The question was once whispered only in private drawing rooms and behind palace walls. Now, it is being debated openly across Britain—on breakfast television, in newspaper columns, and across social media feeds lighting up by the minute.
It is a question that strikes at the very heart of the modern monarchy—and one that, according to long-serving royal insiders, is no longer as far-fetched as it once seemed.
In recent days, renewed public debate has erupted following comments attributed to Sir Jonathan Harrington, a senior constitutional adviser who has worked closely with King Charles III for decades.
While careful not to speak officially on behalf of the palace, Harrington’s off-the-record remarks to a select group of journalists suggested that the Sussexes’ continued use of their titles amid ongoing commercial ventures and public criticisms has pushed the issue into “serious consideration” at the highest levels.
“The parallels with Andrew are undeniable,” one source close to Harrington quoted him as saying. “When titles become a commodity rather than a covenant of service, the institution must respond.”
Prince Andrew, once the monarch’s favored younger brother, saw his royal status eviscerated in late 2025.
Stripped of his HRH style, military patronages, and prince title by an act of Parliament, he was reduced to “Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor,” a private citizen evicted from Royal Lodge after fresh scrutiny over his Epstein ties surfaced in unsealed documents.
The move, announced by Buckingham Palace on October 31, 2025, was framed as a necessary purge to protect the Crown’s integrity amid plummeting approval ratings. Polls showed 78% of Britons supported it, with many citing Andrew’s refusal to fully sever scandal-tainted links.
Now, eyes turn to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Having stepped back as working royals in January 2020—coining the term “Megxit”—they relinquished HRH but retained their dukedom, prince/princess styles for their children, line of succession positions, and counsellor-of-state roles.
Yet, they’ve leveraged these for a multimillion-dollar empire: Harry’s memoir *Spare* (2023), which sold 6 million copies while lacerating his family; their Netflix docuseries *Harry & Meghan* (2022), viewed by 81 million households; Meghan’s Spotify podcast *Archetypes* (axed after one season); and recent ventures like her Netflix lifestyle show and Harry’s legal battles over UK security.
Critics argue this monetization mocks the monarchy’s ethos. “They quit the duties but kept the dazzle,” tweeted royal commentator Lee Cohen in October 2025, amassing 20,000 likes. “Parliament stripped Andrew for less visible damage.
Harry’s vendetta is televised.” A Change.org petition launched December 11, 2025, to “Strip Harry and Meghan of all royal titles” has garnered over 500,000 signatures by January 2026, demanding removal from the line of succession (Harry at 5th, Archie 6th) and counsellor duties.
Another from January 2025 targets just the Sussex dukedom, citing “conduct unbecoming.”
Public sentiment has hardened. A YouGov poll from December 2025 revealed 62% of Britons favor stripping the Sussex titles—up from 45% in 2023—driven by fatigue over their Oprah interview claims of racism, *Spare*’s palace invective, and perceived grifting.
In the Commonwealth, support dips lower: Australian republicanism surged post-Elizabeth II, with Sussex tours seen as tone-deaf. X (formerly Twitter) erupts daily: @AllexmarieHoll1’s December 12 post calling them “professional waste of space grifters” drew 539 likes and 26,000 views, echoing calls to “do to them what you’ve done to Andrew.”
Palace insiders whisper of fracture. King Charles, battling health woes, faces accusations of favoritism—sparing Harry while banishing Andrew. “Charles won’t strip them,” claims expert Emily Andrews, citing paternal bonds and fear of martyring the couple.
Yet, reports from January 1, 2026, suggest Prince William, as heir, plans a “slimmed monarchy”: non-working royals like Harry lose titles upon his accession. StyleCaster cited author Craig Lownie: “William will further slim down…
titles stripped from all nonworkers.” Harry’s camp reportedly braces for legal fights, with Meghan “ready to go legal.”
Constitutional mechanics complicate action. Unlike HRH (withdrawn by Letters Patent in 2020), peerages like Duke of Sussex require Parliament via the Peerage Act 1963 or Titles Deprivation Act precedent (used for Edward VIII sympathizers in 1917). Andrew’s demotion blended royal prerogative and legislation after his 2022 settlement.
For Harry, precedents abound: Edward VIII lost all post-abdication; Wallis Simpson none as commoner. Harry’s U.S. residency (Montecito mansion, American-raised kids) mirrors non-domicile bars for regency.
Proponents of stripping argue equity. Andrew’s Epstein scandal was private shame; Sussexes’ is public war. *Spare* accused Camilla of leaks, William of violence; Netflix alleged neglect. “They represent envy and vendetta,” Cohen wrote. Working royals—William, Kate, Anne—bear costs: cancer battles, duties amid scrutiny.
Allowing Sussexes’ “constitutional cosplay” erodes trust, especially as monarchy support hits 30-year lows (Savanta polls post-Elizabeth II).
Opponents warn backlash. Stripping fuels victimhood: Harry’s blunt reply to title queries—”It’s not ours to give up”—hints at defiance. Legal wars (security lawsuits, 2025 High Court loss) escalate; removal invites U.S. lawsuits or PR blitz. “High-risk,” says one insider. Charles prioritizes slimming via natural attrition, not confrontation.
Harry’s January 2026 High Court security win (partial taxpayer funding) emboldens him, per reports.
Yet, momentum builds. X user @XOQueenEsther’s January 3 thread—”Titles reflect service… cannot reject institution and trade on legitimacy”—garnered 1,894 likes. @InsightfulWatch: “Harry should have relinquished all when departing.” Post-Andrew, Parliament eyes reform: Lords petition whispers “purge next.” If William acts, Sussexes become Mr. and Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor, irrelevancy assured.
For the Firm, it’s existential. Monarchy survives adaptation—Victoria’s withdrawals, Edward’s exile. Sussexes test relevance in celebrity age. Harrington’s nod signals shift: unthinkable yesterday, policy tomorrow. As Britain debates, palace walls echo louder: service or severance?
