Prince Harry evidently enjoys life in California, but the United Kingdom and its wayward royal son need each other.
The UK badly needs to rebuild its military capabilities, while Harry needs a purpose to re-energize his life.
The British political class is incapable of leading a Churchillian defense renaissance, but Harry is uniquely suited to the role. After more than a half-decade of painful estrangement, why not try a win-win reconciliation?
The rift between Harry and his family and country opened in 2018, when he married American actress Meghan Markle, followed by the couple’s dramatic “Megxit” to Southern California.
The couple subsequently made controversial public claims about the royal family, and attracted considerable invective in the media and influencer worlds. Harry is now said to be living a “rather pointless existence” and is “desperately lonely” and “not really doing anything in America.”
While their name recognition remains high, public approval toward both has tanked in Britain. Aside from King Charles’ disgraced brother Andrew, they are the most disliked members of the royal family.
Meanwhile, Britain is struggling to adjust to a new and dangerous world with a “hollowed out” military and a shaky “special relationship” with the United States. The US-Iran conflict has further exposed Britain’s military incapacities for the world to see.
Yet the UK is not facing up to the challenge. Spending money on anything beyond the National Health Service, social welfare programs and pensions has become deeply fraught politically. While the Labour government has promised to increase defense spending, any new money could prove too little and too late. Britain needs to rearm now – not in the next parliament or some other fantasy future in which difficult choices will finally be made.
President Donald Trump may not be “right about everything,” but he was unquestionably correct when he argued from the start of his first term that NATO nations needed to spend more on defense. While Britain would subsequently claim it met the NATO obligation to spend 2% of its gross domestic product on defense, this was achieved through accounting tricks such as including pensions and peacekeeping operations. The nation’s total military personnel has declined over the past decade, and its ability to exert force and engage in sustained operations is questionable.
Enter Harry. Charles’ younger son graduated from the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst and served in the army for a decade, where he earned the rank of captain, participated in two combat tours of Afghanistan, and earned the respect of his follow soldiers. As he recounts in his controversial autobiography, “Spare,” he killed 25 enemy fighters from his Apache helicopter, giving him a skin-in-the-game perspective on national defense that few policymakers can claim. He also co-founded the Invictus Games for wounded veterans.
Harry has the credibility to lead a national campaign to restore Britain’s military capabilities. This can begin by returning his lost honorary military titles, and adding some more.
Harry could also take on roles in the policy world. He might convene discussions about how to find more funding for the armed forces, and how to spend it; bring together experts to study which capacities the military actually has, and which it must have; and lead a campaign to inspire more young people to enlist.
While the royals must avoid political entanglements, they need not remain silent on all topics. In fact, by drawing attention to problems that too many are ignoring, Harry would follow in the footsteps of his father, who was ahead of his time on issues such as ugly modern architecture and sustainable agriculture. It would not make sense for Harry to push for specific defense plans. But helping the nation to understand clear and present dangers is a constitutionally appropriate undertaking for a royal unlikely to ever be king. He would also be well positioned to lead a UK war bonds campaign.
While the tensions among King Charles, Prince Harry and Prince William are often portrayed as insurmountable, there are reports that Charles and Harry are working –– in an effort termed Project Thaw –– to ease the strain. This suggests that royal relationships are not yet beyond repair.
After six years in California, Harry’s transition would take time. But it could represent a rare opportunity to strengthen the nation.
Furthermore, Harry and Meghan’s recent visit to Australia, which proved more successful than many predicted, as well as their visit to the UK this week, shows that the couple will not simply disappear over time.
If Charles, Harry, and William can set aside past difficulties and develop new working relationships, Harry could prove a valuable complement to the royal family, rather than a thorn in its side.
A warrior prince is just what Britain needs, and nobody can fill this role but Harry.
David L. Leal is a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and a professor at the University of Texas at Austin.
This story originally appeared on NYPost
