Will the Queen ‘force’ Prince William & Harry to reconcile next month?

I genuinely enjoy reading the looney-tunes rantings of several Daily Mail columnists. Dan Wootton is a fascist shill, the “Talk of the Town” column usually has some insider dirt and I’m always curious to see what notes and missives Richard Kay has gotten from different royal camps. There’s one guy, Ephraim Hardcastle, who uses his Mail column to speak with some vague authority as, like, an old-guard Tory monarchist, I think? And so I found Hardcastle’s latest piece rather curious. Y’all know how the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are breezing into the UK in September for some charity visits? Well, Hardcastle thinks this is the perfect moment for Queen Elizabeth to “force” Harry and William to reconcile. Huh.

When Harry returns to the UK, could the Queen use her constitutional powers to orchestrate a reconciliatory meeting between him and William?

She is scheduled to be back in London to appoint a new PM but the other associated tasks – audiences with sacked and newly appointed ministers and a Privy Council meeting – can be delegated to two Counsellors of State.

Both warring brothers are counsellors. As Harry will be in the country she could command him to do his duty alongside William. Could he refuse?

[From The Daily Mail]

What’s interesting about this is that Harry would likely do anything the Queen asked him to do. She personally requested his presence and Meghan’s presence at the Jubbly, and they came. She personally welcomed H&M to Windsor for tea before the Invictus Games and her courtiers were shook when the Sussexes arrived. If she wanted to, she would say “come to Windsor and have tea with your brother.” Harry probably would. The question is, would William? Doubtful.

The larger issue is that all of the different royal courts feel differently about how to “use” the Sussexes. Charles seems content with a permanent split between his sons – it suits Charles’s purposes for the moment. The Queen maintains a warm personal relationship with the Sussexes, although her courtiers obviously do the most to limit her contact with H&M. But William? William was always the problem. And what’s worse is that Buckingham Palace and Clarence House have made that abundantly clear over the past year, that it’s Kensington Palace’s vendetta more than anything else.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar and WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

42 Responses to “Will the Queen ‘force’ Prince William & Harry to reconcile next month?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Eurydice says:

    At this point, the Queen doesn’t have the constitution to do any of her constitutional duties, so I don’t know what this guy is talking about.

    • C-Shell says:

      He’s deluded. The Queen is not coming to London to transition the PMs. Other ceremonial tasks can be handed off to Charles or William as they’ve been doing. This is hilariously nutso.

      ETA — this is an extreme stretch of her “constitutional” powers, LOL. FORCING two estranged siblings to reconcile??!! Has that ever been done in the millennia of the British monarchy?

      • Eurydice says:

        I imagine at some time in the past 1,200 years, the King/Queen may have called in two warring relatives and forced them to hang it up. Not sure what the “counselor of state” part has to do with it. Is this guy saying that the Queen will need Harry to fulfill some of her duties? That would be an interesting attempt to get Harry back into the fold.

      • A says:

        @Eurydice, I’d argue that as long as Harry remains a counsellor of state, then the plain fact of the matter is that he IS a part of the royal fold, period, because the British constitution says that he is, and no amount the press b-tching about it and the Queen insisting that there is no “half-in, half-out” can say otherwise.

        The job of the monarch of the UK isn’t to go around doing public engagements, attending garden parties, heading charities etc. The job of the monarch of the UK is to fulfill their constitutional role as the UK’s head of state. Period. That’s it. Everything else they do in terms of charity, turning up for ribbon cuttings, and all other public facing tasks are extra, and they do those largely for ensuring public support.

        Their constitutional responsibilities is the reason why the monarch even has counsellors of state to begin with. It’s so that, in case they can’t fulfill their constitutional role, there are people who can step up to do certain tasks (but not all of them).

        As long as Harry remains a counsellor of state, it means that he has a certain role and responsibilities that go with it, per the constitution. That means that legally speaking, he’s in the fold, which is another reason why the tabloid press meltdown about him and Meghan leaving the RF was something else. Then again, this is the same press that still doesn’t f-cking remember that the Good Friday Agreement was a thing when they were going all in on Brexit, so asking them to remember the minutiae of British constitutional law is probably way too much for the poor sausages.

      • Eurydice says:

        @A – I agree that the formalities are keeping Harry “in the fold,” and I’d also say that his birth will keep him there for the rest of his life. What I was wondering is if there’s an argument being made that Harry is needed to come back now and share in fulfilling the Queen’s obligations. Like – oops, sorry, can’t sell your book, can’t work with Netflix or BetterUp, no polo matches, we need you back home to do royal counselor work. And Meghan can stay back in the US and do her thing.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Eurydice, isn’t Chuck a counsellor of state, too? Wouldn’t his nose be out of joint if they called in H to do that? I don’t think I’ve read anything that leads me to believe that the 2 individuals would have to be in the same room together. Does anyone know if they do or not?

        They’ve got themselves a quandary because Andrew is a counsellor of state, too, or will be when Chuck becomes King. They really, really want to keep Harry in that position. I think Harry would fulfill his obligation if it was necessary. I can’t think he’d trot over just at someone’s whim. I guess we’ll see.

    • Hopey says:


    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ C-Shell, they announced yesterday, or the day before, that they doubted that QEII would be in London to accept the new PM. So what makes this enormous fool think that she will put any energy into “forcing” her grandson’s to reconcile? My gawd, each day and each article out of Salty Island of Petty becomes more delusional and desperate as each day passes….

      What cockamamie brain cells does it require to make this shit up?? Do they sit around and write the most ludicrous ideas and place them in a hat to pull out when they have suffered from “writers” block? Or are these ideas concocted after they have been smoking pot and drinking? Because you would have to be inebriated and/or stoned to create these these ridiculous story lines….

      • notasugarhere says:

        It has been announced BoJo and new PM will visit her at Balmoral on Tuesday. She’s not traveling to London.

      • Hopey says:


        And even that announcement is hubrisitc, when the reality is they have NO IDEA what her health status might be from one day to the next.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        BothSidesNow, I didn’t think TQ particularly cared for W. Would she really make H put up with W, when she doesn’t?

  2. SarahCS says:

    Yeah, Harry is NOT the issue here. Of course he’s upset and hurt at all the terrible stuff that his brother has done to him but William was always the one doing it. Get him in line of you want anything to change Liz.

    • Elizabeth says:

      Didn’t William refuse to have lunch with Harry at the Sandringham summit to talk about the Sussexit? He only showed up for the meeting portion?

      • Becks1 says:

        Yup. Supposedly the lunch was to remind them all that they were a family first, and William bailed on that.

  3. Emmi says:

    Is everyone on crack? What is up with these increasingly crazy and deranged stories? So what if he shows up for the Queen – which he might – and then by some miracle, William also makes an appearance. Then what? From experience, we all know that serious fights between siblings are often much harder to deal with than among friends. The betrayal just runs deeper. This is ridiculous. You can’t force a reconciliation.

    • B says:

      Exactly @Emmi! Being in the same room with each other to do a job is not a reconciliation. Also the infantilization of royal men is just so weird! The grandmother is going to be used to force two middle age men to get along?? They are ADULTS and can determine for themselves if they want to repair their relationship or not.

    • Julia K says:

      The betrayal runs deeper. True and sad. A hurt like no other.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Julia K, yes. The hurt and betrayal is much deeper than QEII, as well as Charles actions, are much too deep to expect Harry to be the one to make the effort solely based on the desires of his grandmother.

        @SarahCS as you stated, this is a greater issue with William. Unless QEII forces William to apologize, which he will refuse, there will be no reconciliation.

        As much smoke that has been blown up their grandmothers arse, until she has all of the truth/facts placed at her feet, she has no right to demand any form of their meeting.

  4. Yvette says:

    I frankly don’t see how the Queen could force Harry and William to reconcile when she couldn’t get them into the same room for lunch at the Sandringham Summit. Didn’t William flatly refuse to sit down with Harry? And this after the Queen requested Charles, Harry, and William for a ‘pre-summit’ family lunch.

    • Lizzie Bathory says:

      Yes. He couldn’t be civil enough to accept the invitation of his grandmother & his Queen, though I’m sure the meal was more pleasant without him.

      On a superficial note, the pictures above really show how thin William’s hair has gotten even on the sides. Diana had a great head of hair & Charles’s hair is still thick except for his bald patch. Harry’s hair is also thicker. The difference is striking.

  5. Amy Bee says:

    I’m not so willing to absolve CH and BP from this situation. The Queen’s private secretary has been found to be in the middle of this. I have no doubt that he was the one who leaked the story about Lili’s name because he didn’t have control of the situation. And CH leaked the story about Charles meeting Archie and Lili when the Royal Family explicitly said that Harry and Meghan couldn’t talk about what went on during the Jubilee. There will no reconciliation as long as the 3 households continue to smear Harry and Meghan. When Harry’s book comes out the Palace is going to go into overdrive in their smearing of Harry and Meghan.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ Amy Bee, you have certainly got their numbers. Their playbooks are as blatant as the loss of Bullyiams hair!! They have all conspired to cause as much irretrievable harm and hurt as humanly possible. No one, and I mean even QEII, has clean hands with regards to how Harry and Meghan were and continue to be treated.

      There will be courteous exchanges but nothing more. Possibly QEII has realized that once she passes Harry and Meghan will sever all relationships with those within the BRF except those that they hold dear to their hearts.

      Though here I am making speculations made by none other some Daily Fail unhinged and delusional RR making claims.

  6. JRenee says:

    Even though these stories appear to be pulled from thin air, the common problem seems to be an out of control William. No one ever made him act like a decent human and it shows…

  7. Angelica Schuyler says:

    This is pure comedy through and through. The queen cannot make two grown men reconcile. Whatever her “powers” may be, They could agree to carry out duties and coexist peacfully to execute those duties (at least Harry could), but that would not in any way be a true reconcilliation. So much nonsense from these rota clowns.

    • Dutch says:

      And the whole thing about the “force Harry to do his duty” makes no sense since Betty is the one who was behind the all the way in or all the way out mandate after the Sussexes offered the compromise.

  8. Becks1 says:

    LOL at the Queen using her constitutional authority to force a reconciliation. Like, what on earth?

    IF she asked Harry to take over one of these duties (and that’s a big IF), and William was there as well, that doesn’t mean there would be a reconciliation. We have seen the brothers together at Philip’s funeral, the statue unveiling, the jubbly…..and no reconciliation. Being in the same room isn’t going to be what makes a reconciliation happen.

  9. Rapunzel says:

    GanGan can’t fix this rift. It would require an apology and reflecting on William’s part. That’s not happening.

    And why is it their grandma doing this? Shouldn’t it be their dad, if anyone, forcing them together?

  10. Well Wisher says:

    At the “summit” the Queen invited William to lunch so the three of them could at least have a conversation.
    He refused.
    Why should she bother? She made her statement when she invited the Sussexes to the Commonwealth and Jubilee Services.
    William is Prince Charles’s heir, what does his behaviour have to do with the Queen and Harry?
    What are the circumstances for a reconciliation?
    It seems like the fail tabloid suddenly realized that they’ve lost the latest golden goose.

  11. ThatsNotOkay says:

    I’m convinced the Rota writes this crap to signal to the Royals what they want them to do or give them ideas. Shows the Royals don’t have an ounce of wit of their own and defer to others to think for them.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Oh most definitely. It was the press who were pushing for the Royal Family to reject the half in half out proposal from Harry and Meghan.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      Oh, that’s an excellent concept!! I never thought of that!! Well done!!!

      @ Amy Bee, I thought that the half in/out was refused by the angriest man in Britain? I thought he had one of his classic temper tantrums to which he held his breath until QEII, as well as Daddy, gave into his demands? He also wanted them exiled to Siberia as well, but we saw that he lost that control over Harry and Meghans future.

    • Gabby says:

      But half in/out would have benefitted the press as the Sussexes would be around more often. Were they (along with William) convinced the H&M would just stay if it was rejected?

      • Well Wisher says:

        The press would not been allowed to attend events that featured the Sussexes, if they were in relation to the Royal Family.
        The Sussexes wanted to earn money to pay their staff, since the argument at the time was tax payers money were used so the RR gas to included at these types of events.
        Harry suggested local and smaller media organizations to replace the rota.
        William wanted them , so that he could leak items to harass Meghan and emasculate Harry.

  12. A says:

    No one’s pointed this out yet, but it would a hugely irresponsible thing for the Queen to do something like this, where she exploits her constitutional authority as monarch to *checks notes* force her grandsons to be in the same room and hopefully reconcile with each other.

    Is the UK not a country with a system of government that actually has rules that are important, and should be taken seriously? What is the point for anyone to keep blathering on about how the Queen is “apolitical” and has “no power” when she has the power do this, AND there are absolute sh-theads like this who are “””innocently””” suggesting that maybe she should?

    Meeting MPs and holding Privy Council meetings is not a joke, it’s not a meet cute, it’s not something to be taken lightly. They are actually sobering business being conducted by a head of state, and her trusted counselors, for a reason. The reason for this is that the monarch has certain responsibilities to fulfill wrt the POLITICAL system that they are a functionary of. These responsibilities are mandated to her by the constitution. Exploiting those responsibilities to advance the cause of her own private family dispute would be a huge misuse of the powers she has been granted as a supposedly figurehead monarch. But here it’s suggested just casually for the sh-ts and giggles.

    People argue constantly that the Queen has “no power”, that she’s just a “figurehead” with no political authority. If that’s really the case, then why does she meet with former and current MPs during the transition between PMs? Why does she have a Privy Council to advise her, consisting of senior politicians from both houses of parliament? If she’s apolitical, she shouldn’t be meeting with POLITICAL leaders, let alone remain a part of the British POLITICAL system. If she’s only a figurehead and a symbol, why can’t people replace her with a lampshade and be done with it?

    The usual counter to that argument is that okay yes, she does have certain responsibilities that are important. Well then, that means that the monarch is not an apolitical figurehead, but rather a crucial component of the British POLITICAL system, which is a constitutional monarchy. She has a constitutional role to play in the function of the British govt, and responsibilities to fulfill wrt that. That inherently makes her a POLITICAL figure who is not above politics, but very much an entrenched and a crucial part of what makes politics happen in the country.

    I didn’t want to make this comment a rant about constitutional monarchies, but the fact that columnists like this one in the UK are just so lackadaisical with this sh-t is astonishing. The Queen literally has a gold piano and a gold carriage and billions of pounds in the bank. She gets paid millions every year through tax payer money. She is an unelected individual who not only gets this much wealth handed to her without question, but ALSO is granted several powers as constitutional head of state that can dictate the ability of actually elected officials to do their jobs and carry out the mandate they’ve been given by the people who elected them. She turns up every year during the opening of parliament to lecture the peasants about the benefits of the Tory govts austerity measures wearing jewelry worth millions of pounds, and draped in furs.

    And some people not only accept this sh-t, there are also people like this columnist who also suggest publicly that she should exploit her position for petty sh-t? Is ANYONE in Britain actually okay?

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ A, you make many valid and crucial points in how QEII has much more political power than she wants the public to know. We already have barred witness to her persuasion/influence to Parliament laws passed to protect the Monarchy and the wealth of the Windsor family.

      Though I am not a taxpayer that funds this antiquated system, this is a question for those that are. As a US citizen, I find that their grifter lifestyle outrageous!! On top of the atrocities that they have been committing for centuries and are still committing to this day.

    • Eurydice says:

      This is very interesting because it seems that the Queen has power on paper, but perhaps not in actuality? When she’s meeting with PMs and MPs, what do they talk about? Does she have any input into decision-making, or is she just being briefed on what’s going on? On what is the Privy Council advising her? When she’s reading her Speech from the Throne at the opening of Parliament, has she had any input into the agenda put forth by the Prime Minister? And when she refers to “my government” has she had any influence over the political composition of that government? At one point, the royal family were #1 diplomats by virtue of being related to every other monarchy in Europe, but that’s not how Europe works anymore.

      It’s also interesting what you say about the wealth of the Queen, because even if she has a busy schedule of meeting MPs and being advised about this and that, it doesn’t seem that these constitutional duties justify multiple castles and palaces and great swaths of land all over the place. They certainly aren’t justified for those family members who are just cooling their heels until the Queen dies. If Charles is serious about downsizing the “working royals,” then the whole frikkin’ family should be able to live under one roof.

  13. HeatherC says:

    They are all certainly deranged. Like commitment to a mental hospital level of psychopathy here.

    Liz couldn’t force Will to attend the “summit” lunch. At most she can make arrangements to corner the two of them in a room (double book appointments with her for example) but she can’t force a reconciliation or even anything more than a strained hello.

    I shudder to think of all the historical art pieces and statuary in harm’s way if she corners Will into anything.

    • lanne says:

      I highly doubt this 96 year old woman has the authority to decide what she eats for lunch every day. The ratchets seem to think that Queen Elizabeth is Margaret Thatcher. She’s always been a head in the sand person.

  14. Magdalena says:

    Didn’t it come out a few years back that Ephraim Hardcastle was a pseudonym which the Daily Mail created as a sort of general purpose account which many other reporters used to write articles? I don’t think it’s a real person. Funny thing is that when this was made public (I can’t recall whether there was a leak or whether it was the result of a lawsuit), the Fail stopped using it for a good while. I was surprised to see the name resurface!

    • Eurydice says:

      I looked it up – it’s the name of the column, not the name of a reporter. There have been several writers for that column over the years.