Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Advocates for the couple's discretion would argue that Harry and Meghan, having stepped back from official royal duties, are private citizens entitled to raise their children where they see fit without justifying the decision to the family in advance; parents often make housing choices for their children's schooling, security or family reasons that are simply not the business of in-laws, however prominent. They might add that repeatedly briefing every domestic decision to the Palace risks the very media leaks and scrutiny the couple has long said they were trying to escape, so keeping plans close until settled is a reasonable, protective instinct rather than a snub.

The case against

Those sympathetic to the King's position would argue that a move of this scale, involving his grandchildren relocating to the country he reigns over, is exactly the kind of family matter that warrants a heads-up, particularly given a meeting six weeks prior where the subject went unmentioned; trust and reconciliation within an estranged family are built through such disclosures, and their absence can reasonably be read as a continued unwillingness to communicate openly. They might also note that as members of a family whose lives are inherently intertwined with public and institutional interest, Harry and Meghan cannot entirely detach their choices from their effect on the monarchy's stability and public perception, so some coordination is a fair expectation rather than an intrusion.