A royal commentator has claimed that the only thing “sabotaging” Prince Harry’s reconciliation with King Charles is the Duke’s own “self-perceived victimhood”. The Duke of Sussex caused a sensation recently after he lashed out at the “grey men in suits” inside the royal court, who are allegedly trying to sabotage his reconciliation efforts with his father, echoing similar comments his mother, the late Princess Diana, made in the past.
Father and son met for a private tea during Harry’s visit back to the UK in September, which was seen as a positive step towards a better future relationship between the two camps. Harry accused unnamed royal courtiers of trying to put a negative spin on his reunion with his father after claims suggested their recent meeting in London was “distinctly formal,” with Harry feeling like an “official visitor”.
Harry’s representatives dismissed these claims made by The Sun, saying they’re “categorically false” and that the quotes attributed to him are “pure invention fed, one can only assume, by sources intent on sabotaging any reconciliation between father and son.”
Meanwhile, a source close to Harry told the Mail on Sunday: “The relationship between the Duke and His Majesty The King is a matter for the two of them and the two of them only. The men in grey suits should stay out of it.”
Now, the Daily Mail’s Amanda Platell, who regularly comments on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, said the reason Harry’s chances of mending his relationship with his father would be in danger is due to the Duke “inheriting the least attractive quality” from the late Princess of Wales, her “utter paranoia”.
She said that Diana “had good reason” to be paranoid after she was lured into giving her infamous BBC Panorama interview in 1995.
The commentator wrote: “After the latest lurid accusations that ‘men in grey suits’ are sabotaging the Prince, the harsh reality is clear: the only thing sabotaging Harry is his own self-perceived victimhood, a role he continues unhealthily to wallow in – and unforgivably monetise through his memoir, Spare.”
She added: “How paranoid must Harry have felt then when it was reported that Buckingham Palace had been left ‘saddened and perplexed’, increasingly ‘bemused’ and ‘clearly not a little irritated’ by Harry’s ‘wild, conspiracy theories’.”
Ms Platell went on to say that Diana was a “master media manipulator,” whereas Harry is a “clumsy amateur”.
She alleged: “I can tell you as a former newspaper editor that Diana often called or met up incognito with her favourite journalists to make sure they reported her side of the story.
“It was through a tip-off from Diana’s camp that the newspaper I then edited published the first ever pictures of Diana with her then lover, the Muslim heart surgeon Hasnat Khan, after her divorce [with King Charles].”
“The Princess was a master media manipulator. So perhaps that’s another thing Harry thinks he has inherited from his mother: an ability to control the media narrative. Although, compared to Diana, he is a clumsy amateur.”
Ms Patell said the “paranoia” that the Duke shares with his late mother is the “most troubling,” because it led to much unhappiness in Diana’s life.
She claimed that Diana gave up the victim card and focused on her charities following her royal exit, but kept blaming the “men in grey suits for her unhappiness” in the years that followed.
The commentator concluded: “She was so paranoid that she cancelled her official Scotland Yard protection detail, believing they were loyal not to her but the palace. And look how that ended.”
Following his trip to the UK in September, Harry said that he is “very happy” with who he is.
He told the Guardian: “I think parts of the British press want to believe that I am miserable, but I’m not. I am very happy with who I am and I like the life that I live.”