Harry and Meghan’s US election intervention ‘violated’ terms of deal with Queen, say senior aides

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s US election intervention ‘violated’ the terms of the ‘Megxit’ deal the couple have the Queen, according to senior royal aides.

Their comments could further risk their links to the monarchy, with sources claiming that senior courtiers are discussing how to further distance London royals from the couple.

In their message, Harry and Meghan called on American voters to ‘reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity’ in ‘the most important election of our life.’

Their comments, which came in a Time 100 video to go with the publication of this year’s list of the most influential people, have been widely interpreted to be a swipe at U.S. president Donald Trump. The list does not include the royal couple.

Members of the royal family are supposed to be politically neutral, and under the Sandringham accord – agreed in March when the pair quit their royal duties – the Sussexes vowed that ‘everything they do will uphold the values of Her Majesty’.

However, according to The Sunday Times, royal aides have said that the couple’s comments last week have broken their promise from earlier this year.

‘The [royal] family are all wringing their hands, thinking: where is this going and does this abide by the deal to uphold the values of the Queen? The feeling is it’s a violation of the agreement,’ one source told the newspaper. 

The sources say that if the agreement is deemed to have been violated, Prince Harry’s chances of resuming his connections to the Royal Marines and other military posts he is said to hold dear could be under threat.

The arrangement the Sussexes have with the royal family will be reviewed after a year by The Queen, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge.

The Times reports that the Queen agreed to keep the positions vacated by Prince Harry open during the review period so that he could return if it was deemed appropriate. One such position is the captain general of the Royal Marines.

‘The door was left open,’ said one aide. ‘There were some things that Harry hoped he could opt back into. He dearly wants to hang on to the Royal Marines and the military appointments. That will be harder now.’ This will likely come as a blow to the Prince. 

The couples’ roles as president and vice-president of the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust is also expected to come under review, and conversations last week reportedly even included whether they could be stripped of their HRH titles.

Currently, Harry and Meghan still have these titles, but are not allowed to use them.

However, one source told The Times that the view is they couldn’t remove Harry’s title, pointing to the fact that even Edward VIII kept his HRH when he abdicated. 

Royal sources claim that the Monarchy was embarrassed by the couple’s comments, with one senior aide questioning what The Queen would say to Donald Trump should he make another visit to the UK after her grandson and his wife spoke out against him

Buckingham palace sough to distance itself from their remarks, with royal sources saying that the monarch had been embarrassed by the comments, asking what the Queen is supposed to say should Donald Trump have another presidential visit.

‘If Trump is re-elected and makes another visit here, what is the Queen supposed to say when her grandson and his wife have effectively campaigned against him?’ said a source. 

A spokesman for the Sussexes said: ‘The duke’s message is not in reference to any specific political party or candidate, but is instead a call for decency in how we engage with each other.’     

Harry and Meghan, now ensconced in an L.A. mansion, made their remarks just weeks before the November 3 elections with Americans in some states already going to the polls.

The Duke of Sussex urged people to ‘reject hate speech’ while the Duchess called it the ‘most important election of our lifetime’ in remarks which made waves on both sides of the Atlantic. 

Royal insiders voiced concern in Britain where the Queen and her family are expected to remain politically neutral at all times, with one saying that Harry and Meghan had ‘crossed a line’. 

Buckingham Palace also distanced itself from Harry’s remarks by saying that ‘the Duke is not a working member of the royal family’ and describing his comments as ‘made in a personal capacity’. 

Trump slammed Meghan Markle from the White House podium after the video message was released, urging Americans to vote and hinting they support Democrat Joe Biden. 

‘I’m not a fan of hers,’ Trump said Wednesday to a question posed by DailyMail.com. ‘I would say this – and she has probably heard that – I wish a lot of luck to Harry because he’s going to need it.’ 

‘As we approach this November, it’s vital that we reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity,’ said Harry – in a line some observers in Britain and the U.S. immediately took to be a plug for Joe Biden and a slap at President Trump. 

Said the California-born Markle, 39: ‘We’re six weeks out from the election, and today is Voter Registration Day. 

‘Every four years, we’re told the same thing, ‘This is the most important election of our lifetime. But this one is. When we vote, our values are put into action, and our voices are heard.’ 

For his part, Harry said: ‘As we approach this November, it’s vital that we reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity.’ 

Harry urged Americans to be careful about what kind of content they consume online.

‘When the bad outweighs the good, for many, whether we realize it or not, it erodes our ability to have compassion and our ability to put ourself in someone else’s shoes. Because when one person buys into negativity online, the effects are felt exponentially. It’s time to not only reflect, but act,’ he said. 

Harry is said to be hopeful that he can retain some military duties, but the video message is thought to have put his chanced of being allowed to do so at risk

While many viewers saw Harry and Meghan’s comments as a thinly-veiled endorsement of Biden, a source close to Harry insisted the Duke was not referring to Trump or any other individual.

‘The duke was talking about the tone of debate in the run-up to an election which is already quite febrile,’ they said.

‘He is not talking about any candidate or specific campaign. He is building on a lot of stuff that he’s said before about online communities, how we engage with each other online, rather than specifically making any political points.’ 

SARAH VINE: Do Meghan Markle and Prince Harry actually WANT to be stripped of their titles?    

BySarah Vine for the Daily Mail

Donald Trump is not my favourite person. But I couldn’t help feeling a certain grudging admiration for the old dunderhead last week.

Asked what he thought of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to interfere in the US presidential election, he just gave a wry smile and said: ‘I wish a lot of luck to Harry… because he’s gonna need it.’

Mr Trump doesn’t always have a great way with words but even his sternest critic would have to concede that, on this occasion, he displayed an admirable flash of wit.

A member of the British Royal Family, a scion of Empire, telling Americans how to vote in their own elections? Good luck with that, Harry.

Because, of course, the Yanks famously love being bossed around by pampered English princes. Look how well it turned out for George III.

Seriously, though, if Harry and Meghan hoped to boost Grandpa Biden’s poll ratings, they may well have just shot themselves in the Manolos.

Asked what he thought of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to interfere in the US presidential election, Trump just gave a wry smile and said: ‘I wish a lot of luck to Harry… because he’s gonna need it’

If there’s one thing guaranteed to get your average, red-blooded Republican off straight to the polling booth, it’s the sight of a couple of entitled celebrities accusing them of being ignorant hate-mongers – from the comfort of an £11million mansion. At home, too, this intervention marks a turning point in the increasingly toxic soap opera of Harry and Meghan.

Because what the Prince has just done – break the cardinal rule of British Royalty, that is to say openly intervene in not just an election, but a foreign election – takes the growing rift between him and the Palace, to borrow a term from the American military, to DEFCON 3.

It would appear to be – and I am increasingly certain of this – a deliberate act of aggression designed to leave the Queen with no choice but to strip the pair of their Royal titles.

Such an act would play perfectly to their imagined narrative of always being the victims.

The speed with which Harry has gone from being the most relatable member of the Royal Family to someone who appears intent on not only rejecting everything the institution stands for but doing his utmost to undermine it, is astonishing. It had already become clear, even before he met Meghan, that the Prince was struggling to find his feet as a Royal. He harboured a lot of pent-up resentment, not only towards the constraints of the institution itself, but also towards his family for the way his mother had been treated.

He wanted out, whether he realised it fully or not, and Meghan was his ticket 

I don’t think it was any coincidence that he chose as his bride a woman who was always going to struggle with the restrictions of monarchy.

He wanted out, whether he realised it fully or not, and Meghan was his ticket. Had he married some honking Camilla, content to push a pram around Windsor while wearing a pair of wellies and a Barbour, he would have been for ever trapped in the role of spare, relegated to a life in his brother’s shadow, always the also-ran, like his Uncle Andrew.

Meghan was never going to put up with that kind of life. That was abundantly clear right from the start to anyone with eyes in their head. This way, he gets to ‘find freedom’ and sock it to the institution which, it is increasingly apparent, he despises.

No more dreary wet weekends pressing the flesh with commoners for Harry: it’s all Netflix and chia seeds now.

And the fact that, by his actions, he is boxing his family – and with it his long-suffering granny – into a corner is just the cherry on the cake.

So, yes, Mr Trump is right to wish Harry luck. After all, it’s a huge gamble he’s taking.

I just hope the poor deluded boy knows what he’s letting himself in for.

How British royals are expected to keep out of politics  

Under Britain’s constitutional monarchy, powers which theoretically belong to the Queen – such as appointing ministers and approving legislation – are exercised in her name by political leaders. 

This system means that political decisions are taken by the elected government rather than unelected royals, while keeping the monarchy as a symbol of the British state and its traditions. 

The royals’ political neutrality, which the Queen has scrupulously observed for 68 years, is key to maintaining this balance and to preserving the monarchy’s popularity. 

A YouGov poll earlier this year found majority support among both Conservative and Labour voters as well as Brexiteers and Europhiles for maintaining the British monarchy.  

The Queen’s uncle King Edward VIII had to abdicate in 1936 because the government refused to support his planned marriage to American divorcee Wallis Simpson – fatally compromising his neutrality.   

While there is no law explicitly preventing the royal family from voting in UK elections, doing so would be an unacceptable breach of protocol.   

The Queen holds weekly conversations with her prime ministers and she is entitled to ‘advise and warn’ them when necessary, but the nature of her advice is never made public.  

Even her guarded comment that voters should ‘think very carefully about the future’ ahead of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum was seen as an unusual intervention.  

Prince Charles is known for writing lengthy letters to ministers on policy subjects such as agriculture, some of which were made public in 2015. 

William and Kate have also spoken out on the environment, launching a prize to tackle climate issues last year. 

Princess Diana – who like Harry and Meghan became semi-detached from the monarchy – was known for her campaigning on land mines, once allegedly describing the UK government’s policy as ‘hopeless’. 

Her involvement sparked criticism from some Conservative MPs, but the Labour government that took office shortly before her death was more favourable to her campaign.