Prince Harry finds himself once again at the center of a media storm, this time fueled by a new German documentary titled “Harry – The Lost Prince.” Airing on the ZDF network and directed by award-winning filmmaker Ulrike Grunewald, the film delves deep into the Duke of Sussex’s personal struggles within the Royal Family and the Sussexes’ efforts to navigate their post-royal life since stepping down from their duties in January 2020. However, the documentary isn’t simply a sympathetic portrayal; it raises significant questions about the authenticity of Harry’s public image.
The film highlights criticism suggesting that Prince Harry’s engagements, particularly overseas trips, involve primarily socializing with the wealthy elite, a stark contrast to the down-to-earth image he cultivated during his earlier years as a working royal. Dai Davies, a former Head of Royal Protection and Divisional Commander at the Metropolitan Police, is among those voicing these concerns. Davies, speaking in the documentary, observes that during Harry’s trips to places like Colombia – a country with a significant disparity between rich and poor – he predominantly interacts with the upper echelons of society. “In Colombia,” Davies points out, “although there are very rich people there, the vast majority, 85 percent or 90 percent, are very poor. And what I’ve noticed of these tours, he mixes with the upper classes. He doesn’t really, apart from carefree orchestrated areas where he mixes with so-called the ‘normal people’ – well they’re not.” He further alleges that these interactions are carefully staged: “These are carefully orchestrated campaigns as far as I can see… It’s all about Harry and Meghan. It’s very little to do with an actual alleged rationale for going there.”
Adding to the controversy, royal expert Duncan Larcombe questions the genuineness of Harry’s ‘relatable’ persona. While acknowledging Harry’s genuine compassion displayed during engagements with vulnerable groups such as orphans and the homeless, Larcombe notes a discrepancy between these public appearances and his private life. He observes, “Harry’s always been very good when he’s been with African orphans or people at homeless shelters or people with mental health problems. But in his private life, his circle of friends has remained the rich and the powerful.” Larcombe further emphasizes a perceived disconnect, stating, “I suppose you could say there’s a difference between Harry doing royal-like duties and Harry when he’s off-duty. I’m not aware of him keeping in touch with people like Ben McBean – wounded soldiers, soldiers he’s met on jobs. He tends to save those actions for official jobs rather than him forging friendships here, there and everywhere.”
The documentary also features commentary from Ben McBean, a former Marine who forged a strong bond with Harry after they shared a flight back from Afghanistan. McBean, who lost his left arm and right leg in a landmine blast, expresses his disappointment with Harry’s public disputes with the Royal Family. He candidly states, “I just thought, with him kind of whinging about his family and he was saying something about his brother pushing him over or something like that, I was just like, ‘Mate, just leave it out.'” He adds, “You and your brother had a little fisticuffs…but family’s family, you know. If one of my friends fell out with his partner and started posting things on social media and saying my ex is this and that, I’d have told him to shut up as well.”
The revelations presented in “Harry – The Lost Prince” have ignited a significant debate about the true nature of Prince Harry’s post-royal life and the carefully curated image he presents to the world. The documentary’s critical perspective challenges viewers to consider whether his efforts to maintain a relatable image are truly about genuine engagement or are simply strategic maneuvers for publicity and maintaining relevance in the public eye.