The official announcement came from Colonel Chris Magezi, Acting Director of Defence Public Information at Uganda’s Ministry of Defence. General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Chief of Defence Forces and Senior Presidential Advisor for Special Operations, had approved UPDF participation in the 2027 Invictus Games in Birmingham. The decision followed a telephone conversation with Sir Clive Alderton, Principal Private Secretary to King Charles III and Queen Camilla.

According to the UPDF statement, Alderton told Kainerugaba that Charles had been “moved” by the General considering the King’s opinion on the Games. Alderton made clear that the King “has no problem with Uganda’s participation” and encouraged the CDF to proceed with preparations. Kainerugaba agreed and promised to resume.

Five days earlier, on September 9, Kainerugaba had withdrawn Uganda from the Games, saying his country would not participate in something without the King’s approval. He later dismissed the entire affair as “Harry-Meghan nonsense.“

So Kainerugaba pulled Uganda out because it believed the Palace had a problem with Invictus. Then the Palace stepped in to clarify that Charles had no problem at all. That is the sequence. It is not complicated. And it is not a good look.

What Actually Happened

Here is the timeline, as documented:

September 7: Palace guidance described Prince Harry and Meghan Sussex as “akin to private citizens” and said their charitable work was undertaken in their private capacity. Kainerugaba appears to have interpreted that guidance as meaning participation in Invictus risked putting Uganda at odds with the King.

September 9: General Kainerugaba withdrew Uganda from the 2027 Invictus Games, framing the decision as deference to the British monarchy and the Palace’s description of Invictus as a private charity organisation.

Screenshot of General Muhoozi Kainerugaba claiming Uganda had withdrawn from the Invictus Games out of respect for King Charles.

September 14: Colonel Magezi announced that Uganda had reversed course, following a phone call between Kainerugaba and Sir Clive Alderton in which the King’s private secretary confirmed Charles had “no problem” with Uganda’s participation and encouraged preparations to resume.

The reversal happened only after the Palace directly intervened through the King’s most senior private secretary. Uganda did not change its mind because the Invictus Games asked nicely. It changed its mind because Buckingham Palace picked up the phone.

The Clean-Up on Aisle 3

Let me be careful here about what can be established and what remains my own suspicion. What can be established is this: Palace guidance described Harry and Meghan as “akin to private citizens” and Invictus as a private charity. Kainerugaba appears to have interpreted that guidance as meaning participation in Invictus risked putting Uganda at odds with the King. Kainerugaba withdrew.

The Palace then intervened through Alderton to clarify Charles’s position, after which Kainerugaba reversed the withdrawal and resumed preparations.

That is a clean-up operation. The Palace created confusion, and the Palace cleaned it up. Now, here is where I move from established fact into theory. I want to be explicit about that distinction.

My view is that Charles has spent years trying to put institutional distance between the monarchy and Harry while avoiding the appearance of directly attacking his son. The Lord Chamberlain’s letter fits that pattern. It was not a neutral clarification. It was a message.

And that message travelled. It reached Uganda and a general eager to demonstrate his loyalty to the Crown, creating a diplomatic mess the Palace then had to fix. We have seen before how decisions made around Harry’s royal status can quickly produce consequences beyond Palace walls.

In 2020, after Harry and Meghan were stripped of taxpayer-funded police protection, Canada also ended the RCMP assistance it had been providing alongside the Metropolitan Police. Harry later recalled in the Netflix documentary, Harry & Meghan, that he had assured Meghan their protection would never be removed. It was. Six years later, another Palace clarification about their status has once again travelled beyond Britain, this time helping turn wounded veterans’ participation in Invictus into an international royal loyalty test.

The timing is difficult to ignore. The letter landed just as RAVEC was expected to reconsider Harry and his family’s security arrangements following a risk assessment conducted earlier in the summer. While the Palace was stressing Harry and Meghan’s private status, the committee was preparing to consider the assessment and whether their changed circumstances warranted different protection arrangements. The expected meeting was later pushed back, and no new timetable has been made public.

If they are private citizens, why would the public pay for their security? That is the implication. And the letter made sure everyone heard it. There is still no evidence that the Palace intended the letter to influence RAVEC, but Harry’s camp has reportedly questioned the timing.

Now ITV News has added a significant new detail. Chris Ship reports that it was the Palace who made the call — Sir Clive Alderton, the King’s Principal Private Secretary, telephoned General Kainerugaba directly. The Ugandans have also confirmed to ITV News that last week’s Lord Chamberlain letter did, in fact, “cause confusion”, not clarity, after it referred to Prince Harry’s charity work as that of a “private citizen.”

The Palace denies this. Sources insist the letter was made public to create clarity and that it has not caused confusion. Senior royal staff have described the sequence as “the system working as it should,” noting that organisations are welcome to seek guidance from the Palace, which, they say, ended in a positive outcome for all sides.

But the Ugandan military’s own account contradicts that framing. Colonel Magezi admitted the letter indicated “that the Invictus Games were a private charity organisation.” And General Kainerugaba’s initial withdrawal was explicitly framed as deference to the King. Had the letter never been issued, would Uganda have pulled out at all?

That is the question Buckingham Palace has not answered. And it is the question that hangs over the entire episode.

The Bigger Question

Uganda is one of roughly 25 Invictus participating nations. More countries are applying to join. One general’s sudden declaration of withdrawal did not threaten the Games. But it created a diplomatic spectacle that should never have happened.

The Games exist for wounded, injured and sick service personnel and veterans. They are not a political football. Yet they were dragged into one involving Britain’s unelected head of state, whose constitutional role supposedly demands political impartiality, and the son of a president who has ruled Uganda since 1986 and later appointed his own son to command the armed forces.  

Two powerful men whose positions are inseparable from birth and family connections managed to turn an event built around wounded veterans into a bizarre exercise in royal loyalty while royal commentators applauded. The veterans deserved better than that.

The King’s household could move quickly to clarify Charles’s position when Uganda’s participation was at stake. Yet when Harry’s family is waiting for a decision on their own protection, the Palace maintains that security rests with RAVEC and the relevant authorities.

Buckingham Palace can intervene to clear up an international misunderstanding involving Invictus. Harry, meanwhile, is still waiting for the system to decide what protection his family will receive.

Discover more from Feminegra

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.