The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 1: September-December 2020

[AC21091968]

Victoria Arbiter has written an article on Honey Channel 9 Australia about Harry's potential conflicts if he actually decide to become an US citizen. She also mentioned on different immigration visas that Harry could potentially apply.

Victoria Arbiter: 'Why Prince Harry could soon face his most complicated oath of allegiance yet'
https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/vi...n-voting/b775c108-acb8-4c74-8f42-9e8522ba7051

 

[Betsypaige]

Victoria Arbiter has written an article on Honey Channel 9 Australia about Harry's potential conflicts if he actually decide to become an US citizen. She also mentioned on different immigration visas that Harry could potentially apply.

Victoria Arbiter: 'Why Prince Harry could soon face his most complicated oath of allegiance yet'
https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/vi...n-voting/b775c108-acb8-4c74-8f42-9e8522ba7051

I’m all for people who love the United States becoming citizens, but for Harry to do so means a further and more permanent rejection of his heritage. If he does choose to become a citizen, I do think he shouldn’t have his titles.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I’m all for people who love the United States becoming citizens, but for Harry to do so means a further and more permanent rejection of his heritage. If he does choose to become a citizen, I do think he shouldn’t have his titles.

I may be wrong but I don't think a US citizen can have a title. I thought that's why when the Queen gives honors to an American they don't become Dame or Sir.

 

[Osipi]

I found a good article that gives insight into UK citizens applying for and becoming a naturalized US citizens. There are points in it that would really trip Harry up. This part right here. "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". Would Harry actually denounce his loyalty to his grandmother/father/brother to be a US citizen? I don't think he will.

https://www.fosterglobal.com/blog/i-pledge-allegiance-the-naturalization-oath-and-dual-citizenship/

Americans can and do hold titles. Its been reported that "So, an American citizen cannot be named a Prince, Duke, or any other noble title by our own government. However, the Constitution does not ban American citizens from receiving titles of nobility from other countries, and a child could actually be born into both."

https://www.irontontribune.com/2009...can citizen cannot,actually be born into both.

 

[acdc1]

I found a good article that gives insight into UK citizens applying for and becoming a naturalized US citizens. There are points in it that would really trip Harry up. This part right here. "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". Would Harry actually denounce his loyalty to his grandmother/father/brother to be a US citizen? I don't think he will.

https://www.fosterglobal.com/blog/i-pledge-allegiance-the-naturalization-oath-and-dual-citizenship/

Americans can and do hold titles. Its been reported that "So, an American citizen cannot be named a Prince, Duke, or any other noble title by our own government. However, the Constitution does not ban American citizens from receiving titles of nobility from other countries, and a child could actually be born into both."

https://www.irontontribune.com/2009...can citizen cannot,actually be born into both.

I’m not an expert on US citizenship at all, but what if he becomes a dual citizen- would he still need to renounce allegiance if he’s still a UK citizen?

 

[Osipi]

I’m not an expert on US citizenship at all, but what if he becomes a dual citizen- would he still need to renounce allegiance if he’s still a UK citizen?

From the first article I quoted. "“A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another.”

UK does not seem to mind when its citizens takes up the citizenship of another country, including American citizenship, which requires the taking of the oath of allegiance."

These facts on citizenship are aimed at the everyday person. I don't think there has been any case of a British royal applying to be naturalized as a US citizen before. On the US side, there'd probably be no real hassle. On the UK side, at this time, its anyone's guess how the Queen and Parliament would handle this as far as titles go and such.

Interesting to think about.

 

[Heavs]

I’m not an expert on US citizenship at all, but what if he becomes a dual citizen- would he still need to renounce allegiance if he’s still a UK citizen?

From looking around it still seems you have to take the oath, even if you hold dual nationality/citizenship. I know someone born with dual citizenship who served in the Royal Navy which clearly involves an oath and "loyalty" to the Queen but they also didn't have to make that oath because they were born in Boston and raised in the UK.

Regardless of whether it's just legal words Harry says and he's not renouncing loyalty "in his heart" the media and any other detractors as well as politicians of all parties would still have a massive field day. And it just descend into more drama.

As for titles, this seems to give a good run down in the laws regarding titles in the US and it seems that on becoming a citizen you have to renounce any foreign titles.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/usa/usnob.htm

There's nothing to stop the Earl of Wharncliffe (who was born with US citizenship) using his titles socially or inheriting them but I assume they aren't on any official documents or recognised by the government.

If Harry ever became a citizen (and I have huge doubts about that) then he might have to. Even if they don't it's another tick in the farcical column. Move to the US because you hate "the institution" and oryal life, become a US citizen (a country that is still extremely proud of the Revolutionary War against the crown) become an obvious Democratic and very progressive supporter, STILL using his royal titles for personal gain.

 

[Betsypaige]

From looking around it still seems you have to take the oath, even if you hold dual nationality/citizenship. I know someone born with dual citizenship who served in the Royal Navy which clearly involves an oath and "loyalty" to the Queen but they also didn't have to make that oath because they were born in Boston and raised in the UK.

Regardless of whether it's just legal words Harry says and he's not renouncing loyalty "in his heart" the media and any other detractors as well as politicians of all parties would still have a massive field day. And it just descend into more drama.

As for titles, this seems to give a good run down in the laws regarding titles in the US and it seems that on becoming a citizen you have to renounce any foreign titles.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/usa/usnob.htm

There's nothing to stop the Earl of Wharncliffe (who was born with US citizenship) using his titles socially or inheriting them but I assume they aren't on any official documents or recognised by the government.

If Harry ever became a citizen (and I have huge doubts about that) then he might have to. Even if they don't it's another tick in the farcical column. Move to the US because you hate "the institution" and oryal life, become a US citizen (a country that is still extremely proud of the Revolutionary War against the crown) become an obvious Democratic and very progressive supporter, STILL using his royal titles for personal gain.

That’s my issue with it, and it’s why I think - even if Harry could keep his titles should he become a U.S. citizen- he should renounce them.

 

[acdc1]

That’s my issue with it, and it’s why I think - even if Harry could keep his titles should he become a U.S. citizen- he should renounce them.

I’m very curious to see what will happen. On one hand, I think that as of now it is looking very likely that Harry will be living in the US long-term. The Sussexes have centered their business and philanthropic interests in Los Angeles, and I don’t think that they (particularly Meghan) have any intention of moving back to the UK on a permanent or even extended basis. It’s very clear to me that California is where they are building their home and where they will raise their son and any future children. I could definitely see a desire to become a citizen of the country where he’s now chosen to build his life and raise his family, and take part fully in all the rights and privileges afforded to US citizens (like voting, which is obviously now an important issue to the couple).

On the other, it does bring into question the issue of titles and loyalty to his family. I’m sure he will always remain a British citizen, but is it appropriate for someone who is renouncing loyalty to foreign crowns to keep a royal title of a foreign crown? Could he drop the “prince” titles and be styled as a non-royal duke?

 

[Somebody]

On the other, it does bring into question the issue of titles and loyalty to his family. I’m sure he will always remain a British citizen, but is it appropriate for someone who is renouncing loyalty to foreign crowns to keep a royal title of a foreign crown? Could he drop the “prince” titles and be styled as a non-royal duke?

And not only that but he would still be in the line of succession... (with a small but still real chance of being called to the throne if something would happen with William and his family - in the past we've seen whole (royal) family units die in an airplane crash, which I sincerely hope won't be repeated but an accident/crash of this magnitude is possible for each and everyone of us). However, the British apparently don't really care about foreigners in their line of succession as their line of succession even includes foreign monarchs...

 

[acdc1]

And not only that but he would still be in the line of succession... (with a small but still real chance of being called to the throne if something would happen with William and his family - in the past we've seen whole (royal) family units die in an airplane crash, which I sincerely hope won't be repeated but an accident/crash of this magnitude is possible for each and everyone of us). However, the British apparently don't really care about foreigners in their line of succession as their line of succession even includes foreign monarchs...

If he retains his British citizenship I’m sure that he would still be in the line of succession, as there are other dual citizens fairly high up in the line, such as Archie and (I believe) Lord Frederick Windsor’s daughter Maud, who was born in Los Angeles.

 

[AC21091968]

And not only that but he would still be in the line of succession... (with a small but still real chance of being called to the throne if something would happen with William and his family - in the past we've seen whole (royal) family units die in an airplane crash, which I sincerely hope won't be repeated but an accident/crash of this magnitude is possible for each and everyone of us). However, the British apparently don't really care about foreigners in their line of succession as their line of succession even includes foreign monarchs...

And there are issues with Harry's (and possibly Archie's) role as Counsellor of State. The criteria include

Councillors of State must be at least 21 years old (except the heir apparent or presumptive, who need only be 18 years old), they must be domiciled in the United Kingdom, and they must be a British subject​

The word "domiciled" is the key. I'm not quite sure how the Privy Council, particularly government secretary of states would react if a Counsellor of State who don't permanently lived in a UK, can preside over them and "represent" the sovereign. Unless of course, he/she was very informed (by extensive research or advised by royal staff).

From Wikipedia, I know it's not accurate, but gave examples where the Counsellors of States are not in the direct line of succession, not technically senior working royals and not hold Royal styles and titles.

Since the passage of the Regency Act 1937, the only persons to have been Counsellors of State while not a queen consort, prince, or princess were George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood; Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (although Windsor had been a prince between 1914 and 1917 and never served in practice during his short tenure); and Maud Carnegie, Countess of Southesk (who was entitled to, but did not use the style of princess).​

Unlike Harry and Archie's case, 7th Earl of Harewood, Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn and Maud Carnegie, Countess of Southesk (legally Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk) mainly resided in the UK.

The question isn't about having someone in the Privy Council who is not a working royal, but more about permanently reside in the UK.

It would not surprised me if some Privy Counsellors prefer Princess Beatrice as a Counsellor of State over Harry and possibly Archie, despite being lower in line of succession and was never a working royal. This is assumed that Princess Beatrice remains living the UK.

 

[Heavs]

And not only that but he would still be in the line of succession... (with a small but still real chance of being called to the throne if something would happen with William and his family - in the past we've seen whole (royal) family units die in an airplane crash, which I sincerely hope won't be repeated but an accident/crash of this magnitude is possible for each and everyone of us). However, the British apparently don't really care about foreigners in their line of succession as their line of succession even includes foreign monarchs...

I'm willing to bet that most Brits don't know who's in the line of succession beyond the Queen's immediate family, let alone that there could be a "Viking Invasion" from Norway (that's what the press would call it) or Denmark or that there could be another Willem of Orange situation etc, because the possibilities are so remote it's laughable. The monarchy would likely be abolished if they needed to go further than Zara, probably before then.

With Harry I do believe that even if dual citizens are not required to formally renounce titles in the way someone becoming a sole citizen of the US would, I can see a huge amount of fuss being made for someone 6th in the line to literally renounce the Queen and not formally renounce his place as well, even if it is just legalese. Apart from anything else, it's hugely pointed about where your loyalties lie. And most monarchies these days are at pains to point out that they are for, from and of the country and its people. No importing German Princelings or too successful generals.

 

[AuntieSparkle]

I would venture to say that no matter what, he is a member of the peerage. Unless the Queen herself pulls his title. If you look at the case of the Duke of Atholl, he was born in South Africa. He did not come to Scotland except on holiday until he took over the Dukedom and sought citizenship at his father's death. I may be wrong and his father had sorted the citizenship out before.

 

[Curryong]

A look at the new Diana Interview documentary and why Meghan was right to leave.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/e...e/news-story/d9e589468629196a5c6b0c02ca334779

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...cuses-Prince-Harry-turning-Royal-Marines.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...-Harry-not-recovered-royal-expert-claims.html

Just accept the fact they're never coming back; except for weddings and funerals; same as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

Don't believe Wallis returned to the UK for the funeral of King George V1.

 

[Hallo girl]

A look at the new Diana Interview documentary and why Meghan was right to leave.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/e...e/news-story/d9e589468629196a5c6b0c02ca334779

And maybe why William advised caution.

 

[ACO]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...cuses-Prince-Harry-turning-Royal-Marines.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...-Harry-not-recovered-royal-expert-claims.html

Just accept the fact they're never coming back; except for weddings and funerals; same as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

Don't believe Wallis returned to the UK for the funeral of King George V1.

This is the same man who a few weeks ago spoke of a letter he wrote in which he basically told Harry to leave Meghan and Archie in California. If this is the same letter... anyone surprised he no response? Harry is a grown man. He is no longer a working royals. His military positions are just now a technicality and everyone knows it. Time to stop hoping this man returns without his wife and child.

 

[Denville]

This is the same man who a few weeks ago spoke of a letter he wrote in which he basically told Harry to leave Meghan and Archie in California. If this is the same letter... anyone surprised he no response? Harry is a grown man. He is no longer a working royals. His military positions are just now a technicality and everyone knows it. Time to stop hoping this man returns without his wife and child.

I dont think anyone cares, honestly if he comes back with or without wife and child.. The RF may want him back as they are short of workers but then again he's proved unreliable. And clealry part of the reason he has gone to the US is due to Meg's dislike of the UK, so its possible that he may eventually get home sick and want to come home..

 

[TLLK]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...cuses-Prince-Harry-turning-Royal-Marines.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...-Harry-not-recovered-royal-expert-claims.html

Just accept the fact they're never coming back; except for weddings and funerals; same as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

Don't believe Wallis returned to the UK for the funeral of King George V1.

I am rather surprised by the Major General's revelation that reportedly the Royal Marines have not received any communication (written/electronic/phone) from Prince Harry in the last 6 1/2 months. According to Thompson, this is why they're considering seeking a new Captain General. I truly hope that Thompson is misinformed and that Prince Harry has been communicating with the Royal Marines.

But informed sources say the Prince has not been in touch by phone, letter nor email since his last appearance as an honorary Marine in March, prompting exasperated top brass to start considering a replacement.

Going to take into consideration that this is the DM and it's possible that their "informed sources" are uniformed ones.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I would be surprised if Harry renounced his British citizenship. He might get a dual citizenship but I'd think he'd wait a while to make sure he wants to stay in the US.

 

[acdc1]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...cuses-Prince-Harry-turning-Royal-Marines.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...-Harry-not-recovered-royal-expert-claims.html

Just accept the fact they're never coming back; except for weddings and funerals; same as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

Don't believe Wallis returned to the UK for the funeral of King George V1.

It was very clear to me in March when the pandemic started getting bad and the Sussexes decided to leave Canada to move to California instead of returning to the UK that they were done living there on even a semi-permanent basis. I think they’ll go back for major family events and maybe for a few weeks during the summer or over the holidays but other than that, I don’t think they’ll return much at all. I think it’s a shame for their patronages and others in the UK who were counting on them for advocacy and action, but from the sound of things it seems like most of the British public doesn’t care where they settle since they don’t pay much attention to the royal family, and of those who do care many are saying “Good riddance, you can stay in LA.”

 

[Claire]

I know that did keep up with some patronages and charities, so I fail to understand why they did keep up with the Marines. Especially as we are reminded everyday of Harry want to keep the position. Just doesnt make sense.

However it does seems like they keep in touch with the charities that fit in comfortable with the Archewell agenda. but then again - that is just on skypes that where reported on and Omid Scoobie's twitter. Where really dont know.

 

[Denville]

It was very clear to me in March when the pandemic started getting bad and the Sussexes decided to leave Canada to move to California instead of returning to the UK that they were done living there on even a semi-permanent basis. I think they’ll go back for major family events and maybe for a few weeks during the summer or over the holidays but other than that, I don’t think they’ll return much at all. I think it’s a shame for their patronages and others in the UK who were counting on them for advocacy and action, but from the sound of things it seems like most of the British public doesn’t care where they settle since they don’t pay much attention to the royal family, and of those who do care many are saying “Good riddance, you can stay in LA.”

What else would the British public say? As you've said, H and Meg showed where their allegiance lay when they headed for California when the Covid Crisis struck.. Most UK people dont follow the BRF's life or work, closely.. and if a pair of Royals decide to walk out on the job, (which is unusual) what can the public say but "well OK they wanted to go, they're gone. They clearly prefer the USA or Canada to the UK, so let them go.. Good riddance...")

 

[Mirabel]

I would be surprised if Harry renounced his British citizenship. He might get a dual citizenship but I'd think he'd wait a while to make sure he wants to stay in the US.

Even if he didn't (want to stay), I doubt Meghan would leave.
The only way I see Harry returning to the UK would be if he and Meghan split up.

 

[camelot23ca]

And maybe why William advised caution.

I don’t see how amoral people taking advantage of a woman with a history of multiple mental illnesses relates to the soundness of Harry and Meghan’s decision to leave.

And as for this nonsense:

“The institution works well enough for anyone loyal, compliant and unquestioning, but offers little protection or elasticity to accommodate the nuance, challenges and differences of opinion which are inevitable in all families.”

The BRF is analogous to a family business and yes, like any job, its members will do best if they’re loyal and compliant. But various members have questioned aspects of how things are run and the fact that the institution managed to survive the 90s should be ample proof that it can accommodate challenges and differences of opinion.

Get this: multiple members of the BRF have managed to make changes and advance their professional agendas while remaining loyal to The Queen and all she represents, and they’ve remained seemingly content and emotionally stable the entire time. Now THAT’S smart.

 

[Curryong]

How do we know 'they've all remained content and emotionally stable all the time'? We know absolutely nothing about the emotional and mental health of members of the RF except what has been divulged for public consumption. Did Andrew for instance remained contented with his lot?

And if some are, like the Queen's cousins, it may very well be because they accept their position in the hierarchy for, among other things, financial security. Maybe Harry and Meghan looked to the next fifty years, saw themselves as the future Gloucesters and said ' thanks but no thanks we want a different future.'

There have certainly been ding dong battles for power between the various Households over the years, including Prince Charles and Andrew and the Manderins at BP, including Christopher Geidt who was loyal to the Queen to a fault, and much good it did him.

 

[ACO]

Exactly. We really have zero idea how any of them really are doing because they truly avoid letting us see it. It’s a big deal when they do as history has repeatedly shown. It’s usually revealed at breaking points, which begs to wonder if those points could have been avoided. We shall never know...

In other news — Harry in conversation for British GQ

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/gq-heroes/article/prince-harry-patrick-hutchinson-anti-racism

 

[Claire]

Actually I really feel it is not our job to be asking how members of the royal family are - mentally or otherwise. Yes - I understand the idea to remove the stigma of mental health by talking about it, but there is a line.
Currently I am working remotely and our Managers are checking in on us weekly to see how we are doing. And this week he added the "How are you doing - really?" Which resulted bursting out laughing and saying we are not a bunch of royal snowflakes and was he going to lead up in breathing exercises and maybe a round of kumbaya.
Everyone deals differently - people are differently. I expected the royals who are adults to take care of their own mental health - they are adults and access to the resources to do so.

 

[Denville]

I don’t see how amoral people taking advantage of a woman with a history of multiple mental illnesses relates to the soundness of Harry and Meghan’s decision to leave.

And as for this nonsense:

“The institution works well enough for anyone loyal, compliant and unquestioning, but offers little protection or elasticity to accommodate the nuance, challenges and differences of opinion which are inevitable in all families.”

The BRF is analogous to a family business and yes, like any job, its members will do best if they’re loyal and compliant. But various members have questioned aspects of how things are run and the fact that the institution managed to survive the 90s should be ample proof that it can accommodate challenges and differences of opinion.

Get this: multiple members of the BRF have managed to make changes and advance their professional agendas while remaining loyal to The Queen and all she represents, and they’ve remained seemingly content and emotionally stable the entire time. Now THAT’S smart.

I dont quite know what that article is saying either. I watched a bit of the programme on the Diana interview and gave up, as I've begun to get bored with teh multiple programmes on royals that have been on tv this past year.. but as Far as i could work out, the programme was saying that Diana had been lured into the interview by people from the BBC preying on her nerves.. but that's the BBC, not the RF. The RF had by then given up on her, as by then she and Charles were separated .. but in the beginning Diana had been seeing doctors and psychiatrists and I think the RF had tried as best they could to help her but Diana hadn't been that cooperative and while she had overcome her eating disorders to a point, her other mental problems had gone on being a problem... and she had become alienated from her husband's family and not likely to cooperate with them any further. She kept her dealings with the press secret from them anyway so how were they supposed to know she was up to something with the BBC and protect her from exploitations?
If Meghan also has had mental health issues, then perhaps she should not have taken on a role which was bound to involve stress and public exposure so if that's what the articles saying, i.e. that Meghan was not really mentally strong enough for the job, she's old enough and aware enough to realise that surely and NOT take on a public job.