Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s ‘demands’ for attending the coronation — and the latest on a tabloid lawsuit

There’s been a lot of speculation as to whether Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will attend King Charles III’s coronation in May. In wake of Harry’s tell-all memoir, the couple’s bombshell documentary series, a slew of television interviews and the glaringly public rift between the former royal and his family — it’s a messy situation to say the least. But Harry and Meghan did receive an invite to the coronation.

Harry is also knee-deep in a lawsuit against a British tabloid — but more on that later.

The couple has remained tight-lipped about their coronation invite. A spokesperson for the pair confirmed their invitation, but the couple has yet to reveal whether they plan to attend the ceremony.

“I can confirm The Duke has recently received email correspondence from His Majesty’s office regarding the coronation,” a spokesperson for Harry told CNN at the beginning of March. “An immediate decision on whether The Duke and Duchess will attend will not be disclosed by us at this time.”

Harry and Meghan reportedly have coronation demands, and their attendance at the ceremony may hinge on whether they are met.

What are Prince Harry, Meghan Markle’s demands for the coronation?

The couple — who voluntarily left their royal duties behind in 2020 and moved to California to pursue lives as non-royals — “demand” that their children are a part of the ceremony, and that their whole family appears on the Buckingham Palace balcony, according to Yahoo News.

“The Palace are trying to wrap up negotiations as quickly as possible because they can’t go right up to the wire,” said a source, per Yahoo News. “It could lead to chaos. It could very well be that it ends in stalemate, and they won’t attend. But the Palace is doing everything in its power to not let that happen. However, what the Sussexes are pushing for is for them to be included with the rest of the family at the Palace later that day.”

There are two reasons it is unlikely these “demands” will be met.

Young children like Archie and Lilibet ordinarily do not attend royal events of this scale  “due to restlessness and tantrums,” a source told The Sun. Archie is 3, and Lilibet is 1.

Plus, only working royals are given the privilege of appearing on the Buckingham Palace balcony.

Last year, at Queen Elizabeth’s Platinum Jubilee celebration, Prince Harry and Meghan were not invited to join the working royals on the balcony.

“After careful consideration, the Queen has decided this year’s traditional Trooping the Colour balcony appearance ... will be limited to Her Majesty and those members of the royal family who are currently undertaking official public duties on behalf of the Queen,” a spokesperson for the queen said at the time, per Harper’s Bazaar.

Unless Charles III decides to shake things up, the outlook for Harry and Meghan getting a balcony appearance is not good.

Finally, the couple requested “a nod” to Archie’s fourth birthday, which lands on the same day as the coronation.

“They would like some kind of nod to that at a lunch or drinks reception. Even if it’s just a happy birthday mention,” the source said, per Yahoo News.

Harry is suing Mail on Sunday publisher

Amid the ongoing coronation controversy, Prince Harry has also won the first stage of a libel suit against The Mail On Sunday publisher. High Court Justice Matthew Nicklin ruled that parts of the article about Harry’s desire for police protection in the U.K. were defamatory, reports AP News.

Last year, Prince Harry filed a High Court action in an attempt to force police authorities to protect him and his family any time they were in the U.K. The government withdrew Harry’s 24-hour police protection when he and Meghan chose to give up their full-time royal duties.

Harry alleges The Mail On Sunday libeled him through claims that the prince lied during initial statements about the 2022 suit, and that Harry tried to confuse the public through releasing “false and misleading statements” about his willingness to pay for police protection, per AP News.

Although Judge Nicklin ruled that the “natural or ordinary meaning” of the article is defamatory, he stressed that the case is far from over, per AP News.