Us Weekly: King Charles refuses to stop lying about the Sussexes’ security

Last week, Prince Harry covered People Magazine. He had given People and the Telegraph exclusive statements about his British security case, and People spun out his statements into a larger cover story. “Sources” spoke about the deep estrangement between Harry and King Charles, to the point where Charles refuses to take any calls from Harry. Some people missed the fact that People Mag also basically explained that Harry’s position is correct, which is that Charles could alter Harry’s security situation if Charles wanted to, and that’s why Charles refuses to take Harry’s calls. Charles’s side continues to insist that he has nothing to do with RAVEC (a lie) and that he couldn’t do anything to change Harry’s situation (another lie). Well, Us Weekly has put these issues in their cover story this week. Us Weekly sort of does a better job of zeroing in on this core issue: Harry correctly believes Charles could give the Sussexes security for any visit they make, and Charles continues to lie about all of it. Some highlights from Us Weekly’s story:

Harry’s court case: “This has been terrible for Harry’s relationship with Charles,” says a royal insider. “Harry blames Charles and thinks he can intervene. But [Charles] can’t, and it just continues Harry’s narrative that he’s been cast out.”

Charles isn’t speaking to Harry: “Charles is not answering Harry’s messages,” royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams tells Us Weekly. “At the moment, Harry does not seem to have a relationship with his father at all. It’s truly sad.”

It’s out of Charles’s hands: As far as Charles is concerned, the matter of Harry’s publicly-funded security being withdrawn in the U.K. is out of his hands. (RAVEC, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, is responsible for security details. Since Harry and Meghan moved to the U.S., their U.K. security measures have been decided on a case-by-case basis.) “Prince Harry doesn’t seem to understand that Charles can’t get involved in the decision about his security, but he still blames him,” says the royal insider. “Harry and Meghan are no longer working royals, so they don’t get royal protection anymore. It’s the British public paying for this, so there’s no leeway here.” Adds the insider: “It’s between Harry and the Home Office.”

Are the Sussexes supposed to have security in Britain? Royal experts are divided as to whether Harry and his immediate family members are deserving of round-the-clock protection while in his home country. (He pays for his own security in the U.S.) “If any accommodation was to be had with the Sussexes, this seemed a reasonable request,” says Fitzwilliams, noting how “tormented” Harry has been by the tragic death of his mother, Princess Diana, who died in a 1997 car crash while being chased by paparazzi. But royal historian Marlene Koenig feels Harry is acting entitled. “When you leave the family business — whether it be the royal family or a family-owned corporation — you lose the rights and privileges of that business,” she says. (Harry has maintained that he was forced out of The Firm after initially offering to work on a more part-time basis.)

Charles’ radio silence speaks volumes. “Harry believes his father can make arrangements,” says Koenig. “He cannot.” (Koenig notes that other part-time or non-working royals have also lost security but are given protection while carrying out official royal engagements.) Fitzwilliams believes Harry “regards what he perceives as the King’s indifference as a betrayal of some sort.”

Ah, now they’re saying Harry is paranoid like his mother: Meanwhile, Harry’s decision to talk to reporters after the April 9 hearing “highlights the issue of trust and reliability” for Charles & Co., Fitzwilliams says. “[It was] unwise [of Harry] to make further public accusations against the royal family, claiming that they tried to trap him using security as a weapon. This has a feel of paranoia about it.”

And Charles is mad about Harry overshadowing him: Adding to the strain between father and son, Harry’s surprise trip to Ukraine — he met with wounded soldiers in Lviv on April 10 — “risked overshadowing” Charles’ state visit to Italy with wife Queen Camilla, says the royal insider. “Traditionally, the royals don’t do big initiatives at the same time, so this was a low blow from Harry.” The Duke of Sussex is provided with significant security details while traveling to certain countries, like Ukraine as well as Colombia and Nigeria in 2024, which he does not receive while in the U.K.

Tough love: “They are not in communication with each other,” says Koenig. “Charles loves his son, but at this time, he and his advisers prefer the tough love treatment.”

[From Us Weekly]

I’m still waiting for any of these royal commentators to point out the oddness of Buckingham Palace’s position, which is: Harry’s security is out of Charles’s hands, because Charles is mad about everything Harry has said and done! That’s the inherent contradiction – if Charles won’t intervene because he’s mad at the Sussexes, then Harry is correct and Charles is perfectly capable of intervention in the security situation. Which Harry knows, because he saw the way QEII ensured his security when he and Meghan visited the UK three times in 2022. It’s been clear this whole time that this whole situation has been arranged according to Charles’s wishes – the 30-day notice, the ability of the royal protection service to deny Harry security for certain visits (when Charles doesn’t want him in town), the leaking of Harry’s travel plans and itinerary during his visits. It’s actually shocking that more people aren’t pointing out that Charles really doesn’t care if he puts Harry in mortal danger. I guess that’s the “tough love” reference.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, cover courtesy of Us Weekly.