PRINCE Harry’s selection as this year’s recipient of ESPN’s Pat Tillman ESPY Award for Service has left many of us Americans astonished.
On our shores, many view the Duke of Sussex as a controversial figure who has betrayed his family and, against the wishes of his much-admired and beloved grandmother, trades on his royal title for financial gain and public recognition.
This episode, not the first of its kind involving Harry, raises significant
questions about the value of such Hollywood awards and the broader implications of rewarding public figures based on their profile rather than their achievements.
The Pat Tillman Award, named in honour of the former NFL player who left a lucrative sports career to serve in the American military and ultimately sacrificed his life for his country, holds a deeply symbolic value.
Pat Tillman embodies the spirit of selflessness, duty, and patriotism, having made the ultimate sacrifice for his country.
In stark contrast, Prince Harry’s actions have demonstrated a departure from these ideals, having abandoned his country and royal service to pursue self-serving goals.
Mary Tillman, Pat’s mother, has openly expressed her dismay at Harry’s selection, describing him as a “controversial and divisive individual” and asserting that there are “far more fitting” recipients within the veteran community.
Her comments reflect a broader sentiment among those who believe that Harry’s nomination diminishes the value of the award and disrespects Tillman’s legacy.
Since stepping back from royal duties, Harry has engaged in numerous high-profile media ventures, including lucrative deals with Netflix and Spotify, and public interviews in which he has been critical of his family and the monarchy.
The Tillman award is intended to recognise individuals who have exemplified service, character, and leadership.
While Harry has been involved in charitable endeavours, most notably through his work with veterans and the Invictus Games, these efforts do not outweigh his more contentious actions and public statements.
The award should go to someone whose contributions more closely align with Tillman’s example of selfless service and sacrifice.
Public backlash has been significant, with a petition on Change.org urging ESPN to reconsider the decision, garnering over 70,000 signatures.
The petition contends that awarding Prince Harry “diminishes its value and disrespects Tillman’s memory.”
This sentiment is echoed by many who feel that Harry’s high profile and privilege overshadow more deserving candidates who lack his resources and connections.
Critics, including former NFL player Pat McAfee, have labeled the decision as “embarrassing”, accusing ESPN of attempting to provoke controversy rather than honour true service.
The backlash has reportedly left Prince Harry “stunned” and saddened, as he considers his work with veterans and the Invictus Games to be his true passion.
However, for many Americans, his personal controversies and perceived exploitation of his royal status for financial gain overshadow his charitable efforts.
Earlier this year, Prince Harry’s induction into the Living Legends of Aviation Hall of Fame sparked similar criticism.
Critics argued that Harry’s contributions to aviation, serving as a gunner in an Apache helicopter, do not warrant such a prestigious title compared to other inductees, and that many other military pilots have performed similar or more impressive feats without receiving such recognition.
The idea of rewarding a Royal Prince who abandoned his duty and capitalised on his title for personal gain is an affront to the legacy of Pat Tillman and is even more misplaced than ludicrously naming Harry a “Legend of Aviation.”
More discretion must be exhibited in the selection of award recipients, ensuring that they truly represent the values and qualities
embodied by the award.
To do otherwise is quite frankly offensive and ridiculous.
Lee Cohen, an author and Royal commentator was adviser on Great Britain to the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee.
