Jobson: King Charles’ monarchy is too fragile to handle the Sussexes’ UK return

Sussex supporters have been in the trenches for weeks with the Sussex family’s move back to the UK. King Charles and Prince William have also been in the trenches, trying to “manage” a crisis they never expected. But something else is happening behind-the-scenes: there are conspiracies on top of conspiracies about why the palace isn’t going even harder on Prince Harry and Meghan. Like, the old-guard monarchists are furious that Charles *refuses* to issue a diktat ordering Harry and Meghan to stay “private” and unseen or else. Robert Jobson’s latest Mail column is all about this – a lament that Charles doesn’t have the stones to really force the Sussexes to do anything.

Charles III’s accession was read at the time as a new beginning. Instead, it has been a hard transition. Queen Elizabeth could end an argument by not engaging in it, or with just a look. Her son cannot. This week he proved it.

The Lord Chamberlain, Lord Benyon, the most senior officer of the Royal Household, wrote at the King’s direction to senior figures across government, the armed forces and the Lord Lieutenancies, over the Sussex problem. There was no change to the status of Harry and Meghan, something the late Queen had already ruled on. Lord Benyon’s letter was blunt. The Sussexes do not represent the Crown and are not to be received as if 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.

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.

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. 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.

[The Crown] 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.

[From The Daily Mail]

Jobson tends to view QEII’s reign with the same rosy tint as other royal biographers, as if QEII wasn’t drawn into a tacky and racist fight over a baby name in her final year. As if QEII wasn’t a willing participant in one of the most disastrous decisions of her reign, the “hard Sussexit” gambit in 2020, which has haunted the monarchy ever since. As if QEII didn’t enable Prince Andrew’s depravity and degeneracy for decades, all while happily using the Sussexes as cover for her favorite son. I agree that Charles’ reign is much different than his mother’s and that Charles isn’t as popular as his mother, for good reason. But the point of this seems to be that Charles should publicly shun the Sussexes as punishment for their “mission creep,” i.e. briefing that they plan to do some charity work? Which is bonkers, honestly. This is such a fragile-ass monarchy, which is the unspoken problem. If Charles’ reign is completely undermined by his son living in the Cotswolds and doing philanthropy in a private capacity, then Charles’ reign is pretty f—-ing weak.

photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.