It’s pretty much guaranteed that Prince Harry will travel to the UK next month for the Invictus Games’ One Year to Go events in Birmingham. My prediction is that Harry will probably pack his schedule with other events, appearances and meetings too, including some events in London. According to the Daily Mail’s Richard Eden, the Home Office has agreed to give Harry security for his Invictus events, but only Harry and not his wife and children, and not anything beyond the Invictus events. Well, this has infuriated the Mail’s Amanda Platell, who wrote a huffy, unhinged column about how British taxpayers shouldn’t pick up the security tab. Did Platell just come out of a coma or something? Harry litigated this BS through the British courts, and he was told in no uncertain terms that he could not reimburse the Met Police for his security costs. An excerpt from Platell’s “I’m a monarchist but this plan to pay for Harry’s police protection so he can swan around Britain would be the last straw.” Jesus.

Next year the Invictus Games, the sporting competition for wounded veterans that Prince Harry launched more than a decade ago, is to be staged in Birmingham. And he is planning to fly in from California to be there. It’s reported that he is also coming here next month for a series of promotional events.

All with the support of King Charles, who hopes the Games will be a great success. Jolly good. Harry wants to bring Meghan and their children Archie and Lilibet with him. There’s always been a sticking point though, something he made clear in an interview last year when he said: ‘I can’t see a world in which I would bring my wife and children back to the UK at this point.’

That sticking point is security for him and his family – and he made the comments after losing a legal battle to ensure he would be given it whenever he visited this country, courtesy of the taxpayer. Yet this week my colleague and royal expert Richard Eden revealed that Harry would be offered police protection on his visits where Invictus-related events are concerned. Which could mean he’ll bring his family with him next year. The Games are a deserving cause and by far the most respectable of the charities he has left. But why on Earth should any of us pay a penny so that he can swan about with security at taxpayers’ expense?

It is true that many members of the Royal Family get protection paid for by the state but only if they are working royals carrying out public duties. But Harry is no longer a working royal; he’s given up his royal privileges so that he and his self-aggrandising wife can monetise their connections with the monarchy by launching spiteful and vicious attacks on the institution and his own family.

It is beyond outrageous for him to expect us to stump up for him. What is more, it will only damage the monarchy if we do. The Royals are in a highly precarious position. The recent report by the National Audit Office into their privileged living arrangements, showing they pay peppercorn rents to live in palaces – if they pay anything at all – will have infuriated countless millions struggling with high rents and increasing mortgages. The idea that we should be asked to pay for the errant Harry to return alongside his selfish wife Meghan will only fuel their anger as well as the republican cause.

[From The Daily Mail]

Again, this was already litigated by the courts, the Home Office and Harry. Not only is Harry blocked from reimbursing his police security costs, the British taxpayers were on the hook for the legal costs of taking this issue through the courts (and arguing that Harry cannot reimburse the state). Besides which, in the laundry list of royals shamefully looting taxpayer funds, I think “taxpayers picking up the tab for Princess Diana’s veteran son to stay safe when he visits the UK” is pretty far down the list of concerns. I mean, it’s pretty much guaranteed that taxpayers are still picking up a seven-figure tab for Prince Andrew’s round-the-clock security, right?

These conversations always miss another very obvious point too, which it’s not just about Harry. Yes, he needs police protection in the UK, but his presence becomes a greater public safety issue. It’s not just “what if something happens to Harry,” which incidentally would be catastrophic for the monarchy, it’s about “what if something happens to people standing next to Harry, or the people who came out to see Harry.”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.