Princess Anne publicly called Meghan and Harry’s decision to step back from royal duties “probably the right thing to do,” a rare endorsement from one of the family’s most steadfast members. Her comment, made during a 2020 Vanity Fair interview, came after months of speculation and high-profile media scrutiny.
Yet a television psychic claims she foresaw tensions from the very start, adding a layer of intrigue. This story unpacks the timeline, motivations, and financial realities that shaped the Sussexes’ departure and the contrasting perspectives that still capture public fascination.
What’s Going On?
In early 2020, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry announced their intention to step back from senior royal roles. The decision, effective 31 March 2020, reshaped royal responsibilities and prompted scrutiny of public and private opinions within the family.
Princess Anne, one of the hardest-working royals, voiced support for the couple in a Vanity Fair interview, providing the first high-profile family endorsement. This slide sets the stage for how Anne’s statement contrasts with psychic speculation and public debate about the departure’s wisdom.
Who Is Princess Anne?
Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, turned 75 this year and is widely recognized for her exceptional dedication. In 2024 alone, she completed 217 engagements, surpassing King Charles despite his health challenges.
Her experience and personal choices lend weight to her view. Anne and her first husband, Mark Phillips, declined royal titles for their children, paralleling the Sussexes’ exit. Could her own history inform her judgment of Meghan and Harry’s decision?
Anne’s Official Statement
In a Vanity Fair interview published online on 15 April 2020, Anne said, “I think it was probably easier for them, and I think most people would argue that there are downsides to having titles. So I think that was probably the right thing to do.”
This quote anchors the first part of the title. Anne was reflecting on her own experiences and observing the Sussexes’ choice, rather than predicting the outcome. It marked her formal support, setting up the tension explored by psychic interpretations.
Who Is Meghan Markle?
Meghan Markle, 44, rose to fame as an actress on Suits before marrying Prince Harry in May 2018 at Windsor Castle. Her royal tenure lasted about 20 months, ending with the formal exit in March 2020.
During that time, she attended official engagements, patronages, and public events, including the Endeavour Fund Awards and Mountbatten Festival of Music. This period reflects the professional and personal stakes before stepping back.
Prince Harry’s Role
Prince Harry, 41, was the bridge between Princess Anne’s commentary and Meghan’s experience. He announced the couple’s intent to step back on 8 January 2020, formalizing a departure strategy aimed at independence.
Since exiting, Harry became a media entrepreneur, completing 40–50 engagements outside royal duties and producing content with Meghan. His career shift frames the couple’s financial and personal transitions post-royal life.
Psychic Claims: Debbie Davies
Debbie Davies, a television psychic, claims she observed Anne’s skepticism during the May 2018 wedding. “Princess Anne is just like her dad was, Prince Philip could see straight through Meghan Markle. He could see her for what she is and so could I, on their wedding day I just sat there shaking my head. I was stood there saying ‘This is a complete and utter disaster waiting to happen.’”
Davies’ retrospective interpretation contrasts Anne’s verified statement. Her observations were personal and intuitive, made four years after the wedding. How much credibility should we assign to psychic predictions in high-profile family decisions?
Prince Philip’s Context
Prince Philip, who passed away on 9 April 2021 at 99, is referenced in Davies’ claim. He was alive for over 16 months after the couple announced their departure.
There is no documented evidence of Philip publicly criticizing Meghan. The psychic’s account suggests private perceptions, not verified statements. This distinction is key to understanding how narrative tension arises in the story.
Buckingham Palace’s Official Response
On 8 January 2020, Buckingham Palace stated, “Discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage. We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”
The Palace’s language was deliberately diplomatic. It framed the departure as a negotiation rather than a failure, highlighting the contrast between official institutional messaging and speculative interpretation.
Meghan’s Final Engagements
Meghan completed her last official duties on 5–7 March 2020, including the Endeavour Fund Awards and Mountbatten Festival of Music. These appearances preceded her formal exit on 31 March 2020.
These engagements underscore the structured end to her royal service and highlight the methodical nature of the transition. They also provide context for understanding Anne’s retrospective approval months later.
Geographic Separation
After stepping back, the Sussexes moved to Montecito, California, purchasing a $14.65 million property in June 2020. By 2025, its value increased to approximately $29 million.
The 5,456-mile distance from London formalized the couple’s separation from palace life. Geographic distance contributed to autonomy, media strategy, and independent financial ventures, contrasting with traditional royal roles.
Media Ventures Post-Exit
Meghan and Harry launched Archewell Productions and signed a $100 million Netflix deal in September 2020, followed by a $20 million Spotify podcast deal.
These ventures transformed the couple into media entrepreneurs, generating income independent of royal allowances. Financial success challenges the psychic’s “disaster” narrative and positions the Sussexes as strategic innovators rather than casualties of royal life.
The Financial Reality
The Sussexes’ combined net worth stands at approximately $60 million in 2025. Property appreciation and media deals contributed over $134 million in gains post-exit.
If Davies’ prediction of failure held true, the couple would have been financially strained. Instead, documented outcomes reveal the opposite, providing an evidence-based lens to interpret Anne’s endorsement.
Stakeholder Impact: Royal Family
The departure reduced palace engagement capacity by roughly 30–40 annual events and required reallocation of military appointments and patronages.
Institutional adaptations included creating new categories of royal status. Anne’s endorsement aligned with pragmatic institutional needs, reinforcing her measured view despite psychic speculation suggesting conflict.
Stakeholder Impact: Staff and Charities
Approximately 15–20 Sussex household staff were reassigned or made redundant, and some royal patronages transitioned to other family members.
Royal charities and organizations adjusted to the absence of Sussex visibility. Public-facing roles shifted without disrupting institutional continuity. The ripple effect of the exit demonstrates real operational consequences beyond media narratives.
Stakeholder Impact: Media and Public
Traditional British media lost direct access, while Netflix and Spotify gained exclusive content. Subscribers and viewers received an unfiltered Sussex perspective.
This shift altered narrative control, financial flows, and public engagement. Consumers could access content directly, reducing palace editorial influence. How does this influence perception of success versus psychic warnings?
Why Anne Supported the Exit
Anne viewed the Sussexes’ choice through experience: she and Mark Phillips declined titles for their children, highlighting the potential downsides of royal status.
Her Vanity Fair comment encouraged younger royals to “go back to basics.” Anne assessed the departure as sensible, providing a reasoned, institutional endorsement rather than a psychic prediction of failure.
How Psychic Interpretation Differs
Davies’ claim represents personal intuition and retrospective analysis rather than documented evidence. It frames Anne as possibly skeptical from day one, contrasting with Anne’s measured endorsement two years later.
The tension between these accounts creates the paradox that fuels public fascination, showing how perception and fact can diverge in high-profile narratives.
Reconciling the Narrative
Anne’s statement reflects post-decision assessment; Davies’ claim reflects intuition during the wedding. Both exist without direct contradiction.
Understanding the distinction between documented judgment and psychic speculation reveals why the story is compelling. The narrative value lies in exploring how private doubt and public endorsement can coexist.
The Outcome
The Sussexes successfully transitioned to financial independence and media prominence, contradicting “complete and utter disaster” claims. Anne’s endorsement now appears validated by subsequent events.
The narrative tension in the title is resolved through documented evidence: verified commentary, timeline analysis, and financial results demonstrate that stepping back was both prudent and profitable.