This is an epic humiliation for Harry and Meghan. But these two are dangerous… we should fear the twisted real strategy behind their UK return: MAUREEN CALLAHAN
A Daily Mail opinion column by US columnist Maureen Callahan argues that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's decision to move back to the UK, with their children Archie and Lilibet due to start school there this September, represents a humiliating retreat after their attempts to build an independent life in America appear to have faltered. The piece frames the move as significant because it follows the collapse of several of their commercial ventures and a apparent falling-out of favour with former Hollywood allies, suggesting their financial and social position in the US has weakened considerably.
The article claims King Charles was reportedly blindsided by the announcement, with sources telling the Daily Mail that no mention of a return was made when Harry and Meghan met the King in July, a visit already marked by tension, including reports that Meghan angered Prince William by posting a photograph appearing to show a procession to Diana's grave. Callahan notes failed or wound-down projects with Netflix, Spotify and Lemonada, and cites reports that the couple's As Ever brand has around $10 million in unsold stock. While the stated reason for returning is to let their children build a relationship with Harry's family, the columnist is sceptical of this explanation given the couple's past public criticisms of the Royal Family, and suggests the pair may see the move as strategically advantageous rather than a simple defeat.
- Harry and Meghan reportedly plan to move back to the UK this September.
- Sources say King Charles was blindsided by the announcement.
- Columnist questions their motives, citing failed US business ventures.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those sympathetic to Harry and Meghan would argue that a UK return, if it happens, reflects a genuine desire to reconnect with family, heritage and royal duty after years of transatlantic distance, and that reducing their choices to scheming misreads ordinary human motives of homesickness and reconciliation. They would say the couple have consistently faced disproportionate scrutiny and hostile framing compared with other royals, and that assuming malign strategy behind a personal decision such as where to live is unfair and reflects pre-existing hostility rather than evidence. Advocates would also note that mending fences with the monarchy, particularly for the sake of their children's relationships with relatives, is a legitimate and even admirable priority.
The case against
Sceptics would argue it is reasonable to view any high-profile move by the Sussexes through a strategic lens, given their established pattern of pairing personal narratives with commercial ventures such as documentaries, books and media deals. They would say that, having built a brand partly on distancing themselves from the institution, a return raises fair questions about timing and motive, especially if their American media prospects have cooled. This is not necessarily cynicism but pragmatic scepticism grounded in the couple's own public history of leveraging royal status commercially, and a concern that renewed proximity to the Firm could reopen tensions the family has spent years trying to manage.