HOW BROWN IS THE BABY GONNA BE?
THE BROTHERS REMEMBER HAPPIER TIMES.
BY LADY ARGLWYDDES AWBREY
Prince Harry’s Security Saga: A Question of Entitlement and Misplaced Priorities
Since stepping back from royal duties in 2020 and relocating to the United States, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, have been embroiled in a high-profile legal battle with the U.K. government over their security arrangements. The Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) decided in February 2020 that, as non-working royals living abroad, the couple would no longer receive the automatic, taxpayer-funded police protection afforded to senior royals, opting instead for a “bespoke” case-by-case arrangement.
Harry has argued this downgrade makes it unsafe for him, Meghan, and their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, to visit the U.K., even claiming it was a deliberate tactic to prevent their departure from royal life—a notion Buckingham Palace has firmly denied.
And that idea, might have been true, except that far more important members of Royal Families do not even use as much security as Meghan Markle expects. It is so factually untrue, that in order to complete one of their Netflix scenes where the couple is supposedly being chased (since they were not being chased by paparazzi at all) they used film footage from events where other people were truly being chased by paparazzi and spliced the footage into their own Netflix project.
Yet, with their substantial wealth and global connections, the question arises: why does a couple with access to elite networks and significant income insist on state-funded security, as if they were reigning monarchs or Middle Eastern sultans?
This article explores Harry’s financial capacity to fund his own protection, contrasts their demands with the modesty of other royals, and addresses the controversial speculation surrounding Meghan’s choice of partner and its alleged ties to racial identity. Buckle up!
A Fortune Fit for Private Security
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are far from financially strapped. Since moving to Montecito, California, they have built a lucrative empire through high-profile commercial ventures. Their Archewell Foundation, Netflix deals (including the Harry & Meghan documentary, Heart of Invictus, Polo, and Meghan’s With Love, Meghan), and a $25 million Spotify contract for podcasts like Archetypes have generated millions.
Harry’s memoir, Spare, published in 2023, reportedly earned him a $20 million advance alone, with total earnings likely higher. Additionally, King Charles provided a “substantial sum” to ease their transition out of royal life, and Harry inherited wealth from Princess Diana’s estate, which he told Oprah Winfrey was critical in funding their early U.S. life.
Estimates of their net worth vary, but conservative figures place it between $60–$100 million, with some reports suggesting even higher. Private security for high-profile individuals, while costly, is well within their means. For context, top-tier private security firms, often staffed by former special forces or Metropolitan Police officers, charge $1–$2 million annually for round-the-clock protection, a small fraction of the Sussexes’ income.
London billionaires, celebrities, and even minor royals like Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice, who lost state-funded protection in 2011, rely on such firms, coordinating with local police when necessary. Harry himself employs private security in the U.S., proving he can afford it.
His insistence on U.K. taxpayer-funded police protection—costing British taxpayers £500,000 in legal fees alone—appears less about necessity and more about a sense of entitlement, as if he and Meghan deserve the trappings of working royals despite rejecting those duties. And many of the Royals are “beloved” by the public. Harry and Meghan, are not.
Other More Important Royals, With Major Achievements, Have Modest Security
Harry and Meghan’s demand for top-tier security starkly contrasts with the humility of other royals who, despite greater contributions to public life, manage with minimal or no state-funded protection. Consider Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, often dubbed the “hardest-working royal.” In 2024, she carried out over 400 engagements, from charity patronages to international tours, yet her security is tailored to specific threats, not automatic. In 1974, she survived an attempted kidnapping at gunpoint, yet she has never publicly demanded enhanced protection.
Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, and his wife, Sophie, also operate with scaled-back security. Edward has taken on significant roles, including inheriting Prince Philip’s Duke of Edinburgh Awards program, and Sophie is lauded for her work with gender equality and disability charities. Both of them travel globally with security assessed on a case-by-case basis, similar to Harry’s arrangement, without complaint. Harry grew up with that “number 2” mentality and he is still resentful about it.
Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, daughters of Prince Andrew, are another example. Stripped of taxpayer-funded protection in 2011 at a cost of £500,000 per year, they fund their own security while maintaining private careers—Eugenie as an art director, Beatrice in tech and charity work. Despite their HRH titles and proximity to the throne, they accept their status as non-working royals and live without the fanfare Harry and Meghan continue to demand.
These royals, unlike Meghan, whose public achievements are largely tied to media projects and a now-defunct lifestyle brand, have dedicated decades to service without demanding sultan-like security. Their ability to navigate high-profile lives with discretion undermines Harry’s claim that his family’s safety hinges on state-funded armed escorts.
Meghan’s actions often spark scrutiny due to obvious contradictions. While she reportedly (this has been corroborated) encouraged Harry to distance himself from lifelong friends who hunt, a pastime he enjoyed for a lifetime, she simultaneously insists on armed security with advanced weaponry for her own safety. Meghan passionately advocates for climate change action, yet raises eyebrows by frequently chartering multiple private jets for short trips, often to destinations just an hour away.
The “Ginger Male” Controversy: Unpacking Meghan’s Motives
Speculation about Meghan’s choice of Harry as a partner, particularly the focus on his red hair, has circulated in tabloids and online forums, often tied to racially charged theories about “lightening” her bloodline. The notion suggests that Meghan, whose mother is Black and father is white, deliberately sought a “ginger male” to ensure her children would have lighter skin, thereby “erasing” her African heritage. This theory, while widely discussed in hushed tones, is both reductive and unsupported by evidence, relying on stereotypes about mixed-race individuals and outdated notions of racial purity.
Chris Rock, also shares the notion that in many Black families, a traditional practice involves checking behind an infant’s ears to predict whether the baby’s skin tone would be darker or lighter as they grew. Naturally, we asked many Black families about this and they agreed that the practice is well known throughout Black culture internationally, not just the USA.
Meghan’s attraction to Harry likely stemmed from his status, charm, but not shared values. calculated genetic agenda. Their relationship, sparked in 2016 through a mutual friend, was rooted in mutual advocacy for humanitarian causes, (or so they said), as seen in their joint work with the Invictus Games and Meghan’s pre-royal philanthropy (which was nonexistent). Once Lizzy Cundy introduced Meghan to Harry, Lizzy was ghosted and not invited to the wedding.
The “lightening” theory ignores the complexity of identity and assumes that Meghan’s self-perception as a mixed-race woman is defined by shame, a claim contradicted by her public embrace of her heritage in Archetypes and her advocacy for diversity. In her own podcasts she has contradicted herself saying that she had never felt Black before she encountered staff at the palace.
And before they even married, Meghan identified each of Harry’s friends (many of his friends since childhood) and picked them off “one by one” as bad influences because they were all hunters. By the time the wedding rolled around, virtually all of Harry’s friends had been removed from the associated wedding events.
As for Meghan’s alleged pursuit of a “ginger male,” the theory is a distraction, rooted in speculation rather than fact, and detracts from the real issue: a couple struggling to reconcile their royal past with their independent present.
As Chris Rock said in his NETFLIX SELECTIVE OUTRAGE Special, “Meghan Markle hit the light skin lottery.”
A Misguided Quest for Royal Privilege
Harry and Meghan’s security demands reflect a disconnect between their self-image and the reality they are living. Introduced to the U.S. elite by figures like Oprah Winfrey, Beyoncé and her husband Jay=Z, Rhianna and the Obamas, the couple have embraced a celebrity lifestyle while clinging to the trappings of royalty. They truly believe that they, deserve similar protections afforded by these personalities versus the protection they can afford.
In August 2024, Harry and Meghan, largely through Meghan’s public relations efforts, led Colombian officials to believe they wielded political and sovereign influence comparable to that of Harry’s father, King Charles III. The Colombians hoped that hosting the couple as if they were senior royals would grant them access to King Charles through Harry and to the U.S. administration through Meghan. This was far from reality.
While King Charles III remains the monarch, his prostate cancer demands he lighten his schedule and has thus delegated many duties to Prince William, reducing his own active involvement. Similarly, Meghan holds no sway with the U.S. administration, particularly under President Donald Trump, with whom she has a well-documented (public) mutual dislike. The Colombian government reportedly spent approximately $3 million+ hosting the couple in as extravagant a manner as possible under the mistaken impression that doing so would gain them influence with not one but two countries.
Their legal battles, costing taxpayers and themselves millions, suggest a belief that they deserve the same protections as King Charles or Prince William, despite their choice to step away.
Other royals, from Princess Anne to Eugenie, demonstrate that dignity and duty need not come with extravagant security. Harry’s wealth—bolstered by Netflix, Spotify, and literary success—renders his pleas for taxpayer aid unnecessary and tone-deaf.
Ultimately, Harry and Meghan’s fight for U.K. security is less about safety and more about status. With private firms at their disposal and a fortune to fund them, their insistence on state support feels like a bid to reclaim a royal mantle they chose to discard. It’s time for the Sussexes to accept the consequences of their independence and move forward—without expecting the British public to foot the bill.
