The Duke and Duchess of Sussex want to be known as 'public figures' rather than 'private citizens', but a PR expert has warned they are picking the wrong battle.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have caused a stir after hitting back at being described as 'private citizens'. The label was used in a letter authorised by the King after the Sussexes returned to the UK stating they would remain non-working royals. A source close to the couple let it be known they would rather be considered 'public figures'.
PR expert says Sussexes are already public figures
PR mogul Mayah Riaz told the Mirror: "Without question, Harry and Meghan are already public figures. You don't need a royal title or an official role to qualify as one. They have global recognition, millions of followers, commercial ventures, charitable work and, importantly, an extraordinary level of public and media interest."
"Calling them 'private citizens' doesn't suddenly make them private. They may be private citizens in the constitutional sense, but they are certainly not private people in the public consciousness."
Mayah added that while Harry and Meghan would already qualify as 'public figures', spelling it out to the public slightly diminishes their authority. She said: "There is an obvious irony in having to publicly announce that you are a public figure. The most powerful public figures don't usually need to tell us they are relevant. Their influence speaks for itself."
Risk of making the story about status
"The danger for Harry and Meghan is that by focusing on the label, they risk making the story about their status rather than their work," Mayah said. "I have to say, this also raises an interesting question of whether they want the spotlight, or do they want to control the spotlight? Because those are two very different things."
The PR expert believes the couple are likely chasing their 'public figure' status to be recognised for their years of charity work outside the Firm. Mayah explained: "Harry has spent his entire life being defined through the Royal Family, so there is clearly a desire to establish an identity that isn't dependent on being a working royal. 'Public figure' allows them to position themselves as influential individuals in their own right."
PR trap and the strongest strategy
"There is also a PR advantage. It moves the conversation away from them being known as 'former royals' and towards people with their own platform, causes and influence," Mayah said. "But there is a slight PR trap here, because the harder they try to establish their relevance, the more they risk making people question whether that relevance is still there."
Mayah said that with the couple fighting to control the narrative of their public perception, they risk losing any favourability. She urged them to get on with their charity endeavours and ignore what labels are being used to describe them.
"Anyone operating at that level of fame wants to have some control over how they are perceived," Mayah said. "For Harry and Meghan, there is an additional layer because they have deliberately stepped away from the institution that originally gave them their public status."
She continued: "The irony is that they may have left the Royal Family, but they haven't left the public arena. And ultimately, that's the difficult bit for them. They can step away from the institution, but they can't step away from the public interest that comes with being Harry and Meghan."
"From a PR perspective, I think their strongest strategy is to let the work prove their relevance rather than arguing over the terminology. If the charity work is impactful, the audience will recognise it. If the projects resonate, people will talk about them. They don't necessarily need to tell the public what they should call them. The biggest PR mistake would be allowing the label to become bigger than the legacy."
