Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s ‘Sussex Royal’ website has still not been deleted despite a promise not to use the self-anointed label in 2020 – and it has not been updated to mark the Queen’s death, MailOnline can reveal today. The Sussexes agreed not to use the ‘Sussex Royal’ title ‘in any territory’ post Spring 2020 after they stepped down as senior royals. But despite this pledge to re-brand, sussexroyal.com remains live almost three years after Megxit, as does their Sussex Royal Instagram account with 9million followers.
The couple spent tens of thousands of pounds on the website’s design and a section pledging to ‘serve the monarchy’ when ‘called upon’ has not been updated to reflect the death of Queen Elizabeth II – or Harry’s father becoming King Charles III. One royal watcher who spotted the error told MailOnline today: ‘I am amazed that their Sussex Royal website is still in the public domain. The Queen is deceased and the Sussexes agreed not to use Sussex Royal moving forwards.’ Another said: ‘At the very least it should reflect the Queen’s death and be updated with King Charles III.’ A third tweeted sarcastically: ‘According to Sussex Royal website, our late Queen is still very much alive.’
It is not clear who operates or owns the Sussex Royal website because it has been kept anonymous by GoDaddy in the U.S. A spokesman for the Sussexes did not respond to MailOnline’s requests for comment. In the section where Meghan and Harry vow to ‘serve the monarchy’ while seeking ‘financial independence’ abroad, it says: ‘Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign and was crowned Monarch in 1953. Her Majesty serves as a symbol of unity and national pride.’ And the couple pledged ‘to continue to fly the flag for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, as called upon.’ As well as not reflecting the Queen’s death in September last year, there is no mention of the accession to the throne of Harry’s father, King Charles III.
The Sussexes’ Instagram page, @sussexroyal, amassed 11.2million followers. Three years on it is also still online but has lost 2million followers. The Sussex Royal website’s launch was said to have ‘hurt’ the Queen and dismayed Palace officials when it appeared in 2020. The couple also sought to register Sussex Royal as a global trademark for a range of items and activities, including clothing, stationery, books and teaching materials. But after talks with the Queen the couple accepted that, as part of their new working arrangements, they will not be able to use the Sussex Royal name as they had hoped.
Omid Scobie’s biography of Harry and Meghan, Finding Freedom, said Her Majesty was ‘blindsided’ by the launch of the SussexRoyal website which accompanied their Megxit announcement in January 2020. The site unilaterally mapped out their future royal roles without her approval. It was on sussexroyal.com where the couple fleshed out details for a ‘half-in-half-out model’ which had not been rubber-stamped by the Queen. It derailed the carefully choreographed departure announcement planned by Buckingham Palace, which was caught off guard by the website.
A senior member of the household was quoted as saying: ‘The element of surprise, the blindsiding of the Queen, for the other principals who are all very mindful of this, rightfully, it was deeply unsettling. The family is very private and bringing it into the public domain, when they were told not to, hurt the Queen. It was laying out what the Sussexes wanted in a statement without consulting with Her Majesty first – and she’s the head of the institution.’ Her Majesty’s private secretary Edward Young was reportedly incandescent that the Palace had been kept in the dark about Harry and Meghan’s intentions.
Finding Freedom, which chronicled the behind-the-scenes wrangling leading up to the couple’s dramatic exit, claims Harry and Meghan were forced to release their statement because of leaked stories of their desire to settle in Canada full-time. Meghan and Harry are not coming to the UK for Christmas with the royals this year. The Duchess of Edinburgh is said to be ‘furious’ about claims that she did not support Meghan during her time as a working royal, sources have claimed. Omid Scobie’s Endgame, published last month, claims Sophie, 58, did little to help the Duchess of Sussex, 42, when she was struggling to adjust to life in The Firm.
Elsewhere in the book, Scobie labels both Sophie and Prince Edward as appearing ‘casually bigoted’ in reference to an interview they conducted after Meghan claimed members of the royal family had raised ‘concerns’ about the color of Prince Archie’s skin before he was born. After the fallout from the book left the British Royal Family reeling, friends close to the Duchess have disputed many of the claims made by Scobie in the book and have jumped to her defence. They told The Sun the opposite of Scobie’s claims are true, and that Sophie in fact went out of her way to make Meghan feel included and welcome in The Firm.
Friends close to the Duchess of Edinburgh insisted Sophie invited Meghan and Harry over for tea early on in their relationship to try and form a bond with her. An insider described as a ‘senior royal source’ told the newspaper: ‘It was just the two of them at and they talked for hours. Meghan had so many questions and Sophie, who knows what it’s like navigating your way through the early days of transition from a commoner to a royal, gave freely of her advice.’ The source added that Sophie found Meghan ‘engaging’ and told her she could call any time. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were last week named among the biggest Tinsel Town losers of the year by industry bible, The Hollywood Reporter.
The magazine published its 2023 review celebrating those who triumphed and noting those who failed to hit the mark. Among the 11 chosen as having struggled were the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who were mocked for their ‘whiny Netflix documentary, a whiny biography (Spare – even the title is a pouty gripe ) and inert podcast.’
Meghan’s podcast, Archetypes, was dropped by Spotify in June after just one season and the firm’s head of podcast innovation and monetization, Bill Simmons, labelled the couple ‘grifters’ after their $20million (£15.9m), multi-year deal ended. Their treatment by The Hollywood Reporter was far from effusive, with the publication saying the couple had ‘fled a life of ceremonial public service to cash in their celebrity status in the States’ – but failed to ignite.
‘The Harry and Meghan brand swelled into a sanctimonious bubble just begging to be popped – and South Park was the pin,’ the authors said. In March, South Park ridiculed the couple with an episode entitled ‘World-Wide Privacy Tour’, which skewered the pair for claiming to find media intrusion too intense, and then seeking the spotlight. The magazine concluded: ‘Still, all the scorn and mockery beats otherwise having to attend 200-plus official royal family engagements a year, which sounds hellish.’ Read the full story: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12864407/Harry-Meghan-Sussex-Royal-website-Queen.html?ito=msngallery
Want more stories like this from the Daily Mail? Visit our profile page here and hit the follow button above for more of the news you need.
