A seemingly innocuous detail during Queen Elizabeth II’s 2019 Christmas broadcast may have been the catalyst for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle‘s departure from the British royal family. This incident, now viewed as a significant slight, is believed to have pushed the couple to the brink, ultimately leading to their decision to step back from their royal duties.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who were spending the holiday season with Meghan’s mother, Doria Ragland, in California, were reportedly incensed by a subtle yet pointed omission from the late monarch’s televised address. The absence of a family photograph featuring the Sussexes and their newborn son, Archie, from the Queen’s desk during her annual Christmas message is now being cited as a pivotal moment in the couple’s deteriorating relationship with the monarchy, according to Express.
Videos by PopCulture.com
Traditionally, the Queen’s Christmas speech setting includes a carefully curated display of family photographs, symbolizing the unity and continuity of the royal lineage. In 2019, viewers observed images of Prince William, Kate Middleton, and their children alongside pictures of King Charles, Camilla, and Prince Philip and a black-and-white portrait of King George VI. The conspicuous absence of Harry, Meghan, and Archie did not go unnoticed.
In their 2020 book Finding Freedom, Royal biographers Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand highlighted this incident as a clear indication that the Sussexes needed to reassess their position within the royal framework. They wrote, via the outlet, “One didn’t have to look further than the family photos displayed during the Queen’s Speech on Christmas Day. In the Green Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace, where the Queen delivered her address, viewers glimpsed photos of the [Waleses] and their children, Charles and Camilla, Prince Philip, and a black-and-white image of George VI. Noticeably absent was a photo of Harry, Meghan, and their new baby, Archie.”
While palace officials reportedly justified the photo selection as a focus on the “direct line of succession,” this explanation has been challenged by royal analysts. They point out that only Prince Charles, Prince William, and Prince George truly fit this criterion, leaving the inclusion of Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis unexplained.
The impact of this perceived snub was considerable. Just two weeks later, on Jan. 8, 2020, Harry and Meghan announced their intention to step back as senior royals. The couple expressed their desire to forge a new progressive role within the institution while becoming financially independent.
Further details of the Christmas 2019 incident have emerged, providing a more deliberate picture of the Queen’s actions. Per Express, royal expert Christopher Andersen, in his book Brothers And Wives, claims that moments before filming her address, the Queen pointed to a photograph of the Sussexes and remarked, “That one. I suppose we don’t need that one.” This alleged statement, if true, adds a layer of intentionality to what was previously seen as a possible oversight.
The Christmas video was not an isolated incident. A month later, Buckingham Palace released an official photograph featuring the Queen with her three direct heirs: Prince Charles, Prince William, and Prince George. This image, while logically showcasing the line of succession, reportedly left Prince Harry feeling further marginalized.
Royal commentator Daniela Elser summarized the cumulative effect of these events, writing for news.com.au, “The pudding video, the Christmas address, the new portrait. The message coming out of the SW1 postcode was crystal clear: Harry did not matter, all of these instances dangerously pointed reminders of his hierarchical irrelevance.”
The fallout from these events has been far-reaching. Since their departure from royal duties, Harry and Meghan have embarked on various business ventures, reportedly earning a substantial income. However, their relationship with the royal family remains strained, with ongoing public discussions and revelations continuing to fuel tensions.
