King Charles has yet to take firm action following Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's return to Britain less than three months ago, and an opinion piece argues he should set clear terms for the couple before the issue becomes his successor's problem.
The monarch appeared to draw a line in September, stipulating that the couple should be considered “private citizens”. The duke and duchess rejected it outright, insisting they are “public figures” instead. Since then, they have pressed ahead with their own schedule, including a joint visit to Nottingham last month that had the hallmarks of a traditional royal trip.
The King's cautious approach
The King's caution is understandable, given he is still receiving treatment for cancer and may fear that coming down hard would jeopardise his relationship with his grandchildren, Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five. But the opinion piece suggests his current approach carries its own costs.
Half-embracing the couple while laying out limits he doesn't enforce has left him looking neither firm nor forgiving, the piece argues. It links this to favourability ratings: YouGov found that 34% of Britons now view him negatively, the highest number of his reign, while 58% view him positively, down four points since July.
Prince William's stance
Prince William, who has reportedly taken an uncompromising stance towards his brother and has not publicly acknowledged his move back from California, has a positive rating of 74%. While polls can't prove cause and effect, they seem to suggest the public rewards clarity.
William's silence is not a policy, however, and he can't maintain it forever. One day, he will succeed his father, and an unresolved rift with his brother will be his alone to manage.
What a firm approach could look like
The Sussexes have time and again shown they are not willing to play by the existing rules. Harry in particular has already made a series of quasi-royal appearances, directly at odds with the late Queen's refusal to countenance a “half in, half out” role. They have also not signalled a willingness to retract their grievances against the Palace, which have ventured into as serious a territory as racism.
Exactly what a firm approach from the King would look like is uncertain. He might set out a written framework on which titles and roles the couple hold, what engagements they may undertake, and the repercussions that will follow if they go beyond them. But the principle is the most important thing: a monarchy that tells people what the rules are and then enforces them is on much firmer ground than one that stipulates, only to be ignored.
The royals have always had a certain entertainment value, and in an age when deference to pomp is waning, that may be part of their survival strategy. But a family that cannot settle who is in and who is out gives more the appearance of a soap opera than an institution. Letting the Sussexes poke holes in precedent unchallenged is less an investment in the future than a slow erosion of it. The King should act now, for the sake of the Crown he will hand on.
