The king has put it writing

This is simply a formal letter clarifying for public and state related bodies exactly what the position of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is. There are a lot of protocols and rules governing the status of different members of the the Royal family and this just clarifies the position of 2 members of the RF who have returned to the UK after living abroad for some years.

They are, however, whether we like it or not 'celebrities' and are going to be attractive as sponsors, 'names' etc to the kind of people and organisation where having a celebrity to front their publicity is advantageous. This letter just makes it clear to official bodies where the dividing line is.

MartavTaurus

There's still a discrepancy here though.
Why does the company he visited today go overboard about welcoming Prince Harry to their studios and getting him to sign their wall. He isn't exactly a celebrity recording artist, so what is he exactly? Other than a royal having photos taken.

I get what King Charles is saying. It makes sense.

Whether we like it or not, Prince Harry is still a Prince, he’s still in succession (for now).

I think it’s a good move from the King, stops speculation, might shut the media up, clarifies the situation.

What they do privately, all of them, as a family is no one of our business, but I hope they manage to heal and form some kind of ongoing relationship.

No, King Charles III has not issued a letter banning Prince Harry from armed protection. [1] (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/2246325/buckingham-palace-letter-prince-harry-return)The confusion stems from a formal guidance letter issued on September 7, 2026, by the Lord Chamberlain on behalf of the King. The letter was sent to government departments, military officials, and Lord Lieutenants to clarify Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's official status following their recent relocation back to the UK. [1] (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/no-royal-duties-king-charles-clarifies-harry-and-meghan-remain-private-citizens-after-uk-return/articleshow/133889823.cms), [2] (https://www.gbnews.com/royal/king-charles-prince-harry-meghan-royal-status-letter)The actual details regarding security in that letter and the current situation include:What the letter actually says: The correspondence explicitly reiterates that Harry and Meghan remain non-working, private citizens whose "HRH" (His/Her Royal Highness) titles remain in abeyance. It emphasizes that any charity work they do is entirely personal and does not represent the Sovereign. [1] (https://www.facebook.com/hello/posts/breaking-king-charles-has-confirmed-theres-no-change-to-harry-and-meghans-royal-/1501614588679762/), [2] (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/2246363/king-charles-letter-prince-harry-meghan-markle), [3] (https://www.gbnews.com/royal/king-charles-prince-harry-meghan-royal-status-letter), [4] (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/no-royal-duties-king-charles-clarifies-harry-and-meghan-remain-private-citizens-after-uk-return/articleshow/133889823.cms)The stance on armed protection: The letter explicitly states that security decisions are not the responsibility of Buckingham Palace. Instead, it notes that any security queries must be directed to individual police forces and the relevant executive committee

There's still a discrepancy here though.
Why does the company he visited today go overboard about welcoming Prince Harry to their studios and getting him to sign their wall. He isn't exactly a celebrity recording artist, so what is he exactly? Other than a royal having photos taken.

I get what King Charles is saying. It makes sense.

I wonder if they have pushed their luck in the last week, to have prompted this official comment🧐

Good move from the King. For the avoidance of doubt etc., etc.

It also indicates how this pair need to be kept in their place.
They may or may not wish to run an "alternative" Royal Family in the media but cannot be trusted in anyway whatsoever - they monetise everything.

Harry keeps on about their security but surely they had some in the USA which they had to pay for so why is it different in the UK.

Because the USA is a different country with different laws about carrying arms and hiring armed security.

In UK it's illegal to hire/pay private armed gunmen.

He's done the right thing IMO so no one's left in doubt and hopefully there will be an end to any speculation. I would think William will be pleased about the clarification.