Harry's BBC Interview Part I: Security & Rogue Royals

Yesterday, Harry lost his appeal in his lawsuit against the U.K. government demanding state-funded security. Later in the day, BBC aired a half-hour, sit down interview with the aggrieved prince. This must have been an interview Harry had planned to do ahead of time, and, apparently, he anticipated it would be a victory interview, since he told the interviewer almost immediately that he had fully expected to win! Talk about a quick pivot.

There are a lot of threads we could pull out of this interview. The two I found most interesting on the first listen were, first, his version of Megxit, and, second, the manner in which he is threatening the monarchy. Let’s talk about his version of Megxit first.

Harry claimed in the interview that security was used to try to keep the Sussexes in the royal family. But—assuming for the sake of discussion that Harry’s facts and perspectives are true (which is a dangerous assumption—it actually sounds like the royal family used his security to protect the royal brand. I will explain.

To fully follow the interview, you have to go back to Harry and Meghan’s plan in 2020. It was, what I termed at the time, to be rogue royals. They announced that they were going to “step back as senior royals,” but that was just code for “do what we want.” They intended to live where they wanted, continue charitable work in London and around the U.K., and, importantly, establish their own autonomous court.

That last bit is very important. When William and Kate moved to Kensington Palace, much was made of the fact they were establishing a new court. Before William’s marriage, the brothers had operated out of Clarence House—Charles’s staff took care of all W&H’s charitable activity. After their marriage, and once William and Kate ended their Anglesey hiatus, the then-Cambridges established a separate household at Kensington Palace in 2013, where Harry joined them. This shift was significant. They no longer used Charles’s Clarence House staff, and they operated independently—I remember some royal reporters were excited to start heading to Kensington Palace for briefings! A new royal court had been formed!

When Harry married Meghan, all four royals were based at Kensington Palace sharing staff and resources, but fissures started to show early on. The rumors started circulating that Harry and Meghan wanted their own court—they wanted to break away and have their own autonomous household. Some people kicked around the idea that the Sussexes could establish an autonomous court and perhaps call it Frogmore House. Indeed, the Times reliably reported that Harry and Meghan wanted just that, and, through it, to develop a global Sussex brand highlighting their philanthropy and activism.

A royal source said: “They wanted their household to be entirely independent of Buckingham Palace, but were told ‘no’. There is an institutional structure that doesn’t allow that kind of independence. The feeling is that it’s good to have the Sussexes under the jurisdiction of Buckingham Palace, so they can’t just go off and do their own thing.”

Apparently, they wanted to base their staff at Windsor. But the Queen said, no. She did not permit Harry and Meghan to establish a “Frogmore House,” aka their own court, like C&C’s Clarence House or W&K’s Kensington Palace.

Instead, although Harry and Meghan had their own “household,” The Household of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, their staff joined the Buckingham Palace communications team, and reported to the Queen’s communications secretary. Harry and Meghan's operation was, therefore, a subset of Buckingham Palace, like Prince Andrew, at the time, or the then-Earl and Countess of Wessex (the Edinburghs). This limited, although by no means eliminated, their ability to set their own program and create a brand. For contrast, Clarence House (Charles & Camilla) and Kensington Palace (William & Kate) did not report to the Queen’s staff. They were/are their own autonomous entities—little royal courts—and had more ability to create their own direction and initiatives.

Of course, all royal courts are ultimately answerable to the monarch, but there obviously was a grave concern—even in 2019—that Harry and Meghan fundamentally misunderstood or were flouting the brief. That is to say, they did not understand their place in the institution and the reality that all royals support the Crown. Meghan, as I blogged years ago, embraced royalty as a personal status she could do with as she chose, misunderstanding the intimate connection to the monarch and the need to keep the “mission” at the forefront.

Turning back to yesterday’s interview, as Harry talked about security, he mentioned his and Meghan’s desire not to change their roles.

But without government-funded security, he noted, how could he and Meghan continue to operate throughout the U.K. on behalf of his various patronages? Interesting, I thought, perhaps the royals yanked his security, not to keep him in, but—seeing there was no reining in Meghan and Harry—to keep them out.

Harry and Meghan wanted to be rogue royals. They wanted to do royalty their way. They were, quite literally, pulling rank. When they said they were “stepping down,” they really just meant they were bucking the Buckingham Palace court and its oversight and choosing to establish their own royal court independent of the Palace, and, from Harry’s comments, they intended to move freely about the U.K. undertaking public engagements as HRHs, and essentially continuing to be royal but be free. That is what the two had been advocating for in 2019/2020 and repeatedly been told, no. So it was very interesting to hear Harry allude to that in this interview. They didn’t want to stop that royal life of public engagements, they just wanted to be free of the royal institution and free of oversight. Again, Meghan thought their royal status was their own personal asset.

In the interview, Harry said they were forced out, but, apparently, the forcing mechanism was the security. Harry was told he was either in the royal fold (and following the rules) or out, and government-funded security was tied to that.

I think it is necessary to pause a moment here. Harry correctly pointed out in the interview that all sorts of politicians get lifelong security after holding various offices, and, therefore, he should get it, too. For me personally, that isn’t a great argument. Someone like the President of the United States, and, perhaps, the U.K. Prime Minister should get lifelong security, but I think a lot of security details for various ex-politicans are just ego-trips at taxpayer expense. Furthermore, both the United States and the U.K. should be reasonably safe countries, and if they are not, that is a failure of government. Our security agencies are supposed to monitor threats and bar entry to the types of people who seek to commit acts of terrorism against our people or assassinate prominent members of government or public life, and when Harry discusses the serious threats he faces, he’s referring to terrorist-type threats. But, there should be a base level of safety, so long as one is in a western nation. If there isn’t, again, it’s a failure of government. Private security should be able to handle a private person’s schedule, but Harry and Meghan didn’t want to be private people. They wanted to be royals and therefore needed both the safety and the prestigious entourage that government-funded security provides.

I guess what I am saying is, that I don’t blame the royals. From the way Harry framed it, it does sound like he’s been singled out and disfavored. Harry noted that even coming back for funerals and court cases is risking his life, and he won’t subject Meghan or their children to the danger. But I am sure the royals’ assessment was and is, you will be fine. Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security, Andrew (the same position as Harry with respect to the Crown) also finally lost his security. Harry could have paid for sufficient private security, if he was actually stepping back and not stepping out. That was the real struggle. The real struggle was, could Harry and Meghan be royal on their own terms, and the answer was and always is, no. The royals certainly didn’t want Harry and Meghan running around London and the U.K. undertaking public engagements and the like—entirely independent from the monarchy. As discussed in previous posts, that is an entirely unworkable situation.

Harry really simply revealed again how deeply disconnected the Megxit plan always was. From his comments, it seems that Harry sees government-funded security as his return to really being a royal. Does he think that if he got his security back, he could really work to develop charities in the U.K. again, and return as an active do-gooder in his homeland? One could conclude from the interview that that is exactly what he’d like to do.

There is a lot more to discuss, but I am going to stop here for today. It is Saturday morning and the coffee was brewed ages ago, the bacon is about to come out of the oven, my husband is preparing to scramble the eggs, and it is my job to make the pancakes. :) So I better get to it…