I am not going to lie and tell you I haven’t noticed a certain kilt wearing equerry standing behind the monarch, immaculately turned out and always maintaining his military bearing. At the end of 2026, Lieutenant Colonel Jonny Thompson will close the door on nearly 22 years in the British Army — and seven years in royal service — as he heads for a new career in the private sector.

So many people spend fortunes or take endless social media selfies to become famous or just to be noticed. Yet here we have Lt Col Thompson, who never asked for the spotlight, just serving his commander in chief, the king and the internet has made him a household name.

Many of us are silently sobbing into our Kleenexes this morning and asking…why???

Alas, I must turn to more serious matters and pose to you all a question regarding the costs we do not see in the Sovereign Grant and ask: who pays for an equerry?

Beyond the Kilt — Who is Lt Col Jonathan Thompson?

His an officer who is serving in the British Army and was commissioned into the Royal Regiment of Scotland in 2006. He has served with the 5 SCOTS and saw operational service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Somehow I do not think he had specialized security, but I digress.

In 2019, he became an equerry to Charles and has been more visible after his accession to the throne and has since become a Senior Equerry.

He is also, happily married, and has a son and daughter.

I think it is important to clarify that the Royal Regiment of Scotland and the Scots Guards are two different things.

A Moment About the Kilt

Although we can spend a copious amount of time talking about the kilt, this is not a costume, it is a ceremonial uniform. So it is not necessarily his day-to-day military uniform way, but instead it is his tartan and regimental dress with feather bonnet.

Regardless of what armed forces you represent, most often you have various different uniforms types which you wear depending upon your duties. I know, I still have a few sets in my closet.

Fun Fact: The feather was used to make the Highland soldiers appear taller and more intimidating,

What is an Equerry?

Think of this position as an aide-de-camp, sort of like a super assistant, one part troubleshooter and one part Swiss Army knife. But seriously, this is a serving military officer assigned to assist a senior royal. Their typical functions are:

• Coordinating and attending engagements.

• Liaison with military organizations and services

• Handling logistics and receiving VIPS and dignitaries.

• Last, but not least, chief bottlewasher and babysitter (that is a joke from my military days), in other words, troubleshooter behind the scenes.

No Line Item in the Sovereign Grant for Equerry

You know I am going to talk about it, transparency and the lack of it in the Sovereign Grant. Because Lt Col Thompson’s position tells us something very important.

If you are a serving military officer, you are paid through the Ministry of Defence (MOD), even if you are assigned to the monarch as an equerry. Therefore, the military equerry is not being paid as another Royal Household employee via the Sovereign Grant.

So yes, another hidden cost that the taxpayers are paying for. Just one point of clarification, an MOD FOI response has shared that equerries and orderlies are paid the same as their military counterparts. Travel and incidental costs are paid via Buckingham Palace

So once again, there is no line item, no explanation within the Sovereign Grant that outlines all of the additional expenses the taxpayer is paying for to support the royal family.

Historical Evidence

Gotta love evidence and facts, because this is an old song, sung blue, and in 2014 Parliament asked the MOD how many of their military was attached to the Royal Household. And yes, I wish I had newer evidence, but this gives you an idea of what I am talking about.

The MOD reported:

Financial year. Personnel Approx. cost

2010–11. 13 £890,000

2011–12 13 £950,000

2012–13 13 £920,000

2013–14 10 £800,000

This is the costs that are paid out of the Defence’s budget per Parliament. So Michele is not wearing her tinfoil fascinator and pulling a number out of the air, this is an actual measurable additional cost to the taxpayer.

Therefore, if the Royal Household is still using 10 equerries, that would equate to roughly £1.15M in today’s money.

In 2011, during a debate regarding the Sovereign Grant, Kevan Jones, MP and others raised concerns regarding military equerries and the need for it to be considered in order for full transparency regarding the total cost of supporting the monarch.

Basically, why was this coming out of another budget (MOD) and not shown in the Sovereign Grant?

The argument for keeping this as is was that the equerries were still serving military officers while performing these duties so it was appropriate for the MOD to pay for them.

Before we go any further, I just want to make it clear that I am not advocating for not paying the equerries, they are serving military officers.

My concerns are from an institutional perspective.

The public should be able to see a complete cost statement of supporting the monarchy without additional expenses being paid by other government departments and not disclosed on the Sovereign Grant.

Questions, So Many Questions

In the US Air Force, we have what is called Special Duty Assignments, it covers a plethora of jobs outside a military member’s typical duties and responsibilities. Some of these are serving on Air Force One, working with the Thunderbirds, Training instructors, etc. These costs are all part of a transparent budget process. Therefore, if you apply and are selected, the position you are leaving is backfilled.

Very transparent, very accountable. So I have questions regarding what happens when a serving military officer is assigned to the Royal Household to perform special duties.

• Is this considered a military assignment?

• How many other military personnel are being utilized by the Royal Household?

• What are the actual and total costs?

• What is the justification for this special assignment?

• Why isn’t Parliament accounting for these types of costs in a transparent and accountable manner?

Honestly, I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

Note: I am not arguing against the usage of equerries, the monarch is the Head of State, my argument is solely about the cost not being transparent and accountable.

Harsh Reality

So alas, just like in the military, the person leaves, the position remains, and a new person will step into the role. The difference is that we still do not have one document that provides the full cost of supporting the Crown.

I bet you dollars to donuts that Lt Col Thompson did not take this position to attract our attention (the hidden costs of the monarchy) and become a de facto “celebrity” of sorts. He was there to serve his Commander in Chief, remain in the background, maintain his military bearing at all times, and perform his duties and responsibilities in a professional manner.

From all appearances he has served his country and performed his job in an exceptional manner, unfortunately he was absolutely unsuccessful in being a background character.

So thank you, Lt Col Thompson, I salute you for a job well done, you will be sorely missed!

So please, keep the equerries, just show us the receipts!

If you enjoyed our little homage to Lt Col Thompson with a side of much needed taxpayer transparency — please like, comment, share, and restack.

And consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Because around here, we can admire the kilt and still ask to see the receipt.

I recently read an article by Jack Royston called, The Dual Threats to Prince William’s Everyman Image and it made me take a pause for a moment, because I don’t know about you, but I have seen a shift in the reporting regarding Prince William of late. This is not a takedown of Jack Royston and this does not take away from my reporting on the lack of transparency, governance and accountability regarding the Duchies or the institution. These concerns are still very valid, ongoing and I will continue to speak out about them.

Royston recently looked at how the decision to send George to Eton will potentially impact William’s image as “one of the blokes” and a modernizer for his future reign. His question may be valid, but I have another one that I believe is even more worthy of asking:

Does Eton make the man?

I would argue that acknowledging privilege is one thing, making the assumption that it will determine your character is a whole other kettle of fish.

Before we begin, let’s put some cards on the table. Prince William is extremely privileged to the point that I do not think we mere mortals have any true concept of what this equates to.

He is the current Prince of Wales, has attended Eton College and St. Andrews University, inherited the Duchy of Cornwall, has multiple homes and will one day, become the King of the United Kingdom. We also know that Prince George is the third in line to the throne and will be attending Eton in the fall. It is also known as being a pipeline for Britain’s ruling class and elite. Note: For my American readers, think of Phillips Exeter Academy or Phillips Academy Andover, elite boarding schools in which he will attend grades 8 through 12.

Let’s Talk About Eton College

Eton College has some baggage, it is not just that the fees are astronomical ($85k per year, some financial assistance is available for the exceptional) for the average person, they are. But what may be of more importance, is what it represents: power, access, good old boy networks, influence and generations of those who have moved through the hallowed halls of their elite education into positions of power and influence.

I think by now you know that I like looking at matters from different perspectives and I find that I must do so in this article. When I read Royston’s article it became apparent that he was speaking of the possibility that George will fall victim to a mindset of one I would call — establishment overconfidence. This is basically that you will assume a person who possesses an Eton pedigree has the actual competence to do the job. And this is where Jack and I have a parting of the ways so to speak.

In my career I have seen many people who believe they are deserving of a position based on their background and education, but simply do not have the ability to do the job. It is called the Dunning-Krueger effect which basically is when a person with a low ability routinely believes that they are indeed actual high performers. Think of it as the sociological cousin of establishment overconfidence. So I would argue that simply believing that you belong at the table does not mean that you are capable of leading it.

Confidence may open the door; competence has to be proven over time by actions.

Therefore, Jack Royston is correct, this culture may exist, but where we differ is that it will determine the character of the heir, Prince George.

Education Vs. Character

Has Eton only produced men that we can put into one category? No. We have seen it produce prime ministers, Nobel laureates, actors, soldiers, diplomats and those who have challenged Britain’s political and social order. Before I begin, this is not a commentary on political beliefs or other assertions, it is to argue against stereotypes.

Let’s look at an Eton graduate, Eric Blair, otherwise known as George Orwell. He has written about poverty, class and past British colonialism. He fought in Spain and was one of the most influential 20th century’s critics of authoritarian power and elite class structures.

I mean, most of us have read Animal Farm, 1984 and other books that he has written. My godson recently graduated from an American high school, and these books are still on the curriculum, along with many others of a similar subject matter. I guess Mr. Orwell missed the memo in which he was to become another drone in the elite British establishment or a bit like as Pink Floyd once sang, …another brick in the wall.

Therefore, I would argue that Eton gave him an education, but it did not own his mind or predict his future. I know that he lived in another era, but this is one example that education can be a part in forming you, but it is not your destiny. There are many other aspects of a child’s or young adult’s development that are also at play. So let’s take a look at someone a bit more recent for the purpose of this discussion.

Roderick “Rory” Stewart, a very modern day example of privilege and establishment. He attended Eton and Oxford, read for History and then switched to Philosophy, Politics and Economics. At Prince Charles’ request (when he was the Prince of Wales), he was Prince William’s tutor over a summer while attending Oxford. He was Harry’s tutor also, but I don’t feel that I need to comment on that any further.

In reviewing his background, I have to say, he has definitely dipped his toe beyond his social circle and education. He has a wide and varied CV, everything from diplomatic service, politics, trekking across Iran, Pakistan, India, Nepal and Afghanistan to now teaching at Yale University.

So no, I am not asking you to look at his political beliefs, but his life has been hardly conventional, nor was it written into stone by his education at Eton. In fact he has become a critic of the very culture from whence he came from.

I am not arguing against Jack Royston’s criticism of elite education, but a person has the free rein to recognize the social insulation these types of schools offer and can demonstrate that you can leave it, challenge it, and criticize the assumptions that are formed within this elite system.

So I am not elevating these two examples to sainthood, they have had their share of critics. But I would argue that they were not reduced to a stereotype because they attended Eton College. Besides, haven’t we learned in this day and age that placing a stereotype onto a person is neither reliable nor accurate.

If Not Eton, Where?

Let’s get back to George, if he was not going to Eton, then where? To another elite boarding school, with a different motto, yet carrying the same criticism. Or would we send him to a trendy progressive school where they offer yoga or child-led learning (absolutely no shade to these types of schools).

So that leaves me to what the British call a state school (public in the US). Although that would be an interesting test, we have to look at the implications, security, press, police presence, privacy of other children, etc. Even most of us could see that this would be a logistical nightmare and truly challenging for those other children and families. Not saying it would be impossible, but if you look at it, every educational decision has their pros and cons.

Because when it is all said and done, George is privileged and no matter the school or the post code, the quirky slang, he is never going to be just George from the Human Resources Department helping you out with your benefits question.

Pretending otherwise would not be modernizing the monarchy, it would be a fairy tale that we tell our children at bed time.

Privilege is Circumstance—Entitlement is Character

In looking at privilege, there are so many kinds, such as: earned, educational, cultural, inherited, etc. The same for entitlement, such as: status, rules, class, institutional, moral, etc.

So to expect that George will be raised without privilege is utter balderdash, this decision was made at the time of his birth. But when we get to entitlement, that is a whole different matter. Entitlement enters the arena when it is allowed to become the expectation of the privilege. So in other words, rank will always excuse behavior, deference is deserved, or being at the top makes you smarter than those below you.

William and Catherine cannot change his privilege, it is built into his position and preordained by his birth, but they can certainly be a major influence on what he believes that this position means.

We cannot leave Catherine out of this very important discussion, she was born outside of the royal system and was not an aristocrat, in fact, it has been reported that she was teased for this mere fact. This does not mean she was not privileged, but it can influence and help determine whether privilege equates to entitlement. We also need to factor in her family, the Middletons, who have played a significant role in their family model and have been there for all of the little and big moments. Besides I can just see Grandma Carole telling George to “knock it off and get over himself.”

I will also go so far to state that George is being raised in an entirely different environment than his father, and that his childhood is vastly different. Many of you would remember the War of the Wales, Charles riding off to play polo when his son was in the hospital, the tabloids, and the untimely and unfortunate death of the then Princess of Wales (I could go on and on). Therefore he may be going to the same school, but their childhoods are not the same, not even close. Besides, George will be approximately 15 minutes away by car to the family home, Forest Lodge, which I would bet dollars to donuts this factored into the equation.

Ultimately it will be for George to make the decision and determine if his advantages make him more important, intelligent or deserving than those around him. Hopefully he will learn that with great privilege comes great responsibility versus opportunities.

That to me is the test, rather than having your future behavior preordained by the name written above the gates of your school.

George — Watch Out For the Bubble!

Danger, Danger George Wales.

I can understand the desire to surround yourself with life long friends that are loyal, supportive and always there when you need them. I met my best friend in the military and won’t even tell you how long that has been. But there is a danger here, more so than Eton and that is social insulation.

He is going to have to walk that delicate line of ensuring that he does not surround himself with sycophants who defer, flatter, look like him or simply will not say, “Mate, you are dead wrong.” I think we have seen a royal or two who have fell into this trap.

Because that is how establishment overconfidence plants its roots, is nurtured and grows. In order to combat this, he needs to encounter a much wider world and that is an inherent challenge and one his parents will have to help him navigate and he matures.

This is where William and Catherine once again enter the picture and provide him with experiences outside the protective and insulated bubble. Meeting veterans and others outside of a ceremony. Meeting people from diverse backgrounds outside of a scheduled walkabout. Looking at the crisis of homelessness beyond a charity engagement and the cameras. These are some of the ways they can offset some of the challenges he will face at Eton by simply stepping outside of the boundaries of your own world. Yes, it may be a little scary and the first step is the hardest, but it is truly worth the journey.

William’s Modern Monarchy

To me and many others, actions speak louder than words. Most of us have heard that change is on William’s agenda when he becomes king. Can he start now, absolutely, with the matters he is involved in. Is it possible he may have some constraints while he is the heir? Yes, but that doesn’t mean we should not expect to see the evidence of this future change sooner, than later.

At this time, we can look at his management of the Duchy of Cornwell, his homelessness initiatives and environmental commitments (Earthshot Prize, etc.). I have to mention transparency, I know all of us would love to see this sooner than later, but I have to be pragmatic, this may be tied to what has been directed by his father, the king. At this time, I have not seen him break ranks with the institution as it relates to being more transparent, so time will tell, when he ascends the throne. I am hopeful that he will see the future and understand it is time to pull back the curtain and let the light in. Failure to do so, would be very problematic for his reign.

With that said, I am not going to criticize him for wanting to be “one of the mates,” by having a pint of cider, being on a podcast (refreshing versus loutish) or going to an Aston Villa match, he is a human being. What I have seen is that his family is a priority (even with the critique of him being work shy) and his attempts to raise privileged children and at the same time giving them a somewhat typical existence. Where mom and dad go on the school runs, attend their sporting matches, drop them off at a children’s birthday party or dancing classes, etc. And that gives me a certain amount of comfort for the future of the monarchy.

I am also not going to argue with Jack regarding the Wales’s family social media footprint, it has grown exponentially over the years. But what I would say is that although they are a family, they are also a part of a machine called the institution that still needs the public’s interest. Their careful dollops of sharing pictures of themselves with their children is measured and appropriate for their circumstances. And yes, they are well dressed, not ridiculously so, but do we really expect them to be wearing burlap sacks?

Therefore, modernization should be viewed by accountability, transparency, humility, service, and the public’s ability to measure value. As for George, I will say:

Modernization should be measured by a person’s behavior and not by their school uniform or their privileged circumstances.

And in time I will apply the same standards that I view William to George. At this time, I believe King Charles has his head in the sand or possibly foraging for mushrooms in the heathers of Scotland.

The public will measure this by William and George’s performance and not their royal bloodline.

Harsh Reality

I am not going to outright dismiss Jack’s argument, the symbolism of Eton and its influence may deserve our scrutiny. With William publicly speaking about changing the monarchy, it has prompted us all to ask questions on what that actually means. But at this time, I am not going to directly correlate it to the school he chooses to send his son to, the assertion is way too premature.

Instead, I go back to how can we possibly predict what George’s character will be just from the institution that he goes to school at? Let’s be real, he is a 13 year old boy, who wants a cell phone and his parents are still resisting his pleas.

George Orwell and Rory Stewart complicate this assertion and I am sure lesser known graduates would further complicate it. And I am not going to even compare George’s future behavior to Boris Johnson (he is an Eton graduate). Talk about chalk and cheese.

So for now, I am going to continue to watch and look at behaviors, patterns, facts, etc. Because that is where the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. I will continue to rebut and speak out on articles in which the MSM is trying to reshape the lens in which we view William’s privilege versus evidence-based investigation.

Right now, George is a teenager, and although Eton may give him confidence, his parents will have to help him learn humility and many other life lessons. Eton will give him amazing connections, his parents will also help him learn that connections do not equate to competence.

By virtue of his birth he has been given privilege, his character will determine what he does with it.

If you enjoyed this polite, yet factual rebuttal to one of the articles in which we have seen a shift in coverage of Prince William, please like, comment and restack. I would also ask that you consider becoming a paid or free subscriber. We need all the boots on the ground to combat narratives that are trying to distract us from what is truly important.

Note: I am chuckling as I write this, because I wrote every word in this article. It would appear that my many years in HR taught me to write like a computer, no I mean AI.

Have you ever wondered how freeing or liberating it may be not to seek out other people’s approval or whether or not you were liked? Well look no further, Princess Anne, the Princess Royal has this woven into her very DNA. I would offer that if she ever decided to bottle this ability, she would make a fortune. Wait a moment, but she wouldn’t give two figs about that idea and probably look at you like you are ten fries short of a McDonald’s Happy Meal.

When we write or speak about the royals (regardless of what country), many of look at many things:

• State visits, tours, local visit;

• interviews, speeches;

• causes;

• governance;

• finances.

I could go on and on, literally to infinity and beyond, but you get the point. There is one exception, and that is Princess Anne. She has out and out refused to dip a toe into this pond, absolutely no interest, couldn’t care less. She is what she is, unapologetically so. I would actually pity the fool who would even suggest that she might make herself into something, you know, a bit more marketable. I am chuckling as I write this.

You know what you are getting, someone who will tell you like it is, unfussy (have you seen the pics of her with only one piece of luggage?), a bit intimidating and always shows up.

I have to say, in this day and age with what is going on with the British royal family, they could very well use a bit more Princess Anne and Vice Admiral Sir Tim and a lot less Harry and Meghan. She is the epitome of duty, service, and loyalty with a side of “naff off.”

Same Wardrobe, Hairstyle and Work Ethic

Well, one can definitely say that Princess Anne has definitely “anchored into her knowing” and has worked on her “learns.” Are you kidding me? She has no time, interest, or inclination to follow or keep up with the latest trends and I can pretty much guarantee that goat yoga is not on her daily regimen, bucket list or “to do” list.

Here is a woman who has never needed to launch a new chapter, pivot or think about her next rebranding opportunity. We have all seen the pics, the hairstyle hasn’t changed since the early ‘80s. I don’t know about you but I get a giggle that it takes her about 10 minutes to put it up, probably with a good spritz of Wella High Hair and off she goes to her next engagement.

As a woman who has gone up and down a few sizes, it is absolutely amazing to me that she still fits into clothing that she wore when she was a teenager. Honestly, she wore a white gown and cape at the March 2026 Nigerian state banquet that she first wore in 1969 (at the age of 18 years). My hat goes off to anyone who has the discipline to be able to do that!

Let’s move on to less sillier things, her work ethic. Even her critics have pretty much been silent on her dedication and commitment to her patronages and engagements. Although some of her aides and others have struggled a time or two trying to keep up with her. It is more than likely that the future of the monarchy will keep at Princess Anne’s pace for many reasons we have started to see. Here are my thoughts as to why that might be.

First, the monarchy has slimmed down over the last 10 years or so, some may see that as good, some will be very critical, and some will lament the change. Second, the monarch and consort are aging and the king is living with cancer. Along with the Duke of Kent, the Duke and Duchess Gloucester, they are also aging, albeit still ticking and showing up. Third, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh do not get the media and attention they deserve for the good causes they support. Fourth and final, Prince William has shared that he sees the royal family with a small “r.” Although I am not quite sure what that means, I would dare speculate and say, it means less engagements, more targeted causes. At this stage I really cannot definitively provide an answer of what that exactly means, but I am sure we will find out.

Back to Princess Anne, in the past she may have been characterized as rather severe, off-putting, blunt, old-fashioned and quite unfashionable. Yet today, she is being hailed as a bit on trend, commended for the recycling of her wardrobe and you know if she is scheduled to attend an engagement, she will be there, camera crew and applause, are solely optional. Although if I were a betting woman, she would prefer no cameras and no clapping.

Sounds like she does not have any problems with being authentic, hmmm….

No Applause Needed, Just a Carry-on

It appears to me that Princess Anne has no need or desire for the public’s affection for just doing her job. Although she gets it whether she wants it or not, just with a bit more restraint. I truly admire that she doesn’t need to make each of her engagements akin to a tantric healing circle with a side of flower sprinkles. She just gets the job done.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that she is an automaton, but there is something reassuring about how she goes about her royal engagements. She shows up, performs her duty or the functions, speaks with those involved and leaves for her next engagement. Her critics will call her brusque, a bit detached or a little cold, they may have a point. But I would suggest that may be oddly soothing to some in light of all the bigger personalities and drama in the royal ecosystem. Besides, I have never seen Princess Anne speak to a reporter and share that no one has asked how she is feeling, because she probably doesn’t care all that much.

Before I move on, I have to make a comment on this woman’s practicality when it comes to traveling. She is the epitome of no fuss, no muss. I mean, very few people (I am not one of them), can fly internationally with a small carry-on with everything she needs. It reminds me of her personality, utility before theatrics.

Therefore, it seems to me that she travels, just as she works, very prepared, practical and leaves the baggage to the bare minimum.

Let’s Talk About the Numbers

In this corner for 2025, Princess Anne racked up an amazing 478 engagements and 102 overseas engagements across 14 countries, can you say, “wow.” According to Vanity Fair, she has chalked up more than 11,000 engagements over her working royal career. Those numbers are impressive.

Believe it or not, what strikes me more is the pattern (you know I love a pattern), of consistently showing up. Her patronages and appointments are long-term. She has maintained relationships with the organizations she supports over many years, sometimes decades.

Now some critics will say that not all engagements are equal, it should be quality over quantity and that this is another media/palace construct, there may be some truth to that. I would also look at all of the planning, preparation, correspondence, etc., that needs to take place to ensure the success of these engagements. I also have to add, this was a 75-year old woman who sustained a serious injury and still kept on ticking, with no checked luggage in sight.

Honestly, the Palace needs to come up with a different methodology for work analysis, possibly one that measures time, complexity, preparation, travel, impact, value, etc. Boy, I would love to get my hands on this project. Although, I can just imagine Princess Anne’s reaction to that, possibly, “work is the point, recognition, not much interested.”

Here is a link to her patronages:

https://www.everydayexceptional.royal.uk/the-princess-royal?page=1&utm_source=chatgpt.com

Military Uniforms and Honorary Appointments

This has been a very lively debate in the comments of my Substack page, so I am not going to shy away from the topic.

Princess Annie holds numerous honorary military appointments (she has never served in the armed forces) and during formal and ceremonial responsibilities, she wears a uniform with medals on display. From what I have observed, she takes these duties very seriously and doesn’t need a press release or a camera crew when she shows up to an event.

For some who have served, your uniform can represent many things: sacrifice, earned experience, training, etc. For some republicans (and no I am not referring to American politics), this may feel like some form of Palace cosplay, inherited royal privilege versus merit, she did not serve, etc.

I want to acknowledge these differences and the emotions that this can stir for someone. To me, this boils down to a question:

Should an individual who is given honorary rank be able to wear the visual symbolism of those who served?

I will let you answer that question for yourself knowing that everyone’s feeling on this topic matters. With that said, I will share my perspective.

I am a huge supporter of traditions and recognize what this means to the public and specifically the military. It has never occurred to me that Princess Anne has tried to be anything else but herself and as such, do not feel that she is trying to pretend that she has served. I feel that this is her way of honoring and supporting the traditions and ceremonies that she has been appointed to. In doing so, yes, she is representing the Crown and the armed services, and once again never wavering in fulfilling her duties and responsibilities.

Therefore, I believe that both views can exist without pretending that she is participating in any type of duplicity. Feel free to disagree with me, the only request I make is that we do so in a respectful and collegial manner.

Steel, With Sensible Shoes and Those Sunglasses

I make no apologies for being a strong woman and believe that strength comes in many forms. When I look at Catherine, Princess of Wales, I see a core of steel wrapped in a velvet glove. When I look at the late Queen Elizabeth II, I see her strength in her stability and enduring reign. When I look at Princess Anne, she is simply who she is and makes no excuses for it.

Whether she is around her beloved horses, her grandchildren, or at a royal engagement, she makes no play to curate any type of lifestyle persona. Often wearing wellies, an old coat, a tweed flat cap and those darn sunglasses she looks equally comfortable wearing a ballgown from another decade, a tiara and that indefatigable hairstyle. And we all know that she has been known to come home from a royal engagement, still in her formal attire, put on a pair of wellies and goes out to feed her animals.

But let’s get down to the heart of this topic, she is not warm and fuzzy, never has been, probably never will be. In a modern era, women may be expected to outwardly appear to be affectionate, perpetually gracious, and offer hugs on demand. Note: There is nothing wrong with women/men who embrace this, I think that is also a strength as long as it is not done in pretense.

Princess Anne is not one of those women, she can be difficult, she is blunt and some of her comments have certainly reinforced her image of being intimidating and not suffering fools easily. But I ask you to consider this, if she was a man, would this type of temperament be seen as decisive and forthright? Chew on that for a day or two.

What I have observed is that once again, she simply is who she is, no pretense, no artifice, no incessant explaining, no apologies and shows up every time. Just a woman with a core of steel both inside and out, no need for validation and for heaven’s sake, keep your cuddles to yourself.

Lessons to Be Learned From a “Spare”

I have to say, I am really starting to dislike this word, spare. I have two sons and although I understand how the terminology is used within the royal ecosystem, its usage has now been linked as those who are second born and somehow less than. Sorry I will never see my children from this lens, never going to happen and I can tell you my younger son does see himself in this light.

Although the rules of succession were different when Princess Anne was born, she was born second in line to the British throne. With the advent of her younger brother’s births, she was moved down the line of succession. Some would say, more the pity for those outdated rules and I would agree, her relevance and work has never depended upon where she stands in the line of succession.

She has carved out an identity based on contribution, whether that is in the equestrian aspects of her life, charities or military affiliations. And this is where the Sussexes could take a lesson or six from her.

This is not an attack, think of it more as a philosophical discussion.

Harry and Meghan made a choice (remember choices have consequences for most of us) and chose to leave the institution to forge a new life in which they could become financially independent, maintain their privacy, and speak publicly about their lives. They also made a pretty penny off of this choice. I am not questioning this choice, but I am questioning whether or not they underestimated the power of restraint, consistency and allowing their actions to speak for themselves.

When I contrast one second born with another, I see that Princess Anne has never once spoken about any personal unhappiness as it relates to her public life. Her “brand” has been built on showing up, doing the work, no matter how repetitive that may seem. She is not looking for the next reinvention, pivot or rebranding exercise. And most importantly does not seem to care if she appears to be a bit boring. With all that is going on in the royal family, I find a bit of boredom is just what the doctor has ordered. Because no matter how many times Harry and Meghan tell us who they are, their actions and reputation is built by their patterns of behavior.

Let’s talk about restraint, silence is not always golden, we are seeing this right now with the king staying silent as to the Sussex’s return to the UK. I am a huge advocate of speaking out about matters that are important and deserve to be put to the forefront.

But c’mon, every grievance does not need a docu-series, every criticism does not need a response. In fact, I would say it harms their reputation versus enhances it, because at times their explanations do not meet the test of factual truth or it contradicts their actions. Therefore, I would suggest that they take a page out of the no-nonsense playbook of Princess Anne and let your work speak for itself.

There just might be a lesson that they can learn, consistent actions speak louder than another instagram post or a Netflix update.

The Harsh Reality - Be a Lighthouse, Not a Spotlight

In writing this article I was not interested in making Princess Anne look like she has no flaws, she does, but she has never wavered on who she is and has shown up as an unswervingly representative of the Crown. Therefore, I am going to close this article by looking at her interest in lighthouses, because I get it, and in researching this article, I have come to the following thoughts on the matter.

It always interests me to find out about other people’s hobbies, it gives me an insight to what lies beneath, kind of like when I speak about icebergs. For example, I love to crochet, especially baby blankets, most people when they discover this are quite shocked. I guess as a person who worked in the world of facts, evidence and laws, people may not necessarily equate one with having a personal side far removed from their professional life. But I digress, this is about Princess Anne and her interest in lighthouses.

When I think of lighthouses, it represents to me a light in the dark, it demands no attention, it is simply there to do a job. A lighthouse does not look for reinvention, it is not chasing the nearest ship, it is simply reliable and standing strong amongst the storms. Steadfast is the word that comes to mind.

So how does this compare to Princess Anne, well she certainly hasn’t sought out the spotlight, does not demand our attention, and she has shown through her actions that she is reliable and steady through the royals seas of change and challenges.

In my mind, Princess Anne is a reflection of the days of yore and the present. She embodies the past with her sense of duty, tradition and takes a hard pass on disclosing her emotions on a matter. As it relates to the present, she recycles her clothes as others do with their paper products, she remains professionally engaged even at an age in which most have settled into retirement and is unapologetic in who she is and what that represents for a life of service and duty.

Harry, Meghan, take a memo, less cowbell, more restraint.

If you have enjoyed into deep dive into Princess Anne’s duty, service, and her art of restraint, please feel free to like, comment, share and restack. I would also encourage you to consider becoming a free or paid subscriber and will refrain from telling you what Princess Anne would say about all this fuss.

Note: I am chuckling as I write this, because I wrote every word in this article. It would appear that my many years in HR taught me to write like a computer, no I mean AI,

I have to do a bit of a palate cleanse today, because the Sussex saga is becoming farcical for most of us. No worries, I will be back on the beat, but for those of you who want to join me, I am going to look north to Norway. I have always been fascinated by how all European monarchies are pretty much interrelated and they also have 99 problems and some of them are rather close to their throne.

On a personal note, it is a beautiful country and was one of my favorite places that I have traveled to.

A Rich History - A Sort of Youngish Monarchy

Norway has a rich, diverse history of land, fjords and the midnight sun, to mention a few. It has a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy, in other words, the monarch is the head of state and power resides with elected officials.

Norway is rather “youngish” for a monarchy; it was in a union with Sweden from 1814-1905. Although Norway was a monarchy since 890, it had been in several unions thereafter with Sweden and Denmark. Norwegians then decided to remain a monarchy and invited Prince Carl of Denmark, to become its King (not quite as simple as that but it deserves an article by itself). He requested that the Norwegian people take a vote before he accepted the throne and a large majority voted to support a monarchy.

Prince Carl chose a historically Norwegian name and became King Haakon VII. His wife became Queen Maud, she was a British princess, daughter of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra of the United Kingdom. Their son’s name was changed from Prince Alexander to Olaf. Haakon and Maud were also first cousins by his father and her mother being brother and sister.

Fun fact: Norway is one of the world’s richest countries due to the development of North Sea oil and gas. Instead of spending the gains, they created the Government Pension Fund Global (sovereign wealth fund) by its parliament and government so that it would not just be spent as they earned. So basically, it represents a Norwegian value: national resources belong to the people and not just those in power. The proceeds of their investments are given to healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc.

One More Fun Fact: Grand Duchess Augusta of Mecklenburg-Strelitz expressed her disapproval of Norway’s monarchy being created by vote, it was contrary to her royal principles. She was the aunt of the future Queen Mary of the UK, consort of King George V. Her sister was Mary’s mother, Princess Mary-Adelaide, the Duchess of Teck.

The Current Monarchy

As I write today, King Harald V, is unfortunately once again in the hospital. He’s 89 years of age and over the last years we have seen him suffer from various ailments. The latest hospitalization is for anemia, the condition had worsened and a bacterial infection went into his bloodstream, luckily he is stable and responding to antibiotics. His son, Crown Prince Haakon is acting as his regent.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the Norwegian people have watched their king’s health with some fear and anxiety. In 2024, while on holiday he became ill and required a temporary pacemaker and later that year, it was announced that he would have his workload permanently reduced due to his age and health. Earlier in 2026, he was once again hospitalized while on holiday for an infection and dehydration.

Fortunately, Article 41 of the constitution has allowed Haakon to act as Regent during these times and carry out his father’s duties and responsibilities.

Therefore, Harald’s health and age have not become a constitutional crisis, but it does give an uncomfortable peek into what comes next for the monarchy and for that, the forecast is a bit cloudier than it once was.

Note: I truly hope that Harald is on the road to recovery.

Norway ❤️ Harald — But Harald is Not the Long-Term Solution

Harald has been King since 1991, he is hugely popular, known for his informality and warmth; a hugely stabilizing figure for Norway. Many may have questioned why he has not retired like Queen Margrethe of Denmark, he has responded that his oath was for life. This reminds me much of the late Queen Elizabeth II, as it relates to the job is for life.

The issue is not that an 89 year old king is ailing, it is what lies beyond him and that is significantly more complicated.

Fun Fact: Harald and Margrethe are second cousins. Harald’s grandfather was Haakon VII, whose father was King Frederick VIII of Denmark. Margrethe’s father was King Frederik IX of Denmark whose grandfather was King Frederick VIII of Denmark. I hope this is not too confusing, it was interesting to write.

Another Fun Fact: Harald and the late Queen Elizabeth II were also second cousins, they shared great-grandparents, King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra of the UK.

Crown Prince Haakon—A Man With Many Challenges Ahead

We have seen Crown Prince Haakon take on more and more of his father’s duties and responsibilities during his increasing periods of illness and age. Currently he is the Regent and will be performing all upcoming engagements in his father’s stead. This has made him experienced and knowledgeable. You would think that would put the Norwegian people at ease, but it is not that simple.

Haakon’s family has been hit by scandal, crises and the health issues of his wife, Crown Princess Mette-Marit.

The Future Queen — Illness and Scandal

Illness

Before I go even near the scandals that have surrounded the Crown Princess, I will speak a bit about her health. Crown Princess Mette-Marit has struggled for years with pulmonary fibrosis. In June of 2026 she received a successful lung transplant and is facing an extended period of rehab and recovery.

Some may say she is getting what she deserves, others will say she deserves compassion, I will let you decide on this. From an institutional perspective this matters because if her husband has to ascend the throne, it is more than likely she will not be able to perform a typical queen’s duties and responsibilities.

This will present challenges for the future King Haakon VIII, but I think that this is the least of their worries.

Scandal - Jeffrey Epstein

Mette-Marit is the future Queen of Norway, she isn’t the wife of someone who is sixth in line to the throne. In 2026, there were email disclosures that provided more information regarding her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. These issues are separate and apart from her health issues.

Before we go forward, let’s go back to the beginning, Mette-Marit met Epstein in 2011 through mutual friends within their elite circle. As you may know, this was after Epstein’s arrest and jail time in 2008 for charges regarding prostitution of a minor. Their relationship has been described as a friendship (not romantic or business related) and they met a few times between 2011 and 2013.

In 2019, after Epstein was arrested again, there was renewed interest and Mette-Marit shared that she did have contact with him, she apologized and expressed regret that she should have done more research into his background. At this time, the full extent of their communication with one another was unknown to the world and the Norwegian people.

In 2026, the Department of Justice released a significant amount of what is called the Epstein files and it was reported that Mette-Marit had extensive correspondence with Epstein from 2011 through 2014. In 2013, she stayed at his Palm Beach home for several days (it has been reported that Epstein was not present at the time).

There was another email that showed she may have misrepresented her awareness of his past insomuch she shared that she had looked him up online and that the information “didn’t look too good.” Her critics argued that she had knowledge of his history and still chose to keep contact.

There were other emails that went on to show a level of familiarity that went beyond just a casual acquaintance. There were discussions regarding personal matters, friendly banter and conversations regarding Epstein’s personal and social life. These interactions did not prove that she participated in any crime and there have been no public allegations that she had committed a crime.

The bottom line is that she maintained a relationship with a convicted sex offender after his 2008 conviction and played down their relationship.

Of course, she went on television and stated that she had been “manipulated and deceived” by Epstein, she regretted their relationship and should have looked into his background more. Additionally, she expressed her sympathy for his victims and wished she had never met him.

I will also let you be the judge of whether or not you believe her most recent statement.

Scandal - Marius Borg Høiby

I am going to go back in time for a moment to provide some detail of Haakon and Mette-Marit’s dating, because I think it is important to understand the whole story.

This is not a little ditty about Jack and Diane, it was a modern-day royal romance rife with challenges and controversy. It challenged traditional and historical norms of the Norwegian people and what they viewed of what a future queen should look like.

To say that she was different would truly be an understatement. She was a single mother, with a young son, Marius and Marius’ father had a history of drug-related convictions. She was part of the Oslo party scene and admitted that she had taken drugs and was a rebellious youth. To add to it, Haakon and her lived together before marriage and he was adamant that he would not marry anyone else if he could not marry Mette-Marie.

What is interesting is that King Harald and Queen Sonja could sympathize with the couple because they had their own challenges to face on their road to marriage, specifically her being a commoner, no drugs, no children, etc. They both supported the relationship of their son. In fact, he told his father King Olav that if he was not allowed to marry Sonja, he would not marry, thus threatening the line of succession. Harald only had sisters and Olav was an only child. Both of his sisters went on to marry non-royal men.

Before Haakon and Mette-Marit’s 2001 wedding, they both went on TV and she apologized for her past, and stressed that she changed. This helped the Norwegian public to shift their public opinion regarding this relationship, but it did cause the monarchy’s popularity to lower during this time.

You ask me why this is important, simply because the Norwegian monarchy has spent years building a relationship with its people based on honesty, humility and redemption.

Now back to Marius, he is not royal, in fact his mother has expressly stated that he will not perform any royal functions. But and this is a big one, he is the son of the future queen and the stepson of the future monarch.

He was accused of multiple charges of rape, domestic violence, assaults and threats, violations of restraining orders, drug-related and traffic offenses.

The case went to trial and in June 2026 and he was convicted of two counts of rape (he was acquitted of two additional charges of rape), along with violence against a former girlfriend and other criminal violations. He was sentenced to four years in prison.

He has maintained his innocence for the more serious charges and has appealed his verdict, therefore the conviction is not final while the appeal process is ongoing. He is under house arrest/electronic monitoring at his parent’s home rather than being placed in prison.

If convicted he will serve his time in a Norwegian prison.

Why Does This Matter?

If you look at the history of Norway, their monarchy has built a foundation based on modesty, trust, accessibility and that they are servants to the public, rather than being a part of the privileged elite.

This is not about whether the royals knew bad people, it is about judgment, transparency and accountability, starting to sound similar to another monarchy I have written about? They have always been a bit informal, more accountable and less ostentatious. So with the advent of these issues surrounding Mette-Marit and Marius, the monarchy’s image has been blown wide open and not in a good way.

Note: Mette-Marita’s situation is not comparable to Andrew, she has not been accused of any crime, it has more to do with her judgment, honesty and transparency regarding the matter. I mean, how many times will the public buy her apologies?

The Shaman and the Princess

So let’s talk about Princess Märtha Louise, Haakon’s older sister and her second husband, Shaman Durek Verrett. I beg you to watch the documentary on Netflix called, Rebel Royals: An Unlikely Love Story (does Netflix have a budget line for rogue royals?), you will understand it much better than I can explain it. But long story short, he is controversial to many for his views on many topics including spiritual and health issues. Additionally he thought he was gay, but after meeting the princess he realized he was a “soul” sexual, his words not mine.

Before she even met the Shaman, Märtha Louise had her share of challenges, she was an advocate of alternative healing spirituality and healing and co-founded a school that was known as the “angel school” because it involved communicating with angels. She also had challenges as it relates to the commercialization of her royal title, to the point she agreed to no longer use her “princess” title as it relates to her business endeavors.

I would be remiss not to mention that Durek faced racist abuse, particularly on-line, and the Norwegian monarchy publicly condemned this.

She has also had her struggles, her ex-husband, Ari Behn was an author, visual artist and playwright. He had his own controversies regarding his outspokenness, his career and public life. Märtha Louise and Ari divorced in 2017 and he took his own life on December 25, 2019. My heart goes out to his children and his family, this is truly a painful time for them and they have spoken publicly about their grief.

So yes, Haakon’s older sister has had her share of challenges, she has participated many celebrity interviews, commercial ventures, yet Norway and the monarchy responded, something that Britain has failed to do.

Fun Fact: When I was in Bergen, Norway, I was in a shop in which I could have purchased a piece of Princess Märtha Louise‘s fashion line called, Hest. And no, I did not purchase anything from Hest, although I did purchase other Norwegian products.

Norway Drew a Line - Britain Has Kept Silent

So when we look at the tsunami of drama that the Sussex circus is bringing to town, you are asking, Michele, what has Norway got to do with Britain? Well I am glad you asked, because their monarchy has drawn a line on usage of titles and commercial endeavors. Some may say a little too late, others will say, they took action, I will let you be the judge on the matter.

In 2022, Märtha Louise was directed to relinquish her official duties and patronages, she kept her princess title and agreed not to use it on any of her commercial activities. When she married the Shaman, he did not receive a title and no official royal role. Yes, have there been some speed bumps along the way, but they have navigated this as both a family and an institution.

King Harald and Queen Sonja are still her mom and dad, that did not change, the relationship to the institution changed and that is the point.

King Charles, take a memo in regards to Prince Harry and his wife, although I would say the slice needs to be a bit deeper for a variety of reasons. Although these couples are not identical, their monarchies both faced similar questions and challenges. So I have a question for you:

What do you do when your royal title becomes commercially lucrative outside of being an official working royal?

I would say, Norway drew a line in the sand, Britain is still making sand castles of course with a healthy dose flower sprinkles.

Fun Fact: Britain has tons of rules for non-royals so they are not be able to cash in on the royals, but not on themselves. I guess this is another case of do what I say, not as I do.

Norway’s “Harry and Meghan” May Be the Least of Its Problems

So it would seem that Märtha Louise and Shaman Durek are being managed so to speak, although with anything there are always speed bumps along the way…there were some concerns around their wedding about commercialization, but at least the line has been drawn.

They are not the future of Norway’s monarchy, Haakon, Mette-Marit are, and eventually their daughter, Princess Ingrid Alexandra. And that cannot be managed as easy as drawing a line in the sand, they will have to navigate a life-changing illness and controversy.

When Haakon ascends to the throne, he will have to swiftly and deftly navigate many issues:

• The institution has lost a popular and long-serving king.

• A queen who has a debilitating illness and is recovering from major surgery.

• Mette-Marie’s relationship with Epstein and the fall-out from this.

• The ongoing serious issues surrounding his step-son, Marius.

• The drama cloud that follows his sister and her husband.

Please don’t get me wrong, the forecast may be a bit unknown at this time, but that doesn’t mean the monarchy is on the road to abolition. It just means that with Harald’s ongoing health concerns and age this may bring these ongoing issues to the forefront sooner than later.

Note: In 1990, Norway changed its succession law and went from male-preference succession to absolute primogeniture, meaning the monarch’s eldest child inherits the throne regardless of the gender. This was applied moving forward and not retroactively. That is why Haakon is the heir to the throne versus his sister (she is older).

Harsh Reality

Britain, please for the love of Wimbledon, strawberries and cream and a Pimm’s cocktail, get the memo. Norway may have 99 problems, but at least they have not pretended they don’t have one. They have shown that creating clear lines of the use of royal titles for commercialization can be resolved by simply saying, “No, you are not working for the institution.”

Unless, and this is where I am speculating, although evidence supports that the weather vane is pointing towards Clarence House and this may not be Charles’ plan at all. I will let you be the judge of this.

But back to Norway, rules will not solve all of their problems, it cannot take away that they have an aging monarch, it cannot cure a future consort’s illness and erase her bad judgment and lack of transparency, it cannot absolve itself from the actions of the step-son of the future monarch and lastly, does not mean it will transfer the affection felt for the current king to the future one.

If you enjoyed this trip to the land of the midnight sun and Norway’s royal family—please like, subscribe, and join the conversation in the comments.

And if you’d like more deep dives into Europe’s royal houses, scandals, history, money, marriages and constitutional heartburn, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Note: I am chuckling as I write this, because I wrote every word in this article. It would appear that my many years in HR taught me to write like a computer, no I mean AI,

Note: I do not speak on behalf of all veterans and my perspective may not necessarily resonate with others who have served. This is important to me that I state this before I begin.

As a young girl on a school trip visiting Arlington National Cemetery, to say that it had an impact on me would be trite. Even at this early of an age, I understood that this was a place that deserved respect and solemnity, although I would not have been able to put those exact words to it at the time. Both my mother and father are veterans, so it is possible that was in part the reason that this visit meant so much to me that I can still see it in my mind’s eye today.

As an adult, Arlington is one of this places in which you can almost feel the hum and the weight of military service, duty and loyalty.

A little background for those who have not worn the uniform. This is not just another historic site to check of on a list, to me and others it is sacred ground. I can still see the rows of white headstones that speak to lives that were cut short to soon, families whose lives were forever changed and the cost that the word service truly means.

I received a message from one of my subscribers, asking me to write a piece on this and I told her that I would do some research and let her know, veteran affairs are deeply personal for me, especially this one. She also shared that she was appalled and physically sickened by the photos of Prince Harry at the August 19th ceremony.

What I did not share with her was this was not just a story regarding the monarchy, but how Prince Harry’s insistence to be deployed had also impacted my family and me on a deeply personal level. With my decision made to write this piece, I completed my research and I pushed forward, ready to write my thoughts on this latest visit. I want to also share with you, I am not only going to write from my HR/BTT voice or lens, but also as a mother and a veteran.

There is also another area when writing this article that I think is important to look at: Harry’s other charitable endeavors to include Sentable, African Parks, and the Invictus Games, because they are a part of the reason I have concerns regarding this latest veteran visit.

Off we go into the wild blue yonder…

August 19, 2026 - The Sussexes are Moving to the UK

Stop the press, on this date it was reported that Prince Harry and Meghan, along with their children, were moving back to the UK for an extended period of time. The children would start school in September. They will not be performing working royal duties, nor would they live on a royal estate. I will admit the last few days, my life has been pretty subsumed by this reporting. Keep an eye on how this date is very consequential to Prince Harry.

August 19, 2026 - Prince Harry Lays a Wreath

Interesting enough on the very same date, Prince Harry attended a public wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

According to the Arlington National Cemetery’s official documentation, he also visited Sections 57 and 60, paid his respects at individual gravesites and met with family members of fallen service members. This visit was hosted by the Office of Army Cemeteries and Army National Military Cemeteries, whose senior officials greeted him. (This information was taken directly from my research.)

This was not an official royal engagement, nor did he represent the King, the monarchy or the government. But this was not a private visit in which Harry just walked in with a wreath under his arm, paid his respects and departed.

Prince Harry is a Veteran

He served, he was deployed and although myself and others have had plenty to write about his conduct and behavior since leaving royal life, I don’t want to rewrite history either.

So let’s talk about what I believe is the elephant in the room: During his service and deployments, did he serve just like a typical soldier? I think it is important to sift through the facts versus opinion, speculation and rumor. Therefore, here is a very brief recap of his service and the factual data that I could find.

Harry was commissioned into the Blues and Royals (kind of like a US Army ceremonial regiment and Army calvary/recon unit). He initially trained to lead the Scimitar recon vehicles, was scheduled to deploy to Iraq in 2007, but this was cancelled due to threats against him and those who served with him.

He retrained as a Forward Air Controller and then was deployed in December 2007 to the Helmand Province in secrecy. The Guardian had reported that he spent 10 weeks coordinating aircraft and air support and clearing targets for attack. They also reported that because of his royal status there was threat, therefore he performed much of the work from a fortified position some distance from the frontline. There has also been reporting that he performed foot patrols at forward operating bases. (This information was taken directly from my research.)

Harry then qualified as an Apache co-pilot gunner. In September 2012-January 2013, he was then deployed to Camp Bastion in Afghanistan.

An arrangement for secrecy (media blackout) was made with the British media for his first deployment, it was later revealed and reported on by foreign media. It has been reported that some editors did voice their concerns as to whether Harry should deploy because of the increase of risk to fellow soldiers.

His second deployment, was officially announced by the Ministry of Defense.

Did Harry receive additional security during these times? Yes, he did, he was after all the Queen’s grandson, a prince, and a high value target.

He served, deployed twice, and was a prince whose mere presence created unimaginable security concerns and risks for others who served, therefore, his service will never be the same as another soldier who has stood beside or around him.

Harry’s military service is fact, but it has been honed by specialized security, privilege and access. He has the right to honor the fallen, but his veteran identity sits within the center of a very public personal brand that has become the Sussex circus, come for the drama, stay for the popcorn.

The Invictus Games

I have written copious articles on my concerns regarding Harry’s patronage and being the face of the Invictus Games. With that said, I am never going to diminish the importance of the Games, it is powerful and provides so much to our wounded, injured and sick service members.

Some of you know that as I began investigating the financial aspects of the Invictus Games, I have felt almost compelled to share this information with you. What was once a gritty sporting event, has become bloated production, more of a platform for celebrity appearances and one of the more visible parts of Harry’s brand.

Additionally during my investigation, I have found some aspects of the Games that appeared to have lost their focus because most of the public stories revolve around Harry and Meghan versus the very veterans who need their stories heard and told.

Many of us have worked incredibly hard to find out where the money goes. How much goes to the athletes, legacy funding, administrative overhead and costs, executives, travel, productions, accommodation, expenses, etc? Let me tell you, this is where Invictus has pulled a page from the British monarchy’s view of transparency.

I also very much question whether the Games have become too dependent on the Sussex “brand.” The veterans should not be the supporting characters in the ongoing Sussex circus.

But most importantly, I am very concerned about their sustainability and hence why I have advocated for a change in who is representing the Games and how it is funded.

And yes, I have written to the Invictus Games Foundation of my concerns, several times and I believe some of my readers have also.

Sentebale and African Parks

Harry’s charity portfolio has significantly ebbed since his departure from being an official working royal. Is this the reason why we see his increased interest in veterans? I think it is something we should explore and not ignore.

As a young man, Harry’s charitable identity used to be in part, Sentable. Named after his late mother’s favorite flower, born out of his ties with Lesotho and created to support children and young people affected by HIV and poverty in southern Africa.

The very public and distressing conflict involving Harry, Prince Seeiso and the organization’s previous leadership has raised huge questions about governance, accountability and the way the charity was being managed.

Recently it was shared that he no longer will provide his portion of the income from the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund to Sentable. Instead any funds will be provided to Elephants Without Borders. This charity has a historical relationship with the Royal Foundation.

Whatever the truth may lie, the results are devastating. Sentable has become associated with internal disputes rather than their mission. This is not just a small PR issue, it is the public breakdown involving the whole leadership team, trustees, founders and senior figures.

So once again, Harry’s ongoing disputes with Sentable are part of his public identity and branding. This has also potentially impacted the public’s trust and his credibility, specifically as it relates to his charitable endeavors.

Let’s look at African Parks.

Harry served as president of the board and later transitioned to a board member (which is more of a governance and oversight role) in Africa which supports conservation work. There have been allegations concerning abuses by rangers connected to African Parks. Harry has not been personally accused of carrying out these abuses, once again he is in a senior position with a charity that is connected to allegations of serious misconduct.

In May 2026, he attended a function, Conservation in Scale at Scottsdale, Arizona. It was publicized, but not nearly at the scale as we have seen as it relates to his veteran appearances.

Isn’t it interesting that also on August 19, 2026, African Parks put out an announcement that Harry will conclude his tenure with the board due to a governance refresh. Hmmm, that is very interesting.

The issues of public trust and his credibility regarding charitable endeavors is cumulative.

Together, those controversies have left Harry with less charitable platforms and that is why the renewed emphasis on veterans stands out to me and many others.

The Invictus Games is not a new cause for Harry, but his circumstances have changed.

I am not saying Harry is sticking with us veterans because he had nowhere else to go, although that is certainly a correlation that one could draw.

I am saying that, from the outside, it can look as though the collapse or complication of other charitable relationships has made veterans the safest remaining resource for his public identity.

That does not mean he does not care, it just deserves our further scrutiny.

Something Has Changed Over the Past Year

Okay, you don’t need a crystal ball to see that there has been a shift over the last year.

Harry’s public veteran advocacy has increased exponentially.

The frequency, locations and growing prominence of these types of veteran-related appearances have undoubtedly grown. Let’s take a look:

• In February 2025 - Harry and Meghan attended the Invictus Games in Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia, Canada

• In April 2025, Harry travelled to Lviv, Ukraine, with an Invictus Games Foundation delegation and visited the Superhumans Centre.

• In September 2025, he returned to Ukraine in September 2025, this time travelling to Kyiv with the Invictus Games Foundation.

• In November 2025, Harry traveled to Toronto for a True Patriot Love event.

• In April 2026, he travelled to Australia, where he laid a wreath at the Australian War Memorial, met veterans and addressed an Invictus Australia event.

• In June 2026, he was at the Warrior Games and appeared alongside another veteran (US Army veteran, JP Lane) at an NBA Finals game.

• In July 2026, he attended the Birmingham Invictus Games, One Year to Go events.

• In July 2026, he participated in the Joe Marler Will See You Now podcast along with JJ Chalmers to support the Invictus Games. Less about the Games and more about being a cheeky chappy.

And now on August 19th, here we are in D.C., where in addition to publicly laying a wreath at Arlington, he visited Walter Reed National Medical Center, participated in a veterans roundtable and visited the Washington Medical Center.

As I mentioned in the above also on August 19th, he is completing his tenure with African Parks and it was announced that him and his family will be moving back to the UK for an extended period of time.

I don’t know about you, but if you can’t see a pattern, I am going to loan you my glasses.

Therefore, I have to ask, when your public image is under pressure and you are moving back to the UK, I think it is fair to ask, is this real or being used as a reputational refuge, rehab or potentially a soft entry back into the British people’s affections?

I am just saying that the increase of this renewed visibility and other activities makes me uncomfortable enough to ask what else may be happening?

I will also apply the same reasoning to Invictus, is its platform growing due to need or to reinforce Harry’s relevance?

Two things can be true at once.

If Sentebale and African Parks have become difficult associations because of governance and accountability concerns, is he treating veterans as a shield against scrutiny? Once again, this does not absolve his participation in Invictus from further scrutiny.

No Longer a Working Royal, Yet I’m Keeping the Titles

Prince Harry is no longer an official working royal in the true sense of the word, regardless of his comments on this matter.

Although he remains, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. These titles get more mileage than a royal carriage during Ascot.

That attention has the potential to be of enormous value and that is why celebrity advocacy is a currency of sorts. And when and where it’s being spent, you should be asking who benefits?

So let’s take a gander at what the Associated Press has recently shared: Harry has shared that he is considering a possible commercial initiative aimed at better applying veterans’ skills in civilian employment. Sounds really good, but pump the brakes, the word commercial changes everything. So are we now going to potentially monetize a cause tied to his personal identity and a veteran charity?

And given my concerns about Invictus, Sentebale and African Parks, I do not think we should simply accept every new veteran initiative at face value. The more Harry’s public identity, charitable work and commercial activities overlap, the more important it becomes to understand the lines between service, fundraising, publicity and private gain.

Harsh Reality - Let’s Get Back to Arlington

I am taking off my HR/BTT hats for a moment and talk about my feelings about this. So here are some of my “truths” that I have learned to compartmentalize over the years. There is still an echo of pain and fear when I talk about this subject, so I will apologize in advance if I am not speaking in the tone that I usually do.

When Harry served, he insisted on being deployed, with full knowledge that he was a high value target and potentially putting others more at risk than they already were in a war zone. Therefore, if I am going to question Harry’s continual insistence on deploying, then I have to look at the military command staff and officials who enabled and authorized it. Was this due to deference or another we have to find something to do with this young man, sound familiar? We will never know, but they too, had a role in this.

My feelings on this are simple. To this day, I believe this was incredibly selfish, short-sighted and potentially harmful to the others who served amongst him. Why do I feel this way? It’s simple, it affected me personally. I have a son who served in the USMC and was deployed to Afghanistan (same area) during the same time as Harry. I am not going to outright call it unforgivable, but as a veteran who was deployed and a mother of a Marine serving during that war, it is a part of Harry’s story I find too hard to overlook and get on the rah rah train. It has also impacted my view on how the age of deference and enabling of the British monarchy needs to be stripped, hermetically sealed and sent packing to the royal archives.

As a parent, it is the scariest experience I have ever gone through and one I am truly glad that I will never have to go through again. There were moments that I literally lost my breath out of nowhere, not quite a panic attack, but a reminder that my beautiful boy was not safe at home. And yes, my son is now a former Marine, and is home, safe and sound, happily married with a child of his own. He is one of the lucky ones, he survived four deployments, unfortunately a family friend’s son cannot say the same.

Note: I know that other members of the Royal Family have served in the past, and I respect that service. However, those were different times. In today’s world of social media and advanced intelligence capabilities, a high value target in a war zone creates a very different set of risks.

So when I look at this veteran, Harry, who laid the wreath during this ceremony, my lens is a bit different than some or even most. I question whether his military experience makes him the right person to participate in this type of ceremony. This is not done lightly or without reason, both personal and for all the concerns I have identified above.

For me, Arlington is a place that is sacrosanct and the men and women who lie underneath those white headstones deserve the utmost respect, dignity and honor. I will close with a lesson that the military taught me early on. Service before self may mean having to go into harm’s way and sometimes it means knowing when your mere presence will place others unnecessarily so.

Would love a coffee!

I would truly like to hear your thoughts on this topic. Was Arlington an act of remembrance, part of a larger public identity, or can it be both? How do we balance respect for someone’s service with the responsibility to ask difficult questions?

If you found this article struck a chord with you, please consider liking, commenting and subscribing to Behind the Throne. I would also ask that you consider becoming a free subscriber or choose to become a paid subscriber, your support allows me to continue researching, writing and commenting on topics related to European monarchies.

Most importantly, thank you for being part of a community where we can have these really hard discussions and do so in a respectful and collegial manner.

If you have concerns regarding this most recent wreath-laying ceremony, please feel free to click on the link below and share your thoughts:

https://armycemeteries.army.mil/About-Us/Give-Us-Your-Feedback

If you have concerns regarding the Invictus Games, please feel free to click on the link and contact the Invictus Games Foundation and share your thoughts:

https://www.invictusgamesfoundation.org/contact-us

Note: This article has been researched, written, and edited independently. Any AI tools were used for research, but all arguments, voice, and final essay belong strictly to the writer.

There are just some topics or people who seemingly drive everyone to put on their boxing gloves and ding, ding, get ready for a knockdown, dragged out fight, sorry folks, this is not one of those moments.

, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Raw & Reckless Media and Michele Marra, Creator and Author of Behind the Throne (BTT), are trying something that we believe has been lost through the annals of time by actually having a dialogue and writing a piece on our two very different perspectives as it relates to Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their reported return to Britain.

This article is not trying to debate an issue to death in which somebody wins and somebody loses, neither of us are particularly interested in trying to conduct any type of conversion therapy. What we are interested in doing is taking a very polarizing topic and finding a space in which two people can look at the same set of occurrences, look at them differently, explain their positions and maybe, just maybe walk away understanding the other’s perspective a bit better.

So everyone, come one, come all, agreement is strictly optional, good faith and respect of differing perspectives is not.

Extra, Extra — Harry and Meghan are Coming Back to the UK

So when we decided to write this article, Quinn asked me, “What was your first reaction to Harry and Meghan coming back to the UK? I have to say my first reaction was sugar pops (that is not actually the word I used), I was not at home and the internet access at the place I was at was shoddy. Shortly thereafter I was finally able to access the report, I have to say I was not really shocked, the writing has been on the wall for a while. I will go on record and share that I am not a big fan of their behaviors and “truths.” So, as I travelled home, thoughts swirled in my mind regarding an article that I wanted to write.

Of course the automatic pinging of my phone let me know that the feeding frenzy had begun with speculation and thoughts on the matter. I will admit, I was one of them, mostly I saw this as the monarchy’s way of diverting attention from other matters such as Andrew’s ongoing investigation as it relates to allegations of misconduct while in public office, the Sovereign Grant almost doubling, the Duchy’s finances, etc. The reality is that the Sussexes provide a dump truck load of content, whether intentional or not. And the reality is drama sells and content needs to be fed…especially when facts are scarce and speculation fills the void.

Governance and transparency are my main areas of focus when looking at the monarchy, so I wanted to look at my thoughts as to why this return was happening and how it may or may not impact the institution, the royal family, security, and not least, how the British people would react to this news. I also wanted to look at are there any conditions set forth on both sides that facilitated their return?

I strive to be fair, so let’s look at the human side of things. Could this simply be a simple family reunion and wanting to spend more time in the UK? Sure, the King is getting older, he is living with cancer and maybe it’s just as it seems. Yet when I start looking at the evidence and facts, that is when BTT becomes a bit suspicious. Here is a receipt:

In May of 2025, Prince Harry shared that he did not see a world in which he would feel comfortable bringing his family back to the UK if his security was not reinstated. So what has changed? Did the UK get rid of all of the security concerns he had or had something else changed?

Please note I, nor anyone I know, wish Prince Harry and his family any harm, and my hope is that he follows the security parameters set forth by RAVEC.

So until I have a bit more evidence regarding why they are here, I will be watching to see if the lines begin to blur and if there are quasi-royal engagements taking place, before I can definitively identify as to why they have returned.

What Does “Return” Actually Mean?

In return, I wanted to understand what Quinn’s thoughts were on what a “return” actually means. He reflected that before we determine why Prince Harry and Meghan are returning, we should establish what “returning” actually means.

According to the reports, they would maintain their homes in California and Portugal, establish a private residence outside London and remain non-working members of the Royal Family.

That is not a return to royal duties.

It is not a return to taxpayer-funded royal life.

It is not an admission that leaving in 2020 was a mistake.

And it is not necessarily the “half-in, half-out” arrangement that was rejected six years ago. Under that proposal, Prince Harry and Meghan wanted to continue representing the monarchy while also becoming financially independent. What is now being described appears fundamentally different: private citizens maintaining homes and professional lives across more than one country while remaining outside the working monarchy.

If the reporting is accurate, they would be returning geographically—not institutionally. In this we both agree, Prince Harry could spend more time with his father. Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet could develop a stronger relationship with their British family and heritage. Meghan could continue building her business and pursuing professional opportunities. None of that requires a working royal role.

With that said, it has also been widely reported that Meghan is set to return to acting, with a possible role in the third season of Guy Ritchie’s Netflix series, The Gentlemen, which may be another reason for the move. She is an actress and this may be her simply doing what actors do, go where the work is.

This is why Quinn does not automatically see this as crawling back. It could simply be the possibility of a family constructing the transatlantic life it may have wanted from the beginning, except now it would be doing so independently and on its own terms.

The Hollywood Failure Narrative

This is where my HR brain kicks in because I have not seen the evidence that Harry and Meghan are broke or they’re crawling back with their hands out per se. Please feel free to disagree with me, but bring me a receipt. So this is where Quinn and I have agreed to disagree with each other.

Where we differ is that I am not quite sold on the fact that their California dreams are continuing to pay the bills as they may have done so previously. My premise is based on the significant changes made to their Netflix contract, the ending of their Spotify and Lemonada contracts and it appears that Meghan’s As ever endeavor is not as lucrative as she may have hoped for. But do I think that they are broke? No, I have never bought that. He has been the recipient of significant monies from his mother’s, great-grandmother’s and possibly other relative’s wills and estates. Besides, the royals (and Harry is one of them) are also known for their uncanny ability of having their wallets remain out of sight, while their hosts are left with the dubious honor of paying the bill. Thank you sir, may I have another.

At this point, until more factual details are released, I am applying caution as it relates to this narrative.

This is where I disagree with Michele’s suggestion that changes to Prince Harry and Meghan’s commercial agreements establish that their California life is no longer paying the bills.

They do not.

Their original Netflix arrangement became a multiyear first-look agreement. That is a different kind of deal, but it is still a continuing commercial relationship. Netflix’s own chief content officer later pushed back against reports that the company had lost faith in them, saying Netflix still had film, television and documentary projects in development with Archewell.

A restructuring is not the same thing as a collapse.

The same applies to As ever. Products selling out do not automatically prove that the company is enormously profitable, but neither of us, nor the media has seen its books. We cannot responsibly declare the business a financial disappointment without revenue, expenses, margins or other meaningful financial information.

What we can see is that the brand continues operating and expanding.

Current reporting of Meghan is that she is being considered for a role on the third season of Guy Ritchie’s Netflix series, The Gentlemen, which may also be connected to the family’s time in Britain. Therefore, that hardly supports the argument that Hollywood has rejected her or that her professional life has collapsed.

There appears to be a strange desire in some corners for Prince Harry and Meghan to fail completely—to disappear from public life, stop earning money and eventually approach the King or Prince William with their hands out. Then the people who have predicted their collapse for six years could finally say, “See, we told you.”

But that desired ending is not evidence.

If Prince Harry and Meghan were as irrelevant in Hollywood as critics insist, the entertainment industry and the press would not still be discussing their every contract, project and possible next move. Hollywood pays attention to attention, and these two continue to generate it.

I also believe Prince Harry and Meghan have to navigate a difficult line. If they accept too many commercial opportunities, they are accused of monetizing their titles and royal connections. If they become more selective and spend less time in public, that same restraint is presented as proof that nobody wants to work with them.

Under those rules, they cannot win.

The preferred narrative appears to be that they left the Royal Family, failed in America, ran out of money and eventually came crawling back. The facts currently available do not establish that story, no matter how many times it is repeated.

Words Matter—Harry Left the Institution, Not His Country

Fair enough, but I am putting my BTT hat back on, because although people are allowed to change their minds, I want to know: what has changed? Harry and Meghan have complicated the matter because they have been very vocal with their negative comments and assertions about the British press, the institution, and even when Oprah asked Harry if racism was a part of the reason they left, he answered that this was a large part of it. So once again, I ask: what has changed?

Over the last six plus years we have seen a lot of “truths” coming from Harry and Meghan via interviews, docu-series, etc., and unfortunately they were not necessarily based totally on the facts, which may have led to people feeling that this also meant that Harry may have kicked Britain to the curb so to speak.

From my perspective, I will acknowledge that Harry served his country for 10 years, was deployed and I know how much strain that causes on a human being. I get that more than most, you all probably know that my sons and I are veterans who have served and have been deployed, it is harder than what is depicted on TV or films. My objections have never been why he left his country, institution and family, it is how it was done and the dirty laundry that was publicly aired. His recent comments over the last year about Britain is one of the reasons as to why I am not surprised about his decision to return.

What I foresee (speculating here) is that although Harry may have never stopped loving Britain, the winning back of the British public is a whole new kettle of fish. I base this on my many discussions with my British family members, friends, and people I asked when I visited this past July. The feeling from them is less a rejection of his royal life and more a rejection of the country and the people who once cheered for him. Right or wrong, that is the feelings that are out there, given to me by real people and not typical polling.

This is where Quinn draws on a very cogent point and I think we may have reached a bit of a consensus: Harry may have left the institution, but that doesn’t mean that he stopped loving and seeing Britain as a country.

Prince Harry’s relationship with Britain, the Royal Family as an institution and with the British press are three different things.

He was born into the institution. He served it for most of his life. He also served in the British Army for ten years, including two deployments to Afghanistan. His anger toward sections of the press predates Meghan and is inseparable from what he believes the media’s intrusion did to his mother and continues to do to his family.

He does not have to love the press to love his country.

He does not have to agree with every decision made by the institution to remain connected to Britain.

And he has repeatedly said that he does.

That is why this reported move should not be as shocking as it has been presented.

During his September 2025 trip to Ukraine, Prince Harry gave an interview to The Guardian after spending several days in Britain, reconnecting with charities and meeting his father for the first time in 19 months.

“I have always loved the UK and I always will love the UK,” he said. “It’s been good to reconnect with the causes I am passionate about. I have been able to spend some time with people that I have known for so long. It is hard to do it from far away.”

The reporter then asked whether he would like to spend more time in Britain and eventually bring his children.

“Yes I would,” Prince Harry answered. “This week has definitely brought that closer.”

He also said that, over the coming year, “the focus really has to be on my dad.”

Prince Harry did not announce a future move during that interview, and we should not rewrite his words or pretend that he did. But looking back now, was he quietly telling us that he wanted Britain to become a more substantial part of his family’s life again?

Was the possibility already being discussed privately?

We do not know. But we cannot say that the desire appeared from nowhere.

What Changed About Security?

Michele repeatedly asks a fair question: what changed?

My honest answer is that we do not yet know, but we both agree that we do not want any harm to come to Harry and his family.

Perhaps the security assessment changed. Perhaps a private arrangement was reached. Perhaps Prince Harry decided that being closer to his father outweighed concerns that previously kept his family away. Until somebody with direct knowledge explains it, anything more is speculation.

But I also begin from a different position.

Prince Harry was born into one of the most recognizable families in the world, served ten years in the military and remains the son of the King. Former prime ministers receive continuing protection because of the offices they once held and the information and risks attached to those offices. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask why the King’s son and his family should be treated as though their risk disappeared when they stopped performing royal duties.

Imagine the constitutional, political and human crisis Britain would face if Prince Harry, Meghan or either of their children were harmed while in the United Kingdom.

Security should be determined by credible risk—not popularity, tabloid narratives or whether members of the public believe Prince Harry has sufficiently apologized for speaking about his own life.

And if public resources are involved, Michele is right that legitimate questions should be asked about how those arrangements operate. Transparency matters. But transparency is not the same as publishing operational security details or allowing commentators to decide who deserves protection based on personal approval.

We may not yet know what changed. But a lack of information is not permission to replace facts with whichever explanation best supports an existing narrative.

The Sussex Wars and the Business of Certainty

Let’s be real, Sussex stories sell and common sense frequently is the casualty, Quinn and I both agree on this. I can tell you that from my own personal experience, my most read, commented and restacked article was on Prince Harry. I have even shared that point in one of my articles, but I am committed to looking at other aspects of the monarchy and other European monarchies.

So when I look at other reporting, do I think that some may be too personally invested to be objective? Possibly. I cannot pretend to know what people think or the impetus behind their behavior, once again my crystal ball is still in the shop. What I can say is there is always the danger of confirmation bias, conclusion first, evidence is secondary, I know I have to check myself always. Therefore, if you build an audience around a certain conclusion, switching gears could be costly to one’s brand and wallet.

We have to look at methods of reporting. Is it fact-based or opinion-based? Is there any acknowledgment if a mistake is made? Is it corrected? Can evidence cause them to change their conclusion?

I will also add that the anonymous source era is having its own swan song. After so many years of ‘friends,’ ‘insiders’ and ‘well-placed sources,’ it has become the new “trust me, bro, I got this.” Over time I have become very selective about whose reporting I accept when using these terms. What I base it on is a journalist’s experience, access, accuracy, reliability and, has their reporting consistently held up over time.

Therefore, although I love a good hustle because people need to earn a living, I am more interested in it when it is done in good faith and no one is walking over others on the way to grab the brass ring.

But, I also think it is important to reinforce that I look at issues from an HR lens and not from a journalist’s lens. I am also not beholden to anyone, but myself, ahh the beauty of retirement. And so it is quite possible that we may look at issues very differently.

And this is where I am handing Quinn the baton, because while we may come at the Sussex story from different angles, we agree that neither side has a monopoly on blind spots

There are critics who will never acknowledge that Prince Harry and Meghan had legitimate grievances. There are also supporters who struggle to admit when the couple has made a mistake or handled something poorly.

Neither position creates room for honest analysis.

But we also have to acknowledge that this division did not sustain itself accidentally. There is money in keeping audiences angry. Entire brands have been built around either attacking or defending Prince Harry and Meghan, and once an audience expects a particular conclusion, changing direction can become financially costly.

That creates an incentive to begin with the conclusion and search for evidence afterward.

If every development must prove that Prince Harry and Meghan are failing, then a first-look Netflix agreement becomes a rejection. A product selling out becomes evidence of artificial scarcity. A return to Britain becomes financial desperation. A private meeting with the King becomes manipulation. Even silence becomes proof that something has gone wrong.

The story is decided before the reporting begins.

That is why anonymous sourcing deserves greater scrutiny. “Friends,” “insiders” and “well-placed sources” cannot continually be used to publish dramatic claims without readers asking who benefits from the story, what evidence supports it and whether the source could possibly know what is being asserted.

Michele put it perfectly: too much of it has become “Trust me, bro, I got this.”

Criticism, Accountability and the Right to Speak

Although BTT is not a fan of the British idiom, “never complain, never explain,” (the favored and often misused strategy of the Palace) it appears to me that Harry and Meghan should have embraced that strategy just a bit. It really has not helped their case by sharing their “truths,” to the highest bidder, especially when some have been proven factually inaccurate. They have also profited from speaking out about private family matters and I don’t think anyone actually believed the exaggerated curtsy to the late Queen in their docu-series. The last one really stuck in our teeth, and for many it still does.

Do I believe that the British media stepped over the line in some cases with Harry and specifically Meghan early in their relationship? Yes, I do, well, well, well, once again, Quinn and I agree. But the Sussex’s communication strategy is worse than playing telephone while participating in a fire drill. They have provided enough food to feed a bear for an entire winter’s hibernation.

Which brings me back to Quinn, because despite our different perspectives, we agree on something fundamental: Harry and Meghan are not beyond criticism. No public figure should be.

But criticism should be connected to facts, applied consistently and proportionate to whatever allegedly occurred.

I do not believe “never complain, never explain” should be the standard by which Prince Harry and Meghan are judged. That phrase has often functioned less as a noble royal principle and more as an instruction to remain silent while unnamed Palace sources and friendly newspapers tell your story for you.

The institution may not complain publicly, but its briefings have frequently done plenty of explaining.

Prince Harry and Meghan chose to speak for themselves. People are entitled to dislike how they did that, question particular claims or believe some family matters should have remained private. But speaking publicly about your own experiences does not mean every subsequent attack against you was solicited or deserved.

It also does not excuse sections of the press that crossed the line.

Michele acknowledges that the British media stepped over that line in its treatment of Prince Harry and, particularly, Meghan early in their relationship. That acknowledgment matters because too many conversations begin by pretending the coverage occurred in a vacuum—as though the couple simply woke up one morning and decided to wage war against an innocent press.

They did not create Britain’s tabloid culture. They did not invent phone hacking, unlawful information gathering, intrusion, anonymous Palace briefings or the commercial machinery that turns royal conflict into revenue.

Their media strategy can be criticized without absolving the media of its own conduct.

Both things can be true.

Governance - Where Thou Art You?

The Palace will need to maintain good boundaries regarding working and non-working royal land, security, half-in/half-out, etc. Quinn and I will be watching to see if the wool is being pulled over our eyes. In other words, if we see the Palace machine “rehabbing” one arrangement, but publicly saying another exists, we will be all over that like a bad rash.

Do I really care if Harry and Meghan have lunch with the King, not so much, he is Harry’s father. Will I take notice if they stroll along with the rest of the family at Christmas in Sandringham, I will probably raise an eyebrow, write a few words and shake my head. Are these governance issues, no, but what they are is a public relations nightmare for the House of Windsor, the British public although polite, are not as forgiving.

Let’s go back to governance in which Quinn and I have once again found common ground. The other day, I wrote an article on how Harry and Meghan are a rather timely diversion tool that the Palace may be using to their benefit. I still stand by this statement, their return was the six month mark of Andrew’s ongoing investigation, the sovereign grant has almost doubled, the Duchy finances are as transparent as stew, I can go on and on. So their return could serve multiple purposes, a family reunion, an injection of royal proximity and a diversionary tactic that will have us looking away from critical topics that we should be focusing on.

Which brings us back to issues Quinn and I both believe deserves far more headlines than it is getting.

Michele and I have found more common ground. We both believe the Andrew story is bigger. I would go one step further: perhaps it is precisely because that story is so big—and because its questions could reach far beyond Andrew—that the Sussex story remains such a useful distraction.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is the clearest example.

This is not merely a story about one disgraced member of the Royal Family. It raises questions about the current King, the late Queen Elizabeth II, the wider institution and what those around Andrew knew about his conduct.

The precise value and funding of Andrew’s 2022 settlement with Virginia Giuffre were never publicly disclosed. It was widely reported to be approximately £12 million, and reports have suggested that the late Queen contributed money from her private funds. More recent reporting has produced competing accounts about where the remaining money originated, while a source close to King Charles has denied that he personally contributed.

That uncertainty is exactly the problem.

Where did the money come from? How much did the late Queen provide? Who else inside the family helped Andrew obtain it? What did they know when they agreed to help him? If they believed Andrew’s denials completely, why was such an extraordinary amount paid to end the case?

Those are not conspiracy theories and Michele hasn’t donned her tinfoil fascinator. They are legitimate questions about accountability at the highest level of a public institution. Yet we can go days hearing about Prince Harry and Meghan’s reported return without seeing the same level of energy devoted to answering them.

The same selective curiosity appears whenever royal finances enter the conversation.

Some reporters will attempt a forensic examination of every contract, jar of jam and bottle of wine connected to Prince Harry and Meghan—two private citizens who are no longer working members of the Royal Family and are not funded through the Sovereign Grant. But when it is time to examine the Duchies, the Sovereign Grant, subsidized royal housing or the blurred line between the King’s public role and private wealth, the intensity suddenly disappears.

The Sovereign Grant rose from £86.3 million in 2024–25 to £132.1 million in 2025–26. That deserves sustained reporting, not one article before the press returns to speculating about Prince Harry and Meghan.

Michele and I once again agree on something important: stories about Prince Harry and Meghan sell. The clicks are guaranteed, the arguments begin immediately, and everybody gets fed—from newspapers and television panels to YouTubers and Substack writers like us.

But my question is: at what cost?

Because while everyone is debating where Prince Harry and Meghan may live, where their children may attend school, whether Meghan curtsies to Catherine at Christmas or whether Prince Harry needs money from his father, much bigger stories are being pushed aside.

Reconciliation — Terms and Conditions Apply

The last time I checked, the UK is a country and not a gated community, therefore, I believe that there can be geographical reconciliation rather than a family one. But I also do not believe that reconciliation should mean a return to working royal status, restoration of security (unless appropriately vetted), or seeing William and Harry hug it out. However, I will speculate that one of the Sussex’s significant challenges will be the restoration of trust, not only from their family members, but from the British public.

I am also curious as to what, if any conditions, have been made on either side that will impact the public’s purse and trust? We will more than likely not see some joint or synchronized announcement, although, please prove me wrong. So will we ever know what the definition of “return” means, probably not through any grand announcements, but I am sure we will all have plenty to say on the matter.

For BTT, I am going to watch what happens, give you my thoughts versus what I am being told is happening.

Where We Meet

Michele and I may continue to disagree about Prince Harry and Meghan’s past decisions, their communications strategy and what their reported return says about their lives in California.

That is fine. Agreement was never the price of admission.

But we agree that facts should come before conclusions. We agree that Sussex coverage can distract from larger questions involving Andrew, royal finances, governance and institutional accountability. We agree that criticism does not automatically equal hate and support does not require pretending mistakes were never made.

Most importantly, we agree that the public deserves more than a permanent choice between two warring camps.

Prince Harry and Meghan will define what this move means for their family. The Palace may eventually explain what, if anything, it means institutionally. The media will undoubtedly construct several competing versions designed for different audiences.

Until then, perhaps the most honest answer is the simplest one:

We do not know everything yet.

And instead of filling every gap with speculation, maybe we should watch what Prince Harry and Meghan actually do, examine what the Palace actually changes and continue asking why far more consequential stories are disappearing while everybody is watching.

So, if you made it through the Sussex Wars without throwing your phone across the room, like, subscribe and, most importantly, join us in the comments. Agree with Quinn, agree with Michele, agree with both of us on some things and neither of us on others—but please be respectful of differing points of view. That was the entire point of this exercise.

And let us know: would you like to see more conversations like this between of Raw & Reckless Media and Michele Marra of Behind the Throne? Because if nothing else, we may have just proved something rather revolutionary for the internet: two people can look at the same facts, reach different conclusions, disagree without drawing pistols at first light—and still manage to have an adult conversation.

Who knew?

Note: This article was written entirely by the authors. Any AI assistance was used solely for research, source-checking and background support, not to generate our opinions or conclusions.

The first rule of fight club is…oops wrong drama. Let’s try that again. The first rule of the House of Windsor is survival at all costs, everything else is collateral damage.

Monarchs will change. Princes will fail. Princesses tossed to the side. Marriages will implode. Governments come and go. Public opinion goes up and down. But when all is said and…

Read more

Before we begin this deep dive into the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor case, I am not a lawyer or a “legal expert,” but I do have 40+ years in HR and conducted numerous investigations for a significant portion of my tenure. So yes, my spider senses are still activated and I can still sniff out BS better than most.

On another note, I want to take a moment and…

Read more

Photo Credit: Michele Marra

Recently while I was in London, I was on a mission and it was to visit the Victoria & Albert museum. One of my targets was Queen Victoria’s small, yet very elegant Sapphire and Diamond coronet...it was everything that I imagined and so much more. It is not terribly large, it has not been very visible, yet its history and stor…

Read more

Pardon my usage of the above title, but I could not resist playing with this line from Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet.

I have always had a love of exploring other European monarchies, it has been so deeply interesting to look at how they are related, what their successes and challenges have been, their finances, reform(s), if any, etc.

As you can see, I can g…

Read more

Earlier this year I wrote an article in which I asked, Who Controls the Access and Coverage. The Hidden Power Structure Behind the Royal Rota, so after reading Shauna Kay’s article, The Royal Rota 2.0 - Now with Amplifiers, it made me think about how much is it worth to be a part of this exclusive clique.

So let’s take a short stroll through my previous …

Read more

One of the many things I value about the British monarchy are the moments such as when the late Queen Elizabeth made her COVID-19 speech. It makes me think back to those daunting times when I was overseeing the HR operations for a large organization that was deemed, health care workers, to say it way challenging would be a misnomer of epic proportions. …

Read more

Political power was relinquished because democracy required it. Palace privilege was protected because the monarchy negotiated it.

I know, I know, there are so many books about the British monarchy and I have pretty much read all of them. Besides reading historical tomes, and yes I am a bookworm, the first one I devoured was Diana: Her True Story by Andr…

Read more

Before we begin a dive into Glasgow’s stripped-down Commonwealth Games, I want to share with you what I can—and cannot—tell you about as it relates to a comparison of costs with the Invictus Games.

I must also acknowledge two things that are terribly inconvenient but necessary:

• The final financial numbers are not in as of August 3rd and,

• I am not an accoun…

Read more

I recently wrote a short note on Harry’s appearance on the Joe Marler show, but as I was looking at all of his recent appearances (James Corden, Invictus, TIME100, etc.) one thing became clear — Harry is trying to recapture the man of the past and he is failing…miserably and tragically.

I also wrote an article about how America has changed the channel on…

Read more

Read more

As the week in Devon neared its final stages, we leisurely sat by the pool, when lo and behold in the near distance came a man with a guitar who started strumming a tune…it was time for the birds-of-prey demonstration. Now this is no ordinary afternoon show, although the birds are majestic and regal in their flight, alas the commentary is not. One would…

Read more

As I settled into my room and my family into their apartment in the North of Devon, the sun was shining, the breeze was blowing (thank you to the weather gods…there is no air con in the hotel, so if you can, get a sea facing room) and the laughter, shenanigans and the fun began.

After a charming meal of English breakfast tea, watermelon, granary toast wi…

Read more

Before I begin, please enjoy my breakfast view of the sea, you’ll need it for this article that I have been mulling over for quite some time. It is actually quite simple, the royal fairy dust has faded away, the dew is off the lily, and America has finally seen what remains once the novelty wears off…the actual truth of those non-factual “truths”, no id…

Read more

Day 3 began every so early as we set off on the trek to Devon — which is a must to avoid the very first day of summer holiday traffic. In other words a 4 hour trip could easily become 12 hours.

My brother-in-law took the wheel with his calm authority, my darling nephew took on the crucial role of travel-sweet distributor — think Polos, Werther’s and Cadb…

Read more