Of course, I speak of the bonnie Prince Harry, or should I say the former Prince Harry, and his bride. I certainly understand why they want to leave the royal firm, especially when they glance into the future and look at the past.

Being at the bottom of the steps leading to the throne with no likelihood of succession means a life of ribbon cutting, monotonous chickendinner events, being token patrons to charities and limp handshakes with the masses, all for the sake of the family firm.

He need only to look at his 71-year-old father, the heir apparent, who, while waiting for his turn as monarch, had his tawdry marriage indiscretions played out in the media by both parents. Or his uncle, Prince Andrew (the former spare heir), now exiled to the palace hinterland for his escapades with the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Clearly, life in the limelight means no privacy. It kind of makes me want to shout, “Run Harry, run!” By accident of birth, Harry was placed in the public eye. It was tragic that he lost his mother at a tender age, and we will remember his march behind her casket in the same way we remember young John Kennedy’s salute to his father during JFK’s funeral procession. In both instances, they were children who had no control over the media publishing their grief globally.

But there is a difference between uninvited and invited attention. As an adult, when you put yourself in the limelight, you invite scrutiny from the public.

As a high-profile citizen, wearing a swastika to a costume party or running nude in drunken revelry was under Harry’s control, and he had to have known it would be fodder for the media. As he invited the attention, he shouldn’t complain about it.

However, if this is about avoiding the media, there are other Royal Family members who have removed themselves from the limelight without removing themselves from the family. How often to you hear about Princess Anne? She has contented herself by becoming immersed in the equestrian world. Her kids don’t seem to be screwups and, outside major family events, they don’t make the six o’clock news.

The best example is the forgotten prince, the Queen’s youngest son, Prince Edward. He and his family seem to live a quiet life in the United Kingdom and are exempt from media attention. After Prince William fathered three children, it removed Harry’s burden as the spare heir. Harry could have easily faded into the background. The Queen could have happily announced that Harry and his wife were taking a time out from being “working royals” (is that an oxymoron?) to tend to family.

It is simple to figure out that if you don’t want cameras in your face daily, quit creating controversy through your social media accounts and public antics. Given the way they handled their exit from the family business, it raises suspicions that both Harry and Meghan wanted more than limelight. The wanted the spotlight. They were giving up their royal titles and seeking financial independence. They announced it on social media before telling their family. What did they think would happen? They knew the media would be all over them, so they should quit complaining about the lack of privacy. And what is financial independence to these abdicated royals?

I dare say Harry has never balanced a cheque book or paid a bill in his life. And although they have forfeited the annual “sovereign grant,” they have not forfeited daddy’s largesse from the Duchy of Cornwall purse, which is in the millions of dollars. Forfeiting money from one public purse and taking it from another is not financial independence. But the only purse I’m concerned with is the Canadian taxpayers’ purse. The fact that our prime minister has suggested to the Queen that Canadians will help pay for their security when they relocate to Canada is beyond annoying.

As a country, we have obligations to provide security for visiting dignitaries while they are on our soil, but Harry and his family have given up their royal status and cannot claim to be visiting dignitaries. What is our obligation to pay for the fantasies of the entitled offspring of the wealthy? If they want financial independence, given their own personal wealth and the reported potential for earnings, they should pay for their own security needs. No doubt their citizenship will be fast-tracked, and they can avail themselves of our social systems should they choose to, although I doubt their child/ children will attend public schools or that they will queue up with we commoners to see a doctor.

However, they should not expect to receive anything more than any other Canadian citizen. Just to be clear, I like the Queen. She is a throwback to another era, an era rich with history that includes Canada and full of pomp and splendor. Last time I looked, Canadians each spend about $1.50 a year to support the office of the governor general, the Queen’s representative in Canada. (Equate that cost to two cigarettes, or a half bottle of beer or a third of the cost of a Starbucks latte.) And that is as much as I am prepared to spend on royalty.

I don’t know what this does in the long term to the House of Windsor, and, as mentioned, I do have a soft spot for the Queen, although I would love to give her a tough love message. Harry has played the role of a prince; let him play the role of a pauper. I fully admit to being titillated by the cavorting members of the “royal firm,” but I am adamantly opposed to financially supporting their quest for financial independence.

-Elaine Hnatyshyn