Harry and William: What Went Wrong? (ITV Documentary on 4th July 2021)

[AC21091968]

ITV has released a documentary discussing about the relationship between William and Harry, more specifically on the recent "rift" between the brothers.

Harry and William: What Went Wrong?
Episode 1- What could be behind the rift between Princes William and Harry? This documentary will reveal all, including the details of significant private fallings-out between them.
https://www.itv.com/hub/harry-and-william-what-went-wrong/10a1460a0001

Here are two Youtube video links that I found (Hopefully not taken down in the future due to copyrights):

There has been some media coverage on this, including the "incident" or "story" that ITV removed the suggestion by Omid Scobie that William's staff/sources released his comments on Harry's mental health.

Harry & William: What went wrong: ITV removes claim Prince William warned about Prince Harry’s mental health
ITV then decided to remove the comments about mental health from the programme
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/harry-w...rned-about-prince-harry-mental-health-1086574

The Telegraph has released a review of the documentary with 3 out of 5 stars.

Harry & William: What Went Wrong? laid the blame firmly with the brothers themselves
ITV's documentary mostly resisted sensationalism for a sensible, balanced look at how the brothers' relationship broke down
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2021/07/04/harry-william-went-wrong-laid-blame-firmly-brothers/
Archived link: https://archive.ph/MzZvf

 

[Alison H]

I thought some of it was a bit exaggerated. They went on about Meghan being from a "celebrity" background, which made her sound like one of the Kardashians, and Kate being from a family which "understood" royalty, which wasn't very accurate either - the Middletons are not the Spencers. But, yes, most of it was quite balanced and sensible - including the very good point that William seems to have learnt from the Charles and Diana interviews that it's best not to air your private problems in public.

 

[Mbruno]

I thought some of it was a bit exaggerated. They went on about Meghan being from a "celebrity" background, which made her sound like one of the Kardashians, and Kate being from a family which "understood" royalty, which wasn't very accurate either - the Middletons are not the Spencers. But, yes, most of it was quite balanced and sensible - including the very good point that William seems to have learnt from the Charles and Diana interviews that it's best not to air your private problems in public.

The Spencers "understood royalty" (presumably true) and that worked well for Diana, didn't it (irony mode)?

 

[Osipi]

Personally, I think there has been too much attention being paid to the relationship (or lack of a relationship) between William and Harry. There can't really be that much "undisclosed" tidbits left to mull over and, most likely, it will be quite a while before the brothers are seen together again in public.

Time to just let things go and let them work things out for themselves. Quietly and privately. The world doesn't need to know their every move or every word spoken to each other.

 

[_Heather_]

Time to just let things go and let them work things out for themselves. Quietly and privately. The world doesn't need to know their every move or every word spoken to each other.

I don't disagree but I honestly don't see that happening. There's just too many people involved who feel the need to be sure that every little tidbit is put into the public sphere in the race to make his or her side look a bit better than the other. The tug-o-war going on ridiculous and frankly, it's so blatantly obvious that rather than the shock value they're going for, all they're garnering these days in a lot of quarters is gargantuan eye rolls.

 

[Alison H]

There've been a million and one royal documentaries on ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 this year. To be fair to the TV channels, I think it's been difficult to film new material because of Covid restrictions, and I suppose it's an easy option to fish out a load of archived film of royal weddings and other royal occasions and then get some "experts" to give their opinion by video links from their homes, and at least they're making an effort rather than showing endless repeats like the BBC are doing, but it does mean that a lot of unnecessary/repetitive discussions are taking place.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I was able to watch this on youtube. I agree it was very balanced but I find it hard to agree with Robert Lacey's assertion that William chose the monarchy over his brother. I think it was more about not liking Meghan than choosing the monarchy.

On other note, I enjoyed watching the commercials. It's always interesting to look at ads in different countries.

 

[kalnel]

I took the comment in the program about the Middletons understanding royalty to suggest that they are part of the middle class that appreciates and supports the royals, so their daughter would be inclined to support the institution.

I'd have to go back and re-watch it, but I didn't get the impression that the show was trying to contrast the Middletons with the Spencers (or anyone else).

I thought some of it was a bit exaggerated. They went on about Meghan being from a "celebrity" background, which made her sound like one of the Kardashians, and Kate being from a family which "understood" royalty, which wasn't very accurate either - the Middletons are not the Spencers. But, yes, most of it was quite balanced and sensible - including the very good point that William seems to have learnt from the Charles and Diana interviews that it's best not to air your private problems in public.

 

[MARG]

Strangely, I found the programme pretty well balanced. I heard a few things that had been muddy before such as the Sussexes blindsiding the BRF by planning to leave without discussion. To find proof that it was not their intent to play it out in media but rather someone from within the BRF itself or their courtiers had leaked the email to the press before any "discussions" could take place.

Unfortunately, I believe an awful kneejerk reaction to the publishing of the leaked email, comments about Harry's mental state (editing out that it came from William) stunned me that it showed that even when the RR's named the source, the Palace was able to exert pressure to have anything that would show William acted in a personal and vindictive way was stunning in and of itself. If you move back and broaden the view, you can imagine just how much they could have done to protect both Harry and Meghan. Yet they did nothing which makes the idea of a campaign from within the Palace that much more believable.

If William could cast doubt about Harry's mental state to be leaked, then the gloves were off and the and similar reactions in the press resulted would be perceived as okay with the BRF setting impossible terms that left the Sussexes with no place to go. Isolated by his own family Harry reacted in an utterly predictable way. He left.

Another thing that I did find interesting was the discussion of how the BRF spent how much time and PR was spent for Andrew concerning his truly despicable acquaintances and how involved he was, that it really highlighted their lack of input about the war that had been declared on Meghan.

But even more weird was the implication that the Middleton family were more than upper-middle-class, almost pseudo aristocracy a la the Spencer's. How utterly ridiculous yet, it widens the gap considerably between the "Commoner Catherine" and the "Commoner Meghan".

Mostly I just see people who have followed William and Harry all their lives calmly commenting about the wild and drunken behaviour of both William and Harry and their calm acceptance that William was never exposed. In other words, to keep their "in" with the BRF, William was golden in all aspects of his life. An edit to the subject documentary proves that that "contract" is still in play, just like the earlier claims of his infidelity were smartly squelched. The party line is towed and the one day King is, as he has always been, golden.

 

[Claire]

Protecting the heir is nothing new. Stories about Andrew, Edward and Anne were provided to cover Charles - and William. I expect stories about Margaret were provided to cover the Queen. The reputation of the monarchy and the crown is what needs to be protected. The reputation of lesser royals is not.

 

[Curryong]

An unfair situation that leaves spares to the Crown in an impossible position even when they protest is fine by everyone in the Palace then? And it should be noted that much of the time these contrasting stories are promoted by a Press eager to push a good-—bad scenario in their newspapers.

 

[SLV]

Protecting the heir is nothing new. Stories about Andrew, Edward and Anne were provided to cover Charles - and William. I expect stories about Margaret were provided to cover the Queen. The reputation of the monarchy and the crown is what needs to be protected. The reputation of lesser royals is not.

Is that really true?!? How unfair!

 

[muriel]

Protecting the heir is nothing new. Stories about Andrew, Edward and Anne were provided to cover Charles - and William. I expect stories about Margaret were provided to cover the Queen. The reputation of the monarchy and the crown is what needs to be protected. The reputation of lesser royals is not.

Is that really true?!? How unfair!

I suspect the stories provided about the spares are usually pretty close to the truth.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I took the comment in the program about the Middletons understanding royalty to suggest that they are part of the middle class that appreciates and supports the royals, so their daughter would be inclined to support the institution.

I'd have to go back and re-watch it, but I didn't get the impression that the show was trying to contrast the Middletons with the Spencers (or anyone else).

I thought the comment reflected that the Middletons are British and, therefore, have a better understanding of royalty's role in British society and what was expected of her. Meghan, being American, really didn't understand royalty. I think she sincerely thought that she could publicly take a backseat to William and Catherine, but it was harder than she thought it would be - and she did not instinctively understand why she should have to do so.

 

[Queen Claude]

Protecting the heir is nothing new. Stories about Andrew, Edward and Anne were provided to cover Charles - and William. I expect stories about Margaret were provided to cover the Queen. The reputation of the monarchy and the crown is what needs to be protected. The reputation of lesser royals is not.

If the reputation of the monarchy needs to be protected by using other royals to cover the monarch and heirs apparent, then IMO the monarchy will fail as that kind of protection will not and should not offset the rot that comes with that kind of operating procedure. To be clear, I am not stating that this has never happened, when Mark Bolland worked for Charles, there were accounts that negative and not completely true stories involving Edward and Harry were planted as part of the pro-Charles campaign.

While not done thus far in this thread, I know that some like to invoke "the Crown must always win," which is in and of itself fiction, but that is more about Queen Mary advising her granddaughter that The Crown and her new role as Elizabeth R must supersede the wants and needs of Elizabeth Mountbatten. So the Crown always wins when its cornerstone is a dutiful monarch, not wily and ruthless courtiers screwing over lesser royals to protect the monarch and heirs .

Mostly I just see people who have followed William and Harry all their lives calmly commenting about the wild and drunken behaviour of both William and Harry and their calm acceptance that William was never exposed. In other words, to keep their "in" with the BRF, William was golden in all aspects of his life. An edit to the subject documentary proves that that "contract" is still in play, just like the earlier claims of his infidelity were smartly squelched. The party line is towed and the one day King is, as he has always been, golden.

Regarding William and Harry's partying ways, I have seen numerous photos of inebriated William (and Kate), so that was not covered up by the media. Now if William was so drunk that he was falling down in the street, falling fully-clothed in a pool, getting in physical confrontations with photographers, playing strip poker with people he just met, and it was either photographed or multiple witnesses were willing to give their accounts to the media but either it got squashed by "the palace" or the media took a pass in order to further some Golden William narrative, then shame on them. However I suspect that William, while probably enjoying his drink and partying, was not as wild as his brother, or as one of the commenters stated, William never got caught. In other words, William has likely gotten falling down drunk, but he was smart enough not to do it in front of paparazzi or people who would take his picture on their mobile phone and then sell it to the tabloids. In fact as I write this, I recall stories of William losing a tooth and swimming in a moat, but if he was smart enough to do these things away from the cameras and in the company of (mostly) discreet friends, that does not represent some kind of screwing over of Harry, it is on Harry that he provided the media fodder by acting out in front of the paparazzi and indiscreet companions.

Regarding reports of William's infidelity being squelched. I guess I don't understand why William, the heir to the heir without a money-generating duchy to call his own, is so powerful that he can squash true stories, but his father, with his higher status and resources, cannot. I will also tack on that I cannot believe that there are not a few reporters, knowing how reporting on Charles and Diana's marriage filled the coffers of many of their ilk and raised their profiles, are not willing to go rogue to report truthful information about William and his supposed infidelity. But if William has indeed been using what resources are at his disposal to "smartly squelch" claims of infidelity and these claims are indeed true, then woe betide William and his accomplices.

 

[Mbruno]

Protecting the heir is nothing new. Stories about Andrew, Edward and Anne were provided to cover Charles - and William. I expect stories about Margaret were provided to cover the Queen. The reputation of the monarchy and the crown is what needs to be protected. The reputation of lesser royals is not.

In Britain in particular, the second-born having a bad boy or bad girl reputation has become somewhat of a cliché in the past 50 years or so, see Margaret, Andrew and Harry. Interestingly that was not necessarily the case in previous generations. As far as I understand it for example, both the future kings George V and George VI had a much better reputation than their respective older brothers. And the future king Edward VII was notorious for his bad behavior when he was still the Prince of Wales.

 

[_Heather_]

In Britain in particular, the second-born having a bad boy or bad girl reputation has become somewhat of a cliché in the past 50 years or so, see Margaret, Andrew and Harry. Interestingly that was not necessarily the case in previous generations. As far as I understand it for example, both the future kings George V and George VI had a much better reputation than their respective older brothers. And the future king Edward VII was notorious for his bad behavior when he was still the Prince of Wales.

I agree. However, I also see this very much as a product of their upbringings and the attitudes employed there. For Margaret, she was very much a key part of the "We Four" attitude of George VI and the Queen Mother. While her education differed from HM's, she was still very much raised with a belief that she was equally important and a key part of both the family and the monarchy. She was indulged, spoiled, and clearly raised with the belief that she had a significant role to play and was, understandably, dumbfounded and stricken when she realized that that wasn't necessarily true as her nephews and niece came along. For Andrew, he was the oldest of the DoE and HM's "second family" and was much adored for his place as their "do-over" baby. I don't at all mean that Charles and Anne weren't loved and cherished by their parents but their childhoods were markedly different than those of Andrew and Edward. By the time Andrew and Edward came along their parents had settled into their roles, had more time to be parents, etc. For Harry, we know that Diana especially but even Charles raised their sons with the mentality that both were equal. While I have no doubts at all that they loved them equally and believed them both to be each as important as the other, in practical terms they did them no favors. Now Harry is finding himself in the exact same position that Margaret found herself in when her belief that she was a key and intrinsic part of the monarchy was deeply shaken and proven not to be true. While being more hands-on and more present for their children has been a wonderful thing for these last three generations, there's something to be said for the clear lines and designations drawn in previous generations about future roles, expectations, division of family vs. business, etc.

 

[Mbruno]

If the reputation of the monarchy needs to be protected by using other royals to cover the monarch and heirs apparent, then IMO the monarchy will fail as that kind of protection will not and should not offset the rot that comes with that kind of operating procedure. To be clear, I am not stating that this has never happened, when Mark Bolland worked for Charles, there were accounts that negative and not completely true stories involving Edward and Harry were planted as part of the pro-Charles campaign.

While not done thus far in this thread, I know that some like to invoke "the Crown must always win," which is in and of itself fiction, but that is more about Queen Mary advising her granddaughter that The Crown and her new role as Elizabeth R must supersede the wants and needs of Elizabeth Mountbatten. So the Crown always wins when its cornerstone is a dutiful monarch, not wily and ruthless courtiers screwing over lesser royals to protect the monarch and heirs .


Regarding William and Harry's partying ways, I have seen numerous photos of inebriated William (and Kate), so that was not covered up by the media. Now if William was so drunk that he was falling down in the street, falling fully-clothed in a pool, getting in physical confrontations with photographers, playing strip poker with people he just met, and it was either photographed or multiple witnesses were willing to give their accounts to the media but either it got squashed by "the palace" or the media took a pass in order to further some Golden William narrative, then shame on them. However I suspect that William, while probably enjoying his drink and partying, was not as wild as his brother, or as one of the commenters stated, William never got caught. In other words, William has likely gotten falling down drunk, but he was smart enough not to do it in front of paparazzi or people who would take his picture on their mobile phone and then sell it to the tabloids. In fact as I write this, I recall stories of William losing a tooth and swimming in a moat, but if he was smart enough to do these things away from the cameras and in the company of (mostly) discreet friends, that does not represent some kind of screwing over of Harry, it is on Harry that he provided the media fodder by acting out in front of the paparazzi and indiscreet companions.

Regarding reports of William's infidelity being squelched. I guess I don't understand why William, the heir to the heir without a money-generating duchy to call his own, is so powerful that he can squash true stories, but his father, with his higher status and resources, cannot. I will also tack on that I cannot believe that there are not a few reporters, knowing how reporting on Charles and Diana's marriage filled the coffers of many of their ilk and raised their profiles, are not willing to go rogue to report truthful information about William and his supposed infidelity. But if William has indeed been using what resources are at his disposal to "smartly squelch" claims of infidelity and these claims are indeed true, then woe betide William and his accomplices.

On this day and age, the old "deference" to the Crown no longer exists really. Maybe it still holds for the BBC and some other "semiofficial" media outlets, but I don't think William or the courtiers could stage a lasting coverup if he was for example unfaithful to his wife and had a long-term, regular mistress. If anything, rather than being deferential, some tabloids in the UK are openly antagonistic to the royals.



As for William's behavior as a young man compared to Harry's, it is no secret that William had a partying phase too and that he drank and smoked and lived wildly. But, as other posters said, maybe he had the benefit of more discreet friends, or was simply more careful. Compared to Harry, I think William also comparatively settled down earlier while Harry's "bad behavior" went on to a much older age. In fact, Harry himself admitted that he had pretty much reached bottom in terms of his drinking and drugging shortly before he met Meghan, which is not wild teen behavior, but rather a more serious condition of an adult man.

 

[Somebody]

In Britain in particular, the second-born having a bad boy or bad girl reputation has become somewhat of a cliché in the past 50 years or so, see Margaret, Andrew and Harry. Interestingly that was not necessarily the case in previous generations. As far as I understand it for example, both the future kings George V and George VI had a much better reputation than their respective older brothers. And the future king Edward VII was notorious for his bad behavior when he was still the Prince of Wales.

While Andrew was higher in line of succession, his sister Anne is the second born.

And yes, the UK indeed also has the opposite, so it's not just position but also character.

 

[ACO]

I mean we heard quite a few royal correspondents admit they used stories of the others to protect the heirs. It is what is it and won’t change. That will be the future of Louis and Charlotte too, sadly.

 

[Heavs]

If the reputation of the monarchy needs to be protected by using other royals to cover the monarch and heirs apparent, then IMO the monarchy will fail as that kind of protection will not and should not offset the rot that comes with that kind of operating procedure. To be clear, I am not stating that this has never happened, when Mark Bolland worked for Charles, there were accounts that negative and not completely true stories involving Edward and Harry were planted as part of the pro-Charles campaign.

While not done thus far in this thread, I know that some like to invoke "the Crown must always win," which is in and of itself fiction, but that is more about Queen Mary advising her granddaughter that The Crown and her new role as Elizabeth R must supersede the wants and needs of Elizabeth Mountbatten. So the Crown always wins when its cornerstone is a dutiful monarch, not wily and ruthless courtiers screwing over lesser royals to protect the monarch and heirs .


Regarding William and Harry's partying ways, I have seen numerous photos of inebriated William (and Kate), so that was not covered up by the media. Now if William was so drunk that he was falling down in the street, falling fully-clothed in a pool, getting in physical confrontations with photographers, playing strip poker with people he just met, and it was either photographed or multiple witnesses were willing to give their accounts to the media but either it got squashed by "the palace" or the media took a pass in order to further some Golden William narrative, then shame on them. However I suspect that William, while probably enjoying his drink and partying, was not as wild as his brother, or as one of the commenters stated, William never got caught. In other words, William has likely gotten falling down drunk, but he was smart enough not to do it in front of paparazzi or people who would take his picture on their mobile phone and then sell it to the tabloids. In fact as I write this, I recall stories of William losing a tooth and swimming in a moat, but if he was smart enough to do these things away from the cameras and in the company of (mostly) discreet friends, that does not represent some kind of screwing over of Harry, it is on Harry that he provided the media fodder by acting out in front of the paparazzi and indiscreet companions.

Regarding reports of William's infidelity being squelched. I guess I don't understand why William, the heir to the heir without a money-generating duchy to call his own, is so powerful that he can squash true stories, but his father, with his higher status and resources, cannot. I will also tack on that I cannot believe that there are not a few reporters, knowing how reporting on Charles and Diana's marriage filled the coffers of many of their ilk and raised their profiles, are not willing to go rogue to report truthful information about William and his supposed infidelity. But if William has indeed been using what resources are at his disposal to "smartly squelch" claims of infidelity and these claims are indeed true, then woe betide William and his accomplices.

William's solicitor sent around a letter warning the papers that they couldn't print rumours unless they had actual proof. Which they didn't, so nothing was published. Frankly looking in to it the claims originate from a drunk Giles Coren (journalist and Soho House member) who later claimed to have been drunkenly joking and a woman in Utah who isn't in anyway connected with anyone. So whilst I have no idea about the state of Cambridges' marriage I'm inclined to think there was no proof because there isn't any to find. You can bet all the papers were looking for it.

KP also let about 95% of negative stories about the Cambridges stand without comment or attempts to sue them.

William's past behaviour was covered by the press in much the same way Harry's was, starting from when he was about 15 and attending events marketed towards public school kids "beer in his hand and a girl on each knee" IIRC. It's just less remembered than Harry's is because he didn't get caught with a Nazi uniform or playing naked billiards. Nor did he cultivate the "funny,cheeky William" persona that Harry did.

Lots of publicists for celebrities and politicians will also try and quash one story by offering another. One technique is give them a less famous celebrity who wants the publicity and doesn't mind a scandal and apology tour rather than the more famous client who doesn't.

 

[UglyAmerican]

I'm sure it's true to some extent, but just as an example, neither the courtiers nor the tabloid press forced Harry to play strip poker with strangers in Las Vegas. Had William done the same, I don't think anyone could have stopped the tabloids from running those cell phone pics. I don't doubt that William's done things that have been hushed up, that maybe wouldn't have been hushed up had Harry done them. But past a point, hushing things up simply isn't possible. Harry's done several of those things, and William apparently hasn't done any.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I agree. However, I also see this very much as a product of their upbringings and the attitudes employed there. For Margaret, she was very much a key part of the "We Four" attitude of George VI and the Queen Mother. While her education differed from HM's, she was still very much raised with a belief that she was equally important and a key part of both the family and the monarchy. She was indulged, spoiled, and clearly raised with the belief that she had a significant role to play and was, understandably, dumbfounded and stricken when she realized that that wasn't necessarily true as her nephews and niece came along. For Andrew, he was the oldest of the DoE and HM's "second family" and was much adored for his place as their "do-over" baby. I don't at all mean that Charles and Anne weren't loved and cherished by their parents but their childhoods were markedly different than those of Andrew and Edward. By the time Andrew and Edward came along their parents had settled into their roles, had more time to be parents, etc. For Harry, we know that Diana especially but even Charles raised their sons with the mentality that both were equal. While I have no doubts at all that they loved them equally and believed them both to be each as important as the other, in practical terms they did them no favors. Now Harry is finding himself in the exact same position that Margaret found herself in when her belief that she was a key and intrinsic part of the monarchy was deeply shaken and proven not to be true. While being more hands-on and more present for their children has been a wonderful thing for these last three generations, there's something to be said for the clear lines and designations drawn in previous generations about future roles, expectations, division of family vs. business, etc.

Heather, your points are very well taken and I do hope William will figure out a way not to dumbfound his younger two. I’m glad they had three children for the sake of the “spares”

 

[Heavs]

I'm sure it's true to some extent, but just as an example, neither the courtiers nor the tabloid press forced Harry to play strip poker with strangers in Las Vegas. Had William done the same, I don't think anyone could have stopped the tabloids from running those cell phone pics. I don't doubt that William's done things that have been hushed up, that maybe wouldn't have been hushed up had Harry done them. But past a point, hushing things up simply isn't possible. Harry's done several of those things, and William apparently hasn't done any.

I also don't think it's always been as simple as "protect the heirs at all costs whilst throwing all the spares to the wolves".


Harry's "cheeky chappy, jolly Hero Prince Harry" persona seems to have been largely an invention of PR and Edward Lane Fox. Not that he wasn't some of those things some of the time, but he himself has basically said that during this period of his life he was an angry, out of control person who was heavily using drink and drugs until after he met Meghan. So that would be a case of using all their resources to make him look great. William in contrast often came off as "boring".

There are stories out there post Vegas but not much of it was actually printed by the UK tabloids because everyone liked the fun Harry image and they mostly focused on that combined with the genuinely good things like Invictus and Race to The Pole, Sentebele etc. None of the RRs have seemed particularly surprised about some of his recent pronouncements re his anger and drugs either and they all said that KP went to bat for Harry and Meghan over untrue stories which then weren't published.


There used to be stories like "Kate's BBF hosts VIP sex parties! Sources claim she may have attended!" that weren't quashed so she wasn't spared salacious gossip either.

 

[Mbruno]

Heather, your points are very well taken and I do hope William will figure out a way not to dumbfound his younger two. I’m glad they had three children for the sake of the “spares”

It is a very delicate balance that is difficult to strike. Maybe the best solution is the Dutch model where the younger siblings are not expected to be full-time working royals and are raised from birth already knowing that they must have private careers like everybody else when they grow up.

Unfortunately, I don't think it is feasible for the British Royal Family, with its current level of committments in the UK and the Commonwealth, to be reduced to only the King and the Queen consort plus the heir and his/her spouse as full-time working royals.

 

[ladyjolene]

It is a very delicate balance that is difficult to strike. Maybe the best solution is the Dutch model where the younger siblings are not expected to be full-time working royals and are raised from birth already knowing that they must have private careers like everybody else when they grow up.

Unfortunately, I don't think it is feasible for the British Royal Family, with its current level of committments in the UK and the Commonwealth, to be reduced to only the King and the Queen consort plus the heir and his/her spouse as full-time working royals.

The monarchy will automatically prune itself with the queen's cousins retiring and I'm pretty sure the Wessex family is raising their two to know that they won't be working royals. And Anne's kids don't do royal engagements that I'm aware of (I'm no expert). Andrew's daughters did go to uni and did have some sort of career, right? Though didn't Andrew want B and E to be working royals? That leaves the queen, Charles/Camilla, Anne, William/Kate, and Edward/Sophie. That's starting to get pretty small when you think about all the patronages and duties to the commonwealth.

 

[RandyDrx]

William's solicitor sent around a letter warning the papers that they couldn't print rumours unless they had actual proof. Which they didn't, so nothing was published. Frankly looking in to it the claims originate from a drunk Giles Coren (journalist and Soho House member) who later claimed to have been drunkenly joking and a woman in Utah who isn't in anyway connected with anyone. So whilst I have no idea about the state of Cambridges' marriage I'm inclined to think there was no proof because there isn't any to find. You can bet all the papers were looking for it.

KP also let about 95% of negative stories about the Cambridges stand without comment or attempts to sue them.

William's past behaviour was covered by the press in much the same way Harry's was, starting from when he was about 15 and attending events marketed towards public school kids "beer in his hand and a girl on each knee" IIRC. It's just less remembered than Harry's is because he didn't get caught with a Nazi uniform or playing naked billiards. Nor did he cultivate the "funny,cheeky William" persona that Harry did.

Lots of publicists for celebrities and politicians will also try and quash one story by offering another. One technique is give them a less famous celebrity who wants the publicity and doesn't mind a scandal and apology tour rather than the more famous client who doesn't.

If I remember correctly, that woman in Utah also described herself as a "Sussex Squad", and Giles Coren wrote that tweet just a day after he attended a Soho House event in Amsterdam with H&M.

 

[Claire]

The monarchy will automatically prune itself with the queen's cousins retiring and I'm pretty sure the Wessex family is raising their two to know that they won't be working royals. And Anne's kids don't do royal engagements that I'm aware of (I'm no expert). Andrew's daughters did go to uni and did have some sort of career, right? Though didn't Andrew want B and E to be working royals? That leaves the queen, Charles/Camilla, Anne, William/Kate, and Edward/Sophie. That's starting to get pretty small when you think about all the patronages and duties to the commonwealth.

I think the message was already conveyed to a number of royals a number of years ago. Prince Michael, no title and no royal engagements on behalf of the Queen. Prince Edward is quoted in Ingrid Seward's book that it was made clear to him that his duty to monarchy was a lifetime service in the armed forces. Had Edward's life gone according to royal requirement he would probably still be in the armed forces. That might have been the plan for Andrew as well - for all we know.

 

[Osipi]

I sincerely think it was when it got to the point that the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex went into split mode (whatever was the cause of it), that really hit home the differences between the two brothers and their positions in the hierarchy of things.

Harry felt he should have his own separate foundation and offices similar to what William would have in retaining the Royal Foundation. He was told no and told his office would be at Buckingham Palace and answerable to the Queen's office. This wasn't something done to prove William was "above" Harry or demote Harry in any way but rather, to me, was part of what we've been seeing for a while now. A soft transition between monarchs. None of the Queen's other children besides Charles has their own "court". TPTB realized that with the Royal Foundation split, it wouldn't be ages before William actually does have his own court as the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge and Harry would still be financially dependent on his father to fund his working and private life while William stepped into his father's shoes with the Duchy of Cornwall.

The bottom line is that Harry felt he should have something that no second son (spare) has ever had since the 14th century. Perhaps this was the straw that broke the camel's back along with so many other things that affected this couple. Whirlwind courtship and wedding, jumping into full time duties hitting the ground running and starting a family along with everything else. William took his time and gradually moved up in his roles with his wife. Harry and Meghan dived in the deep end of the pool. It didn't end well at all.

You do anything in haste, you get to repent at leisure.

 

[Somebody]

(...)
The bottom line is that Harry felt he should have something that no second son (spare) has ever had since the 14th century. Perhaps this was the straw that broke the camel's back along with so many other things that affected this couple. Whirlwind courtship and wedding, jumping into full time duties hitting the ground running and starting a family along with everything else. William took his time and gradually moved up in his roles with his wife. Harry and Meghan dived in the deep end of the pool. It didn't end well at all.

You do anything in haste, you get to repent at leisure.

Well, the previous king (George VI) and the second-to-last (George V) were 'second sons' - so it seems the only way he could have gotten what he wanted is if he had taken William's place as heir.