Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s Royal Return Is Already Unraveling

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been on British soil for barely a fortnight, yet the Sussexes’ return to the UK has already tipped into high theatrical absurdity.

It could scarcely feel more like a drawing-room farce unless Brian Rix burst in from the wings wearing nothing but his underwear, waving a sceptre in one hand and a pot of As Ever honey in the other, bellowing: “Who’s ready to do more than merely survive?”

Still, one must concede this much: the Sussex comeback has been a spectacle. In a matter of days, it has delivered enough royal drama, comic timing and eyebrow-raising intrigue to satisfy even the most jaded observer.

A more cautious couple, returning after so much history and hostility, might have crept quietly into the Cotswolds, drawn the curtains, cranked up the central heating and stayed invisible until Prince Archie’s wedding — or until the next flight back to California, whichever came sooner.

But caution has never seemed to be the Sussex brand. Rather than two sage birds keeping watch from a discreet perch, Harry and Meghan often appear as a bristling pair, quick to detect insult, reluctant to embrace humility and seemingly untouched by the lessons of their six years in Montecito — or by the stormy royal rupture that sent them there in the first place.

Within 17 days of their return, King Charles, acting through the Lord Chamberlain, had reportedly sent out a firm instruction to more than 100 senior figures and organisations across Britain: his younger son and daughter-in-law are not to be received or presented as working members of the Royal Family.

The message also served as a pointed reminder that their HRH styles remain firmly mothballed — filed away, it seems, alongside any long-awaited royal pardon for the Duke of Windsor, an apology for Mary Queen of Scots and the Windsors’ famously limited appetite for handing out mercy, whether to the living or the long dead.

If nothing else, the House of Windsor’s staying power deserves recognition. This is a dynasty of formidable women and hard-headed, often prematurely balding realists; it has not lasted 109 years at the top by being easily pushed around, nor by lacking the ability to draft a letter laced with quiet warning.

Do the Duke and Duchess of Sussex understand how history may ultimately frame their royal legacy — as two aggrieved irritants nipping at the gilded flank of a monarchy with roots running back a millennium? Apparently not. They still appear to believe their status carries considerable weight.

The King’s response to their reappearance amounted, in essence, to a brisk warning: take note, everyone — this couple has no official role representing the Crown, so do not roll out the red carpet, offer civic honours, arrange ceremonial bows or curtsies, unveil plaques, bestow freedoms of cities or present them with ribbon-cutting opportunities.

The message was clear. Give Harry and Meghan an inch in Winchester and they’ll take a royal mile in Edinburgh. And if anyone bends over as the Sussexes approach, it should only be to unfold the warning signs. Danger: Slippery Surface Ahead. Handle With Caution. Do Not Touch (with a Tudor bargepole). And so on.

The letter prompted an immediate pushback from the status-conscious duke and his prickle of a duchess. For, instead of acting with diplomacy and tact, H&M sulk at everything that displeases them, like a bubble-gum pop duo forever enraged that they are not treated as serious artists.

The old mistrusts soon rose to the surface once more, like a swirl of tea leaves in a bitter brew. The couple made it known that even though they object to being photographed, approached, written about, judged, filmed or scrutinised, they did not like the King defining them as private citizens and made it obvious he should have cleared the statement with them first.

Not least because they want to be known as public figures instead – but what is the difference? More than a couple of million pounds per annum, for a start.

Remarkably, it seems to have escaped the Sussexes’ critical thinking that they have no official agency in a country where the King does not need to run a sovereign statement past them nor their office for approval. Kids, this is a monarchy – not a mid-market company flogging flower sprinkles and overpriced sparkling wine to gullible shoppers. Get a grip.

Yet it was what happened next that is so worrying, that points to a troublesome and potentially unsustainable future. For in a bizarre move this week, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the son of Uganda’s leader President Yoweri Museveni, announced that his country’s team would now not be participating in the Invictus Games because he supported the King and not this ‘Meghan-Harry nonsense’ that followed their return to the UK.

Shrewd and tactical thinkers would have ignored this intervention from the dodgy son of an even dodgier leader – neither man has a human rights record that is entirely spotless in a country where homosexuality and ‘Western influences’ are facing increasing censure.

Yet Harry and Meghan went on to blame King Charles for this development and seemed to treat the news as a blow. Never mind that not so long ago a Ugandan author was arrested and allegedly threatened with having his legs broken for criticising Museveni and calling his son an ‘obese curmudgeon’.

Don’t the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – who have extensively criticised the British Royal Family for unconscious bias on race and the British people for their ‘damaging’ stiff-upper-lip attitudes – have something censorious to say about this shower of bullies?

It seems not. In addition, Uganda – one of the poorest countries in the world – only announced its participation in Invictus two months ago. Does this abrupt withdrawal suggest they were never really serious about joining in the first place? Could they even afford it?

Prince Harry means well, but roaming free in the big, bad world means that some see him merely as a useful idiot; a grinning, gingery opportunity for despots and others to grasp at this unfettered wisp of royal respectability.

In the meantime, Harry made his first British public appearance this week – signing an autograph wall at a podcast studio in London. You have to laugh. Otherwise you’d sob for a century. And as I said, this is only week two.

Spice ‘hits’ no one needs to hear…

The good news? The Spice Girls will not be embarking on a world tour to celebrate the 30th anniversary of their debut hit, Wannabe.

The bad news? Instead, they are to release a £277 music boxset of every song they ever recorded, including some previously unheard ‘gems’.

Eh? What fresh horror is this? I’m scrabbling for the earplugs as we speak.

It is hard to imagine that the Spices, bless them, have any sonic treasures lying around that might delight even their most diehard and demented fans.

When I saw them live in Dublin in 2019, the four Spices – no Posh – struggled to fill a 23-song set, which was padded out with dull fillers and precious few killers.

The girls only had about half a dozen hits; the rest was utter rubbish.

Friendship never ends, but thankfully their singing careers did.

Bonnie Blue AND her baby should both be in care

Porn star Bonnie Blue makes a lot of money, and she believes this justifies everything she does.

Her most famous stunt was a record-breaking session last year where she had sex with 1,057 men in a 12-hour period in a London hotel – an event that was turned into a documentary.

‘I loved seeing how many men had wedding rings on,’ she said in the film. ‘I just loved knowing I was doing something their wives should’ve done.’

It is hard to imagine, following such desperate and prolonged degradation, that Bonnie – real name Tia Billinger – adores and worships men, but she certainly seems to despise women.

After becoming pregnant at a ‘breeding event’ where she claimed to have had unprotected sex with 400 men, Bonnie, 27, gave birth to her first child last month. What a lovely start in life for a little baby!

Her latest stunt finds her posing with her newborn, alongside the three men (wearing balaclavas) she is about to be filmed having sex with. Bonnie, who is originally from Nottinghamshire, looks barely recovered from the birth, but is raring to go.

‘The six-week rule doesn’t apply to me because I had a C-section,’ she boasts.

Dear God. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has called Bonnie ‘grotesque’ for using her baby to promote a sex stunt – insisting: ‘It’s not right.’

Shadow equalities minister Joy Morrissey has reported her to the NSPCC. Bonnie is unrepentant. ‘Oh, are the Conservatives still going? I suppose name-dropping me is one way of trying to stay relevant,’ retorts this young woman, for whom being relevant is clearly everything.

I agree with the politicians. This is a safeguarding issue. Not just for the baby, but for Bonnie Blue, too. Both of them should be in care.

Andy Burnham says national security cannot come at the cost of social security; what further proof do we need that the UK is sinking into a benefits culture bog; a morass so deep that we will never be able to clamber out of it. Or pay for it.

The Conservatives have claimed £4billion could be cut from the housing benefit bill, in part by allowing tenancies in areas where housing is expensive to come to an end. That seems entirely reasonable, but Labour are reacting as if Kemi and co were throwing barefoot urchins out into the street to starve.

Tax hikes and a new tourist tax, alongside the deification of the feckless, the lazy and the illegal as the Government metes out more punishment beatings for hard-working, tax-paying strivers. Here we go, down and down into the socialist abyss, into the place where frozen bus fares are seen as a great triumph and everyone levels down to the bottom of the bottom.

I’m praying for a spring election and for Prime Minister Kemi B. It can’t come a day too soon. And it is our only hope.

Why, why, why would anyone ditch Sir Tom?

Sir Tom Jones is unhappy because he believes ITV has sacked him from The Voice – for the sin of becoming old. He did not want to go because he ‘loves the show’.

He also said: ‘There is never a good time to fire an 86-year-old who is still pretty good at his job.’

And he is right. It must be painful to be let go when you feel you still have so much to give. Add to this the embarrassment of your insurance premiums becoming so high that the television company does not want to pay them. Or uses this as an excuse to boot you into touch.

The terrible irony is that Sir Tom was and is the best thing on the show. For many of the young contestants, he was still their first pick as a mentor.

Who would you choose? Sir Tom, who was famous and successful for over 50 years and knows better than anyone how to navigate the highs and lows of showbusiness? Or bimbette Cheryl Cole?

Twenty-five years have passed since 9/11. Those born after 2001 might never fully grasp the helpless horror we felt as events unfolded in real time on TV screens across the world.

News travelled slower in those days. The first plane hitting the North Tower of the World Trade Center was captured on video by only three cameras – and only one provided clear footage. By the time the second plane hit 17 minutes later, dozens of cameras were trained on the scene. But still nothing like the hundreds of smartphone cams that would no doubt be deployed today.

Smartphones were inventions far in the future – and sometimes I feel that might be a blessing of sorts. To have borne witness to the last moments of all those innocent people, as relayed on their phones and iPads, would have been unbearable. Today, my thoughts are with all the families who had no choice but to bear the deaths of their loved ones. May they all rest in peace.