Jan. 8 will mark the fifth anniversary of Prince Harry and Meghan’s sudden decision to step back as senior members of the British royal family. The late Queen Elizabeth II, reportedly caught off guard by the suddenness of their announcement via Instagram, quickly made it clear to her grandson that there could be no half-in or half-out.
Yet in reality, Harry is still very much “in” the two places where it counts most: his position in the royal line of succession, and as a prince regent should it become tragically necessary in the event that King Charles III or Prince William are dead or incapacitated.
While it is highly unlikely that Harry will ever become king given that he is presently fifth in the line of succession, he would become regent if his father and brother were to tragically die or lack “capacity” until Prince George, William’s oldest child, reaches age 18.
George does not reach maturity until July 22, 2031. Thus, a window of over six years exists for Harry to serve as regent. That should not be allowed to stand.
The overarching risk to the United Kingdom’s national security — and by extension that of the Commonwealth of Nations and the U.S. — is potentially far too great.
Since “Mexit,” as it became known, Harry and Meghan’s agenda has essentially been one of grievance-chasing. They have railed against his family, declared war against the media — and in the process become a caricature of themselves.
Were Harry to become regent, it is likely he would use his role as the nominal U.K. head-of-state to continue platforming his grievances. Plus, given Harry and Meghan’s petulance over preventing King Charles from seeing his grandchildren, it is hardly a stretch to argue that Harry would not serve as a good role model for a young Prince George.
Consider the damage Harry and Meghan have done to date. Not just to the British royal family, but to the U.K. and the Commonwealth.
Simply “Finding Freedom,” as authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand termed in their book of the same name, was not nearly enough. Harry and Meghan were arguably determined to in effect set up a rival royal court in Montecito and monetize it by attacking Buckingham Palace.
Their March 2021 CBS interview with Oprah Winfrey set the tone. Just two months removed as working royals, Harry and Meghan laid down the gauntlet at Elizabeth’s feet — and hinted at what was to come.
Meghan implied that a then-unnamed royal family member was racist for having “concerns” over her son Archie’s skin color. In a flash, Elizabeth’s decades of hard diplomacy and advocacy promoting the Commonwealth came under attack. By refusing to identify the royal, Harry and Meghan cast suspicion on the entire family, including the Queen’s husband, Prince Philip, who died one month later.
It only got worse. In the couple’s eponymous Netflix series released in 2022, the Commonwealth — a vital economic alliance that accounts for 10 percent of the U.K.’s total foreign trade — was described as “Empire 2.0.” Essentially, as we noted at the time, the documentary argued that Elizabeth’s Commonwealth legacy was an archetypical manifestation of racism and repression; the unspoken inference was that the British royal family is its chief champion.
Wittingly or not (and likely not), Harry and Meghan foolishly played into ongoing Russian and Chinese disinformation campaigns throughout the 56-member Commonwealth, and especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Moscow and Beijing argue the West is not to be trusted in order to erode and supplant British political and military influence across the continent — and Harry and Meghan gave them a new argument.
Regents must know better. They also must set a personal example for their young charge and the constitutional responsibilities they will face.
Harry, as evidenced by his over-the-top revelations in his ghost-written autobiography, is clearly not suited to being a regent. Admissions of drug use, bullying a school matron and a frozen “todger” are damning enough, but his willingness to put it all out there, including family grievances, in print for profit is disqualifying.
Might he do the same to Prince George if a regency is ever needed — and Harry and Meghan feel the need for a second exit from the U.K.?
As it is, Harry has recklessly cast a pall over the early years of his father’s reign just as he did over Elizabeth’s last years — and has crassly done so while the queen was suffering from a fatal illness and presently while King Charles is undergoing chemotherapy treatment for an unspecified form of cancer.
Being regent would thrust Harry onto the global stage — which he and Meghan have arguably attempted to crash repeatedly since “Mexiting.” We first saw it in Jamaica. Then in Nigeria. And then again in Colombia.
This will all hopefully be a moot point. Charles, in the best of British tradition, is bravely carrying on with both his royal and head-of-state duties — including as the head of the Commonwealth.
Yet we live in precarious times. Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly at war with the West, and the U.K. and continental Europe are exposed.
The king in conjunction with Parliament must act. As a father, it will not be easy. But as a head-of-state, it is necessary. Arguably, only working royals should be in the line of succession and eligible to serve as regent should the need arrive.
Doing so would require amending the Act of Settlement that was adopted in 1701. It can be amended by act of Parliament as evidenced in 2013 by the Succession to the Crown Act, which ended male primogeniture.
In this scenario, if a regency should be required, Prince George and the U.K. would find themselves in the capable hands of Prince Edward, Elizabeth’s youngest son, and, if needed, Ann, Princess Royal.
The days of simply valuing the modern British monarchy by counting royal engagements is over. It is a digital world now — and as evidenced by Charles’s unmatched global convening power and William’s Earthshot prize, the U.K.’s long-term economic and national security is best served on the international stage.
Harry — and by extension Meghan — must not be allowed to risk that future by becoming regent. Five years of whining is enough — and Meghan’s Instagram post, filmed by Harry on New Year’s Day, was a blunt reminder they are not going away on their own.
Mark Toth writes on national security and foreign policy. Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet served 30 years as a military intelligence officer and led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012 to 2014.
