COMMENT: As the Birmingham-born chocolate brand loses its royal warrant, Katie Rosseinsky presents the case against this iconic British treat

Chocolate company Cadbury just lost a decades-old royal stamp of approval bestowed by Queen Victoria herself, causing widespread speculation as to why.

King Charles III has ended royal warrants for Cadbury and Unilever, which owns brands including Marmite and Ben & Jerry’s, in a blow to the household names.

Campaign group B4Ukraine had urged king to remove companies ‘still operating in Russia’, singling out Cadbury’s owner Mondelez International.

Until recently, brands such as Cadbury, Marmite, and Ben & Jerry’s had royal warrants that allowed for the Royal Arms logo on their products, but no longer will.

The chocolate firm is among the brands and products that have had their warrants withdrawn under the King, a list published by Buckingham Palace's Royal Warrant Holders Association shows

King Charles grants royal warrants to 386 companies that previously held warrants from the late Queen, including Weetabix, Heinz and Nestle. Here's what it means.

The chocolate brand was among many businesses that won’t be stocking products in the royal household any longer

A royal warrant is regarded as a guarantee of quality and can sway some customers to choose a particular firm. Read more at straitstimes.com.

Chocolate maker Cadbury has been dropped from the list of royal warrants for the first time in 170 years. The Birmingham-based chocolatier was awarded its first royal warrant as chocolate and cocoa manufacturers by Queen Victoria in 1854,