Harry and Meghan 'NEVER' Returning to Royal Duties

Dickie Arbiter recounted an incident where a royal was in a state of panic after reading critical reports in Sunday newspapers. He advised the individual to completely isolate herself, avoid all phone calls and media interactions, and not engage in any activities until her next scheduled public engagement. Despite this guidance, the royal ultimately broke down in tears during an official engagement in the Midlands.

Arbiter confirmed that there were no discussions with the late Queen or King Charles regarding his book, noting the "never complain, never explain" mantra that defined royal communication. This stands in stark contrast to King Charles III's contemporary approach, marked by his transparency regarding his enlarged prostate and subsequent cancer diagnosis. The palace intentionally refrained from disclosing the specific type of cancer to prevent overshadowing other medical research initiatives.

He rolled down his car windows, ensuring that people could see him and be assured of his well-being. Despite undergoing medical treatment, the King maintains an exceptionally active schedule, with Arbiter observing that he often appears to have more energy than himself during state visits.

Arbiter recounted an exchange where the King deftly countered former President Trump's historical narrative regarding America's involvement in WWII, offering a witty retort about the potential for French rather than German influence. Arbiter added that the King frequently refines his remarks until the moment of their delivery.

Arbiter recounted an instance during a physically demanding charity polo match where he encouraged the King to continue playing despite visible discomfort. This persistent condition highlights the physical toll of his active public life.

Dickie Arbiter claimed that the reported theft of four copies of Charles Spencer's book from a truck in the Netherlands was a fabricated event designed to generate media attention. He labeled the incident a "put-up job," drawing parallels to the accidental early release of Prince Harry's book as a similar marketing tactic aimed at creating buzz.

Arbiter asserted that Charles Spencer did not consistently offer full support to his sister, Princess Diana, and that both siblings carried emotional "baggage" stemming from their parents' divorce. He noted that Diana's mother left their father when Diana was six and Charles was younger, leading to their father, Johnny Spencer, winning custody of both children.

After her separation, Princess Diana sought a cottage on the Althorp estate from her brother, Charles Spencer, hoping to find privacy and respite. Initially, Spencer agreed to her request but later rescinded the offer, citing concerns about potential media intrusion. This refusal was a significant source of pain for Diana, and she never forgave him, leading to their estrangement before her death.

Arbiter believes that while she would not have shown emotion publicly or reacted impulsively within the palace, she would have been privately very angry about the circumstances surrounding the eulogy's delivery and venue.

Arbiter contradicted claims that Queen Elizabeth II was poorly received by the public after Diana's death, noting that she was applauded upon her arrival and departure from the palaces. He recounted a poignant moment when a young girl offered flowers directly to the Queen, stating they were for her, not to be left with others. After this interaction, the Queen turned to Arbiter and asked, "Was that okay?" to which he affirmed, "Yes, ma'am, that was fine."