Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's return to Britain has reopened a debate over whether their global celebrity can coexist with demands for privacy, after Buckingham Palace formally reiterated that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex don't represent King Charles III despite their continued prominence as members of the wider Royal Family.
The dispute intensified Thursday when royal commentator Kinsey Schofield accused Harry and Meghan of "feeding the publicity machine" while objecting to scrutiny of their private lives. Her comments followed remarks from a source close to the Sussexes arguing that their fame makes anything resembling an ordinary private existence unrealistic.
The debate centers partly on guidance issued Sept. 7 by Lord Chamberlain Lord Benyon at the King's direction. The letter, circulated to government departments, military organizations and Lord Lieutenancies, restated the arrangements established after Harry and Meghan stepped back as working royals in 2020.
"Their styles as His and Her Royal Highness remain in abeyance and are not used," the letter said. It added that the couple's charitable and other activities are conducted independently rather than on behalf of the monarch.
"In short, their position is akin to private citizens with commercial and charitable interests," the guidance said.
The wording doesn't mean Harry and Meghan are private individuals in the conventional sense or that they aren't public figures. Rather, it draws an institutional boundary: their appearances, businesses and charitable activities don't constitute official royal engagements or carry the endorsement of the Crown.
A source close to the couple emphasized that distinction while challenging suggestions that Harry and Meghan could simply withdraw from public attention.
"They are public figures," the source said. "Members of the public know who they are. The idea that they can live a normal, 'private' life is sadly not realistic."
Schofield argued that the palace's use of "private citizens" refers specifically to the couple's constitutional and institutional position rather than their celebrity.
"Being a private citizen does not mean you're anonymous. It simply means you don't represent the King," Schofield said.
She compared the Sussexes with Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips, the children of Princess Anne. Both maintain recognizable public profiles and pursue commercial activities while performing no official duties for the sovereign.
"They're recognisable, have commercial interests, attend major royal family events, but they do not represent the monarch," Schofield said.
Schofield went further by arguing that Harry and Meghan could choose a lower-profile approach. "In my opinion, you can't repeatedly feed the publicity machine and then complain about a lack of privacy," she said. That characterization represents her assessment of the couple's media strategy rather than an established account of their motives.
She also argued that the palace had a practical reason for restating their status as the Sussexes resumed activities in Britain. "The palace can't have governments, charities, businesses, even members of the public wondering whether their activities somehow carry the endorsement of the Crown. It doesn't. They don't. King Charles is saying, absolutely not," Schofield said.
Other royal commentators have interpreted the situation differently. Broadcaster Ian Pelham Turner argued that Harry's position as the King's son inevitably gives him a distinctive public role in Britain regardless of his formal status.
"Harry is the son of a king. He has prominence in Britain," Turner said. He has also argued that Charles should fund Harry's security, an issue separate from the palace guidance defining the Sussexes' official status.
Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams described the current situation as a "total mess" and suggested that the letter could reflect continued distrust between the Sussexes and the Royal Household. The document itself, however, doesn't state Charles's private feelings or describe the relationship between father and son.
"It is simply impossible to anticipate the way this may go," Fitzwilliams said. "The Sussexes are news whatever they do."
