His voice was warm and the praise was heartfelt. “One of the hardest things for a parent is to tell their children that the other parent has died,” he said.
“But he was there for us, he was the only one of two left. “And he did his best to make sure we were protected and taken care of.”
The speaker was Prince Harry on the 20th anniversary of his mother Princess Diana’s death in 2017.
At the time, commentators were surprised that it was left to Harry, rather than his older brother Prince William, to capture the raw emotions of their father Charles as he struggled in his role as a single parent.
Six years later, Harry’s comments have lost none of their significance. What has changed, however, is the relationship between the man who is now king and his sons. While Harry is portrayed as “that idiot” by the king, Charles now enjoys “fun lunches” with his older son.
Six years later, Harry’s comments have lost none of their significance. What has changed, however, is the relationship between the man who is now king and his sons. While Harry is portrayed as “that idiot” by the king, Charles now enjoys “fun lunches” with his older son
Elsewhere he speaks conspiratorially about the increasing battle for attention and public recognition between the 75-year-old king and the 41-year-old Prince of Wales
At least that is Omid Scobie’s version of events, who suggests that the sovereign and his heir were driven to make common cause by the dramas surrounding Harry and Meghan’s exile from the royal family.
The only problem with this one-eyed view is that not even Scobie himself agrees with it.
Elsewhere he speaks conspiratorially about the increasing battle for attention and public recognition between the 75-year-old king and the 41-year-old Prince of Wales.
In this unedifying tale, William considers his father “incompetent” while Charles is upset by his son’s “insolence” over attempts to outshine him.
The picture Scobie paints is of two men locked in a rivalry that can only get any worse because of their disgust (on William’s part) and despair (on Charles’s part) at the antics of California resident Harry .
Scobie writes: “At first it would have been unthinkable to imagine that William and Kate would one day meet Charles and Camilla for a laughing lunch, but the two couples have grown closer over the years, particularly since the Sussexes’ departure.” .’
However, he maintains that these moments of domestic harmony between father and son are rare. Instead of being in lockstep, as officers describe it, the two are at odds.
Charles in particular is said to have been angry about William’s apparent impatience for the top job.
A source close to Charles is quoted as saying: “William or his associates, I should say, will always quickly step up their efforts.” There is an almost frenzied urge to see William as ripe for the throne, even though he has been preceded by a whole generation is.”
At the same time, the king was said to be frustrated that, despite his years-long environmental campaign, he was not asked to take part in the launch of the Williams Earthshot Prize, or at least did not do so [have William] Praise him for inspiring him to take action [the] Role’.
Instead, a Clarence House source is reported to have said it was “as if”. [Charles’s environmentalism] didn’t even exist.
According to the book, this competition between the two led to Charles feeling “Schadenfreude” from his son’s misjudged trip to the Caribbean in 2022, when William and Kate were photographed making contact with the outstretched fingers of Jamaican children pushed through a wire fence.
In this unedifying tale, William considers his father “incompetent” while Charles is upset by his son’s “insolence” over attempts to outshine him
The picture Scobie paints is of two men locked in a rivalry that can only get any worse because of their disgust (on William’s part) and despair (on Charles’s part) at the antics of California resident Harry
To minimize the damage, the couple’s aides told journalists that their lessons had been learned, that things would change and that the old royal motto “Never complain, never explain” should be abandoned.
Scobie suspects that Charles was “angry at William’s insolence.” He continues: “This type of declaration was a matter for either the queen or the direct heir, not the second in line to the throne.”
Scobie quotes an aide as saying, “It was disrespectful… That wasn’t just the case.” [William] He dangled the carrot of something his father couldn’t provide, but he also neglected to address how he could actually provide any of it.’
And the author continues breathlessly: “Another source added at the time that William was ‘out of commission’ and Charles saw this as a deliberate attempt to overshadow him…The Duke of Cambridge.” [as William then was] He blew it, but he used the moment effectively to tease the public that he might soon be able to effect change [sic].
“Although Prince Charles was often jealous of his own son’s popularity and favored status in the institution, this was already a sensitive subject for him, so this breach of royal etiquette, which he never spoke about directly with William, appears to be ” has left a …” mark’.’
There was similar anger when William’s team quickly condemned Lady Susan Hussey, the prince’s godmother, who was involved in an argument at a reception at Buckingham Palace. “It was a hasty… knee-jerk reaction,” a palace figure is quoted as saying. “It felt like they wanted to distance themselves rather than think as a team.”
The rivalry between monarchs and their heirs is nothing new – England’s history is full of such tensions. The question, however, is whether Scobie’s report is reliably accurate.
One issue where there was clearly difficulty between the prince and his father was the Prince Andrew scandal.
Scobie claims that William couldn’t understand why a harder line wasn’t taken sooner. “Charles’ reticence confused William, who didn’t have much faith in his father to do the right thing,” Scobie claims.
He quotes a source as saying: “William [doesn’t] Honestly, I think his father is competent enough. Although they have common passions and interests, their leadership style is completely different.”
At the time, it was suspected by advisers that it was William who persuaded the late queen to take the necessary measures that resulted in Andrew being stripped of his military titles and official roles.
However, Scobie says such claims were dismissed by a source close to Charles as “false” and part of a personal agenda.
However, Scobie says such claims were dismissed by a source close to Charles as “false” and part of a personal agenda
As if that wasn’t inflammatory enough, the book goes on to quote an insider as saying that the prince “knows that his father’s rule is little more than a transitional government, if only because of the king’s age, and acts accordingly.”
These days, Scobie claims: “William is keen to ensure that his own image is no longer tarnished by the ‘bad choices’ of others – be it his father, his uncle, his brother or any other family member.”
As if that wasn’t inflammatory enough, the book goes on to quote an insider as saying that the prince “knows that his father’s rule is little more than a transitional government, if only because of the king’s age, and acts accordingly.”
So what on earth happened to all those father-son friend lunches that Scobie was so keen on? And is there really that much tension between the king and his heir?
According to Scobie, friends of the king say that William does not show Charles the same respect that Charles himself showed the queen.
And it is certainly true that as Prince of Wales, Charles rarely intervened in family matters. This was partly due to the role of Prince Philip, who took his position as head of the family extremely seriously.
But Charles, as readers will remember, risked maternal disapproval with some of his more overt actions.
In the 1980s there were disagreements with Mrs Thatcher over inner cities.
A decade earlier, correspondence with Australia’s then-Governor-General Sir John Kerr revealed that the prince had encouraged the dismissal of then-Prime Minister Gough Whitlam – a major royal intervention in Australia’s domestic politics.
According to one historian, Kerr believed that Charles, then 27, intervened out of “royal boredom” and frustration at having to play second fiddle to his mother.
And then in the 1990s there were the infamous “Black Spider” memos – so called because of Charles’ scribbling handwriting – which angered ministers in Tony Blair’s New Labor government.
Of course, these posed no threat to his mother’s sovereignty.
In fact, it’s worth noting that in the final season of The Crown, the writers had to create a plot about the tension between mother and son over her determination to never abdicate. There have never been such tensions.
Of course there were differences. Long before the Queen’s death, Charles presented his vision of a slimmed-down monarchy, an idea with which the Queen secretly disagreed.
Still, in reading Scobie’s book, it is difficult to reconcile the brash, ambitious William it portrays with the prince who once refused to accept his inheritance and destiny so much that he asked for the use of his HRH Postpone style for as long as possible.
It wasn’t long ago that William discovered that by extending his career as a helicopter pilot, he could delay the moment when he would have to become full-time king
Remember, this was when he and Kate moved from London to Norfolk, clear evidence that he did not allow himself to be rushed into the ribbon-cutting formalities of royal life
It wasn’t long ago that William discovered that by extending his career as a helicopter pilot, he could delay the moment when he would have to become full-time king.
Remember, this was when he and Kate moved from London to Norfolk, clear evidence that he did not allow himself to be rushed into the ribbon-cutting formalities of royal life.
It is also certainly the case that William, as Scobie writes, “often rejected his father’s advice.”
And it is equally clear that he always admired his grandmother’s “example of political neutrality.”
As a teenager, he despaired at the unseemly fighting that marked his parents’ crumbling marriage and the way each one used whispered briefings to rally supporters to his cause.
It was one of the rare cases where Prince Harry agreed with the two promising never to behave like that. Tragically, of course, Harry never kept his end of the bargain.
So is William really out on maneuvers and aiming to outshine his father, just like his mother did 30 years ago?
Of course, there are differences between the two men – and before his exile, Harry was actually closer to his father than William.
But Megxit made the king and his heir dependent on each other, and today the monarchy depends on both.
In his book, Scobie makes fun of an interview William gave that appeared on the day his father led his first Trooping the Color as monarch.
According to Scobie, this “removed any coverage of this special moment from the front page.”
William, I was told, had no role in deciding when his interview would appear.
Friends of the prince say the description of Scobie is nothing more than a parody of the truth. “He is in no hurry to become king,” says a person close to William since childhood.
“He loves his role as father and husband and is far from rebellious, he is a dutiful son and recognizes that he still has a lot to learn.” Mr. Scobie seems to have a wonderful imagination.
“If he looked closer, he would see not a sinister conspiracy, but nonsense and human error.”