This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military / Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. British Royalty B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / British / European / Post-Cold War B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force British military history task force European military history task force Post-Cold War task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. London B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 22 August 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The introduction says that in 2015 he resigned from the army. This is repeated later in the text where it says he resigned his short service commission at that time. Howver it continues a bit later to say " In May 2018, he was promoted to the substantive ranks of Lieutenant Commander of the Royal Navy, Major of the British Army and Squadron Leader of the Royal Air Force."

Thats not altogether consistent. Surely he cannot be promoted if he doesnt already hold a rank. Was he actually wholly a civilian with no military rank after 2015, or did he merely resign frrom active service? I seem to recall other retired military officers still holding nominal rank? Struck me there might be a technical error here. Sandpiper (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of the Seychelles stamp is captioned “Harry with his great-grandmother”. Surely Queen Elizabeth is his grandmother. Or did I miss someone between her and Charles, or between Charles and Harry? 65.95.146.153 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That photo is of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, wife of George VI, mother of Elizabeth II and thus Harry's great-grandmother. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After footnote 10, suggest adding: “According to Harry’s memoir, the purpose of his birth was to provide blood and spare organs for his older brother William, should he require them.” (Spare, 2023, unknown page.) Globalbrian (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“I was summoned to provide backup, distraction, diversion and, if necessary, a spare part. Kidney perhaps. Blood transfusion. Speck of bone marrow.” (From Harry’s memoir “Spare,” Penguin Random House, 2023.) Globalbrian (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the former estate of Riven Rock". Is there any significance to Harry of what Riven Rock used to be? Can we just say "at Riven Rock"? Nurg (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under public image section towards the end it’s brazenly biased with tabloid sources. Ridiculous 2603:7081:1500:4767:6C99:E5C6:5A3D:68AE (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

I have submitted multiple suggestions for additions under the Prince Harry “talk page,” but my comments go unevaluated and disappear without communication or comment. I believe that the individuals who “own” the Harry and Megan entries have an intentional or unintentional bias towards Harry and Meghan by “burying” the controversy, which will very likely be the signature set of events in their lives, and placing so much of the articles’ content and emphasis, that while true, is less salient to their affect on public life in the U.K. and abroad.

=====> I am suggesting that an outside panel of Wikipedia experts not involved with writing or editing the entries for both Harry and Meghan should evaluate their content and editorial emphasis and judgment.

======> For example, the introduction includes mentions Archewell and The Me You Can’t See series, and the Oprah interview ) but completely fails to mention the huge charge and impact of racism charge against the Royal Family that was only recently recanted.

The articles also fail to match up Harry and Meghan’s version of events told through interviews and his book, and charges against the Monarchy (including Charles, Camilla, William, and Catherine), and the British media, with the public record.

Specifically: In Wikipedia, the abdication crisis of 1936 is mentioned in the introduction of the entries of both Edward VIII and the Duchess of Windsor (Wallis Simpson).

Why should a reader be wading through most of Harry and Meghan’s entries to find out they are causing controversy within, and are estranged members of, the British monarchy?

Globalbrian (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Globalbrian.

Looking at your suggestions above, Section “Early life”, posted 11 & 16 Jan 2023, maybe. However, the book “Spare” probably should not be taken as an unbiased, or as a reliable source. Instead, wait for secondary sources to comment on new information revealed in “Spare”.

I have just minutes ago slowed the archiving of talk page threads from 21 days to 180 days.

—- SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Estranged is a state and a feeling. Harry described his feelings. That’s a valid source of his state of mind. He and Meghan left the UK to get away from his family.

What I’m trying to point out is that Harry and Meghan have an adversarial relationship with the Royal Family. If the Wikipedia community working on their entries thinks his self-help documentary and how much money she made off of The Tig are the most important call-outs, then I can’t help you. I can guarantee that their leaving their positions as working royals, leaving the UK, and making the Netflix reality series about their truth and their journey and the controversy they’ve cause will be in the very first paragraph of their obituaries. Globalbrian (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but completely fails to mention the huge charge and impact of racism charge against the Royal Family that was only recently recanted ?

Can you link a reliable source for the huge change, and the impact? This sort of thing is opinion of perception, and needs a reliable secondary source, or else it can become editorialising by Wikipedia editors. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry was on CBS’s 60 Minutes on Sunday, January 8, 2023 to promote Spare. Interviewer Anderson Cooper asked Harry about H+M’s charge during the Oprah interview that the Royal Family is racist. Harry said they had never called the family racist, and that’s a conclusion and charge the media made. He then went on to say the RF isn’t racist — nearly two years after this bombshell controversy. In all that time neither Harry nor Meghan saw fit to clarify the Oprah interview comment. Globalbrian (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but neither “Spare” nor the Oprah interview are independent of the subject of the article. Non independent sources are to be avoided, unless there are other sources, reliably published, that comment on the content of the non independent source. This Wikipedia article must not be allowed to be a book analysis of “Spare”, or an Oprah interview analysis. I think I see where you are coming from, and it is forbidden by Wikipedia’s core content policies, especially WP:NOR. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UK Daily Express, Wed. Feb 1, 2023

Another problem the royals would likely address [if there are meetings to clear the air]…is why the Duke and Duchess of Sussex did not immediately correct reports accusing the Royal Family of racism following their interview with Oprah Winfrey.

She said: "He let this statement fester for almost two years, he did not correct it after the Oprah interview. And I think that's particularly hurtful [for the royals], he didn't put out a statement the day it happened."

Speaking with Ms Winfrey in early 2021, Meghan reported there had been conversations at the Palace regarding her firstborn Archie Harrison not being given the title of Prince and security.

The interviewer asked her: "You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it and have your own suspicions as to why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince. What are those thoughts? Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because of his race? And I know that’s a loaded question, but..."

The Duchess, pregnant with Lilibet Diana at the time, replied: "But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time... so we have in tandem the conversation of 'He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title' and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born."

This claim prompted a shocked reaction by Ms Winfrey.

The statement in response to the interview issued by Buckingham Palace seemingly referred to this issue, as it read: "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning."

While both the Duke and Duchess of Sussex remained silent on the issue between 2021 and 2022, Harry fought back the claim he or Meghan had ever accused the Royal Family of racism.

In an interview promoting the release of the memoir Spare, ITV's Tom Bradby said: "You talk about accountability, in the Oprah interview you accused members of your family of racism, you don’t even…"

Harry replied: "No, I didn't. The British press said that. Did Meghan ever mention they are racist?"

The Duke added that, having lived within his family, he would not describe the comment on Archie's skin colour as "essentially racist".

He continued: "Going back to the difference between what my understanding is because of my own experience, the difference between racism and unconscious bias, the two things are different. Globalbrian (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided quality sources from The Washington Post and The New York Times in a separate posting dated February 5, 2023. Globalbrian (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE the archived Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex/Archive 8#Intro needs rewrite

I think I see what you mean. But the problem is that Harry is current affairs, and Edward is history. It is hard to have quality sources that contextualise current affairs. Can you suggest some good sources? Wikipedia must follow quality sources, never lead them. Beware citogenesis.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Globalbrian, you seem to have a few misapprehesions as to how Wikipedia articles are edited. No one "owns" this article. It's sort of crowdsourced for want of a better word i.e. anyone, meaning the general public, can edit it provided they (in this casebecause of vandalism) have a minimal number of edits credited to a registered account. The general public's editing is regulated only by consensus on this talk page and by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you put forward suggestions previously that no one who passed by the talk page of this article (potentially from the stats that's c.30 people a day) thought worthwhile or agreed with then those suggestions won't be going anywhwere. you can edit directly the article provided that none of the 30k daily viewers of the page reverted you. We don't have an "outside panel of Wikipedia experts" to swoop in and "fix" articles. It's either done by the general public or it doesn't happen. SmokeyJoe says "I think I see what you mean". I don't. It's not clear to mean what you perceive the problem to be. May be if you were clearer you'd get more support for what you want changed. DeCausa (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll collect some public opinion data from reputable sources with random sampling to compare pre- and post- controversy in the UK and the US, with age cohorts where available. Also, perhaps search data for Royal Family and racism. Globalbrian (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the Wikipedia entry for US Congressman George Santos, you’ll see that it mentions directly in the intro section the lying controversy in which he is involved. It’s not history. It’s happening right now, and George Santos is alive.

Again, why a different standard for Harry and Meghan their entries. They are members of the Royal Family living in self-imposed exile. It is now elemental to who they are. Globalbrian (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is sources. The George Santos article has quality sources directly covering his lying controversy.

We do not have a quality source that says, plain and simple, that Harry is estranged from his family. You are conducting WP:SYNTH. This is not ok, if it were, Wikipedia would become the worlds primary reference for the estrangement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times, January, 9, 2023 — (author Mark Landler is London Bureau Chief of NYT)

Prince Harry’s Bridge-Burner of a Memoir Signals a Bigger Royal Rift

The self-exiled royal has given the world a warts-and-all look at his family — with an emphasis on the warts.

Excerpt:

With Harry and his wife, Meghan, estranged and living in Southern Calif-ornia; the king’s disgraced younger brother, Andrew, in internal exile following his settlement of a sexual assault lawsuit; and the death of Queen Elizabeth II (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/world/europe/queen-elizabeth-dead.html) last

September, the family’s senior ranks have dwindled to a handful of figures. Globalbrian (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source “Estranged”

Time Magazine:

Prince Harry Alleges William Assaulted Him. What to Know About the Claims in Spare

BY CHAD DE GUZMAN AND ARMANI SYED

UPDATED: JANUARY 6, 2023 8:13 AM EST | ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: JANUARY 4, 2023 11:59 PM EST

After estranged British Prince Harry and his brother Prince William appeared together after their grandmother’s death last September, it may have seemed like the feuding royals would put the worst of their differences behind them. Not so fast. Globalbrian (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some quality sources:

January 9, 2023 at 08:21 ET
LONDON — “Prince Harry, the memoirist and estranged son of the House of Windsor, launched a full broadside against Buckingham Palace on Sunday and Monday, appearing in more interviews to promote his new book…” (The Washington Post)

January 9, 2024

With Harry and his wife, Meghan, estranged and living in Southern California; the king’s disgraced younger brother, Andrew, in internal exile following his settlement of a sexual assault lawsuit; and the death of Queen Elizabeth II last September, the family’s senior ranks have dwindled to a handful of figures. (The New York Times)

January 2, 2024

Harry, 38, has previously spoken about his estrangement from his father, King Charles III, and elder brother Prince William since his departure from the U.K.

(AP News)

Jan. 6, 2023. Prince Harry alleges in a much-anticipated new memoir that his brother Prince William lashed out and physically attacked him during a furious argument over the brothers' deteriorating relationship. The book "Spare" also included incendiary revelations about the estranged royal's drug-taking, first sexual encounter and role in killing people during his military service in Afghanistan.” (CTV News/Associated Press)

Dec 7, 2021 — As he continues his Californian lifestyle, the Duke of Sussex could not seem more estranged from the House of Windsor he once rallied behind. (The Telegraph UK)

Dec 11, 2022 — “What is clear is that a cheeky, fun-loving boy has grown in

to an introspective, embittered man – estranged from his family…” (The Telegraph UK) Globalbrian (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to this more in depth, but I do appreciate the reply. I do think it is ironic that you believe Harry's memoir is an unreliable source of information about his life == I greatly agree. And while Harry is indeed still alive, I don't know why it's necessary for him to die to have the least bit of context about his life in the introduction. He has a top best seller, the Netflix series was top rated, and H+M and their discontent has been a massive ongoing news story for over two years. To say that at this point that all of the controversy and their estrangement might not end up being a very big deal is to suspend all disbelief and editorial judgment. No historian is saying Archewell and The Me Nobody Can See are important, but there they are featured prominently -- it's plain silly. My simple suggestion in this discussion area a couple of weeks ago that H+M's intros state that the are "estranged" members of the Royal Family -- one single word that is accurate beyond any standard was not commented on and disappeared into the ether.

Again, I'll respond in a more detailed way, but I maintain there is an overall bias in their entries that minimizes the impact and import of the couple's statements and actions. I would also want to know whether any of the community contributing to their entries are paid PR professionals or individuals whose work has a monetary stake in association with the couple. I would think this should be a disqualifier. Thank you. 72.80.197.42 (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have replied while logged out and signed as an IP. Are you User:Globalbrian? If yes, can you please sign your posts with “Globalbrian” so we know who it posting?

Your latest post is not more depth nor more detailed. It is rhetoric without reliable sources. What content currently in the article is based on a biased source? What is a better source that should be used? What source can you prefer to support “estranged” as a method or style of introduction? It sounds ok, but Wikipedia must not do WP:Voice of Wikipedia, it must point to sources that guide this writing. Eg, do you proffer this? It does not actually make the statement. This? “Prince Harry may be currently estranged from his brother, Prince William, and father …”? The “may be” kills it as a useful source for your suggestion. Can you give use a source that clearly bolds states that Harry and Meghan *are* estranged from the Royal Family? Weak may might could statements are not enough. Logic, WP:SYNTH, is not ok. Asserting conclusions of editors is not good enough.

On the other side, you might like to point to something in the article that is not attributable to a reliable source, which should be cut..

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary online, the definition of “estranged” is:

having lost former closeness and affection : in a state of alienation from a previous close or familial relationship

This is a 100% bullseye. In the 1/8/2023 interview with Anderson Cooper, Harry said he hasn’t spoken to his brother “in a long time.” In Spare, he called Camilla “the villain”, and he said William is his “arch-nemesis “.

Merriam-Webster-Webster’s definition of “archnemesis” is: archenemy, a chief enemy.

Globalbrian (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH. “ Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.” SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments all come from Harry directly on how he feels about his family members. Why does it matter that it wasn’t all said in one mouthful? Globalbrian (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Magazine piece sourced above from Jan 6 , 2023 is a single source and describes Harry as “estranged” in the first sentence.

Time Magazine follows standard journalistic practice with inverted pyramid style — present information from most important to least important. Globalbrian (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://time.com/6244729/prince-harry-william-altercation-spare-book/

“After estranged British Prince Harry and his brother Prince William appeared together after their grandmother’s deathlast September …”. Ok, that’s one. Are there more? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered you multiple sources — The New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, Canadian television. Where do we go from here? Globalbrian (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Self-exile

Suggest adding sentence: “Prince Harry currently lives in self-exile in California”

The Spectator (UK) — January, 2023

Harry and Meghan have for some time been pitching themselves as a more modern alternative to the corrupt, jealous, borderline-racist institution in London. Self-exiled in California, the House of Sussex has engaged in all sorts of fashionable causes. For all their resentment of press intrusion, they have sought to build a media business out of their identity – with podcasts, television interviews, books and Netflix shows. Globalbrian (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. GoodDay (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand why someone who wishes Canada to be a republic would support your viewpoint. Globalbrian (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does my being a republican, have to do with opting to oppose your proposal? GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that you might have a bias towards sanitizing Harry's entry because he is a powerful critic of the Royal Family, which you clearly oppose. It is for you and the community to judge whether this is a valid concern. 72.80.197.42 (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above is from Globalbrian Globalbrian (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tricky slope. A discussion over NPoV was brought up weeks ago, at Prince Andrew, Duke of York's page. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit to semi-protected section

Append sentence to introduction section:

“Prince Harry is currently estranged from the royal family.”

January 9, 2023 at 08:21 ET
LONDON — “Prince Harry, the memoirist and estranged son of the House of Windsor, launched a full broadside against Buckingham Palace on Sunday and Monday, appearing in more interviews to promote his new book…” (The Washington Post)

January 9, 2024 With Harry and his wife, Meghan, estranged and living in Southern California; the king’s disgraced younger brother, Andrew, in internal exile following his settlement of a sexual assault lawsuit; and the death of Queen Elizabeth II last September, the family’s senior ranks have dwindled to a handful of figures. (The New York Times)

January 2, 2024 Harry, 38, has previously spoken about his estrangement from his father, King Charles III, and elder brother Prince William since his departure from the U.K. (AP News)

Jan. 6, 2023. Prince Harry alleges in a much-anticipated new memoir that his brother Prince William lashed out and physically attacked him during a furious argument over the brothers' deteriorating relationship. The book "Spare" also included incendiary revelations about the estranged royal's drug-taking, first sexual encounter and role in killing people during his military service in Afghanistan.” (CTV News/Associated Press)

Dec 7, 2021 — As he continues his Californian lifestyle, the Duke of Sussex could not seem more estranged from the House of Windsor he once rallied behind. (The Telegraph UK)

Dec 11, 2022 — “What is clear is that a cheeky, fun-loving boy has grown in to an introspective, embittered man – estranged from his family…” (The Telegraph UK)

August 29, 2022 — Sources tell RadarOnline.com that Prince Harry's estranged family was not given a heads up about Meghan's bombshell sitdown…” (radaronline.com) Globalbrian (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really valuable to his biography? And so important it needs to go in the lede? It reads a bit like a headline, and Wikipedia isn't a nswspaper. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's more relevant than his mental health documentary that got minimal viewing. Currently a reader has to wade through most of this entry to find out Harry is a of a multi-year media controversy that has left him estranged from his family and in a position that a bill to strip him of his titles is about to be introduced into the House of Commons. It is my contention that this Wikipedia entry lacks balance. It is Harry's alienation from the Royal Family that will go down in history, rather than his merely being a prince. I appear to be in the minority here, but I am confident that this entry will look more and more odd with the passage of time in its concealments and minimizing of unflattering information about Harry. Globalbrian (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTALBALL. "Expressing my personal view on this" isn't the definition of "neutral". Maybe something could be said about "strained relations" or "friction". But, "estranged" means "no longer close or affectionate" and neither we nor the media really know whether anyone in the family feels affection for Harry and vice-versa or not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then, you're editorializing. The exact word used in news articles from reputable sources is "estranged." Why are you looking to water it down and making it less precise? Globalbrian (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not Wikiquote. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what argument you're making. I was pointing out that there isn't a basis for not using the actual description in the articles. Why would a separate characterization add accuracy or precision? Globalbrian (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bill pending in the House of Commons, to strip him of his titles? GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will be introduced this month. Globalbrian (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I've heard of such a thing as this, occurring in the past. There was a Act passed for King Edward VIII's abdication & an Act removing titles from members of the British royal family, who took up arms against the UK. But this bill seems unique. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly will be. Globalbrian (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/should-parliament-strip-the-sussexes-of-their-titles/ Globalbrian (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Globalbrian, this is the Duke of Sussex's bio page. Not a news page. PS - Why do you have two future dates in your proposal? GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great catch. My typos : those two quotes are 2023 dates (which you might have expected), but now you know! Globalbrian (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two quotes that I cited as 2024 are 2023. Globalbrian (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Globalbrian: you mentioned removal of titles 'bill'. Am I correct in that this is a proposed amendment to the Titles Deprivation Act 1917? -- GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we wait and see how events unfold. Globalbrian (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a general bill before Parliament already, which doesn't name individuals, but it won't go anywhere. It's just a joke bill to make a point and has no prospect of progression. See https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3289. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to suggest the bill is a joke? Globalbrian (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]