Britain's Prince Harry and Meghan to give up royal titles
London: Britain's Prince Harry and his wife Meghan have agreed to give up their royal titles and stop receiving public funds as part of a settlement with the Queen that lets them spend more private time in Canada.
The announcement from Buckingham Palace on Saturday follows more than a week of intense private talks aimed at managing the fallout of the couple's shock decision to give up front-line royal duties.
"Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family," Queen Elizabeth II said in a statement.
"I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life."
Her comments referred to battles with the media that prompted Harry and Meghan -- known until now as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex -- to sue several newspapers over intrusions into their private lives.
A separate statement attributed to Buckingham Palace said "the Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family". HRH is the acronym for Her Royal Highness.
"As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments. They will no longer receive public funds for Royal duties," the statement said.
The settlement added that the two will also repay 2.4 million pounds (USD 3.1 million) of taxpayer's money spent on renovating their Frogmore Cottage home near Windsor Castle.
The Palace added that it would not comment on who ends up paying for their security detail in Canada -- an issue of intense public debate. It also failed to mention whether the couple would be allowed to benefit financially from future royalties and franchise fees.
Harry and Meghan are seeking to register the "Sussex Royal" brand as a global trademark for their future enterprises.
The couple are dedicated to environmental causes and are looking to develop their charitable foundation as part of a "progressive" new role.
The queen's announcement is her second on the royal crisis -- dubbed Megxit in honour of Britain's painful battle over Brexit -- ahead of Harry and Meghan's effective resignation on March 8.
"We have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution," the couple said at the time.
"We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America." Meghan then jetted back to Canada and is now their with their son Archie. Their announcement caught the royal family by surprise and created a media sensation in both Britain and the wider world.
Their treatment by London's hard-hitting tabloid press and their personal future -- as well as questions about longstanding royal traditions -- have turned into daily front-page news.
Media reports said Harry would probably join Meghan and Archie on the west coast of Canada this coming week. (AFP)
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
