Six years ago, in January 2016, Suits star Meghan Markle published a post on her now shuttered blog, The Tig, writing: "My New Year's resolution is to leave room for magic. To make my plans, and be okay if they sometimes break. To set my goals, but to be open to change."
Six months later, she would meet one Prince Harry in London, fall head over heels for the ginger royal and set in motion a series of events which would lead to the biggest schism in the house of Windsor in nearly a century.
She was certainly open to change, a lesson I hope she has taught her now-husband Harry, the Duke of Sussex, a man whose life has changed profoundly in only two years.
And now, despite having left behind his official royal post, family, patronages, honorary military roles and (most likely) any chance of ever being warmly welcomed inside the Royal Box at Wimbledon, the 37-year-old is now facing the loss of his final royal office.
According to reporting by The Daily Mail, Buckingham Palace courtiers are looking into removing Harry and his disgraced uncle Prince Andrew as Counsellors of State.
Now, if your knowledge of the 1937 Regency Act Is a little rusty, let me refresh your memory. Back then, the Queen's father King George VI decided to codify things and established the Counsellors of State in their current model, deciding the members would be the monarch's spouse and then the four most senior members of the line of succession who are over the age of 21.
That means the current lot consists of Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Harry and Prince Andrew. (There has been some argument over whether Harry, given he now lives in the US, is still eligible, however the royal family's website still lists him as thus.)
Now, while Harry and Andrew have been repeatedly bumped down the succession ladder in recent years, the fact that William and Kate, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's kids are all still, well, kids means the two men get to retain the very grand-sounding titles.
Well, perhaps for not much longer given that both Harry and Andrew have been forced to be "open for change" whether they like it or not.
Earlier this month, Andrew's attempts to have his civil sex abuse case in New York thrown out were dismissed, meaning he will face off against accuser Virginia Giuffre, formerly Roberts, who alleges she was sexually assaulted by the royal on three occasions when she was a teenager. (Andrew has repeatedly and vigorously denied the claims.)
In the wake of the court ruling, the Queen finally, and years too late in my opinion, stripped her son of his honorary military titles and remaining patronages in a belated attempt at damage control.
There was a certain element of deja vu to all of this given it was nearly one year ago that Her Majesty was forced to do the same thing to Harry in terms of his honorary armed services roles and his position as the President of the Queen's Commonwealth Trust after the 12-month Megxit cooling off period came to an end.
Given both Andrew and Harry's dramatically changed status, Buckingham Palace aides seem to think they should no longer hold the potentially powerful positions of Counsellors of State.
"It is a genuine problem that the palace is looking to address," a royal source told The Mail.
To understand the sudden urgency on this front, you have to understand that these are more than just grand-sounding positions that Harry can use to trick up his LinkedIn page.
For example, in 1974, then-Counsellors of State the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret had to sign the paperwork to dissolve parliament, though this was because the Queen was overseas at the time.
Given the Queen's advanced age, the fact that Prince Charles has, post-pandemic, resumed official international travel and the strong speculation that the Cambridges will embark on some sort of North American tour this year, the question of who can and can't take over some of her duties should she not be able to is of new and critical importance.
"Can you imagine the Duke of York having to sign official documents, for example, because the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge were both abroad, and the Queen became ill?" the royal source said.
"It's not an exaggeration to say it could put the monarchy in jeopardy."
Seemingly referencing Andrew's court case and the publication of Harry's autobiography, the source also said, "There could be events later this year which make such a change necessary."
While removing Andrew and Harry as Counsellors of State would require an act of parliament, given the two men are both pretty unpopular in the UK (the Duke of York much much more so, of course) this might not be such a hard thing to do.
(If the palace stuck to the rules as they currently stand, the next two candidates to become Counsellors of State would be Andrew's daughters Princess Beatrice and Eugenie. Other reports have suggested that Charles' wife Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall and Princess Anne could instead be elevated to the roles.)
Still, for Harry, this is just the latest in a long line of indignities he has faced since making the life-altering decision to quit as a working member of the royal family.
When his grandfather Prince Philip died in April last year, initially it was reported that he would be barred from wearing military dress. (It was later decided by the palace that all of the family members in the funeral procession would wear morning suits instead.)
In July last year, when Harry returned to the UK for the unveiling of the statue he co-commissioned with William of their mother Diana, Princess of Wales he was, for unknown reasons, denied official Metropolitan police protection. (The Duke of Sussex is now seeking to have the decision that he cannot privately pay for the services of specialist Met officers reviewed.)
This week came more bad news for Private Citizen Andrew and Private Citizen Harry with it being reported that they will not be eligible to receive the Queen's Platinum Jubilee Medal as they no longer hold their honorary military titles.
While both men are actual veterans, only living recipients of the George Cross or Victoria Cross will be awarded the gong. That said, Harry and Andrew will still get the medals but only as souvenirs which they will not be able to wear on official occasions.
Still, all of these decisions – the military titles, the HRHs in abeyance – could theoretically be reversed. However, having parliament take formal action to remove them as Counsellors of State is in another league entirely. If the Queen does take steps to have this situation remedied and Harry is axed, there really is no going back.
I know, I know. After everything that has happened, Harry is not going to suddenly throw his hands up in the air and decide he misses Greggs sausage rolls, warm lager and the chance to occasionally open a Scout hall and say he wants back into British life and royal duties.
However, whatever you might think about his choices over the last 24 months, for more than 15 years he well and truly did his bit for Queen and country including serving two tours on the frontline in Afghanistan, helping significantly change the conversation about mental health and founding the Invictus Games.
Unlike Andrew, whose greatest contribution to Blighty was racking up frequent flyer points on British Airways.
Being removed, by parliament no less, as a Counsellor of State would really be the nail in Harry's coffin of his former life as a frontline member of the royal family.
And while change might be inevitable but that doesn't mean it does not hurt.
2016-era Meghan counselled herself that she wanted "To make my plans, and be okay if they sometimes break." Let's hope that is a piece of painfully true wisdom she has shared with Harry.
• Daniela Elser is a royal expert and a writer with more than 15 years' experience working with a number of Australia's leading media titles.