Prince Harry faces criticism after a royal expert called his reported response to Uganda’s Invictus Games withdrawal a “ghastly move.” British royal expert Hilary Fordwich made the remark after a source close to Harry reportedly linked Uganda’s decision to a letter by King Charles. The letter clarified that Harry and Meghan Markle remain non-working royals and private citizens.
Expert slams Prince Harry for blaming Invictus setback on King Charles letter
“Harry blaming this letter for Uganda pulling out of the Invictus Games is a ghastly move on his part,” Fordwich told Fox News Digital. “No doubt Harry and Meghan thought King Charles would accommodate their return or at least consult with them. But their expectations weren’t relevant for the royals.”
The controversy began after Uganda’s military chief, Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, announced the country would withdraw from the 2027 Invictus Games. He cited respect for King Charles and said Uganda would not participate in anything without the monarch’s approval.
However, the situation changed quickly. Uganda has now reversed its decision and will compete at the 2027 Invictus Games in Birmingham. The U-turn followed a phone call between Kainerugaba and Sir Clive Alderton, King Charles’ principal private secretary.
Alderton clarified that the King had no objection to Uganda’s participation and encouraged the country to resume preparations. The Invictus Games Foundation also welcomed Uganda’s return. The organization previously confirmed Uganda as the 26th nation in its community.
The reversal adds another layer to the dispute surrounding Harry’s royal status. Palace guidance reiterated that Harry and Meghan no longer perform official duties. Their charitable work continues in a private capacity.
Meanwhile, Harry remains connected to the Invictus Games. He founded the competition in 2014 to support wounded, injured and sick service personnel and veterans. Birmingham will host the 2027 edition.
The Uganda controversy also raised questions about whether the Palace letter created unintended confusion. A source close to Harry argued that the withdrawal directly followed the guidance. Fordwich, however, rejected that framing and criticized Harry for placing responsibility on the King’s clarification.
