The Wales⁵

Quuuuué???? Esto fue extremadamente ofensivo! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😭😭😭.

hola, cómo estás? perdón no había contestado antes pero no había tenido oportunidad de entrar a Tumblr. Muchísimas gracias por preguntar y muchísimas gracias por preocuparte por mí y por mi familia. Afortunadamente estamos bien, en la parte de Colombia donde yo vivo el terremoto no se sintió tan fuerte, desafortunadamente todas partes del país, si hizo bastante daño y eso es un poco triste pero pero bueno, personalmente estoy agradecida que mi familia y yo estemos bien.

I agree about your overall comment that Charles meeting Harry doesn't mean is caving in or welcoming him back, but I actually think the difference between public and private is not actually clear and that is the one of the reason there has been so many problems with the BRF. I remember reading an article about Andrew and it was said something like this would have never happened with the japanese emperial family because they control everyone that comes close to them. While I don't wish for things to be so rigid to the BRF members, there should be a much clearer line between the working and non working royals. When I look at the other euro royal families, I have no idea who the cousins, uncles / aunts or even the cousins' spouses (reference to Edo, Mike and Jack) of Victoria, Felipe, Frederik, Guillaume, Willem etc.. are. Or who the parents / siblings / in-laws of Daniel, Letizia, Mary, Stéphanie, Maxima.. are either. (I'm focusing about W&K generation as they are the future). The only other royal family that I can think where we see so much of the extending family members is Monaco, which I'm kinda putting them aside given their history and structure.

So I believe that in the future, anytime a working member of the BRF appear officialy as their Majesties / their Royal Highness, as in they appear publicly, in front of a crowd or the press as royals, the only people they should be seen with, are the ones who are officially and formally working for the RF and don't receive any other income. So there shouldn't have been Zara and Peter taking part in a garden party alongside William; there shouldn't have been any annoucement about engagements or wedding details or pregnancy of Eugenie / Peter / Samuel etc; I'll go as far to say there shouldn't have been a picture of the Middleton (as lovely as it was) on the official insta account of the PPOW; the Queen shouldn't have come with her sister at Wimbledon; Eugenie shouldn't have had a public wedding; etc…

To me in the futur, slimming down the monarchy shouldn't be about the numbers of working royals (having a dozen people who carry duties in favor of the monarchy is fine I think), but about completely obscuring all those that don't. For example, I'm even thinking they should get rid of the Christmas and Easter walk, where there are always all the non working family members that join the working family members. Yes, it's a family event, but they're doing it in front of a crowd / medias, therefore appearing in their official roles. It's also thank to event like this that Fergie got her clout back.

Same goes for modernising the monarchy. One thing that sould be done is pivot from a structure that focuses so much on family to a structure that only promote the work carried by its members, without promoting or talking about anything related to the non working family members.

To get back to Harry. If all those things had been put in place in the last decade, I don't think people would be so mad about Charles and Harry meeting, because even if they were to reconcile, the most we would see of H&M would be, for example, them driving to the larger family Christmas gathering at BP or Windsor and photographed by the paparazzis. But here a reconciliation still mean maybe taking part in the very public Easter / Christmas walks and milking the royal connections to the max. So yeah that's my take. There's still not a big enough difference between official working royals and non working members. Sorry for my very long commentary, I wanted to develop my thoughts enough so you would understand what i mean.

Sorry for the long answer.

I get what you're saying, and to a certain extent I agree with you. Obviously, I respect your opinion and your take on all of this. That said, I think one of the things that has always worked in the monarchy's favour and something they've been remarkably good at selling is the idea that they're not just an institution, but a family as well.

The problem, particularly during Elizabeth's reign, was that the line between those two things was never especially clear. As you said, everything tended to blur together. Even now, although I think they've made a conscious effort over the past few years to distinguish between working royals and non-working royals, they still haven't fully managed it, and I'm not convinced they ever completely will.

Maybe things will become clearer once William is King. By then there'll probably be fewer working royals, and fewer titled members of the family overall, which might naturally make that distinction easier for people to understand. But one of the foundations of the Windsors has always been the image of a family working, for want of a better phrase, for the good of the people. Because of that, I don't think a complete separation is either realistic or even desirable. What I do think is necessary is a much clearer distinction between the family and the institution. On that, I completely agree with you.

I think Queen Elizabeth was more or less forced into making that distinction during the later years of her reign, and Charles has clearly tried to reinforce it. I'm just not sure he's fully succeeded yet.

For example, I never really understood why the official Royal Family account announced Eugenie's pregnancy. That's one of those things that felt odd to me. At the same time, though, I don't think it's a bad thing for the cousins to join William at a garden party. It's almost become known as the "cousins' garden party", and I don't really see an issue with that.

I suppose it's all about knowing how to manage these things. While I completely agree that there are events which are essentially family occasions and others which are official engagements, the reality is that everything they do is public. Even the things that are meant to be personal end up being carried out in a very public way.

Take Catherine's Christmas Carol service, for example. It's an official public event, but at the same time it's deliberately family-oriented. The wider family attends regardless of whether they're working royals, non-working royals, titled or untitled. So I think it's really about understanding which events can afford to be a bit more flexible, which ones reinforce the idea that they're a family as well as an institution, and which ones are more solemn and constitutional, where there should be much stricter boundaries around who is invited and who isn't.

So I actually think the biggest distinction should come down to the use of royal titles. That's why I completely agreed with Charles' decision to grant Edward the title of Duke of Edinburgh, but on the understanding that it would revert to the Crown upon Edward's death rather than passing to his heir. His successor obviously won't be a working royal, so why should they hold one of the most significant royal titles when they won't have any official role to go with it?

To me, that's where the distinction between the family and the institution really begins: in the use of titles and in carefully managing which events different members of the family are invited to attend.

As for the Christmas Day walk, I actually think it would be a mistake to get rid of it. Events like that help the public feel a sense of closeness to the family that represents them. After all, whether people agree with it or not, one of the ways the monarchy has always presented itself is as the nation's family. That's part of the brand, if you like.

So, again, I think these are the kinds of occasions that simply need to be managed properly. I don't see anything wrong with them because, at the end of the day, it's a family going to church at Christmas. It just happens to take place in full public view.

It's very different from something like Commonwealth Day. That's clearly an official occasion, and there's a well-established expectation that the people attending are working royals carrying out their public duties and representing both the Crown and the Commonwealth. The line there is much more clearly defined.

So, in my opinion, It's less about drawing a hard line between family and institution, and more about recognising which events reinforce the monarchy as a family, and which ones are fundamentally about the institution and should therefore be reserved for those with official roles. That's probably how I'd approach the point you were making, and where my view differs slightly from yours.

I'm surprised we're still talking about a slimmed-down monarchy as though it's some distant plan that's yet to happen. The reality is that it's happening whether the institution likes it or not. By the middle of William's reign, the core of the monarchy will most likely consist of William, Catherine, and their children. So it's not really a question of what should happen; it's simply the direction the institution is already heading.

And I think that's when the distinction between the Mountbatten-Windsor family and the working Royal Family will become much clearer than it is today. There will simply be fewer close relatives who still hold royal titles and, more importantly, fewer who have any official role.

Take Anne's branch of the family, for example. Peter and Zara never had royal titles, and neither do their children. Edward's children are in a similar position. Although they were entitled to princely titles under the existing Letters Patent, Edward and Sophie chose for them to be styled differently, and they're not expected to become working royals anyway.

Then there's Harry and his children. Yes, they hold royal titles, but those titles don't automatically make them working royals, nor do they carry any constitutional role. In practical terms, once William is King, I think the distinction will be impossible to ignore. They'll simply be public figures with royal titles, but without any official function within the institution.

Now, going back to Harry. Personally, I think the problem started long before Harry got married. It goes back to the way Charles, the late Queen, and, to some extent, William handled Harry's place within the family.

Harry and William were raised almost as equals, when constitutionally they never were. William was always the heir, while Harry's role was fundamentally different. I think a lot of the expectations Harry seemed to have after his marriage came from genuinely believing that he and William would always be treated as equals: that he would have the same influence, the same privileges, and, in many ways, the same standing within the institution. But that was never going to be possible in a hereditary monarchy built around the line of succession.

To me, it's obvious that Harry was never given a clear understanding of what his long-term role was supposed to be. Whether that's because no one properly explained it or because the institution itself struggled to define it, I don't know. But I don't think he ever truly understood it, and I don't think he ever came to accept it either.

In fact, I think some of the decisions made by the late Queen and Charles only reinforced that confusion. For example, after Harry got married, there was a lot of discussion about him taking on a greater role in relation to the Commonwealth. Looking back, that always seemed like an odd direction to me. How could Harry realistically become the leading royal figure in that area when William was the future King, and when William's children would eventually become the next generation of senior royals? The monarchy has always revolved around the heir and the direct line of succession, so those expectations never really seemed sustainable.

I also think those same decisions contributed to Harry and Meghan having such a high-profile wedding and such enormous public exposure. I understand why the wedding itself was always going to attract worldwide attention. Still, I don't think the institution did much to establish realistic expectations about what their position would look like in the years that followed. In hindsight, that probably made the eventual transition much harder.

That said, I also think that, regardless of how those early decisions had been handled, the outcome might not have been very different. Once Harry and Meghan decided to step away from royal duties, I think there was always going to be a major fallout. The scale of it might have changed, and perhaps some of the misunderstandings could have been avoided, but I suspect the conflict itself was probably inevitable.

I'm glad you said this because I think this is really what it's all about.

Look, I can overlook Charles to some extent, but I can never overlook Harry and Meghan's intentions. One day it's "just a meeting," then before you know it, BP through their mouthpieces are talking about them slowly making their way back into the fold. I'm sorry, but after all the manipulation and games that have been played over the years, it's difficult for me to trust any of them at this point.

I do sympathize with your family's situation, and every family is different. But your family isn't trying to maintain a public institution or protect a monarchy. That's the difference. With the BRF, it's honestly quite insulting to the public to keep playing these games while expecting everyone to pretend there's nothing going on.

And I just can't give Charles the benefit of the doubt because, quite frankly, he hasn't earned it. Somehow he's always whatever people need him to be. One day he's the ill-stricken father who just wants to see his son. The next day he's a master strategist playing everyone like a fiddle.

Which is it? Because I'm not buying either narrative.

So when people keep urging everyone to "just see this meeting for what it is," I'm sorry, but that's beyond naive. If anything, it's ignoring years of the exact same pattern and expecting everyone else to forget it too.

As I said in the last two ASKs you posted, you've already made your mind up about Charles and this whole situation, and nothing is going to change it. I'm not trying to, either. But I do want to ask you something, specifically because of what you said in this story.

If Harry's manipulation is actually working in some way, or if Buckingham Palace is letting itself be manipulated, or even wants to be manipulated, or is deliberately allowing Harry to gain ground, then why did they take away Frogmore Cottage? Why was he refused the opportunity to stay at Buckingham Palace? Why doesn't the King step in and make sure Harry gets more security, like the Queen initially tried to do? Why doesn't Charles simply say, "I'll provide security for my son and my grandchildren whenever they're in the UK"? Why doesn't Charles arrange more meetings with Harry when he's in Britain? Why doesn't he encourage more contact between them if that's supposedly exactly what Harry wants and is doing everything he can to achieve?

If Charles is so easily manipulated, if he has some hidden agenda, if he's so foolish, and if he doesn't care about the monarchy, doesn't care about William, and doesn't care about any of it, then why isn't he doing those things? Isn't that a bit contradictory?

And sure, you could say, "Oh, he only does that so it doesn't look too obvious." But come on, he's making it rather difficult as well, isn't he? What you're suggesting just doesn't really fit with Charles's actual actions, does it?

We're indeed talking about an institution here. But as long as Harry's expectations and Charles's actions only concern the private side of their family relationship, there's no reason why that should threaten the institution. If anything, it makes it pretty clear that there's a difference between family matters and public duties. And when it comes to the public side of things, Harry no longer has a role, at least not under the current circumstances. People don't even talk about Harry having the door open to return anymore.

I think what they're trying to do is make a clear distinction between the private and the public. You see the two as interconnected, and I understand why. I get why it's difficult to separate them, because that's always messy when you work with family. But here, the distinction is almost obvious. The fact that they reportedly met at Highgrove rather than Buckingham Palace, for example, can easily be seen as drawing a clear line between their private relationship and their public roles.

So I don't really think what you fear, or what you're accusing Buckingham Palace and Charles of doing, makes much sense. I don't think Charles is trying to do both things at once. I think he knows how to separate being a father, which is supposedly what Harry wants, from being the monarch.

He’s always known Harry and Meghan leak. So I really don’t understand this constant need to keep testing them. And even if they “pass” this time, so what? Does that erase years of leaks, public attacks, and everything that’s happened? Without an apology? Without accountability? Without even acknowledging any wrongdoing?

I don’t have a problem with a private reconciliation. If they want to mend their relationship as a family, that’s entirely their business. But that’s not what’s happening here, is it?

The bigger issue is that Harry and Meghan have never hidden the fact that they want to be treated as equals to the heir while continuing to attack the very institution they want to remain attached to. That’s why people are skeptical, and rightly so.

Anon, I think you're being deliberately cynical here aaajajjaajaajjaaj.

Yes, everyone knows Harry and Meghan leak things. But Harry and Meghan are also constantly insisting they don't. They're constantly accusing other people of doing it instead.

By BP being the first to confirm the meeting and immediately making it clear that nothing else about it would be made public, they effectively shut down Harry's usual defence of saying, "It wasn't us. Buckingham Palace leaks too. BP did it first," and so on.

By making the first move, Buckingham Palace has, in a way, blocked Harry from using that argument.

Maybe I'm the only one who sees it that way, but that's how I see it.

Now Harry and his team have to think twice about leaking anything else because it'll be far more obvious. Has it always been obvious? Yes. But this time it'll be even more obvious because Buckingham Palace made it clear from the outset that no further information about that meeting would be made public.

The fact that Rebecca English, who I personally see as Buckingham Palace's mouthpiece, said, "No one's talking, no one is going to talk, and this is all that's going to be made public," was, in my opinion, Buckingham Palace reinforcing that position. They were making it clear that no one should know anything else about that meeting, and that if more details did emerge, they hadn't come from them.

And once again, Harry would be left looking exposed. No, one action or one situation isn't going to erase everything that's happened. That's not how this works, and nobody is pretending that it does. But maybe they're looking at it and thinking, "Well, at least they might be capable of learning. At least they might be capable of keeping quiet. At least they might finally treat something private as exactly that, private, and not something that needs to become everyone else's business." For once, they have the chance to stop using a private family matter for their own benefit, even if it's only for a while.

Are you deliberately being a bit stubborn here, or is your dislike of Charles clouding your judgement a little? Sorry if that sounds offensive, but that's honestly how it comes across to me.

At this point, Harry can want whatever he wants. But Harry's biggest problem is that he's making exactly the same mistake he made when the Queen was still alive.

He's focused on building, so to speak, a relationship with the current monarch, instead of understanding that the current monarch won't be around forever.

The relationship he really needed to build was with the monarch who was going to succeed, namely William. And he didn't.

Nor do I think he ever will, because William seems to have a very different view from the one Charles had when the Queen was alive, and even from the one Charles appears to have now.

So Harry and Meghan can have whatever private relationship they want with Charles. That's entirely up to them.

I just had to say it because people seem to have forgotten who Charles is.

All of a sudden, every decision has to be explained away with, "Well, he's a father," or, "He's a grandfather." As if those titles suddenly erase everything we already know about him.

Look, I don't want to come across as heartless, and I genuinely sympathize with anyone dealing with a serious illness. But having cancer doesn't rewrite a person's character. Neither does being a father or a grandfather. Charles is still Charles, with or without cancer. That's who he's always been.

If we're talking about history, Camilla's place in the story should be enough to remind people that Charles has always been capable of putting his own interests first. So I don't understand why people keep bending over backwards to portray him as either a frail old father who can't help himself or a misunderstood grandfather who just wants his family together.

I just don't think it's fair to expect people to abandon their judgment or feel guilty for criticizing his decisions simply because he's ill or because he's someone's father and grandfather. Those things can be true, and people can still question the choices he makes.

First of all, I have to say it genuinely makes me laugh because it's so obvious you don't like Charles. And when someone already has such a strong opinion, whether it's biased or just very one-sided, it makes conversations about that person both difficult and, at the same time, quite interesting. But I'm going to give it a go because I like a challenge, and I enjoy talking about this.

Anon, everything Charles has done, everything he's said, everything in his past has nothing to do with the fact that he's a father and a grandfather. Those are separate things. One doesn't cancel out the other. They can both exist at the same time, and in Charles's case, they do.

He may well have been a terrible husband. He may have been a mediocre father. And yet, he can still be a father who loves his son and a grandfather who wants to know his grandchildren. So why hold that against him? And why criticise people who recognise that those things can coexist?

For example, when I say that, at the end of the day, Charles is Harry's father and the grandfather of his children, I'm not saying Charles should invite Harry to public events, private events, or anything else. That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I am saying is that family relationships are complicated. And a lot of the time, even when you're the one who's made the biggest mistakes, as I think Charles has, particularly when it comes to not being the father he should have been, that guilt can make you more forgiving or more willing to overlook things than someone else in the same situation would be.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. As fans, and as people on the outside looking in, we have to separate the public from the private.

We can comment all day long on the public side of things and on official decisions. But it's much harder to judge what happens behind closed doors or get genuinely upset about private family decisions because, at that point, we're drifting into unhealthy parasocial territory, and I don't think that's where we should be.

Is it interesting to talk about? Absolutely. My blog is basically built on discussing these things. But I'm also very aware that what I have is an opinion. That's all it is. Getting genuinely angry about it is ridiculous.

Honestly, I wish Vanessa were here because she'd tell you we've spent literal hours talking about this. Hours. We've come up with every possible theory, every possible conclusion, blamed just about everyone at some point, and by the end of it, we always end up saying, "Well, that's their problem," and moving on.

I also find it interesting that you brought up cancer when neither I nor anyone else had mentioned it. The press talks about it constantly, sure, but Charles having cancer doesn't really have anything to do with what we're discussing.

Again, this is about family. It's about a father wanting to see his son and wanting to see his grandchildren.

Is that really wrong? Is it really that terrible?

And yes, before you say it again, Harry has done some awful things, but he's done them to Charles. If Charles himself is willing to move past some of that, why should it bother you? Or me? Why should either of us be upset on his behalf? You wouldn't react the way Charles has. Fair enough. Neither would I. But that doesn't really prove anything. An illness doesn't change who someone is, but it often puts things into perspective.

I genuinely hope you've never had to go through something that serious yourself, or watch someone close to you go through it. Experiences like that really can change the way you look at life. We all know we're going to die someday, but actually being confronted with that possibility is incredibly humbling. More often than not, it changes the way people see what's truly important.

Personally, I've never argued that Charles's cancer is the reason for any of this. I don't think I've ever even suggested that. But I do think it may have played a small part in both Harry's and Charles's willingness to give a little. Although, as I've said before, Harry's decision almost certainly involves a lot of other factors as well.

Your last paragraph is the bit that really confused me. Who exactly is expecting that from people? Are you talking generally, or are you talking specifically about my blog? Because I post my opinions here. When I answer an ask, it's either because someone wants my opinion or because I'm responding to the opinion they've shared, like I'm doing right now.

So I genuinely don't understand that criticism because nobody is asking anyone to abandon their views or expecting them to.

I've always said the same thing. You have your opinion, and I have mine.

I can have an opinion about your opinion, and you can have an opinion about mine. We can have this conversation, agree to disagree, and that's perfectly fine. If anything, that's what makes discussions more interesting, regardless of how biased either side might be.

But I genuinely didn't understand that particular point.

Every time Harry wants something, the script is practically identical. He arrives with a set of demands, security, accommodation, a meeting with his father and, without fail, it becomes yet another media circus. And somehow, despite all the supposed distance and dysfunction, Charles always manages to find time to meet him. What an incredible coincidence.

Then we're told, "Well, he's a father and grandfather. Of course he wants a relationship."

Right. Because nothing says "healthy family relationship" quite like negotiations, public pressure, and carefully choreographed meetings that somehow always become headlines.

It's almost as if some people slept through the entire War of the Waleses in the '90s. This isn't new. It's the same playbook, just with different players and updated headlines.

The only real difference is that Diana died far too soon, and Charles lived long enough to rehabilitate his image. Apparently, that's all it takes for people to forget how these games are played.

Saying that Charles has somehow rehabilitated his image while you're here criticising him doesn't really add up. But it's still quite funny to talk about because, well, it's an interesting conversation.

Look, I'm not here to defend Charles because, honestly, I couldn't really care less. Charles doesn't make much difference to me. But I genuinely think that a lot of people have already made up their minds about him because of what happened with Diana and Camilla, everything that's happened with Harry, and all those stories that came out a few years ago painting Charles’s relationship with them in a better light than his relationship with William and Catherine, and so on. That's not going to change.

To be honest, I never really gave Charles the benefit of the doubt until a couple of years ago. I've said that before, and I've explained plenty of times on this blog why my opinion changed, so I don't think it's worth repeating.

I think it's very easy to look at these people purely from an official or entertaining point of view, but we shouldn't forget that they're also a family, and that Charles is Harry's father at the end of the day. As much as we all have opinions based on things other people have said or things we've seen publicly about Charles as a father, I think it's unfair to assume that he doesn't love his son. He may love him in his own way, in his own style, and perhaps very privately, but I genuinely believe there are very few parents who wouldn't forgive almost anything their children did, up to a certain point.

It actually reminds me a lot of my own family. My brother isn't perfect. He's not a bad person, but he certainly isn't perfect, and he's had plenty of rows with my dad throughout his life. In most other situations, I think a lot of people wouldn't forgive some of the things my brother has said about my dad. Not so much what he's done, but definitely what he's said. And yet my dad absolutely adores him. Ironically, I sometimes think he loves my brother more than me, even though I haven't done or said half the things my brother has over the years. That's something I've always complained about, criticised, and even used as ammunition whenever we've argued. But nothing ever changed. Eventually, I just ended up telling myself that, at the end of the day, he's his son. And like so many parents, there's only so far they can go before they end up forgiving their children.

So why shouldn't I think Charles feels exactly the same way? Charles isn't a superhero, or some sort of super-father, or an alien. He's human too.

And the example with my brother also shows that even an ordinary family can be dysfunctional. So blaming the Royals' dysfunction purely because they're Royals is a bit stupid, if you'll forgive the expression.

That doesn't mean I personally agree with forgiving Harry. I'm actually someone who believes that, regardless of who you are, if you've hurt me badly enough, I have every right to remove you from my life. But not everyone thinks like that. And I have to accept that. Not everyone would handle a situation like this the way I would, or the way you might. On top of that, there are probably aspects of their family dynamic that we'll never know about.

So unless Charles suddenly invites Harry and his family onto BP’s balcony tomorrow and declares him as his successor to the world, or asks Harry to carry out official engagements on his behalf, I don't think meetings like this are a bad thing. Nor do I think they deserve to be criticised. They should simply be seen for what they are: a grandfather seeing his grandchildren, and a father seeing his son and daughter-in-law, however awkward or uncomfortable the circumstances may have been.

You're right: this has become the same repetitive game from both sides. But I also think that, from the monarchy's perspective, it's a game they've been quietly winning, and not in an obvious way either, if you step back and look at the bigger picture of where both sides are now.

I still believe what happened today was Buckingham Palace controlling the narrative, and to some extent, controlling Harry and Meghan's narrative as well. Because if we find out more about this meeting tomorrow, Buckingham Palace can quite easily say, "It wasn't us. See? We're not the problem. We're not the ones leaking information. We told you no more details about this meeting would come from us, so clearly we're not the ones briefing the press."

At the end of the day, though, I don't think any of this is actually going anywhere. If this had happened five years ago, the conversation would probably have been very different. But now? I don't think anything will come of it.

Over the next few weeks, we'll probably hear Harry saying he wants his children to spend more time with their grandfather. He'll do everything he can to get their security reinstated. He genuinely hopes his father will attend the Invictus Games next year. He hopes to bring his family over as well.

And then... nothing will happen. Until the next time Harry comes to the UK, he asks for security again, and the cycle starts all over.

I honestly think that, if it were entirely up to William, they probably wouldn't be invited. But realistically, it's not that simple.

Remember that at Christmas, William and his family stay at their own house anyway. They could quite easily attend the festivities without having to interact with Harry and his family at all. It would be awkward for everyone, absolutely, but it's perfectly doable.

I also think there are enough members of the family to act as buffers and make sure they barely cross paths over the course of the evening. I mean, you can be in the same room as someone you don't speak to and nothing actually happens. Is it awkward? Of course. Is it possible? Also yes.

They could go to the Christmas dinner and then head back to their own house afterwards. The next day they could go to Sandringham separately, and if they both attended the Christmas Day church service, they could simply arrive and leave separately as well.

First of all, I haven't given BP any ammo whatsoever, because BP doesn't even know I exist. So saying I've somehow given them hope, fuel, or ammunition is genuinely ridiculous. Please don't give us more importance than we actually have. We are random people on the internet sharing opinions. That's it. And when I say "we", I'm talking about the fandom, not myself personally. None of us are moving the needle in any meaningful way, so let's stop pretending otherwise.

Secondly, do some of you forget that, at the end of the day, Harry is Charles's son? Yes, we all remember the things Harry has done and said against his family. I'm sure Charles remembers them too. He's the one who lived through it. But if he's willing to set all of that aside to see his son or spend time with his grandchildren, then who am I to criticise him?

Then there are the children. Those are Charles's grandchildren. He doesn't see them regularly and, as far as we know, he hasn't seen them in person for at least four years. It's entirely possible that Charles genuinely wants to spend time with them, and no one can really fault him for that, because children aren't responsible for their parents' actions.

Just as Harry and William were never responsible for the mistakes, failures or behaviour of their parents, Harry's children aren't responsible for his. They'll only ever be responsible for the choices they make themselves, just as Harry is responsible for his own actions. That's exactly why so many of us hate it when people blame Diana, or what happened to Diana, for the way Harry behaves now. If we reject that argument when it's used against Harry, then we should reject the same logic when it's applied to his children. At least be consistent.

Thirdly, if this meeting really did happen, then Harry and his family met Charles entirely on Charles's terms. It was private. Nobody knew when it happened. It took place where Charles wanted, in the setting where he feels most comfortable, and that pretty much tells you it happened on his terms.

On top of that, it was Buckingham Palace that apparently leaked or confirmed the meeting, not the Sussexes. In other words, Buckingham Palace was the one controlling the narrative here. BP said the meeting happened, that there wouldn't be any photos, and that there wouldn't be any further information released about it. That means if we hear anything else about that visit further down the line, any additional details are far more likely to come from the Sussexes' side.

So yes, I stand by everything I said in my post or rather, in the thread I posted on Twitter, which was simply a response to a question I was asked here a few days ago. Nothing that's happened since has changed my opinion.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You're perfectly free to start your own blog and post whatever you like. You can disagree with me. That's completely acceptable, perfectly reasonable, and entirely respectable. I have absolutely no issue with people seeing things differently. That's what happens when people have discussions.