Prince Harry, Meghan to give up ‘royal highness’ titles

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
DSamuels
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 5639
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 9:56 pm

Unread post

29again wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:38 pm
DSamuels wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:19 pm
29again wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:06 pm

Yes, for all the facts we have, there is still a lot of unknowns. I didn't realize that the UK and Canada were that frosty towards each other regarding Royalty.
It may be different since are no longer “senior royals.” That may be why the queen stripped them of HRH.
But one of the key issues will be their immigration status and how they can become permanent residents and get permission to work in Canada. It is one thing for the royals to visit, but quite another to work and stay. And then there is the question of citizenship.

As Canada’s National Post pointed out, “As the grandson of Canada’s monarch and sixth in line to the throne, one might expect Prince Harry to have some special status in this country. But the Duke of Sussex enjoys no such privilege, nor do any of the Queen’s descendants. Even the Queen does not hold Canadian citizenship, although she could reside in Canada for as long as she wants.

That means Prince Harry will be entering Canada as any other British citizen would, and all British citizens can stay in Canada for up to six months without a visa. It’s the same for U.S. citizens. So Harry and Meghan’s short-term plan could simply be to travel back and forth between Canada and the U.K. at least twice a year — although that would put Meghan’s application for British citizenship at risk.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemot ... ff309533b7
Wait -- Meghan still does not have British citizenship?!
Nope. Not sure she has Canadian either although she filmed there. I think it’s still only US.
Never explain - your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway. - Elbert Hubbard

Keep up - Calm Down - Pay Attention
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4288
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

DSamuels wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:56 pm
29again wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:36 pm
DSamuels wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:56 pm

Oh, I have always heard that Charles really wants it bad, and so does Camilla! He’s not as popular as William and Catherine who the public want instead of Charles.
I went searching, and found an article that said this:
Fans of the royal family are beginning to wonder if Charles really wants to become the King of England after Queen Elizabeth II. In the event that Charles abdicates the throne, royal experts have always thought Prince William would be the one to replace him.

But, as some fans have pointed out, Prince Andrew would also be a valid candidate for the job. After all, at the age of 59, Andrew has more experience than William and could be a better choice for the position.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainmen ... liam.html/


So, what I am remembering is pure speculation. However, I doubt the country would accept Prince Andrew today!
I don’t see how they would skip that many people for Andrew. There’s no way! Especially now with the Epstein stuff.
Yeah, I don't see William just stepping aside especially since the line of ascension is pretty clear. And yes, that Epstein stuff can't be good... although I'm not sure how the people of Britain see it. They may not see it the same way WE do.
Expand your thinking


It’s possible to disagree with an article and not respond with a personal attack you know.
Try it.
DSamuels
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 5639
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 9:56 pm

Unread post

29again wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:02 pm
DSamuels wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:56 pm
29again wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:36 pm

I went searching, and found an article that said this:

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainmen ... liam.html/


So, what I am remembering is pure speculation. However, I doubt the country would accept Prince Andrew today!
I don’t see how they would skip that many people for Andrew. There’s no way! Especially now with the Epstein stuff.
Yeah, I don't see William just stepping aside especially since the line of ascension is pretty clear. And yes, that Epstein stuff can't be good... although I'm not sure how the people of Britain see it. They may not see it the same way WE do.
Oh yeah they do. The queen essentially fired Andrew in November after he gave an interview about Epstein. Right around or on her 72nd wedding anniversary. I believe she also canceled Andrew’s 60th birthday party.
The decision to "step aside" was presented as the duke's. A royal source said that the Queen had been involved in the discussions, as well as his brother Prince Charles, the heir to the throne. The source told CNN that the outcome was regarded as the best way forward because nothing was more important than the institution of the monarchy itself. The implication: That he had become a liability and had to go.

British media outlets reported Thursday that Andrew's resignation will mean he will no longer receive an allowance from the sovereign grant, essentially an expense account funded by the government that covers the costs of travel, staff, bills and the upkeep of royal palaces.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/uk/princ ... index.html
Never explain - your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway. - Elbert Hubbard

Keep up - Calm Down - Pay Attention
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4288
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

DSamuels wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:18 pm
29again wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:02 pm
DSamuels wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:56 pm

I don’t see how they would skip that many people for Andrew. There’s no way! Especially now with the Epstein stuff.
Yeah, I don't see William just stepping aside especially since the line of ascension is pretty clear. And yes, that Epstein stuff can't be good... although I'm not sure how the people of Britain see it. They may not see it the same way WE do.
Oh yeah they do. The queen essentially fired Andrew in November after he gave an interview about Epstein. Right around or on her 72nd wedding anniversary. I believe she also canceled Andrew’s 60th birthday party.
The decision to "step aside" was presented as the duke's. A royal source said that the Queen had been involved in the discussions, as well as his brother Prince Charles, the heir to the throne. The source told CNN that the outcome was regarded as the best way forward because nothing was more important than the institution of the monarchy itself. The implication: That he had become a liability and had to go.

British media outlets reported Thursday that Andrew's resignation will mean he will no longer receive an allowance from the sovereign grant, essentially an expense account funded by the government that covers the costs of travel, staff, bills and the upkeep of royal palaces.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/uk/princ ... index.html
I knew he had stepped away from official duties for a while, and that his big party was canceled, but I didn't realize that he had actually resigned! I thought that the Queen wanted him to go hide for a while and let this all blow over... but apparently not!
Expand your thinking


It’s possible to disagree with an article and not respond with a personal attack you know.
Try it.
User avatar
KnotaDinghy
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4425
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:43 pm
Location: Philly suburbs

Unread post

DSamuels wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:47 pm
KnotaDinghy wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:40 pm
DSamuels wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:34 pm

I agree! I was surprised at that. I wonder how no longer being royal will do to their “Sussex Royal” brand and trademark.
I suspect no at all.
He is still 6th in line to the throne and in historical context that isn’t far fetched he could be King one day. (Reference King Henry VII. He was 5th in line when circumstances allowed his ascension).

Plus they are not losing their titles - they will remain the Duke and Dutchess of Sussex.
Yes and no. He’s still in line but they did lose the HRH title, and technically are still members of the family but no longer “royal.”

From the queen’s statement:

"With The Queen's blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations," Buckingham Palace's statement continued. "While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty. The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home."
I know they cannot use HRH titles but that doesn’t remove him from line of succession. Again referencing Henry VII he was stripped of title and lands as a child but then as a young man acquired the throne. I wouldn’t expect the 5 in line before him to all suffer young fates or abdicate, so chances are slim but not unprecedented.

Simply from his family birthright, I doubt that their ability to generate wealth will be impacted by losing the HRH ability.
“You’re either on drugs or retarded.
Nobody posts the crap you post unless they’re abnormal.” - derp
Momto2boys973
Princess
Princess
Posts: 20107
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 5:32 pm

Unread post

Henry VII acquired the throne through war, not because there was no one in the line of succession with a better claim. In fact, both him and Henry VIII felt threatened by court nobles that could argue a better claim to the throne. That’s one of the reasons Henry VII had such an obsession with a male heir.
So it would really be practically impossible for Harry to ever be king.
KnotaDinghy wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:43 pm
DSamuels wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:47 pm
KnotaDinghy wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:40 pm

I suspect no at all.
He is still 6th in line to the throne and in historical context that isn’t far fetched he could be King one day. (Reference King Henry VII. He was 5th in line when circumstances allowed his ascension).

Plus they are not losing their titles - they will remain the Duke and Dutchess of Sussex.
Yes and no. He’s still in line but they did lose the HRH title, and technically are still members of the family but no longer “royal.”

From the queen’s statement:

"With The Queen's blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations," Buckingham Palace's statement continued. "While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty. The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home."
I know they cannot use HRH titles but that doesn’t remove him from line of succession. Again referencing Henry VII he was stripped of title and lands as a child but then as a young man acquired the throne. I wouldn’t expect the 5 in line before him to all suffer young fates or abdicate, so chances are slim but not unprecedented.

Simply from his family birthright, I doubt that their ability to generate wealth will be impacted by losing the HRH ability.
❤️🇮🇱 עמ׳ ישראל חי 🇮🇱❤️
User avatar
KnotaDinghy
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4425
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:43 pm
Location: Philly suburbs

Unread post

You just like to argue I swear.

Between Edward IV and Henry VII the reigns were very short and 2 in the line of succession disappeared leaving Richard III briefly on the throne before being killed in battle by Henry VII. So in 2 years, Henry went from 5th in line to coronation. I said not likely but possible. How could you possibly try to dispute that? It’s been in the history books since 1485.

Momto2boys973 wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:39 pm Henry VII acquired the throne through war, not because there was no one in the line of succession with a better claim. In fact, both him and Henry VIII felt threatened by court nobles that could argue a better claim to the throne. That’s one of the reasons Henry VII had such an obsession with a male heir.
So it would really be practically impossible for Harry to ever be king.
KnotaDinghy wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:43 pm
DSamuels wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:47 pm

Yes and no. He’s still in line but they did lose the HRH title, and technically are still members of the family but no longer “royal.”

From the queen’s statement:

"With The Queen's blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations," Buckingham Palace's statement continued. "While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty. The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home."
I know they cannot use HRH titles but that doesn’t remove him from line of succession. Again referencing Henry VII he was stripped of title and lands as a child but then as a young man acquired the throne. I wouldn’t expect the 5 in line before him to all suffer young fates or abdicate, so chances are slim but not unprecedented.

Simply from his family birthright, I doubt that their ability to generate wealth will be impacted by losing the HRH ability.
“You’re either on drugs or retarded.
Nobody posts the crap you post unless they’re abnormal.” - derp
DSamuels
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 5639
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 9:56 pm

Unread post

If, heaven forbid, William and his whole family, well at least him and the children, all died before George has kids then Harry could possibly ascend. But the probability is minuscule.
Momto2boys973 wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:39 pm Henry VII acquired the throne through war, not because there was no one in the line of succession with a better claim. In fact, both him and Henry VIII felt threatened by court nobles that could argue a better claim to the throne. That’s one of the reasons Henry VII had such an obsession with a male heir.
So it would really be practically impossible for Harry to ever be king.
KnotaDinghy wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:43 pm
DSamuels wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:47 pm

Yes and no. He’s still in line but they did lose the HRH title, and technically are still members of the family but no longer “royal.”

From the queen’s statement:

"With The Queen's blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations," Buckingham Palace's statement continued. "While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty. The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home."
I know they cannot use HRH titles but that doesn’t remove him from line of succession. Again referencing Henry VII he was stripped of title and lands as a child but then as a young man acquired the throne. I wouldn’t expect the 5 in line before him to all suffer young fates or abdicate, so chances are slim but not unprecedented.

Simply from his family birthright, I doubt that their ability to generate wealth will be impacted by losing the HRH ability.
Never explain - your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway. - Elbert Hubbard

Keep up - Calm Down - Pay Attention
User avatar
xsxpxixdxexrxsx
Regent
Regent
Posts: 2049
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:44 pm

Unread post

DSamuels wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:40 pm i was just reading that Meghan has “expressed interest” in a £21 million beachfront estate in Canada. That would take most of their combined fortune.

It’s unsure if they will still get the around $2.4 million a year that they considered “private income” from Charles. The way I understood it was that money paid their expenses for their household and offices. The bills were sent to Charles.
I was just reading an article that said the realtor told press that he wasn't aware they were interested in that property and that there were now viewings, but I am glad to hear that people in the Canadian government were opposed to paying for the security costs.
User avatar
SouthernIslander
Queen Mother
Queen Mother
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:48 pm
Location: Texassippi

Unread post

KnotaDinghy wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:30 pm It’s good to see them forced to repay the tax payers money.
Were they refusing to pay taxpayers back?
Locked Previous topicNext topic