Accounts show Prince Charles continued to support Harry and Meghan financially after they stepped down.

Harry said he was cut off in the first quarter of 2020 - Clarence House said Charles continued to fund the Sussexes until that summer.
Harry said he was cut off in the first quarter of 2020 - Clarence House said Charles continued to fund the Sussexes until that summer. Photo credit: Getty Images

In their infamous interview with Oprah Winfrey earlier this year, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle - the Duke and Duchess of Sussex - claimed the Royal Family had cut them off financially in the first quarter of 2020.

But newly-published accounts show Harry's father, Prince Charles, continued to support his youngest son months after they stepped down as senior royals last March.

A spokesperson for Clarence House - the office of Charles and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall - told reporters that Meghan and Harry were still receiving money from Charles in the months following their radical breakaway from the Royal Family, according to a report by BBC News.

The comments by Clarence House were made as the annual royal accounts were published. As reported by BBC News, Charles' financial accounts showed funding for both of his sons - Prince William and Harry - and their families contributed to a £4.5 million (NZ$8.87 million) bill. 

The records also showed Harry and Meghan were still listed as receiving money from Charles' Duchy of Cornwall income.

The spokesperson for Clarence House said Charles had allocated a "substantial sum" to Harry and Meghan last year "to support them" with their transition.

"That funding ceased in the summer of last year. The couple is now financially independent," he continued - the summer referring to some time between last June to last August. 

However, the Sussexes deny there is a disparity in their timelines. A spokesperson for the couple said Harry's comments during the Oprah interview "were in reference to the first quarter of the fiscal reporting period in the UK, which starts annually in April".

"You are conflating two different timelines and it's inaccurate to suggest that there's a contradiction," they continued. 

When asked about the timeframes, the Clarence House spokesperson said: "I wouldn't acknowledge that they are dramatically different. All I can tell you are the facts."