Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have found themselves at the center of controversy once again over their recent overseas trips. The Sussexes embarked on a four-day tour of Colombia in late September after being personally invited by the country’s Vice President. Shortly after, they travelled to Germany for the Invictus Games. While the trips aim to promote worthy causes close to the couple’s hearts, questions have been raised about whether they should be seeking permission from King Charles III for these quasi-royal engagements.
A recent poll by UK tabloid The Express showed that the vast majority of the British public does not believe Harry and Meghan need the King’s approval for their international tours. Out of over 10,000 respondents, a whopping 96% felt the Sussexes should not have to get Charles’ permission. Only 3% thought they should ask and 1% were unsure. This overwhelming public opinion suggests Brits see the tours as private rather than official affairs.
However, royal experts have voiced different views. Renowned royal author Angela Levin expressed concerns about the tours posing a “headache” for the royal family. She argued that unless Harry and Meghan fully cut ties with their royal roles, they have no right to undertake such activities without the King’s consent. In her view, the unofficial nature of the tours is confusing and potentially problematic for the monarchy.
Controversial journalist Piers Morgan was equally critical in his column for The Sun. He questioned the validity of Harry and Meghan still claiming any royal status now that they have stepped back as working royals and moved to the United States. Morgan wrote, “What audacity do they possess to gallivant across the globe masquerading as genuine royals during their quasi-official escapades?” His provocative words highlighted doubts over whether the couple can still portray themselves as representatives of the British crown without official backing.
The situation is undoubtedly frustrating for King Charles, who now oversees the royal brand that Harry and Meghan continue dipping their toes in, whether intentionally or not. As head of state, it would surely aid the transition into his reign if all senior family members were on the same page regarding international appearances. It also does not help relations with his eldest son Prince William, who is said to be infuriated by perceived attempts to compete with the new Prince and Princess of Wales on the global stage.
While Harry and Meghan may see the trips as a positive way to continue their charitable work outside the royal fold, it leaves questions about whether they are capitalizing on their former royal status without the obligations. If the goal is truly to become private citizens, such gray areas could be better defined through open communication with the King. However, the couple have not shied away from controversies that risk further family rifts as they forge their post-royal identities independently in the US.
The bigger issue lies in the blurred lines between their public and private personas. As non-working royals living abroad, it is understandable the Sussexes would not require the monarch’s sign-off for personal schedules. But when international governments host them for quasi-official welcome ceremonies and they partake in events resembling duties, the muddy waters are stirred. Until clearer boundaries are set in discussion with the Palace, rumors of competing with the new Princess and Prince of Wales for limelight will likely persist.
Overall, this situation highlights wider questions on what rules govern senior ex-royals leveraging their royal ties commercially and abroad in the modern era. While the British people seem content to let Harry and Meghan do their own thing, there are clearly frustrations within the House of Windsor over apparent inconsistencies. For the sake of family harmony and the future of the institution, it would benefit all sides for the boundaries of non-working royalty to be properly defined through transparent agreement under their new King. The alternative will only breed further discontent from opinionated circles questioning actions seemingly at odds with their supposedly detached public roles.