King Charles Says Harry and Meghan Are ‘Akin to Private Citizens’ as Security Battle Remains Unresolved

Buckingham Palace has circulated new guidance clarifying Prince Harry and Meghan Sussex’s status following their return to Britain, largely restating arrangements that have been in place since 2020.

The Lord Chamberlain issued the letter on King Charles’s behalf and sent it to senior figures across government, the military and the lord lieutenancies. The Sussexes also received a copy. The letter confirms that Harry and Meghan remain non-working royals, keep their HRH styles in abeyance and carry out their charitable work privately alongside their independent commercial interests.

It also directs questions involving public funds to Buckingham Palace and operational security matters to the relevant police authorities.

It follows that there is no change to the current status of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Their styles as His and Her Royal Highness remain in abeyance and are not used. The charitable work of the Duke and Duchess is a personal matter for them both and undertaken in their private capacity. In short, their position is akin to private citizens with commercial and charitable interests.

Any specific questions from official and State organisations about the courtesies which should be extended to the Duke and Duchess, and particularly where recourse to public funds may be required, should be directed to Buckingham Palace. Any operational security issues should continue to be directed to the relevant Police authorities.

People

On paper, none of that is particularly new. Harry and Meghan have spent the past six years living and working outside the official royal structure, and they have given no indication that their move back to Britain changes that arrangement.

The timing is notable because Harry was still seeking answers over his security arrangements when Buckingham Palace circulated the guidance. The Telegraph reported on September 5 that a long-awaited Risk Management Board assessment had been completed in July, but Harry had repeatedly written to RAVEC and the Home Secretary seeking details of its findings.

Two days later, the Palace letter specifically addressed questions involving public funds and security, directing the former to Buckingham Palace and operational protection matters to the relevant police authorities. No evidence shows that the Palace issued the letter to influence any security decision, but its timing makes that section difficult to ignore while Harry’s security dispute remains unresolved.

Scott Hamer, a former Metropolitan Police royal protection officer, told The Telegraph that protection should depend on the threat assessment rather than whether Harry performs royal duties: “The risk does not just vanish.”

What the Front Pages Leave Out

The front pages make the Palace letter sound like a dramatic rebuke. The Daily Mail says the King has “put Harry and Meghan in their place.” The Telegraph turns it into “No return to the Firm.” The Sun revives “Megxit Means Megxit.” Yet the actual letter is considerably less theatrical. It says the arrangement established in 2020 remains unchanged.

That difference is worth paying attention to. The Palace did not strip Harry and Meghan of anything new, nor did it reject any request from them to return as working royals. It simply restated that they operate privately, outside the working Royal Family.

In fact, one part of the letter could prove rather inconvenient for sections of the press now celebrating it. By describing the Sussexes as “akin to private citizens,” Buckingham Palace also strengthens the argument that the press should treat their private and family lives accordingly. The wording does not create new privacy rights, but it weakens any suggestion that Harry and Meghan’s return automatically turns their private family life into official royal business.

Archie and Lilibet’s Privacy Does Not Disappear Because Their Parents Are Famous

The distinction becomes especially important where Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet are concerned. IPSO’s Editors’ Code says children should be able to complete their schooling without unnecessary press intrusion, bars journalists from photographing pupils at school without permission and says a parent’s fame cannot, by itself, justify publishing details of a child’s private life. Overriding those protections requires an exceptional public interest.  

The same code recognises a right to respect for private and family life and the home, while requiring editors to justify intrusions where somebody has a reasonable expectation of privacy.  

That does not mean newspapers cannot report on the Sussexes or that every photograph of them would amount to an unlawful intrusion. Privacy rights must still be balanced against freedom of expression and any genuine public-interest justification.

The Palace may describe Harry and Meghan as “akin to private citizens,” but that does not answer the security question. Harry remains the King’s son and a globally recognisable public figure whose protection should ultimately reflect the threat he faces rather than how many royal engagements he performs.

ITV reported on August 27 that the Sussex family had not been given physical state-funded protection beyond access to a police liaison officer. Harry’s team has continued pressing for their protection arrangements to be reconsidered following the family’s return to Britain.

Buckingham Palace can clarify titles, protocol and official correspondence. It cannot decide whether the protection offered to Harry and his family adequately reflects the threat they face. Calling them private citizens may settle their royal status. It does not settle their protection.