How likely do you think it is that Harry and Meghan will ever lose or surrender their titles? Let me know below and remember you can also find me at: BUY MY BOOK (Find Your Irish Ancestors Online): amzn.to/3Z2ChnG Website (with 2 FREE DOWNLOADS): www.historycallingofficial.com/ Patreon: www.patreon.com/historycalling Amazon storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling Instagram: instagram.com/historycalling/
I guess my question is… are they expected to “work” as royals and does this play a role? Or is it possible to keep the title and the privileges associated without working/doing their part?
I really like how your content is a mix of historical and more modern topics! It's interesting to see how they relate to each other, and to hear your expert takes on them. Thank you for all your hard work
I doubt Charles wants to take the titles away, he loves his son, and it would be bad optics. Im just baffled that they still use them to make money when they hate the monarchy..
I've been a subscriber for quite a while and I know this is a bit of a departure from your historical podcasts. However, I cannot think of a better person to address this. So many uninformed TH-camrs have tried to guess at the process and have done a poor job. You have actually shed light on a bigger issue. Harry and Meghan's situation is actually unprecedented so the answer isn't black and white! Thank you so much for unraveling so much of this! It is history in the making. Fascinating.
This felt a bit too speculative for my taste. I would have loved to hear more about the individuals who lost their titles as a result of picking the ‘wrong’ side in World War 1. One of those was Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg, whose story is fascinating in itself, given that he was never meant to have that title.
There is only speculation in this case; as HC points out, there is little useful precedent, as the 1917 legislation is no longer relevant, and further more only affected four men who were viewed as having aided the enemy. Obviously, Henry has done nothing like that, so the cases of the particular four affected by the law are not really germane to HC's present discussion.
@@edithengel2284 This isn’t History Calling’s best choice of subject as it is clearly about current affairs rather than history. In any event, the questions about Harry are legally complex and largely theoretical.
I am American and spent 15 years in Canada where my 4 children were born. When we returned to the States, I had to file paperwork showing my American citizenship AND that I had spent at least 18 years in the States for my children to be recognized as American citizens. So Princess Grace must have retained her American citizenship if her children had US citizenship. Hope that helps.
All of Princess Grace's children (Albert, Caroline, and Stefanie) voluntarily gave up their US Citizenships when they turned 18. Likewise, Princess Alexandra of Hanover, the daughter of Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover and Princess Caroline, who is 13th in line to the throne of Monaco, yet through her father (Ernest Augustus), was a distant heir to the British throne, but as Monaco's Constitution requires the Sovereign Prince/Princess to be a Catholic (and that Britain's Act of Succession forbids a practicing Catholic from being the Monarch), Princess Alexandra renounced her place of succession on the British throne upon converting to Catholicism from the (Lutheran) Church of Hanover.
It isn’t my business as a US citizen but as he is still listed as an advisor to the king (or is it king’s coucil) and he is over here sticking his nose into American politics like calling our First Amendment “bonkers” and VERY active in getting restrictions on the first amendment on the internet and that the powers that be decide what is and is not allowed to be said. If it is illegal, it should be blocked. But blocking political opinions is insane and the fact a British Prince is among those at the forefront is disgusting to many of us on US soil. He comes here, brags about drug use, but then talks about children’s rights. I respect the monarchy, I really do. But they have zero power here and I would argue much, much less than those of us born and raised here, and those that fought to protect our rights.
I don't think he's a Counsellor of State any more. I did a video which looked at that a couple of months ago but (and I'm red faced here) I can't remember for definite off the top of my head now.
@@HistoryCalling if I remember right he is still on the list as CoS but inactive as he is not a UK resident and not a working royal, so double barred. Andrew and Beatrice are on the list and inactive as they are not working royals. When in the US, Harry is just a man with an opinion. He is not representing the King. It’s just free speech. The fact that he is using free speech to talk about free speech being bonkers is actually bonkers. Why people listen to him I don’t know.
He still is counselor of state but they put up a hold on the idea that he could take over if something happened to Charles. He is no longer able to do that.
@@HistoryCallingPlus, concerning he holds a baronet also, he would have to spend equal amount of time there also. But very few of the royal titles such as York etc are actually the residences of their titled heads
@@HistoryCalling Nor do they reside in Cornwall, or any of the other locations named in their titles. Funnily enough, since they now live in Windsor, they live in one of the only places that they can't possibly have a named title for, since Queen Elizabeth II banned the Dukedom of Windsor from being recreated during her reign (though, of course, I'm sure that can be undone by Charles if he really wants), which is kind of ironic considering they are members of the House of Windsor.
Us Sussex residents are pleased they’re not here . Others bringing up not living in Cornwall etc…. They’re not living abroad making money using Titles from an institution they keep trashing ,
I don't really understand why they carry on using titles, like if they want to be 'normal' people go and do that? I feel like Harry is so used to a high level of privilege that when he looses any privilege he feels persecuted- he can still gets ad hoc police protection in the UK (which is more than most of us can say) but when he lost the right to automatic police protection he seemed to think he was being personally attacked.
Yes, it is one of the accusations regularly thrown at them (why don't you stop using the titles if you disliked being royal so much). To be brutally honest I think the answer is that they know the titles are financially beneficial to them.
@@HistoryCalling Yeah I think that's a lot of what they do 😂 I'm with you that they probably shouldn't have the titles stripped (given that they've been horrible to their family rather than criminal) but I think not using their titles would be the classier option given everything they have said
@@HistoryCalling It's their cash cow. Interviews, books, and docuseries all discussing royal life made money. Every venture not attached has floundered. They will never give up the titles.
He wasn’t even allowed to pay himself for Royal Protection. The Royal Protection detail has access to important security information and threat assessment through the government, and he was not allowed to pay for that himself. There is no reason to deny that, particularly with all of the threats that have been made against his wife and even his children. That’s just spiteful.
Great job (again), HC! I've read a few comments and obviously there are strong feelings being stirred up. I'm a Yank with an opinion but I'll keep it to myself. This was very informative. Good woman yourself! 🙏🏼
This is such a volatile subject. They have haters and supporters. Most of us have “baggage” in our lives. Some speak their “truths”. Others go about their lives and make a success of it. That’s most of us and we don’t intentionally inflict pain or seek to ruin others involved. Just live your life and try to be kind. I hate this for both “sides”.
I agree with you. However, I do believe that Harry should be removed as a counselor of state. I understand that that would also need to be done by Parliament.
Harry was basically nullified as a Counselor of State when Charles added Anne and Edward. Harry still has the position, but they have enough counselors to function without him.
I’ve been living under a rock, but hey! Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it! I’m an American so why would I be interested in the British Royalty-the fact that I’m watching and listening to this video shows that I take a peek out from under every once in a while.😂
I'm a Marxist, and object to the entire notion of "royalty," but I've always been fascinated by history of kings and queens and guillotines. When I was still in grade school, I read books about Jane Grey and Marie Antionette and others. I always have gone away feeling very sorry for most if not all of them. Yes, on the surface, they have all that money and privilege, and hey, as a poor person, it is better to have money in our western system than to not have money. But having that fame . . . I've known a few people who became famous, and to a person they'll tell you it's not what it's cracked up to be. As Diana found out, be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. "More tears have been shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones." ~ St. Teresa of Avila
There is indeed an appetite to strip the children of their titles, not as a dig at their parents or to punish them, but simply because it makes little sense for two children who live in a constitutional republic and are not raised or educated in the United Kingdom to hold onto titles.
If Prince Andrew keeps his titles, then there’s no cause to remove Harry’s and Megan’s titles. They haven’t committed any actual crimes (unlike the older royal).
I honestly can't see them being stripped of their titles, or of them voluntarily relinquishing them. Despite their protestations about not wanting to be working royals my impression is that their titles mean a lot to them - without them they are nobodies. What I would like to see is Harry and Megan becoming less and less relevant, and this will only happen if we all stop chattering about them.
Harry's title is his birthright and losing it would mean his family was disinheriting him which is a whole other ballpark. Losing their titles also meant no security in the UK, so there's another side to this story
I wonder if they expected all this backlash from both the UK and across the pond? They both stepped down by their own accord. They should also relinquish their Titles. They need to learn that their actions carry heavy consequences.
I think Harry thought that Megan was his way to step into the Hollywood bed and yet still keep all his Royal perks and prestige. It didn't turn out that way. He was so entitled he thought he would still be everybody's favorite Prince. Totally disregarding the fact that it was the palace covering up all his misdeeds and bad attitudes that made him look good. We're seeing the real harry now. I think Megan thought that she would get the glory from him being a prince and that she actually could take Hollywood by storm. As I said they were both wrong. But I do believe they actually love each other. As much as two narcissists can. They both recognize that they could do more damage together than a part
They want and eat cake. Title Goods but no resposibility. Only thing people were/are interesting in them are couse they are part 👑 family. Titles is only thing they had to show. They want trainmake this titiles for profit so they never give it up
So glad you did this video! So much goes around the internet about this couple that I hate to even click on anything about them. So thank you so much and also well done on the whole format of the video! Understood everything perfectly!😊
I'm Californian, FWIW, but Queen Elizabeth was monumentally important to me as a female, growing up with very few women role models in positions of power. She showed me how it was done, while never ever losing her grace, beauty, or femininity. What these two did to her and Prince Philip while they should have been enjoying their last bit of time on Earth enveloped the in all the peace and and love they deserved, and the satisfaction of their jobs incredibly well done, has broken my heart. Lock them in the Tower Dungeon, for all I care. Nasty things.
I agree with you about Queen Elizabeth, but I’m quite sure her own children’s behavior, particularly Charles and Andrew, caused her more dismay than anything Harry and Meghan did.
You don't think her pedo son gave her more stress? And they never said a bad word about the Queen, she seemed to love them too. Do you hold the British media accountable for all the horrid things they've done to Meghan, Harry, Kate, and Diana? Or do you blindly believe everything the media says about meghan?
This is a really painful subject. I don't think they will lose their titles, however, they have already lost the respect (and dare I say love) of the British people and the Commonwealth. They do not behave with any sort of grace. I will never forgive them for the pain they clearly inflicted on our dear Queen Elizabeth. Having decided to walk away from the Royal family, they are already losing any sort of relevance and one day, most people won't even remember them. If you remember, Diana lost her HRH title when she divorced Prince Charles (as was). It was a mistake and I think King Charles won't make that mistake again. I do think that if the rift with the Prince of Wales is not fixed soon, the road back towards any sort of relationship will be gone forever. I would not want them to be Mr and Mrs Mountbatten Windsor, they don't deserve that name either. This has to be one of history's prime examples of pressing the self destruct button through sheer stupidity. A very sorry state of affairs. 😐
allow me to ask, if you're spouse was consistently persecuted for every outfit, every smile, every former life error, would you not take your spouses side? would you really side with the wealth over the love of your life?
@@corricatt the things you have listed were comments made mostly by the media outlets and from social media, not the royal family. If there were problems within the royal family, then steps could have been taken to address these issues. Stopping the press etc from making comments and criticism is difficult due to the freedom of speech laws. I am not saying this is easy to address, but just running away and then slagging everyone off, does not deal with the problem. Writing books about slights and perceived injustices only adds to the difficulties. They have not been advised well, or have ignored any good advice. Cashing in on being a royal does not impress the British public. As HM the Queen always reminded us, being royal is a life of service and sometimes there are considerable hardships to cope with, as we all have in life.
@@elisabethhopson5639I get your point, but you have to understand that family members were the ones leaking information to the press and enabling the press in many ways. William and Kate were quite litigious in the early years too, and no one batted an eye. Surely the palace could have protected them better, and family members should not have stabbed them in the back by selling stories to transfer negative attention from themselves onto Harry and meghan.
@@elisabethhopson5639additionally, meghans case was special specifically because of the race element. And Harry has always said his issue is primarily with the press, and only secondarily with his family
If (in my opinion) Prince Andrew’s reputation and salacious rumours about him aren’t liability enough to have his title(s) stripped, Harry & Meghan being jerks to their family probably doesn’t rise to a sufficient level of having their titles stripped.
Who cares about title...go Harry and Megan. Dont give these hypocrites the time of day. God works in mysterious way, they are all suffering from cancer...retribution is knocking on their door!!!
I've been thinking about the Harry and Meghan situation literally since it began. I have a lot to say so bear with me. 1. Anyone who thinks Harry's desire to leave the active Royal family came entirely after he married Meghan and through her influence hadn't been paying attention to him before that. I heard him say that no one would choose to be a prince if they weren't born one. 2. If the "Firm" wanted to control what they said or did, they should have kept the purse strings. I came to this conclusion after comparing their situation to that of the Windsors after he abdicated. His brother (Geo. VI) was even able to ship them off to the Bahamas to keep them from stirring up trouble during the war. Charles lost that level of control when he cut the money off. Bad idea. 3. There are always 2 sides to a story and it's dangerous to believe 100% of what one side says or doesn't say. 4. Those accusing H & M of treason are full of it. If you want to know what treason looks like, look at what Donald Trump has done. That's treason. Better shut up now before I get myself into more trouble with the Harry and Meghan haters.
Thank you. Yours is such a level-headed comment and not like some of the hysterical stuff I'm seeing here (especially from people who clearly don't know what treason is). Like you, I also remember Harry saying many years ago (I think it was in an interview he did while he was still in the military) that he hated royal life and had considered leaving but stayed out of loyalty to his grandmother. I think marrying an American gave him the escape hatch he'd long been looking for and thinking about using.
@@HistoryCalling but if Harry wants out why dies he hang on to titles ? Why does he want security paid? Why does he want in line of succession? Why titles for children? His grandmother is deceased . Why does he stay?
There is an actual criminal, a rapist, who is still a duke and a prince. His titles are still there. No one talks about that aspect very much though. Very weird.
I mean, they’re letting Andrew keep his dukedom, so their standards can’t be that high. And I suppose Mountbatten-Windsor is preferable to Battenburg-Saxe-Coburg und Gotha.
As a son of the reigning monarch, Harry should always have and keep the title of Prince. However, the couple walked away from all royal duties and now only use their Duke and Duchess of Suffolk titles to make money off of in order to benefit themselves, not in service of the crown from which those titles were granted. Yes, they should be stripped of them. But that’s just my American opinion.
That might indeed be a compromise solution, though it would make Meghan Princess Henry and I tend to agree with another commenter that she might just start calling herself Princess Meghan, which could be worse (as Princess sounds fancier than Duchess).
@@HistoryCalling I am not fond of their behaviour. I agree with you. Megan would not want to be called Princess Henry which would be her official name (actually is one of her names).
@@sharonharris9782Personally, I prefer people I can trust in a room with my daughter over those I can't. The Sussexes have many faults, but they're still the former
Andrew has not been found guilty of anything . If he did sleep with Virginia at 17 she was age of consent in London and New York which is where they slept with each other . You can’t say at 17 she’s a child , Andrew imo was stitched up , the Queen help pay Virgina off for her to go away , as strange it was Andrew she went after , given a certain Markle was going to be called as a witness.Only apparent evidence is a dodgy photo which looks as if Andrew’s head is on Epstein’s body . Andrew don’t wear shirts like that pic , nor carry anything in back pockets.
@@sharonharris9782well then the royal family didn’t crap all over Andrew the way they did on Harry and Megan, perhaps that’a the difference. Harry and Megan called a spade a spade. Disliking them for telling their side of things is have displaced loyalty to an antiquated, self serving monsters.
Well, there is so much change through the years: King Edward had to abdicate because of a divorced American woman. King Charles is divorced and has a divorced and for years very much hated woman! Who knows what the time brings. But for sure not in the near future. Actually, I think it does not really matter. If they continue the way they did in the past few years, they are „finished“ even with titles. Sad. Getting a therapist would be better than public family feuds.
There's such a thing as dual citizenship, which is not uncommon for immigrants. It is possible for one person to be a citizen of two countries at the same time.
16:53 Edward VIII is certainly where my mind went went the moment the question was raised. If the royals are all going to be tried for their character, everybody better pack a lunch.
It's a different situation to the Duke of Windsor as he was a former King. Harry is nowhere near the throne and never will be, the people of the UK and the other 14 realms would never accept him as King now if circumstances led to the possibility of him being on the throne.
@@DeepThought42 which is they (the public, paparazzi, etc.) should have just left Harry alone, let him finally be HAPPY!! IN LOVE! are they (above mentioned public and paparazzi) sure that Willy and Kate are a happy couple??? BE REAL PEOPLE!
Yes get rid of both. They slag off royal family, but happy to spend millions of uk tax payers money. Choose to step away from royal family as working royals. So why keep titles. Take them back now I say
I don't think they're getting any of our taxpayer money at this stage to be fair. As for not having titles if you're not a working royal, that would remove titles from many other people too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a great fan of theirs at this stage - my point is just that it's a slippery slope to turn titles into a popularity or work contest.
I’m an American but if I were British I would feel that the pair do not deserve to keep their titles, because they will never stop their destructive ways. Both have nothing to offer but their connection to the royal family.
That is a valid argument for sure, but I suppose if we turn it into a popularity contest it becomes a very slippery slope. Charles III was hated in the 90s and so was Camilla, but look how they've turned it around. Popularity can come and go like waves. It seems insane at the moment, but if Camilla could largely reverse her public image I suppose it's possible H&M could do so too.
@@HistoryCalling They didn't turn it around! Compliant media and a shrewd PR campaign turned it around. Monarchy is now largely pointless except as symbols and half of them can't even play the part in return for a pampered existence!
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE VERY GENEROUS DONATION SANDRA. Yes, I'm sure if he wanted to he could tell everyone to stop calling him Prince or Duke, but personally I think that's very unlikely to happen. :-)
As long as Charles is king, I think they'll keep their titles. Charles probably just wants to live as peacefully as possible for his remaining years. William, though, is much younger and has the stamina to fight, so once he becomes king, the story may change. Unfortunately we all know that even if the titles were stripped, Markle could still refer to herself as Princess Harry, which I'm sure she'd LOVE to do. And her followers wouldn't even bother with the 'Harry' part and would just called her Princess M. Personally, I think that in order to keep a title such as theirs, they must actually work for the place their title represents. Make occasional appearances there, at the very least. AFAIK, they only visited Sussex once for a brief moment. Instead, they use the titles to get attention and make money for themselves, would should mean an automatic removal of said titles. As for their children, I'm baffled as to why they have the 'prince' and 'princess' titles. I know they're grandchildren of the king, but seeing as how Archie has lived 95% of his life in the United States (a place where royal titles aren't recognized), Lily (I refuse to call her the other name out of respect to Queen Elizabeth) has never stepped toe in the UK, and the likelihood of them coming to the UK at any point before adulthood is small, they're hardly royal representatives of the commonwealth. Should they turn 18 and decide to return to the UK and become working royals, then they can claim their princely titles. Otherwise, they should be ordinary citizens.
I agree that I don't think Charles will remove their titles. It's debatable what William will do. I suppose only time will tell. If Harry's Princely title was removed too, then Meghan couldn't claim to be a Princess but I can't imagine Charles or William would ever sign off on a situation where the title of Prince would be left while the others were removed. Regarding having to work for the titles, that's tricky as there are lots of people who have titles but aren't senior working royals. Their titles would have to be stripped too at which point there would be hardly any royal family left. As for Archie and Lilibet, the titles aren't connected to place of birth or residence, only to their bloodline and so that's why they have them.
They have no real reason to remove Harry's titles. Apart from being painful to the family to have to do that, I would guess that it would generally cause more stir than it would prevent. It is not something in any event to undertake lightly, and the king and Parliament have much more important issues to deal with.
None of the examples you provided, Duke of Windsor et al, involve an individual who has consciously, deliberately, and publicly attacked the royal family with the intent to destroy, obliterate, and supplant the royals. Even though it would be great if Harry and his wife as well as their supposed children were to lose all royal titles, nobody is likely to remove his titles by act of parliament and hell will freeze over before Harry voluntarily renounces them. In addition, I think the possibility of Harry becoming a US citizen would be in a very, very distant future if it happens at all since he has to resolve his visa troubles first. Therefore, what will likely happen is that the royals will continue to ignore him as best they can, they will continue to deny them any privileges, such as using the royal titles for commercial ventures as well as having 24/7 security, and they will continue to hope and pray that he'll find something to do way over there. But I think he can pretty much forget about "becoming a working royal again", even if he's expelled from the US.
Something you missed. If Harry and Meghan were genuine about not wanting to be royal, and not caring about titles (as Meghan has frequently conveyed to us), all this fuss about the titles could be put to bed by Harry putting them into abeyance. Simple to do. However, as in reality they cling to them for their usefulness in making money (which they promised Queen Elizabeth they wouldn't do), it's not going to happen. As the titles also make them feel important (especially for Meghan who's not blood Royalty), Harry will also never become a US citizen either. He was just paying lip service to the idea to look good in the US media.
He very likely cannot put his titles into abeyance; it's not what abeyance is. Doing anything similar will not be at all easy to do; Harry cannot disclaim his peerage as he is the first one to possess it. They could just not use them, but as you point out, that's not likely.
@@edithengel2284 He actually can fairly easily put his titles into abeyance according to Lady Colin Campbell who knows all about the intricacies of all this sort of thing. However, he'll never do it. His entitled/arrogant response of "what good will that do" to the journalist asking him a year or so ago if he'd give up his titles says it all.
@@DeepThought42 It is not at all easy, as there is no precedent for a royal duke doing so. (Abeyance is what occurs when there is no clear heir to a title after the death of the last holder. Harry of course is not dead.)
@@edithengel2284 I defer to Lady Colin Campbell expertise/links to royal officials and what is necessary. She has never said it's particularly hard, just required application to the Monarch. She was actually officially asked to call for, and set up petition for removal of titles but she refused and said that she would, instead, do so for abeyance of the titles, and she did a few years ago. The bonus to that is this way if/when Meghan leaves Harry and divorces him she couldn't retain the Duchess of Sussex title. Hopefully Harry would be smart enough to do it before a divorce goes through. If you want to hear her talk about it, she has done so in her recent interviews with other TH-camrs. I think the one talking about titles has titles mentioned in the name of the video and I can't remember which TH-cam channel, but probably Stef the Alter Nerd, According 2Taz, or Popcorned Palace. Of course Lady C has talked about it numerous time on her own channel in the past.
Hi HC that was most interesting, I personally do not think Prince Harry will lose his title or surrender it. They may decide not to use them for some reason down the line and that would be up to them.
@@HistoryCallingwhich he should have lost his titles because he was actively in touch with Hitler and planning to regain the crown when Hitler took English. That's treason by any definition.
Where is Harry's loyalty? Is it Britain? The Untied States? No ... His 1st loyalty is Megzy. Britain and the royal family are down the list. Andrew's indiscretions are horrible but his loyalty is with Britain.
I do not understand why people hate Harry and Meghan so damn much. Of course Harry is going to keep making money from his titles. He was born into a level of fame he never even wanted, at least let the guy make some money from it. There’s a difference between sharing your story on your terms versus having your privacy invaded. People should be more focused on the money the Queen spent paying off Andrew’s victim than H&M, but the royal family and royal rota have done a great job pulling eyes away from that.
I am American. I believe that the Mountbatten Windsor couple should keep their titles if they reside in Sussex and the UK must do the work that is required to maintain the titles. Since they reside in the US and the title should be could be removed. As for the title Prince and Princess I am not sure
Titles of nobility originally were related to the geographical areas attached to them, but that is no longer true, and hasn't been for some time. They have no obligation to reside in or have anything to do with Sussex. There are no legal work requirements to retain such a title. Residence in the US is not sufficient grounds to remove a British title. The monarch may decide whether a person is entitled to be called a prince or princess. Stripping someone of a title is not a trivial affair, and must, in the case of removing a title of nobility, be agreed upon by both the monarch and Parliament.
Patricia of Connaught is a good example .She lost her title by letters patent because she married a commoner. She became Lady Patricia Ramsey Alastair of Connaught lost the title of Prince via Letters patent when new ones were issued by George V limiting titles to Grandchildren. He was a great grandchild. Beatrice and Eugenie are no longer 'of York'. Beatrice is Princess Beatrice, Mrs Eduardo Mapelli Mozzi and Eugenie is Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank If letters patent was issued to remove Harry's titles, they would probably be removed from his entire line. If the Dukedom was removed it too would probably be recinded from the line like the 1917 ones were. Renunciation of a title allows the next generation to pick it up but Archie will be American and will have little to no connection with the UK so I can't see them wanting that to continue down the line.
Princess Patricia of Connaught was permitted to relinquish her style and title by Royal Warrant. She was not obliged to do so and received the consent of Edward VII and her father, the Duke of Connaught. She was granted the style of Lady Victoria Patricia Helena Elizabeth Ramsay, with special precedence immediately before the marchionesses of England.
@@edithengel2284 That is Royal speak for 'She had to give it up because her husband's title was less than hers and she had to take her husband's name'. See also the press release for the Wessex kids not having titles. The monarch doesn't want to look like its forced but its forced. Margaret was given the same ultimatum when she wanted to marry Townsend
@@edithengel2284lol apparently Connaught was a peerage being considered for Hazmat, also if you look at the history of the previous holder of the Duke of Sus-sex title, there are certainly some alleged similarities there with the current holder, which are not exactly flattering!
@@04nbod You may be right, but Princess Louise, also a granddaughter of Victoria, kept her style and title although married to a commoner, as, later, did Princess Anne, married to two commoners. Both the Duke of York's daughters married commoners and kept their titles.
I'm an American and really don't really understand these things; however, doesn't being the duke and duchess of someplace mean they represent that place and do work for them in parliament or wherever? If that is so, Harry has said he wants to live in the U.S., and I don't think he has done any work for Sussex. I think their titles should be removed on that basis alone and given to people who will. It is also my understanding that the queen put in a contract they could not make money off their titles, but they are. Has anybody else heard of this in the contract?
No - a territorial title does not come with obligations to that territory. Some of the titles don't really correspond to real territories, either. Neither Clarence nor Wessex are actual physical locations now, but there have certainly been Dukes of Clarence, and the current Duke of Edinburgh was first Earl of Wessex.
Oh, yes! the British peerage can be very confusing. Just try to sort out courtesy titles! On second thought, don’t. Only a serious writer deserves that much trouble.
I'm quite bewildered by the comments. Why is everyone so emotional about people they have never met? Just because you see them in the tabloids and on tv does not make you really know them. The people here are acting like Harry personally walked over to them and slapped them in the face
@@ellerose9164 You're right about the degree of response, but Harry's comments about certain public things were actually offensive. And he made it a public affair by publishing his book, so people can hardly be blamed for having opinions about him, although it would be nice if they could be expressed more temperately.
@@edithengel2284no, he didn't please get a grip. They simply said they didn't like not being supported when the racism surrounding the birth of Archie smacked them in the face. If you won't defend my kids I am out of here too. Then they unleashed the PR machine against them and good for them. They fought back.
Thank you for your long term strategic overview. It is important that we see that. Very considered. Has certainly makes me think, although their nasty behaviour to us all and the Royal Family, our late Queen and Prince Consort, should be punished somehow.
He is still a Councillor of State working on behalf of the royal family and WEF, through the Aspen Institute in order to censor the internet. Abuse of them plays right into their hands. They have no right to be holding high level talks as he only passed one art GCSE at 16yo with the help of his tutor so he's not exactly bright. Haz will NEVER renounce his titles and KC is too weak to take them off his 'darling boy'. I do appreciate the Northern Ireland accent.
Very interesting. Thanks for covering this topic. Its really an emotional thing for people who dont even know them or have a clue what its like to be part of the firm. I wish we would just leave them alone and let them just enjoy their life and their children. ❤❤❤
Andrew had a higher approval rating than these two a couple of months ago. Its still negative but it says a lot that a probable pedophile is still more popular than these whiny babies.
The American stuff in the second half made me think of something else off-topic, another book recommendation. You did an excellent overview of the Titanic disaster. Of the dozen or so books I've read on the subject, Wyn Craig Wade's 1980 book "Titanic: End of a Dream" (revised when the wreck was found) is the only one to delve into the very interesting angle of how it affected what were in 1912 surprisingly frosty relations between Britain and the U.S. When a US congressman boarded the Carpathia with subpoenas in hand, an international brawl ensued. The U.S. was putting British seamanship on trial, with some controversial results (though a great boon to the historical record) and the British response- including a counter-investigation with equally public hearings- was scathing, even extending into British music halls. It was a very big deal, completely forgotten today. The whole tension was swept away forever by the war.
Hi, awesome live history video. I enjoyed it. How are you doing? I'm doing well, and so is my cat Benjamin. The solar eclipse is almost here. In the next video, in the future, could you do videos on Catherine Carey and Henry Carey. They were children of Mary Boleyn in the 16th century Tudor times. Have a great day. See you next video 😊
Hi Michelle. No solar eclipse here (if it was clear we would have seen a partial one, but it's very cloudy today). I'm so jealous though. I've never seen a full eclipse. I have my videos for the next while already done, but I'll bear the Careys in mind :-)
If they hate the "firm" and all the royal stuff, I just don't understand WHY they want to keep using the titles if not for the $$$ and status (which they say they hate). Harry has squandered so much good will that he could have used to make the world better. It's all just so sad and tawdry! Go away, please.
HENRY DOES NEED OF HIS TITLE STRIPPED BECAUSE HE IS INTERFERING IN OUR POLITICS HERE IN AMERICA! WE DON'T NEED A FOREIGNER IN THE STATE CALLING OUR FIRST AMENDMENT BONKERS!
Thank you for your detailed research and clear, accessible explanations. If only the media (I'm looking at you, Oprah) would both to do a bit of research! Love you channel, and wish you all the best!
I have no doubt that William will take their titles away when he's king if Charles doesn't - big brother has had enough of his little brother's rubbish
Hadn’t thought of this - good point. Because if you go by the history of England - there were many vindictive siblings (not that Harry hasn’t earned it).
Given Charles is pretty much openly plugging their titles and their website on the royal website, I think we can let go of any fantasies that he’s in any way interested in stripping them. If anyone’s titles should go it’s Andrew’s.
Ah, but their presence on the royal website has been massively reduced (even more so actually in the weeks since I created this video). Don't get me wrong, I don't think the King will take their titles, but I'm not sure I'd say he'd plugging them either.
How was their presence reduced? Their both combined to one page and their website linked. Who exactly was polled? What attacks exactly did they engage in?
I'm with you re andrew's titles, imo they should go for sure. regardless of what meghan and harry have done it's undeniably not as awful as what he's done, I know it's all allegedly and he's not admitted anything, but it's shady as hell and when that many of his best buddies have been done for SA of minors he's lost the benefit of the doubt from me.
@@HistoryCalling It hasn’t been reduced that I can see. Their two bios were combined into one Sussex bio (hence me saying their titles are being plugged) and at the moment while all the old articles about them are still there, everything redirects to the Sussex page. Except the whole Invictus segment. But again given the Sussex page links to their own full Sussex website that they have total control over, it seems much more a gesture of trust and a path forward rather than an attempt to wipe them out of history.
I agree with you, @History Calling. Harry is. Prince of the blood. He’s the son of the sovereign. He’s not a criminal. The press needs to stop treating him thus.
Can Harry and Meghan's titles be removed? Deprived of the Dukedom of Sussex, the couple would become more elevated still, as they would revert to being Prince Harry and Princess Harry, titles that can never be removed, as they are part of the Prince's inalienable birthright, and a prince always trumps a duke, due in part to the scarcity of such handles.
I don’t think your use of the word “attacks” is fair. It’s showing bias and not neutrality. This seems to be the problem with this entire situation. Reporting on personal opinions about people that they don’t know and never will. I don’t think anyone can say that anyone has attacked an entire family just by being honest. Diana was honest too but nobody went after her for telling her truth.
Agreed, They did an interview with Oprah and in that interview Meghan was asked if someone had made racist comments to her and towards her son. She said yes, and when asked to name them and who they were; she refused. When Harry joined the interview she asked the same questions, he said yes but he wouldn't name them but would say they were part of the royal family. He also stated that they did not provide the same protections from the media to him and Meghan like they did for William and Kate. Meghan and Harry have been bashed by the British media and tabloids for doing the same things that William and Kate have done. I would not say they attacked them at all. They only have stated the truth when asked. If that felt like a personal attack to anyone in the royal family, then they need a reality check.
@@that-random-humanoid2865let me refrech youre memory. Meg clamed there were conversations while she was pregnant how will baby looks Like. Harry Said it was one conversation before they were married. Meg later in Netflix give a hint she was offened that they even thout that baby might not be White looking ..asking your self wondering how will baby look Like is not racism... everyone whats to see how babay looks Like. Even when Kate was expecting Tew York Times had cover wondering how will baby look Like nad that babies skin ton migt be darker then they are used to Oprah inerwie she took down as it looked full od kase storries That was attack, full blown, and they keepet attacking in moderne way...act off terason.
@@zb7293 they specifically stated that they were asked what the color of the baby's skin would be. Let's not forget the time that one Princess wore the racist Blackmoor brooch when meghan first joined the family. Or the time a man got arrested for attempting to hurt Harry for being a "race traitor". Or the time meghan was sent white powder (anthrax) in the mail. All horrific things she had to endure because of her race
For those interested, here is the Article in the US Constitution which concerns titles of nobility. (Note that it the proscription against titles granted by foreign states is limited to persons holding offices of profit or trust, which I doubt describes the former Miss Markle.). "Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
A good video, all very clear. It’s also much as I thought. Our UK constitution is complicated and even experts say different things sometimes. I think this is an irritation but a minor issue. I do however think the CoS and the Regency Act are a bigger issue but that largely depends on time. If William becomes King before George is 18 the pool of people to be CoS is a lot smaller. Going even further if George becomes king before he is 18 and before William has put in a letters patent to name a Regent it then becomes and big issue but as this is very unlikely it’s not a pressing worry. Your video on the CoS and Regency was also very good.
This was an interesting video, thanks! With the centuries of precedent y'all have, this exact thing doesn't seem to have happened before. Who knows, perhaps with a bit of time, the situation will resolve itself. My grandpa would've compared this mess to a cow patty and advised everyone to quit stepping in it and allow it to dry up and blow away.
Thank you for explaining this subject so clearly. If Harry and Meghan kept their profound dislike of their situation and family private, they would have an easier time reconciling, if that is in fact what they desired to do.
How likely do you think it is that Harry and Meghan will ever lose or surrender their titles? Let me know below and remember you can also find me at:
BUY MY BOOK (Find Your Irish Ancestors Online): amzn.to/3Z2ChnG
Website (with 2 FREE DOWNLOADS): www.historycallingofficial.com/
Patreon: www.patreon.com/historycalling
Amazon storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling
Instagram: instagram.com/historycalling/
Oh wow, you're saying they have children. I thought everyone overthere said the pregnancies were fake and the kids are fake...interesting.
@laurap5249 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣When did they abuse Catherine? They are worse because they set the record straight?
I guess my question is… are they expected to “work” as royals and does this play a role? Or is it possible to keep the title and the privileges associated without working/doing their part?
laurap5249 yes, continue please
Cause what your saying is B.S.
I really like how your content is a mix of historical and more modern topics! It's interesting to see how they relate to each other, and to hear your expert takes on them. Thank you for all your hard work
Thank you. Yes, I don't usually dovetail with modern stuff too much, but I thought I'd try it here and see what people think.
@HistoryCalling I'm impressed. But then, I always am. The vid was both informative and entertaining. I'd like to see more videos that 'dovetail'.
Agreed
The mix was great.
It’s especially important, too, since you had to consider precedents & older laws that are still in effect.
I doubt Charles wants to take the titles away, he loves his son, and it would be bad optics. Im just baffled that they still use them to make money when they hate the monarchy..
They want money and the titles help them get it. Them speaking against the monarchy and continuing to use (cash in on) the titles is pure hypocrisy.
I've been a subscriber for quite a while and I know this is a bit of a departure from your historical podcasts. However, I cannot think of a better person to address this. So many uninformed TH-camrs have tried to guess at the process and have done a poor job. You have actually shed light on a bigger issue. Harry and Meghan's situation is actually unprecedented so the answer isn't black and white! Thank you so much for unraveling so much of this! It is history in the making. Fascinating.
I totally agree. I wasn't even going to watch the video until I saw who posted it. I knew it would be well researched and enlightening.
This felt a bit too speculative for my taste. I would have loved to hear more about the individuals who lost their titles as a result of picking the ‘wrong’ side in World War 1. One of those was Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg, whose story is fascinating in itself, given that he was never meant to have that title.
There is only speculation in this case; as HC points out, there is little useful precedent, as the 1917 legislation is no longer relevant, and further more only affected four men who were viewed as having aided the enemy. Obviously, Henry has done nothing like that, so the cases of the particular four affected by the law are not really germane to HC's present discussion.
@@edithengel2284 This isn’t History Calling’s best choice of subject as it is clearly about current affairs rather than history. In any event, the questions about Harry are legally complex and largely theoretical.
@@brendonmcmorrow3886 Indeed.
HC has every right to make a small discussion, even with modern-modern day ones!
I am American and spent 15 years in Canada where my 4 children were born. When we returned to the States, I had to file paperwork showing my American citizenship AND that I had spent at least 18 years in the States for my children to be recognized as American citizens. So Princess Grace must have retained her American citizenship if her children had US citizenship. Hope that helps.
All of Princess Grace's children (Albert, Caroline, and Stefanie) voluntarily gave up their US Citizenships when they turned 18. Likewise, Princess Alexandra of Hanover, the daughter of Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover and Princess Caroline, who is 13th in line to the throne of Monaco, yet through her father (Ernest Augustus), was a distant heir to the British throne, but as Monaco's Constitution requires the Sovereign Prince/Princess to be a Catholic (and that Britain's Act of Succession forbids a practicing Catholic from being the Monarch), Princess Alexandra renounced her place of succession on the British throne upon converting to Catholicism from the (Lutheran) Church of Hanover.
South Parks Meghan and Harry's "we want privacy" episode was brilliant!
That was pure genius
I think we are overdue episode 2 of the privacy tour.
So was the Pegging Prince episode!
Except that they have never said they wanted “privacy”
@@iikidzmomMinethis
It isn’t my business as a US citizen but as he is still listed as an advisor to the king (or is it king’s coucil) and he is over here sticking his nose into American politics like calling our First Amendment “bonkers” and VERY active in getting restrictions on the first amendment on the internet and that the powers that be decide what is and is not allowed to be said. If it is illegal, it should be blocked. But blocking political opinions is insane and the fact a British Prince is among those at the forefront is disgusting to many of us on US soil. He comes here, brags about drug use, but then talks about children’s rights. I respect the monarchy, I really do. But they have zero power here and I would argue much, much less than those of us born and raised here, and those that fought to protect our rights.
I don't think he's a Counsellor of State any more. I did a video which looked at that a couple of months ago but (and I'm red faced here) I can't remember for definite off the top of my head now.
@@HistoryCalling I am 90% sure he still is
I think if I remember right they must reside in the UK, which rules him out
@@HistoryCalling if I remember right he is still on the list as CoS but inactive as he is not a UK resident and not a working royal, so double barred. Andrew and Beatrice are on the list and inactive as they are not working royals.
When in the US, Harry is just a man with an opinion. He is not representing the King. It’s just free speech. The fact that he is using free speech to talk about free speech being bonkers is actually bonkers. Why people listen to him I don’t know.
He still is counselor of state but they put up a hold on the idea that he could take over if something happened to Charles. He is no longer able to do that.
Thanks!
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE VERY KIND DONATION WENDY. Hope you enjoyed the deep dive in the laws and precedents around royal titles :-)
I notice the Duke and Duchess of Sussex don't spend much time in Sussex.
Very true, but then again I suppose we have to say in fairness that William and Catherine aren't residing in Wales either.
@@HistoryCallingPlus, concerning he holds a baronet also, he would have to spend equal amount of time there also. But very few of the royal titles such as York etc are actually the residences of their titled heads
I suspect Sussex doesn't mind.
@@HistoryCalling Nor do they reside in Cornwall, or any of the other locations named in their titles. Funnily enough, since they now live in Windsor, they live in one of the only places that they can't possibly have a named title for, since Queen Elizabeth II banned the Dukedom of Windsor from being recreated during her reign (though, of course, I'm sure that can be undone by Charles if he really wants), which is kind of ironic considering they are members of the House of Windsor.
Us Sussex residents are pleased they’re not here . Others bringing up not living in Cornwall etc…. They’re not living abroad making money using Titles from an institution they keep trashing ,
I don't really understand why they carry on using titles, like if they want to be 'normal' people go and do that? I feel like Harry is so used to a high level of privilege that when he looses any privilege he feels persecuted- he can still gets ad hoc police protection in the UK (which is more than most of us can say) but when he lost the right to automatic police protection he seemed to think he was being personally attacked.
Yes, it is one of the accusations regularly thrown at them (why don't you stop using the titles if you disliked being royal so much). To be brutally honest I think the answer is that they know the titles are financially beneficial to them.
@@HistoryCalling Yeah I think that's a lot of what they do 😂 I'm with you that they probably shouldn't have the titles stripped (given that they've been horrible to their family rather than criminal) but I think not using their titles would be the classier option given everything they have said
@@HistoryCallingas far as I know they offered to give up their royal tittles and it was refused.
@@HistoryCalling It's their cash cow. Interviews, books, and docuseries all discussing royal life made money. Every venture not attached has floundered. They will never give up the titles.
He wasn’t even allowed to pay himself for Royal Protection. The Royal Protection detail has access to important security information and threat assessment through the government, and he was not allowed to pay for that himself. There is no reason to deny that, particularly with all of the threats that have been made against his wife and even his children. That’s just spiteful.
Great job (again), HC! I've read a few comments and obviously there are strong feelings being stirred up. I'm a Yank with an opinion but I'll keep it to myself. This was very informative. Good woman yourself! 🙏🏼
THANK YOU AS ALWAYS STEPHEN FOR YOUR GENEROSITY. Yes, some strong opinions alright. Of course that's ok as long as they are framed politely.
@@HistoryCalling Well said, though I'll confess I'm not averse to some snarky commentary. 😉
This is such a volatile subject. They have haters and supporters. Most of us have “baggage” in our lives. Some speak their “truths”. Others go about their lives and make a success of it. That’s most of us and we don’t intentionally inflict pain or seek to ruin others involved. Just live your life and try to be kind. I hate this for both “sides”.
@@stephencarrillo5905 Snarky comments!!? Bruh - I love you. LOL
@@AmynAL 👍👍🙏
I agree with you. However, I do believe that Harry should be removed as a counselor of state. I understand that that would also need to be done by Parliament.
Harry was basically nullified as a Counselor of State when Charles added Anne and Edward. Harry still has the position, but they have enough counselors to function without him.
Thanks for this informative video.
You're very welcome :-)
I’ve been living under a rock, but hey! Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it! I’m an American so why would I be interested in the British Royalty-the fact that I’m watching and listening to this video shows that I take a peek out from under every once in a while.😂
I'm a Marxist, and object to the entire notion of "royalty," but I've always been fascinated by history of kings and queens and guillotines. When I was still in grade school, I read books about Jane Grey and Marie Antionette and others. I always have gone away feeling very sorry for most if not all of them. Yes, on the surface, they have all that money and privilege, and hey, as a poor person, it is better to have money in our western system than to not have money. But having that fame . . . I've known a few people who became famous, and to a person they'll tell you it's not what it's cracked up to be. As Diana found out, be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. "More tears have been shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones." ~ St. Teresa of Avila
There is indeed an appetite to strip the children of their titles, not as a dig at their parents or to punish them, but simply because it makes little sense for two children who live in a constitutional republic and are not raised or educated in the United Kingdom to hold onto titles.
Agree, but I think they’d have to pry those titles from MEghans cold dead claws lol.
If Prince Andrew keeps his titles, then there’s no cause to remove Harry’s and Megan’s titles. They haven’t committed any actual crimes (unlike the older royal).
Andrew committed no crime
@@roselee4445you having sexual intercourse with a minor and being close friends with a known pedophile is not a crime? Wow
@@roselee4445 he sexually assaulted someone sister 🙄
Exactly.
@@roselee4445 He hasn't been legally charged and found guilty.
I honestly can't see them being stripped of their titles, or of them voluntarily relinquishing them. Despite their protestations about not wanting to be working royals my impression is that their titles mean a lot to them - without them they are nobodies.
What I would like to see is Harry and Megan becoming less and less relevant, and this will only happen if we all stop chattering about them.
Yes, that's very true.
Harry's title is his birthright and losing it would mean his family was disinheriting him which is a whole other ballpark. Losing their titles also meant no security in the UK, so there's another side to this story
Thanks for the new video!!❤
You're welcome. Enjoy :-)
American here, 🙋🏼♀️No Titles?!?! YES PLEASE!!
I wonder if they expected all this backlash from both the UK and across the pond? They both stepped down by their own accord. They should also relinquish their Titles. They need to learn that their actions carry heavy consequences.
Oh I'm sure they didn't. Surely no one would do what they've done if they saw this coming?
I think Harry thought that Megan was his way to step into the Hollywood bed and yet still keep all his Royal perks and prestige. It didn't turn out that way. He was so entitled he thought he would still be everybody's favorite Prince. Totally disregarding the fact that it was the palace covering up all his misdeeds and bad attitudes that made him look good. We're seeing the real harry now. I think Megan thought that she would get the glory from him being a prince and that she actually could take Hollywood by storm. As I said they were both wrong. But I do believe they actually love each other. As much as two narcissists can. They both recognize that they could do more damage together than a part
@@LKMNOPexactly 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
@@LKMNOPall close to fact except love. I don't think they love each other
They want and eat cake. Title Goods but no resposibility. Only thing people were/are interesting in them are couse they are part 👑 family. Titles is only thing they had to show. They want trainmake this titiles for profit so they never give it up
So glad you did this video! So much goes around the internet about this couple that I hate to even click on anything about them. So thank you so much and also well done on the whole format of the video! Understood everything perfectly!😊
Somethings are best left as is.
I'm Californian, FWIW, but Queen Elizabeth was monumentally important to me as a female, growing up with very few women role models in positions of power. She showed me how it was done, while never ever losing her grace, beauty, or femininity. What these two did to her and Prince Philip while they should have been enjoying their last bit of time on Earth enveloped the in all the peace and and love they deserved, and the satisfaction of their jobs incredibly well done, has broken my heart. Lock them in the Tower Dungeon, for all I care. Nasty things.
I agree with you about Queen Elizabeth, but I’m quite sure her own children’s behavior, particularly Charles and Andrew, caused her more dismay than anything Harry and Meghan did.
@silva7493; I agree TOTALLY. They are traitors, and deserve an exceptionally damp dungeon
You don't think her pedo son gave her more stress? And they never said a bad word about the Queen, she seemed to love them too. Do you hold the British media accountable for all the horrid things they've done to Meghan, Harry, Kate, and Diana? Or do you blindly believe everything the media says about meghan?
Thank you for this well thought out discussion.
This is a really painful subject. I don't think they will lose their titles, however, they have already lost the respect (and dare I say love) of the British people and the Commonwealth. They do not behave with any sort of grace. I will never forgive them for the pain they clearly inflicted on our dear Queen Elizabeth. Having decided to walk away from the Royal family, they are already losing any sort of relevance and one day, most people won't even remember them. If you remember, Diana lost her HRH title when she divorced Prince Charles (as was). It was a mistake and I think King Charles won't make that mistake again. I do think that if the rift with the Prince of Wales is not fixed soon, the road back towards any sort of relationship will be gone forever. I would not want them to be Mr and Mrs Mountbatten Windsor, they don't deserve that name either. This has to be one of history's prime examples of pressing the self destruct button through sheer stupidity. A very sorry state of affairs. 😐
allow me to ask, if you're spouse was consistently persecuted for every outfit, every smile, every former life error, would you not take your spouses side? would you really side with the wealth over the love of your life?
@@corricatt the things you have listed were comments made mostly by the media outlets and from social media, not the royal family. If there were problems within the royal family, then steps could have been taken to address these issues. Stopping the press etc from making comments and criticism is difficult due to the freedom of speech laws. I am not saying this is easy to address, but just running away and then slagging everyone off, does not deal with the problem. Writing books about slights and perceived injustices only adds to the difficulties. They have not been advised well, or have ignored any good advice. Cashing in on being a royal does not impress the British public. As HM the Queen always reminded us, being royal is a life of service and sometimes there are considerable hardships to cope with, as we all have in life.
@@elisabethhopson5639I get your point, but you have to understand that family members were the ones leaking information to the press and enabling the press in many ways. William and Kate were quite litigious in the early years too, and no one batted an eye. Surely the palace could have protected them better, and family members should not have stabbed them in the back by selling stories to transfer negative attention from themselves onto Harry and meghan.
@@elisabethhopson5639additionally, meghans case was special specifically because of the race element. And Harry has always said his issue is primarily with the press, and only secondarily with his family
Well said, thank you.
Excellent video. Informative (as always!) and I appreciate your balanced and clear personal views on the matter
I think they should they’ve became a liability and they don’t contribute to the royalty
How are they a liability?
@@vickijackson5547 Ummmm..........
If (in my opinion) Prince Andrew’s reputation and salacious rumours about him aren’t liability enough to have his title(s) stripped, Harry & Meghan being jerks to their family probably doesn’t rise to a sufficient level of having their titles stripped.
please explain what it takes to contribute to "the royalty"?
@@corricatt The opposite of what the Harkles do.
Who cares about title...go Harry and Megan. Dont give these hypocrites the time of day. God works in mysterious way, they are all suffering from cancer...retribution is knocking on their door!!!
Perhaps the best way to deal with the Sussex’s is to give them no more attention.
Omg this was interesting thank you for discussing this as Always @historycalling...
I've been thinking about the Harry and Meghan situation literally since it began. I have a lot to say so bear with me. 1. Anyone who thinks Harry's desire to leave the active Royal family came entirely after he married Meghan and through her influence hadn't been paying attention to him before that. I heard him say that no one would choose to be a prince if they weren't born one. 2. If the "Firm" wanted to control what they said or did, they should have kept the purse strings. I came to this conclusion after comparing their situation to that of the Windsors after he abdicated. His brother (Geo. VI) was even able to ship them off to the Bahamas to keep them from stirring up trouble during the war. Charles lost that level of control when he cut the money off. Bad idea. 3. There are always 2 sides to a story and it's dangerous to believe 100% of what one side says or doesn't say. 4. Those accusing H & M of treason are full of it. If you want to know what treason looks like, look at what Donald Trump has done. That's treason. Better shut up now before I get myself into more trouble with the Harry and Meghan haters.
Charles hasn't closed the purse imo
@@roselee4445Hasn't he? What's your evidence of that?
Thank you. Yours is such a level-headed comment and not like some of the hysterical stuff I'm seeing here (especially from people who clearly don't know what treason is). Like you, I also remember Harry saying many years ago (I think it was in an interview he did while he was still in the military) that he hated royal life and had considered leaving but stayed out of loyalty to his grandmother. I think marrying an American gave him the escape hatch he'd long been looking for and thinking about using.
I'd be curious what treason Donald Trump has done.
@@HistoryCalling but if Harry wants out why dies he hang on to titles ? Why does he want security paid? Why does he want in line of succession? Why titles for children? His grandmother is deceased . Why does he stay?
As always, a very coolly reasoned and objective take on the subject. Thank you very much, Ms History Calling.
There is an actual criminal, a rapist, who is still a duke and a prince. His titles are still there. No one talks about that aspect very much though. Very weird.
Fascinating discussion in which I think you did a very thorough, correct and fair presentation; coming to the correct conclusions.
Who cares, they will wind up on a trashy reality show regardless.
I guess only time will tell. They already did a TV show though. Don't know if they can dip into that well twice, especially given its reception.
Allegedly they are cozying up to Kris Jenner, so you might be on to something lol
25:55 You are correct @History Calling. Birthright US citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, and cannot be revoked.
I mean, they’re letting Andrew keep his dukedom, so their standards can’t be that high.
And I suppose Mountbatten-Windsor is preferable to Battenburg-Saxe-Coburg und Gotha.
Genau! 😂😂😂
Agreed. Thank you for another level-headed and well-researched video. Wow. You're so good at this!
As a son of the reigning monarch, Harry should always have and keep the title of Prince. However, the couple walked away from all royal duties and now only use their Duke and Duchess of Suffolk titles to make money off of in order to benefit themselves, not in service of the crown from which those titles were granted. Yes, they should be stripped of them. But that’s just my American opinion.
That might indeed be a compromise solution, though it would make Meghan Princess Henry and I tend to agree with another commenter that she might just start calling herself Princess Meghan, which could be worse (as Princess sounds fancier than Duchess).
Well that’s my Australian opinion too!
@@HistoryCalling I am not fond of their behaviour. I agree with you. Megan would not want to be called Princess Henry which would be her official name (actually is one of her names).
@@LBGirl1988 you don't know what Megan would want.
@@vickijackson5547😂😂😂😂
Thanks, HC! ❤
11:09. Did he try to remove prince Andrew’s titles too? It’s so weird that H&M seem more hated than…well you know what Andrew is. 🍕
I don't remember Andrew ever actively being nasty to his own family members like the Harkles have.
@@sharonharris9782Personally, I prefer people I can trust in a room with my daughter over those I can't. The Sussexes have many faults, but they're still the former
Andrew has not been found guilty of anything . If he did sleep with Virginia at 17 she was age of consent in London and New York which is where they slept with each other . You can’t say at 17 she’s a child , Andrew imo was stitched up , the Queen help pay Virgina off for her to go away , as strange it was Andrew she went after , given a certain Markle was going to be called as a witness.Only apparent evidence is a dodgy photo which looks as if Andrew’s head is on Epstein’s body . Andrew don’t wear shirts like that pic , nor carry anything in back pockets.
@@eliscanfield3913this!!
@@sharonharris9782well then the royal family didn’t crap all over Andrew the way they did on Harry and Megan, perhaps that’a the difference.
Harry and Megan called a spade a spade. Disliking them for telling their side of things is have displaced loyalty to an antiquated, self serving monsters.
Wow, always get clear, concise explanations on this channel! Viewing modern day royal family with a much appreciated historians eye.
Well, there is so much change through the years: King Edward had to abdicate because of a divorced American woman. King Charles is divorced and has a divorced and for years very much hated woman! Who knows what the time brings. But for sure not in the near future. Actually, I think it does not really matter. If they continue the way they did in the past few years, they are „finished“ even with titles. Sad. Getting a therapist would be better than public family feuds.
Thanks, HC!
There's such a thing as dual citizenship, which is not uncommon for immigrants. It is possible for one person to be a citizen of two countries at the same time.
There are even some members of Congress with dual citizenship, mostly for/of Israel.
Your point. We know that
I am very pleased with the amount and quality of research you had put on this matter.
16:53 Edward VIII is certainly where my mind went went the moment the question was raised. If the royals are all going to be tried for their character, everybody better pack a lunch.
Especially the new daddy King
@@judithstrachan9399 Much appreciated; fixed it.
It's a different situation to the Duke of Windsor as he was a former King. Harry is nowhere near the throne and never will be, the people of the UK and the other 14 realms would never accept him as King now if circumstances led to the possibility of him being on the throne.
@@DeepThought42 which is they (the public, paparazzi, etc.) should have just left Harry alone, let him finally be HAPPY!! IN LOVE! are they (above mentioned public and paparazzi) sure that Willy and Kate are a happy couple??? BE REAL PEOPLE!
Yes get rid of both. They slag off royal family, but happy to spend millions of uk tax payers money. Choose to step away from royal family as working royals. So why keep titles. Take them back now I say
I don't think they're getting any of our taxpayer money at this stage to be fair. As for not having titles if you're not a working royal, that would remove titles from many other people too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a great fan of theirs at this stage - my point is just that it's a slippery slope to turn titles into a popularity or work contest.
@HistoryCalling they are not GETTING taxpayer money but Harry is indeed SPENDING it during his court trials
@@HistoryCallingHow much did his latest court case cost the British tax payers?
300,000 plus in tax payers for court costs alone so far. Millions for their wedding. Paying for renovations for frogmoor cottage. Want me to go on.
@@tinaadams6002 the royals should be paying for it, not taxpayers! time time a change?
Well said History Calling.
Well said.
I’m an American but if I were British I would feel that the pair do not deserve to keep their titles, because they will never stop their destructive ways. Both have nothing to offer but their connection to the royal family.
That is a valid argument for sure, but I suppose if we turn it into a popularity contest it becomes a very slippery slope. Charles III was hated in the 90s and so was Camilla, but look how they've turned it around. Popularity can come and go like waves. It seems insane at the moment, but if Camilla could largely reverse her public image I suppose it's possible H&M could do so too.
@@HistoryCalling True! But I think we can all agree that they should absolutely remove "Prince" Andrew's titles...
@@HistoryCalling They didn't turn it around! Compliant media and a shrewd PR campaign turned it around. Monarchy is now largely pointless except as symbols and half of them can't even play the part in return for a pampered existence!
@@teresawelter7530his titles could be removed, but he’d still be a Prince bc he’s the son of the late Queen and Prince Consort :’)
What destructive ways? They have a whole lot to offer.
Thanks! For the explanation.
As I understand it, the Sussex title can be put into abeyance by Harry.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE VERY GENEROUS DONATION SANDRA. Yes, I'm sure if he wanted to he could tell everyone to stop calling him Prince or Duke, but personally I think that's very unlikely to happen. :-)
As long as Charles is king, I think they'll keep their titles. Charles probably just wants to live as peacefully as possible for his remaining years. William, though, is much younger and has the stamina to fight, so once he becomes king, the story may change. Unfortunately we all know that even if the titles were stripped, Markle could still refer to herself as Princess Harry, which I'm sure she'd LOVE to do. And her followers wouldn't even bother with the 'Harry' part and would just called her Princess M.
Personally, I think that in order to keep a title such as theirs, they must actually work for the place their title represents. Make occasional appearances there, at the very least. AFAIK, they only visited Sussex once for a brief moment. Instead, they use the titles to get attention and make money for themselves, would should mean an automatic removal of said titles.
As for their children, I'm baffled as to why they have the 'prince' and 'princess' titles. I know they're grandchildren of the king, but seeing as how Archie has lived 95% of his life in the United States (a place where royal titles aren't recognized), Lily (I refuse to call her the other name out of respect to Queen Elizabeth) has never stepped toe in the UK, and the likelihood of them coming to the UK at any point before adulthood is small, they're hardly royal representatives of the commonwealth. Should they turn 18 and decide to return to the UK and become working royals, then they can claim their princely titles. Otherwise, they should be ordinary citizens.
I agree that I don't think Charles will remove their titles. It's debatable what William will do. I suppose only time will tell. If Harry's Princely title was removed too, then Meghan couldn't claim to be a Princess but I can't imagine Charles or William would ever sign off on a situation where the title of Prince would be left while the others were removed. Regarding having to work for the titles, that's tricky as there are lots of people who have titles but aren't senior working royals. Their titles would have to be stripped too at which point there would be hardly any royal family left. As for Archie and Lilibet, the titles aren't connected to place of birth or residence, only to their bloodline and so that's why they have them.
They have no real reason to remove Harry's titles. Apart from being painful to the family to have to do that, I would guess that it would generally cause more stir than it would prevent. It is not something in any event to undertake lightly, and the king and Parliament have much more important issues to deal with.
Foreign royal titles absolutely are recognised in the US, or do you think the US doesn't recognise Charles as the King of England..?
@@biosparkles9442they mean using those titles as American citizens. Imagine in school. They will be laughed at
I don't know if Harry could get away with it but you can get around the title thing. You need to do a lot of legal dancing but it has happened.
None of the examples you provided, Duke of Windsor et al, involve an individual who has consciously, deliberately, and publicly attacked the royal family with the intent to destroy, obliterate, and supplant the royals. Even though it would be great if Harry and his wife as well as their supposed children were to lose all royal titles, nobody is likely to remove his titles by act of parliament and hell will freeze over before Harry voluntarily renounces them. In addition, I think the possibility of Harry becoming a US citizen would be in a very, very distant future if it happens at all since he has to resolve his visa troubles first. Therefore, what will likely happen is that the royals will continue to ignore him as best they can, they will continue to deny them any privileges, such as using the royal titles for commercial ventures as well as having 24/7 security, and they will continue to hope and pray that he'll find something to do way over there. But I think he can pretty much forget about "becoming a working royal again", even if he's expelled from the US.
Now it’s getting interesting
Something you missed. If Harry and Meghan were genuine about not wanting to be royal, and not caring about titles (as Meghan has frequently conveyed to us), all this fuss about the titles could be put to bed by Harry putting them into abeyance. Simple to do. However, as in reality they cling to them for their usefulness in making money (which they promised Queen Elizabeth they wouldn't do), it's not going to happen. As the titles also make them feel important (especially for Meghan who's not blood Royalty), Harry will also never become a US citizen either. He was just paying lip service to the idea to look good in the US media.
💯!!
He very likely cannot put his titles into abeyance; it's not what abeyance is. Doing anything similar will not be at all easy to do; Harry cannot disclaim his peerage as he is the first one to possess it. They could just not use them, but as you point out, that's not likely.
@@edithengel2284 He actually can fairly easily put his titles into abeyance according to Lady Colin Campbell who knows all about the intricacies of all this sort of thing. However, he'll never do it. His entitled/arrogant response of "what good will that do" to the journalist asking him a year or so ago if he'd give up his titles says it all.
@@DeepThought42 It is not at all easy, as there is no precedent for a royal duke doing so. (Abeyance is what occurs when there is no clear heir to a title after the death of the last holder. Harry of course is not dead.)
@@edithengel2284 I defer to Lady Colin Campbell expertise/links to royal officials and what is necessary. She has never said it's particularly hard, just required application to the Monarch. She was actually officially asked to call for, and set up petition for removal of titles but she refused and said that she would, instead, do so for abeyance of the titles, and she did a few years ago. The bonus to that is this way if/when Meghan leaves Harry and divorces him she couldn't retain the Duchess of Sussex title. Hopefully Harry would be smart enough to do it before a divorce goes through. If you want to hear her talk about it, she has done so in her recent interviews with other TH-camrs. I think the one talking about titles has titles mentioned in the name of the video and I can't remember which TH-cam channel, but probably Stef the Alter Nerd, According 2Taz, or Popcorned Palace. Of course Lady C has talked about it numerous time on her own channel in the past.
Hi HC that was most interesting, I personally do not think Prince Harry will lose his title or surrender it. They may decide not to use them for some reason down the line and that would be up to them.
Get rid of them .... Harry made his choice ... He's the modern day Duke of Windsor
There are certainly some striking similarities. The Duke of Windsor never lost his Ducal title though and he expressed support for the Nazis.
@@HistoryCallingwhich he should have lost his titles because he was actively in touch with Hitler and planning to regain the crown when Hitler took English. That's treason by any definition.
The main difference between Wallis simpson and that one's wife, simpson had some class. Far more than can be said for tbe mattress actress
She’s not a f*cking nazi, she’s African-American. That’s her crime.
@@canadianbrit- class? She was a tart.
Where is Harry's loyalty? Is it Britain? The Untied States? No ... His 1st loyalty is Megzy. Britain and the royal family are down the list. Andrew's indiscretions are horrible but his loyalty is with Britain.
Thank you for this great video! 😊❤
You're welcome :-)
he shouldn't lose his title.... as the GINGER WHINGER is fitting
I agree with you. Not worth the effort.
I do not understand why people hate Harry and Meghan so damn much. Of course Harry is going to keep making money from his titles. He was born into a level of fame he never even wanted, at least let the guy make some money from it. There’s a difference between sharing your story on your terms versus having your privacy invaded.
People should be more focused on the money the Queen spent paying off Andrew’s victim than H&M, but the royal family and royal rota have done a great job pulling eyes away from that.
Im not in touch with recent film personell. What films has Meghan been in that i may have seen? Great report. Thanks
I am American. I believe that the Mountbatten Windsor couple should keep their titles if they reside in Sussex and the UK must do the work that is required to maintain the titles. Since they reside in the US and the title should be could be removed. As for the title Prince and Princess I am not sure
Titles of nobility originally were related to the geographical areas attached to them, but that is no longer true, and hasn't been for some time. They have no obligation to reside in or have anything to do with Sussex. There are no legal work requirements to retain such a title. Residence in the US is not sufficient grounds to remove a British title. The monarch may decide whether a person is entitled to be called a prince or princess. Stripping someone of a title is not a trivial affair, and must, in the case of removing a title of nobility, be agreed upon by both the monarch and Parliament.
The titles Prince can be removed by the monarch as that it’s a gift from the march bestowed on his children. He gives it he can take it away.
Patricia of Connaught is a good example .She lost her title by letters patent because she married a commoner. She became Lady Patricia Ramsey
Alastair of Connaught lost the title of Prince via Letters patent when new ones were issued by George V limiting titles to Grandchildren. He was a great grandchild.
Beatrice and Eugenie are no longer 'of York'.
Beatrice is Princess Beatrice, Mrs Eduardo Mapelli Mozzi and Eugenie is Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank
If letters patent was issued to remove Harry's titles, they would probably be removed from his entire line. If the Dukedom was removed it too would probably be recinded from the line like the 1917 ones were. Renunciation of a title allows the next generation to pick it up but Archie will be American and will have little to no connection with the UK so I can't see them wanting that to continue down the line.
Princess Patricia of Connaught was permitted to relinquish her style and title by Royal Warrant. She was not obliged to do so and received the consent of Edward VII and her father, the Duke of Connaught. She was granted the style of Lady Victoria Patricia Helena Elizabeth Ramsay, with special precedence immediately before the marchionesses of England.
@@edithengel2284 That is Royal speak for 'She had to give it up because her husband's title was less than hers and she had to take her husband's name'. See also the press release for the Wessex kids not having titles. The monarch doesn't want to look like its forced but its forced. Margaret was given the same ultimatum when she wanted to marry Townsend
@@edithengel2284lol apparently Connaught was a peerage being considered for Hazmat, also if you look at the history of the previous holder of the Duke of Sus-sex title, there are certainly some alleged similarities there with the current holder, which are not exactly flattering!
@@doggyteabreaks9362 I'm not sure what similarities you mean.
@@04nbod You may be right, but Princess Louise, also a granddaughter of Victoria, kept her style and title although married to a commoner, as, later, did Princess Anne, married to two commoners. Both the Duke of York's daughters married commoners and kept their titles.
The King could prevent Harry's titles from being inherited by his heirs.
Sure and then we can finally see them for racist they are.
@@machelb510 Why would it have anything to do with race? Meg is disliked for her antics not her shade.
I'm an American and really don't really understand these things; however, doesn't being the duke and duchess of someplace mean they represent that place and do work for them in parliament or wherever? If that is so, Harry has said he wants to live in the U.S., and I don't think he has done any work for Sussex. I think their titles should be removed on that basis alone and given to people who will. It is also my understanding that the queen put in a contract they could not make money off their titles, but they are. Has anybody else heard of this in the contract?
No - a territorial title does not come with obligations to that territory. Some of the titles don't really correspond to real territories, either. Neither Clarence nor Wessex are actual physical locations now, but there have certainly been Dukes of Clarence, and the current Duke of Edinburgh was first Earl of Wessex.
@@user-fc7bf6jb3d Thanks for the clarification. It's confusing to me.
Oh, yes! the British peerage can be very confusing. Just try to sort out courtesy titles!
On second thought, don’t. Only a serious writer deserves that much trouble.
@@judithstrachan9399 Your last sentence made me laugh. I appreciate that.
I'm thrilled that NOTHING else is going on in the UK that an MP had the time and opportunity, and using the House's time to table this bill. Bravo!
Thank You, GREAT INFORMATION 👏👏👏👏
I'm quite bewildered by the comments. Why is everyone so emotional about people they have never met? Just because you see them in the tabloids and on tv does not make you really know them. The people here are acting like Harry personally walked over to them and slapped them in the face
He kind of did.
@@edithengel2284 how? I'm sorry, but taking something personal that someone you don't know did to someone else you also don't know is just immature.
@@ellerose9164 You're right about the degree of response, but Harry's comments about certain public things were actually offensive. And he made it a public affair by publishing his book, so people can hardly be blamed for having opinions about him, although it would be nice if they could be expressed more temperately.
@@edithengel2284no, he didn't please get a grip.
They simply said they didn't like not being supported when the racism surrounding the birth of Archie smacked them in the face.
If you won't defend my kids I am out of here too.
Then they unleashed the PR machine against them and good for them. They fought back.
Thank you for your long term strategic overview. It is important that we see that. Very considered. Has certainly makes me think, although their nasty behaviour to us all and the Royal Family, our late Queen and Prince Consort, should be punished somehow.
He is still a Councillor of State working on behalf of the royal family and WEF, through the Aspen Institute in order to censor the internet. Abuse of them plays right into their hands. They have no right to be holding high level talks as he only passed one art GCSE at 16yo with the help of his tutor so he's not exactly bright. Haz will NEVER renounce his titles and KC is too weak to take them off his 'darling boy'. I do appreciate the Northern Ireland accent.
I'm so glad that you have done this
Let’s hope they lose titles they don’t deserve them!!!!
Very interesting. Thanks for covering this topic. Its really an emotional thing for people who dont even know them or have a clue what its like to be part of the firm. I wish we would just leave them alone and let them just enjoy their life and their children. ❤❤❤
Thank you
You're welcome :-)
Very interesting and informative, thank you so much for another great video x
Deal with Andrew first. These people have committed no crimes and the only embarrassment they present is by protecting themselves.
Andrew had a higher approval rating than these two a couple of months ago. Its still negative but it says a lot that a probable pedophile is still more popular than these whiny babies.
Andrew committed no crime
Under UK law if they can be proved to try destabilising monarchy for personal gain they technically could be tried for treason.
@@roselee4445 in the USA, having sex with minors IS a crime!!
@@corricatt let's see. The girl was of age in NY . Plus he said he didn't know her
The American stuff in the second half made me think of something else off-topic, another book recommendation. You did an excellent overview of the Titanic disaster. Of the dozen or so books I've read on the subject, Wyn Craig Wade's 1980 book "Titanic: End of a Dream" (revised when the wreck was found) is the only one to delve into the very interesting angle of how it affected what were in 1912 surprisingly frosty relations between Britain and the U.S. When a US congressman boarded the Carpathia with subpoenas in hand, an international brawl ensued. The U.S. was putting British seamanship on trial, with some controversial results (though a great boon to the historical record) and the British response- including a counter-investigation with equally public hearings- was scathing, even extending into British music halls. It was a very big deal, completely forgotten today. The whole tension was swept away forever by the war.
Hi, awesome live history video. I enjoyed it. How are you doing? I'm doing well, and so is my cat Benjamin. The solar eclipse is almost here. In the next video, in the future, could you do videos on Catherine Carey and Henry Carey. They were children of Mary Boleyn in the 16th century Tudor times. Have a great day. See you next video 😊
Hi Michelle. No solar eclipse here (if it was clear we would have seen a partial one, but it's very cloudy today). I'm so jealous though. I've never seen a full eclipse. I have my videos for the next while already done, but I'll bear the Careys in mind :-)
Excellent presentation
If they hate the "firm" and all the royal stuff, I just don't understand WHY they want to keep using the titles if not for the $$$ and status (which they say they hate). Harry has squandered so much good will that he could have used to make the world better. It's all just so sad and tawdry! Go away, please.
Yes, I'm afraid I have to agree that the titles seem to be important to them for their (the titles') financial value.
So much agreement with this!
HENRY DOES NEED OF HIS TITLE STRIPPED BECAUSE HE IS INTERFERING IN OUR POLITICS HERE IN AMERICA! WE DON'T NEED A FOREIGNER IN THE STATE CALLING OUR FIRST AMENDMENT BONKERS!
It would be fabulous if those titles were revoked. But I agree, it's not likely.
There is enough amunition along with surrogacy to strip them all of titles.
Rachel Meghan markle and Henry
Thank you for your detailed research and clear, accessible explanations. If only the media (I'm looking at you, Oprah) would both to do a bit of research! Love you channel, and wish you all the best!
If not now, as soon as William takes over 👍
Maybe. Only time will tell I guess.
I have no doubt that William will take their titles away when he's king if Charles doesn't - big brother has had enough of his little brother's rubbish
@@Lionstar16nah, adulterer William would just look peggy, oops, I mean petty targeting Harry for being a loving supportive husband.
@@akaLaBrujaRojaYour proof of your accusation against William is? Oh, you don't have any. Thought not.
Hadn’t thought of this - good point. Because if you go by the history of England - there were many vindictive siblings (not that Harry hasn’t earned it).
I think it's less the legality of removed and more that they want to be normal citizens so they shouldn't have a title as normal citizens.
There is an aspect of them wanting their cake and having it too here. But as long as Harry has the title, they can use it in the US.
Given Charles is pretty much openly plugging their titles and their website on the royal website, I think we can let go of any fantasies that he’s in any way interested in stripping them. If anyone’s titles should go it’s Andrew’s.
Ah, but their presence on the royal website has been massively reduced (even more so actually in the weeks since I created this video). Don't get me wrong, I don't think the King will take their titles, but I'm not sure I'd say he'd plugging them either.
How was their presence reduced? Their both combined to one page and their website linked. Who exactly was polled? What attacks exactly did they engage in?
I'm with you re andrew's titles, imo they should go for sure. regardless of what meghan and harry have done it's undeniably not as awful as what he's done, I know it's all allegedly and he's not admitted anything, but it's shady as hell and when that many of his best buddies have been done for SA of minors he's lost the benefit of the doubt from me.
@@HistoryCalling It hasn’t been reduced that I can see. Their two bios were combined into one Sussex bio (hence me saying their titles are being plugged) and at the moment while all the old articles about them are still there, everything redirects to the Sussex page. Except the whole Invictus segment. But again given the Sussex page links to their own full Sussex website that they have total control over, it seems much more a gesture of trust and a path forward rather than an attempt to wipe them out of history.
I expect the redirects are while they clean up the old articles to change how they’re referred to and add any footnotes and whatnot.
Its going to happen, William will see to it.
I agree with you, @History Calling. Harry is. Prince of the blood. He’s the son of the sovereign. He’s not a criminal. The press needs to stop treating him thus.
Can Harry and Meghan's titles be removed?
Deprived of the Dukedom of Sussex, the couple would become more elevated still, as they would revert to being Prince Harry and Princess Harry, titles that can never be removed, as they are part of the Prince's inalienable birthright, and a prince always trumps a duke, due in part to the scarcity of such handles.
Actually, in theory, the title of prince or princess can by removed by the monarch, though I doubt that would ever happen.
I don’t think your use of the word “attacks” is fair. It’s showing bias and not neutrality. This seems to be the problem with this entire situation. Reporting on personal opinions about people that they don’t know and never will. I don’t think anyone can say that anyone has attacked an entire family just by being honest. Diana was honest too but nobody went after her for telling her truth.
Because she died at the end. That’s why nobody is attacked her.
Agreed, They did an interview with Oprah and in that interview Meghan was asked if someone had made racist comments to her and towards her son. She said yes, and when asked to name them and who they were; she refused. When Harry joined the interview she asked the same questions, he said yes but he wouldn't name them but would say they were part of the royal family. He also stated that they did not provide the same protections from the media to him and Meghan like they did for William and Kate. Meghan and Harry have been bashed by the British media and tabloids for doing the same things that William and Kate have done. I would not say they attacked them at all. They only have stated the truth when asked. If that felt like a personal attack to anyone in the royal family, then they need a reality check.
@@user-jt1il2xh1c - People still did attack her like Sally Bedell Smith and Lady Colin Campbell.
@@that-random-humanoid2865let me refrech youre memory. Meg clamed there were conversations while she was pregnant how will baby looks Like. Harry Said it was one conversation before they were married.
Meg later in Netflix give a hint she was offened that they even thout that baby might not be White looking ..asking your self wondering how will baby look Like is not racism... everyone whats to see how babay looks Like. Even when Kate was expecting Tew York Times had cover wondering how will baby look Like nad that babies skin ton migt be darker then they are used to
Oprah inerwie she took down as it looked full od kase storries
That was attack, full blown, and they keepet attacking in moderne way...act off terason.
@@zb7293 they specifically stated that they were asked what the color of the baby's skin would be. Let's not forget the time that one Princess wore the racist Blackmoor brooch when meghan first joined the family. Or the time a man got arrested for attempting to hurt Harry for being a "race traitor". Or the time meghan was sent white powder (anthrax) in the mail. All horrific things she had to endure because of her race
For those interested, here is the Article in the US Constitution which concerns titles of nobility. (Note that it the proscription against titles granted by foreign states is limited to persons holding offices of profit or trust, which I doubt describes the former Miss Markle.).
"Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
A good video, all very clear. It’s also much as I thought. Our UK constitution is complicated and even experts say different things sometimes.
I think this is an irritation but a minor issue.
I do however think the CoS and the Regency Act are a bigger issue but that largely depends on time. If William becomes King before George is 18 the pool of people to be CoS is a lot smaller. Going even further if George becomes king before he is 18 and before William has put in a letters patent to name a Regent it then becomes and big issue but as this is very unlikely it’s not a pressing worry.
Your video on the CoS and Regency was also very good.
Thanks Gill. Yes, the UK laws are very messy sometimes (at least to my untrained eye).
This was an interesting video, thanks! With the centuries of precedent y'all have, this exact thing doesn't seem to have happened before. Who knows, perhaps with a bit of time, the situation will resolve itself. My grandpa would've compared this mess to a cow patty and advised everyone to quit stepping in it and allow it to dry up and blow away.
Thank you for explaining this subject so clearly. If Harry and Meghan kept their profound dislike of their situation and family private, they would have an easier time reconciling, if that is in fact what they desired to do.
Yes, I agree. I think they've probably burnt their bridges with the rest of the royals and I actually find it very sad to see.