Harry’s security case

[smilesy]

The judgment is in Harry loses High Court challenge over UK security protection www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68421992 See here

No.

The Duchy of Cornwall income is for 'the Prince of Wales and his family'. 'Family' being understood to mean his dependents, not his adult brother and his wife.

If they had stayed, they'd have been funded from the Duchy of Lancaster, like the other working royals.

Sadly for her, now that she has children by Harry, she will never be able to fully shed the RF connection which I think she would dearly want (whilst keeping the titles and her DCs' birthrights, of course).

What 'birthrights'?

And I don't think someone who uses a pseudo royal monogram on the jam she's hawking, and who recently opened a website from 'The Office of Duke and Duchess of Sussex' is terribly eager to 'shed' her royal connections. It's the only thing which makes her in any way interesting.

But as @IcedPurple wrote
Meghan was granted prestigious and potentially glamorous patronages such as the National Theatre. They had big tours in Australia and other countries. Meghan were custom couture outfits, paid for by others. They got to hang out with Heads of State and A listers.

In fact, they did very little of the 'opening factories in Hull' stuff. And even the Queen and now the King do plenty of unglamorous work. I would say that as 'spares' they had more opportunity to shape their role than William and Kate, for whom expectations would be more rigid. They had an amazing deal, but were too full of hubris to realise it. And now they're hawking jam and plugging a corporate coaching app for a living.

I just can’t get my head around that she was handed all the above on a golden platter plus Frogmore and they were also apparently offered a country estate, staff at their beck and call, I could go on listing the things that were handed to them, they could have had a holiday home in Montecito if they had wanted, they would have been royal international jet setters! Yet none of it was enough as they wouldn’t be as important as William and Kate.

Either she or Harry - for these purposes I don't think it matters - said after the announcement was made that Archie and Lilibet were thenceforth going to be Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, that they were thrilled that both children had "finally" received their birthrights. That is, their titles.

Oh, I think she's very eager to shed royal connections which in any way restrict her, but very happy to avail of those which enable her. She sees no hypocrisy in this (quite the opposite: I'm pretty sure she'd challenge any such challenge, she's married to a Prince after all, this is just owed to her naturally).

Edited to add: Here's something about the "birthright" thing

How can the Prince and Princess titles be a 'birthright' when the children were not born with them?

Their 'birthright', if you want to put it that way, was to be called Earl of Dumbarton and Lady Lilibeth Mountbatten Windsor. But their parents denied the children that 'birthright'.

It's just a silly word used to cover up the fact that Harry and Meghan were desperate for their children to have 'real' royal titles.

@BigWillyLittleTodger I don't think Meghan wanted ANY of that stuff. It wasn't enough for her. Being a second tier royal wasn't what she had her eye on. It was just a stepping stone to being top tier Hollywood royalty. Plus, it's not like she has/had any allegiance to the UK, it's just a random country to her. Not her people, not her history, nothing to do with her childhood or adulthood until Harry. Just a random country in Europe. I don't imagine she even thought about the country or its people or its history that much - it just wasn't important to her, except for what it could do for her (get her photo on front pages).

Quite, but when have either of them ever been consistent or logical (or have ever let fact get in the way of "their" truth (which, according to Harry, is more important than THE truth, anyway))? I'm not defending them, I'm just remembering what they said. Yes, of course they were desperate for their kids to have titles, about as desperately as Meghan clings to hers.

This is an interesting discussion.

What titles do the couple’s children have?

@YaMuvva

I'm so sorry, I've no idea what went wrong there! I was just trying to agree with something you said!

They are Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex.

Really? I didn’t know that.

How did H and M wangle Prince and Princess for the kids? Can the titles be taken away?

They didn't wangle it. They are the grandchildren of the monarch through the male line, so Prince and Princess.
At birth they were the great grandchildren of the monarch, so only entitled to styles as children of a Duke, ie Lord Dumbarton and Lady Lilibet Mountbatten Windsor.
None of this has anything to do with their heritage or "how brown" they are, as implied to Oprah. It's from George V Letters Patent.

No, those titles will never be taken away.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying the sovereign's grandchildren through the male line are entitled to titles. It's all laid out in the letters patent.

They gained them when their Grandfather became King.

Other Royals e.g the Edinburgh lot (formerly Wessex)simply don't use them for their kids but they are entitled to them.

Anne didn't want her kids to have titles and they weren't entitled as she is a woman. However the queen reputedly offered to change Letters Patent to grant them and she declined.

Theoretically, the titles could be removed. It's happened in other monarchies, most recently in Denmark.

In practice, however, I think it's very unlikely.

Thank you all.

It’s very revealing that other royals shun the titles but H and M are dead keen.

To get back on topic, it seems Harry is taking his 'case' to the Court of Appeal, where he will probably lose again.

I assume lodging an appeal is not free? He really does not know when to cut his losses, does he?

I thought he’d been refused permission.

Yes, appeals are very costly.

He lost his appeal to the High Court. He's now going directly to the Court of Appeal. Where he'll very likely lose again.

He's a whiney wanker. The end.

Surely all they'll say is a polite version of 'Mate, you lost and were refused leave to appeal. Deal with it.'

He really thinks rules don't apply to him. Someone should tell him the definition of insanity.

Sorry, just catching up

I agree. I think that the fact that they wanted the footage of the “car chase” was very telling. I think he uses the “paps” angle of what happened to his mother as a bit of an excuse for lots of things in his life

Yes, you can seek permission from the first instance court or the court above. So he’s been refused permission in the High Court (which is routine) and is looking upwards.

Appeals are only rarely on facts. They’re generally only on the law. He’ll have an uphill task in that respect given that he’s seeking to appeal from a judicial review.

But I suppose he may get permission - not the substantive appeal at this stage - if the Court of Appeal thinks this is sufficiently high profile that a full public appeal would be in the wider interest.

But I suppose he may get permission - not the substantive appeal at this stage - if the Court of Appeal thinks this is sufficiently high profile that a full public appeal would be in the wider interest.

The judge seemed pretty scathing about the whole case. Even in his early statements, I got the feeling he was saying, through legalese, that the whole thing was a crock.

And of course, even if he does somehow manage to appeal the 'case' and in turn wins the Judicial Review, chances are very high, as Justice Lane pointed out, that the Home Office will come to the same judgement all over again.

So much time, effort and money for so little.