King Charles orders Harry and Meghan to be treated like ordinary citizens

[Viviennemary]

Apparently an order has gone out from King Charles saying that Harry and Meghan are to be treated like ordinary citizens as they are not working members of the royal family. That's according to the DM so it must be right. The thought of those two being pleased at being ordinary is too much.

I wonder just how low they will keep their profile and if it's to do with them wishing to be involved in charities. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to set up their own mock royal court.

BUT …. Security!!

It was Diana who said she didn’t think Charles was fit to be King. Not QE2.

Yes, on the Martin Bashir interview

I think it would do H and M a power of good to get up every day at 6.30, sort the kids out, go to work and be home for 7 if they are lucky.

Those suggesting the statement is somehow mean, or spiteful, or “pushing Harry further out into the cold” - there is nothing new in there, it is merely reminding everyone of the status of H+M as private citizens. Which was of course entirely their choice.

So

H+M: we are private citizens
KC: H+M are private citizens
H+M: well that’s surprising
H+M fans: how spiteful / undignified, what a terrible father to push them out into the cold like that

If in fact “the cold” exists, they took a freedom flight there all by themselves. Make it make sense.

I've concluded it from some comments further upthread about how Charles is so nasty and beastly for issuing his letter about how Harry and Meghan are private citizens and they do not represent the royal family.

It doesn't make sense!

They are doing the same as the likes of Zara Tindall etc., who people admire. It's only because it's Harry and Meghan
that some people have such a problem with it.

Well that makes more sense, but as pp says that was when talking to Bashir, and we all know how unbiased that was 😎

Perhaps because it wasn’t ever their full intention to do this, Harry has stated consistently that he still wanted to serve in some capacity, and continue to do charity work, and when it came to what he thought was going to be a proper discussion about the situation, he was presented with the Sandringham “Agreement” that was nothing of the sort!

And perhaps because people are questioning what appears to be extreme family loyalty to AMW in the face of what he has alleged to have done, in comparison to the cold shouldering of Harry?

It smacks of skewed values in that they reward those who stay quiet and loyal and within the family circle , even when something as heinous as potential fraud and the alleged SA of vulnerable young women is involved, but they come down harder on what they see as disloyalty from H&M for much lesser perceived “misdemeanours”. It’s strange!

And maybe people are questioning why such extreme secrecy is necessary in the first place? Why is the institution which represents us not completely open and transparent? What else are they hiding?

(For example; I don’t mean this to be disrespectful to Charles in any way, who is entitled to privacy regarding his health, but some commentators in other countries think it’s very odd and anti-democratic, that the British public isn’t allowed to know more about the state of health of someone who occupies such an important state role and who heads an institution for which they are paying collectively £132.1 million in taxes per year.)

Maybe some identify with Harry’s position as a step son, with his own mother having been side lined when she was alive and disparaged after her death, and with his step-mother having potential influence over his future and what slice of the pie he is entitled to? And to what degree he is forgiven or not?

And for myself I am not against H&M becoming and remaining private citizens at all! In fact I wish they would! But I think realistically it’s just not going to happen.

First, H&M never wanted it. Second, the press won’t allow it.

And it’s highly doubtful that M or H can go out now after being the focus of global press attention for so long and and earn money in an ordinary way. If Catherine couldn’t make it work as a buyer for Jigsaw two decades ago when news outlets were fewer in number , then H&M won’t be able to make a go of it now. Harry isn’t trained to do anything but fly a helicopter and I hope not, but I predict that Meghan’s potential acting projects will be scuppered just as soon as news breaks about them.

And bc now they have two children, who they have to support for at least the next twenty years, they will need money. Especially if they pay extortionate school fees.

Funny how there has never been a need to remind anyone that Zara is a private citizen, presumably because she doesn’t embarrass herself with Y9 type statements about geopolitics, demand publicly funded security or claim to be a working royal.

If it’s as simple as:

H+M: we are private citizens
KC: H+M are private citizens

BP wouldn’t have needed to have released a statement of clarification in the first place.

It is that simple but the Sussexes still don’t seem to have grasped the situation. They claim to be one thing but act like another

Harry and Meghan 'surprised' by King's letter making clear they remain non-working royals

It is also understood a Home Office security committee is meeting today to look at the possibility of tax payer funded security for the family now they are living back in the UK.

I honestly wonder what the palace got wind of happening that they felt they had to re-state the agreed situation to everyone.

And perhaps because people are questioning what appears to be extreme family loyalty to AMW in the face of what he has alleged to have done, in comparison to the cold shouldering of Harry?

In what way has Harry been cold shouldered? He chose to leave. He has said that he dislikes the UK, that his family treated them badly, that royal life is awful, that they are racist, Camilla is evil, William is a bully, he fears for the Wales children, the establishment wants to harm him and the judiciary is corrupt.

If extreme family loyalty is public disgrace, removal from royal duties, losing a title, then presumably the loyalty shown to Harry is even more extreme, as he has not suffered any of these things? How has he been clamped down on?

For example; I don’t mean this to be disrespectful to Charles in any way, who is entitled to privacy regarding his health, but some commentators in other countries think it’s very odd and anti-democratic, that the British public isn’t allowed to know more about the state of health of someone who occupies such an important state role.

You literally just said that Charles is entitled to privacy regarding his health. So maybe that’s the reason?

And bc now they have two children, who they have to support for at least the next twenty years, they will need money. Especially if they pay extortionate school fees.

That's their problem.

The Sussexes had lucrative contracts thrown at them, but their laziness and lack of talent meant they wasted the chance and it won't be given to them again. Acting as though they're some sort of victims is laughable.

Well yes they would, because there is confusion about their roles. Partly because Harry himself declared that he was still a working royal. So this is clarification for charities and other organisations who might host them, the Lord Lieutenants, foreign governments, should they do more tours. Also it clears up all the speculation in the press about what Charles’s plans are, whether the Sussexes are gently being reintroduced as working royals, or being allowed half in half out after all. The public have a right to know who represents them and what they are paying for.

Exactly. Charity begins at home. So Harry and Meghan should focus on finding one and get started. Hope she brought her credit card because they’ll need a sofa.

They don’t do “the same as Zara Tindall” however.

Zara doesn’t have a title and so doesn’t pursue her commercial activities under her title
Zara doesn’t arrange meetings with representatives of the Australian government when she is promoting the Magic Millions Festival there.
Zara doesn’t give speeches at cultural events
Zara doesn’t visit the sites of tragic events to speak to volunteers and thank them for their service.
Zara doesn’t arrange walkabouts at a public location, like the steps of the Sydney Opera House

Zara also doesn’t lobby for Met police security nor issue public statements decrying her lack of it. Harry and Meghan do all these things, and it must be supposed the Palace thought they were likely to continue to do so.

What Zara does do: make money via commercial activities and sometimes attends family events alongside the working royals (but never instead of them). This sis also open to harry and Meghan, except their scorched earth policy since 2020 has made the latter seem very unlikely.

It’s because they’ve acted like assholes.

The statement from Charles contains a plethora of subordinates clauses. It sounds like something thought up by a committee containing legal advisers and constitutional experts intent on heading off problems before they arise.

I get the impression that Charles as an individual would rather adopt a softly, softly approach with his family. He wants everyone to get along and would rather let bygones be bygones. And he probably misses the self-effacing Harry who, when asked if he would ever be king by a young boy, merrily responded - You'll be glad to know, probably not! That Harry would be welcomed back into the fold. But, even if he wanted to, Charles can't ignore the reality of the global influencer version of Harry, whether he is telling Putin to stop the war or Americans that he doesn't think much of an aspect of their foundational Constitution.

I don’t see them as victims in the larger scheme of things.

But H can’t escape the circumstances of his birth and they are not something he chose.

But why aren’t the RF paying them to go away given that they were so willing to do this for Andrew?

For example; I don’t mean this to be disrespectful to Charles in any way, who is entitled to privacy regarding his health, but some commentators in other countries think it’s very odd and anti-democratic, that the British public isn’t allowed to know more about the state of health of someone who occupies such an important state role and who heads an institution for which they are paying collectively £132.1 million in taxes per year.)

I don’t mean to be disrespectful in any way but you can’t say someone is entitled to privacy regarding their health and then demand he shouldn’t be entitled because taxes pay for him and we deserve to know.

That is odd in itself.

Taxpayers have contributed very heavily to my wages over the years. Would you like to know my medical history? The history of all my colleagues past and present? Everyone else who has a job that comes under that umbrella?

How exactly would knowing Michael who lives in the next town had crabs at 17 and has now got a replacement knee and emphysema benefit anyone at all?

Or Margaret down the road that everyone clapped for during Covid is currently in remission?

Everyone, no matter who they are, is entitled to privacy regarding their health unless they choose to make it public. And even then they are not compelled to explain the extent of an illness or what their prognosis is unless they choose to.

Definitely.

But H can’t escape the circumstances of his birth and they are not something he chose.

So exactly like every other person who has ever been born then?