Can You Be Fined For Emptying A Swimming...
Civil1 min ago
When Will King Charlie Grow A Pair
93 Answers
And get rid of the Duke and Duchess titles for Harry and MeAgain?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by smurfchops. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Meghan will not become a princess by marriage but will be a duchess as she is married to a prince. Could the title Sussex be removed and also the HRH?
There are many who "worship" this couple and I can see headlines shouting "racist" should their titles be removed.
Charles is between a rock and a hard place here but they surely cannot continue as they are. Unfortunately they are seen as Royalty in the States
There are many who "worship" this couple and I can see headlines shouting "racist" should their titles be removed.
Charles is between a rock and a hard place here but they surely cannot continue as they are. Unfortunately they are seen as Royalty in the States
I do sympathise with Charles here. Quite apart from any love and hurt family feelings he may have, there is a knotty problem with public perception and goodness only knows how many ancient and modern rules regarding descent. Personally, I'd love to see all their (H & M's) ties and 'rights' severed and leave them to stand on their own feet - but imagine how that would read! It would also bring all the old rumours about Harry's parentage to the fore and that could hurt William with its insinuations about his mother.
I certainly don't know enough about the matter to comment decisively and I don't know who would. There are probably very well-versed lawyers/historians puzzling as we type. I hope Charles receives good advice.
I certainly don't know enough about the matter to comment decisively and I don't know who would. There are probably very well-versed lawyers/historians puzzling as we type. I hope Charles receives good advice.
jourdain - // It would also bring all the old rumours about Harry's parentage to the fore ... //
Those rumours have been a spent force for decades.
I believe that at least one of more newspapers will have attempted to obtain DNA samples of Harry and James Hewitt - the imagined father of Harry - which would be easy enough to do.
Had a comparison turned up a match, then we would probably (!) have heard about it by now.
Add to that the fact that Diana did not meet Major Hewitt until 1986, and Prince Harry was born in 1984 - it does make the possibility of them conceiving a child together a little tricky, I am sure you would agree.
Those rumours have been a spent force for decades.
I believe that at least one of more newspapers will have attempted to obtain DNA samples of Harry and James Hewitt - the imagined father of Harry - which would be easy enough to do.
Had a comparison turned up a match, then we would probably (!) have heard about it by now.
Add to that the fact that Diana did not meet Major Hewitt until 1986, and Prince Harry was born in 1984 - it does make the possibility of them conceiving a child together a little tricky, I am sure you would agree.
I think, as other posters have advised, that the notion of King Charles simply making a unilateral decision is not as easy as it would appear.
Apart from the constitutional issues involved, which may actually prevent such an action taking place, there is also the difficulties in managing the fall-out from such an action.
The Royal Family will always put duty and appearance before any personal animosity - Andrew has been ostracised because his presence is toxic to the image of the monarchy.
But doing the same with Harry and Mehan - with their clearly advertised appetite for conflict and self-pity, would create waves of negativity that would follow Charles for decades.
He may therefore simply prefer to grin and bear it, as has been the way for the family for centuries, and maybe he still harbours the hope that his son can see the error of his ways.
Apart from the constitutional issues involved, which may actually prevent such an action taking place, there is also the difficulties in managing the fall-out from such an action.
The Royal Family will always put duty and appearance before any personal animosity - Andrew has been ostracised because his presence is toxic to the image of the monarchy.
But doing the same with Harry and Mehan - with their clearly advertised appetite for conflict and self-pity, would create waves of negativity that would follow Charles for decades.
He may therefore simply prefer to grin and bear it, as has been the way for the family for centuries, and maybe he still harbours the hope that his son can see the error of his ways.
AH I take exception to that. I said that 'it would bring all the old rumours about Harry's parentage to the fore' and it would. Nowhere did I say that I believed them or promulgated them. That they would resurface in the event of Charles casting Harry off is inevitable.
Please read what I said and don't read into it.
Please read what I said and don't read into it.
jourdain - // AH I take exception to that. I said that 'it would bring all the old rumours about Harry's parentage to the fore' and it would. Nowhere did I say that I believed them or promulgated them. //
And nowhere did I say that you did, so I'm not sure why you are getting your trolleys in a robble.
// That they would resurface in the event of Charles casting Harry off is inevitable. //
It is, and I didn't say it wasn't.
// Please read what I said and don't read into it. //
I did read it, and I didn't read into it - that offence is actually yours!!
But hey, instead of getting into a tedious thread-derailing spat about who said this and who meant that, why don't we just chalk it up to the kind of misunderstanding that regularly crops up when people are exchanging thoughts in print, and leave it at that, no harm, no foul.
Whaddya say?
And nowhere did I say that you did, so I'm not sure why you are getting your trolleys in a robble.
// That they would resurface in the event of Charles casting Harry off is inevitable. //
It is, and I didn't say it wasn't.
// Please read what I said and don't read into it. //
I did read it, and I didn't read into it - that offence is actually yours!!
But hey, instead of getting into a tedious thread-derailing spat about who said this and who meant that, why don't we just chalk it up to the kind of misunderstanding that regularly crops up when people are exchanging thoughts in print, and leave it at that, no harm, no foul.
Whaddya say?
archi - // May as well rid of the King title for himself while he's at it, people throw eggs at that institution nowadays, that's how much of an irrelevance it is and lack of respect it has. 1000 years isn't a bad innings but time to declare I think, the world has moved on. //
I don't think one numpty with an aim to match his brain, is an indication of how the UK as a whole views its monarch.
I don't think one numpty with an aim to match his brain, is an indication of how the UK as a whole views its monarch.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.