"You don't mess with the boss," states one, "Boom!" says another, "The queen always wins," tweets a third.

But does she now?

I believe with decision making like this, she might end up being the biggest loser.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeetend...ts-a-bad-idea/