Last week, King Charles and Queen Camilla visited the United States for an incredibly important state visit with President Donald Trump. The four-day visit saw lighthearted interactions between the royals and U.S. representatives, meaningful visits to local communities, and a lot of media attention. In fact, the amount of media attention led many to wonder what the royals in Montecito would do to try to upstage the King and Queen’s visit. On April 29, we got our answer.
On Wednesday, People published an article titled “Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Are Making Their Own Rules as a Royal ‘Non-Negotiable’ Still Looms (Exclusive).” Credit for this article belongs not only to the publisher but also to Harry and Meghan. There’s no way those close to the couple – friends, employees, or otherwise – speaking to a high-profile news outlet flies under their radar, especially considering the short leash the Duke and Duchess have on people close to them. Additionally, I don’t believe the title would include the word exclusive if Harry and Meghan didn’t play some part in the article’s publication.
Now, there’s no doubt that this article, in part, aimed to loom over the King and Queen’s U.S. visit. If there is any, it’s squashed by the article’s title. Furthermore, I would argue that it also serves as an attempt at damage control. They’re coming off an Australian tour that was just absolutely tragic, and headlines about the two are overwhelmingly negative. From headlines about Harry and Meghan’s high staff turnover to their marriage being in turmoil, there are plenty of reasons why the pair would want to release an article such as this; however, what makes this attempt to save face worse, besides its timing, is the fact that much of what is claimed is verifiably, at least arguably, false.
The Sandringham Summit
The article begins with the Sandringham Summit, the January 2020 meeting of senior working royals convened to establish the future roles of the Sussexes within the monarchy. Although Harry and Meghan’s announcement a few days earlier stated the pair would be stepping back as senior members of the royal family, they ultimately stepped back fully. Queen Elizabeth wouldn’t allow them to be “half-in, half-out,” that is, she wouldn’t allow the Duke and Duchess to be working members of the royal family while pursuing independent, commercial ventures. Although Harry and Meghan may not have explicitly agreed to these terms, they certainly departed from the royal family under the terms of not being allowed to monetize their royal titles.
The late Queen gave Harry and Meghan a year to determine if leaving their royal duties was truly what they wanted to do; it was. So, Queen Elizabeth released a statement in which it read, “…in stepping away from the work of The Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service.” Now, the Queen obviously didn’t mean that Harry and Meghan couldn’t live a life of public service outside of the institution. The life of a royal is a life that’s inherently dedicated to public service – they work for the public benefit, not their own. By working as royals, Harry and Meghan would be monetizing their public titles and their taxpayer-funded positions, which, despite leaving their posts and doing so under the understanding of not being allowed to monetize their titles, they appear to be doing the former. Additionally, Harry and Meghan wouldn’t be able to support the Monarch full-time while pursuing independent, commercial ventures, especially living in a different country. Nevertheless, the pair released the responding statement, “We can all live a life of service. Service is universal.”
Harry in Ukraine
Fast-forward to this year. Last month, Harry made an unannounced visit to Ukraine. While there, in response to being asked if he recognizes the label “not a working royal,” Harry told a news outlet, “No. I will always be part of the royal family…. I am here working, doing the things I was born to do.” For Harry, the problem is that there’s a difference between a working royal and a royal who works; he’s conflating the two. Harry and Meghan stopped being working royals when they decided to step back fully, move abroad, and pursue their own business ventures; therefore, Harry is a royal who works. Being a working member of the royal family has meaning. His refutation of the label “not a working royal” because he is genetically royal and works, in my opinion, is a sign that either he is trying to force himself back into the royal fold, or he’s just daft.
In Ukraine, Harry gave a speech at the Kyiv Security Forum. In his speech, he demanded that Vladimir Putin end his attack on Ukraine and that Donald Trump shell out more billions of taxpayer dollars to the country. He emphasized that he was speaking as a soldier and humanitarian, not as a politician. While this declaration might carry significant weight for Harry, it doesn’t for many others. As a soldier, Harry spent most of his time playing video games in a bunker while his fellow soldiers put their lives on the line to protect him. As a humanitarian, he spends a lot of time traipsing through cleared minefields for photo-ops that resemble the photos of his mother bravely walking through uncleared minefields. Never mind the fact that their latest visit to Australia, which they claimed was centered on philanthropy, reportedly earned them $10 million, presumably none of which they donated back to the organizations/institutions they visited – organizations/institutions that need donations.
A source close to Harry told People, “This idea that he’s going against the wishes of the Queen by being half in, half out is nonsense. None of this is being done in the name of the institution.” This idea, though, isn’t nonsense. Harry was introduced by his official royal title, and, to give his speech, he wore a lapel pin with the British Union Jack crossed with the Ukrainian flag, meaning a stance of solidarity between the British Monarch and Ukraine. Harry and Meghan organized their latest Australian tour around the foundation of official royal engagements, while pocketing $10 million. Again, Harry refuted the label “not a working royal.” If he and Meghan aren’t trying to have one foot in the door and one foot out the door of the monarchy, why conduct business in a way that leaves little room for any other interpretation?
Harry & Meghan’s 2026 Australia Tour
A week before Harry jetted off to Ukraine, he and Meghan conducted their Australian tour. When discussing this tour, Kylie Walters, a royal correspondent, told People, “There were joyful, smiling people everywhere they went. People wanted to see them.” On the other hand, pictures taken during their visit show sparse crowds, a video of a woman lying on Bondi Beach, not even bothering to acknowledge the pair while they were there, has gone viral, and the Sussexes were booed at the rugby match they attended. Someone needs to tell Harry, Meghan, and Kylie that the immunocompromised children and anorexic teens were most likely made to greet the Sussexes by their parents and hospital staff, and the vulnerable residents at the women’s shelter Meghan visited had nowhere else to go. The authors continue to quote a 12-year-old girl whom Harry and Meghan met at the Royal Children’s Hospital. I must say, for two people who rail against the exploitation of children, it’s notable that they chose to exploit a young girl in an attempt to repair their public image.
The article continues to mention Meghan visiting the previously mentioned women’s shelter, but fails to mention her wearing nearly $105,000 worth of jewelry while doing so. It mentions Harry and Meghan sailing around Sydney Harbour with Invictus Australia team members, but neglects to mention the growing questions surrounding where the funds for the Games are truly going. Royal correspondent Kylie told People that Invictus is where he belongs. She continued to say of Harry, “People gravitate toward him, and he knows how to make them feel special.” I wonder if the Prince was trying to accomplish this task when he slapped another man on the ass at Bondi Beach….
While People hints at the tickets to Harry’s keynote speech at the InterEdge Summit ultimately declining in price and mentions Meghan being paid to appear at a women’s retreat, it’s not mentioned that said ticket prices were slashed because of low demand, and they don’t mention that Meghan couldn’t sell out only 300 tickets to the retreat. Royal correspondent Kylie said, “They have a big security bill and a lifestyle to maintain, so it’s not surprising they’re taking on money-making ventures.” The Sussexes taking on money-making ventures isn’t surprising for more reasons than just a big security bill and maintaining their lifestyle. It’s how desperate they appear to be for money that’s so shocking. Throughout their trip, Meghan posted her outfits on the A.I. shopping platform OneOff. Each article of clothing can be found through affiliate links, and if a purchase is made through one of these links, Meghan earns a commission. Not only was she selling the clothes off her back, but she appeared to be so desperate to do so that she wore multiple outfits during each day. Meghan wore two outfits during the first day of their trip, two outfits during the second day, three outfits during the third day, and three outfits during the fourth day. Of her 10 outfits, nine appear on her OneOff account. She had a lifestyle show with Netflix, and now she’s promoting the clothes she wears to make money. Besides being insincere, a big problem for the Sussexes is that you can see desperation in practically everything they do.
A source told People, “They’re not reliant on Harry’s father or taxpayer-funded money. They pay their own bills and make their own money….” The problem with this statement is the fact that the Duke and Duchess, in part, rely on taxpayer money. Their security in Australia was funded by Australian taxpayers, and, since departing from the royal family, Harry has been demanding that he receive taxpayer-funded security. Harry’s gone to the extent of saying his family would be at fault if anything were to happen to his children in an effort to get taxpayer-funded security.
Haz & Megs
When discussing the royal rift between the Sussexes and the Waleses, the article quotes a source, “Meghan lets him lead on all royal matters and dictate what needs to happen.” While this is doubtful, if true, it’s nice to know that the one topic on which Meghan allows him to make the decisions is his own family. Another source said of a reconciliation between Harry and his family, “This remains very important to Harry, with Meghan supportive.” Immediately after leaving the royal fold, Harry and Meghan took on multiple avenues to accuse Harry’s family of mistreating Meghan and being racist. If we’re supposed to believe their accusations are true, why would a reconciliation be important to Harry? Why would Meghan be supportive of a reconciliation? More importantly, why should the royal family forgive them and proceed to let their guard down around them?
In the last paragraph of the article, although the Queen is not here to attest to this, it’s stated, “The late Queen herself once recognized the positive effect Harry and Meghan could have across the Commonwealth….” On the other hand, returning to her official statement regarding the Sussexes’ departure, it’s worth noting once again that Queen Elizabeth stated that Harry and Meghan couldn’t continue the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service.
In the end, Harry and Meghan “making their own rules” is less about them just living their lives and more about their inability to respect the very institution that makes them the status that they are. Despite the couple claiming philanthropy as something they were both born to do, they appear to be prioritizing commercial gain and reputation rehabilitation. They want to be applauded for their public service, all the while making money off the backs of the vulnerable people they are supposed to be helping selflessly. After all, is public service really public service if it’s being conducted for personal gain? I’d argue no. So, rather than being working members of the royal family – a role that is inherently centered around public service – Harry and Meghan have decided to trade in castles and grand estates for a Montecito mansion that they had to take multiple mortgages out to afford in a neighborhood that has grown to dislike them in a country that has also grown to dislike them. And they traded in the job of working for the benefit of the public for selling fruit spreads and candles, speaking at business summits, and exploiting some of the most vulnerable people in our societies.
Leave a Reply