IT’S A DUTY, NOT A BRAND, HARRY

ARNDT HAS GONE TOO FAR

DETECTIVE inspector Mark Thompson won’t thank Bettina Arndt for defending what he (didn’t) say about a shocking mass murder.

In Brisbane last Thursday, former NRL player Rowan Baxter ambushed his estranged wife as she drove their three children to school. He burned them all to death with petrol before killing himself.

Thompson was given the perhaps impossible job of trying to explain such evil.

No doubt rattled by what he’d seen, Thompson said something that had Twitter explode and his boss yank him from the case — something that left him “distraught and gutted” because it wasn’t what he meant at all.

According to change.org executive director Sally Rugg, what Thompson (allegedly) said was bad: “Thompson (said) the alleged murderer was perhaps not a domestic violence perpetrator, but had simply been ‘driven too far’.”

But Arndt, a crusader for men’s rights, defended what Thompson (allegedly) said: “Congratulations to the Queensland police for keeping an open mind and awaiting proper evidence, including the possibility that Rowan Baxter might have been ‘driven too far’.”

In fact, as Courier Mail crime editor Kate Kyriacou noted in an excellent report, Thompson had asserted no such thing.

He’d said he wanted to hear from anyone who could help him understand the murders: “To put it bluntly, there are probably people out there in the community that are deciding which side, so to speak, to take in this investigation.

“Is this an issue of a woman suffering significant domestic violence and her and her children perishing at the hands of her husband?

“Or is this an instance of a husband being driven too far by issues that he’s suffered by certain circumstances into committing acts of this form.”

Yes, very bad wording, but when asked to clarify, Thompson denied he was “leaning at all” to a “pushed too far” excuse.

“Absolutely not.” There was no excuse for murder. Yet Arndt suggested what Thompson explicitly denied: there could be a “pushed too far” defence.

Thompson I forgive, but Arndt I don’t.

HARRY and Meghan’s latest letter to fans is their nastiest. These cut-and-run royals now want praise for being forced to hand back their stolen loot. Last week the Queen banned the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from using the “royal” brand to make themselves a private fortune.

The couple, who fled Britain and their royal duties to live in Canada, then published a bitter response on their new “sussexroyal” website.

In it, the Duke and his American actor wife had the hide to suggest their status as British royals was their own property and the Queen had no say over how they exploited it. It was only from their kindness that they’d stop using the word “royal” to plug their planned businesses — for now.

As they put it: “While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory.” Wow. Why did the couple publicly declare that the Queen had no right to stop them from flogging the brand of the royal family she heads, with the implicit consent of the peoples in whose name she reigns?

The answer seems clear: because Harry and Meghan reckon they are royal by right and no one’s consent, even if they don’t do a stroke of work to earn it.

And they publicly reserve their right to cash in on the word “royal” later, whenever they choose.

What a monstrous sense of selfentitlement. These days, at least, “royal” is what royal does. That’s why the Queen has asked Harry and Meghan not to use their royal titles or stick the word “royal” on their business.

And she’s right, because this is about saving the royal family. Plenty of kings have lost their crown and kingdom by trying to use their “royal” brand for their private gain and not for the people they were meant to serve, and in the way expected of them.

Where are now the kings of France, Italy, Greece, China, Afghanistan, Iran, Germany, Albania or Russia?

If Harry and Meghan’s brand of “royalty” catches on, it won’t be long before Australia no longer has a king or queen, either. Maybe Britain, too.

Now, if their letter did no more than point out that the Queen couldn’t make them do what they’ve gracelessly given up, temporarily — it would be bad enough.

Sadly, Harry and Meghan went further in announcing the backdown on their sussexroyal plans, by airing their resentment against Harry’s brother, Prince William, and wife Kate.

“The trademark applications that had been filed as protective measures and that reflected the same standard trademarking requests as done for The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, have been removed.”

Yes, but William and Kate never said they’d make a business out of those trademarks, did they?

Add to that swipe the earlier complaint Harry and Meghan posted on their sussexroyal site — that the Queen was unfair to them: “While there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place.”

Who exactly is driving such spiteful attacks on the British royals as both a family and an institution?

I suspect it’s someone who thinks “royal” is not a duty but a prize, not a loan but a possession. It’s a person with little love for the Queen or respect for the institution.

Yes, it strikes me that the prime mover is probably Meghan Markle, the twice-married social-climbing actor who long dreamt of being a princess and stuffed many of the prime pews at the wedding with international celebrities and her famous new besties.

Yes, blame Harry for being a weak and damaged yes-man in this trashing of what he was bred to serve.

But how true sounds a Daily Mail report from last week, despite quoting suspiciously unnamed members of Meghan’s “close inner circle”:

“Meghan said she’s done with the drama and has no room in her life for naysayers, and the same goes for Harry.”

Meghan damns the dutiful Queen as a “naysayer”? And Harry says me, too?

The actor I could forgive, because me-me-me may be all she knows.

But wasn’t Harry bred to know better? What a tragedy this is for the royals and — I suspect — for him.