I never thought about that....hmmm. I doubt M was thinking about that, but if she was, she’s beyond clueless.
Mbruno:
You’d think she would know that, and maybe intellectually she does, but she and Harry live in their own little bubble. All I know is that, however intelligent she may be, Meghan either has little common sense or she has no filter...maybe both. First the Africa interview, now this....
If Meghan had remained in the UK and become a UK citizen, she could vote in UK elections too, but that would be a big "no-no". I wonder if Meghan would consider herself "disenfranchised" and would speak publicly against that in such scenario. She definitely didn't understand the institutution she was marrying into, which is surprising considering that Omid said in the book that she carried "binders" of files on royal protocol while she was in the UK and considering she is supposed to be so brilliant and smart as he claims.
In any case, I think the context of her remark about Harry's disenfranchisement has nothing to do with the RF not voting in the UK, but rather is a reference to Harry's lack of voting rights in the US, which is a clear-cut and uncontroversial issue that, again, such a brilliant person should know. Does anyone care to fill in further details of the context of her quote?
It's pretty clear they want to have their cake and eat it too, as evidenced by their statement in January when they say they want to be "half in, half out" royals.
Harry and Meghan were free to decline the Sussex titles from the Queen and Harry was free to remove himself from the line of succession before they had their royal wedding if they valued their freedom so much.
But then "Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor" doesn't sound as glamorous as "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex" doesn't it?
Harry
could have declined his peerage at the time (he cannot do it anymore now). He could
not "remove himself from the line of succession". He could mention his desire to be removed from the line of succession, but that would require legislation passed by the UK parliament and parliaments of other Commonwealth realms like Australia, Canada or New Zealand for example. It is a very complicated process actually.
He could theoretically remove himself by converting to Roman Catholicism, but that would have to be a genuine conversion. The Catholic Church would not take him without an assurance that he was converting in his own free will and fully understood what it meant and was fully committted to it.
Queen Astrid of the Belgians, who was a Lutheran, indicated for example that she wanted to convert when she married Prince Leopold because "Catholicism was Belgium's religion and as a member of the Belgian RF, she should be Catholic" (in fact, Belgium does not have a state religion, but , as a Swedish princess, the idea of an "established church" associated with the RF was probably natural to her, I guess). The Church didn't agree to receive her until long after her marriage and a lengthy preparation.