Royals and commercial business

[Dustyblue]

I'm in Australia, and the 'Zara & Mike Tour' after his jungle show appearance has had quite some coverage here. Breakfast telly, news articles, etc.

I quite like them for some reason, they seem nice- like people you'd have over for dinner and a laugh, but wow they are shameless in their self-promotion.

Just got me wondering- is this what Harry initially had in mind? That is... hell, my beloved cousins can have endorsement deals with charities (oops, I meant companies) like Rolex & Land Rover... why can't I do that?

I get that Zara wasn't titled, so is 'free to live her own life' or something along those lines. Like her brother Phillip. Both have sold pics to the tabloids.

If Harry were to denounce ALL his royal titles like Prince, Duke, think there's another one or two... could he go hardcore commercial and get away with it?

Not sure what my point is here, just musing, sorry x

Nope. Princess Michael of Kent and her husband run commercial enterprises with their titles intact.

There is another working royal who was linked to the Russians and ran his own consulting firm, all the while representing the Queen. Something the Queen made it clear H&M could not do.

It's utter hypocrisy 😂

HRH on her book title while H&M were told they couldn't use theirs for commercial endeavours.

Also, Harry is a Prince by blood. You can't drain the blue blood from his veins. Even a royal reporter admitted that if H&M gave it all up, he would still be the son of a king, brother of a future King and Uncle of a future future King. Nothing changes.

I agree that Harry and Meghan can not have royal titles and commercial operations. But I think it should be uniformly applied across the whole family.

It will never work for Harry and Meghan in Britain though what you suggest, as everything they do gets attacked by pretty rabid haters.

Ok, I think I need to find that book!

On the royal blood draining- does it really matter though? Once you're in with the title and position, you're just in are you not? Eg, neither Catherine nor Camilla are blood royals. They aint going nowhere.

I agree H will always be the son of the son of the son etc... ah, I don't know. Tricky load of nonsense really. But still might watch Netflix on Dec 8th (if there's nothing else on, you know...)

The Sussexes find themselves in the same position as the Wessexes (the royal spouse being the son of the monarch, later brother) not the other DGC of ER II

The Wessexes tried half-in-half-out and it went spectacularly wrong, so I'm not surprised The Firm was disinclined to authorise it for someone that close to the throne. More latitude for others who will never be sibling of a monarch.

I do think there is something of a difference in Princess Anne ( who I think is fab) turning down any titles for her children so they can have something more of a normal life. Now clearly Zara's mother is a princess - but Zara does not use a royal title to get sponsorship for her sporting career. OK everyone knows she had the Queen as a granny & her mother is very very well off but as time goes on possibly Zara and Mike's children will have a chance of being "normal" people" albeit from a rich family. I think the difference with the Sussexes is their link to the RF is pretty much all they have at the moment & they appear to be milking it for all it is worth.

Princess Margaret said once something along the lines of 'my children aren't royal, it just so happens that their Aunt is Queen'.

They have had pretty successful careers without monetizing the RF - although I'm sure the connection does them little harm.