Public Outcry Grows Over Prince Harry & Meghan As New Poll Shows Massive Demand To Remove Royal Titles
Public frustration in the UK is growing over Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's continued use of royal titles and requests for taxpayer-funded security.
According to a new poll, most Brits seem to want Harry stripped of his title, citing his departure from royal duties and repeated criticisms of the monarchy.
Meghan Markle has also faced backlash for using her HRH title privately, though insiders claim no rules were broken.
Frustration is mounting among the British public, calling for Harry and Meghan to be stripped of their royal titles, with one local stating, "Enough is enough."
Speaking to the New York Post, one frustrated British individual voiced their discontent, questioning why the public should pay for security for Harry, Meghan, and their children: "Why on Earth do we, the British public, need to foot the bill for this?"
They added: "He chose to leave. Simple as. Want security? Should've stayed."
A recent survey by the Express also revealed that a staggering 97% of the 4,500 respondents believed King Charles should revoke Harry's royal title.
This sentiment was echoed by a previous poll from Find Out Now, which highlighted a sharp decline in support for the Sussexes in the UK.
However, the public sentiment hasn't deterred Meghan from occasionally using her HRH title in private settings.
Last month, the Duchess of Sussex was revealed to have used her title on a personal note attached to a gift basket shared by her friend Jamie Kern Lima.
Sharp-eyed observers noticed a note that read, "With Compliments of HRH The Duchess of Sussex," which had been sent about a year ago.
Meanwhile, sources close to Meghan clarified that the use of the HRH title was in a private, personal context and not intended for public exposure.
They denied any violation of the Sussexes' agreement with the late Queen Elizabeth II, asserting that neither Harry nor Meghan uses their HRH titles in commercial or public contexts.
The incident with Meghan's HRH title quickly made waves in Britain, with a royal insider revealing to the New York Post that the matter was even discussed behind closed palace doors.
One former supporter of Harry and Meghan expressed disappointment, claiming that the couple has made every effort to embarrass the monarchy, especially during such a delicate time for Charles, who is battling cancer.
He described their actions as "despicable," referring to their numerous high-profile, lucrative projects like Harry's controversial memoir, "Spare," their Netflix series "Harry & Meghan," and the explosive 2021 Oprah Winfrey interview.
"It's constant attacks without any real consequences," he added. "The [late] queen would be horrified."
Harry stirred fresh controversy last week after addressing his strained ties with the royal family during a BBC interview just hours after losing his legal fight to receive publicly funded security in the UK.
The Duke of Sussex expressed deep disappointment over the court's decision, describing the outcome as the result of a "good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up."
He referenced a troubling conspiracy theory, hinting that some influential figures might want him and his family to suffer a fate similar to that of his mother, Princess Diana, who tragically died in a Paris car crash in 1997.
Harry didn't hold back during the interview, criticizing Charles for cutting off communication. He also reflected on his father's cancer battle, saying, "Life is precious. I don't know how much longer my father has; he won't speak to me because of this security stuff. It would be nice to reconcile."
During a recent episode of "Palace Confidential," royal commentators dissected Harry's explosive BBC interview, with several expressing concern over his tone and claims.
The Daily Mail's Royal Editor, Rebecca English, characterized the interview as a "monumental hissy fit," pointing out how unsettling it was that Harry suggested there are individuals who wish him harm and might view his security loss as a personal victory.
"Some aspects of it are really very disturbing," she remarked. "Where Harry goes from here, I don't know."
Other royal experts, Charlotte Griffiths and Richard Eden, echoed similar sentiments, with host Jo Elvin noting that Harry came across as "beyond furious," a view Eden supported.
"I am going to have to be careful with how I phrase this, but I thought he didn't look well in his expression, his demeanor," Eden continued.
He also speculated that the interview appeared rushed, saying, "Often if you are angry about something, people say you should sleep on it, but this seemed to be something, and I think the BBC would confirm that it was done in a hurry."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
EU and UK Reach Deal on Gibraltar's Post-Brexit Border Rules
Takeaways NEW The European Union reached a political agreement with the UK on the post-Brexit border arrangements for Gibraltar following talks on Wednesday. The accord, if ratified, will eliminate all physical barriers, checks and controls on people and goods moving between Gibraltar and Spain, while establishing dual border controls at the port and airport of Gibraltar, according to a joint statement.
Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
Trump says US gets rare earth minerals from China and tariffs on Chinese goods will total 55%
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that China will make it easier for American industry to obtain much-needed needed magnets and rare earth minerals, clearing the way for talks to continue between the world's two biggest economies. In return, Trump said, the U.S. will stop efforts to revoke the visas of Chinese nationals on U.S. college campuses. Trump's comment on social media came after two days of high-level U.S.-China trade talks in London. Details remain scarce. Trump didn't fully spell out what concessions the U.S. made. Beijing has not confirmed what the negotiators agreed to, and Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump himself have yet to sign off on it. What Trump described as a 'deal'' is actually less than that: It's a 'framework'' meant to set the stage for more substantive talks. And Trump's own comments created confusion about what was happening to his taxes - tariffs — on Chinese imports, generating uncertainty about more than $660 billion in annual trade between the two countries. On social media, Trump declared: 'WE ARE GETTING A TOTAL OF 55% TARIFFS, CHINA IS GETTING 10%. RELATIONSHIP IS EXCELLENT!' But a White House official, who was not authorized to discuss the terms publicly and insisted on anonymity to describe them, said the 55% was not an increase on the previous 30% tariff on China because Trump was including pre-existing tariffs, including some left over from his first term. 'We have no idea what the rules are,″ said Rick Woldenberg, CEO of the educational toy company Learning Resources, who is part of a lawsuit challenging Trump's authority to impose the tariffs. In a follow-up social media post, Trump said he and Xi 'are going to work closely together to open up China to American Trade. This would be a great WIN for both countries!!!' The framework emerged late Tuesday in London after intense talks involving U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Rep. Jamieson Greer. Leading the Chinese delegation was Vice Premier He Lifeng. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has deployed tariffs aggressively, seeing them as a way to raise money for the federal government, protect American industries, lure factories back to the United States and pressure other countries into bending to his will. He has imposed baseline 10% tariffs on imports from almost every country on earth after having introduced and then suspended for 90 days bigger tariffs on countries based on the size of U.S. trade deficits last year. To American trading partners and to businesses calculating their import tax bills, the president's mercurial approach to trade policy can be baffling. For example, he recently doubled his steel and aluminum tariffs to 50%, likely increasing costs for U.S. manufacturers and construction companies that rely on the metals as raw materials. Likewise, he threatened a 50% tariff on the European Union under the belief that it would jumpstart talks with the bloc, only to back down as his self-imposed 90-day negotiating period is set to expire around July 9. But his approach to China has been especially bewildering. After imposing a 20% tariff on Chinese imports, the American president quickly upped the ante, raising the levy to 54% to offset what he said were China's unfair trade practices. Then, enraged when China retaliated with tariffs of its own, he increased those levies to a staggering 145%. Beijing counterpunched with 125% tariffs on U.S. imports. Those triple-digit tariffs threatened to effectively end trade between the United States and China, causing a hair-raising selloff in financial markets. At a meeting in Geneva last month, the two countries agreed to back off: America's tariffs went back down to a still-high 30% and China's to 10%. In April, the Chinese announced licensing requirements that slowed the supply of desperately needed rare earth minerals to the United States. Furious about the move, Trump threatened to call off the Geneva arrangement, setting the stage for talks Monday and Tuesday in London. And there the Chinese agreed to speed up the rare earths shipments. The agreement came as an international rights group said that several global brands are among dozens of companies at risk of using forced labor through their Chinese supply chains because they use critical minerals or buy minerals-based products sourced from the far-western Xinjiang region of China. The report by the Netherlands-based Global Rights Compliance says companies including Avon, Walmart, Nescafe, Coca-Cola and Sherwin-Williams may be linked to titanium sourced from Xinjiang, where rights groups allege the Chinese government runs coercive labor practices targeting predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities. Many analysts complained that all the drama hadn't accomplished much. Dan Kritenbrink, who was assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Biden administration, said the London meeting produced 'a fragile truce.' 'Both sides have now demonstrated that they know where the other's weak points are,' said Kritenbank, now a partner at the Asia Group. 'They demonstrated that they both have leverage and tools they can use to inflict damage on the other.'' The Chinese know that when it comes to rare earths they 'can turn that spigot on and off at will... They really have incredible leverage over the United States in the global economy with rare earths, and they're not afraid to use it.'' Still, he welcomed the London ceasefire because 'the alternative is no truce at all, and a supply chain war that threatens not just U.S. and Chinese economies but the global economy as well.' Danny Russel, vice president for international security and diplomacy at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said Trump's latest pressure campaign on China appeared to 'be ending with a whimper, not a bang.' 'The U.S. found it needed to back off the restrictions it had thought would generate leverage,'' he said, 'and in exchange, they get merely a promise by the Chinese to dole out critical minerals a bit more quickly.'
Bloomberg
3 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Says China Deal Is Done
President Donald Trump says the trade deal with China is done after talks in London. Trump says it just needs to be formally signed off on by himself and China's Xi Jinping. and Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall reports. (Source: Bloomberg)
