Prince Harry and Trump both in UK in September in big month for King Charles
While Harry has made it clear he wants to reconcile with his father, the King has been advised not to see him for fear his son will share any private family conversations on TV or in a new book.
Father and son have not met face-to-face since shortly after the King's cancer announcement in February 2024.
Harry's visit in two months' time is likely to take place a week before Donald Trump's big arrival here, so it's hard to see how King Charles's office wouldn't be able to make space in his diary to see his son.
The King could decide to make time or he could, as the Sussex team claimed on a previous occasion, decide to be 'too busy' to meet in person.
The Duke of Sussex is planning to return to the UK in early September for a series of British-based charity engagements.
The revelation that senior staff from both sides met in London last week does suggest there is movement in a positive direction.
The King's most senior communications official, Tobyn Andreae, met with Harry and Meghan's newly-appointed head of communications, Meredith Maines, on her first visit to the UK in her role.
Harry's UK-based PR man, Liam Maguire was also present at the meeting last Wednesday afternoon in one of London's private members' clubs in St James.
Sources in the Sussex camp said they were 'frustrated' that the meeting was leaked but both sides deny they tipped off the Mail on Sunday, which first ran the story.
Harry's most recent TV interview triggered a massive setback in the relationship with the King, as Harry spoke publicly about his father's cancer ('I don't know how long he has left'), which was viewed in Buckingham Palace as a gross invasion of the King's privacy.
But the meeting between the senior courtier from the palace and two staff from Harry and Meghan's office would only have happened with the express knowledge and authorisation of their bosses.
But King Charles' advisers will only allow him to meet his son if Harry pledges not to share details of private conversations about family or his own security arrangements when he's in the UK.
Harry should be back in California by the time President Trump lands in the UK for a visit, which has had the adjective 'unprecedented' written next to it more times than I care to count.
No US leader has been on a State Visit to the UK twice, but this is Donald Trump 2.0, and he was previously hosted by Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace in 2019.
We now have the confirmed dates for the visit, 17-19 September, which means the logistics can start to be put in place.
As we saw with the French State Visit last week, these events are heavy on the detail; Anglo-French chefs, menus which reflect both countries, Kate wearing items by French designers, carriages, and speeches, even before the royals hand over to the politicians.
State Visits are arranged at the request of the government of the day, and the royals know they must put on a good show for the visitors, no matter what personal views they might have on their politics.
For example, King Charles and Donald Trump have vastly diverging views on climate change, so they will not discuss anything like that in public.
But the King knows his prime minister wants the best possible relationship with Mr Trump for economic reasons, and part of his constitutional duty is to host visiting heads of state.
Just as for the French visit, the American one will happen in Windsor as Buckingham Palace will still be out of action in September due to its major decade-long renovation project.
The Berkshire town will be braced for the consequences. Not just the crowds of tourists they've grown used to every day, but there are likely to be big protests during Mr Trump's stay at Windsor Castle.
The president however will greatly enjoy being guests of the Royal Family and the photographs which will accompany that moment.
Like his mother before him, Mr Trump is a big fan of the British Monarchy.
He had huge respect for the late Queen and he likes King Charles on a personal level.
So, it'll be wise for all concerned to make the most of the summer break, as September is shaping up to be a significant month, for both UK-US relations – and Royal Family relations - for many years to come.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
34 minutes ago
- The National
Labour rushed to help Lindsey oil refinery. So why not Grangemouth?
Here, Michelle Thomson, the SNP MSP for Falkirk East – which includes Grangemouth, writes on the Labour Government's differing approaches. LIKE many, I was alarmed to hear of the potential closure of Lindsey Oil Refinery in North Lincolnshire at the end of last month. On June 30, Prax Group, the owners of the refinery, announced they were going into administration, and therefore the future of the site was at risk. The very same day, the UK Government sprang into action. Energy Minister Michael Shanks gave a statement to the House of Commons confirming the [[UK Government]] is funding the continued operation of the refinery, adding: 'The Government will ensure supplies are maintained, protect our energy security, and do everything we can to support workers.' Energy Minister Michael ShanksNow, I welcome this, and any action to save jobs is commendable. All options should be considered to keep Lindsey operating. But as the constituency MSP for Grangemouth, I cannot help but think – while the [[UK Government]] sprang into action for the Lindsey refinery the day the news broke, where was that sense of urgency and action for [[Grangemouth]]? Yes, the circumstances are different – but over a period of months, there was nothing even close to what took place for Lindsey in a day – no urgent statement, and little to no meaningful Government intervention. READ MORE: Labour admit 'not a penny' of £200m Grangemouth rescue fund spent This isn't the first time either. Many Scots were quite rightly astounded that the UK Government very quickly spent billions to save British Steel in Scunthorpe but came nowhere close for Grangemouth. It's worth repeating that Scotland generates well over 90% of the UK's crude oil in any given year – but now has no capacity to refine it. It's also worth repeating that Labour promised to save [[Grangemouth]] before the election and failed. Indeed, the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland said: "We would step in to save the jobs at the refinery." This is the second refinery to face closure on Labour's watch, with thousands of related jobs being lost elsewhere in the supply chain. It would appear that, when it comes to industry elsewhere in the UK, Westminster can immediately pull out all the stops – but when it's in Scotland, the [[UK Government]] simply isn't interested. READ MORE: 'Unacceptable': SNP hit out as Labour 'keep Tory-era veto on Scottish laws' Some may argue that these issues are for the Scottish Government to respond to. This is correct – but any response must include the power to take financial action in the form of significant borrowing powers. These are powers that the [[Scottish Government]] lacks. The truth is, Grangemouth is just as important to Scotland's industrial output as Lindsey is to England's. It's no wonder that a growing number in Scotland quite rightly feel that Scotland is an afterthought to this – or any – UK government. It begs the question: if the UK Government can immediately step in to save major industrial sites in England – on more than one occasion – then why not in Scotland? My view is, as it always has been, that the only way to ensure Scotland's massive natural wealth is utilised for the benefit of Scotland's people is with independence for Scotland.
The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Will Rachel Reeves' mortgage bombshell do more harm than good?
There's a great deal riding on Rachel Reeves' Mansion House speech tonight – more so than usual. Between the government's welfare reform plans being torn to shreds, the economy hitting a wall and public finances being mired in a sea of red ink, things haven't been great for the chancellor lately. Then there was her tearful appearance in the House of Commons a few weeks ago, blamed on a personal issue, and the lukewarm endorsement she received from Keir Starmer – which was swiftly reversed because the fiscally hawkish Reeves is seen in the City as greatly preferable to any of her possible replacements, and the markets reacted very badly when speculation about her future was at its height. Of course, she is not solely responsible for all of the above, but she does need to get back on the front foot – and her audience with City grandees is key to her success. As is typically the case with the annual event, large parts of its contents have been pushed out in advance – most notably the so-called 'Leeds reforms' which will tear up some of the post-financial crisis regulations that the City has been chafing against. At the centre of this are plans to make it easier for people to obtain bigger mortgages. The government is also launching a state-backed mortgage guarantor. The risks are obvious: do this and you could easily end up with more bad debt and more defaults when economic conditions turn against borrowers. Interest rates are on a downward path, and mortgage deals have been improving, which helps. But it won't always be that way, and unemployment is rising (thanks in part to Reeves increasing taxes on jobs). The new guarantor will also inevitably shift the burden of risk on to the taxpayer. Am I alone in having a problem with privatised profits and socialised losses? The City will always applaud deregulation, and quietly welcomed Labour's prodding the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to cool its regulatory jets and get with the programme. The Leeds reforms promise more of the same – including reform of the Financial Ombudsman, which has in recent years been functioning as a quasi-regulator. That, we are told, will end. An easing of the much hated senior managers and certification regime, another post-crisis measure, is promised. Ditto the FCA's consumer duty rules. So, too, are there are plans to boost fintech – and to ensure the Basel capital rules on banks are implemented in a way that 'supports UK competitiveness'. I suspect this means we'll find a way of cheating. A review of the ring-fencing regime – designed to protect retail banking assets (so yours and mine) from the City casino – is promised. My bet is that this will end up getting scrapped. Cross your fingers. If things go wrong again, it could get very messy. And there will be another crisis. It's in the nature of banking. City trade body UK Finance was positively gushing in response. 'We submitted a range of ideas to government to help support growth and the UK's position as a global financial centre. Across many of these key areas the chancellor has listened and delivered significant positive change,' said its CEO, David Postings. Of course he did. But here's the thing: if you take a look at the Treasury's press release, you will see that there is one very big omission. It is the one thing everyone attending tonight's shindig will want to hear about. It trumps even the most radical parts of the 'Leeds Reforms' and will ultimately be what Reeves is judged on. By now you've doubtless guessed that I'm talking about tax. Reeves has already soaked businesses by taxing jobs, with predictable results when it comes to unemployment. The City's view is that it already pays enough, contributing nearly £1 in every £10 the chancellor raises. Reeves is hoping that her reforms will spur growth, which she desperately needs. The City will tell her that it won't happen if she hits it again. That doesn't just apply to her increasing the burden on businesses. She will also be told not to hammer Britain's millionaires. With little headroom left over, her self-imposed fiscal rules and a tax-raising budget expected, Reeves has said the burden of balancing the books will fall on those whose shoulders are 'the broadest'. Most would agree that this is only fair. Many understandably find it offensive that Britain's poorest are being kicked via what remains of welfare reform while the richest employ clever accountants to cut their bills. But if she hits the uber rich too hard it turns into a zero sum game, because while some will stick around and grouse about their bills, others will just leave altogether. The result is that you don't end up raising more money – and you may, in fact, end up with less. So, how does Reeves plan to solve this problem ? I'm not sure the City will get an answer. Not yet. Reeves has made a start at re-establishing some credibility and authority, but the likely response to Mansion House will be this: 'Good start. But our verdict – and our business decisions – are on hold until the budget is in.'
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Taxpayer could face £1bn compensation bill for Afghan leak victims
Afghans secretly relocated to the UK after a data breach are suing the Government in a compensation case that threatens to cost taxpayers almost £1 billion. A vast data breach involving the details of 18,800 soldiers, along with about 6,000 of their family members, was revealed on Tuesday after a superinjunction was lifted by the High Court, allowing The Telegraph and other national newspapers to expose the scandal. It can now be revealed that a law firm is suing the Ministry of Defence (MoD) on behalf of at least 1,000 Afghans who claim they were affected by the breach. Manchester-based Barings Law hopes to claim £50,000 from the MoD for each individual involved in the breach, sources have said. If all 18,800 soldiers make a successful claim, the compensation bill could be as high as £940 million. That sum could grow if any of the Afghan soldiers' family members join the legal claim, taking it towards £1 billion in total. Hidden from the public The breach occurred in February 2022, when a Royal Marine emailed a group of Afghans, accidentally including a spreadsheet containing the identities of nearly 25,000 Afghans – soldiers who had worked with the British Army, as well as their family members – who were applying for asylum. The leak came to light in 2023, when an anonymous Facebook user posted extracts of the data on the social media site. MoD officials contacted Meta, the company that owns Facebook, and the posts were deleted within three days. However, the Government decided it had no choice but to offer asylum to the Afghans affected because the leak had left them at risk of reprisal attacks from the Taliban. The breach has only just come to public attention after an unprecedented superinjunction was lifted by the High Court. Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, said: 'This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the Ministry of Defence has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public. 'It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region. 'Through its careless handling of such sensitive information, the Ministry of Defence has put multiple lives at risk, damaged its own reputation, and put the success of future operations in jeopardy by eroding trust in its data security measures.' To date, the leak is understood to have cost £400 million to relocate victims of the leak. A further £850 million has been set aside to complete the resettlement of those affected, but it is not believed that this includes any potential compensation costs. The MoD was fined £350,000 for a very similar – but separate – data breach in 2023 that came to public light. The details of 265 Afghans were accidentally leaked two years before, in 2021, after an email was sent copying in a list of addresses in the 'to' field of the message rather than the 'bcc' field, which hides other recipients. Regulators from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) handed down the penalty in December 2023. Court papers seen by The Telegraph indicate that the ICO was made aware of the far larger Afghan data breach in 2023, but were sworn to secrecy.
