Mail: King Charles’s aides claim Prince Harry is ‘gaslighting’ his father

Prince Harry lost his appeal in the British High Court on Friday. The appeal was for last year’s decision that Harry’s “bespoke” security situation for his British visits was fine as-is, and that Ravec and the government would not do any kind of real risk assessment or change the situation whatsoever. The appeals court judge said: “Even if there had been a risk analysis from the Risk Management Board, it would very likely have only confirmed the threat, vulnerability and impact levels which the Duke of Sussex had faced when earlier risk analyses were undertaken. But it would have had nothing to say on the critical features of the changed situation, namely the need for protective security on future uncertain visits and the government’s appetite for risk.” Basically, an admission that Harry probably was still under very high levels of risk, but the police don’t want to protect him whenever he visits, especially not when King Charles’s representatives are using Ravec to punish their redheaded scapegoat.

Well, Harry has made it repeatedly clear that he’s learned the extent of his father’s machinations to put Harry and his family in danger. Last night, a palace spokesperson released a statement: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.” I agree that the courts have repeatedly and meticulously backed up Buckingham Palace’s refusal to ensure the Sussexes’ security past September 2022. But of course that wasn’t the only statement Charles’s courtiers organized. Becky English at the Daily Mail got a full briefing about how this time (not all of those other times) HARRY WENT TOO FAR!

The palace thinks Harry is gaslighting them: Last night the uneasy public truce between Prince Harry and the Royal Family was spectacularly shattered. And it is hard to see, whatever words the Duke of Sussex might half-heartedly offer about ‘truth and reconciliation’, how they can ever go back. As Buckingham Palace digested his frankly extraordinary – and at times, some might think, increasingly disturbed – series of broadsides, one disgusted former royal aide remarked simply: ‘Gaslighting’.

The Sussex issue could have been handled better: Interestingly some former members of the institution have, with admirable openness, admitted to me of late that with the quiet benefit of hindsight the whole Harry and Meghan ‘issue’ could probably have been handled better. ‘They were clearly a tricky couple who wanted out and maybe the institution could have found a better way to facilitate it before things went nuclear,’ said one.

Insiders also defend Harry’s right to write Spare: Indeed another says that while they completely disagreed with much of what he wrote in his memoir, Spare, they also, interestingly, defend his right to say it. ‘At the end of the day it’s his ‘truth’. And when it comes to recalling his childhood, as he sees it, he has every right to say what he experienced,’ they say. ‘I still maintain for the sake of the family – his family – he should never have written that bloody book, but I also can’t entirely disagree with his decision to do so either.’ But even those more sympathetic to his cause believe his latest legal battle and, in particular, last night’s extraordinary BBC meltdown have crossed a line.

Harry spent a lot of money just to lose a case: Harry’s decision to fight his father’s government in the very courts that dispense justice in the monarch’s name has been more than a financial and PR disaster for the prince. It has proved to be a personal catastrophe that has driven more of a wedge between himself and Charles than any back-stabbing memoir or tell-all television series. The monarch, I am told, has, effectively, been ‘too fearful’ of speaking to his son for the past three years in case anything he said was used as part of Harry’s case, thereby sparking a constitutional crisis.

Charles wants to see his grandchildren, he swears: Charles has also found it particularly hurtful that sources close to the prince have gone so far as to suggest he could get to see his grandchildren again if only he were to step in and reinstate the family’s full-time security detail in the UK. If that were to happen it would be ‘swords down’ was, in fact, the rather repugnant phrase used. While the King would never accuse a family member of ’emotional blackmail’, many might think it certainly sounds like it. Now Harry has doubled down in person, making clear he believes it is ‘impossible’ for him to bring his family back to the UK ‘safely’ unless his security is comprehensively reviewed – and effectively accusing those involved in the decision-making process, which includes the royal household, of wanting ‘history to repeat itself’. The latter a clear and troubling reference to the death of his late mother.

Harry will never bring his kids back to the UK: If he sticks to this line – and clearly he will given his latest comments and his three-and-half-year legal fight – it means that Harry will indeed never be able to bring his children back to Britain let alone start to repair the family relationships that his and Meghan’s acrimonious departure shattered. And he is certainly not going to get the apology from his family that he has always said he believes he deserves. ‘What on earth do they have to apologise for?’ one angry insider splutters. Short of Charles making a private trip to the US – which is unlikely to ever happen given his health and punishing workload – the stark truth is that the King may never see his two youngest grandchildren again.

Again, the Windsors don’t want to see the Sussexes: Harry’s only option would be to offer an awkward olive branch and return for a major family event (just as he did for the late Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, the only time Lilibet, who was born in California, has met her grandfather). They would almost certainly be entitled to round-the-clock police protection and given an official royal residence to stay in on an occasion such as this. But from what I hear – informally – the family are past even that. Too much has been said and done now for them to ever forgive and forget.

[From The Daily Mail]

Instead of the boy who cried wolf, we have the king who cried “final straw.” So, it turns out that the Oprah interview wasn’t the line in the sand, and neither was Spare. There was a truce built on lack of communication, and that’s been shattered because Harry spoke to the BBC! The final straw, at long last, except all of the other stuff was supposed to be the final straw as well. “The King may never see his two youngest grandchildren again” and then one beat later, “They would almost certainly be entitled to round-the-clock police protection and given an official royal residence to stay in on an occasion such as this. But from what I hear – informally – the family are past even that. Too much has been said and done now for them to ever forgive and forget.” Sure, Harry is gaslighting when he says that he would never bring his children to the UK because of the lack of security AND the Windsors would eagerly yank security from the kids if they ever visited because Harry spoke to the BBC and they can never forgive that! Obviously, Charles is deeply upset that Harry has once again exposed him as a dogsh-t father and a uniquely evil man.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

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

85 Responses to “Mail: King Charles’s aides claim Prince Harry is ‘gaslighting’ his father”

  1. ML says:

    Interesting that a bunch of _former_ employees are now being “open” as to Harry having the right to speak his truth!

    Next, interesting that Harry immediately got his viewpoint out via the BBC, a legitimate news source, on camera and on the record. Charles’s rebuttal comes via the DF, via a royal reporter, and is full of nameless sources.

    Again, KC has ALL the power to arrange a meeting with his younger son’s family whenever he wishes. It’s beyond precious that he’s using DARVO tactics (screaming gaslighting, really??!) to make himself seem helplessly estranged from his son and grandchildren!

    • Blogger says:

      The Fail will be thrilled there’s a next instalment to this drama – more clicks!

      Now that Chuck and Willie have resorted to using the tabloids as their official record, there’s not much hope for the monarchy. It has decidedly gone downmarket since Camilla got her claws in.

    • Jais says:

      Yep. Harry speaking on camera to the BBC so everything is on the up and up. Meanwhile, Charles is speaking through a DM tabloid reporter and anonymous sources. What a weak coward. He’s a terrible father and king and will be remembered as such.

    • Laura says:

      There is also the bot/paid online army they have amassed. I watched the full interview over about an hour at work on YouTube, and saw in real time the amount of negative comments flooding in. It was so disheartening & something I don’t recommend doing. However, I was so surprised at how many people used the term Gaslighting when describing Harry’s behavior. I was so confused at the time, but it all makes sense now.

      Good for Harry for being brave enough to get his face and words out there with a “reputable” (as much that means now in 2025) media, on the record. I’ll eat my hat if either KC or PW ever did.

  2. Carty says:

    Put your whole face behind any statements you coward Charles. He killed Diana and has been trying to kill his son and family. That whole institution needs done away with.

  3. Blogger says:

    Still no names 🥱 those cowards.

    As for this:

    “What on earth do they have to apologise for?’ one angry insider splutters. Short of Charles making a private trip to the US – which is unlikely to ever happen given his health and punishing workload – the stark truth is that the King may never see his two youngest grandchildren again.”

    Well Chuck, a lot of people now think you were behind Diana’s death if not explicitly, it was implicit. Now you’re doing the same to Harry. Yup, if Chuck apologises, then you sorry lot will have to apologise too. 😂

    Canada is next to the USA. Montecito is a hop, skip and a helicopter ride away. Instead of running away like a coward to Romania, how about visit Diana’s grandchildren? But nah, you’re a spineless git – always was, always will be. You’re a horrible king for the history books.

    PS Time for a follow up to that Jonathan Dimbleby sit down interview. Diana lives through Harry and it must burn your entire soul knowing she’s there, a constant thorn at your side.

    • Normades says:

      Yea he’s well enough to go to Canada on business but not well enough to go to California

      • Jais says:

        Rebecca English referring to the king’s workload as “punishing” was a massive eye-roll. Talk about out of touch. There are people his age with cancer that have a much harsher workload and schedule than anything Charles has ever had. Give me a break. And will he spend another summer vacay in Romania walking through the woods? Surely, he could spend that time in Cali with his grandkids if he really wanted to.

    • Christine says:

      We are seeing why Charles did not fit in at Gordonstoun in real time. Anything other than absolute sycophancy and idolatry is too much for his delicate constitution. He can’t even handle the truth from his own son.

      We all know where the gaslighting is coming from.

  4. Chuckles is angry because he has been exposed for the shit human being he is and the shit father to his son who only wanted to reconcile and be a family. He can say gaslight all he wants but we all have eyes and brains and he is the fucking bad guy in this case. I have great concerns about Invictus being held in the UK. I hope his military family will gather around him in support of.

    • kirk says:

      Speaking of gaslighting…🙄 Recall in the BBC interview (~ 10:50 mark) where he says the “tabloid press did a very good job campaigning to have our security removed” stating a £20M annual cost. Then taxpayers wrote their parliament members saying they didn’t want to pay £20M for Harry and Meghan’s security. Harry said the tabloid quoted £20M cost was overstating it 18x or 19x — so, actual cost, per Harry, ranges £1.05M to £1.11M per year.

      Then recall back to the Netflix ‘Harry and Meghan’ docuseries (forgot which episode) when he’s talking about getting security cut off. So he worriedly calls the palace about security and they refer him to something that will cost £6M per year.

      Bottom line – £20M? £6M? Or £1.1M?

      Bottom line – when it comes to gaslighting, nobody does it better than BRFCo & Associates.

    • Josephine says:

      This – he’s a horrible human, horrible father, horrible king. What kind of man doesn’t want the very best protection for his son and grandkids? Only the weakest and most vile man would actively fight against his family being protected. What a way to spend his last days — as a miserable old goat being led by his disgusting side piece, who no doubt wants to continue to punish Diana by putting her child in danger. Weakest king ever.

  5. Shanta says:

    You would think that someone who is literally standing on the threshold of heaven.. Or hell would do better🙄

  6. Maja says:

    What they accuse others of, they do themselves. With powerful people with powerful systems and a lot of money, this is particularly dangerous for those who pursue them. In this case, it is not a psychological mechanism but a deliberate manipulation of the powerful to destroy the less powerful.

    • Jais says:

      It’s true. They’ve been gaslighting Harry his whole life. And now that the word “gaslighting” is in the zeitgeist, it’s like these anonymous royal sources, who are likely geriatric, have learned a new vocabulary word. Well, I’ve got an old one for them and it’s bullshit, as in they are full of it. Using the word gaslighting through an anonymous source when Charles is the one that won’t allow his grandkids to have security is laughable, transparent and eye-roll inducing. Ain’t no one buying it. And history won’t buy it either. So much for any grand legacy Charles hoped to have. It’s not happening for him.

      • Maja says:

        💯🙏

      • ParkRunMum says:

        Jais, I love this. *Love* it. Less psychological jargon, please, rota, if you don’t mind, stick to your talking points and the language of a small town second rate smear campaign. You know what happens when you’ve decided you know who someone *really* is… but they’re simply not that person, you’ve read them wrong, and everything they do that does not fit that prepackaged mould is therefore seen as deceptive / manipulative / inauthentic / just a fluke / they’re faking it / you’re cheating / you got lucky, etc…. You know who you REALLY are. Admit it!!! …it’s like that. It’s a case of mistaken identity. They fundamentally don’t know who Harry is, because they fundamentally don’t care. They are wholly self-absorbed. It’s very sad and very second rate, but, I would add, it seems to be incredibly common. Families are often like this. It’s a day-to-day example of the mentality that forms every other type of prejudice. You refuse to see someone in perspective, as a human being. ultimately if they have to see you whole, it threatens their entire psychic equilibrium. Because if they were wrong… every situation in which they formed an opinion about your character, your conduct, your motivations, etc… was miscast, misconstrued. People cling to these archetypes — credit to Meghan — when reality isn’t working for them. But why isn’t it working for them? Because they insist on type casting. And they couple a very shallow degree of emotional insight and empathy to a very dogmatic and brittle worldview. And they need to be the hero in every single room. It’s toxic, utterly.

      • Christine says:

        Well said, Jais. It’s like how they try to flip the script on Meghan by saying that everything she says is “word salad”. I’m sorry that a well educated and well spoken woman is threatening to you, since your educational standard for greatness in speech is Kate Middleton and her mouth of marbles. It must be SO FRUSTRATING to understand the words from Meghan’s mouth, AND have them make sense! It’s so much harder to twist them into absolute lies!

  7. Tn Democrat says:

    Good lort. Charles made tiny 12 year old Harry and Willy walk behind their mother’s coffin, who died because she didn’t have adequate security AND was put into the middle of a media firestorm stoked by Charles, because Charles feared the public and used his kids as human shields. He has allowed Harry to be a pr scapegoat since he was a small child. Like any true narcissists Charles can’t stand being called out on his abusive behavior and flips his abuse on the victim’s failure to comply. Security should not be based on anything except actual threat assessment. Burn it down before this moldy old fart kicks the bucket, Harry! Charles doesn’t deserve a moments peace/glory and should never step foot in public again without Not My King signs bouncing in his line of sight. How dare this man who was culpable in Diana’s death willingly risk his son’s life, then spin his abusiveness as Harry’s fault!

  8. Anne-Marie says:

    Surely they have realised that with this decision they have opened up the whole hornets nest around Diana’s death. The whole myth that Diana’s would be alive today if only she had Royal protection. Well Harry has certainly blown that argument out of the water. If Willy wanted Charles to abdicate he could certainly brief the press to go after Charles for this mess. The Monachy seems to be in free fall

    • Nic919 says:

      At the very least it opens up the question of whether or not Diana truly refused security. Because the UK media covers for that family we can’t know the real story.

      Harry did this interview to make sure we all knew what he wants.
      And of course Charles looks bad. He wants to control Harry and he is using ravec to do it.

      Pretty hard to justify Taylor Swift getting security they can’t offer to Harry.

      • Jais says:

        I think it was the same deal though. That Diana was given security only when she carried out royal-approved events. The rest of the time she did not get security. Saying that she refused security is misleading bc she was never given it during her regular life and they are just muddying the waters. Could she have refused it once during a royal-approved event bc she didn’t trust the RPO? Sure maybe. Or could she have on one occasion had an event planned that the palace refused to approve and she went ahead and did it and said fine I don’t need the RPO and they’re using that one occasion or two when she wanted to do a non-palace approved event as the whole basis to claim she didn’t want security? Sounds plausible to me. But the bigger point is that she never got security unless it was for an event approved by the palace. It was never a possibility. It was either/or as they’re doing with Harry. But she refused to be shut inside and had to find her own if she just wanted to go out and live her life. THEY NEVER GAVE HER FULL SECURITY 24/7 FOR EVERY TIME SHE LEFT THE HOUSE. That was never on offer. And they are always hiding that fact. By claiming she didn’t want something that was never provided. That’s my guess anyways.

      • Blogger says:

        Good point. Harry being upfront and explicit removes any doubt.

        So if something does happen and history repeats itself, they were warned.

      • sevenblue says:

        @Nic919, because Taylor had the upper hand. Her mother told them if there was no security provided for her, she won’t show up for the concert and that would harm the economy and cause embarrassing headlines for UK internationally. That is why they changed their decision. It seems like it is just a few men saying yes / no. Harry said, when he asked for names who rejected security for Meghan, they changed their decision too.

      • Nic919 says:

        Diana didn’t have any RPOs after the divorce and not in Paris that day. The public was told it was because she refused them. But we don’t know what was said.

        Harry is making sure we know what he’s been facing.

        If ravec is to be taken seriously it needs to based on security threats and assessments. Not what Charles wants. Taylor Swift possibly has a high threat level too, so it’s not that she doesn’t deserve protection but she’s not a royal, so Harry could at the very least be provided what she was given.

      • sevenblue says:

        @Nic919, I agree about Taylor part. At the time, she just cancelled a concert because of planned terrorist attack. No way, any other country would refuse protection to Taylor under these circumstances. It is UK that has a weird system about deciding on the police security. Taylor has already a small army of security, but they can’t carry weapons in UK, so if as a government you don’t allow private security to have weapons, it is your duty to provide police protection. If with a threat, your decision can be changed, that means the system is flawed. There are now two very public examples of reversing decisions by RAVEC: Taylor and Meghan’s royal security.

  9. Dee says:

    The threat assessment part of the ruling is what I really don’t understand. You’re saying that he did have the highest threat assessment before he left, and agree that he did not get another threat assessment and if he did the risk would probably be the same, but they were right not to include the threat assessment in their decision to provide security? It’s illogical behavior and says that your process was to find a way to get to the conclusion you had already made. It makes literally no sense that private citizens, former government employees, celebrities, can get security when they come but he can’t. None whatsoever.

    And I said it yesterday before the ruling came out, but I knew that they were still going to try to pull the whole he would love to see his grandchildren but it’s impossible for him to do so. Why? Wasn’t it possible for him to fly to Kenya, Australia, is it not impossible for him to go to Canada? He doesn’t have to make a huge production of it and he has security he can go and visit if he wanted to. William and Kate have taken 15 vacations this year and managed to move almost in silence. You’re telling me that if they really wanted to see him they couldn’t?

    This is just another aspect of them wanting control. They want him to have to run back to them in the UK and ask to come, ask to stay on royal property. It’s why they keep leaking to the press being upset that he’s staying in hotels when he comes for his court cases. They are pissed that Harry has the audacity to want to control his own life, and the fact that he is more popular and respected than them and doesn’t want to be under their boot is just too much for them to handle. This man was a horrible son, a horrible husband, a horrible father, and is a horrible grandfather.

    • Jais says:

      I think they’re saying, in court, that it doesn’t matter if he is at the highest-level of risk possible, that he still will not get security unless it is approved by RAVEC and RAVEC will not approve anything unless it is palace-approved. And the court is saying that is just. So there’s no point in doing a risk assessment bc it won’t matter. They don’t care if he is at high risk. If his purpose for entering the country is not crown-related, then it will always be a no. As directed by the royal household members of RAVEC.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Yes to both of you, that is exactly what they’re saying. It was rigged from the get-go.

  10. Blogger says:

    It sure is though I’d like to see it end with a whimper, rather than a bang. They’ve wasted enough taxpayer money. Disinterest and disdain over their activities should do the trick. Since the Lazies don’t like doing their duty, let the public liberate them from their ennui.

    • Nic919 says:

      If they want to make this that only royal obligations get full security, it’s hard to justify them getting all of it when they do their multiple holidays out of country.

      • Jais says:

        You would think right? Bc the Wales had full security on two ski trips and in Mustique. But it’s the heir’s family. Who apparently do so much service for the crown in exchange…

  11. Tessa says:

    No Charles you don’t want to see those children. Harry is being gaslighted and like his mother was called paranoid. Harry was treated badly before spare cane out.

    • Lover says:

      Exactly. Spare was *about* that bad treatment, he couldn’t have written it if they hadn’t done it. They always want to skip that part.

  12. Tessa says:

    The monarchy is in free fall beginning when harry and Meghan were ousted

  13. Gemini says:

    How can we gaslight Harry so that no one believes what we did to him? Oh I know, we’ll say that he is gaslighting US! The palace is talking in circles here.

    Charles is a horrible horrible man who thinks hating Diana’s sons (yes both) is prioritizing himself as well as a show of love for Camilla. After Chuck once again showed his true evil colors, I think Harry’s trauma is more rooted in being rejected by his surviving parent at every stage of his life over and over again rather than losing his mom. It was Chuck all along.

    There is a logic to what Harry is doing by going public. It is a security strategy naming the potential perpetrators. And I hope it is all that and he is reconciled with the fact that he lost his dad already. Meghan knew this I think and waited for Harry to come to terms with it himself.

    • Eurydice says:

      It’s all circular – as the DM stated, Harry was fighting Charles’ government in the court that dispenses justice in Charles’ name. The UK is Charles, it all starts and ends with him.

  14. MSJ says:

    “The monarch, I am told, has, effectively, been ‘too fearful’ of speaking to his son for the past three years in case anything he said was used as part of Harry’s case, thereby sparking a constitutional crisis.”

    So who has been gaslighting us all about the Sussexes being invited to Balmoral year after year to spend time with the King or Harry being invited to Buckingham Palace to spend time with the King whenever Harry was in the country for a court appearance or even last year for the Invictus Games Foundation Thanksgiving Service or that Harry was invited to stay overnight at the Palace when he visited Charles after the cancer announcement?

    These people spin so much they forget their narratives when they are backed up against a wall. I guess they were blindsided by Harry’s statement and interview after the court verdict that they didn’t have time to craft and coordinate a well vetted response huh.

    They have no shame.

    • Tessa says:

      Diana had her k p home checked for wiretap s and for good reason. Charles trying to play victim is offensive

    • BeanieBean says:

      @MSJ: time and time again they forget the lies they’ve told!

    • sunnyside up says:

      Never let the truth get in the way of selling advertising space.

    • Amy Bee says:

      @MSJ: Well according to Harry, the only times he was invited to go to the UK were for Charles’ coronation and when he announced he had cancer. Those were times he got royal protection.

  15. SuOutdoors says:

    With admirable openness we name no names… same BS as every day. Charles is angry because the whole world knows now: the ball is back in his court, its up to him. All it’s needed, to see his beloved grandchildren again, is an open invitation to the Sussexes. As simple as that. Shouldn’t be a biggie for the Head of the Anglican Church, right…?

    • WaterDragon says:

      Charles does NOT care about Harry, Meghan OR their children. He doesn’t care if something were to happen to them. Ditto for psychopath William. The only difference is that that Willy is actively wishing for harm to come to Harry, Meghan, Archie and Lili 24/7. He is that evil.

  16. Dude says:

    How many years has it been since Charles has seen Archie and Lilibet? For that matter, when was the last time he was pictured with William’s children? Did he not travel to the US for royal appearances since their births? He seems quite well traveled prior to his cancer diagnosis.

    • Paisley25 says:

      I’m not convinced Charles has met Lili in person. As for William’s kids, Charles sees them a handful of times around public appearance days (Christmas, trooping, a short visit to Balmoral, etc).

      I will always find it interesting that back in the day, William chose Ammer Hall in Norfolk vs a house Charles apparently had for him near Highgate. William doesn’t seem very interested in spending time with him and the Middletons are the active grandparents.

      I don’t think Charles has ever put much effort into being a parent or grandparent. Camilla prioritizes her kids and grandkids so he has a blueprint on how it could be done if he wanted to.

      • ShazBot says:

        I AGREE!
        When they were there for the jubilee it was “everyone snubbed them” and then when the Queen died, they realized how stupid that looked for Charles so suddenly it was “he met her when she came to England that one time” but nothing has ever actually been confirmed, and honestly, I believe the first one – they snubbed a 1 year old.

  17. Tessa says:

    Abusers blame their victims for the abuse. Charles won’t own up to how badly he treats harry and meghan.

  18. Talie says:

    This family will just keep repeating the same patterns forever because they want control – and when you exercise control, people rebel. It will be no different with the next gen either, despite William thinking he can beat it.

    Charles can’t make everything right, but he can at least make peace with his son before it’s too late. Of course the tabloid media is telegraphing that they don’t want him to do this, so it’s doubtful he will.

  19. Eurydice says:

    Oh, for heaven’s sake. If Charles wants to see Archie and Lili all he has to do is invite them to visit. A royal invitation would come with royal security.

  20. Sharon says:

    With Harry opening calling for reconciliation now, and the court case behind him, Charles can no longer hide behind his lame excuses. We also are now aware that Harry’s family can immediately have protection any time they get an invite from the RF. So that has also been exposed… Charles has never invited them. Charles is in a pickle now.

    • Jais says:

      I’m guessing he will just say he can’t trust Harry now bc he spoke to the BBC. That will be his excuse. It’s not really a good one though as Harry spoke about wanting safety and reconciliation. It still remains that Charles is not reaching out to his grandkids who he claims to miss. And Harry let us know that.

  21. Blithe says:

    I’m lost here. What / What sort of “constitutional crisis” would have been “sparked” by Charles speaking to Harry — and having his comments “used as part of Harry’s case”? The only things I can I imagine are things that would be flagrantly illegal or immoral — including Charles’s own involvement in “history” and in having “history repeat itself”. If I understand what’s being implied here, Charles’s own toadies are painting him in a pretty awful light — including his willingness to deliberately distance himself from his son and his grandchildren in efforts to avoid being potentially and apparently accurately seen in a very negative light. What am I missing or misunderstanding here?

    I’m applauding Harry’s courage in facing all of this so publicly. This deeply rotten mess is not of his own making.

    • Lady Esther says:

      Agree, this raised my eyebrows too. A “constitutional crisis” sounds very important and official. But said potential crisis was not spelled out at all. Not a lawyer so I hope another Celebitchy could point us in the right direction?

    • BeanieBean says:

      Not a lawyer either, but I think it has to do with court cases all being ‘The Crown vs. Tarquin Fawsingtonworth-Pickering KG QVC’ or whatever. Charles is ‘the crown’.

      • Lady Esther says:

        “Tarquin Fawsingtonworth-Pickering” cackling…

        I’m sure I’m just being dim, but it’s still not clear what would create a “constitutional crisis” if Charles and Harry spoke to one another, or if Charles inadverdently revealed something illegal in those conversations. A constitutional crisis, due to my degree in TVology Watching Too Many Political Thrillers I think means that different branches of a country’s governing institutions would be at cross-purposes, with no clear resolution about which should or would prevail. Eg courts versus Parliament, or the monarchy versus Parliament, etc. Which branch of a country’s governing institutions does Harry represent?

        “The Crown” is just the people, eg cititzens. That’s why UK property, art and other assets like stonking diamond jewelry is said to be held “by the Crown” but that doesn’t mean the monarchy. It means the people of the UK, and the monarchy has guardianship over it (which in practice means the BRF can use all of it at their whim, and do their best to blur the line because most people don’t understand the term). So saying that UK courts are part of “the Crown” isn’t the same as saying they are part of the monarchy. Besides, Charles as monarch is immune to prosecution and the application of UK law so anything Harry would “try to use against him” in a court of law would be invalid. What is the crisis?

        Again, not a lawyer just trying to use logic here…

    • sunnyside up says:

      If Charles’s behaviour is above reproach he had nothing to worry about, he was afraid, so he knows he has done something wrong.

    • Nic919 says:

      If RAVEC is as distanced from the king himself as he claims, then there is not constitutional issue about a father speaking with his son.

      What this case shows is that RAVEC is not an impartial decision making body and it can be manipulated by the monarch and others.

      Simon Case was on it at some point so you he was doing William’s bidding.

  22. QuiteContrary says:

    I bet Charles is angry. Harry just made it clear to the world that his despicable father doesn’t care about his safety or that of his wife and their children.

    The truth hurts, Chucky. This is the reality you created and now you’ll have to live with the truth being out.

  23. BeanieBean says:

    When I read that official statement from Charles I felt the chill all the way over here to Hawaii. There’s ice in his veins, not that blue blood they’re so proud of.

  24. Over it says:

    This man is head of the church. How do you do what you are doing and have the nerve to go to church?

  25. Lover says:

    This entire article is a spluttering tantrum of DARVO, contradictory statements, memory-holing, malignant narcissism, threats, and lies. All unnamed sources, hyperbolic hysterics, and zero credibility. A+ work royal dummies, you really nailed it. Keep calm and carry on.

  26. Normades says:

    Saying Harry is gaslighting is the real gaslighting here.

  27. Shoegirl77 says:

    Nothing to see here. Just another day in DARVOland. I know this is further down the line but what happens now for Birmingham IV games?

  28. Beverley says:

    It’s ENDGAME. Omid Scobie said it and we all know.
    These are the death throes of an outdated, immoral, irrelevant institution.

    • kirk says:

      Wonder if those famously savvy British bookmakers are willing to lay odds on an Endgame end date? After the Oprah interview they were giving Kitty being the ‘royal racist’ high odds. When I mentioned Kitty, the likely royal racist, in Celebitchy posts, I was told I was wrong, that the royal racist was probably Willy. Turns out the bookies were right on the Kitty score. But they may not be willing to run numbers on Endgame if there are enough Chuck-suckers among old white women, easily duped tabloid readers, status quo invested aristocrats and powerbrokers, and the ordinary “apathetic” Brits who don’t want to bother thinking about the BRFCo cost-benefit-ratio. Or ordinary “apathetic” Brits who don’t want to consider whether continuation of BRFCo is a form of slavery to those born within its power structure.

  29. Nic919 says:

    Security is provided based on risk assessment not merit. The fact that they had not done an updated risk assessment on Harry since 2019 is negligent.

    It is irrelevant whether or not Harry left the family, did an Oprah interview and wrote a book. The decision to provide more stringent security should be based on a current risk assessment. We all know it would be higher than most of the senior BRF members and Meghan’s likely even higher.

    If the UK government wants to be taken seriously as a country, they need to overhaul this system and keep courtiers out of the business of making any decisions.

    RAVEC at this point is a tool of Charles and likely William and it is utterly useless.

    • SURE says:

      RAVEC is an extension of KFC and W’s abuse of H. I guess everyone on RAVEC is OK with that. Some might even be hoping for an honour in the future.

  30. Chrissie T says:

    Charles is King, a Head of State, a Billionaire, Head of the UK Armed Forces, Head of the Church of England, he has the highest level of personal security, a household staff of hundreds, the UK Government and all of the UK Media willing to do his dirty work by lying and by endangering his son and his son’s family but Charles is the one being gaslit. Give me a break.

  31. ParkRunMum says:

    Here is a question — and I’m being straight. Do evil people *know* that they’re evil? I mean. I recall a comic strip about the Nazis in which one was gazing at the other as if breaking out of a trance, and asking, dubiously, “Are *we* the baddies?!!?” …which is kind of what this looks like now. Take Charles III, lord of all he surveys. Take his son, who lost his mum traumatically as a child. Take the Sussexes’ flaying by the wretched, ridiculous media here — an all-spectrum assault that runs from the Sun to the Guardian — in real time, during the years in which Harry became a parent, himself. Can you imagine what those kids will think one day, when they can read how their grandfather treated them, and their mum and dad??? The chickens haven’t come home to roost yet. Charles is paying for the way he treated Harry’s mum nearly thirty years after her death. He’ll be paying for the way he treated Harry for the rest of his life. However short it is. William will *always* be the man who went round the bend like an hysteric over Meghan for reasons that beg for psychological extrapolation. It’s just nuts. For the rest of his life and what passes for his reign, William will be the bitter brother. How on *earth* is this a credit to the UK??

    • sevenblue says:

      Look at Will. His whole face, posture changed while all these things were going on. In somewhere in his mind, he knows he turned into the bad guy. He was also trying to find out what really happened to his mother just like Harry. But, after the tabloids got a real story on him (his alleged affair), he went full villain. He aged a decade in a few years. He was still lying to Harry’s face, swearing on Diana’s grave. On the other hand, Charles was always this way, I don’t see any regret or guilt in him. I don’t think, he ever loved anyone in his life. He didn’t get a loving mother or father growing up, so sometimes that kind of childhood damages you irreparably if you don’t seek help.

      • Jes says:

        is the implication that William is the one who wants harry dead? And his father isnt stepping out of the way? Or charles? Bc if Harry named Charles last night, “eg step out of the way” who is left? William seems so psychotic.

  32. Scamuppet says:

    Yet Charles has no problem changing his schedule to give the Throne Speech and open the Canadian parliament for two days, May 27th & 28th? And didn’t he openly discuss his first failed marriage with his BBC buddy Dimbleby in the ’90’s?

  33. Angie says:

    Charles has been ‘white-anting’ his son Harry for years.
    It’s laughable that Charles is ‘Head’ of the Church of England yet he shows no compassion, no forgiveness, no love or support for his own child!
    What ever happened to parents loving their children unconditionally no matter what mistakes they make in life or how many times they fall down, the parent should be there to pick them up and give them a forgiving hug. Every child wants their parents to love them and stand by their side and protect them from evil sources but Charles only thinks about Charles – always has and always will. He has no relationship with any of his grandchildren and this is why the press had to do a puff piece showing Charles swinging Camilla’s grandkids around the yard like a DEVOTED grandfather! The world lived through his cruel actions and the world won’t forgive him and if anything happens to Harry or his family, this will be the END of the Royal Family. Look at how the world turned on the Queen when millions stood by Diana – not even the Queen got the same love & support when she went! The flowers said it all….

  34. Amy Bee says:

    No it’s Charles and the Palace who are gaslighting not Harry. People like to throw around the word narcissist when it comes to Harry and Meghan but the true narcissist is Charles. And Charles has interest in seeing Archie and Lili because their mother is biracial and grandmother is black.

  35. Caitlin2 says:

    Why don’t these so called “insiders” ever have the balls to put their name behind their claims and accusations instead of hiding under a cloak of anonymity?

  36. MaisiesMom says:

    I mean, obviously I don’t know how Charles can look at himself in the mirror, but at this point I don’t know how these Royal Rota Rats do it either. They are constantly carrying rancid water for this piece of trash, his side piece and his incandescent older son.

  37. Fina says:

    No parent who loves their child will believe Charles, cancer treatment (if I can fly to Australia) and a punishing workload would never stop me from visiting my child, especially if I can travel comfortably in a private jet. But no matter. If he does not want to fly to USA, and does not want to give in about Harry in UK, he could have invited them to Roumania.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment