Last week, Prince Harry covered People Magazine. He had given People and the Telegraph exclusive statements about his British security case, and People spun out his statements into a larger cover story. “Sources” spoke about the deep estrangement between Harry and King Charles, to the point where Charles refuses to take any calls from Harry. Some people missed the fact that People Mag also basically explained that Harry’s position is correct, which is that Charles could alter Harry’s security situation if Charles wanted to, and that’s why Charles refuses to take Harry’s calls. Charles’s side continues to insist that he has nothing to do with RAVEC (a lie) and that he couldn’t do anything to change Harry’s situation (another lie). Well, Us Weekly has put these issues in their cover story this week. Us Weekly sort of does a better job of zeroing in on this core issue: Harry correctly believes Charles could give the Sussexes security for any visit they make, and Charles continues to lie about all of it. Some highlights from Us Weekly’s story:
Harry’s court case: “This has been terrible for Harry’s relationship with Charles,” says a royal insider. “Harry blames Charles and thinks he can intervene. But [Charles] can’t, and it just continues Harry’s narrative that he’s been cast out.”
Charles isn’t speaking to Harry: “Charles is not answering Harry’s messages,” royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams tells Us Weekly. “At the moment, Harry does not seem to have a relationship with his father at all. It’s truly sad.”
It’s out of Charles’s hands: As far as Charles is concerned, the matter of Harry’s publicly-funded security being withdrawn in the U.K. is out of his hands. (RAVEC, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, is responsible for security details. Since Harry and Meghan moved to the U.S., their U.K. security measures have been decided on a case-by-case basis.) “Prince Harry doesn’t seem to understand that Charles can’t get involved in the decision about his security, but he still blames him,” says the royal insider. “Harry and Meghan are no longer working royals, so they don’t get royal protection anymore. It’s the British public paying for this, so there’s no leeway here.” Adds the insider: “It’s between Harry and the Home Office.”
Are the Sussexes supposed to have security in Britain? Royal experts are divided as to whether Harry and his immediate family members are deserving of round-the-clock protection while in his home country. (He pays for his own security in the U.S.) “If any accommodation was to be had with the Sussexes, this seemed a reasonable request,” says Fitzwilliams, noting how “tormented” Harry has been by the tragic death of his mother, Princess Diana, who died in a 1997 car crash while being chased by paparazzi. But royal historian Marlene Koenig feels Harry is acting entitled. “When you leave the family business — whether it be the royal family or a family-owned corporation — you lose the rights and privileges of that business,” she says. (Harry has maintained that he was forced out of The Firm after initially offering to work on a more part-time basis.)
Charles’ radio silence speaks volumes. “Harry believes his father can make arrangements,” says Koenig. “He cannot.” (Koenig notes that other part-time or non-working royals have also lost security but are given protection while carrying out official royal engagements.) Fitzwilliams believes Harry “regards what he perceives as the King’s indifference as a betrayal of some sort.”
Ah, now they’re saying Harry is paranoid like his mother: Meanwhile, Harry’s decision to talk to reporters after the April 9 hearing “highlights the issue of trust and reliability” for Charles & Co., Fitzwilliams says. “[It was] unwise [of Harry] to make further public accusations against the royal family, claiming that they tried to trap him using security as a weapon. This has a feel of paranoia about it.”
And Charles is mad about Harry overshadowing him: Adding to the strain between father and son, Harry’s surprise trip to Ukraine — he met with wounded soldiers in Lviv on April 10 — “risked overshadowing” Charles’ state visit to Italy with wife Queen Camilla, says the royal insider. “Traditionally, the royals don’t do big initiatives at the same time, so this was a low blow from Harry.” The Duke of Sussex is provided with significant security details while traveling to certain countries, like Ukraine as well as Colombia and Nigeria in 2024, which he does not receive while in the U.K.
Tough love: “They are not in communication with each other,” says Koenig. “Charles loves his son, but at this time, he and his advisers prefer the tough love treatment.”
I’m still waiting for any of these royal commentators to point out the oddness of Buckingham Palace’s position, which is: Harry’s security is out of Charles’s hands, because Charles is mad about everything Harry has said and done! That’s the inherent contradiction – if Charles won’t intervene because he’s mad at the Sussexes, then Harry is correct and Charles is perfectly capable of intervention in the security situation. Which Harry knows, because he saw the way QEII ensured his security when he and Meghan visited the UK three times in 2022. It’s been clear this whole time that this whole situation has been arranged according to Charles’s wishes – the 30-day notice, the ability of the royal protection service to deny Harry security for certain visits (when Charles doesn’t want him in town), the leaking of Harry’s travel plans and itinerary during his visits. It’s actually shocking that more people aren’t pointing out that Charles really doesn’t care if he puts Harry in mortal danger. I guess that’s the “tough love” reference.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, cover courtesy of Us Weekly.
-
- Prince Harry, King Charles III, Camilla Queen Consort, and Princess Anne The State Funeral of Her Majesty The Queen, Gun Carriage Procession, Wellington Roundabout, London, UK – 19 Sep 2022,Image: 724224245, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: -, *** NO UK USE FOR 48 HRS ***, Model Release: no, Credit line: Anthony Harvey/Shutterstock/Avalon/Avalon
-
- Prince Harry arrives at The Royal Courts Of Justice in London, England, UK on Tuesday 8 April, 2025 for the start of a two day hearing to appeal the decision over his security access at the Appeals Court.,Image: 985031329, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: Please credit photographer and agency when publishing as Justin Ng/UPPA/Avalon., Model Release: no, Credit line: Justin Ng/Avalon
-
- Prince Harry departs The Royal Courts Of Justice in London, England, UK on Tuesday 8 April, 2025 after attending the start of a two day hearing to appeal the decision over his security access at the Appeals Court.,Image: 985133613, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: Please credit photographer and agency when publishing as Justin Ng/UPPA/Avalon., Model Release: no, Credit line: Justin Ng/Avalon
-
- Prince Harry arrives at The Royal Courts Of Justice in London, England, UK on Wednesday 9 April, 2025 for the second day of a two day hearing to appeal the decision over his security access at the Appeals Court.,Image: 985360888, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: Please credit photographer and agency when publishing as Justin Ng/UPPA/Avalon., Model Release: no, Credit line: Justin Ng/Avalon
-
- (Strictly for editorial use only and available until December 12th 2018) In this handout image provided by Clarence House, HRH Prince Charles Prince of Wales poses for an official portrait to mark his 70th Birthday in the gardens of Clarence House, with Their Royal Highnesses Camilla Duchess of Cornwall, Prince Willliam Duke of Cambridge, Catherine Duchess of Cambridge, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis, Prince Harry Duke of Sussex and Meghan Duchess of Sussex, on September 5, 2018 in London, England.
-
- Prince of Wales and the Duke of Sussex during a discussion about violent youth crime at a forum held at Clarence House in London. The prince and the duke will also speak with PrinceÕs Trust Ambassadors, families of victims of youth violent crime, and community groups and practitioners.
-
- Prince Charles and Prince Harry at the World Premiere of Netflix’s Our Planet at the Natural History Museum, Kensington, London on April 4th 2019
Of course Charles can intervene, Who are they trying to fool? Charles hides behind fake protocol “rules.” And Diana was not “paranoid” and neither is Harry.
THIS.
It is reasonable to infer that Charles interfered with Diana’s security during Queen Elizabeth’s reign because we literally saw him do it, in real time, to Harry, also during the Late Queen’s reign.
To say he has no power is an absolute lie. He has always had the power to give or deny security, just as Elizabeth did. She ensured they had security for specific visits even after Charles ganked their security, one month after the conclusion of the Sandringham summit, which went against the Summit agreement that there was to be a “one year trial period”.
If Charles had the power to gank security during his mother’s reign, and she also had the (demonstrated) ability to grant it, then he has the power to grant it now. The fact that he won’t speaks to what a tyrannical, petty loser he is – and it also implicates him in a certain event of 1997. It’s clear he likes his targets unprotected and vulnerable – and that’s why he and the courtiers keep having brown trouser moments every time a RAVEC court date comes up and Harry testifies. Harry is determined to get the truth about his father’s doings on public record. That’s why Chuck is livid and remains in a punitive posture, helped along by Rottweiler Homewrecker who spent most of her adult life alienating Chuck from his entire family so she could wear the Vault jewels.
LOL at “brown trouser moments”.
This is the crux of the inconsistency that Harry pointed out at the Sandringham Summit. “(Koenig notes that other part-time or non-working royals have also lost security but are given protection while carrying out official royal engagements.)”
There are part-time royals or non-working royals who have HALF IN-HALF OUT arrangements. No one in the media will say it but that’s what Andrew has. He’s making money independently (non-working royal) and enjoying the privileges of a royal, including government funded security.
Beatrice and Eugenie also are HALF IN-HALF OUT and use their HRH. Same goes for Prince Michael of Kent who still uses his HRH. They all have financial independence, making money commercially with their side businesses and royal titles. Yes they all have side hustles. It doesn’t take a lot of researching to uncover, but the media plays dumb when they report on how that institution and that family operates. They’re like a mafia in my opinion.
I don’t know if Harry will, but I think he should write a book about all his court cases so the facts of what he learned from the court documents are pulled together in one publication (his book). I think it would sell as well as Spare and expose all the lies and deceitful collaborations between the media, and the royal institution and their principals to malign and harm him, Meghan and his children. The backstabbers that they are. 😤
Extremely well said. Totally agree.
That’s all kind of a smokescreen. Harry should get protection because of the threat level, not because of his status within the royal family. He should be treated like any VIP with a similar threat level.
I fail to see where they said Charles refuses to stop lying. They’re repeating his lies as fact, unless I read it wrong.
Unfortunately nobody wants to believe a father WILLINGLY put his own son in mortal danger but that’s exactly what he is doing. This must be so very hard for Harry to comprehend that his own father would do this to him but I think he is finally coming to terms with it. Chuckles is a poor excuse for a human being .
The question of “why” remains, for heaven’s sake. Can it really just be jealousy? And if so, then it shows that this jealousy justifies for him to put his family in mortal danger. So if he does it to Harry out of jealousy, then it’s even more obvious that he did it to his wife.
Yes he did it to his first wife. His side piece wanted to ruin the family and she used Chuckles need for a mommy figure to do it. Chuckles and Horsilla are to blame.
Charles is a malignant narcissist. You don’t say “no” to a narcissist (which is bad enough) but saying “no” to a malignant narcissist unleashes hell on earth for the naysayer.
https://www.choosingtherapy.com/malignant-narcissist/
They also keep leaving out that the Sussexes want to PAY for it themselves. They don’t expect the taxpayers to cover it and that’s why it’s bullshit.
It was decided on the court that it isn’t possible to pay for this kind of security. So, if Harry wins his case, he can’t pay for it. But, of course, they aren’t gonna mention Harry offered to pay for it.
Harry also got police escort when he went to UK immediately after Charles announced cancer diagnosis. So, of course the King has the authority to order security for his son. QE2 also guaranteed security when they went for jubilee as pointed out.
I literally want to hurl expletives all over my response! What about all that “soft power” Charles and the Monarchy are alleged to have? Charles has a member of his “team” on the RAVEC board, the board which snatched Harry’s security back. You mean Charles cant whisper to the other powers that be, to restore his son’s security? Additionally, out of his OWN POCKET Charles paid for Andrew’s security when it was pulled back after the sex scandal.
We are not stupid. We know that removal of security was meant to trap Harry into leaving Meghan.
What I wish, with all my heart, is that Harry completely turns his back on that family. They dont love him, and I wonder, if Charles never loved Diana and continually put Camilla above all, how much can he TRULY love Harry who has Diana’s independent spirit, and William, who DOESNT.
So Koenig is now a royal historian? Seriously? 🙄
She is totally biased. And no “authority.” Approving “tough love” by Charles! Charles does not know what love means
Yes, he said so at the announcement of his engagement to Diana “whatever love is.”
Oh, she never fails to mention that she’s a royal historian on twitter. She leaves out that she’s an amateur one.
Unless she has a PhD in history with a thesis on the Royal Families of England, she is more of a gossipmonger than an historian.
She has a Masters in Library Sciences and was a librarian until about two years ago.
She is indeed a historian and widely respected. She’s also a friend. I disagree with her on this subject but she’s not an amateur or mouthpiece or gossip monger. She’s written positive things about the Sussexes over the years and called out royal BS. Such as the whole “protocol” nonsense when Meghan was held to different standards.
Well, then someone’s yanking her chain, because she’s spouting The Firm’s propaganda.
So a person is born into a system where the kid’s face is splashed on the papers from birth and throughout their life and every detail of their life is chronicled breathlessly and then when they’re of no use anymore, they’re cast out without security but are still rabidly tracked by the papers and the public. Cool cool cool. What a modern and admirable system/s. There’s a level of barbarity in this especially as “experts” like Marlene claim welp that’s just how it is.
Not to mention he remains 5th in line to the throne and a Councillor of State…
Do we know that he’s still a Councillor of State? I thought that they removed him from that role after the Queen died… or at the very latest, after H & Cluck met in February 2024 (that scant 30 minute meeting the Rottweiler was mad she couldn’t sit in on).
@Where’sMyTiara, no he is still Counsellor of State, which comes from his position on the succession. It doesn’t have anything to do with being a working royal. They just added more people to the list. I don’t think they can remove him.
@sevenblue
I just saw this on royal.uk:
“The current Counsellors of State are The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Princess Royal, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Duke of Sussex, The Duke of York and Princess Beatrice. In practice, only working Members of the Royal Family are called upon to act as Counsellors of State.”
So basically they’re saying that Hazza and Uncle Pedo are listed but won’t be called upon. Looks like noises were made to pull them in 2022 after Anne and Edward were added; but nothing has come of it so far.
They can technically remove him but it’s not something Charles can do unilaterally. It involves Parliament amending the Regency Act of 1937, according to an article in of all places, Town & Country magazine. The quotes by Viscount Stansgate were of particular interest: https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a41778023/regency-act-amended-new-counsellors-of-state/
The whole point of adding Anne and Edward and throwing in the invented protocol about “working royals” was to sidestep the complication of removing Harry and Andrew (and Beatrice, for that matter, who’s also not a working royal). It’ll be interesting to see what happens if Charles passes in the next year or two and Will becomes king. The COS at that point would normally be Kate (spouse of the monarch), George, Charlotte, Louis, Anne, Edward. But you must be 21 to be COS so that knocks the three Wales children out of the immediate picture. And if Will dumps Kate, she’s out too. At least two COS are appointed if they’re needed (not necessarily appointed in any particular order of precedence as far as I can tell). Anne and Edward aren’t enough, since one of them could get injured (e.g., Anne with the horse accident) or become ill themselves (Edward hasn’t looked well for some time). So Harry, Andrew and Beatrice (and Eugenie?) could technically be back in the picture. Royal.uk says, “In practice, only working members of the RF are CALLED UPON to act as COS”; doesn’t say they’re ineligible.
Yeah exactly. Harry didn’t decide not to go into the family construction business, his literal first appearance to worldwide news coverage was days after his birth. That is not anything you can compare to someone else not wanting to be a lawyer because their parents are lawyers. Also ignoring the fact that he worked with dedication for this family up until 5 years ago so it’s not like he was out of the public eye from the late 80s on.
They’re basically saying you’ve risked your life for us literally as a soldier, and worked and represented us on the worldwide stage and now that you won’t do that any of the inherent risk that you inherited simply because you were born, well too bad you should have never left. It’s such a callous disregard for his safety and his family safety for something that is so inconsequential in the scheme of things. The cost of security four times a year for them to come to the UK can’t possibly even touch what William and Kate have spent going on vacation the first 12 weeks of the year.
The cost cannot even compare. Ski trips with full security for an heir who works less than part-time. Who’s to say the Wales kids will work for the monarchy, especially if its supposed to be slimmed down, and so then will they just not get security? I’m guessing they’ll change the rules for them. Which makes the current treatment of Harry even more unfair and outrageous. And right now, the DM has a cover with Louis’ face and a headline saying Gappy Birthday referring to his missing teeth. Like come on. It’s a gross system.
She’s not an expert. What’s her position on Andrew?
That he has no right to RPO protection since he’s not a working Royal. She’s commented on it multiple times. It’s just no one cares about Andrew.
It would be ironic if Prince Harry, fifth in line for the throne who has been denied security someday becomes king…
😂😂😂 at the way the Lazies are behaving, it wouldn’t surprise me that they’d offer Harry the head of state role at some stage.
Didn’t Albania or Romania offer Edward a head of state role ?
Exactly this. I loathe the Tr*mp family with every cell in my body, but the families of ex-presidents are targets for violence years after said president leaves office, and as such need adequate protection. The US provides lifetime secret service to all our ex-presidents, not bc of their character but bc of the risk level. Harry will always be the son of the King of England and will ALWAYS be at risk. It’s unthinkable that he and his family just get thrown to the wolves because they stepped back from royal duties. He was born into this bullshit, he didn’t choose it. Truly a heartless, evil “family” in name only.
How does Charles then explain his ensuring that his non-working Royal brother, the odious and criminal Andrew, is ensured security?! Such lies and hypocrisy!
He has private security not RPOs. Charles used to fund it but then didn’t renew their contract for protection at Royal Lodge last year.
@BQM That’s not proven fact. No one from the palace corroborated such stories.
They were printing those stories when they were trying to justify evicting Harry from Frogmore Cottage with a reason why Andrew needed to leave Royal Lodge.
I really hope Harry writes a book about the information revealed in the court cases and what was being concealed about royal security arrangements. People will be shocked to learn about the inconsistencies regarding who in the royal family gets government funded security. What they did to Harry is scandalous but the media has been using numerous commentators to spin and confuse the public about the facts regarding security for work/‘non-working’ and half in-half out members of the royal family. There is an arrangement between the media and the royal family Yo malign Harry and his family. Shameful shameful behavior.
‘Non-working royal’ is a terminology used to ostracize Harry and Meghan. There is no such construct as a ‘non-working royal’. They don’t get paid to attend events. The King is the only person that receives the sovereign grant (annual budget) to cover costs of running the royal households and he chooses how he wants to spend it.
– Royals are invited to attend events on behalf of the monarch as the monarch chooses. One simple example is the palace garden parties hosted by the royals. Any of the royals is invited to host/entertain the public (e.g. Zara Tindall and husband, the Yorks and spouses, Peter Phillips). None of them is paid to help host those garden parties.
– There are other royal events at St. James Palace, Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle that some also host for their individual royal patronages (after all they are HRHs). They visit charities for they are patrons. The media mainly focuses on coverage of the monarch’s and the heir’s royal engagements so not a lot of people are aware of what happens with the other royals.
I really wish Harry would write another book to expose the injustice.🤞
I have a theory for the possible real reason they won’t let Harry pay for his security.
If they let him pay, they’d have to give him a real bill—like a line-by-line breakdown of what security actually costs. And once Harry sees the numbers, he might realize the whole system is padded or shady as hell. Maybe he’d notice the prices don’t add up, or that his “share” is covering more than just his own protection.
That’s probably the last thing they want. Letting Harry look behind the curtain could blow up their whole financial setup. So instead of risking that, they’d rather just say no and act like it’s about policy.
Just a hunch, but it would explain a lot.
No, there was a court case about this. The judge decided that this kind of security can’t be paid. So, even if he wins his security case, it isn’t possible for him to pay for it.
What was the reasoning behind the decision?
I think, it was this article explaining the decision. The judge basically rejected Harry to challenge RAVEC’s decision that he can’t pay for the security. So, if he wins his security case, it will be paid from the public purse, which is the case for all the people receiving high profile security in UK, like Salman Rushdie. You can’t even get info about how much is paid for this kind of security, because they don’t want it to become a public discussion.
https://www.celebitchy.com/818671/prince_harry_lost_part_of_his_case_about_reimbursing_the_uk_police_for_his_security/
As I understand it the security is provided by the police, and you can’t buy it. Either you need it or you don’t and if they consider you need it then the state pays. There is no mechanism to pay for police security. I wondered why he didn’t get any security when attending the RAVAC hearing. That was a definite time of danger for Harry, the date was published in the press.
@sunnyside up
Harry said he had applied for protection during the trial and was refused, which is why they were so surprised he showed up.
If the institution can issue “suggestions” to have RAVEC create a singular arrangement for Harry then that completely contradicts their pronouncements that Charles has no influence on Harry’s security.
The institution deliberately had RAVEC create a “bespoke” security arrangement that ensured Harry and his family wouldn’t have inadequate protection and limit their ability to visit the UK by imposing the 28 day notice period.
Pressure was put on RAVEC to bypass its own procedural Risk Management Board review and establish a fundamentally flawed policy for Harry. It was all done with malicious intent.
Yes, they created a singular arrangement just for him. Ate this point, I don’t even think the notice period is the issue, It’s the fact that it’s on a case by case basis meaning that even when he gives notice, his request is regularly denied despite the constant threat-level. And what reasoning is even given for the denial? None.
The royal insider in this piece is a member of the royal rota and using Richard Fitzwilliams and Marlene Koenig as royal experts was a choice. Both experts have the same information as we do and Marlene lives in the US with no real connection to the Royal establishment.
She actually has a lot of connections within the family and larger community around them. People are keen to denigrate her over this position which they, and myself, disagree with. But her bona fides are solid and decades long.
There’s no point in arguing logic and fairness with an institution whose existence is inherently illogical and unfair. We can’t say, “Charles, don’t be a vindictive assh*le” because the system says it’s OK for him to be that way. He can do whatever he wants, either through sovereign right or backdoor channels and in a couple of years, William will be in the same position. People on both sides can go on about what should or shouldn’t happen, because of this or that and blah, blah, blah, but the basic fact is that Charles and William hate Harry and Meghan and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
The point that if Harry didn’t ‘qualify’ under unclear royal rules – made up as they go along – he should have an RMB (proper risk assessment) under the ‘VIP’ part of RAVEC (that’s what the V stands for). They didn’t do one. This is not difficult to understand. Several royal aides sit on RAVEC, btw – what are they there for if not to influence decisions made? And royalty-obsessive Koenig has literally zero in-depth understanding of the issues. Eligibility for protective security is NOT a perk of being royal. It’s supposed to be about level of risk. She’s a pedantic nitwit.
🎯
If Charles is not taking Harry’s calls I understand that to mean the palace is not communicating with Harry. How then is Harry supposed to plan his appearances and travel so as to not overshadow his father? Why are they punishing him and criticizing him when they’re excluding him from all family and Royal matters? My God poor Harry trying to navigate this lunacy.
I agree with other comments that Harry personally wants to learn as much as possible via this court case and he wants it on record. If he wants to expose it all publicly is another thing all together. Will he write a book or do an interview? Will he threaten to do so? That I don’t have an opinion about and maybe he hasn’t decided. So far the royal family don’t seem to be budging and Harry doesn’t have the security he wants.
The thing is, though the UK media claims Charles doesn’t have anything to do with Harry’s security and Charles can’t intervene. That sounds like a lie especially since the Royal family offered Harry security for one year in the US. Why would that offer have been offered. Charles and Elizabeth must have both understood they could negotiate security during the Sussex’s exit.
“When you leave the family business — whether it be the royal family or a family-owned corporation — you lose the rights and privileges of that business,” So now being kept safe from harm is a “privilege” of royalty? So much for any commoners.
@somebody: i would always prefer to live in a republic as I do, but this I found unfair. If a child is born royal and like William and Harry as one of the most reported royal children, there risk is born with them. Nowhere did they choose it. So necessary security should always be granted.
This is Marlene Koenig, a royalty-obsessed retired American librarian. She has no in-depth understanding whatsoever of issues around public figures accessing protective security. Sees everything through her ‘royal’ perspective and is too blinkered and pedantic by nature to grasp the bigger picture. As in the V in RAVEC stands for VIP, so not a royal perk .
My point kind of is that everyone deserves safety. If there were a credible terrorist threat to Joe Nobody down the street the police should provide protection. And H&M have had terrorist threats against them in the UK.
“Charles loves his son, but at this time, he and his advisers prefer the tough love treatment.”
The fact that he lets his advisers weigh in on how to treat Harry proves that Charles does not love his son.
I bet Bill Gates when in the UK gets the type of security that Harry is asking for. I thought it had to do with risk not the brf. Being the King’s son simply adds another level of risk.
A tougher love? Does she mean the 50s, when you could do almost anything with children? Where the father of the family was allowed to do anything with his wife and his small and big children? God, that’s so crazy and dangerous. They all talk like Project 25. The far right has found supporters all over the world.
And … a family is a family is a family …. and not a company …
I believe Charles and William are hoping for a permanent solution to their Sussex problem. Spare and the court cases challenging the lack of security are preventing them from achieving their goal.
Chuckles knows there is proof he withdrew the Sussexes’ security to force them back to the UK. The blood is on his hands. He knew at the time that his reign would suck without them. And it does.
Whatever Harry learned 2 weeks ago in the closed part of his court hearing was so bad, I think he considers their relationship to be over. I almost wonder if something about Diana’s “accident” was revealed. I maintain that Harry is the one not answering the phone. All this frenzied briefing is just to cover that up. What a useless coward Charles is. He has no business calling himself a father. Ever.