Sidenote question about the spare

[Arneb]

OK, any interest in the wheelings and dealings of the overpriviliged and dysfuntional family that happens to be important over in the UK is morbid and decadent.

But there is one thing I don't quite get: When the Duke of Sussex and his wife decided to no longer work for the Firm, they were stripped of some of the enormous privilege they enjoyed: Titles, Your Royal Highness, personal security, an appanage, rent-free lodging in a nice house within a nice palace ground, etc. That is all the Firm's matter to sort out, but I don't get one point: Captain Wales, as he used to be adressed, was stripped of his military grades and, and wasn't allowed to wear his uniform anymore (except when standing vigil at Lizzy II's lying in state). How is that possible? He wasn't in the armed forces as some kind of decorative piece (which most royals are most of the time), he actually fought in an actual war and actually distinguished himself. How was he stripped of those honours, and of a uniform he wore in battle?

[Мастер]

OK, any interest in the wheeling and dealings of the overpriviliged and dysfuntional family

Eh?

that happens to be important over in the UK

Ah, OK, not about me.

[g-one]

My understanding is that he was stripped of certain honorary military titles and wearing the uniform at certain royal ceremonies.
As far as I know he still retains his rank as a retired officer.

[Lianachan]

My understanding is that he was stripped of certain honorary military titles and wearing the uniform at certain royal ceremonies.
As far as I know he still retains his rank as a retired officer.

Yes, I think that’s right.

I’m not sure how much media coverage all of this has been receiving in more civilised parts of the world, but it’s fucking inescapable here. Also, it’s all totally irrelevant nonsense that the BBC et al are using to distract idiots from the shitshow that is the current state of the UK. And, as they’re idiots, they’re obediently lapping it up. Fucking idiots. Lift your heads and have a look around!

[Richard A]

Lianachan is quite right - only the distraction isn't just from the more important things that are going on in the UK, but also globally. Harry's book relegated news of the Brazilian attempted coup - and yes, the rioters did explicitly call on the military to remove Lula - to way down the page, t least for a while.

But g-one's answer to Arneb's question is also right. Before Harry left the firm, he had two sets of military honours. The first was - and is - as Captain Wales. All sons and grandsons of the monarch serve in the military - the rationale is that the sovereign is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and so should know what sending them to war actually means. OK, as with many things, the monarch now does this on the advice of the Prime Minister, but the theoretical principle still holds. This is why it was so controversial when Margaret Thatcher received the salute of the returning troops from the Falklands in 1982 - it was the Queen's place to do that, not hers. (Thatcher took the view that HM had nothing to do with it - it was her, Maggie, who had stood up to Galtieri.) So anyway, William and Harry went off for their 2 or 3 years’ military service – the only Brits left who were actually required to - and in fact both stayed on for a while afterwards. William never saw combat - he quickly switched from the army to the Royal Air Force, where he flew air-sea rescue helicopters in North Wales, but Harry did 2 tours in Afghanistan. So Harry got medals for that, just as his Uncle Andrew had got medals for his Navy service in the Falklands War.

But the second set comes from the fact that being a working royal carries with it various honorary military titles. Among Harry's was Captain-General of the Royal Marines, even though he never served in it; the King has a few specific ones as well as being Commander-in-Chief of the whole shebang, just as his mother did. Come to that, even Princess Catherine (still better known as Kate) has a few, among them Colonel of the Irish Guards. Those Harry was stripped of when he left the Firm – they were then redistributed among the remaining members.

For those with an eye for such things (helped by the TV commentary), this meant that when Harry was allowed to wear a military uniform for the late Queen’s lying in state, he wore the uniform of a captain in the Blues and Royals, the regiment in which he had served, with the medals he had earned. As a rare act of solidarity (possibly on the instructions of their dad), William similarly wore a Blues and Royals uniform, which he was briefly commissioned into, rather than the RAF one he normally does.

Could Harry have insisted on wearing his Blues and Royals uniform at the funeral itself – and the other occasions around then? Well, the King is Commander-in-Chief of the British armed forces, so to do so would have meant disobeying a direct order. Military discipline could have followed. I’m no expert on military law, but I guess this could possibly have included stripping him of his (retired) army rank and even if it hadn’t quite come to that, a court martial would have been as undesirable for Harry as it would for the King. So when it came to it, Harry didn't push it.

[Richard A]

Another interesting "what if?" surrounds the aftermath of James Hewitt's admission - boasting even - of his affair with Diana. Wenn Dodo Fayed der letzte Indianer war, war er eben nicht der erste seit Charles. Now when she got together with Dodi, Diana was already divorced. But when she and Hewitt were lovers (and, some believe, produced Harry), she was still the wife of the heir to the throne. And under an arcane principle of English law, that made Hewitt guilty of treason - which at the time was one of our few remaining capital crimes. (We only got rid of the death penalty altogether in 1998.) Beheading had gone, but we did still have one remaining gallows. But prosecuting and hanging Hewitt was not a spectacle that the powers that be relished.

[Arneb]

Thanks for all the answers. Richard, I knew you wouldn't pass this one up .

In one interview, Harry pointed out Hewitt and his mother met when he was two years old. That sounds like a good point, doesn't it?

[g-one]

If I may quibble a bit about the terminology, I think 'relinquished' is more apt than 'stripped of'.
They stepped down (resigned), they were not fired.

[Arneb]

Good point again. I was using the language of the news articles I read.

[Lianachan]

Lianachan is quite right - only the distraction isn't just from the more important things that are going on in the UK, but also globally. Harry's book relegated news of the Brazilian attempted coup - and yes, the rioters did explicitly call on the military to remove Lula - to way down the page, t least for a while.

Well, that’s certainly true. I do think, though, that there a difference in intent. I think it’s being deliberately deployed as a smokescreen for bigger UK issues, but that the resulting squeezing out of global stories like the Brazilian failed coup are more or less incidental.

[Richard A]

In one interview, Harry pointed out Hewitt and his mother met when he was two years old. That sounds like a good point, doesn't it?

It would be if it were true - who knows? (And Harry could hardly say otherwise!) But even if his parentage is a non-issue, that doesn't alter the point that adultery with the wife of the heir to the throne is treason, so, as was pointed out when all this came out, Hewitt could have been in serious trouble. As it was, I think he was stripped of the military rank (Major) that he had in fact earned through service. Which comes back to the point that Harry defied his dad over the uniform, the same could have happened to him.

[Richard A]

If I may quibble a bit about the terminology, I think 'relinquished' is more apt than 'stripped of'.
They stepped down (resigned), they were not fired.

Harry might well dispute that. Yes, he and Meghan resigned from the Firm. But he did, reportedly (and I haven't seen anything questioning it), want to keep some of the paraphernalia. He did get to keep Duke of Sussex - just as Diana got to keep Princess of Wales after her divorce - but he was hoping to keep some of the others, including the honorary military titles. Those were removed from him by the then Queen - I don't doubt on the advice of others in the family, senior courtiers or quite possibly both.

The honorary military ranks and titles really are within the gift of the sovereign. A less publicised example: last November, the King transferred the rank of Colonel of the Welsh Guards from himself to William (kind of goes with being Prince of Wales, so probably fair enough) and consequently took Colonel of the Irish Guards off William and gave it to Kate. I don't blame non-UK friends for shaking their heads at such feudalism surviving into the 3rd decade of the 21st century, but there we are.