Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of A Family in Tumult

[Betsypaige]

He probably got some of this wrong. They all did

I still don’t understand your point about Charles....and if you’re referring here to Megxit, I still firmly believe that the BRF didn’t so anything wrong.

 

[Betsypaige]

Its possible that Charles was hoping that whatever problems Harry was having, he would give his royal life with Meghan some time, and see if things improved and that things would settle down. He is a busy man and possilby hoped that Harry's problems were not so major that they needed immediate attention and that the possiblity that Harry and Meghan might decide to walk out never occured to him

That’s sheer speculation. Lacey hasn’t proven - at least in these excerpts- that Charles (or HM) were deliberately avoiding Harry. I don’t buy for a moment that Charles would ever do that; his sons are everything to him. If he felt that Harry should give the situation more time, he would have told H. Lacey seems to be taking the most cynical, negative position when it comes to them because it seems he ultimately sympathizes with H and M.

 

[Betsypaige]

Then, on the opposite side of the coin, with the closeness Charles has had with his second son, he could have sensed that Harry had has for a long time been in doubt about his "birth duty and responsibility" and from his own relationship growing up with the father he had, understood Harry's doubts and fears and discomfort with the way his life was. Charles could have instinctively known how his son felt and when Meghan came into the picture, it *seemed* like she would embrace his life of duty and responsibility to Crown and country and felt that all would be well.

If there is anyone that really *knew* Harry and his feelings and emotional state of mind, it would be Charles. He'd remember all the times he didn't agree with how *his* father wanted his life to be and saw the signs of Harry's discontent long before he met Meghan. Actually, I think right now, Charles is probably the strongest ally in Harry's corner. ?

I agree with this, especially your last point. Charles has never been in Harry’s position as “spare”, but he sure knows what it feels like to be odd man out. As much as he loves his father, I think much of what he’s done as a father has been a reaction against Philip’s attempts to mold him in his image of what a man should be. That’s why he’s given William and Harry so much freedom through. All throughout Megxit we’ve heard about how Charles was sympathetic to Harry’s feelings - and since it seems they’ve spoken regularly since H left, it doesn’t appear that their relationship has suffered much, if at all.

Robert Lacey, IMO, is indulging in way took much speculation...and he appears to be completely off base regarding Charles and William also. His reputation doesn’t cut him any slack with me.

 

[Osipi]

I dont know what you mean by Charles' closeness to his son. I dont know of his having any especial closeness to Harry and I doubt if he knew "Instinctively" how Harry was feeling. I dont think he's a very intuitive man. If he did "know" of Harrys' concerns I wonder then that he didn't talk to him sooner. And given that Harry was marrying somoene outside the usual run of Royal wives, from a different country and culture and who had had a much more independent life than many royal brides, why would Charles be so sure that Meghan was going to embrace royal life and settle Harry down?

Charles was a hands on parent from the beginning. That's one area both Charles and Diana agreed on. How they'd raise their sons. Sometimes a parent instinctively realizes traits in the child that reminds them of how they felt growing up.

We can't actually speculate on how the father/son relationship really is but its a known fact that Charles often didn't feel comfortable with his own father and his father's decisions on what was best for him. That, in and of itself, would give credence that he'd recognize the feelings that his son has exhibited instinctively but maybe not so much visibly and perhaps not really cognizant of it until it became a reality. Call it parental instinct and the pieces of the puzzle fit together over time.

 

[Denville]

Charles was a hands on parent from the beginning. That's one area both Charles and Diana agreed on. How they'd raise their sons. Sometimes a parent instinctively realizes traits in the child that reminds them of how they felt growing up.

We can't actually speculate on how the father/son relationship really is but its a known fact that Charles often didn't feel comfortable with his own father and his father's decisions on what was best for him. That, in and of itself, would give credence that he'd recognize the feelings that his son has exhibited instinctively but maybe not so much visibly and perhaps not really cognizant of it until it became a reality. Call it parental instinct and the pieces of the puzzle fit together over time.

Charles was a hands on parent for a time. I think that during the years of being on bad terms with Diana, he was busy with his work and left the children more to her. When she died, they were in boarding school and Charles while trying to be a good parent, was still a busy man. He had trouble with Harry and to an extent with William and I think there was tension between him and the boys for a time, that they had issues with the problem of his marital behavior towards Diana and that they thought he was a bit of an old fuddy duddy. I don't think that Charles understood them all that well at all, and that he tended to be too indulgent towards them...and did not put his foot down as much as he should. So I doubt if he really understood that harry was getting more out of synch wtih royal life and duty and I doubt if he really envisaged that Harry would get so alienated that he would walk out.

 

[Darius1]

Is it not possible that this book is in some way a vehicle to answer back to all the allegations of mistreatment of the Sussexes that have been flying around? William does appear in a more dutiful, King in waiting light. Robert Lacey is a respected historian and married to one of The Queen's Maids of Honour from the Coronation. I wouldn't be surprised if some at Court collaborated with him to get the real version of events across.

 

[Betsypaige]

Is it not possible that this book is in some way a vehicle to answer back to all the allegations of mistreatment of the Sussexes that have been flying around? William does appear in a more dutiful, King in waiting light. Robert Lacey is a respected historian and married to one of The Queen's Maids of Honour from the Coronation. I wouldn't be surprised if some at Court collaborated with him to get the real version of events across.

Well like I said, this book was described as an “antidote” to FF, except I find this just as bad in its own way. Respected or not (and he has been one of my Royal go-tos for years), I have real issues with his interpretation of events and, frankly, some of his opinions.

 

[Alison H]

I think this has become a bit of a cliché - the "good" one and the "naughty" one. It sounds like something out of a fable, or a Bible story. The Queen was cast as the good one and Princess Margaret as the naughty one, as were George VI and the Duke of Windsor. Maybe arguably even the then Duke of York, the future George V, and the Duke of Clarence. Now it's William and Harry.

 

[Betsypaige]

I think this has become a bit of a cliché - the "good" one and the "naughty" one. It sounds like something out of a fable, or a Bible story. The Queen was cast as the good one and Princess Margaret as the naughty one, as were George VI and the Duke of Windsor. Maybe arguably even the then Duke of York, the future George V, and the Duke of Clarence. Now it's William and Harry.

I really don’t agree that this is the case here (though I’m not even conceding the above examples, I won’t discuss that here as that’s off topic). Frankly, this book seems to me as if it’s personally sympathetic to Harry and Meghan while acknowledging their ridiculous handling of Megxit. At the same time, it seems quite harsh towards HM, Charles and William and, as Lacey has written opinion pieces since Megxit, it doesn’t surprise me. He seems harshest on William, even saying in one of the recent articles that it seems like his affection for Harry is based on his ability to control his younger brother. That’s related to W’s quote saying that he can no longer put his arm around Harry.

I’m kind of done with Lacey.

 

[Denville]

I think this has become a bit of a cliché - the "good" one and the "naughty" one. It sounds like something out of a fable, or a Bible story. The Queen was cast as the good one and Princess Margaret as the naughty one, as were George VI and the Duke of Windsor. Maybe arguably even the then Duke of York, the future George V, and the Duke of Clarence. Now it's William and Harry.

As it happens, those examples were pretty true. The queen has her faults, but she wasn't a silly mess like Margo. George V was a reasonably good King. probably Eddy would have been an awful one. Ditto with George VI and the D of Windsor. Andrew and Charles.. well need I say more?

 

[Sun Lion]

Part two of the serialisation -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...n-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-live-Africa.html

 

[Claire]

As it happens, those examples were pretty true. The queen has her faults, but she wasn't a silly mess like Margo. George V was a reasonably good King. probably Eddy would have been an awful one. Ditto with George VI and the D of Windsor. Andrew and Charles.. well need I say more?

I am afraid the press and yes the palace have worked like this for years. They identify the hero and the villain for you. It is stereotypic casting at its worst as people are not depicted as full characters. And yes it is still been done very heartily today.

 

[Denville]

I am afraid the press and yes the palace have worked like this for years. They identify the hero and the villain for you. It is stereotypic casting at its worst as people are not depicted as full characters. And yes it is still been done very heartily today.

er my point was that these were true cases where one prince/ess was far from satisfactory and the other one was good at his or her job. Nothing to do with the press or the palace...

 

[RJC]

This part is a bit different from Sun Lion's above

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...encer-stop-Prince-Harry-rushing-marriage.html

 

[Betsypaige]

Harry has a lot of explosions ..it seems no one can say anything to him without having to walk on eggshells.

I‘ll be honest, while the stuff about Geidt and Young is interesting, it doesn’t change my opinion about how HM and Charles handled H and M. The below segment does bother me because...what is wrong with Charles wanting some more power once his father was retired? He is the future King. For this correspondent to make a snide comment about how Charles has his own agenda is unfair...IMO

It was one of the most shameful and, frankly, shabby decisions that the Queen has made in her entire reign,' says one extremely senior and distinguished court correspondent. 'All Geidt wanted was to have everyone singing from the same hymn sheet, but that is not Charles's agenda any more.'

 

[Sun Lion]

This part is a bit different from Sun Lion's above

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...encer-stop-Prince-Harry-rushing-marriage.html

Thanks RJC.

If Cressida Bonas had married Prince Harry, his life might still have had major issues spilling out into public view by the look of things.


With William possibly taking over Harry’s Marines role at the end of the review year, it may be even harder for the problems between the brothers to be resolved.

Even though it’s traditionally been a position held by the Monarch/Monarch’s spouse, and so William is the right choice now the Sussexes are out, I can see Harry taking it personally and it being another issue between them.

Rebecca English and Robert Lacey will be doing a podcast about the book - details on Ms English’s Twitter.

 

[miss whirley]

I really don’t agree that this is the case here (though I’m not even conceding the above examples, I won’t discuss that here as that’s off topic). Frankly, this book seems to me as if it’s personally sympathetic to Harry and Meghan while acknowledging their ridiculous handling of Megxit. At the same time, it seems quite harsh towards HM, Charles and William and, as Lacey has written opinion pieces since Megxit, it doesn’t surprise me. He seems harshest on William, even saying in one of the recent articles that it seems like his affection for Harry is based on his ability to control his younger brother. That’s related to W’s quote saying that he can no longer put his arm around Harry.

I’m kind of done with Lacey.

He's Pro-Harry for sure. On one hand he portrays Harry as a lost boy with so much potential that he just needed more guidance in harnessing it correctly, on the other hand he gets huffy that Harry was treated with kid gloves instead of being giving full command of himself. Kind of a mixed message there, both are very sympathetic towards Harry but counter each other's argument. And I'm not so sure Lacey favors Meghan, he compliments her in a very femme fatale sort of way. I think it's more to build extra excuses for Harry -Of course he couldn't resist her charms or her ideas!-

It's not so harsh against William in the sense that it portrays William is being put in an awkward position. It's a very pro-Geidt (therefore anti-Charles). So basically he's saying that once Geidt was forced out, William sort of had to take over as BRF disciplinarian, especially with Philip's retirement. I think he's saying Harry and William's relationship would have never fractured if Geidt was still there to rein in Harry. So Andrew and Charles in ousting Geidt, forced William into a very awkward situation with Harry. And Harry resented that William was now 'babysitting' him. So Harry rebelled against William the same way Andrew and Charles rebelled against Geidt.

It's an interesting perspective. I'm not sure I agree with it. I think Geidt or not Geidt, William would have of had a lot of problems with the celebrity/political/commercial approach that Meghan and Harry are so keen on. And I don't think the Sussexes would have ever been satisfied in a supporting role in the monarchy. Geidt isn't a miracle worker, he's just hard-nosed and not afraid to say "bad idea" to some of the more entitled family members.

I'm not that impressed with what I've seen so far from the book. It seems really overdramatized, you can tell Lacey has been spending too much time in the Netflix/entertainment sector. And it seems very colored by his personal projections and musings. Maybe if he had more time to write and research it would have been better developed but I think he wanted the release to to coincide with the new season of "The Crown" and piggyback off that fanbase.

 

[Betsypaige]

He's Pro-Harry for sure. On one hand he portrays Harry as a lost boy with so much potential that he just needed more guidance in harnessing it correctly, on the other hand he gets huffy that Harry was treated with kid gloves instead of being giving full command of himself. Kind of a mixed message there, both are very sympathetic towards Harry but counter each other's argument. And I'm not so sure Lacey favors Meghan, he compliments her in a very femme fatale sort of way. I think it's more to build extra excuses for Harry -Of course he couldn't resist her charms or her ideas!-

It's not so harsh against William in the sense that it portrays William is being put in an awkward position. It's a very pro-Geidt (therefore anti-Charles). So basically he's saying that once Geidt was forced out, William sort of had to take over as BRF disciplinarian, especially with Philip's retirement. I think he's saying Harry and William's relationship would have never fractured if Geidt was still there to rein in Harry. So Andrew and Charles in ousting Geidt, forced William into a very awkward situation with Harry. And Harry resented that William was now 'babysitting' him. So Harry rebelled against William the same way Andrew and Charles rebelled against Geidt.

It's an interesting perspective. I'm not sure I agree with it. I think Geidt or not Geidt, William would have of had a lot of problems with the celebrity/political/commercial approach that Meghan and Harry are so keen on. And I don't think the Sussexes would have ever been satisfied in a supporting role in the monarchy. Geidt isn't a miracle worker, he's just hard-nosed and not afraid to say "bad idea" to some of the more entitled family members.

I'm not that impressed with what I've seen so far from the book. It seems really overdramatized, you can tell Lacey has been spending too much time in the Netflix/entertainment sector. And it seems very colored by his personal projections and musings. Maybe if he had more time to write and research it would have been better developed but I think he wanted the release to to coincide with the new season of "The Crown" and piggyback off that fanbase.

Perhaps Lacey should quit being so judgmental. Harry is an adult - must everyone hold his hand?

Everything you say makes sense...and if it’s true, I have to ask what Lacey’s real goal was in writing this book: to bring facts to light or to speculate and interpret?

 

[miss whirley]

Perhaps Lacey should quit being so judgmental. Harry is an adult - must everyone hold his hand?

Everything you say makes sense...and if it’s true, I have to ask what Lacey’s real goal was in writing this book: to bring facts to light or to speculate and interpret?

I'm not sure there was much of a goal other then to quickly get a book out before the Sussexes became yesterdays news, preferably at the same time as The Crown comes out.

As for why he's such a huge fan a Geidt, who knows. Maybe they personally know each other or his sources were some of Geidt's employees.

As for his hand-holding of Harry, I guess we all have our "pet" royals and Harry might be his. I doubt their mutual Netflix connection would be of that much sway to the point he was encouraged to romanticize Harry's character quirks/flaws.

But clearly this was more written as an editorial and less as a factual textbook. I think you learn more about Lacey reading this than you do about the BRF and Sussexit. But insight into Lacey's mind is interesting in it's own way.

 

[Claire]

er my point was that these were true cases where one prince/ess was far from satisfactory and the other one was good at his or her job. Nothing to do with the press or the palace...

Not necessary - it has always seemed that the Heirs get the best press - or the palace ensures they get the better press. However when the heir gives issues it switches and suddenly the spare is the far better person.

The palace has for long promoted one royal over another because the easiest way to make one person look bad is to show another up. So I have never really believed that Margaret was as wild as they made her out - she simply pitted against the Queen.
People are not stereotypes - but it is easier for the general public to see them that way and the royal will spend a life time trying to get out of the box they have put them in. Margaret decided to embrace the box and completely live up to it - I think she came to regret it later.
The problem is sometimes the persona of the royal and the royal in reality bear no resemblance to each other in truth that is creates an enigma.

 

[Denville]

He's Pro-Harry for sure. On one hand he portrays Harry as a lost boy with so much potential that he just needed more guidance in harnessing it correctly, on the other hand he gets huffy that Harry was treated with kid gloves instead of being giving full command of himself. Kind of a mixed message there, both are very sympathetic towards Harry but counter each other's argument. And I'm not so sure Lacey favors Meghan, he compliments her in a very femme fatale sort of way. I think it's more to build extra excuses for Harry -Of course he couldn't resist her charms or her ideas!-

It's not so harsh against William in the sense that it portrays William is being put in an awkward position. It's a very pro-Geidt (therefore anti-Charles). So basically he's saying that once Geidt was forced out, William sort of had to take over as BRF disciplinarian, especially with Philip's retirement. I think he's saying Harry and William's relationship would have never fractured if Geidt was still there to rein in Harry. So Andrew and Charles in ousting Geidt, forced William into a very awkward situation with Harry. And Harry resented that William was now 'babysitting' him. So Harry rebelled against William the same way Andrew and Charles rebelled against Geidt.

It's an interesting perspective. I'm not sure I agree with it. I think Geidt or not Geidt, William would have of had a lot of problems with the celebrity/political/commercial approach that Meghan and Harry are so keen on. And I don't think the Sussexes would have ever been satisfied in a supporting role in the monarchy. Geidt isn't a miracle worker, he's just hard-nosed and not afraid to say "bad idea" to some of the more entitled family members.

e.

SO, why would William be forced into the role of "family disciplinarian" on Geidts retirement? I would have though that if Charles had gotten rid of this man, he himself would be family disciplinarian now, with Philip and Geidt boht retired. Not sure why it would have been William..
I agree that it seems that Harry and Meg had a different attitude to their roles.. and wanted a more celebrity like way of doing things.. but Ihonestly dont think anyone could have reined htem in..

 

[miss whirley]

SO, why would William be forced into the role of "family disciplinarian" on Geidts retirement? I would have though that if Charles had gotten rid of this man, he himself would be family disciplinarian now, with Philip and Geidt boht retired. Not sure why it would have been William...

Who knows. Like I said it's critical of Charles. Probably believes that it's difficult for Charles to say no to Harry so he passes the discipline jurisdiction to William. Probably similar to The Queen not liking being the bad guy so having Philip/Geidt in the enforcer role instead. There's probably some kernel of truth in William having a role like that, last year when Andrew was forced to step down the papers wrote that William had heavy input in that decision.

And of course when Diana died, Charles told William first because he wanted the two of them to tell Harry together. So even back then there is a sense of Charles relying on William in regards to Harry.

Like most of the book so far, it's some basic facts that grow wildly under the light of speculation and assumption.

 

[Denville]

Who knows. Like I said it's critical of Charles. Probably believes that it's difficult for Charles to say no to Harry so he passes the discipline jurisdiction to William. There's probably some kernel of truth in William having a role like that, last year when Andrew was forced to step down the papers wrote that William had heavy input in that decision.

And of course when Diana died, Charles told William first because he wanted the two of them to tell Harry together. So even back then there is a sense of Charles relying on William in regards to Harry.

Like most of the book so far, it's some basic facts that grow wildly under the light of speculation and assumption.

Possibly that's true, I think that Charles has always had difficulty saying no to Harry because he feels for him having lost his mother and because he himself feels guilty about not being there so much when he and Will were small.. but I can't honestly see that people would expect Wil who is only 2 years older to discipline Harry and he is his brother. But I would imagine that Charles wanted to get rid of Geidt because he himself wanted to have more power in teh family, not surprisingly. The queen is now very elderly and I think she needs some more input from Charles and William to make hard decsiions.

 

[Claire]

I think it is more that the Queen needs their input to understand the implication, to have it placed into context and maybe to have a better rounded view.
Personally I think that needed to call in a lawyer, accountant and PR manager and a whole bunch of people to understand this conundrum - no one is an expert on everything.

 

[Betsypaige]

I'm not sure there was much of a goal other then to quickly get a book out before the Sussexes became yesterdays news, preferably at the same time as The Crown comes out.

As for why he's such a huge fan a Geidt, who knows. Maybe they personally know each other or his sources were some of Geidt's employees.

As for his hand-holding of Harry, I guess we all have our "pet" royals and Harry might be his. I doubt their mutual Netflix connection would be of that much sway to the point he was encouraged to romanticize Harry's character quirks/flaws.

But clearly this was more written as an editorial and less as a factual textbook. I think you learn more about Lacey reading this than you do about the BRF and Sussexit. But insight into Lacey's mind is interesting in it's own way.

This is the larger point I take from this, and I hope that people who read the book won’t just gush over it because of Lacey’s rep; in its own way, it’s as bad as FF.

Who knows. Like I said it's critical of Charles. Probably believes that it's difficult for Charles to say no to Harry so he passes the discipline jurisdiction to William. Probably similar to The Queen not liking being the bad guy so having Philip/Geidt in the enforcer role instead. There's probably some kernel of truth in William having a role like that, last year when Andrew was forced to step down the papers wrote that William had heavy input in that decision.

And of course when Diana died, Charles told William first because he wanted the two of them to tell Harry together. So even back then there is a sense of Charles relying on William in regards to Harry.

Like most of the book so far, it's some basic facts that grow wildly under the light of speculation and assumption.

I don’t think there’s any proof that Charles delegated his son to do dirty work - and it’s gross that he would suggest it (if true). As to William being part of Andrew discussions, that’s because he’s a future King, not because Charles needs William there to be strong and authoritative. Charles clearly has no issue being just that - and for Lacey, he said “no” to Harry’s request for a separate office at Windsor. Well actually he agreed with his mother, but still.

I do think you could be right in how Lacey interpret things, and that really bothers me. I’m biased because I love Charles, but it seems to me this book is a rip job on him. Of course it’s a rip job on HM as well in some regards. Naturally the media will fall all over Lacey because of his rep, and that’s a shame. The book seemingly has a lot in common with FF in some ways..

 

[AC21091968]

Dickie Arbiter released a screenshot of The Times newspaper, where the columnist Libby Purves criticised Robert Lacey's book. The article has the heading, Royals don't deserve this baseline psychobabble. It has the blurb, Robert Lacey's new book about Princes William and Harry tells us more about royal Kremlinologists than the Windsors.

Dickie Arbiter [Flag of United Kingdom] @RoyalDickie
Excellent piece - in a nutshell - by #LibbyPurves on P27 of today's @thetimes on #RobertLacey's latest #royal tome [Clapping hands signClapping hands sign]
6:32 PM · Oct 5, 2020·Twitter for Android​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1313019117532835840

 

[Darius1]

William has for some years had an enhanced role within the Firm and has been clearly positioned as the heir's heir. Charles has in the past been known to indulge in the "ostrich" behaviour that his grandmother QEQM was known for and probably dithered and prevaricated somewhat in how to handle Harry. William appears to be more resolute in taking decisions to protect the Monarchy which I welcome, and clearly saw the potential implications of the Sussex Show from early on.

 

[caethi]

SO, why would William be forced into the role of "family disciplinarian" on Geidts retirement? I would have though that if Charles had gotten rid of this man, he himself would be family disciplinarian now, with Philip and Geidt boht retired. Not sure why it would have been William...

Your comments make me think back to when William and Harry were children. Their parents' marriage was troubled and there were bitter feelings on both sides; I recall thinking at the time that it seemed as if William had become "parentified." Why? Amongst other things, during one of the most fraught periods of the "War of the Wales", a photograph of Diana and William leaving somewhere was published--the preteen or young adolescent William was holding Diana's hand (not the other way around). This can happen in families where a parent leans too much on the child for emotional support. His parents were in the middle of a public, messy separation. I am not surprised if William were to assume the role of "family disciplinarian" in his adult life.



Pure speculation of course.

 

[Betsypaige]

William has for some years had an enhanced role within the Firm and has been clearly positioned as the heir's heir. Charles has in the past been known to indulge in the "ostrich" behaviour that his grandmother QEQM was known for and probably dithered and prevaricated somewhat in how to handle Harry. William appears to be more resolute in taking decisions to protect the Monarchy which I welcome, and clearly saw the potential implications of the Sussex Show from early on.

I completely disagree with the notion that William has been more “resolute” and determined than Charles in protecting the monarchy. Charles is the one who often takes his mother’s place at engagements, Charles is the one who HM speaks with often about “crises” (like with Andrew and Megxit). Yes, William is involved, but to a much lesser degree than his father. It was Charles who insisted to his mother that Andrew had to go, Charles who worked with HM to try and find a workable solution to Megxit, Charles who agreed with HM that Harry should not have his own office at Windsor. William has a fairly significant role in protecting the monarchy but he’s not more effective or active than his father.

 

[Betsypaige]

Dickie Arbiter released a screenshot of The Times newspaper, where the columnist Libby Purves criticised Robert Lacey's book. The article has the heading, Royals don't deserve this baseline psychobabble. It has the blurb, Robert Lacey's new book about Princes William and Harry tells us more about royal Kremlinologists than the Windsors.

Dickie Arbiter [Flag of United Kingdom] @RoyalDickie
Excellent piece - in a nutshell - by #LibbyPurves on P27 of today's @thetimes on #RobertLacey's latest #royal tome [Clapping hands signClapping hands sign]
6:32 PM · Oct 5, 2020·Twitter for Android​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1313019117532835840

I couldn’t agree more with the article, and I’m glad Dickie also feels the same. I think the fact Lacey claiming that a personal rift between the brothers is at least on par with the Abdication, a Constitutional crisis that had worldwide ramifications, speaks volumes. I’m at least as upset about his speculation and opinions on the BRF relationships.