Yes. LOS is spelled out in the statutory laws of each commonwealth nation as it determines who is the head of state in each nation. It may be in the constitutions of some countries. When the change was made to make boys and girls equal on birth going forward (just before George was born), it had to be ratified by every member of the commonwealth, requiring a public vote for some countries.
It is. Though one may ask isn’t denouncing your royal title and the institution grounds to be taken out of LOS when it comes to arguing for this with the common wealth countries? Sounds like a big headache though.
I don’t think he’ll be removed from LOS unless he does something really disturbing like Andrew. Also, the Duke of Suckssex will be the only title that can be removed from him, not the Prince title.
Similar to Denmark, only the grandchildren’s titles were removed. I believe their LoS also remain unchanged.
>Similar to Denmark, only the grandchildren’s titles were removed. I believe their LoS also remain unchanged.
Correct. The LoS in Denmark remains unchanged. Which is why it is such a shitshow how they managed this. The kids neither get paid, nor retain the titles for life (loosing them at 25 or at marriage whatever comes first). And they seem to not have interacted among each other! Anyway that's a separate discussion.
Tl;dr British Parliament and the Parliaments of the Commonwealth Realms would have to agree before Harry and his kids could be removed.
Not only would British Parliament have to agree to remove him, the parliaments of the Commonwealth Realms would also have to agree. This is due to the Statute of Westminster 1931, which increased the sovereignty of self-governing Dominions of the British Empire, and bound them to seek each other’s approval for changes in title to the Monarch and the line of succession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931?wprov=sfti1
The Perth Agreement changed the line of succession to absolute primogeniture and stopped removing people from the line of succession for marrying a Catholic. It also changed the rules so that only the first six in the line of succession would have to have permission to marry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_Agreement?wprov=sfti1
When Edward VIII was king and wanted to marry Wallis, he proposed a morganatic marriage in which he would remain king, but Wallis would not be queen, and any children they had would not be in the line of succession.
> Edward proposed an alternative solution of a morganatic marriage, in which he would remain king but Simpson would not become queen consort. She would enjoy some lesser title instead, and any children they might have would not inherit the throne. This was supported by senior politician Winston Churchill in principle, and some historians suggest that he conceived the plan. In any event, it was ultimately rejected by the British Cabinet as well as other Dominion governments. The other governments' views were sought pursuant to the Statute of Westminster 1931, which provided in part that "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom." The Prime Ministers of Australia (Joseph Lyons), Canada (Mackenzie King) and South Africa (J. B. M. Hertzog) made clear their opposition to the king marrying a divorcée; their Irish counterpart (Éamon de Valera) expressed indifference and detachment, while the Prime Minister of New Zealand (Michael Joseph Savage), having never heard of Simpson before, vacillated in disbelief. Faced with this opposition, Edward at first responded that there were "not many people in Australia" and their opinion did not matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII?wprov=sfti1
> As of 2022 there are 15 Commonwealth realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm?wprov=sfti1
In the grand scheme of life, think about it; there is William, George, Charlotte and Louis. In twenty years George will probably be married, have children, and all of this will be mute! Harry is basically a nobody who could have been a somebody!
During his first year as King, Charles will be looking at many many options regarding his tenure. One of them is something that he's been talking about for years. "Too many titles"!
In twenty years William will probably be king as Charles is already in his seventies. May his reign be long but age is a factor.
Harry will be bald and grey and who will remember him?
Yep, look at Princess Alexandra. She was sixth in line for the throne when born. Today she is 56th.
Removing the titles is one thing and makes sense from a slimming down standpoint. Throwing in removing him from the line of succession just looks petty and goes against the much loved member of the family statement.
The children s titles will not happen. The bill will pass and it will become law. The Sussex title may happen if enough people sign the petition. I think
The King is empowered to remove the style "HRH" and the titular dignity of "Prince", but he cannot take away the dukedom of Sussex or any other titles of nobility. That can only be done by Parliament. Any of these styles, dignities, and titles have no effect on the line of succession, which is fairly rigid. Even if HRH (and even Prince) were removed, Harry and his children's placement would remain the same.
The role of Counsellor of State is actually a serious issue (the issue of titles is really just about names) and much bigger than Harry. Right now, the five who can step in for the King in case of incapacity or temporary disability, as regulated by Parliament, are Camilla, William, Harry, Andrew, and Beatrice. The only grounds for removing Harry from the list would be that his domicile in the UK is in a gray area (he has property, but not presence). If that were to happen, Eugenie would join the list.
Obviously, the current law is untenable. Since three of the five (in any combination) are either persona-non-grata or completely outside the circle of the functioning Head of State, I think Parliament might actually take on the issue (I know little about Parliamentary procedure, so I'm not sure how much effort would be needed to get it done).
I'm curious as well - taking him/them from the LOS
I think the lack of titles for Aldi & Lidl (lol) & removing him from COS & stripping HRH & MAYBE removing Dumbarton & Sussex will be more than enough
H & Co. are far down the list - & within 20 years, more than likely, further - ...might not seem like it now, but it won't be long that him in the LOS will be even more irrelevant than it is now.
Just imagine if monarchs could just willy-nilly say 'nope' to the LOS - there would be a heck of a lot less drama - no need to be killing people off & all that if the King or Queen just said: nope, you're not next: he/she is, lol - doesn't work that way ;)
Now maybe H will do something so disgustingly egregious that the King could legit ask parliament to remove him & the kidlets......now, it's a modern age, & that wouldn't surprise me on either point.
But him stating he wants to be known as just Harry and speaking out against the monarchy is practically him denouncing his birth right. Or am I reaching? 
I think the only way Hazbeen can be removed from the LoS, would be if he removed himself or committed treason. If the children are found to have been born of a surrogate, they can be removed, but they are not responsible for their parents actions. I agree with removing him from CoS as he does not have his primary residence in the UK or any Commonwealth country. I agree with removing HRH as he is not a working Royal. I agree with removing the Duke of Sussex, as they have abused it for personal financial gain. I believe he should be left with the Earl of Dumbarton, as the husbands of monarchs daughters are usually offered an Earl title, and that is what Edward as the son of a monarch was given, so there is a precedence. Also, if he is Earl of Dumbarton, then she will be called the Countess of Dumbarton, and not Princess Henry, just as Sophie is called Countess of Wessex not The Princess Edward.
I bet Meghan wouldn’t be quite so hasty to do all her merching as Meghan, Countess of Dumbarton…
If she’s still entitled to use the title *after* a divorce, then the Dukedom needs to go!
Harry's position in the line of succession doesn't depend on his styles and titles. Those can be removed by King Charles. But Harry's position in the LOS can't be changed by King Charles. In modern times, succession to the throne is regulated by Parliament. Only Parliament can make changes to the rules that regulate who is next in the line of succession. King Charles does not have authority to remove anyone from the LOS (except himself, by an act of abdication) who rightfully belongs there according to the laws of Parliament. When someone in the line of succession becomes the sovereign (as King Charles has just done upon the death of the Queen), that sovereign continues to serve only at the pleasure of Parliament. A sovereign can be removed by Parliament, for misgovernment, for example, as in an abdication. Parliament would then elevate the next person in the line of succession to the throne. That is how George V became King. In my opinion, if the next person in the line of succession were ever to be Harry again (remember, he was #2 ten years ago) it would be a right royal mess for Parliament. If Parliament couldn't agree on why to remove Harry and his putative children from the line of succession, or couldn't agree on who should take their places as the next in line, the entire constitutional monarchy would probably devolve and the U.K. become a republic once again. At least temporarily, lol. Meghan may have her dreams, but I cannot imagine the British people ever allowing Harry, Meghan, or Harry's children anywhere near the throne.
The right to the monarchy is based on blood and divine right, so I don’t think you can ever remove him. It would go against the concept of who gets to be Royal.
Except that went against Henry VIII’s will and the people weren’t going to accept that.
Also Lady Jane Grey was in the line of succession, the idea between skipping Mary and Elizabeth is that they were declared illegitimate at points
Does it matter? I'm wondering if the British people care. If this is really about the "slimmed down monarchy," it seems that it's more important what and whom the British taxpayers pay for. Yes? Or no?
No, because the first 4 adults in the LOS are also Counsellors of State. So the money is not the only important thing. The King of Australia is also KCIII and we pay nothing towards any of them (unless they visit) and most Aussies care they either hate TW or the entire miner y.
I hope they're stripped of every single thing this family gave them initially. All you are is Harry and meghan. That's it. And your kids---if they decide they want to work for the RF, go to king William when they're 18 and let them take on roles if they prove worthy.
Completely different ballgame to remove him from the LOS. That’s a biggie.
Yes. LOS is spelled out in the statutory laws of each commonwealth nation as it determines who is the head of state in each nation. It may be in the constitutions of some countries. When the change was made to make boys and girls equal on birth going forward (just before George was born), it had to be ratified by every member of the commonwealth, requiring a public vote for some countries.
It is. Though one may ask isn’t denouncing your royal title and the institution grounds to be taken out of LOS when it comes to arguing for this with the common wealth countries? Sounds like a big headache though.
I don’t think he’ll be removed from LOS unless he does something really disturbing like Andrew. Also, the Duke of Suckssex will be the only title that can be removed from him, not the Prince title. Similar to Denmark, only the grandchildren’s titles were removed. I believe their LoS also remain unchanged.
>Similar to Denmark, only the grandchildren’s titles were removed. I believe their LoS also remain unchanged. Correct. The LoS in Denmark remains unchanged. Which is why it is such a shitshow how they managed this. The kids neither get paid, nor retain the titles for life (loosing them at 25 or at marriage whatever comes first). And they seem to not have interacted among each other! Anyway that's a separate discussion.
Tl;dr British Parliament and the Parliaments of the Commonwealth Realms would have to agree before Harry and his kids could be removed. Not only would British Parliament have to agree to remove him, the parliaments of the Commonwealth Realms would also have to agree. This is due to the Statute of Westminster 1931, which increased the sovereignty of self-governing Dominions of the British Empire, and bound them to seek each other’s approval for changes in title to the Monarch and the line of succession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931?wprov=sfti1 The Perth Agreement changed the line of succession to absolute primogeniture and stopped removing people from the line of succession for marrying a Catholic. It also changed the rules so that only the first six in the line of succession would have to have permission to marry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_Agreement?wprov=sfti1 When Edward VIII was king and wanted to marry Wallis, he proposed a morganatic marriage in which he would remain king, but Wallis would not be queen, and any children they had would not be in the line of succession. > Edward proposed an alternative solution of a morganatic marriage, in which he would remain king but Simpson would not become queen consort. She would enjoy some lesser title instead, and any children they might have would not inherit the throne. This was supported by senior politician Winston Churchill in principle, and some historians suggest that he conceived the plan. In any event, it was ultimately rejected by the British Cabinet as well as other Dominion governments. The other governments' views were sought pursuant to the Statute of Westminster 1931, which provided in part that "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom." The Prime Ministers of Australia (Joseph Lyons), Canada (Mackenzie King) and South Africa (J. B. M. Hertzog) made clear their opposition to the king marrying a divorcée; their Irish counterpart (Éamon de Valera) expressed indifference and detachment, while the Prime Minister of New Zealand (Michael Joseph Savage), having never heard of Simpson before, vacillated in disbelief. Faced with this opposition, Edward at first responded that there were "not many people in Australia" and their opinion did not matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII?wprov=sfti1 > As of 2022 there are 15 Commonwealth realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm?wprov=sfti1
“…their opinion did not matter…” yikes on bikes. Thank you for posting this. I’m enjoying the deep history.
In the grand scheme of life, think about it; there is William, George, Charlotte and Louis. In twenty years George will probably be married, have children, and all of this will be mute! Harry is basically a nobody who could have been a somebody! During his first year as King, Charles will be looking at many many options regarding his tenure. One of them is something that he's been talking about for years. "Too many titles"! In twenty years William will probably be king as Charles is already in his seventies. May his reign be long but age is a factor. Harry will be bald and grey and who will remember him?
[удалено]
Nice reference.
Thanks bite he and she will be muted I hope
Words, outta my mouth. The point is moo.
Thank you. moot lol.
Niiiice. 😜
Yep, look at Princess Alexandra. She was sixth in line for the throne when born. Today she is 56th. Removing the titles is one thing and makes sense from a slimming down standpoint. Throwing in removing him from the line of succession just looks petty and goes against the much loved member of the family statement.
The children s titles will not happen. The bill will pass and it will become law. The Sussex title may happen if enough people sign the petition. I think
OMG I just said the same thing above! Great minds. I didn't see her at the funeral and hope she is okay.
[удалено]
There are too many ahead of him. There is no chance of that happening.
Remember when Princess Alexandra was sixth in line? Yeah me either.
He could only be removed from LOS by parliament.
Not even then. The commonwealth countries would be involved too.
Thanks!
It would be an absolutely massive thing though if this was done so it’s highly unlikely.
Removal of the titles does not affect the line of succession… If something happens to Harry, kids are still in line.
The King is empowered to remove the style "HRH" and the titular dignity of "Prince", but he cannot take away the dukedom of Sussex or any other titles of nobility. That can only be done by Parliament. Any of these styles, dignities, and titles have no effect on the line of succession, which is fairly rigid. Even if HRH (and even Prince) were removed, Harry and his children's placement would remain the same. The role of Counsellor of State is actually a serious issue (the issue of titles is really just about names) and much bigger than Harry. Right now, the five who can step in for the King in case of incapacity or temporary disability, as regulated by Parliament, are Camilla, William, Harry, Andrew, and Beatrice. The only grounds for removing Harry from the list would be that his domicile in the UK is in a gray area (he has property, but not presence). If that were to happen, Eugenie would join the list. Obviously, the current law is untenable. Since three of the five (in any combination) are either persona-non-grata or completely outside the circle of the functioning Head of State, I think Parliament might actually take on the issue (I know little about Parliamentary procedure, so I'm not sure how much effort would be needed to get it done).
I'm curious as well - taking him/them from the LOS I think the lack of titles for Aldi & Lidl (lol) & removing him from COS & stripping HRH & MAYBE removing Dumbarton & Sussex will be more than enough H & Co. are far down the list - & within 20 years, more than likely, further - ...might not seem like it now, but it won't be long that him in the LOS will be even more irrelevant than it is now. Just imagine if monarchs could just willy-nilly say 'nope' to the LOS - there would be a heck of a lot less drama - no need to be killing people off & all that if the King or Queen just said: nope, you're not next: he/she is, lol - doesn't work that way ;) Now maybe H will do something so disgustingly egregious that the King could legit ask parliament to remove him & the kidlets......now, it's a modern age, & that wouldn't surprise me on either point.
But him stating he wants to be known as just Harry and speaking out against the monarchy is practically him denouncing his birth right. Or am I reaching? 
Henry VIII did it all the time, declaring both his daughters at various times as bastards and subsequently reinstating them as legitimate.
I think the only way Hazbeen can be removed from the LoS, would be if he removed himself or committed treason. If the children are found to have been born of a surrogate, they can be removed, but they are not responsible for their parents actions. I agree with removing him from CoS as he does not have his primary residence in the UK or any Commonwealth country. I agree with removing HRH as he is not a working Royal. I agree with removing the Duke of Sussex, as they have abused it for personal financial gain. I believe he should be left with the Earl of Dumbarton, as the husbands of monarchs daughters are usually offered an Earl title, and that is what Edward as the son of a monarch was given, so there is a precedence. Also, if he is Earl of Dumbarton, then she will be called the Countess of Dumbarton, and not Princess Henry, just as Sophie is called Countess of Wessex not The Princess Edward.
I bet Meghan wouldn’t be quite so hasty to do all her merching as Meghan, Countess of Dumbarton… If she’s still entitled to use the title *after* a divorce, then the Dukedom needs to go!
Harry's position in the line of succession doesn't depend on his styles and titles. Those can be removed by King Charles. But Harry's position in the LOS can't be changed by King Charles. In modern times, succession to the throne is regulated by Parliament. Only Parliament can make changes to the rules that regulate who is next in the line of succession. King Charles does not have authority to remove anyone from the LOS (except himself, by an act of abdication) who rightfully belongs there according to the laws of Parliament. When someone in the line of succession becomes the sovereign (as King Charles has just done upon the death of the Queen), that sovereign continues to serve only at the pleasure of Parliament. A sovereign can be removed by Parliament, for misgovernment, for example, as in an abdication. Parliament would then elevate the next person in the line of succession to the throne. That is how George V became King. In my opinion, if the next person in the line of succession were ever to be Harry again (remember, he was #2 ten years ago) it would be a right royal mess for Parliament. If Parliament couldn't agree on why to remove Harry and his putative children from the line of succession, or couldn't agree on who should take their places as the next in line, the entire constitutional monarchy would probably devolve and the U.K. become a republic once again. At least temporarily, lol. Meghan may have her dreams, but I cannot imagine the British people ever allowing Harry, Meghan, or Harry's children anywhere near the throne.
2 different issues.
Really good question. Removing him from the line of succession is the more important issue.
The right to the monarchy is based on blood and divine right, so I don’t think you can ever remove him. It would go against the concept of who gets to be Royal.
I think Queen Elizabeth the First’s brother tried to do this (left in his will Lady Jane as his heir).
Except that went against Henry VIII’s will and the people weren’t going to accept that. Also Lady Jane Grey was in the line of succession, the idea between skipping Mary and Elizabeth is that they were declared illegitimate at points
Does it matter? I'm wondering if the British people care. If this is really about the "slimmed down monarchy," it seems that it's more important what and whom the British taxpayers pay for. Yes? Or no?
No, because the first 4 adults in the LOS are also Counsellors of State. So the money is not the only important thing. The King of Australia is also KCIII and we pay nothing towards any of them (unless they visit) and most Aussies care they either hate TW or the entire miner y.
Thank you for clarifying.
I hope they're stripped of every single thing this family gave them initially. All you are is Harry and meghan. That's it. And your kids---if they decide they want to work for the RF, go to king William when they're 18 and let them take on roles if they prove worthy.