Prince Harry made waves last week with a surprising claim at the Invictus Games—according to him, his five-year-old son, Archie, asked about landmines and wanted to see footage of Princess Diana walking through a minefield. Yes, you read that right. A five-year-old supposedly sparked a conversation about one of the world’s most complex and tragic geopolitical issues.
Naturally, the internet wasn’t buying it. Social media exploded with skepticism, with many calling Harry’s story a blatant attempt to drum up sympathy. And now, even a former Buckingham Palace staffer has joined the chorus, slamming the claim as “nonsense” and suggesting Harry was fishing for attention.
Let’s be real—most five-year-olds are more interested in cartoons and snack time than the dangers of unexploded ordnance. While it’s technically possible that Archie overheard conversations about landmines and asked about them, many believe it was Harry who introduced the topic and then framed it as his son’s curiosity to tug at heartstrings.
Critics argue that the Duke of Sussex is exploiting both his son and his mother’s legacy to score PR points. “Talk about exploitative or what!” the ex-palace insider ranted, mocking the idea that Archie would casually bring up such a serious topic. “What else do they discuss? Global warming? The war in Gaza?”
Even if the conversation did happen, people are questioning whether such a grim subject is appropriate for a child so young. Some feel that discussing war injuries and landmines with a five-year-old is too much, too soon.
Harry has generally kept his kids, Archie and Lilibet, out of the spotlight. However, he has shared his hope that they will continue his work with the Invictus Games someday. But this latest anecdote is making some wonder if he’s using his family ties a little too strategically.
Sure, Archie could have been curious about landmines, just like Elon Musk’s four-year-old son might pick up on his dad’s Twitter rants about Donald Trump. But for many, this story just doesn’t add up—and the backlash is proof that the public isn’t easily convinced.