Prince Charles mentioned #6 specifically in an essay on the environment that he wrote for Newsweek. It’s before the photo of Charles and William in the link, and is just 1 sentence: ‘And my younger son, Harry, has passionately highlighted the impact of climate change, especially in relation to Africa, and committed his charity to being net zero.’
Newsweek calls this an olive branch (as does the Daily Mail, which has a handy summary of how badly Harry has behaved towards his father) in the same issue - their partisanship really is showing.
Is this indeed an olive branch? Or was it to avoid a negative reception to the topic? Remember- the RF is versed in diplomacy.
Elton John singing a song for you.
Did anyone notice a few recent articles, to the effect that Prince Charles and Harry were slowly re-establishing communication? Here’s an example.
The Daily Mail now claims that they have not.
If the Daily Mail article is correct - that could explain why Harry threw his father under a bus. There was absolutely no reason why he had to say anything. The scandal related to what a trusted aide was doing; Harry hadn’t been mentioned (even though we find that his charities received £60,000 in total).
And did Harry say that it was he who first met Dr Mahfouz? NB Apparently he denies this, so this isn’t conclusive - at this stage.
UPDATE: Reporter Neil Sean (who’s NBC’s royal reporter, as well as popping up on Australian TV - so, in my book, a more real reporter than Scoobie Doo) comments, amongst other things:
- Prince Charles has offered to assist the Metropolitan Police in any investigation. Has Harry?
- Harry’s I-told-you came out just as Prince William was receiving favourable publicity on his podcast. Coincidence?
Hello guys,
I want to know that is there enough "hatred" towards Charles to destabilize the Monarchy in UK ?
There is no question about him being next monarch unless QE2 outlived him. I am not in the sentimental group of "skipping charles for William" and believe William isn't ready yet.
My opinion will be his reign will be short anyway but very important cause without him preparing William for the role of monarch the later one will be exhausted with crown on his head.
But is there "enough" goodwill that ppl would endure his reign ?
What is ur opinion?
I address the Q mostly towards residence of British commonwealth as I have this idea that Charles is way less popular outside UK due to Diana effect so their opinion might have some biasness but they are still welcomed.
This is the headline of a Telegraph article (paywall alert).
The salient points are:
- According to royal sources, ‘no one can remember‘ this being raised with Charles’s household.
- Although Harry claimed that he had ‘expressed his concerns’, he didn’t say to whom.
- 1 royal source says: ‘No one can remember that [Harry raising his concerns] here.’ Another states that there had been no discussion between Harry’s and Charles’s households about Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, the Saudi donor
Note that Dr Mahfouz donated at least £50,000 to Harry’s charity Sentebale, and Harry seems to have met him only twice: Sun article.
EDIT: This cash-for-honours came to light when Dr Mahfouz was awarded a CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire: in 2016. However, he was hankering after a knighthood, which is when Charles’s aide stepped in and offered to help.
Timeline: Harry first met Dr Mahfouz in 2013, and later in 2014. So he became of suspicious of Dr Mahfouz’s motives a full 2 years before? And there’s no such thing as a free lunch - did he think Dr Mahfouz was giving away millions just because he could?
He says his coat of arms matches with what the book of revelation says, (tries to tell me the lion’s foot was somehow the foot of a bear because it only had four claws) and that his name “Charles, Prince of Wales” in original Hebrew comes out 666. (He credits himself with discovering this). Also he says that Prince Charles is Muslim, which adds up with something about forsaking the faith of his forefathers. (I’m just going off memory of what he said, could be wrong). But the funniest “evidence”, Charles means manly, and the Bible says the anti-Christ will be a man.
Just thought this was hilariously stupid/infuriating
Edit: also the dragon on the welsh flag is the beast (or something like that)
