Their statement has its oddities - particularly when they say they want to "work to become financially independent".
Prince Harry's inherited fortune from his late mother - buoyed by the subsidy from Prince Charles's vast Duchy of Cornwall income - means they won't struggle to pay for the milk on their cornflakes.
But the clues were there. The agonised interviews they both gave in their African tour last year sent out pretty gloomy mood music: royal life wasn't for them.
Their six-week stay in Canada - even while Prince Philip was in hospital - showed the game was up.
In historical terms, there are recent royal precedents. The Duke of Windsor had to take a back seat from public life when he abdicated in 1936.
More recently, Prince Andrew gave up his public duties after the humiliation of his interview over the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
But the Duke of Windsor and Prince Andrew were different.
Meghan and Harry explained that after "months of reflection and internal discussions" they have decided to "step back" from royal duties. Photo / AP
They had courted disaster: the Duke of Windsor in the shape of a divorcee; Prince Andrew in the shape of a paedophile.
The Sussexes had no such problems.
Yes, Meghan may have been divorced but, these days, that couldn't matter less. Here was a university graduate with a successful career.
And Prince Harry was the charmer of the Royal family - the Prince Hal with the wild, girl-crazy habits who found an utterly admirable role serving in the Army.
I met him in 2015 - at the centenary of the Gallipoli campaign in Turkey - and I was overwhelmed by that charm, royal superstar glow - and his height.
He seemed bound to be the carefree, stardust-sprinkled, Action Man prince while his brother did the boring duties that came with being Number One son. Not so.
Again and again in history, it has been the responsibilities of high office that has led to the oldest son buckling - or dying.
