The people’s bond to the throne is real. But public money comes at a price

THE Royal Family, the media and the public form, most of the time, a reasonably happy alliance. Millions love the magic and glamour of the monarchy. They enjoy reading of the exploits and adventures of a family that, ultimately, suffers and enjoys the pains and pleasures of all families.

Let dreary, mechanically minded republicans scoff and mock. The bond between people and throne is a real one, and many nations that lack it would like to have it.

The media is an essential part of this connection because it gives constant and generally helpful coverage to the activities of members of the Royal Family. This is for the good reason that so many people very much enjoy this coverage. In the past few days, newspapers and TV channels have given generous space and time to the tour of southern Africa by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

It would not have been half as successful or half as popular if there had been nothing but a few dry official bulletins, or if it had been scattered in tiny packets around the internet.

So it is a pity that Prince Harry should have chosen this time to launch what looks very much like an attack on the media, including The Mail on Sunday. We must defend ourselves, reluctantly and respectfully, but firmly.

We straightforwardly deny the Prince’s suggestion that our coverage of the Sussexes has been ‘knowingly false and malicious’. He is simply mistaken when he says that they have been unable to correct ‘continual misrepresentations’. He is equally wrong to state that the Duchess’s letter to her father was edited by us in any way that changed its meaning.

Nor has there been any campaign against the Duchess. We believe Meghan’s arrival in the Royal Family was a huge step forward for the Kingdom, a moment when the ancient and the traditional embraced the new multi- racial society we have become, to the great benefit of us all. We completely understand Harry’s determined and forthright defence of his late mother’s memory, and his honourable desire to protect his wife.

So we think it a pity that he has taken this course. There is no siege of the Sussexes. Reporting of Royal matters continues as it has done for many decades – generally friendly but necessarily mingled with occasional critical stories.

These are a price that must be paid. If the media failed to make these criticisms, and ignored obvious troubles, it would be letting down the public, and our free society. Those who are granted prominence, wealth and f ame are al so required to give an account of how they use these gifts.

The Sussexes have an enviable platform from which to air their views, on climate change for example. They do not have to express them but if they do, and if they then use private jets to travel, they are just as open to criticism as any other public figure, in politics or showbusiness, who does the same.

Equally, anyone who receives any public money must expect scrutiny from the media, as happened over the cost of renovating Frogmore Cottage.

The Queen has l ong been used to this, and rightly accepts it as legitimate.

No doubt there have been times during her long reign when she has privately chafed at having to put up with it. But she l ong ago acquired t he wisdom to do so. Harry would be wise to emulate her.