Can Charles remove Harry's 'prince' title

[gottogo23]

I've noticed that the Removal of Titles Bill is going through Parliament and people have been talking a lot about Harry and Meghan losing their titles. Does this just refer to the Duke and Duchess titles, or does this also include stripping Harry of being a prince?

@Roussette looking forward to your response. I hope I wasn't too sarcastic

And why bring up something from 50 years ago that's unrelated to the subject?

Yes. It said the claim was 'unproven'

I’ve just had a look to see what Snopes is and there’s an article about the comment made with this being their conclusion - There's no doubt she did once describe a particular ambassador with that word, but it has not yet been possible to determine who the man in question was, and therefore whether her remarks bore any racial undertones. As such, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven."

@jeffgoldblum In response to posters claiming that everything is googable. It is not. The Royal Family documentary made in 1969 can not be watched although a few clips were leaked online. Even the funeral of the Queen can not be watched online, only a small portion of approved parts - approved by the Palace.

Yes. You are.

So we should take your word for it without evidence?

Really? , you implied earlier that we were all much younger than you! , so how old is your mum? . No forget it , I don't care .
I watched it when it came out , I don't recall seeing what you have said!
Are you going to criticise me?

@MrsTumblebee Exactly what I posted. Although you omitted the part about how it claims it refers to the white US Ambassador has been refuted and appears to have no basis in fact.

Bless 😂

Sorry you don't have any answer to logic

If someone made an accusation against you, would you like others to believe it without any evidence?

Sarah Ferguson is Duchess of York in the way that signifies she was once Duchess of York. She is not HRH, The Duchess of York and not entitled to be addressed as 'Your Grace' or 'Her Grace'. She is Sarah, Duchess of York. Same was that Diana was, before her divorce, HRH The Princess of Wales and after her divorce 'Diana, Princess of Wales'.

its not “small portions” of the funeral that can be watched. It’s the vast majority of it with a few tiny parts - a small child and upset relatives - removed.

Hardly groundbreaking or changing the entire event.

With the greatest respect to your mum, the anecdote the queen told was at her dinner table. No reference was made to whom she was talking about. If a photo of a dignitary had been shown, then researchers who can pay to view the film, would no doubt have since mentioned it. And as it was on YouTube for a while, someone there would definitely have mentioned it.

The problem with people remembering, your mum or anyone else, is they don't always remember exactly what happened. They might remember a bit and fill in the gaps.

I used to prepare court files for my local police force, honestly if you read eye witness accounts of the same event you would be amazed and that is for something they saw a few hours before. It can be a man, two men, a gang, they are white or black, tall or short, there was a weapon or maybe not. Sometimes it is hard to believe people are actually telling you what they remember or having a laugh.

Your mum probably did see it, she might remember it all verbatim or she might not. Unless we go and watch the same thing we can't be sure.

In response to posters claiming that everything is googable. It is not. The Royal Family documentary made in 1969 can not be watched although a few clips were leaked online. Even the funeral of the Queen can not be watched online, only a small portion of approved parts - approved by the Palace.

But it is all reported. Even the gorilla bit (that you've linked to) so why on earth wouldn't the genius bit have been reported somewhere?

@Sweetpeasaremadeforbees The documentary was big news at the time. If you google you can see articles about it, but they only cover a tiny fraction of the length of the documentary. I have no idea what was in most of it.

The IQ claim was not big news. It was in the news for a day.

And the gorilla report was not googable until recently when a clip was leaked and David Jason talked about it. When my mum first told me I googled and there were zero hits.

I wondered if the 'lie to protect my brother' was a hint about the supposed affair.

I posted the relevant part that says - there is no evidence the comments bore any racial undertone.

The IQ claim was not big news. It was in the news for a day.

It would still be out there somewhere. For the love of god does anyone have a subscription to a news archive site?

The IQ claim was not big news. It was in the news for a day.

Theres no chance a member of the royal family getting an IQ score of near genius would be in the press for only a day and never mentioned again. Especially not William.

that’s just not remotely plausible.

Actually I don't.

And can see why dragging up every but of crap rumour from the bottom feeders of the internet gets deleted.

But once Harry says something, then the change in sourcing opens discussion on quite a different footing.

This discussion really is pointless, the amount of unsubstantiated claims and unproven theories a certain poster throws about and the denial is obvious to any of us who frequent these boards , I'm just sorry I got sucked into it.

Yeah it is starting to get tedious.