The war within the British royal family, far from subsiding, is writing a new and bitter chapter. When it seemed that things couldn't get any more turbulent, recent reports from Prince Harry's closest circle are once again putting the spotlight on the apparently irreparable rift with his father, King Charles III.
The Windsor saga, which combines institutional duty with the rawest family drama, shows us once again that neither the walls of Buckingham nor the distance of the Atlantic Ocean can contain the resentment.
This distance was imposed by Meghan Markle and Prince Harry of their own accord. As we recently reported, Queen Elizabeth II left the door open for a return, a promise Charles III doesn't want to keep.
The estrangement, which became public and notorious after the explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey and was cemented by the publication of the prince's memoir, "Spare," seems to have entered a phase of stagnation. Hopes for a reconciliation, fueled by the recent health problems that have affected both the monarch and Kate Middleton, have completely vanished, giving way to a hostility that now manifests itself in private, but with the same force.
"Traitor": the harsh accusation in private
According to leaks from sources close to the Duke of Sussex cited by various British media, Prince Harry doesn't hold back when he talks about his father in the privacy of his circle of friends in California. The reports indicate that, in a relaxed environment, Diana of Wales's youngest son vents without restraint, even going so far as to call King Charles III a "traitor."
This extremely harsh accusation wouldn't be an isolated outburst, but rather the reflection of a deep and accumulated resentment. The turning point that would have cemented this feeling of betrayal was the refusal of the Royal Household and the British government to guarantee him an official security detail during his visits to the United Kingdom.
Harry believes that his father turned his back on him at a crucial moment, putting institutional rules before the protection of his own blood, a decision the duke interprets as the final abandonment.
Charles III doesn't respond
While these explosive statements circulate in the tabloids, the official response from Buckingham Palace is the same as always: a sepulchral silence. The "never complain, never explain" strategy is kept as the monarchy's shield against controversies.
However, this silence contrasts with the constant trickle of information coming from "palace sources" or "close friends," fueling a media war being fought on two fronts.
On one hand, Harry, from the United States, seems to have lost his fear of the consequences of his words, whether through interviews, documentaries, or, as in this case, leaks from his inner circle. On the other hand, the Crown defends itself by projecting an image of unity and continuity, as was recently seen in official events where the absence of the Sussexes was as notable as the implicit message being sent.
The rift is no longer just geographical, but essentially emotional and, above all, about trust. As some royal house experts point out, how can a bridge be built if one of the parties airs every private conversation?