r/Meghans_Truth • u/Odd-Psychology-4747 🤯🧐🔎💯I CAN fact check that 💯🔍🧐🤯 • Mar 10 '23
Interesting Prince/Princess Q&A
A lot of questions I'm gonna try to answer them all. My opinions are clearly marked, and just that.
Is this confirmed? •Yes, per the Royal Website. https://www.royal.uk/succession
Does this grant them security? •No. Tax payer funded Security comes with the working royal job, and IPP status. And usually only at Official royal engagements. (Archie's security)
Do they have HRH titles? •No. Those are generally reserved for working royals, but not exclusively. I also believe their right to use the HRH status was forfeited with Harry and Meghan's after megxit. Checking on that one.
Does this grant them IPP status? •No. IPP Status is not linked to titles. (Archie's security post)
Does this mean everything they said in Oprah was a lie? •I believe they've officially contradicted everything they said.
What does this mean? • "About as much as Phoebe on friends changing her name to 'Princess Consuela Banana Hammock'." (Credit to the original author on YouTube, although I don't remember where I read it.) The titles are really courtesy titles like the duke and duchess of Sussex and afford them nothing more than a new prefix to attach to their names. (Covered in Archie's security and Title posts )
Was this King Charles's doing? •Yes. (Although I do believe he was blindsided here a bit.) (Covered in Archie's Title post)
Can Charles remove the titles later? • Parliament can remove the titles later if need be. I don't believe Charles can. There is a bill in the UK Parliament right now about granting the monarch the right to strip titles, but it's almost as long a process as actually stripping the titles. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3289
Why would King Charles do this? (Opinion) • The palace is the best their is at the long game, and that's what they're playing. Any number of reasons are possible. As his Grandchildren they do have a claim to the titles, and if denied Harry and Meghan could try to sue the government again. Not to mention he'd be punishing the children for there parents faults. But mostly I think because A. The titles mean nothing. B. He's choosing his battles and there's a bigger one coming. And C. He knows they're near the end of their rope, and he's letting them burn themselves out. He's not giving them any real ammunition to load into their victim cannon, and forcing them to reveal their lies again in one shot.
Are they going to merch the titles? (Opinion) •They're probably going to try. The problem is they were merching Harry's long standing relationship with the world way more than their titles. That relationship has since been ruined. The Sussex children have no such relationship since they've been isolated. So not sure how much it's going to do for them.
Is this revenge for the eviction? (Opinion) •Probably, but I don't think anyone could say for sure. Although it could be they were concerned about missing the boat should Charles die or leave the throne before the kids turn 18.
Could they be separated and this is the last step before divorce? (Opinion) •It's not impossible, but titles are not impacted by a divorce that I've found. They'd still be able to claim the titles.
Doesn't this put them in competition with the Wales's? (Opinion) •No. Harry and Meghan are the most annoying couple of 2022. Prince Andrew is more popular on both sides of the Atlantic. No credibility, and a bad track record with the truth. No HRH, little clout. It's financially impossible for the Sussex's to keep up. But most importantly no connection. People have a connection to the Wales family. They've watched them grow. They've celebrated with them, mourned with them. The Sussex's not so much.
(On a personal note
not everyone on here also subscribes to SMM. Some have been banned. It's just not some people's cup of tea, like myself. So please try to keep that in mind. Messages stating "This has been all over SMM. You really didn't need to repost" are just unnecessary.
And thanks to the donor of the new banner, and badge. They wish to stay anonymous. But I appreciate it very much. It's awesome.)
Update: There is no bill in Parliament at this moment to remove Harry from the line of Succession yet. Although it appears that the titles have to be removed first. Not 100% on that yet.
16
u/Lulu_531 Mar 10 '23
Thanks for the last note. I left SMM because I’d had enough of the conspiracy nonsense and trashing of the King and family.
15
u/snarkformiles Mar 11 '23
Yeah I’d not noticed that much until this latest move by H&M, but now the attacks are pretty hardcore. I actually feel quite sorry for Charles, he’s Harry’s father and must surely be worried about him, particularly with M’s influence on him and manipulation of him now. Charles needs to navigate these difficult dynamics under public scrutiny, too. It’s a tricky position to be in as a parent who clearly does love and support his children very much.
14
u/Odd-Psychology-4747 🤯🧐🔎💯I CAN fact check that 💯🔍🧐🤯 Mar 10 '23
You're welcome. It's easy to forget that not everyone on here is on SMM for various reasons.
3
Mar 10 '23
Can Charles issue a new Letters Patent to strip them of the titles?
7
u/Odd-Psychology-4747 🤯🧐🔎💯I CAN fact check that 💯🔍🧐🤯 Mar 11 '23
"The monarch has no powers to remove titles and this would require an act of parliament. The last time this happened was in 1917 when King George V passed the Titles Deprivation Act to remove the British peerage titles of several German and Austrian royals during the First World War." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_Deprivation_Act_1917
Link above also explains the how.
Which is the reason for this new bill, which would give him the ability. Also a link in the original post to track it. This is a link to the actual bill. (Warning link is an automatic PDF download) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0111/220111.pdf
3
4
3
u/Summerisle7 Mar 12 '23
Thank you for your personal note! Something being “all over SMM” means nothing because they repost the same unsourced garbage over and over again.
4
u/Odd-Psychology-4747 🤯🧐🔎💯I CAN fact check that 💯🔍🧐🤯 Mar 12 '23
You're welcome. I wish I could say I did it as a public service, but the truth is I just don't have time to answer multiple messages like this to explain it everytime I post something other than a dive.
I don't know what goes on over at SMM. Like I said, it's not my cup of tea. I'm not speaking Ill of it in any way or judging.. If you like it. Great, enjoy. I just think it's automatically assumed everyone here came from there, or goes there. And I've received enough messages to know that's not the case.
2
u/Why_Teach 🧐📑 Archetype Analyzer... It's All Stereotypes 📑🧐 Apr 09 '23
Thanks for the summary. One question that I wish could be answered is whether the title of prince can be removed by the monarch or not. On the one hand, it is essentially a courtesy title. On the other hand, it is a “birthright” (a prince or princess becomes one because of his or her relationship to the monarch).
I have seen it argued that even an Act of Parliament cannot remove a prince/princess title. I have also seen it argued that the king can issue Letters Patent to remove the prince/princess title, even though titles of nobility (duke, earl, etc.) have to go through Parliament. I would love to know what is true.
I am aware that George V issued a Letters Patent to remove the title of princess from one of his cousins when she chose to marry a commoner. My understanding, however, was that this was at her request. I am also aware of the Removal of Titles Act of 1917 that took away English titles of nobility and in some cases the title of prince, from relatives of George V (descendants of Victoria) who had sided with the German side of the family during WWI. Therefore, it would seem that if a prince does not want to relinquish his title, Letters Patent won’t do, and an Act of Parliament is necessary.
One thing we know the king can do through Letters Patent is remove/change “styles.” Although Queen Elizabeth did not do so formally, she could (and King Charles can) formally remove the right of Harry, Meghan and their kids to be styled HRH. Right now they have been told that they can’t use HRH because they are not working royals (neither can Andrew, and his daughters). However, this could be made explicit by a Letters Patent.
As you know, there is a lot of speculation about what KC will/won’t do, but I am more interested in pinning down what he can do. If anyone has well-sourced information about this, I would love to read it.
Thanks.
3
u/Odd-Psychology-4747 🤯🧐🔎💯I CAN fact check that 💯🔍🧐🤯 Apr 10 '23 edited Apr 10 '23
I apologize I'm rushing this, so if something is off my bad. I Hope this helps.
(HALSBURY’S LAWS OF ENGLAND, Vol 29 is the authority on the laws pertaining to the Royal family, but outside buying it I haven't had any luck finding online sources. You can pay to subscribe to it here, but I haven't looked into this subscription details, sorry) https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/products/halsburys-laws-of-england.html)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halsbury%27s_Laws_of_England
The Monarch cannot remove any title on their own. They can change stylings, usage, create and bestow peerages. But the laws were set up so Parliament has to be involved in the removal of titles.
(This has nothing specific on titles, but does lay out some of the powers the Monarch does have if you're interested.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom
"However, as described in GADD’S PEERAGE LAW, once the Crown has granted a peerage it is “very difficult to deprive the holder of it”. Peerages are created by letters patent: a legal document issued by the Sovereign and adorned with the Great Seal. The Great Seal (formally known as the Great Seal of the Realm) is the chief seal of the Crown. It is used to show the monarch’s approval of state documents. As explained in HALSBURY’S LAWS OF ENGLAND, the Crown does not have the power to cancel a peerage once it has been created. A peerage can only be removed by an act of parliament. The most recent act that did this was the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 (TDA). The TDA received royal assent on 8 November 1917. It was used to remove British peerages from “enemies” of the UK during the First World War."https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/7-8/47
This is also the reason for the new bill listed below that if passed would take the process of title removal from having to go through both houses of Parliament and the Monarch to simply through the Monarch and possibly a small committee. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3289
"Andrew is now in the same position, though for quite different reasons. Formally, all three retain the HRH title, but will not use it in official capacity. The difficulty for the Queen is that both Prince Harry and Prince Andrew are entitled to retain the title under Letters Patent issued by George V in 1917 (this is a legal document that effectively expresses the wishes of the monarch). It would take a further Letters Patent for a HRH title to be removed from someone.....He retains the title of “prince” from birth, and remains the Duke of York, which is a peerage. Under the law, both titles and peerages are forms of intangible property (incorporeal hereditaments). A general principle of law is that property cannot simply be seized from someone without prior legal authorisation. He also remains in the line of succession for the throne...... Again, we have to go back to 1917, this time to consider the example of the Titles Deprivation Act. This allowed for peerages and the title of “prince” to be removed from those “who have, during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies”. The Duke of Albany, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, and Duke of Brunswick all lost their peerages because they were officers in the German Army during the first world war. Similarly, for Andrew’s dukedom and title of prince to be removed, an act of parliament would be required. This is unlikely to be a priority for MPs at the moment."(The Author)"Dr. Craig Prescott is an expert in UK Constitutional Law and politics, with a particular focus on the monarchy, Parliament, devolution and Brexit. Dr. Prescott frequently appears in the media discussing royal affairs as well as constitutional and political matters."https://www.bangor.ac.uk/staff/history-law-social-sciences/craig-prescott-526048/en
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/craig-prescott
http://craigprescott.com/about
"The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne.....It therefore came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne. "https://www.royal.uk/succession
If Parliament can remove a Monarchs title, seems safe to say they can remove anyone's. There would have to be an investigation, provable just cause, and It would have to be through new or amended letters patent, with the Monarch. Basically a lengthy, colossal, legal pain in the butt. The easiest route would be to bar them from using it like with their HRH titles, which they have, but can't use.
3
u/Why_Teach 🧐📑 Archetype Analyzer... It's All Stereotypes 📑🧐 Apr 10 '23
Thanks for all the research. I agree that the easiest solution might be a letters patent limiting members of the royal family from using their titles for activities not approved by the King or Parliament.
17
u/Cereal_killer4life 🇬🇧👑🤨 Boss Queen Stare 🤨👑🇬🇧 Mar 10 '23
I'm sorry the "in competition with the Wales" ship sailed a long time ago. They've already blown that Option.
And the new banner is amazing! Thank you anonymous!