King Charles won’t remove the Sussexes’ titles because he won’t remove Andrew’s

In recent weeks, there’s been a lot of talk about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s titles and whether they should be “removed” or perhaps even “given up.” The conversation flurried again during the run of Netflix’s Harry & Meghan series – which notably didn’t even feature their Sussex titles in the name of the program, and their titles were barely mentioned within the show. The British media and the Windsors feel that they always need to have *something* to “hold over the Sussexes’ heads.” For a while in 2020, it was the cost of Frogmore Cottage’s refurbishment (until H&M paid it back). Sometimes they’ll cry about how much the Sussexes’ wedding cost and how Harry and Meghan should “pay it back” – except the wedding was a boon for the British economy, so if we’re being transactional about it, British people owe the Sussexes, which is likely why that argument goes nowhere. So the Brits are stuck banging their heads against the wall about the Sussexes’ titles. King Charles has done nothing about it, reportedly because he thinks the move would be too petty. But there’s another wrinkle! From the Daily Beast’s Royalist column:

Much energy has been expended lately in the British media and public life on calls for laws to be changed to allow the king to remove Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles.

Most recently the London Times joined the throng, with Valentine Low and David Brown writing in an op-ed: “There is an obvious next step that Harry and Meghan should take. They have made clear that they consider themselves to be at war with the institution of monarchy, an institution that they appear to hold in contempt. They should therefore hand back their titles. The duke should also take himself and his family out of the line of succession.”

One person who is not keen on forcing change, however, is King Charles himself, according to a fascinating nugget in the Daily Mail’s pseudonymous Ephraim Hardcastle column, which cites a source as saying, “His Majesty doesn’t want it.” The reason for this reluctance to make such a massive constitutional change, the column says, is that if the king had the ability to remove royal dukedoms, he would inevitably “come under immense pressure” to strip his brother Andrew of his Duke of York title.

As the Hardcastle column notes, “Andrew has caused comparatively few problems recently by keeping calm and not rocking the boat. Which is more than can be said for the royals lobbing grenades at the throne from Montecito.”

The intelligence is fascinating as it tallies with claims made to the The Daily Beast in recent weeks that the Andrew problem is one of the reasons why there has been absolutely zero effort made to deprive Harry and Meghan of their titles at senior levels.

The Daily Beast’s source said that to make a move against Harry and Meghan’s titles would would open up a “Pandora’s box” of problems, adding that the king would be “very cautious” of such a move, partly because of the backlash to the decision to strip Diana of her HRH after divorcing him, saying: “Imagine if they did something similar to Harry. He would be able to go on Oprah all over again and say, ‘They did it to my mother and now they are doing it to me.’ It would completely play into their victim narrative.”

Titles can only be legally removed by an Act of Parliament. As The Daily Beast wrote, removing a peerage is “fiendishly complicated.” Even if it were possible, a second source told The Daily Beast, “If you forcibly remove [the titles], then why don’t you take them off Prince Andrew? What about Sarah Ferguson? You can extend the list forever.”

[From The Daily Beast]

There’s something so quintessentially vile about the fact that King Charles won’t remove the Sussexes’ titles specifically because he wants to protect Andrew. That Andrew is seen as less problematic than Harry and Meghan, that Andrew is doing what Charles wants, therefore Charles won’t make a move to seize a predator and human trafficker’s title. I’m also enjoying the fact that “it’s hard and it would take work” is an excuse for NOT removing the Sussexes’ titles. These people are hilariously lazy and stupid. Which is why British royal columnists are now left to whine about how Harry and Meghan should willingly “remove their titles.” “They should listen to us and punish themselves, Meghan doesn’t deserve to have a married name!”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

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

81 Responses to “King Charles won’t remove the Sussexes’ titles because he won’t remove Andrew’s”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. truthSF says:

    The fact that H&M mentioned they suggested giving up their titles in the letter H wrote to his dad (and was subsequently denied) makes the removal of their titles argument even more weak!

    They don’t need those titles because the titles are not why they’re the most interesting members of the family, H&M are. The family wants to remain connected to them so they will, in turn, stay relevant (through association) should tells you everything!

    • Andy Dufresne says:

      Ok, now that it’s been made crystal clear about the Sussex titles, Royal Rota, please stop whining and crying about why they should give it up and how damaging it is to the monarchy. Kill that narrative now or you’ll all end up looking like fools!

    • Jayne says:

      Totally agree. The fact that they *offered* and were told no makes this whole thing even more ridiculous.

      I still say that they should start going by Mr./Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor.

      • Swaz says:

        I can’t imagine that someone I don’t even know would suggest that I drop my husband’s name smh 🤢

      • Blue Nails Betty says:

        Even better would be if they went by Mr. and Mrs. Ragland-Spencer. 😁

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        @BNB – I like that! Why do people have to take their father’s family name anyway, especially when their mothers were the ones who raised them? Personally, I wouldn’t want my kids to have any of the Windsor aliases (Windsor, Mountbatten, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Battenberg, etc.). Those names are associated with a racist, sexist, and corrupt institution.

  2. girl_ninja says:

    Again, these disgusting people putting the Sussex’s in the same category as Andrew a predator. All the Sussex’s have done is fall in love, work hard for the crown, been treated shabbily, lied about and left that island to save their sanity and lives. I cannot stand these people.

    • Where'sMyTiara says:

      What they’re not saying about why Charles is keeping Andrew in security protection and titles (and probably wads of cash): Andrew is probably blackmailing him.

      Andrew doesn’t want to follow Harry’s footsteps and make his way in the world; he wants his posh privileged life. Here’s the thing: there’s a lot of anecdotal/circumstantial evidence that points to Andrew not being the only pedo of his generation. Charles’ ties to several infamous pedophiles, including disgraced Bishop Peter Ball and Jimmy Saville, and their uncle Lord Mountbatten (who practically raised Phillip as well as had a hand in influencing Chaz & Andy) looks pretty damn suspicious. And we all know about Fawcett his valet and how no matter how much trouble that man causes, it appears Chaz can’t seem to quit him. Charles let Fawcett get away with raping a footman for crying out loud.

      I think Andrew has the inside story on Charles’ darker hobbies, and “offered to keep quiet” about all that in exchange for certain rights and privileges being retained. I think he’s probably going to use this gambit to try to get back into being rebranded as a senior royal. Is Andrew a councillor of state currently? He might want to be one. Keep an eye on that.

    • Ellie says:

      You hit the nail on the head.. They are hard workers, have many charities and are very much in love. The rudeness of the Wales is unbelievable for a so-called high class family. I was always taught to exchange pleasantries if I wasn’t fond of someone. Carole should have done a better job. Charles looks sad and very depressed in my opinion, William has every muscle in his jaw clenched and often his hands. Suck it up Kate and Will thé Sussex’ are loved.

  3. ThatsNotOkay says:

    We knew this was coming, because the Sussexes said in their doc that they were willing to give back the Sussex title themselves. Now the press can slow its roll a bit and blame Andrew for the reason why Charles won’t do it, and make calls for them to do it themselves.

    I hope no one clicks on any of these articles anymore and just reads the highlights here. These papers and columnists need oxygen to survive, and we need to suffocate them out of existence.

    • South African Girl says:

      Yes I agree. I don’t visit DM anymore. Back in the day I had the App and frequently went on for celeb news. A couple months ago I deleted the app. I don’t go to the browser and never click on links to their article. I get all the info here. I hope others will do the same.

  4. Amy Bee says:

    I mean Harry said that he and Meghan offered to give up their titles and BP said no. It’s interesting that the press are not talking about that.

  5. equality says:

    Interesting that the article also calls for PH to remove himself and his family from the line of succession but no mention that PA should do the same. I didn’t think that PH could remove his children anyway. Wouldn’t that be Archie and Lili’s own decision to make? That’s what they really want. No danger at all of a biracial king or queen. Same with the people who want W&K to keep pumping out children to make H, A and L lower down in line.

  6. Selene says:

    I don’t know, but I’ve always gotten the vibe that Charles is more disappointed in Andrew than in H & M (as he should). It seems that everyone in the Firm, with the exception of William, has rallied to keep Andrew barely alive under the guise of “the Sussexes make more noise”. I feel that if it were up to Charles and William, Andrew would’ve been buried with QEII.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Who has been treated worse by the family? Andrew or Harry? That will tell you Charles true thoughts about Andrew.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think Charles obviously hates Andrew and can’t stand him but I think that’s for reasons that have nothing to do with the BBC interview, Virginia Guiffre, etc. I think banishing Andrew as a working royal is generally convenient for Charles and as long as Andrew is willing to stay relatively in the wings, Charles will protect him as part of the Firm.

        I don’t think Charles thinks Andrew did anything especially wrong by sleeping with a 17 year old victim of sex trafficking.

      • Emily_C says:

        Raping. He raped her, he didn’t “sleep with” her. But yes, Charles thinks that’s fine. We commoners are not people to them.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Emily_C my wording was deliberate bc that’s how I think Charles views it. I don’t think anyone in that family views it as rape.

      • equality says:

        Another fine example from the leader of the Church of England.

      • Emily_C says:

        @Becks1 — I don’t think anyone in that family views rape, true. “Consent” is just not a thing to them.

        @equality — Well, the founder was a murderer, of two of his own wives and thousands of his own subjects. So it tracks, and actually isn’t nearly as bad as most of the leaders of the Church of England have been, because he can’t kill thousands of people any longer.

    • Cate says:

      My guess is that Andrew will kick up a huge stink or actually drop scandalous info about the family if he loses his title. Charles knows this, so Andrew’s title is going nowhere and Andrew is staying in the fold. Also, if Andrew were cut loose there’s no way he would be able to get $$ in any ethical way, it would be even more embarrassing for the family. H&M have shown that they can make money without resorting to anything shady/illegal (I do think you could make a case that at some point selling their story is “tacky” but it’s 100% legal and they’re being pretty diplomatic and classy about, TBH, so while Charles might hate it he’s also got to feel some relief that the documentary didn’t go further), they’re unlikely to really do anything but shrug if the titles are removed. There’s no point in removing the titles because M&H don’t care, and I think Charles knows that, plus it opens up the Andrew conversation that Charles does NOT want to have. I could see William being petty enough to try it if/when he becomes king.

      • Jaded says:

        He’d likely write a scandalous book about the BRF because he’d be dead broke. Secrets revealed and all that. Charles is between a rock and a hard place with Andrew and will have to accede to keeping him in Royal Lodge with security and his title at the very least.

      • Jay says:

        Same, @Jaded. Andrew living out his days within palace grounds, controlled by a strict allowance and never photographed is a much better prospect for Charles than Andrew promising access to whichever oligarch lets him housesit their fancy ski chalet, or a desperate Andrew on Cameo or whatnot. He’s much more dangerous outside the tent.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Andrew must have dirt on Charles and the family. Real dirt. Not just Harry telling the world the institution is racist, I mean *real* dirt that protects him for life.

      • MoonTheLoon says:

        I dunno. Being racist and passive aggressively trying to unalive a family member of colour, the first one even, is pretty downright filthy. Made all the more disgusting that this is the daughter in-law of the former in-law who was unalived in circumstances similar to what’s passive aggressively being encouraged now. I very much count that as quite “real.” But I kinda get what you mean.

  7. L84Tea says:

    They would be lost if H&M gave up the titles, because that’s literally all they have left to try and club them over the head with. I’m satisfied with H&M’s stance on the titles–it appears to me as if they’re in the mode of “We offered to give them back and you said no. So if you want them, you’ll have to take them. We’re not offering them up on a silver platter again.”

  8. M says:

    It still boggles my mind that these people see a LITERAL pedophile and sexual abuser who lives off the government as less of a problem than the biracial woman and her husband who are minding their own business in California.

    • Cessily says:

      The way this family protects pedophiles and rapists says all you need to know about them imo. You can’t tell me KC didn’t know all about JS and the others he chose to surround himself with.

  9. Cachaca says:

    Who cares about nobles titles? I bought mine for 10 dollars online.

    • Mrazi says:

      Lol, so what is it then? Lord/Lady Cachaca?

    • The Hench says:

      For “King” Charles titles are everything. His title is what keeps him as sovereign, living in multiple palaces with a private half billion, tax free inheritance and millions in taxpayer money coming to him for a “job” that involves very little work. If you start setting a precedent that titles can be simply removed, even from blood royals, then that is an extremely dangerous slope to start down.

  10. Jan says:

    Harry and Meghan should not give up the D/D tittles, let the BRF and the BM stew over it.
    Don’t they realize that M/H don’t need to use tittles to be recognized, it was just M/H on Netflix.
    All that song and dance from the BM about Netflix wanting out of the deal and M/H wanting to change parts of video was BS, the series was lock and loaded, Netflix is quite happy, their stocks went up and the ratings are great, despite the negative reviews from trolls on rotten tomatoes.
    It was number one in England, so much for canceling Netflix and tabloids saying don’t watch it.

    • Taylor says:

      Just like with Peter Philips. yeah he is really down the list of succession but he is the first grandchild of qe2. Slim the monarchy down all you like but that man will always be public. I hope his grand gave him a very nice inheritance because he will always need to live in a secure place. Prince Edward kids had the chance to live a private life but they messed that up a few years ago. They maybe able to go back because they are young but a “peter” needs an income just like -prince Harry. Even people who don’t know William know Harry because of the red hair.

  11. Eurydice says:

    I think this is more hot air. The actual reason is in the last paragraph – act of Parliament. Plus, it’s a convenient excuse for not making any more waves. Charles has already got racism and misogyny splashed all over BP, no point in adding pedo Andrew to the mix.

  12. Becks1 says:

    H&M already offered to give up their titles and were told no, so I don’t understand why this is STILL such a story. The queen did not want them to give up their titles, so they still have them.

    I do think for Charles’ part, it is partly about Andrew but also partly about the pandora’s box it would open as the article says. If the monarch can strip people of titles because he doesn’t like their actions….that would get very messy very fast.

    This just keeps getting press because its the only thing left the British press has to attack H&M. They can’t really use the Queen anymore (although as we saw this week they are trying) and they can’t use the taxpayer money line, they can’t use the line of “no one likes them” because lots of people like them, etc.

    someone said on twitter that if they want the press attacks to stop they should give back their titles. I was like oh yeah, that will work.

    • Aengus says:

      I think the Sussexes were not made to give up their titles because Charles and Elizabeth thought they’d come back to the fold after cutting off security, etc. They thought they wouldn’t survive outside the institution. Like the courtier who told Omid Scobie that “They can’t survive without all this [royal life]” or something like that.

  13. Jasper says:

    They keep wanting Harry and Meghan to do the heavy lifting for them. At the Jubilee they wanted them to work one of the rooms, now they want them to discard the titles gifted to them. An easy way was always presented up front but the RF keeps self sabotaging.
    Harry and Meghan offered to be half in and work for FREE and they were rejected. They offered to give up their titles – also rejected.
    The problem with living so much in the past is that tactically, the RF will always be 10 steps behind.

  14. Jan says:

    Richard Eden from the Dailyfail was outed on his burner Twitter account, when he accidentally replied to a question to Richard, from his Maureen account.
    He spent yesterday on a blocking spree.

    • HamsterJam says:

      Please spell this out for me, can I see on twitter that he is using burner accounts?

      • Byzant says:

        Yes he replied to a question about who pays him as himself but from an account claiming to be a woman called something beginning with m. Was ery funny if you google I think there are a few articles about it

  15. KT says:

    I’ve been saying this forever. It’s never gonna happen – the very idea that titles are something that are dependent on someone’s behaviour and not their birth or marriage is anathema to the concept of a monarchy.

    As soon as they allow a title to be stripped because someone is unpopular with certain sections of the population you open up a rats’ nest of problems.
    It’s not just an Andrew problem or even an Andrew-and-Fergie problem, it’s any future Royal who captures the negative attention of the tabloids for virtually any reason.

    After all, Meghan and Harry have not even been accused of breaking the law or financial impropriety.

    Falling out with family members is not a criminal offence – and there’s a long history of dysfunctional Royal family relationships. There is no precedent for that to prompt titles to be stripped.

    Their stepping back from being working Royals was with the agreement of the Queen – they can’t be *punished* for something the old Queen and current King agreed was the best course of action.

    So the only official *reason* that could possibly be cited is that they have levelled some criticisms that people don’t like, which could be classified as whistleblowing. That would never stand up to legal scrutiny.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      This 👆. It would be a giant can of worms.

      But it’s interesting that they consider whistleblowing a worse offense than pedophilia. Says a lot.

  16. Jais says:

    The whole wanting them to remove their family from the line of succession is bizarre. How are they even supposed to do that? And they’re not saying anything about new letters being written to take titles away from the sussex kids. I’m thinking that’s a separate issue but I can’t really tell.

  17. Julia K says:

    I will repeat what I have written so often but it bears repeating. The tabloids and those who comment are hell bent on ” punishing” H&M. What is the crime? What laws were broken? What exactly is it that deserves punishment? Telling the truth is not illegal. To use an old cliche, you can’t stand the truth.

    • Lady Digby says:

      Exactly so and just why was Will screaming at H during the Sandringham Summit? Was it because H made it clear that Basher’ s bullying and horse trading with BM had driven him and M away?

  18. Mary Pester says:

    Funny how they moan on and on about harry and meghan, but they won’t remove Andrews title and NOW Charles is paying for his security!! That leaves 2 BIG questions, 1 how come they refused Harry and Megan’s security request and now they pay for their own, and 2, just what secrets do Andrew and Harry have about the rest of them that the Royals don’t want known.

    • ML says:

      By now the BRF cannot be totally and completely unaware of how unpopular Andrew is, no? As recently as QE’s funeral, they realized putting Paedrew in uniform, while denying Harry did not go over well with the public. So, why on earth would KC want to be linked to paying for his brother’s security and allowing his brother to keep his title in the news? Is William briefing against his father? And if so, what is William trying to hide?

  19. Debbie says:

    That explanation makes much more sense than the previously stated desire not to appear petty. We can all see that the HMS Pettiness sailed long, long ago, so that wouldn’t stop the royals from doing anything punitive to the Sussexes.

  20. Lucy says:

    While I don’t think taxpayers should be footing any part of the bill for Royal weddings, screaming for the Sussexes to pay it back it hilarious! If that’s the road they want to go down, start with all the divorced royals. Looking at you, Chucky!

    • Laura D says:

      @Lucy – Agreed but, it also pays to remind people that Meghan paid for her dress and Charles paid for H&M’s wedding. It was only the security at their wedding which was funded directly by the taxpayer. Even if people dislike the monarchy they’re going to be hard pushed to defend an argument that having TQ, Charles, William and George in the same place without protection is a good idea.

      • C says:

        “Charles paid” for the wedding from the money he stole from his personal tax write-off, the Duchy of Cornwall (look into how many routes he can get money from there that aren’t aboveboard at all and he can claim he’s “reinvesting it” by doing whatever he pleases. It’s shady as hell)
        And that’s IF he even paid for what they claim. He was still claiming to be funding their security after cutting it off, let’s remember.

        “Even if people dislike the monarchy they’re going to be hard pushed to defend an argument that having TQ, Charles, William and George in the same place without protection is a good idea.” Taxpayer-funded security is not their only option. They could do what Harry is asking to do and is being told he can’t – pay for their own.

      • Laura D says:

        @C I totally agree but, the people asking for money to be repaid wouldn’t be asking for Charles to repay it. They are demanding that H&M pay it which is why I always remind people who throw the “we paid for the wedding” card right back at them. As much as I dislike the “the monarchy bring in the tourists” argument, I would say the money brought in from tourism that day probably more than covered the wedding and the security. So, again there’s nothing H&M need to pay for.

      • Lucy says:

        @Laura – and where, pray tell, do you think the BRF’s money comes from? Is it historically squeezing taxes out of the populace and then “re-investing it” in shady business dealings and offshore accounts? With all their billions of unearned dollars, continuing to receive money from the government is abhorrent.

        As for security for all the heirs in one place, just like they told H&M, pay for it yourself. There… I wasn’t hard pushed to defend that argument at all.

      • C says:

        Ah yes, I see now.
        Yeah, that’s the thing. I don’t even entertain the “they need to pay it back” arguments because we know what they mean and who they want to pay what back, lol. It’s not about paying money back and we know it.

  21. L4Frimaire says:

    I don’t think they should remove the titles or get out the line of succession. This is over the fact that they decided they couldn’t work within the institution while subject to constant press abuse and lack of support. They’re not anti-monarchy. They never forced the issue and what exactly is the point? Will they leave them alone once they’re done removing them? Doubt it.

  22. Snarkle says:

    I think it would be hilarious if H&M changed their last name to Sussex. Then, even if the Duke/Dutchess titles are yanked, they’d still be referred to as the Sussex’s. It would be fun to watch heads explode 🙂

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Snarkle, that’s what I think, too. Isn’t that Harry’s last name now? They would have to change the kids last name, though, and I don’t know if they would want to do that.

      It doesn’t matter whether H&M have titles or not. The brf and the bm will continue to smear them. I don’t understand why so many people don’t understand that. Perhaps they do know that and just refuse to acknowledge it because they like saying strip their titles. It’s a stupid argument.

  23. HeyKay says:

    Good point.
    Charles has so many things he is doing wrong. Mishandling the entire situation of how to move forward, how to make peace in his own family, etc.
    He is going to be a very bad King from the start of it, it seems to me.

    • Barbie1 says:

      I wish Charles would welcome them back as working royals and grant them whatever demands they have. The early days were so much fun. The wedding, being excited to see them at royal events being charming and glamorous. What a mess now.

      • Ameerah M says:

        They weren’t fun for Meghan.

      • Rnot says:

        The only way H&M might go back to the BRF is if some tragedy forced Harry to step in as regent for one of the minor Wales children. We can’t go back to those early days anymore than we can go back to the world before covid. We’ve learned things. We’ve lost people. The world can’t go back to the way it was because none of us are the same people we were then.

      • C says:

        Meghan was being fed to the wolves already, even at those fun events, and William was paying her dad off to betray her.
        Harry will NEVER be regent for any of William’s kids. He said himself, “He’s got his kids and I’ve got mine”. He is DONE doing anything for William, period.
        They will never go back as working royals and never should.

    • Beverley says:

      Fun for whom? Certainly not the biracial American who did her best to fit in but was constantly harassed, criticized, and hated — for her Blackness. The hate spewed at Prince Archie alone would make me leave if I were his mother. The RF, the RR, and many of the British public made it clear that they would never accept Meghan. She wasn’t white enough. And they clearly resent her children being in the line of succession.

      And to this day, the RF is going out of their way to put her “in her place”. Let’s not forget that after QE2 died, Charles made it known that Meghan wasn’t family. The RR has doubled down on the abuse, and no one in the Royal Family has said one word in her defense.

      How is any of this “fun”?

  24. sparrow says:

    Charles and his advisers have really had to think carefully about this. They’ve spun it so much that it’s being touted as the ultimate chess move: we shall remain kind and ignorant of your claims, which underlines your nastiness and lack of veracity. The truth is, of course, that it’s Andrew. He has cost them so much, literally and figuratively.

  25. Suusan says:

    Honestly, I think Chuck loves his son. I think this is all about Andrew. Obviously prince Chuck made an agreement with his mother,-say that Camilla will be queen consort and I will do a,b, and c for Andrew- eventhough I have never really cared for Andrew, and everyone told him to stop taking money from epstein, — I just wish we knew who was leaking these stories us it Andrew side, the palace, or just the tabloids making things up.

    • Ameerah M says:

      If Charles loved his son he wouldn’t pulled his security after leaking his son’s location to the press.

      • Suusan says:

        I think they leaked the location to say 1. You can’t escape 2. You need us; comeback.
        They want harry to comeback so he can be used as a shield for William. I mean in chucks speech he told k&w to do more work!!!! I thought people were being dramatic but I think the monarchy will be gone by the time it’s George’s turn. The Middleton’s aren’t raising those kids to be royals. We see with Charlotte they tell her to be snooty. George seems like he has a good spirit but if everyone around you is lazy…. they need Uncle Harry. The queen knew it. They even allowed him to marry a divorced woman. And no one can blame Harry for not wanting to be spun as a drunk idiot. He wanted a voice, they said no, and now there is a separation.

      • Ameerah M says:

        There were LITERAL death threats against Harry, Meghan, and their baby. What father who truly loved a child would tell the loonies exactly where to find them?? Stop making excuses for abuse.

      • sevenblue says:

        “They even allowed him to marry a divorced woman.”

        @Suusan, the KING has married a divorced woman too. Do you think they would have the audacity to say to Harry that as a spare he can’t marry a divorced woman. Really? Even RR wouldn’t excuse that.

    • Lady D says:

      Why would Charles keep his promise to his mother about Andrew, but not keep his promise to her about making Edward Duke of England? I think this is a CYA move from Charles.

  26. LooseSeal says:

    I’m American so I don’t really understand this title thing. I get it when it dictates how money and resources like security are distributed, but M&H already aren’t getting those things anymore. This behavior just proves out that they are a fundamentally racist family/power structure. Holding people accountable for the damage they do is an insidious crime, but raping a teenage girl repeatedly is just fine bc he keeps his mouth shut about the family.

  27. Suusan says:

    Writing about the included pictures. These are the first no edited pictures from qe2 funeral I have seen. The royal rota or the english palace have edited most of the pictures. The make harry look shorter and drunk. Prince Charles looks less sad. Williams chin is edited and so on. The pictures up top, the real pictures are perfectly fine. It shows how out of touch the press and palace are. All the fake smiles and teeth look so stupid. Even fans use old pictures or amateur pictures cause they look way better. The Kate pictures are funny because some sites will edit her bigger. When you are that thin that the press edits you larger you know you have a problem.

  28. Mary S says:

    IMHO the main reason certain people are so determined to remove Harry’s titles is to erase the “black” royals. No hereditary titles for Archie. Notice the vitriol is mainly directed at Archie.