Prince Harry Telegraph interview

[AtIusvue]

Delusional as ever. He claims it was the RF removing his security to trap him. Completely disregarding that the RF have no say over such matters and its an issue for the Home Secretary/RAVEC.

Imagine what must go on in his mind. Stay away from drugs kids.

https://archive.ph/gn01o

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2025/04/11/prince-harry-police-protection-withdrawn-trap-royal-family/

‘He suggested that he would find it hard to forgive his treatment and added that his “worst fears have been confirmed” by secret evidence he had heard in court.
The Duke believes his taxpayer-funded security was removed in a failed attempt force him to stay in Britain, after he announced they were stepping back from public duties and moving to the US.’

‘The Duke made clear that he will continue to fight for what he regards as justice, whatever the outcome of the case.
When he believes he has uncovered a wrong, he said, he is unable to let things lie and feels the need to “get under the bonnet and fix it”, adding that he was “driven by exposing injustice”’

And of course he’s been shocked by all the secrets revealed during the trial ….which of course he can’t tell you about. Convenient that?

I think it means that if you criticise Harry, you're not being objective?

on the therapy point, a poster above put it perfectly - it’s all about whether you do the work or not.

therapy will never work on somebody who isn’t prepared to work on themselves, look inward and open to doing uncomfortable self reflection and challenge their own perceptions and how they handle situations.

Undoubtedly Harry has never been prepared to do this, and only sought or listened to therapists who validate his own warped view of the world and himself as a victim. I suspect any therapist trying to encourage him to think differently will probably have been dismissed by him as somehow on the payroll of the RF or to have some ulterior motive against him.

I’ve never seen Harry once, in any interview, acknowledge the tiniest bit of responsibility for his actions, the position he’s in or anything that’s happened to him. So it’s no wonder that therapy would not be successful for him - he has no interest in self improvement because he believes all his problems are of someone else’s making.

Thank you for various PPs for your insights re therapy.

I have a hypothetical question. What if, in the distant future, Prince William and all his children decide that they would not want to be monarch and prefer to step down and become civilians… Prince Harry would be the next in line for ascension as a result? Would PH and Meghan return to the UK to take on these roles? (Obviously they’d have much more security measures if they are formally returning to the royal family roles)

No. It wouldn't happen.
Remember that it's a Constitutional Monarchy, and Parliament is Sovereign. Ultimately, who is HoS is their choice, ever since 1688. Mostly the monarchs have behaved, but the Baldwin government intervened in 1936 when it became apparent that Edward had close relationships with senior Nazis and was less than reliable.
Never would Harry take the throne. I'd put money on it. (Nor would Andrew either)

They may want to but I doubt they’d be allowed to. The Sussex DCs too young and don’t live here. So next in line after Andrew would be Beatrice I think (happy to be corrected).

Can’t see it tbh.

Probably then time to discuss a republic.. and I say that as a constitutional monarchist!

I think that at that point it would just be the end of the monarchy tbh.

I’d assume an adult heir can’t decide for his underage kids whether or not they also come out the line of succession? If they’re all over 18yo that would be different. But if under 18yo they would be the monarch with some sort of regent appointed to act on their behalf. Their parents could obviously prevent them from doing any parades, state opening of parliament, engagements, etc until they were 18.

I would agree with you.

Technically H and his issue would be next in line but Parliament could veto that and I think they would because having stepped away from being a “senior royal” and leaving the country you’d be hard pressed to argue he’d be a suitable monarch. In Lili’s case it’s not even clear what citizenship she holds AFAIK.

That flips to Andrew, but again a veto would not be controversial (to anyone apart from A anyway).

So that would lead to Beatrice as the next person.

However I think pressure would be put on both York sisters to yield to Edward and his family and re-set a generation back from William (especially as for the last 2 decades he and S have done a pretty good job of Royaling) free from the stain of H and shitshow of A and to re-assert the direct link back to HMQEII - whom many still recall fondly.

Highly unlikely to happen though and looking at the football footage of W and G, they seem to have a lovely bond and it looks like W and C are doing parenting right very differently from previous “in line” generations.

Thank you MN for providing answers to my question with such speed and detail 🤗

No it doesn’t! It means we look at all of the output of tabloids and even articles in more serious papers and so-called royal historians speculating on podcasts, and all of the noise on sm, even the Oprah interview, and remember that the interest of every single one of them is monetary.

Roll on the day! 😃

The biggest monetary interest of all being the Sussexes and their prolific output of professional whining and victimhood.
The opinion I have formed of Harry has nothing to do with any tabloids and everything to do with what the man has said and done. Directly. He's quite the expert at blaming others, but he is responsible for what he has written and what he has said.

That’s very true. I thought the way H and M left the RF was awful but I always wondered if some members of the RF had treated M shabbily and that’s why they left. I watched the NF documentary hoping for a gotcha moment which explained why they left. Instead I found they were a thoroughly dislikeable pair o people with a strong levels of entitlement, delusions and paranoia. Spare sealed that for me. The tabloids made them both look a lot more likeable than they really are.

I just watched the video and I didn't see that moment. She turns to him but he keeps talking. 🤷‍♀️

I cannot believe that Clarkson wrote that and that it got published.

How come someone with a huge platform like Clarkson is allowed to incite violence against a public figure like Meghan with no legal consequences, but Lucy Connolly ends up in jail for incitement? Even though she clearly wrote her tweet in a moment of high passion, quickly deleted it, and has nothing like the reach of Clarkson?

And people hear what they want to hear. I had a work colleague tell me her counsellor absolutely hated my work colleague’s friend “Gwen”. When I queried actual wording, counsellor had said nothing of the sort.

Only a minimally trained and inexperienced therapist would take this completely at face value; there are some situations, such as overt abuse, in which there are limited shades of grey, but more often, there are.multiple perspectives, and good and well trained therapists are able to keep this in mind and bring other possibilities into the work.

The difficulty is, that working with someone who has such a fixed mindset and view of things (a narcissist in popular terms) requires a lot of patience, and a long time to build trust, as they are often extremely fragile beneath it all, and then a long time of gentle, probing, questioning work, keeping the therapeutic alliance alive, while also really wondering about what the patient is bringing. It does require some level of a working, adult mind in the patient.

I can't really say if that would be present and possible here or not.

As for the other examples given: please check any therapist you work with is registered with an accredited body. They'd be struck off for the example above, where a patient ended up living with the therapist.

Often, when one member of a family changes or develops a perspective that is different from the family narrative, they are written off as selfish etc Sometimes, not always, it's just that they have come to see things differently.

Sorry for the derail!

That's not the right clip.

Yes that’s very true. It’s so difficult to know.

Oh. That's a bit frustrating!

As happened in 1936 (and earlier, with William and Mary, and then the Hanoverians), the Establishment would decide No Fucking Way and do what they had to to furnish an acceptable alternative.

The UK has done this regularly.

Edited to add: And Charles I.

So technically it couldn’t happen until Louis reached adulthood as he’s the youngest. Whatever happens in the future H&M will never be Monarchs, there'd be a revolution before that happened.

I'm a supporter of a constitutional monarchy but I might chain myself to BP's railings if Harry acceded to the throne. Either that or a sternly worded letter to the Telegraph. 😊

It would cause a constitutional crisis. Harry is the next heir after William's line but he would not be popular. I bet he'd jump at it though.