Prince Harry has been facing a lot more criticisms and objections these days, especially after he and Meghan Markle announced that they are stepping down as senior members of the Royal Family. The Sussex couple also noted that they want to become "financially independent," which is likely one of the reasons why they decided to quit the royal life.
A crisis talk was held after the announcement last month. Based on the conclusion of the deal, Queen Elizabeth II granted their wishes to step down. However, their exit will come with reservations.
As per the official announcement from Buckingham Palace, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will officially start onto the new chapter of their lives on April 1. Alongside their exit, they will also reportedly pay back the amount of the renovation costs spent on Frogmore Cottage.
The Sussex couple will also no longer receive funds from the Sovereign Grant. Accordingly, they will now have the freedom to choose what venture they want to earn their income.
While the details are not yet final, this already sparked a lot of talks and controversies among royal fans and experts. Amid all the commotion about the matter, it was revealed that this was not the first time that Prince Harry faced outrage from the public due to the "financial implications" of his actions.
According to Express UK, the Duke of Sussex previously "sparked outrage" from the general public, especially in Australia, way back in 2003. It was stated that this is because of his "gap year," when he visited the country.
In Katie Nicholl's 2010 book, William and Harry, the royal expert and author shared that this was also the time when the young prince was met with criticisms for his "alcohol-fueled" summer. But, the outrage was mostly targeted at the cost of his "round-the-clock" security.
As revealed, this cost the country a "whopping" £250,000. The public reportedly wanted to know why "they were footing the bill" of Prince Harry's security for his unofficial visit.
In response to the outrage, the royal expert stated that the Buckingham Palace said that the 12 full-time security officers were "necessary" to protect the then-third person in line to the throne. It also came after Prince Charles' visit to the country a few years back when a "deranged" student fired two shots at the Heir Apparent using a pistol.
While the response made total sense, several members of the public deemed it as a "waste of money," especially on their part considering that this was not an official royal trip or tour.
