I think the whole thing is quite interesting historically, regardless of whether I "like" or don't like any of the actors. It's the broad overview that's interesting.
There's no argument that Charles is coming in on the back foot. His moment may be at hand in practical terms, but on some other plane, his moment really has passed. I believe that from his catastrophically misconceived marriage has flowed outcomes that are reshaping the monarchy outside of social trends and shifts.
Had Charles made a happy marriage, I wonder if the Queen would have considered stepping aside for him 15 years earlier, citing infirmity and increasing frailty. But, apart from her own promise at eighteen, I believe that bringing Charles and Camilla in without giving Camilla time to earn at least the grudging respect of the public was a non-starter. It's taken nearly two decades for Camilla just to reach this point.
I also think Camilla Tominey's article in the Telegraph a couple of days ago, with a marked shift toward Harry (but not Meghan) suggests that she's gotten talking points from the Palace, a balloon raised to test the waters. Tominey's apparent softening of her previously ruthless reporting on both Sussexes seems capricious, at best. Most interestingly, Tominey leaves the Bitch Meghan flag fluttering in the breeze, but cunningly raises the Poor Harry banner.
The column contains some remarkably and unintentionally hilarious lines, one referring to Harry's "brilliance" as a soldier: a characterisation that no one, anywhere, has ever asserted, least of all the COs who had to babysit him. He couldn't even pass the major's exam.
The other interesting bit is that the column appears to want to highlight the Harry's Here, She's Not visual of the upcoming grand event. It's a not too subtle whisper that if only Harry would unload the Bitch, he might be welcomed back.
Whether that hints at some other whispers Tominey got from the Palace is anyone's guess.
But, at a minimum, the column also confirms something else which is visually symbolised by Meghan not attending the coronation (please, spare us the bilge about the four year old's birthday party): the only way Harry gets back in is without Meghan.
Also interesting is Charles' attempts to de-Christianise this ceremony, giving in to the impulse to universality that, ironically, undermines the very source of his kingship, which is based in a particularity: the relationship of Sovereign to People, like the marriage service between two people, is meant to symbolise the relationship between Christ and His Church.
Islam, by the way, utterly rejects the "knowability" of God/Allah, which is precisely what Christ represents: the Word being made Flesh and walking amongst us.
Having prayers read in Westminster Abbey as the King is anointed with holy oil by the Archbishop of Canterbury is another sort of betrayal, if one cares about that.
Islam is succeeding because it isn't interested in "universality" except the kind where every human on earth worships Allah. Islam clings to its particularity and, thus, is now the fastest growing religion in Britain and much of the rest of the West.
People don't join a club for "universality": they join it specifically for particularity.
I don't point it out as a believing Christian, but as someone watching a historic unravelling, as Charles undermines, I'm sure with the best intentions, the very foundation of his position.