He’s already rich. When he turned 30 in 2014 he inherited about £10–13 million (at the time, US$16.5 - 21.5 million) from his mother. Neither he nor anyone belonging to him need ever work if they don’t care to, and they can all live a quiet and comfortable life doing what they like to do.
If he wants to be super-rich he needs to parlay his celebrity in some way, and that in turn requires him to do things to conserve and maintain his celebrity. Being a celebrity, and cultivating celebrity, is generally very unpleasant. If you’re already rich, degrading your quality of life in order to become super-rich is a sub-optimal choice.
Quite. It’s the old lesson that you can’t have celebrity or royal status on your own terms: they come with their own freight of expectations and restrictions - you can’t have it both ways.
I agree 100% about the existence of the tradeoff. But which is more desired or how one evaluates that tradeoff is an individual matter.
For somebody used to big yachts and private jets, and wanting that to continue, a net worth of $20M doesn’t cut it; not even close On that net worth you can perpetually vacation in what ordinary people think of as first class luxury. But it pales as to nothing beside the life of the truly rich, truly famous, and truly royal.
IANA detailed royal follower, but ISTM the real issue was the press and the family hated Meghan and didn’t much like his decision-making either. Unless they’re willing to have a do-over, there’s no going back on that.
And the press of course is their own beast and in these troubled xenophobic times, the odds on them leaving Meghan alone seem nil to me.
Harry has royal status by birth, and that can only be changed by Act of Parliament; this status comes with no legal obligations or restrictions. As for celebrity, there are lots of different types out there. Some come with expectations, but most don’t.
I’m not sure there’s a legally defined “royal status” that he is guaranteed by birth. He’s in the line of succession, and that indeed can only be changed by Act of Parliament; but he’s so far behind in the line that it’s not of relevance (and the line of succession is open-ended - it includes thousands of people you would not consider royal). His style as Royal Highness and Prince of the United Kingdom are subject to the prerogatives of the King; Charles (or William, upon his succession to the throne) could take it away at any time without Parliament. His dukedom can indeed only be taken away by Act of Parliament (even though he has agreed not to use the title), but he did not hold it by virtue of birth - he was granted it by his grandmother when he got married.
He does use his ducal title; it’s the “royal highness” style that he has agreed not to use.
As Schnitte says, his title as a prince of the United Kingdom is subject to the royal prerogative, and can with withdrawn by the monarch without the need for an Act of Parliament.
Having said that, on the last (only?) occasion when this actually happened, in 1917, an Act of Parliament which deprived various German princes who were descended from Queen Victoria of their British peerage titles also deprived them of their princely titles. Presumably this was done to underline the fact that the withdrawal of these honours was not just a personal whim of the then monarch, George V, but represented national and goverment policy. So I think the correct position is that the royal and princely style may be withdrawn by the monarch, but it may also be withdrawn by Act of Parliament and there is precedent for doing it that way.
(NB he’s not formally “Prince Harry”; his given name is Henry, so he’s Prince Henry of the United Kingdom.)
I think that’s right, and it’s in line with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty - there is nothing that Parliament couldn’t legislate, so it can also override the royal prerogative, either altogether or in an individual case. But as long as Parliament doesn’t do so, the King can bestow princely titles and HRH styles on anyone he chooses, or withdraw them.
Another question is whether this exercise of the royal prerogative would require advice from the prime minister. I would say no, because the government typically tries to stay out of such intra-family affairs; but for sure the King should not exercise the royal prerogative in such a manner if the prime minister advises against it.
If the monarch declines to follow his prime minister’s advice, formally tendered as such, the prime minister would have to resign, as he lacks the confidence of his sovereign.
Not quite. The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 removed British titles from men who had “adhered to His Majesty’s enemies” in the Great War. Three ceased to be princes of the UK, including Victoria’s grandson the Duke of Albany, her cousin’s son the Duke of Cumberland, and Cumberland’s son. (The fourth man deprived of his title was Viscount Taaffe, an Irish peer whose family was long-settled in Austria.) Parliament passed the act but did not directly remove the titles; instead, the Act established a committee of the Privy Council to hear evidence and send a list to the King.
Separately, in November 1917 the King (without consulting Parliament) issued Letters Patent declaring which members of the family were entitled to HRH and Prince(ss). This document limited the style to the monarch’s children, the children of the monarch’s sons, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Other male-line great-grandchildren of the monarch were to be styled as sons and daughters of a duke. This had the effect of of turning His Highness Prince Alistair of Connaught, a great-grandson of Queen Victoria, into Lord Alistair Windsor (he was more commonly known as Earl of Macduff, his mother’s secondary title). Alistair was a toddler at the time and presumably there was no deep message to be sent by taking away the boy’s title.
Several months earlier, in July 1917, the King issued a proclamation declaring that henceforth the royal family would be the House of Windsor and that all descendants of Queen Victoria who were British subjects would cease using any German titles. Shortly thereafter, by royal warrant the Princes of Teck (Queen Mary’s brothers) and Prince Louis of Battenberg (Victoria’s granddaughters husband) relinquished their German titles as well. In the following months, most of these received British titles: Prince Alexander of Teck became Sir Alexander Cambridge that August, then in November was created Earl of Athlone, for example. Parliament had no formal role in the proclamation or subsequent grants of title.
Similarly, Parliament had no role when Princess Patricia of Connaught, a granddaughter of Victoria, by royal warrant gave up her HRH and title of Princess in 1919, at the time of her marriage to a Scottish naval officer; she was thereafter known as Lady Patricia Ramsay.
That sounds right as a matter of constitutional theory, but I think in practice it would play out the other way; public opinion about a monarch refusing to follow prime ministerial advice would be so outraged that the monarch would have to be the one backing down. The last time a King tried to refuse to follow such advice in a Windsor family affair ended with an abdication in 1936.
Yes, that is what happens. The PM does not offer formal advice on any question unless he is willing to resign if that advice is not accepted and followed. But it is next to impossible for the monarch to reject the advice, knowing that the PM would resign and a consitutional crisis would be precipitated.
