The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April-June 2021

[Betsypaige]

I honestly think the chances of his titles being revoked stand as good of a chance as a ice hockey game broadcasted from Hell on ESPN. I've just seen a lot of crapola around where people think that because he's followed his own path and decided to make his own way in the US, his titles should be stripped by the Queen. It's just way more involved than the Queen deciding on this.

This is completely beneath you, Osipi. Those who think Harry should have his titles revoked believe so for greater reasons than just that “he’s followed his own path” - but even if that were their only reason, I hardly think calling differing opinions “crapola” is suitable for encouraging conversation.

Harry didn’t just innocently decide to follow his own path, as you well know. Using your own word, it’s way more “involved”.

 

[Osipi]

Exactly. Harry seems to care only about his mother, certainly based on what he says publicly. He’s Diana’s son -period. That goes over very well with a segment of America.

Osipi brought up Charles’ coronation. If things have not markedly changed by then, I certainly don’t want H to attend. As far as his being an American citizen, boy, to me that would open up Pandora’s Box.

It's all to easy too to remember and honor and hold positive thoughts about a parent that has passed on than the other one that is still alive and there and right in your face and you don't agree with that parent at this time. It's natural that we do take people that we disagree with for granted that they'll always be there. Charles is the only parent left for Harry to take frustrations out on. It's what happens. When two parents are alive and divorced, it's not unusual for a child to pit one parent against the other to get what they want.

Of course the American public are going to swoon and fawn over "Diana's boy" as she's very much a sanctified legend in the American pop culture. Not many Americans really have gotten past the tabloid created, fictional Diana. Especially as "The Crown" is so popular right now on Netflix. Just another angle that Charles has to deal with and yet Charles goes about doing what he does to the best of his ability.

This is completely beneath you, Osipi. Those who think Harry should have his titles revoked believe so for greater reasons than just that “he’s followed his own path” - but even if that were their only reason, I hardly think calling differing opinions “crapola” is suitable for encouraging conversation.

Harry didn’t just innocently decide to follow his own path, as you well know. Using your own word, it’s way more “involved”.

I was basically stating that people with that opinion have no clue how things actually work. To be honest, if I wasn't involved in these threads here I'd have no clue either. Simply put, the *only* reason Harry's ducal titles can be revoked is for treason against the UK.

There's a lot involved in Harry and Meghan's actions and the wherefores and the whys are still not totally transparent to us. We hear what they want us to hear. Some may hear things that resonate with them and they feel sympathy for the couple. Some may find discrepancies with statements they've made as I have. Some may find that some things they're doing now earn respect and some things that they do and say makes us want to cringe. It's all in how we perceive this couple from where we sit.

I'm just in the middle and watching and forming my own opinions. That doesn't mean my opinion is gospel truth by any means. Just expressing what I think. ?

 

[Betsypaige]

It's all to easy too to remember and honor and hold positive thoughts about a parent that has passed on than the other one that is still alive and there and right in your face and you don't agree with that parent at this time. It's natural that we do take people that we disagree with for granted that they'll always be there. Charles is the only parent left for Harry to take frustrations out on. It's what happens. When two parents are alive and divorced, it's not unusual for a child to pit one parent against the other to get what they want.

Of course the American public are going to swoon and fawn over "Diana's boy" as she's very much a sanctified legend in the American pop culture. Not many Americans really have gotten past the tabloid created, fictional Diana. Especially as "The Crown" is so popular right now on Netflix. Just another angle that Charles has to deal with and yet Charles goes about doing what he does to the best of his ability.

I don’t think Harry is treating Charles badly because he’s the only parent around, though I agree with the point in general. I can not agree that children pitting parent against parent in a divorce is common - maybe it happens, but in my opinion, it tends to be the warring parents to use the children. There’s plenty of divorce in my family, but thank goodness nothing like this ever happened. In any case, H is almost 40 years old - I can not excuse him for sanctifying his mother while deeply wounding his father. I get the former as he lost her at such a young age, but his being so public with it while being so public about his anger at his father (for reasons I abhor) is ugly, very ugly.

 

[Mbruno]

Perhaps though if Harry were to apply for naturalization as a US citizen and renounce his British citizenship, that would be a reason for Parliament to remove his ducal titles as it could be considered "treason". He's gone over totally to the "other side" and that is a good definition of treason. The Queen then (or Charles) could take away the "prince" title easily. That would leave Henry Mountbatten-Windsor. ?

Then again, the press would have more words to use. As an example... "Henry Mountbatten-Windsor today opened the new 7-11 at the corner of Potter and Hedwig. Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor is the former Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and the King of the UK's son."

No matter how you slice it, Harry's stuck with who he is.

Technically, according to US law, Harry would have to renounce his British citizenship and titles in the naturalization ceremony, but, as I asked here before (and apparently didn't get a definite answer), I am not sure if the renunciation would be recognized in the United Kingdom.



There are many dual US-UK citizens in Britain and, as far as I know, British law does not prohibit dual citizenship. Many dual citizens, however, are not naturalized US citizens, but rather "natural-born" citizens of the United States, e.g. by virtue of having an American parent like Archie. I am not sure if naturalization would be treated differently precisely because of the renunciation requirement in US law. Some countries, in the latter case, apply a "don't ask, don't tell" policy and only acknowledge the renunciation if the person officially communicates it to his/her country of origin, but, as I said, I don't know what UK policy is.


In any case, the British tabloids are saying that Harry does not plan to become a US citizen or even apply for a green card. They claim he plans to stay indefinitely in the US on a diplomatic visa (A1 status), which seems far-fetched to me if he is going to live in California for the rest of his life and, furthermore, would require the consent of the British government, which can rescind his diplomatic passport at any time. Besides, my (limited) understanding is that Harry couldn't work in the US on a diplomatic visa, except in the British embassy or a British consulate.

 

[Betsypaige]

I was basically stating that people with that opinion have no clue how things actually work. To be honest, if I wasn't involved in these threads here I'd have no clue either. Simply put, the *only* reason Harry's ducal titles can be revoked is for treason against the UK.

There's a lot involved in Harry and Meghan's actions and the wherefores and the whys are still not totally transparent to us. We hear what they want us to hear. Some may hear things that resonate with them and they feel sympathy for the couple. Some may find discrepancies with statements they've made as I have. Some may find that some things they're doing now earn respect and some things that they do and say makes us want to cringe. It's all in how we perceive this couple from where we sit.

I'm just in the middle and watching and forming my own opinions. That doesn't mean my opinion is gospel truth by any means. Just expressing what I think. ?

I never said nor implied that you shouldn’t express your opinion...

Anyway, I don’t want to argue... but I have been one of those people who felt that he should have his titles stripped. I haven’t thought about it in awhile, though. It has nothing to do with moving to the States, it has everything to do with how he’s done it. I don’t feel strongly about it one way or the other at this point, but I think if he does become an American citizen (which I hope he doesn’t), then I’ll feel differently. We don’t have Royalty here, and he’ll have made his choice.

 

[Osipi]

I never said nor implied that you shouldn’t express your opinion...

Anyway, I don’t want to argue... but I have been one of those people who felt that he should have his titles stripped. I haven’t thought about it in awhile, though. It has nothing to do with moving to the States, it has everything to do with how he’s done it. I don’t feel strongly about it one way or the other at this point, but I think if he does become an American citizen (which I hope he doesn’t), then I’ll feel differently. We don’t have Royalty here, and he’ll have made his choice.

The fact remains that no matter what Harry does or says or where he moves or even if he gets into a situation like Andrew got himself into, Parliament, by law, will not and can not remove ducal titles for any other reason besides treason to Crown and Country. It's a Parliamentary procedure just like we saw here in the US recently (twice) with impeachment of a President of the US.

I think Parliament has other things more important to worry about these days. That's the point I'm trying to make about Harry's ducal titles. We saw how involved the impeachment process was here in the US and there's still kerfluffle going on in regards to last January and whether or not to prosecute for insurrection against the United States of America. It boils down to that, honestly, Harry has done nothing to warrant Parliament to even think about stripping him of his ducal titles.

If this is too political, I apologize but just wanted to stress how much it would take for Parliament to actually consider stripping Harry of his ducal titles. ?

 

[Betsypaige]

The fact remains that no matter what Harry does or says or where he moves or even if he gets into a situation like Andrew got himself into, Parliament, by law, will not and can not remove ducal titles for any other reason besides treason to Crown and Country. It's a Parliamentary procedure just like we saw here in the US recently (twice) with impeachment of a President of the US.

I think Parliament has other things more important to worry about these days. That's the point I'm trying to make about Harry's ducal titles. We saw how involved the impeachment process was here in the US and there's still kerfluffle going on in regards to last January and whether or not to prosecute for insurrection against the United States of America. It boils down to that, honestly, Harry has done nothing to warrant Parliament to even think about stripping him of his ducal titles.

If this is too political, I apologize but just wanted to stress how much it would take for Parliament to actually consider stripping Harry of his ducal titles. ?

I mean, that’s fine - I’m speaking mostly out of emotion and not logic anyway ?

 

[Purrs]

Technically, according to US law, Harry would have to renounce his British citizenship and titles in the naturalization ceremony, but, as I asked here before (and apparently didn't get a definite answer), I am not sure if the renunciation would be recognized in the United Kingdom.

The USA no longer requires you to renounce citizenship when becoming a citizen. I acquired US citizenship a number of years ago. (I have an American mother and a Canadian dad, born in Canada. I'm a dual Canadian/American citizen). I have to swear a brief oath. My mom is the opposite of me (American citizen originally, acquired Canadian citizenship, now dual citizen.)

The only sticking point for Harry would be his British titles (the US does require renounciation of foreign titles).

 

[Osipi]

I mean, that’s fine - I’m speaking mostly out of emotion and not logic anyway ?

S'ok. I'm running on things people have taught me here on very little caffeine so far today.

The USA no longer requires you to renounce citizenship when becoming a citizen. I acquired US citizenship a number of years ago. (I have an American mother and a Canadian dad, born in Canada. I'm a dual Canadian/American citizen). I have to swear a brief oath. My mom is the opposite of me (American citizen originally, acquired Canadian citizenship, now dual citizen.)

The only sticking point for Harry would be his British titles (the US does require renounciation of foreign titles).

So if Harry renounced his titles in the US, his titles would still be recognized and valid in the UK with dual citizenship. He could still swear fealty to his father, the King, in the UK with no problem.

Guess its a case of when in Rome, do as the Romans do, eh? ?

 

[Denville]

If the old Parliament laws are still enacted, it's possible that it could be argued that "defecting" to the US is a form of treason.

I was being facetious anyways in that post. Not going to happen as the UK and US are allies. People are screaming all over the place that Harry's ducal titles should be revoked but it *would* take an act of treason for Parliament to actually do this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_Deprivation_Act_1917

No, it couldnt.

 

[Heavs]

It's this part that raises people's eyebrows:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

When talking about a regular UK citizen taking US dual citizenship it isn't a problem but in Harry's case it would technically be "he renounced his family!" And yes a big deal would be made out of it, even if technically Maud Windsor is also a US citizen.

Then there are issues like being a Counsellor of State and the next coronations. But as far as we know it isn't happening, at least not in the near future.

In the UK he wouldn't be introduced like this; he would be HRH The Duke of Sussex; they wouldn't combine the 'prince Harry' and 'Duke of Sussex' (without 'the'!). Given that he is not supposed to use HRH; using his highest title would mean being introduced as 'The Duke of Sussex' without a first name or prince; however, I guess both Harry and Meghan prefer to have their first name attached to it for recognition purposes.

True. I think that's part of why it looks so awkward to me.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The fact remains that no matter what Harry does or says or where he moves or even if he gets into a situation like Andrew got himself into, Parliament, by law, will not and can not remove ducal titles for any other reason besides treason to Crown and Country.

In the UK he wouldn't be introduced like this; he would be HRH The Duke of Sussex; they wouldn't combine the 'prince Harry' and 'Duke of Sussex' (without 'the'!). Given that he is not supposed to use HRH; using his highest title would mean being introduced as 'The Duke of Sussex' without a first name or prince; however, I guess both Harry and Meghan prefer to have their first name attached to it for recognition purposes.

See reply here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-287.html#post2396630

 

[Mbruno]

In the UK he wouldn't be introduced like this; he would be HRH The Duke of Sussex; they wouldn't combine the 'prince Harry' and 'Duke of Sussex' (without 'the'!). Given that he is not supposed to use HRH; using his highest title would mean being introduced as 'The Duke of Sussex' without a first name or prince; however, I guess both Harry and Meghan prefer to have their first name attached to it for recognition purposes.

In official documents in the UK (probably in his British passport), he is most likely cited as His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David, Duke of Sussex.

As I argued before, the difference between the style above and HRH The Duke of Sussex is simply a matter of long versus short style, but the longer form is perfectly valid in the UK and, I insist, is actually the form used in writing in official documents.

I agree, however, that, in the UK, he would be introduced, e.g. in a public event like a concert, as HRH The Duke of Sussex, and not as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex.

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex seem to be the "brand names" the couple adopted in the US, which makes a lot of sense since many Americans might not recognize them solely by their titles of Duke/Duchess of Sussex, but will recognize them as Prince Harry and Meghan (Markle).

The USA no longer requires you to renounce citizenship when becoming a citizen. I acquired US citizenship a number of years ago. (I have an American mother and a Canadian dad, born in Canada. I'm a dual Canadian/American citizen). I have to swear a brief oath. My mom is the opposite of me (American citizen originally, acquired Canadian citizenship, now dual citizen.)

The only sticking point for Harry would be his British titles (the US does require renounciation of foreign titles).

Yes, you are correct. The naturalization oath only requires that you renounce allegiance to your country of origin, but not that you renounce your other citizenship properly.


I wonder how "allegiance" is measured in practice however. Some countries seem to follow a legal doctrine that citizenship automatically implies an obligation of allegiance to the Sovereign, so I fail to see how one could in practice renounce allegiance in those cases without explicitly renouncing citizenship too. Does anybody know?

 

[Alison H]

I think the last time that titles were actually removed was from British title holders serving in the German Armed Forces during the First World War. Annoying as Harry's being, the Titles Deprivation Act doesn't cover slagging your family off on TV. It just seems like very bad form to do everything he's done and then have yourself introduced as "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex".

 

[Osipi]

I think the last time that titles were actually removed was from British title holders serving in the German Armed Forces during the First World War. Annoying as Harry's being, the Titles Deprivation Act doesn't cover slagging your family off on TV. It just seems like very bad form to do everything he's done and then have yourself introduced as "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex".

Yeps. Known as the Title Deprivation Act of 1917. First and *only* time it's been used in modern history.

It remains that no matter how you slice it, Harry is who he is and known for who he is and that's not going away anytime soon.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yeps. Known as the Title Deprivation Act of 1917. First and *only* time it's been used in modern history.

It cannot be used again (but it does not limit parliamentary powers). See reply here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-287.html#post2396642

 

[ACO]

Meghan to release a children's boom inspired by Harry and Archie on June 8

https://twitter.com/x/status/1389587986539556875

"The Bench is an extraordinary debut children’s storybook by Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex. A heartwarming view of a father’s love through a mother’s eyes, it’s an instant classic you’ll want to read, share, and treasure forever. "

 

[Sandy345]

I don't think Americans in particular would understand a style like "Princess Henry". It may sound natural in the UK, but it sounds odd in most other countries.

It would make sense in the US because some married women do not use their first name like Mrs Mary Smith but opt to use Mrs John Smith. So it makes sense

 

[Somebody]

In official documents in the UK (probably in his British passport), he is most likely cited as His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David, Duke of Sussex.

As I argued before, the difference between the style above and HRH The Duke of Sussex is simply a matter of long versus short style, but the longer form is perfectly valid in the UK and, I insist, is actually the form used in writing in official documents.

I agree, however, that, in the UK, he would be introduced, e.g. in a public event like a concert, as HRH The Duke of Sussex, and not as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex.

Thanks, that's indeed what I was trying to say. For public events and in the Court Circular he would be HRH The Duke of Sussex. In the case his full name and title would need to be used, he would never be 'prince Harry'; as that is only his nickname. In that case they would indeed go to 'prince Henry Charles Albert David' (Duke of Sussex).

 

[Erin9]

Meghan to release a children's boom inspired by Harry and Archie on June 8

https://twitter.com/x/status/1389587986539556875

"The Bench is an extraordinary debut children’s storybook by Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex. A heartwarming view of a father’s love through a mother’s eyes, it’s an instant classic you’ll want to read, share, and treasure forever. "

Wow....talk about gushing. Goodness.

To state the obvious- this publicity (which hit my news feed too) and, of course, Meghan’s title on the cover is all about her royal connections. The ones she publicly trashed. If they’d exited with some tiny bit of professionalism, class, and maturity- I’d shrug. This is just a bad look to me.

I know she is The Duchess of Sussex, and it’s certainly her right to use it, but if she was as deeply offended by the royals as she proclaimed, you’d think she’d go by Meghan Markle. Get rid of all royal connections. People would still know who she was. But- using the title on the cover does add a little something.....

 

[Sandy345]

This is taking a page from the one using title Duchess of York. And Princess Michael used her HRH and title to write a book.

 

[Lee-Z]

https://archewell.com/news/meghan-t...announces-her-debut-childrens-book-the-bench/

The announcement on archewell.com about the new children's book about fathers and sons

 

[Queen Ester]

I have a question, was this concert virtual or live?

 

[Hallo girl]

I think the last time that titles were actually removed was from British title holders serving in the German Armed Forces during the First World War. Annoying as Harry's being, the Titles Deprivation Act doesn't cover slagging your family off on TV. It just seems like very bad form to do everything he's done and then have yourself introduced as "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex".

I do not think the titles will ever be removed, not sure if the couple themselves can request that they are removed, considering they do not appear to have any great respect for the institution.

 

[Denville]

They dont need to request that they are removed, they can just stop using them...

 

[Hallo girl]

They dont need to request that they are removed, they can just stop using them...

That is true.

 

[Fijiro]

It's this part that raises people's eyebrows:

When talking about a regular UK citizen taking US dual citizenship it isn't a problem but in Harry's case it would technically be "he renounced his family!" And yes a big deal would be made out of it, even if technically Maud Windsor is also a US citizen.

Then there are issues like being a Counsellor of State and the next coronations. But as far as we know it isn't happening, at least not in the near future.

True. I think that's part of why it looks so awkward to me.

Just wondering; I know that Maud Windsor was born in the USA. But, if BOTH her parents being members of the Royal Family had diplomatic passports and non of them was American citizen, then Maud doesn't get the citizenship because both parents are diplomats, she would only get a birth certificate.
I imagine that Savanah and Isla Phillips both have duo UK/Canadian citizen because their mother is Canadian.

 

[Sionevar]

Just wondering; I know that Maud Windsor was born in the USA. But, if BOTH her parents being members of the Royal Family had diplomatic passports and non of them was American citizen, then Maud doesn't get the citizenship because both parents are diplomats, she would only get a birth certificate.

I don't think the citizenship exclusion is based just on the parents having diplomatic passports. I believe they also have to be diplomatic officers formally accredited by the US Department of State, and officially assigned to an embassy, consulate or mission.

 

[valeas]

Of course she&husband know exactly how fathers should be having a single child for almost 2 years LOL only
I hope but fear between the lines Charles will not be insulted or lectured of what he missed, wronged and....

 

[Denville]

I dont suppose they will use a kids book to attack Charles...

I agree regarding Harry; do we know for sure that Meghan officially changed her name (in the US) to Mountbatten-Windsor?

She doesn't have to. By tradtion, wives usually take their husband's name....