Andrew’s Downfall ‘Changed the Context Entirely’ for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
How it weakens the case for stripping Harry and Meghan of their titles.
The question of whether Prince Harry and Meghan Markle could one day lose their royal titles has long hovered in the background of palace politics, especially after Prince William takes the throne. But according to historian and royal biographer Andrew Lownie, recent events surrounding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor may have shifted the ground — and not in the way many expected. Far from making it easier to strip the Sussexes of their titles, Mountbatten-Windsor’s public downfall may have made that move far more difficult.
Writing on his Substack, Lownie builds on an observation made by Daily Mirror journalist Emma Mackenzie, who argued that the monarchy now faces a delicate balancing act in how it treats Mountbatten-Windsor compared with Harry and Markle. It is a point worth lingering on. In isolation, the deep freeze between William and his brother, and the still-strained relationship between Harry and King Charles, could continue indefinitely. Lownie wrote, "Personal rifts do not require constitutional solutions. But Mountbatten-Windsor’s very public eviction and reputational collapse changed the context entirely."
Mountbatten-Windsor’s removal from royal life — widely regarded as unavoidable — has significantly raised the stakes for the monarchy. Lownie argues that once the Palace took such public and decisive action against a senior royal accused of r--- and linked to a financial scandal, it became far more difficult to justify stripping Harry and Markle of their titles. Any attempt to do so now, he suggests, would inevitably invite damaging comparisons. “However, the public defenestration and eviction of his uncle makes it much harder for Charles, or subsequently William, to take away their titles, as it’s been heavily implied the heir is minded to do,” Lownie wrote.
He goes on to warn that the Sussexes’ camp would almost certainly frame such a move as a punishment on par with Andrew’s fall from grace. “The Sussex team would likely spin this as a punishment equivalent to that doled out to a man accused of r--- and financial corruption,” he said, adding that it is “an equivalence that neither William or Kate would want to start their reign with.”
That sensitivity may already be shaping decision-making. Lownie points to reporting by Tom Sykes suggesting that Charles is considering allowing Harry to use Highgrove House when he visits the UK. The logic, he suggests, is reputational as much as familial. Housing a disgraced brother while leaving Harry without even a semi-permanent base in Britain would look awkward, particularly when royal estates are plentiful. Highgrove, now owned by William, is unlikely to ever become a permanent Sussex base — but the invite is of significance.
Lownie also suggests that the looming prospect of Markle’s 'inevitable' memoir further complicates any effort to sideline Harry completely. The book, expected to be accompanied by carefully planned interviews, represents a potential flashpoint for the monarchy, particularly if relations deteriorate further. Any attempt to block Harry’s return to public life, he argues, risks triggering a fresh and highly public confrontation at a moment of the Sussexes’ choosing. Lownie wrote, “Meghan’s inevitable memoir, and the set-piece interviews that will accompany it, also casts an ambiguous shadow over any plans to frustrate Harry’s heavily briefed wish to step once again on the national stage.”
