Megxit

On 8 January 2020, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, announced on Instagram their decision to "step back as 'senior' members" of the British royal family,[1] splitting their time between the United Kingdom and North America, and to become financially independent.[2] The event was dubbed Megxit (a portmanteau of the name "Meghan" and the word "exit", and a play on the word "Brexit")[3] and the term became adopted globally on social and news media,[4][5] spawning various internet memes[6] and "Megxit" merchandising.[7] The New York Times recorded: "'Megxit' Is the New Brexit in a Britain Split by Age and Politics".[8][9]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex in 2018

Megxit led to a meeting of the royal family on 13 January, dubbed the "Sandringham Summit" and described as "unprecedented",[10][11][12] and a rare first-person statement by the Queen on her family.[13][14][15] The Queen was praised for her handling of the crisis.[15][16][10] On 18 January, an agreement was announced whereby the couple would "no longer be working members of Britain's royal family", and would not use their "Royal Highness" styles.[17] The outcome was described as a "hard Megxit".[18][19][20]

Megxit came to signify the break by the couple from the British royal family and formal royal protocol,[21] and their plans for independence under their new brand, Sussex Royal.[22] The term also reflects a widely reported assumption that Meghan was the driver of their announcement[23][24][25] and is considered by some to be pejorative.[26][27][28][29] "Megxit" was previously used by internet trolls against the Duchess.[30] Prince Harry would later say, "The decision that I have made for my wife and I to step back is not one I made lightly … there really was no other option".[31][32]

Background

Announcement

On Wednesday, 8 January 2020, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, made an announcement on their Instagram account of their intention to "step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family". The post contained a link to a new website sussexroyal.com, that provided further statements regarding the decision.[33][34] It was widely reported that few – if any – of the Royal Family had approved or had prior knowledge of the impending announcement, and the Palace issued an immediate statement saying: "Discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage".[33][34]

While there appeared to have been months of conversations about the couple's future within the British monarchy,[35] The Washington Post reported that the couple's surprise announcement was made as a result of a leak to The Sun newspaper of the likely outcome of these discussions.[36]

Motivations

Immediately after the announcement, ITV News at Ten's Tom Bradby, who had interviewed the couple a number of times during their October 2019 tour in Africa,[37] was quoted in several sources as saying that the Sussexes were told during their six-week Christmas break at Vancouver Island in Canada that they would not be part of a "slimmed down monarchy"[38][39] and that they were in effect being "driven out".[40] According to The Washington Post, the royal biographer Robert Lacey stated that Prince Charles had advocated a smaller working monarchy.[41]

In addition to Bradby's statements, other reasons raised included ongoing hostile treatment of the couple by some in the British tabloid press,[42][21] and issues of perceived racism towards Meghan.[28][29][43]

On 19 January 2020, after the final agreement, Prince Harry said in a speech,

The decision that I have made for my wife and I to step back is not one I made lightly. It was so many months of talks after so many years of challenges ... there really was no other option. ... I’ve accepted this, knowing that it doesn’t change who I am or how committed I am. But I hope that helps you understand what it had to come to, that I would step my family back from all I have ever known to take a step forward into what I hope can be a more peaceful life.”[31][32][44]

According to the BBC News royal correspondent Jonny Dymond, the speech sought to dispel what Dymond called the "Meghan myth",[lower-alpha 1] being "the idea that the Duchess of Sussex is at the root of the couple's desire to lead a different life".[32] The Guardian reported that in the speech, Prince Harry appeared to "lay the blame at the feet of the press", calling the media "a powerful force".[31]

Naming

In media

The British tabloid newspaper The Sun is credited with the first headline use of the term "Megxit" on 9 January 2020, to describe the couple's surprise announcement of their decision.[21][46] The term is a portmanteau of "Meghan" and "exit", following the pattern of Brexit.[47] Days later, some of the British media further elaborated on the relevance of "Megxit", and why they believed that Meghan was the driver of the announcement.[24][23][25][48] BBC News commented that the alternative term "Sussexit" was trending on social media; however, it did not reach the level of use as "Megxit" in the mainstream media.[49][4]

On 9 January, The Hindu noted that while the Commons had that day passed Boris Johnson's historic Brexit bill, that "Instead, it became a footnote to Prince Harry and his wife Meghan's decision to quit royal front-line duties — christened "Megxit" and shaping up to be equally complicated and divisive".[50]

Alternative terms appeared in the media but did not catch on to the degree of "Megxit".[4][42] The announcement was not an "abdication" as Harry was not a sovereign and was not resigning his titles (unlike in the case of Edward VIII's abdication, or even of Diana, Princess of Wales).[51] The couple's follow-up statements on their new website sussexroyal.com, implied that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were not in fact "resigning" per se, and they wanted to remain patrons of their "royal" charities and wanted to take part in royal activities, while their Sovereign Grant represented only 5 per cent of their income. (Prince Charles's privately owned Duchy of Cornwall provides 95 per cent.)[52] The term "step[ping] back" was also used,[53][22] including by the couple themselves.[1]

By 15 January, the term had become so widespread that The Times reported: "Megxit turns into a moneyspinner", for merchandisers who had made clothing and souvenirs using the term.[7] The New York Times wrote that the parallels between "Megxit" and "Brexit" were greater than just "clever wordplay", and that the two terms involved the same divisions in British public opinion from "young liberals" (who supported the couple, and who supported staying in the EU), and "older conservatives" (who supported the Queen, and who supported leaving the EU).[8]

On 19 January, in reviewing the final agreement, The Guardian argued that "stepping back" was no longer appropriate, however, the couple had also still not "resigned" nor "abdicated" from the royal family.[54] When reviewing the media reaction to the final agreement, BBC News said "there are no winners as a result of what many of the front pages are calling "Megxit" - the exit of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as front-line royals".[19] BBC News, and other British news media, called the final agreement a "hard Megxit", in a further word-play on political term, hard Brexit.[19][18][20]

On 28 January, the term had become sufficiently pervasive, that the Financial Times in their FT Advisor supplement ran a piece for taxation professionals titled, "What if your client wants to do a 'Megxit'?",[55] while Vanity Fair reported on actor Brad Pitt's "Megxit joke", at the 73rd British Academy Film Awards.[56]

In trolling

"Megxit" was earlier used for internet abuse against the Duchess of Sussex.[57][58][59] Since its use in media on 9 January, some sources have taken issue with the apparent pejorative nature of the term, and regarded it as further evidence of the animosity the Duchess had faced.[60][26][27] On 17 January, Vanity Fair reported: "Though "Megxit" is now being widely used as a clever catch-all for the Sussexes' next step, it was, in fact, hatched by online trolls who have long used #Megxit as a rallying cry for a campaign of hate against the duchess".[30]

Royal restructure

Sandringham Summit

On 11 January, reports stated that Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Harry's grandmother, was not consulted on the decision,[36] while his father, Prince Charles, was reportedly "furious".[46] ITV later reported that the Queen had arranged for "urgent talks" with senior royals at Sandringham on Monday 13 January,[61] which has been dubbed the "Sandringham Summit".[11][12] The Times speculated as to whether the meeting would result in a "Hard Megxit" or a "Soft Megxit", and that such a meeting of the royal family was "unprecedented".[10]

After the meeting, the Queen issued a rare first-person statement on family matters,[13] saying they had "very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family", and that "My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family".[62][14] The statement concluded there was agreement to "a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK", and that "I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days".[62][13][14] The Queen was praised for her swift handling of the crisis.[15][16]

Final agreement

On 18 January, an agreement was announced whereby the couple would "no longer be working members of Britain’s royal family", would not use their "royal highness" styles, would no longer receive taxpayer funds, and would base themselves in North America.[63] The Queen released a second first-person statement saying "I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life", and concluded: "It is my whole family's hope that today's agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life."[17][18]

While the statement gives a "Spring 2020" deadline for completion of the agreement, specific known details were:[17][54]

Main details
  • The couple will no longer represent the Queen. This was in contrast to the couple's earlier statement on their sussexroyal.com website that they would carry out future duties for the Queen.[54][64]
  • They will retain the Royal Highness style but will not use it, and will be called Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.[54][64]
  • They will be financially independent of the British taxpayer/exchequer (and will repay the £2.4 million renovation costs of Frogmore Cottage);[54]
  • Prince Harry would formally resign all British military appointments (including Captain General Royal Marines), and would no longer officially represent the royal family at military ceremonies.[17][65][66]
Other details
  • The couple will spend most of their time in North America.[17][66]
  • Frogmore Cottage would continue to function as their British home, but they would pay a "commercial rent" for it.[64]
  • The couple would retain their private patronages and associations (e.g. Invictus Games), but not royal ones (e.g. Commonwealth Youth Ambassador).[62][66]
  • Prince Charles would continue to provide financial support.[17]
Items not included
  • The couple's security arrangements were unclear, with the Queen's statement commenting only that "There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly-funded security."[63]
  • It was not clear whether the "Sussex Royal" brand could be used.[17][66]

Further developments

On 19 January 2020, it was reported that Prince Charles would provide the couple with "private financial support" (but not funds from the Duchy of Cornwall), for a full year in order to give the couple time to establish themselves, and to address fears of the increased costs of their proposed new lifestyle.[67]

At a 21 January 2020 press conference in Winnipeg, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau again refused to say who would be picking up the security cost tab upon Harry's reported return to Canada that same day.[68] Separately, The Canadian Press confirmed that Harry, Meghan, and son Archie were staying at a mansion north of Victoria, British Columbia.[68]

On 14 February 2020, it was reported that the couple had decided to close their office at Buckingham Palace, leading to the suspension of at least 15 employees.[69] On 19 February 2020, the announcement was made that the couple would continue undertaking royal duties until 31 March, after which they would step back and no longer undertake engagements on behalf of the Queen. However, the announcement further stated that the couple would continue engagements on behalf of organisations they were involved with, including the 2020 London Marathon in April and the Invictus Games in May (although the latter two events were postponed for October 2020 and 2021 respectively due to the COVID-19 pandemic). They would cease using their HRH titles, while the Duke would retain his military ranks, but see the honorary military positions he holds suspended. The situation would then be reviewed after twelve months. Additionally, the couple's attempt to make use of the word "Royal" as part of their planned "Sussex Royal" brand venture was put under review, with an announcement to be made at the planned organisation's official launch.[70]

On 21 February 2020, it was confirmed by the couple that they would not use the "Sussex Royal" brand name "in any territory" following their withdrawal from public life in spring 2020 and all the applications filed for trademarking the name were removed. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the couple added that they would continue to work with their existing patronages in addition to establishing a non-profit organisation.[71]

On 27 February 2020, Bill Blair, the Canadian Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness announced that they would cease providing security for the couple on 31 March, "in keeping with their change in status."[72] In the same announcement, it was confirmed that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provided security for the couple on an as needed basis, since their arrival to Canada in November 2019.[72]

In late March 2020, it was reported that the couple had relocated to the US. In response to the US President Donald Trump's comments that they will not pay for the couple's security, a representative of the couple said they had "no plans to ask the U.S. government for security resources".[73] Since moving to the United States, the American-based private security firm, Gavin de Becker and Associates, was contracted to provide security arrangements for the couple.[74]

On 30 March 2020, the couple announced that they would no longer use either their "SussexRoyal" Instagram account or website. Furthermore, it was reported that after closing their office at Buckingham Palace a new team would manage the couple's public image and philanthropic interests in the US, with Sunshine Sachs hired to manage their image and Catherine St. Laurent, a former Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation employee, to serve as their chief of staff and run their non-profit organisation.[75]

On 6 April 2020, it was reported that the couple had started the paperwork in the US for their new non-profit organisation, which will be called Archewell (named for their son Archie and from the Greek word archē).[76]

On 20 April 2020, the Duke and Duchess announced that they would no longer cooperate with the British tabloids, including Daily Mail, The Sun, Daily Mirror and Daily Express, as well as the Sunday and online editions of those publications.[77][78]

Reactions

In Britain

The initial British reactions to the 8 January announcement was of surprise, and concern whether the decision was properly thought through;[79][80] the story dominated the British news cycle.[46] The Washington Post noted several British polls that showed general support for the couple's desire to move, but with concern over the future exposure of the British exchequer to the couple (and issues of the renovation costs of Frogmore Cottage), and with unhappiness that the Queen's approval had not been sought for their announcement.[41][36]

British prime minister Boris Johnson distanced himself from the news, stating: "The royal family is one of the great, great assets of this country. I’m sure they are going to sort it out and I don’t think it’s necessarily helped by commentary from me."[81] NBC News reported on analysis implying that the impact to the British economy from the loss of the couple could be material.[82][83] Madame Tussauds immediately moved its waxwork figures of Harry and Meghan away from the display including the other members of the British royal family to a separate area.[84][85]

On 19 January, The Daily Telegraph described the final agreement between the couple and the royal family as "the hardest possible Megxit",[18] a view shared by many other British news sources;[19][20][86] and that "Royal history was made".[86] The Guardian reported that the "outcome is, perhaps, not the half-in, half-out role the couple appear to have anticipated".[54] On 20 January 2020, royal biographer Penny Junor also told The New York Times that "The family is trying to prevent a half-in, half-out arrangement, which doesn’t work".[87] On 22 January, The Guardian published a cartoon by Polish illustrator Andrzej Krauze, titled "Brexit and Megxit", saying "The rest of the EU is mesmerised as the UK prepares for Brexit – and Harry and Meghan begin their transition to exiting the royal family".[88]

In Canada

The initial news was for the most part positively received in Canada, where the Duchess of Sussex had based herself with her son, Archie.[89] The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, publicly welcomed the couple,[90] and indicated that Canada would fund security protection for the couple while they were resident there.[91] The Wall Street Journal reported: "‘Megxit’ Causes Global Uproar. Canada Shrugs".[5]

Chris Waddell, a journalist, and professor at the Carleton University School of Journalism and Communication in Ottawa, stated that the couple would receive less scrutiny in local media in Canada than the UK and that it would be more costly for the British tabloids to follow them.[92] Philippe Lagassé, an associate professor at Carleton University, who had previously suggested that it would be easy to make Prince Harry resident monarch of Canada,[93] stated that "it’s a big source of national pride that the royal couple would want to be here. It makes Canadians feel better about themselves."[94] An opinion poll by Postmedia Network found that 61 per cent of Canadians want Prince Harry to become Governor General of Canada.[95] Chris Selley of the National Post was cynical of the national response and the poll, writing: "The prospect of the Sussexes decamping to Canada seems to have activated a sort of dormant monarchism in many of us, or at least an appreciation for the “modern-day fairy tale” – and that in turn has utterly incensed those who think monarchies are a grotesque anachronism and can't understand why everyone else doesn't agree with them".[94] The Globe and Mail published an editorial that rejected the idea of the couple moving to Canada, stating that it broke an "unspoken constitutional taboo" about Canada maintaining distance with the British monarchy and being expected to rule from afar, stating: "They reign from a distance. Close to our hearts, far from our hearths." The editorial also called for the Canadian government to reject the moving plans.[96][97][98][99] However, the chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada commented that it "doesn’t change the constitutional status of the Queen or the vice-regals" in the country".[100]

In a poll released on 15 January by the Angus Reid Institute, 70 per cent of Canadians surveyed followed the developments of Megxit.[101] In the same poll, half of Canadians surveyed stated they do not care if the couple spent significant time in Canada, while 39 per cent of respondents were in favour of it, and 11 per cent found it upsetting.[101] Support for the couple spending significant time in Canada was strongest in Atlantic Canada, and Ontario, and was weakest in Quebec.[101] However, 73 per cent of those surveyed by Angus Reid say that the security costs should be covered by the couple themselves.[101][102] An online petition from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation garnered more than 90,000 signatures by 23 January 2020, demanding that the couple pay out of their own pocket for their security.[103] The petition has been the second-fastest-growing in the group's history.[102] According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, it cost more than C$56,384 in security fees during their stay between November 2019 and January 2020.[104]

Elsewhere
  • On 20 January, PBS NewsHour had a piece entitled, "Why Harry and Meghan’s 'Megxit' is a crossroads for the UK on race", saying that: "Megxit shows where the UK falls short on reckoning with race", and questioning the "myth of “post-racial” societies".[105]
  • On 21 January, the South China Morning Post ran an opinion by Melissa Stevens: "Why Megxit is a win for women and girls: there’s a lot more to real life than being a princess", and asking the question: "But what woman, especially a self-proclaimed feminist, would really be satisfied with living a life where she can’t speak out or act without royal clearance?".[106]
  • On 22 January, Armstrong Williams wrote an opinion in The Hill titled: "Megxit, Trump and the generational divide", that concluded, "If one paid attention to only Obama’s or Markle’s race, one might see the social evolution one is seeking. But if one looks at the social and economic divides they also inhabit, one could also see why the reaction against them, among the working class, has been so stark".[107]
  • On 23 January, journalist Michael Barbaro hosted a podcast for the New York Times, "Harry and Meghan. (And Why Their Saga Matters.)" with the tagline: "They were expected to modernize a former empire in a moment of political transition. Instead, Harry and Meghan walked away", and how themes such as race, diversity, and Brexit in modern Britain, might have shaped the couple's decision.[9]
  • On 27 January, political science university professor Eileen Hunt Botting wrote an opinion in the Washington Post titled "'Megxit' wouldn't have surprised 18th-century political thinkers", that noted, "While Brexit stages the exit of Britain from the European Union after a contentious popular referendum, Megxit dramatizes a different and in some ways deeper form of democratization".[108]

Sussex Royal

In December 2018 Brighton and Hove City Council held a debate in response to a petition on behalf of residents which called on the council to reject the usage of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex title, which is "disrespectful to the county of East Sussex".[109]

On 8 January, the couple provided further back-up statements to their Instagram post,[110] via a link on their Instagram post to a new website, sussexroyal.com, a brand platform that was initially expected to form an important part of their plans for financial independence, and which posted follow up statements on their announcement.[111][22] The website was designed by the same Canadian team who built "The Tig" for Meghan in 2017, and was completed over the Christmas holidays when the couple were in Canada.[110][112]

By 10 January, newspapers were reporting that the couple filed for a trademark for "Sussex Royal" on a range of items including clothing and printed items,[113][114] though it also emerged that an Italian applicant had registered an EU application to trademark products using a "Sussex Royal" brand.[114] The word "Royal" and images of royal crowns have special protection under UK intellectual property law.[114][115]

On 11 January, The Daily Telegraph reported that couple would launch their "Sussex Royal Foundation" in April modelled along the lines of Obama Foundation, Clinton Foundation, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.[116] Follow-up reports showed the couple had filed World Intellectual Property Organization trademarks for: "Sussex Royal the Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex".[117] In 2019, the couple stepped back from The Royal Foundation, which they had led jointly with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Later reports indicated that the couple would not establish a foundation of their own.[118]

The Times reported Meghan had signed a voiceover deal with Disney, saying that "The arrangement offers a hint of the couple’s future life, using their celebrity status to benefit their chosen causes".[119] Business Insider, speaking to various brand experts, reported: "Megxit, how Harry and Meghan could build a billion-dollar brand".[120]

It was not clear from the final agreement on 18 January, how the "Sussex Royal" brand would be affected, or whether it could be used by the couple in the manner anticipated.[17] The Guardian reported Palace sources saying, "The prospect of the Sussexes cutting commercial deals, while still at times representing the monarch, was too great a risk to the reputation of the House of Windsor and the monarchy".[54] The Guardian noted that a previous attempt by Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex to gain financial independence from the British royal family had failed.[31]

On 21 February 2020, it was confirmed that "Sussex Royal" would not be used as a brand name for the couple. Harry and Meghan are also expected to establish a non-profit organisation later in 2020.[71] In July 2020, the couple formally closed the "Sussex Royal" charity by filling out the required paperwork.[121]

gollark: Here's the binary version. It's an experimental project where I tried to get around the irritating restrictions in segfault handlers by forking. This unfortunately failed. I may have to go with plan æ of copying over all memory ever.
gollark: Fascinating.
gollark: Yes, it's very hacker.
gollark: Your dealtinators have been rendered nonfunctional by the following C program.
gollark: If only I had thought to make a backup entry.

See also

Notes
  1. Dymond had used the term "Meghan Myth" a few days previously, saying: "The Meghan Myth is nonsense, with a generous sprinkling of spite, misogyny and some racism. The prince always wanted out. And together, with her brains and understanding and love, they think they have a way".[45]

References
  1. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex; Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (8 January 2020). "STATEMENT: January 2020". sussexroyal.com. Archived from the original on 9 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020. We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family, and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen
  2. "'What are Harry and Meghan thinking?': How the world's newspapers reported Sussexes stepping back from royal family". The Independent. 9 January 2020. Archived from the original on 9 January 2020. Retrieved 9 January 2020.
  3. Michael Deacon (11 January 2020). "Why Brexiteers should get behind Megxit". Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  4. Eleanor Ainge Roy (January 2020). "'Megxit' dominates as world pores over Meghan and Harry splinter group". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 9 January 2020. Retrieved 9 January 2020.
  5. Vipal Monga (15 January 2020). "'Megxit' Causes Global Uproar. Canada Shrugs". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 16 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  6. "The best Megxit memes and jokes reacting to Meghan and Harry's news". The Evening Standard. 10 January 2020. Archived from the original on 10 January 2020. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  7. Valentine Low (15 January 2020). "Megxit turns into a moneyspinner". The Times. Archived from the original on 15 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  8. Mark Landler (15 January 2020). "'Megxit' Is the New Brexit in a Britain Split by Age and Politics". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 15 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020. The debate over Harry and Meghan’s push for greater independence from royal life is uncannily like the Brexit debate, with young liberals favoring the couple and older conservatives backing the queen.
  9. Michael Barbaro; Mark Landler (23 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan. (And Why Their Saga Matters.)". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 23 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
  10. Valentine Low; Rhys Blakely (13 January 2020). "Hard or soft Megxit? What's on the table". The Times. Archived from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
  11. "Harry and Meghan: What's on the agenda for the 'Sandringham summit'?". BBC News. 13 January 2020. Archived from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
  12. Victoria Ward; Jamie Johnson (13 January 2020). "Sandringham Summit: Queen expresses regret as she confirms Prince Harry and Meghan departure". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
  13. Caroline Hallemann (13 January 2020). "Queen Elizabeth Issues a Rare Personal Statement About Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Decision". Town & Country. Archived from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  14. Agence France-Presse (14 January 2020). "'Megxit' summit: Queen Elizabeth gives blessing for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to go it alone". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 15 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  15. William Booth (15 January 2020). "How Megxit put Queen Elizabeth II in the role of crisis manager once again". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 7 June 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  16. William McGurn (13 January 2020). "Long Live the Queen". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 7 June 2020. Retrieved 16 January 2020. The queen’s statement suggests that she’s prudently rejected a hard Megxit (the severing of all royal ties) for a soft Megxit (some lesser royal role and a transition period in which the couple would split their time between the U.K. and Canada).
  17. Michael Holden; Andy Bruce (19 January 2020). "UK's Harry and Meghan to drop titles and retire as working royals". Reuters. Archived from the original on 18 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  18. Camilla Tominey (18 January 2020). "Queen delivers hardest possible 'Megxit' as cost of Harry and Meghan's decision becomes clear". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 18 January 2020.
  19. "Newspaper headlines: 'Freedom at a price' as Queen seals 'hard Megxit'". BBC News. 19 January 2020. Archived from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 10 January 2020. [..] as a result of what many of the front pages are calling "Megxit" – the exit of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as front-line royals.
  20. Frances Perraudin (19 January 2020). "'Hard Megxit': UK papers revel in Harry and Meghan's royal dismissal". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  21. Jon Allsop (10 January 2020). "Megxit, pursued by the press". Columbia Journalism Review. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020. The Sun led its coverage with the front-page headline “MEGXIT,” which has become ubiquitous shorthand for Harry and Meghan’s break.
  22. Caity Weaver; Elizabeth Paton (9 January 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Stepping Back, Explained". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  23. Valentine Low (13 January 2020). "Prince Harry in turmoil over cutting his royal links". The Times. Retrieved 14 January 2020. The Duchess of Sussex is determined to step away from the royal family but Prince Harry would be “heartbroken” if he had to sever links altogether, a source close to the couple has said.
  24. Gareth Davies (14 January 2020). "Meghan declined to take part in Sandringham summit because she and Harry deemed it 'unnecessary', source reveals". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 17 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020. The duchess is reportedly the driving force behind the Sussexes wish to step back as frontline royals, become financially independent and live part of the year in Canada.
  25. Maria Puente (10 January 2020). "'Megxit' divides U.K.: Is Meghan Markle to blame for royal shocker?". USA Today. Archived from the original on 16 June 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  26. Peggy Drexler (12 January 2020). "Why does Meghan get all the blame?". CNN News. Archived from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
  27. Gary Nunn (14 January 2020). "'Megxit' may seem like a simple portmanteau, but it has far more sinister undertones". ABC News. Archived from the original on 15 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  28. "How racism in Britain contributed to 'Megxit'". MSNBC. 11 January 2020. Archived from the original on 15 January 2020.
  29. Ellen McGirt (10 January 2020). "What 'Megxit' Says About Britain's Communities of Color". Fortune. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  30. Michelle Ruiz (17 January 2020). ""Megxit" Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on 4 April 2020. Retrieved 17 January 2020.
  31. Caroline Davies (19 January 2020). "Prince Harry: we had 'no other option' than to stand down as royals". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
  32. Dymond, Jonny (20 January 2020). "No other option but to step back, says Harry". BBC News. Archived from the original on 20 January 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020.
  33. William Booth; Kate Adam (9 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan aim to 'step back' as senior royals and split time between Britain and North America". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 9 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
  34. Landler, Mark (9 January 2020). Going Rogue: Prince Harry and Meghan Caught the Palace Off Guard. The New York Times. Archived from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
  35. Dymond, Jonny (19 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan drop royal duties and HRH titles". BBC News. Archived from the original on 18 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  36. Karla Adam (11 January 2020). "Britons muse on 'Megxit': 'Diana would be so proud'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  37. Ed Power (21 October 2019). "Secrets of the 'royal whisperer': why Harry and Meghan opened up to Tom Bradby". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 10 December 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2020.
  38. Associated Press (11 January 2020). "Queen Elizabeth moves to control 'Megxit' crisis as Meghan Markle heads to Canada". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 10 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  39. Maria Puente (11 January 2020). "Harry & Meghan's Megxit: Theories abound about what led to their New Year 'surprise'". USA Today. Archived from the original on 16 June 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  40. Vincent Wood (11 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan believe they are being 'driven out' by Buckingham Palace, says friend". The Independent. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex feel they are being “driven out” of the royal family after they were told they would not have major roles in a “slimmed-down monarchy,” a friend has claimed.
  41. Karla Adam (10 January 2020). "Meghan flies back to Canada; Prince Harry in 'crisis' talks with Prince Charles". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  42. Heather Schwedel (10 January 2020). "The British Press Is Losing Its Mind Over Harry and Meghan". Slate. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  43. Sherelle Jacobs (10 January 2020). "It is absurd to blame the Harry and Meghan fiasco on 'British racism'". Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  44. Guy, Jack; Foster, Max (20 January 2020). "Read Prince Harry's full speech after royal split". CNN. Archived from the original on 21 January 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020.
  45. Jonny Dymond (13 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan: The royal couple are looking for the exit". Archived from the original on 16 January 2020. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
  46. Jenniffer Hassan (9 January 2020). "'Queen sad, Charles furious': Britain's media reacts to Megxit". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 10 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  47. Emily Chudy (8 January 2020). "#Megxit trends after Duke and Duchess of Sussex announcement". Irish Independent. Archived from the original on 12 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  48. Kayleigh Roberts (12 January 2020). "Meghan Markle Was Reportedly "On the Brink" Just Before the Sussexes' Decision to Step Back from Royal Life". Marie Claire. Archived from the original on 12 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  49. "Prince Harry and Meghan: How the internet reacted to #Sussexit". BBC News. 9 January 2020. Archived from the original on 10 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  50. AFP (9 January 2020). "British MPs finally approve Brexit deal". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 15 January 2020. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
  51. Erin Blakmore (9 January 2020). "Is Prince Harry abdicating? Not so fast". National Geographic. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  52. Kate Maltby (10 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan aren't actually quitting the family business". CNN News. Archived from the original on 12 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  53. Robin Wright (8 January 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle step back from royal duties". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 12 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  54. Caroline Davies (18 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan sought a half-in half-out deal, but are 'out'". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  55. Laura Kerns (28 January 2020). "What if your client wants to do a 'Megxit'?". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 28 January 2020. Retrieved 29 January 2020.
  56. Bridget Arsenault (3 February 2020). "Brad Pitt's "Megxit" Joke Got an Awkward Laugh From Prince William at the BAFTAs". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on 6 February 2020. Retrieved 4 February 2020.
  57. Mee, Emily (August 2019). "Trolling of Meghan: How duchess is abused over race and pregnancy". Sky News. Archived from the original on 6 February 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  58. Davis, Jessica (8 March 2019). "70 per cent of anti-Meghan tweets came from just 20 troll accounts". Harper's Bazzare. Archived from the original on 6 February 2020. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
  59. Sharkey, Lauren (9 January 2020). "#Megxit Just Went From Online Weapon To Actual Reality & It's Time To Take Notice". Bustle. Archived from the original on 6 February 2020. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
  60. Erin Lindsay (9 January 2020). "Megxit: the blaming of Meghan Markle for the Royal Retirement is misogyny at work". Image. Archived from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
  61. Chris Ship (11 January 2020). "Queen summons Charles, William and Harry to Sandringham to resolve crisis". itv.com. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  62. "Harry and Meghan: Queen's statement in full". BBC. 13 January 2020. Archived from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
  63. "Statement from Her Majesty The Queen". 18 January 2020. Archived from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  64. "Harry and Meghan drop royal duties and HRH titles". BBC News. 19 January 2020. Archived from the original on 18 January 2020. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  65. ITV News Desk (18 January 2020). "Harry ends military posts as part of 'Megxit'". ITV News. Archived from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  66. Kate Nicholl (18 January 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Will Abandon Their Royal Titles". Town & Country. Archived from the original on 7 April 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  67. Victoria Wood (19 January 2020). "Prince Charles to fund the Sussexes for a year". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  68. "Trudeau stays mum on Sussexes' security costs as Harry returns to B.C." infoNEWS.ca, a division of Infotel Multimedia, Ltd. The Canadian Press. 21 January 2020. Archived from the original on 21 January 2020. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
  69. Foster, Max (14 February 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan to close office at Buckingham Palace". CNN. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
  70. "Harry and Meghan's royal duties ending 31 March". BBC News. 19 February 2020. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
  71. Young, Julius (21 February 2020). "Prince Harry, Meghan Markle won't use 'Sussex Royal' after stepping back as senior members of royal family". Fox News. Archived from the original on 7 April 2020. Retrieved 21 February 2020.
  72. Dyer, Evan (27 February 2020). "Canada will not pay for Prince Harry and Meghan's security after March". CBC News. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 27 February 2020.
  73. Stieg, Cory (29 March 2020). "Trump says US won't cover Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's security costs". CNBC. Retrieved 29 March 2020.
  74. Hoyles, Ben. "Harry and Meghan 'looked after by £7,000-a-day bodyguards to the stars'". The Times. News UK. Retrieved 18 June 2020.
  75. Landler, Mark (30 March 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Scale Down Their Royal P.R. Machine". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 7 April 2020. Retrieved 30 March 2020.
  76. Merrett, Robyn (6 April 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Confirm New Name of Foundation, to Launch 'When the Time Is Right'". People. Archived from the original on 7 April 2020. Retrieved 6 April 2020.
  77. Gold, Hadas (20 April 2020). "Meghan and Harry tell four British tabloids they can expect 'zero engagement'". London: CNN Business. Retrieved 20 April 2020.
  78. McCarthy, Tyler (20 April 2020). "Meghan Markle, Prince Harry announce they'll no longer cooperate with certain British tabloids". Fox News. Retrieved 20 April 2020.
  79. Camilla Tominey (10 January 2020). "Queen calls Royal family crisis meeting as Meghan flies back to Canada". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 9 January 2020. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  80. Elston, Laura (8 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan's 'extraordinary' decision not thought through – royal writer". Belfast Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  81. Olivia Petter (14 January 2020). "Boris Johnson 'absolutely confident' that royal family will resolve 'Megxit'". The Independent. Archived from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
  82. May Pflum (9 January 2019). "'Megxit' could pack a punch to the British economy". NBC News. Archived from the original on 12 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  83. Elizabeth Paton (9 January 2020). "Losing Meghan, Prince Harry and (Potentially) Billions of Pounds". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 15 January 2020. Retrieved 16 January 2020.
  84. "Megxit latest: Meghan and Harry removed from Madame Tussauds line-up". Irish Times. 10 January 2020. Archived from the original on 10 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  85. "Madame Tussauds reacts to #Megxit, knocks off Harry & Meghan waxwork from royal family display". The Times of India. 10 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  86. Josh White (19 January 2020). "'Royal history was made': How the papers reacted to 'Megxit'". Archived from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  87. Mark Landler (20 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan's Hard Exit". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 20 January 2020. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
  88. Andrzej Krauze (22 January 2020). "Andrzej Krauze on Brexit and Megxit – cartoon". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 22 January 2020. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
  89. "How "Megxit" May Wind Up Settling Down In Canada". NPR. 16 January 2020. Archived from the original on 17 January 2020. Retrieved 18 January 2020.
  90. Dan Bilefsky (11 January 2020). "Could 'Megxit' Be a Royal Fairy Tale for Canada?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  91. Robert Jobson (14 January 2020). "Revealed: Canada says it will pick up Harry and Meghan's security bill while they are in the country". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
  92. Warburton, Moira (11 January 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan would find friendlier media in Canada but impossible to escape scrutiny". Reuters. Archived from the original on 30 April 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  93. Hopper, Tristin (11 June 2018). "There's nothing to stop Canada from immediately making Prince Harry our king". National Post.
  94. Chris Selley (14 January 2020). "Chris Selley: Megxit really is messing with giddy Canadians' heads". National Post. Archived from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
  95. "'Celebrities': Will Prince Harry take over the post of governor general? Canadians are hopeful, poll says". National Post. 9 January 2020. Archived from the original on 16 June 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  96. "Harry and Meghan, and why members of the Royal Family can't live in Canada". The Globe and Mail. The Woodbridge Company. 13 January 2020. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
  97. Scribner, Herb (17 January 2020). "Canada's largest newspaper says Prince Harry and Meghan Markle shouldn't move to Canada". Deseret. Archived from the original on 31 January 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
  98. Jarvis, Jacob. "Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail slams Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's living plans in furious editorial". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 31 January 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
  99. Cachero, Paulina (16 January 2020). "One of Canada's biggest newspapers said Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are not welcome". Insider. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
  100. Brown, Ian (17 January 2020). "Would Harry and Meghan's move to Canada degrade the ideals of the Crown?". The Globe and Mail. The Woodbridge Company. Archived from the original on 30 January 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
  101. "Royal Tab: Vast majority don't want to pay costs associated with the Sussexes' move to Canada". Angus Reid Institute. 15 January 2020. Archived from the original on 30 January 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
  102. Coletta, Amanda (23 January 2020). "Canadians don't mind if Harry and Meghan stay a while. But they don't want to pay for them". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 23 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
  103. Roberto, Melissa (23 January 2020). "Canadians demand Meghan Markle, Prince Harry pay for their own security in new petition". Fox News. Archived from the original on 23 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
  104. Post, The Jakarta. "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle chalked up nearly $42,000 in security fees in Canada". The Jakarta Post. Retrieved 20 June 2020.
  105. Courtney Vinopal (20 January 2020). "Why Harry and Meghan's 'Megxit' is a crossroads for the UK on race". PBS. Archived from the original on 22 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
  106. Melissa Stevens (21 January 2020). "Why Megxit is a win for women and girls: there's a lot more to real life than being a princess". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 22 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
  107. Armstrong Williams (22 January 2020). "Megxit, Trump and the generational divide". The Hill. Archived from the original on 23 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
  108. Eileen Hunt Botting (27 January 2020). "'Megxit' wouldn't surprise these 18th-century political thinkers". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 27 January 2020. Retrieved 27 January 2020.
  109. "Harry and Meghan's Sussex title was 'unfairly acquired' and should be ignored, Brighton and Hove council to consider". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
  110. Catherine J Igoe (9 January 2020). "Meghan and Harry's New Website Was Created by "The Tig" Designers". Marie Claire. Archived from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
  111. Jessica Davis (9 January 2020). "How will the Sussexes make their money now?". Harper's Bazaar. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  112. Caroline Hallemann (12 January 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Website Designer Shares What It Was Like to Work on SussexRoyal.com". Town & Country. Archived from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
  113. Rebecca Mead (10 January 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Royal Flush". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 10 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  114. Ben Quinn (11 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan could face fight to protect 'Sussex Royal' brand". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  115. Lord Chamberlain's Office. "Use of Royal Arms, Names and Images". Archived from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
  116. Steve Bird; Nick Allen (11 January 2020). "Sussex Royal foundation expected to launch in April as couple face stumbling block over Hollywood celebrity donations". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
  117. Ben Quinn (12 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan seek global trademark for 'Sussex Royal' brand". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  118. Amy MacKelden (22 February 2020). "Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Are Creating a Non-Profit Instead of the Sussex Royal Foundation". Harper's Bazaar. Retrieved 25 February 2020.
  119. Valentine Low (11 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan: Voiceover deal with Disney hints at future career path". The Times. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  120. Taylor Borden (14 January 2020). "Actually, it would be pretty easy for Meghan Markle and Prince Harry to build a billion-dollar brand". Business Insider. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  121. Perry, Simon (3 July 2020). "Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Take Another Formal Step Away from Their Ex-Royal Life". People. Retrieved 4 July 2020.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.