Harry's speech at the UN

[KatharineofAragon]

Just what is going on? Why does Harry think he is qualified to pronounce on various political matters in another country? Why is he invited and who cares what he thinks? Am I the only one thinking he is behaving like a total numpty?

Sorry, but that does not prove anything about an Act of Parliament being required to approve a request from Harry to relinquish his titles.

who is this “expert” - you don’t credit them.

they refer to the Queen “removing” titles, which is quite different to her assenting to a request to relinquish a title. This is something I would expect an expert to take cognisance of, rather than talking about a totally different scenario. Perhaps they did not understand the question?

Btw - the Deprivation of Titles Act predates Princess Patricia’s relinquishment.

so your expert gave no actual evidence that an Act of Parliament is required or that the Queen cannot give assent to a request from Harry to relinquish his titles, just like her grandfather did.

He isn't my expert.

I was only trying to help

Feel free to look into it further, you obviously know more than I do!

Just for you...
London School of Economics professor, Thomas Poole, is an expert in UK constitutional law

I’m merely pointing out that the unnamed “expert” who gave you the information did not address the actual scenario re voluntary relinquishment.

i have been unable to find confirmation of your statements that this is not possible without an Act of Parliament.

you made the claim - but seem unable to confirm the accuracy or otherwise of your claim.

and your “expert” needs to read rather more carefully before waffling on about a different and irrelevant scenario.

That’s nice for him.

hes not very good at comprehension though, is he?
because he answered the wrong question.
That’s not going to do his reputation any good.

or didn’t you ask him personally?

you made the claim - but seem unable to confirm the accuracy or otherwise of your claim

Do link me to more when you find it. I have no idea. Consitutional law is not my thing, happy to admit that.

So, cutting through the crap, it looks as if there’s nothing to stop Harry saying publicly “I don’t want to be known as the Duke if Sussex, or Prince Harry. Please just refer to me as Harry Windsor”. And Meghan could do the same. Plain Mrs Meghan Windsor.

None of that would be any problem for a generation that are well accustomed to using the pronouns that people ask them to use.

I hope they keep using their titles when other members of the RF who should gie them up... don't

Good on them

I’ve already said I could not find any evidence to support your claim that an Act of Parliament is required for Harry to relinquish his titles.

i said that hours ago.

you can’t find any evidence either.

why would I go looking for something that doesn’t exist?

Im not an expert in Constitutional law either. But I don’t have to be such an to realise the two scenarios - voluntary relinquishment and being stripped of titles are entirely different

The Peerage Act 1963 covers the relinquishment of titles (Viscount Stanhope being a major campaigner for it, and first to use it) but there's a time by which action must be taken, so my reading is that the Duke of Sussex would not now be able to use its provisions. It was all framed in terms of right to sit in the Lords (and eligibility for the Commons) so it doesn't fit his circumstances terribly well in the first place. But there is a mechanism, for those eligible to use it.

There's absolutely nothing to prevent him just stopping using it, and becoming Harry Mountbatten-Windsor (I'm assuming he'd chose the same surname as he gave his DC)

There are many on here who are not H&M fans who have said that titles cannot be legally removed 'just like that'.

I am making no claim. You asked me to go and look. because you couldn't be bothered. I did. Just to be helpful.

I wish I hadn't.

Suit yourself what you think, I really don't care! All I know is... on these threads, it has been said over years, with those who have more knowledge than me... titles cannot be removed just like that. Voluntary is different. If it was voluntary and he just didn't use it... fine... but he would still be Prince and Duke.

I shall not be responding to you any more, you obviously know far more than me
Good luck with it!

I am making no claim. You asked me to go and look. because you couldn't be bothered. I did. Just to be helpful.

please don’t invent things. People are more than capable of reading the thread,

you Stated it required an Act of Parliament for Harry to relinquish his titles.
you have been unable to corroborate that statement.

All I know is... on these threads, it has been said over years, with those who have more knowledge than me... titles cannot be removed just like that. Voluntary is different. If it was voluntary and he just didn't use it... fine... but he would still be Prince and Duke

people said the Earth was flat for years. That doesn’t mean it is true.
this discussion is about Harry voluntarily relinquishing his titles.
not having them removed.
two entirely different matters.

you started the dialogue by stating: He can't relinquish his Titles without an Act of Parliament. Just so's you know

It really is not unreasonable to ask for the facts behind that emphatic statement.

please don’t worry about not responding to me, I’m more than a little tired of you telling me I should Google something that does not appear to exist.

Go and talk to someone else about it. I give up.

Constitutional law doesn't matter according to you. Ok. Whatever you say

Voluntary. Yes

Law. No.

Bye. Enjoy your weekend

I thought you said you weren’t responding to me any more?
do you mean it this time?

we have spoken only of voluntary resignation of titles, which you were adamant is not possible “because of laws”.
your only evidence related to the stripping of titles, which is an entirely different matter.

i have never said constitutional law does not matter.
That’s another invention by you.

why do you keep saying I have said things, when anyone can look back and see that is untrue?

Enjoy your weekend ☺️

I thought you said that you had given up?

that’s twice you’ve responded since you stated

I shall not be responding to you any more

its really rather cute.

So much rabid hatred still knocking around, even after all this time. He left you all in, what, 2020?

Why is any criticism "rabid hatred", but defence of this pair of useless idiots not allowed to be a "Fan Club"?

There was something very rude and blatantly untrue written upthread about Zeeshan Aleem.

His bio is impressive and he has indeed given an American perspective about Harry's speech at the UN. I couldn't help but wonder if it was because of his name that the poster wanted to say his perspective was not American.

zeeshanaleem.com/about/

@unname To be fair I don't think it was his name and by implication his heritage. I can't be bothered to scan back but I think the poster thought they were too right wing to be taken seriously. If that doesn't make sense to you, this is a thread on the royal family, where opinions are very polarised and claims are not always backed up with fact. 😄

I was the poster who mentioned Zeesham Aleen as I thought it was a very good article but I was shot down by one of the Sussex supporters who was sneery towards him.

Yeah, these threads are always a train wreck.

The poster wrote that this highly educated and experienced writer and lecturer who covered the 2016 election and the presidency was “trying his hand” at political writing and called into question his credentials.

Figured it was worth correcting after I read his bio.

Excellent article and thank you for posting it. I couldn’t articulate why it irritated me for PH to be speaking on this topic. The article made me more interested in Mandela’s life. Would have been better if ZA spoke at the UN.

Except that ZA isn't doing a project with the Mandela Foundation that Archewell is providing funding for. That's why PH was invited to speak, at least that's what the MF's spokesman said.

And I went back to check and you're right, despite ZA having written for many US newspapers, apparently he once worked for the BBC so that has permanently damned him as a journalist, or an American journalist, or a credible journalist, or well, at least, from commenting negatively on PH. 😁

www.spectator.co.uk/article/prince-harry-presiding-over-toxic-boys-club-former-employees-claim

This is interesting.

Any article that throws around insults and endless nasty nicknames as a matter of course, and who relies on 'Glassdoor' as a source is really not 'interesting'.

BetterUp reviews on Glassdoor have 89% saying they would recommend the Company to a friend, and 92% approving of the CEO and out of the hundreds of reviews by employees the average is 4.4 out of 5.

I imagine the reviews you have quoted are from sacked or disgruntled employees and your article has made an unpleasant name calling article out of the negative reviews.