Prince Philip has died...

[Anonymous]

This thread is about Prince Philip and not Harry and Meghan. It is DCUM policy not to post negatively about the recently deceased so I have reported the negative posts about Prince Philip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought ALL the statements were lovely. It’s not a contest.

The statements were lovely, but Harry's sent a very subtle message: By ending with "Per Mare, Per Terram," the motto of the Royal Marines, was he apologizing to his grandfather for giving up the role of Captain General of the Royal Marines, an honor Philip had for many years? His Aunt Anne took over that role from Harry when he severed ties with his family.

Apologizing? No. Defiantly claiming his ties to the Royal Marines as the only royal who has served overseas in a warfront? Absolutely.

https://www.forces.net/news/prince-harrys-tribute-legend-banter-prince-philip

Well, Prince Philip is a royal who served overseas in a warfront. Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot during the Falklands War and while Prince Charles did not serve overseas, he did command a Navy destroyer and flew both helicopters and jets during his military service.

He can defiantly claim his ties to the marines, but he is like any other veteran now. Princess Anne is the Captain General of the Royal Marines, and another royal will take over from her when she relinquishes the title.

He gave up so much for so little was often said about his Great Uncle [b]David. [/b] May Harry's defiance carry him through that curse.

Edward?

His actual name was David but he took Edward as his regnal name when he became king.

What exactly did Harry give up? Tangible things - please list them. I understand that Edward/David gave up essentially an entire kingdom but as monarch he had all the funds of the Duchy of Lancaster and the private wealth passed from monarch to monarch.

As the 'spare' of a King with a heir + 3, Harry wasn't in line for any of that. He wasn't entitled to the funds of the Duchy of Cornwall, he was not going to be head of 4-6 castles (Charles has 4 as PoW - Highgrove, Clarence, Llwynywermod, and Birkhall), he wasn't going to get much of an income beyond what he was already given (I believe Andrew was getting $250K/yr as the son and Prince Phillip was getting $400K/yr as the husband), and all he had to look forward to was being kicked out of his housing at the monarch's leisure as he grew older.

As for titles/roles - he already had the highest ducal title he was going to be given and Capt General of the Royal Marines is the highest military-related title Phillip could have passed on to him which he held since 1953.

Harry was said to be devastated that the Queen removed him from his Royal patronages, particularly Captain General of the Royal Marines which he received from his Grandfather, Prince Philip. Other returned patronages that he wanted to keep: Honorary Air Commandant, RAF Honington, Commodore-in Chief Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command. For a man who served 10 years in the military and whose future course would have been in support of the military, he gave up a good deal.

So Harry’s upset because he wanted to have his cake and eat it too but Grandma said no?

Essentially, yes.

But I thought part of his whole We're Outta Here letter specified that he and MM wanted to becomes financially independent? But now they're upset that they couldn't leave the BRF/duties and still get supported? Archie was never supposed to be a Prince, so Harkles is lying when they claim that it's a slight for him to not get the title. The whole streamlining the BRF was in play prior to Harry even meeting MM. Andrew's children weren't supposed to have the Princess titles either but he pitched a huge fit and mommy gave it to them. The children of Anne and Edward don't have the titles either.

Why wouldn’t Archie be a prince when Charles is King if Beatrice and Eugenia are princesses? Does not make a ton of sense. Beatrice and Eugenia also got security into adulthood and access to properties they could never afford with their pretend jobs despite never having been working royals. Anne and Edward chose to not do the titles. So basically why is the rule that every monarch’s child gets the option to choose if they want the titles but Harry will not (when Charles is king makes sense that the choice would not be available now). It doesn’t actually make sense. Streamlining the monarchy has to do with the number of working royals. That would not change title or not.

Yep. They were changing it only for the child who had the non-white mother. Surprise.

[Anonymous]

For this thread of 80% American viewers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought ALL the statements were lovely. It’s not a contest.

The statements were lovely, but Harry's sent a very subtle message: By ending with "Per Mare, Per Terram," the motto of the Royal Marines, was he apologizing to his grandfather for giving up the role of Captain General of the Royal Marines, an honor Philip had for many years? His Aunt Anne took over that role from Harry when he severed ties with his family.

Apologizing? No. Defiantly claiming his ties to the Royal Marines as the only royal who has served overseas in a warfront? Absolutely.

https://www.forces.net/news/prince-harrys-tribute-legend-banter-prince-philip

Well, Prince Philip is a royal who served overseas in a warfront. Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot during the Falklands War and while Prince Charles did not serve overseas, he did command a Navy destroyer and flew both helicopters and jets during his military service.

He can defiantly claim his ties to the marines, but he is like any other veteran now. Princess Anne is the Captain General of the Royal Marines, and another royal will take over from her when she relinquishes the title.

He gave up so much for so little was often said about his Great Uncle [b]David. [/b] May Harry's defiance carry him through that curse.

Edward?

His actual name was David but he took Edward as his regnal name when he became king.

What exactly did Harry give up? Tangible things - please list them. I understand that Edward/David gave up essentially an entire kingdom but as monarch he had all the funds of the Duchy of Lancaster and the private wealth passed from monarch to monarch.

As the 'spare' of a King with a heir + 3, Harry wasn't in line for any of that. He wasn't entitled to the funds of the Duchy of Cornwall, he was not going to be head of 4-6 castles (Charles has 4 as PoW - Highgrove, Clarence, Llwynywermod, and Birkhall), he wasn't going to get much of an income beyond what he was already given (I believe Andrew was getting $250K/yr as the son and Prince Phillip was getting $400K/yr as the husband), and all he had to look forward to was being kicked out of his housing at the monarch's leisure as he grew older.

As for titles/roles - he already had the highest ducal title he was going to be given and Capt General of the Royal Marines is the highest military-related title Phillip could have passed on to him which he held since 1953.

Harry was said to be devastated that the Queen removed him from his Royal patronages, particularly Captain General of the Royal Marines which he received from his Grandfather, Prince Philip. Other returned patronages that he wanted to keep: Honorary Air Commandant, RAF Honington, Commodore-in Chief Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command. For a man who served 10 years in the military and whose future course would have been in support of the military, he gave up a good deal.

So Harry’s upset because he wanted to have his cake and eat it too but Grandma said no?

Essentially, yes.

But I thought part of his whole We're Outta Here letter specified that he and MM wanted to becomes financially independent? But now they're upset that they couldn't leave the BRF/duties and still get supported? Archie was never supposed to be a Prince, so Harkles is lying when they claim that it's a slight for him to not get the title. The whole streamlining the BRF was in play prior to Harry even meeting MM. Andrew's children weren't supposed to have the Princess titles either but he pitched a huge fit and mommy gave it to them. The children of Anne and Edward don't have the titles either.

Why wouldn’t Archie be a prince when Charles is King if Beatrice and Eugenia are princesses? Does not make a ton of sense. Beatrice and Eugenia also got security into adulthood and access to properties they could never afford with their pretend jobs despite never having been working royals. Anne and Edward chose to not do the titles. So basically why is the rule that every monarch’s child gets the option to choose if they want the titles but Harry will not (when Charles is king makes sense that the choice would not be available now). It doesn’t actually make sense. Streamlining the monarchy has to do with the number of working royals. That would not change title or not.

Yep. They were changing it only for the child who had the non-white mother. Surprise.

Surprise, Prince Edward's children were also eligible for the titles and he turned them down because he wants them to work some day. Because its ridiculous to have so many people not that close to the front of the succession order be HRH. Andrew was mocked for his choice to give the titles to his daughters because it is ridiculous. So there is a precedent for all those eligible to not take up the offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. They were changing it only for the child who had the non-white mother. Surprise.

M&H were complaining that Archie doesn't have the title+security RIGHT NOW. MM even went so far as to claim it was his birthright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought ALL the statements were lovely. It’s not a contest.

The statements were lovely, but Harry's sent a very subtle message: By ending with "Per Mare, Per Terram," the motto of the Royal Marines, was he apologizing to his grandfather for giving up the role of Captain General of the Royal Marines, an honor Philip had for many years? His Aunt Anne took over that role from Harry when he severed ties with his family.

Apologizing? No. Defiantly claiming his ties to the Royal Marines as the only royal who has served overseas in a warfront? Absolutely.

https://www.forces.net/news/prince-harrys-tribute-legend-banter-prince-philip

Well, Prince Philip is a royal who served overseas in a warfront. Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot during the Falklands War and while Prince Charles did not serve overseas, he did command a Navy destroyer and flew both helicopters and jets during his military service.

He can defiantly claim his ties to the marines, but he is like any other veteran now. Princess Anne is the Captain General of the Royal Marines, and another royal will take over from her when she relinquishes the title.

He gave up so much for so little was often said about his Great Uncle [b]David. [/b] May Harry's defiance carry him through that curse.

Edward?

His actual name was David but he took Edward as his regnal name when he became king.

What exactly did Harry give up? Tangible things - please list them. I understand that Edward/David gave up essentially an entire kingdom but as monarch he had all the funds of the Duchy of Lancaster and the private wealth passed from monarch to monarch.

As the 'spare' of a King with a heir + 3, Harry wasn't in line for any of that. He wasn't entitled to the funds of the Duchy of Cornwall, he was not going to be head of 4-6 castles (Charles has 4 as PoW - Highgrove, Clarence, Llwynywermod, and Birkhall), he wasn't going to get much of an income beyond what he was already given (I believe Andrew was getting $250K/yr as the son and Prince Phillip was getting $400K/yr as the husband), and all he had to look forward to was being kicked out of his housing at the monarch's leisure as he grew older.

As for titles/roles - he already had the highest ducal title he was going to be given and Capt General of the Royal Marines is the highest military-related title Phillip could have passed on to him which he held since 1953.

Harry was said to be devastated that the Queen removed him from his Royal patronages, particularly Captain General of the Royal Marines which he received from his Grandfather, Prince Philip. Other returned patronages that he wanted to keep: Honorary Air Commandant, RAF Honington, Commodore-in Chief Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command. For a man who served 10 years in the military and whose future course would have been in support of the military, he gave up a good deal.

So Harry’s upset because he wanted to have his cake and eat it too but Grandma said no?

Essentially, yes.

But I thought part of his whole We're Outta Here letter specified that he and MM wanted to becomes financially independent? But now they're upset that they couldn't leave the BRF/duties and still get supported? Archie was never supposed to be a Prince, so Harkles is lying when they claim that it's a slight for him to not get the title. The whole streamlining the BRF was in play prior to Harry even meeting MM. Andrew's children weren't supposed to have the Princess titles either but he pitched a huge fit and mommy gave it to them. The children of Anne and Edward don't have the titles either.

Why wouldn’t Archie be a prince when Charles is King if Beatrice and Eugenia are princesses? Does not make a ton of sense. Beatrice and Eugenia also got security into adulthood and access to properties they could never afford with their pretend jobs despite never having been working royals. Anne and Edward chose to not do the titles. So basically why is the rule that every monarch’s child gets the option to choose if they want the titles but Harry will not (when Charles is king makes sense that the choice would not be available now). It doesn’t actually make sense. Streamlining the monarchy has to do with the number of working royals. That would not change title or not.

Yep. They were changing it only for the child who had the non-white mother. Surprise.

Surprise, Prince Edward's children were also eligible for the titles and he turned them down because he wants them to work some day. Because its ridiculous to have so many people not that close to the front of the succession order be HRH. Andrew was mocked for his choice to give the titles to his daughters because it is ridiculous. So there is a precedent for all those eligible to not take up the offer.

That was his choice. One that the Queen and Prince Phillip were respectful enough to give him and abide by.

This was not Prince Harry and Duchess' Meghan's choice to 'not take up the offer'. If they want it this way -- seems they shouldn't have started with giving Letters Patents to George's siblings. Seems the opposite of 'wanting to shrink the monarchy'.

The other issue with British parliamentary law is - nothing is clear. When George, Louis, and Charlotte start having kids in 20 years or so - will they automatically require all children of Louis and Charlotte to be non-titled? Its a can of worms with no clear definitions - just whimsy.

[Anonymous]

Really? Shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. They were changing it only for the child who had the non-white mother. Surprise.

M&H were complaining that Archie doesn't have the title+security RIGHT NOW. MM even went so far as to claim it was his birthright.

No. She did not. She was clear in the interview that the title was a discussion for when Charles accedes the throne as King. Archie would automatically receive an HRH at that point and apparently the palace courtiers were working in secret from the public to make that not happen.

Now if they try it - the world knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. They were changing it only for the child who had the non-white mother. Surprise.

M&H were complaining that Archie doesn't have the title+security RIGHT NOW. MM even went so far as to claim it was his birthright.

No. She did not. She was clear in the interview that the title was a discussion for when Charles accedes the throne as King. Archie would automatically receive an HRH at that point and apparently the palace courtiers were working in secret from the public to make that not happen.

Now if they try it - the world knows.

What does this have to do with Prince Philip’s death?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought ALL the statements were lovely. It’s not a contest.

The statements were lovely, but Harry's sent a very subtle message: By ending with "Per Mare, Per Terram," the motto of the Royal Marines, was he apologizing to his grandfather for giving up the role of Captain General of the Royal Marines, an honor Philip had for many years? His Aunt Anne took over that role from Harry when he severed ties with his family.

Apologizing? No. Defiantly claiming his ties to the Royal Marines as the only royal who has served overseas in a warfront? Absolutely.

https://www.forces.net/news/prince-harrys-tribute-legend-banter-prince-philip

Well, Prince Philip is a royal who served overseas in a warfront. Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot during the Falklands War and while Prince Charles did not serve overseas, he did command a Navy destroyer and flew both helicopters and jets during his military service.

He can defiantly claim his ties to the marines, but he is like any other veteran now. Princess Anne is the Captain General of the Royal Marines, and another royal will take over from her when she relinquishes the title.

He gave up so much for so little was often said about his Great Uncle [b]David. [/b] May Harry's defiance carry him through that curse.

Edward?

His actual name was David but he took Edward as his regnal name when he became king.

What exactly did Harry give up? Tangible things - please list them. I understand that Edward/David gave up essentially an entire kingdom but as monarch he had all the funds of the Duchy of Lancaster and the private wealth passed from monarch to monarch.

As the 'spare' of a King with a heir + 3, Harry wasn't in line for any of that. He wasn't entitled to the funds of the Duchy of Cornwall, he was not going to be head of 4-6 castles (Charles has 4 as PoW - Highgrove, Clarence, Llwynywermod, and Birkhall), he wasn't going to get much of an income beyond what he was already given (I believe Andrew was getting $250K/yr as the son and Prince Phillip was getting $400K/yr as the husband), and all he had to look forward to was being kicked out of his housing at the monarch's leisure as he grew older.

As for titles/roles - he already had the highest ducal title he was going to be given and Capt General of the Royal Marines is the highest military-related title Phillip could have passed on to him which he held since 1953.

Harry was said to be devastated that the Queen removed him from his Royal patronages, particularly Captain General of the Royal Marines which he received from his Grandfather, Prince Philip. Other returned patronages that he wanted to keep: Honorary Air Commandant, RAF Honington, Commodore-in Chief Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command. For a man who served 10 years in the military and whose future course would have been in support of the military, he gave up a good deal.

So Harry’s upset because he wanted to have his cake and eat it too but Grandma said no?

Essentially, yes.

But I thought part of his whole We're Outta Here letter specified that he and MM wanted to becomes financially independent? But now they're upset that they couldn't leave the BRF/duties and still get supported? Archie was never supposed to be a Prince, so Harkles is lying when they claim that it's a slight for him to not get the title. The whole streamlining the BRF was in play prior to Harry even meeting MM. Andrew's children weren't supposed to have the Princess titles either but he pitched a huge fit and mommy gave it to them. The children of Anne and Edward don't have the titles either.

Why wouldn’t Archie be a prince when Charles is King if Beatrice and Eugenia are princesses? Does not make a ton of sense. Beatrice and Eugenia also got security into adulthood and access to properties they could never afford with their pretend jobs despite never having been working royals. Anne and Edward chose to not do the titles. So basically why is the rule that every monarch’s child gets the option to choose if they want the titles but Harry will not (when Charles is king makes sense that the choice would not be available now). It doesn’t actually make sense. Streamlining the monarchy has to do with the number of working royals. That would not change title or not.

Yep. They were changing it only for the child who had the non-white mother. Surprise.

Surprise, Prince Edward's children were also eligible for the titles and he turned them down because he wants them to work some day. Because its ridiculous to have so many people not that close to the front of the succession order be HRH. Andrew was mocked for his choice to give the titles to his daughters because it is ridiculous. So there is a precedent for all those eligible to not take up the offer.

That was his choice. One that the Queen and Prince Phillip were respectful enough to give him and abide by.

This was not Prince Harry and Duchess' Meghan's choice to 'not take up the offer'. If they want it this way -- seems they shouldn't have started with giving Letters Patents to George's siblings. Seems the opposite of 'wanting to shrink the monarchy'.

The other issue with British parliamentary law is - nothing is clear. When George, Louis, and Charlotte start having kids in 20 years or so - will they automatically require all children of Louis and Charlotte to be non-titled? Its a can of worms with no clear definitions - just whimsy.

It's ridiculous for Eugenie and Beatrice to have titles, as much as will be Archie the far flung American cousin. The other European royal families are streamlined and don't have such bloated payrolls. The Swedish King's grandchildren recently lost their titles, so this isn't unusual. Harry should see which way the wind is blowing.

"The decision by King Carl XVI Gustaf means the children no longer have the title of royal highness and are not expected to perform official royal duties.
They will remain members of the royal family and retain their titles of dukes and duchesses.
The change has not affected the king's two grandchildren who are in direct line to the throne.
Observers say the move reflects a wider view that there is no need to pay so many members of the royal family for official duties."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49958085

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. They were changing it only for the child who had the non-white mother. Surprise.

M&H were complaining that Archie doesn't have the title+security RIGHT NOW. MM even went so far as to claim it was his birthright.

No. She did not. She was clear in the interview that the title was a discussion for when Charles accedes the throne as King. Archie would automatically receive an HRH at that point and apparently the palace courtiers were working in secret from the public to make that not happen.

Now if they try it - the world knows.

I think you're confusing the Palace with an elected body. They can keep things in secret if they so wish. Titles are at the pleasure of the sovereign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. They were changing it only for the child who had the non-white mother. Surprise.

Whatever do you mean? Charles has only two children. One is in the line of direct succession, the other isn't. The difference is clear enough. I mean Harry should understand primogeniture better than anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. They were changing it only for the child who had the non-white mother. Surprise.

Whatever do you mean? Charles has only two children. One is in the line of direct succession, the other isn't. The difference is clear enough. I mean Harry should understand primogeniture better than anyone.

Primogeniture doesn't have anything to do with the HRHs of a sovereign's children. Otherwise Anne, Edward, and Andrew would not have an HRH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about Prince Philip and not Harry and Meghan. It is DCUM policy not to post negatively about the recently deceased so I have reported the negative posts about Prince Philip.

And what happened?
Because if they all were removed there will be very little left..

[Anonymous]

It's ridiculous for Eugenie and Beatrice to have titles, as much as will be Archie the far flung American cousin. The other European royal families are streamlined and don't have such bloated payrolls. The Swedish King's grandchildren recently lost their titles, so this isn't unusual. Harry should see which way the wind is blowing.

"The decision by King Carl XVI Gustaf means the children no longer have the title of royal highness and are not expected to perform official royal duties.
They will remain members of the royal family and retain their titles of dukes and duchesses.
The change has not affected the king's two grandchildren who are in direct line to the throne.
Observers say the move reflects a wider view that there is no need to pay so many members of the royal family for official duties."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49958085

OMG..seriously?.. Because one king eons ago said something.. does that mean that QE2 can not issue something else? The funny things about laws is that they can be changed you know.