I'm still trying to understand what's wrong with Prince Harry personally receiving an award for his work on the Invictus games.
Is it because philanthropic work shouldn't be celebrated and the work itself should be reward enough? Because there are many people who personally get rewarded for their philanthropic work. Heck, the O.B.E. is routinely giving to such people.
Is it because of his high social-economic status that he shouldn't be rewarded? Because Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Oprah Winfrey, all with much higher social-economic statuses, have been given philanthropic awards before?
Is it because Prince Harry was born a prince of Great Britain and the British Royal Family doesn't receive awards? Not only is that not the case (King Charles for example:
List of awards received by Charles III - Wikipedia), Prince Harry represents no one but himself and his projects, so why should he be beholden to that, especially since other family members have won awards before?
Is it because Invictus started while Prince Harry was a working royal? Even the BRF considered Invictus a private patronage of Prince Harry, which is why he got to keep it, so why should great emphasize be put on that point when even the BRF didn't?
Is it because Invictus should have be awarded solely? Unfortunately, not many people know Invictus outside of Prince Harry, and if the organizations wants more eyes, patrons, participants, and donations, why would they hide away their most visible member and not put his name forward when they have no other similarly famous face?
Is it because Prince Harry has been working for himself, his wife, his children, and his personal causes rather than the British people and gets accolades in spite of "backstabbing" the BRF/Great Britain two years ago?