It’s been nearly seven years, but it still plucks my last nerve whenever people say that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex “agreed to the terms of the Sandringham Summit.” They did not. The Windsors cut Meghan out of the summit completely – she was not given the opportunity to represent her own interests and her children’s interests in the negotiations about her family’s future. She also signed nothing – there is no valid agreement or contract with Meghan’s signature. Her husband cannot sign away her rights in a non-binding contract, you know? In any case, we’re still talking about this because the Sussexes have returned to the UK and royalists are wringing their hands over how they can linguistically exert control over Harry and Meghan. From Richard Palmer’s latest in the i Newspaper:
The Nolan Principles: Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex no longer feel bound by a key part of the ‘Megxit’ deal they struck with the Palace in 2020, after their taxpayer-funded security was removed, The i Paper understands. The Sussexes are stepping back from the terms of the six-year-old Sandringham Agreement, signed off by the late Queen, according to a source close to the couple. At the time, senior palace officials indicated the couple would follow the standards expected of working royals, a set of values known as the Nolan Principles. These commit those bound by them to avoiding political controversy, supporting UK government policy on the international stage and not using royal status to further business interests.
Family values: The couple are said to draw a distinction between upholding the late Queen’s personal values and the institutional obligations that came with the agreement. “They are shared familial values,” the source added. This determination to build a new life for themselves in Britain on their terms, even if it conflicts with the Palace’s stated desire for them to be seen as “private citizens”, stems from the fact that they no longer receive taxpayer funds, the source added. “He’s still the King’s son. There’s no getting away from that,” the source said. “They are working royals, but they don’t work for the institution any longer.”
What was codified? “I’d be very keen to see what was codified at the time of the Sandringham Agreement,” the source added. “But it was at a time when the Duke and Duchess were still in receipt of public funds for security and there was financial support from his father.”
Free to speak about politics: The source also suggested that Harry and Meghan were free to speak out on political issues and criticise foreign leaders such as US President Donald Trump or his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Craig Prescott, a constitutional expert at Royal Holloway, University of London, said the couple had slowly veered away from the spirit of the Sandringham Agreement over the past few years. “I always interpreted it as they would keep separate the things they did commercially and their work for their charities,” he said. “But there’s been an overlap. I’m thinking of when Meghan met survivors of the Bondi Beach attack (in April) and shortly afterwards you could buy the same designs on a clothes app.”
This is the dumbest carrot-and-stick approach: Prescott, a law lecturer, predicted any further dismantling of the principles agreed at Sandringham would spell problems for the couple’s relationship with the royals. “If they want a better relationship with the rest of the Royal Family, it’s probably not the best idea to veer away from respecting the values of the late Queen and the monarchy as they stand.”
Harry can do whatever he wants: “Is he going to start criticising Donald Trump? I can’t see that happening but he can if he wants to,” the source close to the couple said. “Harry has every right to, as you and I do.”
Flashpoints: “Nothing has changed but everything has changed,” the royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams said. According to Fitzwilliams, the future flashpoints in their relations with the Royal Family include the question of the King’s attendance at Harry’s 2027 Invictus Games in Birmingham, the 30th anniversary of late Diana, Princess of Wales’ death next August and the Sussexes’ closeness to Earl Spencer, whose book about his sister will be published this month. There is also the risk that when the Sussexes start undertaking public engagements the controversy surrounding them will steal the limelight from the official work of the Royal Family. “I think they are going to do what they like,” Fitzwilliam added.
I’ve never heard it described as “the Nolan Principles.” If the principles are as described, then surely several royals are currently breaking those rules or have broken those rules for decades? The York princesses, Prince Michael of Kent (who ran a business out of Kensington Palace), and Prince Andrew, just off the top of my head. Anyway, I maintain that this was never about “codifying existing rules into the Sandringham agreement so that Harry and Meghan can have a life away from the Windsors.” This was always about creating multiple mechanisms to exert control (even psychological control and media/PR control) over the Sussexes regardless of where they lived and what they did. As we’ve seen time and again, whenever Harry & Meghan deserted the Nolan principles, nothing *actually* happened. It was just the British press freaking out and Prince William rage-shrieking about what he would do to them when he’s king.
Photos courtesy of Netflix.
