Prince Harry and Meghan to step back from public life

The announcement, subsequent to Prince Harry and Meghan having criticised media intrusion and launched legal action against the Mail on Sunday, along with reports that the couple’s decision has upset the Queen, appears to have fuelled the ferocity of the reaction.

The decision to step back from public life  by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has resulted in vitriolic attacks on the couple and hyperbolic predictions on what it could mean for the monarchy.

The Daily Mail devotes its first 17 pages to “the Rogue Royals”.

Its columnist Sarah Vine wrote:

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.

“To them,” continued the paper's leader, “it is 'an exciting next step'. To most of us, it sounds like having your cake and eating it. They want the status of being senior Royals but the privacy and freedom of being private citizens.”

Daily Express columnist, Margaret Holder, asserts the couple had "consistently failed to understand that a tax-paying public expects the Royal Family to be relevant, relatable and value for money".

She wrote: “In trying to hide the place of Archie's birth and refusing to name his godparents they pushed aside the public in a way not done by any other royals".

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 financially 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.

The couple, for their part, updated their new official website – sussexroyal.com – soon after the announcement with a revised media policy.

In it, they stated they wished to “provide access to credible media outlets”, while preventing the “frequent misreporting” that occurs around their lives.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, stunned Queen Elizabeth and the rest of the royal family this week by saying they plan to spend much of their time in North America.

Prince Harry and Meghan have said gaining financial autonomy is a key goal, but did not say whether this extends to the cost of security, stating that their security detail is mandated by the British Home Office.

While not having clarified where in North America they planned to reside, many consider Canada as a logical choice. The couple spent the last six weeks of 2019 in that nation, part of the British Commonwealth of countries that have the queen as their head of state.

A poll for Canadian news company Postmedia found that more than 60 percent of the 1,515 Canadians surveyed would support the appointment of Prince Harry as governor general, the queen’s representative in Canada, who acts as the head of state on her behalf.

The poll was conducted on January 6, two days before the couple announced their plan to move away from their senior royal roles.

The Canadian government may be under obligation to provide them with security due to their royal status.

Canadian taxpayers could end up footing the bill for millions of dollars a year in security expenses if Harry and his wife Meghan move there, even part time, as they step away from their royal duties, security experts said.

Prof Kate Williams, the Royal historian, said it will be "difficult" for Harry and Meghan to lead "normal" lives, as media interest in them will increase after their "unprecedented" move.

She told BBC Breakfast: "It is going to be difficult if Harry and Meghan are going to live in Canada for a certain period of time and try and get on with business and be normal, charitable CEOs.

"They will require security because I don't see the media interest in them waning, I see it as probably increasing, because what they're doing is so unprecedented for royals."

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk