AMANDA PLATELL: Everyone has missed the appallingly selfish truth about Harry and Meghan’s return. I fear for the future
Daily Mail columnist Amanda Platell criticises Prince Harry and Meghan Markle over their planned return to the UK, arguing they behaved selfishly by giving King Charles only three days' notice before news of the move broke. She questions why the couple did not tell Charles when they saw him at Highgrove in July, suggesting the secrecy typifies their past conduct, such as their earlier departure to North America, and warns the move risks reopening unresolved tensions with the Prince and Princess of Wales.
Platell notes the timing meant William and Kate learned of the news just as they travelled to Balmoral for the royal family's summer break, reportedly turning the holiday into a "crisis summit." She points out the logistics, including securing a home in England and enrolling children Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five, in British schools, suggest long-term planning was under way. While Charles has reportedly insisted the monarchy's structure won't change and William remains heir, Platell contends the King's trust in Harry has likely been badly damaged by the way the announcement was handled.
- Harry and Meghan are returning to the UK, reportedly blindsiding King Charles.
- Charles was told only three days before the news broke, columnist says.
- Move risks reopening tensions with William and Kate, Platell argues.
New here? Start with this
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and moved to North America, a decision that caused a lasting rift within the Royal Family. Harry is the younger son of King Charles and the late Princess Diana, and his brother Prince William, heir to the throne, and William's wife Kate have been reported to have a strained relationship with the couple ever since. The family has periodically tried to smooth things over, including a low-key meeting between Harry and his father at the King's Highgrove estate in July.
Reports now suggest Harry and Meghan intend to return to live in the UK with their two children, Archie and Lilibet, which would mark a significant shift after years based largely in California. Any such move raises questions about how the family's public relationships, and the working structure of the monarchy, might be affected, given the unresolved tensions from their earlier departure.
Amanda Platell is a Daily Mail columnist known for writing opinion pieces on the Royal Family and British public life. Her columns offer personal commentary rather than straight news reporting, and readers should bear in mind that they reflect her own views on the couple's conduct and its implications for the monarchy.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those sympathetic to Amanda Platell's view argue that basic courtesy and respect for the King's role warranted more than three days' notice, especially given the sensitivity of royal family relations and the memory of how abruptly Harry and Meghan departed in 2020. They contend that if the couple had already been arranging schools and housing for months, waiting until days before a public announcement to inform Charles suggests a pattern of prioritising their own narrative control over the family's ability to prepare, and that springing this on William and Kate just as they travelled to Balmoral was needlessly disruptive to a rare period of family time.
The case against
Those defending Harry and Meghan's approach would argue that decisions about where to raise their own children are private family matters, not obligations owed to the press or public on a timetable set by royal-watchers, and that a family with young children is entitled to plan such a significant move carefully and discreetly before going public. They might add that given the intense scrutiny and leaks the couple has previously experienced, a shorter window between informing relatives and public confirmation could reasonably be seen as a practical safeguard against premature disclosure rather than a deliberate slight, and that framing a private family choice as "appallingly selfish" risks holding them to a standard of transparency not expected of other family members.