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?

@Sweetpeasaremadeforbees No I do not have a subscription to archive newspapers. Do you?

@Sweetpeasaremadeforbees , don't waste time or money, there is no proof .

David Jason was misquoting what he remembered from the documentary. And got it wrong. Because that what happens with memory.

The entire film is still held at Buck P and genuine researchers can pay to view the film. If what your mum said was true, I'm sure we'd all know about by now.

No I do not have a subscription to archive newspapers. Do you?

No but I bloody wish I did have!

don't waste time or money, there is no proof .

don't worry I have far better things to spend money on.

But the palace didn’t lie about Williams affair (that didn’t happen). They didn’t comment on it all. And if they didn’t comment on it how could they have lied about it?

However, I do think Harry has played a blinder here and people will think - he must be referring to the affair.

He really is showing himself for what he is.

Not a sausage. Perhaps different keywords might help narrow it down but I can’t be bothered to do it. But access open to all, no need for newspaper archives!

Or maybe his memory was right?
And don't be naive. If David Jason was right do you really think they would allow people to view an unedited film?

@stuntbubbles Could you show me a screenshot of the news articles you manage to google about him that were written and published in 1997?

Especially when he then went on to do so badly at Sandhurts with his 7/10.

You need 10/10 to be a genius there, on that particular test.

No because I haven’t done that? But if there was a palace press release it’ll be in the palace archives – everything is on there.

I do concede your point that trying to prove things from 20 years ago is impossible as the internet updates: you can’t, for instance, get the original newspaper headlines about Diana being injured in the car crash. Because when those stories were digitised they used the morning editions updated with her death, rather than the 3am breaking news.

But what I don’t understand is why we’re talking about gorillas and IQs when I suspect Harry is talking about something that happened after he met Meghan. My money is on the flower girl drama rather than the alleged affair.

I can't be arsed to engage with patronising sarcastic posters.

Enjoy your evening.

@Roussette Good call. I wish we could block on MN.

What's your point?

She has been divorced from a member of the RF for over 25 years and uses her title prolifically.

If she can use it for decades to flog books, give interviews, sell wedgewood, weight watchers..., I think Meghan... married (not divorced) to a member of the RF... can use her title Duchess of Sussex

Odd isn't it? Recollections. I was a decade older and not particularly paying attention, but got the impression that William's A levels were respectable but no more considering his educational advantages. And no-one had a problem with that. The embarrassment was with Harry's lack of ability. So his other qualities were played up.

And no-one embarrassed themselves by claiming he had got into Sandhurst on his own merits, let alone into an elite regiment. Instead the news the evening he graduated (passed out? whatever trainee officers do) was that he was chosen to do all the high profile bits and pieces of the best cadet/trainee/whatever title. No real attempt to persuade us it was for any other reason than he was HM's (who was reviewing them) grandson

In other words, can't respond to the logic.

No problem, I'll ask you the same questions on other threads from time to time.

Unless H&M decide to repudiate their titles, in which case I will join you in extolling them

Of course she can flog her title and royal connections.

The reason people are questioning it is because she is also claiming (probably rightly) that the institution is racist and based on slavery. And therefore questioning why she wants to associate with it by using the title

My point is she is using a title that she is entitled to use. If Charles did what I suggest in my other post, she would no longer be able to do so. It would get rid of a lot of hangers-on- SF, Andrew, Harry and Meghan, Beatrice, Eugenie, the children of the Dukes ofKent and Gloucester, Prince and Princess Micheal.

I have no idea what you now want me to respond to because you are incessant.

Don't bother with the other questions, thanks for the offer though.

Let me know when SF gives up her title and I will be having a different conversation with you than this.

You think if their house was smaller they'd need less security 😅

You're happy with her flogging her title. Don't criticise Meghan for doing the same then.

I can’t see Charles ever doing it. It’s like disinheriting his child. I wonder if William might want to, though, depending on what comes out in the next Netflix episodes. It’s a very sad family situation but formalising punishments like this won’t solve anything.

I believe the 9 million is a DM load of nonsense, don't believe everything you read!

I can see Charles doing this. He has always struck me as petty.

I don't criticise her any more than SF. I think both are using an out dated institution

But you are quite vitriolic (to use a defender of H&M) against SF

How is Meghan any different?

They are both using the title to make money