I definitely understand that, but from Harry’s pov , he had been repeatedly badmouthed to the press for years to make other members of the RF look good.
I have listened to a few sensible unbiased non-fawning Royal commentators describe Mark Bolland’s tactics, who was brought in to rehabilitate Camilla’s image, for example, as a little “over the top” or words to that effect. And they were using understatement in most incidences. I think Edward got caught up in that too. The strategy was remarkably effective though.
And Harry felt that when he got drunk and fell out of nightclubs that the press documented it all, but much less so in the case of the heir.
I don’t think that is an outlandish or unreasonable viewpoint to hold.
I’m not saying that it is William’s fault either. The brothers are both victims of their circumstances. Such a shame they can’t be there for one another.
Also it wasn’t wise or sensible on Harry’s part to complain about it when he is so privileged. It was totally naïeve to think anyone would care! I understand why he did though as it must really rankle after a while.
Years of being treated differently to your brother by at least one parent and your grandparents, aunts and uncles and friends must be tough. It’s the system that produces these problems. Hereditary monarchy produces an in-built golden child in every generation. If it hurts in ordinary family circumstances, why wouldn’t it hurt five times as much with the world watching and when status and vast sums of money are involved?
The counter-side to that is that the spare has more freedom supposedly but maybe Meghan was bright enough to point out that if ultimately your income and your itinerary is set by your sibling, that “freedom” is somewhat illusory.
If we have to put up with an hereditary monarchy then I hope someone sensible will in future realise that setting up separate offices that brief against one another is not the way to do it.