Four years have passed since Queen Elizabeth II died at Balmoral at the age of 96. For many, she had appeared almost permanent — a fixed point in national life.
Her death left behind a monarchy she had spent seven decades protecting, yet without any fully settled sense of what would follow. Elizabeth II had worn uniform during the Second World War, serving in 1945 as a driver and mechanic with the Auxiliary Territorial Service. She was the last British monarch to have done so, and in many ways the final representative of that formidable wartime generation.
When Charles III came to the throne, his reign was widely framed as the start of a new chapter. In practice, the transition has been far more difficult. The late Queen could defuse a dispute by refusing to be drawn into it, or sometimes with nothing more than a glance. Her son does not possess the same ability. This week made that plain.
At the King’s direction, the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Benyon — the most senior official in the Royal Household — wrote to senior figures across government, the armed forces and the Lord Lieutenancies about the continuing issue of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
The position of Prince Harry and Meghan has not changed, reflecting a decision already made by the late Queen. Lord Benyon’s message was unmistakably firm: the Sussexes do not represent the Crown and should not be received as though they do.
The HRH styles stay in ‘abeyance’ and are not to be used. The charitable work is their own affair. Their position, the letter says, is ‘akin to private citizens with commercial and charitable interests.’
The tabloids went into a frenzy. Why? In truth none of it was new. That’s at the heart of it. So, too, is what it says about the state of the Crown.
The Sussexes, who flounced out of Britain six years ago seeking freedom and privacy, returned with no warning, tails between their legs. Whether they blindsided the King is open to debate. But what followed was mission creep.
Charles III’s accession was read as a new beginning. Instead, it has been a hard transition
Lord Benyon’s letter was blunt. The Sussexes do not represent the Crown and are not to be received as if they do
We were treated to a drip feed through their team of what the Sussexes intended to do publicly, as ‘private citizens’. Charities seemed pleased to have them back. Perhaps they could see the dollar signs. The Sussexes after all are a media magnet. We were told through anonymous sources Meghan was seeking a role, and not just in film, perhaps as a patron of charities too.
The briefings stopped just short of a hard claim. Whispers of links to the military for front-line veteran Harry were circulated too. No single item mattered. But six months of them would have.
A guard of honour here, a Lord Lieutenant who meets the car because it seems rude not to there. Eighteen months down the line, a precedent nobody agreed to would have been set – an alternative court operating on British soil.
The King, through Lord Benyon’s letter, has made his position clear. He is The Boss, as his staff call him.
In this Carolean age, his word is law. He ruled, as his late mother directed, you cannot commercialize the monarchy, you cannot be half in, half out.
In other words, ‘Megxit means Megxit.’
The King moved decisively because he had to. His directive was sent to those organizations at the heart of running the monarchy. They give it the bells and whistles. Those behind the scenes that make it function daily. Anyone expecting a war of words will be disappointed.
The Sussexes’ peevish response, via their overworked spokesman, that they were ‘a little surprised’ by the letter, was tedious and predictable.
RELATED: Gainesville Woman on Probation Arrested Again Over Children’s Untreated Skin Conditions
Tit-for-tat rows played out in public are the last thing the King and Palace wants. Now the line has been drawn, I would not expect anything further.
Many believe William’s hand was in this too. Maybe it was. But this has been done in the King’s name, not his. William’s position has not shifted since 2020.
I am sure the Sussexes will not be lying awake in their Cotswold mansion over the displeasure of a 77-year-old father living with cancer. They know a King William will not be as forgiving as a King Charles.
That said, they will not be pushovers. The letter cannot do what the King and his circle believe it can. It is guidance. There is no sanction. All it kills is deniability.
Extend a courtesy to the Sussexes now and you have departed from the monarch’s instructions. In Whitehall, that is usually enough. The circulation list was British. The Governors General of the realms, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the rest, as I understand it, were not on the mailing list.
The Sussexes’ peevish response, via their overworked spokesman, that they were ‘a little surprised’ by the letter, was tedious and predictable
The King, through Lord Benyon’s letter, has made his position clear. He is The Boss, as his staff call him
Many believe William’s hand was in this too. Maybe it was. But this has been done in the King’s name, not his
They should have been.
Those overseas tours, commercially adjacent, staged in countries where Harry’s father is head of state and his brother the heir, are what unsettled the Crown most.
The charitable work is explicitly the couple’s own business. Abeyance is an odd word to build policy on. It does not mean removed. Things that are held can get handed back.
Then there is security. The Palace says it has nothing to do with the letter. The letter reached a Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC) meeting at almost the same hour. RAVEC is the committee in the UK that makes the decisions on who gets security and who does not.
The two are officially unconnected. That I doubt. The guidance lets the King live with whatever decision comes and say, accurately, that status and safety were settled by others.
Back to that anniversary. The monarchy is undoubtedly facing challenges, not least the Harry, Meghan circus and the Andrew sick drama.
It may not be done for, far from it.
But it has lost the sense of invincibility it had under Elizabeth II, and it’s unlikely to get it back in this reign. The late Queen’s authority was assumed, and assumption is silent.
Charles III’s has to be asserted, and anything asserted can be argued with. The argument is public now and, it seems, no longer conducted on terms the Palace sets.
Robert Jobson is a New York Times bestselling author. His latest book is The Windsor Legacy, published by Pegasus in the US and Blink in the UK.