Additional Coverage:
- Prince Harry, Meghan Markle feeding the ‘publicity machine’ despite privacy demands: expert (foxnews.com)
Following King Charles’ recent clarification on the status of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle during their return to the United Kingdom, insiders close to the couple are expressing disagreement with the royal directive.
On September 7, King Charles, through a letter from the Lord Chamberlain, described the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as “akin to private citizens.” However, sources familiar with Harry and Meghan told People magazine they remain very much public figures. They noted that if the couple truly were private citizens, there would have been no need for formal guidance from the Lord Chamberlain.
“People recognize who they are, and the notion that they can lead a completely normal, private life is unrealistic,” one source commented.
Addressing this perspective, Kinsey Schofield, host of the YouTube show “Kinsey Schofield Unfiltered,” emphasized to Fox News Digital that the “private citizen” label simply means Harry and Meghan no longer represent the monarch officially. She pointed out that being a private citizen doesn’t equate to anonymity.
Schofield drew a parallel with Princess Anne’s children, Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips, who, despite lacking royal titles and not representing the crown, maintain public profiles and commercial interests. “They have successfully built lives outside the formal institution.
Harry and Meghan could choose a similar path if they wished,” Schofield explained. She added that it is contradictory to seek publicity and then complain about privacy issues.
The clarification from King Charles was seen as necessary, given the couple’s high-profile involvement in various controversies. Schofield highlighted the distinction between fame and infamy, suggesting that much of the Sussexes’ public attention is fueled by ongoing disputes and legal battles.
Conversely, royal broadcaster Ian Pelham Turner challenged King Charles’ characterization of Harry and Meghan as private citizens. Turner argued that as the king’s son, Harry retains a significant public role in Britain and should be supported accordingly, including with appropriate security measures. He cautioned against repeating tragedies like that experienced by Princess Diana.
Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams described the king’s letter as a “total mess,” interpreting it as a firm rebuke reflecting the monarch’s mistrust of the Sussexes. Fitzwilliams suggested that the couple’s security concerns highlight shortcomings in their planning and that their public activities continue to generate intense media scrutiny.
Looking ahead, experts expressed uncertainty about how the situation will evolve. Fitzwilliams acknowledged that regardless of the controversies, Harry and Meghan maintain a high public profile, which complicates matters.
Schofield added that the couple’s unpredictability poses challenges for the palace, which wants to avoid any perception that Harry and Meghan’s endeavors have official royal endorsement-a message King Charles has made clear.
She concluded by noting that Harry sought independence from royal duties, and with that independence comes the relinquishment of privileges and official status. “It is the king who determines who represents the crown, not Prince Harry, Meghan Markle, or anonymous sources briefing the media,” Schofield said.
“Harry wanted freedom from the system. He got it, but freedom also means accepting that you no longer have a seat at the table.”
Requests for comment have been made to both Archewell and Buckingham Palace.