Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are once again at the center of a media storm, facing significant backlash over their latest decision regarding their royal roles. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced their intention to step back from their duties as senior members of the British Royal Family and consider relocating abroad, a move that has sparked a wave of criticism and debate.
The Toronto Star extended a warm invitation to the couple, suggesting they “come to Canada, where you belong.” However, this sentiment is not universally shared. British newspapers have been particularly vocal in their disapproval. The Daily Mirror’s editorial was especially harsh, stating there “can be no sympathy” for the manner in which the announcement was made. The paper criticized the couple for not discussing their plans with the Queen, suggesting this could lead to an “irreparable rift” within the Royal Family.
The Daily Mirror further accused Prince Harry of displaying “petulance and hot-headedness,” claiming that the couple’s desire to be financially independent while still retaining their royal status indicates they “want to have it both ways.” This sentiment was echoed by other British tabloids, which argued that Harry and Meghan’s actions were disrespectful and poorly thought out.
The Daily Express offered a slightly more lenient perspective, acknowledging the couple as a “tremendous breath of fresh air” but criticizing their lack of respect for royal protocol. The paper suggested that informing the Queen of their decision would have garnered more empathy from the public.
From the moment they married, Harry and Meghan seemed intent on “rewriting the rule book” of royal life, according to some commentators. This approach has led to a “disconnect” with the rest of the Royal Family, exacerbated by their desire for privacy and independence. The Daily Telegraph’s Camilla Tominey traced the couple’s “break for freedom” back to November 2018, when they announced a split from the royal household they shared with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Sources at the time indicated that Harry felt sidelined by his brother William and wanted to “spread their wings.”
Across the Atlantic, the New York Post’s front page was dominated by “Megxit,” highlighting the couple’s choice to pursue a more “commoner” lifestyle. The New York Times noted that Meghan faced “lacerating criticism” from Britons who prefer their royals to be “dutiful and traditional.” The paper suggested that Meghan was often seen as “too bold, too outspoken, too difficult, too American, too multicultural,” and that the couple’s decision to step back from royal duties reflects broader challenges facing the monarchy.
In Canada, the Toronto Star’s Vinay Menon wrote that the move would allow Harry and Meghan to be “finally free,” suggesting that the rest of the Royal Family “don’t deserve” them. Meanwhile, The Australian reported that the decision has reignited debates about Australia’s ties to the British monarchy, with the chairman of the Australian Republic Movement arguing that it highlights the Royal Family’s diminishing influence.
French royal expert Stephane Bern, interviewed by Le Figaro, stated that royals who are not at the core of the family need to show they can “earn a living” in today’s world. Le Monde described the situation as a “revolution in Buckingham Palace,” while Spain’s El Mundo claimed the couple had “slammed the door in the British Royal Family’s face.” El PaÃs suggested that Harry and Meghan had become victims of a “curse” that sees royals without a clear role heavily criticized.
Italy’s La Repubblica questioned whether this move would weaken the foundations of the Royal Family or if it was merely a publicity stunt to gain more social media followers. Sweden’s Dagens Nyheter compared the “chaos and civil war in the British royal house” to Brexit, while Belgium’s Het Nieuwsblad reported that Harry had “had enough of the royal circus.”
The couple’s decision has undoubtedly stirred strong emotions and opinions worldwide. As they navigate this new chapter, the scrutiny and debate surrounding their roles and choices are likely to continue.
