Harry and Meghan Are Working Public Figures. Why Does That Upset Royal Commentators?

Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, travelled to Brussels this week to support families who have lost children to online harm. Harry addressed the European Parliament, calling for stronger protections for children. Meghan joined him at the opening of the Lost Screen Memorial.

For many people, the purpose of the visit was clear: to bring attention to families demanding action from governments and technology companies.

But for some commentators, the more pressing issue appeared to be whether Harry and Meghan were acting too much like “working royals”.

During a discussion on Storm and Alexis, commentator Rick Kelsey questioned how the couple could be described as non-working royals while carrying out public engagements. Kelsey acknowledged Meghan and Harry’s charity work but argued that the public was being misled about the couple’s status.

His fellow panellists seemed just as puzzled by the complaint as we are. When they pointed out that Harry and Meghan were supporting a cause they care about, Kelsey returned to the question of whether they could still be called non-working royals.

But where, exactly, is the contradiction?

Leaving royal duties did not mean giving up work

Harry and Meghan stepped back from official royal duties in 2020. That meant they would no longer carry out engagements on behalf of the Crown or receive public funds for royal duties. It did not mean they agreed to stop supporting charities, giving speeches or using their platforms to advocate for causes.

In their January 2020 statement, the couple said they intended to become financially independent while continuing to support the Queen and their patronages. Harry later explained that they had hoped to continue some royal work without public funding, but that arrangement was not possible.

In 2021, after Buckingham Palace confirmed that they would not return as working members of the Royal Family, the Sussexes ‘ spokesperson made their position clear: “Service is universal.” That was not a promise to disappear. It was a statement that they intended to continue serving causes outside the institution.

The Royals Do Not Own Philanthropy

Public figures support causes, visit communities and speak to policymakers all the time. None of them needs Buckingham Palace’s permission to care about an issue.

On the same day as Harry and Meghan’s Brussels visit, Formula One champion Lewis Hamilton visited the Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing and aid warehouses to learn about humanitarian efforts for Gaza.

Parliaments have welcomed public figures and campaigners before. Actress and humanitarian Angelina Jolie gave evidence to a UK parliamentary committee about sexual violence in conflict. Climate activist Greta Thunberg addressed European Parliament members about the climate crisis, while Malala Yousafzai spoke to them about children’s right to education after receiving the Sakharov Prize.

While in Brussels, Belgian MEP Hilde Vautmans invited Harry to become the “godfather” of a proposed global coalition of parliamentarians working to protect children online. That invitation recognised the attention he could bring to the campaign. It was an invitation to support a cause, not to represent the Crown.

So why does it provoke such anger when Harry and Meghan attend an engagement? An engagement is an appointment, not royal property. Perhaps commentators could stop treating ordinary words as though they belong to the institution and accept that people can serve others without acting on behalf of the monarchy.

A Debate That Misses the Point

There is a difference between being a royal who works and being a working royal carrying out official duties for the monarchy. Harry and Meghan retain their titles, but they no longer perform official royal duties or receive public funding or royal housing for them.

That hasn’t stopped them from doing meaningful work. They continue to support causes independently, while some working royals carry out so few engagements that their diaries raise questions about what the public is funding.

In Brussels, families shared heartbreaking experiences and called for stronger protections for children online. Harry and Meghan helped bring attention to their campaign. Yet some angry royalist commentators turned the visit into a debate about whether the couple should be there at all.

James Holt, the former executive director of the Archewell Foundation and now political director of the Liberal Democrats, praised Harry and Meghan for sharing the children’s stories and putting bereaved families first.

That is where the attention belongs: on the families and the changes they are seeking. Service does not require a royal rota, a palace diary or a commentator’s permission.