Author Omid Scobie has pointed fingers at King Charles for pushing the Duke and Duchess of Sussex into signing lucrative contracts after their royal departure.
Scobie suggested that the couple felt compelled to secure financial stability due to a sudden cut-off in funds, leading them to enter into various commercial agreements.
Despite initial financial assistance from the king, the Sussexes found themselves in need of substantial resources for their living expenses and security.
In an interview with The Independent, Scobie highlighted that while the couple had some financial resources, they required additional substantial income to maintain their lifestyle.
Following their decision to step back as senior royals and relocate to the United States in 2020, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle inked deals with major companies, such as an $81 million partnership with Netflix and an $18 million contract with Spotify, which was terminated prematurely.
The commercial ventures undertaken by the Sussexes resulted in revelations that cast a shadow on their relationship with Prince Charles and Prince William, including disclosures made by Harry in his Netflix series and upcoming memoir.
Scobie insinuated that the royal couple's disruptive actions stemmed from the mishandling of their exit from the royal fold by King Charles.
Despite facing criticism for their departure and subsequent commercial pursuits, the Sussexes defended their choices, emphasizing their desire to have a voice and influence.
Scobie underscored that financial support for the couple, including security expenses previously covered by Charles's private income, was halted in July 2020.
Notably, Meghan had been exploring business opportunities even before their official departure.
Scobie implied that the Sussexes capitalized on their personal experiences and insights to strike deals that resonated with audiences and generated revenue for the involved parties.
The author criticized the couple for monetizing their connections to the royal family and airing private grievances for financial gain, suggesting a lack of talent in their commercial endeavors.
Moreover, Scobie condemned the Sussexes' attempts to shift blame onto the royal family for their financial predicament, portraying them as victims of circumstances beyond their control.
The author highlighted the couple's contentious approach to their royal exit, bypassing traditional protocols and causing discord within the monarchy.
The refusal of the Queen to endorse the Sussexes' dual role as private citizens and part-time royal representatives triggered a rift that escalated tensions between the family members.
Scobie lamented the entitlement displayed by the couple and criticized their expectations of unconditional support from the monarchy.
In conclusion, the fallout between the Sussexes and the royal family underscores the complexities of balancing personal aspirations with royal duties, shedding light on the challenges faced by modern royals navigating the demands of public life and personal autonomy.
