Was it Carlo or Harry? The age-old question, “who didn’t want to see who”, whether it was the king or his son, will never find a definitive answer. Or, rather, he has to be satisfied from time to time with temporary replies, which are soon proven wrong. Today’s news is that the Duke of Sussex did not want to see the sovereign for reasons related to his personal safety. In the comings and goings of the speculations that have taken place since the beginning of the month, we thus move from the “sovereign’s busy agenda”, as an impediment to the meeting with his son, who arrived in London from California for the tenth anniversary of the Invictus Games, to the response of the spokesperson of Sussex, who was very “understanding” and sounded like a realistic acknowledgment: “The Duke obviously realizes his father’s commitments and various other priorities and hopes to see him soon.”
Read also: Queen Camilla, “must divorce Kate”: the rumor that makes the crown tremble
In other words, “despite Harry’s desire to see the king, if the king can’t, there’s little that can be done.” 4 days pass and the news is diametrically opposite and given by the Independent: Harry never asked to meet his father, nor did he invite him to the ceremony for the Invictus Games. All obvious, according to a friend of the king, who told the Times that Charles would certainly have found a space in his agenda to meet his son (if there had been a request to do so, of course).
Read also: Harry and Meghan, “don’t take my hand”: the phrase that never escapes. What happens
Prince Harry “refused a meeting with King Charles in London because there were no security measures in place” – writes the Daily Mail – despite having received an offer to stay in a royal residence (probably St James’ Palace). The Duke appears to have rejected his father’s proposal because it did not include any taxpayer-funded personal security measures, which would have left him in a “place with public entry and exit points and no police protection”. At that point, as is known, Harry chose to stay in a hotel – presumably where other guests were present – because this would allow him “to come and go without being seen”.
