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?

They don't need to make a married-in woman a princess of the UK for her to be Princess HerName. It could be a courtesy title for the duration of the marriage. That determination is well within the Monarch's prerogative.

The George V letters patent provided for a different time and different circumstances.

They did indeed, however the fact the changes to them when the primogeniture rules changes were so so limited suggests to me that Charles and William, who would have been heavily involved in all the discussions, have little interest in seriously changing them.

At that point it would have been very easy to make significant changes because it would have been changing the titles of future unknown children. It wouldn’t have been taking away Louis’ title, or Archie’s title, and it wouldn’t have been tweaking things for Charlotte - it would have been faceless and nameless future children.

It was the most simple time to make the changes and they opted not to. That suggests strongly to me that they have no real desire to.

P. Anne declined titles for her children.
Theoretically, I am not sure if they were entitled to the Prince/ess title as they were children of a daughter of a monarch, rather than a son.
ie normally grandchildren of the reigning monarch are Prince/ess, but only via a son, not a daughter. I think they would have needed to give Anne's first husband, Captain Mark Phillips, a title of some sort, which no one wanted to do.
Similarly, as to P. Margaret's husband being made Lord Snowdon, etc (but at the time P. Margarets children when born, they were not the grandchildren of a reigning monarch; they ended up with lesser titles.
The titles are only important to rank the RF in order of precedence. None of those Royal titles came with any other privileges, so worthless in the US, anyway.
Except, I guess, maybe in some countries, you can flaunt a title to get some kind of preferential treatment?

Mark Philips was offered, and declined, a title. Same as Princess Alexandra’s husband was.

but at the time P. Margarets children when born, they were not the grandchildren of a reigning monarch; they ended up with lesser titles.

That has no bearing on your title. You don’t have to be the grandchild of a reigning monarch, just of a monarch.

Several of George V’s grandchildren were born after he died, including Prince Richard (the Duke of Gloucester) Princess Alexandra and Prince Michael of Kent.

Princess Margaret’s children have lesser titles as their titles are nothing to do with their grandfather, and entirely from their fathers title.

😂 😂 😂 😂

From what I understood it's the other way round, the dukedom was bestowed upon him as a wedding present from Queen. Prince is his birthright. They should remove the lot. Ungrateful Pratt

Seneca is right. A peerage, once given, can only be removed by Parliament.

HRH Prince was only Harry’s birthright because of the 1917 LP’s granting the title to all male line grandchildren of the monarch.

Just as QEII changed them to give all of the then Cambridge children the HRH Prince/Princess title, rather than just the eldest son, Charles could change them going forward.

Several people lost their titles under the 1917 LPs and could if charles, or any future monarch, changed them.

Great another plot twist for Series VI for Netflix with Meghan having learnt to do the Catherine Tate "bovvered" whilst faking a curtsey and Harry doing his famous "boom". The tragedy is the more angry the BRF and its followers become the less the likelihood of any reconciliation or any change in their behaviours. The best one could do is to ignore them but looking at these threads there's fat chance of that and so you are simply just feeding the beast.

The monarch could remove the HRH style, because it's a courtesy, and could change who becomes HRH Prince/ss be issuing new LPs. I'm not sure about removal of the Prince/ss. Once made a Prince/ss in own right (the way the be Prince/ss Own Name) then there is at present no way to remove it, other than whatever the way is for those who have it by birth (even though it is a courtesy style, not a title like a peerage). The only people who have in recent times been created Prince/ss are Prince Phillip (who renounced his foreign princedom on marriage and was only later re-created Prince of the UK) and Princesses Alice and Marina (on widowhood)

Princess Anne's DC have no titles because there were none they could inherit in the female line, and Anne and Mark had refused the offer of a title for him. Same for Princess Margaret's DC, who have no royal style as that's female line, but her DH was created Earl of Snowden has a wedding present, so the DC have the titles of the issue of an Earl - ie Viscount Linley (subsidiary title) for eldest son, Lord/Lady for any others).

Prince Edward's DC (as DGC of monarch) are entitled to be HRH Prince/ss but the parents, anticipating that they would never be working royals, elected not to use them, instead taking the styles of the DC of an Earl (later Duke)

Similarly, the Sussexes did not use their DC's "birthright" titles at birth (father's subsidiary title or Lord/Lady) being instead Master/Miss, but the parents changed their minds later. Which seems a bit odd to me, as I'd have expected birthright titles to be used whilst working royals!

The Royal Family hasn't shown any signs of anger whatsoever!

And I reject the idea that somehow there are tidy "camps" into which people fall. People have been commenting about the Royal family for generations (and it's always interesting to look back on opinions through the centuries), and it is, of course, firmly rooted in the conduct and choices of the various members of it.

I think the idea there are "camps" is inaccurate stereotyping, and a major driver of division

Well I know it's the Mirror and everybody has to earn a crust with speculation - that said the sentiments expressed here chime with that of many posters on this particular subject. I had seen Charles as the heir of sorrows until the famous pen and ink moments , and the wait in the carriage so I can beleive it. His father certainly had a temper the same as Andrew so I can see it running in the family. The true answer is who knows unless we see a video of it (and that could be faked) but that counts for most news coming out of the Palace tbh.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/king-charles-angrier-anyone-ever-32830509

The monarch could remove the HRH style, because it's a courtesy, and could change who becomes HRH Prince/ss be issuing new LPs. I'm not sure about removal of the Prince/ss.

Letters Patent can remove it. If you look at that examples who lost their HRH Prince titles in 1917 (rather than the ones who lost dukedoms and are covered until the Titles deprivation act) you can see how it can be done.

Alistair of Connaught is a good example. He lost his ‘Prince’ in those LPs having been a Prince from birth.

Also it’s important to note the difference between Philip and the late Queen’s widowed Aunts. Philip was created as a Prince. Marina and Alice were allowed by QEII to style themselves as HRH Princess Marina and HRH Princess Alice. They weren’t actually created as such in their own right and were technically still HRH Dowager Duchess or HRH The Princess George or HRH The Princess Henry.

Also it’s important to note the difference between Philip and the late Queen’s widowed Aunts. Philip was created as a Prince. Marina and Alice were allowed by QEII to style themselves as HRH Princess Marina and HRH Princess Alice. They weren’t actually created as such in their own right and were technically still HRH Dowager Duchess or HRH The Princess George or HRH The Princess Henry.

This is essentially true about Marina and Alice. They were not created princesses of the UK as Philip was (prince). But Marina was a princess by birth (of Greece and Denmark) so she was basically asking to use that title. The best example of a married-in woman being allowed to use Princess Hername as a courtesy is Alice, who was born a commoner (although a noble one), but after the death of her husband did not want to be known as Dowager Duchess of Gloucester so the late Queen let her be known as Princess Alice, which also gave her a style in parity with Marina.

I am not in favor of removing Harry’s title, either. I think it would just be hurtful and serve no other purpose.

Not quite sure why you decided to quote me in your flight of fancy. I’m not angry nor do I have any particular interest in either reconciliation or change in their behaviours. Perhaps you meant to direct this at someone else 🤷‍♀️