King Charles and Harry won't be reconciling any time soon
A well-briefed source told the Mail on Sunday, not sparing the clichés, that 'there's a long road ahead, but a channel of communication is now open for the first time in years'. Stressing that 'there was no formal agenda, just casual drinks', the clubland equivalent of Deep Throat reflected that 'there were things both sides wanted to talk about'.
Suspicion immediately arose that the news of this encounter had been deliberately leaked by Camp Sussex in an attempt to suggest that Harry wanted to build bridges with his father, and that this was a first tentative step in such an initiative. This would hardly have been surprising. The Sussex PR operation is hardly known for its Garbo-like recalcitrance. Its willingness to brief newspapers on often sensitive, even embarrassing, topics has meant that Buckingham Palace is often driven to distraction.
Such remarks as how the meeting was only the 'first step towards reconciliation between Harry and his father, but at least it is a step in the right direction', and that 'everyone just wants to move on and move forward now. It was finally the right time for the two sides to talk' appeared to suggest that there was an element of blame on both sides. Many would disagree with this, but still, if the Gallagher brothers could overcome their differences in pursuit of their mutual goals, surely the King and his younger son might find their own accord for rather more principled and less mercenary reasons.
However, any positive effects that came out of last week's meeting have been almost immediately jeopardised by the leak, which Team Sussex has loudly insisted that it is not behind. They are claiming that it was not in their, or anyone else's interests, to have such a delicate negotiation splashed over the newspaper front pages.
For once, something coming out of Montecito seems possible; it does, indeed, make no sense to have thrust something like this into the public domain. Yet many other antics of Harry and Meghan's have also been similarly nonsensical, and so there will be many who will think that this has been a piece of duplicity, firstly dangling a story like this in front of hungry newspaper editors, and then snatching it back with feigned outrage that anyone could ever have been prepared to print such a thing.
Few will be convinced that this is the beginning of a renewed bond between father and son, given everything that has happened. (Tellingly, neither the Prince of Wales's private secretary nor press officer were present, suggesting that fraternal reconciliation has not even been discussed as an idea.) The current hope is that the King will be invited to the Invictus games in Birmingham in 2027 and that this will be an opportunity for him publicly to reconcile with Harry, whom he has not seen since February last year.
Theoretically, this makes a good deal of sense – on all parts – and there will be many at Buckingham Palace, and beyond, who would like to see such a harmonious meeting take place, with a view to putting this prolonged squabble to bed. Yet as we have all seen, an awful, awful lot can happen over the next two years. Even those who are hoping that last weekend's story does herald a renewed bond between father and son may have to be prepared to be grievously disappointed all over again.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
4 minutes ago
- Reuters
US agencies pause effort to block immigrant social services in states that sued
NEW YORK, July 25 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration agreed on Friday to pause efforts to block immigrants who are living in the U.S. illegally from accessing certain federally funded social services in 20 Democratic-led states that sued over the policy changes. The U.S. Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, and Labor agreed to wait until at least September 3 to enforce the changes that affect programs providing early childhood education, food and healthcare. The agencies also agreed not to enforce the changes retroactively in New York, California, Illinois, or the other states that sued, according to an agreement filed in Rhode Island federal court, where the states had filed their lawsuit. New York Attorney General Letitia James said the agreement preserves social services "that millions of New Yorkers rely on to survive." "These policy changes threaten essential lifelines like health care, education, and nutrition assistance programs for hardworking families in New York and nationwide," James said in a statement. "My office will continue to fight for these programs and services on behalf of all who need them." The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More than 20 Democratic attorneys general had sued on Monday arguing that the policies, which implement an immigration-focused executive order from Trump, are unconstitutional and that the Republican president issued them without following the required federal rulemaking process. The policy changes require programs to check participants' immigration status before giving access to essential public services like Head Start, Meals on Wheels, child welfare programs, domestic violence shelters, housing assistance, mental health treatment, food banks, and community health centers. The states said the directives threatened to pull federal funding from states and could force some programs to shutter altogether. The requirements went into effect almost immediately after the directives were issued, leaving the programs scrambling to find ways to comply so they can stay open, the states said. States have always needed to verify a person's lawful immigration status before allowing them to access certain federal programs, like Medicaid. But federal agencies have previously taken the position that states did not have to verify immigration status for some programs, like soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and crisis counseling centers, that received federal funding but were intended to be "open to all," according to the lawsuit.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US court upholds California's implicit bias training mandate for doctors
July 25 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday rejected claims that California violated the free speech rights of doctors who teach continuing medical education courses by mandating that they include information on implicit bias. A unanimous three-judge panel, opens new tab of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that because the content of the courses, known as CMEs, is dictated by the state, it amounts to government speech shielded from constitutional scrutiny regardless of who delivers the message. The Medical Board of California requires physicians and surgeons to complete CMEs to maintain their licenses, and approves and accredits courses offered by doctors including Azadeh Khatibi, an ophthalmologist and the plaintiff in Friday's case. A 2021 state law requires that CMEs include information about implicit, or unconscious, bias and the potential for doctors to treat patients differently based on their race, sex or other factors. Khatibi and the nonprofit Do No Harm, which advocates against what it calls "radical, divisive and discriminatory ideologies" in the medical profession, say the law unlawfully forces instructors to endorse speech with which they may not agree in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But the 9th Circuit said that speech belongs to the government, as it has more than a century of closely regulating the medical profession and adopting detailed requirements for CMEs. "If physicians are cognizant that their profession is heavily regulated [and] that they attend CMEs primarily to secure credits to maintain their licenses ... then 'common sense' commands that licensees could attribute approved CMEs' content to California," Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote. The panel included Circuit Judges A. Wallace Tashima and Salvador Mendoza. All three judges are appointees of Democratic presidents. Caleb Trotter of Pacific Legal Foundation, who represents Khatibi and Do No Harm, said the libertarian group was disappointed with the ruling and is considering its options. "If continuing medical education courses in California are 'government speech' as the panel decided today, then there is little to stop governments around the country from compelling continuing education instructors in any trade or profession to profess all manner of controversial state-endorsed topics," Trotter said in an emailed statement. Many states in recent years have conditioned professional licenses for doctors, lawyers, teachers and others on completing diversity or anti-racism training, prompting backlash from some professionals and conservative groups. A Michigan dentist represented by Pacific Legal filed a lawsuit, opens new tab in April over a state licensing requirement that healthcare providers complete implicit bias training. Last year, the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit rejected claims, opens new tab that a Missouri school district violated employees' free-speech rights by requiring them to attend anti-racism training. Friday's decision affirms a 2024 ruling by U.S. District Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani in Santa Ana, California, that dismissed the lawsuit by Khatibi and Do No Harm. The case is Khatibi v. Hawkins, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-3108. For Khatibi and Do No Harm: Joshua Thompson and Caleb Trotter of Pacific Legal Foundation For the state: Kristin Liska of the California Attorney General's office Read more: US court leery of free-speech challenge to school's anti-racism training U.S. law students to receive anti-bias training after ABA passes new rule
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Democrats and advocates criticize Trump's executive order on homelessness
Leading Democrats and advocates for the homeless are criticizing an executive order President Donald Trump signed this week aimed at removing homeless people from the streets, possibly by committing them for mental health or drug treatment without their consent. Trump directed some of his Cabinet heads to prioritize funding to cities that crack down on open drug use and street camping, with the goal of making people feel safer. It's not compassionate to do nothing, the order states. 'Shifting these individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment is the most proven way to restore public order,' the order reads. Homelessness has become a bigger problem in recent years as the cost of housing increased, especially in states such as California where there aren't enough homes to meet demand. At the same time, drug addiction and overdoses have soared with the availability of cheap and potent fentanyl. The president's order might be aimed at liberal cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York, which Trump views as too lax about conditions on their streets. But many of the concepts have already been proposed or tested in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic mayors have worked for years to get people off the streets and into treatment. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for cities to clear encampments even if the people living in them have nowhere else to go. Still, advocates say Trump's new order is vague, punitive and won't effectively end homelessness. Newsom has directed cities to clean up homeless encampments and he's funneled more money into programs to treat addiction and mental health disorders. His office said Friday that Trump's order relies on harmful stereotypes and focuses more on "creating distracting headlines and settling old scores." "But, his imitation (even poorly executed) is the highest form of flattery,' spokesperson Tara Gallegos said in a statement, referring to the president calling for strategies already in use in California. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has also emphasized the importance of clean and orderly streets in banning homeless people from living in RVs and urging people to accept the city's offers of shelter. In Silicon Valley, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan recently pushed a policy change that makes a person eligible for jail if they reject three offers of shelter. Trump's executive order tasks Attorney General Pam Bondi and the secretaries for health, housing and transportation to prioritize grants to states and local governments that enforce bans on open drug use and street camping. Devon Kurtz, the public safety policy director at the Cicero Institute, a conservative policy group that has advocated for several of the provisions of the executive order, said the organization is 'delighted' by the order. He acknowledged that California has already been moving to ban encampments since the Supreme Court's decision. But he said Trump's order adds teeth to that shift, Kurtz said. 'It's a clear message to these communities that were still sort of uncomfortable because it was such a big change in policy,' Kurtz said. But Steve Berg, chief policy officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, called parts of the order vague. He said the U.S. abandoned forced institutionalization decades ago because it was too expensive and raised moral and legal concerns. 'What is problematic about this executive order is not so much that law enforcement is involved — it's what it calls on law enforcement to do, which is to forcibly lock people up,' Berg said. 'That's not the right approach to dealing with homelessness.' The mayor of California's most populous city, Los Angeles, is at odds with the Newsom and Trump administrations on homelessness. Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, opposes punishing sweeps and says the city has reduced street homelessness by working with homeless people to get them into shelter or housing. 'Moving people from one street to the next or from the street to jail and back again will not solve this problem," she said in a statement. ___
