In early 2020, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced their intention to step back from senior royal duties, a decision that would reshape the monarchy’s public-facing operations and spark years of speculation about family dynamics. Among the most striking responses came from Princess Anne, one of the institution’s most dedicated members, who publicly described the couple’s choice as “probably the right thing to do.” Her measured endorsement provided rare institutional validation for a departure that had dominated headlines and prompted intense scrutiny of private family opinions.
The decision, effective March 31, 2020, marked a significant institutional shift. Yet the narrative surrounding it has remained contested, with various interpretations—from psychic claims of foreknowledge to documented financial outcomes—competing for credibility in public discourse. Understanding what actually transpired requires separating verified statements from speculation and examining the tangible consequences that followed.
The Princess Royal’s Perspective
Princess Anne, who turned 75 in 2024, stands as one of the monarchy’s most prolific workers. In 2024 alone, she completed 217 engagements, surpassing King Charles despite his health challenges. Her experience and personal choices lend particular weight to her assessment of the Sussexes’ decision.
Anne’s own history parallels the couple’s path in unexpected ways. She and her first husband, Mark Phillips, declined royal titles for their children—a choice that positioned her as someone who understood the potential constraints of royal status firsthand. In a Vanity Fair interview published on April 15, 2020, Anne reflected on the departure: “I think it was probably easier for them, and I think most people would argue that there are downsides to having titles. So I think that was probably the right thing to do.”[1] Her comment anchored institutional support for the exit, framing it as a pragmatic choice rather than a family rupture.
The Departure Timeline and Mechanics
Harry announced the couple’s intention to step back on January 8, 2020, formalizing a strategy aimed at independence and financial autonomy. Meghan completed her final official duties between March 5 and 7, 2020, including appearances at the Endeavour Fund Awards and the Mountbatten Festival of Music. These structured engagements underscored the methodical nature of the transition.
Buckingham Palace’s response, issued the same day as Harry’s announcement, struck a deliberately diplomatic tone: “Discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage. We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”[1] The language framed the departure as a negotiation rather than a failure, highlighting the contrast between official institutional messaging and the speculative interpretations that would follow.
Financial Transformation and Independence
After stepping back, the Sussexes moved to Montecito, California, purchasing a $14.65 million property in June 2020. The 5,456-mile distance from London formalized their separation from palace life and enabled the independent ventures that would define their post-royal trajectory.
In September 2020, Meghan and Harry launched Archewell Productions and signed a $100 million Netflix deal, followed by a $20 million Spotify podcast agreement. These ventures transformed the couple into media entrepreneurs, generating income independent of royal allowances. By 2025, their combined net worth stood at approximately $60 million, with property appreciation and media deals contributing over $134 million in gains since the exit.[1] The documented financial success directly contradicted narratives of institutional failure.
Institutional Ripple Effects
The departure reduced palace engagement capacity by roughly 30 to 40 annual events and required reallocation of military appointments and patronages. Approximately 15 to 20 Sussex household staff were reassigned or made redundant, and royal patronages transitioned to other family members. Traditional British media lost direct access to the couple, while Netflix and Spotify gained exclusive content rights—a shift that altered narrative control and financial flows in ways that extended far beyond the palace walls.
Reconciling Competing Narratives
The story’s enduring fascination stems partly from competing interpretations of the same events. Television psychic Debbie Davies claimed retrospectively that she observed skepticism during the May 2018 wedding, stating that “Princess Anne is just like her dad was, Prince Philip could see straight through Meghan Markle.”[1] Yet this intuitive assessment, made years after the fact, contrasts sharply with Anne’s documented, measured endorsement two years after the announcement.
The distinction matters: Anne’s statement reflects post-decision institutional assessment grounded in her own experience; Davies’ claim represents personal intuition and retrospective analysis rather than verified evidence. Both accounts can coexist without direct contradiction, yet they reveal how perception and documented fact diverge in high-profile narratives.
The Outcome and Validation
The Sussexes successfully transitioned to financial independence and media prominence, outcomes that validated Anne’s pragmatic assessment. Her endorsement now appears vindicated by subsequent events—not because she predicted success, but because her measured judgment aligned with what actually transpired. The narrative tension embedded in competing interpretations dissolves when examined through documented evidence: verified commentary, timeline analysis, and financial results demonstrate that stepping back was both prudent and profitable for the couple, while remaining operationally manageable for the institution.