I guess it depends on the willingness to ignore personal values and biases.
And then being willing to address the taboo element of liking someone /something and then being able to point out the things which are a mistake.
It was unnecessary to create ''mystique'' around the fact that the RF members are Britain's unofficial trade and arms dealers on State level.
It was also unnecessary to create ''mystique'' around the fact that nothing comes from nothing and that even their own money wouldn't cover what is needed, so there is a necessity for fundraisers and donations.
But there always was the element (Charles more than other members) of claiming things as ''his.''
Regardless what it was, the hierarchy of the RF created problems by order of precedence which never allowed the ''lower member'' to outshine the ''higher member.''
There is nothing wrong with hierarchy, but I think it would have been better if the hierarchy applied only to official events and actions, rather than the manipulations of media time/exposure which was allowed/allocated to ''lower members,'' due to fear of ''overshadowing.''
It is universally believed that the ''popularity'' of certain members(ignoring their actions) is based on the hierarchy and is natural, in reality it is or better was, in the past based on suppression of the potential popularity of ''lower members'' to prevent the overshadowing of ''higher members.''
The above is also about Lady C's comment on Princess Michael whose negative reputation in the initial stages of her appearance on the RF stage, is a clever plot of well placed journalists, well placed lies and stories(things out of her control, example her fathers past) the fact that she was a magnificent public speaker (and someone much higher wasn't ) which was disliked, and that at a certain point a person does what I would also do:" Fuck it, it doesn't matter how well I do, so I'm going to retaliate and damage."
The above is relevant in the Harkles case, because everyone, myself included hasn't seen a single indicator of the above on Harry.
Harry however was there, he has seen it and is now using it for his own pursuit of fame and money.
And the RF now has a complicated problem, Harry being Charles son, and via the media the claimant of Diana's legacy, which basically can mean yet again(based on current patterns) that Harry gets away with everything, and its obvious how successful his strategy is, by observing the bashing of the other RF members for completely minor things or thing which are out of their control via cleverly placed ''journalism'' and ''sources."
Harry shits on the crown, his shills (or shills from his chosen country) declare Charles racist, shits on the RF, shits on his brother, he commits treason, and/or (breach of contract) leaving Royal duties, he uses the titles/status for self gain and promotion, the consequence ?
Charles is happy with his climate change work, and all that after 4 private jets in 11 days and shiting on Balmoral in favor of Ibiza in the media.
It's a failing strategy because even the other RF members are human, how many events, birthdays, anniversaries are needed to be destroyed, tarnished, hijacked and overshadowed before it impacts someone like Kate?
Where is the ''enough'' reaction?
Why the fear? Does the RF believe that William can't do without Harry?
Optics?
Charles will have Edward, who will be next to William mindset?
Blackmail ?
How many times before self defense?