Prince Harry’s attempt to reconnect with his military heritage through a poignant veterans’ event in Canada has been overshadowed by a fresh wave of controversy, reigniting debates over the Sussexes’ strategic acumen and their strained connection to royal protocol. The incident, dubbed “Capgate” by commentators, saw the Duke of Sussex publicly apologize in Toronto for wearing an LA Dodgers baseball cap days earlier, a sartorial misstep interpreted as a slight against the Canadian team, the Blue Jays, during the World Series.
Analysts suggest the seemingly minor gaffe is symptomatic of a deeper issue plaguing the Sussex brand: a perceived pattern of diplomatic insensitivity and a failure to anticipate the symbolic weight of their actions. The cap controversy erupted just as Harry sought to project an image of solemn duty, painting poppies with a 102-year-old veteran in a move widely viewed as a public relations exercise to bolster his standing ahead of Remembrance Sunday.
Critics were swift to juxtapose the cap misjudgment with another symbolic failure: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex’s, noted absence of a poppy in public appearances as the solemn anniversary approached. Together, these episodes are seen as a cheapening of the couple’s carefully curated brand, highlighting a jarring disconnect between their global humanitarian aspirations and the nuanced expectations of tradition and loyalty, particularly within the Commonwealth.
“It’s another example of their lack of due diligence, not thinking about consequences,” argued one royal commentator in a televised discussion. “If you know your plane ticket is booked to Canada, why would you insult them by wearing the other team’s hat?” Harry’s explanation—that wearing the proffered Dodgers cap was the polite thing to do and later, that bright lights necessitated it for his receding hairline—was seen as an awkward and insufficient response to a needlessly self-inflicted controversy.
This fumble comes at a time when the royal family was “out in force” in the United Kingdom, with the Prince and Princess of Wales leading poignant Remembrance tributes. The Princess, in particular, earned significant praise for her empathetic engagement with D-Day veterans at the National Memorial Arboretum, drawing favorable comparisons to the late Princess Diana’s renowned touch. Her assured presence underscored the very institutional role Harry has voluntarily relinquished.
The contrast was stark and telling. While the working royals executed their duties with seamless solemnity, Harry was operating alone, an ocean away. His heartfelt involvement with veterans in Canada, including painting poppies on caps, was acknowledged even by some critics as genuine, given his two tours of duty in Afghanistan. “I cannot say anything but praise for the fact that what he did there,” stated a former soldier during the panel discussion. “It is very, very important to them that they treat veterans with total respect.”
Yet, this authenticity was immediately questioned. Skeptics pointed to what they see as a calculated rebranding effort following years of strained relations with the Palace, including his explosive memoir and Netflix series. “It did feel like a PR exercise to try to change public perception,” one commentator noted, questioning the sincerity of his outreach given his distant relationship with the Royal Family in the final years of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip’s lives.
The deeper wound for Harry, observers suggest, is not public criticism but profound personal absence. He was notably not in London for the Cenotaph service, where a wreath was not laid on his behalf—a pointed reminder of his exiled status. “We don’t miss Harry at these events,” concluded one analyst. “Harry misses it. Harry misses this ceremony, that sort of ceremony involving military personnel.” This longing was reportedly evident when, in previous years, he unsuccessfully petitioned to have a wreath laid for him at the national memorial.
The “Capgate” incident, therefore, transcends a simple fashion error. It encapsulates the ongoing and perhaps irreconcilable tension in the Sussexes’ post-royal lives: the struggle to build an independent, global identity while navigating the intricate web of protocol, symbolism, and expectation that defines their former world. Every action is scrutinized through a dual lens, measured both against their new commercial brand and their indelible royal past.
Meghan’s absence of a poppy—a potent symbol of remembrance and national sacrifice in the UK and Commonwealth—was interpreted by many as a deliberate distancing from that past, a visual severing of ties. Conversely, Harry’s earnest veteran outreach was seen as a desperate clutch at the military identity that forms a core part of his selfhood, an identity intrinsically tied to the institution he left.
The week’s events have laid bare a harsh reality. While the Sussex brand trades on their royal provenance, their operational execution repeatedly stumbles over the very nuances that define royal diplomacy. The result is a damaging perception of inconsistency: one moment seeking the gravitas of military tradition, the next committing a casual affront to a Commonwealth nation’s pride.
As the Royal Family consolidates its presence with a new generation of leaders, notably a confident Princess of Wales, Harry and Meghan’s path appears increasingly isolated. Their currency, derived from birth and service, is undeniable, but their ability to spend it without self-sabotage is now under serious doubt. The failed poppy symbolism and the misplaced baseball cap are not just isolated missteps; they are emblematic of a brand caught between two worlds, mastering neither, and paying the price in credibility with each unforced error.
The enduring question is whether the Sussexes can develop the strategic foresight to avoid such pitfalls, or if their narrative will remain one of high intention undermined by recurrent controversy. For now, the headlines are dominated not by their charitable endeavors, but by a hat, a flower, and a growing sentiment that their most valuable asset—their royal connection—is being steadily devalued by their own hand.
