From praising Prince Harry for doing the ‘honourable’ thing, to urging the Queen to ‘abdicate’, last night’s statement that the Sussexes are to be stripped of their HRH titles has sparked a slew of snap analysis.
Every line has been pored over extensively in newspaper columns by well-trodden Palace observers.
Most commentators agree that this is a ‘landmark’ moment in royal history, but differ on what it means for the couple.
Below is a summary of what the royal pundits have dissected from the statement.
Camilla Tominey – Sunday Telegraph
Camilla Tominey on This Morning last week
‘Make no mistake, Saturday night’s statement represents the hardest Megxit possible for the Duke of Duchess of Sussex.
‘While insisting Harry, Meghan and Archie ‘will always be much loved members of my family’, the 93-year-old monarch could not be clearer on their on-going role in the Firm: it’s over.
‘…It is no secret behind palace gates that she has been left devastated by their bombshell statement on January 8 – and by her own admission last Monday, she would have preferred her grandson and his wife to have remained full-time working members of the Royal Family.
‘…That is not to say that the statement did not contain some surprises. To strip Harry, a former Army Captain who has undertaken two tours of Afghanistan of his military appointments as well as royal duties may strike some as overly punitive.’
Andrew Morton, Princess Diana’s biographer – Sun on Sunday
Andrew Morton on Loose Women last year
‘This is a huge step down the pecking order for Harry and Meghan.
‘Make no mistake, dropping their HRH titles is a landmark move.
‘The disappearance of those initials next to their names — although technically they still have them — might not mean much to you and I.
‘But inside the Royal Family it is a huge deal.
‘The writing was on the wall when the Queen in her statement referred to ‘Harry and Meghan’ rather than ‘their royal highnesses’.
‘The ‘loss’ of HRH greatly diminishes the couple’s royal pulling power — as Wallis Simpson realised when King George VI refused to give her the title.’
Dickie Arbiter, ex-royal press secretary – Sun on Sunday
Dickie Arbiter on Good morning Britain in November
‘No Royal has ever paid back money — as Harry and Meghan are doing with Frogmore Cottage. It is absolutely unprecedented.
‘There was a furore about the amount spent, although money had to be spent as it was almost derelict. But not necessarily £2.4million. So Harry is doing the right and honourable thing.
‘…Harry is not using his HRH because it would be a conflict of interest should he decide to embark on commercial enterprises.
‘Harry knows full well that it is wrong to trade on your name. I don’t think not using it will have an impact.
‘It didn’t affect Diana’s global appeal one bit. And Fergie had less of a profile but still made money.’
Hugo Vickers – Mail on Sunday
‘It is absolutely right that Harry and Meghan should not use their HRH titles as the danger of appearing to exploit them for commercial gain is all too real.
‘And it is the right decision for them to pay back the £2.4 million it cost to renovate Frogmore Cottage. It has always seemed to be an exceptionally large amount.
‘They cannot be seen to profiteer on the back of royalty and they do not wish to be seen as a burden on the British taxpayer. The decision to leave the Royal fold is regrettable, however, and I am saddened.
‘True, this decisive break will at least make them less vulnerable to criticism – of which there has been a great deal.
‘It also liberates them from what they perceive to be constraints on their existence.
‘And in many ways it will encourage greater responsibility. They will be obliged to take care of their own financial arrangements. Yet there is a real risk here. All that glitters is not gold.
‘But by surrendering his position, Prince Harry could lose his allure and appeal – and people could tire of them both.
‘That is surely a very real danger in the fickle world of celebrity culture. In five years, will they simply be just another tarnished celebrity couple?
Patrick Jephson, ex-private secretary to Diana – Mail on Sunday
Patrick Jephson at The Independent Woodstock Literary festival in 2011
‘Three little letters. H. R. H. Their absence as a prefix to Duke and Duchess will pass unnoticed in most of the world, not least the celebrityland that is now presumably Harry and Meghan’s most likely destination.
‘So too the small but significant detail that they can no longer represent the Queen abroad.
‘But be in no doubt: within palace walls, in government departments, embassies and wherever anxious aides pore over the small print of protocol, both these demotions carry real significance.
‘To Harry personally, they will sting, as – one assumes – is Her Majesty’s intention.
‘So too will the removal of his military appointments and affiliations.
‘To Harry, former soldier and member of a family so steeped in military service and tradition, to whom wearing uniform (and wearing it properly in every meticulous detail) is second nature, this will be a particularly deep cut.’
Sean O’Grady – the Independent
‘So that’s them gone, then. It’s not hard to see why – the media drove them out, more than any other single factor, and their role just wasn’t worth the sacrifices.
‘No one does understatement and euphemism like the Queen. In the Buckingham Palace statement, her meaning is clear: ‘I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.’
‘Intense scrutiny’ means ‘the press made their lives hell’ and ‘independent life’ means they don’t wish to put up with it any longer.’
Roya Nikkhah, royal correspondent – The Sunday Times
Roya Nikkhah on Lorraine last week
‘The Duke and Duchess of Sussex may be leaving these shores for North America, but there can be no mistaking the Queen’s intention in agreeing to let them go. This is a trial separation — at least for now — rather than a full blown divorce.
‘…Her remarks were both poignant and astonishing, even if the way forward remains decidedly murky in several important respects.
‘The Queen stressed that Harry and Meghan would always be “much loved members of my family”; yet there was no disguising the painful reality of what may turn into their prolonged departure from British public life.’
Sarah Baxter – The Sunday Times
Sarah Baxter, also on Lorraine, in 2013
‘For years the Queen has tried to keep her distance from endless family squabbles, but Harry and Meghan’s flounce-off and Prince Andrew’s disgrace have been too momentous to ignore.
‘Is it fair to expect the 93-year-old monarch to impose order on her unruly offspring? She is a great-grandmother several times over, God bless her.
‘With respect, Ma’am, it is time to hand over power to Charles. Let it go!
‘Either abdication or a regency would be fine. This bold move would be the clearest symbol that the rest of the bloated Firm is going to be slimmed down, as Charles has been promising for several years.’