Tom Bower on Good Morning Britain debate on Sussex Royal title Meghan and Harry

Prince Charles’ biographer Tom Bower today branded Meghan Markle ‘spiteful’ and accused her of trying to ‘commercialise the royal family’ with zero thought for the Queen.

The royal expert described her and Prince Harry’s recent statement as a ‘threat’ that risked ‘destroying the 93-year-old sovereign of this wonderful country’. 

He also said Meghan had ‘no status outside the royal family’ in a furious Good Morning Britain debate about the use of her Sussex Royal branding. 

Mr Bower, 73, said the Sussexes’ choice of words were ‘rude to the Queen’ and Meghan, 38, is looking to ‘commercialise the royal family’ with no regard for the monarch.

He said: ‘That statement was spiteful fury by Meghan. Meghan gets what Meghan wants’.

Mr Bower appeared alongside fellow journalist Afua Adom on Good Morning Britain today who hit back saying the Duchess was a ‘successful actress in her own right’ before the royal wedding.

It came after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex made an extraordinary online ‘swipe’ at the Queen and other royals on Friday night as they announced they will stop using their Sussex Royal brand when they step down as senior royals on March 31. 

The couple then posted a 1,114-word ‘update’ on their personal website and claimed the Queen had no ‘jurisdiction’ over the word ‘Royal’ overseas and said the monarch and the Government would have been powerless to stop them had they continued to use the word while abroad.

Mr Bower told the programme: ‘The statement was really spiteful fury from Meghan, What Meghan wants Meghan gets.

‘It was rude to the Queen. What is spiteful is, she married into the royal family not that long ago and she bailed out. But she wants to bail out on her terms.

‘What is most important for this country is to protect the reputation of the royal family.’

His debate rival Afua Adom said it was spiteful of Mr Bower to assume the couple will continue to use ‘Sussex Royal’ even though they have promised not to. 

But Mr Bower responded: ‘What you’ve really got is this couple being led by Meghan that want to commercialise the royal family.’ 

Ms Adom asked how he could possibly know Harry is being ‘led by Meghan’, to which he replied: ‘It’s the truth.

‘She has a whole life, a whole career of commercial exploitation of herself. She has absolutely no status apart from being attached to the royal family.’ 

Ms Adom and host Susanna Reid interrupted to point out that Meghan had a successful career as an actress on the TV show Suits before she met Harry. 

She was also involved in charity work and ran her own blog. 

But Mr Bower insisted: ‘If she wasn’t married into the royal family she couldn’t have set up a charity, she couldn’t start marketing Meghan’s footwear and all the rest of it.’

Ms Adom lashed out at Mr Bower again saying: ‘Before Meghan Markle married Harry she was a successful actress in her own right.

‘She was known for doing a heck of a lot of charity work. It’s completely disingenuous to say without Harry she would have no status.

‘And it’s spiteful for you to say that they’re going to continue to use it.’

Mr Bower said they had agreed ‘reluctantly’ not to use their Instagram-savvy Sussex Royal branding.

He also claimed Meghan’s acting career had ‘come to an end’ by the time she became involved with the prince.

He added: ‘They’re trying to make money out of the royal family.’

Pressed on why the media’s coverage of the couple has been negative at times, he said: ‘Because of the hypocrisy. At the beginning she threw herself in it. She started campaigning for the environment and then she took all these private jets.

‘When she didn’t tell the truth about Archie’s birth, when she tried to deliberately confuse people about the time of the birth.’   

But Ms Adom retorted: ‘When it comes to Harry and Meghan there seems to be no ability to see that it’s right for them.

‘It’s not all about Meghan, it’s about Meghan and Harry and Archie and what’s best for them.’ 

But Mr Bower said ‘it’s not about what’s best for them’ but what’s best for the Queen instead. 

He added: ‘If they do anything to damage the 93-year-old sovereign of this wonderful country, they have got to start questioning themselves.

‘It’s selfish, victim-like approach to the world.’ 

Harry and Meghan announced on Friday evening that they will stop using their Sussex Royal brand when they step down as senior royals on March 31.

But hours after releasing a carefully worded statement via Buckingham Palace confirming the move, the couple posted a 1,114-word ‘update’ on their personal website.

They claimed the Queen had no ‘jurisdiction’ over the word ‘Royal’ overseas and said the monarch and the Government would have been powerless to stop them had they continued to use the word while abroad.

What does each paragraph of Harry and Meghan’s statement really mean? MailOnline breaks down the couple’s announcement they will drop royal 

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex released an extraordinary statement on their website after they were forced to drop their ‘Sussex Royal’ brand.

In the sour-sounding statement Meghan and Harry claimed the Queen does not have ‘jurisdiction’ over the lucrative term ‘royal’ overseas. 

They also appeared to complain that the palace is treating them differently to other family members. 

Here, MailOnline decodes what each carefully-chosen phrase means.

There is ‘not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word “Royal” overseas’: 

Harry and Meghan make it perfectly clear that they could use the term ‘Royal’ as part of their branding overseas if they wanted to.

However, following their transition this Spring, they will drop the term on request of the Queen.

The Daily Mail first reported that the Queen had asked Harry and Meghan not to employ the ‘Sussex Royal’ name when they are no longer working royals.

It is a significant blow for the couple, who have spent tens of thousands of pounds building the Sussex Royal-branded website and creating a hugely popular Instagram feed.

In an unprecedented legal move, the queen has drafted in top lawyers in a bid to enforce the ban.

A string of trademark applications, covering items from clothing and books to stationery and bandanas, were withdrawn.

It comes after MailOnline yesterday revealed that Meghan has told friends there is nothing ‘legally stopping’ her and Harry from using their Sussex Royal name. 

Meghan complained to her inner circle that using the name ‘shouldn’t even be an issue in the first place and it’s not like they want to be in the business of selling T-shirts and pencils,’ the insider said. 

They added: ‘Meghan said she’s done with the drama and has no room in her life for naysayers, and the same goes for Harry.’

The friend added: ‘Meghan said the global projects they are working on speak for themselves and they chose that name to protect the royal name, not profit off of it.’

But, the insider added: ‘Meghan has told her inner circle that their success is inevitable with or without their current brand name.

‘She said regardless of the name, Harry and Archie have royal blood and no one can take that away. And that as a family, they will always be considered royalty.’

‘There is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution’:

Harry and Meghan imply that they are being treated differently to other members of the royal family who can ‘seek employment outside of the institution’.

They say the guidelines are different for them as a 12-month review period has been put in place.

They do insist, however, that it is their ‘preference’ to ‘continue to represent and support Her Majesty The Queen albeit in a more limited capacity, while not drawing on the Sovereign Grant’.

‘The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will continue to require effective security to protect them and their son’:  

The couple also insisted that security ‘to protect them and their son’ is required amid controversy surrounding protection costs.

Protection for Meghan and Harry is estimated to cost taxpayers in Canada and the UK between £3million and £6million a year, as staff work round the clock two weeks at a time. 

The statement read: ‘It is agreed that The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will continue to require effective security to protect them and their son. 

‘This is based on The Duke’s public profile by virtue of being born into The Royal Family, his military service, the Duchess’ own independent profile, and the shared threat and risk level documented specifically over the last few years.

‘No further details can be shared as this is classified information for safety reasons.’

The couple boldly insist that security is necessary, putting a swift and sudden stop to the naysayers.

However, they refuse to provide details about what forms this security will take, claiming doing so would be a breach of ‘safety’.

By saying that no more details ‘can’ be shared, the couple imply that they want to give more information but are unable to.

‘The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will become privately funded members of The Royal Family with permission to earn their own income and the ability to pursue their own private charitable interests’:

Remaining financially independent has been a key Megxit focal point.  

The couple plan to relaunch their careers – potentially earning millions of pounds a year – in a bid to ‘become financially independent’.

This will allow them to give up funding from the Sovereign Grant – the money taxpayers give to the Queen every year – and launch themselves onto the international celebrity circuit.

Earlier this year they said they had ‘made the choice’ to ‘no longer receive funding’ from the Sovereign Grant, adding: ‘Their Royal Highnesses prefer to release this financial tie.’

Harry and Meghan’s first post-Megxit appearance earlier this month was at an event held by US banking giant JP Morgan in Miami – an organisation which has been embroiled in a succession of controversies.

Harry is still ‘sixth in line to the throne’:

The statement spells out the fact that Harry is still sixth in line to the throne.

The line of the succession to the monarchy is: Prince of Wales followed by Prince William, then Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis finally followed by Prince Harry.

The statement reads: ‘As the grandson of Her Majesty and second son of The Prince of Wales, Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex remains sixth in line to the throne of The British Monarchy and the Order of Precedence is unchanged.’

They will ‘be allowed to maintain their patronages’:

The statement states that the couple will be allowed to keep their patronages even though they won’t be allowed to carry out ‘official duties’ for the Queen.

By using the word ‘allowed’ they put the onus on the Queen, who the couple make clear has given her express permission. 

It comes after Meghan was given until Easter to prove her mettle as Royal Patron of the National Theatre, according to a top West End producer.

She was gifted the honour last January by the Queen, who had been the National’s patron for 45 years.  

Nica Burns – who co-owns The Nimax Group, which comprises six London West End theatres including The Palace, the Apollo and the Vaudeville – has said that the Duchess should not hold the position indefinitely.

Ms Burns said: ‘I think we should give Meghan until Easter to say what she thinks is possible with her patronage.’ 

‘We have to give her a chance, forget who she is and give her some space.

‘If she is not going to be doing any work with the National, then she should step down. But as she is a role model, we would rather she didn’t.’

The Duke and Duchess’s statement read: ‘It was agreed that The Duke and Duchess will no longer be able to formally carry out “official duties” for The Queen or represent The Commonwealth, but they will, however, be allowed to maintain their patronages (including those that are classified as ‘royal’ patronages).’

Harry ‘will retain the rank of Major, and honorary ranks of Lieutenant Commander, and Squadron Leader’ 

The statement makes it clear that Harry will maintain military titles including: the rank of Major, and honorary ranks of Lieutenant Commander, and Squadron Leader. 

It was earlier revealed that Harry is being stripped of a number of military roles including Captain General of the Royal Marines, the ceremonial head of the Corps.

He will also lose Honorary Air Commandant of Royal Air Force Base Honington, and Honorary Commodore-in-Chief of Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command.

Harry will also be barred from wearing his military uniform after stepping back from Armed Forces appointments, although he can still wear his medals at engagements.

The couple’s statement read: ‘In relation to the military, The Duke of Sussex will retain the rank of Major, and honorary ranks of Lieutenant Commander, and Squadron Leader. 

‘During this 12-month period of review, The Duke’s official military appointments will not be used as they are in the gift of the Sovereign. No new appointments will be made to fill these roles before the 12-month review of the new arrangements is completed. 

‘While per the agreement, The Duke will not perform any official duties associated with these roles, given his dedication to the military community and ten years of service he will of course continue his unwavering support to the military community in a non-official capacity. 

‘As founder of the Invictus Games, The Duke will proudly continue supporting the military community around the world through the Invictus Games Foundation and The Endeavour Fund.’  

 

 

 

‘They’ve lost all perspective’: Palace insider blasts Prince Harry and Meghan Markle for ‘sniping’ at Queen over ‘Royal’ branding – but admit her aides were not ‘unduly surprised’

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were accused yesterday of ‘losing all sense of perspective’ after making an extraordinary online ‘swipe’ at the Queen and other royals.

Harry and Meghan announced on Friday evening that they will stop using their Sussex Royal brand when they step down as senior royals on March 31.

But hours after releasing a carefully worded statement via Buckingham Palace confirming the move, the couple posted a 1,114-word ‘update’ on their personal website.

They claimed the Queen had no ‘jurisdiction’ over the word ‘Royal’ overseas and said the monarch and the Government would have been powerless to stop them had they continued to use the word while abroad.

The lengthy statement contained what appear to be references to other royals, including the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie and the Earl and Countess of Wessex. There was also a thinly veiled attack on the British media, who they feel have been unfairly critical of their actions.

The statement claimed they had been treated differently from other members of the Royal Family and reminded readers that Harry remains sixth in line to the throne and an HRH by birth.

Last night it was clear that the Palace was exasperated by the intervention, although not unduly surprised. Others described the couple’s words as unhelpful to their public image and family relations.

‘Let’s just hope they feel they have got whatever they want to get out of their system,’ said one. Another royal insider – who is not part of the negotiations – told the Mail that the couple seemed to have ‘lost all sense of perspective’.

‘It was their decision to do this and the family is clearly trying their best to facilitate it,’ the source said. ‘But it inevitably requires sacrifices on both sides and the Sussexes need to be rather more gracious about it.

‘Sniping from the sidelines doesn’t help anyone.’

Most irritating, it seems, were the not-so-subtle references to other royals, including William and Kate. However, officials were at pains not to be drawn into a war of words with the couple ‘for everyone’s sake’.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman refused to comment, but stressed that several statements had been issued since the couple decided to announce their departure last month. Unusually, some of those statements, they said, were from the Queen – in which she expressed her sadness that her grandson and his wife wanted to walk away but said she would support them.

A spokesman for the couple issued a statement about their use of royal titles at 7.07pm on Friday, but a much longer version was shared online some three hours later.

The second statement made little attempt to disguise their disappointment at the rejection of their initial plan to retain their royal titles while earning income overseas.

‘The preference of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was to continue to represent and support Her Majesty the Queen albeit in a more limited capacity, while not drawing on the Sovereign Grant,’ it said.

Harry and Meghan made clear that they feel irritated that their efforts to trademark items such as pens, clothing and ’emotional support services’ under the Sussex Royal logo were rejected.

It had been concluded that it was both morally and legally untenable for them to market themselves as royals while pursuing commercial interests. In the most provocative passage in their statement, they claimed there was, however, nothing stopping them from using the word ‘royal’ abroad but they had simply chosen not to.

The statement said: ‘While there is not any jurisdiction by the Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020.’

The couple believe their attempts to trademark their brand were met unfavourably compared with the treatment of William and Kate, who they claim have done the same for their own charitable foundation.

‘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,’ the statement said.

They also made reference to Harry’s uncle, aunt and cousins, saying: ‘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.’

Observers took this as a reference to Beatrice and Eugenie, both HRHs, who have jobs outside of the Royal Family, as well as occasionally carrying out charitable engagements or accompanying the Queen.

Princess Eugenie works as a director at an art gallery, while her elder sister has a role with a tech company start-up.

Prince Edward and his wife Sophie were also initially permitted to pursue their own careers outside of the Royal Family, running a film production company and PR firm respectively.

But both were dogged by claims they were trading on and profiting from their royal status, and after a string of scandals were forced to quit their day jobs and become full-time working royals instead, which they have done successfully and without complaint.

Over the weekend, Harry and Meghan faced widespread criticism for their statement, with one royal expert calling the comments spiteful.

Tom Bower, who wrote a biography of Prince Charles, added: ‘The comments smack of spiteful fury. I fear it will get worse.’

Ingrid Seward, editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine, said: ‘It appears to be a gratuitous and ungracious swipe at the Queen. It is kind of saying, ‘By the way we know we can use royal if we want to’.

‘The Queen is doing everything she can to keep the peace, but the Sussexes believe the Royal Family is against them. The more you read it, the nastier it appears.’

ROBERT HARDMAN: Harry and Meghan are being peevish and tin-eared… just who IS advising them?

By Robert Hardman for the Daily Mail

Like every Sandhurst cadet, the young Prince Harry had the age-old maxim – variously attributed to Erwin Rommel, the Duke of Wellington and the 6th century BC Chinese general Sun Tzu – drummed in to him throughout his military training: time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted.

So how is it that, after all those months of supposedly careful planning, the great ‘Sussex Royal’ adventure now looks more like the retreat from Dunkirk?

And why, given their evident concern about retaining their royal status, have the Duke and Duchess of Sussex shown such disrespect for the person from whom that status descends – the Queen?

For the latest pique-filled statement on the sussexroyal.com website is enough to test the patience of the most sympathetic observers.    

Yes, it must be extremely irksome to spend a great deal of time and money creating a new brand for yourself and registering a plethora of trademarks, only to be told that it’s all a non-starter. 

Yes, the Sussexes may well feel there is one set of rules for those still inside the royal compound and another for them.

Yet the couple have only themselves to blame, not that they seem willing to acknowledge that. 

In the latest online message to their 11.2 million followers, they have posted a number of thinly veiled grumbles about various members of the Royal Family.   

However, it is the dismissive tone of their remarks about the Queen’s authority which surprises me most and leaves me wondering just who on earth is advising them.

The thrust of their argument is as follows: We are royal and we can jolly well use the word ‘royal’ all over the world if we want to because it is not in the gift of the Queen or the British Government; we have merely chosen not to do so.

Last Tuesday, the Mail’s Rebecca English broke the story that the Palace had told Harry and Meghan their ‘Sussex Royal’ brand would have to go because they are no longer part of regular royal operations. 

Alongside it, I wrote a piece explaining that there was nothing personal about this.

Rather, the monarchy’s own ‘brand’ is protected by a series of well-established laws including the Trade Marks Act, the Companies Act and an international agreement dating back more than a century and signed by 177 nations.     

I also said the couple should have consulted the official royal website. ‘There,’ I wrote, ‘they will find exhaustive guidance from the Lord Chamberlain’s Office on how businesses can lay claim to any sort of ‘royal’ status. Much of it, in any case, is governed not by the Palace but by the Cabinet Office.’

Late on Friday, the Sussexes put out a lengthy statement, following Palace confirmation of the Mail’s story. It contained a number of peevish assertions but the stand-out gripe was this: ‘While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020.’

What an extraordinary thing to say. Ever since they sprung their royal resignation on the Royal Family and the world, the Sussexes have said they plan to divide their time between the UK and abroad. 

They are not emigrating in perpetuity. So they could hardly raise two fingers to British law and set up some bogus ‘royal’ entity internationally while expecting to be taken seriously back home.

Nor is this statement correct anyway. The monarchy in tandem with several ‘overseas’ governments – including that in Canada where the couple are actually living – do have a jurisdiction over the word ‘royal’. 

That is because the Queen is sovereign of 15 nations other than this one. 

Any requests for ‘royal’ designation in Canada, for example, must be sent to the Governor-General’s Office at – wait for it – 1 Sussex Drive, Ottawa.

The statement also neglects the fact that there is another player in this saga, namely the Secretary of State for Business, currently Alok Sharma, who has jurisdiction over ‘royal’ names for ‘any type of business’ under the Companies Act of 2006. 

Similarly, all royal trademarks fall under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 1883.

Yesterday, I consulted a top commercial lawyer at an international law firm with offices in the UK and US. 

Her verdict: ‘Signatories to the Paris Convention are required to use reasonable efforts to enforce the trademark legislation of other signatory nation states, giving overseas effect to national protective laws. 

For example, the US signed the convention back in 1887 and Canada in 1923, so the UK could take steps to challenge the use of ‘Sussex Royal’ on websites and branding there.’

Setting aside the legalities, it is the confrontational tone which jars. Whoever is behind this combative approach clearly has a tin ear for public sensibilities about the monarchy in the UK. But then the couple are clearly not being advised from the UK. 

Just look at the phrasing of their statement: ‘Per the agreement’ instead of ‘As per the agreement’. 

Or ‘…when the transition occurs Spring 2020.’ Prince Harry would never write or talk like that. He would say ‘…when the transition occurs in the Spring of 2020.’ 

The couple also complain that ‘while there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of [sic] the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place.’

It is not the rogue ‘of’ that is likely to upset the Queen but the fact that the ’12-month review period’ is anything but a heavy-handed restriction on the Sussexes’ freedom. 

Rather, it is the monarch’s way of ensuring the doors remain open for the couple to return if things do not go as planned. And right now, they certainly do not.