PR Expert Says Harry and Meghan Shouldn’t Be Labelled ‘Private Citizens’ Despite Palace’s Clarifying Letter

LONDON — A public relations expert is pushing back on the characterization of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle as “private citizens,” arguing the label misrepresents the couple’s continued high-profile public activity even after Buckingham Palace formally reiterated their non-working royal status earlier this month.

The palace’s position was laid out in a letter issued September 7 on behalf of King Charles III by the Lord Chamberlain, Richard Benyon, Lord Benyon, which stated that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s position “is akin to private citizens with commercial and charitable interests.” The letter reaffirmed that Harry and Meghan’s His and Her Royal Highness styles remain in abeyance and confirmed there had been no change to their status since they stepped back from royal duties in January 2020.

Olivia Bennet, a senior public relations director at the agency Go Up, argued that framing carries an inaccurate implication about how the couple actually operates. “Calling Harry and Meghan private citizens suggests people who have stepped away from public life altogether, whereas that clearly isn’t an accurate reflection of how they currently operate,” Bennet told The Mirror.

Bennet pointed to the range of public-facing work the couple continues to carry out as evidence the “private citizen” label doesn’t fully capture their current role. “They have charitable initiatives, public appearances, commercial interests and causes they continue to speak about very publicly,” she said. “So I can understand why, from a communications standpoint, they would feel ‘public figures’ better reflects the role they actually have.”

At the same time, Bennet was careful to distinguish that argument from any suggestion that Harry and Meghan are seeking to resume official royal duties. “What I don’t think we should do is confuse that with them trying to become working royals again,” she said. “There is a significant middle ground between carrying out official duties on behalf of the Royal Family and living an entirely private life, and that appears to be the space Harry and Meghan want to occupy.”

The palace’s letter had itself acknowledged that same distinction, drawing a clear line between the “State and Royal duties undertaken by the working Royal Family” and the personal, commercially oriented activities Harry and Meghan have pursued since 2020. The letter noted that the arrangement gives the couple “personal latitude … in respect of financial independence and protection of their privacy as they would wish,” language the palace said would continue to be fully respected going forward.

The September letter followed the Sussexes’ relocation to Britain in August, ahead of their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, starting school, a move a representative for the couple described to The New York Times as intended to be temporary. “On the heels of a wonderful trip with family and friends this summer, Harry and Meghan have decided to spend an extended period in the U.K. this autumn,” the representative said in a statement at the time. “They are excited to have their children spend more time in the country that’s such an important part of their family’s story.” A spokesperson for the couple said afterward that they were “a little surprised not to have been told about this in advance” that the palace’s letter would be issued and circulated to media, according to the BBC.

The debate over how to categorize Harry and Meghan’s public status is not new, but it has taken on renewed significance since their return to the U.K., a period during which questions about whether the couple was attempting to resume any semblance of official royal involvement have circulated widely in British media. Royal commentators have offered differing interpretations of the palace’s motives in issuing the September letter, with some describing it as a routine procedural clarification and others suggesting it was intended, at least in part, as a signal to the couple following what some sources have characterized as tension around their unannounced return.

Regardless of the palace’s precise intent, Bennet’s comments reflect a broader tension in how the Sussexes are perceived publicly: officially non-working royals under palace terminology, yet still operating with a level of public visibility, media attention and commercial activity that few genuinely private individuals maintain. That tension has shaped much of the coverage surrounding the couple since their 2020 decision to step back from royal duties, with debates over their status resurfacing repeatedly at moments of heightened public attention, including their move into television and streaming projects, their continued charitable work through organizations like the Archewell Foundation, and recurring public appearances at events such as the Invictus Games, the international sporting competition for wounded and ill service members that Harry founded.

Buckingham Palace has not issued any further public statement addressing Bennet’s specific characterization or the broader debate over the “private citizen” terminology since the September letter was first circulated. Harry and Meghan’s own representatives have likewise not offered additional public comment specifically addressing how the couple prefers to be described, beyond their earlier statement noting surprise at the timing of the palace’s letter.

With Harry and Meghan continuing their extended stay in the U.K. and resuming a schedule of charitable engagements planned well before their return, including activities tied to the upcoming Invictus Games in Birmingham in 2027, the question of how best to characterize their public role, private citizens, public figures, or something in between, appears likely to remain a recurring point of debate among royal commentators and communications professionals alike.