Closing summary
Here are the main points so far today:
- The Queen has agreed to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s wish to take a step back from public life, though she said she stressed that her preference would have been for the couple to remain as full-time working royals.
- The monarch, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry met at Sandringham to discuss the plans today.
- Prince William and Prince Harry have issued a joint statement dismissing a “false story” in a UK newspaper about their relationship. The two princes said: “For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful.” Although they did not name the paper, it is believed to be a reference to an article in the Times which suggested the Sussexes had been driven away from the royal family by bullying behaviour.
- The home secretary, Priti Patel, contradicted Prince Harry’s claims that negative coverage of his wife has been motivated by an undercurrent of racism. She said: “I’m not in that category at all where I believe there’s racism at all. I think we live in a great country, a great society, full of opportunity, where people of any background can get on in life.”
- The chief executive of the Rugby Football League, Ralph Rimmer, says he is very hopeful that Prince Harry will remain its patron. Harry will conduct the draw for the 2021 Rugby League World Cup at Buckingham Palace on Thursday in his first public engagement since he and Meghan issued their statement last week.
My colleague, Caroline Davies, has tonight’s main story:
Updated
Community workers and charity organisers have defended the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after they were accused of letting the country and their family down by seeking to step back from their senior royal status.
After days of criticism of Harry and Meghan, the Queen said on Monday that while she would have preferred them to remain full-time royals she was “entirely supportive” of the plan.
Her defence came after some members of the military had hit out at Harry in particular over the weekend, accusing him of “disrespect to the Queen” and his former comrades. One said his fellow marines were “very upset, if not disgusted” with the decision.
On Monday, however, some of those who have worked alongside the Sussexes on grassroots and research initiatives in Nottingham gave them their strong support and said they had been impressed by the extent of their commitment to their work.
Updated
My colleague Simon Jenkins has written an interesting opinion piece, in which he suggests the monarchy is incapable of the sort of change for which Harry and Meghan hoped.
No, the monarchy is not in crisis. No, the princes are not bullies. No, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will not be destitute, merely stinking rich. No, they will not go unprotected. In a nutshell, the past few days’ events, inconceivable in any other democracy, really do not matter.
Pull the other one. The nation is on tenterhooks, or at least its mass media is. The royal press corps is about to be deprived of its beloved stereotype; the tearaway young prince who goes to war, marries a beautiful woman and “shakes the monarchy to its foundations”. But stereotypes always fade. The British monarchy has handled worse than this.
Updated
Only senior royals were due to attend today’s meeting, but the talks have been shaped and directed behind the scenes by a group of senior aides who have provided briefings on the implications of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to step back from some of the duties and pressures of public life.
Sir Mark Sedwill
The palace reportedly consulted the cabinet secretary on the constitutional implications. The Times said Sedwill had been dragged into the row last week and that he and the prime minister would ultimately have to decide on the allocation of any public money to the couple in the future.
Sir Edward Young
The Queen’s top aide, who has reportedly come under increasing pressure since Harry and Meghan’s announcement. According to the Sunday Times, Princess Anne and Prince Edward are among the members of a faction who want to see him ousted, believing him to have failed to stop the situation reaching crisis point.
Clive Alderton
The principal private secretary to the Prince of Wales and a career diplomat. Alderton returned to work for Prince Charles after a spell as Britain’s ambassador to Morocco. He had previously served as an aide in Charles’ official London residence, Clarence House, and is reported to be popular with the prince’s family.
Simon Case
The Duke of Cambridge’s private secretary is a civil servant who formerly worked on solving the Irish border issue during Brexit discussions. He also served as principal private secretary to David Cameron when he was prime minister, having previously worked as GCHQ’s director of strategy.
Fiona Mcilwham
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s private secretary is relatively new to the role. She is a top diplomat and became one of the UK’s youngest ambassadors when she was posted to Albania aged 35 in 2009. She impressed in the role, with the Albanian journalist Muhamed Veliu telling the Mail on Sunday she “quickly gained huge respect” at a time of mounting political tension over organised crime.
Updated
After a mountain of speculation since Harry and Meghan declared their intentions last week, today’s statement from the Queen leaves us a little clearer about what the future will hold for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, even if it is necessarily light on detail. The Queen said there were complex issues to address and that more work needed to be done,but she also set a timetable, saying she expects final decisions to be reached in days.
The statement announces a “period of transition” for the royal couple and their young son Archie as they spend time in Canada and the UK, while they reduce their reliance on public funds.
The Queen’s statement about the Sandringham talks followed an earlier joint statement issued by Prince William and Prince Harry, which described as false a UK newspaper story claiming the Sussexes felt they were being forced out by “bullying” behaviour within the family. Given that both brothers have spoken in recent months about the previously close nature of their relationship changing, it will be seen as a sign of unity on a significant day for the future shape of the British monarchy.
Updated
The Queen has issued a statement
Buckingham Palace has just released the following statement from the Queen:
Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.
My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.
Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.
It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.
These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.
Reports are coming in from correspondents at Sandringham that the royals have left the estate.
The meeting is over. The senior Royals have been seen leaving Sandringham.
— Chris Ship (@chrisshipitv) January 13, 2020
We await news ...#HarryandMeghan
Charles, Harry and William have all been photographed leaving Sandringham separately #SandringhamSummit
— Rebecca English (@RE_DailyMail) January 13, 2020
Prince Charles, Prince William & Prince Harry are all believed to have left Sandringham House separately, at around 4:30pm. Buckingham Palace has said a statement following today’s meeting will follow shortly.
Updated
Summary
Here are the main points so far today:
- The Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry are meeting at Sandringham to discuss the future of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as they attempt to step away from senior royal duties and forge a more independent life.
- Prince William and Prince Harry have issued a joint statement dismissing a “false story” in a UK newspaper speculating about their relationship. The two princes say: “For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful.” Although they did not name the paper, it is believed to be a reference to an article in the Times which suggested the Sussexes had been driven away from the royal family by “bullying” behaviour.
- The home secretary, Priti Patel, contradicted Prince Harry’s claims that negative coverage of his wife has been motivated by an undercurrent of racism. She said: “I’m not in that category at all where I believe there’s racism at all. I think we live in a great country, a great society, full of opportunity, where people of any background can get on in life.”
- The chief executive of the Rugby Football League, Ralph Rimmer, says he is very hopeful that Prince Harry will remain its patron. Harry will be conducting the draw for the 2021 Rugby League World Cup at Buckingham Palace on Thursday in his first public engagement since he and Meghan issued their statement last week.
Updated
It’s got to be said that the media hanging out at Sandringham today have had very little to report directly on. One moment of excitement did happen about an hour ago though, when a man got on top of a car with a megaphone and began addressing the media and the police present at the Queen’s private estate.
ITV News’s royal editor, Chris Ship, posted this clip a little while ago, during which the protester appears to describe the media as a “savage bunch of dogs”.
Something rather odd has just happened at Sandringham. And it’s nothing to do with #HarryandMeghan.
— Chris Ship (@chrisshipitv) January 13, 2020
Given it’s a private estate, I suspect the man with the mega-phone will be sent packing soon pic.twitter.com/VZYzknahpX
Updated
Away from Sandringham, my colleague Aaron Bower from the sport desk has been attending a press event in Huddersfield with Ralph Rimmer, the chief executive of the Rugby Football League.
Prince Harry, in his role as patron for the sport of rugby league, will conduct the draw for the 2021 Rugby League World Cup at Buckingham Palace on Thursday. It will be his first public engagement since news of his intention to step back from royal duties broke. Rimmer was asked about Harry’s duties, and expects him to continue.
“I’m very hopeful [he will continue],” Rimmer said. “From what I know, I think his patronages will remain, but that could change. We haven’t had anything negative from the palace or his office regarding our patronage, but there are plenty of wheels turning in the machine at this moment in time. As far as I understand from the news, there will be some clarifications ironed out today, so we’ll see how his patronages work out after that.”
On Harry’s involvement with Thursday’s World Cup draw, Rimmer said: “In light of everything that has happened recently, we’re honoured that he will make the draw. He’s been a superb patron for us. Of course there will be the eyes and ears of the world’s media on that event and I suppose the event will benefit from that.”
Some outlets have run pictures of what appears to have been a car carrying Harry into Sandringham at around 1.45pm, before the summit which was believed to be starting at 2pm. Here are some of the main topics that you imagine would be part of the discussions today:
Titles
If the couple seem determined to step back from royal duties, then the royal family may want to step back from honouring them with titles. It is unclear whether the British public would regard removing the titles as petty, or as the right thing to do if the couple are no longer working as part of the royal family. However, the question of titles might not be as pressing as it first appears. Regardless of whether he retains a formal royal title or not, Harry will remain the youngest son of Diana, Princess of Wales. That in itself will guarantee enduring public interest in his life for years to come.
Living arrangements
The couple have suggested they will split their time between North America and the UK. However, if Meghan wants to apply for British citizenship she is required to only spend 90 days outside the country.
There’s also the question of whether they can retain Frogmore Cottage, the Grade II-listed house in Windsor they currently use as a base. It was refurbished recently with £2.4m of taxpayer money. It is owned by the Queen.
Security
Living abroad some of the year poses a unique set of security challenges for the royal family to face. The Sussexes would still require 24/7 security protection – but who is going to pay for it? There are reports today that the Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau, has suggested his country may be prepared to contribute – although that may not please the Canadian public.
Funding
The couple aren’t short of money, either from Meghan’s earnings before she married into the royal family, or from the money that Prince Harry inherited from his mother. But whatever they do to try and bring in an income is liable to be controversial, and open to accusations that they are trading on the royal family’s name. They appear to be willing to give up direct state funding from the sovereign grant which is estimated to make up about 5% of their annual costs. The rest of the money is currently met with revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall granted to them by Harry’s father, Charles.
Taxation
If the couple split their time between the UK and Canada they may have to split their tax affairs. Both Canadian and UK authorities would stake a claim on revenue earned within their jurisdiction.
Future royal duties and charity work
The couple’s statement that they wanted to step back from being “senior royals” didn’t appear to totally rule out doing some official engagements. One of the topics to be explored at the summit today will no doubt be the extent to which it is practical for them to combine official royal duties with an independent lifestyle, and their own soon-to-be-launched charitable foundation.
Updated
A reminder that the main development of the day so far, as we wait for news to emerge from the Sandringham summit, is that the Duke of Sussex and Duke of Cambridge have issued a furious denial over a newspaper report speculating on causes of a rift between them, branding it “offensive and potentially harmful”.
You can read my colleague Caroline Davies’s full report on it here:
The Press Association have just put out a report outlining the existing rules by which members of the royal family are allowed to carry out commercial activities. They could form the starting point for any agreement that comes out of today’s summit meeting. They were devised almost 20 years ago, in the wake of a scandal when the Countess of Wessex was accused of cashing in on her royal status in an attempt to win business for her PR firm.
Under the rules, royals have to first consult the Lord Chamberlain before taking on a new business activity. They could be seen as an impediment to the kind of independence that Harry and Meghan appear to be seeking.
The guidelines also stressed that anyone connected with a business activity “should be carefully briefed not to try to exploit, either deliberately or inadvertently, the member of the royal family’s position, associations or access”.
At the time the rules were introduced there were also calls for a register of royal interests, similar to that operated by MPs, listing the business interests or shareholdings of members of the royal family. This was not introduced, with palace officials warning it could be exploited as an unofficial endorsement.
It does throw into sharp relief one of the contradictions at the heart of the Sussexes’ bid for commercial freedom. Their worth in terms of endorsements and commercial exploitation rest, at least on Prince Harry’s side, almost entirely on being a member of the royal family. It is difficult to see how any work by the proposed “Sussex Royal” brand (see 10:50) can be anything other than tied up with their connections to the monarchy.
Harry, though, might point to the example of his mother. Diana continued to do charity work and maintain a high media profile even after she had in effect been ostracised from the heart of the royal family.
Updated
The treatment of the Duchess of Sussex by the media, and what her brand of appealing to the socially progressive younger generation symbolises for Britain’s culture warriors such as Piers Morgan and Eamonn Holmes, is the subject of Owen Jones’s column today:
Britain’s culture war can be summed up like this: a currently triumphalist faction that believes that progressive social norms have gone too far and that so-called “identity politics”, PC culture and the “woke” need to be driven back. Meghan became a target because she is a mixed-race American with no aristocratic blood, who dared to import vaguely progressive values into the most conservative of British institutions. Even worse, she supposedly seduced a linchpin of the monarchy to these nefarious “woke” ways.
Updated
It is being reported in London’s Evening Standard that the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, has privately assured the Queen that the commonwealth country would pick up the bill for security for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex if they were to move to Canada as has been mooted.
That could prove contentious domestically for Trudeau. Dr Barry Mackenzie, a Canadian royal historian, was asked about exactly this on BBC Radio 5 live this morning, and said: “That I think is going to be a sticking point for Canadians. And even though this whole scenario seems to have done a lot to make Canadians sympathetic to the situation in which the Queen finds herself, at the same, if this arrangement means that Canadians are going to have to pick up that bill, then I do fear that may be fodder for republicans, who already complain about the fact that the monarchy is expensive.”
We heard similar views when we asked our Canadian readers what they thought about the proposed move.
Updated
Summary
- The Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry are due to met at Sandringham for an emergency summit to discuss the announcement by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex that they intend to step back from being senior royal figures and become self-financing.
- The home secretary, Priti Patel, has contradicted Prince Harry’s claims that negative coverage of his wife has been motivated by an undercurrent of racism. She said: “I’m not in that category at all where I believe there’s racism at all. I think we live in a great country, a great society, full of opportunity, where people of any background can get on in life. I certainly haven’t seen that through any debates or commentary or things of that nature.”
- Prince William and Prince Harry have issued a joint statement dismissing a “false story” in a UK newspaper today speculating about their relationship. The two princes say: “Despite clear denials, a false story ran in a UK newspaper today speculating about the relationship between the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of Cambridge. For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful.” Although they did not name the paper, it is believed to be a reference to an article in the Times which suggested the Sussexes had been driven away from the royal family by “bullying” behaviour.
Updated
With the abrupt announcement that they were intending to step back from royal duties, it has been natural to look back at some of the things that Prince Harry has previously said about his role in the royal family through a slightly different lens.
As recently as 2017 he spoke to Newsweek magazine about considering leaving the royal family: “I felt I wanted out but then decided to stay in and work out a role for myself.”
Today’s summit meeting at Sandringham is not just a family gathering though; it is a business meeting. Interviewed around the time of the Queen’s 90th birthday, Harry told the BBC: “I still view her more as the Queen than my grandmother. You have this huge amount of respect for your boss and I always view her as my boss – but occasionally as a grandmother.”
And maybe there’s a hint of what comes next in what he’s said before. Harry once answered a question on what he would do if he were not a prince: “I’d probably live in Africa. I’d like to spend all my time out there … As a job, it would probably be a safari guide.”
Updated
It has been believed for some time that Prince Charles is in favour of a slimmed-down version of the monarchy, which might be more likely to continue to carry public support. He may not have envisaged the changes happening so quickly, or being instigated by his youngest son. At the weekend Kate Williams argued in the Observer that Harry and Meghan’s “flexi-royal” plan could help modernise the monarchy, bringing it more in line with the royal families of Europe, in which most members not in direct line have full-time careers.
A few months ago, Prince Andrew revealed royal privilege and entitlement at its worst, refusing to apologise in his Newsnight interview for socialising with a sex criminal. And although he was criticised and forced to step down, it was a long time coming and it still seemed as if some in our society were angrier about Meghan wearing dark nail varnish than Andrew’s links with Epstein. Harry and Meghan’s decision to step back has gained huge traction and sympathy across the world. The royal family needs to work with their wishes or risk losing them for ever.
Updated
Prince Harry and Prince William dismiss “false story” in a UK newspaper today
Prince Harry and Prince William have dismissed a “false story” in a UK newspaper today speculating about their relationship. The joint statement on behalf of the Duke of Sussex and Duke of Cambridge said: “Despite clear denials, a false story ran in a UK newspaper today speculating about the relationship between the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of Cambridge. For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful.”
The statement does not specify which report, but they are believed to be referring to a story in the Times which was headlined “Princes ‘fell out because William wasn’t friendly towards Meghan’”.
The opening paragraph of that story referred to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex regarding themselves as “having been pushed away from the royal family by the ‘bullying’ attitude” of the Duke of Cambridge. The Times claimed that a source, said to be close to the couple, had said William was insufficiently welcoming towards Meghan when she first started dating Harry as a result of the competitive nature of William’s relationship with his younger brother. The report quoted the source as saying she had spent two years “constantly being told your place, constantly bullied as they would see it”.
The move comes a day after the Sunday Times reported William saying: “I’ve put my arm around my brother all our lives and I can’t do that any more; we’re separate entities.”
And in a documentary, filmed during the Sussexes’ tour of southern Africa last autumn, Harry said he and William were now “on different paths” and had “good days” and “bad days” in their relationship.
Updated
With the home secretary, Priti Patel, coming out today to say she had seen no racism in the coverage of Meghan Markle during her journey from becoming Prince Harry’s partner to marrying into the royal family (see 10:14), it might be worth spending two minutes reading Nesrine Malik’s blistering column from the Observer yesterday, where she spoke of “Britain’s racism pantomime”.
In many ways, any improvement in race relations has come with a proportional decline in self-awareness, and with it a degradation of the public conversation on race. The increased visibility of black and brown people in those spaces where this conversation takes place – in politics and the media – has achieved little apart from sifting them into for and against camps. Whenever a public figure is subjected to racist behaviour, a sort of kangaroo court is set up, one with an impossibly high bar for proving a racist event has occurred – anything short of an explicit slur or a violent attack can easily be explained away. The outcome of the litigation is certain because the whole point of the exercise is the spectacle, rather than the inquiry.
Updated
There’s an argument that the royal family haven’t helped themselves in terms of media management in the way that they have made today’s crisis summit a type of public event, but also private event. Having been informed that it is taking place, the media have of course set up camp outside Sandringham, hoping for photos of the members of the family as they arrive. But there’s no scheduled press conference afterwards, and no formal public element to the proceedings. By the end of the day we may still be very much in a “no white smoke yet” situation.
Updated
The Sun and the Mirror both focus their front pages on what comes next, and what they fear might be a worst-case scenario for the monarchy – that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex offer a “tell-all” TV interview to put their side of the story.
MIRROR: Palace fears Meghan tell all interview #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/uRq8ZjetLz
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) January 12, 2020
The Sun’s editorial is firm on what it thinks its readers expect: “What’s clear is that the couple must not receive a penny from the state. British taxpayers fund the royal family to strengthen our nation’s soft power and to support vital charities. If Meghan and Harry can’t be bothered with the legwork, then it goes without saying they must give up the whopping perks which come with it.”
The Sun also finds time to report that the Duchess of Sussex has only ever spent six hours in Sussex, an almost textbook example of the kind of negative coverage that has continually riled Prince Harry.
The potential impact of a dynamite television interview is one that Prince Harry will be well aware of. His mother Princess Diana gave a landmark interview to Martin Bashir about the failure of her marriage to Prince Charles in 1995, when Harry was a child.
Updated
As you can imagine, coverage of the crisis dominated most front pages in the UK this morning, with the Mirror, Mail, Sun, Telegraph and Times all leading with royal stories.
Describing it on their masthead as “D-day for the royals”, the Telegraph’s editorial says: “There is evidently a general willingness to recognise that Prince Harry and his wife do not want to continue with the role that had been expected of them, although many will deeply resent the suggestions that the Duchess has somehow been forced to flee by intrinsic racism and bigotry. Rarely has a royal marriage been so welcomed, largely because of the popularity of Prince Harry and a national desire to see him happy.”
The paper’s deferential sympathies, though, very much lie with the plight of the Queen. Their editorial goes on to say: “It is also clear that the country does not want to see a ‘half-in, half-out’ arrangement reached, which would not be fair on the other senior royals. In particular, it would not be fair on the Queen, who has again been confronted with an unnecessarily onerous task, which she approaches with her usual dutiful fortitude, but at a time in her life when she deserves better.”
TELEGRAPH: Fears Harry will tell all if his plans are thwarted #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/iIANGmONIM
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) January 12, 2020
Updated
A key aspect for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to establish will be where their future commercial interests lie. They have already made moves to trademark their names.
My colleague Ben Quinn reports that back in December they filed an application with the World Intellectual Property Organization in the name of their new foundation “Sussex Royal”. The application covered Australia, Canada, the EU and US, and was for a range of items and activities including clothing, stationery and the running of “emotional support groups”.
The couple already use “Sussex Royal” as their name on Instagram, where they have over 10 million followers. Since making their statement last week on Instagram and their own website, they have posted just one more thing online – a roundup of photographs of them visiting the women of the Hubb Community Kitchen, which was set up in the wake of Grenfell to cook meals for families and neighbours who had been displaced because of the fire.
Updated
Here’s a rundown from my colleague Caroline Davies of what we can expect from the day - and what both sides of the royal family will be hoping to get out of any agreement.
Updated
The announcement from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex last week was quite unclear on the details about the role they are hoping to fulfil in the future. However, there may have been some hints in the Sunday papers.
Writing in the Sunday Times, the ITV journalist Tom Bradby, who seems close to the couple, outlined what he felt they were looking to get out of any deal.
“They appear philosophical about the prospect of losing their titles and becoming, in the end, entirely self-funded,” he wrote.
“If I had to guess,” he added “I’d say Meghan might take on a few big roles as a brand ambassador and do some work in television as an executive producer, perhaps on programmes that promote the causes and charities she has long been interested in.
“I imagine Harry will probably concentrate on the voluntary work he has done over the years – the Invictus Games, Sentebele – and if he were to step into the commercial space, I suspect it would be an area that already interests him, such as eco-tourism.”
Updated
Priti Patel contradicts Prince Harry over media racism claim
One of the other issues that will be up for discussion is the future security arrangements for the couple and their young son Archie. Asked on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning about the possible options, the home secretary, Priti Patel, refused to comment, saying: “I’m not going to provide any detailed information on the security arrangements for either them or any members of the royal family or for any protected individuals – that’s thoroughly inappropriate for me to do so.”
She went on to contradict Prince Harry’s assessment that some of the negative coverage of his wife had been motivated by racism.
She said: “I’m not in that category at all where I believe there’s racism at all. I think we live in a great country, a great society, full of opportunity, where people of any background can get on in life.”
She added that she didn’t think the media had been in any way racist, saying: “I certainly haven’t seen that through any debates or commentary or things of that nature.”
'I don't believe there's racism there at all'
— BBC Radio 5 Live (@bbc5live) January 13, 2020
Home secretary @patel4witham says she doesn't think there's any racism in the media coverage of Meghan Markle.
🎧 Listen on @BBCSounds #5LiveBreakfast pic.twitter.com/QnhQ20ZTHn
Harry has been critical of coverage of Meghan for some time. In November 2016 he issued a statement condemning what he called a “wave of abuse and harassment” from the British press and public.
“Some of this has been very public,” the palace’s statement read at the time. “The smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.”
In September last year, the BBC issued an apology to Prince Harry after it failed to warn the Duke of Sussex in advance before broadcasting and publishing online an image from a neo-Nazi social media group that called him a “race traitor”.
Updated
Crisis meeting at Sandringham scheduled for later today
Good morning, on a day that could prove to be pivotal for the future shape of the monarchy. While a lot of the wider coverage of the crisis caused by the sudden announcement from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex that they want to step back from senior roles in the royal family treats them like showbiz or celebrity characters, the move has significant constitutional implications for how the royal family is run and paid for, and what is expected from them in the future.
Later today the Queen will gather her heir Prince Charles, and his sons Prince William and Prince Harry, for a meeting. Meghan is expected to be joining them via conference call, as they attempt to thrash out the next steps to a workable solution at the Queen’s private Sandringham estate in eastern England. According to reports the issues up for debate will include how much money the couple will still receive from Charles’s estate, their royal titles and what commercial deals they can strike.
It’s not entirely clear that much news will emerge from the meeting today – we may just end up with a “talks with continue”.
Updated
