Quinn highlights the historical context, reminding us that even Edward VII, who abdicated the throne, did not lose his title. According to him, titles, lacking political weight, are more like honors given by the Royal Family and cannot theoretically be snatched away by the government. Here's the intriguing part: King Charles, the supposed protagonist in this title-stripping drama, is portrayed as a reluctant player. Quinn suggests that the king wouldn't want to harm his son or daughter-in-law by stripping them of their titles, adding a layer of humanity to the Royals and depicting them as diplomatic individuals unwilling to take an aggressive stance.
Enter PM Cely, the mastermind behind the proposed bill. Quinn offers an interesting perspective, suggesting that Cely might be using this bill to draw attention to a matter he is angry about, using it as a tool to say, "Look, we don't want Harry causing trouble," all while grabbing headlines and public attention.
The saga of royal title-stripping seems more like political posturing than a real threat, wrapped in layers of complexity, historical precedent, and the delicate diplomatic dance that the Royals are known for. Whether this bill sees the light of day remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the drama surrounding Harry and Meghan continues to be a captivating spectacle, keeping us all on the edge of our seats.
