The coronation of King Charles III appears set to enter the metaverse. Its multiple possibilities — let’s say crowning contingencies — came into focus with the news that the palace is drawing up two sets of plans; one where the duke and duchess of Sussex attend, and another where they do not.

The bargaining Sussexes have precipitated a choose your own adventure moment for a monarchy aching for the straightforward. As the sacred hour when Charles is anointed approaches, his family appears closer to a royal mess than the (literally) backstabbing heirs of Alfred the Great.   

A Fleet Street tabloid, the Sun, relates that the palace is “trying to wrap up negotiations as quickly as possible because they can’t go right up to the wire. It could lead to chaos.” They add that “two schedules” are being organized, “one that includes the Sussexes and one that doesn’t.” Palace officials “want to be prepared for any eventuality.”

The Sun reports that the Sussexes have made their attendance contingent on a battery of demands. One request is for an acknowledgement that their son Prince Archie’s birthday is the same day as the coronation, May 6. His parents, according to the paper, “would like some kind of nod to that at a lunch or drinks reception. Even if it’s just a happy birthday mention.” Archie will be 4 in May, the same age the king was at his mother’s coronation.  

A publication called OK! adds that Prince Harry also reportedly wants a coveted spot on the balcony of Buckingham Palace, where in a climactic moment, senior royals stand and wave to their thronging subjects. He also reportedly has demanded an in-person confab with his father, the king, and his brother, Prince William, the prince of Wales. When the duke of Sussex was asked on television if he would attend the coronation, he said of his family that the “ball is in their court.” 

The London Times  reports that it glimpsed rehearsal plans for the coronation that do not include Harry and Meghan. The disgraced duke of York, Prince Andrew, banished to ignominy due to his friendship with the late Jeffrey Epstein, and his two daughters, princesses of the blood, were also absent. The duke of York is reportedly crestfallen that his brother — the king — has received the entirety of their mother’s personal estate, worth $782 million.

Prince Andrew and the Sussexes are now joined in another humiliation: The Sussexes have confirmed they’ve been ordered to vacate Frogmore Cottage, which was gifted to them by the queen. It has been reported that Prince Andrew has been ordered to vacate his residence, the vast Royal Lodge, and “downsize” to Frogmore. 

The youngest Sussexes, Archie and Lilibet, are likewise not on this rehearsal list, despite being two of only five grandchildren of the monarch. Only “working royals” are included, and relations between the Crown and the Sussexes are “tense,” according to OK!.   

Now to the row over the Sussexes’ security, something about which, as high-wattage Montecito celebrities, they are highly sensitive. The Telegraph reports that the duke is at odds with the Home Office as well as Buckingham Palace. The Office has requested 28 days of notice of a Sussex return to Britain to make the necessary security arrangements, which it could then honor or reject.

The prince is alleged to have responded with indignation, seeing in the parsimony regarding his family’s security a punishment for going his own way. His lawyers report that he is “gravely concerned about his safety and security during future trips to the U.K.” and that legal action is imperative “given the gravity of what is at stake for him and his family.”

If details of this discord have leaked, it is partially due to Harry’s own litigiousness. The fight between Prince Harry and his grandmother and father’s subjects surfaced at a hearing last week because of  a suit he has brought against Associated Newspapers Limited (which owns his and Meghan’s arch-enemy, the Daily Mail) over an article accusing the duke of lying about paying for his own security and attempting to keep the controversy secret. 

Court documents disclose that in March 2020 Prince Harry challenged the Home Office to  “provide an example of where someone else has left ‘public duty’ with the same threat assessment as me, and received no security.” He added, “I was born into this and the threat will never decrease because of my status regarding the family.”

The next month, in April 2020, Prince Harry penned an email to Sir Edward Young, the queen’s private secretary, in which he “made it clear we couldn’t afford private security until we were able to earn.” Prince Harry now argues in court that his family is “willing to cover the cost of security, as not to impose on the British taxpayer.”

His lawyers, in arguing that the British taxpayer should foot the Sussexes’ security bills, cite “hostile social media attention,” targeting by “violent extremists,” the “duchess of Sussex’s race,” and their “involvement in charitable and other social justice initiatives.” They claim that he “inherited a security risk at birth.” 

Harry’s concerns may be well-founded, as his recent admission in his book “Spare” that he dehumanized as “chess people” enemy soldiers he claims to have shot in Afghanistan could well have made him more of a target. He writes that “while in the heat of combat, I didn’t think of those 25 as people. You can’t kill people if you think of them as people.”

To prove the point, Prince Harry invokes none other than his late mother: Diana, the princess of Wales. He reports that his security arrangements for memorial events held in her honor in June 2021 were “patchy, disjointed, and inadequate.”

Just months before, the duchess of Sussex told Oprah Winfrey that after they “stepped back” from their royal duties, “we didn’t have a plan.” An invitation to crash at one of Tyler Perry’s homes and use his security detail “gave us breathing room to try to figure out what we were going to do.”