By Gabriel Princewill-
King Charles has formally reaffirmed that Harry and Meghan are private citizens in a statement made following their return to the Uk
In a letter authorised by the King and circulated by the Lord Chamberlain to senior government and military officials and other representatives of the Crown, Charles confirmed that Harry and Meghan remain non-working members of the Royal Family.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Their position, the letter said, is “distinct from the State and Royal duties undertaken by the working Royal Family”. It then referred to the “personal latitude” that this gives the couple in relation to “financial independence and protection of their privacy as they would wish”, adding that the position would “continue to be fully respected”.
The king’s reference to protecting their privacy “as they would wish” appears to have implications well beyond the Sussexes’ constitutional status.
King Charles III has clearly settled one question about Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, with clarity. and that is that their return to Britain does not amount to a return to the working Royal Family.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
It appears that clarity in relation to them not returning to the working Royal family also means the media are expected to bear this fact in mind. The more intriguing question is what the King’s language means for the private lives of a couple who remain among the most scrutinised people in Britain.
Life coach and media analyst, Sheila Mckenzie, told The Eye Of media.Com that: ”that sentence in relation to protection of their privacy deserves more attention than it has so far received. The constitutional point is straightforward. Harry and Meghan stepped down from official royal duties in 2020, and have not resumed them.
‘Their charitable activities remain private rather than official royal work, and the King has now formally reiterated that their position is akin to private citizens with commercial and charitable interest. But the reference to privacy introduces a different dimension. Charles did not merely say that the Sussexes are private citizens. He expressly associated that status with “protection of their privacy as they would wish”.
”That does not constitute an instruction to newspapers to stop covering Harry and Meghan. It does not create a new legal privilege, nor does it place the couple beyond legitimate scrutiny. But it does raise a serious question about the appropriate boundary between the public’s right to know and the public’s desire to know. That difference is particularly important because the Sussexes are now back in Britain.
”After six years in the United States, their return has already generated renewed attention to their movements, their prospective home, their children and their social and professional lives. Reports on Monday included speculation about the Cotswolds and Meghan’s reported appearance at Soho Farmhouse At precisely this moment, the King has reaffirmed that their presence in Britain should not be confused with a return to public royal service.
”They are back, but they are not working royals. And, in the King’s formulation, the freedom attached to that position includes privacy.
The significance of the language lies in what it does — and does not — say. Unless king Charles is suggesting that Harry and Meghan are no longer public figures, their commercial interests can legitimately be examined. Their charitable activities can be reported, their dealings with government, public institutions, or publicly funded bodies can be scrutinised where there is a genuine public-interest basis.
If the couple are now officially regarded as private citizens, and if the King expressly identifies protection of their privacy as part of the personal latitude attached to that status, there is a legitimate journalistic question about whether the old assumptions surrounding royal coverage still apply. This is a separate question of whether Harry and Meghan should be protected from criticism.
It is a question of whether their withdrawal from official royal duties should have a corresponding effect on expectations of access to their private lives. That is a materially different argument.
There is also a wider psychological issue. The Sussexes’ relationship with the media has been exceptionally adversarial, but the underlying question is not unique to them. Modern celebrity journalism operates in an environment in which the distinction between reporting and exposure can become blurred, particularly when photographs, social-media posts and private information can be circulated instantly and repeatedly.
UKCP-registered psychotherapist Sue Cowan-Jenssen has previously examined precisely this dynamic. Writing about media backlash against Meghan in 2019, she argued that the treatment of public figures can become psychologically reductive, with audiences encouraged to divide people into simplistic categories of approval and disapproval.
She described this as a form of psychological “splitting” and argued that people need to tolerate complexity rather than reduce individuals to heroes or villains. Her broader work on media hostility has been even more direct.
Writing about public shaming, Cowan-Jenssen argued that when someone is vilified in the media, “you don’t see the consequences, you don’t see the pain”, warning that a culture of relentless judgement can make it harder to maintain a healthy sense of self.
Most professionally competent journalists would agree that relentless negative press is indefensible, but factual and necessary reporting that is proportionate to the overall public interest topic, need not take into account pain, more so in light of the civil liberty of free expression. That does not establish that every critical article about Harry or Meghan causes psychological harm, what it does is establish a relevant principle that public visibility does not eliminate human vulnerability.
The Association of Clinical Psychologists UK made a similar point in its 2021 response to the Oprah interview with Meghan and Harry, expressing concern about what it described as the normalisation of targeted harassment and humiliation in parts of the British media. The organisation called for media companies to provide “psychologically-informed training” to staff whose work can cause such harm.
That intervention remains relevant to the current topic, although cannot be interpreted as a clinical assessment of the Sussexes themselves. The issue also goes beyond royal protocol and into questions of media ethics. He has not attempted to dictate that line. But he has placed the word privacy explicitly within the description of Harry and Meghan’s status as private citizens.
Harry remains a Duke of Sussex and their lives have consequences for the institution they left behind, particularly when their activities intersect with the monarchy, government or public expenditure. Their public profile is also partly sustained by their own decisions to engage with the media, commercial entertainment and public causes.
That ramifications of their own public engagements would naturally be that there will inevitably be circumstances in which their private lives become legitimately newsworthy. A private individual who becomes involved in a matter of public significance cannot necessarily invoke privacy simply because the matter is uncomfortable. The question is therefore not whether the Sussexes should be granted absolute privacy, because they should not.
The critical point relates to reporting that is proportionate to the public interest objective, and doesn’t exceed it. The King’s letter does not answer those questions. But it makes the questions harder to avoid. There is an obvious irony in the timing. Harry and Meghan have returned to the country where their relationship with the press became one of the defining conflicts of their royal lives.
The strongest interpretation of Charles’s intervention is therefore not that he has issued a royal rebuke to the British press. There is insufficient evidence for that. Nor is it that Harry and Meghan should no longer be scrutinised. There is equally insufficient justification for that proposition.
If Harry and Meghan are, in the King’s words, “akin to private citizens with commercial and charitable interests”, then journalism about them should arguably begin from that premise, rather than from the assumption that royal status automatically confers an entitlement to exceptional access to their private That is not a demand for special treatment.
It is an argument for consistent treatment. And that may be the most significant implication of the King’s letter. Charles has not told the press what it may publish. He has done something subtler. He has formally separated Harry and Meghan from the working machinery of the monarchy while expressly associating their private status with “protection of their privacy as they would wish”.
Whether that language amounts merely to a description of the Sussexes’ existing settlement or also represents a signal about the standards expected around their private lives is ultimately open to interpretation. But the timing is difficult to dismiss. The Sussexes have returned to Britain and the media spotlight has naturally followed them.
And the King has reminded the country that, whatever their titles, and whatever their extraordinary public profile, they are no longer returning as working royals. They are, in the Palace’s formulation, private citizens. The unresolved question is whether Britain’s media culture is prepared to treat them accordingly.That will be a judgement for journalists and editors to make, balancing public interest considerations with any implied right to privacy seemingly accorded to them by King Charles.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar