Thank you for subscribing!
Their pattern of grievance and profit means the Firm must draw a line it will not allow to be crossed, writes the US columist
In the Book of Revelation, Armageddon is the final reckoning: the point at which good and evil cease pretending they can rub along together. For the monarchy, Harry and Meghan's reported return plan has similarly ominous qualities.
The couple have repeatedly shown a willingness to put personal grievance and commercial advantage ahead of the institution they left behind. Their reported relocation poses a serious institutional test for the Palace. Their record of public attacks, commercial use of royal association and apparent readiness to damage the institution for personal advantage make it impossible to treat this simply as a private matter.
Ineffective handling would reward disloyalty and alienate the public. It would weaken the monarchy at a moment when public confidence and constitutional resilience matter more than ever.
The pattern is documented and consistent. The Oprah interview, the memoir Spare, and the Netflix series all portrayed the institution in a dangerously negative light. Simultaneously, the couple monetised the titles, connections and residual prestige they claimed to reject. Grievance and extraction operated in tandem. Their subsequent commercial ventures have repeatedly relied upon public interest in their royal connection. Much of the global attention surrounding the Sussexes has remained tied to the monarchy they claim to have left behind. A return to Britain would inevitably revive that attention.
The method of their return compounds the problem. Reports indicate that the King was informed only shortly before the plans became public. The Sussexes are also reported to be planning a private, non-royal base in Britain and to have enrolled their children in British schools, although the location of any proposed residence has not been publicly disclosed. They remain non-working royals, yet continue to press special security considerations.
A private British base, with the children at school there, risks creating a standing rival media narrative. It is likely to generate a media circus that distracts from the working monarchy, particularly the Prince and Princess of Wales. Attention that ought to belong to those who carry the burden of duty will instead be siphoned towards those who abandoned it.
Harry has consistently argued that he and his family face a particular security risk in Britain without suitable protection. A decision to place school-age children in the country while still pressing such claims exposes the selective logic of that position. Yielding on this point would signal that departure from duty carries no cost. RAVEC must instead apply its established, case-by-case process, free from sentiment, title or familial pressure.
The stakes extend far beyond one family. The monarchy is a constitutional pillar synonymous with the nation itself. It provides continuity above politics and a living link to Britain's institutional inheritance. It also allows Britain to punch above its diplomatic weight on the global stage. Progressive cultural currents that treat duty as optional and grievance as moral capital already erode public institutions. Allowing those currents to penetrate the Crown itself would be an act of self-harm.
Institutional credibility with the British public and the wider world depends on clear boundaries. A monarchy that cannot defend its own standards invites the very irrelevance its critics desire.
The Palace still possesses the necessary levers. They must be used without hesitation.
First, there must be an absolute refusal of any return to working-royal status or half-in, half-out arrangement. The original terms of departure stand. There can be no rehabilitation through proximity.
Second, there must be no royal residences, official invitations or protocol privileges. Private-individual status must be maintained and publicly reinforced. Any private family contact must not become unofficial institutional access or material for subsequent commercial use. Clear distance remains the only reliable protection.
Third, there must be a firm line on security through the established RAVEC process. No automatic or enhanced taxpayer protection that rewards the earlier departure. Security arrangements for non-working members who chose to leave must remain proportionate and non-precedential.
Fourth, there must be disciplined, minimal messaging. The Sussexes' domestic arrangements do not alter the settled terms governing their relationship with the working Royal Family. The Palace should say as little as necessary and nothing that elevates the Sussexes' narrative.
Fifth, there must be deliberate protection of the Prince and Princess of Wales from distraction or forced proximity. Their work is the future of the institution. It must not be compromised by the need to manage a competing court.
Sixth, there must be strict and consistent application of the late Queen's original "no half-in, half-out" terms. Those terms were not provisional. They were the price of exit. They remain the price of any continued presence.
Harry and Meghan are a serious liability to the monarchy — not because they may choose to live in Britain as private citizens, but because proximity to the Crown has historically been turned into material for grievance, publicity and commercial gain. They may visit Britain, establish a private home and send their children to school here. What they must never be permitted to do is use a British base as a staging post for a second attempt at royal relevance without royal duty.
The late Queen got the principle right: you are either in or you are out. The Palace must now show that it still believes in that principle — and is prepared to enforce it with all discipline and tenacity.
