Thanks
@LadyMuck 
The media are circling like sharks with ridiculous stories, like the Stoat might have gone to Sandringham but the aides wouldn't have been able to get rid of him. Total BS, the Stoat and his bodyguard both had small items of luggage for an overnight stay.
Chuck gets what he wants and will not be told by aides.
Talk of the Stoat stepping up to help with royal duties is rubbish, and the Stoat did not suggest this at all, just saying that he'd visit the UK and see his family in the future. The visit to his father was PR so that he could tell Reeves he'd seen him. It was all planned and executed.
We're seeing a lot of William blocking the Stoat's return, there's no role for him and no way back etc. He has every right to say this, and has more common sense than his father, the Privy Council and Parliament put together. He's quite correct that there can be no return for his brother.
The Stoat's father has been too soft on him.
The Stoat has slandered and libelled the senior royals. What are the legal consequences of this? He's also guilty of high treason or petty treason, the former carrying a sentence of 79 years. BookWorm explained the difference between libel and slander, and the different laws in the US and the UK. It wouldn't be worth suing the Stoats in court, and would result in more hate mail.
However, it is unfair that the Sussexes have got away with slander and libel.
All the king had to do was discipline the Stoat, but he didn't.
BookWorm will investigate in part 2 the reasons for the constitutional lack of action. Or the constitutional reasons for the lack of action, I can't remember which.
