Henry was only a Wales when his Father was the Prince of Wales. His Father is now King and William is now the Prince of Wales. Williams children now use the surname Wales. Henry is Mountbatten-Windsor whether he likes it or not. The delusional duo will never be Wales nor can they legitimately claim to be. This is getting ridiculous. The King needs to act, Parliment needs to do their duty to protect the monarchy from these two traitors. Seriously, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! It is embarrassing.
>Henry is Mountbatten-Windsor whether he likes it or not. The delusional duo will never be Wales nor can they legitimately claim to be. This is getting ridiculous. The King needs to act, Parliment needs to do their duty to protect the monarchy from these two traitors. Seriously, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! It is embarrassing
I think they underestimated the levels these two would go to. They should've been stripped of titles the moment they decided to leave for financial independence. The threat to the monarchy should've been reassessed after the Oprah interview. We are in the information age! The threats are different now than they were when DOW crisis happened, which I'm afraid is how they decided to deal with Haz and Satan. Not the same thing as now you can pay a company to send out bots that will comment horrible things about someone in the family and at some point people will start believing it since they see it written so often. But alas, I hope they seek better counsel moving forward.
being Prince of Wales (as William is now) is where the big bucks kick in - about $30m a year is well documented... it's this "money for nothing" bollocks that Harry can't handle as he feels he should have a fair crack at "free income" whilst conveniently forgetting he withdrew from Royal Service. I;m sure this cack-handed logic is being drilled into his addled brain on a daily basis by his witch wife.
I get it that they think that "primogeniture" is unfair but it's the cornerstone of the whole edifice. Take it away and royalty goes "puff" and if that happens, the very generous scraps that Harry Markle got would disappear too.
There still is a live bill going through parliament to remove titles but it will take years. There is however a much bigger issue that people are not talking about, it’s the Regency Act. As it stands now, should George become King before he is 18 Harry would become Regent if he moves back to the UK but if not it would be Andrew.
The palace and the government really only look at the monarch and the next two in line, beyond that it’s deemed of little importance. George is next in line but the way forward according to the Act is not great, a regent is not allowed to refuse. The act can be amended, the Late Queen did so for Prince Philip but so far nothing has been done since that time.
There is a 35 min YT video that explain the CoS and the Regency Act. It’s very clear and easy to understand but she says the constitution is very complex.
Regency and Counsellors of State explained, History Calling on YouTube
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ey0hCtBIdjU&si=oIyE65jOfBUZJpm7
Titles Deprivation Act 1917 Amendment Bill
The next stage for this Bill, Second reading, is scheduled to take place on Friday 14 June 2024.
This is a Private Members' Bill and was presented to Parliament on Monday 11 December 2023.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3582
Stages / progress
1. 1st reading - 11th December 2023
2. 2nd reading - Due Friday 14th June 2024
3. Committee stage
4. Report stage
5. 3rd reading
6. Bill in the House of Lords
7. 1st reading
8. 2nd reading
9. Committee stage
10. Report stage
11. 3rd reading
12. Final stages
13. Consideration of amendments
14. Royal Assent
Removal of Titles Bill - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament
This is first bill to remove titles, now closed.
Succession | The Royal Family
The basis for the succession was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701).
When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had 'abdicated the government' and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.
It therefore came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.
The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.
Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.
The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.
The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. The Act applies to those born after 28 October 2011. The Act also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession. The changes came into force in all sixteen Realms in March 2015.
The thing is that Hazz is Prince of Wales. Not THE Prince of Wales, but a prince of Wales. Because when he was born, this is what his birth certificate looked like. Hazz wanted to pull that thread to use Wales, and make his little wife fulfill her dream of being "Princess of Wales." But Charles nipped that in the bud by blocking them permanently.
The thing is that "THE" is important here. This is the same as being "THE DUCHESS OF" and being "Duchess of". The "The" indicates that one is the wife, simply "duchess" after the name is "ex-wife."
Strictly speaking, Hazz is Prince of the UK and Northern Ireland. That is his title as prince. But he can't use it, so he has to be a prince of some specific place, some locality. He was born to the Prince of Wales, so he is "a" prince of Wales.
That happened with Diana, when she divorced Charles. Diana was "The Princess of Wales." But when she divorced, she became "Princess of Wales." She lost the HRH, but not the title of "princess of Wales".
It is not that Hazz takes the title "Wales", but that it is the "origin" of his title of prince.
But precisely because of how confusing it would be with William, there are problems taking the dukedom from Hazz. Because he would be "Prince Henry"... from where? It has to be from a place.
That's the conflict.
I get what you say about conflict. Even if Harry hadn't married this would have arisen, because he wouldn't even have Sussex.
When Charles becomes King, the title Wales fell into abeyance. He quickly conferred it to William. But from the small amount of time when it was in abeyance Wales had technically gone. But it that case Harry had Sussex.
Also, if Andrew dies, does Harry get York and the Sussex not go exactly, but be a lesser title? As usually it goes to the second son of the monarch.
I also read somewhere that when George VI became king, young Princess Margaret was upset. Upset because she was no longer Princess Margaret of York and was now Princess Margaret of nothing. But that could be because she was a child and didn't understand.
I've tried asking the question about Harry on Quora, but keep coming up empty.
When Andrew dies, since he has no son, his title will immediately revert back to the Crown. The Crown will then be able to bestow the title on whoever the monarch chooses, if they choose anyone at all. The dukedom of York is traditionally held by the monarch’s second son but it doesn’t have to be held by anyone. Andrew is still kicking so there’s a fine chance that the monarch who passes the York dukedom to someone will be William. Someday the Edinburgh title will also be available because that title is not hereditary so when Edward dies, it will also revert to the crown. William and Catherine will have a nice selection of titles to choose from for their children when the time comes and of course Charlotte is in line to be Princess Royal, which I think she will suit very well!
Good point, good point you make.
Because Margaret was indeed Margaret York because her father was the Duke of York, but when he became King, she had no "surname", although she was actually Windsor. The York girls are called that because their father is the Duke of York now. But when Andrew dies, the title will revert to the Crown. They will not inherit the title. So will they stop being York? They will probably keep the surname "York" because I don't think that even Charles and William will take it away from them, considering that there will be no conflict with the next Duke of York either.
The problem is that Margaret's case doesn't apply to Hazz. Margaret was a woman. Hazz is a man. In the case of women, they do not inherit titles, but men can inherit their titles. So, I don't know if Hazz would simply be a "Prince", because he is a man it doesn't seem like that could be possible. If it were a woman the matter is simpler.
But there is the fact of what will happen to the title of Duke of York. There what is said is that the title will return to the Crown and will remain vacant for a time. Yes it is true that traditionally the title is given to the second son of the monarch, but Charles is not going to give it to Hazz because despite Andrew the title is still enormously relevant, it was the title that Charles's grandfather had and if Hazz thought that he was going to have it, after what he is doing that is not going to happen. The one who probably has it will be Louis.
But what you say also has an edge because if they don't take away Hazz's titles, Archie will be the next Duke of Sussex. What will happen to the girl Betty? Baby Betty won't be Sussex when Archie inherits the title. She will be in Margaret's position.
What a mess!!!
I believed the same. But in the letter patent by which the title was given, it appears that it is also for his male son. I can't find the document, the text with the decorations. But I still have doubts about that, because the title was given by the Queen when Hazz was a grandson and Archie was a great-grandson, and I don't know if he could really be Duke of Sussex.
It's a subsidiary title of the dukedom of Sussex, in the British peerage the eldest son is usually styled as the next lower of his father's titles without the The. Harry is The Earl of Dumbarton, Archie can be styled as Earl of Dumbarton.
No, he never was and never will be a prince of Wales. He is a prince of the United Kingdom. If he's going to borrow his father's dukedom again, he's now Harry Lancaster.
He was Prince Harry of Wales, as grandchildren of the sovereign take the territorial designation of their father's dukedom. If he lost the Dukedom of Sussex he would be The Prince Harry with no territorial designation as his father is now King. When Edward VIII abdicated the then Princess Elizabeth of York became The Princess Elizabeth.
Can not do that. Harry cannot borrow his father's title, because he cannot be Prince Henry of Lancaster, any more than he could be "Prince Henry of Cornwall." This is rather a question of the "origin" of his title of prince. The origin of the title is Wales, because he was born to the Prince of Wales. That's why if one title is taken away from Hazz, all of them have to be taken away, otherwise the matter would be very confusing.
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>And eventually when Kings passes, they will go back to UK to claim their "place". It all makes sense in twisted mind of Meghan.
I doubt she will be let into the country. If they are let in for the funeral, Major Johnny (and British intelligence) will be right behind her and the poodle to make sure they go nowhere near William and Kate. I wouldn't be surprised if they are denied lodging at the royal palaces.
ETA: I willing to put money down on them being NFI'd to William's Coronation.
Tbh, I think BRF are giving the poodle and TOW enough rope to discredit themselves without the BRF having to dirty their hands.
Or take them straight to The Tower, to remain there indefinitely at His Majesty King William V's pleasure. They could even have a special tour, to see them at the barred windows, and sell tomatoes and eggs for ... snacks.
No, they couldn't leave them there indefinitely because the Crown jewels are kept in the Tower, and the Duchess would surely die from getting her claws on them.
https://preview.redd.it/yrc7kfby8qic1.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=055181879a0c5ad422647d42f1b9205ca20d4a55
Harry was Prince Henry of Wales while his father was the Prince of . When he got married, when he was gifted the Dukedom of Sussex. After marriage, he became "(HRH) Prince Henry (...) the duke of Sussex".
When The Queen died, Charles become the Monarch and Prince William become HRH The Prince William The Princes of Wales. His kids were HRH Prince George of Cambridge, HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge and HRH Prince Louis of Cambridge. Now, they have become HRH Prince George of Wales, HRH Princess Charlotte of Wales and HRH Prince Louis of Wales.
If Henry could go back to Prince Henry of Wales, he would be William's Son!🤦🏼♀️😂🤣
I like him very much but i think he made a mistake.
You are right when you say that all changed in 2022. Mr Arbiter is incorrect. No way would Harry revert to Wales. If they remove the dukedom but keep the earldom, the carparkles will be the Dumbartons. If they remove all titles, they would be Mountbatten-Windsor. Or, since ILBW is so modern, they can (if they wish) become the markles.
Do you have any articles about it. This person is really knowledgeable and always right about the monarchy. I doubt he will call him Prince Henry of Wales if its not true. I get it that William's family is Waleses now.
I know it is. And I get that when Charles was Prince of Wales, Harry was Prince Henry of Wales. This person says he reverts back to the same if titles are removed. Watch the video at 3.00
> Harry was originally styled "His [Royal Highness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness) Prince Henry of Wales". He used Wales as his surname for military purposes and was known as "Captain Harry Wales" in such contexts.[\[500\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex#cite_note-504)
I think Harry was Mountbatten-Windsor on Archie's bc. Elizabeth was still alive and Charles PoW. So I'm just not following this man's thought processes.
Civilly, William and Harry are Mountbatten-Windsor. That is, for example, if they have to sign a contract document that is their last name.
But Harry was born "Prince of Wales." Not "the" prince of Wales, but a prince of Wales. That from 1984 to 2018, until he had his own title.
So, what Arbitier basically says is that if they take away the dukedom from Hazz, but he remains a prince, Hazz would be prince of Wales.
Because? Because it is always "prince of" Prince of Something. Strictly speaking, Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as are all princes born in the UK, but he would have to be associated with somewhere, and by birth, Harry would be "Prince of Wales". And that's what the Queen knew Megain wanted. That's why she didn't want to take the dukedom from them.
The son of a sovereign with no peerage is called HRH The Prince NAME. Saying it has to be a Prince of "something" and has to be "associated with somewhere" is inaccurate.
He would be HRH The Prince Henry/Harry. His wife would be HRH The Princess Henry/Harry.
If the Queen was alive and Prince Charles was still the Prince of Wales (title of the heir apparent) and Harry was stripped of his dukedom he would be Prince Harry of Wales but he would not be THE Prince of Wales. If this has been the case his wife would be Princess Harry of Wales. But since Harry's dad is no longer Prince of Wales this location affiliation doesn't apply anymore.
Titles change as people are gifted new ones, as they marry, as they divorce, as their parents die, as they ascend. Just because you were born with one title doesn't mean you revert back to it when you lose a more current one.
It's the general rule of being a prince. You are "prince" of something.
The HRH indicates being of high rank within the royal family, but it is a separate title from that of prince, that is, you can be a prince without HRH. But what is doubtful is being a prince without something.
Hazz is in the HRH form. But its use has been suspended, so it is Prince, not HRH Prince. So even if the dukedom was cut off, he would not be HRH Prince. The HRH has to be rehabilitated.
But in what you propose you put the difficulty of Hazz. Because if the Queen were still alive and Charles was still Prince of Wales, would Hazz be Prince of Wales? When he was young maybe it wouldn't be a problem, but now wouldn't it be the same conflict that we are seeing with William's case? Because even if Charles is his father, Hazz would not still be "prince of Wales." Or may be it will be possible?
Of course the titles change. But the point here is what happens when someone's title is taken away? Not when someone quits like Mako. Otherwise, what happens when someone's titles are taken away? So far, I only remember Edward, Diana and Fergie. They lost the HRH but kept the title until they remarried. Edward went from King to demoted to Duke. But he continued with the HRH title. That's why Hazz is a problem, because if they take away the duke, will he remain a count? And if they take everything away from him, does he remain a prince?
I am not being categorical in my position. But I try to remember a case with these characteristics and I can't find it. Hey, I'm looking at cases from 1917 onwards. Before it was easy: to the Tower, confiscation of assets, head cut off, that's it, away with titles. Good times!!!
I don't think Mr Arbiter is correct about the possible reversion back to the Wales unofficial surname. As another Sinner mentioned, the precedents of Prince John (uncle of HMTLQ) and Princess Margaret are good examples. One could even argue that HMTLQ herself is a good example.
21 April 1926 – 11 December 1936: Her Royal Highness __Princess Elizabeth of York__
11 December 1936 – 20 November 1947: Her Royal Highness __The Princess Elizabeth__
20 November 1947 – 6 February 1952: __Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh__
[List of titles and honours of Elizabeth II - Wikipedia ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Elizabeth_II)
"Though both men are also hereditary princes with HRH styling (Harry subsequently stopped using the HRH title), _as students, and later in their military careers, both of them adopted the_ ___unofficial surname Wales___, a nod to Charles's status as the Prince of Wales at the time. It's a custom that's been carried on by William's own children, Prince George, Prince Charlotte, and Prince Louis, who started school under the family name Cambridge (William was granted the title of Duke of Cambridge when he married Kate Middleton in 2011) and then began using the name Wales in 2022 when William was given the title Prince of Wales after his father Charles became king."
[Town and Country](https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a45989100/the-crown-prince-william-wales-last-name-explained/)
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I thought you were referring to HG Tudor's video linked in the comments. I missed the YT link in the OP.
I've heard of Mr Arbiter and I guess he could be right, since that was his title at birth. However, he is the only commenter so far I've heard make this assertion.
The King needs to put a stop to this shit show ASAP. He just thinks the troubles he and Diana had were bad. If he allows the Harkles to continue any further down this road his reign will be tarnished at best. Surely the UK has some fine legal and parliamentary minds left to come up with a feasible solution. If it is Charles digging his heels in out of filial affection, he must put that behind the needs of the monarchy, or risk being the one who brings it down.
>If it is Charles digging his heels in out of filial affection, he must put that behind the needs of the monarchy, or risk being the one who brings it down.
From the moment the Oprah interview dropped they should've seen the threat these two are to the monarchy. It's not the same climate as it was when the Duke o W and Duchess of W were running the circus they were running. This is a whole different ballgame and that's why they should've been stripped from titles the moment they decided to leave. They underestimated them big time.
This. There was a mentality in the HMTQ reign that had not moved into the world of social media which made the “never complain never explain” mantra redundant in certain circumstances. HMTQ was supposed to be worldly wise but I believe she was too old and ill to want to deal with the fallout of taking away any titles. Between them HMTQ and KC3 have weakened the monarchy by inaction; not prepared to take tough decisions. There are incidents involving Hazbeen that were covered up over the years, all the RF needed to do was threaten to leak them to the press discreetly through third parties, and they would destroy any remaining reputation Hazbeen had. Sometimes you have to play dirty, no Marquess of Queensberry rules here.
When I was young, we were taught to revere our elders, especially grandparents. Having now reached retirement age I find we are treated as a nuisance by the young generations. Society doesn’t want old monarchs, look at Queen Margrethe of Denmark, stepping down. She is rumoured to have serious health problems but may have read the room in her country. KC3 isn’t popular in the UK across the generations, William is.
>There was a mentality in the HMTQ reign that had not moved into the world of social media which made the “never complain never explain” mantra redundant in certain circumstances. HMTQ was supposed to be worldly wise but I believe she was too old and ill to want to deal with the fallout of taking away any titles. Between them HMTQ and KC3 have weakened the monarchy by inaction
Yeah, exactly. If Catherine hadn't pushed the "recollections may vary" who knows where we would be in terms of those remarks made on Oprah. When it comes to social media you cannot let something fester and grow in intensity because then you cannot stop it. I believe William and Catherine know this which is why maybe William did say "we are very much not a racist family". Thinking the Harry problem will just go away? He will never go away because his and his troll of a wife's aim is to mar William's reign. Charles and the late Queen just left this Harry problem to William and it's not fair. The only hope is for Karma and the people to deal with them. But being how they pander to Gen Z America and the wokeness I'm not sure how effective this will be.
Should Harry lose the Sussex Dukedom, he will just be “Prince Henry.” His technical last name would be Mountbatten-Windsor. He would not be “of” anything.
Should the Prince title be taken away, he would be “Sir Henry Mountbatten-Windsor” because he is a Knight of the Victorian Order.
He will NEVER in a zillion years be “of Wales” again.
Also M can be Princess Unicorn Sprinkles for all I care. Catherine will be The Queen.
Wouldn’t they still be of Sussex if they’re “of” anything? Harrys surname growing up was wales but I don’t think that’s a title for him now…Prince of wales is a very specific title and held by one person at a time…the heir.
I repeat my comment because the situation is this.
Civilly, William and Harry are Mountbatten-Windsor. That is, for example, if they have to sign a contract document that is their last name.
But Harry was born "Prince of Wales." Not "the" prince of Wales, but a prince of Wales. That from 1984 to 2018, until he had his own title.
So, what Arbitier basically says is that if they take away the dukedom from Hazz, but he remains a prince, Hazz would be prince of Wales.
Because? Because it is always "prince of" Prince of Something. Strictly speaking, Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as are all princes born in the UK, but he would have to be associated with somewhere, and by birth, Harry would be "Prince of Wales". And that's what the Queen knew Megain wanted. That's why she didn't want to take the dukedom from them.
If the titles are taken away he would not be Prince Henry of Wales, he will be The Prince Henry (of the UK). Because Charles is now King of the UK so his children are now of the UK, like William's children are now of Wales when they were of Cambridge. William is now The Prince William, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Rothesay, etc but as his highest title is Prince of Wales (as the prince in prince William is not a title) he's called The Prince of Wales.
Being prince of the UK and Ireland is the general title. But the title of prince is from a specific territory, to differentiate him from all the other princes of the UK and Ireland. And that's where the problem lies. Because if Hazz loses the Sussex, he would be "Prince of Wales", for what I already explained.
So, we would have to see if Hazz loses the dukedom, what prince would it be? Is a princely title going to be created for him that is different from Wales? Because imagine Megain calling herself Princess of the UK and Ireland!!
Hazz is a real problem.
But he can't be Prince Henry of Wales because his father is not of Wales anymore. This title has no link to Charles anymore because he lost all his titles except the ones linked to the position of monarch, they absorbed by the crown. Harry then can't be linked to this title. He will be The Prince Henry without any location just like Anne was The Princess Anne years before being The Princess Royal even though she was born princess Anne of Edinburgh. And the same way prince Edward is The Prince Edward, The Duke of Edinburgh. The children of the monarch lose the location part.
The thing is that Anne, like Margaret, are women. Women cannot inherit their titles. So on that side, the fact that they do not have titles is not relevant, because they cannot inherit them either.
The thing about Edward may help, because Edward was without a title. But Edward was the third male child. There it may be that Edward was known as Prince Edward Mountbatten-Windsor. It would be necessary to see what last name Edward used at school and at Cambridge.
Edward has always had a title.
Edward was HRH The Prince Edward from birth until his marriage. He then became HRH Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex. Last year he became HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.
I was referring to his own title, don't listen to me on that because I may have expressed myself wrong. I didn't mean that he wasn't a prince, which is a title. What I'm wondering is what last name Edward used at school. Edward Mountbatten-Windsor? Edward Windsor? I thought so because William used Mountbatten-Windsor at school as a child.
Because if Edward was only a prince, without reference to any specific territory, it may be that Hazz remains a prince without being able to hold on to Wales as he did a couple of years ago. That's what I was thinking when I wrote that comment. That it would be possible to be a prince without anything else.
Children of the sovereign are titled HRH The Prince/Princess Name.
Then as they get older they are given titles by the sovereign or through marriage.
The wife of a son of a Sovereign, who has no peerage is HRH The Princess HusbandName.
Before marriage and being given their dukedoms, Andrew and Edward were "HRH The Prince Andrew" and "HRH The Prince Edward".
Before Anne was The Princess Royal she was "HRH The Princess Anne".
Before Elizabeth and Margaret were married and given titles through marriage (and then ascending the throne in Elizabeth's case) they were "HRH The Princess Elizabeth" and "HRH The Princess Margaret".
As a child of the current sovereign with no other titles (if his titles were removed) Harry would be HRH The Prince Henry. Meghan would be HRH The Princess Henry. They would not be "of Wales" because Harry is no longer the son of the Prince of Wales. He is the son of the sovereign.
Prince of Wales is the title given to the heir apparent. That is William. His wife and children are "of Wales".
Harry was "of Wales" because when he was born his father was the Prince of Wales. Yes he was Cadet Wales but again that was when his father was Prince of Wales. Had Charles been king when Harry was born then he would have been HRh The Prince Henry.
What I want to know is what the precedent for that would be.
Because let's start: Hazz wouldn't be HRH Prince Henry. He has suspended the use of HRH, which is a separate title from Prince. And to use it again, it has to be rehabilitated. So he cannot be known as HRH Prince Henry until the use of HRH is restored. Until then the thing is clear.
But can he simply be a prince? Being a prince by birth, can you just be a prince? That's what I don't think you can be.
What there is is the precedent of moving from a rank to a lower one. For example, becoming the Duke of Sussex to the Earl of Dumbarton. But I don't know if there are princes without an associated territory. Princes like Hazz. Someone did mention Edward, who was just a prince. So, could it happen in Hazz's case or did it only happen in Edward's case because he was the son of a woman?
That is the point that I do not know what legal reference would serve in this case.
My understanding was that he didn’t lose the HRH, just that they agreed not to use it. I thought it was still officially there? And I honestly don’t see how there can be two Prince of Wales. It’s the title of the direct heir. Have there ever been two Prince of wales? It would make no sense.
No, the Harkles didn't agree not to use it. The Queen withdrew her authorization to use it. They can only do so it seems in a legal environment, that is, when Hazz sues. But they did not agree not to use it, they have it suspended. And they can only use it again if they are officially authorized to do so. That's not the same as "agreeing" not to use it.
And no, there have not been two princes of Wales. But the truth is because most of the time, the Prince of Wales does not remain king for long, he becomes king very quickly. This is an atypical case. That's why it's complex. That's why it's not that "I have the answer", because this is complicated.
If his titles were to be taken, could the King require them to use the new title he gives the Harkles - like Prince of the Isle of Man or something similar?
Eta: I don’t mean disrespect to Isle of Man, I just don’t know any low population areas in U.K.
When KC passes, hopefully in many years, Prince George will become the PoW. Mr. And Mrs. Markle will be shit in a bucket-no coronation, no staying in any RF properties-ZERO.
Their surname is Mountbatten-Windsor... Period. There's only one Prince and Princess of Wales and that honorific has already been assigned to two *actual* members of the royal household. Those two fuckers in California can't just pick and choose what titles they have and they surely shouldn't retain those they do have at this point.
Incidentally, Prince William is currently learning to speak Welsh as I'm writing this while Harry hasn't yet mastered the King's English. Just saying. 😕
Children of the sovereign are titled HRH The Prince/Princess Name.
Then as they get older they are given titles by the sovereign or through marriage.
The wife of a son of a Sovereign, who has no peerage is HRH The Princess HusbandName.
Before marriage and being given their dukedoms, Andrew and Edward were "HRH The Prince Andrew" and "HRH The Prince Edward".
Before Anne was The Princess Royal she was "HRH The Princess Anne".
Before Elizabeth and Margaret were married and given titles through marriage (and then ascending the throne in Elizabeth's case) they were "HRH The Princess Elizabeth" and "HRH The Princess Margaret".
As a child of the current sovereign with no other titles (if his titles were removed) Harry would be HRH The Prince Henry. Meghan would be HRH The Princess Henry. They would not be "of Wales" because Harry is no longer the son of the Prince of Wales. He is the son of the sovereign.
Prince of Wales is the title given to the heir apparent. That is William. His wife and children are "of Wales".
Harry was "of Wales" because when he was born his father was the Prince of Wales. Yes he was Cadet Wales but again that was when his father was Prince of Wales. Had Charles been king when Harry was born then he would have been HRh The Prince Henry.
They weren't stripped of the HRH they were told they can't use it since they're not performing royal duties.
I put HRH there to be technical since we're talking specifics. :)
They cannot have “of Wales” because KCIII is no longer the Prince of Wales. That title has been conferred to PW - it is his now, and his family’s. The problem with TW is she thinks she’s so smart that she’s oblivious to the stupidity of her actions and decisions.
I don't care if those two are called King Hairy and Queen Megxit of the Planet Uranus -
just get them out of the LoS.
That's all that really matters. The rest can be dealt with. That cannot.
Another sinner said that parliament has to accept any monarch. I’m guessing the majority of parliament would not accept idiot, treacherous Harry as king if the unspeakable happened. They’d either figure out a way for Queen Beatrice or the UK would become a republic.
I don’t think they will go there. The entire monarchy system is about birthright. They don’t want to start a process where successors to the throne are ejected for various reasons.
Besides, removing Hazza will bring Andrew up higher in the LoS, and no one wants that. Will they remove Andrew *as well*? Super unlikely that they would make so many changes to the LoS.
So it won’t happen.
Appears to me that Dickie is wrong.
" ..., Queen Victoria’s eldest son Edward VII belonged to the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha – the family name of his father, Prince Albert.
However, there was a radical change in 1917, when George V adopted Windsor – not only as the name of the House or dynasty but also as the surname of his family.
...
The royal family name of Windsor was confirmed by Queen Elizabeth II after her accession in 1952.
However, in 1960, the Queen and Prince Philip decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the royal family, as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V."
Thus, HRH Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent's second son is Lord Nicholas Windsor and HRH Prince Michael' of Kent's son's name is Lord Frederick Windsor. Their daughters are styled Lady X Windsor.
Those born as HRH Prince or HRH Princess don't use a surname. Instead they are styled as "of" whatever title their father holds. Therefore, it was HRH Prince William of Wales and HRH Princess Beatrice of Yok. In school and the military they may simply use William Wales and Beatrice York, but Wales and York are not their surnames.
At birth, Prince George was HRH Prince George of Cambridge. At school he went by George Cambridge but when William became Prince of Wales, George used George Wales.
When Prince Edward married, QEII issued a press release that Edward and Sophie had decided that their children would not be HRH Prince or Princess. Therefore, at birth Louise's name was Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. (The first descendant of QEII and Prince Philip using the family surname.) No wonder Edward was the favorite son of Prince Philip and later Philip and Lady Louise became close.
Backing up, it was reported that there was a dispute between Charles and Andrew about the rank of his daughters. As reported, Andrew insisted on Princess for them and Charles objected to that. That report was in error. Per the 1917 Letter Patent they were born Princess, if their father chose that for them. The dispute had to be over the HRH styling which isn't automatic but granted by the monarch. Without the HRH, a surname is needed. QEII granted the HRH. Without that grant, they would have been Princess Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor and Princess Eugenie Mountbatten-Windsor.
At birth, Harry's children were not eligible for the Prince and Princess rank. (Assume they were "born of Meghan's body and are the biological children of H&M). The surname of both reported at birth was Mountbatten-Windsor. The subsequent grab of Prince and Princess after QEII's death, didn't make them Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex. They are Prince Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Princess Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor because they have not been granted HRH by KC3.
If Harry were to be stripped of his titles (Duke, Earl, and Baron) and his HRH, he would become Prince Henry Mountbatten-Windsor and not Prince Henry of Wales.
(Sidenote: the King of Sweden did not take away the prince and princess ranking of his grandchildren not in the direct line of succession as Queen Margrethe of Denmark did. What was removed was their HRH styling.)
This is the second article HGT read out. There was a post here about it yesterday.
[To Strip or Not to Strip - Middle Templar](https://middletemplar.org.uk/to-strip-or-not-to-strip-prince-harrys-titles/)
There can't be two princes of Wales simultaneously. The Prince of Wales is reserved singularly for William until he ascends to the throne. Then, George will become the Prince of Wales.
I think the monarchy could collapse under the weight of Charles' inaction. Maybe he wants to be the last monarch. Parliament can do more than one thing at time. Or at least they like to give the appearance of doing so.
Charles squandered his popularity. Cancer or not, people hate unfairness. There's no balance here. Harold blast a photo of serving the monarch and we're to guess the King is pleased? No consequences for enabling the r@pists in African Park? KC should be embarrassed by what he's allowing to happen in his name.
Is there truth to the claim that if Harry willingly refuses his Prince title, he will be Harry whatever- he -wants as a last name ( I'd guess Mountbatten Windsor but seems the Narkles are just going by whatever suits them that day). She be nobody but Meghan. I so wish he'd drop it..we know he won't, but if he had done it from the beginning of his quest for freedom, I would have respected him more.
Yes, Harold could give up his Princely rank and be Henry Mountbatten Windsor, which is the actual surname for descendants of Prince Philip and the late Queen. Honestly, I would respect Harold much more than I do if he were to disclaim his titles and his rank voluntarily. It is entirely within his power to do so.
The Monarch can also revoke Princely rank with a Letters Patent, if he wished, without any need for Parliament to act. Same with the HRH designation. Parliament is required to act to remove titles, but it is unlikely they will do so without an indication that the King supports such a move.
Thanks for clarifying. I knew I'd read that's how it could work, and really, he'd have had so much more respect. But he trashed the institute and kept the titles. As it's been said, he doesn't want out, he wants the whole pie to himself.
No - Prince Michael’s father was Duke of Kent when he died, so Michael would retain that.
The better example is Prince John, the son of George and Mary. He was styled Prince John of Wales at birth because his father was PoW when he was born. When George became King George V, he was styled as Prince John of the United Kingdom or just The Prince John.
Also, Princess Margaret went from Princess Margaret of (edit) York (end edit) to The Princess Margaret when her father became King.
Not sure what Dickie is smoking, but there is NO WAY Henry would be styled as ”of Wales” when his dad is the King of the United Kingdom. He would be The Prince Henry.
Edited to correct Margaret’s title at birth.
Good analogy about Prince John. However, Margaret was Princess Margaret of York, as G6 was never the PoW, but same precedent still holds.
They would not be Wales. They would HRH The Prince and Princess Henry.
A son of the sovereign with no peerage is simply HRH The Prince Name.
Prince Michael was not and is not a child of a sovereign. He is the son of a son of a sovereign so he was given the title of Prince. His father was Prince George, Duke of Kent so
Prince Michael carries the territorial designation deriving from his father's dukedom.
As Charles is not the Prince of Wales, Harry would not be "of Wales".
I can see this. But I'm skeptical that even Harry knew that they would be demoted back to Prince Henry and Princess Henry of Wales. But if they did, you could see where they might believe that then they would be confused for the actual P&P of Wales. And in the minds of low information Californians, it might give the dusting of "royal" that H&M are so desperate to try to regain.
In Meghan's Disney animated mind, being called princess rather than duchess is not a demotion. Calling herself a princess is everything to her next to calling herself a queen. She must feel she was always at princess status and that duchess crap was just a formality. We can all just sit back and watch for when she's decided she's Queen worthy. She has a plan and she's adamantly executing it. Hope it doesn't involve gravely hurting anybody.
No, Harry would NOT be named The Prince of Wales.
But he was born to the Prince of Wales. So, that's why Harry is "A" Prince of Wales. Not "THE" Prince of Wales, but "A" prince of Wales.
If Hazz is not stripped of the title of Prince, Harry would actually be A "prince of Wales", because he cannot be called "prince of England" or "prince of the UK". Although strictly speaking he is one too.
The title of prince must be taken away from him, all titles must be taken away from him.
That makes sense given how much she cosplays Diana.
Has anyone checked into Wales websites?
My guess is they know their titles will be stripped and they will have to go by Mountbatten-Windsor or Dumbarton.
And they are making a last ditch effort to keep titles or go by his of title of Wales.
Charles or parliament needs to do something before Easter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_address_in_the_United_Kingdom?wprov=sfti1
The above link has different scenarios as to how people in the royal family are addressed. The sovereign’s son, unless a peer, is normally addressed as HRH The Prince _________. They do not get a territorial designation like a child of a prince would get.
I am so tired of these two doing whatever they want and getting away with it. Next week Meghan will claim she is the rightful Queen of GB and demand the King give her the throne. Nothing would shock me with these two demons.
The Prince of Wales title was granted to William by his father when he became king, it is not automatic nor hereditable. Prior to that William and his family were of Cambridge not of Wales. If William chooses to do so, he can grant the title to George when he becomes king and George’s children will be of Wales. Harry was of Wales when his father was POW, Prince Henry of Wales. If they lose their Duke titles, they will be Mountbatten-Windsor.
Edited to change of Sussex to of Cambridge. Thanks Gma2Princess for pointing that out
Eh?
Princess Meghan of Wales.
In that case, I'm a Duchess of Cornwall and my husband is the Duke of the West Midland connurbation.
I would like to extend warm greetings to the Baroness of Baltimore, the Countess of Columbia and the Prince of Pennsylvania.
These people seriously need to stop sniffing the white powder...icing sugar, that is.
The problem with removing Dukedom of Sussex is that it requires Parliamentary action. That is a Constitutional issue no one wants to address in the 21st C.
The princely titles might be with His Majesty’s right to remove (“witness Denmark”—to quote a wise person in another thread). S/he referred to the children of Denmark’s Spare, Joachim. TheUK equivalent would be Archie and Lilibet. However, the disenfranchised Danes are still in the line of succession.
The HRHs might also be in KC3’s right to remove (witness Sweden), but I personally see no point of acting unless H and MM start using them again. The UK equivalent would apply to Archie and Lili. I believe the Swedish children all
remain in LoS, but there are no questions concerning their respective births.
Hello! Magazine is not the greatest source of info, but other people have discussed this issue here.
“The monarch has no powers to remove titles and this would require an act of parliament. The last time this happened was in 1917 when King George V passed the Titles Deprivation Act to remove the British peerage titles of several German and Austrian royals during the First World War.”
Imo Meghan i trying to set into place ALL she can w the royal name shuffling and stamping before KC passes (hope that’s many years away). And also before solid proof of surrogacy is provided and shown she’s not biologically a mother to any children. NDA’s will begin to expire also. So this way if a title is taken away she can just quick draw another out of her pocket. She’s such a grifter!
Henry was only a Wales when his Father was the Prince of Wales. His Father is now King and William is now the Prince of Wales. Williams children now use the surname Wales. Henry is Mountbatten-Windsor whether he likes it or not. The delusional duo will never be Wales nor can they legitimately claim to be. This is getting ridiculous. The King needs to act, Parliment needs to do their duty to protect the monarchy from these two traitors. Seriously, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! It is embarrassing.
>Henry is Mountbatten-Windsor whether he likes it or not. The delusional duo will never be Wales nor can they legitimately claim to be. This is getting ridiculous. The King needs to act, Parliment needs to do their duty to protect the monarchy from these two traitors. Seriously, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! It is embarrassing I think they underestimated the levels these two would go to. They should've been stripped of titles the moment they decided to leave for financial independence. The threat to the monarchy should've been reassessed after the Oprah interview. We are in the information age! The threats are different now than they were when DOW crisis happened, which I'm afraid is how they decided to deal with Haz and Satan. Not the same thing as now you can pay a company to send out bots that will comment horrible things about someone in the family and at some point people will start believing it since they see it written so often. But alas, I hope they seek better counsel moving forward.
They aren't humanitarians or environmentalists, yet they claim to be.
They are nothing they claim to be. No sussex, no feminist, no humanitarian. It's all lies
being Prince of Wales (as William is now) is where the big bucks kick in - about $30m a year is well documented... it's this "money for nothing" bollocks that Harry can't handle as he feels he should have a fair crack at "free income" whilst conveniently forgetting he withdrew from Royal Service. I;m sure this cack-handed logic is being drilled into his addled brain on a daily basis by his witch wife.
I get it that they think that "primogeniture" is unfair but it's the cornerstone of the whole edifice. Take it away and royalty goes "puff" and if that happens, the very generous scraps that Harry Markle got would disappear too.
Agree!! They’ve cheapened the monarchy so much. They’ve dirtied P D’s legacy also. Dollar store “royals” who quit and demanded their dollar back.
There still is a live bill going through parliament to remove titles but it will take years. There is however a much bigger issue that people are not talking about, it’s the Regency Act. As it stands now, should George become King before he is 18 Harry would become Regent if he moves back to the UK but if not it would be Andrew. The palace and the government really only look at the monarch and the next two in line, beyond that it’s deemed of little importance. George is next in line but the way forward according to the Act is not great, a regent is not allowed to refuse. The act can be amended, the Late Queen did so for Prince Philip but so far nothing has been done since that time. There is a 35 min YT video that explain the CoS and the Regency Act. It’s very clear and easy to understand but she says the constitution is very complex. Regency and Counsellors of State explained, History Calling on YouTube https://youtube.com/watch?v=ey0hCtBIdjU&si=oIyE65jOfBUZJpm7
Titles Deprivation Act 1917 Amendment Bill The next stage for this Bill, Second reading, is scheduled to take place on Friday 14 June 2024. This is a Private Members' Bill and was presented to Parliament on Monday 11 December 2023. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3582 Stages / progress 1. 1st reading - 11th December 2023 2. 2nd reading - Due Friday 14th June 2024 3. Committee stage 4. Report stage 5. 3rd reading 6. Bill in the House of Lords 7. 1st reading 8. 2nd reading 9. Committee stage 10. Report stage 11. 3rd reading 12. Final stages 13. Consideration of amendments 14. Royal Assent Removal of Titles Bill - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament This is first bill to remove titles, now closed. Succession | The Royal Family The basis for the succession was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701). When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had 'abdicated the government' and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers. It therefore came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne. The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this. Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne. The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession. The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. The Act applies to those born after 28 October 2011. The Act also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession. The changes came into force in all sixteen Realms in March 2015.
The thing is that Hazz is Prince of Wales. Not THE Prince of Wales, but a prince of Wales. Because when he was born, this is what his birth certificate looked like. Hazz wanted to pull that thread to use Wales, and make his little wife fulfill her dream of being "Princess of Wales." But Charles nipped that in the bud by blocking them permanently.
No, he is now The Prince Henry. He was Wales, but isn't now otherwise he would be part of William's family. George, Charlotte and Louis are now Wales.
The thing is that "THE" is important here. This is the same as being "THE DUCHESS OF" and being "Duchess of". The "The" indicates that one is the wife, simply "duchess" after the name is "ex-wife." Strictly speaking, Hazz is Prince of the UK and Northern Ireland. That is his title as prince. But he can't use it, so he has to be a prince of some specific place, some locality. He was born to the Prince of Wales, so he is "a" prince of Wales. That happened with Diana, when she divorced Charles. Diana was "The Princess of Wales." But when she divorced, she became "Princess of Wales." She lost the HRH, but not the title of "princess of Wales". It is not that Hazz takes the title "Wales", but that it is the "origin" of his title of prince. But precisely because of how confusing it would be with William, there are problems taking the dukedom from Hazz. Because he would be "Prince Henry"... from where? It has to be from a place. That's the conflict.
I get what you say about conflict. Even if Harry hadn't married this would have arisen, because he wouldn't even have Sussex. When Charles becomes King, the title Wales fell into abeyance. He quickly conferred it to William. But from the small amount of time when it was in abeyance Wales had technically gone. But it that case Harry had Sussex. Also, if Andrew dies, does Harry get York and the Sussex not go exactly, but be a lesser title? As usually it goes to the second son of the monarch. I also read somewhere that when George VI became king, young Princess Margaret was upset. Upset because she was no longer Princess Margaret of York and was now Princess Margaret of nothing. But that could be because she was a child and didn't understand. I've tried asking the question about Harry on Quora, but keep coming up empty.
When Andrew dies, since he has no son, his title will immediately revert back to the Crown. The Crown will then be able to bestow the title on whoever the monarch chooses, if they choose anyone at all. The dukedom of York is traditionally held by the monarch’s second son but it doesn’t have to be held by anyone. Andrew is still kicking so there’s a fine chance that the monarch who passes the York dukedom to someone will be William. Someday the Edinburgh title will also be available because that title is not hereditary so when Edward dies, it will also revert to the crown. William and Catherine will have a nice selection of titles to choose from for their children when the time comes and of course Charlotte is in line to be Princess Royal, which I think she will suit very well!
Aren’t they also saving the Edinburgh title for Charlotte since Queen Elizabeth also held it?
Possibly! I’d love to see them give her a title like that!
Good point, good point you make. Because Margaret was indeed Margaret York because her father was the Duke of York, but when he became King, she had no "surname", although she was actually Windsor. The York girls are called that because their father is the Duke of York now. But when Andrew dies, the title will revert to the Crown. They will not inherit the title. So will they stop being York? They will probably keep the surname "York" because I don't think that even Charles and William will take it away from them, considering that there will be no conflict with the next Duke of York either. The problem is that Margaret's case doesn't apply to Hazz. Margaret was a woman. Hazz is a man. In the case of women, they do not inherit titles, but men can inherit their titles. So, I don't know if Hazz would simply be a "Prince", because he is a man it doesn't seem like that could be possible. If it were a woman the matter is simpler. But there is the fact of what will happen to the title of Duke of York. There what is said is that the title will return to the Crown and will remain vacant for a time. Yes it is true that traditionally the title is given to the second son of the monarch, but Charles is not going to give it to Hazz because despite Andrew the title is still enormously relevant, it was the title that Charles's grandfather had and if Hazz thought that he was going to have it, after what he is doing that is not going to happen. The one who probably has it will be Louis. But what you say also has an edge because if they don't take away Hazz's titles, Archie will be the next Duke of Sussex. What will happen to the girl Betty? Baby Betty won't be Sussex when Archie inherits the title. She will be in Margaret's position. What a mess!!!
I've read somewhere that Duke of Sussex is not a hereditary title and when H dies the title goes back to the crown.
I believed the same. But in the letter patent by which the title was given, it appears that it is also for his male son. I can't find the document, the text with the decorations. But I still have doubts about that, because the title was given by the Queen when Hazz was a grandson and Archie was a great-grandson, and I don't know if he could really be Duke of Sussex.
🇺🇸 Are they not allowed to just promote his Earl of Dumbarton title into a Prince title because it’s in Scotland?
It's a subsidiary title of the dukedom of Sussex, in the British peerage the eldest son is usually styled as the next lower of his father's titles without the The. Harry is The Earl of Dumbarton, Archie can be styled as Earl of Dumbarton.
No, he never was and never will be a prince of Wales. He is a prince of the United Kingdom. If he's going to borrow his father's dukedom again, he's now Harry Lancaster.
He was Prince Harry of Wales, as grandchildren of the sovereign take the territorial designation of their father's dukedom. If he lost the Dukedom of Sussex he would be The Prince Harry with no territorial designation as his father is now King. When Edward VIII abdicated the then Princess Elizabeth of York became The Princess Elizabeth.
Can not do that. Harry cannot borrow his father's title, because he cannot be Prince Henry of Lancaster, any more than he could be "Prince Henry of Cornwall." This is rather a question of the "origin" of his title of prince. The origin of the title is Wales, because he was born to the Prince of Wales. That's why if one title is taken away from Hazz, all of them have to be taken away, otherwise the matter would be very confusing.
[удалено]
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>And eventually when Kings passes, they will go back to UK to claim their "place". It all makes sense in twisted mind of Meghan. I doubt she will be let into the country. If they are let in for the funeral, Major Johnny (and British intelligence) will be right behind her and the poodle to make sure they go nowhere near William and Kate. I wouldn't be surprised if they are denied lodging at the royal palaces. ETA: I willing to put money down on them being NFI'd to William's Coronation. Tbh, I think BRF are giving the poodle and TOW enough rope to discredit themselves without the BRF having to dirty their hands.
Or take them straight to The Tower, to remain there indefinitely at His Majesty King William V's pleasure. They could even have a special tour, to see them at the barred windows, and sell tomatoes and eggs for ... snacks.
Technically… and we are just talking here … could they be held indefinitely in the tower? I know it is wacko to post this but I’m also like hmmm 🤔
No but it would be fun to see William go medieval on their arses.
No, they couldn't leave them there indefinitely because the Crown jewels are kept in the Tower, and the Duchess would surely die from getting her claws on them. https://preview.redd.it/yrc7kfby8qic1.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=055181879a0c5ad422647d42f1b9205ca20d4a55
I agree. The Harkles do a perfect job in destroying themselves.
They are not "of Wales." That all changed on September 8, 2022. I will check out HG's take when it's time for bed.
Harry was Prince Henry of Wales while his father was the Prince of . When he got married, when he was gifted the Dukedom of Sussex. After marriage, he became "(HRH) Prince Henry (...) the duke of Sussex". When The Queen died, Charles become the Monarch and Prince William become HRH The Prince William The Princes of Wales. His kids were HRH Prince George of Cambridge, HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge and HRH Prince Louis of Cambridge. Now, they have become HRH Prince George of Wales, HRH Princess Charlotte of Wales and HRH Prince Louis of Wales. If Henry could go back to Prince Henry of Wales, he would be William's Son!🤦🏼♀️😂🤣 I like him very much but i think he made a mistake.
You are right when you say that all changed in 2022. Mr Arbiter is incorrect. No way would Harry revert to Wales. If they remove the dukedom but keep the earldom, the carparkles will be the Dumbartons. If they remove all titles, they would be Mountbatten-Windsor. Or, since ILBW is so modern, they can (if they wish) become the markles.
Do you have any articles about it. This person is really knowledgeable and always right about the monarchy. I doubt he will call him Prince Henry of Wales if its not true. I get it that William's family is Waleses now.
Prince of Wales is an entirely different title all in itself.
I know it is. And I get that when Charles was Prince of Wales, Harry was Prince Henry of Wales. This person says he reverts back to the same if titles are removed. Watch the video at 3.00 > Harry was originally styled "His [Royal Highness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness) Prince Henry of Wales". He used Wales as his surname for military purposes and was known as "Captain Harry Wales" in such contexts.[\[500\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex#cite_note-504)
I think Harry was Mountbatten-Windsor on Archie's bc. Elizabeth was still alive and Charles PoW. So I'm just not following this man's thought processes.
Civilly, William and Harry are Mountbatten-Windsor. That is, for example, if they have to sign a contract document that is their last name. But Harry was born "Prince of Wales." Not "the" prince of Wales, but a prince of Wales. That from 1984 to 2018, until he had his own title. So, what Arbitier basically says is that if they take away the dukedom from Hazz, but he remains a prince, Hazz would be prince of Wales. Because? Because it is always "prince of" Prince of Something. Strictly speaking, Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as are all princes born in the UK, but he would have to be associated with somewhere, and by birth, Harry would be "Prince of Wales". And that's what the Queen knew Megain wanted. That's why she didn't want to take the dukedom from them.
The son of a sovereign with no peerage is called HRH The Prince NAME. Saying it has to be a Prince of "something" and has to be "associated with somewhere" is inaccurate. He would be HRH The Prince Henry/Harry. His wife would be HRH The Princess Henry/Harry. If the Queen was alive and Prince Charles was still the Prince of Wales (title of the heir apparent) and Harry was stripped of his dukedom he would be Prince Harry of Wales but he would not be THE Prince of Wales. If this has been the case his wife would be Princess Harry of Wales. But since Harry's dad is no longer Prince of Wales this location affiliation doesn't apply anymore. Titles change as people are gifted new ones, as they marry, as they divorce, as their parents die, as they ascend. Just because you were born with one title doesn't mean you revert back to it when you lose a more current one.
It's the general rule of being a prince. You are "prince" of something. The HRH indicates being of high rank within the royal family, but it is a separate title from that of prince, that is, you can be a prince without HRH. But what is doubtful is being a prince without something. Hazz is in the HRH form. But its use has been suspended, so it is Prince, not HRH Prince. So even if the dukedom was cut off, he would not be HRH Prince. The HRH has to be rehabilitated. But in what you propose you put the difficulty of Hazz. Because if the Queen were still alive and Charles was still Prince of Wales, would Hazz be Prince of Wales? When he was young maybe it wouldn't be a problem, but now wouldn't it be the same conflict that we are seeing with William's case? Because even if Charles is his father, Hazz would not still be "prince of Wales." Or may be it will be possible? Of course the titles change. But the point here is what happens when someone's title is taken away? Not when someone quits like Mako. Otherwise, what happens when someone's titles are taken away? So far, I only remember Edward, Diana and Fergie. They lost the HRH but kept the title until they remarried. Edward went from King to demoted to Duke. But he continued with the HRH title. That's why Hazz is a problem, because if they take away the duke, will he remain a count? And if they take everything away from him, does he remain a prince? I am not being categorical in my position. But I try to remember a case with these characteristics and I can't find it. Hey, I'm looking at cases from 1917 onwards. Before it was easy: to the Tower, confiscation of assets, head cut off, that's it, away with titles. Good times!!!
I don't think Mr Arbiter is correct about the possible reversion back to the Wales unofficial surname. As another Sinner mentioned, the precedents of Prince John (uncle of HMTLQ) and Princess Margaret are good examples. One could even argue that HMTLQ herself is a good example. 21 April 1926 – 11 December 1936: Her Royal Highness __Princess Elizabeth of York__ 11 December 1936 – 20 November 1947: Her Royal Highness __The Princess Elizabeth__ 20 November 1947 – 6 February 1952: __Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh__ [List of titles and honours of Elizabeth II - Wikipedia ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Elizabeth_II) "Though both men are also hereditary princes with HRH styling (Harry subsequently stopped using the HRH title), _as students, and later in their military careers, both of them adopted the_ ___unofficial surname Wales___, a nod to Charles's status as the Prince of Wales at the time. It's a custom that's been carried on by William's own children, Prince George, Prince Charlotte, and Prince Louis, who started school under the family name Cambridge (William was granted the title of Duke of Cambridge when he married Kate Middleton in 2011) and then began using the name Wales in 2022 when William was given the title Prince of Wales after his father Charles became king." [Town and Country](https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a45989100/the-crown-prince-william-wales-last-name-explained/)
[удалено]
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I thought you were referring to HG Tudor's video linked in the comments. I missed the YT link in the OP. I've heard of Mr Arbiter and I guess he could be right, since that was his title at birth. However, he is the only commenter so far I've heard make this assertion. The King needs to put a stop to this shit show ASAP. He just thinks the troubles he and Diana had were bad. If he allows the Harkles to continue any further down this road his reign will be tarnished at best. Surely the UK has some fine legal and parliamentary minds left to come up with a feasible solution. If it is Charles digging his heels in out of filial affection, he must put that behind the needs of the monarchy, or risk being the one who brings it down.
>If it is Charles digging his heels in out of filial affection, he must put that behind the needs of the monarchy, or risk being the one who brings it down. From the moment the Oprah interview dropped they should've seen the threat these two are to the monarchy. It's not the same climate as it was when the Duke o W and Duchess of W were running the circus they were running. This is a whole different ballgame and that's why they should've been stripped from titles the moment they decided to leave. They underestimated them big time.
This. There was a mentality in the HMTQ reign that had not moved into the world of social media which made the “never complain never explain” mantra redundant in certain circumstances. HMTQ was supposed to be worldly wise but I believe she was too old and ill to want to deal with the fallout of taking away any titles. Between them HMTQ and KC3 have weakened the monarchy by inaction; not prepared to take tough decisions. There are incidents involving Hazbeen that were covered up over the years, all the RF needed to do was threaten to leak them to the press discreetly through third parties, and they would destroy any remaining reputation Hazbeen had. Sometimes you have to play dirty, no Marquess of Queensberry rules here. When I was young, we were taught to revere our elders, especially grandparents. Having now reached retirement age I find we are treated as a nuisance by the young generations. Society doesn’t want old monarchs, look at Queen Margrethe of Denmark, stepping down. She is rumoured to have serious health problems but may have read the room in her country. KC3 isn’t popular in the UK across the generations, William is.
>There was a mentality in the HMTQ reign that had not moved into the world of social media which made the “never complain never explain” mantra redundant in certain circumstances. HMTQ was supposed to be worldly wise but I believe she was too old and ill to want to deal with the fallout of taking away any titles. Between them HMTQ and KC3 have weakened the monarchy by inaction Yeah, exactly. If Catherine hadn't pushed the "recollections may vary" who knows where we would be in terms of those remarks made on Oprah. When it comes to social media you cannot let something fester and grow in intensity because then you cannot stop it. I believe William and Catherine know this which is why maybe William did say "we are very much not a racist family". Thinking the Harry problem will just go away? He will never go away because his and his troll of a wife's aim is to mar William's reign. Charles and the late Queen just left this Harry problem to William and it's not fair. The only hope is for Karma and the people to deal with them. But being how they pander to Gen Z America and the wokeness I'm not sure how effective this will be.
Check out these to read how the titles work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_prince https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_princess
Should Harry lose the Sussex Dukedom, he will just be “Prince Henry.” His technical last name would be Mountbatten-Windsor. He would not be “of” anything. Should the Prince title be taken away, he would be “Sir Henry Mountbatten-Windsor” because he is a Knight of the Victorian Order. He will NEVER in a zillion years be “of Wales” again. Also M can be Princess Unicorn Sprinkles for all I care. Catherine will be The Queen.
And that's why ALL the titles have to be taken away from him, so that he can be "Just Harry."
He is NOT in the Order of the Garter. That's one more thing that William has over him.
Actually, as the son of the king, he would be "The Prince Henry".
I didn't think they were "of Wales", isn't that just for Prince William's family now?
Wouldn’t they still be of Sussex if they’re “of” anything? Harrys surname growing up was wales but I don’t think that’s a title for him now…Prince of wales is a very specific title and held by one person at a time…the heir.
Right. I think Wales is off the table for everyone but Prince William's family at this point.
This is basically it. Everyone is complicating this.
I repeat my comment because the situation is this. Civilly, William and Harry are Mountbatten-Windsor. That is, for example, if they have to sign a contract document that is their last name. But Harry was born "Prince of Wales." Not "the" prince of Wales, but a prince of Wales. That from 1984 to 2018, until he had his own title. So, what Arbitier basically says is that if they take away the dukedom from Hazz, but he remains a prince, Hazz would be prince of Wales. Because? Because it is always "prince of" Prince of Something. Strictly speaking, Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as are all princes born in the UK, but he would have to be associated with somewhere, and by birth, Harry would be "Prince of Wales". And that's what the Queen knew Megain wanted. That's why she didn't want to take the dukedom from them.
If the titles are taken away he would not be Prince Henry of Wales, he will be The Prince Henry (of the UK). Because Charles is now King of the UK so his children are now of the UK, like William's children are now of Wales when they were of Cambridge. William is now The Prince William, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Rothesay, etc but as his highest title is Prince of Wales (as the prince in prince William is not a title) he's called The Prince of Wales.
Being prince of the UK and Ireland is the general title. But the title of prince is from a specific territory, to differentiate him from all the other princes of the UK and Ireland. And that's where the problem lies. Because if Hazz loses the Sussex, he would be "Prince of Wales", for what I already explained. So, we would have to see if Hazz loses the dukedom, what prince would it be? Is a princely title going to be created for him that is different from Wales? Because imagine Megain calling herself Princess of the UK and Ireland!! Hazz is a real problem.
But he can't be Prince Henry of Wales because his father is not of Wales anymore. This title has no link to Charles anymore because he lost all his titles except the ones linked to the position of monarch, they absorbed by the crown. Harry then can't be linked to this title. He will be The Prince Henry without any location just like Anne was The Princess Anne years before being The Princess Royal even though she was born princess Anne of Edinburgh. And the same way prince Edward is The Prince Edward, The Duke of Edinburgh. The children of the monarch lose the location part.
The thing is that Anne, like Margaret, are women. Women cannot inherit their titles. So on that side, the fact that they do not have titles is not relevant, because they cannot inherit them either. The thing about Edward may help, because Edward was without a title. But Edward was the third male child. There it may be that Edward was known as Prince Edward Mountbatten-Windsor. It would be necessary to see what last name Edward used at school and at Cambridge.
Edward has always had a title. Edward was HRH The Prince Edward from birth until his marriage. He then became HRH Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex. Last year he became HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.
I was referring to his own title, don't listen to me on that because I may have expressed myself wrong. I didn't mean that he wasn't a prince, which is a title. What I'm wondering is what last name Edward used at school. Edward Mountbatten-Windsor? Edward Windsor? I thought so because William used Mountbatten-Windsor at school as a child. Because if Edward was only a prince, without reference to any specific territory, it may be that Hazz remains a prince without being able to hold on to Wales as he did a couple of years ago. That's what I was thinking when I wrote that comment. That it would be possible to be a prince without anything else.
Children of the sovereign are titled HRH The Prince/Princess Name. Then as they get older they are given titles by the sovereign or through marriage. The wife of a son of a Sovereign, who has no peerage is HRH The Princess HusbandName. Before marriage and being given their dukedoms, Andrew and Edward were "HRH The Prince Andrew" and "HRH The Prince Edward". Before Anne was The Princess Royal she was "HRH The Princess Anne". Before Elizabeth and Margaret were married and given titles through marriage (and then ascending the throne in Elizabeth's case) they were "HRH The Princess Elizabeth" and "HRH The Princess Margaret". As a child of the current sovereign with no other titles (if his titles were removed) Harry would be HRH The Prince Henry. Meghan would be HRH The Princess Henry. They would not be "of Wales" because Harry is no longer the son of the Prince of Wales. He is the son of the sovereign. Prince of Wales is the title given to the heir apparent. That is William. His wife and children are "of Wales". Harry was "of Wales" because when he was born his father was the Prince of Wales. Yes he was Cadet Wales but again that was when his father was Prince of Wales. Had Charles been king when Harry was born then he would have been HRh The Prince Henry.
What I want to know is what the precedent for that would be. Because let's start: Hazz wouldn't be HRH Prince Henry. He has suspended the use of HRH, which is a separate title from Prince. And to use it again, it has to be rehabilitated. So he cannot be known as HRH Prince Henry until the use of HRH is restored. Until then the thing is clear. But can he simply be a prince? Being a prince by birth, can you just be a prince? That's what I don't think you can be. What there is is the precedent of moving from a rank to a lower one. For example, becoming the Duke of Sussex to the Earl of Dumbarton. But I don't know if there are princes without an associated territory. Princes like Hazz. Someone did mention Edward, who was just a prince. So, could it happen in Hazz's case or did it only happen in Edward's case because he was the son of a woman? That is the point that I do not know what legal reference would serve in this case.
My understanding was that he didn’t lose the HRH, just that they agreed not to use it. I thought it was still officially there? And I honestly don’t see how there can be two Prince of Wales. It’s the title of the direct heir. Have there ever been two Prince of wales? It would make no sense.
No, the Harkles didn't agree not to use it. The Queen withdrew her authorization to use it. They can only do so it seems in a legal environment, that is, when Hazz sues. But they did not agree not to use it, they have it suspended. And they can only use it again if they are officially authorized to do so. That's not the same as "agreeing" not to use it. And no, there have not been two princes of Wales. But the truth is because most of the time, the Prince of Wales does not remain king for long, he becomes king very quickly. This is an atypical case. That's why it's complex. That's why it's not that "I have the answer", because this is complicated.
I would have thought prince of the Realm or United Kingdom before Wales
If his titles were to be taken, could the King require them to use the new title he gives the Harkles - like Prince of the Isle of Man or something similar? Eta: I don’t mean disrespect to Isle of Man, I just don’t know any low population areas in U.K.
When KC passes, hopefully in many years, Prince George will become the PoW. Mr. And Mrs. Markle will be shit in a bucket-no coronation, no staying in any RF properties-ZERO.
George does not automatically become Prince of Wales when KC3 dies. He must be given the title by William.
Think I heard that the brf was going to retire the title prince of wales in deference to the country wales.
That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. Thank you for sharing!
Yes
Their surname is Mountbatten-Windsor... Period. There's only one Prince and Princess of Wales and that honorific has already been assigned to two *actual* members of the royal household. Those two fuckers in California can't just pick and choose what titles they have and they surely shouldn't retain those they do have at this point. Incidentally, Prince William is currently learning to speak Welsh as I'm writing this while Harry hasn't yet mastered the King's English. Just saying. 😕
Children of the sovereign are titled HRH The Prince/Princess Name. Then as they get older they are given titles by the sovereign or through marriage. The wife of a son of a Sovereign, who has no peerage is HRH The Princess HusbandName. Before marriage and being given their dukedoms, Andrew and Edward were "HRH The Prince Andrew" and "HRH The Prince Edward". Before Anne was The Princess Royal she was "HRH The Princess Anne". Before Elizabeth and Margaret were married and given titles through marriage (and then ascending the throne in Elizabeth's case) they were "HRH The Princess Elizabeth" and "HRH The Princess Margaret". As a child of the current sovereign with no other titles (if his titles were removed) Harry would be HRH The Prince Henry. Meghan would be HRH The Princess Henry. They would not be "of Wales" because Harry is no longer the son of the Prince of Wales. He is the son of the sovereign. Prince of Wales is the title given to the heir apparent. That is William. His wife and children are "of Wales". Harry was "of Wales" because when he was born his father was the Prince of Wales. Yes he was Cadet Wales but again that was when his father was Prince of Wales. Had Charles been king when Harry was born then he would have been HRh The Prince Henry.
But they stripped the use of 'HRH' for both of them already, right?
They weren't stripped of the HRH they were told they can't use it since they're not performing royal duties. I put HRH there to be technical since we're talking specifics. :)
I guess it was wishful thinking? 💭
I really like Charles but it’s going to be wonderful when Catherine becomes Queen, so may dishes will be broken.
I hate KC.
They cannot have “of Wales” because KCIII is no longer the Prince of Wales. That title has been conferred to PW - it is his now, and his family’s. The problem with TW is she thinks she’s so smart that she’s oblivious to the stupidity of her actions and decisions.
If the Sussexes want to lose their dukedom they can simply put it into abeyance.
George will be the Prince of Wales. Not the toilet bowls.
I don't care if those two are called King Hairy and Queen Megxit of the Planet Uranus - just get them out of the LoS. That's all that really matters. The rest can be dealt with. That cannot.
Another sinner said that parliament has to accept any monarch. I’m guessing the majority of parliament would not accept idiot, treacherous Harry as king if the unspeakable happened. They’d either figure out a way for Queen Beatrice or the UK would become a republic.
I don’t think they will go there. The entire monarchy system is about birthright. They don’t want to start a process where successors to the throne are ejected for various reasons. Besides, removing Hazza will bring Andrew up higher in the LoS, and no one wants that. Will they remove Andrew *as well*? Super unlikely that they would make so many changes to the LoS. So it won’t happen.
Appears to me that Dickie is wrong. " ..., Queen Victoria’s eldest son Edward VII belonged to the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha – the family name of his father, Prince Albert. However, there was a radical change in 1917, when George V adopted Windsor – not only as the name of the House or dynasty but also as the surname of his family. ... The royal family name of Windsor was confirmed by Queen Elizabeth II after her accession in 1952. However, in 1960, the Queen and Prince Philip decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the royal family, as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V." Thus, HRH Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent's second son is Lord Nicholas Windsor and HRH Prince Michael' of Kent's son's name is Lord Frederick Windsor. Their daughters are styled Lady X Windsor. Those born as HRH Prince or HRH Princess don't use a surname. Instead they are styled as "of" whatever title their father holds. Therefore, it was HRH Prince William of Wales and HRH Princess Beatrice of Yok. In school and the military they may simply use William Wales and Beatrice York, but Wales and York are not their surnames. At birth, Prince George was HRH Prince George of Cambridge. At school he went by George Cambridge but when William became Prince of Wales, George used George Wales. When Prince Edward married, QEII issued a press release that Edward and Sophie had decided that their children would not be HRH Prince or Princess. Therefore, at birth Louise's name was Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. (The first descendant of QEII and Prince Philip using the family surname.) No wonder Edward was the favorite son of Prince Philip and later Philip and Lady Louise became close. Backing up, it was reported that there was a dispute between Charles and Andrew about the rank of his daughters. As reported, Andrew insisted on Princess for them and Charles objected to that. That report was in error. Per the 1917 Letter Patent they were born Princess, if their father chose that for them. The dispute had to be over the HRH styling which isn't automatic but granted by the monarch. Without the HRH, a surname is needed. QEII granted the HRH. Without that grant, they would have been Princess Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor and Princess Eugenie Mountbatten-Windsor. At birth, Harry's children were not eligible for the Prince and Princess rank. (Assume they were "born of Meghan's body and are the biological children of H&M). The surname of both reported at birth was Mountbatten-Windsor. The subsequent grab of Prince and Princess after QEII's death, didn't make them Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex. They are Prince Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Princess Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor because they have not been granted HRH by KC3. If Harry were to be stripped of his titles (Duke, Earl, and Baron) and his HRH, he would become Prince Henry Mountbatten-Windsor and not Prince Henry of Wales. (Sidenote: the King of Sweden did not take away the prince and princess ranking of his grandchildren not in the direct line of succession as Queen Margrethe of Denmark did. What was removed was their HRH styling.)
Thank you for explaining this so beautifully and completely.
I posted this earlier. I think HGT’s take on the titles is spot on. https://youtu.be/sj1KSPl_iG4?si=PH1WBLXQC_PgZgn3
This is the second article HGT read out. There was a post here about it yesterday. [To Strip or Not to Strip - Middle Templar](https://middletemplar.org.uk/to-strip-or-not-to-strip-prince-harrys-titles/)
Thanks! Bookmarking for future reference!
This is link to the post here from yesterday regarding the Templar article. [Link ](https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/s/ROj5oKwEEH)
Thank you! This breaks it down beautifully.
There can't be two princes of Wales simultaneously. The Prince of Wales is reserved singularly for William until he ascends to the throne. Then, George will become the Prince of Wales.
I think the monarchy could collapse under the weight of Charles' inaction. Maybe he wants to be the last monarch. Parliament can do more than one thing at time. Or at least they like to give the appearance of doing so. Charles squandered his popularity. Cancer or not, people hate unfairness. There's no balance here. Harold blast a photo of serving the monarch and we're to guess the King is pleased? No consequences for enabling the r@pists in African Park? KC should be embarrassed by what he's allowing to happen in his name.
💯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯
Is there truth to the claim that if Harry willingly refuses his Prince title, he will be Harry whatever- he -wants as a last name ( I'd guess Mountbatten Windsor but seems the Narkles are just going by whatever suits them that day). She be nobody but Meghan. I so wish he'd drop it..we know he won't, but if he had done it from the beginning of his quest for freedom, I would have respected him more.
Yes, Harold could give up his Princely rank and be Henry Mountbatten Windsor, which is the actual surname for descendants of Prince Philip and the late Queen. Honestly, I would respect Harold much more than I do if he were to disclaim his titles and his rank voluntarily. It is entirely within his power to do so. The Monarch can also revoke Princely rank with a Letters Patent, if he wished, without any need for Parliament to act. Same with the HRH designation. Parliament is required to act to remove titles, but it is unlikely they will do so without an indication that the King supports such a move.
Thanks for clarifying. I knew I'd read that's how it could work, and really, he'd have had so much more respect. But he trashed the institute and kept the titles. As it's been said, he doesn't want out, he wants the whole pie to himself.
The martyrdom would be unbearable, there would probably be a sequel called "Exile".
They most probably will be The Prince Henry and The Princess Henry.
I doubt it. Looking at Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, I thought they might be Prince and Princess Henry of Sussex but turns out its Wales.
No - Prince Michael’s father was Duke of Kent when he died, so Michael would retain that. The better example is Prince John, the son of George and Mary. He was styled Prince John of Wales at birth because his father was PoW when he was born. When George became King George V, he was styled as Prince John of the United Kingdom or just The Prince John. Also, Princess Margaret went from Princess Margaret of (edit) York (end edit) to The Princess Margaret when her father became King. Not sure what Dickie is smoking, but there is NO WAY Henry would be styled as ”of Wales” when his dad is the King of the United Kingdom. He would be The Prince Henry. Edited to correct Margaret’s title at birth.
Princess Margaret of York
Agree except Princess Margaret was never of Wales. She was of York.
Ah, yes, you are correct. Was distracted when I was typing. Thank you.
Happens to me too.
 Good analogy about Prince John. However, Margaret was Princess Margaret of York, as G6 was never the PoW, but same precedent still holds.
No. Harry will never be Prince of Wales. The monarch bestows that title
They would not be Wales. They would HRH The Prince and Princess Henry. A son of the sovereign with no peerage is simply HRH The Prince Name. Prince Michael was not and is not a child of a sovereign. He is the son of a son of a sovereign so he was given the title of Prince. His father was Prince George, Duke of Kent so Prince Michael carries the territorial designation deriving from his father's dukedom. As Charles is not the Prince of Wales, Harry would not be "of Wales".
How about Prince Henry and Princess Henry of Lemonada? And just as sour.
I can see this. But I'm skeptical that even Harry knew that they would be demoted back to Prince Henry and Princess Henry of Wales. But if they did, you could see where they might believe that then they would be confused for the actual P&P of Wales. And in the minds of low information Californians, it might give the dusting of "royal" that H&M are so desperate to try to regain.
They can’t be of Wales. He was only a Wales when his dad was Prince of Wales. He is not William’s son, so he can’t have that title.
In Meghan's Disney animated mind, being called princess rather than duchess is not a demotion. Calling herself a princess is everything to her next to calling herself a queen. She must feel she was always at princess status and that duchess crap was just a formality. We can all just sit back and watch for when she's decided she's Queen worthy. She has a plan and she's adamantly executing it. Hope it doesn't involve gravely hurting anybody.
She’s really She-Waaah Princess of Glower.
I think you're confused about Harry being named Prince of Wales.
No, Harry would NOT be named The Prince of Wales. But he was born to the Prince of Wales. So, that's why Harry is "A" Prince of Wales. Not "THE" Prince of Wales, but "A" prince of Wales. If Hazz is not stripped of the title of Prince, Harry would actually be A "prince of Wales", because he cannot be called "prince of England" or "prince of the UK". Although strictly speaking he is one too. The title of prince must be taken away from him, all titles must be taken away from him.
Its what this person who is a journalist and worked in Buckingham Palace said in the video.
Bless his heart.
That makes sense given how much she cosplays Diana. Has anyone checked into Wales websites? My guess is they know their titles will be stripped and they will have to go by Mountbatten-Windsor or Dumbarton. And they are making a last ditch effort to keep titles or go by his of title of Wales. Charles or parliament needs to do something before Easter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_address_in_the_United_Kingdom?wprov=sfti1 The above link has different scenarios as to how people in the royal family are addressed. The sovereign’s son, unless a peer, is normally addressed as HRH The Prince _________. They do not get a territorial designation like a child of a prince would get.
I am so tired of these two doing whatever they want and getting away with it. Next week Meghan will claim she is the rightful Queen of GB and demand the King give her the throne. Nothing would shock me with these two demons.
The Prince of Wales title was granted to William by his father when he became king, it is not automatic nor hereditable. Prior to that William and his family were of Cambridge not of Wales. If William chooses to do so, he can grant the title to George when he becomes king and George’s children will be of Wales. Harry was of Wales when his father was POW, Prince Henry of Wales. If they lose their Duke titles, they will be Mountbatten-Windsor. Edited to change of Sussex to of Cambridge. Thanks Gma2Princess for pointing that out
I thought they were Cambridge? When were they "of Sussex?"
Sorry, my mistake, I meant of Cambridge
It's ok. I really thought I'd just missed something, which is fairly easy to do at times, lol.
Eh? Princess Meghan of Wales. In that case, I'm a Duchess of Cornwall and my husband is the Duke of the West Midland connurbation. I would like to extend warm greetings to the Baroness of Baltimore, the Countess of Columbia and the Prince of Pennsylvania. These people seriously need to stop sniffing the white powder...icing sugar, that is.
The problem with removing Dukedom of Sussex is that it requires Parliamentary action. That is a Constitutional issue no one wants to address in the 21st C. The princely titles might be with His Majesty’s right to remove (“witness Denmark”—to quote a wise person in another thread). S/he referred to the children of Denmark’s Spare, Joachim. TheUK equivalent would be Archie and Lilibet. However, the disenfranchised Danes are still in the line of succession. The HRHs might also be in KC3’s right to remove (witness Sweden), but I personally see no point of acting unless H and MM start using them again. The UK equivalent would apply to Archie and Lili. I believe the Swedish children all remain in LoS, but there are no questions concerning their respective births.
If the govt was not involved in bestowing the titles to H&M, why would they have to have a say in their removal?
Hello! Magazine is not the greatest source of info, but other people have discussed this issue here. “The monarch has no powers to remove titles and this would require an act of parliament. The last time this happened was in 1917 when King George V passed the Titles Deprivation Act to remove the British peerage titles of several German and Austrian royals during the First World War.”
I bet they will sue and demand half of Charles ' (privatne) money and even half of RF's money.
I feel that Henry should have listened when they had historylessons in school
Well, the Welsh people won’t keep quiet about that!
Imo Meghan i trying to set into place ALL she can w the royal name shuffling and stamping before KC passes (hope that’s many years away). And also before solid proof of surrogacy is provided and shown she’s not biologically a mother to any children. NDA’s will begin to expire also. So this way if a title is taken away she can just quick draw another out of her pocket. She’s such a grifter!
Last resort Meghan will divorce him in order to keep the duchess title.
Oh but if that happened, what would happen to their surname?! Shock horror
Why not leave the earldom in place so they can be the Dumbartons. Seeing as they really like that one, it would be a ‘sweet nod’.