Meghan and Harry 6: Everything about this Is Kind of Cringe

[Xanariel]

I think that the BRF is likely uncomfortable with the idea of either stripping princely titles away from existing members (like in Sweden) or plunking them on kids who have been publicly titled otherwise for years. Otherwise, they could have just said that William's eldest child, not son, would be a prince/ss when their siblings wouldn't - though they may also have been sensitive to the resentment that might cause. 

But yeah, the Queen's biggest flaw is probably her preference to stick her head in the sand and leave Philip to handle any difficult conversations in the family (I think it would have been interesting to see how the Sussex drama would have unfolded if he had been a few decades younger). 

One of the main takeaways from the whole mess seems to be how utterly flummoxed the Palace in general seems to have been about the Sussexes' complaints of not getting stuff they were due. I think they genuinely didn't realise just how big that chip in his shoulder was, and so they never bothered to clarify his status because they didn't anticipate him getting upset over it. 

[Pleiades_06]

I don’t know if the monarchy’s power is as innocuous as some people on this thread think it is. This article from the Guardian is about more  the *1000* laws “vetted” by the Queen.

Spoiler

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

I’m not British and I respect the right of those who are to maintain this functioning democracy. But it’s disingenuous to say this position has little to no power.

[Xanariel]

4 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I haven’t followed the royals much (I think I got interested in Megxit only because of the pandemic) so I didn’t know about Andrew getting more than his siblings because he was more demanding.  I had assumed his daughters were HRHs as granddaughters of the monarch, and that Anne and Edward had simply turned down titles for their kids.

I think it's more that Andrew's siblings saw the writing on the wall when they  didn't give their kids titles. We don't know exactly what discussions the Wessexes had about it - it was always portrayed as their choice, but so was Archie's situation pre-exit. Louise was born in 2003, long after the scandals that forced the BRF to make a lot of changes to the wider family. Anne of course turned down even her husband getting a title. 

Andrew, however, not only didn't follow Anne's example, but made a massive thing about his daughters being the only "blood princesses" in their generation - even though Zara and Louise were royal granddaughters too. He was granted a plum trade envoy job, and kept it despite his obvious ineptitude. Rather than recognise public opinion, he always went running to the Queen whenever he was hit by a public scandal. He was regularly listed by Palace leakers as the most entitled of any of the Queen's kids. 

Unfortunately, those tantrums seem to have gotten less effective from the 2000s onwards as the BRF responded to public pressure. He was furious when the Met stopped their security, but it wasn't the Queen's decision and he couldn't budge it. He was reportedly also enraged when he and his daughters weren't included on a balcony under Charles' direction. There's been a ton of stories about his clashes with Charles over what he felt were his and his children's rights - although after the BBC interview, it's safe to say Charles is going to get his way on it all now. 

[Pleiades_06]

7 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

Andrew, however, not only didn't follow Anne's example, but made a massive thing about his daughters being the only "blood princesses" in their generation - even though Zara and Louise were royal granddaughters too

Omg did he actually say “blood princesses”?! All I can think of is “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”

NM: here’s the article where it’s reported he did indeed refer to them as princesses “by blood”: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1411020/prince-andrew-princess-beatrice-princess-eugenie-archie-harrison-royal-family-spt/amp

Edited May 29, 2021 by Pleiades_06
Found the blood princesses reference

[MomJeans]

25 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I don’t think the HRH title is supposed to be connected to whether someone is a working royal or not.  The title doesn’t come with a salary or even security, so it really just reflects how the monarch wants different members of the family viewed.   I think making all the Cambridge kids HRH was in keeping with emphasizing that William will be king one day.  It doesn’t hurt to have cute little princes and princesses around. ??‍♀️

Oh you are completely right that it doesn't have any connection to being a working royal.  My word salad rant was that I propose it should be. JMO.  Not fact at all.

[just_ordinary]

I think H&M phrased their complaint a bit muddied in the interview. I understood it as- they were being told Archie would indeed NOT become a Prince when Charles is king. They were told before he was born and then they (allegedly) refused to use any title at all. They packed the whole story up in a big wordsalad though and suddenly it sounded as if the BRF took quick action to make sure the boy could not become the first mixed race Prince the second he was born even though he totally should have been. 

I also have bit of a different perspective on the whole Andrew title affair. Anne’s children could have been titled but she refused, and by not accepting a title for her husband (I guess it was a joint decision) they don’t carry any titles now. She was also placed at the end of the siblings to inherit the throne. And I think we all agree she is pretty straightforward and I think she saw the writing on the wall way earlier than anyone else in her family. But as it stands- it was her decision not to take titles. So, when Andrew came around 8 years later, he was not only the number two but he actually only took what had been on the table for Anne and was the general rule of that time. While the general feeling around that topic might have had changed - I do get where he came from. Fast forward another 13 years and Edward didn’t ask for titles but I think it was their decision as well. Andrew was still unbelievable smug about it, which was uncalled for and always looked entitled, spoiled and ridiculous.
I absolutely get why H might have had hoped there would be another Letter Patent. And even if not, some things only sting when they actually affect you. The alleged discussion that his children would in fact never be titled as Prince/Princess will have hurt. Seeing your children deemed less, in a family construct where rank and personal relationships are intertwined (even though I believe they try hard not to) is horrible as parent. Add that they are very much not a warm and loving family. They don’t even see each other that much and many family holidays are very structured and formalised. I think they certainly try and things have gotten better, but I would argue that only came after Diana’s death and will only truly benefit the u20 members. 
 

I do agree that the BRF only ever takes action if they truly have too. When it was unclear if Cambridge baby number 1 would be a boy or girl they made sure it’s a titled Prince or Princess and would keep the place in the line of succession. I think it had only to do with the fact, that it is an unusual situation with the Queen reigning so long that the original Letter Patent from 1917 doesn’t cover it. Was it necessary? Probably not. I guess the hype around the Cambridge marriage and children definitely helped the decision. The first Prince, than the long awaited Princess. The public was thrilled. Louis already wasn’t received as cheerful and the discussion went back to, why the BRF is so big. I actually think it’s time they make Kate a Princess (like the DoE). I though for sure it might happen around their anniversary. Well, maybe Charles or later Wiliam will. Princesses are a massive selling point (hello Disney, hello fairytales, hello tabloids).

Looking back I am actually surprised they already took action with George. Regarding the line of succession they could have waited till a second child or if we go by the real birth order: Louis and only then stepped in. But getting rid of such blatant sexism is good PR for government and BRF. The Spains are waiting it out I guess. And the fact that Monaco placed the younger boy before his sister is really a bad look.

[just_ordinary]

5 hours ago, Pleiades_06 said:

I don’t know if the monarchy’s power is as innocuous as some people on this thread think it is. This article from the Guardian is about more  the *1000* laws “vetted” by the Queen.

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

I’m not British and I respect the right of those who are to maintain this functioning democracy. But it’s disingenuous to say this position has little to no power.

The crown has powers. This affair though did not happen because of her given powers but through great lobbying. There is no rule that Parliament has to let her vet any drafts. She lobbied for changes 4 times in those 1000 cases (that we know of). And she got her hand slapped for it. It’s not as if the public thought „aww that’s ok Queenie“. 
Having a crowned head of state will not make the system or the people beyond reproach. In that regard they are just like every other politician. It’s not perfect but just as good as any other system (that I deem worthy of being a valid democratic system).

[EmCatlyn]

45 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

I think H&M phrased their complaint a bit muddied in the interview. I understood it as- they were being told Archie would indeed NOT become a Prince when Charles is king. They were told before he was born and then they (allegedly) refused to use any title at all. They packed the whole story up in a big wordsalad though and suddenly it sounded as if the BRF took quick action to make sure the boy could not become the first mixed race Prince the second he was born even though he totally should have been.   ...
...
I absolutely get why H might have had hoped there would be another Letter Patent. And even if not, some things only sting when they actually affect you. The alleged discussion that his children would in fact never be titled as Prince/Princess will have hurt. Seeing your children deemed less, in a family construct where rank and personal relationships are intertwined (even though I believe they try hard not to) is horrible as parent.  ....

I have watched that part of the interview a couple of times, and I don’t share your impression that Harry and Meghan were upset because they were told that Archie would never be a prince (not even after Charles became king).  They seemed to be upset that Archie wasn’t made a prince right away, and they linked this specifically to getting security for Archie.  I wondered if they were using the security issue to make it okay for them to want the HRH title for him right away.    

I agree with you that the way Meghan told the story, she made it sound as though they were denying Archie the title and the security that went with ir because he was biracial.  I think that was deliberate.    

I understand that Meghan and Harry would want their kid to get the best there is in the family and that being reminded that you are the “spare” and so are your kids may have been difficult for Harry.  However, as I have said before, wanting your kid to be a RH is not compatible with stating that you find royal life oppressive.  

[Xanariel]

35 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

However, as I have said before, wanting your kid to be a RH is not compatible with stating that you find royal life oppressive.  

Yeah, I think that's the issue they've run into. 

They're not saying "the system is bad", they're saying "the system didn't put us at the very top, and that's bad" - but I think they're self-aware enough to know it won't go down well. 

I think that may be a reason to link the titles to security. There's also the part where saying "we were denied security despite begging as an overarching nefarious plot against us" sounds better than "it literally didn't occur to us that quitting our job would lose us the job perks, and, uh, maybe we should have talked to the boss before we issued a grand statement saying this was how things were going to be from now on."

[SweetJuly]

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I actually think it’s time they make Kate a Princess (like the DoE). I though for sure it might happen around their anniversary. Well, maybe Charles or later Wiliam will. Princesses are a massive selling point (hello Disney, hello fairytales, hello tabloids).

Looking back I am actually surprised they already took action with George. Regarding the line of succession they could have waited till a second child or if we go by the real birth order: Louis and only then stepped in. But getting rid of such blatant sexism is good PR for government and BRF. The Spains are waiting it out I guess. And the fact that Monaco placed the younger boy before his sister is really a bad look.

For all intents and purposes, Kate is a princess for the greater public. Will she automatically become Princess of Wales when the title is conferred on William? Maybe they're waiting it out once again.

I remember the announcement at the birth of the Monaco twins where they pointed out specifically that Gabriella was born first, but that Jacques will be the heir nevertheless. I am unsure why this was necessary. Personally I think the succession should have been adjusted to make the firstborn the heir, irrespective of sex, but if they absolutely wanted to stick to male primogeniture, they could have simply not announced that the girl was born first.

[EmCatlyn]

23 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

Yeah, I think that's the issue they've run into. 

They're not saying "the system is bad", they're saying "the system didn't put us at the very top, and that's bad" - but I think they're self-aware enough to know it won't go down well. 

I think that may be a reason to link the titles to security. There's also the part where saying "we were denied security despite begging as an overarching nefarious plot against us" sounds better than "it literally didn't occur to us that quitting our job would lose us the job perks, and, uh, maybe we should have talked to the boss before we issued a grand statement saying this was how things were going to be from now on."

I agree with everything except the part about “they’re self-aware enough.” I have serious doubts that they are capable of self-awareness.  To me, they come across as entitled, totally convinced that they deserve more than they have and that if they don’t get what they want it is because others are at fault.

You are right that they are careful about the “optics.”  They want to frame the narrative so that they come across sympathetically.  That is why they pretend that they wanted Archie to be a prince only so he would be provided with security instead of because they valued the title.  And the whole story about people wondering about the baby’s skin color is deliberately muddled so as to  reinforce the narrative that racism was the reason Archie wasn’t made a prince.  

[louisa05]

20 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

They apparently changed that in 2013.

2013,  So 8 years ago they took the blatant bigotry off the books.  Not 1813.  Not 1913 but 8 years ago.  I still don't understand how this institution that bases elitism on nothing but birth and birth order is supported by anyone.  

Bigotry toward Catholics is rather routinely accepted in most places. Including here at times. 

[Xanariel]

29 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Bigotry toward Catholics is rather routinely accepted in most places. Including here at times. 

Bigotry is unacceptable and that law should have been rightfully removed decades ago. 

But I rather feel that poster is overlooking a teeny-tiny ongoing issue as to why there was not much public pressure for the Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to change the law over the course of the 20th century and why the change taking place about a decade on from the 90s was a pretty significant benchmark. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Xanariel

[louisa05]

19 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

Bigotry is unacceptable and that law should have been rightfully removed decades ago. 

But I rather feel that poster is overlooking a teeny-tiny ongoing issue as to why there was not much public pressure for the Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to change the law over the course of the 20th century and why the change taking place about a decade on from the 90s was a pretty significant benchmark. 

I did not mean to imply that the law didn’t need changed. I just found people at FJ being upset about bigotry toward Catholics a bit odd. It happens here. And it’s an American pastime right up there with baseball and apple pie. 

[Xanariel]

29 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

I did not mean to imply that the law didn’t need changed. I just found people at FJ being upset about bigotry toward Catholics a bit odd. It happens here. And it’s an American pastime right up there with baseball and apple pie. 

Yeah, sorry, wasn't trying to imply that that was what you're saying. You're absolutely right - Catholic bigotry has been widespread for a lot of US history (which can be a bit weird when historically major powers like Spain and Italy have been strongly Catholic and the strong ties between the US and Ireland, which was basically a theocracy for much of the 20th century). 

I didn't realise it was such a thing in America until Ben Seewald posted his rants some years back and posters on here were discussing the context of anti-Catholicism across the US since pre-JFK. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

Coming in late here, and I can’t manage multiple quote boxes across pages, but here are some thoughts on titles.

HRH is referred to by the BRF as a “style.” Royals with titles are usually but not always styled HRH - the duchesses of Windsor and York had the titles without being styled HRH. (Between her divorce and death Diana was a princess but not an HRH, which is very odd.) No one has ever been styled HRH without a title (but it may be technically possible).

Archie’s courtesy title (meaning it’s really his father’s) is Earl of Dumbarton. He is not Lord Archie. If he had a younger brother, the younger brother would be Lord First Name, as the younger son of a duke. His sister will be Lady First Name (if she uses it). She’s not Lady Sussex. I get that we don’t know her name yet, but it’s still wrong. Lady Sussex would be the wife of a peer below the level of a duke. (It makes me crazy when the media refers to ladies who are properly Lady Last Name or Title as Lady First Name.)

Someone suggested that Kate should be duchess of Edinburgh. Not gonna happen. Elizabeth and Charles promised it to Edward. That’s why he’s currently an earl rather than a duke. There’s no reason for her to have her own title. Philip only had one because wives take their husbands’ titles, but not vice versa.

Non-Royal digression: I was watching Cranford last night and they have a character called Lady Ludlow, a widow whose son and heir is Lord Septimus (he was her seventh and only surviving child). Unless she was a peeress in her own right (very very rare), Septimus would have already been an earl. (The show didn’t mention that Lady Ludlow was a countess, but I looked up the book online. The story is from a different Elizabeth Gaskell book, not Cranford.) Anyway, if Septimus somehow hadn’t already inherited his earldom, he would have been a viscount, and if his father somehow didn’t have a subsidiary title, he would have been the Hon. Septimus, not Lord Septimus.

[MomJeans]

9 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

 I actually think it’s time they make Kate a Princess (like the DoE). I though for sure it might happen around their anniversary. Well, maybe Charles or later Wiliam will. Princesses are a massive selling point (hello Disney, hello fairytales, hello tabloids).

Looking back I am actually surprised they already took action with George. Regarding the line of succession they could have waited till a second child or if we go by the real birth order: Louis and only then stepped in. But getting rid of such blatant sexism is good PR for government and BRF. The Spains are waiting it out I guess. And the fact that Monaco placed the younger boy before his sister is really a bad look.

I don't personally see it happening- the Queen is pretty conservative, and I can't think of a female spouse getting letters patent to be made a princess in their own right in recent times.  When William is granted the PoW title, Kate will be "HRH Catherine, Princess of Wales" and I think the media will start calling her Princess Catherine, like they did with Diana.   *If William was not granted a Dukedom, Kate would have been referred to as "Princess William".  If Harry was not given a Dukedom, Meghan would have been referred to as "Princess Henry". 

Spain is one of the royal families I follow closely, and yes, they are most definitely waiting it out to be dealt with later, IMHO.  There is enough controversy with the royal family right now, and with two teenage daughters and clearly no plans for more children, it's probably not seen as pressing.  The Princess of Asturias will be the first female monarch of Spain since Queen Isabella II. 

Monaco may never change, tbh, as it's royal family doesn't have the same pressures of other European royal families to prove their modernity.  If Monaco dumped their royal family, the principality itself would likely revert to French jurisdiction.  It will be interesting to see if Prince Jacques makes the change decades from now.  The line of succession in Monaco was drastically changed in 2002, when there was a real concern that Albert would never marry and provide an heir.  (Also, I believe the Royal House mentioned the twin's birth order simply because their birth certificates are likely a public record, and everyone was going to ask anyway.  There are a lot of twins in my family, and strangers always ask which one was born first and by how many minutes.)

Back to H&M- I am wondering if there will be an easel announcement at Buckingham Palace to announce the baby's birth.  I'm not positive, but I don't think there was one for Eugenia's son or for any of Zara's kids.  (I could be very wrong- it may just be that the media didn't say much about it, or I didn't notice.)  Archie did get the easel post when he was born.  

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Coming in late here, and I can’t manage multiple quote boxes across pages, but here are some thoughts on titles.

HRH is referred to by the BRF as a “style.” Royals with titles are usually but not always styled HRH - the duchesses of Windsor and York had the titles without being styled HRH. (Between her divorce and death Diana was a princess but not an HRH, which is very odd.) No one has ever been styled HRH without a title (but it may be technically possible).

Archie’s courtesy title (meaning it’s really his father’s) is Earl of Dumbarton. He is not Lord Archie. If he had a younger brother, the younger brother would be Lord First Name, as the younger son of a duke. His sister will be Lady First Name (if she uses it). She’s not Lady Sussex. I get that we don’t know her name yet, but it’s still wrong. Lady Sussex would be the wife of a peer below the level of a duke. (It makes me crazy when the media refers to ladies who are properly Lady Last Name or Title as Lady First Name.)

Someone suggested that Kate should be duchess of Edinburgh. Not gonna happen. Elizabeth and Charles promised it to Edward. That’s why he’s currently an earl rather than a duke. There’s no reason for her to have her own title. Philip only had one because wives take their husbands’ titles, but not vice versa.

Non-Royal digression: I was watching Cranford last night and they have a character called Lady Ludlow, a widow whose son and heir is Lord Septimus (he was her seventh and only surviving child). Unless she was a peeress in her own right (very very rare), Septimus would have already been an earl. (The show didn’t mention that Lady Ludlow was a countess, but I looked up the book online. The story is from a different Elizabeth Gaskell book, not Cranford.) Anyway, if Septimus somehow hadn’t already inherited his earldom, he would have been a viscount, and if his father somehow didn’t have a subsidiary title, he would have been the Hon. Septimus, not Lord Septimus.

A post after my own heart.  I agree that sometimes you wonder how the press and the media and even some novelists don’t seem to get titles and forms of address right. It is usually very easy to research.

Regarding Archie’s courtesy title, I had understood that it was up to his father to “lend” him the secondary title, not that it came to him automatically.  If it didn’t come to him automatically, then “Lord Archie” would be correct as opposed to “Master Archie.”  He is the son of a duke, after all.

 It is pretty inconsistent of Meghan and Harry to identify themselves as Sussex but pass on the courtesy titles for their son while they were still in the UK.  Of course, now they are in the US, it is better for the kid(s) not to have titles.  

 

[Seahorse Wrangler]

On 5/28/2021 at 1:25 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I'm familiar with the history and not just because of my weird posthumous crush on Charles II.   

IIRC both William and Harry are descendants of Charles II through a bent sinister  ancestor of the late Diana Princess of Wales.

[clueliss]

That might be covered in this video by useful charts

 

[EmCatlyn]

Petition to Prince Harry to Give Up His Titles

Although the “Royal Expert,” Lady Colin Campbell, who started the petition is not the most reliable source for royal family information, I tend to agree with her argument that, 

Quote

[It] is a dignified solution for all concerned. To humiliate no-one and protect everyone. I think it’s a humane way of solving a very regrettable situation... [allowing Harry to speak freely]  without consequence and without doing damage to the institution of the monarchy of the British nation, the British people and himself. The Mirror

To be sure, The Mirror is not a great source, she is being pretty bitchy, and a lot of those signing are just jingoistic “The Royal Family Can Do No Wrong” fools, but the basic idea is one I share.  If being Royal is such a burden, Harry should give up his title to be consistent with his desire for “freedom.”

The BRF is hardly without fault, and while I think Harry is being selfish and thoughtless towards people he supposedly loves (grandmother, father, brother), his need to speak up would seem less hypocritical if he accompanied it with the action of rejecting his titles instead of whining because Archie wasn’t made a prince. (JMHO)

[just_ordinary]

The petition is a stupid idea. There is a reason we haven’t seen titles removed in a long time. As of now only high treason or something similar would justify such action. The second BRF and Parliament take more muddy reasons into account, they open themselves up to a flood of similar cases. Andrew and Fergie are still several steps ahead in terms of shadiness and actually legal grey areas. H&M are undignified, whiny and talk shit (or uncomfortable truths whatever you prefer). They display a big amount of hypocrisy. But being an idiot who cannot shut his mouth doesn’t qualify to get stripped. A similar argument could be made against Charles and Camilla- they truly brought the monarchy to the brink of implosion. 
The only way to get them rid of their titles is them giving it all up (as if, that would be too consistent with their claims) or a big culling with several people being cut out. Peter Philips is another one that comes to mind (has exploited his royal background for money). This petition will do more harm than good for the BRF.

Her argument is also weak. Harry can speak freely and talking badly about the BRF and accusing them of whatever is not punishable (otherwise a big chunk of the British society would find themselves in court/prison). People tend to overestimate the impact of their accusations. No one really cares. They are already looking so bad and desperate. Loose ends and plot holes at every corner. Their own actions in the beginning (you know when they actually wanted to stay royals and go on tours) undermine whatever they say. The UK is treating it as a big Soap Opera and thankfully are not annoyed enough by the BRF to actually vote them out.

Edited June 1, 2021 by just_ordinary

[viii]

6 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

But being an idiot who cannot shut his mouth doesn’t qualify to get stripped. A similar argument could be made against Charles and Camilla- they truly brought the monarchy to the brink of implosion. 

It's funny that people are wanting Harry and Meghan to lose their titles when there are so much worse things that have happened in the royal family (just in the 1900's!) and nobody had an outcry to this scale. Duke of Windsor - Nazi sympathizer. Charles - the whole Camilla/Diana debacle. Prince Andrew - pedophile. 

But yes - Harry is the real issue here. ?

[louisa05]

14 minutes ago, viii said:

It's funny that people are wanting Harry and Meghan to lose their titles when there are so much worse things that have happened in the royal family (just in the 1900's!) and nobody had an outcry to this scale. Duke of Windsor - Nazi sympathizer. Charles - the whole Camilla/Diana debacle. Prince Andrew - pedophile. 

But yes - Harry is the real issue here. ?

I think it’s because Harry is continually going on about how being royal is destroying him. And Meghan announced that titles are a horrid burden. The others never blamed their titles for their troubles. These two have spent a lot of time crying publicly about the burden of titles. So it’s reasonable that people might think they could do without them. 

[just_ordinary]

They seem to have new revelations about the title/royal situation weekly. 
-Call me just Harry aka I am royal but don’t care

-Not wanting a title for Archie aka we are so modern we don’t care
-Totally entitled to use  HRH but will refrain from doing so aka WE DON’t CARE BUT WE CAN TOTALLY USE THE TITLE

-Archie was denied a title and thereby left without protection

-BRF is full of racist bullies aka royals bad

-Growing up a Prince was so hard and the family was neglecting him aka being royal is so toxic

But they never actually say that the monarchy should be abolished, nor that they don’t want the titles. It’s only hinted at. Fact is- his whole persona is build around his title. And I think they can say whatever they want- the titles won’t go. That would put them in victim3000 mode. The guy formerly known as Prince H would definitely work for 10 years. The actress that was treated like Nazi supporters just because she is a feminist, mixed race and refuses to give up her voice for good too. By not taking the bait the BRF let’s them destroy themselves. 
I think they should have put more energy in their Netflix (has something happened yet?) and their podcast for voices that we don’t hear normally (and no that is most definitely not Elton John) or another intense long term charity action like Hubb (which I still think was fantastic and Kate should take note). Because by only putting their past in the public conversation it just looks desperate. I believe if they would finally get their shit together they could build something on their own, but right now it’s completely piggy back riding on the BRF. I am very critical of H, less of M and subsequently I also feel like she is better equipped to deal with the new situation while he still looks as if he doesn’t believe the door is shut.