Prince Harry’s team has linked Uganda’s abrupt withdrawal from the Invictus Games to Buckingham Palace’s recent clarification of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s royal status, arguing that the Palace intervention has had consequences beyond Britain.

Uganda announced its withdrawal on Wednesday, September 9, just two days after guidance was issued by the Lord Chamberlain on behalf of King Charles. The letter reiterated that Harry and Meghan’s return to the UK had not restored their roles as working members of the Royal Family and that their charitable activities are carried out in a private capacity.

The decision represents a striking reversal for Uganda, which had only joined the Invictus community in July and was personally welcomed by Harry during an event in London.

But while Harry’s camp believes the Palace letter contributed to the withdrawal, there is no evidence that King Charles asked Uganda to leave the Games or that he opposes Invictus.

Harry’s camp points to Palace guidance

The dispute began after General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Uganda’s military chief and the son of President Yoweri Museveni, announced that his country would no longer participate.

Kainerugaba said Uganda did not want its involvement to be interpreted as opposition to King Charles, whom he described as deeply revered.

“We shall not participate in anything that does not have His Majesty’s approval,” he said.

Harry’s office quickly connected that decision to the guidance Buckingham Palace had released on Monday.

A source close to the Duke said: “Intended or unintended, this is clearly a consequence of the Lord Chamberlain’s guidance regarding the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, that was rushed out without consultation on Monday.”

The source added: “Sadly, the only people who will suffer are the Invictus Games competitors.”

The Invictus Games Foundation is also understood to have been told that the Palace letter had caused some “confusion” within Uganda’s defence establishment.

Uganda’s sudden U-turn

The timing has made Uganda’s departure particularly notable.

On July 7, a Ugandan delegation appeared alongside Harry in London as the country joined the Invictus movement. Uganda was the latest nation to become part of the international sporting community created for wounded, injured and sick service personnel and veterans.

Barely two months later, that position has been reversed.

Kainerugaba made clear that his decision was motivated by what he viewed as loyalty to the British monarch, saying Uganda would withdraw rather than risk appearing to act against Charles.

However, questions remain over exactly why the Ugandan military interpreted Harry’s Invictus project in that way.

Ugandan government spokesman Alan Kasujja confirmed that Kainerugaba speaks for the Uganda People’s Defence Forces and said that, unless the position changes, it should be treated as the military’s stance.

But Kasujja also said he did not know why the decision had been made or whether Buckingham Palace’s letter was responsible.

That distinction is significant. Harry’s team believes there is a direct connection between the two developments, but the Ugandan government spokesman has not confirmed one.

Palace letter reinforced Harry and Meghan’s position

Buckingham Palace’s intervention came shortly after Harry and Meghan relocated to Britain with their children.

Despite their return, the Palace made clear that nothing had changed regarding their position within the Royal Family.

The Lord Chamberlain’s letter stated that Harry and Meghan remain outside the group of working royals. Their HRH styles remain in abeyance and are not used, while their charitable work is considered a private matter undertaken in their personal capacity.

The guidance described their position as similar to that of private citizens with commercial and charitable interests. It was distributed to government and military offices as well as Lord Lieutenants around Britain.

According to the Palace, the purpose was to provide clarity now that the Sussex family is once again living in the UK.

Harry’s office, however, was surprised by the way the guidance was released publicly.

His team said it received a copy only around an hour before it was issued to the media, adding another source of tension at a sensitive moment for the Duke and his family.

No indication Charles opposes Invictus

Despite Kainerugaba’s explanation for Uganda’s withdrawal, there is no suggestion from Buckingham Palace that King Charles is opposed to the Invictus Games.

In fact, Charles attended the inaugural Invictus Games in London in 2014.

A senior royal source has also stressed that the King supports organisations working with wounded service personnel, while Charles is said to be proud of what his younger son has achieved through the project.

The Palace guidance did not state that Invictus lacked the King’s approval, nor did it instruct governments, military organisations or other institutions to stop working with the Games.

Its focus was Harry and Meghan’s status after their move back to Britain.

That leaves an important gap between what Buckingham Palace actually said and how Kainerugaba appears to have interpreted the situation.

A setback for one of Harry’s most important projects

The controversy is particularly significant for Harry because Invictus has remained central to his public work since he founded the Games.

The project brings together wounded, injured and sick service personnel and veterans through international sporting competition and has become one of the causes most closely associated with the Duke.

Uganda’s arrival in July appeared to mark another step in the movement’s international expansion. Its withdrawal only weeks later has instead created an unexpected complication.

For Harry’s team, the timing is difficult to ignore: the Palace issued its guidance on Monday, and Uganda announced its departure on Wednesday.

But the central question remains unresolved.

Harry’s camp believes the Palace clarification caused confusion that ultimately contributed to Uganda’s decision. Uganda’s military chief has framed the move as an act of support for King Charles. Yet the King himself has given no indication that he wants countries to distance themselves from Invictus.

What began as a Palace effort to clarify Harry and Meghan’s position in Britain has therefore become entangled with the future of one of Harry’s most personal international projects — and with a withdrawal that few expected only two months after Uganda joined the Games.