There They Are Again

Issue dated September, 7, 2026

Why?

Harry and Meghan's planned return to the UK is big news, no surprise; I'll post various takes on the situation as they catch my eye. This article, titled "The Sussexes' selfish return spells peril for the Royal family," is from The Telegraph, a conservative British newspaper. In the last sentence, the author makes her sympathies clear. 

    “Please, boys. Don’t make my final years a misery.” The words of the future King Charles III as he pleaded with his two sons to patch things up at their grandfather’s funeral in April 2021 have just acquired a whole new resonance.

    The “boys”, better known as Prince William and Prince Harry, never did make up. Indeed, their feud only darkened and deepened as the elder brother fumed at the younger’s treachery towards the Royal family in general, and his wife, in particular. (Outrageously, in her interview with Oprah, Meghan accused unnamed members of the family of racism in relation to her unborn baby’s skin colour.)

    The last time Harry and William stood together, just the two of them, was in July 2021 at the unveiling of a bronze statue of their late mother on what would have been her 60th birthday. The pair could barely look at each other. For William, Harry’s deeply personal and spiteful revelations two years later in his biography, Spare, were an unimaginable betrayal by the human being he once trusted best.

    A lid could be kept on that seething Shakespearean sibling rivalry, as long as Diana’s beloved boys, now men in their 40s, were separated by an ocean. Harry and Meghan found freedom in California from the stultifying Windsor ways they so publicly scorned. The Waleses were left to steady the ship after the turbulence of “Megxit”. They did so admirably and to universal acclaim despite Princess Catherine’s shocking brush with cancer.

    The sudden announcement on Wednesday night that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are returning to the UK later this month – a typical piece of Sussex melodrama, both blithely selfish and utterly ruthless – threatens the uneasy truce between the brothers. It also heralds a moment of intense danger for the monarchy, I think, because almost anything could happen – and very little of it good.

    The King has shown immense fortitude during his cancer treatment, and continues to carry out his duties with charm and aplomb, but the 77-year-old Charles is ailing. Understandably, there is speculation that Harry has seized this moment to shore up his family’s position while a fond Papa is still on the throne and able to bail him out.

    With a commitment to a slimmed-down monarchy – probably comprised of his own three children, George, Charlotte and Louis, and their immediate heirs – things would look very different under a future King William V. The Duke and Duchess, and Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet (the children’s faces unknown to the British public even though they are sixth and seventh in line to our throne) might well lose their titles and their access to the only thing that they have left to sell, apart from tens of thousands of jars of Meghan’s jam. A sticky position, you have to agree.

    Cynics point out that Harry’s newfound enthusiasm for Britain follows a humiliating failure in the US. After the Duchess’s teeth-rottingly glutinous lifestyle show, With Love, Meghan, was panned, Netflix drastically watered down the couple’s lavish deal. When they were dropped by Spotify, allegedly for not creating enough content to earn out their $20m (£14.7m) payment, a furious senior executive called the royal couple “f---ing grifters”.

    Americans love success and stampede like startled bison from its opposite. People began to mock Harry and Meghan’s claim to want a low-profile, secluded private life dedicated to “service”. South Park’s “Worldwide Privacy Tour” episode, a hilarious satire on the shy, retiring Sussexes, burst the dam of deference. They became social poison and couldn’t blag an invitation to the Oscars. Even Oprah appeared to distance herself from the pair on whom she lavished such sympathy when they were revealing how ghastly those heartless Royals were while poor Prince Philip was on his deathbed.

    The truth is, however cynical you are about Meghan and Harry, it’s not cynical enough. Their jaw-dropping hypocrisy is only exceeded by their lack of self-awareness and contrition. A champion reciter of his own grievances, Harry can be astonishingly obtuse when it comes to appreciating the pain and embarrassment he has caused his own relatives. For Team Sussex, it’s “my truth” that counts.

    Only last year, a tearful Harry was telling the BBC: “It’s impossible for me to take my family back to the UK safely. I can’t see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK at this point.”

    So what changed? Is the UK no longer so racist that Meghan couldn’t bear to live here? Is she no longer worried about being “silenced” by her terrible in-laws? Has Queen Camilla ceased to be “dangerous”, as Harry claimed in his book? Is their personal safety no longer a priority? Did they get the apology from the royals they loftily demanded as a condition of returning?

    Well, they’re coming back anyway. And we don’t want them – we really don’t want them. Thousands of caustic jibes and angry outbursts mushroomed overnight on social media.

“What have we done to deserve this?” wondered one man.
“Maybe they got an offer to appear on Celebrity Traitors,” quipped another.
“Sickening. It’s obvious that this move, like everything else, is purely about what’s in it for them.”
“There must be a problem with Harry’s US visa – who in their right minds would go back to a country they trashed and where they are hated?”
“Never-ending attention seekers, they just want to cause more aggravation for William and Kate.”
“On the lookout for more material for their Diana documentary and next books no doubt.”
“They are coming back to monetise the kids!”
“With luck it will speed up the divorce.”
“The fact they even contemplate coming back shows they haven’t got a shred of contrition or shame. They will forever be a thorn in the side of the Royal family. And us too because we will never be able to escape hearing about them. They don’t want a quiet life.”
“Skint and hoping daddy will bail them out.”
“The whole thing is grotesque because of their disdain for our country and the way they treated the Queen.”

    The outpouring of hostility and bitterness is overwhelming, with the odd enthusiastic comment heavily outnumbered. (Judging by the remarks, Meghan will be lucky not to be booed should she ever venture into Waitrose.) Has any couple ever burnt through so much goodwill so quickly?

    How different it was back in May 2018 when I wrote for The Telegraph about Harry and Meghan’s fairytale wedding in St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle. It was a glorious day, the Union flag waved and the people cheered for their favourite young royal. Everyone was so happy that Diana’s lost boy – that shell-shocked 12-year-old we had watched as he walked, ghost-pale, beside his mother’s coffin – had finally found a bright and beautiful woman to love him.

    Admittedly, alarm bells rang when Meghan commandeered the engagement interview, promising to “hit the ground running”, more like a pushy contestant on The Apprentice than a doting fiancée, but doubts were vanquished by a beautiful ceremony that combined the best of British and American. In his Blues & Royals uniform, Harry looked like the foxiest Salvation Army sergeant ever, but was pensive and nervous.

    Seated beside him, William did his best to reassure his brother. We know now that William had grave doubts about the choice of bride and the speed of the courtship, but a besotted Harry wasn’t in the mood for listening or caution. As the bride stared up at her husband with a look of glistening adoration (that look seemed sweet and genuine back then, but fake and irritating now), the late Queen shot Meghan an owlish glare (she disapproved of the American divorcee wearing virginal white). In retrospect, she seems to have been the only one with a clear-eyed view of what was coming.

    Pretty much the entire country fell for the Sussexes that day. It took some serious effort on their part to make us fall out of love with them – they found fault with their handsome historic cottage, renovated to US standards at absurd expense, complained constantly about the (overwhelmingly positive) media coverage and “racism”, and then there were allegations that a high-maintenance Meghan bullied Palace staff.
    An absurdly swollen sense of entitlement led to demands that the couple be allowed to set up as Sussex royals in America, enjoying the perks of proximity to the throne without the dreary responsibilities. The late Queen wisely refused – she didn’t want them destroying trust in the Royal family by combining duty and money-making – and so “Megxit” became permanent in 2021.

    Harry was stripped of his military titles and royal patronages – things that had given his life ballast and meaning. Widely adored because he was always good for a laugh, Harry became a scowling social justice warrior parroting modish phrases about “unconscious bias” you knew Meghan had taught him.

    And then, the coup de grace. The Sussexes both slagged off the Royal family on American television in front of hundreds of millions – all that after they had caused the late Queen so much worry and distress in her final years. To the British people, who had forked out £32m for their wedding, it felt like the vilest ingratitude.

    So, it is to that sulphurous national mood that the Sussexes now return. Meghan narrowly avoids being the least popular Royal because the former Prince Andrew is even more detested than the Duchess. Some 65 per cent of Britons hold an unfavourable opinion of Meghan (22 per cent favourable), while 58 per cent dislike Harry (33 per cent positive).

    The Duke and Duchess’s status as “not working royals” will be unchanged, we are told, but who seriously believes that Meghan, the self-styled global humanitarian, will be content hanging out with some chickens in the Cotswolds where the family are likely to settle? She may be able to score the odd chai latte with her near-neighbour, Victoria Beckham, although Jeremy Clarkson definitely won’t be inviting the Sussexes over to Diddly Squat Farm for a hog roast. Meghan would have Clarkson cancelled like a shot.

    I think it’s likely that, apart from the Spencer side of the family, as well as Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, Meghan will find herself ostracised, lonely and increasingly frustrated. She never liked Britain, and is clearly jealous of the huge affection here for Kate. Frequent trips back to the US, with or without the children, could put physical distance between her and Harry, and kickstart the process of separation that many have foretold.

    On Friday, we learnt that Meghan may have an acting job lined up in the UK. I wasn’t aware the Royal Shakespeare Company was looking for a Lady Macbeth.

    Wherever they settle, Harry and Meghan will be a constant distraction from the activities of the working royals – see how their breaking news displaced the lovely story of Camilla talking about her husband’s cancer. There will effectively be two rival courts led by the warring brothers. What happens when Prince George starts at Eton in a few weeks’ time, and photographers are summoned to take the traditional picture? Will the Sussexes drop Archie and Lilibet off quietly at their new school with no snapper present, or will this be an opportunity to get one over on their rivals, the Waleses? The first picture of the faces of the Sussex children would beat George to every front page. Imagine how that would make William and Kate feel. Now imagine what whoop of satisfaction that would give Meghan.

    How long do you think it will be before the Sussexes make it known that they think it’s terribly sad that Archie and Lilibet are prevented from seeing their cousins by the cruel, stand-offish William and Kate? Using their children as pawns may not be beyond them.

    “It’s horrible,” says Harry’s biographer, Angela Levin. “Kate is gentle, she’s not like Meghan, and Meghan is not going to change one iota. She thinks she knows everything – she always has to win.” Levin worries about the effect the stress could have on Kate’s health.

    Senior members of the Royal family are currently enjoying their traditional summer break at Balmoral. I am told the news that Harry and Meghan returning to the UK went down like a sporran full of cold haggis. One senior Royal insider goes so far as to call it “an act of violent aggression. I feel desperately sorry for William and Kate. It’s awful for them”.

    The King is a very kind man, and it’s understandable that he wishes to spend more time with Harry and his children, but I’m not sure Charles has thought through what this means for his heir and his family. Are William and Kate to be pressured into forgiving a pair who caused them so much pain and turmoil? Remember how William angrily snapped at a reporter after that infamous Oprah interview: “We are very much NOT a racist family.”

The Waleses are said by a source to “have no interest in engaging with anything Harry and Meghan do or say”. Easier said than done when “Me Again Meghan” has a track record of trying to upstage the couple’s scheduled events with her own appearances.

    William and Kate, who have done so much to uphold the family’s reputation during “Megxit” and the disgrace of Andrew, could find themselves undermined by the Sussexes at every turn. William will be furious, and rightly so, if the prodigal son is so easily taken back into the fold by their good-natured father.

    What about Christmas? Must the Royal family gather at Sandringham, fake smiles plastered on their faces, with the ever-present fear that Harry and Meghan are taking notes for their next book or documentary on the 30th anniversary of Diana’s death next year? Heaven forbid, Harry, Meghan and the kids are allowed to join the walk from church on Christmas Day – if they do, the frost won’t just be on the ground. It’s a toxic situation because all trust is gone.

What are Harry and Meghan playing at? There was apparently no mention of them moving back to the UK at the tea they had at Highgrove with the King in July. He was blindsided and only told of the plan on Sunday, which, if true, is an extraordinarily rude way to treat the monarch. They must have been plotting this for months by finding a place to live and enrolling the children in a school. The Sussexes are dangerous. “Manipulative to the highest degree,” warns Tom Bower. If they do lots of charity appearances and fun events over the next year, they may gradually hope to win back the public and wangle the half-in, half-out model of monarchy that was specifically ruled out by the late Queen.

    Levin points out that, as non-working royals, “they are free to do and say what they want. They can read what the other family members are up to and get there first. They can muscle in on the limelight and champion political causes that embarrass the King. I’m really worried.”

    We should all be worried, at least those of us who care about the survival of the monarchy. “Please, boys. Don’t make my final years a misery,” the King pleaded five years ago. His sons are still estranged, and heaven knows it must be terribly painful. But while Charles may privately long for reconciliation, he has to take the hardest of hard lines with the Sussexes (his wife shares William’s views on that pair). It would be unforgivable, I think, to expect his eldest son to forgive so many unforgivable things – his family’s reputation trashed, his wife attacked when she had cancer, his beloved grandparents having to firefight Harry’s treachery while they were dying.

    You can forget building bridges. Isambard Kingdom Brunel himself couldn’t build a bridge that would repair what Harry and Meghan have done to the Windsors. There must be no quasi-Royal roles for them, and no undermining of the heir to the throne and his wonderful wife on whom the future of the institution rests. The King should welcome the family home from California as a father and grandfather. Then, as the monarch, he should remove their titles to limit the mischief they can cause.

    Just because the American dream went sour for Harry and Meghan, they have no right to come here and cause a nightmare. If there is to be a war of the rival courts, I am Team William and Kate all the way.

"Feelings Aren't Facts"

In an article in British newspaper The Telegraph, titled "Harry and Meghan's 'truth' has been exposed for what it is and I feel vindicated," and subtitled "Strip away the grievance, the victimhood and the drama, and what remains? A couple of former royals with a fading brand," Associate Editor Camilla Tominey shares her thoughts about Prince Harry and Meghan:

Confirmation that the Duchess of Sussex is in the UK, after all, with her children Archie and Lilibet arguably tells you everything you need to know about the world according to Harry and Meghan. After a huge drama over accommodation and security, the family, who have been in Europe, have just met with the King at Highgrove despite Harry’s well-documented security concerns.

Meghan did not attend yesterday’s Invictus Games event with her husband in Birmingham as originally planned. Buckingham Palace insists no imagery will be released of the royal reconciliation but don’t be surprised if carefully curated footage eventually emerges of the family of four, perhaps visiting Princess Diana’s grave at Althorp, the Spencer family seat.

The Sussexes thrive on drama. It’s the only real currency they have left, which goes some way to explaining Harry’s endless will-he-won’t-he Buckingham Palace invitation saga. I wouldn’t be surprised if behind-the-scenes footage is already being shot to appear on a television near you in the not too distant future.

Having been on the receiving end of Harry and Meghan’s “truth”, I admit to feeling rather vindicated following Mr Justice Nicklin’s judgment in the Prince’s case against Associated Newspapers Ltd. Dismissing all 97 claims made by seven claimants, including Harry, Sir Elton John and Liz Hurley, that the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday had carried out unlawful information gathering against them between the late 1990s and 2015, the judge was unequivocal.

In his devastating 436-page ruling, he rejected not only the most lurid accusations, but also concluded that the claimants had failed to prove any unlawful activity at all. Accepting the denials of Associated Newspaper journalists “who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents”, he added: “Suspicion, even understandable suspicion, is not proof.”

What the judgment effectively said is that feelings are not facts; there is only ever one version of the truth – the one that can be proved, with evidence.

The court defeat leaves Harry et al potentially facing a £50m legal bill which may or may not be covered by the estate of Max Mosley, a man with a well-documented history of fascist politics and orgies. But the reputational cost for the Sussexes could be even greater. The judgment drives a coach and horses through their carefully cultivated narrative of victimhood.

Harry has long maintained that he and Meghan were hounded in the same way his late mother was. During the trial earlier this year, he became emotional while describing the impact of the coverage on those closest to him, saying Associated Newspapers had made Meghan’s life “an absolute misery”.

So why, then, did the couple’s media team allegedly provide Charlotte Griffiths, editor-at-large of the Mail on Sunday, with details of a meeting between Sussex representatives and a senior royal aide in 2025?

Griffiths says a close adviser arranged lunch with her at The Ivy in London during the summer of that year. She maintains information shared there led to several stories about the couple, including front-page reports suggesting efforts were underway to repair relations with King Charles.

If true, Harry and Meghan were doing precisely what they accuse others of doing: briefing the press.

Then there was last week’s accommodation saga. How exactly were reporters learning about rescinded palace invitations if not from Sussex sources? This, from a prince, who once grandly told his ITV chum Tom Bradby that members of the Royal family got into “bed with the devil” if they tipped off the media “to rehabilitate their image”.

Griffiths’ evidence also seems to suggest another uncomfortable inconsistency. Harry has long claimed to have had little to do with journalists. Yet the trial revealed flirtatious Facebook messages exchanged with Griffiths in 2011 and 2012, referring to a hedonistic weekend spent with Harry and his friends.

In those messages Harry happily disclosed personal details, including that he was “stuck in Cornwall doing Army stuff”. Again, Harry’s words to Bradby come back to haunt him. “If you need to do that, or you want to do that, you choose to do that. Well that is a choice,” he explained. Yes. Harry. If only you’d taken your own advice.

As I recall, when he wasn’t complaining about invasions of privacy, he and his friends were voluntarily sharing extraordinary amounts of their lives on public social media. They also kept returning to the same London nightclubs – Boujis, Amika and others – only to express outrage when photographers captured them stumbling out in the early hours.

In Spare, Harry never named me but described me as someone who “always made me ill”, adding: “She’d always, always got stuff wrong.” In reality, I got two rather significant stories right. First, that he was dating Meghan Markle, an exclusive I broke in October 2016. Second, that there had been an altercation between Meghan and Kate during a bridesmaid dress fitting that left Kate in tears.

Until that second story, I had enjoyed a perfectly good working relationship with Harry. Even after revealing his romance with the American actress, he personally invited me to cover parts of his Caribbean tour that weren’t open to other journalists. The truth – the whole truth, not the Sussexes’ version of it – is that they have always been entirely comfortable with publicity, provided it is flattering. Write a negative headline, even an accurate one, and suddenly it becomes a media witch hunt.

The reality was summed up perfectly by Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers, after the verdict, which echoed South Park’s now infamous World Privacy Tour parody about the couple.

“There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family. For him to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes not just the biscuit, but the whole tin.”

He has a point. Harry and Meghan haven’t simply aired their family’s private business without offering anyone a right of reply. They have turned it into a lucrative business model.

And they will continue to do so. Because strip away the grievance, the victimhood and the drama, and what remains? A couple of former royals with a fading brand.

That, surely, is the real truth. (This is the article in its entirety.)

"An Impeccable Force For Good"

"There's no denying that everyone concerned has been missing the princess's star quality. She is a huge draw wherever she goes."

"She is glamorous, she is beautiful. She is warm and approachable."

"She is an impeccble force for good, a fantastic standard-bearer--not just for the royal family but for the country." 

Wow. That's just a few of the comments in the hagiographic cover story about Princess Kate in People magazine this week. (Is someone in Montecito hurling dishes at the wall? Possibly.)  

Just three weeks after the "on the one hand, on the other hand" cover story about Harry and Meghan's current place in the world, Kate is in the spotlight this week, although "adoring glow" might be more accurate. "Teachers wiped away tears after she left," we're told, referring to Kate's recent visit to a school in Italy. No "other hand" here, this is a love letter.

Read the article here. 

Where Is Everyone?

I haven't been paying much attention to Meghan's trip to Switzerland, but I'm struck by this picture. To be blunt, the optics are terrible. A quick Google search tells me that, straight line, it's almost 6,000 miles from Los Angeles to Geneva. That's a long, long way to go to speak to fewer than 20 people. It might be the camera angle, there could be 100's of people on Meghan's left side, or behind her, but still. This picture is brutal.  

A Constant Hustle...

"Without the palace platform, it takes a constant hustle to keep yourself in the spotlight." Thus sayeth Tina Brown, referring to Harry and Meghan in her 2022 book The Palace Papers, and note that I'm paraphrasing from memory. I thought of Tina's pithy words last Wednesday morning at 7 a.m. central time, when this appeared front and center at people.com:

People magazine cover dated dated May 11, 2026, posted April 29

I also thought of reporter Paula Froelich's advice to Harry and Meghan, published on New Year's Eve Day, 2025: 

Next year, when your father and brother make state visits to the US, LIE LOW. As in, no social media posts, no interviews and above all, no competing engagements. I know this will be hard for you, but trust me. You and your wife look petty and spiteful when you try to hijack the attention. (Who can forget your flashy Remembrance Day visit to Canada in November at the same time your brother was trying to promote his Earthshot Prize in Brazil?) Getting in the way of actual royals trying to maintain the family business, which includes diplomatic duties, makes you look vengeful and jealous. (Read Paula's entire post here.)

I know, from reading many books about the royal family, that Paula's advice is correct. When senior royals, i.e., the King and Queen or the Prince and Princess of Wales, are on high-profile foreign tours or other important engagements, the rest of the family are absolutely expected to lie low. Stay out of the spotlight, stay out of trouble, don't do anything to outshine or upstage the more important members of the family. 

Last week, Charles and Camilla were on an official state visit to the United States, trying to charm (and not get drooled on by) Donald Trump. Wednesday, April 29th, also just happened to be William and Kate's 15th wedding anniversary. Either of those events could have been the focus of a People cover story. How did we end up with Harry and Meghan front and center, smiling up a storm with a headline that says they're Making Their Own Rules? 

Now, obviously, Harry and Meghan have no control over what People magazine chooses to put on the cover each week. On the other hand there's no way I believe the timing of this story is a coincidence. This is almost certainly the result of an intensely targeted, and very effective, pitch by Harry and Meghan's experienced (and expensive) publicists, Sunshine Sachs. In a story posted January, 18, 2026, and titled "Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Reteam with a Familiar Hollywood PR firm amid Staffing Shakeup," people.com reported this:

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are returning to a familair firm as they restructure their professional team at the start of othe new year. 

PEOPLE confirms that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are once again working with Sunshine Sachs Morgan and Lylis (SSML), with the bicoastal public relations firm supporting Meghan's lifestyle brand, As ever, as well as the couple's U.S.-based efforts. The firm is a major Hollywood player, representing A-list talent and leading entertainment projects. 

The firm is working alongside the Sussexes' internal team, which includes LIam Maguire, their U.K. and Europe director of communications, w ho remains in  his role and has primarily overseen Prince Harry's communications.  (Read the entire article here.) 

This is what Sunshine Sachs (SS) says they can do for you: "In today's quickly changing media and digital landscape, there is no one way to tell your story. It doesn't have to be a million-dollar idea (but we have those too!) - it can be a well-timed social post or a small, simple connection. We use data and trend forecasting to help our clients connect with their audiences through bold and creative storytelling." Read more about Sunshine Sachs here.

I'd say SS earned their money this week. Did Harry and Meghan get their money's worth? Maybe. Were they pleased, even thrilled, by the article, and the timing? Probably, but overall I can't imagine it changed anything for them, and it may have royally pissed off the people around Charles, Camilla, William and Catherine, if not the actual royals themselves. The state visit was considered to be a royal triumph and by Wednesday evening, the Harry and Meghan story was completely gone from the people.com homepage, which tells us that other stories were getting more clicks. Would the story make readers rush to the As ever website to buy overpriced candles and jam? Would an event planner somewhere decide that they should pay low six figures to have Harry come and give a speech? Is Prince William saying to himself, wow, I forgot how wonderful my brother and sister-in-law are, let's get them back right away?  No, probably not, and don't make me laugh. 

Anyway, this is the article, in its entirety:

In January 2020, at what became known as the Sandringham Summit, Queen Elizabeth drew a firm line. After intense talks about what the future would look like for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the answer was clear: There would be no "half in, half out" role. They could not remain working members of the royal family while pursuing independent, income-generating ventures. The couple would step back--fully.  

When the Queen publicly confirmed the decision, making clear it was "not possible" for them to continue with the responsibilities that come with a life of public service outside the institution, Harry, 41, and Meghan, 44, pushed back with a statement of their own: "We can all live a life of service. Service is universal."

Six years on, that belief still shapes their path. During an unannounced visit to Ukraine on April 24, Harry was asked whether he recognized the label "not a working royal." "No," he said. "I will always be part of the royal family... I am here working, doing the things I was born to do." In Australia, where Harry's father, King Charles, is head of state, the Sussexes spent four day in April moving through engagements that echoed an offical royal tour, from hospital visits to moments of remembrance, while also embracing the independent, income-generating model that now underpins their work.

For some inside palace circles, that overlap remains deeply contentious. "They are pushing the envelope and making it much more difficult for reconciliation to happen," says Sally Bedell Smith, author of the Royals Extra Substack.

In Ukraine, Harry stepped into territory traditionally avoided by the royals. Speaking at the Kyiv Security Forum, he called for "American leadership" in the ongoing war--a remark that carried clear political weight. The moment came just days before King Charles's state visit to the U.S., a tightly choreographed trip that, sources say, left no room for any private meeting between father and son. While Harry emphsized that he was speaking "not as a politician" but as a soldier and humanitarian, the remarks were strking.   

Together, the two trips illustrate the space the Sussexes now occupy--outside the boundaries the institution has long sought to maintain. "The monarchy is meant to be above politics and commercial imperatives," says Valentine Low, author of Courtiers. "This is exactly what the late Queen wanted to avoid." Insists a source close to Harry: "This idea that he's going against the wishes of the Queen by being half in, half out is nonsense. None of this is being done in the name of the institution."

On the ground in Australia, the response told a different story. "There were joyful, smiling people everywhere they went," says Kylie Walters, a royal correspondent for WHO magazine there. "People wanted to see them." The visit began April 14 with a stop at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, where patients and staff lined the halls to greet them--almost eight years after their last visit to the country, in 2018, when they were newly married and firmly within the royal fold.

The impact of the latest trip was immediate. "I gave Harry flowers, and he said 'Thank you' and told me to 'keep on being brave,'" says Novalie Morris, 12, a patient who met the couple. "It cheered me up a lot--I'll keep thinking about that."

At a war memorial in Canberra, Harry laid a wreath, his military medals pinned to a suit--including those from his late grandmother--a quiet reminder that since stepping back from being a working royal, he is no longer permitted to wear his military uniform. When he was barred from doing so at Queen Elizabeth's funeral in 2022, his spokesperson said that "his decade of military service is not determined by the uniform he wears." 

Meghan, meanwhile, spent time at a women's shelter, serving food and speaking with families. and on Sydney Harbour they joined Invictus Australia team members and veterans for a sailing event. "Harry was completely relaxed--Invictus is where he belongs," Walters says of the international adaptive sports tournament for wounded, injured and sick service personnel and veterans that Harry founded in 2014. "People gravitate toward him, and he knows how to make them feel special. The royal family really misses out on that. It's a sad reminder of the global platform he could have had. It's the closest he's going to get to continuing to serve on his own terms."

But alongside those traditional moments of service was something far less familiar. Harry delivered a ticketed keynote speech at the Melbourne InterEdge Summit, where seats initially ran into the thousands, while Meghan made a surprise appearance as a guest judge on MasterChef Australia and a paid appearance at a women's retreat, where $3,199 VIP packages included a group photo with her. The outing came a year after the launch of her lifestye brand As ever, with guests receiving products in swag bags. "They have a big security bill and a lifestyle to maintain, so it's not surprising they're taking on money-making ventures," says Walters. 

Meghan's fashion choices were also linked to an AI-powered shopping platform, OneOff, allowing followers to purchase the looks she wore during the trip--many by Australian designers. Through the partnership she earns a commission. Her page drew more than a million views withing the first three days, with several items selling out. 

"The royals are influencers, but the mystique is that they are not promoting themselves as such," says Bethan Holt, fashion director at The Telegraph. "Meghan is lifting the veil." Adds Bedell Smith, "It was shocking to see her go to the hospital and then sell the clothing she was wearing. I've never seen anybody in the royal family do that. I can't imagine it went down well at the palace." 

For critics it raises a broader question about where public service ends and personal branding begins, yet those close to the couple push back on that characterization. "They're not reliant on Harry's father or taxpayer-funded money," says an insider. "They pay their own bills and make their own money while continuing to support a lot of causes that might otherwise go unseen. It enables them to do what they love doing." 

Adds another source: "They're trying to live their life, raise their children [Prince Archie, 6, and Princess Lilibet, 4], do meaningful work and earn a living." 

Palace insiders say it is more likely to deepen tensions with the royal family. "It won't help Harry's case or promote good relations," says Queen Elizabeth's former press secretary Ailsa Anderson. 

For Prince William, the issue is especially firm: "What Harry and Meghan are doing is a nonnegotiable for William," Anderson says of the future King's view within the royal family. "He wouldn't countenance any acceptance of it." 

After years of distance--strained by Harry's legal battle over security and the fallout from his memoir Spare--there has been some renewed contact between him and his father, 77, in recent months, though they haven't seen each other since September. But the divide remains most acute with his brother William, 43, with some questioning whether the rift can ever heal. "William is over all the drama," says Robert Jobson, author of The Windsor Legacy. "He doesn't need it, and he doesn't want it. He's too busy and focused on his own family." For now, adds Bedell Smith, "they're at a standoff." 

Those close to the Sussexes, however, describe a more measured reality behind the scenes. "Meghan lets him lead on all royal matters and dictate what needs to happen," a friend says. "But it would never put them at odds--they're on the same team." 

Says another source: "It remains very emotional. Harry and Meghan are both realistic. They're not approaching it with the expectation of a quick resolution. It's about taking small, manageable steps and seeing where things land. This remains very important to Harry, with Meghan supportive. 

While Harry has long spoken of hoping for reconciliation, he's still reckoning with his upbringing. At the InterEdge Summit in Melbourne he reflected on the loss of his mother, Princess Diana, and the years he spent resisting the role he was born into. "I was like  'I don't want this job. I don't want this role--wherever this is headed, I don't like it,'" he said. "It killed my mom, and I was very much against it." Over time, though, "I realized... how would somebody else make the most of this platform?" he said. "And what would my mom want me to do?"

At home in Montecito, Calif., work is scheduled around school hours; weekends are for family time. "Archie and Lilibet are their life," says a staffer who has worked for the couple since their early days in California. "There's a real warmth and a sense of normalcy."

Both have built tight-knit circles. Harry maintains a close group of friends, many of them fellow dads. "He really thrives on those friendships and values that sense of connection," the close source says. Meanwhile, Meghan keeps a small, loyal group of longtime friends, often meeting for workouts or quiet nights out together. "They're very careful about who they let into their lives," a friend says. 

That loyalty runs deep. "No matter what she has going on, she always makes time for her friends," says Meghan's friend Kelly McKee Zajfen, who recently welcomed son Jack after the loss of her son Georgie, 9, in 2022. "She really shows up, and not just when it's easy." 

It's a side of Meghan that is often overlooked. At an April 16 discussion with Batyr, an Australian youth mental health charity, Meghan spoke candidly about online abuse. "Every day for 10 years I have been bullied and attacked," she said. "I was the most trolled person in the entire world... and I'm still here."

Her resiliance is hard-won, sources say. "They both try to focus on staying as positive as possible," says a source. "But people forget they're human beings, especially Meghan. There's only so much a person can handle." Still, that same source says their focus remains steady: "They wake up every day focused on being the best parents they can be. No matter what comes at them, they pick themselves up and keep moving forward." 

Nearly eight years after their wedding, Harry and Meghan's bond remains central. "They are the biggest champions of each other," says the staffer. "The more adversity they face, the more they come together."

That partnership propels their next chapter, even as scrutiny persists. "This is the shape of things to come," says Anderson. "There is nothing to stop them from doing this."

Adds Low: "The palace might not like it, but they can do it. The question is whether it's sustainable." 

For their future to hold, their ventures will need to succeed. While their widely reported $100 million Netflix deal wasn't renewed, the relationship has evolved into a first-look arrangement, with several projects still in development, including a scripted series set in the world of polo. A documentary they backed, Cookie Queens, has also gained traction on the festival circuit and is now set for a theatrical release. 

Meghan, meanwhile, is focused on building As ever into a lasting business. The brand continues to roll out new products, including a Mother's Day collection featuring candles inspired by the couple's children. "It is still in test-and-learn mode," says the close source. "She wakes up thinking about new ideas and works on it all the time." 

While reports of high staff turnover have raised questions about the couple's working environment, others who remain describe a different experience. "There are quite a few of us who've been here a long time," says one six-year staffer. "Much of her company is made up of young women, and she really champions them. She's always saying to me, 'Just speak up'--that's one of her biggest things." 

Those close to the couple believe their trip to Australia set a new blueprint. The late Queen herself once recognized the positive effect Harry and Meghan could have across the Commonwealth--and supporters say their influence has not disappeared. "They're very aware of the impact their presence can have," says the longtime staffer. Walters adds, "A lot is forgiven when you're on the ground and you show up and do good work. That magic and allure of a royal doesn't necessarily come down to a title." Click here to see the story as posted.  

Note: the other cover story dated May 11 featured Goldie Hawn; Rita Wilson and Marilyn Monroe are the cover stories dated May 18. 

More about Harry and Meghan in Australia

According to Wikipedia: "Tessa Dunlop is a Scottish historian and broadcaster. She has written several history books based on oral histosry, and presented history programmes for the BBC, Channel 4, Discovery Channel, UKTV History and the History Channel."  

This is her take on Harry and Meghan's place in the world, published in The Independant on Friday, before Meghan's appearance at the Her Best Life retreat in Sydney.  

Meghan says she was ‘most trolled person’ in the world

It was all going so well. A curated couple in matching beige wowing a carefully selected crowd in Australia with a heady mix of celebrity and charity. “Just call me Meg,” insisted the duchess on the first day. Apparently, the penny had dropped, Meghan finally understood that on a not “royal” tour she can’t stand on ceremony. Sick children smiled, and dear Haz gladhanded at a veteran’s museum with abundant charisma. Hurrah, the House of Montecito are here! Day one of their Australian tour was a surprising slam-dunk for brand Sussex.

So where did it all go wrong?

Yesterday the headlines curdled, the temperature rose, and by all accounts, it is not just Brits who are furious. How dare the Sussexes inflict a “faux royal tour” on Australians already unable to decide which side of the monarchy line they sit. For Harry and Meghan to re-enter such a fragile ecosystem was always going to be risky. Having enjoyed a full-fat royal visit to Australia in 2018 to universal acclaim, the stakes were high.

If these days the couple are no longer part of the monarchy, then what are they exactly? Cosplaying royals? Profiteering celebrities? Do they bat for Team America? Or just Team Sussex? How to square the circle of a touring prince who is not a working prince but who is still a prince? It is a challenging question, and one Harry proved unable to answer.

Cue the Duke at a lectern intoning to a room of Australian business leaders: “After my mum died just before my 13th birthday – I was like ‘I don’t want this job. I don’t want this role – wherever this is headed, I don’t like it.” Here, you are forgiven for asking, “if you didn’t like the job Harry, why have you replicated that same job on a repeat tour in a constitutional monarchy?”

Miles from home, in a challenging landscape, blinded by his own privilege, and never a great thinker, the giant contradiction at the heart of the Duke’s angry thesis roared to the surface once more, breaking the hearts of monarchists and serving red meat to republicans. If only Harry and Meghan could acknowledge that their lives are gilded in exorbitant privilege thanks to their intersection with monarchy, a hangover which they wear daily: their titles, their inherited jewels, their well-documented royal back story. Instead, they lament their former difficulties while replicating much of their former lives. Argh! Cue more of the very same trolls that Meghan claims she ran away from when she left the House of Windsor. Make it make sense!

For those of us who long to move the script forward, this is more than cognitive dissonance; it is a reminder of why the Sussexes have ultimately set back the cause of much-needed reform in the institution of monarchy. Their truth-to-power departure in 2020 was a potential moment of reckoning for the House of Windsor. A chance to open up the doors and let in the light, to root out cronyism, encourage financial transparency and lean into a new democratic age.

Harry is an uncomfortable reminder of why our working royals are tightly scripted, who say it best when they say virtually nothing at all

But six years on, the self-involved, repetitive woes of Harry have failed to move the dial towards progress. There is no fresh new narrative, or alternative model. Harry continues to operate in the royal mould; he is still platformed thanks to his extraordinary start in life, as he sashays around the world, resting on his blue-blooded laurels. The only difference is that nowadays the Duke is paid with private money, not through the public purse. He has to sing for his supper, with tickets to hear Harry talk about his dislike of royal life selling for a cool AU$997.

“So what?” you may well think. Better to be remunerated openly and honestly for a speaking gig than to acquire money through extraneous, illicit means. The problem is that Harry, operating off piste with nothing new to say bar a few more parenting observations, tells us that when let out of their royal cage, princes are just a self-involved version of ordinary.

His series of banal utterances merely serves to further diminish the once transcendent glamour of monarchy. In short, Harry is an uncomfortable reminder of why our working royals are tightly scripted, who say it best when they say virtually nothing at all. The King’s much-anticipated speech to Congress in a couple of weeks is a case in point – brains in the Foreign Office are no doubt already fine-tuning their platitudes. In contrast, the Duke, with an unscripted surround-sound of his own making, doesn’t stand a chance.

The upshot isn’t only a downgrade for the Sussexes, it tarnishes the entire royal edifice. Once upon a time in 2018, the couple were a smash hit in Australia – a unifying national glue that spread the love from one continent to another – we basked in the reflective glory of our monarchy and Australia’s monarchy too! How times have changed.

These days, Harry and Meghan are working for themselves, Britain is out of the picture, and Australia in a sulk. The cost of security has proved divisive (a petition against that burden numbers tens of thousands of signatures). The country struggles to acknowledge the fantastic free advert the pair have bestowed upon their great nation – sunlit Australia is all over the international news. No matter, nowadays, split in two, the royal family no longer encourages international unity, but rather feeds echo chambers and angry silos looking for something to rage against.

If Harry and Meghan stand for a nepo-baby new age opulence, our old school working royals have been pushed further into a once green and pleasant land now occupied by flag-waving, rigid little Englanders who won’t tolerate change or criticism of any kind. Next stop America for a state visit with a warlord leader of the once free world – the optics that come with a president who professes to love the King, but loathes the Pope will prove uncomfortable to say the least.

Gone are the days when the monarchy offered an alternative to a brace of strongmen operating with impunity. Instead, the option is a them-or-us version of royalty. And the posturing of the Sussexes this week has further diminished a unique national feature that once helped us feel good about ourselves. The problem is personified by Meghan, who looked every bit the Duchess at a lunch for the homeless in Melbourne, her slender wrist adorned with Diana’s Cartier watch, and her neat frame showcasing a dress by Karen Gee, an Australian designer. But without the bulwark of the British state and the protection of the palace walls to conveniently buffet away awkward questions, who and what is it all for? An Instagram moment? A paycheque? Or a calling?

And if we ask those questions of Meghan and Harry, then it is only fair we ask them of William and Kate, of the King and Queen. By pulling at the royal tapestry one stitch at a time, the danger is the whole facade starts to fray. Arguably, it already has. These days, Meghan and Harry are just a sideshow, a harbinger of what could come as less deferential generations push forward and demand value for money and transparency from an institution rocked by a curious cocktail of Epstein-induced scandals and family feuds.

Perhaps the monarchists among us are hoping for too much when we pray for a reconciliation that will take the sting out of the Sussexes’ showboating and help redeem the embattled working royals. While it may be the stuff of nightmares for Kate and William, if silver linings are what you are looking for, the optimists believe the couple’s joint tour of Australia is a dummy run for a return to Britain this summer. If that’s the case, as a conciliatory gesture, perhaps the King could lend Harry his speech writer?

"My Trauma, My Truth, My Merch"

It's Sunday morning and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been back in the U.S. for about 24 hours. Their quasi-royal tour of Australia is still big news, however, and most of what I've seen is not positive for Harry and Meghan. The Sunday Times of London has some thoughts, in an article titled "Harry and Meghan's Australia tour--my trauma, my truth, my merch," and subtitled "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's quasi-royal trip is about profit, not philanthropy," ouch.  This is the article in its entirety:

The late Queen Elizbeth's judgment looks sounder by the day. Early in 2020, her grandson proposed that he and his new wife switch to a "half in, half out" role. They would remain part-time working royals, Harry suggested, while also being free to pursue money-making opportunities. This "hokey-cokey" arrangement, also known as having your cake and eating it, was emphatically, correctly and inevitably (given her finely tuned appreciation of how the institution she headed should behave) rejected by the Queen. 

Supremely miffed, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex promptly decamped to California. Yet, as has become apparent, most recently on their quasi-royal progress around Australia, the couple have not abandoned their favoured portfolio option. No royal approval? No matter! Harry and Meghan seem happy to proceed with royal disapproval, or more specifically royal dismay, from the King and royal disgust from the Prince of Wales. 

Never mind "call me Meg". Harry and his wife freely use their titles in their business ventures and insist on titles for their children. Their schedule Down Under has been characterised by a blend of emotive endorsements of good causes, leisure and leveraging their fame to make money. Meghan was interviewed on stage at an event in Sydney for which guests were charged £1693 a ticket. She has been plugging her lifestyle brand and podcast. Details of the clothes she has worn to philanthropic events have been posted on a style platform in which she has invested, with links for fans to buy the outfits. She has also filmed an episode as a guest judge on MasterChef Australia, rebooting her celebrity career. 

This trip looks like the shape of things to come, a combination of "my trauma", "my truth" and "my merch". While this pitch may prove profitable, it will never be classy. Elizabeth made the right call.  

"... the Sussexes must put a sock in it."

In a March 24 Substack post titled "Are the Windsors Underestimating the Sussex Problem?," Tina Brown suggested that the way to solve the Sussex Problem is to bring them back into the fold of the royal family:   

Just how desperate does the House of Windsor want Harry and Meghan to get? The royals and their advisers don’t seem to see the iceberg looming from sunny Montecito. Distracted by the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor catastrophe, the palace remains in a perplexed haze about one of the Andrew scandal’s less-discussed lessons: the perils to the monarchy when peripheral royals hang out with the uber-rich and start to consider themselves, by comparison, broke.

Not that there is anything about Harry and Meghan’s cacophony of blown opportunities that resembles the disgraced Andrew’s cascade of dissolute transgressions or Sarah Ferguson’s heinous groveling to their pedo pal Jeffrey Epstein. But look in the crystal ball, people. Bad enough that Spotify bailed on the Sussexes and Netflix failed to renew their 2020 $100-million deal. Now, the streamer has put a fork in Meghan’s basted turkey, With Love, Meghan, and cut loose her domestic-goddess home products spin-off after a mortifying eleven months (leaving a $10-million pile-up of tea, baking mix, and strawberry jam), the Sussexes’ revenue streams are starting to dry up. They will soon be heading for that hinterland of freebie hell that draws them further and further into cheesy commercial gigs, or worse, toward dubious, transactional acquaintances willing to underwrite their faux-royal lifestyle and their astronomical security costs. Their upcoming trip to Australia where Meghan will appear as the up-close star attraction at a paid “girls weekend,” hosted by the podcast Her Best Life in the ballroom of the InterContinental Hotel at Sydney’s Coogee Beach, has the whiff of Fergie’s post-divorce money-making schemes. (Remember the rogue redhead’s early aughts contract with Wedgwood to flog fancy table settings under the fluorescent lights of mid-market American shopping malls?)

Potential reputational hazards to the Sussexes lurk in the dreaded moral pitfall of wanting to fly private. On their 2024 DIY royal tour of Nigeria to promote Harry’s Invictus Games, Meghan’s refusal to fly by military transport meant the couple availed themselves of a small plane supplied by the Nigerian big shot Allen Onyema. Without palace advisers to brief them, Harry and Meghan seemed unaware that Onyema was wanted in the U.S. on charges of money laundering. Sounds like just the kind of dodgy dude Prince Andrew would have invited to a “straightforward shooting weekend.”

This piquant revelation comes from the British investigative journalist Tom Bower’s latest biographical hit-job, Betrayal: Power, Deceit and the Fight for the Future of the Royal Family, a 400-page forced march through the Sussexes’ post-Megxit fuckups. It’s what you would expect from Bower, a dour scandal detective, whose more than 25 previous tomes are a bomb site of reputations, from Robert Maxwell’s to David Beckham’s. He’s always been good at turning up unforgettably damning details, like the one from Rebel Prince, his 2018 biography of Prince Charles, which dropped that amongst a convoy of personal effects the prince brought to his friends’ country houses was his bespoke lavatory seat, a tidbit that may fall in the category of “too good to check.” (I am told that, as recently as two years ago, in a private discussion about press malfeasance, the king was still exasperated by “that damned lavatory seat nonsense.”)

A new Bower news bomb is always something of a publishing event in the UK. The best nuggets in Betrayal are Meghan’s doomed ongoing efforts to project authenticity. In one Instagram promotion of the “love language” of her jam, the duchess posted an image of her daughter Lilibet’s hand “nearing a bubbling pot in her own kitchen that supposedly contained her homemade spread. ‘Beautiful,’ says her daughter, although As Ever jam was apparently manufactured 2,000 miles away in Illinois.” For Meghan’s much-covered 2021 visit to a Harlem school to read the students her platitudinous picture book The Bench, her press aide arranged to have the classroom walls painted and the lighting improved to make it look “more appealing.” Meghan is portrayed as a deluded diva with an infallible belief in her own star-powered, misunderstood specialness.

Bower’s Harry is a dazed, distraught figure who stumbles around in a state of explosive chagrin. He is outraged when Sophie Chandauka, the assertive chair of Sentebale, the Lesotho charity started by a teenage Harry, presents him with a “brand audit” in 2024, informing him that fifty organizations and donors believe he is now toxic to Sentebale’s fundraising efforts. “People don’t want to be associated with your Netflix shows, and especially not with Meghan,” she told him with a brutal candor that must have been a first for the grandson of the queen. Harry was stunned. Johnny Depp, he replied wonderingly, still attracts a lot of money, despite the courtroom battles with his ex Amber Heard. Harry could not accept that his own distraction, and the blowback of his scorched-earth memoir Spare played a role in the implosion of Sentebale, despite his personal injection of $1.5 million. Ms. Chandauka is usually depicted in the tabs as a shrill saboteur who weaponized her race and gender to drive Harry out. Here, she comes across as a pragmatic businesswoman, vexed by the charity’s financial hemorrhaging and determined to reposition Sentebale for potential donors “who don’t want your victimhood. It can’t be Africans with a begging bowl.”

Juicy stuff, if true. The Sussexes have blasted the book as “deranged conspiracy.” Missing from Bower’s litany of failures is any empathy for the larger quandary of Harry and Meghan’s predicament, which haunts, in varying degrees, all the “minor” royals, expected to dutifully encircle the crown. The Windsor B-list is accustomed to a luxury and a deference that everyone resents, but without the wherewithal or expertise to pursue successful lives beyond the palace. If they try to do so, they are accused of exploiting their royal status. But what else do they have to sell? As one veteran courtier put it to me when I was writing The Palace Papers, Harry “is a deeply caring person who wants to make a positive difference. What he doesn’t understand is that the reason he’s getting to do that is because he’s a royal prince.” If Meghan fantasizes that she’s a global lifestyle guru with the following of a millennial Martha Stewart, it’s at least in part because of the sheer size of the Netflix and Spotify checks that, once upon a time, confirmed it.

I am told that the heir to the throne, Prince William, is preoccupied with the built-in risk of primogeniture’s cruelty. He is determined that his second- and third-born children, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, are well-prepared and well-financed for independent lives and will not fall into the same cycle of thwarted freedom. But what about his traitorous brother? The rupture with Harry is bigger than a sibling feud. Before the Sussexes crash and burn, the House of Windsor needs to put aside schadenfreude and grip the problem. Give Harry and Meghan a limited international role. Cough up a turnkey pied-à-terre for them in Buckingham Palace, where none of the rest of the family wants to live anyway. Pay their damn UK security bill. (It won’t be a good look if Harry, a veteran of two tours of Afghanistan, is taken out by a nutjob). In return, the Sussexes must put a sock in it.

As for the press’s obsession with brotherly reconciliation and forgiveness, forget it. For 70 years, Queen Elizabeth II spent her reign smiling tightly at people she couldn’t stand.