Over the weekend, an absolutely shocking article was published in a British outlet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Why was it shocking? Because A) it was actually quite positive and B) it was written by a former royal rota reporter, Richard Palmer, who has always been anti-Sussex. Of course, Palmer had to pay the Sussex tax, which in this case means “framing everything through the false prism of royal talking points.” Those talking points: something something Sandringham Summit, no part-time royals; William hates Harry & Meghan, who want nothing more than reconciliation; and all traveling and philanthropic work = royal work. Some surprising highlights from “Harry and Meghan were banned from being part-time royals. They’re doing it anyway.”
Thriving Sussexes: Six years after Megxit, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have defied predictions of their demise in self-imposed exile and are thriving, according to insiders. The late Queen refused them permission to become half-in, half-out royals but in their own way Harry and Meghan have found a hybrid existence that works for them, to the consternation of their many critics.
Harry & Meghan look William & Kate look bad: In Australia, where [the Sussexes’] first visit for seven years has raised questions about when the Prince and Princess of Wales are going to accept an invitation from the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, to tour the country, Harry is expected to spend time with military veterans, while Meghan is due to speak at a £1,400 per ticket three-day women-only retreat in Sydney.
What’s wrong about Meghan headlining a girls’ retreat? The latter has prompted comparisons with Sarah Ferguson’s various ventures down the years. But even hardened critics, such as the royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams, have struggled to explain what exactly is wrong with it. “I’m sure her fans will absolutely love it, but it just doesn’t feel very A-list or very royal,” Fitzwilliams said.
The rifts between the Sussexes & Windsors: Much to Harry’s frustration, he and Meghan remain estranged from most of the Royal Family. King Charles has shown some signs of wanting to mend fences but he and Queen Camilla are thought unlikely to see the Sussexes and their children, Prince Archie, 6, and Princess Lilibet, 4, if their proposed state visit to the United States goes ahead at the end of next month. Even worse, the chances of reconciliation with the Prince and Princess of Wales look as far away as ever. The two brothers and their wives are still not thought to be speaking and William has moved on, according to some inside his circle.
Coulda woulda shoulda: When they reflect upon the rift, perhaps all sides might acknowledge privately that they could have done things differently, but there is little forgiveness inside the Royal Household for what is generally regarded as Harry and Meghan’s public criticism and betrayal of the institution.
The Sussexes’ money: Despite having to foot a huge security bill and the costs of running a seven-acre estate, the couples’s finances are bolstered by Harry’s inheritance from his late mother Diana, Princess of Wales, and from the Queen Mother, as well as their commercial earnings. In September, the couple gave $500,000 (£370,000) to projects supporting children from Gaza and Ukraine. The same month during a visit to Nottingham, Harry announced he was giving £1.1m to BBC Children in Need to support organisations helping young people affected by violence. “They have plenty of money,” said one source, who described how they have overcome the end of their five-year deal with Netflix that was reported to be worth $100m (£74m).
Their first-look deal with Netflix: “That’s just the way Netflix has gone. It isn’t really doing those kind of deals any longer,” the same source said. The couple are currently working on five different projects with Netflix, as well as a list of other programmes with rival streamers and television channels. “Some of them are first draft, some of them are with lawyers, some of them are contract secured,” the source said.
Harry’s lawsuit against the Mail: If he loses it could be embarrassing but it will not hit him in the pocket because he is insured. “This has never been about money. If this was only ever about money he wouldn’t have done it,” a source close to him said. “This has always been about accountability, truth, and justice.”
Invictus Birmingham: Richard Fitzwilliams believes that the decision to host the Invictus Games in Birmingham in July 2027 puts pressure for the King, as head of the armed forces, to attend an international event for military personnel and veterans. “It puts Charles in a very difficult position. He may have to make a decision that William opposes,” he said.
No path back!! William had once counted on Harry’s support for his future reign. But any value the Sussexes’ glamour and activism might have offered the monarchy as a welcome distraction from the Epstein affair is overshadowed by the complications of their commercial life. For now, courtiers see no path back to royal life.
“Despite having to foot a huge security bill and the costs of running a seven-acre estate…” LMAO. The constant pocket-watching combined with a complete ignorance of their actual finances is always hilarious to me. These people are always beating their heads against the wall and wailing “but their $100 million contract didn’t get renewed!” Yes but where do you think that initial $100 million went? Do they honestly believe Harry & Meghan don’t know how to save and invest? Not to mention, Harry made millions (if not tens of millions) from Spare. And Meghan’s As Ever had a fantastic first year. And they’ve both invested in other businesses. I believe this: “They have plenty of money.” But they were supposed to be broke! Harry was supposed to be broke and divorced and come crawling back to the UK to be his brother’s wingman, waaaaaah. The six-year anniversary of the Sussexes’ final “working royal” days came and went and even royal reporters are begrudgingly admitting that Harry & Meghan are wealthy, happy and free.
Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.
