SRS, you misunderstand me. By "beforehand" I did not mean the relationship (although her lack of curiosity is a little surprising) but the interview itself. If you are going to use an interview which will be broadcast to millions around the world to complain that your son has been denied the title of prince, surely it would be wise to check beforehand that he was entitled to it in the first place, and secondly to check whether that would then have entitled him to be provided with security, if that is her real concern?

In fact she did let slip that she was aware of the protocol which means he is not a prince, but I suspect many people missed that as she had already got her point accross. She then suggested that he might still be denied the title when Charles becomes king, but if that is true it is probably refers to Charles' wider plan to slim down the royal family, which reports suggest was triggered by Andrew's disgrace rather than being directed at her, and which reports also suggest has been undermined by the Sussexes' departure, since they apparently were to play a key part.

She seems to be asking that an exception be made for her son despite them having resigned from their royal roles. Instead the message she put across was that they are being treated unfairly, with the implication that it is because of her race.