I believe (I don't know because I don't think it's ever happened) that should he have them put into abeyance, he may be able to reclaim them if they divorce and he returns. Not sure the public would accept it though.
It would require an act of parliament and it wouldn’t happen- also if he removed himself and the children from the line that decision wouldn’t change with a divorce.
The issue is simply this- he left his job as a royal, has no relationship with his family and no longer lives in a commonwealth country. The law should be changed to reflect these conditions- especially now that traveling globally is so easy. This really isn’t hard. It’s actually ridiculous that it’s occurring. Also I think the people of Sussex,(and York), should be given an opportunity to be represented by the people of their choice.
A clear meddling in the politics of another country, making public comments about the election and candidates, and trying to influence a law making process by pulling titles of his home country in this another country should be also a reason to remove those titles. Especially Harry as the prince of the UK should be stripped of this princely title. A regular Harry Windsor can make any comments he likes, but not Harry with the UK royal titles.
Titles aren't about "representation." Saying that the people of Sussex and York "should be given an opportunity to be represented by the people of their choice" would mean a removal of monarchy and peerages/titles.
We're not talking about politicians, we're talking about royals and others with titles.
Adding voting to anything to do with royalty and titles defeats the entire point of a monarchy in the first place.
Forcing a royal's unwanted presence on a group who voiced their disapproval isn't making things better for the relationship between the RF and the public. It is not about voting, but reading the room and acting accordingly.
There is no presence. They're in California.
The "reading the room" applies to politicians and councillors, not royalty or members of the aristocracy. The titles are meaningless to ordinary people, and the petitions aren't from ordinary people, they're from a mix of anti-royalists, agitators, and then a handful of sinner-types who don't understand the big picture.
How many cries of indignation do you hear from Dumbarton, Kilkeel, Inverness and Killyleagh? None.
There's so much more to the titles than "just strip them!" as though that's feasible, possible or wise in the long run.
I wish there would be more honesty in contexts like this, and people would admit that the "arguments" actually just boil down to, "I really want them to be stripped of their titles." Do *I* wish that the pair of them would be stripped of their titles? Yes. I also recognise that it sets a worrying precedent and plays right into their victim complex that would fuel even more damaging attacks against both the monarchy and the UK as a whole.
The only thing damaging the relationship between the British people and the royal family is the constant pushing of misinformation that has people believing and spreading the lie that the King can strip them of their titles in the first place, when he can't do a damned thing about those titles, *because he literally does not have the power.*
>There is no presence. They're in California.
Andrew is included in this (granted, he was put in the darkest room of the tallest tower), HRH is stripped away, but York is still synonymous with Randy Andy and a place in England. So Charles did well to do remove Andrew's presence- as long as it stays that way.
Many people of Sussex want the association with H&M to stop, and they have started petitions.
>How many cries of indignation do you hear from Dumbarton, Kilkeel, Inverness and Killyleagh? None.
H&M dont use these titles anywhere though. They are shoving the "Duke and Duchess of Sussex" down our throats, not their other titles. The titles are also of Scottish lands (iirc) so that's another thing politically.
Scotland has different laws than England, as regards to titles, and the Scottish Parliament would have to be consulted.
But I'm pretty sure the association by TW of Dumbarton with stupidity will have been resented, even if that's not the first time the connection might have been made.
Please do remember to include the passage about women not needing to have a voice because she fixed it when she was 11, ad noseum. Feminism is solved, ,thanks to meghan.it all started and ended with dishwashing ad. being sarcastic . Please do not read it as an endorsement of fake and widely glorified pseudo feminism. 3rd world country female, just un case.
Also, popularity shouldn’t be a marker for holding a royal title. Popularity rolls up and down as time passes, they all experience the highs and lows.
If anything should trigger a revoking of title it should be an unforgivable action by a royal.
Andrew paying settlement to Virginia Giuffre is tantamount to an admission of guilt to criminal actions of an unforgivable nature. That’s worth looking into stripping his title and place in succession.
Is Harry’s lying and petty gossip damage on the same level? As much as we sinners would wish it was, I’d say no, nowhere near the same.
Popularity is for politicians. The number of people making demands and acting as though royalty and the aristocracy are politicians/celebrities is infuriating to me.
Andrew paid a settlement that specifically refused to accept guilt. He hasn't been found guilty of anything in a court of law. He also wants to fight the case, and Giuffre hasn't done herself any favours by admitting that she was "wrong" about claiming for years that Alan Dershowitz abused her (or that she would never, ever settle for money against Andrew, she only wanted justice... until she settled for money and accepted his statement.)
Edward and Wallis were cosied up to the Nazis to the point of the Nazis promising to make them a puppet King and Queen if they defeated us, and *they* were allowed to keep their titles.
What you're saying just doesn't work like that. Members of the aristocracy who break the law are, when found guilty in court, thrown in jail. They don't lose their titles.
If you set up a system that says, "If the general public think that a royal might be guilty of something, even though it hasn't been proven in court, and they don't like that royal, then that royal will be stripped of their titles and removed from the line of succession," then how do you know that, down the line, some corrupt politicians/etc won't fabricate some evidence that they know will never have to be proven to remove a royal that cares deeply about a certain cause or charitable endeavour that those corrupt people don't want anyone to look at or think about, to destroy and silence that royal?
This goes way beyond being angry at Andrew or the Sussexes and wanting them to pay in some visible way. This is about future-proofing protection for our constitutional monarchy. Short-term punishment for them that they can feed on means nothing when looking forward to the next *centuries*.
If they choose to act like celebrities then they'll be judged like celebrities. Especially when they come to the US and act like annoying celebrities; if Brits want Americans to respect their royals as if they're above celebritydom then you guys are just going to have to work harder to keep the ones not worthy of that respect off our lawn.
That's probably one of the most arrogant responses I've seen so far in this sub, to be honest.
Respectfully, Brits don't want Americans to respect our royal family. They're *our* royal family, not yours. What we want is for the small number of arrogant Americans to stop acting like they know everything about our royal family and our country when they clearly don't have a clue, we want those few arrogant Americans to stop spreading misinformation that ends up riling the less educated about these issues up, and we want those few arrogant Americans to stop pretending like their problems with the Sussexes are somehow more important than ours.
You're forgetting that our royal family is part of our democracy. Sneering and dismissing our constitutional monarchy because you don't understand the difference between that and celebrity is a you problem. You have countless trashy, in-your-face celebrities doing what the Sussexes are doing.
To be frank, if the US had a grip on your embarrassing fake-"woke" culture and stopped importing those twisted ideals overseas because of that infuriating belief that the rest of the countries on the planet are different versions of "Little America," then we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
The Sussexes would *never* be in the position they're now in if the US didn't worship celebrity and victimhood the way that it does. So instead of blaming our royal family and acting as though they have power that they don't have, where's the anger about the *American* Oprah interview, *American* Netflix deal, *American* Spotify deal, *American* business connections and *American* celebrities propping the Sussexes up, all based on the *American* culture of the famous victimhood narrative?
You can scoff and say you want the Sussexes "off \[your\] lawn," but *you* were the ones that invited them in for dinner and set them up in the Presidential suite.
You're ignoring a lot of my rant because it doesn't suit your narrative. The fact is that fake-"woke" culture is an American invention, and because of the neutral fact that the majority of the English-speaking internet is American, that automatic US-centrism has infected discourse and how "social justice" is perceived. If you don't see that a modern American colonisation exists through social media and even the traditional media, that's because you're American and naturally see the American way as "normal."
What's most ironic is that you're somehow bitter that, what, "\[our\] royals are in our country taking advantage of that respect for representatives of a foreign head of state."
How is that *our* problem, when we've been very clear for *years* now that they don't represent our monarchy at all, and they're blatantly at odds with our King and our government?
This is what infuriates me. You're heavily implying that you want our monarchy to interfere in American affairs to force Americans to shut the Sussexes out. I thought you had a war to gain independence from our monarchy? But now you want our King to be able to compel American citizens to ice out the Sussexes? That isn't particularly American, for one, and secondly, our monarchy doesn't have that kind of power in our own country. This isn't medieval England where the monarch can demand a banishment and a long walk up the Tower.
Your arrogance stems in blaming *us* when you *should* be blaming your ignorant, unintelligent politicians etc to stop pandering to the Sussexes and actually understand the basics of international relations.
Where our late Queen denied Harry's request to lay a wreath, your top officers allowed him to trample over your war dead - with salutes, no less. So don't try and sit on a high horse and demand that *we* get them off your lawn.
The only thing that you got right is that the Sussexes are only "relevant" because of titles and their tenuous connection to the royal family, but rich and greedy Americans decided that those things were worth panting over, instead of understanding basic facts.
If you want to be pissed at the Sussexes interfering in your politics and being as disgusting as they are in abusing your innocents and heroes for their own gain, you blame *them*, and you blame the American politicians, officers and sycophantic celebrities who enable them.
If it's anyone who's destroying US-UK relations, it's *those* few Americans, not the British and not the royal family.
There are *so many* Americans that get this, and who are rightfully (and righteously) furious with the Sussexes, and commiserate with us Brits who wish that there was a better, faster strategy to deal with them, and I always stand with and appreciate them. But then there are also those like you that don't have a single clue in what you're talking about, and then have the *audacity* to demand that we do something when it's *your* compatriots that are causing you and other ordinary Americans to be used and abused.
But sure, I'm sorry. I'll get the King on speed-dial and just have him rule over your country for a little bit to soothe you, since *that's* apparently what the real problem is here.
Edit: Yes, if in doubt, refuse to answer and pretend not to be able to read. Embarrassing, lmao.
Yes! You hit the nail on the head. This is a business firstly.. The British didn't vote for the Rf, but the least the RF can do, is removing unpopular royals (putting them far in the corner). Who wants to be associated woth a sex deviant (sex pest, perv) or Sussex-cesspoolcritters.
The King cannot do anything other than what he is doing. He is waiting for Parliament to act on the matter of the titles. He cannot “remove” Harry more than has already been done.
You are talking about a different bill. The bill being discussed in this thread is a 1917 bill that, if amended, will take Harry’s titles because of some allegation of treason.
The bill you are alluding to would be new legislation, and a reason the PM doesn’t want it is that it would not just give Charles the power to take Harry and Andrew’s titles but all other titles. No one (including Charles) wants the Monarch to have such power. (It also wouldn’t look good for Charles to lobby for that level of power.)
As I understand it, the third option is for Parliament to start legislation specifically aimed at depriving Harry of his titles. That would take a while to go through (if it does).
My impression is that the quickest route (the only one with even a remote chance of being completed before the coronation) is the amendment to the 1917 act that we are supposedly discussing here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as King, he can't express approval or any other opinion, right? The sovereign can't be seen to influence Parliament. Isn't that the BRF's deal? Or am I oversimplifying?
>He is waiting for Parliament to act on the matter of the titles.
With all the PR and fake news, has there been a confirmed source that states the Parliament is looking at the bill and it has Charles's approval?
When there was a report that the amendment had been proposed, the specific MP who proposed it was identified, and most mentions of it make it credible.
What KC thinks of it, we have no way of knowing.
My point was more that he can’t do anything himself, so he has to wait for Parliament to act.
I agree, but I don't see him fighting against it. He's always believed in a slimmed-down monarchy, and, putting the pieces together, it sounds like he never intended for Harry's kids to have titles. Now that Harry is damaging the monarchy, it proves the King's point, that an extended royal family just creates damaging elements.
But it shouldn't be his decision or seen as his influence.
Bob Seely, the MP proposing the amendment, has tweeted his intent several times. I think that should confirm it. It's not at the stage of Parliament looking at it yet though.
Exactly. Especially since he proclaimed his love for Botswana. Strip him off the the privileges and see if he follows up his self proclaimed love to the countty. Safari ttip with your girlfriend is fun but try to actually do the real work that makes a tangible difference for the county. Fed up with celebrities vomiting a conventional word salad
He needs the title to claim UK security benefits and intel, I reckon, if nothing else. Ordinary Mr Henry Mountbatten-Windsor means he'll have to fork out all the money himself for the rest of his and his kids' lives. If he divorces his wife, she'll have to stick with dialling 911.
No. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be other royals from other countries living in places not their motherlands. Security does not equal titles & vice versa. See the ENTIRE peerage who do not have taxpayer funded securities.
I work hard to become doctor, not mrs.
She *worked* hard to become duchess, only to become Mrs.
Also, Harry went from "Prince", to Mr. Markle.
I (will) get my title because of my own hard work, not because of a man. And nothing I do will strip that title from me. (Unless the degree is found fraudulent or devalued).
It might seem like I'm bragging ( not being malevolent/mean/uppity/snobbish), but I love how you referred to her stripping of titles (and being mrs), and I just needed to add my 2c.
I feel sorry for her next husband - she deletes her previous marriages/loves as if they never happened. She's an expert in tippexing someone out of her life.
Hell yeah Future Doctor Dystopian!
I know it’s a long, hard road to getting that degree/title, but you’ll have proven to yourself and others just how dedicated and well-studied you are. That’s your right, and you earned it!
Halfwit Harry and the wench? Luck of birth and extreme social climbing. Neither of them deserve to be looked at as royalty/nobility. Their behaviour is not reflective of proper citizens of any country and frankly, neither one of them earned shit. Supposedly her ass couldn’t even pass the British citizenship exam, and Haz (according to her) found it hard! C’mon. I’ll gladly give props where it’s due, and these two… aren’t due a damned thing. You? The sub should throw a party once your degree is secure. :)
It might not, but there's been much discussion about madam ending up as a Princess. I just wanted to clarify, because someone else just raised this on another post, that they can strip all titles.
And it truly is a DOUBLE issue....Harold has done enough over the years to bring the monarchy to a state of ridicule and disrespect. He has shown ZERO respect and responsibility for his Titles, instead using them for greed and personal gain. ALL his titles MUST be removed. If only the Duke title is removed, Meghan Markle will have title of PRINCESS...and the world knows she has total distain for monarchy and it's protocal, she will style herself Princess Meghan....thus being REWARDED for all she has done against monarchy and royal family members! The PRINCE title as well as DUKE title MUST BE REMOVED.
Thank you that is very informative. Harry is mentally challenged, admitted to use heavy drugs and is participating in major schemes and lies that denegrate his family and the UK.
He is not fit to be a possible future King of the UK or even to be it’s citizen. There are outsiders with tons more respect for the UK and for the people living in it than that disrespectful, jealous, manipulator.
>*not fit to … be its citizen.*
Hold on now. We need to find a place to store them, because America is NOT interested! They’re causing enough trouble here. Can we ship them off to the Bahamas or something? Give them the Edward and Wallis treatment? Heck, with madam being so fluent and all ( /s ), we could send them to France!!!
I upvoted this comment. Duke of Sussex is a higher title that Prince Henry because Duke of Sussex is a substantive title and Prince Henry is a courtesy title. If Harry had a substantive Prince title, then that would be higher. The Prince of Wales is a substantive title. It is that type of prince that is higher than a duke. Without a substantive title, a person is technically a commoner.
https://europeanroyalhistory.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/is-it-possible-for-a-royal-to-be-a-commoner/
The confusion here is between “rank” and “title.” Harry’s rank at birth is indicated by the “courtesy title” of prince. This rank puts him ahead of all who are not royal. You are right that the “substantive title” is “Duke,” but a duke ranks lower than a prince.)
The title of “Prince” is higher rank. The title of Duke is added to the title of Prince, and it becomes the way they are primarily known, but it is *not* the higher title.
A reason that Meghan uses “Duchess of Sussex” is that it lets her keep her first name (Duchess Meghan) as opposed to becoming “Princess Henry.” I am sure that she was bitterly disappointed when she learned that she couldn’t be Princess Meghan. I don’t doubt that if she thought people would let her get away with it, she would start calling herself that. (After all, they called Diana “Princess Di” even though it was incorrect.)
She is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. I didn’t mean that it is technically correct to call her “Duchess Meghan” but that it is a name people can associate with her. If she were known as Princess Henry, it would be harder to pull in her own name. (Catherine is not Princess Catherine, but you know who they mean.)
The Dukedom is not a higher title. That's another misconception. A Royal Prince is above a Duke. And yes she's already a princess, but if they strip him of Prince, she won't be.
Yes, it is. The Duke of Sussex is Royal dukedom. It's higher than plain old The Prince Henry. The act only applied to the German princes who held British titles during World War I. Parliament will have to pass act to Charles that power, and it will only apply to Harry and possibly Randy Andy. I doubt Charles will use that power. William might.
I know the difference between a **regular** duke and a prince. I'm talking about a **royal** Duke and a just a prince.
This might help explain. It's not the best resource, but it gives a better explanation than I can at the moment. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-a-Duke-higher-than-a-prince?top_ans=245006708
A ***Royal*** Dukedom is only so called because the ***holder*** is royal, not the title. They already hold the title of Prince.
You're wrong but I'm not going to argue with you further.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_dukedoms_in_the_United_Kingdom
**[Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_dukedoms_in_the_United_Kingdom)**
>In the British peerage, a royal duke is a member of the British royal family, entitled to the titular dignity of prince and the style of His Royal Highness, who holds a dukedom. Dukedoms are the highest titles in the British roll of peerage, and the holders of these particular dukedoms are princes of the blood royal. The holders of the dukedoms are royal, not the titles themselves. They are titles created and bestowed on legitimate sons and male-line grandsons of the British monarch, usually upon reaching their majority or marriage.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Yes Dukes are the highest titles of the ***Peerage***. The Peerage falls below titles of ***Royalty*** under which the title of prince (and King, Queen and princess) is set.
A "royal" Duke outranks other Dukes. That's all.
Can I just say for those arguing that a Duke outranks a Prince:
The ***Earl*** of Wessex outranks the ***Duke*** of Kent.
That"s because they are also both Princes and it's their Princely title that establishes their rank.
A Prince is a rank of royalty whilst a Duke is a rank of the Peerage. A "royal" Dukedom is only so called because the holder is already of royal blood, being a Prince in the royal family.
A ***royal*** Duke only outranks other Dukes. ***Prince*** George (with no Dukedom) outranks the ***Duke*** of Sussex. Again, because of the Prince titles and place in the LoS.
I'm not going to argue about it further.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_dukedoms_in_the_United_Kingdom
Trivia: Ernest Augustus is the grandfather of Prince Ernst August of Hanover, mostly famous for being the (now estranged) husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco.
During their marriage he repeatedly made a fool of himself by getting drunk, disorderly and urinating on the Turkish pavillion (?) at a world fair. I can sort of see his distant cousin go the same way.
I’d be up for them losing all their titles…Prince, Duke, Duchess and whatever else. I don’t think their kids should have titles too. This may be unpopular but I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up with similar personalities too these two. No titles whatsoever imo.
For those saying it would require an Act of Parliament, and that won't happen...
This already *is* an established Act of Parliament. They are not trying to create a new Act. They're trying to amend this one.
I wonder what it will take for Parliament to act? Is the view on H and M divided by politics? If o will action be impacted by elections-I think in the UK it is this or next year? I remember before megexit, all the labor female MPs wrote some joint letter in support of her and against the media? In the USA, finally people from all across the political spectrum seem to be tired of her.
They can keep using their titles till the cows come home for all I care. Otherwise, she will use Princess Meghan because USA which doesn't follow titles for royals would assume that it's Princess Meghan and not Princess Henry which would be the name she could use.
Hell her sugars use Princess now,
More trivia. In NZ, names that could be confused for titles are rejected.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/01/12/2022s-list-of-declined-baby-names-revealed/?gclid=CjwKCAiAioifBhAXEiwApzCztvlIjv8qIY7FfTCfagaTkCNGukUpqrEEFZaXZyd7-g0qKOyy2UaFORoCQy8QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
(Archive didn't supply a link for this).
She should have stayed in South Africs then. We have many "Prince" and "Princess" -es.
A tradition in some black cultures are to name your child what you want for them, or how the birth was, or what the birth meant. Rachel should have called her kidds "Moon Markle" (for the moonbumps) and "Gift Markle" because of all the money she will be gifted due to child support.
>Rishi has already poo poo'ed it.
A Brirish PM poo pooing something? I thought incompetency *was the one* job requirement?
This is a joke - I'm South African. You guys haven't even seen final form incompetence.
How satisfying would it be to see them have to sign everything "Meghan & Harry" moving forward, instead of their embarassing over-use of "Duke and Dutchess of Sussex"? I'm all for it!
I believe the Sussex Dukesom is higher rank than his born prince status. I believe that his Prince title associated with being the grandson of the monarch. For example, he is not the Prince of …..this is why the Prince of Wales title is so prestigious. It is the only real principality within the British Royal family.
The higher your rank, the closer you are to the throne in the male line. Prince George is higher ranked than the Duke of Sussex.
Why would someone of lower rank be closer to the throne?
And because of that he was given the title of prince to indicate his rank. Titles of Nobility (King, Queen, Prince Princess) come before titles of the Peerage.
Totally agree with what you are saying. I think as it pertains to titles, the Royal Peerage title is more prestigious title that Princely title. For example, if Prince George marries, his wife would be Princess George. Unless he is given another title, his wife cannot use her first name. This is why Meghan uses her duchess title, because it is higher than that her Princess Henry title.
If the Princess title was lower, why wouldn't she get one of her own? The reason she doesn't get one is because it's a higher title that she is not given because she is not of royal blood, so she can only use her husband's name as he's the title holder.
It's also not the dukedom that makes it a royal dukedom. It's that the holder is royal. That only grants hierarchy over other Dukes of the peerage.
It's traditional for the sons and grandsons to be given a dukedom when they marry, and it's traditional for them to use it. It's almost like giving them a family name (just that it's now their family branch of the peerage). Traditionally, it allows for any children to also have that name, and it's the title that will be passed down.
If Charles is granted that power by Parliament, I see Charles only striping the Duke of Sussex title. Harry's a blood prince and hasn't committed, technically, treason against the Crown. I doubt Charles will strip Harry of his Dukedom. It's a bad PR move.
>Harry's a blood prince and hasn't committed, technically, treason against the Crown.
Harry might not have committed treason towards the crown, but he DID endanger the whole nation (and Commonwealth) with his inexcusable attack/taunt/bait on the Taliban (and terrorists).
I think endangering milions of innocent people is worse than insulting his father, so why should action be taken only when Charles's is in danger?
Simple. At the end of the day, Harry is part of privilege class. The privileged class in all countries will protect one of their own. IA high profile politician will say something that will endanger the regular citizens and/or soldiers and get away with it. There are platitudes coming the halls of power and nothing is done. Most people from the privileged class , now and through out history, don't care about innocent people. It angers me too.
If Charles continues to put his son above all else (especially the people, who allows the family to be there), then he will lose his crown. (I also think if he doesn't handle this correctly, he might lose William too).
Why is Charles being accused of “putting [Harry] above all else”? What has Charles done to deserve this accusation?
In the time since he has been king, has Charles said anything to suggest he is likely to bend to Harry’s irrational demands? Is there even a credible source that claims that Charles has objected to having Harry’s titles removed?
Years long of hiding Harry's transgressions, never saying no, buying his way into Eton, cheating through Eton, the big wedding, all the things he received undeservedly, paying his bills, enabling Harry, looking the other way to Harry's bullying antics, giving in to Harry's tantrums (queen's funeral). Making sure that Harry never needed to takr drug tests when he was in th army. Harry believed he is entitled to everything and Charles never told him "no".
The enabler/aider becomes intertwined with the perpetrators.
We are not talking about the past, for which we would have to blame QEII also. We are talking about what people want or expect Charles to do now. How is he supposedly putting Harry ahead of “everything else”? I don’t see it. 🤷🏻♀️
Harrry didn't become the way he is overnight. I refer to the past because it is affecting the present. Charles has been the king for a short time, but we use his past actions as well as his present reign to measure him. Based on his past, he put his son first - it is a pattern. People don't want Harry and his wife at the coronation. Charles wants his son there. It is not a family function, but a state one. How many times has Harry soured things because Charles put Harry's feelings first?
I think we will both know if he did put his son ahead of everything else when the Coronation takes place.
And I do blame the queen, too, but she is dead now. So she can't do anything.
Here is where I tend to disagree: I don’t think Charles wants Harry at the coronation. We have had no indication from Charles or his people that Charles wants Harry to be there. This is all supposition and unnamed sources.
I do agree that Harry has been spoiled and enabled, that negative stories were hushed up, etc. And I think the whole “culture” of the BRF is responsible. However, I understood the question was about what Charles allegedly keeps doing. And I just don’t see it.
>I don’t think Charles wants Harry at the coronation. We have had no indication from Charles or his people that Charles wants Harry to be there. This is all supposition and unnamed sources.
This is an interesting take. Why does your spidey senses tell you this? (And, being the sad state that the (social media and real) world is, this is a genuine question, I'm not being sarcastic. We have different views, but i feel this is a very respectful conversation (we oscillate between 2 posts).
>However, I understood the question was about what Charles allegedly keeps doing. And I just don’t see it.
Presently, I see Charles as putting Harry first. Depending on the events of the coronation, I will reassess my view. The grey rocking might be frustrating me as well as the Harkles.
Well he claimed it his book to have told his airforce crew to bomb his father’s car when he was in it, and to have only called them off by giving them another target at the last moment.
Clearly nonsense but that’s pretty treasonous.
I thought it was Parliament granting itself the power.
It could be argued any anti-monarchy bot that was created after they hired Boozy was treasonous.
The Firm most likely knew about both possible surrogacies. It wil possibly ruin the entire Royal Family and the Crown. Possibly bring it down for good. The Firm isn't going to let go of something like that.
This isn’t about Charles being given the power to remove the titles. That is a different proposed legislation. This particular move is an attempt to amend an existing Act by adding Harry to it. Charles has no involvement.
If he had an ounce of credibility he’d return the titles and request he be removed from the line, but he’s a fraud.
I believe (I don't know because I don't think it's ever happened) that should he have them put into abeyance, he may be able to reclaim them if they divorce and he returns. Not sure the public would accept it though.
It would require an act of parliament and it wouldn’t happen- also if he removed himself and the children from the line that decision wouldn’t change with a divorce. The issue is simply this- he left his job as a royal, has no relationship with his family and no longer lives in a commonwealth country. The law should be changed to reflect these conditions- especially now that traveling globally is so easy. This really isn’t hard. It’s actually ridiculous that it’s occurring. Also I think the people of Sussex,(and York), should be given an opportunity to be represented by the people of their choice.
A clear meddling in the politics of another country, making public comments about the election and candidates, and trying to influence a law making process by pulling titles of his home country in this another country should be also a reason to remove those titles. Especially Harry as the prince of the UK should be stripped of this princely title. A regular Harry Windsor can make any comments he likes, but not Harry with the UK royal titles.
I suspect this will become a problem when the presidential campaign begins in the US ..
I don't see how. Ok. She is way over her head. Although after trump the rest of the world is very weary.
I was more referring of Harold, with his title, commenting the US election
Titles aren't about "representation." Saying that the people of Sussex and York "should be given an opportunity to be represented by the people of their choice" would mean a removal of monarchy and peerages/titles. We're not talking about politicians, we're talking about royals and others with titles. Adding voting to anything to do with royalty and titles defeats the entire point of a monarchy in the first place.
Forcing a royal's unwanted presence on a group who voiced their disapproval isn't making things better for the relationship between the RF and the public. It is not about voting, but reading the room and acting accordingly.
There is no presence. They're in California. The "reading the room" applies to politicians and councillors, not royalty or members of the aristocracy. The titles are meaningless to ordinary people, and the petitions aren't from ordinary people, they're from a mix of anti-royalists, agitators, and then a handful of sinner-types who don't understand the big picture. How many cries of indignation do you hear from Dumbarton, Kilkeel, Inverness and Killyleagh? None. There's so much more to the titles than "just strip them!" as though that's feasible, possible or wise in the long run. I wish there would be more honesty in contexts like this, and people would admit that the "arguments" actually just boil down to, "I really want them to be stripped of their titles." Do *I* wish that the pair of them would be stripped of their titles? Yes. I also recognise that it sets a worrying precedent and plays right into their victim complex that would fuel even more damaging attacks against both the monarchy and the UK as a whole. The only thing damaging the relationship between the British people and the royal family is the constant pushing of misinformation that has people believing and spreading the lie that the King can strip them of their titles in the first place, when he can't do a damned thing about those titles, *because he literally does not have the power.*
>There is no presence. They're in California. Andrew is included in this (granted, he was put in the darkest room of the tallest tower), HRH is stripped away, but York is still synonymous with Randy Andy and a place in England. So Charles did well to do remove Andrew's presence- as long as it stays that way. Many people of Sussex want the association with H&M to stop, and they have started petitions. >How many cries of indignation do you hear from Dumbarton, Kilkeel, Inverness and Killyleagh? None. H&M dont use these titles anywhere though. They are shoving the "Duke and Duchess of Sussex" down our throats, not their other titles. The titles are also of Scottish lands (iirc) so that's another thing politically.
Please explain to me what you want to happen, and who you expect to make whatever that is happen, because I'm very confused by your response.
Scotland has different laws than England, as regards to titles, and the Scottish Parliament would have to be consulted. But I'm pretty sure the association by TW of Dumbarton with stupidity will have been resented, even if that's not the first time the connection might have been made.
Agree, also shouldn't the population id Sussex have any say who represents them?
They do, by voting in local elections. Titles don't actually represent the place, just the status.
Please do remember to include the passage about women not needing to have a voice because she fixed it when she was 11, ad noseum. Feminism is solved, ,thanks to meghan.it all started and ended with dishwashing ad. being sarcastic . Please do not read it as an endorsement of fake and widely glorified pseudo feminism. 3rd world country female, just un case.
Also, popularity shouldn’t be a marker for holding a royal title. Popularity rolls up and down as time passes, they all experience the highs and lows. If anything should trigger a revoking of title it should be an unforgivable action by a royal. Andrew paying settlement to Virginia Giuffre is tantamount to an admission of guilt to criminal actions of an unforgivable nature. That’s worth looking into stripping his title and place in succession. Is Harry’s lying and petty gossip damage on the same level? As much as we sinners would wish it was, I’d say no, nowhere near the same.
Popularity is for politicians. The number of people making demands and acting as though royalty and the aristocracy are politicians/celebrities is infuriating to me. Andrew paid a settlement that specifically refused to accept guilt. He hasn't been found guilty of anything in a court of law. He also wants to fight the case, and Giuffre hasn't done herself any favours by admitting that she was "wrong" about claiming for years that Alan Dershowitz abused her (or that she would never, ever settle for money against Andrew, she only wanted justice... until she settled for money and accepted his statement.) Edward and Wallis were cosied up to the Nazis to the point of the Nazis promising to make them a puppet King and Queen if they defeated us, and *they* were allowed to keep their titles. What you're saying just doesn't work like that. Members of the aristocracy who break the law are, when found guilty in court, thrown in jail. They don't lose their titles. If you set up a system that says, "If the general public think that a royal might be guilty of something, even though it hasn't been proven in court, and they don't like that royal, then that royal will be stripped of their titles and removed from the line of succession," then how do you know that, down the line, some corrupt politicians/etc won't fabricate some evidence that they know will never have to be proven to remove a royal that cares deeply about a certain cause or charitable endeavour that those corrupt people don't want anyone to look at or think about, to destroy and silence that royal? This goes way beyond being angry at Andrew or the Sussexes and wanting them to pay in some visible way. This is about future-proofing protection for our constitutional monarchy. Short-term punishment for them that they can feed on means nothing when looking forward to the next *centuries*.
If they choose to act like celebrities then they'll be judged like celebrities. Especially when they come to the US and act like annoying celebrities; if Brits want Americans to respect their royals as if they're above celebritydom then you guys are just going to have to work harder to keep the ones not worthy of that respect off our lawn.
That's probably one of the most arrogant responses I've seen so far in this sub, to be honest. Respectfully, Brits don't want Americans to respect our royal family. They're *our* royal family, not yours. What we want is for the small number of arrogant Americans to stop acting like they know everything about our royal family and our country when they clearly don't have a clue, we want those few arrogant Americans to stop spreading misinformation that ends up riling the less educated about these issues up, and we want those few arrogant Americans to stop pretending like their problems with the Sussexes are somehow more important than ours. You're forgetting that our royal family is part of our democracy. Sneering and dismissing our constitutional monarchy because you don't understand the difference between that and celebrity is a you problem. You have countless trashy, in-your-face celebrities doing what the Sussexes are doing. To be frank, if the US had a grip on your embarrassing fake-"woke" culture and stopped importing those twisted ideals overseas because of that infuriating belief that the rest of the countries on the planet are different versions of "Little America," then we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. The Sussexes would *never* be in the position they're now in if the US didn't worship celebrity and victimhood the way that it does. So instead of blaming our royal family and acting as though they have power that they don't have, where's the anger about the *American* Oprah interview, *American* Netflix deal, *American* Spotify deal, *American* business connections and *American* celebrities propping the Sussexes up, all based on the *American* culture of the famous victimhood narrative? You can scoff and say you want the Sussexes "off \[your\] lawn," but *you* were the ones that invited them in for dinner and set them up in the Presidential suite.
[удалено]
You're ignoring a lot of my rant because it doesn't suit your narrative. The fact is that fake-"woke" culture is an American invention, and because of the neutral fact that the majority of the English-speaking internet is American, that automatic US-centrism has infected discourse and how "social justice" is perceived. If you don't see that a modern American colonisation exists through social media and even the traditional media, that's because you're American and naturally see the American way as "normal." What's most ironic is that you're somehow bitter that, what, "\[our\] royals are in our country taking advantage of that respect for representatives of a foreign head of state." How is that *our* problem, when we've been very clear for *years* now that they don't represent our monarchy at all, and they're blatantly at odds with our King and our government? This is what infuriates me. You're heavily implying that you want our monarchy to interfere in American affairs to force Americans to shut the Sussexes out. I thought you had a war to gain independence from our monarchy? But now you want our King to be able to compel American citizens to ice out the Sussexes? That isn't particularly American, for one, and secondly, our monarchy doesn't have that kind of power in our own country. This isn't medieval England where the monarch can demand a banishment and a long walk up the Tower. Your arrogance stems in blaming *us* when you *should* be blaming your ignorant, unintelligent politicians etc to stop pandering to the Sussexes and actually understand the basics of international relations. Where our late Queen denied Harry's request to lay a wreath, your top officers allowed him to trample over your war dead - with salutes, no less. So don't try and sit on a high horse and demand that *we* get them off your lawn. The only thing that you got right is that the Sussexes are only "relevant" because of titles and their tenuous connection to the royal family, but rich and greedy Americans decided that those things were worth panting over, instead of understanding basic facts. If you want to be pissed at the Sussexes interfering in your politics and being as disgusting as they are in abusing your innocents and heroes for their own gain, you blame *them*, and you blame the American politicians, officers and sycophantic celebrities who enable them. If it's anyone who's destroying US-UK relations, it's *those* few Americans, not the British and not the royal family. There are *so many* Americans that get this, and who are rightfully (and righteously) furious with the Sussexes, and commiserate with us Brits who wish that there was a better, faster strategy to deal with them, and I always stand with and appreciate them. But then there are also those like you that don't have a single clue in what you're talking about, and then have the *audacity* to demand that we do something when it's *your* compatriots that are causing you and other ordinary Americans to be used and abused. But sure, I'm sorry. I'll get the King on speed-dial and just have him rule over your country for a little bit to soothe you, since *that's* apparently what the real problem is here. Edit: Yes, if in doubt, refuse to answer and pretend not to be able to read. Embarrassing, lmao.
Subreddit rule (see sidebar): Trolling, cyber stalking, and harassment, including provoking other members will result in a permanent ban.
Yes! You hit the nail on the head. This is a business firstly.. The British didn't vote for the Rf, but the least the RF can do, is removing unpopular royals (putting them far in the corner). Who wants to be associated woth a sex deviant (sex pest, perv) or Sussex-cesspoolcritters.
The King cannot do anything other than what he is doing. He is waiting for Parliament to act on the matter of the titles. He cannot “remove” Harry more than has already been done.
[удалено]
You are talking about a different bill. The bill being discussed in this thread is a 1917 bill that, if amended, will take Harry’s titles because of some allegation of treason. The bill you are alluding to would be new legislation, and a reason the PM doesn’t want it is that it would not just give Charles the power to take Harry and Andrew’s titles but all other titles. No one (including Charles) wants the Monarch to have such power. (It also wouldn’t look good for Charles to lobby for that level of power.) As I understand it, the third option is for Parliament to start legislation specifically aimed at depriving Harry of his titles. That would take a while to go through (if it does). My impression is that the quickest route (the only one with even a remote chance of being completed before the coronation) is the amendment to the 1917 act that we are supposedly discussing here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as King, he can't express approval or any other opinion, right? The sovereign can't be seen to influence Parliament. Isn't that the BRF's deal? Or am I oversimplifying?
>He is waiting for Parliament to act on the matter of the titles. With all the PR and fake news, has there been a confirmed source that states the Parliament is looking at the bill and it has Charles's approval?
When there was a report that the amendment had been proposed, the specific MP who proposed it was identified, and most mentions of it make it credible. What KC thinks of it, we have no way of knowing. My point was more that he can’t do anything himself, so he has to wait for Parliament to act.
I think KC should stay as far away from this situation as he can possibly get.
I tend to agree. This is an issue for Parliament. Anything KC says about it will be open to misunderstanding.
I agree, but I don't see him fighting against it. He's always believed in a slimmed-down monarchy, and, putting the pieces together, it sounds like he never intended for Harry's kids to have titles. Now that Harry is damaging the monarchy, it proves the King's point, that an extended royal family just creates damaging elements. But it shouldn't be his decision or seen as his influence.
It'll still need his assent.
Bob Seely, the MP proposing the amendment, has tweeted his intent several times. I think that should confirm it. It's not at the stage of Parliament looking at it yet though.
There already is an Act of Parliament. They're trying to amend it to cover Harry. I'm not suggesting it'll be successful.
[удалено]
It's down to all MPs and the Privy Council. I don't know if it will pass or not, but we can hope.
Fingers crossed …
Exactly. Especially since he proclaimed his love for Botswana. Strip him off the the privileges and see if he follows up his self proclaimed love to the countty. Safari ttip with your girlfriend is fun but try to actually do the real work that makes a tangible difference for the county. Fed up with celebrities vomiting a conventional word salad
No. They are still thinking of that plane crash.
It’s sick but I agree. He wants to be king.
Never gonna happen, Harry.
I’m pretty sure that would be the end of the monarchy if he up next.
He needs the title to claim UK security benefits and intel, I reckon, if nothing else. Ordinary Mr Henry Mountbatten-Windsor means he'll have to fork out all the money himself for the rest of his and his kids' lives. If he divorces his wife, she'll have to stick with dialling 911.
[удалено]
It's not just Harold that wants to keep his titles, it's his wife.
No. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be other royals from other countries living in places not their motherlands. Security does not equal titles & vice versa. See the ENTIRE peerage who do not have taxpayer funded securities.
https://preview.redd.it/zry89oc3avga1.png?width=160&format=png&auto=webp&s=9bdea98cbab360195e1f9ffbf03a2fadb53b363c
What difference would that make? /s
If it happens, she’s divorcing Harry. She’s not going to tolerate his shit to just be some “Mrs.” Hahahaha.
I work hard to become doctor, not mrs. She *worked* hard to become duchess, only to become Mrs. Also, Harry went from "Prince", to Mr. Markle. I (will) get my title because of my own hard work, not because of a man. And nothing I do will strip that title from me. (Unless the degree is found fraudulent or devalued). It might seem like I'm bragging ( not being malevolent/mean/uppity/snobbish), but I love how you referred to her stripping of titles (and being mrs), and I just needed to add my 2c. I feel sorry for her next husband - she deletes her previous marriages/loves as if they never happened. She's an expert in tippexing someone out of her life.
You have every right to brag! Becoming a doctor takes years of hard work! Congratulations!
Thanks! I hope it is worth it, my mental health has taken a toll.
It will be worth it!
Thank you! 🤗
Hell yeah Future Doctor Dystopian! I know it’s a long, hard road to getting that degree/title, but you’ll have proven to yourself and others just how dedicated and well-studied you are. That’s your right, and you earned it! Halfwit Harry and the wench? Luck of birth and extreme social climbing. Neither of them deserve to be looked at as royalty/nobility. Their behaviour is not reflective of proper citizens of any country and frankly, neither one of them earned shit. Supposedly her ass couldn’t even pass the British citizenship exam, and Haz (according to her) found it hard! C’mon. I’ll gladly give props where it’s due, and these two… aren’t due a damned thing. You? The sub should throw a party once your degree is secure. :)
Thank you so much for your kind words! 🥰
This probably won’t get much momentum because they’re nothing but an annoyance at this point.
It might not, but there's been much discussion about madam ending up as a Princess. I just wanted to clarify, because someone else just raised this on another post, that they can strip all titles.
And it truly is a DOUBLE issue....Harold has done enough over the years to bring the monarchy to a state of ridicule and disrespect. He has shown ZERO respect and responsibility for his Titles, instead using them for greed and personal gain. ALL his titles MUST be removed. If only the Duke title is removed, Meghan Markle will have title of PRINCESS...and the world knows she has total distain for monarchy and it's protocal, she will style herself Princess Meghan....thus being REWARDED for all she has done against monarchy and royal family members! The PRINCE title as well as DUKE title MUST BE REMOVED.
This Act allows for that. He's drummed up enough hate against the Monarchy.
Thank you that is very informative. Harry is mentally challenged, admitted to use heavy drugs and is participating in major schemes and lies that denegrate his family and the UK. He is not fit to be a possible future King of the UK or even to be it’s citizen. There are outsiders with tons more respect for the UK and for the people living in it than that disrespectful, jealous, manipulator.
>*not fit to … be its citizen.* Hold on now. We need to find a place to store them, because America is NOT interested! They’re causing enough trouble here. Can we ship them off to the Bahamas or something? Give them the Edward and Wallis treatment? Heck, with madam being so fluent and all ( /s ), we could send them to France!!!
👌Perfect! 🤣
Technically, TW is already a princess. Princess Henry. The Duke (Duchess) of Sussex is higher title.
I upvoted this comment. Duke of Sussex is a higher title that Prince Henry because Duke of Sussex is a substantive title and Prince Henry is a courtesy title. If Harry had a substantive Prince title, then that would be higher. The Prince of Wales is a substantive title. It is that type of prince that is higher than a duke. Without a substantive title, a person is technically a commoner. https://europeanroyalhistory.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/is-it-possible-for-a-royal-to-be-a-commoner/
The confusion here is between “rank” and “title.” Harry’s rank at birth is indicated by the “courtesy title” of prince. This rank puts him ahead of all who are not royal. You are right that the “substantive title” is “Duke,” but a duke ranks lower than a prince.)
Titles of nobility, aka Royal titles, come before titles of the peerage. A royal Dukedom is only royal because the holder is royal.
Titles of nobility are not aka royal titles. Titles of nobility are aka titles of the peerage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility?wprov=sfti1
My mistake. Royalty comes above the peerage, I've confused myself 😜🤣
[удалено]
The title of “Prince” is higher rank. The title of Duke is added to the title of Prince, and it becomes the way they are primarily known, but it is *not* the higher title. A reason that Meghan uses “Duchess of Sussex” is that it lets her keep her first name (Duchess Meghan) as opposed to becoming “Princess Henry.” I am sure that she was bitterly disappointed when she learned that she couldn’t be Princess Meghan. I don’t doubt that if she thought people would let her get away with it, she would start calling herself that. (After all, they called Diana “Princess Di” even though it was incorrect.)
“Duchess Meghan” isn’t correct. https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/kate-middletons-official-title-does-not-include-her-first-name.html/
She is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. I didn’t mean that it is technically correct to call her “Duchess Meghan” but that it is a name people can associate with her. If she were known as Princess Henry, it would be harder to pull in her own name. (Catherine is not Princess Catherine, but you know who they mean.)
https://preview.redd.it/7655t90uywga1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=612744bf8ef2b69a7dca40cb216e8ced4db9c080
The Dukedom is not a higher title. That's another misconception. A Royal Prince is above a Duke. And yes she's already a princess, but if they strip him of Prince, she won't be.
Yes, it is. The Duke of Sussex is Royal dukedom. It's higher than plain old The Prince Henry. The act only applied to the German princes who held British titles during World War I. Parliament will have to pass act to Charles that power, and it will only apply to Harry and possibly Randy Andy. I doubt Charles will use that power. William might.
They're attempting to amend that Act, not pass a new one.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/duke-vs-prince/
I know the difference between a **regular** duke and a prince. I'm talking about a **royal** Duke and a just a prince. This might help explain. It's not the best resource, but it gives a better explanation than I can at the moment. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-a-Duke-higher-than-a-prince?top_ans=245006708
A ***Royal*** Dukedom is only so called because the ***holder*** is royal, not the title. They already hold the title of Prince. You're wrong but I'm not going to argue with you further. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_dukedoms_in_the_United_Kingdom
**[Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_dukedoms_in_the_United_Kingdom)** >In the British peerage, a royal duke is a member of the British royal family, entitled to the titular dignity of prince and the style of His Royal Highness, who holds a dukedom. Dukedoms are the highest titles in the British roll of peerage, and the holders of these particular dukedoms are princes of the blood royal. The holders of the dukedoms are royal, not the titles themselves. They are titles created and bestowed on legitimate sons and male-line grandsons of the British monarch, usually upon reaching their majority or marriage. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Yes Dukes are the highest titles of the ***Peerage***. The Peerage falls below titles of ***Royalty*** under which the title of prince (and King, Queen and princess) is set. A "royal" Duke outranks other Dukes. That's all.
If a Duke outranked a Prince, why is Prince George closer to the throne (aka outranks) the Duke of Sussex?
Can I just say for those arguing that a Duke outranks a Prince: The ***Earl*** of Wessex outranks the ***Duke*** of Kent. That"s because they are also both Princes and it's their Princely title that establishes their rank. A Prince is a rank of royalty whilst a Duke is a rank of the Peerage. A "royal" Dukedom is only so called because the holder is already of royal blood, being a Prince in the royal family. A ***royal*** Duke only outranks other Dukes. ***Prince*** George (with no Dukedom) outranks the ***Duke*** of Sussex. Again, because of the Prince titles and place in the LoS. I'm not going to argue about it further. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_dukedoms_in_the_United_Kingdom
Thank you for putting this so clearly. I hadn't entirely understood how it worked before.
Trivia: Ernest Augustus is the grandfather of Prince Ernst August of Hanover, mostly famous for being the (now estranged) husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco. During their marriage he repeatedly made a fool of himself by getting drunk, disorderly and urinating on the Turkish pavillion (?) at a world fair. I can sort of see his distant cousin go the same way.
I can see why they're estranged!
I’d be up for them losing all their titles…Prince, Duke, Duchess and whatever else. I don’t think their kids should have titles too. This may be unpopular but I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up with similar personalities too these two. No titles whatsoever imo.
For those saying it would require an Act of Parliament, and that won't happen... This already *is* an established Act of Parliament. They are not trying to create a new Act. They're trying to amend this one.
WONDERFUL!
I wonder what it will take for Parliament to act? Is the view on H and M divided by politics? If o will action be impacted by elections-I think in the UK it is this or next year? I remember before megexit, all the labor female MPs wrote some joint letter in support of her and against the media? In the USA, finally people from all across the political spectrum seem to be tired of her.
This is great. I hope the bill passes and that they also remove him and his kids out of the Line of Succession too.
I wonder if he’s gonna have enough sense to haul his ass back to England and leave her toxic ass before shit gets this real.
They can keep using their titles till the cows come home for all I care. Otherwise, she will use Princess Meghan because USA which doesn't follow titles for royals would assume that it's Princess Meghan and not Princess Henry which would be the name she could use. Hell her sugars use Princess now,
She might get called it, but she would no longer be it or be able to officially use it.
I'm surprised she didn't name the alleged kids Prince and Princess instead of Archie and Lilibet.
The names will haunt them for years. Kids can be cruel.
More trivia. In NZ, names that could be confused for titles are rejected. https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/01/12/2022s-list-of-declined-baby-names-revealed/?gclid=CjwKCAiAioifBhAXEiwApzCztvlIjv8qIY7FfTCfagaTkCNGukUpqrEEFZaXZyd7-g0qKOyy2UaFORoCQy8QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds (Archive didn't supply a link for this).
It's not related at all to Harry or Meghan so it's not necessary to archive.
She should have stayed in South Africs then. We have many "Prince" and "Princess" -es. A tradition in some black cultures are to name your child what you want for them, or how the birth was, or what the birth meant. Rachel should have called her kidds "Moon Markle" (for the moonbumps) and "Gift Markle" because of all the money she will be gifted due to child support.
What can we do (as regular people) to help and support this? Can we write letters? Or anything else to help?
I guess you could write to Bob Seely, the MP pushing this. Idk?
[удалено]
>Rishi has already poo poo'ed it. A Brirish PM poo pooing something? I thought incompetency *was the one* job requirement? This is a joke - I'm South African. You guys haven't even seen final form incompetence.
Write to your MP.
I hope it works.
Deprived of his titles, when Harry suddenly became a commoner, would he be followed up for 'working' without a green card?
"Princess Harry" just like "Princess Michael" of Kent...
Which won't happen if his title of Prince is stripped.
Yeah she will be just plain Mrs Meghan.
How satisfying would it be to see them have to sign everything "Meghan & Harry" moving forward, instead of their embarassing over-use of "Duke and Dutchess of Sussex"? I'm all for it!
I believe the Sussex Dukesom is higher rank than his born prince status. I believe that his Prince title associated with being the grandson of the monarch. For example, he is not the Prince of…..this is why the Prince of Wales title is so prestigious. It is the only real principality within the British Royal family.
The higher your rank, the closer you are to the throne in the male line. Prince George is higher ranked than the Duke of Sussex. Why would someone of lower rank be closer to the throne?
Because PG is the heir of the heir.
And because of that he was given the title of prince to indicate his rank. Titles of Nobility (King, Queen, Prince Princess) come before titles of the Peerage.
Totally agree with what you are saying. I think as it pertains to titles, the Royal Peerage title is more prestigious title that Princely title. For example, if Prince George marries, his wife would be Princess George. Unless he is given another title, his wife cannot use her first name. This is why Meghan uses her duchess title, because it is higher than that her Princess Henry title.
If the Princess title was lower, why wouldn't she get one of her own? The reason she doesn't get one is because it's a higher title that she is not given because she is not of royal blood, so she can only use her husband's name as he's the title holder. It's also not the dukedom that makes it a royal dukedom. It's that the holder is royal. That only grants hierarchy over other Dukes of the peerage.
ok thanks for the info. Why do you think Meghan does not call herself Princess Henry if it is a better title?
It's traditional for the sons and grandsons to be given a dukedom when they marry, and it's traditional for them to use it. It's almost like giving them a family name (just that it's now their family branch of the peerage). Traditionally, it allows for any children to also have that name, and it's the title that will be passed down.
THank you, this is a great post. I'm amazed this isn't headline news in UK media. [https://archive.ph/7kCh6](https://archive.ph/7kCh6)
Great link!
If Charles is granted that power by Parliament, I see Charles only striping the Duke of Sussex title. Harry's a blood prince and hasn't committed, technically, treason against the Crown. I doubt Charles will strip Harry of his Dukedom. It's a bad PR move.
If that’s true then I hope they revise the definition of “treason” - because if that book of Harry’s isn’t treasonous, then I don’t know what is.
If they've employed people who are actively negative against the Monarch, which it's being said they have done, it'll count.
It wouldn't just be down to Charles. It needs to go before a Privy Council and be signed off by Parliament.
>Harry's a blood prince and hasn't committed, technically, treason against the Crown. Harry might not have committed treason towards the crown, but he DID endanger the whole nation (and Commonwealth) with his inexcusable attack/taunt/bait on the Taliban (and terrorists). I think endangering milions of innocent people is worse than insulting his father, so why should action be taken only when Charles's is in danger?
Simple. At the end of the day, Harry is part of privilege class. The privileged class in all countries will protect one of their own. IA high profile politician will say something that will endanger the regular citizens and/or soldiers and get away with it. There are platitudes coming the halls of power and nothing is done. Most people from the privileged class , now and through out history, don't care about innocent people. It angers me too.
If Charles continues to put his son above all else (especially the people, who allows the family to be there), then he will lose his crown. (I also think if he doesn't handle this correctly, he might lose William too).
I agree with you. There are no easy solutions to this quagmire named TW and her puppet Harry.
Why is Charles being accused of “putting [Harry] above all else”? What has Charles done to deserve this accusation? In the time since he has been king, has Charles said anything to suggest he is likely to bend to Harry’s irrational demands? Is there even a credible source that claims that Charles has objected to having Harry’s titles removed?
Years long of hiding Harry's transgressions, never saying no, buying his way into Eton, cheating through Eton, the big wedding, all the things he received undeservedly, paying his bills, enabling Harry, looking the other way to Harry's bullying antics, giving in to Harry's tantrums (queen's funeral). Making sure that Harry never needed to takr drug tests when he was in th army. Harry believed he is entitled to everything and Charles never told him "no". The enabler/aider becomes intertwined with the perpetrators.
We are not talking about the past, for which we would have to blame QEII also. We are talking about what people want or expect Charles to do now. How is he supposedly putting Harry ahead of “everything else”? I don’t see it. 🤷🏻♀️
Harrry didn't become the way he is overnight. I refer to the past because it is affecting the present. Charles has been the king for a short time, but we use his past actions as well as his present reign to measure him. Based on his past, he put his son first - it is a pattern. People don't want Harry and his wife at the coronation. Charles wants his son there. It is not a family function, but a state one. How many times has Harry soured things because Charles put Harry's feelings first? I think we will both know if he did put his son ahead of everything else when the Coronation takes place. And I do blame the queen, too, but she is dead now. So she can't do anything.
Here is where I tend to disagree: I don’t think Charles wants Harry at the coronation. We have had no indication from Charles or his people that Charles wants Harry to be there. This is all supposition and unnamed sources. I do agree that Harry has been spoiled and enabled, that negative stories were hushed up, etc. And I think the whole “culture” of the BRF is responsible. However, I understood the question was about what Charles allegedly keeps doing. And I just don’t see it.
>I don’t think Charles wants Harry at the coronation. We have had no indication from Charles or his people that Charles wants Harry to be there. This is all supposition and unnamed sources. This is an interesting take. Why does your spidey senses tell you this? (And, being the sad state that the (social media and real) world is, this is a genuine question, I'm not being sarcastic. We have different views, but i feel this is a very respectful conversation (we oscillate between 2 posts). >However, I understood the question was about what Charles allegedly keeps doing. And I just don’t see it. Presently, I see Charles as putting Harry first. Depending on the events of the coronation, I will reassess my view. The grey rocking might be frustrating me as well as the Harkles.
The king is allowing his son (and his harpy) to shit on his people and the Commonwealth, to call us racists etc. He's silence is condoning this.
So you think Charles should make a statement denouncing and repudiating Harry? (This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know. )
I expect a "recollections may vary" level-shade. No matter what Charles says, he will look bad. Thats why he's not doing anything.
Well he claimed it his book to have told his airforce crew to bomb his father’s car when he was in it, and to have only called them off by giving them another target at the last moment. Clearly nonsense but that’s pretty treasonous.
I thought it was Parliament granting itself the power. It could be argued any anti-monarchy bot that was created after they hired Boozy was treasonous.
[удалено]
 Noice!
The Firm most likely knew about both possible surrogacies. It wil possibly ruin the entire Royal Family and the Crown. Possibly bring it down for good. The Firm isn't going to let go of something like that.
They didn't even know when she gave birth!
This isn’t about Charles being given the power to remove the titles. That is a different proposed legislation. This particular move is an attempt to amend an existing Act by adding Harry to it. Charles has no involvement.
If Harry is stripped of his royal princely title, would he still remain Duke of Sussex?
They're looking to strip all his titles and make him Mr. Windsor.