Meghan Markle has ‘very powerful voices’ says royal insider

When you subscribe we will use the information you provide to send you these newsletters.Sometimes they’ll include recommendations for other related newsletters or services we offer.Our Privacy Notice explains more about how we use your data, and your rights.You can unsubscribe at any time.

Prince William was reportedly incensed at the Duke and Duchess of Sussex for their decision to release a bombshell statement after Her Majesty refused to grant permission for the couple to use the term royal in future branding. They claimed “there is not any jurisdiction by the monarchy… over the use of the word ‘royal’ overseas”, but confirmed they would not use the term in any of their ventures away from the Royal Family. A source close to William said the fact “both the content and that it’s still online is staggering”, as the admission remains available on Harry and Meghan’s ‘Sussex Royal’ website 396 days after it was originally published.

The original row sparked major divisions inside the Royal Family, and came within weeks of Harry and Meghan’s request to step down from senior royal duties last year.

The couple said they wished to lead a “financially independent” life, and that they wanted to move abroad, while continuing to serve the monarchy in a part-time manner.

Just before the ‘Sandringham Summit’, which was the meeting of senior figures such as Prince Charles and William with Harry to thrash out their exit in February 2020, the Sussexes launched their website which outlined what they hoped their future would hold outside the Firm.

According to the Sunday Times, this was “what upset William most”, as the website itself detailed how the Sussexes wished to leave on their terms, and have a “part-time, commercial royal future”.

In the year since they quit the Firm, the couple have racked up millions of pounds in projects, as they secured content production deals with Netflix and Spotify.

But before their move, they were warned that if they wanted negotiations on Megxit – the term used to describe their break away – to go smoothly, they would have to “agree” to certain protocols.

An insider told The Times last year: “It was made abundantly clear to Harry, agree to this and then you can go.

“By his own admission it was not under the terms he wanted but he had no other option.”

JUST IN: Meghan Markle under fire for ‘belittling’ her wedding to Harry

The source also told the Sussexes there was “no halfway house”, and claimed they were “so desperate to get out they had no choice” but to accept the agreement.

Had they remained inside the Royal Family, Harry and Meghan would have been unable to exploit their fame for personal gain.

This was something Thomas Woodcock, the person responsible for ensuring the monarchy is not used for financial profit, said was unacceptable as he backed the Queen’s decision.

The Garter Principal of Arms added: “I don’t think it’s satisfactory. One cannot be two things at once.

DON’T MISS:
Meghan Markle keeps reminder of her ‘backyard wedding’ in bedroom [ANALYSIS]
Meghan Markle’s ‘sinister threats’ spark fear in Royal Family [INSIGHT]
Piers Morgan blasted for ‘disgusting’ Meghan comments by Kerry Katona [UPDATE]

“You either are [royal] or you’re not.”

William’s relationship with Harry has come under heavy scrutiny in recent years, and was underlined by the Duke of Sussex’s interview with Oprah Winfrey this month.

Harry told Oprah, during the chat which was broadcast on CBS in the US and ITV in the UK, he felt William was “trapped” inside the monarchy.

In another confession, Harry claimed while he was on tour to South Africa in 2019 that the two brothers were on “different paths”, highlighting the differences between the siblings.

After his interview, William reportedly spoke with Harry, but Gayle King, a talk show host and friend of the Sussexes, alleged the conversations were not productive.

This led a source close to William to confess that the future monarch was worried “that anything he says to his brother will be plastered over American TV”.

It is unclear when the supposed fallout between Harry and William began, but royal historian Robert Lacey argued it could have been from when they were very young.

He claimed during a Good Morning America interview last year that “this story goes back to when they were six or seven years old”, a time when William “starts becoming more serious”.

As William is “aware he will be King”, Mr Lacey argued this meant “Harry went into the opposite direction”.

He added: “There is a sense, I think, in which William could be criticised for setting Harry up to fail. It suited the elder brother so well to have the guy who always carried the blame.

“Both when they were teenagers – and now.”

Source: Read Full Article