Megxit

On 8 January 2020, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, announced on Instagram^{[1][2][3][4][5]} their decision to "step back as 'senior' members" of the British royal family,^[6] split their time between the United Kingdom and North America, and become financially independent.^[7] This was dubbed Megxit, a portmanteau of the words "Meghan" and "exit" and a play on the term Brexit,^[8] and adopted globally on mainstream and social media,^[9][10] spawning various Internet memes^[11] and "Megxit" merchandising.^[12][13][14]

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry on Christmas Day, 2017

The announcement of their decision led to a meeting of the royal family on 13 January, dubbed the "Sandringham Summit" and described as "unprecedented".^[15][16][17] Queen Elizabeth II issued a rare personal statement on her family,^[18][19][20] and was praised for her rapid handling of the matter.^[20][21][15] 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.^[22]

The outcome was described as a "hard Megxit".^[23][24][25] Collins English Dictionary added "Megxit" to its online edition as a top-ten Word of 2020.^[26] A twelve-month review period was allowed in case the couple changed their minds. On 19 February 2021, Buckingham Palace confirmed that the Duke and Duchess would relinquish their royal patronages, as they were not returning as working members of the royal family.^[27][28][29] The couple's announcement of their decision came to signify the break by the couple from the royal family and its protocol,^[30] and their plans for independence under their new brand, then tentatively named Sussex Royal.^[31][1][2] In November 2021, Harry described "Megxit" as a misogynistic term aimed at Meghan.^[32]

Etymology

Megxit is a play on the term 'Brexit' and refers to Prince Harry and his wife Meghan stepping back as members of the British royal family. It derives from Meg(han) + (e)xit; influenced by Brexit,^[33] which was the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community at the end of January 2020. Collins English Dictionary included 'Megxit' as one of their ten "Words of 2020", and listed it in the online edition of their dictionary:^[26] Collins told The Times: "It immediately caught on due to its echoes of 'Brexit'". The use of Meghan's name has been taken in some quarters as identifying her as the instigator of the withdrawal.^[34][35]

Naming

British tabloid newspaper The Sun is credited with the first headline use of 'Megxit' on 9 January 2020.^{[30][36][37][38]} BBC News commented that "Sussexit" was trending on social media, but it did not reach the level of use as Megxit in mainstream media.^[39][9][40] Alternative terms appeared but did not catch on to the same degree either.^{[9][41][42][43][44][31][6]} 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.^[12] 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).^[13]

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.^[45] 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".^[24] BBC News, and other British news media, called the final agreement a "hard Megxit", in a further word-play on political term, hard Brexit.^[24][23][25] 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'?",^[46] while Vanity Fair reported on actor Brad Pitt's "Megxit joke", at the 73rd British Academy Film Awards.^[47] The outlet had previously reported on an analysis by the social data analytics firm Brandwatch, which concluded that the term "Megxit" had been in use on Twitter since at least the beginning of 2019 and was utilized in negative comments aimed at Meghan.^[48] Sky News had also claimed that the term was being used by trolls on the Internet back in April 2019.^[49] In November 2021, in a panel at Wired's Re:Wired Conference, Harry stated that "the term Megxit was or is a misogynistic term, and it was created by a troll, amplified by royal correspondents, and it grew and grew and grew into mainstream media. But it began with a troll."^[50]

Motivations

See also: Oprah with Meghan and Harry and Harry & Meghan

In October 2019, a source close to the couple spoke to People, stating that they could establish a second base in the U.S., Canada or Africa to escape tabloid scrutiny.^[51] Immediately after the announcement in January 2020, in which they said they were aiming to become financially independent, journalist Tom Bradby^[52] claimed that the Sussexes were told during their six-week Christmas break (which turned into a four-month stay) at Vancouver Island in Canada that they would not be part of a proposed "slimmed down monarchy".^{[53][54][55][56]} Other concerns raised included perceived ongoing hostile treatment by some in the British tabloid press^[41][30] and alleged issues of racism towards Meghan.^[57][58] The Guardian reported that Prince Harry appeared to "lay the blame at the feet of the press".^[59] In a March 2021 television interview with Oprah Winfrey, Harry and Meghan said Megxit was caused by them not getting the help they sought from the royal establishment on issues such as refuting false tabloid stories about Meghan and getting her mental health help.^[60] Harry also indicated members of his family closest to the royal institution are trapped ― British constitutional scholar Robert Hazell agrees, and argues that the institution requires a very significant loss of human rights from some of its members.^[61]

In their 2022 Netflix docuseries Harry & Meghan, Meghan suggested that the couple wanted to move to another country, where they would not be bothered by the Royal Rota.^[62][63][64] In 2018, they considered moving to New Zealand, followed by another plan to move to South Africa in 2019, the latter of which, despite being approved by the royal family, was "scrapped" according to Harry after details of it were published by The Times in April 2019.^[62][63][64] By December 2019, Harry and Meghan were in negotiations with his father, Charles, about moving to Canada: "By the time I was speaking to my father from Canada, the family and their people knew that we were trying to find a different way of working for a minimum of two years," suggesting that they had intended to leave even before their wedding.^[62][63][64]

Dan Wootton has been credited with breaking the story about Megxit and Harry and Meghan's initial plans for moving to Canada in the Sun on 8 January 2020, which prompted the couple to issue an announcement within hours, confirming their plans for stepping back from their royal duties.^[65] Wootton stated that he had been in contact with the couple's spokesperson on 28 December and gave them a ten days' notice before the story broke out, despite facing pressure from royal officials not to run the piece.^[65] Sources close to the couple later spoke to The New York Times, stating that they "felt forced to disclose their plans prematurely" as they learned about the Sun's intentions to publish the story.^[65] Wootton disputed the claim as "They released the statement after we had published the story and had so much notice."^[65]

The agreement

The Times speculated as to whether the "Sandringham Summit" would result in a "Hard Megxit" or a "Soft Megxit".^{[15][4][36][66][16][17]} After the meeting, the Queen issued a first-person statement,^[18][67][19] concluding that there was agreement to "a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK".^{[67][18][19][20][21]} After just under four months in Canada, Harry and Meghan moved with their son Archie to the United States, where their daughter Lilibet was born in 2021.

Final agreement

The 'Megxit' statement gave a "Spring 2020" deadline for completion of the agreement, specific known details are as follows:^{[45][68][22][23]}

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.^[45][69]
• They will retain the Royal Highness style but will not use it.^[45][69]
• They will be financially independent of the British taxpayer/exchequer (and will repay the £2.4 million renovation costs of Frogmore Cottage);^[45]
• Harry would cease duties for all British military appointments (including Captain General Royal Marines), and would no longer officially represent the royal family at military ceremonies.^[22][70][71]

Other details

• The couple will spend most of their time in North America.^[22][71]
• Frogmore Cottage would continue to function as their British home, but they would pay a "commercial rent" for it.^[69]
• The couple would retain their private patronages and associations (e.g. Invictus Games), but not royal ones (e.g. Commonwealth Youth Ambassador).^[67][71]
• Prince Charles would continue to provide financial support.^[22]

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."^[68]
• It was not clear whether the "Sussex Royal" brand could be used.^[22][71]

Further developments

2020

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".^[72] Business Insider, speaking to various brand experts, reported: "Megxit, how Harry and Meghan could build a billion-dollar brand".^[73]

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 to give the couple time to establish themselves, and to address fears of the increased costs of their proposed new lifestyle.^[74] Later, Harry claimed that security protection and financial support had been cut off by the royal family in "the first quarter" of 2020 and he was able to provide for the family through the money he inherited from his mother, who left him £6.5 million which was invested and gathered substantial interest, and an estimated £10 million was given to Harry on his 30th birthday.^[75][76] During a Clarence House briefing on finances preceding the annual Sovereign Grant report, a spokesperson stated that Charles "allocated a substantial sum" to support the Duke and Duchess until the summer of 2020.^[77] Representatives for the couple responded that Harry's statements were "in reference to the first quarter of the fiscal reporting period" which begins in April.^[75]

On 21 January 2020, 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.^[78] Separately, The Canadian Press confirmed that Harry, Meghan, and Archie were staying at a rented house north of Victoria, British Columbia.^[78]

On 14 February 2020, it was reported that the couple had decided to close their office at Buckingham Palace.^[79]

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. 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, in March 2021. 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.^[80]

On 21 February 2020, the couple confirmed they would not use the "Sussex Royal" brand "in any territory" following their withdrawal from public life in spring 2020 and all applications filed for trademarking the name were removed. A spokesperson for the couple added that they would continue to work with their existing patronages in addition to establishing a non-profit organisation.^[81]

On 27 February 2020, Bill Blair, the Canadian Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness issued a statement saying "As the Duke and Duchess are currently recognized as Internationally Protected Persons, Canada has an obligation to provide security assistance on an as-needed basis. At the request of the Metropolitan Police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has been providing assistance to the Met since the arrival of the Duke and Duchess to Canada." The statement went on to say that Canada would cease providing security for the couple on 31 March, "in keeping with their change in status."^[82] In the same announcement, it was confirmed the RCMP had provided security for the couple on an as-needed basis, since their arrival to Canada in November 2019.^[82] During their five-month stay on Vancouver Island, Harry and Meghan were protected by the Metropolitan Police and the RCMP, at a cost to Canadian taxpayers of over $90,000(CAD) in overtime and expenses: RCMP officers' salaries were not included.^[83][84][85] In February 2020 and after their exit from the monarchy was negotiated, the term Internationally Protected People was removed from their website.^[86]

In late March 2020, it was reported that the couple had relocated to the United States. In response to the US President Donald Trump's comments that the U.S. government would 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".^[87][88] During the couple's initial months in California, Tyler Perry provided them with a secure house (in Beverly Hills), until they were able to make an alternative plan.^[89] The American-based private security firm, Gavin de Becker and Associates, was eventually contracted to provide security arrangements for the couple.^[90]

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 U.S. 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.^[91]

On 6 April 2020, it was reported the couple started the paperwork in the U.S. for a new non-profit organisation, which will be called Archewell (named for their son Archie and from the Greek word archē).^[92]

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.^[93][94]

In July 2020, the Duke and Duchess bought a mansion in Montecito, California, with the intention to make it their family home.^[95] It was later claimed by royal reporters Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand that the couple had taken out a mortgage on their new home.^[96] In September 2020, the Duke paid back the refurbishment costs of Frogmore Cottage in full, an estimated £2.4m.^[97] In November and December 2020, it was reported that his cousin Princess Eugenie and her husband Jack Brooksbank had moved in and out of Frogmore Cottage at Home Park, Windsor, after six weeks' stay.^{[98][99][100]}

2021

On 15 February 2021, CBS revealed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would be giving an interview to Oprah Winfrey. Meghan would discuss "stepping into life as a royal, marriage, motherhood, philanthropic work (and) how she is handling life under intense public pressure," with Winfrey. Harry would join them to "speak about their move to the United States and their future hopes and dreams for their expanding family".^[101]

On 19 February 2021, Buckingham Palace confirmed that the couple would not return as working members of the royal family. They further added that the couple would not "continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service". As a result, the Duke and Duchess were required to give up several military, honorary and charitable appointments.^[102] Among the patronages and appointments that were given up by the Duke were:^[102]

• Captain General, the Royal Marines
• Honorary Air Commandant, RAF Honington
• Commodore-in-Chief, Royal Navy Small Ships and Diving
• President, The Queen's Commonwealth Trust
• Patron, the Rugby Football Union
• Patron, the Rugby Football League

Similarly the Duchess gave up her roles as:^[102]

• Vice-President, The Queen's Commonwealth Trust
• Patron, the Royal National Theatre
• Patron, the Association of Commonwealth Universities

Harry will keep his patronages of the Invictus Games Foundation, Sentebale, WellChild, and Walking With The Wounded, while Meghan will remain patron of Smart Works and Mayhew.^[102][103] A spokesperson for the couple stated that Harry and Meghan "have offered their continued support to organisations ... regardless of official role", and asserted that "service is universal".^[104]

In March 2021, Forbes estimated that the cost for the couple's around-the-clock protection to be around $2 to $3 million.^[105] In April 2021, data obtained after the submission of a request under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office had dealt with "calls recorded as phone requests, alarm activations and property crimes" between July 2020 and February 2021, all of which were related to the couple's security issues at their residence in Montecito.^[106] In the same month, The Daily Telegraph reported that Harry and Meghan had held meetings surrounding "well-developed proposals" with the now-defunct streaming service Quibi a year before their departure from the royal family.^[107] The couple reportedly met with Jeffrey Katzenberg and other executives "throughout 2019", with alleged plans to "discuss [..] their own series of 10-minute videos".^[107]

2022

In January 2022, it was revealed that Harry had been in a legal fight since September 2021 to challenge the Home Office's refusal to allow him to pay for police protection in a personal capacity when in the UK.^[108][109] His legal representative stated that Harry initially made the offer during the Sandringham Summit, but it was dismissed.^[108][109] After stepping back from his duties, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC) had placed him in an "exceptional category", as a result of which his future police protection in the UK would be contingent on the reason and circumstances of each visit as well as the functions he carries.^[110][111] After receiving applications by the Duke and the Home Office to keep parts of the case private, the High Court ruled in March 2022 that some parts of it would remain confidential.^[112] High Court judge, Jonathan Swift, also reacted to the Duke's legal team sending a copy of the ruling to someone who was not a lawyer, describing it as "entirely unacceptable".^[112] Harry's lawyers later claimed that his suggestion to pay for his security was not conveyed properly to the committee by members of the Royal Household, including the Queen's private secretary Sir Edward Young, whose membership in the committee was allegedly not known to him and with whom Harry was facing "significant tensions".^[113] Lawyers for the Home Office stated that tensions between Harry and the Royal Household were irrelevant to his change of status and his representations to the committee would have made no difference in the outcome.^[113] In July 2022, Swift granted permission for part of Harry's claim to proceed for a judicial review.^[114]

In April 2022 and on their way to attend the Invictus Games in the Netherlands, the couple made their first joint visit to the United Kingdom since stepping back from royal duties and met the Queen and Prince Charles.^[115] The Duke had previously been in the UK on his own for his grandfather's funeral in April 2021 and for unveiling a statue of his mother in July 2021.^[115] The couple made their first official appearance in the UK in June 2022 while attending the Platinum Jubilee National Service of Thanksgiving.^[116] They are expected to visit the UK and Germany in September 2022 for a number of charity events in Manchester, Düsseldorf, and London.^[117]

In May 2022, Santa Barbara Police Department received reports of two trespassing incidents at Harry and Meghan's California home within the span of 12 days.^[118] As of July 2022, they have had six security incidents in total at the property since May 2021, though one of them occurred after the alarm was "mistakenly tripped".^[118] In August 2022, Harry filed a lawsuit against the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police, challenging the decision by RAVEC from January 2022 which stated that State security could not be made available to private individuals even if they wished to pay for it themselves.^[119] In November 2022 and in an interview with Channel 4 News, Neil Basu, the former National Police Chiefs' Council lead for Counter Terrorism Policing, confirmed the existence of threats against Meghan and Harry, some of which were investigated and resulted in prosecutions.^[120]

Reactions

In Britain

 

Waxwork figures of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were subsequently moved away from the Royal Family display at Madame Tussauds London.

The initial British reactions to the 8 January announcement was of surprise, and concern whether the decision was properly thought through;^[121][122] the story dominated the British news cycle.^[36] 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.^[56][4]

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."^[123] Former House of Commons Speaker John Bercow stated that Meghan experienced "racism, sexism and misogyny".^[124] Bercow maintained Meghan's support of feminist values and criticism of Donald Trump angered UK "bigot factions".^[124] Bercow stated further he understood Meghan and Harry choosing to leave their royal roles, and added "They are entitled to put their marriage and health first."^[124] NBC News reported on analysis implying that the impact to the British economy from the loss of the couple could be material.^[125][126] 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.^[127][128]

On 19 January, The Daily Telegraph described the final agreement between the couple and the royal family as "the hardest possible Megxit",^[23] a view shared by many other British news sources;^{[24][25][129]} and that "Royal history was made".^[129] The Guardian reported that the "outcome is, perhaps, not the half-in, half-out role the couple appear to have anticipated".^[45] 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".^[130] On 22 January, The Guardian published a cartoon by 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".^[131]

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.^[132] The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, publicly welcomed the couple,^[133] and indicated that Canada would fund security protection for the couple while they were resident there.^[134] The Wall Street Journal reported: "'Megxit' Causes Global Uproar. Canada Shrugs".^[10]

An opinion poll by the National Post found that 61 per cent of 1,515 Canadians polled wanted Harry to become Governor General of Canada.^[135] 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".^[136] 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 from the monarchy, 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.^{[137][138][139][140]} 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".^[141]

In a poll released on 15 January by the Angus Reid Institute, 70 per cent of Canadians surveyed followed the developments of Megxit.^[142] 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.^[142] Support for the couple spending significant time in Canada was strongest in Atlantic Canada, and Ontario, and was weakest in Quebec.^[142] However, 73 per cent of those surveyed by Angus Reid say that the security costs should be covered by the couple themselves.^[142][143] 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,^[144] which according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation was, at least, C$93,000 in overtime and expenses for the November 2019 to January 2020 portion of their stay that ended in mid-March 2020.^[83] Aaron Wudrick, Federal Director of the CTF, said, "We're proud to have given voice to the vast majority of Canadians who felt subsidizing the Sussexes’ lifestyle choices was an outrageous use of tax dollars."^[145] As of February 2021, the total for security costs, as well as reimbursements made by the Sussexes, if any, have not been disclosed by the RCMP.^[145][146]

Elsewhere

• On 12 January, Brian Moylan wrote an opinion piece for NBC News, stating the press's treatment of the couple needed to change "But partly withdrawing for more control seems like a fool's errand. There might be a balance to be struck between just how public they want their lives to be and how they're covered, but the Sussexes are lying to themselves — or us — by acting as if they are above the lucrative cycle of influence, access and branding that is the modern celebrity culture."^[147]
• On 20 January, American public broadcasting news program 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".^[148]
• 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 "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?"^[149]
• 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".^[150]
• 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 in modern Britain, such as race, diversity, and Brexit, might have shaped the couple's decision.^[14]
• 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".^[151]
• On 18 March, Caitlin Flanagan writing in The Atlantic said that "Meghan and Harry overplayed their hand", and that "Megxit is the most complicated, self-involved, grandiose, shortsighted, letter of partial, fingers-crossed resignation in history".^[152]

Sussex Royal

See also: Markle Windsor Foundation

On 1 July 2019, documents were filed at Companies House registering the incorporation of Sussex Royal The Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex ^[153] listing the Duke and the Duchess as Directors. During August through to October 2019 they appointed broadcaster and former Desert Island Discs presenter Kirsty Young,^[154] financier and philanthropist Stefan Allesch-Taylor,^[155] business leader and media executive Karen Blackett^[156] and banker Steven Cooper to serve as Directors of their Foundation. Harry and Meghan also used the handle @sussexroyal on Instagram, which previously belonged to Kevin Keiley. Keiley, a Reading F.C. fan from West Sussex, said that his handle was changed by Instagram to @_sussexroyal_ without any of their representatives or people representing Harry and Meghan contacting him first though Instagram said his handle was changed because the account was inactive.^[157]

On 8 January 2020, the couple provided further back-up statements to their Instagram post,^[158] 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.^[159][31] 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.^[158][160]

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,^[161][162] though it also emerged that an Italian applicant had registered an EU application to trademark products using a "Sussex Royal" brand.^[162] The word "Royal" and images of royal crowns have special protection under UK intellectual property law.^[162][163]

On 11 January, The Daily Telegraph reported that the couple would launch their "Sussex Royal Foundation" in April modelled along the lines of Obama Foundation, Clinton Foundation, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.^[164] 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".^[165] 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.^[166]

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.^[22] 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".^[45] The Guardian noted that a previous attempt by Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, to gain financial independence from the British royal family had failed.^[59]

On 21 February 2020, it was confirmed that "Sussex Royal" would not be used as a brand name for the couple. Harry and Meghan were expected to establish a non-profit organisation later in 2020.^[81][167] Meanwhile, Sussex Royal Foundation was renamed MWX Foundation on 5 August 2020 and dissolved the same day.^[168] Companies House filings showed that Sussex Royal had more than £280,624 ($380,000) in 2020 and spent £41,084 ($55,600) on attorneys.^[169]

In March 2021, it was reported that the Charity Commission for England and Wales was conducting a review of the organisation in a "regulatory and compliance case" regarding its conduct under charity law during dissolution.^[170] Representatives for the couple claimed that Sussex Royal was "managed by a board of trustees" and that "suggestion of mismanagement" directed exclusively at the Duke and Duchess was incorrect.^[170] Representatives for the couple stated that around $350,000 was transferred from Sussex Royal to Travalyst, which is a non-profit organisation established by Harry "for which [he] receives no commercial or financial gain".^[171]

Finding Freedom and controversy

In May 2020, two months after the couple's exit, HarperCollins announced the publication of Finding Freedom: Harry, Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family, a biography of the Duke and Duchess authored by royal reporters Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand.^[172] The book was reported to detail the events leading up to Megxit and reveal "unknown details about the couple's life together" with "participation of those closest to the couple".^[172] Media outlets reported that the Sussexes gave an interview to the book's authors before their royal departure, which representatives for the couple denied.^[173]

Extracts of the book were serialised in The Times and The Sunday Times in the weeks prior to its release.^[174] Finding Freedom was released on 11 August 2020.^[175] The book subsequently topped bestseller lists in the United Kingdom and the United States.^[176] Finding Freedom received mixed reviews from critics.^{[177][175][178][179]} The New York Times wrote that while the book made "it easier to understand why the couple felt the need to exit the Firm" by laying out the media policy and competitive bureaucracy of the British royal family, "too much space" was dedicated in an effort to provide details for "record-correcting context".^[179] The book was noted for specifying intimate details such as "the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's text messages", a description of the Queen's private sitting room at Buckingham Palace, and providing conflicting details of the private relationship between the couple and Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.^[180][181] Finding Freedom was also criticized for its timing of release, with The Guardian stating that "It is not Harry and Meghan's fault that their book has come out in the middle of a global pandemic, but it does underscore their occasional tone deafness in the latter half of the book."^[177] As in July 2020, The Spectator wrote: "Despite revealing details that presumably only people who were in the room when it happened could ever conceivably know, we are expected to believe that Carolyn Durand and Omid Scobie wrote Finding Freedom without input from the Sussexes".^[182]

After the book's release, a spokesperson reiterated that the couple "were not interviewed and did not contribute to ‘Finding Freedom'."^[183] In November 2020, Meghan's legal team admitted that she had permitted a close friend to communicate with Scobie and Durand, "so the true position... could be communicated to the authors to prevent any further misrepresentation", confirming the Duchess's participation in the book.^[184]

See also

• Bennifer
• List of portmanteaus

References

1. Booth, William; Adam, Kate (9 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan aim to 'step back' as senior royals and split time between Britain and North America". The Washington Post. from the original on 9 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
2. Landler, Mark (9 January 2020). Going Rogue: Prince Harry and Meghan Caught the Palace Off Guard. from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
3. Dymond, Jonny (19 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan drop royal duties and HRH titles". BBC News. from the original on 18 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
4. Adam, Karla (11 January 2020). "Britons muse on 'Megxit': 'Diana would be so proud'". The Washington Post. from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
5. McGee, Zoe (19 October 2020). "New royal tell-all reveals alleged origins of rift between Princes William and Harry". ABC News. from the original on 2 November 2020. Retrieved 2 November 2020.
6. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex; Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (8 January 2020). "Statement: January 2020". SussexRoyal.com. 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
7. Ng, Kate (9 January 2020). "'What are Harry and Meghan thinking?': How the world's newspapers reported Sussexes stepping back from royal family". The Independent. from the original on 9 January 2020. Retrieved 9 January 2020.
8. Deacon, Michael (11 January 2020). "Why Brexiteers should get behind Megxit". Daily Telegraph. from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
9. Ainge Roy, Eleanor (January 2020). "'Megxit' dominates as world pores over Meghan and Harry splinter group". The Guardian. from the original on 9 January 2020. Retrieved 9 January 2020.
10. Monga, Vipal (15 January 2020). "'Megxit' Causes Global Uproar. Canada Shrugs". The Wall Street Journal. from the original on 16 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
11. Pavia, Lucy (10 January 2020). "The best Megxit memes and jokes reacting to Meghan and Harry's news". The Evening Standard. from the original on 10 January 2020. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
12. Low, Valentine (15 January 2020). "Megxit turns into a moneyspinner". The Times. from the original on 15 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
13. Landler, Mark (15 January 2020). "'Megxit' Is the New Brexit in a Britain Split by Age and Politics". The New York Times. 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.
14. Barbaro, Michael; Landler, Mark (23 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan. (And Why Their Saga Matters.)". The New York Times. from the original on 23 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
15. Low, Valentine; Blakely, Rhys (13 January 2020). "Hard or soft Megxit? What's on the table". The Times. from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
16. "Harry and Meghan: What's on the agenda for the 'Sandringham summit'?". BBC News. 13 January 2020. from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
17. Ward, Victoria; Johnson, Jamie (13 January 2020). "Sandringham Summit: Queen expresses regret as she confirms Prince Harry and Meghan departure". The Daily Telegraph. from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
18. Hallemann, Caroline (13 January 2020). "Queen Elizabeth Issues a Rare Personal Statement About Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Decision". Town & Country. from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
19. "'Megxit' summit: Queen Elizabeth gives blessing for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to go it alone". South China Morning Post. Agence France-Presse. 14 January 2020. from the original on 15 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
20. Booth, William (15 January 2020). "How Megxit put Queen Elizabeth II in the role of crisis manager once again". The Washington Post. from the original on 7 June 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
21. McGurn, William (13 January 2020). "Long Live the Queen". The Wall Street Journal. 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).
22. Holden, Michael; Bruce, Andy (19 January 2020). "UK's Harry and Meghan to drop titles and retire as working royals". Reuters. from the original on 18 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
23. Tominey, Camilla (18 January 2020). "Queen delivers hardest possible 'Megxit' as cost of Harry and Meghan's decision becomes clear". The Daily Telegraph. from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 18 January 2020.
24. "Newspaper headlines: 'Freedom at a price' as Queen seals 'hard Megxit'". BBC News. 19 January 2020. 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.
25. Perraudin, Frances (19 January 2020). "'Hard Megxit': UK papers revel in Harry and Meghan's royal dismissal". The Guardian. from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
26. Falvey, Deirdre (10 November 2020). "Collins Dictionary word of the year for 2020 revealed". The Irish Times. from the original on 10 November 2020. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
27. Matthews, Riah (7 December 2020). "Meghan and Harry's 'Megxit review' could see them stripped of titles". News.com.au. from the original on 11 December 2020. Retrieved 11 December 2020.
28. "SPRING 2020 TRANSITION". Sussex Royal. from the original on 10 March 2020. Retrieved 24 December 2020.
29. "Buckingham Palace statement on The Duke and Duchess of Sussex". The Royal Family. 19 February 2021. from the original on 14 February 2022. Retrieved 6 March 2021.
30. Allsop, Jon (10 January 2020). "Megxit, pursued by the press". Columbia Journalism Review. 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.
31. Weaver, Caity; Paton, Elizabeth (9 January 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Stepping Back, Explained". The New York Times. from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
32. "Prince Harry says 'Megxit' is a misogynistic term aimed at his wife Meghan". The Guardian. 10 November 2021. from the original on 24 November 2021. Retrieved 24 November 2021.
33. "Megxit". Collins Dictionary. from the original on 12 December 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
34. Sampson, Annabel (10 November 2020). "Why 'Megxit' is in the dictionary for good as it becomes an official word of the year". Tatler. from the original on 10 November 2020. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
35. Malvern, Jack (10 November 2020). "Words of the year: Meghan and Harry have left but Megxit is in dictionary to stay". The Times. from the original on 17 November 2020. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
36. Hassan, Jenniffer (9 January 2020). "'Queen sad, Charles furious': Britain's media reacts to Megxit". The Washington Post. from the original on 10 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
37. Chudy, Emily (8 January 2020). "#Megxit trends after Duke and Duchess of Sussex announcement". Irish Independent. from the original on 12 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
38. Davies, Gareth (14 January 2020). "Meghan declined to take part in Sandringham summit because she and Harry deemed it 'unnecessary', source reveals". The Daily Telegraph. 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.
39. "Prince Harry and Meghan: How the internet reacted to #Sussexit". BBC News. 9 January 2020. from the original on 10 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
40. "British MPs finally approve Brexit deal". The Hindu. Agence France-Presse. 9 January 2020. from the original on 15 January 2020. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
41. Schwedel, Heather (10 January 2020). "The British Press Is Losing Its Mind Over Harry and Meghan". Slate. from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
42. Blakmore, Erin (9 January 2020). "Is Prince Harry abdicating? Not so fast". National Geographic. from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
43. Maltby, Kate (10 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan aren't actually quitting the family business". CNN News. from the original on 12 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
44. Wright, Robin (8 January 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle step back from royal duties". Financial Times. from the original on 12 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
45. Davies, Caroline (18 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan sought a half-in half-out deal, but are 'out'". The Guardian. from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
46. Kerns, Laura (28 January 2020). "What if your client wants to do a 'Megxit'?". Financial Times. from the original on 28 January 2020. Retrieved 29 January 2020.
47. Arsenault, Bridget (3 February 2020). "Brad Pitt's "Megxit" Joke Got an Awkward Laugh From Prince William at the BAFTAs". Vanity Fair. from the original on 6 February 2020. Retrieved 4 February 2020.
48. Ruiz, Michelle (17 January 2020). ""Megxit" Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means". Vanity Fair. from the original on 4 April 2020. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
49. Mills, Rhiannon (20 April 2019). "Extreme and malicious: How racist trolls are openly abusing Meghan". Sky News. from the original on 9 November 2021. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
50. Vanderhoof, Erin (9 November 2021). "Prince Harry Says "Megxit Was and Is a Misogynistic Term"". Vanity Fair. from the original on 9 November 2021. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
51. Hill, Erin; Perry, Simon (30 October 2019). "Meghan Markle and Prince Harry May Establish Second 'Base' Outside of U.K.: 'There's a Shift'". People. from the original on 6 January 2023. Retrieved 5 January 2023.
52. Power, Ed (21 October 2019). "Secrets of the 'royal whisperer': Why Harry and Meghan opened up to Tom Bradby". The Daily Telegraph. from the original on 10 December 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2020.
53. "Queen Elizabeth moves to control 'Megxit' crisis as Meghan Markle heads to Canada". South China Morning Post. Associated Press. 11 January 2020. from the original on 10 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
54. Puente, Maria (11 January 2020). "Harry & Meghan's Megxit: Theories abound about what led to their New Year 'surprise'". USA Today. from the original on 16 June 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
55. Wood, Vincent (11 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan believe they are being 'driven out' by Buckingham Palace, says friend". The Independent. 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.
56. Adam, Karla (10 January 2020). "Meghan flies back to Canada; Prince Harry in 'crisis' talks with Prince Charles". The Washington Post. from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
57. "How racism in Britain contributed to 'Megxit'". MSNBC. 11 January 2020. from the original on 15 January 2020.
58. McGirt, Ellen (10 January 2020). "What 'Megxit' Says About Britain's Communities of Color". Fortune. from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
59. Davies, Caroline (19 January 2020). "Prince Harry: we had 'no other option' than to stand down as royals". The Guardian. from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
60. White, Peter (8 March 2021). "Prince Harry & Meghan Markle Bombshell Interview: Race Concerns From "The Firm", Suicidal Thoughts, Megxit & How Lucrative Streaming Deals Happened". Deadline. from the original on 31 March 2021. Retrieved 8 March 2021.
61. Vanderhoof, Erin (18 March 2021). "A British Constitution Expert Explains Why Prince Harry Was "Quite Right" to Say the Royals Are Trapped". Vanity Fair. from the original on 18 April 2021. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
62. Sanchez, Chelsey (15 December 2022). "Prince Harry Claims the Palace Leaked Stories About Him and Meghan to the Press". Harper's Bazaar. from the original on 22 December 2022. Retrieved 22 December 2022.
63. Henni, Janine; Jessen, Monique (15 December 2022). "Prince Harry Hints King Charles' Office Leaked News of His Canada Move Plans with Meghan Markle". People. from the original on 11 January 2023. Retrieved 22 December 2022.
64. Fenton, Rosaleen (15 December 2022). "Harry and Meghan planned Megxit before lavish wedding and taxpayer-funded £2.4m home makeover". Daily Mirror. from the original on 22 December 2022. Retrieved 22 December 2022.
65. Mayhew, Freddy (30 September 2022). "Harry and Meghan are 'professional victims' says Sun journalist who broke royal split story". Press Gazette. from the original on 4 January 2023. Retrieved 4 January 2023.
66. Ship, Chris (11 January 2020). "Queen summons Charles, William and Harry to Sandringham to resolve crisis". itv.com. from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
67. "Harry and Meghan: Queen's statement in full". BBC. 13 January 2020. from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
68. "Statement from Her Majesty The Queen". The Royal Family. 18 January 2020. from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
69. "Harry and Meghan drop royal duties and HRH titles". BBC News. 19 January 2020. from the original on 18 January 2020. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
70. "Harry ends military posts as part of 'Megxit'". ITV News. 18 January 2020. from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
71. Nicholl, Kate (18 January 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Will Abandon Their Royal Titles". Town & Country. from the original on 7 April 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
72. Low, Valentine (11 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan: Voiceover deal with Disney hints at future career path". The Times. from the original on 20 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
73. Borden, Taylor (14 January 2020). "Actually, it would be pretty easy for Meghan Markle and Prince Harry to build a billion-dollar brand". Business Insider. from the original on 23 January 2021. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
74. Wood, Victoria (19 January 2020). "Prince Charles to fund the Sussexes for a year". The Daily Telegraph. from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
75. Giordano, Chiara (23 June 2021). "Charles gave Harry and Meghan 'substantial sum' despite their claim to be financially cut off". The Independent. Archived from the original on 12 May 2022. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
76. Ensor, Josie (8 March 2021). "Princess Diana foresaw Prince Harry's departure from Royal family, Duke claims". The Telegraph. from the original on 8 March 2021. Retrieved 8 March 2021.
77. Low, Valentine; Gosden, Emily. "Prince Charles 'gave substantial sum' to Prince Harry for new life abroad". The Times. from the original on 23 June 2021. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
78. "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. from the original on 21 January 2020. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
79. Foster, Max (14 February 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan to close office at Buckingham Palace". CNN. from the original on 28 February 2020. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
80. "Harry and Meghan's royal duties ending 31 March". BBC News. 19 February 2020. from the original on 19 February 2020. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
81. 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. from the original on 7 April 2020. Retrieved 21 February 2020.
82. Dyer, Evan (27 February 2020). "Canada will not pay for Prince Harry and Meghan's security after March". CBC News. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. from the original on 27 February 2020. Retrieved 27 February 2020.
83. Wood, James (17 November 2020). "RCMP bill for Meghan and Harry rises to $93,000". Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Retrieved 20 February 2023.
84. Thompson, Elizabeth (8 December 2021). "Protecting Prince Harry cost Canadians more than $334,000". CBC. Retrieved 20 February 2023.
85. "Prince Harry and Meghan's security cost RCMP more than $50K, June 15, 2020". vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca. CTV News. 15 June 2020. from the original on 30 November 2021. Retrieved 30 November 2021.
86. O'Malley, Katie (28 February 2020). "Meghan Markle And Prince Harry's Security Will No Longer Be Funded By Canada". Elle. from the original on 28 February 2022. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
87. "Trump says Harry and Meghan must pay for security". BBC. 29 March 2020. from the original on 19 April 2021. Retrieved 22 February 2021.
88. Stieg, Cory (29 March 2020). "Trump says US won't cover Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's security costs". CNBC. from the original on 29 March 2020. Retrieved 29 March 2020.
89. Ritschel, Chelsea (8 March 2021). "Meghan and Harry reveal Tyler Perry offered his security after royal family stripped theirs". The Independent. Archived from the original on 12 May 2022. Retrieved 8 March 2021.
90. Hoyles, Ben. "Harry and Meghan 'looked after by £7,000-a-day bodyguards to the stars'". The Times. from the original on 7 August 2020. Retrieved 18 June 2020.
91. Landler, Mark (30 March 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Scale Down Their Royal P.R. Machine". The New York Times. from the original on 7 April 2020. Retrieved 30 March 2020.
92. Merrett, Robyn (6 April 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Confirm New Name of Foundation, to Launch 'When the Time Is Right'". People. from the original on 7 April 2020. Retrieved 6 April 2020.
93. Gold, Hadas (20 April 2020). "Meghan and Harry tell four British tabloids they can expect 'zero engagement'". London: CNN Business. from the original on 20 April 2020. Retrieved 20 April 2020.
94. McCarthy, Tyler (20 April 2020). "Meghan Markle, Prince Harry announce they'll no longer cooperate with certain British tabloids". Fox News. from the original on 20 April 2020. Retrieved 20 April 2020.
95. Gumbel, Andrew (14 August 2020). "Montecito: the super-wealthy enclave Harry and Meghan now call home". Guardian Media Group. The Guardian. from the original on 20 October 2020. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
96. Avery, Rachel (1 September 2021). "The truth about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's £11m property purchase". Hello! Canada. from the original on 1 September 2021. Retrieved 1 September 2021.
97. "Prince Harry: Frogmore Cottage renovation cost repaid". BBC News. 7 September 2020. from the original on 31 October 2020. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
98. Roberto, Melissa (21 November 2020). "Princess Eugenie moves into Meghan Markle, Prince Harry's Frogmore Cottage: source". Fox News. from the original on 21 November 2020. Retrieved 21 November 2020.
99. Perry, Simon. "Princess Eugenie Moves Into Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Frogmore Cottage Home". People. from the original on 20 November 2020. Retrieved 21 November 2020.
100. Kirkpatrick, Emily (18 December 2020). "Princess Eugenie and Her Husband Have Reportedly Already Moved Out of Harry and Meghan's Old House". Vanity Fair. from the original on 14 December 2020. Retrieved 14 December 2020.
101. "Harry and Meghan to be interviewed by Oprah Winfrey". BBC. 16 February 2021. from the original on 9 April 2021. Retrieved 6 March 2021.
102. "Harry and Meghan not returning as working members of Royal Family". BBC. 19 February 2021. from the original on 4 March 2021. Retrieved 19 February 2021.
103. Kimble, Lindsay (19 February 2021). "Prince Harry & Meghan Markle Confirm They Won't Return to Royal Roles: 'All Are Saddened,' Says Queen". People. from the original on 19 February 2021. Retrieved 19 February 2021.
104. Picheta, Rob; Foster, Max (19 February 2021). "Prince Harry and Meghan will not return as working members of royal family". CNN. from the original on 19 February 2021. Retrieved 19 February 2021.
105. Chmielewski, Dawn (12 March 2021). "Cost Of Harry And Meghan's Security Revealed". Forbes. from the original on 2 January 2023. Retrieved 2 January 2023.
106. "Harry and Meghan: Police called to alerts at couple's California home nine times in nine months". Sky News. 8 April 2021. from the original on 19 April 2021. Retrieved 9 April 2021.
107. Tominey, Camilla (2 April 2021). "Harry and Meghan were in talks with video platform a year before 'Megxit'". The Daily Telegraph. from the original on 22 September 2022. Retrieved 2 April 2021.
108. Lee, Joseph (15 January 2022). "Prince Harry in legal fight to pay for UK police protection". BBC. from the original on 8 December 2022. Retrieved 16 January 2022.
109. Davies, Caroline (16 January 2022). "UK too dangerous for us to visit, says Prince Harry". The Guardian. from the original on 23 September 2022. Retrieved 16 January 2022.
110. Casciani, Dominic (18 February 2022). "Prince Harry says UK still his home as he bids for police security on visits". BBC. from the original on 5 December 2022. Retrieved 19 February 2022.
111. Quinn, Ben (18 February 2022). "Prince Harry 'does not feel safe in UK', lawyers tell high court". The Guardian. from the original on 9 November 2022. Retrieved 19 February 2022.
112. Therrien, Alex (24 March 2022). "Prince Harry: Parts of legal case to be kept secret, court says". BBC. from the original on 10 December 2022. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
113. Lee, Joseph (7 July 2022). "Prince Harry faced tensions with royal officials as security downgraded, court hears". BBC. from the original on 8 December 2022. Retrieved 8 July 2022.
114. Bowden, George (22 July 2022). "Prince Harry wins bid to challenge security decisions". BBC. from the original on 8 December 2022. Retrieved 22 July 2022.
115. Faulkner, Doug (14 April 2022). "Harry and Meghan visit Queen on way to Invictus". BBC News. from the original on 6 September 2022. Retrieved 15 April 2022.
116. Relph, Daniela (3 June 2022). "Prince Harry and Meghan navigate a tricky return to duty". BBC. from the original on 22 September 2022. Retrieved 7 June 2022.
117. "Harry and Meghan to visit UK in September for charity events". BBC. 15 August 2022. from the original on 22 September 2022. Retrieved 22 August 2022.
118. Vanderhoof, Erin (25 July 2022). "Meghan and Harry Reportedly Had Two Security Breaches in Two Weeks". Vanity Fair. from the original on 15 August 2022. Retrieved 26 July 2022.
119. Royston, Jack (4 August 2022). "Harry Files New Lawsuit Against U.K. Government in Sign Tensions Remain". Newsweek. from the original on 2 December 2022. Retrieved 5 August 2022.
120. Gregory, Andy (29 November 2022). "'Disgusting and credible' plots against Meghan Markle investigated by police". The Independent. from the original on 30 November 2022. Retrieved 29 November 2022.
121. Tominey, Camilla (10 January 2020). "Queen calls Royal family crisis meeting as Meghan flies back to Canada". The Daily Telegraph. from the original on 9 January 2020. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
122. Elston, Laura (8 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan's 'extraordinary' decision not thought through". Belfast Telegraph. from the original on 12 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
123. Petter, Olivia (14 January 2020). "Boris Johnson 'absolutely confident' that royal family will resolve 'Megxit'". The Independent. from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
124. Petter, Olivia (2 February 2020). "Meghan Markle is a victim of racism, sexism and misogyny, says John Bercow". The Independent. from the original on 19 December 2022. Retrieved 19 December 2022.
125. Pflum, May (9 January 2019). "'Megxit' could pack a punch to the British economy". NBC News. from the original on 12 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
126. Paton, Elizabeth (9 January 2020). "Losing Meghan, Prince Harry and (Potentially) Billions of Pounds". The New York Times. from the original on 15 January 2020. Retrieved 16 January 2020.
127. "Megxit latest: Meghan and Harry removed from Madame Tussauds line-up". Irish Times. 10 January 2020. from the original on 10 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
128. "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.^{[permanent dead link]}
129. White, Josh (19 January 2020). "'Royal history was made': How the papers reacted to 'Megxit'". from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
130. Landler, Mark (20 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan's Hard Exit". The New York Times. from the original on 20 January 2020. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
131. Krauze, Andrzej (22 January 2020). "Andrzej Krauze on Brexit and Megxit – cartoon". The Guardian. from the original on 22 January 2020. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
132. "How "Megxit" May Wind Up Settling Down In Canada". NPR. 16 January 2020. from the original on 17 January 2020. Retrieved 18 January 2020.
133. Bilefsky, Dan (11 January 2020). "Could 'Megxit' Be a Royal Fairy Tale for Canada?". The New York Times. from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
134. Jobson, Robert (14 January 2020). "Revealed: Canada says it will pick up Harry and Meghan's security bill while they are in the country". Evening Standard. from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
135. "'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 9 January 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
136. Selley, Chris (14 January 2020). "Chris Selley: Megxit really is messing with giddy Canadians' heads". National Post. from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
137. "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. from the original on 15 April 2020. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
138. Scribner, Herb (17 January 2020). "Canada's largest newspaper says Prince Harry and Meghan Markle shouldn't move to Canada". Deseret. from the original on 31 January 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
139. Jarvis, Jacob. "Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail slams Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's living plans in furious editorial". Evening Standard. from the original on 31 January 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
140. Cachero, Paulina (16 January 2020). "One of Canada's biggest newspapers said Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are not welcome". Insider. Archived from the original on 23 March 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
141. 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. from the original on 30 January 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
142. "Royal Tab: Vast majority don't want to pay costs associated with the Sussexes' move to Canada". Angus Reid Institute. 15 January 2020. from the original on 30 January 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
143. 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. from the original on 23 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
144. Roberto, Melissa (23 January 2020). "Canadians demand Meghan Markle, Prince Harry pay for their own security in new petition". Fox News. from the original on 23 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
145. Wood, James (15 June 2020). "RCMP bill for Meghan and Harry topped $50,000". Canadian Taxpayers Federation. from the original on 27 February 2021. Retrieved 19 February 2021.
146. Kiew, Chelsea (18 June 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle chalked up nearly $42,000 in security fees in Canada". The Jakarta Post. from the original on 20 June 2020. Retrieved 20 June 2020.
147. Moylan, Brian (12 January 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan quit the royal family because they want to have cake, and eat it too". NBC News. Retrieved 15 January 2023.
148. Vinopal, Courtney (20 January 2020). "Why Harry and Meghan's 'Megxit' is a crossroads for the UK on race". PBS. from the original on 22 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
149. Stevens, Melissa (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. from the original on 22 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
150. Williams, Armstrong (22 January 2020). "Megxit, Trump and the generational divide". The Hill. from the original on 23 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
151. Hunt Botting, Eileen (27 January 2020). "'Megxit' wouldn't surprise these 18th-century political thinkers". Washington Post. from the original on 27 January 2020. Retrieved 27 January 2020.
152. Flanagan, Caitln (18 March 2020). "Meghan and Harry Overplayed Their Hand". The Atlantic. from the original on 10 November 2020. Retrieved 22 November 2020.
153. "MWX FOUNDATION – Filing history (free information from Companies House)". find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk. from the original on 23 January 2021. Retrieved 7 January 2021.
154. Spranklen, Annabelle (16 October 2019). "Kirsty Young to become director of Harry and Meghan's charity". Tatler. from the original on 10 January 2021. Retrieved 7 January 2021.
155. "Harry and Meghan appoint philanthropist as new director of charity". belfasttelegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. from the original on 23 January 2021. Retrieved 7 January 2021.
156. Furness, Hannah (22 August 2019). "Duke and Duchess of Sussex appoint media executive as new charity director". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. from the original on 2 December 2019. Retrieved 7 January 2021.
157. Wilson, Cherry; Mundy, Ben (4 April 2019). "Prince Harry and Meghan took my Instagram name". BBC. Retrieved 15 January 2023.
158. Igoe, Catherine J. (9 January 2020). "Meghan and Harry's New Website Was Created by "The Tig" Designers". Marie Claire. from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
159. Davis, Jessica (9 January 2020). "How will the Sussexes make their money now?". Harper's Bazaar. from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
160. Hallemann, Caroline (12 January 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Website Designer Shares What It Was Like to Work on SussexRoyal.com". Town & Country. from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
161. Mead, Rebecca (10 January 2020). "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Royal Flush". The New Yorker. from the original on 10 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
162. Quinn, Ben (11 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan could face fight to protect 'Sussex Royal' brand". The Guardian. from the original on 11 January 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
163. "Use of Royal Arms, Names and Images". Royal.uk. Lord Chamberlain's Office. 4 April 2016. from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
164. Bird, Steve; Allen, Nick (11 January 2020). "Sussex Royal foundation expected to launch in April as couple face stumbling block over Hollywood celebrity donations". The Daily Telegraph. from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
165. Quinn, Ben (12 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan seek global trademark for 'Sussex Royal' brand". The Guardian. from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
166. MacKelden, Amy (22 February 2020). "Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Are Creating a Non-Profit Instead of the Sussex Royal Foundation". Harper's Bazaar. from the original on 24 February 2020. Retrieved 25 February 2020.
167. Perry, Simon (3 July 2020). "Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Take Another Formal Step Away from Their Ex-Royal Life". People. from the original on 3 July 2020. Retrieved 4 July 2020.
168. "Harry and Meghan officially rename charity Markle Windsor Foundation". nzherald.co.nz. 27 August 2020. from the original on 23 January 2021. Retrieved 15 December 2020.
169. Ng, Kate (6 January 2022). "Report reveals how much money Meghan and Harry's charity raised in first year". The Independent. Archived from the original on 12 May 2022. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
170. Newell, Claire; Rushton, Katherine; Ward, Victoria; Tominey, Camilla (5 March 2021). "Exclusive: Charity Commission reviewing Prince Harry and Meghan's Sussex Royal organisation". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 10 January 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
171. Betancourt, Bianca (20 July 2020). "Prince Harry's Reps Shut Down Claims of Mishandling Sussex Royal and Royal Foundation Funds". Harper's Bazaar. from the original on 7 January 2022. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
172. Nicolaou, Elena (4 May 2020). "A Definitive Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Biography Is Coming Out this Summer". Oprah Magazine. from the original on 8 November 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
173. Haring, Bruce (3 May 2020). "Harry And Meghan Talk Of 'Finding Freedom' By Cooperating With Authors Of New Tell-All Biography". Deadline. from the original on 7 December 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
174. Coke, Hope (26 July 2020). "Everything we now know about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's biography". www.tatler.com. from the original on 27 November 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
175. Puente, Maria (11 August 2020). "'Finding Freedom' tells Harry and Meghan's reasons for flight: 'Blindsided' by racism, tabloid coverage". USA Today. from the original on 28 October 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
176. Coke, Hope (19 August 2020). "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's biography tops UK bestseller list". Tatler. from the original on 1 November 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
177. Freeman, Hadley (10 August 2020). "Finding Freedom by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand – Harry and Meghan and the making of a modern royal family". The Guardian. from the original on 2 November 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
178. Low, Valentine (10 August 2020). "Finding Freedom review — the truth behind Megxit?". The Times. from the original on 27 December 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
179. Mzezewa, Tariro (11 August 2020). "Happily Ever After? Harry and Meghan Will Settle for Normal". New York Times. from the original on 27 November 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
180. Elser, Daniela (12 August 2020). "Meghan book Finding Freedom puts target on Kate". NZ Herald. from the original on 23 January 2021. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
181. Nicholl, Katie (11 August 2020). "Finding Freedom Opens Up Old Wounds Between Harry, Meghan, and the Royal Family. Is It Worth It?". Vanity Fair. from the original on 12 December 2020. Retrieved 20 March 2023.
182. Williams, Joanna (27 July 2020). "The myth of a 'privacy loving' Harry and Meghan | The Spectator". www.spectator.co.uk. from the original on 27 February 2021. Retrieved 16 May 2021.
183. Logan, Erin B. (17 August 2020). "5 revelations about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in a new biography". Los Angeles Times. from the original on 7 December 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
184. Nicholl, Katie (18 November 2020). "Meghan Markle Admits She Really Did Help with Finding Freedom". Vanity Fair. from the original on 12 December 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2020.

External links

 

Look up Megxit in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Statement by Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, sussexroyal.com (8 January 2020)
• Megxit entry at Know Your Meme
• What does Megxit mean? entry at Dictionary.com
• Megxit entry in the Collins English Dictionary