Harry and Meghan face fresh criticism over royal status after King Charles reinforces 2020 agreement

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have returned to Britain, but King Charles III has made one point unmistakably clear: their move back to the UK does not mean a return to life as working royals.

The King’s position has reignited a long-running argument over the Sussexes’ place within the Royal Family. Royal commentators Angela Levin and Hugo Vickers have accused the couple of wanting the advantages of royal prominence while remaining free from the obligations that come with official duties.

The dispute centres on a simple question: can Harry and Meghan build public profiles in Britain while remaining outside the working monarchy?

According to the King’s recent guidance, the answer is no. A letter issued on September 7 reaffirmed that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain non-working royals and should be treated as private citizens. Their charitable and commercial activities are to remain separate from official royal duties.

A return to Britain, but not to royal duties

Harry, 41, and Meghan, 45, returned to the UK with their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, on August 26 after six years living in the United States.

The family arrived at Birmingham Airport as private citizens. Their return is expected to be for an extended period, with Archie and Lilibet due to attend school in Britain. There has been no announcement that either Harry or Meghan is resuming official royal duties.

That distinction became particularly important after the King’s office issued its latest guidance.

The statement reaffirmed the arrangements reached after Harry and Meghan stepped back from royal duties in 2020. The couple retain their titles but are not working members of the Royal Family, and their charitable activities are undertaken privately rather than on behalf of the monarchy.

The Sussexes were reportedly surprised that the guidance had been made public. A spokesman said they were surprised not to have been told about the letter in advance.

For royal commentators, however, the disagreement goes deeper than the timing of the announcement.

Critics accuse the Sussexes of wanting a middle ground

Royal author Angela Levin argued that Harry and Meghan had previously agreed to the terms governing their departure from royal life, including the understanding that they would not use their royal position for commercial gain.

She said the couple had struggled with the restrictions that came with stepping back.

“They couldn’t bear to have someone telling them what to do,” Levin said, arguing that the Sussexes were unhappy with the idea that they could not occupy a position somewhere between working royals and private citizens.

Levin also accused Meghan of wanting to maintain a particularly prominent public position.

“She wants to be better than the King, better than Princess Catherine; she’s got to be at the top of the line,” she said.

Her comments reflect her own assessment of the couple rather than an established fact about their private intentions.

Hugo Vickers questions the reason for the UK move

Historian and royal commentator Hugo Vickers similarly questioned what Harry and Meghan hope to achieve by spending more time in Britain.

He suggested that their connection to the Royal Family remains central to their public profile, particularly Harry’s identity as Prince Harry.

“In Montecito, California, they are just figures out there,” Vickers said. “If they are back here, they are bound to be identified as members of the royal family.”

His argument is that returning to Britain inevitably places the Sussexes closer to the institution they left, even if they have no formal role within it.

Vickers said this could create the impression that Harry and Meghan are competing for attention with the working royals.

He also stressed the distinction between personal public activity and representing the monarchy.

“The royal family works for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, not for themselves,” he said.

The Sussexes’ return therefore creates a difficult balance. They can take part in charity work and maintain their own public projects, but that does not automatically give those activities an official royal status.

The King’s September 7 guidance was intended to make that boundary clear.

The contradiction critics see in the Sussexes’ public life

Harry and Meghan’s decision to leave royal duties in 2020 was accompanied by repeated statements about wanting greater freedom and privacy.

After moving to the United States, however, they remained highly visible.

There was the couple’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, their Netflix series, Harry’s memoir and a succession of interviews and public appearances.

They have also remained involved in disputes concerning privacy and security. Harry has spent years challenging decisions surrounding his police protection in Britain, while arguing that security remains a serious concern for his family.

At the same time, the couple have continued to appear publicly and maintain commercial and charitable projects.

That history is at the heart of the hypocrisy accusation made by their critics.

The argument is not that Harry and Meghan are prohibited from being public figures. Rather, critics say their public prominence sits uneasily alongside their earlier insistence that royal life was too intrusive and that they wanted to establish an independent existence away from the institution.

Harry has previously described feeling “trapped” within the Royal Family and credited Meghan with helping him escape that situation.

Now, with the family back in Britain, that earlier decision is being examined from a different perspective.

Their return has already increased scrutiny

Harry has already been seen in London since the family’s return, including at Tower Bridge Studios, where he was reportedly working on an undisclosed project.

The appearance attracted attention precisely because of his status. Although Harry is no longer a working royal, his presence in Britain continues to draw the level of interest normally associated with a member of the Royal Family.

The same tension surrounds the couple’s expected charity activities.

Harry is closely associated with the Invictus Games, while Meghan has continued to develop her own public and commercial projects. Their return could therefore mean that both remain highly visible in Britain without taking on official royal responsibilities.

Vickers believes that distinction will be difficult to maintain.

“If you want to be a private citizen, be a private citizen. If you want to be a public figure, you have to take the rough with the smooth,” he said.

That view is consistent with the Palace’s latest clarification: Harry and Meghan can conduct their own affairs, but they should not be confused with members of the working Royal Family.

Claims of overshadowing William and Catherine

Levin went further, arguing that Meghan has repeatedly attempted to draw attention away from Prince William and Catherine, Princess of Wales.

She claimed that when William and Catherine have major engagements, Meghan has sought to distract from them.

Those are Levin’s allegations, rather than an established finding, but they form part of her broader argument that the Sussexes’ activities have often collided with the public work of other members of the Royal Family.

She said the couple’s latest position was another example of what she considers contradictory behaviour.

For Levin, the problem is that Harry and Meghan appear to want both independence from the monarchy and the public prominence that comes from their royal connections.

The 2020 agreement remains the key issue

The roots of the current dispute go back to the Sandringham discussions in 2020.

Harry and Meghan stepped down from their roles as working royals, moved to North America and began building an independent life away from the Palace.

The agreement established a clear separation between their private activities and official royal work.

Six years later, their return to Britain has not changed those terms.

The King’s letter specifically reiterated that Harry and Meghan had stepped away from representative duties and remain outside the working monarchy. Their charitable work does not amount to a return to official royal service.

That is why the phrase “half-in, half-out” remains so important.

The arrangement that Harry and Meghan sought during the 2020 transition was ultimately rejected. The current Palace position indicates that the same principle still applies.

Vickers: Harry’s royal identity remains central to his profile

Vickers believes Harry’s position is particularly complicated because his royal identity continues to shape the way the public sees him.

In California, he can live as a private individual, but in Britain his status inevitably attracts attention.

“By coming back to England, they naturally reinforce their identity as members of the royal family, whether working or not,” Vickers said.

That distinction could become increasingly important as Harry and Meghan become more visible through charitable activities and public engagements.

Their return is already being watched closely, while their children are preparing to begin school in Britain. The family is also expected to maintain its connection to California rather than abandoning its American base altogether.

For the Palace, the priority appears to be keeping the boundary between private life and official royal duties unmistakable.

Angela Levin calls the Sussexes’ position “hypocritical”

Levin described the couple’s position as contradictory and accused them of repeatedly reinventing their public roles.

She argued that Meghan’s description of herself as a public figure sits awkwardly beside the couple’s previous demands for privacy.

“Hypocritical” was the word Levin ultimately used for both Harry and Meghan.

Her criticism was particularly focused on Meghan’s ambition and the way she believes the Duchess has approached public life.

Levin also argued that the Palace should have established firmer boundaries much earlier, saying the lack of clarity had allowed uncertainty to grow around what the Sussexes might do next.

The criticism is severe, but it captures the central dispute surrounding the couple’s return: whether Harry and Meghan can remain independent of the monarchy while continuing to benefit from the enormous attention attached to their royal identities.

The Palace has now drawn the line

Whatever Harry and Meghan ultimately decide to do in Britain, the King’s latest intervention removes much of the ambiguity surrounding their official status.

They are back in the UK, but they are not returning as working royals.

They can pursue charitable causes, commercial projects and their own public activities. What they cannot do under the existing arrangement is occupy an official royal role while remaining outside the responsibilities that come with it.

That was the settlement reached in 2020, and King Charles has now made clear that it remains in force.

The Sussexes may be seeking a new chapter in Britain. For the Palace, however, the message is that the terms of their departure have not changed.