Sussex versus Prince of Wales.

Glorianny best to read posts before making accusations.

No-one objects to H&M earning their own money. What is objectionable is the way they use the royal connection they affect to despise to publicise their merchandising, which they were asked not to do after they left Britain.
It was no coincidence that MM appeared promoting her 'goods' at the same time as William was making a public appearance in Britain to promote a charitable endeavour.

Can't think how many times on these threads people have said of M&H they should earn their own money. But when they try- well it's never right is it? Damned if they do etc.

Pantglas2

“To then think that the system itself is the problem is the only logical step.”

The “system” as you put it Glorianny has only failed two people in the last 100 years…Edward VIII and Meghan Markle - and i suspect any system, not of their own devising, would have failed them given their personalities.

So Andrew is OK then? Bit of people trafficking, best friends with a convicted paedophile and as long as you keep quiet it's OK . Some people have funny ideas about who failed.

“To then think that the system itself is the problem is the only logical step.”

The “system” as you put it Glorianny has only failed two people in the last 100 years…Edward VIII and Meghan Markle - and i suspect any system, not of their own devising, would have failed them given their personalities.

The title of the thread s "Sussex versus Prince of Wales"

At one point they were all working together for their charity, The Royal Foundation.
Then the Sussexes decided to split away and pursue their own interests with their own head of PR.

Unfortunately, and I am not saying this to be unkind, it does seem that the Sussexes have tried to turn this into a battle of oneupmanship. Very sad indeed.

Rosie51

Glorianny

But the whole point of the hereditary thing is that the title is not a debatable issue. If you are born a Duke you die a Dke. Morals don't matter. You can be terrible and keep your title

Being born into a title or marrying to get one still doesn't mean you have to use it to your advantage as a marketing tool, or even at all. I'm surprised you're unable to understand that basic fact. Sarah Ferguson could have writen and marketed her children's books under her own name, no mention of her gained through marriage title. Meghan Markle could start her new marketing venture under her own name, she is not compelled to market under Meghan Duchess of Sussex. I don't think anyone has argued with Morals don't matter. You can be terrible and keep your title have they? Some have the opinion, to which they are perfectly entitled, that using titles in this way is unsavoury.

Perhaps if you took a little more time to read and digest what is actually written you wouldn't keep coming back with these irrelevant points?

As an aside it is perfectly possible to renounce your title. Edward VIII renounced the title and actuality of being King but opted to keep his newly created title Duke of Windsor.

If you don't understand the sheer illogicality of what you are suggesting that isn't my fault.
To put it plainly the less honourable, the less moral, the less honest someone is the more likely they are to use a title for nefarious purposes. You have Andrew as the prime example. So what you are expecting is moral behaviour from people in a system which supports their immorality.
To then think that the system itself is the problem is the only logical step.

Of course the woman you choose to pick on is just someone who didn't fit the mould. Which is what women have to do don't they? Change to fit the system? No matter what the cost to them.

Glorianny

But the whole point of the hereditary thing is that the title is not a debatable issue. If you are born a Duke you die a Dke. Morals don't matter. You can be terrible and keep your title

Harry was not born a duke

He was given the title Duke of Sussex by his grandmother when he married Meghan Markle, she then became Duchess of Sussex upon marriage.

Cossy Mon 18-Mar-24 09:21:24
Anniebach
She cannot be princess same as Sarah and Diana
Why can’t she? Both Sarah and Diana lost their titles when divorced?

Sarah continued to use Duchess of York, Diana continued to use Princess of Wales, Diana princess of Wales, not princess
Diana

Well hopefully all the conspiracy theories on social media will stop as the Princess of Wales was seen at the Windsor Farm Shop over the weekend, looking well and chatting to staff.

lemsip

if the King was to remove the duke of sussex title from Harry he would still always be a Prince making meghan Princess
and we don't want that... that's the reason .

She would have to be known as Princess Henry. I don’t think she’d go for that! 😂

Anniebach

She cannot be princess same as Sarah and Diana

Why can’t she? Both Sarah and Diana lost their titles when divorced?

She cannot be princess same as Sarah and Diana

if the King was to remove the duke of sussex title from Harry he would still always be a Prince making meghan Princess
and we don't want that... that's the reason .

A weak intellect.

Why do you think he needed that?

After reading THE book, I can see that Harry needed a wife like Meghan though. He needed someone controlling and assertive, so meeting her was his dream.

I still like Harry even after THE book and everything else but I just cannot stand Meghan. I wish he had never met her. Also sick of this speculation about Kate. At least with all these things going on then the cameras are not on Andrew.

Glorianny

But the whole point of the hereditary thing is that the title is not a debatable issue. If you are born a Duke you die a Dke. Morals don't matter. You can be terrible and keep your title

Being born into a title or marrying to get one still doesn't mean you have to use it to your advantage as a marketing tool, or even at all. I'm surprised you're unable to understand that basic fact. Sarah Ferguson could have writen and marketed her children's books under her own name, no mention of her gained through marriage title. Meghan Markle could start her new marketing venture under her own name, she is not compelled to market under Meghan Duchess of Sussex. I don't think anyone has argued with Morals don't matter. You can be terrible and keep your title have they? Some have the opinion, to which they are perfectly entitled, that using titles in this way is unsavoury.

Perhaps if you took a little more time to read and digest what is actually written you wouldn't keep coming back with these irrelevant points?

As an aside it is perfectly possible to renounce your title. Edward VIII renounced the title and actuality of being King but opted to keep his newly created title Duke of Windsor.

But the whole point of the hereditary thing is that the title is not a debatable issue. If you are born a Duke you die a Dke. Morals don't matter. You can be terrible and keep your title

But it really doesn't matter. If you support a hereditary monarchy and aristocracy you don't get to pick and choose who gets to use the titles. nobody is suggesting we do, but it is permissible to criticise those we think are misusing them, You don't get to make the rules of who others may or may not criticise.

Anne chose not to have titles for her children

Anniebach

Agree on Sarah using her title many times but i don’t think she
has ever criticised the royal family or said she wanted out.

But it really doesn't matter. If you support a hereditary monarchy and aristocracy you don't get to pick and choose who gets to use the titles.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny

On the other hand if you have a RF and an aristocracy that is hereditary you can't pick and choose who gets a title. The family members get one and so do the people they marry. That's how the system works.

There's no obligation to use the title, that is a choice made for the advantage it brings.

Obviously. But complaining because someone uses a system you support for their own ends isn't logical.
The RF often use their titles for their own ends. The Duchess of York published children's books using her title.

Excuse me? How do you know I support the system, that's an assumption on your part.
I accept the system exists, and I think in some ways does good. I merely comment that none of them are forced, coerced or otherwise compelled to use their titles for their own advantage, it is a choice they make. It is perfectly logical to object to that.
You are equating Sarah Ferguson and Meghan Markle. At least Sarah Ferguson didn't make money from whinging about the RF, a slight saving grace in my book.

Until her separation from the Duke of York, the Duchess of York was a full time working member of the RF. Prince Andrew was in the Navy and after he left that he too was a full time working member of the RF.

Whether the Duchess of York used her title to publish children's books or not the press would have still publicised the fact that she had published them, in the same way once anyone is a celebrity, everything they do is spread across the press.

I think people get ansy about the Duchess of Sussex because she gives the feeling that she was monetising her title form Day 1.