Luxor4u

I have just been listening to QT on radio 4, most of which was taken up with Prince Harrys decision to step away from his royal duties and his desire to live abroad.
Good for him just so long as he doesn't expect the British taxpayers to fund his lifestyle.

I gather there’s a family conference at Sandringham involving the Queen, and princes Charles, William and Harry...with the Duchess of Sussex chipping in from Canada via phone.

Oh to be a fly on the wall there!

It’s difficult to see how Harry could be a part- time royal and, with the succession via William assured, I think it would be best if Harry abandoned any royal associations.

Both he and his wife are unlikely to starve and , by disassociating himself from the royal family, there will be no need for any taxpayer contribution.....which would inevitably give rise to adverse public comment.

I can understand (to a point) Prince Harry's desire to step down from being a 'senior' royal.
What I cannot understand is the poor way he has gone about it.

It's being compared with the Edward and Wallis situation back in the 30's. My sister recently told me of a story around Christmas 1936 when the news broke. The famous carol Hark the Herald Angels Sing added a line 'Mrs Simpson's stolen our King'. It was frowned upon by many but sung quite openly.

Now there are plenty of sarcastic pictorial jokes going around social media.

He needs to have his wotsits sewn back on.

I don't know the in and outs of the situation, Wallis Simpson was blamed for the abdication, more truthfully, Edward never wanted to be King. Now Megan is getting all the blame. Who knows.
He has only a small part of his income from the tax payer the rest comes from Daddy. So if Dad wont cough up anymore he will need to earn an income. Doing what? What is he qualified for, the military.
The way he has gone about the whole thing must be very distressing for the Queen, another Annus Horribilas awaits her. My advise is to double check the fire extinguishers at Windsor.

The anti-monarchy brigade must be rubbing their hands with glee at this self-inflicted damage to the image of the Royal Family.

But if it survived the 1936 Abdication Crisis, the numerous Princess Margaret scandals, the whole Diana debacle , the divorces of three of the Queen’s children and Andrew’s dubious activities I dare say this latest fracas will soon be forgotten.........or, rather, the tabloids and chattering classes will move on.

Re Megan...
When it comes to the arguements put up about the negative press towards her...I can't help but wonder what her relationship is like with her stepmother inlaw. Camilla could perhaps be expected to be a good allie, aid, and advisor on that ground. She probably has as much, if not more, experience of negative press over many years within the royal court.

He may have lost several titles title but he's got a new one now - Mr Meghan Markle.

I know the commentators are saying that the queen has, by not actually removing the HRH titles, left them room to come back if this new independant life doesn't work out, I can't help but think that really it means not Harry & Meghan, but just Harry.
I think the queen has been clever. She has built in a review of the situation at the end of a year, which leaves the welcome mat still on the doorstep. It also means that if she dies before, or after, the year is up, then it will be easier for Prince Charles to change the rules.

Only time will tell if this is going to work for them all. All I can do is wish them luck and hope that they get themselves sorted before Archie becomes another child damaged by disfunctional parents.

As a male-line grandchild of the monarch, Prince Harry is entitled to the HRH title whatever he does. So is his wife ( as a Princess of the UK ) as long as they remain married. The title is not dependent on Harry or Meghan carrying out royal duties...or “working for the firm”. Compare the similar situation of Prince Andrew’s daughters.

If the Queen wanted to change the situation she would have to issue Letters Patent....which she clearly has no intention of doing.....and effectively announce an intense disapproval of Harry and his wife.

That the couple CHOOSE not to use their titles is up to them..just as some peers decline to use their titles, or usual forms of address.

newcastle, you have confirmed what I had thought about the HRH title, but had come to think I was wrong. However, is the HRH title automatic to Meghan? Did she become a princess on marriage? I didn't think she did. Rather like Camilla, who I don't think was given, or has, the rank or title of princess. I'm also thinking the same for Sarah Ferguson, although in her case she didn't marry a first line direct heir to the throne, so that could be the difference for her.

As for Beatrice and Eugene, weren't they gifted the titles of Princess, rather than inherited by birthright? Along the same lines that it was decided not to gift Princess Anne's children with titles, and Prince Edward's children are not prince or princess but have other titles.

Hmmm... I think I need a strong coffee...my brain is not handling such intricacies of rank and form at the moment.

Camilla, Catherine and Meghan are, and automatically became, princesses of the UK on their respective marriages to blood princes of the UK. No special grant was necessary or appropriate.

However, they are not correctly addressed as Princess xxxxx because they are not of royal blood....unlike, say, Princess Beatrice or Princess Eugenie. Indeed it was always incorrect to refer to Diana or Fergie as Princess Diana or Princess Sarah. The former was HRH Diana, Princess of Wales. The latter HRH Sarah, Princess Andrew, Duchess of York.

Camilla is addressed as HRH Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall....despite being Princess of Wales ( out of respect for Diana’s memory). Catherine is HRH Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Meghan is HRH Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. In future, Meghan will, in practice, in informal communications from the palace, simply be referred to as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex even though her entitlement to HRH has not been removed.

I dare say the press will still refer to Catherine and Meghan as Princess xxxx, incorrectly, as they did with Diana.....

Beatrice and Eugenie automatically acquired their status at birth.

The children of Princess Anne are neither HRH nor prince/princess because they are not male-line grandchildren of the monarch. Anne declined any non- royal titles for her children , as did their father.

Likewise, Prince Edward specifically asked that his children, although entitled to be Prince/Princess and HRH, should be addressed simply as the children of an Earl..Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor.

In contrast, it’s HRH Princess Beatrice of York and HRH Princess Eugenie of York.....followed by, in Eugenie’s case, Mrs Jack Brooksbank.

As you can see....it’s an arcane subject, with intricate nuances! Princesses who are addressed as princesses (Beatrice)...other princesses who are not (Catherine).

And we have the prospect of a queen who may not be addressed as Queen...but rather Princess Consort, although I gather Charles may have changed his mind on that one. It’ll be - and should be in my view - King Charles III and Queen Camilla. Anything else would be an insult.

Only in Britain

Well that's saved me swatting up from my Debrett's Correct Form. ;-)

HEPZIBAH wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:35 pm Well that's saved me swatting up from eremy Debrett's Correct Form. ;-)

It gets even more confusing when you consider whether the descendants of the Queen should be known as “Windsor”, “Mountbatten-Windsor” ...or indeed anything at all!

There’s little logic to it, and divided opinions.

Fortunately, we live in a country where you can call yourself whatever you like....and there’s very little anyone can do to gainsay you!

Your respectfully

Prince Spaghetti, Duke of Hurghada .

newcastle wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:32 pm

HEPZIBAH wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:35 pm Well that's saved me swatting up from eremy Debrett's Correct Form. ;-)

It gets even more confusing when you consider whether the descendants of the Queen should be known as “Windsor”, “Mountbatten-Windsor” ...or indeed anything at all!

You missed out "Wales". Isn't that what Prince William was known as when he was a pilot?

newcastle wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:32 pm There’s little logic to it, and divided opinions.

Fortunately, we live in a country where you can call yourself whatever you like....and there’s very little anyone can do to gainsay you!

The can't gainsay you because they are too busy calling you something else anyway.

Your respectfully

Prince Spaghetti, Duke of Hurghada .

[/quote]

Royals don’t usually need surnames.

When they feel they should, as the Prince of Wales’ sons did when at school or in the forces, they chose “Wales”.

They could have used “Mountbatten-Windsor” ....as Prince Andrew and Princess Anne used on their respective marriage certificates. Prince William used it when suing some French magazine.

The daughter of Prince Edward was christened Louise Mountbatten-Windsor......but chooses to be known as Lady Louise Windsor.

The son of Prince Harry was christened Archie Mountbatten-Windsor...but will probably find that a bit of a mouthful if he grows up in Canada!

Sick of the lot of them. What a family.

carrie wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:31 pm Sick of the lot of them. What a family.

Rather them than any president, anyhow they are good for business.
That outburst on QT by Laurence Fox the other day was interesting, as I once took him, his uncle Edward
down the canal, then Lawrence years later was in H.Carter Discovering Egypt as Leonard..strange but true..
Ps: I thought my part as Weigall was quite exceptional..
quote: "An very underrated actor in the making"..Daily Sleaze

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-mid ... mike-pence

This is about the only positive thing Charles has done recently.