Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
LONDON - Prince Harry joined his wife, Meghan, and their son, Archie, Tuesday on Canada's Vancouver Island, to begin mapping out a life outside the royal fold.
Harry and Meghan won their freedom, but things didn't go quite as planned. Two weeks ago, they announced they wanted to "step back" as front line royals and "carve out a progressive new role within this institution." But they aren't stepping back so much as stepping down.
As of the spring, the couple will no longer perform royal duties on behalf of the queen, receive public funding or be able to use their "royal highness" titles. They will continue to be known as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, titles gifted to them by the queen on their wedding day.
The British tabloids have dubbed it a "hard Megxit" - playing off the most severe version of Brexit discussed in negotiations with the European Union.
In his first public comments on Sunday night, Harry suggested he didn't expect quite so many ties would be broken.
"Our hope was to continue serving the queen, the Commonwealth, and my military associations, but without public funding. Unfortunately, that wasn't possible," he said.
Peter Hunt, former royal correspondent for the BBC, tweeted: "There's no third way for senior royals. You either stiffen that lip or you leave."
A debate is underway in Britain about whether Harry and Meghan should be allowed to use their SussexRoyal brand - the name they use on their social media platforms and their newly launched website, where they still call themselves "Their Royal Highnesses."
They are also reportedly trying to register the SussexRoyal name as part of a global trademark.
Thomas Woodcock, a senior adviser to the queen who was speaking in a personal capacity, told the Times of London: "I don't think it's satisfactory. One cannot be two things at once. You either are [royal] or you're not."
Robert Lacey, a royal historian and consultant to "The Crown" TV series, suggested there would be a good case for giving up SussexRoyal.
"Neither Meghan nor Harry have anything special to do with the county of Sussex, and now they have been told they are not royal," Lacey said. "I think they should go out to the world as 'Harry and Meghan.' That's who they are, and that's what people love and respond to. Sussex is a posh, old-fashioned pre-revolution title of privilege and distinction and most people, especially young people, don't get it. They should leave all that behind."
While the couple hasn't outlined next steps, they could face a backlash if they attempt to cash in on their status.
When Prince Edward, the queen's youngest son, ran a television company, he was criticized for exploiting his connections to make royal documentaries, including "Edward on Edward," a film about his great uncle, Edward VIII.
Even those who don't have any royal titles - like the queen's grandchildren Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips - have faced criticism for allegedly trading off their relations.
Lacey said even having a "royal aura," as opposed to an actual royal title, can open members of the royal family to accusations of abusing their connections.
There may be other reasons, too, why the queen didn't greenlight a hybrid model for Harry and Meghan.
Canada, though it remains a member of the British Commonwealth, wasn't especially enthusiastic about becoming an outpost for the royal family.
"Our royals don't live here. They reign from a distance. Close to our hearts, far from our hearths," The Globe and Mail editorial board wrote last week.
But the newspaper seemed satisfied by the terms of the deal agreed over the weekend.
The editorial board wrote: "The Queen's decision announced on Saturday, under which Harry remains a member of the Queen's biological family, but is no longer a member of the Royal Family, is a neat bit of splitting hairs, and heirs. It answers the concern about a Royal resident changing Canada's distant, yet solid relationship to the Crown."
The queen's rejection of a half-in, half-out deal may also address potential grumbling within the royal family.
Robert Hazell, professor of government and the constitution at University College London, said the couple "must be allowed to opt out" of royal life, "because if they didn't have that right, then their position is akin to modern slavery. They're trapped in a gilded cage."
But he said any special treatment could spark complaints within the "the Firm," as the royals are said to call their family.
"If Harry and Meghan wanted to pick and choose, do engagements that interested them - and maybe this is unfair, but if they were interested in attending a film premiere in London's West End with other celebs, but less interested in being asked to go visit a primary school in Yorkshire and do the typical local event, . . . other members of the royal family might be rather resentful," Hazell said.
The queen, 93, is the undisputed captain of her ship, as she has demonstrated over the past two weeks. But she is also supported by a core team of working royals who fan out across the country, taking part in "engagements." Many of the events aren't glamorous; royals cut ribbons for new hospital wings, attend basketmaking trade fairs, open the new Highland Pony Society headquarters.
"I think people don't generally know quite how much hard work, and possibly rather boring work, it all involves. The visits are far more numerous than people think," Hazell said.
In 2019, 15 working royals took part over 3,500 engagements across Britain, according to figures compiled and published annually in the Times of London. Princess Anne, the queen's only daughter, is known for being one of the hardest working members of the royal family. Last year she carried out 506 engagements, second only to Prince Charles, who did 521 events.
In exchange for these public duties, senior royals receive public funds, paying for their lifestyle.
As Harry and Meghan enter into a "period of transition," there are already signs of a new approach. They are posting videos straight to their Instagram account. Meghan showed up at a Canadian charity wearing a sweater and jeans.
A palace official said after the new arrangements come into effect in the spring, they will be reviewed after a year and could be modified.
Being a half-in, half-out royal is "a nonstarter. You're either one or the other. You can't do both. Both leads to a conflict of interest," said Dickie Arbiter, the queen's former press secretary.
"Harry knows the rules, and Meghan may be frustrated by the rules, but it's not an option, which is why they have chosen both feet out rather than one foot in," he said.
Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
(COMMENT, BELOW)