Prince William Will Take 'Drastic Action' Against Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Royal Biographer Claims

Prince William is prepared to take 'drastic action' against Prince Harry and Meghan Markle by backing the removal of their royal titles when he becomes king, royal biographer Tom Bower has claimed in a new interview about the couple's recent Australian tour.

The warning follows the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's much-publicised trip to Australia, billed by supporters as a soft-power success and by critics as a carefully staged 'quasi-royal' visit. The tour, conducted without palace involvement, has revived long‑running questions about how far the couple can trade on their Windsor connections while remaining outside the working royal fold.

Bower, whose latest book Betrayal: Power, Deceit and the Fight for the Future of the Royal Family dissects the Sussexes' split from the monarchy, argues that Harry and Meghan's Australian engagements have pushed them closer to losing their Duke and Duchess of Sussex styles altogether. He insists the core dispute is not personal animosity, but money.

According to the biographer, the couple's desire to turn their status into income is precisely what will eventually force Prince William's hand.

'It was a desperate bid to commercialise, which is going to rebound on them,' Bower told Woman's Day, accusing the Sussexes of using every overseas appearance to 'exploit their royal status to earn money.' In his view, that tactic has made continued association with the couple intolerable for the palace.

Titles at the Heart of Rift

The most contentious of Bower's claims centres on royal titles, and what happens to them once the current reign ends. He predicts that King Charles will not move against Harry and Meghan while he sits on the throne, but that Prince William will take a far harder line as monarch and push to remove their Sussex titles.

'Yes, when William's king, I think he will strip them of their titles, because it's hugely damaging to the royal family,' Bower said, arguing that any such move might 'look spiteful' from the outside but would, in his view, command public support. He contends that 'the majority of Britons' are now 'sick to death of seeing Harry and Meghan exploit their royal titles.'

Buckingham Palace has not commented on Bower's remarks, and there is no official indication that title removal is being considered. Under royal protocol, the question of dukedoms and styles is ultimately a matter for the monarch and Parliament, and any prediction of future action remains speculative.

He goes further still, saying that if the titles were stripped, he believes they should also be removed from the couple's children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. In his telling, King Charles erred by granting those titles at all.

'Charles should never have given them titles. He was weak to concede it and he made a mistake,' Bower claimed, alleging that Meghan wanted Archie 'to be the same as George' and that royal rank for the children was part of a wider plan to 'monetise the royal family.'

In a statement about Betrayal, Harry and Meghan accused the author of having 'made a career out of constructing ever more elaborate theories about people he does not know and has never met.' They added: 'Those interested in facts will look elsewhere; those seeking deranged conspiracy and melodrama know exactly where to find him.'

Australian Tour Deepens Palace Unease

Bower portrays the Australian trip as the latest in a pattern that has alarmed senior royals. He argues that their independent engagements in countries such as Nigeria and Colombia had already raised eyebrows, but that Australia sharpened the sense of risk inside the institution.

'If they're not concerned, they should be, because it's hugely damaging to the royal family,' he said, suggesting that King Charles may now feel unable to be seen supporting Harry's Invictus Games visit to the UK this July. Bower doubts the king will meet his younger son at all, calling such a meeting 'far too dangerous' because of the potential for renewed controversy.

As ever with Sussex‑related commentary, some of this veers into prediction rather than fact. There has been no official guidance on whether a meeting between father and son will take place. Royal schedules are rarely confirmed far in advance, and the palace is unlikely to broadcast its private calculations.

The commercial side of Meghan's public life also comes under Bower's microscope. He argues that the Duchess has slipped back into the role of influencer, pointing to reports that outfits worn on the Australian tour are being sold through the One Off platform and that previous trips saw her change looks multiple times a day.

'It's quite crude and quite blatant,' he said of her style strategy, accusing her of carefully choosing pieces that could be bought directly from Instagram and working with designers and make-up brands to drive sales. He links this to her pre‑royal lifestyle site The Tig, which he says she resented losing when she joined the firm.

Beyond the immediate row, Bower is withering about the Sussexes' prospects in the long term. He contends that their public appeal is limited without a constant drip of royal‑adjacent revelation.

On Meghan, he argues there is 'nothing... other than her royal marriage,' likening her unfavourably to celebrity entrepreneurs such as Gwyneth Paltrow. On Harry, he dismisses the prince as someone who 'just regurgitates his mental-health problems the whole time,' a description guaranteed to divide opinion even among those sympathetic to wider concerns about oversharing.

He is convinced Meghan will eventually produce a memoir to match Harry's Spare, predicting a book filled with 'astonishing conversations with the queen and God knows who else.' The implication is clear enough. However fractured the family relationships become, the commercial value of the royal connection is not about to fade.