Prince Harry's upcoming induction into the Living Legends of Aviation, an annual event honoring significant contributors to aviation and aerospace, has sparked criticism from retired senior officers who deem it a "pathetic publicity stunt."
While Harry is set to join esteemed figures like Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong, the first men on the moon, some argue that his royal status, rather than his aviation feats, earned him the recognition.
Lord West, former head of the Royal Navy, dismissed the idea of Prince Harry as a living legend of aviation, deeming it "pathetic" and questioning the credibility of the accolade. Retired British Army Colonel Richard Kemp labeled the awards as a celebrity ego-massaging exercise, emphasizing that there are many others more deserving based on their extraordinary contributions to the armed forces.
Royal commentator Robert Jobson expressed skepticism about the appropriateness of labeling Prince Harry a "living legend of aviation," comparing him to historical figures like Amelia Earhart. Richard Fitz Williams, another royal commentator, echoed these sentiments, questioning whether every pilot who served deserved the same title.
The controversy surrounding Prince Harry's aviation recognition adds to previous criticisms faced by the Sussexes, particularly regarding their use of private jets while advocating for environmental causes. Despite Prince Harry's admission of occasionally using private jets for safety reasons, the couple has faced accusations of hypocrisy.
Prince Harry's openness about his military experiences, discussed in the docuseries "Heart of Invictus," has also come under scrutiny. In the series, Harry revealed his struggles with trauma stemming from his mother's death in 1997, but Royal expert Richard Eden criticized the production for seemingly allowing Prince Harry to focus on himself rather than the inspiring stories of competitors in the Invictus Games.
As the controversy brews, Prince Harry's aviation award becomes another point of contention in his post-royal endeavors, with critics questioning the appropriateness of the accolade and whether it reflects his actual contributions to aviation.
