How Harry and Meghan Ended Up Quitting the Royal Family

Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, reported on Wednesday that they will officially “step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent,” dividing their time between the United Kingdom and North America.

“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 pair said in an announcement that was recently presented on their Instagram account.

They went on to say that, “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.”

At the end of the day, indeed, Harry and Meghan are essentially dispensing with being royals, and the trappings associated with being such. However, as a result of their departure, it brings forth a number of questions for the general public, such as:

Where will the ex-regal couple live? (Meghan is from Los Angeles, yet she went through years living in Canada while taping the TV show “Suits,” back when she was still Meghan Markle.)

Will Harry, at last, begin utilizing his last name? (The couple’s child, Archie, was given the last name of “Mountbatten-Windsor,” a mix of two names associated with his paternal grandparents.)

Will Harry, who served in the U.K. military, get a genuine nine-to-five job?

The other lingering question is: how, exactly, does one create a  “progressive new role” within a centuries-old dynasty and establishment that gives a select few an abundance of riches, popularity, and an obsession for habits on the grounds that their predecessors were acceptable at overcoming mansions and wedding their own inaccessible family members?

At any rate, Buckingham Palace doesn’t appear to have any response to these inquiries. In an official announcement that was disseminated not long after Harry and Meghan opened up to the world, the Palace said that the “talks” about the pair’s future were “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,” came the response from Buckingham Palace.

Yet, as indicated by BBC royal correspondent Johnny Dymond Johnny Dymond, the dialogs weren’t “at an early stage” — they were basically nonexistent.

“BBC understands that no other member of the Royal Family was consulted before Harry and Meghan issued their personal statement tonight, the Palace is understood to be ‘disappointed,’” he maintained.

Notwithstanding how the split went down, it was bound to happen. Harry and Meghan have gone through months quarreling with — and indeed, suing — British sensationalist newspapers. Back in October, Harry even lambasted what he referred to as a “select media” in a scathing open letter, where he expressed the words,  “I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

“For these select media, this is a game, and one that we have been unwilling to play from the start,” he added. “I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.”

Seventy-two Parliament individuals reverberated Harry’s comments in an open letter half a month later, denouncing the sensationalist newspapers’ inclusion of Meghan — who is biracial and separated from her first spouse — as having  “outdated, colonial undertones.” And Meghan herself opened up about the lack of privacy she has experienced since joining the royal family.

I never thought that this would be easy, but I thought it would be fair, and that’s the part that’s really hard to reconcile,” she told ITV in a shockingly candid interview. She further added that “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.”

As of late, a couple of signs demonstrate that popular sentiment toward the royals is indeed shifting and not toward a path that is favorable to the Queen: In December, a large number of individuals signed a petition asking Brighton and Hove City councilors to quit alluding to Harry and Meghan by the titles “Duke and Duchess of Sussex.” (Brighton and Hove City are in Sussex.) The appeal referred to the titles as “entirely non-democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.”

Prince Andrew may likewise have managed to give the royal family an amazingly fatal blow to their public image when he partook in what’s broadly viewed by many as a car crash interview about his long-lasting friendship with the now-deceased financier and offender Jeffrey Epstein. (In case you’re not familiar with the complexities of the Windsor family tree, Andrew is Queen Elizabeth’s child; Harry is her grandson. Nor is remotely near taking up the honored position.) Shortly a while later, Andrew reported that he would also “step back from public duties for the foreseeable future.”