Sussex versus Prince of Wales.

But the whole point of the hereditary thing is that the title is not a debatable issue. If you are born a Duke you die a Dke. Morals don't matter. You can be terrible and keep your title

Glorianny

But the whole point of the hereditary thing is that the title is not a debatable issue. If you are born a Duke you die a Dke. Morals don't matter. You can be terrible and keep your title

Being born into a title or marrying to get one still doesn't mean you have to use it to your advantage as a marketing tool, or even at all. I'm surprised you're unable to understand that basic fact. Sarah Ferguson could have writen and marketed her children's books under her own name, no mention of her gained through marriage title. Meghan Markle could start her new marketing venture under her own name, she is not compelled to market under Meghan Duchess of Sussex. I don't think anyone has argued with Morals don't matter. You can be terrible and keep your title have they? Some have the opinion, to which they are perfectly entitled, that using titles in this way is unsavoury.

Perhaps if you took a little more time to read and digest what is actually written you wouldn't keep coming back with these irrelevant points?

As an aside it is perfectly possible to renounce your title. Edward VIII renounced the title and actuality of being King but opted to keep his newly created title Duke of Windsor.

I still like Harry even after THE book and everything else but I just cannot stand Meghan. I wish he had never met her. Also sick of this speculation about Kate. At least with all these things going on then the cameras are not on Andrew.

After reading THE book, I can see that Harry needed a wife like Meghan though. He needed someone controlling and assertive, so meeting her was his dream.

Why do you think he needed that?

A weak intellect.

if the King was to remove the duke of sussex title from Harry he would still always be a Prince making meghan Princess
and we don't want that... that's the reason .

She cannot be princess same as Sarah and Diana

Anniebach

She cannot be princess same as Sarah and Diana

Why can’t she? Both Sarah and Diana lost their titles when divorced?

lemsip

if the King was to remove the duke of sussex title from Harry he would still always be a Prince making meghan Princess
and we don't want that... that's the reason .

She would have to be known as Princess Henry. I don’t think she’d go for that! 😂

Well hopefully all the conspiracy theories on social media will stop as the Princess of Wales was seen at the Windsor Farm Shop over the weekend, looking well and chatting to staff.

Cossy Mon 18-Mar-24 09:21:24
Anniebach
She cannot be princess same as Sarah and Diana
Why can’t she? Both Sarah and Diana lost their titles when divorced?

Sarah continued to use Duchess of York, Diana continued to use Princess of Wales, Diana princess of Wales, not princess
Diana

Glorianny

But the whole point of the hereditary thing is that the title is not a debatable issue. If you are born a Duke you die a Dke. Morals don't matter. You can be terrible and keep your title

Harry was not born a duke

He was given the title Duke of Sussex by his grandmother when he married Meghan Markle, she then became Duchess of Sussex upon marriage.

Rosie51

Glorianny

But the whole point of the hereditary thing is that the title is not a debatable issue. If you are born a Duke you die a Dke. Morals don't matter. You can be terrible and keep your title

Being born into a title or marrying to get one still doesn't mean you have to use it to your advantage as a marketing tool, or even at all. I'm surprised you're unable to understand that basic fact. Sarah Ferguson could have writen and marketed her children's books under her own name, no mention of her gained through marriage title. Meghan Markle could start her new marketing venture under her own name, she is not compelled to market under Meghan Duchess of Sussex. I don't think anyone has argued with Morals don't matter. You can be terrible and keep your title have they? Some have the opinion, to which they are perfectly entitled, that using titles in this way is unsavoury.

Perhaps if you took a little more time to read and digest what is actually written you wouldn't keep coming back with these irrelevant points?

As an aside it is perfectly possible to renounce your title. Edward VIII renounced the title and actuality of being King but opted to keep his newly created title Duke of Windsor.

If you don't understand the sheer illogicality of what you are suggesting that isn't my fault.
To put it plainly the less honourable, the less moral, the less honest someone is the more likely they are to use a title for nefarious purposes. You have Andrew as the prime example. So what you are expecting is moral behaviour from people in a system which supports their immorality.
To then think that the system itself is the problem is the only logical step.

Of course the woman you choose to pick on is just someone who didn't fit the mould. Which is what women have to do don't they? Change to fit the system? No matter what the cost to them.

The title of the thread s "Sussex versus Prince of Wales"

At one point they were all working together for their charity, The Royal Foundation.
Then the Sussexes decided to split away and pursue their own interests with their own head of PR.

Unfortunately, and I am not saying this to be unkind, it does seem that the Sussexes have tried to turn this into a battle of oneupmanship. Very sad indeed.

“To then think that the system itself is the problem is the only logical step.”

The “system” as you put it Glorianny has only failed two people in the last 100 years…Edward VIII and Meghan Markle - and i suspect any system, not of their own devising, would have failed them given their personalities.

Pantglas2

“To then think that the system itself is the problem is the only logical step.”

The “system” as you put it Glorianny has only failed two people in the last 100 years…Edward VIII and Meghan Markle - and i suspect any system, not of their own devising, would have failed them given their personalities.

So Andrew is OK then? Bit of people trafficking, best friends with a convicted paedophile and as long as you keep quiet it's OK . Some people have funny ideas about who failed.

Can't think how many times on these threads people have said of M&H they should earn their own money. But when they try- well it's never right is it? Damned if they do etc.

No-one objects to H&M earning their own money. What is objectionable is the way they use the royal connection they affect to despise to publicise their merchandising, which they were asked not to do after they left Britain.
It was no coincidence that MM appeared promoting her 'goods' at the same time as William was making a public appearance in Britain to promote a charitable endeavour.

Glorianny best to read posts before making accusations.

eazybee

No-one objects to H&M earning their own money. What is objectionable is the way they use the royal connection they affect to despise to publicise their merchandising, which they were asked not to do after they left Britain.
It was no coincidence that MM appeared promoting her 'goods' at the same time as William was making a public appearance in Britain to promote a charitable endeavour.

It has all become rather petty - especially the timing of eg the website launch.
Why just when William was at the Diana awards? Surely it would have been more suitable NOT to clash - particularly as the new site doesn’t actually have anything to sell yet.
Can’t help but be suspicious of the timing.

fancythat

Why do you think he needed that?

.. a controlling, assertive wife
Because from reading THE book, in Harry's own words, I got the impression that, even before Meghan, he was disgruntled about many things, he was drifting, and unhappy with his lot. She took him in hand, pointed him in a new direction, and gave him the excuse to leave it all behind, and start afresh. (Except of course, they didn't go about it very well). Whether he is now truly happier, I don't know?
Just a thought, if they had gone to Africa, both on neutral ground, and pursued their goals, things might have been rosier?

eazybee

No-one objects to H&M earning their own money. What is objectionable is the way they use the royal connection they affect to despise to publicise their merchandising, which they were asked not to do after they left Britain.
It was no coincidence that MM appeared promoting her 'goods' at the same time as William was making a public appearance in Britain to promote a charitable endeavour.

Is it despising a "royal connection" to complain about the way you were treated? Should people just put up with poor treatment and toe the line? I thought we got past that years ago.
Can anyone really stop you using your family connections?
The RF market lots of stuff themselves.
I'm not sure what charity you are referring to. On March 11th when ARO was launched on instagram PW was at a service for Commonwealth Day.
She hasn't promoted any goods by the way. Just announced her new venture.

Glorianny Mon 18-Mar-24 11:52:32
eazybee
No-one objects to H&M earning their own money. What is objectionable is the way they use the royal connection they affect to despise to publicise their merchandising, which they were asked not to do after they left Britain.
It was no coincidence that MM appeared promoting her 'goods' at the same time as William was making a public appearance in Britain to promote a charitable endeavour.
Is it despising a "royal connection" to complain about the way you were treated? Should people just put up with poor treatment and toe the line? I thought we got past that years ago.
Can anyone really stop you using your family connections?
The RF market lots of stuff themselves.
I'm not sure what charity you are referring to. On March 11th when ARO was launched on instagram PW was at a service for Commonwealth Day.
She hasn't promoted any goods by the way. Just announced her new venture.

Glorianny she lied in the interviews she gave when leaving
the royal family. You are a strong supporter of her , even compared her to the Dagenham Women Strikers and called
Catherine a 1950’s housewife

Neither Sarah or Diana were blood Princesses. Only blood Princesses should be called by 'Princess (first name) ie. Princess Anne and so on. There are only 5 royal Princesses entitled to use first name titles. Sarah, Diana, Catherine, Sophie are all Princess (their husbands name) ie Princess Andrew, and so on. Like Princess Michael.