Harry and Meghan also unhappy being called 'former royals'

Just when you thought the row over titles, status and royal labels had finally gone quiet, another phrase has reportedly hit a nerve. According to reports, Prince Harry and Meghan are less than thrilled about being referred to as “former royals” — a description that, to many readers, sounds neat and simple, but to Sussex watchers is anything but.

It is easy to see why the wording would sting. Harry was born into the Royal Family, remains the King’s son and still holds a place in the line of succession. Meghan, meanwhile, married into the institution and keeps her duchess title, even after the couple stepped back from official duties and built a very different life across the Atlantic.

That, of course, is where the confusion begins. They are no longer working royals, a distinction that has mattered enormously since their dramatic exit from frontline royal life. But “former royals” suggests something more final, almost as if a lifetime of history, hierarchy and family ties can be wiped away with a convenient label.

Royal followers have long argued over the right language. Some insist the term is fair because Harry and Meghan no longer carry out official engagements on behalf of the Crown. Others believe it is misleading, pointing out that bloodline, marriage and title are not things one simply hands back like a borrowed hat after Ascot.

The sensitivity around wording is hardly new. Ever since the Sussexes stepped back, nearly every public description attached to them has carried political weight. “Exiled royals”, “California royals”, “royals-in-name-only” and “private citizens” have all done the rounds in commentary, each one signalling a different view of whether the couple left the Firm, were pushed to the margins, or are still deeply bound to it despite the distance.

According to palace watchers, this latest irritation taps into a much bigger struggle over identity. Harry and Meghan have spent years trying to shape a post-palace role that blends philanthropy, media influence and carefully managed independence. Yet every fresh label seems to pull them back into the same old argument: how royal are they allowed to be, and who gets to decide?

There is also the matter of public perception. For critics, “former royals” may feel like a tidy way of acknowledging that the couple no longer represent the monarchy in an official capacity. For supporters, it can sound dismissive, even provocative, as though their story began and ended with a family fallout rather than a complicated constitutional and personal rupture.

Some fans believe the phrase particularly jars because Harry has never truly left the royal world behind, however much his life has changed. His military past, his royal upbringing and his continuing family connection keep him permanently tied to the House of Windsor. Meghan too, despite the fierce commentary surrounding her, remains linked to one of the most famous institutions on earth whether she embraces the spotlight or not.

The wider royal household is unlikely to welcome yet another debate over semantics, especially at a time when the monarchy is trying to project stability, duty and a sense of calm continuity. But words matter in royal life more than almost anywhere else. Titles, styles and descriptions are never just decorative; they signal rank, favour, distance and belonging.

If reports are correct, the couple’s unhappiness over the label may seem minor on the surface, but it hints at a much larger unresolved question. Can Harry and Meghan ever truly define themselves outside the royal machine when the world insists on viewing them through it? Or are they destined to remain caught between two identities — not fully inside, not fully out?

And for the public, the fascination shows no sign of fading. Whether one sees them as independent global figures, estranged family members, or still unmistakably royal, the battle over what to call Harry and Meghan says a great deal about how their story is still being written.

So what do you think — is “former royals” an accurate description, or does it go too far when Harry and Meghan are still, in so many ways, part of the royal picture?