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.

Yes - make you wonder wtf has happened to make such a statement neccessary.

I can't see the palace bothering if it wasn't needed nor do I see why Harry is complaining about it - if all it does is make the existsing situation very clear.

I don't think palace would bother with being snide - they are quite busy and tend to want to avoid much attention on Harry and Megahn as they are non royals and they do tend to be very neagtave to britsuh public.

So sounds like something has gone on behind the scenes that's meant this clarrification has been needed - and it's been made public so it can not be leaked in bits and sen to the Sussex's not issued jointly.

Suggets to me there been some line blurring tried over multiple areas and this is Palace publically making the position clear to everyone - hence why Harry spokesperson is moaning it's not what they wanted.

What does that question even mean?

Seems fairly straight forward to me.

“Because working royals don’t visit school children with half their side bap on display.”

I am absolutely losing it.😂😂😂😂

This is just plain misogyny

I means that it's not up to people (you, me, the leader of a charity or other organisation) to decide whether H & M are 'royal'. They're NOT working royals - it's not a matter of opinion, for individuals to decide - it's a matter of fact. The King has made it perfectly clear.

No doubt it's to pre-empt H & M pretending to be royal and conning everyone in their track. I really hope the Colombians and Nigerians who hosted the grifters at great expense understood that they weren't working as royals. It needs to be made crystal clear, or this pair will exploit any loophole they can find.

What does treating them like royal mean? Do you mean inviting them to events and to represent charities?

You obviously think Columbians and Nigerians are stupid. Their governments were crystal clear publicly why harry and Meghan were there.

How can people just decide to treat non working royals who don’t represent the monarchy in any official capacity…as working royals who do represent the monarchy officially?
is that a bit clearer?

It is true though.

As for misogyny? I would have said the same about Harry but he covered his up.

What does that practically mean? They should not be invited to film premieres? Or to represent a charity? Or to visit a food bank?

You think it’s sexist then that non working Royal men can’t visit schools with side boob on display?

No, it is not. It’s pointing out a complete lack of decorum. Decorum is universal and anyone can show it.

The same would be said if any man rocked up to tour a school with armpits on display.

No one else here has described any one as stupid and it’s garbage for you to call them that.

Can someone practically explain what not being treated as a working royal means in practice? I keep asking this and no one answers.

Charities etc can invite them as much as they like, but because they are not representing the monarch there will be no public funded security, nor will anyone other than the charity concerned or the Sussexes themselves be paying for their transport, lunch etc. Nor will the charity be able to say they have a royal patron, even if it is the one known as Prince. Because he will not be there in any official
royal capacity, but as a private citizen

The person I was replying to thought they were too stupid to realise why harry and Meghan visited their country in spite of the respective governments and local media making it very clear to the public.

Well I thought it was clear but obviously not , they can go to anything they are invited to including good banks ( I’m assuming you mean that dodgy banks are a no go and fully agree!)
but only in the capacity of private civilians, no royal fan fare , no public funds, no bows or curtesy’s or asking for royal treatment.
exactly the same as any other famous celebrity is treated when attending these events.

edit to add…I see you have edited your reply! Do ignore comments agreeing about dodgy banks then.

Okay so it simply means they can be a patron, but not royal patron and the taxpayers don't pay for their visits.

Everyone knows this. It makes little to no difference to what they decide to do as private citizens.

Royal patrons are appointed by the way. Charities don't get t9 decide who they have anyway

How?
I am sure people would object just as much if H had half a bollock showing.

You keep saying 'everyone knows this'. But the letter specifically stated that it was in response to enquiries from various parties. So clearly, 'everyone' does not know this. Hopefully now they do. It's always a good thing to clear up any doubts, don't you think?

How do you know what people think?

Unless they actually typed the word stupid, I would be very cautious about assuming what they meant.

I should think so.

Agreed. It's just the usual tedious: "look at us, look at us, we're soooo important" nonsense. They never learn do they?

No official representation of the monarch and the country at events.

For example Long Harald's funeral, had Harry gone it would be the same as Frank from 32 going. But William went, he was representing the Royal Family.

No tax payer funded stuff.

I thought everyone knew this and that's why there weren't any statements made from the British govt when they visited Australia etc. Or did I miss something?