Canada, they are yours, for free!

[Big RR]

Thanks Scooter, I htought he was named a British Prince after his marriage. But to your knowledge has any child of a sovereign had the title of Prince removed (maybe Charles I's son, but any others)? My recollection is that this title is a birthright which cannot be removed (although maybe it can be renounced as Phillip did with his non British titles, but I concede that the rules may change (although I'm not sure whether this would require Parliament or the sovereign or both).

[Guinevere]

Pretty sure the issue here is not whether Harry remains a Prince (he does, because he is the grandchild of the Sovereign), but whether he is entitled to be styled "His Royal Highness, aka HRH." And even more specifically, his wife's title. The HRH moniker is awarded at the pleasurer of the Sovereign, at least for those not in the direct line.

[Scooter]

Again, whether one is styled a prince or princess (and therefore as HRH) is based on nothing but whatever rules, or exceptions thereto, that a reigning sovereign may continue to follow or enact at the time. Harry is a prince (and thus a HRH) because the current rule says that children of the sons of the sovereign are princes/princesses. That rule could be changed, or Harry could be made an exception to that rule, to be stripped of both his princely style and the HRH that goes with it. His wife's title derives from his own. She is a princess of the United Kingdom (and therefore HRH) by virtue of having married him, but not being of royal blood, would (informally) be called Princess Harry and not Princess Meghan*. Her formal style is HRH The Duchess of Sussex.

For those really interested in how this all works: Styles of the members of the British royal family






* just as it was inappropriate, at the time, to refer to the late Princess of Wales as "Princess Diana".

[rubato]

They should sell the naming rights to each of their b-s titles like American sports arenas sell their naming rights. Be a great way to 'monetize' the whole royalty wheeze.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Exactly, who cares?

This monarchy, or any monarchical systems that remains, are an anachronistic affront to any reasonable expectation of true democracy. It's time to get a grip and let those stuffy Royals die an inevitable slow death.

Power to the people.

Coming from someone living under the "presidency" of Donald Trump, that's a bit rich...

[Bicycle Bill]

Coming from someone living under the "presidency" of Donald Trump, that's a bit rich...

True ... but our system wasn't originally set up to work that way.

I still think we here in the USA should be taking our cues vis-à-vis Donald Trump from Maximilien Robespierre.  À la guillotine!!

-"BB"-

[RayThom]

... Coming from someone living under the "presidency" of Donald Trump, that's a bit rich...

A very large bunch of brain dead bigots were able to vote for our Grifter-in-Chief, and although he's now POTUS, he still lost the popular vote by roughly 3,000,000 votes.

Although our election process may be flawed at least we get a say in how it runs. As for our Lord Dampnut, hopefully, we'll be able to overthrow him very soon.

Unfortunately, with your Royals, you have no choice. You're stuck with this inbred bunch of pompous and affected assholes. Harry and Meg have left the Royal Order to save themselves.

The monarchy is dead... long live something else.

[Guinevere]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51163865

No more HRH.
No more public funds to support them.
Paying back Frogmore reno costs (but retaining it as a UK home).
No longer representing the Queen.

A very kind statement from HM, and still a lot unsaid, but it seems like they are going to be principally based outside the UK and working on their own endeavors.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Their website, https://sussexroyal.com/about/, has this statement:

Update: 18th of January 2020

In line with the statement by Her Majesty The Queen, information on the roles and work of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be updated on this website in due course. We appreciate your patience and invite you to explore the site to see the current works of Their Royal Highnesses.

Now it's only 41 minutes (it's 2:11 Eastern as I write) since the Queen's statement was issued (embargoed until 6:30PM UK time), saying that they would no longer use the HRH titles. It takes time to change a website of course; but it seems as if that statement I quoted was put up in response. Which makes it slightly awkward that it referred to the pair as "Their Royal Highnesses."

[Guinevere]

The changes will be effective in the spring, per the BBC piece I linked above.

[Scooter]

They will not "use" their HRH titles is different from stripping them of HRH. It would appear to leave the door open to reclaiming it if and when they choose to resume royal duties.

[Guinevere]

The better name for their website: Suss exRoyal

[BoSoxGal]

Clever, that.

[Scooter]

[Big RR]

Again, whether one is styled a prince or princess (and therefore as HRH) is based on nothing but whatever rules, or exceptions thereto, that a reigning sovereign may continue to follow or enact at the time. Harry is a prince (and thus a HRH) because the current rule says that children of the sons of the sovereign are princes/princesses. That rule could be changed, or Harry could be made an exception to that rule, to be stripped of both his princely style and the HRH that goes with it. His wife's title derives from his own. She is a princess of the United Kingdom (and therefore HRH) by virtue of having married him, but not being of royal blood, would (informally) be called Princess Harry and not Princess Meghan*. Her formal style is HRH The Duchess of Sussex.

For those really interested in how this all works: Styles of the members of the British royal family






* just as it was inappropriate, at the time, to refer to the late Princess of Wales as "Princess Diana".

Scooter--thanks; based on a quick perusal of these documents, it does appear that titles are discretionary with the monarch, although I would guess the succession rules are up to Parliament (at least as it seems with granting female children a birth date determined place in the succession line just as with their brothers, which was made by Parliament a while back). As i said before, I really don't care as it doesn't affect me very much (if at all), but I find the system interesting.

[Scooter]

Succession is indeed within the purview of Parliament, indeed, of the parliaments of all of the Commonwealth realms, whose approval was sought through the Perth Agreement to make the changes you referenced, which would presumably be the convention followed for any future changes to the succession rules.

[Big RR]

Of course, I do recall a PM, Thatcher, couching herself as a royal (or even a monarch) by using the plural pronoun "we" to refer to herself. and that reminds me of a favorite English joke I got from a colleague in the UK--Why is Thatcher like the pound coin? Because she's thick and brassy and thinks she's a sovereign.

[Gob]

Unfortunately, with your Royals, you have no choice. You're stuck with this inbred bunch of pompous and affected assholes. Harry and Meg have left the Royal Order to save themselves.

The monarchy is dead... long live something else.

Our Royals do not declare war on smaller countries, nor do they deny our population the sort of basic human rights that first world countries take for granted, (healthcare, etc.)

Your presidents however, well, they tend to be complete and utter disasters, not only within your country but also around the world, don't they?

[TPFKA@W]

nor do they deny our population the sort of basic human rights

But boy oh boy they sure used to.

[Big RR]

Our Royals do not declare war on smaller countries, nor do they deny our population the sort of basic human rights that first world countries take for granted, (healthcare, etc.)

Perhaps, but then, unlike presidents and our legislature, the monarch is held in check by your Parliament; if the repubs have their way, our Congress will have even far less influence over the executive.

ETA: Not to mention that, unlike the royals, our executives are not bound by any Constitutional constraints, at least as they show in their words and actions. And plenty of people on both sides like it that way.