Some in royal circles who have dealt with the Sussexes tell me they fear ‘there is more to this than we know’, writes REBECCA ENGLISH
Royal Editor Rebecca English writes that Prince Harry and Meghan's decision to move their family back to Britain has created a delicate new challenge for the monarchy, despite official statements welcoming the chance for King Charles to see more of his grandchildren. She notes that the news, reportedly leaked by the Sussexes' team to sympathetic journalists, has triggered online speculation about the King's motives and health, along with claims he is being manipulated or is secretly orchestrating the reunion to sideline Prince William.
English reports that sources have dismissed as a "mad conspiracy theory" claims that the King's private secretary, Sir Clive Alderton, is departing over opposition to the reunion, revealing instead that Alderton helped arrange Harry's July meeting with his father at Highgrove. She also highlights the striking fact that Harry did not mention the relocation plan during that meeting – the first between father and son in four years – and notes Kensington Palace's continued silence on the matter, amid unconfirmed claims about the King's cancer treatment, which is said to be progressing well and now administered only on a precautionary basis.
- Harry and Meghan's planned UK return unsettles royal circles despite public welcome
- Claims Sir Clive Alderton is quitting over the move are dismissed as false
- Harry reportedly didn't mention relocation plans at July's Highgrove meeting
New here? Start with this
Prince Harry and Meghan, who stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and moved to the United States, are reportedly planning to relocate their family back to Britain. The move would bring them and their two children closer to King Charles, who has been undergoing cancer treatment since early 2024, and comes after a lengthy period of estrangement between Harry and other senior royals, including his brother Prince William.
Key figures in the story include King Charles, Queen Camilla, Prince William, and Sir Clive Alderton, the King's private secretary, who is said to have helped organise a rare meeting between Harry and his father earlier this year. Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace, the offices that speak on behalf of the King and the Prince and Princess of Wales respectively, have made few public comments on the matter, which has left much of the coverage reliant on unnamed sources and speculation.
The story matters because it touches on the unresolved rift within the Royal Family since Harry and Meghan's departure, and on how a possible reconciliation might affect the working relationship between Charles's monarchy and William's future one. It also sits against the backdrop of the King's health and succession planning, meaning any move by the Sussexes is being read by commentators as more than a simple family decision.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those inclined to scrutinise the situation argue that the monarchy is a publicly funded institution whose workings deserve openness, and that unusual circumstances – a leaked announcement, a private secretary's abrupt departure, continued Palace silence, and unconfirmed details about the King's health – are precisely the kind of gaps that responsible journalism and public curiosity should probe rather than simply take on faith. They would point out that Harry's own team has a history of managing coverage through friendly outlets, making it reasonable to ask whose interests a story serves, and that Harry's striking omission of the relocation plan during his first meeting with his father in four years is a legitimate, factual basis for questions about what else may be unsaid.
The case against
Those urging restraint argue that this is fundamentally a private family attempting a fragile reconciliation while the King undergoes cancer treatment, and that unevidenced claims of manipulation or a secret plot to sideline Prince William – explicitly dismissed by those close to the matter as a 'mad conspiracy theory' – cause needless distress and distort a story about a father wanting to see his grandchildren. They would emphasise that royal aides and journalists alike have offered plausible, benign explanations (such as Alderton's own account of helping arrange the Highgrove meeting), and that responsible coverage should resist amplifying online speculation about an ill man's motives absent any actual evidence of wrongdoing.