Prince Harry and Meghan to step back from royal family
Duke and
Duchess of Sussex say they intend to ‘work to become financially independent’
Kevin
Rawlinson and Caroline Davies
Wed 8 Jan
2020 18.49 GMTFirst published on Wed 8 Jan 2020 18.48 GMT
The Duke
and Duchess of Sussex are to step back from senior roles in the royal family
and work towards financial self-sufficiency after a period marked by open
warfare with the media over claimed intrusion and bullying.
It is
understood that no other royal was consulted before the decision was announced
on Wednesday evening, and Buckingham Palace was disappointed by the news.
Prince
Harry and Meghan plan to split their time between the UK and North America, the
continent of her birth, as they raise their son, Archie.
“After many
months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a
transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within
this institution,” the couple said an official statement released on Wednesday.
“We intend
to step back as ‘senior’ members of the royal family and work to become
financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty the
Queen.
“It is with
your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared
to make this adjustment.
“We now
plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America,
continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our
patronages.
“This
geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the
royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with
the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new
charitable entity.
“We look forward to sharing the full details
of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with
Her Majesty The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and all
relevant parties. Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your
continued support.”
A
Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said discussions with the couple on their
decision to step back from the royal family were “at an early stage”, adding:
“We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are
complicated issues that will take time to work through.”
The fact
the couple did not consult the Queen or Prince Charles that they were to
release their bombshell statement has caused disquiet at the heart of the
monarchy. Discussions between the monarch and Charles about the couple’s future
role had only just begun, it is understood.
In a
separate statement on their website, the duke and duchess questioned the
credibility of established royal correspondents, and indicated their desire to work
instead with “young, up-and-coming journalists” and specialist publications in
future.
They also
set out their intention no longer to engage in the longstanding royal rota
system, under which reporters from a small group of established media outlets get
access to the royal family and agree to distribute factual reports among their
rivals.
The couple
have appeared increasingly unhappy in recent months with their public roles and
the level of scrutiny they have faced.
In October,
Meghan began legal proceedings against the Mail on Sunday after the paper
published a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father. The action
was launched alongside a scathing statement from Prince Harry denouncing the
media’s “bullying” of his wife; behaviour he likened to the treatment of his
mother, Princess Diana.
He said he
could no longer be a “silent witness” to Meghan’s “private suffering”, adding
that his “deepest fear is history repeating itself”.
He wrote:
“There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this
behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is
bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable,
at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no
accountability for this.
“I lost my
mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
Before the
couple married, Harry had attacked the British press for introducing “racial
overtones” into the reporting of their relationship. He accused the Sun of
printing “a smear on the front page”, an allegation the paper denied.
Concerns
were expressed about their wellbeing when they gave an emotional interview
during a tour of southern Africa last year. Meghan was visibly upset when asked
if she was OK in reference to her struggle with tabloid scrutiny.
The
interview also led to speculation of a rift between Harry and his brother,
William, Duke of Cambridge, as the former said he loved his brother dearly but
that they were “on different paths” and had “good days” and “bad days” in their
relationship.
During her
Christmas Day address, the Queen spoke of the “bumpy” path her family and the
nation had experienced in 2019.
Possible
signs the couple were looking to distance themselves from the institution of
the monarchy had emerged over the course of their relationship. They decided
Archie should be referred to as Master, rather than using the courtesy title
Earl Dumbarton or to style him Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.
They split
from Kensington Palace, setting up their own official household at Buckingham
Palace with a separate head of communications and their own @sussexroyal
Instagram account. They then left the Cambridges’ Royal Foundation to start a
separate Sussex Royal charity.
The royal
family has been slimmed down over the course of the last few years, with
greater focus being placed on those most senior in the line of succession.
During the
Queen’s diamond jubilee celebrations in 2012, only a core group of family
members were invited to accompany the monarch and her husband on her royal
barge. They included Charles and his wife, Camilla, as well as his sons and
William’s wife, Kate.
Other
relatives – including Charles’s brother the Duke of York and his daughters,
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie – were placed on a separate vessel. Last year,
Prince Andrew stepped back from public duties, having been forced to deny a
series of allegations about his sexual conduct, with Charles playing a leading
role in his eventual removal.
The Duke of
Edinburgh decided to retire from public duties in 2017.
Harry has
inherited millions of pounds from his relatives’ estates, including from his
mother, and, prior to taking a public role, Meghan was a highly successful
actor. The Queen also gave them a home to live in.
Harry and
Meghan indicated they would seek paid work in future and would fulfil some
royal duties if asked to do so, suggesting such work would continue to be
funded in the usual way.
Move by
Prince Harry and Meghan signals a slimmed-down future
Monarchy
Duke and
Duchess of Sussex look to forge an untested path by stepping back from public
duties
Caroline
Davies
Wed 8 Jan 2020
22.10 GMTLast modified on Thu 9 Jan 2020 01.05 GMT
The
announcement by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex that they are to step back as
senior members of the royal family follows a year of stress and uneasiness
about their current roles.
The
couple’s ambition to plough a unique, untested and unconventional path comes
after much speculation that the two were not completely comfortable with the
status quo.
This new
route, it appears, will allow them to capitalise on their international
celebrity, while retaining their HRH status.
The recent
portrait of the Queen, with the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and
Prince George, was a tangible reminder of the couple’s role as the “spares”.
Prince
Charles is a supporter of a slimmed-down monarchy. The message this photograph
conveyed was very clear – this is the nucleus of the modern royal family going
forward.
The statement
by Prince Harry and Meghan followed “many months of reflection and internal
discussions”, according to the couple’s website. And plans are very much in
their infancy.
Buckingham
Palace immediately stressed that the couple’s proposals raised “complicated
issues that will take time to work through”. The palace response raises the
question of just how advanced those discussions were, and to what extent the
Queen and her senior advisers were consulted, before the remarkable
announcement by the couple on Wednesday.
The move
comes less than two years after their marriage. Since their wedding in May
2018, the couple have faced criticism over:
Their use
of private jets, taking four in 11 days last summer.
Meghan
flying to a luxurious private baby shower in New York.
The £2.4m
of public money spent on the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, their Berkshire
home.
Frogmore
Cottage will now remain empty for a considerable part of the year as they split
their time between the UK and North America. Some claim their actions have
blurred the lines between royalty and celebrity.
Quite how
they intend to become financially independent has not been explained. But it is
evident the couple feel constrained by the restrictions they currently face.
As well as
carrying out their charitable endeavours, they said, in addition “they value the
ability to earn a professional income, which in the current structure they are
prohibited from doing”. Future financial autonomy would give them the freedom
to “work externally”, they said.
At present
5% of their costs are met by the sovereign grant – the annual funding mechanism
that covers the cost of the monarchy and replaced the civil list in 2012. This
is the public money they intend to relinquish. Charles funds the remaining 95%
from his income from the Duchy of Cornwall.
The planned
new arrangement will still see their security bill in the UK paid for by the
taxpayer, however. Their website explains that the couple’s status as
“internationally protected people” mandates that armed security is provided by
the Metropolitan police. Who will foot the security bill across the Atlantic is
not yet clear.
The couple
argue that there is precedent for members of the royal family holding a title
and earning an income, though have not given examples. Princesses Beatrice and
Eugenie earn an income.
However,
the royal family has faced problems in the past with working senior royals. The
Earl and Countess of Wessex struggled unsuccessfully to combine high-profile
jobs in TV and public relations with royal duties. They were accused of
exploiting their positions for commercial gain, before both giving up their
businesses and devoting themselves to full-time royal duties in 2002.
Edward
VIII’s abdication is the only precedent, but there’s been nothing like this in
modern times
The biggest
clue that the Sussexes were set to redefine their position came in the TV
interview they gave to ITV’s Tom Bradby during their tour of South Africa late
last year.
Meghan’s
unhappiness was evident when she said, very candidly, of her role: “It’s not
enough just to survive something, right? That’s not the point of life. You’ve
got to thrive, you’ve got to feel happy.
“I really
tried to adopt this British sensibility of a stiff upper lip. I tried, I really
tried. But I think that what that does internally is probably really damaging.”
His wife’s
concerns have weighed heavily on Harry. He has made no secret of his anger at
the British press. Both are pursuing legal actions against newspapers.
Further
signs of their wish to carve out new roles were evident when they announced
they were splitting from Prince William and Kate, Duchess of Cambridge.
They
decamped from Kensington Palace to Windsor. They moved their offices into
Buckingham Palace. They split from the Royal Foundation all four of them ran
together, and are now about to launch their own foundation.
In their
new role, they say, they remain “dedicated to maximising Her Majesty’s legacy
both in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth”.
Royal
commentators called the decision to step back “unprecedented”. Former
Buckingham Palace press officer Dickie Arbiter compared it to Edward VIII’s
abdication, telling the BBC “that is the only precedent, but there’s been
nothing like this in modern times”.
Graham
Smith, of campaign group Republic, said it showed the couple “wanting to have
your cake and eat it”.
It raised
serious questions for the monarchy, he added. “The Queen and Prince Charles
appear comfortable with all the trappings and formality of royal duties but
it’s increasingly clear that the younger generation are not so keen.”
'Rogue
royals'? Pundits furious over Harry and Meghan's step back
Announcement
by pair that they are stepping back from public life brings hysterical response
Matthew
Weaver
Thu 9 Jan
2020 15.05 GMTFirst published on Thu 9 Jan 2020 12.23 GMT
The Duke
and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to step back from public life has provoked
vitriolic attacks on the couple and hyperbolic predictions on what it could
mean for the monarchy.
The
announcement came after Prince Harry and Meghan criticised media intrusion and
launched legal action against the Mail on Sunday. This, along with reports that
the couple’s decision has upset the Queen, appears to have fuelled the ferocity
of the reaction.
Meghan and
Harry are “the two most spoiled brats in history”, according to broadcaster and
former Mirror editor, Piers Morgan.
After the
news broke on Wednesday night, Morgan launched a Twitter tirade against Meghan
and Harry that has continued on Thursday. He said the death of his mother Diana
did not give Harry “licence to treat the Queen so appallingly”.
Piers
Morgan
✔
@piersmorgan
a) Diana
,who regularly colluded with the paparazzi & newspapers to promote herself,
was killed by a drunk driver.
b) Harry's
not the only person to lose a parent when he was young.
Many sadly
do, including me.
It doesn't
give him licence to treat the Queen so appallingly.
https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1215172280956964864 …
James
Melville
@JamesMelville
Harry’s
mother died in a car crash after being chased through Paris by the paparazzi.
He was only 12 years old. Perhaps you should reflect on that before putting out
tweets like this. https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1215028176323325953 …
The Daily
Mail devotes its first 17 pages to “the Rogue Royals”.
Its
columnist Sarah Vine, who has always been suspicious of Meghan Markle, wrote
this:
It’s almost
as though nothing matters to this couple apart from their own immediate
happiness and gratification, as though they are incapable of seeing beyond
their own little bubble of privilege. It has often been speculated as to
whether they might end up walking away from Britain. But the timing of this
announcement could hardly be more insensitive, or more indicative of the how
little either seems to understand the true nature of their roles as royals.
The woke,
somewhat humourless and very entitled Harry we see before us now is almost
unrecognisable as the rumbustious fellow we knew and loved.
As Vine
suggests the Mail was much more indulgent towards Harry in the days when
pictures emerged of him dressed in a Nazi uniform at a fancy dress party. Now
it has crowned him the Prince of Woke:
He was once
the fun-loving young royal famously caught with his trousers down playing strip
billiards in a Las Vegas hotel suite with his mates.
But Prince
Harry has since swapped partying for posturing on a range of ‘woke’ issues with
his wife Meghan Markle.
From
preaching about environmentalism to carving emotional messages in cupcake icing
sugar, Harry’s hobbies have markedly shifted over the years.
His cheeky
grin was once a staple at Royal events, and his overseas trips would showcase a
charismatic young man who would always try to have a laugh.
In the
Daily Express, meanwhile, columnist Virginia Blackburn addressed the couple
more in sorrow than in anger, asking: “Is it Meghan’s fault?”
It’s hard
to escape the conclusion that having grown up in a country that considers the
Kennedys to be aristocracy, Meghan didn’t understand that being a Windsor is
not like being a celebrity … it was about getting on with the job.
As for
Harry, Blackburn echoed the nostalgia elsewhere for the bad boy prince of old,
asking: “What was he thinking?”
Harry was
one of [the royal family’s] most popular members, adored by all and sundry. We
forgave him readily for the Vegas antics. We were even sympathetic during his
photographer-punching stage. He was a prince looking for love, just like the
rest of us. And now what?
The dismay
was not limited to the rightwing press. In the left-leaning Mirror, Rachael
Bletchly argued that Harry is guilty of hypocrisy:
Harry has
selfishly turned his back on the institution the Queen has fought to modernise
and secure for him and his children... The Sussexes strutted back from their
extended holiday gushing about how keen they were to get back to work. Well,
good riddance. I for one have had a bellyful of Harry’s eco-warrior hypocrisy.
Meanwhile,
the Times relishes the prospects of the Sussexes becoming financial
independent. “Royal couple face being forced to pay rent after going it alone,”
is the headline stretching across a double page spread in the paper.
Talking to
BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Hugo Vickers, a royal biographer, likened Harry
and Meghan’s circumstances to those faced by Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson.
If they’re
not careful to end up as sort of slightly tarnished celebrities. If you set up
an alternative court, it’s not going to work. It’s very sad actually.
Not
everyone was disappointed by the news, however. Graham Smith, chief executive
of anti-monarchy group Republic, scented big trouble. Speaking to Sky News he
said:
There is a
serious problem for the royal family because if the younger generations are not
that keen to carry on the world duties as Charles and the Queen have done, then
I think that the long term future of the monarchy is in doubt.
In a
statement on Republic’s website he added:
The royal
family is in trouble and with the next succession on the horizon their problems
are only going to get worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment