See ya, Sovereign Grant! The Duke and Duchess of Sussex this week announced that they no longer wish to receive funding designated for the British royal family. Photo / AP
See ya, Sovereign Grant! The Duke and Duchess of Sussex this week announced that they no longer wish to receive funding designated for the British royal family. Photo / AP
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex want to be "financially independent." What does that mean? Also, can you quit being a "senior" royal?
On Thursday, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex made a big announcement. We are still figuring out exactly what it means.
What exactly are Prince Harry andMeghan doing?
It's not fully clear and it depends whom you ask.
In a message posted to both the couple's Instagram page and their new stand-alone website (one of two websites they have introduced in the last few months), the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced their intentions to "carve out a progressive new role within" the "institution" of the British monarchy; to "step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family"; to "work to become financially independent while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen"; to "balance" their time "between the United Kingdom and North America"; to "honour our duty to The Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages"; to launch a "new charitable entity"; and "to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge, and all relevant parties."
The message seemed to suggest a desire to relinquish some (public) lifestyle funding in order to be less beholden to the strict protocol and de facto traditions of the royal family without sacrificing titles, influence or access.
According to a frosty statement from Buckingham Palace, this is all still being negotiated:
"Discussions with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage. We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through."
No. It's a designation applied to those adult members of the royal family closest to the throne in the line of succession, and their spouses, who tend to carry out the majority of public engagements alongside and/or on behalf of the queen. It currently refers to Queen Elizabeth II and her husband, Prince Philip; Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla; and Prince William and his wife, Kate. One could argue that, since Harry has neither removed himself from the line of succession nor given up his title, he and Meghan remain senior royals.
Announcing a plan to "step back" from being a senior royal is sort of like declaring an intention to recuse oneself from being famous.
Why are they stepping back?
Specific reasons mentioned on their website include enabling themselves "to earn a professional income, which in the current structure they are prohibited from doing," and handling their own media relations. On that second point, they particularly emphasised their decision to operate independent of the so-called Royal Rota — a key feature of royal family press relations that grants perpetual special access to journalists from seven British publications, including some tabloids.
Harry has long been critical of the British press. In October, he and Meghan initiated legal proceedings against the publishers of multiple British newspapers. He explained their decision in a statement posted on one of the Sussex websites, in which he excoriated the media and drew a connection between the royals' treatment at the hands of the press and his mother Princess Diana's death.
And let's not forget the 2017 interview with Newsweek in which Harry mused, "Is there any one of the royal family who wants to be king or queen? I don't think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time." Not a glowing endorsement of the enterprise.
Has anyone in the royal family ever done this?
Not exactly. The last couple to reject senior royal life was Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, the original divorced American duchess, for whom Edward relinquished the throne in 1936. But he was, you know, the actual head of state, so the decision prompted a full-blown constitutional crisis.
Other family members have also scaled back their public duties for a variety of reasons. Philip retired from public life in 2017, at the perfectly reasonable-to-retire age of 96. After her divorce from Charles, Diana gave back her HRH title and quit her role with 93 charities. And this January, Prince Andrew stepped back from public duties after an interview with the BBC about his friendship with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex leave Windsor Castle after their wedding. Photo / AP
What does the British public think?
More Britons currently appear to have a view on Megxit than they did on the royal wedding itself.
At first, there were clear and loud rumblings of support. Then a few questions arose about cash, given that quite a lot of it had been thrown about in the last few years. The wedding. The house. The bodyguards.
What really roused Brits was the statement from the palace, which implied that couple had not fully discussed their retreat from royal life with the queen, whom we love. How dare they?
The tabloids, however, had a field day. "They didn't even tell the Queen!" fumed the Thursday front page of the Daily Mirror. "Queen's fury as Harry and Meghan say: we quit!" read the lead headline of the Daily Mail. (Other institutions got in on the drama, too: Madame Tussauds in London separated its wax figures of Harry and Meghan from those of the rest of the royal family.)
The term "Megxit" got a lot of airtime. "Harryverderci" has yet to catch on.
What was public sentiment toward the Sussexes like before "Megxit"?
Mixed? Very positive around the birth of baby Archie. Less positive around all the private jet hopping last summer. But most Brits haven't been paying much attention. Between the recent general election, Australia being on fire and Brexit, the prospect of Megxit had not crossed many people's minds.
How many royals does one royal family really need?
Some say: not so many. Last year, the Swedish royal family streamlined its ranks; the king announced that five of his grandchildren would no longer bear titles or be expected to carry out royal duties. They would also no longer be paid the sum royal family members receive each year.
Being royal is expensive, and income inequality is a hot topic. The idea of trimming the royal fat, if you will, is to keep the focus on those in the direct line of succession and minimize the degree to which the family can be criticized for using public funds.
How much does the British royal family cost taxpayers?
Members of the British royal family are fond of sharing the following statistic: The contribution from UK taxpayers toward the full overhead of the British monarchy is equivalent to approximately 1 pound per British person per year.
For argument's sake, one could note that the French royal family costs French taxpayers nothing, because it was abolished. One former royal palace became the Louvre.
