Harry and Meghan have paved the way for a modernised royal family – but they have to cut their ties for good

If it takes an American actor who married a prince to bring reform to an outdated model, so be it. But they can’t have their cake and eat it

When the Queen referred in her Christmas broadcast to a path through 2019 that “may, at times, have felt quite bumpy”, did she have even the slightest inkling of the seismic jolt that was to come? Barely two weeks later, her second grandson and his wife have announced they are off, or rather “stepping back” from their duties as “senior members of the royal family” to make their own way in the world.

The official response from Buckingham Palace was a terse warning equivalent to “steady on”. These are “complicated issues”, it said, “that will take time to work through”. The more visceral response, relayed through the usual channels to the media, was “disappointment”, “dismay”, “hurt”, even “wrath”. The rest of the family was clearly not amused.

Seen from the perspective of the palace, this whole episode is a disaster. From the lavish wedding to the refurbishment of the “cottage” to the 7 January statement by the Duke and Duchess, here is yet more evidence of the dysfunctionality of the House of Windsor. Not only has the already evident breach between Princes William and Harry been thrust into the open, but the Queen’s authority has been flouted. The palace comes across as a leaky and unprofessional outfit.

There is also what must be, for the Queen in particular, a distressing symmetry. Her reign began in the shadow of her uncle’s abdication, which is often seen as a reason – perhaps the reason – why, unlike some other European monarchs, she is said to have ruled out retirement. Now, after more than six decades on the throne, she must watch as a grandson unilaterally forsakes what many would still regard as his God-given duty – and, yes, in a way, once again for love.

The rest of the royal family might also wonder why. As an institution, it has tried to be more understanding and accommodating than it was all those years ago. The heir to the throne is divorced; the second-in-line married a “commoner”. Meghan Markle (and her mother) appeared to be made welcome. Whatever allowances were made, however, whatever leeway given, it was not enough. The arrival of their son seems to have clinched it. The Sussexes spent six weeks enjoying family life in a mansion on Vancouver Island over the festive season and returned to consult, not Buckingham Palace, in the first instance, but the Canadian High Commission.

Seen from the perspective of the Duke and Duchess, the decision to “step back” – if not the way they announced it – makes perfect sense. With the succession to the throne now secured into the fourth generation, Prince Harry has fallen from third to ninth in line. He has no reason whatsoever to remain “on standby”. And some of the recent signals from the palace suggested exactly that. There were no pictures of Harry and Meghan on the Queen’s table as she gave her Christmas broadcast, it was noted, and the new year was marked with the release of a formal photograph of the Queen and her three direct heirs. Prince Harry might well have felt that he was already surplus to requirements.

Then there is the welfare of the Duchess. She had an independent and successful life before she married; yet resuming her acting career, while also a “senior” royal, would be difficult, if not impossible. There has been mention of branding and conflicts of interest if members of the royal family take on paid work – and would the palace not keep a weather eye, at the very least, on the sort of work and the sort of roles she might play?

The Duke, for his part, has been understandably sensitive to the risk that his wife could face the same media pressures as his mother, with some of the same potentially tragic consequences. And while it was widely hailed as an asset in today’s diverse Britain, Meghan’s ethnicity has exposed her to the sort of racism and taunts that had seemed to have been consigned to the past. By reputation, at least, Canada is a more open and colour-blind society than ours. If that is where they choose to spend half of the year, why not?

But there are reasons why not. Some of them, much in evidence in the public reaction in the immediate aftermath of the Sussexes’ statement, relate to the old-fashioned idea that privilege comes hand-in-hand with duty. Arguably, in his army service and his founding of the Invictus Games, Prince Harry has earned a good amount of credit. Other reasons relate to the finances: could the Sussexes live from whatever income they receive from Prince Charles and his estates? Will they require round-the-clock security, and if they do, should the cost come from UK taxpayers, wherever the family might be living and however they might be using their time?

In their statement, the Sussexes say they are “stepping back”, wanting to “work to become financially independent” and “balance their time” between the UK and North America. Perhaps we really are entering an age of “having cake and eating it”. But I am not sure that you can, or even should, be a part-time royal, however “progressive” (their word) your project might be. The requirements may have eased since the 1936 abdication, and again since the 1950s when Princess Margaret put duty above happiness. Prince Andrew may offer an example of a “spare” heir who once combined duty and pleasure in a way that has now returned to haunt him.

There is much to be said for a clean break – in professional, if not personal, terms. If the Duke and Duchess of Sussex want a life for themselves and their family that is different from the one that Prince Harry’s birth seemed to offer, who would begrudge them the chance? The future of the monarchy is secure – and even if it were to come into serious contention, it would not be because the ninth-in-line to the throne had opted out. The institution could almost be in more danger from irresponsibility on the part of wayward “senior” royals than it would be from their timely departure.

The break, however, has to be complete, call it self-imposed exile if you like. And the titles, the trappings and the taxpayer funding will have to go – with no turning back. The notion of being a member of the royal family in the UK for half the year, and a private citizen in, say, Canada, for the other half, risks – at best – the one tripping up the other. At worst, there are the branding and conflict-of-interest issues now so grievously exemplified by Prince Andrew.

If they were to succeed – in whatever terms they defined success – a decision to leave “the Firm” and “work to become financially independent” as they put it, could set a useful precedent for the royal family as a whole. Prince Charles is believed to favour a slimmed-down monarchy, as suggested by the new-year photo of the Queen and her heirs. If Harry and Meghan can leave and make a different life for themselves, then something that is now an exception could become the norm for all of the more junior royals.

Maybe because of the abdication crisis, maybe because the UK (with the exception of the Channel Islands) was never occupied during the Second World War, and maybe because the Queen had four children who all now have families of their own, the British monarchy has been painfully slow to modernise in comparison with most of its European counterparts. The plus is an inevitable stability; the big minus is a bloated and expensively maintained clan that contributes little to the exchequer or charities or public life. If it takes an American actor who married a prince to bring reform to an outdated model of monarchy, so be it. It is preferable any day to a revolution.