Prince Harry made a faux pas when he said these four words but three years on they've taken on a completely new meaning.
In late 2017, only two words mattered to any royal-obsessive worth their Dresden china: Royal. Wedding.
Prince Harry's relatively whirlwind courtship with Meghan Markle, actress, entrepreneur and activist had ended with the duo beaming a deux in the sunken garden in Kensington Palace as they proudly flashed the diamond engagement ring now on her left hand.
For every courtier and palace mandarin worth their Gieves & Hawkes bespoke suit, it was a glorious time. The royal ranks were about to welcome the most beguiling addition to HRH-dom in decades (yes, Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, is lovely but she is just not in the same league dazzle-wise).
The face of the monarchy was now a foursome of 30-something Windsors, all energised and filled with do-good pep ready to propel the monarchy into the 21st century. Huzzah, break out the good custard creams, Jeeves!
However, in late December of that year, after Meghan had enjoyed (if that verb is even applicable to a holiday that requires five outfit changes a day) her first royal Christmas at Sandringham, Harry edited BBC Radio's flagship Today show.
In what would be an unfortunate precedent, his impressive work, including an interview with Barack Obama, was largely overshadowed by a personal revelation, in this instance him claiming that his fiance had a great time over the festive period with the Windsors who were the "family she never had".
The outcry was immediate with social media and clucking British columnists quick to point out that the Prince's words were a tad hurtful to her parents, mother Doria Ragland and father Thomas Markle. (At that stage, Thomas' penchant for staging paparazzi photo shoots and willingly slagging off his daughter to the tabloids had not yet kicked off.)
Within weeks the minor flub was seemingly forgotten, after all, a love-soaked display of over exuberance was hardly in the same boat as heading out for a posh party dressed as a Nazi. If Our Harry was happy then who cares if his trainer-shod foot occasionally ended up in his mouth?
However, three years on, in light of the events of Megxit those four simple words – "family she never had" – can be read in a whole new light.
The unspoken implication seemed to be that Meghan had – and was going to continue to – fit right in with the house of Windsor.
As Harry himself said of his future wife during their engagement TV interview, "For me, it's an added member of the family. It's another team player as part of the bigger team." After all, there's no 'I' in royal right?
However looking back, what comes into focus is that, outwardly, it seemed nearly universally expected that she would cheerfully slot into the family structure and the palace's working apparatus. After all, royal spouses are expected to contort themselves to fit the royal mould and not the other way around.
The collective, prevailing assumption was that Meghan should be grateful to be given entree to such a rarefied world and therefore willing to give up the qualities, values, habits and passions – whatever necessary – that she might hold dear such that she would be seamlessly absorbed into HRH-dom.
And therein lies one of those crucial sliding doors moments where if someone had even a jot of foresight, things might have turned out differently and today Harry and Meghan might today be happily ensconced in Frogmore Cottage rather than busy lining up podcast guests and investing in a vegan latte business.
This was a woman who had already addressed the UN and had undertaken international charity trips to Rwanda and India as a Global Ambassador for World Vision. Meghan came to royal life with fully formed charity interests and considerable experience with this sort of work.
So why, in those early weeks and months ahead of the Sussex wedding didn't anyone seem to realise that Meghan wasn't some Henrietta or Araminta who associated the word "charity" with "ball", could ride to the hounds and thought Ban Ki Moon was a Thai takeaway option?
When Kate Middleton made the same transition from civilian life, she by all accounts fell into step, relying heavily on her new husband's longtime advisers and taking lessons from voice coach Anthony Gordon Lennox (who also worked with British PM David Cameron) to become confident with her public speaking.
What seems to have slipped past the palace apparatchiks was that Meghan was a whole other ball game.
In those heady pre-wedding days, rather than taking her career and experience into consideration, the palace simply packed the Duchess off on what amounted to your basic "Royal Outings For Beginners" course.
Wave. Smile. And repeat.
As Crown consultant and veteran royal biographer Robert Lacey put it last year, "There is only one self-made millionaire in the royal family and that is Meghan Markle. If they had sat down with her at the start and said, 'Let's talk about the things you are interested in', things might have been different.
"They just sent her off to watch the Queen opening the Mersey Bridge. There is nothing wrong with that, but they made the mistake of dealing with the spare's wife thinking she was just a routine royal. She was never going to be a routine royal."
Similarly, a former senior courtier told Finding Freedom's authors that Meghan "arrived in this job a fully formed adult, having lived already a third of her life. She is a Californian who believes she can change the world. She creates her own brand, she creates her own website, she does deals. She talks about life and how we should live."
That no one quite realised – or at least acted on – the fact that by dint of the life experience she brought with her. Meghan's arrival was innately going to prove a healthy challenge to palace orthodoxy is flabbergasting.
In hindsight, the notion that the Duchess – a woman who has displayed impressive personal gumption and fortitude time and again – would docilely fall into line seems incredibly naive on the palace's part.
What is still so galling is that there had never been a royal recruit like Meghan before yet it seems few substantial concessions and adjustments to the status quo were made to accommodate her talent, professional background or vision.
In all fairness, the blame for how spectacularly the Sussex dream went off the rails can't all be laid at the so-called "Men in Grey's" feet. Freedom and numerous reports have alleged that hierarchical tensions and roiling family rifts also figured prominently into the Duke and Duchess' decision to make for the exit.
But still, whenever I think about Megxit what I can never get past is how much the monarchy lost when she and Harry left. Sure, they would never be king or queen unless something unspeakable happens but their energy, enthusiasm and passion would have surely gone a very long way to bolstering the royal family's brand and image.
Basically, Meghan was a Givenchy-designed square peg they tried to hammer into a round hole.
• Daniela Elser is a royal expert and writer with more than 15 years experience working with a number of Australia's leading media titles.