Harry's latest ventures

[Viviennemary]

Now being reported in the Daily Express that Harry is working on a new tell all documtary about royal life. This is according to his biographer Angela Levin. And even more disclosures about the royal family are forthcoming. Is this going to go on for years. We shall have to wait and sed. I think its very very wrong of him.

I don’t think the Queen should remove Harry’s Prince title. It’s his title by birth and belongs to him. It’s sets a precedent that I bet no one in the royal family wants setting least of all William who has 3 titled children. It’s a bit like being a British citizen, you either are one or not ( hence why I disagree with shamina begun citizenship being removed - different obviously)
But the dukedom was a wedding present from the Queen not a birthright but it seems a bit off to take back a wedding present imo.

@Viviennemary

They are certainly not popular in Australia and New Zealand. They are down to earth folk and can see right through their fakeness.

I'm in Australia. Its about 60% positive for them, going on our media and the comments sections.

@Roussette

Harry will always be a member of the royal family, it doesn't matter what is removed from him, he will be called Prince Harry or whatever. I just don't think you would see much difference!

Looking at this...
"What should be kept in mind is that the style and title HRH and prince is quite separate to the peerage of Sussex.

"The peerage can be disclaimed by the duke under legislation passed in 1963, but the peerage remains live and can be inherited by the next male heir upon the death of the holder, albeit disclaimed - in this instance Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, otherwise the earl of Dumbarton.

"Alternatively it would require an act of parliament and royal assent to remove the peerage under forfeiture'

So it really isn't as simple as some suggest.

That’s interesting Rousette, so Harry being a duke and having a son now sets in motion an American male line of dukes following Archie presumably forever?! Bit of a conundrum... The Prince title goes extinct after Archie but the duke line lives on. No wonder they want to hang on to it!

DeRigueurMortis The comparison is not with Trump, it is with Boris Johnson.

sash I think so but to be honest, how it all works makes me glaze over so I don't really know.
It looks like, removing Duke of Sussex from Harry puts it in mothballs until Harry isn't around but then Archie takes it on. Unless parliament steps in and gets rid of it altogether.

Or something...

I think the reason they don't want to remove the titles is because then Harry will be Prince Harry and Meghan will be Princess Harry or something. She would inevitably be known as Princess Meghan though, in the same way Princess Diana was common but incorrect usage. So she would get to be a Princess after all, just like she told her husband. And they don't want that.

The other problem is Archie - if they need to make another change to the rules to prevent him becoming Prince on the death of The Queen. Doing this will look spiteful and backup everything Meghan said in the Oprah interview. Yet it is ridiculous to have a child who is a Prince in the USA, where pop stars and all sorts of people call themselves. and why would they want that for him, Why even bother?

My memory is obviously poor and I know someone can correct me but I was sure that when Archie was born they said they didn't want a title for him and I do recall thinking "Good on them", going the Princess Anne way and gifting commoner status on your children is the best gift you can give them. But obviously I misinterpreted the story. I find it really weird that whilst crying about not wanting to be in the Royal Family they want titles and they want to saddle their children with meaningless titles.

As usual with H&M the RF are between a rock and a hard place.

*call themselves Prince I meant. And lots of dogs and other pets too

@CokeDrinker

DeRigueurMortis The comparison is not with Trump, it is with Boris Johnson.

Or Scott Morrison if you are Australian. Do you want a president Scott Morrison? As if the U.K. becomes a republic so does Australia, nz and many more countries by default. Australia could become a republic tomorrow if it wanted but hasn’t. Is Australia generally talking wanting to be a republic again coke drinker? Is that some thing you campaign for there?

It's over 20 years since the last referendum on Australia becoming a republic, so a new generation of voters. It's not big on the radar at the moment as there are many other pressing problems, such as our nasty and incompetent federal government.

It does seem ridiculous to have a line of U.K. titled but US born and based dukes in perpetuity.
That’s the opposite of a slim downed monarchy!
But I don’t think Meghan is featuring in any discussions, she’s irrelevant to the question of titles. Titles and who gets them goes back nearly 2,000 years!!

The only thing Meghan and Harry have to sell is the Royal family.
I feel really sad as the more they divulge the harder it's going to be for a reconciliation.

@StartupRepair

It's over 20 years since the last referendum on Australia becoming a republic, so a new generation of voters. It's not big on the radar at the moment as there are many other pressing problems, such as our nasty and incompetent federal government.

It might be forced on you if the republicans in the U.K. get their way They won’t

To be honest it doesn’t matter if Harry and Meghan are the most popular people in the world, it’s still Charles and William who will be King . Inside the UK popularity is irrelevant. In fact as has been stated elsewhere their soap opera is a welcome distraction from some dubious behaviour from other members of the family.

Obviously that’s not true in Australia, Canada etc but I really think they should have their own Head of State now and I suspect Charles and certainly William would agree.

I really don't see the Queen taking away Duke of Sussex. She can't do this by herself for a start, she would need an Act of Parliament which would need to be debated. There are also non-royal peers in the US and Australia who haven't given up their peerages but live abroad and have jobs. The only reason to treat him differently from other peers is because he's a member of the Royal Family.

Personally, I think there's a stronger case to remove HRH & Prince, as this is what signals membership of the Royal Family and the Queen could do this quite easily without needing to involve Parliament, leaving Harry as a non-royal Duke.

It might be forced on you if the republicans in the U.K. get their way

Sorry getting slightly off topic, but for example if there was referendum in the UK on the royal family, would it have to extend to all countries with the queen as head of state? I have no idea on the rules but it seems a bit weird that the UK could remove another country’s head of state. I appreciate its a HoS that was imposed on them in the first place, but if at the last referendum Australia voted to keep it, can we just unilaterally remove it? Or could the RF be removed from HoS of UK but kept in other countries for them to then make their own decision?

I think the Australian Republicans are politely waiting for the end of the Queen's reign. It is completely absurd to have a heading state from another country.

*head of.

@KFleming

It might be forced on you if the republicans in the U.K. get their way

Sorry getting slightly off topic, but for example if there was referendum in the UK on the royal family, would it have to extend to all countries with the queen as head of state? I have no idea on the rules but it seems a bit weird that the UK could remove another country’s head of state. I appreciate its a HoS that was imposed on them in the first place, but if at the last referendum Australia voted to keep it, can we just unilaterally remove it? Or could the RF be removed from HoS of UK but kept in other countries for them to then make their own decision?

It would have to be worldwide. How could the Queen of England no longer be the Queen of England but live in New Zealand where she is still queen? ( assuming the new Zealand’s wanted her to live there , willing to pay for it etc which I assume they wouldn’t) It effects everything in about 20 other countries too. I actually think should their ever be a referendum ( hopefully never) the whole commonwealth should get a vote as it has profound constitutional consequences for them too. Those that still have Queen as head of state only obviously so not India for example, 1.6 billion people completely overshadowing whatever us in the U.K. vote!

@CokeDrinker

DeRigueurMortis The comparison is not with Trump, it is with Boris Johnson.

For the purposes of these threads we are discussing the monarchy's role as Head of State/Armed Forces etc. We often have US posters saying the "Queen of England" and monarchy outdated. That's the reason the US political system crops up and it makes the point that those in glass houses etc. so it is the Queen, not the UK Prime Minister that is compared to Trump for those particular roles.

We don't generally have posters coming on from Iceland etc telling us we're a shambles and should run our country the same way they do, so that's why we're not discussing their system of electing "deserving" people to the role of president ie. what the UK republicans would like.

In contrast, we do have US posters regularly popping on to say "British people" are a laughing stock and monarchy outdated etc - that's why the conversation turns to Presidential system. I wouldn't go on to US chat boards and tell them about other systems round the world because their one is a laughing stock.

In the UK the armed forces swear allegiance to Queen and heirs etc ie. a backdrop of non-changing stability behind politics. In the US they swear allegiance to the President (and their country) and an ever changing political view. The RF are representative embodiment of the UK (brand).

To have an ever changing President in the UK - we'd have self-declared "worthy" people vying for the position (self glory ultimately).
The division of sides created as to who should win/should have won etc. Also the experience gained in how to behave in a diplomatic way with people you don't like or agree with, would be lost rather than passed on from generation to generation on how to adapt and reflect the UK population).

President will have known political views in their past - that makes representing their country more difficult on a world stage.

Trump coming to BP - the Queen was as gracious as ever - to have been rude to him would have been being rude to the US population - whether or not they like Trump, he represented US abroad.

KFleming really interesting question. I think that each country would need to make it's own decision about their own head of state, but in practice I suspect that whoever was Monarch at the time would bow out from all the Head of State roles. It would raise interesting questions about funding for a start.

Completely agree marmalade. People saying the monarchy should end have no idea what they are saying. It would be a complete and utter transformation if everything and effect other countries too and besides we have a great system. Look at the fuss over Boris’s wallpaper, it was ridiculous but it keeps the PM in check. Imagine Boris in Buckingham palace!
And it is proundly irritating that people found other countries come into a U.K. hoard and tell us about our monarchy and hey it should be replaced. To what? Your system?
I don’t mind Australians so much as they do have some skin in the game but they need to consider the implications for their own countries constitution and maybe concentrate on removing Queen as head of state where they live which no one here in the U.K. would care about.

I think the Australian Republicans are politely waiting for the end of the Queen's reign

You could be right, remembering that the Commonwealth were so lukewarm about having Charles as their Head that the Queen stepped in to suggest this would be her dearest wish

How embarrassing, at his age, to need mummy to push folk into giving you a job

I think making it publicly known that the Queen and RF at large wish for Harry to stop using his titles (both Prince and Duke) now that he has made a firm decision on his future, is enough.

The use of both those titles once that request is publicly declared by the Queen will make Harry look very silly if he continues to use them.

We would no doubt get an announcement (as they did when their website was told to stop with the Sussex royal branding etc) that "royal" isn't a word owned by the Queen. They would say being called "Prince" is his first name, like Prince the singer and Princess (Katie Price's daughter) etc.

That's the end of that - they'd be seen to be using the name against the wishes of the UK monarchy so there would be no more confusion that there is a connection. The mystique of being connected to a life of service in the UK will have disappeared.

If Harry then continues to make a tit of himself and makes a petulant announcement that it's his first name etc... then maybe the UK would look at other ways, but it would have gained public agreement by then and wouldn't be seen as petty because Harry will have yet again shown he cannot respect the wishes of the Head of State in UK.

Is the Queen going to do this? Or is it just a hopeful wish?

If it's just hoping that will happen, it seems a bit bizarre to be talking about what might happen when there is no substance at all to this happening.

I will look out for the Queen publicly declaring this!