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?

@Roussette writing "why question me then?!" is not patiently explaining.

I always feel like I'm missing something when people go on about Andrew and H&M in the same sentence.

Totally different individuals/ parts of the family aren't they? What have they got to do with each other except for being related? Why are they sometimes brought up together?

My issues and my uncle's issues/ lives and relationships, actions etc are totally unrelated.

You could be critical of both either or none. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Am I missing something?

I meant my post after that explaining. I don't mean to upset you.

Apologies if so.

It isn't. But it is oh so convenient to have a scapegoat called Harry to cover up the disgusting behaviour of Andrew for decades and I'm not talking just Epstein

Except looking back at the timeline shows this isn’t remotely the case.

It was February 2011 that the News of the World published a picture of Andrew and Epstein walking in Central Park together with the headline “Prince Andy & The Paedo” and they have covered it deeply for the intervening decade. The press coverage was so negative that it forced the Prince to step down from his “Trade Envoy” role just 5 months later, and then it was the Daily Mail that discovered and published the infamous photo of Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre a couple of years later. Prince Harry was still :“Hero Harry” during all this period, with hugely positive coverage. As he remained until Megxit, really.

@Vintagecreamandcottagepie i agree however some posters get extremely upset if H and M are criticised and immediately jump in with “ what about Andrew?” .
Everyone knows Andrew is an arrogant sleazebag but dragging his name in is a way of deflecting and derailing.

Not sure about the idea people are paid to be here.
But there are posters who defend every single thing members of the Royal family do except for Harry and Meghan. From trivial like wearing a dress someone does not like, to the rape accusations against Andrew. It is tiresome.

I have never seen Andrew being defended .

There was too much evidence for Andrew's behaviour to be ignored by the press. Are they really going to ignore him being sued or being filmed walking about with Epstein, or his car crash interview? But the coverage could have been much worse.
I think it is Charles who has got off lightly.

@Readinginthesun I have again and again on threads here.

There was too much evidence for Andrew's behaviour to be ignored by the press.

Absolutely not the case. The press were the ones who broke the story, dug up the evidence and piled the pressure on. The only reason we know any of this is because of the tabloid press’ investigative journalism.

But it is oh so convenient to have a scapegoat called Harry to cover up the disgusting behaviour of Andrew for decades and I'm not talking just Epstein.

If Harry’s a scapegoat he hasn’t done a good job.

😂😂😂😂
I bet on his school report card, it always said, ”Harry lacks effort. Must work harder." 🤣🤣
Poor Charles and Diana.

This thread is a retread of rumours and hearsay. If you’re going to start a thread OP with various accusations OP at least provide evidence.

@Serenster Good then. Although Andrew being sued did not take much journalism to break the story.

Charles can’t not invite Harry - it’s not birthday tea at the golf club, it’s a national event paid for out of public money. Charles will get to chose a few personal guests, but mostly the government / foreign office will issue.

Charles and Diana had an awful marriage. Charles and Camilla had an affair. Diana died tragically young. Who knows what Harry and Camilla’s relationship is like, but if it’s tense it wouldn’t be unusual under the circs. Harry can be kept well away from Camilla and still attend.

@Luredbyapomegranate Well apparently Charles is not inviting him to an event paid for by taxpayers.

Which event?

a) says who? and b) it isn’t up to Charles, it’s not a private birthday party, it’s a state occasion.

Have they released the list of invitees, then?

The Coronation.

Do you have a source for your claim?

Eh? Haven’t most people on this thread have already cast doubt on this claim as there is absolutely no evidence. As Luredbyapomegrnate say’s immediately before you, it’s not up to Charles who he invites. I can’t imagine the government would be comfortable with Harry not being invited to his father’s coronation. The international optics would be terrible. Writing a book would not preclude him from attending.

Of course the son of the King will be invited ! The question is - will he attend ?

Very well put

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

Ah. Thanks. I hadn't clocked that.

I see he's now an adviser to Liz Truss. Seems he's a bit unlucky with his choice of bosses 😬

Magazines and newspapers are all full of stories saying Charles has not decided whether to invite Harry and Meghan to the Coronation.