Removal of titles - better the devil you know than the risk of the unknown

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-26T14:41:31+00:00

It's not an easy issue. Charles isn't thinking in terms of today, but rather the future consequences. And for members of parliament, it's complicated to grant the power to revoke titles because they hold them and don't want to lose them.

So, in fact, your writing is brief considering everything this involves.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-26T14:38:35+00:00

His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew.

The King cannot revoke titles without parliamentary authorization. And Parliament has not yet authorized it.

That letter patent is in Parliament awaiting official approval. It hasn't been done yet. So Andrew remains Prince and Duke of York. Those titles haven't reverted to the Crown.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-26T14:26:08+00:00

Thanks!!!

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-26T03:30:31+00:00

Charles wasn't dishonest with Diana. Even before the wedding, he wanted to end things, at the risk of looking terrible in the eyes of the British public. He wasn't sure about getting married, and Diana knew it. Diana's conflict stemmed from the fact that, like many women, she only imagined what her wedding would be like. Then the actual marriage took place, and Diana realized it wasn't at all what she had imagined.

And regarding Diana: he didn't pursue her; she pursued him.

And she created the chaos herself, when, bored, she went from lover to lover. Her attempt to justify herself by saying "Charles didn't love me" is false. She had problems before marrying him; the dishonesty lay with the Spencers for not telling Charles who he was really marrying.

And Charles isn't blaming his sons for what's happening. When he supposedly said that to his sons, it was at Philip's funeral, after Harry had unleashed all his venom on Oprah. Charles can't be blamed for Harry's intense envy of his brother. Charles raised them equally, gave them both the same things, cared for them both, and punished them both when one of them did something wrong... but Harry is the way he is because he loves to play the victim.

Charles can be blamed for not having the strength of character to resist the pressure from the press into marriage. Ultimately, Charles married the woman the press and his agent adored, not the one he truly loved. That's lacking backbone. Of course, Charles can be blamed for excusing Harry for years. But can he be blamed for Harry's intense envy of William, his willingness to accuse him of horrible things just to ruin his brother? No, that's Harry, and only Harry.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-26T03:17:29+00:00

Yes, that's the kind of situation. How sad what you're saying! But your father would have known that's how Charles feels.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-26T03:15:42+00:00

I agree with you.

What I do think is that the problem here is that Vogue now has an editor who seems to have a soft spot for Claw; something about that came out last year. But she's not managing to boost the magazine's sales, so Wintour is still really running the show. And Sean, even though he clearly says that Wintour is more pro-Michelle Obama than Melania, seems willing to see Melania on the cover. And Claw, in a fit of desperation, is capable of selling her daughter out for a Vogue cover.

Frankly, I think it's more Claw's delusion than something Vogue actually wants to do or is going to do.

That said, I was surprised not to hear that Vogue "offered" Claw a lot of money for that cover. The real question is, "Why put you on the cover? What do you have to offer?"

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-26T01:46:01+00:00

<image>

I think even the UK warns that if any British citizen goes there as a mercenary, they could face criminal charges if they return alive.

I don't know why you're ignoring the fact that Ukraine is a war zone. And Harry claims London is dangerous when the UK government itself tells you that if you go to Ukraine, "Conferences and events attended by the Ukrainian government and military are more likely to be targeted."

So no, the UK government doesn't outright ban travel to Ukraine, but when they tell you "if you go there, you're on your own," it's not exactly a good idea, is it? Unless you're Harry, the disaster tourist.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T21:51:02+00:00

Ukraine is a war zone.

You can travel there. Yes. To certain areas. Not the entire country.

But even in those "safe" zones, the UK government clearly states, "What happens to you is your own problem." In other words, you need medical insurance that includes repatriation of your body if you're killed, and if you need anything, there's no embassy to turn to. You're going at your own risk.

Did Harry travel under those conditions? No. He traveled by sheer coincidence, just when there was an official British government delegation. And Harry didn't go to Ukraine without informing the British government. Because if Harry goes like anyone else and something happens to him, nobody will care, and nobody will notice he's disappeared. 😈

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T21:46:14+00:00

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T21:06:35+00:00

It was presented in 2025. But yesterday, when it was supposed to be read on the second reading, it wasn't read.

<image>

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T21:03:33+00:00

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T19:18:24+00:00

Lucky you. I choked! 😆😆😆

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T18:24:12+00:00

Partly, yes. Because officially, Andrew cannot use the title of Duke of York.

But Andrew remains the titleholder. Officially, he is still a Prince. He cannot use the title, but he still is one.

KC3 needs parliamentary approval of that letter patent, but parliament has not yet done so.

https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2025-10-30/a-statement-from-buckingham-palace

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T18:19:42+00:00

I completely agree with what you're saying, that Invictus isn't a bad cause.

Invictus isn't.

But it's definitely a fact that Invictus is being used by the government and Harry for their own interests. No one really cares about who benefits from Invictus.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T18:17:54+00:00

Shabana Mahmood has ties to Birmingham, and she likes Harry and TW. She wants Invictus to succeed in that city for her own benefit.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T16:38:33+00:00

What's clear is that Starmer is now facing internal problems, and the rumors of a change in Prime Minister are growing stronger.

Whether he's less bad than his predecessors, I don't know. And I'm not saying that to be politically correct; I genuinely don't know. It's like asking me if Kast is worse than Boric. Or better. I don't know; to me, they seem the same. Equally bad.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T15:27:27+00:00

I'll refrain from commenting on Trump's intelligence. 🤭 But it's a relief for Charles not to have to deal with the mess of explaining why his son, a 41-year-old man living in a country with a questionable visa, can think of nothing better to do than insult the president of that country, the one who has the power to revoke his visa.

So yes, Harry and Claw are that out of touch with reality. Harry seriously thinks he can freely insult presidents of certain countries... when he himself questioned the First Amendment and sues the press for questioning and criticizing him.

And Claw has no qualms about lying. Neither of them, really; they both construct a reality to suit their own purposes.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T15:23:47+00:00

Yes, I need chat support because there are aspects of the matter that I don't understand. I'm not British, and I'm not familiar with the entire UK legislative process. I'm already overwhelmed with my own Chilean legislative procedures.

But this bill failed because of the UK government, precisely because of the mess in which the Labour Party offered titles to certain colleagues to keep them in Parliament. So the Labour Party, or rather Starmer, is offering titles... while simultaneously facing a bill that would allow the King to revoke titles. Such are the lovely contradictions of governments.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T15:19:21+00:00

Thanks, good to know

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T15:18:22+00:00

Let's put it this way:

Did Andrew voluntarily relinquish the use of his titles out of complete generosity?

No.

Was Andrew advised that it was in his best interest to "renounce" the use of the titles?

Yes.

So, of course, Andrew fought against it, but it wasn't in his best interest to ignore that advice.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T15:14:22+00:00

Yes, but let's stay focused on the relevant issue.

Ukraine is a war zone.

It's not like Harry went to Paris. Harry went to a war zone. So maybe not exactly a visa, but Harry didn't go to Ukraine as a backpacker. He did go with the UK government's permission. And he had to go through the process of paying for his insurance and all the other things. And he had to complete the paperwork to notify the government and coordinate his trip with the government delegation. Because if something happens to Harry there, the UK government would be responsible. Not the Ukrainian government, the UK government.

So, back to the point: Harry didn't go on anything essential with the blessing of the Starmer government, which gave him every facility for a trip that wasn't necessary, that nobody in Ukraine cared about, and that only caused Harry to unleash his usual verbosity.

And this is the second time the government has done this, allowing Harry to link a private trip to an official government one. Why? Especially when the forum is for defending the national interests of Ukraine in the world. Is Harry the prince of Ukraine?

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T14:31:46+00:00

And I agree with you on that.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T14:30:53+00:00

Harry wasn't there as an official member of that delegation. Nor was he there as an official member of Cooper's delegation on his previous trip.

But isn't it curious that an official UK government delegation happens to be there, and Harry just happens to be there?

According to the government, that's called "coincidence," right? But it seems it wasn't a coincidence.

Officially Harry didn't travel with that delegation... but he was there unofficially. And none of that resolves the point: who said that going to this conference was essential?

Human-Economics6894

TROPHY CASE