Megxit

[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][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'?

[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 utilised in negative comments aimed at Meghan.

[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".

[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.

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

[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.

[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.

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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[107] 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.

[108] 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.

[109][110] 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.

[113] 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".

[114] 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.

[115] 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.

[121] In October 2023, Byline Times reported that Charles withdrew £700,000 in funding for Harry and Meghan, forcing them out of the Sandringham Agreement and spurring their pursuit of commercial deals in the US.

This was reportedly because Harry had named, in a legal letter sent in April 2020, a key aide to Prince William who had allegedly received payments from Dan Wootton, then an executive editor of The Sun newspaper, for stories about Megxit and Archie, in a "cash-for-leaks scandal".

[131][132] 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.

[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".

[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.

During August through to October 2019 they appointed broadcaster and former Desert Island Discs presenter Kirsty Young,[160] financier and philanthropist Stefan Allesch-Taylor,[161] business leader and media executive Karen Blackett[162] and banker Steven Cooper to serve as Directors of their Foundation.

[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.

[176] 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.

[176] 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".

[183] [181][184][185] 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".