Who owns the Triumph, Riley etc names?

Well done for answering it yourself
There are a load of others they also got, AFAIK many of them were killed completely.
Triumph CARS is what BMW owns as well... otherwise we'd have no amazing new Bonne, Speed Triple etc.

I think BMW thought they owned the Healey name, when in fact they didn't at all! ;D

I wonder what will happen to these marques?

Who owns Morris? if its BMW, I'm suprised they havent remade the minor tbh

no i ment the morris minor

but no, I'm sure bmw could work some magic on the shape of it and make it more qwerky, i could imagine them bringing one out with say m3/m5 running gear (that would be top of the range)

I think this is true of all of them. Wolseley and Riley in particular were no more than badges by the time of their final incarnations so I don't think the majority of non-car people nowadays would have a clue if they saw a car badged as either of them. I think in reviving a name like that there would be the temptation to try and live up to (read: lumber yourself with) some sort of historical legacy from a brand that's nearly irrelevant today.

Personally I think Rover missed a trick by getting rid of the Austin and Morris names. I guess perhaps the damage had been done to those brands by cars like the Allegro and the Marina, but to me Austin or Morris seems a much more natural fit for a car like the Metro than Rover.
As my dad (now 65) has said on a number of occasions, he aspired to own a Rover as a child; surrounded by P3s and P4s with leather bench seats, wooden dashboards, chrome bumpers, the proud Viking head...
The two Rover-branded Metros he has owned don't really fit in with that image, even if one of them was still fuelled by an SU carburettor that the P3 owner would probably have recognised. (That said, he and my brother have had five Rover and two Austin Metros between them now, so there's apparently still something about them...)

To my mind, after ditching the Triumph name with the Acclaim, it would have made more sense to keep either Austin or Morris for the Metro and the 200-series, and keep Rover for the 400, 600 and 800 series and, later, the 75. Keep Austin as a lower-priced everyman brand and preserve Rover as a more prestige brand.

But this is all very much bolting the stable door after the horse has been sold off by an unscupulous money-grabbing consortium...

I read that when Triumph (motorcycles) reintroduced a Thunderbird model Ford threatened them with legal action for using one of their model names. Turned out Triumph motorbikes actually originally leased or whatever the Thunderbird name to Ford in 1950's !
Do you remember Ford also trheatening Tin Dutton about the Dutton Sierra when they wanted to use the name for their own car. That was PART of the reason why Dutton car ceased production with the rights to the cars sold to, I think, Eagle, who renamed the one they decided to produce.

Paul h

They did, it was the City Rover

Hmmmmmmmmm some confusion going on there I think (I worked for the Swindon plant at teh time of the split).

When BMW split up the companies, Ford brough Landrover/Range Rover. Rover (and a couple of other brand names (I thought that they got Wolsey and Austin as well as MG) was brought by the pheonix group and then brought by Nanjing.

I thought BMW did have Morris as they have gone after the morris Minor specialists for using 'their Brand' (like they then did with the mini specialists)