Diana lost her royal protection and would be alive today if she had retained it. So a powerful issue for Harry.
But from an institutional point of view, the royal family can only subsidize working royals. That's the deal with the press and the taxpayers.
If Charles had Harry's nature, the whole story of the royals over the last 40 years would be different. But Charles is who he is because of his parentage and upbringing.
I covered this stuff for 14 years and will never forget the bombshell of Diana's interview.
It's impossible to see Harry now and not recall the 12-year-old boy who walked in his mother's funeral procession. He retains a vulnerability that is completely authentic.
In his devastating eulogy, Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, spoke of how she was raising her boys so that their "souls are not simply immersed by duty and tradition but can sing openly."
And here we are, 24 years later. It's almost the stuff of Shakespeare, if you also toss in "Suits" and Spotify.
Clarification, in response to replies: Diana refused protection, it's been reported. Had she kept it, she would not have been in that car, with that driver, on that route, with no seatbelt.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
