Meghan Markle, Prince Harry UK Return: Royal Commentator Claims Public Is Officially 'Done With the Sussexes'

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's return to live in Britain has prompted fresh criticism from royal commentator Kinsey Schofield, who told Jeremy Kyle that 'we're all done with the Sussexes' while discussing the consequences of the couple's departure from working royal life.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex returned to live in Britain with their two children in late August, six years after stepping back from royal duties and moving to the United States. Their return has renewed scrutiny of their status within the royal family, although they have not resumed official duties.

A letter authorised by King Charles III and sent to senior British government and military officials this week reiterated that Harry and Meghan remain non-working members of the royal family. The guidance said there was 'no change' to their status and that their charitable work is undertaken in a private capacity.

The couple's spokesperson said they were surprised by the timing of the letter and had been informed only shortly before it was distributed.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Face Fresh Criticism

Speaking to Jeremy Kyle, Schofield argued that Harry's current difficulties were consequences of decisions made after he and Meghan stepped away from official royal duties.

'These are all the consequences of Harry's actions,' Schofield said, adding that his perceived failure to take accountability was why 'we're all done with the Sussexes.'

Her comment was an expression of opinion rather than a measure of British public sentiment. A YouGov survey conducted on 9 September among 4,506 adults in Great Britain found that 51% would rather Harry and Meghan did not return as working royals at some point, while 16% said they would prefer that they did. Another 33% said they did not know.

Schofield also referred to Harry's security arrangements, the loss of Frogmore Cottage as a UK residence and his living arrangements as examples supporting her argument about the consequences of leaving royal duties.

Kyle said he had no objection to the couple stepping away from royal life but criticised their subsequent public comments about the institution. He argued that their conduct had been financially motivated, but that was his assessment and was not established as fact during the discussion.

Kyle later described Harry and Meghan as 'incredibly manipulative' and suggested they acted with an ulterior motive. Those comments were personal judgements, and he did not present evidence establishing the couple's private intentions.

Uganda Withdrawal Adds to Invictus Debate

The discussion came as Uganda withdrew from the Invictus Games after Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba, chief of the Uganda People's Defence Forces, said the country would not participate in anything without King Charles III's approval.

Kainerugaba said Uganda did not want its participation to be interpreted as opposition to the King. A Ugandan government spokesperson later said Kainerugaba spoke for the country's defence forces, although the spokesperson said he did not know whether the decision was connected to the Palace letter.

Harry's office linked the withdrawal to the guidance, while a source close to the duke described the decision as a consequence of the letter. That connection has not been independently established.

There is no evidence that King Charles opposes the Invictus Games. A senior royal source said the King supports organisations that help wounded service personnel.

Kyle also said he did not believe the royal family trusted Harry and Meghan and predicted that Prince William, Prince of Wales, would take a harder line towards them if he becomes king. He did not cite evidence from William or other members of the royal family for those assessments.

He ended by predicting that Harry and Meghan would leave Britain 'within a year.' Neither the duke nor the duchess has announced such a timetable, making the remark a prediction rather than a reported plan.