Talk:Royal warrant of appointment (United Kingdom)

FAKE London

Fake London uses the "by appointment to her gracious majesty..." in a humorous way. Is this sufficiently interesting for inclusion in the page? Arided (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Page Invaded by Sycophants?

The Royal Family doubtless purchased cigarettes for its own use. They are keen smokers, the lot of them. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1166878/Eugenie-Her-Royal-Hoodiness-joins-smoking-crowd.html John Paul Parks (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering to the warrants come from either the Prince of Wales or the Queen how does a link showing Eugenie is a smoker prove otherwise? No where in that link does it say that either of the GRANTORS smoke. Theres a reason it's written as "Goods need not be for the use of the grantor" - the people mentioned in that link are not GRANTORS. Therefore it stands that it is for their guests and not for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.137.87 (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-62415/William-rebel-smoker.html John Paul Parks (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not whether members of the Royal family are smokers or not, rather it is whether the Royal family have granted royal warrants to named brands. My understanding is that they no longer issue warrants for tobacco related products. BronHiggs (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancy

The earliest recorded British royal charter was granted... in 1155 by Henry II of England.

But then:

One of the first monarchs to grant a warrant was King George IV...

Something wrong there, I think. Valetude (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No, nothing wrong there. The text states that "the earliest royal charter was granted by Henry II" and then "One of the first monarchs to grant a [royal] warrant was King George IV...". The intervening prose provides all the necessary clarification. Warrants replaced charters at a certain point in history. Royal warrants and royal charters are not entirely the same thing. BronHiggs (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Twinings of London

Copied from user talk page... to provide background for bizarre editing decisions carried out on 12 November, 2018.

Twinings of London is primarily known for selling tea. The company was given its Royal Warrant for tea. I believe that it was granted a warrant during the reign of Queen Victoria, at a time when the company only produced tea. Chocolate and coffee are more recent additions to the company's range. The company's website in England lists a range of other items offered for sale, and not just confined to beverages; including coffee, hot chocolate, confectionary (chocolate, marmalade, preserves, biscuits, sweets), teaware (teapots, tea caddies, mugs, tea-cups and storage jars), syrups, gifts, calendars and novelty items. The website in other countries, including my own country, does not mention products other than tea. My understanding is that the company first began selling coffee in 2005 - many years after it was granted a royal warrant.

So, if you want to be pedantic, the explanation should read Twinings of London (tea, coffee, hot chocolate, confectionary (chocolate, marmalade, preserves, biscuits, sweets), teaware (teapots, tea caddies, mugs, tea-cups and storage jars), syrups, gifts, calendars and novelty items.) And, why not make an effort to provide an exhaustive listing for each company?

But, surely, this is not the point? The comment in brackets following the name of the Royal-Warrant holder is designed to indicate which product or products the company is best known for. It is not intended to convey an exhaustive list of every item the company sells, or has ever sold. The article is not about Twinings - it's about royal warrants. Readers who are interested in learning more about Twinings can follow the links to the Wikipedia article on Twinings where they can access the fine detail- but for the purpose of this article, the main consideration should be to provide a basic and succinct explanation for the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with the company.

Therefore, if you insist on adding this type of additional information to Twinings, then why stop of just one? Perhaps we should consider expanding the explanation in brackets for all companies:

• Twinings of London (tea, coffee, hot chocolate, confectionary (chocolate, marmalade, preserves, biscuits, sweets), teaware (teapots, tea caddies, mugs, tea-cups and storage jars), syrups, gifts, calendars and novelty items.)
• Cadbury (confectionary, chocolate, beverages
• Fortnum & Mason (preserves and marmalades, ready-to-eat luxury meals, chocolate, tea, hampers, seasonings and spices, cheese, caviar, foie gras, fresh meat and fish, wine and spirits, homewares, gifts, restaurants)
• Yardley of London - skincare (hand cream and body lotion), talcum powders, perfumes, soaps, toiletries
• Land Rover and Aston Martin - (cars, car parts, car accessories, motor vehicle repairs)

These descriptions should also be updated on related articles such as List of Royal Warrant holders of the British Royal Family.

The selective attention shown to Twinings, and not to other companies mentioned in the article could be construed as bias or Point of View (POV) pushing. The same rules should apply to all - if you wish to provide an expanded description of one company, then you have an obligation to do the same for every company mentioned.

I think that there are two options here:

• 1. Delete all references to the products provided, since they are causing so much bother.
• 2. Provide comprehensive or exhaustive listings of all products sold by the companies mentioned.

BronHiggs (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Copied from user talk pages

I have once again reverted your edit, but this time, I have gone back into the article and removed all the product examples since this is apparently your concern. I have no idea what point you were trying to make (as stated in the edit summary). I have also copied my previous comment to the article's talk page, so that it is made clear to other users why product examples are not used in the article, and hopefully so that other editors will not add them back in again. BronHiggs (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that is another way of doing it, listing some businesses. [Unsigned - User:1.43.19.78]

User:1.43.19.78 That is the option that was specified. There was, of course, a third option which was to leave it as it was in the original - in which the company and the product example for which they were granted a royal warrant was specified in brackets, but since you decided to change all that, I did not consider it to be a realistic option that would satisfy. BronHiggs (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it me..?

I find this quite confusing, perhaps it's just me;

"Food and drink manufacturers have been some of the most important warrant holder suppliers to the palace."

...fair enough, but then a few lines later...

"Royal Warrants are only awarded to tradesmen, such as carpenters, engravers, cabinet makers, dry-cleaners, even chimney sweeps." (my emphasis)

Does the second statement contradict the first? 2.218.54.68 (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth Death

How should this be edited after the Queen's death? 71.213.46.36 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

unless it has been confirmed by authorities that companies that held King Charles's warrant when Prince of Wales then no-one at present can hold a royal warrent Jord656 (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)