King Charles grows more diabolical by the day, at least according to the nutjobs trying to defend him. I don’t even know what to call it, this whole month-long melodrama over Prince Harry’s three-day visit to the UK. Harry knew what he was doing when he issued his simple and gracious statement about how he would not see his father during his visit, because his father was too busy. Harry putting that out there, on the record, ruined Charles’s “snubbing Harry” plans in real time and set off a one-sided briefing war in which Charles and his courtiers have not been able to keep their stories straight from one day to the next. Currently, we’ve been told that Charles would have made time (MAYBE) for Harry, if only Harry agreed to put himself in a dangerous situation with no security. Now monarchist nutjob Ingrid Seward is crying about how King Charles is terribly hurt by Harry’s statements and Harry’s moves to keep himself safe. Seward is inadvertently painting Charles as particularly diabolical.
Prince Harry’s statement that his father was “too busy” to see him on his recent UK trip was “unnecessary and hurtful” for a tired King Charles, a royal expert has claimed. Harry is said to have turned down the [royal lodging] offer because it did not come with any security provision and instead stayed in a hotel. And according to royal expert and biographer Ingrid Seward, Harry’s previous statement was of benefit to nobody.
She told the Mirror: “Harry’s unpredictable behaviour is hurtful to his father. Even if he were too busy to see Harry – and that is quite possible – to issue an announcement to this effect is unnecessary and benefits no one. This is especially the case when his father is still undergoing cancer treatment and could well be very tired and emotionally fragile.”
“When Prince Harry turned down his father’s offer to stay at a royal residence during his three-day trip to London in May, it was a surprise to the royal household. The King was aware Harry had no UK base. He could not fail to be aware Harry was unduly anxious about security. But he was not aware that Harry would issue a statement saying his father was too busy to meet him. It was hurtful and even if true if they had been under the same roof a meeting might have been arranged.”
“The King is wary of his troublesome son. Whatever he does to try and help him is turned into a snub. Nothing is ever Harry’s fault. It is either the fault of the British Government, or the lack of security afforded him by the Metropolitan Police. They have offered him a ‘bespoke’ arrangement, assessing each visit individually. Not good enough for Harry. He had his own arrangement to stay at a luxury private hotel where the entrance and exit are hidden from peering eyes and cameras and even the hotel staff don’t know what VIP guests are staying.”
And now with security proving to be a major issue for Harry, Ingrid, editor-in-chief of Majesty Magazine, believes it could prevent Charles from fulfilling one long-held wish.
She added: “Harry and Meghan’s security fears could well be a stumbling block to any kind of reunion with the Royal Family. But no doubt they have been invited to Balmoral this summer. As the late Queen discovered, Scotland offers the only quality time a Monarch has to devote to family. It would be very sad if Charles was denied the pleasure of seeing his grandchildren just because of Harry’s unfounded security woes.”
I genuinely feel sick to my stomach at this public gaslighting – “Harry’s unfounded security woes” and “The King was aware Harry had no UK base. He could not fail to be aware Harry was unduly anxious about security.” Charles is the reason why Harry has no UK base, having evicted his son and grandchildren from their family home in the UK. Charles is also the reason why Harry’s royal protection is nonexistent in the UK, because Charles has never made those arrangements with RAVEC to ensure that the Sussexes are fully protected whenever they visit. Charles orchestrated Harry’s lack of safety and Harry’s homelessness in the UK, then blames Harry for not wanting to put himself in unsafe situations for a father who refused to schedule a meeting with him? Not only that, I’m deeply uncomfortable with the palace repeatedly briefing the media about Harry’s lodgings in the UK. The palace is maybe one week away from naming the hotel where Harry has stayed in his recent visits.
Leave a reply