Prince Harry, Meghan Markle feeding the 'publicity machine' despite privacy demands: expert
Sources close to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are "pushing back" after King Charles issued new guidance on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's positions now that they are back in the United Kingdom.
King Charles issued guidance claiming that Harry and Markle are "akin to private citizens" via a letter issued by the Lord Chamberlain on Sept. 7. Sources told People magazine that Harry and Markle are "public figures" and that if Harry and Markle were private citizens, the Lord Chamberlain "would not have needed to issue a letter of formal guidance."
"Members of the public know who they are. The idea that they can live a normal, ‘private’ life is sadly not realistic," the source added.
Kinsey Schofield, host of YouTube’s "Kinsey Schofield Unfiltered," addressed the "not realistic" claim by the source and told Fox News Digital that the "private citizen" guidance just means that they do not represent the king.
"I want to push back on this argument coming from People Magazine and sources close to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle that it's somehow unrealistic for the Sussexes to live as private citizens. Being a private citizen does not mean you're anonymous. It simply means you don't represent the king. The jobs you accept and the responsibilities you take, you take them on as yourself, not the crown," Schofield began.
Schofield drew a comparison between Princess Anne's children – Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips. Princess Anne is Queen Elizabeth's only daughter and the sister of King Charles. She chose not to give her two kids royal titles at birth.
"They're recognizable, have commercial interests, attend major royal family events, but they do not represent the monarch, yet they have both successfully built lives outside of the working institution. Harry and Meghan could pursue a quieter life, a life like Zara and Peter. They choose not to. In my opinion, you can't repeatedly feed the publicity machine and then complain about a lack of privacy," she said.
Schofield argued that the king’s clarification was necessary as Harry and Markle’s public profile has become increasingly intertwined with the controversies surrounding them.
MEGHAN MARKLE’S UK RETURN POSES PALACE CONTROL ‘NIGHTMARE,’ EXPERT WARNS
"Prince Harry is classified as a non-working member of the royal family whose position is akin to a private citizen. Of course, Harry and Megan are famous. Nobody's disputing that, but where does their fame end and infamy begin? Fame can inspire people to invest in you emotionally and financially. Infamy means people know your name because controversy follows you," she began.
Schofield continued, "And after years of feuds, lawsuits, and relationships that deteriorate, I think it's fair to ask how much of the Sussex's enormous public profile today is driven by admiration and how much is driven by controversy, which is precisely why the king has every reason to make their status crystal clear."
Ian Pelham Turner, royal broadcaster, disagrees with Charles's stance on labeling his son and his wife as private citizens.
LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
"Harry is the son of a king. He has prominence in Britain. Thus, whether William likes it or not the King should decide not to weakly disenfranchise his second son," Turner said. "He is a billionaire with vast fortunes. Pay for his son’s full security rather than looking like an Ebenezer Scrooge after."
He continued, "Although some royals still live in Dickens times, we are actually in the 21st century. How would the King feel if a second tragedy happens in his lifetime, first Diana, and potentially Harry and his family?"
Private citizens are not granted security like members of the royal family are.
Richard Fitzwilliams, royal commentator, told Fox News Digital that Charles' letter, declaring Harry and Markle private citizens, is a "total mess."
"The current situation with the King’s letter about their status and the Sussexes response is a total mess. The raising of the security issue which, in the Sussexes view, is a further example of the risks they face, was, in fact, highlighting the incompetence on their part as no proper recce [reconnaissance] has been done during term by their team," Fitzwilliams said.
Fitzwilliams argued that the king's letter was a "slap on the wrist" for Meghan and Harry, proving his lack of trust for the former senior royals.
GET ENTERTAINMENT SCOOP DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL BY CLICKING HERE
"The King’s letter restated the facts without giving them much of a chance to 'clarify' things. It was clearly intended as a slap on the wrist and evidence that the King didn’t trust them. Unfortunately, nothing is going to stop matters becoming a circus, with royal engagements overshadowed by what they get up to," he said.
As for what's to come, the royal experts are stumped.
"It is simply impossible to anticipate the way this may go. It is only clear that, whatever their motives and mistakes, the Sussexes are news whatever they do. That strengthens their hand because it gives them a very high profile. This has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of any issues involved," Fitzwilliams said.
Schofield explained that Markle and Harry are "unpredictable."
PUT YOUR ENTERTAINMENT KNOWLEDGE TO THE TEST AND SEE HOW YOU SCORE
"Harry and Megan are unpredictable. The palace can't have governments, charities, businesses, even members of the public wondering whether their activities somehow carry the endorsement of the crown. It doesn't. They don't. King Charles is saying, absolutely not," she said.
Schofield continued, "Harry spent years insisting that he wanted independence from the institution. Independence means you don't get to demand the privileges or the authority or the special treatment afforded to people who stayed and did the job. It's the king who determines who represents the crown, not Prince Harry, not Megan Markle, and certainly not anonymous sources briefing People Magazine. Harry wanted his freedom from the system. He got it, but freedom from the system also means accepting that you no longer have a seat at the table."
Fox News Digital has reached out to Archewell and Buckingham Palace for comment.