@Aspiringmatriach I have gone back to find a post I made before the Oprah interview aired which sets out my thoughts about this.As I set out below, I think they used the Oprah interview to rewrite their history. Only the will know how close to the truth it was. The more they tell this story though, the more they blur their history, and the more the new narrative becomes as accepted as the real narrative.
“I don’t have any problem with the Sussexes playing the cards available to them and talking to Oprah, it’s been predicted for literally months now that they’d do a tell-all with her. My main issue with it is that they will doubtless use it to perpetuate the re-write of their history that they’ve been spreading since this time last year. It’s instructive to go and see what they themselves told us about their position at the time, rather than now one year on (all quotes below are from the Sussexxes own pre-prepared statements on their website, which they released on 8 January 2020).
In January 2020, when the couple first made their public announcement on their website, they definitely weren’t suggesting they were leaving their Royal roles. Rather, they announced that they had "made the choice to transition into a new working model”. Why did they want to do this? As they made clear, they don’t "benefit from their charitable and cause driven work” because "under the current structure and financing arrangements, they are prohibited from earning any income in any form”. The Sussexes however "value the ability to earn a professional income, which in the current structure they are prohibited from doing”. And so this is why they have chosen a new approach - it will "enable them to continue to carry out their duties for Her Majesty The Queen, while having the future financial autonomy to work externally”.
There’s no mention that their current public position is unsurvivable. Far from it. In fact, they intend to proudly maximise the Queen’s legacy "by supporting their patronages and carrying out works for The Monarchy within the UK or abroad, as called upon".
Their plan, clearly set out in their own words, was give up receive "funding through the Sovereign Grant, thereby making them members of the Royal Family with financial independence” (the Sovereign Grant provided 5% of their funding needs, the other 95% coming from Prince Charles). Their intention therefore was to still be bankrolled by Prince Charles, but no longer be subject to the Nolan rules, which prohibit them from benefitting financially from their position. This, they described, would "carve out a progressive new role within this institution” while they "continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge, and all relevant parties”.
This remained their position for a couple of weeks, until the Royal family made it very clear that this was not actually possible, and they had to choose to either be wholly in (and bound by the rules) or wholly out (and free from them). They went for the latter, as they obviously wanted the ability to earn money. Prince Harry made their position perfectly clear at his January speech at a Sentabale event: "Our hope was to continue serving the Queen, the Commonwealth, and my military associations, but without public funding. Unfortunately, that wasn’t possible”.
It was then, and only then, that their narrative changed, to the toxic media and palace environment being “unsurvivable” and stepping back being their “ only option". It would have been perfectly survivable it seems, if they been able have the best of both worlds, as they actually wanted: the cachet of being Royal and the freedom to make as much money as they wanted because of it. They really don’t want to think of that now, though. And that’s why I side-eye this interview - they will doubtless make it clear that they are speaking their truth, as they like to phrase it. But I am pretty sure they won’t”.