Queen Elizabeth thinks it would be ‘unduly punitive’ to take away the Sussexes’ titles

Young Leaders Awards Ceremony

The suggestions from the royal commentator class were particularly awful for the past year. If it was up to them, Queen Elizabeth II would have demanded that Prince Harry divorce his wife, abandon his child in America, and return to England immediately so he could marry a blonde. Failing that, the commentators demanded that QEII strip Meghan and Harry of their Sussex ducal titles, strip Harry of his prince title, and force them out of all of their patronages. The idea was that if Harry & Meghan *have* to be together, they should be marginalized, broke, worthless and forgotten. In the end, the Queen made a devilish compromise with those unhinged hardliners: she stripped Harry and Meghan of all of the “royal patronages” she had some kind of control over, but there wasn’t much she could do about their royal titles. So now that’s being massaged into “the good Queen isn’t so vindictive and punitive after all.”

The Queen has no plans to strip the official titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex from Harry and Meghan – but the couple will lose a string of patronages. The pair remain His and Her Royal Highness, although they are not permitted to use those titles on a day-to-day basis as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.

A spokesman for the Sussexes said there was ‘absolutely no question’ they had wanted to retain the positions they had lost, adding: ‘They do respect the decision but they always made clear they were committed to doing the roles.’

Palace sources told the Mail that official positions were ‘simply incompatible’ with the couple’s new commercial careers in the US. However, stripping the couple of every vestige of their old lives – including the Sussex titles – was not an option for the Queen.

Palace insiders believed it would be ‘unduly punitive’ to take away the couple’s HRHs. Such a step could have provoked uncomfortable comparisons with Harry’s mother Diana, Princess of Wales, who lost her HRH after divorcing Prince Charles.

A source told the Mail: ‘They are still the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Your Royal Highnesses, although they won’t be using the latter. That was agreed last January and nothing has changed.’

Of the duke, they said: ‘He was born Prince Harry and will always be Prince Harry, while the [Sussex title] was a wedding gift. Regardless of what has happened, he will still be the grandson of the monarch, the son of a future monarch and the brother of a future monarch. That will never change. And he will still be those things even though he has chosen to walk away.’

Of the pressure on Harry to relinquish all of his titles, the source said: ‘He would rightly argue that he will always be portrayed as a royal and a prince, even if he worked as a landscape gardener in LA. He will never escape [the titles]. So why change?’

[From The Daily Mail]

My guess – and I have no idea – is that the Oprah interview will be promoted as “A Conversation with Meghan & Harry,” no titles necessary. It gets a bit trickier with their Netflix projects because I really don’t know which unions they belong to and which names their union memberships are under. Meghan was/is part of SAG under her maiden name, but what about the Producers Guild of America? Whatever their PGA union cards say, that’s how they’ll be named on their Netflix projects.

I’ve noted before that the American press largely began phasing out their titles a year ago – they just became Meghan and Harry, and to this day, many outlets just use Meghan’s maiden name (they do the same with Kate, honestly, because their single-lady branding was so strong). My point? Americans don’t actually give a f–k about titles, and it’s an absolute joke that the British media keeps suggesting that Americans will feel one way or the other if H&M do lose their titles. All that being said, the real reason the Queen doesn’t want to take their titles is because she knows that the comparison to Prince Andrew – who still has his ducal title, his prince title, his HRH and his military titles – will be too stark.

Royal wedding

Queen Elizabeth II awards Captain Sir Thomas Moore with the insignia of Knight Bachelor at Windsor Castle

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

72 Responses to “Queen Elizabeth thinks it would be ‘unduly punitive’ to take away the Sussexes’ titles”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. SarahCS says:


    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      “the comparison to Prince Andrew – who still has his ducal title, his prince title, his HRH and his military titles – will be too stark.”

      THIS. If it weren’t for Andrew, the Queen would have taken away Harry and Meghan’s titles by now. But after the queen dies, Andrew may lose his, depending on Charles’ whim. Despite what anyone says, the “HRH” title is given at whim of the monarch, and can be taken away at whim. Their “HRH” is as good as gone anyway, since they cannot ever use that title (does one really have a title if one can never use it?). The same with the wedding gift, the monarch sets the parameters — only for life, or son may inherit it, etc. But at the latest, they will lose their titles when William is king. At this point, all those titles do is identify someone as belonging to a racist institution that still believes some bloodlines were created superior by God, and that protects rapists. The titles are tainted, and the monarchy should be abolished.

    • Jackie says:

      And Fergie!

    • MissMarierose says:


      If they didn’t take away the HRH from a Nazi sympathizer who literally committed treason against the United Kingdom, they certainly can’t take it away from H&M.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Actually, they DID take away the “HRH” and Edward’s status as a royal prince when he abdicated. That’s why his wife would NOT be an “HRH” or a “Princess” when they married, and if they had any kids, the kids would not have titles. What his brother the king did, was give Edward the title “Duke of Windsor” as a ROYAL Duke (there are non-royal Dukes, and that was another option the king considered). By being made a royal duke, Edward could be called “HRH” — but it was a NEW “HRH” title that was bestowed upon Edward personally and individually as part of his dukedom, and NOT as a vestige of his royal birth.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Mrs. Krabapple: that’s some interesting hairsplitting on the part of the monarch. Geez Louise!

    • booboocita says:

      February 19 was Andrew’s birthday. The Palace staff couldn’t quite bring themselves to wish him a happy birthday on Twitter, but they posted a brief announcement on the Royal Family account saying essentially that he had been born that day, along with a pic of his birth announcement and another of TQ holding him on the palace balcony during a Trooping the Colour celebration. The clapback was FEROCIOUS, with almost all of it variations on, “When is this nonce going to be arrested?” and “You treat Harry and Meghan like crap, but this pedophile gets off scot-free?”

  2. Ronaldinho says:

    Isn’t the Duchess also a Princess?
    Please someone help me with this. ( Princess of the United Kingdom)
    Also doesn’t lovely Archie become a Prince once Charles becomes King or some such shenanigans

    • Becks1 says:

      Yes, so if they took away the duchess title, she would be Princess Henry (like Princess Michael of Kent.)

    • Elizabeth says:

      She is Princess Henry of Wales, obviously a clunky way to do it and different from a lot of other European monarchies, but for the Brits a royal dukedom is a higher title (don’t ask me why lol) so everyone is supposed to use The Duchess of Sussex.

    • Cee says:

      She is Her Royal Highness Princess Henry Charles Albert David, Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness of Somewhere.

      She takes her husband’s name and titles and as the dukedom is his highest ranking title, that’s what they’re called (see also: the Cambridges)

      People incorrectly referred to Diana as Princess Diana. She never was. She was HRH Princess Charles + his other names, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, etc etc etc (he has a million titles)

      • Ronaldinho says:

        Thanks you guys – I love how knowledgeable this site it

      • Becks1 says:

        Slight correction – while Diana was never Princess Di, her official title was HRH The Princess of Wales. It’s different from someone like Princess Michael whose husband doesnt have another title. You would never have heard Diana introduced as “Princess Charles” but always as THE Princess of Wales. Kind of like how Kate is The Duchess of Cambridge.

        After the divorce she became Diana, Princess of Wales.

      • anotherlily says:

        This is exactly how it is. The Queen cannot remove Harry’s titles and Meghan’s titles derive from her marriage to a titled man. They are the equivalent of ‘Mrs’.

        Harry is a Prince by birth. Nothing can alter that. His ducal title is one of the royal dukedoms which revert to the Monarch whenever there is no heir. There was a choice of four or five vacant dukedoms and Sussex was chosen. Once such a title is bestowed it cannot be revoked. It becomes the property of the recipient and his heir. There is provision for the recipient to renounce the title but it must be done within the first year. After that time any heir has a legal claim. Archie has a legal right to inherit the dukedom of Sussex.

        Also, when his grandfather is King, Archie will be HRH Prince Archie in the same way that Prince Edward’s children are legally HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James. Like Edward and Sophie, Harry and Meghan have decided not to use the HRH status for their children, however, on reaching 18 the decision belongs to the child.

        The simple fact is that the Queen has no power to remove Harry’s HRH status or his dukedom. If she wanted the titles to be taken she would need to use the Deprivation of Titles Act of 1917 and ask both Houses of Paliament to agree that Harry has committed treason. He hasn’t committed treason.

      • TheOtherSam says:

        @anotherlily she does have the right to remove the HRH and Princely status, from Harry or anyone else. The Queen is the “fount of all honour” and has control over the HRH honorific as monarch. She doesn’t need to invoke the Deprivation Act of 1917, she can simply issue Letters Patent at her whim.

        The dukedom is another situation and the path of removal of that honor much murkier. That might involve Parliament.

        She of course won’t attempt to remove either however because a) Harry hasn’t really done anything wrong to justify it and b) Andrew.

  3. Maida says:

    I mean, the BRF’s disparate treatment of Prince Andrew and the Sussexes says it all anyway.

  4. Lucky Charm says:

    Comparing losing their HRH to Diana losing hers is apples to oranges. Diana’s HRH was through her marriage to Prince Charles. Once they were divorced, she was no longer entiitled to use it. The real apples to apples comparison, which the Queen absolutely does NOT want, is Prince Andrew. It will be interesting to see what Charles does with those (Andrews titles, etc.) once he becomes King.

    • Cee says:

      I think what they’re referring to, and I could be wrong, is that Diana lost the HRH style as “punishment” for her interview and media strategy which made their house of cards crumble around them. It was vindictive and could have been avoided given her popularity, it hadn’t been considered until way into the divorce and their media wars. She was also “greedy” and demanded more money, thus they punished her by removing the HRH. That’s when the whole “I was born with a title” retort first appeared.

  5. Bex says:

    She’s just signalling to the Piers Morgans and Andrew Neils of the British Media that their demands on her to “strip Harry” of his title (AND his place in succession) isn’t going to happen and that they need to STFU nc it’s making her (and the rest) look bad and hypocritical.

    We’ll see if they back off, but considering how much the tabloid engagement massively increases when the tabloids mention H&M, I doubt they’ll stop.

    It’s too lucrative and thosd tabloids and their reporters like making money.

    • Amy Bee says:

      It would be great if the Queen made an official statement about this but it’s in her interest to allow the press to continue to call for Harry and Meghan to be stripped of their titles. The press is also calling for Harry to be removed from the line of succession, perhaps realising that the Queen won’t strip him of his title.

      • HeatherC says:

        I honestly think the call to remove Harry from the line of succession has nothing to do with Harry himself. It’s all about Archie.

        Right now Harry is 6, Archie is 7. When the queen dies, they move up a spot. When Charles dies, they move up a spot if the Cambridge kids haven’t had kids and there are no more Cambridge kids. There is a very good chance that someone with “black blood” will be in the top 5 of the succession, however briefly. They can’t handle that.

        1. Charles
        2. William
        3. George
        4. Charlotte
        5. Louis
        6. Harry
        7. Archie

        1. William
        2. George
        3. Charlotte
        4. Louis
        5. Harry
        6. Archie

        1. George
        2. Charlotte
        3. Louis
        4. Harry
        5. Archie.

      • Cecilia says:

        Exactly if the queen wanted this to stop she would have put her foor down long time ago. Talking about h&m will make people forget about andrew.

      • aquarius64 says:

        Baby Sussex no 2 will be no. 8 to the throne.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Heather C: Yes, Archie and the new baby. It’s interesting that this talk about Harry being removed from the line of succession comes after Harry and Meghan announced that they were having another baby.

  6. tee says:

    My thing is, if the problem with their titles is that M&H are exploiting their association with the family/institution.. how exactly is Harry and Meghan Windsor any better? Particularly if people refer to them as “The Windsors” lol

    • Amy Bee says:

      It’s not and most people think of Harry as Diana’s son more than the Queen’s grandson. Stripping Harry and Meghan of their titles will only lead to their popularity growing more like what happened with Diana.

  7. Becks1 says:

    She was never going to take the titles away but they are still being used as another stick the press uses against the Sussexes.

    Diana losing/giving up her HRH is not the same thing at all because Harry has his HRH through birth.

    The royal family is so petty and I know they are all about the racist RRs etc – but does NO ONE who works there realize how bad this mess is making them all look on the world stage?

    • Cee says:

      I don’t know. Once Wallis Simpson married David she should have taken his style and titles but she was prevented from doing so. She has Her Grace, not HRH.
      This seems to be a play at maybe removing the style from Meghan, not Harry. Both Harry and David were born princes and entitled to their style by birth right yet Wallis was not afforded the same level of precedence the other wives always get.

      • Becks1 says:

        But Wallis never had the HRH (we can argue whether she should have or not, but she never did.) So it was never taken from her.

      • anotherlily says:

        With Wallis it was because she was divorced and at that time the Church of England did not allow remarriage after divorce. It was effectively saying that the marriage was not recognised and she was regarded as divorced. In practice it meant that people were not expected to bow or curtsy to her. If they had attended any royal events in the UK the courtiers would have bowed to Edward but not to Wallis, and, as a non-HRH, Wallis would have been expected to curtsy to all the Princes and Princesses as well as to the King and Queen.

  8. Mooshe1 says:

    So because the double standards argument is being brought up more and more they’re trying to shut the title arguments down. I’m thinking they’re especially hoping to stop the questions about Andrew

  9. Lauren says:

    Of course she wouldn’t take the titles. That would open a whole new can of worms about the RF and why should tax payers maintain so freaking many of them when they are just related to the monarch. The queen’s sovereign grant is steadily going up even with so few actually working.

  10. Amy Bee says:

    I think the Queen would have stripped them of their titles if Andrew was still a working royal. She can’t strip them of their titles because people will start calling for Andrew to be stripped of his, it will remind everybody of the treatment of Diana when she was stripped of her HRH and stripping Harry of the Duke of Sussex title will only mean that Meghan will be called Princess Henry which will lead most people to her just call her Princess Meghan. I’m sure that the Queen doesn’t want people calling Meghan that.

    • anotherlily says:

      She can’t ‘strip them of their titles’ because she has no power to do this. Harry is a Prince by birth, the title is his by law. The dukedom is a gift and like any gift it is now his property which his heir has a legal right to inherit. As his wife Meghan shares his status and titles.

  11. Cecilia says:

    The queen won’t take their titles simply because she can’t it would take an act of parliament. And if meg&haz were to loose their titles because they got a job, then that has implications for any other duke/duchess, earl, viscount, lord and lady using their title for their job. This won’t even make it past the house of lords

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Thanks for bringing up “act of parliament.”.

      Also, the “Line of Succession” to the British Crown is also “enshrined” in an “act of parliament”.

      QEII cannot change “Line of Succession” to the British Crown and “throw” Harry out. Only parliament can change the “Line of Succession” to the British Crown as they did right before George’s birth,

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      People get the two mixed up, but it is being removed from the line of succession that requires an act of parliament, not taking away their titles. The titles were granted by the whim of the monarch, and they can be taken away by the monarch. The titles are NOT tied to line of succession in any way (examples: Anne’s children are commoners with no titles, but they are in the line of succession. Philip is NOT in the line of succession, but he is an “HRH” prince).

  12. Who ARE These People? says:

    The kerfuffle over all these imaginary, made-up titles only underscores the strange priorities of the British royal family.

  13. Snuffles says:

    Did you guys see that BBC question time tweet?


    Basically saying can they “allow” Prince Harry use royal trappings to get rich and famous while rejecting his “duty”.

    But Harry is right. He will ALWAYS be a Prince. He can’t help his birth and upbringing. He was born into the public eye and will die in the public eye. And double whammy with him being Diana’s boy. He couldn’t deny or reject that even if he tried. It’s his DNA! It’s his personal history. So he might as well use it to do some good in this world.

    • molly says:

      It’s complicated by the fact that Harry literally doesn’t have a last name. All his legal documents call him HRH Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex. Meghan can go back to Markle, and I suppose Harry can use Wales like he did in the military, but all the complicated “title” business makes it really hard to just remove a critical part of someone’s name and leave them with nothing.

      • Novice says:

        @molly, Harry has family or surname. They all have. They just don’t use it, because they don’t need to, unlike us common folks who need surnames to distinguish one another. Harry can use the following surnames: Windsor (his house name), Monbatton-Windsor (since Prince Philip and the Queen married and the Queen made the royal decree), or Wales (his father’s feudal title), or Sussex (his own feudal name).

    • Izzy says:

      The rest of Harry’s family lives in a literal palace with a gilded piano, so maybe the BBC can STFU.

  14. OriginalLala says:

    Maybe it’s because I’m clearly just a pleb but I don’t understand the fuss about these made-up. un-earned titles…the royals cling to them like lifeboats, I guess because underneath the titles, there isn’t much there.

    • booboocita says:

      They cling to the titles because without them, they’re just a bunch of elitist inbred parasites living off the taxpayers. The titles are supposed to persuade others that they’re “special” and entitled to their privileges.

  15. gm says:

    They hope “the son of a future monarch and the brother of a future monarch. That will never change. ” In my lifetime many more important events then this have happened that I did not think would happen in my lifetime, things change and I wonder about royalty, not just the the British, but all over the world still existing for much longer. Or without significant change, like Denmark where only the oldest child will grow up to be supported by the country.

  16. Cee says:

    I had a huge Twitter fight the other day about this. If they lose their titles and style then every single Non Working Royal member of that Family needs to lose theirs, too. This includes: the Queen’s cousins, The Queen’s pedo son, the York Princesses, the Wessex children (legally and formally HRHs and Princess/Prince) and Harry’s children.

    These people, except the Wessex children and Harry’s, earn their living privately and can still use their titles as they wish, cashing in. Peter Philips needs to stop selling milk in China, or cosplaying being a Prince, and Zara needs to stop using her royal connections to secure sponsorships AND stop using her mother’s Royal state to work out from.

    This is why Petty Betty is not doing anything about the Sussex titles. She knows that if she does she will open a can of worms and her whole family will lose.

    • Becks1 says:

      I get into constant fights about this too, and even just the line in this story about how they are no longer using HRH because they arent working royals drives me INSANE. HRH is by birth, not because you are a working royal. I think its bonkers that the royal family twitter will refer to Eugenie as HRH Princess Eugenie but insists that Harry and Meghan not use their HRH.

      its so clear that they are punishing the Sussexes.

      (I should stop the twitter fights, I was arguing with someone the other day who told me that Princess Anne was no longer in the line of succession and wasnt a working royal.)

      • CC2 says:

        Right becks. These people are angry at the fact a WOC can simply marry into the family and get all the privileges even if she does nothing for the UK. They’re mad Harry at stay in Cali and still be a prince. Heck King or regent if someone dies. They’re not mad at the principle/rule, otherwise they wouldn’t be monarchists. They are just angry a black woman is getting these benefits

      • Cee says:

        The lack of logic is astounding.

  17. lanne says:

    If they took the titles, then Harry and Meghan would be known as the “former Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, which just reinforces that they were kicked out of the monarchy. And with HRH Prince Andrew Duke of York clinging to Mommy’s coattails, going to Parliament to strip the Sussexes would open up the whole royal title nonsense to scrutiny. And, Parliament has bigger issues these days than Harry and Meghan. They need to be looking at passing some legislation to help business owners who have lost their biggest trading partners via Brexit.

  18. Merricat says:

    Hmmm, Andrew has an American title, doesn’t he? Sir Most Wanted List of the FBI? We’d be happy to take that from him, if he’d just come out to talk.

    • Dee Kay says:

      @Merricat HA!!!!!!!!!

      • Dee Kay says:

        Btw I was watching Merrick Garland’s confirmation hearing this morning and the first question I heard was basically, Will you prosecute Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators? And Garland, without being able to make firm commitments about future prosecutions, agreed the Epstein situation was reprehensible and sex trafficking is a scourge of our times and must be stopped. So….I hope we will see more action against Andrew and others after Garland’s confirmation.

  19. aquarius64 says:

    Agreeing with everything said. This is a land mine the queen doesn’t want tripped.

    • L4frimaire says:

      Same. At this point why do that? I will always believe this whole Sussex saga, the goal to get her out, started at the very top, they set the tone, and it snowballed from that. It’s now completely out of control and how can it be reigned back in (no pun intended)?

  20. Nic919 says:

    The Queen can’t remove his dukedom. It requires an act of attainder from Parliament, which in the past has only happened when the person committed treason.
    And the HRH was assigned in the letters patent of George V in 1917. The Queen revised it before George was born to give HRHs to all of William’s kids, as the 1917 would only have given it to the first male child.

    The Queen could revise this again, but it will raise questions about all the other non working royals like Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie who still use the HRH and Prince or Princess.

    • lanne says:

      wouldn’t the commonwealth nations that have the queen as their head of state have to sign off on it as well? That’s what happened with the last Letters Patent issued by the Queen to allow the Cambridge kids to be HRHs and to get rid of male primogeniture. Or is it just Parliament’s bill of attainder.

    • Isabella says:

      Exactly. I’m glad you said this, as the entire discussion is about whether the Queen will strip M&H of their titles. She can’t.

  21. Louise177 says:

    I actually don’t think Andrew is a consideration. QE hasn’t taken the titles because it’s just not done. Diana was different because she married into the family. Taking titles from blood is a different thing. It doesn’t seem like the British care about Andrew so no calls for his titles. If more evidence comes out or he does another bad interview maybe. But everyone has ignored him. I think it’s just about Harry and Meghan. The press and general public aren’t considering the rest of the Royal family.

  22. Natters5 says:

    The way Meghan and Harry are being punished you would think they had cavorted with pedophiles, had sex with young underage girls that were trafficked, worked with despots around the world and pocketed the cash on the side under the guise of working for the crown. Good riddance!

  23. Sunday says:

    I don’t think they will, but part of me hopes that during the Oprah interview they announce that they’re going to forego use of the Duke & Duchess of Sussex and instead reveal some new surname moving forward. Not that they have to, of course, but it would drive the british press insane and further reinforce that Harry and Meghan are a known global force who don’t need some gifted title to make a worldwide impact.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I actually agree. I think they SHOULD cut all ties with the racist, outdated monarchy, including giving up their titles. They, unlike the other members of that family, can build a global empire based on merit. And be free to say WHATEVER THEY WANT about whomever they want, and make business decisions based on what THEY want. 100 years from now, nobody will remember or care about Charles or William (unless one of them is the last monarch, then by default they become a history footnote), but Harry and Meghan will be remembered through their foundation.

    • Novice says:

      Silly, they don’t even have to use surnames. That’s part of cavear of being noble.

  24. Jay says:

    So, she won’t change something she doesn’t have the power to actually change? So generous.

    As others have stated, if this were to be brought up in parliament, it would open up the possibility of other HRHs (perhaps one currently refusing to speak with the FBI) being taken away.

    And what reason could be provided as to why Harry and Meghan deserve to be stripped of their titles, but others who have commercial ventures or interests can keep theirs? “They agreed to an interview with Oprah, my Lord.”

    • Cee says:

      LOL I just rememberd that Sarah, DUCHES OF YORK, not only held multiple business ventures in the US but has appeared on Oprah numerous times, and so have her daughters, Blood Princesses for those obsessed with blood purity. The last time she was on Oprah she was being interviewed about being caught on camera selling access to HRH THE DUKE OF YORK. Both daughters were enlisted with making a tearful appearance.

  25. Kyliegirl says:

    Taking everything else out of it, if you just look at the position Harry is in as a “spare” it would seem that keeping the titles and trappings are the way they are punishing Harry. I think he would much rather have the duties than the titles. The Monarchy is known to treat the spares terribly. Before Harry even met Meghan there were articles about how dim the future outlook for Harry was. They wrote that while Harry may be the golden boy today, so too were Margaret and Andrew and look what happened to them. There was great concern for him. Any normal family would celebrate that their family member found a purpose and passion to sustain themselves and their family. Harry and Meghan have found theirs and will not have the tragic outcomes of the aimless spares in history. But that’s not what they wanted. So they will keep punishing him.

    • Dee Kay says:

      I so agree with this. Harry has avoided “the tragic outcomes of the aimless spares” and everyone, first of all his family, should be congratulating him. Instead, his family and the British press harangue and want to “punish” him for his finding a path to self-fulfillment and, yes, service to others. As well as true love!! What a world we live in where those things are cause for outcry and insults rather than sincere good wishes.

  26. Lowrider says:

    Beatrice and Eugenie can work and play royal whenever they feel like it, they can hob nob with billionaires and represent granny’s charities, they can live on crown estates and inherit money but not represent the crown.

    The institution is simply punishing Harry for marrying an American, biracial actress.

  27. Robin Webb says:

    It said too stark and I read it as Koo Stark!
    Now what were we talking about?


  28. GrnieWnie says:

    Yes, exactly this. Americans do not give a f— about the titles. They’re an entertaining little nod to funny foreign practices and that’s it. They have no real social currency here. When push comes to shove, no one is kowtowing to a foreign title. Doesn’t happen. Welcome to the land of social mobility where nobody gives rat’s arse about your stupid anachronistic class system.

  29. MA says:

    It’s funny how people want to strip the Sussexes of their titles and from the line of succession based on merit-based reasons, because the Sussexes did this or that….. which goes directly against the fundamental reasoning behind concepts of monarchy, aristocracy, royalty. I mean the whole system is based on having a select class of people who are better than everyone else based on birthright, no rationale or fairness or merit. Short of causing an actual constitutional crisis or a treasonous offense there is no argument behind punishing the Sussexes in this way because this system that the deranged hold sacred goes directly against their arguments.
    They can’t admit that they’re just bothered the black one gets to reap the benefits too.

  30. Mercury says:

    @MA this. Racism knows no bounds when it comes to thesw “innocuous” online comments/message boards