Wednesday 8 January 2020

Prince Harry and Meghan to step back from royal family / 'Rogue royals'? Pundits furious over Harry and Meghan's step back / VIDEO: Palace warns Harry and Meghan over stepping back from life as senior roy...



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: