The lucrative reason Prince Harry and Meghan wrecked any chance of a compromise with the Royal Family during 'Megxit', royal author claims
Prince Harry and Meghan allegedly wrecked any chance of a compromise with the Royal Family during 'Megxit' because they wanted the 'freedom to make money and dip their toes into politics', a royal author has claimed.
When Harry and Meghan stepped down as working royals in 2020, hopes were high within the Firm that a compromise could be found.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex claimed their decision to 'step back as senior members' was to become more financially independent and to enjoy privacy from the prying eyes of the media.
At the time it seemed plausible that these wishes could be fulfilled alongside an agreement to represent the Crown at a select number of events every year.
However, according to royal author Valentine Low, any prospect of a soft 'Megxit' was scuppered by the Sussexes over finances.
Writing in his tell-all book Courtiers, Low claims that Meghan's desire to 'earn money for herself' led the couple to abandon their duties entirely.
Low revealed that during discussions about how to reach a happy middle ground - which could please the whole family - multiple scenarios were explored.
These ranged from Harry and Meghan 'having a month a year to do their own thing' to 'spending most of their time privately but doing a select number of royal activities'.
There was apparently a 'positive atmosphere' in the room, with each party believing a deal was close.
The one caveat for the Sussexes continuing royal duties - however small or minor - was that they must stick to the 'normal rules about royal behaviour'.
Crucially, that would mean Harry and Meghan could not 'act or take decisions in order to gain financially'.
Low writes: 'Some suspected that in the end she wanted to make money. And the only way she was going to do that was by leaving her royal life behind and going back to America.'
On top of this, the couple wanted the 'freedom to dip their toes into American politics', which would represent a major breach of royal protocol for a family with a long history of being staunchly apolitical.
'There was no way for the two sides to reach an agreement on that point.
'Crucially, it was the Queen who took the view that unless they were prepared to abide by the restrictions that applied to working members of the Royal Family, they could not be allowed to carry out official duties.'
Indeed, since 'Megxit' the couple have 'dipped their toes' into US politics.
During the 2020 US presidential race, the couple endorsed Joe Biden in all but name in a video address urging voters to 'reject hate speech', while Meghan labelled it the 'most important election of our lifetime'.
The duke said at the time: 'This election I am not able to vote in the US. But many of you may not know that I haven't been able to vote in the UK my entire life. As we approach this November, it's vital that we reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity.'
While Harry and Meghan did not name their favoured candidate, many viewers thought it 'obvious' they were backing Joe Biden over Donald Trump. As such, the Sussexes were accused of 'violating' the terms of their 'Megxit' deal.
In September 2020, Trump said that he was 'no fan' of the duchess after the couple released their video.
In the aftermath, Republicans and other critics called on the Royal Family to strip the couple of their titles, calling their interference 'inappropriate'.
In last year's election, the couple stayed publicly neutral and instead urged Americans to go out and vote.
The statement read: 'Voting is not just a right; it's a fundamental way to influence the fate of our communities.
'At The Archewell Foundation, we recognize that civic engagement, no matter one's political party, is at the heart of a more just and equitable world.
'By participating in initiatives like this, we aim to amplify the message that every voice matters.'
Free from the shackles of royal protocol, Meghan appears more ambitious than ever. The former Suits actress reportedly hopes to become a billionaire by launching a career in media and as a entrepreneur.
In March 2024, she soft-launched American Riviera Orchard before changing the company's name to As Ever.
Announcing the venture, Meghan said: 'This new chapter is an extension of what has always been my love language, beautifully weaving together everything I cherish - food, gardening, entertaining, thoughtful living, and finding joy in the everyday.'
The food products sold by the brand include an assortment of teas, edible flower sprinkles and a £20 jar of honey.
Speaking on an episode of her podcast, Confessions Of A Female Founder, Meghan revealed she has decided to 'just pause' restocking her As Ever brand after previously selling out of products in less than an hour.
Meghan has invested in a number of companies including the vegan coffee brand Clevr Blends and haircare line Highbrow Hippie.
She has also invested in asset manager Ethic, which focuses on sustainable investments.
Harry and Meghan signed a lucrative £18million deal with Spotify in 2020. However despite appearing to be a joint venture, the only show they produced was hosted by Meghan.
In the series, titled Archetypes, Meghan interviewed various celebrities from Serena Williams to Paris Hilton.
The deal was 'mutually ended' in June 2023 with sources claiming the music streaming giant did not see enough content to warrant the full payout.
Earlier this year, the duchess launched her Confessions Of A Female Founder podcast, which saw her chat with female business owners from an array of successful companies.
In a slight career change, Meghan also penned a children's book in 2021 titled The Bench.
It follows the relationship of a father and son through the eyes of the mother and received mixed reviews from critics.
In their television projects, Harry and Meghan have kept a much more united front, but even so, the couple appear to be working separately more often.
Although an official figure was never announced, Harry and Meghan's deal with Netflix was allegedly worth around £80million, and the couple produced multiple shows.
In 2022, the first Netflix series about the Sussexes was released aptly named Harry and Meghan.
While it holds the record for the biggest debut for a Netflix documentary it received mixed reviews.
The pair were also executive producers on the Polo sports documentary series which followed athletes at the US Open Polo Championship.
In 2023, Meghan did not join Harry as an executive producer on the Heart Of Invictus series, although the duke and duchess did appear together in the show.
Meghan's first major solo television project was her lifestyle programme called With Love, Meghan, which saw her team up with a number of famous guests to cook and create homeware products.
Harry was almost entirely absent from the series, aside from a very brief cameo in the last episode.
A source from the show has since reported that neither Harry nor their children will appear in the next season.
Although The Mail On Sunday revealed in May that Harry is planning to launch his own as-yet-undisclosed commercial venture in the next few months, he remains focused on his charity work.
Harry is still involved heavily with the Invictus Games and the foundation which supports the tournament as well as the HALO Trust - a charity working to remove landmines which Princess Diana supported.
The duke has also launched other projects in recent years, including an eco-travel campaign through his non-profit Travalyst, aimed at encouraging sustainable travel.
And in November 2023, he became the global ambassador for Scotty's Little Soldiers - a charity that cares for children whose parents died while serving in the Armed Forces.
Earlier this year, Harry had his most high profile fallout with a charity to date when he and Prince Seeiso of Lesotho resigned from their roles as patrons of Sentebale.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Reeves considers softening inheritance tax changes amid non-dom backlash
Rachel Reeves is considering caving in to City lobbying and softening changes to inheritance tax that affect wealthy individuals who would previously have been 'non-doms', reports suggest. In her autumn budget, the chancellor confirmed that she would scrap the non-dom tax status, which allowed wealthy individuals with connections abroad to avoid paying full UK tax on their overseas earnings. 'Those that make the UK their home should pay their taxes here,' she said at the time. Jeremy Hunt, her predecessor, had already sounded the death knell for non-dom status, but Reeves's changes were expected to raise an additional £12.7bn over five years. She then announced minor adjustments to the transitional arrangements to the new regime at the Davos summit in January, after a backlash from some wealthy individuals. However, Reeves is now reportedly considering modifying changes that came into force in April, which make the worldwide assets of all UK residents subject to inheritance tax (IHT) at 40% – even if these are placed in trusts, according a report in the Financial Times. Responding to the report, a Treasury spokesperson said: 'As the chancellor set out at spring statement, the government will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure the new regime is internationally competitive and continues to focus on attracting the best talent and investment to the UK.' There have been reports of an 'exodus' of wealthy individuals from the UK, though these have been questioned by some analysts – including in a recent study from the thinktank the Tax Justice Network. When it projected the revenue from closing non-dom loopholes at Reeves's autumn budget, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility allowed for an additional 12%-25% of non-doms to leave the UK this year. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion But Reeves is keen to mollify wealthy global investors, as the Treasury is determined to attract foreign investment into the UK, as part of its mission to kickstart economic growth. She already faces a challenging fiscal picture in the run-up to the autumn budget, as the OBR is expected to revisit its optimistic productivity forecasts, potentially downgrading growth projections as a result.
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour should give over-65s a stamp duty ‘freedom pass'
There's a growing problem in the housing market and it's hiding in plain sight. All over the country, large family homes are sitting half-empty. Children have long flown the nest, but their parents remain – more out of necessity than choice. It's not that older homeowners are unwilling to move on. Many would happily swap a high-maintenance house for a smart, well-located flat that suits their needs. But the reality of downsizing in this country is daunting. It's expensive, emotionally taxing, and, in many cases, downright impractical. Stamp duty is one of the biggest barriers. For someone in their 60s or 70s looking to downsize in London or the South East, it's not unusual for the tax bill alone to exceed £25,000. That's enough to stop even the most motivated mover in their tracks. So, here's a proposal for the Government: give homeowners over the age of 65 a one-time exemption from stamp duty, provided they're selling their primary residence and buying a smaller home. Think of it as a Freedom Pass for housing – a way to ease the burden of moving later in life and unlock thousands of family homes in the process. This isn't about forcing people out of their homes. It's about giving empty nesters the financial breathing room to make a decision that suits them – and benefits the wider market. When a couple in Primrose Hill or Clapham move out of a four-bedroom house, it creates space for a growing family to move up the ladder, and a first-time buyer to finally get on it. A single downsizer move can create a ripple effect of transactions. Imagine what this could free up for younger buyers. Almost four million older households, defined as aged 65 or more, under-occupy their homes, according to the English Housing Survey. A quarter have two spare bedrooms, while 40pc have three spare bedrooms and 21pc have four or more. Would cutting stamp duty encourage more people to move and free up some of this space? The closest way we can measure the potential impact of this policy change is to look at when the property tax was suspended during the pandemic. From July 2020 to July 2021, transactions increased by 19pc compared to the previous year. This is according to research from property firm CBRE, which concluded that the stamp duty holiday was key in stimulating this demand. This effect was more greatly pronounced in pricier properties. Average monthly sales of properties priced between £500,000 and £925,000 were 47pc higher than 2017-19, while transactions in the £925,000 to £1.5m price band were 40pc above normal levels. A stamp duty exemption would go a long way to helping free up space for upsizing families and first-time buyers. But we also need to talk about how hard it is for older homeowners to access finance. Some downsizers need to borrow a modest amount to top up their purchase, but if they're no longer in full-time employment, mortgage lenders offer little flexibility. Even those with significant equity and solid financial histories are often shut out of the market. We need more ways for people to access low-risk borrowing later in life. That might mean longer-term mortgages, more flexible affordability criteria or government-backed guarantees. Without this, many empty nesters find themselves asset-rich but trapped – unable to move because the financial system has written them off. Then there's the problem of stock. Downsizing doesn't mean settling for second best. These are buyers who want to stay in the neighbourhoods they love, close to friends, services and familiar routines. Too many new developments aimed at this demographic miss the mark, offering uninspiring homes in peripheral locations. If you've lived for 30 years in Dulwich, why would you move to a boxy flat on the edge of nowhere? Developers need to do better. That means building thoughtful, design-led homes with storage, light, and enough space for the grandchildren to stay. It means walkable neighbourhoods with cafés, shops and transport on the doorstep. And it means understanding that 'downsizing' isn't about giving up – it's about choosing a home that fits the next chapter. If we're serious about unblocking the housing market, we need to start with those who already have homes and might be open to moving, if only the system didn't make it so hard. A one-time stamp duty exemption at 65. Smarter lending for older borrowers. Better, more appealing homes in the right locations. These aren't radical ideas – they're common sense. And if we get them right, we can get the whole market moving again. Jonathan Brandling-Harris is co-founder of House Collective, an estate agency.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Work to get US steel tariffs removed to go on in coming ‘days, weeks and months'
US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer signed off a US-UK deal that will slash trade barriers on goods from both countries at the G7 on Monday. But US tariffs for the steel industry will stand at 25% for now rather than falling to zero as originally agreed. This is less than the US global rate of 50% for steel and aluminium. The two leaders pledged to 'make progress towards 0% tariffs on core steel products as agreed', the Department for Business and Trade said. The Chinese ownership of the British Steel could be a sticking point in the deal on steel as the executive order signed by Mr Trump suggests the US wants assurances that the metal originates in the UK. 'The United Kingdom also committed to working to meet American requirements on the security of the supply chains of steel and aluminium products intended for export to the United States and on the nature of ownership of relevant production facilities,' the order states. After signing it, the US President was asked whether steel tariffs would be eliminated, to which he replied: 'We're gonna let you have that information in a little while.' In April, the UK Government used emergency powers to take control of British Steel and continue production at the site after Chinese owners Jingye proposed shutting the Scunthorpe site's two blast furnaces and other key steelmaking operations. But its future is still uncertain, with Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander saying the Government is eager for it to be 'part of a commercially-operated business with private investment'. 'We're talking to a number of third parties about that. At the moment, no options are off the table,' she told Sky News. She said there was still 'more work to do' to get steel tariffs eliminated, including on 'technical detail'. 'We're working through some technical detail around steel because we want to bring that 25% tariff that applies at the moment obviously down further,' she told BBC Breakfast. She said the UK is 'working on getting that implemented'. 'And we're determined to go further and we'll be working on those issues around steel in the coming days, weeks and months,' she added. Alasdair McDiarmid, assistant general secretary of the Community union, said it was 'absolutely vital' to secure a deal on steel as quickly as possible. 'Our steel producers and their US customers need an end to the current state of uncertainty to allow normal business to resume. 'Crucially, we must see a full exemption for all UK steel exports to the US – without that guarantee some of our leading steel businesses could be left behind, with a threat to jobs and livelihoods.' It comes as a £500 million five-year deal has been struck between Network Rail and British Steel, which Ms Alexander said was a 'vote of confidence'. British Steel is to supply 337,000 tonnes of rail track, with a further 80-90,000 tonnes to be provided by other European manufacturers. The Network Rail contract will start on July 1 and is set to provide the company with 80% of its rail needs. Jingye, which bought British Steel in 2020, launched a consultation in March which it said would affect between 2,000 and 2,700 jobs, despite months of negotiations and a £500 million co-investment offer from the Government. The Scunthorpe plant has been producing steel for Britain's railways since 1865. The Network Rail agreement is the first major public procurement since the Government's emergency legislation was passed. Network Rail's group director for railway business services Clive Berrington said: 'We are committed to buying British where it makes economic sense to do so and British Steel remain extremely competitive in the provision of rail and will remain our main supplier in the years ahead.' Craig Harvey, British Steel's commercial director for rail, added: 'The contract represents a huge vote of confidence in UK workers and British industry, underpinning the vital role we play in ensuring millions of passengers and freight operators enjoy safe, enjoyable and timely journeys on Britain's railways.' Charlotte Brumpton-Childs, national officer at the GMB union, said it was a 'crucial first step in securing the future of our steel industry' and urged ministers to make sure British Steel has a 'constant flow of orders' from other infrastructure projects.
