The 'Andrew' Rule: Is King Charles III Taking Cues From Brother's Downfall as Prince Harry, Meghan Markle Rift Deepens?

King Charles III is facing renewed calls to act against Prince Harry and Meghan Markle after their unofficial tour of Australia, with broadcaster Piers Morgan arguing that the couple should lose their royal titles under what he described as an emerging 'Andrew rule.'

Harry and Meghan, who stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and now live in California, spent four days visiting Australian cities including Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra earlier this month. Although the trip was described as private, critics argued that their continued use of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles blurred the line between private life and royal branding.

The 'Andrew' Rule And What It Might Mean For Harry And Meghan

The phrase 'Andrew rule' is Morgan's shorthand for the precedent set by Prince Andrew's fall from grace. On Piers Morgan Uncensored, he argued that Andrew's loss of titles and patronages created an 'established mechanism' for dealing with royals who, in his words, damage the reputation of the monarchy.

Morgan was careful to say he viewed Andrew's conduct as far worse than anything Harry and Meghan had done. 'I've always made it clear that Andrew's offenses to me are far more egregious than anything Harry and Meghan have done,' he said. 'I've never said anything different, and I wouldn't say that now.'

Even so, he argued that the principle should apply more broadly. In his view, if a royal is seen to 'dishonor and disrespect the reputation of the institution of the monarchy or the royal family,' there is now a precedent for stripping titles.

There is no public indication from Buckingham Palace that any such move is under consideration. No official statement has been issued about Harry and Meghan's Australia trip or their Sussex titles, so the 'Andrew rule' remains a media talking point rather than a declared royal policy.

Tensions Flare Over Sussex Titles After Australia Trip

The immediate trigger was Morgan's debate with historian Tessa Dunlop over how Harry and Meghan presented themselves during their Australia visit. Dunlop argued that Meghan had taken a relatively informal approach, reportedly telling people to 'call me Meg' rather than insisting on her title.

'I find it honest what they are doing in Australia. You may find it vulgar. Finally she said "call me Meg". She didn't even demand to be introduced as Duchess,' Dunlop said.

Morgan was unmoved. He argued that even a looser tone still leaned on royal branding and said the Sussex title should no longer be used in public by a couple who left the working royal fold. 'Okay, let's quit the Duchess b-------. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex? No, I'm from Sussex. Piss off!' he said.

Harry, 41, and Meghan, 44, have continued to use their Sussex titles since stepping back from royal duties. Critics say that creates confusion about whether they are acting as private citizens or semi-official royal figures, while supporters argue the titles remain legally theirs.

Can You 'Un‑Royal' A Prince?

Dunlop pushed back strongly against Morgan's comparison between Harry and Andrew. She said stripping titles does not erase bloodline or identity and argued that Harry could not simply be 'un-royalled.'

'First of all, you can't un-royal Harry,' she said, later accusing Morgan of sitting there 'Neanderthal-style' while placing Harry and Andrew 'in the same bracket.'

Morgan countered that Andrew had effectively been 'un-royalled' in symbolic terms when his titles and patronages were removed. For him, that showed the monarchy can punish royals whose behaviour is seen as damaging, even if birth status remains untouched.

Dunlop went further, arguing that public views of Harry and Meghan have been shaped by selective media narratives rather than a fuller reading of their actions. Her intervention reflected a wider tension around the Sussexes, not just what titles they hold, but how those titles are understood and who gets to define their meaning.

For now, the 'Andrew rule' exists as commentary, not formal policy. The legal and political questions around royal titles remain separate from the media argument Morgan is making, and there is no sign that King Charles is preparing to act against Harry and Meghan over their Australia trip.

What the episode does show is how quickly every Sussex appearance still becomes a proxy war over the monarchy itself. The deeper question is not whether Morgan has coined a useful phrase, but whether the Palace sees Harry and Meghan as a reputational problem worth confronting again.