A photograph taken on December 23, 2024 shows a Cadbury’s chocolates tablet displayed on a table in Liverpool, in north west England. (Photo by Paul ELLIS / AFP)
London, United Kingdom — Chocolate firm Cadbury said on Monday it was “disappointed” after losing its royal warrant for the first time in 170 years following King Charles III’s first review of the coveted list since becoming monarch.
Campaign group B4Ukraine earlier this year urged the king to remove companies “still operating in Russia” following its invasion of Ukraine.
It singled out Mondelez International which owns Cadbury as well as Bacardi, Nestle and Unilever, the maker of the UK’s hate-it-or-love-it breakfast spread, Marmite.
READ: King Charles turns 76 after year of little celebration
Cadbury was among 100 firms including Unilever missing from a new list of 386 royal warrant holders, although Bacardi and Nestle retained their warrants.
Not all those absent from the latest list, published by the Royal Warrant Holders Association, were necessarily actively removed, and instead may have ceased trading or not applied.
The review of royal warrants follows Charles’ accession to the throne in September 2022 on the death of his mother Queen Elizabeth II.
Warrant holders receive “the right to display the appropriate royal arms on their product, packaging, stationery, advertising, premises and vehicles”.
It is regarded as a guarantee of quality and can sway some customers to choose a particular firm’s goods or services.
Cadbury, which was first awarded a royal warrant by Queen Victoria in 1854, was reportedly a favorite of the late queen.
A spokesperson for Mondelez said Cadbury had been “a part of British life for generations” and remained the “nation’s favorite chocolate”.
“Whilst we are disappointed to be one of hundreds of other businesses and brands in the UK to not have a new warrant awarded, we are proud to have previously held one, and we fully respect the decision,” the spokesperson added.
A Unilever spokesperson said it was proud of the long royal association of its brands, but that the granting of warrants was “a matter for the royal household”.
Buckingham Palace does not give reasons or comment on decisions about royal warrants.