Harry & Meghan Claim King Charles "Forced" Them to Sign Media Deals

Sussexes "sources" regurgitate old talking points with the shoddy Byline Times. Part 1.

Hello Dear Readers.

In my newsletter last Wednesday, I predicted that in the lead up to Prince William’s Earthshot Prize Ceremony next month, we needed to prep for drama from outside forces. Little did I realize that less than 24 hours later, I’d be proven right on multiple fronts. To be honest, I went back and forth on whether to even discuss this “Byline Times” development and settled on not amplifying this sorry excuse for an investigative story. Then Tom Bradby at iTV did a “report” on this last Friday and I could not ignore it any more. It’s time to separate Fact from Spin. This will be Part 1 of 2.

The Byline Times is pushing some new and some old narratives:

1. Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex were “forced” (yes, forced) to resort to commercial work and big money contracts as opposed to philanthropy because King Charles reneged on his promise to give them $700,000.

2. According to the Byline Times, the money was “revoked” as payback for Harry’s legal allegations about a palace staff member whom he claims “leaked” their plans to step down from Royal duties and details over the identity of Archie’s godparents

3. The “investigation” also claims it was the King who pulled Harry’s security.

4. The Byline Times concludes that all of this was done to “force” (that word again) Harry and Meghan back into the Firm, because the Royal Family feared Harry and Meghan would outshine the rest of the firm with their worldwide appeal and popularity.

During my deep dive into the less than stellar sourcing of the stories regarding Prince William fidelity I referenced an axiom I like to carry with me when discussing any Gossip, Royal or not:

A story is only as believable as its source. This is Journalism 101. When disseminating rumors taken the mouths of people who are not credible, Crow is on the menu.

Gossip can be fun and frivolous, not everything has to be extremely serious and fact-checked by 3-5 credible sources. But surely we can draw the line at stories sourced from criminals-turned-disgraced journalists? Specifically when the paper said criminals write has a disclaimer stating articles they published “could be for financial compensation”? But before we get to that, lets get to these staid retellings of history.

Myth #1: Did King Charles “cut off” Harry? FALSE!

This fabrication of tale was first shared during the Oprah interview in 2021. According to Harry, moving to America wasn’t in the cards and they “hadn’t planned” on signing streaming deals. They only did so to “pay for security” after being “cut off” from by his father. The Byline Times article is the first time we have been given a number. Let’s give the Sussexes the benefit of the doubt and take their word for it when they the sources close to them say they had £700,000 earmarked for them by the King. And that when it was taken away, they were left with no other options but to accept the bags of money being thrown at them by US media companies….Snort. Here’s the unvarnished truth: Money was no issue. Harry already had roughly 42 times that amount to his name.

---

Harry had over £30 million pounds in an inheritance trust from the estate of his mother, Princess Diana and the Queen Mother who left him a large sum when she died. Harry, not William, received more money from the Queen Mum due to Harry being second born. Add the sum that was “promised” to the Sussexes plus Harry’s inherence and you’re looking at a total of £30.7 million pounds. Allegedly, after the £700,000 in funds was stripped (remember, we’re taking their the source’s word for it), Harry would’ve only had a beggarly £30 million to his name. There are people who live paycheck to paycheck. Individuals who are one accident away from not being able to afford a roof over their head let alone food. Even without their mega media deals, Harry, and by extension Meghan, were armed with tens of millions of pounds and the world was their oyster. £700k was not going to put a dent into whether to not they could afford a roof over their head. My opinion as to why “sources close to Harry” are moaning about his father to not giving him £700k? Up until that moment, Harry never had to pay a single penny for a life of luxury and he always relied on the Bank of Chuck. Harry never meant to spend his own money to become financially independent. And that’s not all.

The 2021 Duchy of Cornwall accounts released in 2022 showed something very curious: King Charles did not “cut his son off” as soon as they stepped down. The King financed his son and daughter-in-law for months after they left the Royal Family. The King provided them a “significant sum” until they were able to be financially independent and the Sussex reps confirmed this. Being “financially independent” was so essential they mentioned it in their statement:

Right there in black and white: A compelling reason for why they wanted to “carve out” a new path was to become “financially independent”. And per Queen Elizabeth’s statement released shortly after the Sussex’s initial salvo, being independent was also a non-negotiable for the Sussexes.

Perhaps what they really meant was they wanted to be half-independent/half-dependent like their dream half-in/half out hybrid “work model”? Complaining you were forced out over £700k makes no sense when you have tens of millions in the bank. It sounds like four years later, someone is unhappy that people aren’t buying what they sold on Netflix.

Myth #2: Harry and Meghan were “forced” to sign big mega deals? FALSE!