To wonder why Harry doesn't drop his titles now he's free of The Firm

[CateTown]

He and Meghan wanted the freedom to earn their own money and good luck to them there. He's confirmed two new roles and his new employers are introducing him as "Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex".

For his self respect, why doesn't he ask to be called Harry Wales or Harry Mountbatten Windsor. Then he'd know he's being hired for his skills rather than being used for his royal connections.

Don't get me wrong I quite like Harry but let's face it, he's not got a lot else to offer other than his titles.

It’s not uncommon for the mother of a below-majority aged monarch to serve as regent. I don’t think there would have to be any change in protocol.

Also, Prince Philip (or any sovereign’s spouse) can serve as a Counsellor of State, which encompasses many similar responsibilities:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counsellor_of_State

@halcyondays

I don’t think think Kate can be Regent because they have to be in line to the throne. It normally goes to the person next in line. Hopefully they can bin off Harry and Andrew if needed and go to Beatrice.

Do you know, I reckon Beatrice would be quite good.

For Katherine Parr (or any of you other experts):-

What would happen if the Queen issued a statement that royal titles are not to be used in commercial situations?

Not legally binding I assume (from reading the above posts about Edward and Sophie's children). But might have some effect on the way the British press report. "Meghan Markle has released a new podcast", for example. And in line with how Beatrice and Eugenie use their titles.

Problematic for Prince Charles and his biscuits?

I would say an enormous problem for Charles and his Duchy goods and Highgrove, yes.

I have been to his Highgrove shop. There are vegetables and produce from his garden, there is Duchy stuff, and Prince of Wales emblems on cut glass decanters, clothing, a lot of food and drink, Highgrove towels, bath and shower stuff... all stamped with the POW feathers.

Oh, and furnishings and rugs. All very regal and very expensive.

Charles certainly monetises his position

Thinking about it.... I imagine the profits from his shop goes to charity. It really cant be any other way can it

@Roussette i googled and this came up
TownThe Duchy of Cornwall is a well-managed private estate, which was established by Edward III in 1337. The revenues from the estate are passed to HRH The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, who chooses to use them to fund his public, charitable and private activities and those of his family.

Ahhhh that makes sense Samcro I am not sure how transparent it is, but obviously it goes towards something!

Highgrove shop profits just has to go towards charitable endeavours, or there'd be an outcry!

ApplesPearsAndCrumble the only thing stopping Catherine from being a regent is that we're not legally set up to do so at the moment. Under the current Regency Act(s) in force the regent would be the next person in line over 18 who is domiciled in the UK, which is either Harry or Andrew depending on whether Harry is still officially domiciled in the UK. (I have no idea as to whether he is or not).

They amended the Regency Act in 1953 to name Prince Philip as the regent for Prince Charles in the event that the Queen had died before he turned 18, so they probably will do the same for Catherine at some point, but they'd need to take this through Parliament and at the moment parliamentary time is taken up with other priorities. So as things currently stand, Harry/Andrew will automatically become regent in the event that we lose the Queen, Charles and William before the government can pass a law to name Catherine as regent in the event that Prince George becomes King before the age of 18.

Katherine - this isn't a British one but ... when Princess Caroline of Monaco married dodgy Ernst of Hanover and became HRH, did she then outrank her brother who is His Serene Highness?

@Roussette

Thinking about it.... I imagine the profits from his shop goes to charity. It really cant be any other way can it

I imagine they go some way to funding Harry and have done throughout his life!

They go to Charles's Charitable Foundation. How would that be given to Harry?

@KatherineParr

ApplesPearsAndCrumble the only thing stopping Catherine from being a regent is that we're not legally set up to do so at the moment. Under the current Regency Act(s) in force the regent would be the next person in line over 18 who is domiciled in the UK, which is either Harry or Andrew depending on whether Harry is still officially domiciled in the UK. (I have no idea as to whether he is or not).

They amended the Regency Act in 1953 to name Prince Philip as the regent for Prince Charles in the event that the Queen had died before he turned 18, so they probably will do the same for Catherine at some point, but they'd need to take this through Parliament and at the moment parliamentary time is taken up with other priorities. So as things currently stand, Harry/Andrew will automatically become regent in the event that we lose the Queen, Charles and William before the government can pass a law to name Catherine as regent in the event that Prince George becomes King before the age of 18.

I would speculate that if that happened, a rather swift session in parliament would follow with Catherine putting out an accepted argument to become regent with immediate effect. The likelihood is that they wouldn’t all die together at the same time, so there would be an opportunity for the monarch to arrange this in time as I would assume HMQ, PC and PW will all be in agreement.

GrownUpBeans Practically, I don't think that the Queen could force Harry and Meghan to not use their titles for commercial if they were determined to do so unless she removed them entirely. There' is precedent for members of the Royal Family to agree not to use their titles at the request of the monarch but this is largely based on respect.

Yes. And a fair few of them have abused it at times.

Thanks KatherineParr, that makes sense.

Though presumably the Queen has no jurisdiction in the US and even if she were to legally take away their titles they could continue to use them there if they wanted?

@GrownUpBeans

Thanks KatherineParr, that makes sense.

Though presumably the Queen has no jurisdiction in the US and even if she were to legally take away their titles they could continue to use them there if they wanted?

I think the first statement made by SussexRoyal during the first break specified that the monarch had no jurisdiction over the useage of the word 'royal' in the US.

Which was the first breathtaking bit of petulance and disprespect.

Agree, lots of disrespect. I am fascinated by the value their titles have in the US.

@CateTown

Katherine - this isn't a British one but ... when Princess Caroline of Monaco married dodgy Ernst of Hanover and became HRH, did she then outrank her brother who is His Serene Highness?

So this is a really interesting one. Technically Royal Highnesses outrank Serene Highnesses, but Albert II is a Sovereign Prince (i.e. a ruling prince rather than a Prince who is just related to the ruler). So my understanding is that he takes precedence with monarchs over HRHs.

From their website:

"While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020."

GrownUpBeans
ApplesPearsAndCrumble

I remember that and I remember there being some debate around whether the Queen could rely on international laws surrounding the use of the term 'royal'. I have to confess I don't know a tremendous amount about this though. An international dispute around the term' 'royal' hasn't happened before as far I know.

@idontlikealdi

Money. He doesn't have any skills, he got shit results and landed himself a high paying job because of his title.

Got it in one.

But I bet he thinks he is worth it.

The [Prince Andrew-style] sense of entitlement is strong in this one.

Right, off to order chinese thanks to another thread. .....

I guess "Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex", doesn't use the word "royal". Can't say I think that would have made much difference.

@KatherineParr

GrownUpBeans ApplesPearsAndCrumble

I remember that and I remember there being some debate around whether the Queen could rely on international laws surrounding the use of the term 'royal'. I have to confess I don't know a tremendous amount about this though. An international dispute around the term' 'royal' hasn't happened before as far I know.

To prevent H&M from using 'royal' in any of their US based endeavours, HMQ would have to trademark the term 'royal' under US law. And you can't trademark a word (unless you created it). So H&M can use 'Royal' with impunity in a US-based endeavour. That being said, I don't think they will after they already agreed not to. I do think Harry has a great deal of respect and affection for his grandmother and he knows that would be 'a bridge too far'.

There's no international law that the US would accept as taking precedence over US law in this situation.