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?

I think it’s a great idea to slim down the monarchy and get rid of all the excess, meaningless titles. Even Charlotte and Louis should have to give up their titles when they finish formal education.

As for H and M keeping their titles. Why on earth do they want to when they hate the RF and what it stands for so much? Surely they must realise it makes them look like hypocrites.

I wonder if his is considered high treason
1 he put the county at risk with Taliban comments
2 attacking and lying about royal family I believe a commoner would be liable
3 Diana title was removed
4 why would you have title for institution you don’t respect i

i am confused why parliament does not remove

High treason? Haha... that is ridiculous !!

Just look at this... in 2013 he was praised and lauded in the Press for killing Taliban. "Hero Prince" and "action man" and "swashbuckling royal"

Now he's guilty of high treason! Personally, I don't think he should've put a number on it, but the media was quite happy to praise him for killing Taliban back then!)

(1st image is from 2013, 2nd image is from now)

William could later as king remove his brother's prince title.

Yes, the interviews covered the same ground, but did so in completely different ways.

The 2013 one neither included a kill count, nor referred to chess pieces, and was praised as it covered difficult subjects well.

The later interview included the problematic issues, which have attracted significant criticism (not least from veterans).

I think he was well advised in deciding both what to say and how to say it in 2013. Considerably less so recently.

1. No he didn't. I agree that the comments in that interview were crass compared to how he worded it before. But the Taliban know this stuff anyhow, and the risk from them is surely not changed - if they were interested in extra-territorial attacks, they would be planning them anyhow.
2. Literally attacking, yes (like the attempted kidnapping of Princess Anne). Incidents behind closed doors, depends on whether anyone makes a complaint to the police. Libel/slander - would only proceed if someone decided to sue, and the Royals famously don't
3. that was part of the divorce settlement (same for Duchess of York) - she kept title in slightly modified form becoming 'Diana, Princess of Wales' (no HRH for either, as neither was part of the family by blood or matrimony at that point)
4. Good point. There is nothing to stop them using their titles

'The 2013 one neither included a kill count, nor referred to chess pieces, and was praised as it covered difficult subjects well.'

Exactly. A member of of the rf serving in a war zone of course deserve praise for it as all service people do.

If is completely different for the service person to then witter on inappropriately about 'kills' and 'chess pieces', as always confirming that he is absolutely gormless and tone deaf into the process.

Not sure about Harry, but I personally think the prince and princess title should be removed from the children. (ARchie and Lilibet)
They are afterall, growing up in the US, and are not involved with the RF, and considering both Harry and Meghan seem to despise the Royal Family, it seems totally stupid to insist on those titles for the children, espescially as those kind of titles are apparantly not releavnt in the US.

Harry's Archie will be British but Lilibet will be British by descent as born in the USA. This should mean that her children will not automatically inherit British citizenship if at all unless there is some exception as part of the RF.

No they can't, and there's no way they'd want to create a precedent where the King's son can be stripped of his title because that potentially endangers William's children.

It also looks really bad to punish someone just for whining a bit (when he's already been exiled and shunned) when an accused rapist who sold royal access for cash and hung out with convicted paedophiles is still welcome in the fold.

Saying Harry committed treason is just stupid. Charles also had an official biography where he called the Queen a terrible mother and completely trashed the Queen, he also did a documentary where he whined about how hard his childhood was and trashed the Queen as being cold and neglectful. Basically the exact same things Harry's doing now, so presumably that makes Charles also treasonous?

I doubt they'll remove their ducal titles because that would make Meghan's title Princess, and they don't want Meghan being called Princess, especially now that Kate is officially a Princess.

when an accused rapist who sold royal access for cash and hung out with convicted paedophiles is still welcome in the fold.

Look at the history of the Private Member's Bill that the opening post of this thread is all about.

It was introduced by a Labour MP for York, and was deliberately conceived to facilitate the removal of the Duke of York title. Absolutely nothing to do with H&M at the outset.

Their titles should be removed now, and they should just get on with their lives in the US as Mr & Mrs Mountbatten Windsor.

They wanted out, they are, and they are still causing damage to the RF. It's time to offload them forever.

The difficulty in removing titles is that, while Parliament can remove the Dukedom, the King determines who is HRH Prince/Princess. He would have to issue new Letters Patent, and to avoid potentially affecting future grandchildren of William, the King would have to make it specific to Harry and his children. I just don't think King Charles would do that. I think he hopes for a reconciliation, and I believe that he, like many parents with low contact or estranged children, will want to keep the door open.

It's also possible that Archie and Lilibet may one day want to repatriate and claim their place and titles in the RF. That should be their choice.

I agree with a poster above in that H&M ( the son of the King and his wife not the clothes shop ) really want to keep their titles and those of their children because they think it gives them status and they can moneterise it. Does any one either side of the pond really think Sarah Ferguson as a duchess is anything other than a title by marriage & she has been trading on that for years.

I think is it is hypocritical of those two ( H&M to insist on their titles & their children ) but I suspect the fallout from removing them would be worse. Perhaps gently drop the hereditary titles from Archie and Lilibet's children if not working royals.

Perhaps gently drop the hereditary titles from Archie and Lilibet's children if not working royals.

Archie’s children won’t be HRH Prince/Princess as they won’t be grandchildren of the monarch (barring a major tragedy) do the Sussex title will become non royal.

Lilibet’s children won’t be entitled to titles. Like Princess Anne, Beatrice or Eugenie.

Only if they removed Andrew's as well. The public would not accept Harrys title being removed and Andrew keeping his.

Nobody dislikes Harry due the ‘racism’, don’t be ridiculous.
I dislike him because he abuses his polo ponies.
Posts like this dismiss genuine accounts of racism.
Are you a member of the ‘Sussex Squad’.

They’ll never remove either imo.

They don’t want to ever show that it’s actually possible for it to be done, and not necessarily that difficult.

Can you imagine how strong the public calls for Charles to lose his titles would have been after Diana’s death?

They all know that they, or their child, could be the next unpopular one so won’t risk it

Personally I don't think Charles will this is his son at the end of the day

@YetMoreNewBeginnings That is a very good point.

I think the hassle and headlines of removing titles will create far more trouble than it is worth.

Let's face it, there are various people claiming non-existent thrones and that they are Prince/ss of monarchies that ended in 1918 (and earlier!). All a bit weird, and the only thing is shows is that they somehow see the title as relevant and importart despite not being of Prussia, France, Russia etc etc, and having been born decades after the abolishment of the monarchy.

If Harry and Meghan want to carry on being called Duke/Duchess, and their children Prince/ss - yet live in a country that very specifically and deliberately rejected the idea of titles - well, I find that very odd, but crack on. They obviously value them, whatever the criticisms of the institution that provides them. Very strange.

Charles loves both his sons and I can’t see him wanting to humiliate Harry by removing his title .
However when William becomes King , I think all bets are off . He may well remove Prince/ Princess from Harry’s Dc .
I think it was the Danish Queen who downgraded some of her grandchildren?

I don’t think William will make any big steps either with regard to Harry’s children.

Lilibet’s children won’t be titled, unless she marries a titled man who passes his on.

If Archie has children his eldest will be a non royal Duke and the rest will be Lord/Lady.

The further away from the royal family it gets the less relevant it’ll be - they’ll just be another random duke whose title doesn’t actually mean anything.

I listened to a podcast recently by a guy who is technically an Earl and the only time he uses it is when flying long haul or booking a hotel room as very occasionally it gets an upgrade 😆

Removing titles just makes a story.

Nobody dislikes Harry due the ‘racism’, don’t be ridiculous.
I dislike him because he abuses his polo ponies.

Entirely agree.

I'd add the gurning at his slaughter of a defenceless water buffalo, the never addressed criminal killing of protected birds of prey and the 'killer Wales' nickname even Diana dubbed him with (TBF alongside Willy) to the list.