Harry loses HRH title

[cobicat]

Harry's 'HRH' has reportedly been removed from his listing on the RF website. Seems about time, really? Odd that Meghan's wasn't removed too, perhaps an oversight? Or are they making the changes gradually in the hope that no-one will notice...

No he isn't but he was in Japan briefly.

Why is this even being asked? They have left its been so long that they aren't funded by taxpayer anymore that shouldn't even be questioned anymore.

Yes, I was thinking exactly that. No reason at all for Sussex Royal to stay up, yet there they still are, collaborating away.

@Ohpleeeease The Sussex Royal website is very out of date as well - all forged back in 2020. They describes themselves as "Royal Highnesses" in it. They also still have old patronages eg Harry with the RFU which has been the Princess of Wales since 2022?

Three of his ex military titles are also there and when you click on them it goes nowhere. Time for an update.

Ditto with Meghan and patronages. In fact the whole Sussex Royal site is as up to date as my GP practice surgery's one - lagging about 3/4 years behind 😁

Personally I think they have kept open the Sussex Royal website as a one finger gesture to the royal family

Goodness.

I didn't even realise this.

Interesting to note 'Empire 2.0' being described in such glowing terms.

Commonwealth | The Official Website of The Duke & Duchess of Sussex (sussexroyal.com)

Remind me about the term - Empire 2.0?

I haven't seen the SR website before.
Pretty pictures but I don't like the way the text floats up. It makes me feel very slightly queasy.

That made me sea sick
so agree

In the NF documentary, the CW was described by commentators as Empire 2.0. This phrase didn't come from the mouths of H or M but it was their documentary. I think M had her wedding veil embroidered with the flowers of CW countries. H also had paid several visits to CW countries on his dgm's behalf. I know they were given official roles in the CW but can't remember what. However they were quite happy to see the CW trashed to a global audience.

Got it. I didn’t watch it.

Sussex Royal was a real low point. It was when they seriously overplayed their hand. I remember there was much outrage here at the time about the reference to “collaborating with the Queen” as though they were her peers. It was also quite chippy (and also disingenuous) about how they were funded.

I’ve never understood why people who support the Sussexes feel the need to blame all criticism of them on fake media stories. There is so much primary material on which to form a view, this execrable website being one.

Collaborating with the Queen' was a real cringe moment.

His HRH hasn't been removed. He just isnt allowed to use it.

Its my observation that most people on here that regularly defend Harry and Meghan do not ‘blame all criticism of them on fake media stories’.

However, so often posters that want to gossip negatively about h&m start threads with these ridiculous ‘news’ reports, aka paid for gossip, or posters use them to support unfair accusations regarding H&M in the threads themselves. Then you have posters, quite correctly, calling bullshite on these ‘news’ articles. Most of it is just unsubstantiated gossip. No named sources and made up bullshit, re-edited, rehashed and reprinted over and over again.

People complain about wanting H&M to be quiet and go away and stop being a bother etc.. which is exactly what they have done. They no longer live in the UK - they have lives elsewhere. They no longer affect your lives. So why read this gossip and become exercised by it? Because those people want to. They want to be pissed off and outraged and H&M are an easy target. Every day the ‘news’ gives these posters something, anything, any bit of rubbish to be outraged about.

it’s not at all healthy.

And it’s also extremely unfair to they people they are targeting.

It’s not made up, the title really was deleted. I don’t think it means anything though - there is literally nothing else to report on, that’s why tabloids run silly stories like this making a mountain out of a molehill. Most likely the RF are catching up on all the updates to be made after the Queen’s death, I doubt the website was a priority.

To a broader point about media and it’s confected outrage against women - this, today, was tweeted by an Australian journalist who has been around a long long time:

Mike Carlton
@MikeCarlton01
A big part of the Murdochracy business model is to create hate figures, to whip up fear and loathing. Often they are women. Gillian Triggs, Larissa Behrendt, Julia Gillard, and lately Lisa Wilkinson to name but a few. It works a treat, on three continents.
7:24 AM · Aug 10, 2023
·151
Views

Meghan fits right into that group, and as the journo noted it’s more often women who are the targets. (Although Harry fits in too). But so do Kate and Camilla when the media wants to stir up stuff a bit more outrage.

And it’s not just Murdoch media. Many media organisations actions are copying the Murdoch Method. Hate and Outrage sell. As Carlton writes: “It works a treat on three continents.”

I doubt they care to be honest.

Can you explain what you think Meghan, Kate or Camilla have in common with the former prime minister of Australia, for example? A woman who lead the HRC in Australia?

I am not criticizing their life experience and certainly wouldn’t place my own name next to these powerful, accomplished women, but it’s baffling to read that MM “fits right into this group”.

Women with an extreme level of power and influence are criticized, of course. Meghan, Kate and Camilla are in a different ballpark. They are criticized because it sells papers, not because anyone is afraid of what they can do.

Also Meghan’s title was deleted years ago, it was Harry’s title that was deleted recently. You can think it’s stupid (and I do!) but the story is about Harry. This has happened several times where criticism of Prince Harry (or in this case not even criticism, just noting a change of his name) has been dismissed as a misogynistic attack on his wife. It’s very regressive, they are two different people.

From the Times:

Harry, who had arrived in Japan on Tuesday with his friend the Argentinian polo player Nacho Figueras, said he had enjoyed “the most incredible Kobe steak, both for dinner last night and lunch today”.
He went on: “I’ve been involved in many charities for most of my life and I get a huge amount of fulfilment giving back to as many people as possible. My life is charity, always has been, always will be.”

Honestly. it's hard to reconcile someone boasting about dining and lunching on (£300?) steaks - and the claim that his life is all about charity.

Interestingly, the same report mentions a new Gallup poll on attitudes in the US to global leaders and both William and Charles are in the top 4.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90935482/most-favorable-leaders-america-prince-william-zelenskyy-poll

She’s a woman picked on mercilessly by Murdoch media and other media - that’s the group.