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?

Oh come on! Surely this is not news to you?

Heaven help us

Royalists are brainwashed

Not necessarily. I think the reason the UK has remained a fairly stable democracy in recent years is in part because we have a constitutional monarchy which provides continuity. Loads of people across the world would love to see the UK lose that stability.

Also I see it as the RF serving us and not the other way round. I'd never curtsey to a member of the RF.

The best example of the retroactive removal of a princely title belonging to a prince of the United Kingdom is the case of His Highness Prince Alastair Arthur of Connaught (At the time, great-grandchildren of a monarch in the male line were “Highness” rather than “Royal Highness”). He was no longer a highness or a prince after the Letters Patent of 1917 issued by George V. He became Alastair Windsor, Earl of MacDuff, a courtesy title as heir to his mother who was a Duchess in her own right.

The King has the power to remove princely titles, but an Act of Parliament is required to change the line of succession or to remove a peerage.

I think it highly unlikely that any of these things will happen with Harry. Also as others have said, he is The Prince Henry. The "The" designation without a territorial attachment (as in "of York" or "of Wales") indicates a child of the monarch. Harry stopped being "of Wales" on September 8, 2022.

What did they lie about? I genuinely have no idea what he is referring to. Is it something historical as I can’t recall any recent comments from the Palace about him denying or confirming anything. I know he’s supposed to have had an affair and then there was…pegging….but obviously the Palace wouldn’t comment on that.

Which explains why so many 'supporters' sidestep the questions about why they are using their titles etc

Well... I've never sidestepped the question but get sick of answering it again and again, it's like Groundhog Day.

And this... as a pp says..
The King has the power to remove princely titles, but an Act of Parliament is required to change the line of succession or to remove a peerage

And.... the thorny subject of Andrew.

@Sweetpeasaremadeforbees

The royals serve themselves .

There is no evidence that the royals add any stability . UK society may be inherently stable - nothing to do with the Windsors

The UK royals are also the most expensive and old fashioned of tue European royals - for example I believe the are the only royals to insist on an expensive coronation ceremony . It's completely unnecessary but a useful bit of PR to create the impression that God has granted them their position. Magic hat and all that . Costing millions and millions - and another soon enough

And has been pointed out so many times I am a bit sick of saying it - they do not have to use them, other members of the RF do choose not to use their titles.

Edward & Sophie's children, the Duchess of (Kent? I think) when she spent 15 years teaching music in state schools.

Well, given that there hasn't been a coronation for over 70 years I am not sure you can claim they are 'the only royals to insist on an expensive coronation ceremony'.

You may be able to say that after Charles has been crowned, depending on what he decides for his coronation. But using an event of 70 years ago to criticise today seems a bit... well... grasping at straws?

The royals serve themselves .

In your opinion. Which is no more valid than mine. Good job we live in a country with free speech isn't it.

The royals serve themselves

Thank goodness we have the example of the fine, upstanding elected politicians such as Sunak, Truss and Johnson to give us an alternative 😂

Thank goodness we have the example of the fine, upstanding elected politicians such as Sunak, Truss and Johnson to give us an alternative 😂

Quite.

Who? Certainly not Sarah. She uses it prolifically and has done for 25 years even though she's been divorced for that long from a member of the RF.

The usual response here is... ahh but we all know what Sarah & Andrew are like.

No excuse.

The Duchess of Kent was married to the Queen's cousin... very removed from direct family, wonderful woman though she is.

Edward & Sophie's children. One is still a minor, other is only just 18, who knows about the future and what they will decide.

Lots of things over the years. Starting from the reassurances that Charles and Diana were happily married when later it was revealed it was untrue at the time. They lie constantly.

It doesn't matter what Sophie and Edward's children decide - the point is that it is a choice.

And it doesn't matter what choices Sarah and Andrew have made - they both seem very comfortable with their connection with the RF, so no surprise they choose to use them.

The point is that H&M have expressed extreme discomfort with their membership of the RF (under some circumstances, in others seem to be very attached to it).

They are choosing to retain the use of titles they could choose not to use, given their newly acquired understanding of how the RF came about, its connections to slavery, the Commonwealth is Empire 2.0. yet still they choose to use those titles

Titles which are, let's face it, fairly ridiculous in this day and age, just like the titles of other RF members and the peerage.

And it doesn't matter what choices Sarah and Andrew have made - they both seem very comfortable with their connection with the RF, so no surprise they choose to use them.

Very comfortable indeed. Milking it for all it's worth. We bankroll Sarah, she lives at Royal Lodge, 30 roomed, 98 acres and all. She is not part of the RF, she has been divorced for 25 years yet we fund her lifestyle. No surprise she uses her Duchess title at all, 80 books and counting all by Sarah, Duchess of York. Of course she is comfortable with this!

We're fools to accept it.
When she and Andrew give up their titles I'll agree with you. Until then, no.

Just imagine... just try to imagine... let's say Meghan and Harry divorce. (I sincerely hope not) Can you imagine if Meghan was still using her title 'Duchess of Sussex' and writing books, appearing on TV, interviews for 25 years after the divorce??

p.s. Sarah expressed her extreme discomfort with the Institution too in her book and two OW interviews.

To try to simplify (though I suspect the lack of understanding is deliberate):

Members of the RF can choose whether or not they use any title bestowed on them.

Those that believe the monarchy and RF are positive presumably use the title feeling they are associated with a Good Thing.

Those that believe the monarchy and RF are negative would presumably not want to use the title, as they would not want to be associated with a Bad Thing.

Those that say the monarchy and RF are racist and abuse their power, but still choose to use the title, make people wonder whether a) everything they say about the racism and abuse is for show or b) they keep the title because it is a selling point.

I hope that's clear enough to explain the reasoning!

I was referring specifically about the lie to “protect William”. I don’t know what that lie is and your response suggested it is common knowledge.

I don’t remember the collapse of C&D’s marriage but I think it’s extremely unlikely the Palace would have voiced reassurances to the public that they were happily married. They never comment on the personal lives/marriages of members of the RF.

Do you think Sarah and Andrew are role models for H&M? Tbh I would say anyone with any integrity would do the opposite of that pair😂

So, if H&M are doing the same, they lack integrity as well.

I don't remember statements that Charles and Diana were happily married. I do remember that, when their separation was announced, it was stated that they had no intentions to divorce. And that may have been true at the time. But intentions change as circumstances develop and unfold.

I can assure you they did.
Lots of lies to protect William. That his IQ had been tested at genius level, that he is hard working and committed, etc.

To try to simplify (though I suspect the lack of understanding is deliberate)

Why post like that ?

I'm not deliberately doing anything, I'm posting my views

That's a weak argument

In what way?

What difference will it make? Prince Harry will always be Prince Harry.