Should Prince Harry and Meghan Markle abdicate?

Should Harry and Meghan abdicate?

  • Yes, stripped of titles including HRH and public funding/protection

    Votes: 9 25.7%

  • Yes but keeping titles incl HRH, public funding, protection and Frogmore Cottage

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • No, Harry cannot give up his British citizenship and Archie belongs to the Queen

    Votes: 3 8.6%

  • Who?

    Votes: 21 60.0%
  • Total voters
    35
  • Poll closed .
Vixen said:
Nonsense. Don't you recognise diplomacy when you see it? Harry is the Queen's favourite grandson. She has worded her statement to avoid looking as though he is being punished.

Truth is, being unable use letters before or after your name has much he same effect as being stripped of them. Harry is no different from Diana in that respect, even if the wording is more tactfully put.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. The wording is very clear, they aren't to use HRH in their new life, but they haven't been stripped of the title.
 
Darat said:
No it doesn't. The wording is very clear, they aren't to use HRH in their new life, but they haven't been stripped of the title.
Click to expand...

Oh dear.

BMA: You are not to use the designation 'doctor'.

Man: So what do I tell my patients if they want to know if I am a doctor?

BMA: You can tell them that you have passed your medical exams. You retain that. But you can't tell people you are a doctor.

Man: So I am barred from using 'Dr'. ?

BMA: You've got it!
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Nonsense. Don't you recognise diplomacy when you see it? Harry is the Queen's favourite grandson. She has worded her statement to avoid looking as though he is being punished.

Truth is, being unable use letters before or after your name has much he same effect as being stripped of them. Harry is no different from Diana in that respect, even if the wording is more tactfully put.
Click to expand...

He is still able to. We all are

Signed HRH bobthecoward
 
Vixen said:
Oh dear.

BMA: You are not to use the designation 'doctor'.

Man: So what do I tell my patients if they want to know if I am a doctor?

BMA: You can tell them that you have passed your medical exams. You retain that. But you can't tell people you are a doctor.

Man: So I am barred from using 'Dr'. ?

BMA: You've got it!
Click to expand...
Again in this matter you are simply wrong. Have a look here for example: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...longer-use-hrh-style-like-diana-38873155.html

.... snip...

But unlike Diana, although the Harry and Meghan will not use their HRHs, they will still retain them.


... snip...



ETA
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/10772357/prince-harry-prince-changes/

... snip...

But despite not using their HRH titles, they will still retain them.
... snip...

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/is-prince-harry-still-a-prince-change-royal-titles-explained-1369303

... snip...

Although they will no longer use the "HRH" title, they will not officially be stripped of them,

... snip...


To non royals it seems as if there isn't a difference but for the royals it is a huge difference.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Well, I realise it’s unlikely you’ll follow the suggestion. However, while racism is pretty clearly nonsense (see Adam Rutherford’s latest book), there are people who take it seriously, and many of them do believe things like the ‘one-drop rule’. If you’re not aware of this, then you should be.
Click to expand...

Well I don't recognise 'race'. It's a nonsense concept. I do see though, that organisations such as the police or the acting profession do need some kind of coding to identify what people look like.

However, the truth is, appearances are based on phenotypes, not 'race'.

Everybody is a mix of 50% their father and 50% their mother.

Everybody s 100% Homo sapiens.

Yes, we know a huge segment of the British population are supposedly 'racist' in that it believes in 'race' but that is hardly going to impact on someone living in a grand mansion and living the life of Larry.
 
Darat said:
Again in this matter you are simply wrong. Have a look here for example: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...longer-use-hrh-style-like-diana-38873155.html

.... snip...

But unlike Diana, although the Harry and Meghan will not use their HRHs, they will still retain them.


... snip...



ETA
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/10772357/prince-harry-prince-changes/

... snip...

But despite not using their HRH titles, they will still retain them.
... snip...

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/is-prince-harry-still-a-prince-change-royal-titles-explained-1369303

... snip...

Although they will no longer use the "HRH" title, they will not officially be stripped of them,

... snip...


To non royals it seems as if there isn't a difference but for the royals it is a huge difference.
Click to expand...

I am sure Meghan will find comfort in that although she is still HRH it is now invisible.
 
Vixen said:
I am sure Meghan will find comfort in that although she is still HRH it is now invisible.
Click to expand...
It is not invisible, they have just agreed to not use it in their new life.

ETA: I expect that for Harry it is a very important fact.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
It is not invisible, they have just agreed to not use it in their new life.

ETA: I expect that for Harry it is a very important fact.
Click to expand...

Er, if you recall, in their original public statement giving notice they clearly stated they wanted to continue their royal duties.

So no, they did not volunteer this, it was taken away from them by the Queen.

The Queen has worded her statement very carefully so as to not hurt their feelings.

However, they wanted to hang onto HRH but Ma'am said, no.
 
Vixen said:
Well I don't recognise 'race'. It's a nonsense concept. I do see though, that organisations such as the police or the acting profession do need some kind of coding to identify what people look like.

However, the truth is, appearances are based on phenotypes, not 'race'.

Everybody is a mix of 50% their father and 50% their mother.

Everybody s 100% Homo sapiens.

Yes, we know a huge segment of the British population are supposedly 'racist' in that it believes in 'race' but that is hardly going to impact on someone living in a grand mansion and living the life of Larry.
Click to expand...

In Europe and North America, only a white person could say that. Everyone else doesn't have the luxury of not noticing race.
 
Vixen said:
From Google:

Can I use Royal in my company name?
Using the word 'Royal' in a company name
The use of the word 'Royal' is prohibited, as is the use of the following associated words: King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Duke, Duchess, His/Her Majesty, and Windsor.Feb 19, 2015

https://www.rapidformations.co.uk/blog/sensitive-words-and-expressions-in-company-names/
Click to expand...
I take it this is where the queen sends her dirty laundry?

https://www.yell.com/biz/royal-dry-cleaners-maidenhead-798418/
 
Vixen said:
Er, if you recall, in their original public statement giving notice they clearly stated they wanted to continue their royal duties.

So no, they did not volunteer this, it was taken away from them by the Queen.

The Queen has worded her statement very carefully so as to not hurt their feelings.

However, they wanted to hang onto HRH but Ma'am said, no.
Click to expand...

As usual you enter the land of non sequitors your point was that they had lost their HRHs. As I showed you misunderstood the announcement, they have not lost their HRHs, they both retain them.
 
Darat said:
As this is being done no. All they have done is not let him directly use his connection to the royal family. He isn't actually losing his rank so he won't have to bow when he meets his father or Camilla or his aunt and uncles and all the other HRHs, he will of course still have to bow when he meets his grandmother. And to the likes of normal people it doesn't mean anything but for the the royals it means everything, so it is at the heart of what they are. That is why his mother lost her HRH which can only have been done to humiliate her as much as possible in the Royal circle, as it meant nothing to the wider world.
Click to expand...

Fascinating stuff.

And, he's still His Royal Highness, but he can't tell anyone.

So, by convention, then, a not so royal person coming into the presence of a royal person should bow to the royal person. Will people still be expected to bow to him? And people ought to be bowing to Eugenie, but not to Louise or Zara?

I'm guessing not a whole lot of bowing goes on these days anyway, except probably to The Queen. Maybe to The Prince of Wales too, especially now that he's an old man.


The largest medieval recreation group in the United States is called the Society for Creative Anachronism. (It was a name that was pulled out of the air by science fiction writer Marion Zimmer Bradley, when it was a group of friends having a themed picnic in a park. They didn't know the name would still be in use 50 years later.) I've been a member since college days. There, we bow to "royalty", all the time, and people call me "Your Excellency", because I'm a baron instead of a plain old lord, but we know we're joking.

Back in college days, the group always had a "new member night" early in the semester, and people interested would introduce themselves and say a little bit about themselves. At one of those, a fellow stood up and said, in an authentic English accent, "My name is Warren Taylor, and I'm a Briton, and I'm here to find out why you people think this is anachronistic."
 
Vixen said:
Many a true word said in jest. What decent person makes their spouse give up their family, titles, public funding, honorary military titles and forces him or her to leave the country they love and which they have served all of their lives with passion and duty?

You will note Meghan has also ghosted her own family, Dad, sister, cousins, uncles, aunts, ex-husband, ex-cohabitee (dumped live-in partner Cory for Harry), virtually all of her old friends.

This is a cold ruthless person who has used phoney 'woke' and 'humanitarian' memes to justify her outrageous behaviour.
Click to expand...

Except all of your continued nonsense requires that this is all Meghan's idea that she's forcing on Harry instead of a decision they made together, as couples tend to do. In fact, it could all be Harry's idea in response to his wife's unhappiness. Husbands and wives often do things because they want their families to be happy.

Of course, seeing it this way requires not having an irrational hatred of one of the people in the relationship.

While giving up a bunch of ceremonial duties and claim to a ceremonial throne that one will never get seems like a really big deal to you, it may not seem so to others.
 
Darat said:
They are not losing their HRH. They will no longer use it. Quite a difference.
Click to expand...



Ah yes sorry - I meant that they would not be addressed as HRH


ETA: Oh, I see this issue has caused quite the ruckus in other quarters :D
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Many a true word said in jest. What decent person makes their spouse give up their family, titles, public funding, honorary military titles and forces him or her to leave the country they love and which they have served all of their lives with passion and duty?

You will note Meghan has also ghosted her own family, Dad, sister, cousins, uncles, aunts, ex-husband, ex-cohabitee (dumped live-in partner Cory for Harry), virtually all of her old friends.

This is a cold ruthless person who has used phoney 'woke' and 'humanitarian' memes to justify her outrageous behaviour.
Click to expand...



Are you by any chance a disciple of Piers Morgan on this issue, Vixen....? :rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
Technically, I suppose the House of Commons can vote to pass a Bill to get rid of the monarchy.

However, don't forget it is the Queen herself who opens each parliamentary term listing the various issues to be put forward.

Can't see her uttering those words.
Click to expand...



At each State Opening of Parliament, the monarch utters whatever words have been written for him/her by the Government.

Again.... you really should learn more about the concept of representative parliamentary democracy in the UK, and the role/powers of the monarchy.


(PS: you do know, don't you, that the British monarch is also, for example, the head of state of a country such as Australia - with exactly the same powers (and lack of powers) as the monarch has as head of state of the UK? And do you further know that countries such as Australia have recently seriously considered taking steps towards becoming a republic and removing the British monarch as head of state?)
 
Oh, now I see that Netflix is putting their hooks into Her Royal Highness. This is going to be amazing. Within two years she will have a personal net worth of more than $50 million and rapidly growing.

Kim Kardashian is fuming. "Nobody is even going to remember me. She has every headline everywhere. It's all Meghan all the time."
 
Vixen said:
Nonsense. Don't you recognise diplomacy when you see it? Harry is the Queen's favourite grandson. She has worded her statement to avoid looking as though he is being punished.

Truth is, being unable use letters before or after your name has much he same effect as being stripped of them. Harry is no different from Diana in that respect, even if the wording is more tactfully put.
Click to expand...



Nonsense. Diana - who had been a commoner before marriage - divorced a member of the Royal Family. Very different circumstance.

Diana's honorific was a rather hastily-agreed fudge which was predicated on her being the mother of a future king and someone who was held in widespread public affection. In fact, her official post-divorce title of "Diana, Princess of Wales" ran contrary to all precedence and title protocol. I think there were even talks about allowing her to retain her HRH status post-divorce, but that Charles vetoed it.

By contrast, Harry is a son of the heir apparent. That doesn't change (obviously). And his wife is married to a son of the heir apparent. Harry will be a member of the Royal Family from the moment of his birth to the moment of his death, unconditionally. Meghan will be a member of the Royal Family provided she remains married to Harry.
 
Vixen said:
Be that as it may, my 13th great-grandparents are the same as HM the Queen's, not some anonymous '35 - 40 generations' ago.

They are: Maria Elisabet von Dumpian

Gender: Female
Birth: circa 1455
Brandenburg, Brandenburg, Germany


Herman von Dönhoff

Gender: Male
Birth: circa 1450
Death: before 1539


In fact, between that generation and six my maternal ancestors were listed Swedish nobility after which the aristocracy stopped being recognised in Finland.

So, if Harry and therefore, Archie, have abrogated their place in the queue to the throne, I have gone up two notches. Let that sink in :D:thumbsup:
Click to expand...



Oh jeeeeeeez. Pathetic (in the proper sense of the word)

(And re-read my post again - specifically in respect to fishing up and across, then down and across, family trees.)
 
Meadmaker said:
Fascinating stuff.

And, he's still His Royal Highness, but he can't tell anyone.

So, by convention, then, a not so royal person coming into the presence of a royal person should bow to the royal person. Will people still be expected to bow to him? And people ought to be bowing to Eugenie, but not to Louise or Zara?

I'm guessing not a whole lot of bowing goes on these days anyway, except probably to The Queen. Maybe to The Prince of Wales too, especially now that he's an old man.


The largest medieval recreation group in the United States is called the Society for Creative Anachronism. (It was a name that was pulled out of the air by science fiction writer Marion Zimmer Bradley, when it was a group of friends having a themed picnic in a park. They didn't know the name would still be in use 50 years later.) I've been a member since college days. There, we bow to "royalty", all the time, and people call me "Your Excellency", because I'm a baron instead of a plain old lord, but we know we're joking.

Back in college days, the group always had a "new member night" early in the semester, and people interested would introduce themselves and say a little bit about themselves. At one of those, a fellow stood up and said, in an authentic English accent, "My name is Warren Taylor, and I'm a Briton, and I'm here to find out why you people think this is anachronistic."
Click to expand...

It hasn't been a requirement to bow for years.

https://www.royal.uk/greeting-member-royal-family
 
Vixen said:
Are you claiming the repayment to the British taxpayer is a voluntary one?

Bearing in mind the pair issued a public statement they wanted to carry on with it as they have done (off the public's back).
Click to expand...

You are the one who added that slant to the article you linked. Again I ask, where is your evidence?
 
Darat said:
As this is being done no. All they have done is not let him directly use his connection to the royal family. He isn't actually losing his rank so he won't have to bow when he meets his father or Camilla or his aunt and uncles and all the other HRHs, he will of course still have to bow when he meets his grandmother. And to the likes of normal people it doesn't mean anything but for the the royals it means everything, so it is at the heart of what they are. That is why his mother lost her HRH which can only have been done to humiliate her as much as possible in the Royal circle, as it meant nothing to the wider world.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that he doesn't have to bow before the Royal Battle Axe.
 
Vixen said:
I did see a screen shot, but I don't have the link.

Isn't race all to do with appearances? If she appears Caucasian 'for acting purposes' then Baylor's theory that Harry fetishizes her as Black is shot to pieces.
Click to expand...
She had a black dad in that 'Suits' TV series she starred in - so she was playing a mixed race part.
 
Babbylonian said:
Except all of your continued nonsense requires that this is all Meghan's idea that she's forcing on Harry instead of a decision they made together, as couples tend to do. In fact, it could all be Harry's idea in response to his wife's unhappiness. Husbands and wives often do things because they want their families to be happy.



Of course, seeing it this way requires not having an irrational hatred of one of the people in the relationship.



While giving up a bunch of ceremonial duties and claim to a ceremonial throne that one will never get seems like a really big deal to you, it may not seem so to others.
Click to expand...

He hasn't given up his position in the succession.

What I've been struck with is how warm the announcement was, it sounded like it came from someone with actual human feelings rather than the queen.

All the title thing is about is so he can't profit directly from his HRH and to give him the freedom to do what they want without it being seen as a proxy for the royal family. The removal of his military stuff and nonsense will have come from the government.
 
I hope they decide to change "SussexRoyal" to "SussexAmerica."

Fortunately, the descendants of that Vespucci fellow who liked to tag maps didn't retain any veto rights over the use of that name.
 
Darat said:
He hasn't given up his position in the succession.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Regardless, in the absence of something apocalyptic and a sudden desire of the UK to return to a full monarchy, there's no need for him and his children to hang around the palace being trained to give the Christmas speech or lay swords upon shoulders.
 
Myriad said:
I hope they decide to change "SussexRoyal" to "SussexAmerica."

Fortunately, the descendants of that Vespucci fellow who liked to tag maps didn't retain any veto rights over the use of that name.
Click to expand...

Why would they do that. They are apparently going to live in Canada. A much safer place for celebrities.
 
Steve said:
Yes. The continent of North America.
Click to expand...

It's US bias that tries to claim the word America is distinct to it. The Americas are both continents, and some of the other inhabitants do in fact refer to themselves as American.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom