AMANDA PLATELL: The King will betray every one of his loyal subjects if he gives in to Harry’s latest request. Charles, if you fall for this squalid ploy we may never forgive you… especially given the cynical reasons behind it
Daily Mail columnist Amanda Platell has urged King Charles to reject Prince Harry's invitation to join him at the 2027 Invictus Games in Birmingham, arguing that accepting would betray the monarch's loyal supporters. The intervention follows reports that Harry, hoping his father will attend, is presenting the invite as an "olive branch" weeks after Charles reunited with grandchildren Archie and Lilibet at Highgrove for the first time in four years.
Platell dismisses the invitation as a "cynical ploy" designed to boost Harry and Meghan's public profile rather than a genuine reconciliation, arguing that photographs of the King alongside his son would generate far more media attention than Harry appearing alone. She contrasts this with the global coverage of Charles's State Visit to Washington DC in April, and recalls how Harry and Meghan's public criticisms of the Royal Family — including allegations of racism made to Oprah Winfrey — caused distress to the late Queen and, in her view, should not be forgiven so easily.
- Columnist Amanda Platell urges King Charles to reject Harry's Invictus Games invite
- She calls the 2027 Birmingham invitation a "cynical ploy" for publicity, not reconciliation
- Piece recalls past Harry/Meghan criticisms of the monarchy as reasons to stay wary
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those urging the King to welcome Harry's approach argue that reconciliation between a father and son is inherently worthwhile, particularly as Charles's health places renewed urgency on resolving family rifts before it is too late. They contend that rejecting an olive branch, whatever its timing or motive, risks deepening a public rupture that pains the wider family, including Harry's children, and that mending ties privately need not be read as endorsing past grievances. On this view, grace and patience from the monarch model the values of forgiveness the institution claims to represent.
The case against
Those urging caution argue that the King has institutional duties beyond his personal feelings, and that repeatedly accepting gestures from Harry after previous public criticisms of the family risks appearing weak or easily manipulated, especially if the timing coincides with commercial ventures or media appearances. They contend that trust must be rebuilt through consistent actions rather than symbolic gestures, and that granting concessions too readily could be seen as rewarding behaviour that caused genuine hurt to other family members, undermining the monarchy's dignity and the loyalty of those who have stood by it.