Based on what evidence? That's kinda the problem here. He said / she said doesn't cut it
That's Harry's ultimate problem.
If you have a grievance against the establishment you have to have a very defined tightly woven argument with evidence to back it up.
Otherwise you will come a total cropper
Given this was someone raised by the 'never explain never complain' mantra he's really never learn the lessons about why and the nature of the Streisand effect .
That's why it's playing out particularly badly here and is liable in time stateside if he continues.
If the best Harry has is 'William and the Dog Bowl' story, it's not really demonstrating anything.
If all this is a threat to his family about worse to come if he doesn't get his own way, the again I'm not sure how that works out for him because eventually he will be asked for the goods and then will play the roll of the bad guy in doing so.
The fact this thread is titled 'what are the royal supposed to be apologising for' highlights how the message isn't being communicated to the public
Saying 'watch the interview' misses the point that he's flooded the market with so much grievance, no one can see the wood for the trees and the impact of the interview is lost in the sound of his own voice echoing from multiple directions at the same time.
If the interview had come a month ago well ahead of the book, it might frame the debate differently.
The interview now looks like a damage limitation exercise after everyone is rolling their eyes so much and has already reached 'Peak Harry Whining' and have switched off
He's managed to oversaturate the market with his list of complaints and therein lies the issue at this point. He can't now narrow down and refine his grievances easily nor make them sound justified because it's lost in anecdotes that undermine both his credibility and his judgement making ability.
That's not of the Royals making. That's of Harry's ineptitude with PR.