 |
Harry and
Meghan's statement on their website in full
AS AGREED
AND SET OUT IN JANUARY 2020:
It is
agreed that the commencement of the revised role of The Duke and Duchess of
Sussex will take effect Spring 2020 and undergo a 12 month review.
The Royal
Family respect and understand the wish of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to
live a more independent life as a family, by removing the supposed ‘public
interest’ justification for media intrusion into their lives. They remain a
valued part of Her Majesty’s family.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As agreed
and set out in January, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will retain their “HRH”
prefix, thereby formally remaining known as His Royal Highness The Duke of
Sussex and Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex. 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Based on
the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s desire to have a reduced role as members of
The Royal Family, 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. The Duke and
Duchess shared this news with their team personally in January once they knew
of the decision, and have worked closely with their staff to ensure a smooth
transition for each of them.
Over the
last month and a half, The Duke and Duchess have remained actively involved in
this process, which has understandably been saddening for The Duke and Duchess
and their loyal staff, given the closeness of Their Royal Highnesses and their
dedicated team.
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.
ADDITIONAL
DETAILS:
As shared
in early January on this website, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not plan to
start a ‘foundation’, but rather intend to develop a new way to effect change
and complement the efforts made by so many excellent foundations globally.
The
creation of this non-profit entity will be in addition to their cause driven
work that they remain deeply committed to. While The Duke and Duchess are
focused on plans to establish a new non-profit organisation, given the specific
UK government rules surrounding use of the word ‘Royal’, it has been therefore agreed
that their non-profit organisation will not utilise the name ‘Sussex Royal’ or
any other iteration of ‘Royal.’
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.
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.
As The Duke
and Duchess of Sussex continue to develop their non-profit organisation and
plan for their future, we hope that you use this site as the source for factual
information. In Spring 2020, their digital channels will be refreshed as they
introduce the next exciting phase to you.
The
statement Harry and Meghan sent to the press
'As shared
in early January on this website, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not plan to
start a "foundation", but rather intend to develop a new way to effect
change and complement the efforts made by so many excellent foundations
globally.
'The
creation of this non-profit entity will be in addition to their cause driven
work that they remain deeply committed to.
'While The
Duke and Duchess are focused on plans to establish a new non-profit
organisation, given the specific UK government rules surrounding use of the
word 'Royal', it has been therefore agreed that their non-profit organisation
will not utilise the name "Sussex Royal" or any other iteration of
"Royal".
'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.
'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.
'As The
Duke and Duchess of Sussex continue to develop their non-profit organisation
and plan for their future, we hope that you use this site as the source for
factual information.
'In Spring
2020, their digital channels will be refreshed as they introduce the next
exciting phase to you.
'The Duke
and Duchess of Sussex eagerly await the opportunity to share more with you and
greatly appreciate your support!'
|
 |
Harry and
Meghan show anger at palace over loss of royal branding
Sussexes
say monarchy has no jurisdiction over use of word ‘royal’ overseas
Jamie
Doward
Sun 23 Feb
2020 09.52 GMTLast modified on Sun 23 Feb 2020 09.56 GMT
The freeze in relations between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Buckingham Palace has become apparent after the couple were forced to drop plans to use the brand “SussexRoyal”.
Posts on
the couple’s official website suggest they are angry at the way the decision
was reached and how they have been treated compared with other royals. A statement
on Friday night suggested that a blanket ban on the use of the word “royal” was
unenforceable abroad. “There is not,” it noted, “any jurisdiction by the
monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘royal’ overseas.”
The
couple’s Instagram account uses the name SussexRoyal, as does a website they
set up following their shock decision to stop carrying out official royal
duties in favour of financial freedom. Both will have to be rebranded.
A
spokeswoman for the Sussexes said: “While the duke and duchess are focused on
plans to establish a new non-profit organisation, given the specific UK
government rules surrounding use of the word ‘royal’ it has been therefore
agreed that their non-profit organisation, when it is announced this spring,
will not be named Sussex Royal Foundation.
“The Duke
and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘SussexRoyal’ in any territory
post-spring 2020.”
The
spokeswoman explained that trademark applications, which were filed as
protective measures “acting on advice from and following the same model for the
Royal Foundation”, had been removed.
The
couple’s lives as working royals will end on 31 March when they stop
representing the Queen and become financially independent.
On Friday
night their website was updated to provide further details of the new
agreement. “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,” said a statement.
Their
failure to agree a hybrid role within the royal family – performing some royal
duties while also working on outside projects – is also a source of regret.
They wrote:
“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.”
|
 |
FIVE TIMES Evelyn
Waugh
Was Evelyn Waugh
a "snobbish misanthrope" ?
FIVE VIDEOS below
SEE ALSO:
In the
course of his lifetime, Waugh made enemies and offended many people; writer
James Lees-Milne said that Waugh "was the nastiest-tempered man in
England". Waugh's son, Auberon, said that the force of his father's
personality was such that, despite his lack of height, "generals and
chancellors of the exchequer, six-foot-six and exuding self-importance from
every pore, quail in front of him".
In the
biographic Mad World (2009), Paula Byrne said that the common view of Evelyn
Waugh as a "snobbish misanthrope" is a caricature; he asks: "Why
would a man, who was so unpleasant, be so beloved by such a wide circle of
friends?" His generosity to individual persons and causes, especially
Catholic causes, extended to small gestures; after his libel-court victory over
Nancy Spain, he sent her a bottle of champagne. Hastings said that Waugh's
outward personal belligerence to strangers was not entirely serious but an
attempt at "finding a sparring partner worthy of his own wit and
ingenuity". Besides mocking others, Waugh mocked himself—the elderly
buffer, "crusty colonel" image, which he presented in later life, was
a comic impersonation, and not his true self.
As an
instinctive conservative, Waugh believed that class divisions, with
inequalities of wealth and position, were natural and that "no form of
government [was] ordained by God as being better than any other". In the
post-war "Age of the Common Man", he attacked socialism (the
"Cripps–Attlee terror") and complained, after Churchill's election in
1951, that "the Conservative Party have never put the clock back a single
second". Waugh never voted in elections; in 1959, he expressed a hope that
the Conservatives would win the election, which they did, but would not vote
for them, saying "I should feel I was morally inculpated in their
follies" and added: "I do not aspire to advise my sovereign in her
choice of servants".
Waugh's
Catholicism was fundamental: "The Church ... is the normal state of man
from which men have disastrously exiled themselves." He believed that the
Catholic Church was the last, great defence against the encroachment of the Dark
Age being ushered in by the welfare state and the spreading of working class
culture. Strictly observant, Waugh admitted to Diana Cooper that his most
difficult task was how to square the obligations of his faith with his
indifference to his fellow men. When Nancy Mitford asked him how he reconciled
his often objectionable conduct with being a Christian, Waugh replied that
"were he not a Christian he would be even more horrible".
Waugh's
conservatism was aesthetic as well as political and religious. Although he
praised younger writers, such as Angus Wilson, Muriel Spark and V.S. Naipaul,
he was scornful of the 1950s writers' group known as "The Movement".
He said that the literary world was "sinking into black disaster" and
that literature might die within thirty years. As a schoolboy, Waugh had
praised the art of Cubism but soon abandoned his interest in artistic
Modernism. In 1945, Waugh said that Pablo Picasso's artistic standing was the
result of a "mesmeric trick" and that his paintings "could not
be intelligently discussed in the terms used of the civilised masters". In
1953, in a radio interview, he named Augustus Egg (1816–1863) as a painter for
whom he had particular esteem.[n 7] Despite their political differences, Waugh
came to admire George Orwell, because of their shared patriotism and sense of
morality.
Throughout
his literary works, Evelyn Waugh freely expressed racial and anti-semitic
prejudices, especially in the books he wrote before the Second World War. The
writer V.S. Pritchett said that Waugh's anti-semitism, "like Mount
Everest, is there, nonviolent, but undeniable". Wykes said that
anti-semitism is Waugh's "most persistent nastiness", adding that
Waugh's racism was "an illogical extension of his views on the naturalness
and rightness of hierarchy as the [main] principle of social
organisation". As an admirer of Waugh's writing, Orwell said that Evelyn
Waugh was "almost as good a novelist as it is possible to be ... while
holding untenable opinions".
|
