Harry and Camilla and Charles and Andrew: Some Questions

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

I am reading that Charles will not invite Harry to the coronation if he criticises Camilla in his upcoming memoir.

There is also commentary that Harry's memoir will be damaging to the Royal Family. Most of the commentary is around fear of what he will say about Camilla.

I am struggling to understand what Harry could say that is more damaging about Charles and Camilla than we already know. The admitted adultery, the divorce, the whole ghastly Tampongate leaks happened, and they are now King and Queen.

Andrew paid out millions to put out fire on a sex scandal involving a minor and Epstein.

And recently, a biography of Camilla by Angela Levin has, I am informed, a whole chapter that seems gratuitous as it is extremely critical of Harry. Angela Levin has suggested that friends of Camilla cooperated with her on the book with her knowledge.

So why is Harry allowed to be criticised in a book about Camilla that appears to have her blessing, but he is not allowed to be critical of Camilla in his own book?

Step parenting relationships are inherently fraught, as we see here all the time. it can't have been easy for a 12-year-old boy who lost his mother to grow up learning that his father was involved to another woman. He will have heard about his mother's own affairs but it is hard to judge someone who died, and was his mother.

Of course, he may have overcome his resentment of his stepmother by now, but why is he not allowed to talk about what he was feeling then, and perhaps his struggle to accept the situation?

And why is what Harry may say about Camilla a bigger thing, and more damaging, than what Andrew did?

Heard somewhere? The Sun maybe? I heard Meghan had a surrogate and wasn't even pregnant and that's why Archie and Lily are quite pale

She's living in the Taj Mahal with Elvis, didn't you know?

I meant come up with New Stuff to have a go about Charles with that isn't Diana-related.

The Royal Family do seem shot scared about Harry's book. Which I agree begs the question of what else could there possibly be to reveal.

I have not read any of the books, and I think it is wrong to speculate before they are published.
However, Harry has been critical of his family in public on the Oprah Winfrey show and on some podcast I think. Meghan has also been critical of the family.
There is no evidence that anyone at all said anything about Archie's skin colour.
We only have Harry's account which also contradicted Meghan's account.
That the book is critical of Camilla is speculation, although it is possible some insiders may have leaked some of the things the book contains.
However, It is likely that he will be critical of Camilla, as children will always blame the 'other woman', although Diana also had affaires, and some with married men.
I remember people at work saying their marriage (Charles and Diana) was ill-matched when they were still engaged, so some were aware they were badly matched.

There is no evidence that anyone at all said anything about Archie's skin colour. wasn't it mentioned in the Tom Bower book? That Camila and Harry were talking and she said something about the the baby having a "ginger Afro"hair ? And they both laughed , and he went and said it to Meghan as he thought it was funny till he saw her reaction and changed his mind?

It must be more than just being generally critical of Camilla. There have been hints before from reporters about bombshell secrets they are nit allowed to report.

If Harry is critical of Camilla and Catherine , he can kiss goodbye to titles for his DC .

Do they? Where do you get that from?

Who has said something to make you think that ?

Why are there so many professional PR people on all these threads about the Royals? It must cost a fortune to have you all monitor the forums of the world and post.

It gets really bloody dull.

ALL the royals talk, whisper or nod to the press.

Charles went on BBC - the chat was about the poor mothering skills of Queen Elizabeth 11, and the poor fathering skills of the Duke of Edinburgh.

So why all the pearl clutching about his son doing the same thing?

Like father like son.......

I remember people at work saying their marriage (Charles and Diana) was ill-matched when they were still engaged, so some were aware they were badly matched.

I had those thoughts myself. A 32 year old man, Cambridge educated, with all sorts of interests and some level of intellectualism, marrying a young woman who would be barely out of her teens and with very little education whose reading interests stopped at romantic fiction. It was a positively Victorian (or earlier) notion that they were suited because she was an aristocratic virgin.

If Harry’s a scapegoat he hasn’t done a good job. There’s been a lot about Andrew in the media, including a prime-time BBC interview with him. If the King reportedly doesn’t even like his brother much it also seems weird that he’d agree to his loved son being a scapegoat for him.

Harry as scapegoat is spread rather thin when you consider he's also allegedly been Wills' deflector shield for decades too.

Poor bugger is like the Jesus of the royals...

Harry has a lot of agency for someone who's a scapegoat.

Such a scapegoat with his 4-book deal that Cruel King Daddy made him make.

It was Andrew's decision to do the carcrash interview, aided and abetted by his daughter.
He was advised not to by his aides, one of whom resigned over Andrew going ahead with it

He was advised not to by his aides, one of whom resigned over Andrew going ahead with it

Do you mean Amanda Thirsk?

She remained employed by him in a private capacity at Pitch@Palace although finally left that too after unsurprisingly it was found to be in breach of rules by the Charity Commission.

What is this relevant to?

Jason Stein his PR adviser resigned when he ignored his advice and went ahead with the interview.

You'll have to scroll back and read the posts quoting me. Quite relevant and allowable that I reply

I had seen the one post - post, singular, not plural - quoting you that's about Andrew. I still didn't quite get your point, so was asking which post or comment you were specifically referring to.

Not sure why you're using the word "allowable" here. No one said you weren't allowed.

Why question me then?!

Post singular ok. It made sense to me. You can scroll by if you don't want to read my posts, feel free!

A poster said Harry wasn't a very good scapegoat given Andrew did a BBC interview.
I said it was his choice to do so against advice

I explained why I questioned you @Roussette

I didn't know which post or remark you were referring to. I asked that matter-of-factly 🤷🏾‍♀️

Please don't get defensive or snappy with me.

I am just patiently explaining. See my last post.
Hope that's enough for you
😀

Thank you.

The logic doesn't follow though.
It's the fact that Andrew did the BBC interview and the content of that interview that makes him an easy scapegoat. Not why he did it.

But even so, Andrew's own advisers may have been against it, but who knows what was advised by those in the palace who wished to make him a scapegoat (if true).

The whole reason he did the interview is because he had been named and shamed in US legal proceedings and the FBI wanted to talk to him. That alone makes him someone that could more easily be made into a scapegoat than Harry who as far as we know has not been accused of being involved in/a witness to criminal and civil offences.

There has been a lot of media coverage of Andrew. There is a very recent new US TV documentary about him.