Is Harry’s attendance at the King’s coronation a sincere gesture or a case of maintaining his ‘lifestyle’?

“Prince” Harry is only attending the King’s Coronation next month to keep up his lifestyle; that’s according to a number of columnists including one Louise Roberts, while speaking to Sky News Australia over the weekend. The columnist has insisted that Harry’s attendance speaks more about “[using] the Royal Family as some kind of giant ATM” and less about a soft reconciliation with the Royal family after seceding from Royal life - and some commotion about a book Harry wrote, if we recall correctly…

“[...] in order to maintain their currency and maintain their lifestyle, Harry, of course, has to go to the coronation – of course you’d think he’d want to be there for his father, it’s the biggest day of his father’s life. But really what it also provides is the next chapter for the Sussex narrative,” Roberts added. 

Though that runs opposite to stories that have now emerged regarding Meghan wanting to reconnect with King Charles III, who royal insiders say had somewhat of a close relationship with his daughter-in-law, going as far to walk her down the aisle during her wedding to Harry. The invitation and acceptance of just Harry attending has also been interpreted as somewhat of an olive branch extended to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

It just so happens that to avoid a sibling fallout, he’ll remain separated from Prince William during the occasion - plus there is that possibility of him dashing out to attend Prince Archie’s birthday in Montecito the same day. Spoiler alert - it is indeed possible to do both, but requires that military precision Harry developed at Sandhurst. 

But what of these constant calls about his “lifestyle” being affected since leaving the Royal family and the constant noise regarding ulterior motives Harry and Meghan have with his attendance? Are Harry and Meghan still clinging on to any vestibule of Royal life to ensure that their “narrative” continues? Megxit means Megxit after all. 

Well as it stands, when Harry and Meghan seceded from Royal life, their “lifestyle” did change, but one that had all the privileges involved that would make the rest of us probably cling on to some semblance of relativity if we had those opportunities given to us, or in the case of the Royal family, born into it. 

If we regard the “lifestyle” in this case as financial security provided by the Royal family, then that aspect can clearly be thrown out the window immediately. Since stepping down from Royal duties, Harry has lost three forms of income in the process; the first being the Sovereign Grant, which funded Harry during official royal duties. Consider it almost a luxurious set of per-diems for undertaking those regal engagements, with a chance to claim back expenses also, kind of akin to other employees getting per-diems while on location for a job and claiming travel expenses back from the employer - in this case, his family. 

That tax-funded grant also only accounted for 5% of the couple’s income, according to the BBC, with the remaining 95% of the couple's revenue according to a 2018-2019 report coming directly from King Charles III by virtue of the Duchy of Cornwall. That means that of the £5 million that the pair made during the last financial year of their royal engagements, the couple received £250,000 from the public as part of that Sovereign Grant. That remaining £4.5 million would come from an official salary being a working royal - in contrast, Kendall Jenner made £19.7 million that same tax year.

That £4.5 figure also no longer exists, as when the couple stood down from their Royal duties, they effectively stopped getting paid the moment Harry had to concede his title as Captain General of the Royal Marines and his other honorary military appointments. 

Then of course there is Frogmore Cottage, which currently may-or-may-not be the residence of Princess Eugenie and may-or-may-not-be the future residence of Prince Andrew once he’s been removed from the Royal Lodge. Despite work being undertaken to convert the property ahead of the birth of Prince Archie, work that members of the public used as a means to whip up a media frenzy regarding how tax-payer money is being used, it was revealed that Harry and Meghan had repaid that amount back to “the firm” before vacating the premises.

From a “clout chasing” perspective though, it’s a little trickier to overly defend the couple who admittedly still use the cache of Harry being a blood relative to the monarchy. But given that is an interest the public still have and one that comes with lucrative deals, is it maybe a tad unfair to claim they are using Harry’s situation to profit for their own lifestyle when in many situations if someone is in that position, they would more than likely use it to their advantage (for a little while.)

Those that state that they have “no right” to use their royal titles are correct - which is why the couple are no longer referring to themselves as Prince Harry and Princess Meghan. As part of their deal leaving Royal duties, it was stipulated that although they would not be able to use the HRH titles, they still were allowed to use the title Duke and Duchess of Sussex, while Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet being used as a crux to argue about Royal titles maybe would be pained to forget that they are toddlers - they have no say in what their titles are, or even if they wish to keep them when they get older.

With the lucrative deals that Harry and Meghan have signed up for since leaving Royal life, then should they continue to ride those proverbial coattails for many years to come then yes, I can agree that perhaps their future attendance at Royal engagements might offer more fuel to support the idea they’re only involved by proxy to maintain their lifestyle. 

But given the magnitude of changes that have occurred since the couple left Royal life (the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the first new British monarch in 70 years in May), there is going to always be an insurance on the take as a “former” working Royal, and as the youngest son of the King of England. Try as he might to now move away from that period of his life, through both the move to Montecito and the release of his memoir, which may have been a form of catharsis given everything he has gone through, at the moment there is that renewed interest in the Royal family that will continue to dog him day in, day out. 

So, the real question going forward is not so much if he’s attending the Coronation to maintain this quote/unquote “lifestyle” despite having the funds from his inheritance and an alleged windfall after the death of the Queen Mother, but just how long we’re going to suggest that the son of the King of England is only being involved in family life for “clout.” Which is ultimately what the columnist has suggested - right?