Meghan Markle flying to Canada shows Sussexes' decision is 'non-negotiable', says expert

Meghan Markle’s decision to fly back to Canada to reunite with baby Archie is a sign the Sussexes’ new royal role is “non-negotiable”, an expert claims.

The royals will hold crisis talks at Sandringham today following the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s surprise announcement last week that they would step down as senior royals.

The announcement was made following the couple’s return from Canada, where they had travelled for their six-week-long break over the Christmas period.

Duchess Meghan flew back to be with baby Archie – who had stayed in Vancouver with her friend and a nanny – shortly after the announcement, and is believed to be participating in today’s talks via a video conference.

READ MORE: William and Harry deny ‘offensive’ story about their relationship

Now Duncan Larcombe, The Sun’s former royal editor, says in a new interview with Yahoo UK that Meghan’s decision to travel “is a sign that as far as [she] at least is concerned, this whole thing is almost non-negotiable. The decision is made.”

“It’s what the Royal Family want to do and how the Royal Family can come to terms with that – that’s the most important thing,” he adds.

Issues up for discussion today include Meghan and Harry’s future royal duties, and what income they can continue to claim through being royal.

While Larcombe stresses that the outcome of today’s meeting remains uncertain – ‘You could ask the Queen the same question and she wouldn’t know the answer” – he believes the Royal Family will be committed to finding a solution as soon as possible.

READ MORE: Sandringham royal talks: Issues on the agenda following Meghan and Harry announcement

“What we do know is that they will try and find a resolution today because they will want to announce it pretty quickly,” he says.

And if discussions prove difficult? “The worst-case scenario here is that Harry joins Meghan in being completely estranged from the vast majority of his family,” Larcombe says. “That would be a disaster on a personal and a constitutional level.”