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?

No, no change

They are Princesses because they are grandchildren of the monarch in the male line.

Prince Edward's children were entitled to be HRH Prince/ss from birth, but their parents decided they would not use that style (as they expected they would never become working royals). The DC can, once adults, re-make the decision for themselves, but their is no sign that Lady Louise wants to do that (and there has been no change either when the parents became the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh)

Just because you have a title doesn't mean you have to use it. The Sussex DC could have been the Earl of Dumbarton, or Lord Archie and Lady Lili from birth if their parents had wanted to use the ones they were entitled to at that point

Thanks @parksandrecs and @IcedPurple - it's so complicated! I bet they don't even know who they are and what they're called half the time!!

Also, if Andrew lost his Dukedom, that would not mean he is no longer HRH Prince. Presently, only the King can remove the HRH.

If there were going to be changes to the LPs concerning style/titles of grandchildren of the monarch, I would expect them to be issued by KC, to reflect PoW's wishes (so no-one gets a title under the old ones that then has to be removed).

My guess is that they would state that everyone who has a royal style from the previous LPs will keep it, but that going forward, only the DGC (and DGGC etc) in the direct line will be HRH Prince/ss (ie only George's hypothetical future issue, and in turn those of his first-born etc).

The heir could still be given a dukedom on marriage (sidestepping the Princess HisName issue) as that will merge with the Crown on his eventual accession, so acts like a life peerage. Charlotte could follow either the example of Princess Margaret (husband gets an Earldom and DC have non-royal titles of children of an earl) or Princess Anne (no title, DC non royal) and <change> Louis gets an earldom (like Edward when a Wessex) but his DC are non-royal.

They have however already agreed that he will not use his HRH.

And for as long as he has the dukedom, no-one needs to call him "prince"

Charlotte could follow either the example of Princess Margaret (husband gets an Earldom and DC have non-royal titles of children of an earl) or Princess Anne (no title, DC non royal) and <change> Louis gets an earldom (like Edward when a Wessex) but his DC are non-royal.

Or they could ride themselves of this "male line descendants" malarkey and include a change that treats females the same as males, as in Sweden where Princess Madeleine's children are titled in the same way as Prince Carl Philip's.

Harry is sufficiently high in the line of Succession that it's quite possible that he and Megan might become the King and Queen. Would that end the monarchy?

It just goes to show how much the Palace spin team covered up Harry’s abuses.
Do you remember he killed a polo pony called Drizzle, who died of a heart attack when he was riding her too hard.
Apparently he was ‘so upset’, according to newspaper reports. I bet he was. But not enough to stop him going on to abuse more horses.
The RF’s obsession with hunting and shooting is horrible but you’d think Harry being so woke he might have eschewed some of their more cruel pastimes but no.

Agree.

There's a shocking story about him spurring a polo pony (possibly Drizzle?) so hard the poor thing was bleeding.

I've posted links to officially approved 'blunt' spurs before. Brutal things.

I loathe the royal's obsession with blood sports. Meghan got that one entirely right.

They have already done this before George born. Had George been born second Charlotte would have been the heir and as it is she ranks second to George , not Louis as would have happened previously .

The male line descendants part has not changed with regard to titles. Charlotte didn’t lost her place to George, but any children she has will still not be automatically entitled to a title (assuming William becomes King and the 1917 LPs aren’t changed) whereas any children of George and Louis will be.

And it goes down even farther than the grandchildren of the monarch. Princess Alexandra of Kent's children have no titles, but her brother Prince Michael's children are Lord and Lady.

This exclusion of women in the RF being able to pass down titles meant that King George VI had to issues special Letters Patent to make Charles and Anne HRH Prince/Princess while Elizabeth was Princess Elizabeth. Otherwise, they would have taken titles only from their father until Elizabeth became queen.

Yes, that wa in the 1940s. The most recent LPs have addressed this. Though not given Harry's children parity with William's - according to his supporters that's racist!

Yes, set up by George V in 1917 - the sons of the brother of a monarch (aka grandchildren of the previous monarch) would be Prince or Princess (and the eldest son would also inherit the Dukedom), but their DC would not be Prince or Princess, but would have the style of the DC of a duke (hence Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella)

Princess Alexandra's DC, like those of Princess Anne, have no title because their respective fathers do not.

It certainly does. It’s a maxim with which I am very familiar. That’s how I know it applies in one place and in one place only: a criminal court. It applies there because it’s in that forum that the state can apply its ultimate sanction. It applies literally nowhere else, anywhere. Ever.

People are absolutely free to conclude that someone is guilty, and many have done so.

Of course people come to their own conclusion. I think he is as dodgy as hell!

But that is different to legal or official action, where there needs to be proof of criminal activity

Yes, that was in the 1940s. The most recent LPs have addressed this.

I'm not sure what you mean and apologies if I misunderstood, but the LPs of 2012 did not change the LPs of 1917 relative to the situation of a princess who is heir to the throne having children and what their titles would be. The LPs of 2012 altered the effect of the LPs of 1917 by giving the title of prince/princess to all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. The LPs of 1917 limited it to the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. With the changes to male preference primogeniture, the LPs of 1917 left open the possibility that a first born girl (and one of the heirs apparent) would not be a princess, but a younger brother, after her in the line of succession, would be.

But if the same situation existed today as in 1948, the result would be the same unless new LPs were issued.

In think Andrew would not have paid out millions in compensation if he was not criminally guilty.

Really? I think years of innuendo and accusations would have been damaging, even if there wasn't a criminal trial in the end. A payoff ended it

The LPs issued for the Cambridge children don’t change their abilities to pass on titles.

The only thing they did was grant all children of that marriage the HRH Prince/Princess title regardless of when they were born, rather than it only being Williams eldest son who got it before Charles was king.

It doesn’t change the fact that Charlotte cannot pass down titles automatically to her children when her brothers can. Even if she had been the eldest she couldn’t. It didn’t change the 1917 LPs giving titles to male line grandchildren of the monarch.

@parksandrecs a payoff did not end it. Andrew was going to have to appear in court. That is why there was a pay off. Its not even as if he can lie convincingly, his TV interview showed that.

I think he is a repulsive and entitled individual.

But I am not convinced that it could be proved - even to a civil standard of proof - that he had sex with someone he knew was trafficked.

I think he is entitled to such a degree he could genuinely believe that an attractive teenager (over the age of consent) would choose to have sex with him). On a moral ground that makes it worse,

On a legal ground he would have no case to answer, let alone the difficulty of proving it beyond the balance of probability

When was he called to appear in court?

However disgusting his behaviour, please be accurate. As I understand it, the American authorities said they wanted to question him. His lawyers offered to answer written questions. That was were it ended.

I haven't particularly followed, though, so things may have moved on?