Prince Harry & Meghan have officially cut ties with the Queen’s go-to law firm

Britain's Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in South Africa

Yes, this story comes from the Daily Mail. The “Eden Confidential” column in the Mail, to be more specific. I know everyone will yell about it, but I find this piece *fascinating* on several levels. Eden Confidential’s insiders say that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are “ditching” the Queen’s go-to law firm, Harbottle & Lewis, for what I assume are the Sussexes’ daily legal needs. The thing is, Meghan and Harry have been using different lawyers for different things. Currently, Meghan is represented by the Schillings law firm for her lawsuit against the Daily Mail. I don’t know which law firm Harry is using for his suit against the British tabloids (which is larger in scope and involves more than just Harry). But Eden Confidential makes it sound like Harry and Meghan were still using Harbottle & Lewis for regular old business and charitable stuff, except they aren’t anymore.

When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit official duties this year, the Royal Family gave them the opportunity to change their minds by announcing that the controversial new arrangements would be reviewed after 12 months. I can reveal that Prince Harry and Meghan have, however, dropped a huge hint that they will not be rejoining the Firm by ditching the Queen’s lawyers, Harbottle & Lewis.

It’s a surprising move as Harry has been represented by Harbottles since he was a teen. So close did he feel to the firm that he asked senior partner Gerrard Tyrrell to become a director of the couple’s charity, Sussex Royal.

This week, Harry and Meghan filed official documents confirming the split. ‘It would appear to demonstrate that they have no intention of coming back,’ a courtier tells me. ‘The choice of lawyers is of great importance to the Royal Household and Gerrard was a useful neutral link man between the Sussexes and the Palace.’

Harbottle & Lewis was representing the couple’s planned not-for-profit organisation, Archewell, but it has been replaced by a rival firm, Fieldfisher. A source close to Harry and Meghan tells me: ‘They wanted to instruct their own lawyers, not those also used by the Royal Family. They are on an independent path.’

Harry has previously turned to Tyrrell every time he has needed legal advice and encouraged girlfriends such as Chelsy Davy to use the firm. Tyrrell is famous for his work with the Royals. When he was presented with a legal prize in 2017, the judges gushed: ‘Gerard Tyrrell is a name breathed with certain awe . . . in acting for the Queen, and royal families, he has throughout his career built his own reputation while protecting and preserving the reputations of others.’

Tyrrell tells me: ‘As I am certain you will appreciate, we do not comment on such matters.’

[From The Daily Mail]

The column made it sound like this was the clearest signal ever that Harry and Meghan will not return to the royal fold next year, when their “one year review” is up. But… that’s been clear for a while, they’re not coming back. That being said, Harry continues to learn from his late mother – Diana also wanted to get away not only from the royal family and their band of lackeys, but also the professional class of people surrounding them. She went outside the establishment to find her divorce lawyer (Anthony Julius), and it worked (generally) in her favor: she got the financial settlement she wanted and she got joint custody of her sons. My point is that Harry finally understands that he will really have to work outside of the system from here on out. He won’t have the same net of Queen-approved protection, nor does he want it.

HRH Sussexes Visit -  Tuesday 7 January  -  Canada House, London

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

133 Responses to “Prince Harry & Meghan have officially cut ties with the Queen’s go-to law firm”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Aurora says:

    It’s is definitely in their best interest to get outside lawyers who will advise them in a way that prioritizes their needs over that of The Firm.

    Also if they were planning to sue a certain palace or their pillow-talking aid for leaking information The Sussexes will need a non-palace affiliated law firm.

    • Seraphina says:

      Exactly this Aurora. I was told by a friend, when ever you have a business deal or any issue where you need a lawyer, ALWAYS make sure you have your own and don’t share. You want to ensure you are protected.
      And if this isn’t one of the clearest signs that they don’t trust the BRF, I don’t know what is.

    • ola says:

      They will also need a lot of money… especially if they are going to sue tabloids and “friends of royal family” who leaked info to them. Tabloids love to exploit such cases and drag them forever. Top lawyers are extremely expensive both in US and UK.

  2. Molly says:

    “Gerrard was a useful neutral link man between the Sussexes and the Palace.”

    Clearly he wasn’t for Harry.

    • Aurora says:

      Exactly. There are no neutral links working for the Firm. Everyone acts in the interest of the Palace and not the individual.

    • Rebecca says:

      Exactly. There is no neutrality if using the Queen’s go-to firm.

    • Belli says:

      Exactly. The lawyers’ interests will be firmly with their long term clients (the Firm) if there is ever a clash.

  3. Microsoft says:

    Good for them because queen lawyer will screw the Sussex and dailymail and sun is putting so much pressure on cambriges to tell Sussex to drop the case. Lol that’s why cambriges is releasing photo of their kids which they never did before Meghan. This says a lot and how much they are intertwined with press. Karma will come and I cant wait for will affair hitting the press. Another report on how the sun is using private investigators in USA for private information of Sussex and how cambriges trademark is rejected in usa. The press is clearly covering these cambriges clown ass as long as they have access to their kids. So sad and pathetic to use their kids.

    • Belli says:

      But that won’t work forever. Only while the kids are young and cute. As they become teenagers, the press will be far more interested in painting them (Charlotte and Louis at least) as tearaway youths.

      Which will be about the time William will be gearing up (even more) to be King. Charles will be in his 80s. The kids will stop being press darlings when William will need that most.

      I do feel sorry for the Cambridge children and worry about their futures, especially the younger two. A bad precedent has been set by their parents. The best thing that could happen for them is for Harry’s life away from the firm to be successful and carve a path for them to follow and shape their own lives.

      • Microsoft says:

        Yeah it’s a sad factor but the kids will pay for their parents karma. Cambriges and their stan wish Sussex bad , one day poor louis will be in that position and these kids future was robbed by their own parents. They won’t have have teen and 20 due to their own parents doing. If they protect Sussex from the press they will surely be in the firm and these kids have relax future instead in early years the press will drag them and it will make these kids life a living hell. Press backed off from William and harry because of palace and diana death. That wont be the case for these kids but in the end archie will grow up normal as possible.

      • Bri says:

        Yep. The media is playing them to the bone and they are too stupid to believe that this will keep being a cordial relationship. Eventually, the Cambridge’s using their kids for PR will get boring real fast and they will want more especially since their money makers have cut them off and are an ocean away. We already saw with that Tatler piece and the media slowly dropping hints that William and Kate aren’t that great. You know it’s coming.

      • Ginger says:

        This is why I am so glad Harry got Archie out. I can only imagine how awful he would have it being the scapegoat to the Cambridge kids.

        The press and haters need to get it in their heads that Harry isn’t coming back. If they get divorced or not, he is done with them.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bri – its getting boring even now. There’s a clip on twitter where the BBC (I think) is discussing the IG pics and one of the comments is something like “yes these are the most relaxed and adorable pics until the next ones that are the most relaxed and adorable and the next ones,” in a way that implied he was clearly over it, lol (he didn’t say “relaxed,” I cant remember the specific adjective.)

      • notasugarhere says:

        If they’re following the precedent of Harry, the younger two W&K kids will not be working royals. They should stop using the HRH and titles for these two, stop releasing photos of them, stop using them as PR props.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        The Fail had a hit piece yesterday where it talked about the rift between the brothers – one thing that stuck out for me in relation to this thread was the William was allegedly ‘not very happy’ about H&M keeping Archie’s christening private and decision to keep him out of the public eye. I took that to mean that Willileaks if angry that Harry won’t let him use his baby son as press fodder to hide his financial mis-deads and rose bush trimming.

        What kind of person thinks of a baby like that?!?!?!

  4. CidyKitty(CidySmiley) says:

    Its the best thing for them. They have been very firm that they will be independent. And honestly just kudos to them.

    • Rae says:


      • Lolo says:

        Ah, yes that old very firm independence that doesn’t include the fact that the hated Firm, in the form of Daddy Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall, is still paying all of their bills. But, whatever, facts are boring. Vive la revolution!

      • GuestWho says:

        Hey look everybody – It’s Prince Charles’ personal accountant right here on Celebitchy to give us ALL the details on his and his mom’s personal finances. What a lucky day for us.

      • anon says:

        @GuestWho: there always that one clown bringing the circus to Celebitchy!

  5. Ellen Olenska says:

    It’s funny, in the linked article on Diana’s divorce it stated she’d have to curtsey to her sons an ex husband…and my first thought was “or what?”. And the same goes for H and M, I doubt she will ever curtsey to FFQ or FFK. Charles probably but more as a courtesy to her husband. I doubt they’ll ever meet live with the queen again except maybe for Phillips funeral. If they can figure out the financial independence quickly…we’ll they really wouldn’t have to give two figs about any of it.

    • Cerceau says:

      Meghan may not even ‘have’ to curtsy to anyone ever again if she is never becomes a British citizen? I’m not sure but I hope so…

      • Bavarian says:

        the citizenship has nothing to do with it. I once met the Queen of Sweden, Sylvia, while she was visiting Family in Germany and I curtsied ( or I tried a shaky Version to be honest). Its a respect Thing für what they represent.

      • notasugarhere says:

        wrong place

      • Cerceau says:

        Hmmm… no. Americans do not curtsy or bow to anyone as far as I’m aware. Michelle Obama famously did not curtsy to QE2. Nor did Melania. You can show respect without showing subservience.

        What I’m not sure about is whether the rules are the same if you have married into the family.

      • Becks1 says:

        Um I would definitely curtsy if I met the Queen, lol. I may not “have to” (like, what is she going to do if someone doesn’t curtsy?) but I would.

      • Lady D says:

        I would have curtsied to the queen too, right up until Christmas Day, when she used the birth of her savior to make a pedo look good. Of course she believes she’s on equal footing with Jesus so her forgiveness is all everyone needs.

      • Becks1 says:

        @LadyD – oh good point. I probably wouldn’t curtsy to petty betty at this point. But it has nothing to do with being an American.

      • Vava says:

        I would never curtsy to ANYONE. Especially not the damned Queenie or Keen Kate.

      • anon says:

        What’s a Thing für?

    • L84Tea says:

      It’s odd to me too. What happens if a person does not curtsey to a royal member? Do they get tossed in etiquette jail?

      • SomeChick says:

        Yes. By which I mean, they will be sneered at in the tabloids!

        I don’t see why they can’t go to the head nod for everyone.

      • Em says:

        Nothing happens. Few people find themselves in that situation. If you’re meeting the Royals, it’s almost always pre-arranged. If you don’t respect them enough to greet them correctly, surely you would decline that invitation?

      • Feeshalori says:

        You can respect the royal without curtsying or bowing. It’s an archaic system of etiquette that now leaves it up to the person what to do and no longer requires gestures of subservience. A simple head inclination or nod along with taking the royal’s proffered hand is an acceptable gesture and certainly wouldn’t leave anyone gasping in dismay over disrespect to a royal.

    • Katherine says:

      The curtsying thing is ridiculous. I used to think it was a very formal etiquette thing I sort of admired but as I’ve gotten older and read more about it it’s clear it has more to do with bitchy behind the scenes pecking order issues within the family. And it just makes them all seem so petty. They even say for the public you can if you want but nbd if you don’t.

      And maybe being an American it just really vibes wrong with me the older I’ve gotten. I remember there was some ridiculous press guidance that circulated before W and Ks trip to New York about it and New Yorkers were like nah fam, pass.

    • notasugarhere says:

      No one is required to curtsy or bow to a member of the BRF, not even UK citizens.

      • Bohemian Angel says:

        I’m a UK citizen and I most definitely would NOT curtesy to the ‘queen’ or any of her minions, I would never accept an OBE or anything to do with the British Empire and I am not her subject!
        These are people just like everyone else, it’s just that they have money, power, jewels and assets that allow them to lord it over people. They are only there because their ancestors won battles in order to sit on a throne and look down on the peasants and lay down their own laws!!!

  6. Becks1 says:

    well this is both significant and unsurprising. Harry isn’t leaving any doubt about that one year review, but I think we all knew that. Its just the British press (and maybe the BRF itself) that seems to think there is a possibility that they will return.

    • Mary says:

      I agree about the one-year review being something the BRF wanted, not the Sussexes. We only heard about this possibility well after the Sussexes had left and tabloids were reporting that Anne would replace Harry as Royal Marines CG.

      My guess is that the RF never expected the Sussexes to walk away. They thought they would just toe the line, given the harsh deal they were offered; and, they were caught off-guard when the Sussexes left. I think the Queen and/or Charles were trying to leave open the possibility for the RF to walk back and accept some of the Sussexes’ demands.

      As for the law firm … they oversaw a local attorney’s submitting an unsigned trademark application for Archewell. I would fire them too.

      • Bri says:

        Actually, I think the one year review was more about the media just as much. The media wanted access and control over the Sussexes and the Royal Family, in their desperation to hide dirt and their obvious dislike of Meghan, they let the media do the most. You can tell the media and family didn’t want them to leave because they have no one to fill that void. I actually think that if Harry and Meghan don’t come back, this will upset the media even more because as this article states, the year review seems to be a chance for them to change their mind. When that day comes and this money makers aren’t back in the firm despite deluding themselves and ignoring the signs already, the media will go apeshit.

      • Original Jenns says:

        I think the media knows that they are not coming back (in their saner moments). I think they keep discussing the 1 year review to keep the nasty people reminded of it, so when the Sussexes decline to come back, it’s fresh in everyone’s mind and the reporters can lose it in the media. Also, they have nothing else to talk about, as no one has any information the Sussexes don’t want them to have.

  7. ABritGuest says:

    Hmm neutral link between the palace& Sussexes? Not really how it’s meant to work. Lawyers are meant to work in best interest of each client& there’s meant to be confidentiality. Fact Eden even has this info& can speak of Harry’s relationship with Gerrard isn’t a great sign (if these details are accurate).

    U have to wonder how much info press gets from palace lawyers& also palace doctors& that’s why there was that fuss about Meghan allegedly not using the Queen’s doctor for her pregnancy& delivery.

    • Bri says:

      The media is pissed because no one in the palace or even their associates have no connection to them. That’s why they were obsessing on the Jessica story to get a reaction, the trademark nonsense and have started interviewing their charities like Tessa of the Diana Legacy. Chris Ship had Tessa on his podcast about Meghan and why she may have left, then I realized it was a bunch of nonsense because they wanted to scoop for information especially when he asked if they had been in contact. Well Child even spoke on Dan’s show. The rota will do anything for any Harry and Meghan news to the point of giving these charities the coverage they desperately need because they could get scoop. It’s very sly and sneaky.

  8. C-Shell says:

    This article says Harbottle has been representing the Sussexes in the establishment of Archewell. If so, then they are responsible for the incomplete filing that drew so much attention last week. I’d fire their asses too.

    • Mary says:

      @c-shell, I just said the same thing above, I did not see your comment! Seriously, the application was unsigned….???!!!!

    • Mumbles says:

      They might have been responsible for setting it up as a British organization, but they didn’t do the US patent application. A US law firm did. (I don’t think I can post links here but the US patent and trademark office is searchable; the firm was Venable LLP and the lawyer is in the Los Angeles office.)

      • C-Shell says:

        Thanks, Mumbles, I’m sure that’s true, and even if a paralegal prepared the form, it should have been reviewed *and signed* by the attorney. I’m familiar with Venable and this shocks me.

      • Mary says:

        @mumbles, as I indicated above, Harbottle was responsible for engaging the local law firm. Ultimately, the buck stops with them.

      • Mumbles says:

        Mary, gotta say I disagree. Harbottles is not an American firm. The attorney at Venables who submitted the application is on its website as a partner at the firm’s intellectual property group. I have no idea if Harbottles retained Venables or not, but even if they did, they relied reasonably that that firm would make the application correctly. This is a strange hill to die on.

      • Mary says:

        @mumbles it was reported that Harbottle retained the local firm. “Hill to die on”???!!! Hahahahaha!!! Calm down now @mumbles, this is just a little ole’ thread in a little ole’ gossip site in the huge internet in an even bigger world. No one is dying here and nothing anyone says really matters. We are gossiping, speculating, venting….for fun. At least I am. Not sure about you.

    • Toot says:


  9. RedRoyal says:

    According to a mugxiter’s blog, the queen’s lawyer dumped the Sussexes because they didn’t pay him.

    • Benny says:

      Probaly the same meg*** blog that started a rumour about seeing harry in south london this weekend. When will they stop?

      • Lise says:

        Is it the same account that purports to have tracked a private plane from LA to the UK and insists that Harry was on it?

    • Molly says:

      I thought Harbottle and Lewis didn’t charge the royals.

      • Mary says:

        I think they may have started to more recently but it was always my understanding before that they did not charge the royals.

        What I want to know is if they charged Pippa for their representation of her regarding Parisian gun-gate?

    • Microsoft says:

      You know those blogs are run by cambriges stan who are so stupid . They believe kate was harassed by media like diana. I ask those stan when papps camped outside her building why exactly she leave same time , if she wants to avoid she can go early but she leave at same time. That time kate was private citizen and paps law is very strict in uk and she could got restrained order against them. But no she wants to do diana cosplay and thought public will sympathetic towards her but no one give the shit. She and diana both courted the press and all the photos of will and Kate pre and after marraige got approved by palace to publish otherwise the palace will sue them. Their fans are dumb enough to believe that Kate is innocent and media and papps are horrible.

      • Tessa says:

        Kate used the media in her campaign to win William back. Tipping them off so they would take her pictures at clubs with other men so WIll would “Suffer.”

      • February Pisces says:

        I think in Kate’s head she wished she was as big a deal as Diana, but she wasn’t. No one really cared about her during the dating years, and after her huge wedding, people went back to not caring about her. I think kate stans are desperate for her to be the ‘new Diana’ and claim that the press ‘hounded’ her. They didn’t hound sh*t, literally no one gave AF about her. I always thought it must bother kate and her stans that Meghan is the one the press are obsessed with, Meghan is the cash cow the same way Diana was, and not her. And even though the press trash Meghan, she is still the most talked about woman on the planet. Kate was threaten by Meghan since day one, hence why most of the press were bought off very quickly to be team Cambridge.

    • Ginger says:

      I do hope with them being free from the RF they can go after those trolls. I really think they will.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Why is a new poster on here bringing attention to troll conspiracy theories? Take it back to tumblr and the Fail.

    • Nic919 says:

      Lawyers can’t simply dump clients for non payment. They can sue them for non payment but it is rare for lawyers to drop high profile clients who may not pay on a timely basis (not that I buy any of that as true anyway).

      Also, it is a breach of solicitor client privilege to make it public that your client hasn’t paid their bills and they sure as hell wouldn’t be telling a Cambridge fan site about it. When you do get off the record you have to advise the court that there has been a breakdown of the solicitor client relationship. Having literally done that myself I can confirm that these tumblr stans are talking out of their ass.

  10. Bri says:

    You could tell from the title that they were hoping they were coming back. I don’t get it at all, lol. You’ve abused, maligned and bruised this couple. When they offer to still work for free and pay for everything on their own, you reject it because you’re asses and the media has complete control over you, you’re surprised they aren’t coming back. These tabloids know that they weren’t coming back the minute they cut off all the tabloids and refuse to play these ridiculous media games. That’s why they’re bitter and obsess with them. If they’re so irrelevant, why do you care so much about their new life, trademarks and whether they’re returning or not. The royals and media got what they wanted but it seems like they’re realizing it’s actually a reality despite Harry and Meghan’s multiple obvious signs by now.

    • ABritGuest says:

      I think some in the Firm wanted Meghan only gone. Messaging seems to be they want Harry back alone helping the heirs to shine. I think they feel Harry was happy to just get along before Meghan came so with her gone Harry would step back into that role.

      The press wanted the Sussexes around but humbled& giving in to press demands for access. They would have loved more mileage on the comparison game with the Cambridges& probably would have played couples against each other depending on who was given access. I think that’s why they initially tried the ‘Queen likes Meghan more‘ game when Meghan had that overnight train trip. Think at that point they were hoping she would be extra press friendly& then if Cambridges were being restrictive as they were before their current ‘much healthier relationship with press’ (as Rebecca English said) they would hold Sussexes over their heads.

      Press also wanted to monetise Archie. Right now he’s got broader appeal because he’s American so larger market, plus because of his heritage being unique to the BRF.

      So I agree that some of the 1 year review was about appeasing the press. Their stepping down is sometimes presented as a trial which is odd as when Sussexes wanted to be p/t some insisted you are either in the Firm completely or you are out.

      Cutting off rota was big sign their stepping back was permanent. No way would the rota accept them as quasi public servants not giving them access. Still wish I could fast forward to see what the messaging is going to be around March next year.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Didn’t it come out that Anne doesn’t use the ROTA either, but since the ROTA doesn’t care about Anne they didn’t protest.

  11. Digital Unicorn says:

    He’s breaking ties now so that its easier when Willileaks takes the throne and there is nothing he can use to control/hold over their heads.

    While I think Harry is upset with his grandmother and father, it’s clear the main beef is with his brother and SIL.

    • Bri says:

      Their is literally nothing that the media or his family can blackmail Neither him and Meghan into staying or even coming back at this point. All the dirt real or made up has been thrown at them and now they are truly free except for the stalking press of course. They saw the bigger picture and played it smart.

      • Sofia says:

        Yup. There’s nothing left to use against the Sussexes. Otherwise it would have been plastered all over the front pages already.

    • Betsy says:

      I would agree. I do think Harry would have stayed were it not for William throwing Harry, and especially his wife Meghan, to the wolves. Harry obviously gets what a big platform he had – still will have since he’s who he is – but he really did something with his position. William is a lazy penis with teeth.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The laziness of his peen is in question, given his frequent trips through Rose bushes.

      • Betsy says:

        He can go through the rose bushes all he likes, that doesn’t mean he isn’t lazy (and probably very selfish).

  12. S808 says:

    We already knew they weren’t going back but this is the clearest sign even though we also knew they weren’t using the firm’s lawyers. If I were them I would untangle myself as much as possible from the firm before Willam becomes king. The only thing that would tie me to the RF would be blood. I know charles played a part in all of this, but he got screwed imo cause I think he’s really gonna need H&M for when he ascends to the throw. They were the best connection for helping keep the commonwealth together and bringing new attention to the BRF. They could’ve helped usher in a new era for a new king. I do think H&M got a great deal in the end. That half in half out bs would’ve kept them (especially Meghan) tied to BM. It wasn’t just the rota that sucked, they all did in regards to her. A clean break works best for them and getting it done before the pandemic hit (thanks for the leak Dan!) worked in their favor too imo.

    • Bri says:

      What’s funny to me is that the media and courtiers are so perplexed that Harry and Meghan aren’t coming back. Isn’t this what y’all wanted so badly. I thought is was slimmed down monarchy, the drama is gone now but this sudden realization seems to be more of the media because Harry and Meghan have truly cut off everyone at the palace. There is no leaks anymore as Harry has publicly disowned the tabloids. These papers and reporters are realizing it’s truly and well over. It’s like they were hanging onto hope that they would get the more interesting royals back somehow.

      • Jay says:

        I think there is an element of “Hey, come back, we’re not done with you yet!” towards the Sussexes, but I think it also has to do with what the media members and palace hangers on who are their sources value the most – access, privilege, and power.
        This attitude of disbelief makes perfect sense if you have spent your entire life going to just the right schools and parties etc in order to maintain a proximity to power. The idea that anybody would throw away the chance to be close to the palace is simply incomprehensible, because 1. They likely assume everyone has the same values as they do so literally can’t imagine ever giving it all up and 2. If it is admitted that Harry, most privileged of privileged in many ways, can and will leave it all behind, it kind of exposes the whole value system you might have constructed your life around as meaningless, and nobody wants to admit that. That’s why, to me, the sources surrounding the royal family (would we call them courtiers?) will be floating stories about Harry coming back for decades to come.

    • 809Matriarch says:

      The foolishness of Charles and the Lamebridges is their failure to realize FAMILIARITY BREEDS CONTEMPT. They have offered the kids up so many times the novelty has worn off. Sure those kids are blood royals but their images are no longer exclusive must haves. Little Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor is rarely seen and thus more of a money maker. Too bad his parents were treated so awfully by the press and certain RF members. The Sussexes will always be the most exclusive news generators. Social capital is more important than a place in the royal pecking order. We all see who has the crowds screaming their names. It ain’t the beard of Wessex or the Duke & Duchess of Keenbridge.

    • Nic919 says:

      Using another law firm strongly suggests that they anticipate conflicts by using the same firm that acts for several other members of the royal family, including and especially William, who used them to send the Human rights letter.

      • S808 says:

        Yup which reminds me of the lawsuit Harry has against the sun and the kp staff connection we heard about recently. I don’t think we’re done hearing about that yet.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Someone on the story yesterday commented that there is another Byeline Investigates story coming out this week about the leaks from KP.

        Seems like Harry is looking to square up against big brother.

        I think we are about to find out how badly the Cambridges have been behaving, esp Willileaks.

  13. notasugarhere says:

    @Kaiser, Diana didn’t get the deal she wanted. She was always going to get joint custody of the children, that was never in question. She agreed, on advice from that solicitor, to voluntarily give up her HRH in exchange for more cash from Charles.

    Once she found out she was going to have to curtsy to Fergie, who had KEPT her HRH in her divorce months earlier? Diana started lying that the Windsors stole her HRH. No, she traded it for cold hard cash and blamed others for her decision.

    After that, QEII issued new Letters Patent stating anyone who divorces out of the family loses the HRH they acquired at marriage. Diana was the reason both Diana and Fergie lost their HRH status.

    • Microsoft says:

      Charles strip hrh for diana because their messy divorce and to give camilla. Cambriges stans are idiots thinking when Kate become queen consort Meghan will curtsey to her. But rr richard palmer said no one curtsey to other member of brf other than monarchy which means Meghan and harry will only curtsey to charles , queen if william become king . That too I highly doubt they will curtsey. Let’s see if charles sibling curtsey then it maybe the queue for Sussex. But Sussex will never come to britain again unless there is death of someone. They wont even come to trooping colour in coming years.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No, Charles didn’t. Diana’s lawyer, in a large breech of confidentially, revealed it in an interview years later. Diana traded her HRH for more cash from Charles, regretted it later, and tried to blame the Windsors.

        HRHs aren’t limited in number. Diana could have retained her HRH and while Camilla could have one too. But Diana chose to trade the HRH for cash. She didn’t lose the title, she kept the divorced version. She was ‘Diana, Princess of Wales’ not ‘HRH Diana, The Princess of Wales’.

        If Diana hadn’t trade the HRH for cash? We could have seen a situation where we had both ‘Diana, Princess of Wales’ and ‘HRH Camilla, The Princess of Wales’ at the same time. Confusing, but it was possible.

      • Tessa says:

        I read newspapers at the time and Charles did not want Diana to have the HRH. It seemed rather heartless to me, no matter how acrimonious things were, she still was the mother of his children.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Whether or not he wanted her to have it, it was her choice. She chose to trade the HRH for more cash.

      • Tessa says:

        Somehow I don’t believe the lawyer’s account. Diana was heartbroken about losing the HRH, I don’t think Charles would have wanted her to have it even if she agreed to a pay cut. He was busy promoting Camilla apparently as Wife No. 2 so I think he’d be adamant against Diana keeping the HRH.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No surprise you don’t believe it, seeing as you cannot believe Saint Diana ever did anything wrong.

        Her pap parade, crying tears about losing her HRH was PR. PR trying to cover up the fact that she traded it for cash. She may have been heartbroken after the fact about the choice she made, but she made the choice.

    • Tessa says:

      Fergie was OUT by then, no way would DIana have had to curtsy to her. Fergie did not get to keep the HRH. Diana did not cause her to lose the HRH, those embarrassing photos of her with her financial adviser did. Wallis Simpson upon her marriage to Edward was entitled to have the HRH, but the spiteful royals issued a new letters patent depriving her of it. If the royals had wanted DIana to have the HRH it could have been arranged.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, she would have because Fergie originally retained her HRH in her divorce. It was later stripped because of Diana.

      • Tessa says:

        I doubt Fergie would ever had kept that HRH. I remember she brought her daughters to see the Queen go by in her coach and pathetically waved at her. She was an Outsider.

      • notasugarhere says:

        But she did keep it, for a few months anyway, until Diana’s behavior changed it. She’s an outsider but an insider at the same time. Andrew keeps her around because if she was completely cut loose? She be even more of a liability. Who knows, she might even testify to the FBI about Andrew if she wasn’t kept close by the Windsors.

      • Tessa says:

        I think Andrew is her meal ticket. She would never testify against him and maybe they would quietly marry. Can wives testify against their husbands?

      • Tessa says:

        For a while it looked like Andrew and Fergie would make their way back to each other. She was invited to Balmoral even during the separation. But it all went up in smoke when the topless photos of her came out. They were all over the table at Balmoral breakfast.

      • Maria says:

        God help us if Fergie had been allowed to keep her HRH. Bad enough that she is still Duchess of York.

      • Tessa says:

        Another reason for Fergie not keeping her HRH would be the possibility of leaving things open for Andrew to Remarry. He was still young at the time and he did date. It would be awkward if he had found Ms. Right and Fergie around with the HRH Duchess of York his wife would have been entitled to.

      • Jaded says:

        @Tessa – When Edward married Wallis Simpson, a divorcee who had two living ex-husbands, it directly conflicted with the Church of England’s teaching and his role as the Church’s ex officio head. That is why George VI issued letters patent that denied her the title of HRH. Furthermore the “spiteful royals” had every reason to be spiteful about Wallis Simpson – she and Edward VIII were known Nazi sympathizers and there was actually a plot to put him back on the throne if he agreed to appeasement with Germany.

      • Tessa says:

        The reason they did it or so I read was that there was fear she and the Duke’s marriage would break up and she would keep the title anyway. The speculation did not happen and they lasted till death did them part. Her first marriage was to a person who beat her and abused her. That should have been annulled. Allegedly Winfield Spencer her first husband’s abuse caused a miscarriage and rendered her incapable of having any more children. The QUeen Mother could not stand Wallis so she was said to have a large say in the decision. The plot never got off the ground and he was never arrested for being a traitor. He and Wallis went to a sort of exile in Nassau where he was named Governor General. Wallis was entitled to get the rank and style of her husband. It was not automatic that she would not get it, the royals had to issue special letters patent.

      • Jaded says:

        @Tessa – I have a whole library full of books about Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson and am quite fascinated with their lives. You have over-simplified the story and your sympathetic attitude towards a very calculating and manipulative woman is wrong. Yes her first husband was abusive but the notion of a miscarriage is wrong. Her health problems and subsequent surgery could have been anything from a botched abortion to Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. Lest you forget, she lured Edward away from his then mistress and her good friend Thelma Furness, and had an open affair with him while still married to Ernest Simpson. Although Wallis was enamored of the lifestyle Edward offered, she always regretted giving up her marriage to Simpson and kept in touch with him for decades afterwards. Once Edward abdicated she realized she’d painted herself into a corner and tried to end things, but he threatened suicide and the public’s rancor against her was so strong that her life was in danger so she had to flee to Paris (along with millions of dollars of jewelry he’d gifted her). She’d made her bed and had to lie in it, so basically was forced to marry him. I don’t think Edward would have made a good monarch in any event, he was childish, neurotic and infantile. Couple that with their Nazi sympathizing, her obsession with money, her questionable past and her abrasive, divisive personality, no wonder the BRF couldn’t tolerate her. It wasn’t just the Queen Mother pulling strings by the way, it was the Archbishop of Canterbury, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, and Winston Churchill (who shipped them off to the Bahamas as WWII approached).

      • Tessa says:

        I am not sympathetic to her. I just pointed out she was in abusive relationship which is the truth she may or may not have miscarried, stories about why she could not have children varied; it was also thought he was sterile due to having Mumps.. She treated Edward like dirt and would put him down in public. But he was besotted with her. It was dysfunctional relationship. She enjoyed the social life that Edward helped to give her. They had winters in Palm springs, stayed at the Waldorf, went to parties, had dinner parties. She enjoyed that. I don’t think she wanted Simpson back. HE had moved on and he had a child with his second wife. Edward allowed himself to be lured from Furness it takes two to have a relationship. Furness herself lived a rather scandalous life.

    • Tessa says:

      DIsagree. Fergie was the reason Fergie lost the HRH. she was caught cheating on her husband and it was all over the tabs, the Queen called her in when Fergie was at Balmoral told her to pack her things and get out. The royals were spiteful to Diana, they could have issued letters patent to get her to keep the HRH, it might have saved her life had they done so.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Again, no.

        Diana chose to dismiss most of her RPOs, chose to get in a car driven by a drunk, and chose not to put on a seatbelt. That’s what cost her her life.

      • Tessa says:

        Diana always had buckled up. I think the long trip to the hospital killed her. Had she been my relative I would have filed a lawsuit. Big Time. DIana should have gotten the HRH just to make sure she had protection no matter what.

      • Microsoft says:

        I dont usually believe in conspiracies theories but given with how Andy was protect and Meghan was thrown to wolves. I believe firm was involved in diana accident. There are many loose incidents why diana ambulance took so long to reach the hospital and many believe that diana was pregnant with her lover child. Already 1992 was worst for queen and imagine future king of uk has step son and future future king of uk has step brother who is half brown and muslim. Now in 21 century they cant even accept Meghan being non muslim . Top 1% covered their ass that’s why I dont have no hope in Andy case because Andy case have many high profile political like clinton, trump and many royals . Those victims will never get justice. The system is rigged for white people and the media in usa also actively avoiding saying much in that case and many ceo of media is also involved in those scandals.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Obviously she didn’t always buckle up, because she chose not to that night. The one survivor did buckle up.

        Diana had RPOs even after she gave up the HRH, they are unrelated. She chose not to use the RPOs. She could have chosen to hire private security too, she chose not to. She made those choices herself.

      • Tessa says:

        In effect there were no witnesses to the last minutes before Paul zoomed off in the limo. The sole survivor has amnesia and can’t explain why he let the “drunK” driver take the wheel and why he was the only one with seatbelts on. As a security person, and a responsible one, he would have not let the car go until he saw the belts worked. It is a situation with many unanswered questions, no real assumptions can be made. DIana’s sisters Sarah and Jane said Diana did religiously buckle up when in cars. Even Harry said something the other royals never said aloud–he wondered what really happened in that tunnel.

      • notasugarhere says:

        And yet, she chose not to buckle up. She made a lot of bad choices in that last year, including the relationship with Dodi the User. Her choices, bad ones, but her choices nevertheless.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Tessa – The only person who survived the crash in the Paris tunnel was the person wearing a seat belt. If Diana had NOT dismissed her RPOs or if she had hired private security, she would probably be alive today because the “security” would have made sure she had on a seat belt if they even allowed her to get into the car in the first place.

      • Jaded says:

        @Tessa – Diana was not killed by the “long trip to the hospital”. She was so badly injured that her heart stopped several times on the way there. They had to drive very slowly in order to avoid any movement that would cause further internal bleeding. They had to stop frequently as well to administer defibrillators to get her heart started again. Furthermore it was Dodi who insisted that Henri Paul drive, and kept pushing him to drive faster. His bodyguard had NO say in who could or couldn’t drive. Stop with the silly conspiracy theories.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @Tessa – Diana died because she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt and the force of the impact displaced her heart violently onto the other side of her body.

        As for Henri-Paul, he was drunk their is CCTV footage of him going into the bar earlier in the evening and sworn testimony of the bar staff who said he’d drunk quite a lot of shots. There are also witness who say he taunted the waiting paps to ‘catch him if the can’ as he drove off from the hotel. No one knows what made him lose control of the car, a car he was NOT FIT TO DRIVE in the first place – he had been driving far to fast on entry into the tunnel. The impact with the concrete post tells us that. I can’t remember what speed he was doing but I recall watching the accident being recreated with crash test dummies – it was not pretty and the bodyguard is extremely lucky that he had his belt on. His injuries were bad but he’s alive because he wore a seatbelt.

      • Tessa says:

        Al Fayed in effect controlled his son. With his father not around, Dodi started doing really stupid things. Several heart specialists including Christian Barnard said there would have been a much better chance to save Diana had she gotten to the hospital on time. They passed a hospital ten minutes away from the crash site. I am not saying it is necessarily conspiracy but an inept healthcare system. In the US she would have been airlifted. Every second counted for Diana to get to that hospital.

      • Tessa says:

        DIgital, I was always puzzled as why the guard was the only one to have his seatbelts on. It was like every man for himself–why did he let the car leave when 1) the seatbelts malfunctioned: or 2) if they did function why did he not as the security guard insist on their buckling up.. And if Paul was so drunk why was he allowed to get behind the wheel. Even if Diana had seatbelts on she could very well have been seriously injured and if it were a matter of life or death getting to the hospital on time, she still would have passed away if she did not get the help she needed in time. Original Jenns, THere is room for different opinions on this largely because the security person lost much of his memory. This is not an exact science by any means. some people believe different things about people, each belief is not necessarily “wrong.”

      • notasugarhere says:

        Tessa your ‘opinion’ does not get to substitute for fact.

    • Tessa says:

      Diana was no saint. And I do think she wanted the HRH very much. I don’t think her a bad person.

    • Original Jenns says:

      @notasugarhere – thank you for continuing to correct people who insist the facts didn’t happen because it doesn’t fit with what they want to believe about people! I enjoy your insights into the royal fam.

      • Kkat says:

        Yes, I really appreciate @notasugarhere. I have followed the royal family for 40 years since i was around 10 due to my grandmother. Then I married into a British family with my first husband, and Nota is consistently bringing up things I remember from when they happened back then. She isn’t the one making stuff up.
        What is around to read now has been whitewashed and altered. You had to be around and paying attention when this stuff all actually happened to remember and know what really happened.
        Some of the people that comment were obviously not around back then as they spout the “New” facts
        And that’s on so many things, not just the Diana stuff. As so so so much has been changed over the years

  14. Charfromdarock says:

    Good. The cleaner the break the better.

  15. Cosmo says:

    Good for them. They need to distance themselves from that disgusting family.

  16. notasugarhere says:

    Love how happy they are in the second picture, the one from Canada House. Leaving was the best choice for their little family.

  17. L4frimaire says:

    I suspect that the Archewell leak was a factor in it. How did that come out so quickly? It’s so obvious the Royal Family is not going to change or improve regarding the Sussexes, and using their law firm was not in their best interest. I’m just disgusted with how they acted toward Meghan and how they continue to think this is justified. They’d rather watch their country go down in flames than admit they have issues with institutional racism. The lack of leadership and dysfunction, both as a family, and as the Royal FamilyFirm, is there for all to see.

    • Tessa says:

      HM and Charles should have protected Meghan. They threw her to the wolves. WIlliam and Kate behaved horribly.

  18. Awkward symphony says:

    lol they’re out of stories so they’re regurgitating old ones😂 he litterly reported this back on Feb!! The lawyers were known since the lawsuits were announced and can see it on documents obtained by byline
    Another report came out that tabloids revenue is down since March & the sun refused to publicly share their circulation numbers. Karma is giving them a run for their money😬

    Only a fool would think they were returning to that hell hole! The fact that they are copyrighting a charitable foundation which covers educational, catalogue, is clue that they have BIG plans to make a multi national legacy & work with different sectors. I look forward to hear their plans. This will be bigger and better than prince’s trust. The RF will got into complete meltdown once they realise what they missed

  19. February Pisces says:

    I predict harry and Meghan won’t return to the uk for another year, maybe may 2021 depending on when Beatrice gets married. Also next year will be prince Phillips 100th birthday so there will probably be something big happening for that, or he dies and there’s a funeral.

    Anyway I’m surprise they didn’t cut ties sooner, or maybe they have not been using their services anyway. All leaky taps need to be turned off. I wonder if harry is even comfortable talking to his cousins. Like if Eugenie texts him to see how he is, or what he’s been up to, would he even be comfortable telling her the most basic things, without fear of it getting back to William?

    He has to hide where he is in the world from his own family, it’s must be so traumatic.

    • Tessa says:

      His cousin by marriage Mike Tindall would make indiscreet comments about royals, including Harry.

      • FicklePickle says:

        True, but I like him ever since he groused publicly about having to learn about Cambridge pregnancy #2 (or was it #3?) on the news. Gives a pretty clear picture of just how the Cambridges operate within the BRF.

  20. Tiffany says:

    Harry is showing more and more that he never planned and never will chose them over Meghan and Archie. And they are petty as hell about that.

    • Molly says:

      Charles called Harry c**t-struck. They’re waiting for him to snap out of it. They’re a family of cynics who believe women should be doormats like Fergie or Kate.

      The anti-stans love comparing Meghan to Wallis but the better comparison is Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend. Would they really prefer if Harry had married someone like Antony Armstrong-Jones?

      • Tessa says:

        Charles called him that?! Weird. I see other accounts saying that Philip “told” Harry that actresses were not fit to marry. which I found very hypocritical. Margaret “settled” for Armstrong JOnes after Townsend told her he was marrying a younger woman and was not going to forsake any marriage for Margaret’s sake.

      • Ginger says:

        That is such a horrible thing for Charles to say about Harry. They act like getting engaged after a year and a half is so fast. Being together for a long time before you marry doesn’t guarantee a happy marriage. William and Kate can tell you that.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Charles was rumoured to say p-whipped, don’t deliberately lie and try to make him look even worse.

  21. sarah says:

    This story is a bit odd to me. Harbottle and Lewis are not the Queen’s lawyers, Farrer & Co are. I know that the Cambridges have used H&L, but I don’t think the older generation of royals do? I think this story might be bullshit.

    • Nic919 says:

      We will find out their lawyers once things are filed in court, but they may be conflating the law firm used by KP and in particular William as the go to firm for royals. But it likely means they aren’t using lawyers associated with William anymore and if so, it’s more than likely because of a potential conflict.

  22. MA says:

    I mean yeah? This isn’t controversial. Why would they use a UK firm when they’ll be based in the US now.

  23. PoliteTia says:

    Nice try! This post IS NOT going to distract us from the pedo Uncle still @ large 😒