Harry would love to reconcile but there is no way to communicate and reconcile with people who are committed to maintaining the status quo because it serves them. The sting of that type of rejection never goes away.
American here. I don’t follow the royals, but this was so interesting and well thought-out! I relate to it because of my daughter’s estrangement from our family. I feel sorry for Harry for all he has been through. But he has so much in terms of a great life and personal talent. I wish he would do both of what you suggest: try a different way to reconcile with his family and at the same time, move forward with his own life, create healthy distance, and get on with it.
Always enjoy learning new things about my ancestral homeland. As for my country, I can only offer deepest apologies for the horrific train wreck unfolding before us. 😱😱😱 A huge number of us are working hard on a daily basis to stop it.
Harry moving on means his wife and children can be murdered. I don't think Harry is stuck, I think he is dealing with reality. Did you watch the CBS interview? He has been exiled from his homeland due to his father's vindictiveness and coercion. What kind of father has a child and then knowingly allows him to be left in the crosshairs? Harry spoke eloquently of escaping the royal cult. I've never been more disgusted with Charles than now. To leave your child vulnerable is morally repugnant beyond words.
Thank you for reading and posting. I agree that Charles has treated him awfully. He has also failed to plan for how to manage the adulthood of his second son, given Charles' desire to slim down the monarchy and how that works with having a 'spare'. However, the security issue only relates to the UK, not worldwide.
The issue is that Harry can only have limited case by case security in the UK (not provided by the Met Police) and Harry believes this to be inadequate and unfair. There is no option where he would be provided security in the US and it was Harry's choice to move there (for valid reasons). Of course this prevents his father meeting his grandchildren unless he travels to America. Further indicating that Charles is not a fantastic father.
My point is that Harry needs to reach a place of accepting that his family will only do things on their terms and that regaining security in the UK would require him capitulating to his family's wishes - much like Edward VIII did by becoming Governor of the Bahamas (and it is fascinating how much of this mirrors Edward's abdication). If he wishes to reconcile then he needs to change his approach.
Alternatively, he may have to accept that his freedom from his family requires him to accept his lot and stay in the US. Ultimately his family will never change, they've made that clear.
Okay, except that he had no choice to be Charles' son. From the CBS interview, I think the security issue is more than a case by base basis would indicate. That means he can only return if Charles approves it. The alternative was to be a prisoner of his birth. It is no different than slavery. I think it is too much to think Harry can just accept an ongoing situation and move on. The trauma is constantly happening. Also, he was born into it. Charles owes Harry protection wherever he is and whatever he is doing. Charles is morally responsible even when Harry is in the US. Once the basic need for safety is met, then recovery can happen. That is a basic understanding of trauma recovery.
You make very valid points. However, screaming into an unanswering void is not where his healing will come. He will never receive the love and apology he wants from his father (in my opinion). What Charles owes Harry is irrelevant because Charles is not likely to change. Harry must be careful to not waste his one precious life on this.
I can understand how it may look like "screaming into an unanswering void," especially to those who haven’t lived through betrayal by the people entrusted to protect them. But I want to gently push back on that idea.
Others may perceive me the same way—as someone desperate for love or apologies from parents who may never offer either. But the truth is, I’ve accepted that they’re likely incapable or unwilling. I’m not speaking out because I expect them to change. I speak because someone else is listening.
I speak for those who feel alone in their grief. For those questioning their sanity because their families deny their reality. For those who need to know they’re not crazy for being hurt by dysfunction that gets covered in smiles and tradition. The truth is, many of us “scream” not into a void—but into a community of fellow survivors who find healing when someone finally says out loud what they’ve been carrying in silence.
It’s easy to dismiss Harry as entitled or self-centered when we reduce his story to a cry for paternal love. But what if his openness serves a purpose beyond reconciliation? What if he’s helping expose what’s long been hidden—systems where image is prized above truth, and power is protected at all costs? When fame, monarchy, and politics intertwine, the emotional cost becomes almost unbearable. That is not self-indulgence—it’s bravery.
Pain shared with purpose is never wasted. And I think that’s what he’s doing—using his voice to bring light to what’s been kept in darkness, even if the world isn’t ready to see it.
I think this is a very unique estrangement in that what Harry does and what Charles does, each involves approval from more than the family. They’re saddled with the approval of the British government and British people in the financial arena. They have been given huge amounts of money but that comes with the stipulation of at least appearing to be a model of propriety because they represent the country. I don’t know for sure, but at this point in history, the monarchy’s losing credibility with the people. So paying more money
for a member who chose to leave the ‘job’ may be a political issue & might be out of their hands.
This was so well said—thank you for writing it. As an adult child navigating the grief of emotionally unavailable parents, I often find myself stuck in that deep longing for love that never came in the way it should have. I think that longing is biologically ingrained…wanting our parents to love and accept us unconditionally isn’t weakness, it’s human.
What others sometimes see as “not moving on” is often just grief that has no timeline. There’s no linear path or predictable stages when it comes to mourning the absence of something so foundational. It’s especially hard when silence was expected growing up and speaking truth now gets mislabeled as resentment instead of healing.
But at some point, we face the hard choice…do we keep shrinking ourselves to accommodate their emotional limitations, or do we rise from the ashes and walk toward the future with clarity, peace, and self-worth? For me, the grief doesn’t disappear, but your article reminds me that it no longer has to define my path forward.
Thanks again for putting language to something so many of us carry silently.
Thank you for your kind words. Yes that is exactly what I feel with Harry. He is grieving and he is angry. Those emotions are valid. Ideally he will start to process and move through them to reach a place of gratitude for all the love he does have. His two children are a chance to start modelling how family can be.
Absolutely! Processing those emotions comes on our own time, not the expectations of others (parents, royalty, whatever). I am sure there will be a day where adult children accept that their parents are, for some strange reason, incapable of taking responsibility for harm and damage done to their relationship with their child. Until then, I feel parents should back off and give their children space to process this strange phenomenon, rather than guilting or shaming adult children to comply to their expectations. Thanks again for a well written article.
Isn't that the point? He is trying to save his life. He is one of the highest targets for abduction in the world. His father is king. He is not covered by security trained and prepared at that level. The security he does have cannot be armed if he ever travels. He should be pushing for the right to have the same security as William. He isn't screaming into the void to get approval, he is screaming into the void to be safe. He did not choose to be Charles' son; Charles chose him to have a spare. It is Charles' responsibility to follow through and protect the children he chose to have. It isn't about screaming, it is about responsibility. No one else with family estrangment can begin to compare their own experience with Harry, or expect Harry to act like them. No one else has to worry about being an international target. Thinking that Harry is screaming into the void is too simplistic... and sorry, sounds a bit like victim shaming. As counselors we should be advocating that Harry is safe so he can overcome the trauma of parental rejection, not blaming him for talking about it. He is in crisis due to his father's abdication of his duty of care and all counselors know that trauma victims need to talk about their victimization. Who cares if anyone is tired of hearing about it. Harry needs to be heard and supported to get his safety. After his father makes sure he is physically safe no matter his job or where he lives, then everyone can talk about whether Harry should heal or not. Let's put the responsibility where it lies. Plus, Harry has done a lot of work with trained counselors. Physical safety is something else. Put yourself in his shoes... you have a high chance of being killed and the police tell you, " too bad, so sad." Should I tell you to move on? Or would that be a violation of professional ethics?
Please don’t confuse my comment with me not agreeing that he is traumatised and does need to feel safe.
My point is that he is communicating into a void. Charles is not going to give him the safety he wants. Not to mention, as was mentioned further up, there are bigger aspects at play such as the monarchy feeling vulnerable and keen to not be seen paying for a non-working family member.
When I say move on, I am not trying to shame him. I’m saying that he needs to not waste his life on a battle he cannot win. British security would never be provided to him in America, as a non-working royal. He therefore may have to accept not returning to the UK if he feels safer in America (which he seems to).
I don’t believe it’s accurate—or fair—to call Prince Harry’s efforts a “waste” or “communicating into a void.” On the contrary, he’s choosing to use his platform to raise awareness about patterns of harm, emotional neglect, and institutional dysfunction that extend far beyond his personal experience. This isn’t simply about grievance; it’s about illuminating broader systemic issues within elite power structures, including the royal family.
While reconciliation may not be the realistic outcome—particularly with someone like King Charles, who may be unwilling or unable to self-reflect—Harry’s public testimony still serves a purpose. Silence in the face of injustice perpetuates harm. By speaking out, he disrupts the longstanding tradition of covering up dysfunction in the name of image or duty.
If his goal is to bring hidden pain into the light and advocate for emotional truth, then we should consider the courage it takes to do so. Calling out mistreatment, even within one’s own family, is not shameful. It’s a vital act of integrity.
I don't think I have confused your comment. I just think you have put the cart before the horse. People who haven't heard the interview don't know what he is asking for. And sorry, but if his father created him, then his father can pay for him regardless of where he is. Otherwise it is no different than a coercive cult that doesn't allow its members to be free to make their own decisions. Charles should have thought about his responsibilities long before having a spare. Harry should keep fighting to have his birthright. Additionally, Harry clearly was talking in the interview about the government providing security for people who chose to go into service rather than being born into service by their father. The government pays for their security long after they leave and regardless where they are. He didn't even mention his father until the interviewer asked if he wasn't angry that his father wouldn't intervene. That is when Harry said his father wasn't speaking to him. If his father ignores him, then he doesn't get an answer on the case by case idea. The whole interview was about the decision not to protect him from danger, not about his father. I think he has the right to continue to demand security, and that we should keep the focus on what this is about. Physical safety for a well known, international target who is a target because someone else chose that for him.
I completely understand your points and, obviously, I am not being his therapist here.
The point of my post is that he will not win in his approach to the government or his family. The court of appeal rejected his claim. The government will not intervene as it would be political suicide to do so. No one here in the UK will be happy to pay any additional costs for the royals when costs are being cut for disabled people, children and the elderly. It is too public for the government to override a court to spend money on Harry. His father, likewise, is terrified of weakening the monarchy by appearing to increase the cost of having them.
The withdrawal of met level security was an act of nuclear brinksmanship that no one is going to step back from.
On that basis, he could keep fighting but it would bankrupt him and waste his life. His only real options are to let it go and live a low profile life abroad or return to the royals and beg for their clemency.
Ultimately, of course his estrangement is different to most people. All estrangements are unique. The thread though is coming to a place of peace that some people are never going to say sorry or change.
I'm really sorry to hear that the people are willing to support a king that has allowed his child to be sacrificed, but won't support a young man who fought in Afghanistan for his people. It must be terrible to be that sort of people. I'm starting to wonder if the world witnessed a barrage of hypocrisy when Diana died. And, to be honest, I never thought her accident was anything other than an accident. But with Charles' actions in this, I'm beginning to reconsider. History won't remember Charles well, I'm afraid.
Annette, as a trauma survivor myself I’m just in awe of your words in standing up for the victims and survivors..,, the importance of safety for any genuine healing is often overlooked by even trauma-informed counselors… thanks for bringing your expertise into this conversation
My heart always bled for Harry, as a child and now a grown man. I hope someone can send this to him. He can only change himself. A life well-lived is indeed the best revenge.
A classic case of how the emotionally dysfunctional internal family systems (IFS) of a royal family is no different from any other family system with the same dysfunction. Harry must redefine himself and find love, acceptance and peace with his own nuclear family. He’s a man with a heart and soul and not succumbing to being an institutional robot.
Very insightful! I’ve yet to see anything written about how an estranged adult child is stuck in their own thought loop without any growth or ability to move forward- this is a prime example. Thank you.
Megan writes a very eloquent response below to this. However, I agree that there can be times when an adult child can get stuck in a grudge. The parent is trying to change and trying to be better but the child cannot move forwards.
I would say though that this is not a good example of that. I've seen no change or indications of rapprochement from Charles.
I agree the article was very insightful for both the adult child and estranged parent. And on the same end, both sides can get stuck in their own emotional loopholes. The adult child remains caught in the longing to have their very real, human unmet needs acknowledged at minimum, while the parent often wants unconditional acceptance without ever opening the door to honest reflection or repair. It’s a heartbreaking closed-loop circuit that only truth and humility can break. The problem is—who is called to raise whom in truth and humility? The child raising the parent, or the parent raising the child? Or another words, in a parent-child relationship, does repair come through the child meeting their parents needs, or the parent meeting their child’s needs? Maybe the answer lies in that very question.
This is a very insightful point. Ideally, a parent should be meeting a child's needs. A child does not exist to meet a parent's needs (in my view). However, it can be necessary to accept a parent's limitations. They may be incapable of change or improvement. In that situation (much like with Harry where Charles is incapable of change - by the looks of it), the child may be the only person capable of change. That change may be to accept the parent with their limitations and build a relationship with lessened expectations. Alternatively, the change may be to grieve and accept that the parent will not change and move forward in their life.
The decision will vary on a case by case basis. Where possible, low contact is always better than no contact, unless low contact is impossible without negatively impacting your current life. The priority must always be the well-being of your own children and partner.
I want to gently but clearly offer another perspective in response to the idea that “accepting a parent’s limitations” or opting for “low contact over no contact” is “always” preferable. While these statements may come from a place of compassion or a desire to understand, they can unintentionally place the burden of a damaging relationship on the one who was harmed…often the adult child.
In many cases involving abusive and unrepentant parents, no contact becomes not only necessary but the ONLY viable path toward wholeness, healing, and safety. It is not rooted in oversensitivity as people love to claim, but in deep awareness of behaviors that are spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically corrosive. Abuse often continues in covert, manipulative ways..even in one conversation.
There is a troubling cultural narrative that parents deserve unconditional respect and loyalty no matter how they behave or treat you. But ANY authority without accountability is dangerous. Suggesting that abused children should simply "accept their parents’ limitations" reframes a willful refusal to change as a fixed incapacity, and it shifts responsibility away from the ones who inflicted harm. We ALL have the ability to acknowledge when our actions have caused someone else pain. That’s not a limitation….it’s a choice. And as a verse says, “you reap what you sow.”
Certainly, parents are free to choose not to repent or change. But that choice comes with consequences including the loss of trust, closeness, and often relationship. Adult children who go no-contact are not rejecting love but prolonged and continuing harm. They are choosing to protect their own families from cycles of dysfunction and trauma.
This reality may be hard to grasp for those who had emotionally safe childhoods. But for many survivors of complex abuse, no-contact is not rebellion or “retaliation”…it’s survival.
I’m definitely in agreement that estrangement is the only option when the parent is abusive and where contact is detrimental to wellbeing.
My point was more where the parent is flawed and the child would on some levels like a relationship with them. In those instances, low contact enables the child to still have a relationship with the parent but significantly lower their expectations of what kind of parent the parent is capable of being in.
I would never recommend low contact if a parent has been clearly abusive or if they show no signs of regret at their behaviour.
Harry would love to reconcile but there is no way to communicate and reconcile with people who are committed to maintaining the status quo because it serves them. The sting of that type of rejection never goes away.
100%
American here. I don’t follow the royals, but this was so interesting and well thought-out! I relate to it because of my daughter’s estrangement from our family. I feel sorry for Harry for all he has been through. But he has so much in terms of a great life and personal talent. I wish he would do both of what you suggest: try a different way to reconcile with his family and at the same time, move forward with his own life, create healthy distance, and get on with it.
Thank you for your lovely comment.
Always enjoy learning new things about my ancestral homeland. As for my country, I can only offer deepest apologies for the horrific train wreck unfolding before us. 😱😱😱 A huge number of us are working hard on a daily basis to stop it.
Harry moving on means his wife and children can be murdered. I don't think Harry is stuck, I think he is dealing with reality. Did you watch the CBS interview? He has been exiled from his homeland due to his father's vindictiveness and coercion. What kind of father has a child and then knowingly allows him to be left in the crosshairs? Harry spoke eloquently of escaping the royal cult. I've never been more disgusted with Charles than now. To leave your child vulnerable is morally repugnant beyond words.
Thank you for reading and posting. I agree that Charles has treated him awfully. He has also failed to plan for how to manage the adulthood of his second son, given Charles' desire to slim down the monarchy and how that works with having a 'spare'. However, the security issue only relates to the UK, not worldwide.
The issue is that Harry can only have limited case by case security in the UK (not provided by the Met Police) and Harry believes this to be inadequate and unfair. There is no option where he would be provided security in the US and it was Harry's choice to move there (for valid reasons). Of course this prevents his father meeting his grandchildren unless he travels to America. Further indicating that Charles is not a fantastic father.
My point is that Harry needs to reach a place of accepting that his family will only do things on their terms and that regaining security in the UK would require him capitulating to his family's wishes - much like Edward VIII did by becoming Governor of the Bahamas (and it is fascinating how much of this mirrors Edward's abdication). If he wishes to reconcile then he needs to change his approach.
Alternatively, he may have to accept that his freedom from his family requires him to accept his lot and stay in the US. Ultimately his family will never change, they've made that clear.
Okay, except that he had no choice to be Charles' son. From the CBS interview, I think the security issue is more than a case by base basis would indicate. That means he can only return if Charles approves it. The alternative was to be a prisoner of his birth. It is no different than slavery. I think it is too much to think Harry can just accept an ongoing situation and move on. The trauma is constantly happening. Also, he was born into it. Charles owes Harry protection wherever he is and whatever he is doing. Charles is morally responsible even when Harry is in the US. Once the basic need for safety is met, then recovery can happen. That is a basic understanding of trauma recovery.
You make very valid points. However, screaming into an unanswering void is not where his healing will come. He will never receive the love and apology he wants from his father (in my opinion). What Charles owes Harry is irrelevant because Charles is not likely to change. Harry must be careful to not waste his one precious life on this.
I can understand how it may look like "screaming into an unanswering void," especially to those who haven’t lived through betrayal by the people entrusted to protect them. But I want to gently push back on that idea.
Others may perceive me the same way—as someone desperate for love or apologies from parents who may never offer either. But the truth is, I’ve accepted that they’re likely incapable or unwilling. I’m not speaking out because I expect them to change. I speak because someone else is listening.
I speak for those who feel alone in their grief. For those questioning their sanity because their families deny their reality. For those who need to know they’re not crazy for being hurt by dysfunction that gets covered in smiles and tradition. The truth is, many of us “scream” not into a void—but into a community of fellow survivors who find healing when someone finally says out loud what they’ve been carrying in silence.
It’s easy to dismiss Harry as entitled or self-centered when we reduce his story to a cry for paternal love. But what if his openness serves a purpose beyond reconciliation? What if he’s helping expose what’s long been hidden—systems where image is prized above truth, and power is protected at all costs? When fame, monarchy, and politics intertwine, the emotional cost becomes almost unbearable. That is not self-indulgence—it’s bravery.
Pain shared with purpose is never wasted. And I think that’s what he’s doing—using his voice to bring light to what’s been kept in darkness, even if the world isn’t ready to see it.
I think this is a very unique estrangement in that what Harry does and what Charles does, each involves approval from more than the family. They’re saddled with the approval of the British government and British people in the financial arena. They have been given huge amounts of money but that comes with the stipulation of at least appearing to be a model of propriety because they represent the country. I don’t know for sure, but at this point in history, the monarchy’s losing credibility with the people. So paying more money
for a member who chose to leave the ‘job’ may be a political issue & might be out of their hands.
This was so well said—thank you for writing it. As an adult child navigating the grief of emotionally unavailable parents, I often find myself stuck in that deep longing for love that never came in the way it should have. I think that longing is biologically ingrained…wanting our parents to love and accept us unconditionally isn’t weakness, it’s human.
What others sometimes see as “not moving on” is often just grief that has no timeline. There’s no linear path or predictable stages when it comes to mourning the absence of something so foundational. It’s especially hard when silence was expected growing up and speaking truth now gets mislabeled as resentment instead of healing.
But at some point, we face the hard choice…do we keep shrinking ourselves to accommodate their emotional limitations, or do we rise from the ashes and walk toward the future with clarity, peace, and self-worth? For me, the grief doesn’t disappear, but your article reminds me that it no longer has to define my path forward.
Thanks again for putting language to something so many of us carry silently.
Thank you for your kind words. Yes that is exactly what I feel with Harry. He is grieving and he is angry. Those emotions are valid. Ideally he will start to process and move through them to reach a place of gratitude for all the love he does have. His two children are a chance to start modelling how family can be.
Absolutely! Processing those emotions comes on our own time, not the expectations of others (parents, royalty, whatever). I am sure there will be a day where adult children accept that their parents are, for some strange reason, incapable of taking responsibility for harm and damage done to their relationship with their child. Until then, I feel parents should back off and give their children space to process this strange phenomenon, rather than guilting or shaming adult children to comply to their expectations. Thanks again for a well written article.
So well said.
Isn't that the point? He is trying to save his life. He is one of the highest targets for abduction in the world. His father is king. He is not covered by security trained and prepared at that level. The security he does have cannot be armed if he ever travels. He should be pushing for the right to have the same security as William. He isn't screaming into the void to get approval, he is screaming into the void to be safe. He did not choose to be Charles' son; Charles chose him to have a spare. It is Charles' responsibility to follow through and protect the children he chose to have. It isn't about screaming, it is about responsibility. No one else with family estrangment can begin to compare their own experience with Harry, or expect Harry to act like them. No one else has to worry about being an international target. Thinking that Harry is screaming into the void is too simplistic... and sorry, sounds a bit like victim shaming. As counselors we should be advocating that Harry is safe so he can overcome the trauma of parental rejection, not blaming him for talking about it. He is in crisis due to his father's abdication of his duty of care and all counselors know that trauma victims need to talk about their victimization. Who cares if anyone is tired of hearing about it. Harry needs to be heard and supported to get his safety. After his father makes sure he is physically safe no matter his job or where he lives, then everyone can talk about whether Harry should heal or not. Let's put the responsibility where it lies. Plus, Harry has done a lot of work with trained counselors. Physical safety is something else. Put yourself in his shoes... you have a high chance of being killed and the police tell you, " too bad, so sad." Should I tell you to move on? Or would that be a violation of professional ethics?
Please don’t confuse my comment with me not agreeing that he is traumatised and does need to feel safe.
My point is that he is communicating into a void. Charles is not going to give him the safety he wants. Not to mention, as was mentioned further up, there are bigger aspects at play such as the monarchy feeling vulnerable and keen to not be seen paying for a non-working family member.
When I say move on, I am not trying to shame him. I’m saying that he needs to not waste his life on a battle he cannot win. British security would never be provided to him in America, as a non-working royal. He therefore may have to accept not returning to the UK if he feels safer in America (which he seems to).
I don’t believe it’s accurate—or fair—to call Prince Harry’s efforts a “waste” or “communicating into a void.” On the contrary, he’s choosing to use his platform to raise awareness about patterns of harm, emotional neglect, and institutional dysfunction that extend far beyond his personal experience. This isn’t simply about grievance; it’s about illuminating broader systemic issues within elite power structures, including the royal family.
While reconciliation may not be the realistic outcome—particularly with someone like King Charles, who may be unwilling or unable to self-reflect—Harry’s public testimony still serves a purpose. Silence in the face of injustice perpetuates harm. By speaking out, he disrupts the longstanding tradition of covering up dysfunction in the name of image or duty.
If his goal is to bring hidden pain into the light and advocate for emotional truth, then we should consider the courage it takes to do so. Calling out mistreatment, even within one’s own family, is not shameful. It’s a vital act of integrity.
That's a very valid point and one I had not thought of. Thanks for sharing it.
Hear, hear!
I don't think I have confused your comment. I just think you have put the cart before the horse. People who haven't heard the interview don't know what he is asking for. And sorry, but if his father created him, then his father can pay for him regardless of where he is. Otherwise it is no different than a coercive cult that doesn't allow its members to be free to make their own decisions. Charles should have thought about his responsibilities long before having a spare. Harry should keep fighting to have his birthright. Additionally, Harry clearly was talking in the interview about the government providing security for people who chose to go into service rather than being born into service by their father. The government pays for their security long after they leave and regardless where they are. He didn't even mention his father until the interviewer asked if he wasn't angry that his father wouldn't intervene. That is when Harry said his father wasn't speaking to him. If his father ignores him, then he doesn't get an answer on the case by case idea. The whole interview was about the decision not to protect him from danger, not about his father. I think he has the right to continue to demand security, and that we should keep the focus on what this is about. Physical safety for a well known, international target who is a target because someone else chose that for him.
I completely understand your points and, obviously, I am not being his therapist here.
The point of my post is that he will not win in his approach to the government or his family. The court of appeal rejected his claim. The government will not intervene as it would be political suicide to do so. No one here in the UK will be happy to pay any additional costs for the royals when costs are being cut for disabled people, children and the elderly. It is too public for the government to override a court to spend money on Harry. His father, likewise, is terrified of weakening the monarchy by appearing to increase the cost of having them.
The withdrawal of met level security was an act of nuclear brinksmanship that no one is going to step back from.
On that basis, he could keep fighting but it would bankrupt him and waste his life. His only real options are to let it go and live a low profile life abroad or return to the royals and beg for their clemency.
Ultimately, of course his estrangement is different to most people. All estrangements are unique. The thread though is coming to a place of peace that some people are never going to say sorry or change.
I'm really sorry to hear that the people are willing to support a king that has allowed his child to be sacrificed, but won't support a young man who fought in Afghanistan for his people. It must be terrible to be that sort of people. I'm starting to wonder if the world witnessed a barrage of hypocrisy when Diana died. And, to be honest, I never thought her accident was anything other than an accident. But with Charles' actions in this, I'm beginning to reconsider. History won't remember Charles well, I'm afraid.
Annette, as a trauma survivor myself I’m just in awe of your words in standing up for the victims and survivors..,, the importance of safety for any genuine healing is often overlooked by even trauma-informed counselors… thanks for bringing your expertise into this conversation
My heart always bled for Harry, as a child and now a grown man. I hope someone can send this to him. He can only change himself. A life well-lived is indeed the best revenge.
A classic case of how the emotionally dysfunctional internal family systems (IFS) of a royal family is no different from any other family system with the same dysfunction. Harry must redefine himself and find love, acceptance and peace with his own nuclear family. He’s a man with a heart and soul and not succumbing to being an institutional robot.
Very insightful! I’ve yet to see anything written about how an estranged adult child is stuck in their own thought loop without any growth or ability to move forward- this is a prime example. Thank you.
Megan writes a very eloquent response below to this. However, I agree that there can be times when an adult child can get stuck in a grudge. The parent is trying to change and trying to be better but the child cannot move forwards.
I would say though that this is not a good example of that. I've seen no change or indications of rapprochement from Charles.
I agree the article was very insightful for both the adult child and estranged parent. And on the same end, both sides can get stuck in their own emotional loopholes. The adult child remains caught in the longing to have their very real, human unmet needs acknowledged at minimum, while the parent often wants unconditional acceptance without ever opening the door to honest reflection or repair. It’s a heartbreaking closed-loop circuit that only truth and humility can break. The problem is—who is called to raise whom in truth and humility? The child raising the parent, or the parent raising the child? Or another words, in a parent-child relationship, does repair come through the child meeting their parents needs, or the parent meeting their child’s needs? Maybe the answer lies in that very question.
This is a very insightful point. Ideally, a parent should be meeting a child's needs. A child does not exist to meet a parent's needs (in my view). However, it can be necessary to accept a parent's limitations. They may be incapable of change or improvement. In that situation (much like with Harry where Charles is incapable of change - by the looks of it), the child may be the only person capable of change. That change may be to accept the parent with their limitations and build a relationship with lessened expectations. Alternatively, the change may be to grieve and accept that the parent will not change and move forward in their life.
The decision will vary on a case by case basis. Where possible, low contact is always better than no contact, unless low contact is impossible without negatively impacting your current life. The priority must always be the well-being of your own children and partner.
I want to gently but clearly offer another perspective in response to the idea that “accepting a parent’s limitations” or opting for “low contact over no contact” is “always” preferable. While these statements may come from a place of compassion or a desire to understand, they can unintentionally place the burden of a damaging relationship on the one who was harmed…often the adult child.
In many cases involving abusive and unrepentant parents, no contact becomes not only necessary but the ONLY viable path toward wholeness, healing, and safety. It is not rooted in oversensitivity as people love to claim, but in deep awareness of behaviors that are spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically corrosive. Abuse often continues in covert, manipulative ways..even in one conversation.
There is a troubling cultural narrative that parents deserve unconditional respect and loyalty no matter how they behave or treat you. But ANY authority without accountability is dangerous. Suggesting that abused children should simply "accept their parents’ limitations" reframes a willful refusal to change as a fixed incapacity, and it shifts responsibility away from the ones who inflicted harm. We ALL have the ability to acknowledge when our actions have caused someone else pain. That’s not a limitation….it’s a choice. And as a verse says, “you reap what you sow.”
Certainly, parents are free to choose not to repent or change. But that choice comes with consequences including the loss of trust, closeness, and often relationship. Adult children who go no-contact are not rejecting love but prolonged and continuing harm. They are choosing to protect their own families from cycles of dysfunction and trauma.
This reality may be hard to grasp for those who had emotionally safe childhoods. But for many survivors of complex abuse, no-contact is not rebellion or “retaliation”…it’s survival.
I’m definitely in agreement that estrangement is the only option when the parent is abusive and where contact is detrimental to wellbeing.
My point was more where the parent is flawed and the child would on some levels like a relationship with them. In those instances, low contact enables the child to still have a relationship with the parent but significantly lower their expectations of what kind of parent the parent is capable of being in.
I would never recommend low contact if a parent has been clearly abusive or if they show no signs of regret at their behaviour.
Thank you for clarifying!