I want to focus on this short part of Prince Harry’s statement, to wit that he wanted to continue serving queen, commonwealth and military, but was prohibited from doing so by the queen and her advisors because he decided he could no longer be in receipt of “public funding”... 
As I said earlier, for the Palace to decide this seems odd if not bonkers. So what is going on? Well-placed sources have pointed out some fascinating analogies and anomalies. First Harry’s widely criticised uncle Prince Andrew has stepped back from public duties...
but keeps his “HRH” title. Second Prince Michael of Kent earns money externally, as Harry and Meghan wish to do, but also keeps his HRH title. Harry wanted to do the decent thing and continue to serve commonwealth and military, without receiving any public money, but has been...
told both that he cannot do such and must give up his HRH title. I am not sure what logic is being deployed by the palace. But Harry has in effect tonight revealed that his decision to offer public service for free was ruled impossible by his grandmother and her advisers and...
also led to him being stripped of his HRH. Can anyone explain to me why the privilege of being called HRH can only be kept by those happy to receive public funding? This really is profoundly weird (almost as weird I guess as being called HRH in the first place). So...
I am counting on the one who knows, @chrisshipitv, to make sense of this for me.
