Tessa Dunlop is one of the few British commentators who actually admits that the root of the anti-Sussex sentiment in the UK is mostly about Britain’s abandonment issues and hurt feelings because Harry and Meghan left. Very few royalists will admit the same. I would also argue that the anti-Sussex BS is mostly created and driven by the British press, and that the average British person either doesn’t care about the Sussexes or they have a favorable view of them. My argument is based on the real, on-the-ground reactions to Harry and Meghan over the years in the UK, and it’s not based on some emotional-support poll. I bring up all of this because Tom Sykes wrote a long-winded piece in his Royalist Substack about how Harry is getting a great reception during his visit to the UK this week and it’s like Harry never left. Sykes’ piece is full of the kind of admissions royalists hate to make – that Harry is the most charismatic royal in generations – but Sykes also hedges and pushes the palace line about Harry. Something I didn’t realize: Harry has apparently donated more than $1 million to Children in Need (update: People Mag says it was $1.5 million). Some highlights from The Royalist Substack:

Harry should be a working royal again: Suppose Harry wanted to support grassroots community organisations in the U.K.. In that case, it goes without saying that he could be doing so much more efficiently as a member of the royal family in good standing.

Harry’s donation: While the total sum Harry was due to donate to youth organisations in the U.K. today is understood to be well north of a million dollars, it’s peanuts compared to what a working royal might be able to deliver thanks not just to their fundraising superpowers but also their ability to influence government policy and spending, compared to which a million bucks is, I’m afraid, a drop in the ocean.

Harry’s Americanised model of philanthropy. Supporters will argue that the money will make a tangible difference. Britain’s youth services have been cut to shreds over the last decade, with the collapse of after-school clubs and mentoring programmes often cited as factors in the rise of knife crime. A seven-figure cheque, especially one aimed at young people, will go further than most gestures.

Half-in, Half-out: Detractors will view Harry as going against the last wishes of his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, who made it clear that there could be no “half in, half out” arrangement when Harry and Meghan sought to step back from frontline duties in 2020. At Sandringham, in the tense summit that decided the Sussexes’ future, the Queen was unequivocal: a royal could not simultaneously pursue commercial deals and continue official duties. It was precisely that hybrid role she rejected. Five years later, Harry is doing exactly what she warned against—earning millions through private ventures in California, then flying back to Britain to sprinkle charitable patronage over the causes he once fronted.

Royals aren’t supposed to announce donations! The contrast between American and British models of philanthropy is stark. In the United States, high-profile figures often solidify their reputations through conspicuous donations. In Britain, the monarchy’s power has always been quieter—leveraging continuity and convening power to mobilise others. Royals rarely donate private funds, in part because doing so would raise questions about their wealth and the selectivity of their generosity. The Sussex model, built on commercial earnings and direct handouts, is therefore doubly jarring: to Brits, it looks a bit tacky—and very un-royal—to announce and seek applause for giving money.

The monarchy’s aura: He wanted out of the institution but not out of its aura. He wanted financial independence, but he still wanted to play a public role. Queen Elizabeth saw the danger and closed the door on compromise. Today, as he donates £1 million to British youth organisations, he is walking through precisely that half-open door, occupying a space she explicitly forbade. There is no denying that the money will help. It will pay for safe spaces, mentors, recording studios, and projects that matter to young people. However, it will not restore trust, nor will it mend the fractures within his family. Generosity cannot erase the fact that he lives in California, that he has monetised his grievances, and that he is now trying to resume, part-time, the role he gave up.

[From The Royalist Substack]

“He wanted out of the institution but not out of its aura.” On the contrary, Harry has his own aura, and the left-behind Windsors have spent the last five and a half years chasing the Sussexes’ aura and copying everything they do. The Windsors are still desperately trying to attach themselves to the Sussexes and colonize them at every turn. Prince William is so pathetically desperate to ride Harry’s coattails, he had to schedule three straight days of emergency busywork this week.

Beyond that, Sykes – and every single royal reporter and commentator – stupidly equates “charity work” with “royal work.” It is a cultural difference, I’m sure – in America, anyone can donate to charity, and Americans publicize their donations because they want to highlight a great cause and encourage more donations. Arguing that “the royals are the only ones who can do charity work” is especially stupid because William and Kate refuse to DO charity work. They are showing up empty-handed (literally) to charities on the rare occasions they actually visit. They refuse to host fundraisers, and on the few occasions when they donate money (from their foundation), it’s a small amount attached to ham-fisted foundation bureaucracy. AND Will and Kate are desperate to publicize it too!

Photos of the brothers out and about separately on Tuesday, 9/9/25, courtesy of Avalon Red.