Prince Charles’ friend accuses Meghan and Harry of hypocrisy over ‘cut off’ claims
A good friend of Prince Charles has actually laid into Harry and Meghan, as royal experts rush to come to terms with the couple’s dynamite Oprah interview.
The tell-all consisted of a string of stunning accusations, consisting of that an unnamed royal questioned their child Archie’s skin colour, that the palace declined to assist Meghan after she experienced psychological health issue and self-destructive ideas– which Prince Charles had actually stopped taking Harry’s calls, and had actually cut him off economically.
But it didn’t take wish for holes to emerge in the Duke and Duchess’ story about cash in specific, with a “well-placed source” informing The Telegraph Charles was “fed up with the constant calls from Harry for more money”.
RELATED: Kate’s dignified act in Meghan fight
“He ploughed a lot into the wedding and the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage (the couple’s Windsor home) and did his utmost to make them feel financially supported but when they said they were upping sticks, they asked for even more,” the source stated.
“If he was less inclined to take calls, it might be because he didn’t want to be treated like a cash dispenser. I think a lot of parents will be able to identify with that.”
Harry is likewise thought to have actually acquired anywhere in between $12.9 million to $18 million from Princess Diana, with The Times likewise reporting his great-grandmother the Queen Mother left him $5.4 million after her death in 2002.
“Even leaving aside the money which the Queen Mother may or may not have bequeathed Harry and taking the most conservative figures thrown about, when (the couple) started their new shiny lives in the US they had $15.5 million to their names,” royal specialist Daniela Elser composed in a news.com.au post today.
PRINCE HARRY LASHED
While the main reaction to the interview has actually up until now been typically determined, an unnamed buddy of Prince Charles has actually countered powerfully, informing The Sunday Times Prince Harry’s cash claims didn’t build up.
“Harry said his father financially ‘cut him off’. What f***ing hypocrisy,” the source informed the publication.
RELATED: Real intention behind Meghan’s tell-all
“When Harry and Meghan left last year, they wanted to become ‘financially independent’.”
Meanwhile, the greatest concern of all has actually started to emerge– what Harry and Meghan in fact intended to accomplish by their extraordinary Oprah relocation, which has actually rapidly turned into one of the greatest scandals to rock the royal household in modern-day history.
‘VERGING ON TREASONOUS’
The Times post explains that the timing of the interview likewise could not be even worse, with the Queen’s 95th birthday just a month away, 99-year-old Prince Philip sustaining a prolonged health center stay after going through a treatment on his heart, and a restored republican push amongst some Commonwealth countries in complete swing.
“The question nobody seems able to answer is what are the Sussexes trying to achieve with this?” a palace source informed The Times
“We don’t know what they want. If you think the Queen is great, then why are you trying to trash everything she and the family stands for?”
Others identified the function as “verging on treasonous” and “an incredible act of disloyalty”.
RELATED: Queen’s unexpected Meghan and Harry strategy
A mean the couple’s intention emerged recently, with British race relations analyst and broadcaster Jonathan Sacerdoti mentioning that while Meghan and Harry declared their departure from the UK and the royals remained in order to look for personal privacy, the Oprah interview showed their “true aim” was to construct the worth of their own brand name– even if that included tossing their household under the bus– and they were in fact concentrated on “controlling their publicity and attention, rather than avoiding it”.
‘PERFECT PUBLICITY FORMULA’
Australian public relations specialist Nicole Reaney informed news.com.au the interview was held for one significant factor– to enhance the breakaway royals’ image.
“The interview was devised to provide an uninterrupted platform for Meghan and Harry to
portray their version of events and an insight into their perspective,” she stated.
“It was strategic and considered to hold the interview on home soil with a leading celebrity interviewer who would build and attract a global audience – a perfect publicity formula – while being supportive and emotive to every issue raised by Meghan.”
But Ms Reaney stated the interview was so destructive to both camps that “neither side wins this PR battle”.
“For the royal family, many stand by the manner they have dealt with the fallout, while others, namely based in the US, stand by Meghan where mental health, pregnancy and race are highly sensitive topics,” she stated.
“The three-sentence media statement by the royal family was a highly intelligent response to a two-hour tell-all that attracted 50 million viewers, and enabled them to ‘buy time’ and quickly defuse the allegations.”