To think that not speaking to your own son is not a good look for the King ?

I haven't read the thread so sorry if it has already been said. Aren't Charles and William doing to Harry what Harry and Meghan have done to her father? Cutting him out for talking to the press/media. It is ironic Harry doesn't see that. He clearly doesn't like it one bit; that he can't be trusted, yet he's done it to Meghan's father.

Honestly whether you agree with the royals or now. King Charles as head of the monarchy literal job is to protect it and its reputation ( just as any CEO of any organisation ) . If he knows that his son will slag off the institution in the media after every conversation with him. I get why he’s put in a difficult position. That’s all! Try and reconcile with his son but at the real risk of it not working and spare 2 happening and damaging the monarchy further.
He has waited 70 years to be King and I’m sure he doesn’t want it collapsing on his watch .

Andrew is irrelevant to the conversation about Charles and Harry.

@lizzyBennet08

Your post is so revealing

So Harry describes the royals and their secret briefings to the press etc and THIS is what you consider damaging ?
Any thoughts on how Andrew , Mountbatten etc have damaged royalty ?
Oh wait - Andrew keeps his mouth shut so he’s ok with royalists .
Your so called royalty need their secrets kept . What the hell are they hiding ?

Agreed

The royal family have always been a bunch of weirdos. Comes with the territory.

God almighty - Charles and the Windsors protect Andrew and parade around with him !

Andrew is in the fold .
Is anyone here seriously going to try to argue that Harry has done anything even begins to approach Andrew’s crimes ??

If you are , you need help . Deprogrammed .

Charles and Willaim have punished and plotted against Harry because Harry spoke a few truths . And he left - crime of the century .
Charles and William protect and are happy to be photographed with Andrew
That is what you are trying to defend
Save your energy- people aren’t stupid thankfully

We can see what the Windsors are

I think he’s in an impossible position His vow at the coronation involves putting the state above all else. If he has applied pressure to a government body to give his son something they felt he wasn’t entitled to, he is breaking that rule.
Not to mention every conversation and argument with Harry ends up in the public domain which damages the monarchy of which he is the head so by default damaging it
it's such a pity that Harry can’t. be trusted to keep some conversations private .

@Ukisgaslit

what if they tried to murder you for example? Would you still be holding your hand out to them then?

What’s wrong with it ?
He's head of the COE for a start .
Events have proven that Spare was accurate re the machinations of the Windsors esp re their manipulation of their public image .
I agree he’s setting an example - the example being destroy anyone who in any way threatens to reveal the truth behind your lies

And as a so called first family and example to us all ( the national anthem anyone ??) they are showing us exactly who they are . Friend to pedophiles, disdainful towards their subjects and cruel.

As a parent I’d keep holding out my hand to my adult children regardless of what they did .
I’d say most decent parents would .

I think it’s fine, OP @Marmaladelover
The king is modelling to us how we don’t have to tolerate being treat like absolute shit by anyone including our own offspring. What’s wrong with that?

Diana herself said she had refused security which the RF wanted her to have as the mother of a future king. She told friends ( Rosa Monkton comes to mind) that she thought security would spy on her .
Sadly , the RF could not stop her getting into a car with a drunk driver and no seat belt .
One of the ( many ) things I found strange about the “ near catastrophic car chase “ in NY was the lack of seatbelts . I would have thought Harry would insist on seatbelts given what happened to his mother .

I've never heard it either.

In defence of that poster I’ve heard it a few times recently. My teen cousin said it, and a friend of my daughter’s said it too.

This.

Non contact with a man child who runs around constantly bad mouthing his family. His interview to attempt to get all the attention on him on VE remembrance day was disgusting. I'd avoid talking to someone who shares everything, he's totally untrustworthy.

Interesting that Harry claims King Charles is not talking to him because of the security issue. Not the Oprah interview, the Netflix series or the books. He is trying to rewrite history to avoid taking accountability for his part in this. We only have his version of the story so who says KC isn't talking to him behind closed doors? To be honest I would have more respect if he stopped courting the media he claims to loathe.

I've never heard it either.

Never heard this phrase in my life either. 🤷‍♀️

@BMW6 , wholehearted.

Shouldn't the phrase be "whole hearted"?

I'm 67 and have never, ever heard someone say "with his/her full chest".

@HonoriaBulstrode

Are you trying to imply that my use of the phrase ‘with his full chest ‘ means I am not a UK citizen ?
You are also implying that I have name changed or have several usernames . That implication is an attempt to denigrate posters opinions and is against guidelines
I can say with ‘my whole chest’ that I am a UK citizen and I have one username - the one you see .

Since you are confused it means to speak confidently and without guile . Don’t you have teenager in the house lol ?

Not a fan of the royal family but like all families there will be two sides to this issue and I don't think we know anywhere near enough to judge. I didn't speak to my brother, many thought I was too harsh. When I told them what had led to the rift let's say they were shocked!

Not just bias but more than a few proven lies.

I think you misunderstand what has happened. The risk analysis RAVEC carries out in other circumstances are principally to establish which individuals require protection. Those are individuals within the UK as RAVEC cannot dictate what other countries do. They took a considered view that risk levels for Harry and his family were unlikely to have changed, but that that process of necessity could not decide on risk levels for the future when they have no idea when and in what circumstances he might decide to come here and/or to bring his family. Instead, they would decide on a case by case basis on bespoke arrangements each time he comes, which will include a whole spectrum of security which will fully take into account what is known at that time about the relevant risk levels. The original judge and the Court of Appeal both thought that Sir Richard Mottram and RAVEC are uniquely fitted to decide on those arrangements and that the proposals were both appropriate and sensible. I don't recall seeing any sort of sensible case put forward by Harry demonstrating what is wrong with that or why it puts him at any greater risk than whatever it is that he wants instead.

Do you really believe that anyone in the government or the RF seriously wants him or his family to be killed? Only the most bonkers species of conspiracy theorist could seriously believe that to be the case. On the contrary, they are desperate not to create another Diana-type martyr and excuses for yet more conspiracy theories.

How can it possibly mean he has no security? Do you really believe that he and his children would be left as target practice for terrorists if he applied?

The Queen and Charles offered to pay for his security when he left, and it was rightly pointed out to them that they couldn't pay for the armed security he wants. How does that make them a driving force behind RAVEC's decisions?

Yes 100%
And you know what even if he isn't it's nobodies business. Charles has accepted him as his son and Harry accepts Charles as his father, even if they are low contact.
That should be the end of it.