In a life-altering moment in 2022, Sophia Maddox answered a phone call that shattered her perception of her family’s history and launched her on a quest for truth about an infamous figure in American crime.

At the age of 22, Maddox was based in Los Angeles, chasing her dreams of becoming a filmmaker and actress while balancing a variety of odd jobs to cover her living expenses. Meanwhile, her father, Daniel Arguelles, was deep in his own journey of self-discovery, determined to uncover details about his biological father. Raised by his mother and stepfather, Arguelles had finally found a clue about his real dad’s identity, leading him to make an unexpected revelation to Maddox.

“He revealed he might have discovered his father’s identity, and warned that if true, it was extremely dark,” Maddox shared with News Media. “My dad hesitated, questioning if I was ready to hear it. He’s never been a person prone to darkness. So his warning meant it had to be something significantly dark. I asked him to just spill the beans.”

“‘Is it Ted Bundy?'” Maddox remembered wondering aloud during the conversation. “He replied, ‘No, think bigger. Think of a major movie and its renowned director.’ My mind flashed to ‘Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood,’ and then it clicked. The name that echoed in both the film and reality: Charles Manson.”

Maddox immediately Googled Manson’s name. The resemblance, she said, was uncanny.

“I thought to myself, ‘That’s my dad,'” Maddox said. “It was a really devastating day.”

Maddox’s journey after learning that Manson was her grandfather is chronicled in the Hulu documentary “My Grandfather Charles Manson.” In it, she meets people who had direct connections to Manson, including some of his former followers, to better understand her family history.

“It was cathartic,” Maddox said. “I’m a filmmaker before I found out who my grandfather is. And my life got uprooted from this. I had something to say at that moment, and I couldn’t bottle it up.”

Arguelles submitted his DNA to Ancestry in 2015, hoping to identify his father and finally answer a question that had followed him for decades. He had long suspected the man who raised him was not his biological father and confronted his mother about his paternity when he was 21.

Years passed, and Arguelles had nearly given up when he matched with Michael Brunner. DNA testing confirmed they were half-brothers. Brunner is Manson’s son with Mary Brunner, one of Manson’s earliest followers, People magazine reported.

Maddox described herself and her father as “normal, working-class citizens.”

“We have no prior records or anything criminal,” Maddox said. “We grew up as artists. My dad showed me the movies he made and his modeling photos of him photographed by Richard Avedon. So of course, when you learn that someone like Manson is your grandfather, it’s normal to wonder, ‘Am I that too?’ People have asked me, ‘Were you afraid that you inherited evil, that you were evil?’ But my dad and I are very normal, hardworking people.”

Manson, who was convicted of orchestrating the 1969 murders of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and six others in Los Angeles, died in 2017. He was 83 and serving a life sentence.

A petty criminal who had been in and out of jail since childhood, the charismatic, guru-like Manson surrounded himself in the 1960s with runaways and other lost souls, The Associated Press reported. According to the outlet, he then sent his disciples to butcher some of the rich and famous in what prosecutors said was a bid to trigger a race war — an idea he got from a twisted reading of the Beatles song “Helter Skelter.”

Despite the overwhelming evidence against him, Manson maintained that he was innocent and that society itself was guilty.

A horrified Arguelles resisted learning more about his biological father. Maddox wanted to dig deeper into her grandfather’s past. She said she was less interested in the mythology surrounding Manson and more interested in how he became the man America came to fear.

Manson was born in 1934 to teenage Kathleen Maddox. His biological father was absent, and his mother married William Manson, whose surname Charles took. After that marriage ended, his mother was sent to prison for her role in a robbery, and Manson went to live with relatives. By his teens, he was stealing, running away and bouncing through juvenile institutions.

He eventually was sent to the Indiana Boys School. Manson later said he was beaten and sexually assaulted while locked up as a juvenile. His troubles continued into adulthood, with repeated prison sentences for crimes including theft and forgery.

By the time Manson was released from federal prison in 1967 at age 32, he had spent roughly half his life behind bars or in juvenile institutions.

In the film, Maddox examined previously unreleased records that shed light on Manson’s troubled childhood.

“I heard about my dad’s abuse as a child from a reform school and from his own parents,” she explained. “My dad’s was really bad, but that was the ’70s. Imagine what it was like back in the ’40s or ’50s. It was shocking how bad they treated boys in these reform schools. the juvenile justice expert we spoke to said that Manson’s experience at Indiana was not singular. Manson’s story was not exceptional. That’s how they learned their lessons in survival.”

GET REAL-TIME UPDATES DIRECTLY ON THE 

“I think the biggest shock for me was how Manson’s decision-making as an adult in his 30s can really stem from the survival mechanisms he learned from his childhood in these prisons,” she added.

Maddox said she was disturbed to learn that Manson, who had been institutionalized for offenses including running away and theft, was housed alongside older juveniles with violent records.

“I was shocked to read that he was imprisoned with kids who had murdered people,” Maddox said. “And he was there for running away from home, stealing a bike or stealing a car. But so many boys, older kids with violent records, were placed there. And what does a kid have to do to survive a place like that? It breaks my heart.”

Arguelles, born in 1959, learned that he was the result of a brief relationship between his mother, Darlene Arguelles, and Manson, who was using the alias “Charlie Dear” at the time, People magazine reported.

But as Maddox dug deeper into the family’s past, the search that initially brought father and daughter together began pulling them apart.

Maddox said she and her father had a falling out one week before production on the documentary began. Arguelles had previously sat for an interview and encouraged his daughter to make the film, but she said confronting his biological father’s past ultimately became too painful.

“I have a little more distance from Manson because I am the grandchild, but that’s his father,” Maddox said. “And he’s shared similar experiences in childhood as him. And my dad is a very sensitive person. [But] he was curious. He wanted answers. He wanted me to make this film. But then at the same time, it was all too much.”

“I don’t know if he’s seen the film,” Maddox said. “He hasn’t reached out. So I’m just sitting back and respecting his wishes until he reaches back out.”

“I still support Sophia and I’m very proud of her,” Arguelles told News Media. “I believe the falling out between us came from a difference of opinion on the overall narrative. That’s really all I can say at this point.”

The Manson Family slaughtered five of its victims on Aug. 9, 1969, at Tate’s home: the actress, who was 8½ months pregnant, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, celebrity hairdresser Jay Sebring, Polish screenwriter Wojciech (Voityck) Frykowski and Steven Parent, a friend of the estate’s caretaker. Tate’s husband, “Rosemary’s Baby” director Roman Polanski, was out of the country at the time.

The next night, a wealthy grocer and his wife, Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, were stabbed to death in their home across town.

After a trial that lasted nearly a year, Manson and three followers — Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten — were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Another defendant, Charles “Tex” Watson, was convicted and sentenced to death later. Their sentences were commuted to life in prison after the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s death penalty in 1972.

Atkins died of cancer in prison in 2009 at age 61. Van Houten was released on parole in 2023. Krenwinkel and Watson are still behind bars.

Maddox said she reached out to the victims’ loved ones during filming.

“I’m in talks with two relatives at the moment,” Maddox said. “And I’ll just say every experience I’ve had with them has been very lovely. They were very kind to me. They understood why I am telling this story. … I’m not the only person looking for answers.”

Maddox said examining the forces that shaped Manson was never about absolving him of his crimes.

“My intention is never to apologize or justify for anybody’s actions,” she said. “I know what my grandfather did.”

Maddox said understanding Manson’s past wasn’t about excusing his crimes but about understanding what shaped him — and potentially preventing future violence.

In the film, Maddox also explained her decision to change her surname.

“My dad and I were always trying to find a last name that resonated with us,” she said. “I spent a year or two investigating my family and re-looked the name ‘Maddox.’ And when I Googled it, it meant ‘goodness.’ My blood name means goodness. I’m going to own it. That’s mine. I’m giving it new life.”

New revelations have emerged concerning a father and son implicated in a significant drug operation at Penn State, as both have tangled with the law prior to these charges, The Post has uncovered.

Thomas Robinson, a 23-year-old student affiliated with Delta Upsilon fraternity, is facing charges alongside several of his peers. His father, 59-year-old Paul Robinson, who has also been indicted, adds another layer to the intricate case.

In a previous incident, Paul Robinson, a well-known attorney from Pittsburgh, faced DUI charges in 2024. According to court documents, he was stopped by law enforcement in May, revealing a blood-alcohol level that exceeded twice the legal threshold.

Although Paul Robinson chose to waive his right to a preliminary hearing, resulting in the closure of the case, the court files remain silent on the final outcome of his legal entanglement.

His son, Thomas, nicknamed “T-Rob,” is no stranger to trouble himself. In the fall of 2024, he was apprehended for defacing property on the university campus. Ultimately, he admitted guilt to the vandalism charges and settled the matter by paying a $480 penalty.

The younger Robinson also faced drug-dealing allegations in December 2024 — a case his father referenced in a since-deleted Facebook post this week while defending his son.

Here is the latest on the Penn State frat cocaine ring:

“I don’t understand why my son who has done everything possible to move on and upward from this terrible mistake almost two years ago now had this re-raised,” he wrote.

“I promise I tried only to do what was right and lawful at all times.”

Now the father himself is charged with felony tampering, hindering apprehension, concealing evidence and obstructing the investigation into the alleged fraternity cocaine ring.

His attorney, Michael DeRiso, has claimed Robinson did not know the safe he allegedly hid contained cocaine and cash.

Robinson maintains that he was given the safe while cleaning out his son’s frat room in December 2024 after he was arrested.

“My client didn’t know what was in the safe,” his lawyer, Michael DeRiso, said. “He did not take cocaine and flush it down the toilet to protect his son.”

In a bold statement, Donald Trump declared that he views the Strait of Hormuz as ‘an American territory,’ even as the Iranian President pleads for an end to the ongoing conflict.

The reopening of this strategic waterway has become a pivotal aspect of Trump’s strategy to conclude the war in Iran, which is fast approaching its six-month milestone.

Trump articulated his stance on the Strait during a rally for Senator Darline Graham in South Carolina, clearly conveying his position.

He recounted how the United States had decisively halted Iran’s nuclear aspirations, asserting that Tehran is now eager to negotiate a pact.

‘They are so keen to strike a deal, and yet, we’re uncertain of our interest because, to me, the Strait of Hormuz is essentially American territory right now. It’s an American territory,’ Trump stated confidently.

Earlier Friday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said in public remarks that he believes it would be ‘better to end the war today while we are in a position of strength and dignity.’

Pezeshkian claimed that Tehran made zero ‘concessions’ to the US when it signed a memorandum of understanding with Trump in June. 

However, Iranians are dealing with a worsening cost of living crisis due to the country’s inability to export oil, The Financial Times reported. 

Trump warned Thursday he will launch a campaign to crush Iran’s economy and threatened ‘tremendous’ punishment on any country that does business with Tehran. 

The impact of the US attack that killed Ayatollah Khamenei is still there, as an Iranian Shiite cleric said Friday that they still smell ‘burned flesh’ near the ex-supreme leader’s compound. 

‘Our leader had a frail body, but contrary to reports that seven or eight bombs were dropped on the site, they hit the Supreme Leader’s compound with 110 bombs and missiles,’ he told Iranian media. 

‘Someone told me that when you go near the Supreme Leader’s compound, you can still smell burned flesh. I went there myself and found it was true — you can still smell burned flesh,’ the cleric said at a gathering of supporters in Tehran’s Tajrish Square.

Trump issued his latest threat on Wednesday night, writing on Truth Social: ‘Today, I am announcing the MOST CRUSHING ECONOMIC OPERATION EVER TAKEN AGAINST ANY COUNTRY! This will be Economic Warfare and Isolation on an unprecedented scale.

‘ANY country that allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports, or government entities to provide any type of lifeline to Iran will itself face TREMENDOUS Economic Consequences.’

The President did not specify what punishment countries would face, and none other than Iran were mentioned by name.

He listed several activities that he said need to stop immediately: ‘oil smuggling, swap lines, cash transfers, exchange houses, ship registries, front companies’.

The intensified economic pressure campaign comes as the war nears its sixth month with no immediate diplomatic or military off-ramp in sight and the vital Strait of Hormuz still significantly choked-off. 

With November elections quickly approaching, the President is facing renewed domestic scrutiny over the war’s costs on US consumers and toll on the military.

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, said in response that Trump’s plan was simply a ‘diversion’ from the US’ own crisis. 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had similarly said last week that the US would soon be ramping up efforts at economically isolating Iran, as part of a two-pronged approach with a US naval blockade. 

‘It will be a combination of economic isolation, like the world has never seen before,’ Bessent told conservative television network Newsmax.

The US Treasury has for months been carrying out an effort, dubbed Operation Economic Fury, aiming to cut off Iran’s funding with targeted sanctions. 

Iran has struck a defiant tone, having survived months of US military operations that failed to bring a decisive end to the war. 

The conflict broke out on February 28 with US-Israeli attacks on the Islamic republic, which retaliated with missile and drone strikes across the region.

Tehran’s missile and drone threat has severely curtailed shipping traffic through the Strait, as a framework US-Iran deal to reopen it collapsed. 

In recent days, both sides have said messages were being exchanged, however Trump on Tuesday insisted talks were off and posted a message on social media suggesting the strait could be a ‘NEW US Territory.’

On Tuesday, the UAE announced that it was suspending all economic dealings with Iran after saying it had been targeted by two ballistic missiles.

The neighbors across the Gulf share deep cultural and historical ties, and the UAE – home to a sizable Iranian community – had been a major trading partner for US-sanctioned Iran, at least before the war.

‘We need all of our Allies to stand with the United States of America to isolate, and defeat, the Iran threat,’ Trump said Wednesday on Truth Social.

One year after the tragic stabbing of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on a light-rail train in Charlotte, North Carolina, a series of violent incidents involving individuals with lengthy arrest histories has intensified discussions on public safety across the state.

This anniversary coincides with the North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police (NCFOP) endorsing Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Michael Whatley. Their endorsement reflects ongoing concerns about repeat offenders, the effectiveness of bail practices, and broader support for law enforcement initiatives.

Zarutska, who was 23 at the time, was on board Charlotte’s Lynx Blue Line on August 22, 2025, when she was fatally attacked. Authorities reported that Decarlos Brown Jr. approached her from behind, stabbing her three times with a knife before exiting the train.

Decarlos Brown Jr., aged 34, has been deemed mentally unfit to face trial in both state and federal proceedings concerning this case.

Zarutska’s killing helped prompt North Carolina’s Iryna’s Law, which tightened bail rules and increased oversight of defendants considered a risk to public safety.

NCFOP President Chet Effler told News Media the union’s roughly 6,000 members backed Whatley over concerns about repeat offenders, bail policies and support for law enforcement.

“We have lost accountability in this country,” Effler said. “There’s no reason to be soft on crime whenever you have victims who are going to be victims of those crimes for years to come.”

Effler also pointed to the arrest of Charlotte man Di-Quan Schafar Hunt as an example of what he described as a recurring failure to hold repeat offenders accountable.

Hunt, 32, had been arrested on charges at least nine times since 2023, records show. Charlotte-Mecklenburg police said they arrested him after officers responding to an attempt-to-locate call were shown a social-media account containing videos detectives had already been investigating.

Police said one video was tied to a July 30 assault in which Hunt allegedly punched a woman on a Charlotte sidewalk before fleeing. The woman suffered serious but non-life-threatening injuries, authorities said.

Hunt’s record includes a December 2025 case involving charges of assault with a deadly weapon, communicating threats, second-degree trespass and two counts of carrying a concealed weapon. The booking record does not describe the underlying allegations or identify an alleged victim.

Records also list a September 2025 simple assault charge and a March 2025 charge of assault on a female. In 2024, Hunt was arrested in cases involving alleged violations of a domestic-violence protective order, breaking or entering and injury to personal property. He is a felon with at least six additional misdemeanor convictions in Mecklenburg County.

“You can’t hug your way out of crime,” Effler said. “You have to hold people accountable.”

Brown’s case and Hunt’s arrest are among several recent North Carolina crimes that have sharpened the debate over repeat offenders, bail and law enforcement resources.

In Jacksonville, DoorDash driver and mother of three Christen Phillips suffered skull fractures, brain bleeds and a fractured cheekbone after authorities said a man followed her and attacked her with a bat during an Aug. 1 delivery.

The Onslow County Sheriff’s Office said Phillips had honked at another driver while stopped at an intersection. Authorities said the driver, identified as 44-year-old Stanley Shockley, followed Phillips to a delivery stop and allegedly attacked her as she returned to her car.

Phillips was able to drive herself to a hospital after the attack. Shockley was charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury.

The public-safety concerns have also reached western North Carolina, where Asheville officials have described a series of deadly incidents involving young people as retaliatory violence but have resisted calling the activity gang-related.

Effler criticized that approach, arguing that officials must be candid about the nature of violent crime before they can address it.

“A criminal gang is a gang, I don’t care how old they are,” Effler said. “You have to address it.”

In Charlotte, another repeat offender, 29-year-old David Simpson, was charged with killing a man hours after his release on bond, renewing scrutiny of pretrial-release decisions.

Effler said people with repeated arrests for violent or assault-related offenses should not be allowed to cycle through the justice system without meaningful consequences.

North Carolina has also faced deadly shootings recently, outside its larger cities. In Winston-Salem, two people were killed and several others were wounded after what police said was a planned fight between juveniles that escalated into a shooting near a middle school.

Authorities said multiple people exchanged gunfire at Leinbach Park, near Jefferson Middle School. Some of those involved were juveniles, police said.

The shooting was not at the school, the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation said, but it underscored concerns over violent disputes that law-enforcement groups say have spread into communities across the state.

Effler said the cases involve different defendants and circumstances but reflect the same broader failure to hold dangerous offenders accountable before more people are harmed.

Effler also accused former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, Whatley’s opponent in the U.S. Senate race, of supporting cashless bail as governor.

“Cashless bail puts people on the streets that will arbitrarily walk up, like this Charlotte case and women getting assaulted and getting a video done,” Effler said. “You cannot allow a criminal to not be held accountable.”

A Cooper campaign spokesperson disputed Effler’s claim, telling News Media the former governor “oppos[ed] cashless bail while signing stricter bail laws and putting rapists and violent criminals behind bars.”

The campaign cited Cooper’s signing of the Pretrial Integrity Act, which tightened bail requirements for certain violent offenses and repeat defendants. It also said it returned the NCFOP’s endorsement questionnaire on Aug. 10, disputing Effler’s statement that the union had not received a response.

In a news release announcing the endorsement, Whatley said he was “honored” to receive the NCFOP’s backing and pledged to support law enforcement if elected. News Media has reached out to Whatley’s campaign for additional comment.

Effler said Whatley has committed to back the Protect and Serve Act, the HALO Act and other measures the union believes would provide officers with greater protection and resources.

“Michael Whatley has committed to the things that we believe in,” Effler said. “He’ll support actions that doesn’t defund law enforcement from doing the professional job that we need to do.”

In an unexpected twist, Californians, often stereotyped for their penchant for frappuccinos and progressive politics, have emerged as the nation’s most confident contenders in a hypothetical brawl with a professional UFC fighter. According to a recent survey, California tops the list of states where residents are most convinced they could either survive or best a UFC athlete in combat.

A surprising 25% of respondents from the Golden State confidently claim they could endure a punch from a UFC heavyweight without buckling. This bold assertion highlights a disconnect between confidence and reality — one that may prompt head-scratching across the nation.

The study, conducted by EsportsGG and surveying 2,000 adults across the United States, posed two intriguing questions. Participants were asked whether they believed they could withstand a direct hit from a UFC fighter without being knocked out and whether they could deliver a knockout blow themselves if granted the first punch.

Californians led the “fighting confidence” ranking, with 25% affirming their ability to take a punch, surpassing the national average of 13.7%. This data reveals a striking level of self-assuredness among those from the West Coast.

The audacity continues with 26.8% of Californians believing they could deliver a knockout blow to a UFC fighter with an unchallenged first hit. This unabashed self-belief paints a picture of a state willing to punch above its weight — quite literally.

Lee Mitchell, a personal trainer who has worked with professional MMA fighters, explained why the results show just how off the mark California’s veggie-happy fruit loops’ opinions of their own strength — along with anyone who thinks they can survive a power-packed blow from a champ — really are.

“A UFC heavyweight’s punch isn’t just about power, it’s about how fast and precisely it’s delivered,” Mitchell said. “Most people have never taken a real punch in their life, let alone one from someone whose entire career is built around years of training in ways to hurt you efficiently.”

He compared the experience of enduring such a blow to “stepping in front of a moving car.”

Nevada came in second with 21.7% believing they could take the hit, with another 17.4% thinking they could knock out a pro fighter if given the first punch.

Texas placed third, with 18.2% confident they could withstand the punch and 21.8% believing they could deliver a knockout blow.

Georgia followed at 17.9%, ahead of Colorado at 15.2%, Arizona at 15.1%, North Carolina at 14.9%, Washington at 14%, New York at 13.9% and Louisiana at 12.8%.

Michigan proved considerably more realistic with only 7.1% willing to step into the imaginary Octagon.

The remaining states seemed to have their heads on straight — not enough answering “yes” to even rank.

In Prince Harry’s recent unanticipated return to Britain, one cannot miss the shadow cast by a significant figure. This return was marked by a masterstroke of both surprise and boldness.

Prince Harry is unwavering in his belief that, irrespective of potential fallout, this decision was imperative.

The enduring presence behind Harry’s actions is none other than Princess Diana. Her legacy shines brightly for him, especially as both Harry and Prince William prepare to commemorate the 30th anniversary of her untimely demise next year.

For Harry, the passage of time seems only to strengthen his mother’s influence. The daring nature and strategic timing of his announcement were deftly crafted to captivate the nation and jolt his family from their peaceful summer respite at Balmoral.

This evokes memories of Diana’s discreetly recorded interview with BBC’s Panorama, a moment that, even after 31 years, continues to send ripples through the Royal Family.

Harry gave his father three days’ notice of his and Meghan’s intentions to relocate from California. 

Diana announced news of her interview eight days after it had been shot and a week before its screening. It blindsided everyone.

For both mother and son, each announcement was a fait accompli, not subjects for discussion but matters of fact.

Here, too, Harry, like Diana, has made another calculation – but in the Duke of Sussex’s case it is infinitely riskier.

It is the issue of forgiveness and that for all his past mistakes he can rely on the British public’s sense of fair play – or at least mercy.

Diana escaped unscathed from the Panorama fiasco, despite massive establishment anger over her airing of dirty laundry in general and her criticism of her then husband Prince Charles’s ability to become an effective monarch.

It barely dented her image, and her popularity – especially among women – soared with a public who identified with her dramatic account of how her marriage had been destroyed by the presence of Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles, now the Queen.

Like Harry, the princess also collaborated with a tell-all book, about the unhappiness of her life with Charles and difficulties with being a member of the Royal Family.

Again, whatever the truth of the matter, the public sided with a young woman they judged had been cruelly treated by cold and hostile in-laws.

There are, however, some essential differences that Harry would be wise to consider. Diana never broke with the royals and, whatever her frustrations about public duty, continued to be a much-valued and effective working member of the family.

Harry quit and was scathing about the country and institution he walked away from. His and Meghan’s departure was littered with accusations of racism and resentment with attacks that blighted the last months of the lives of both of the prince’s grandparents, the Queen and Prince Philip.

Was Harry’s head turned during his brief visit to Britain in July when he impressed during engagements with a public that was briefly swayed by his natural charm, a reminder of the carefree pre-Meghan days? 

Until this point, both his and Meghan’s popularity had been on the floor, with approval ratings only marginally better than the disgraced former Prince Andrew.

Remember too, that however deep her dissatisfaction with the royals, Diana did not make ad hominem attacks on wider family members as Harry has.

The rift between Harry and William is deeper and strategically more damaging for the monarchy than any of Diana’s quarrels, which largely were patched up.

One other key factor is the lack of any sign of regret from Harry. He may see himself as the returning prodigal son but without any measure of repentance, that return looks distinctly shaky.

For her part, Diana did have regrets and admitted mistakes. She acknowledged she went too far in some of her remarks to reporter Martin Bashir, an interview, remember, that we now know she was tricked into.

It is not just the confessional of the book and broadcasting where Harry is following his mother’s footsteps, but also in her unpredictability. 

The princess had an uncanny ability to divine the public mood on matters of national importance. Her decision to attend a Remembrance Sunday service in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, six years after the IRA’s Poppy Day bomb killed 11 people, was just such a moment.

She and Charles had visited the town in the aftermath of the 1987 attack, and she kept up a long correspondence with the families of the victims of terror and of other tragedies. And she chose unfashionable causes to champion.

But while this guaranteed her huge support, it did not make her popular within the Royal Family, whom she was repeatedly accused of upstaging. This eventually was to chip away at her confidence.

I understand that Harry has told friends he feels his late mother’s presence, that she is guiding him and that she comes to him.

This undoubtedly is affecting. Diana’s death has cast a long shadow over Harry’s life and the poignancy of him following the coffin at her funeral, aged 12, is seared into the national memory.

But Harry is not the sole custodian of the princess’s legacy. It is shared with William. He too, overwhelmed by sadness, was part of that funeral party. Both brothers have acknowledged their mother in aspects of their lives. 

Their daughters Charlotte and Lilibet share Diana as a middle name; their wives wear her jewellery; and their Spencer family cousins are woven into their lives as godmothers to their children.

Weddings and christenings have included references to the mother they lost. And both princes continue to cite her influence. But Harry is far more public about it and has sought ownership of that legacy in a way William never has.

Should Harry now attempt to stake further claims on his mother’s inheritance it is unlikely to be welcomed by William.

Rumours abound that part of the reason for Harry coming home concern his plans – thought to be well advanced – to make a documentary about Diana for screening next year. Friends and family have been approached but it is not clear whether they include William or indeed whether he would even consider it.

Ten years ago, the brothers joined forces to contribute to two documentaries on their mother for the 20th anniversary of her death. The idea of co-operating together on such a project today seems scarcely credible.

So, can there ever be a reconciliation? William was outraged by the claims of racism which, according to Harry and Meghan, had sprung from family discussions about the likely skin colour of their unborn son Archie. 

Claims which were broadcast to the world in the Sussexes’ Oprah interview. The brothers are not thought to have spoken for four years. 

When they were forced to come together – with Catherine and Meghan – to meet wellwishers at Windsor after Queen Elizabeth’s death, the Princess of Wales confided to a family member that it was the ‘hardest thing’ she’d ever had to do.

No wonder William looked grim-faced as he emerged at the wheel of a car at Balmoral yesterday. If anyone has been blindsided, it is him and Kate. 

With talk of a rival court emerging around his brother, William has every reason to fear that all the work he has done to stabilise the monarchy in the wake of both Megxit and the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor scandal may be disrupted.

Can he rely on assurances that there will be no gradual return to public duties by the Sussexes? And what about red carpet events? With Meghan apparently set on resuming her acting career, there will surely be glamorous public-facing engagements that could diminish coverage of his and Kate’s working lives.

Then there is the crucial issue of trust. William needs to be certain that private family matters are not leaked to US networks and Sussex-friendly magazines.

Despite the public notion of a Royal Family doing everything together, they lead largely separate, self-contained lives, only coming together on set-piece occasions.

And one is already looming. What will happen at Christmas? Having been deprived of the company of his Sussex grandchildren for years, the King will surely want them at Sandringham. Don’t be surprised if William exercises his right to spend this Christmas with his Middleton in-laws.

At the same time, Harry may be inclined to take another page out of his mother’s playbook. 

After her separation from Charles, Diana spent the bare minimum of time with the Royal Family at such gatherings, arriving late on Christmas Eve and leaving after church on Christmas Day. Time – just – for her to see the joy on her sons’ faces when they opened their presents.

For Charles, Harry’s homecoming may be mixed: thrilled to have his entire family back in Britain but wary too. He has found the family breach sad and exhausting. As he told a friend: ‘My mother had 70 years to look after her family, I don’t have that luxury.’

No one knows more about the vicariousness of popularity than the King. As Prince of Wales, he was mercilessly criticised for his treatment of Diana and lampooned for his cranky views. But as King he has become a much-loved figure.

‘He will have told Harry that we in Britain will forgive and forget,’ says one close figure. ‘Don’t forget he too wrote a book criticising his parents, made a television programme, and admitted adultery. All that now is in the past.’

Whether the public will extend that same courtesy to his son remains to be seen.

It’s true that the monarchy has survived other family crises. But the reintegration of Harry and Meghan may be its toughest test yet.

In a disturbing development from upstate New York, 35-year-old Jessica Bowie has been slapped with terrorism charges. Authorities claim she converted to Islam, pledged her loyalty to the Islamic State group, and was hatching a plan to bomb the State Capitol. The arrest comes just as the nation approaches the 25th anniversary of the catastrophic September 11 attacks.

The FBI reveals that five years ago, Bowie adopted Islam and changed her name to Aisha Saif, embarking on a path that would lead her into the crosshairs of law enforcement.

Bowie’s arrest unfolded in dramatic fashion after she unwittingly recruited a circle of confidential informants, convinced they were members of ISIS prepared to assist her. Believing they would convert her acquired bomb-making supplies into a functional explosive and arm her with a handgun, she was instead cornered by the FBI.

Court papers reveal a chilling detail: Bowie allegedly expressed admiration for the 9/11 attackers who orchestrated the tragedy that claimed 2,977 lives on September 11, 2001.

While the federal complaint is scant on Bowie’s alleged terrorist activities prior to May 2026, investigators pinpoint her radicalization to online influences. This case underscores the persistent threat of internet-fueled extremism.

She had also allegedly lost multiple social media accounts for violating their terms of service with her posts, according to the criminal complaint — in separate posts in May, she allegedly wrote about poisoning “infidels” and “praise be to Allah for September 11th.” By the end of the month, she’d allegedly sworn allegiance to ISIS.

“The key with these sorts of cases is the initial lead,” said Paul Mauro, a retired NYPD inspector and Fox News contributor with experience working counter-terrorism cases. “This can come in a number of ways. We criticize social media plenty, but the fact that she was repeatedly banned on these platforms could have been a crucial pointer.”

By July, according to the complaint, she was allegedly using encrypted apps to post support for radical Islamic terror and anti-American rhetoric.

On July 16, she allegedly told an FBI informant that she had begun thinking about “Jehad” more seriously over the past several months. She was also allegedly posting online about how she was sharing ISIS propaganda and attempting to recruit.

In July and August, Bowie allegedly made five visits to scout the State Capitol.

On Aug. 5, photos released by the Justice Department allegedly show her buying bomb-making materials at a Rensselaer Home Depot store, including a large bucket of nails that was allegedly meant for shrapnel. “We definitely want to make sure the senators get killed for sure,” she allegedly told an informant.

On Aug. 13, she allegedly asked an FBI informant whom she thought was an ISIS operative for help obtaining a handgun, according to the complaint.

On Aug. 19, the FBI arrested her after she allegedly gave $350 to a pair of FBI informants and got out of their vehicle carrying an inert handgun and dummy explosive that they’d given her, according to the complaint.

“There’s no helping me,” she allegedly told the FBI after being read her Miranda rights. “You guys know enough…I’m going to prison for the rest of my life.”

She added that she’d already looked up potential sentences online.

“Material support is up to 20 years in prison,” she said, according to the complaint. “I already googled it before. I know I’m going to jail.”

Earlier that day, she allegedly told an FBI informant that she had grown from “a little girl waving an American flag after 9/11 to now having stickers of the falling towers.” She was 10 years old on Sept. 11, 2001.

Bowie, who also has addresses listed in Schenectady, allegedly planned to hide a bomb in a DoorDash delivery bag at the New York State Capitol, according to the complaint.

“I want to destroy as much of the building as possible and kill the senators while they are meeting,” she allegedly told an informant. “I want them to lose a lot of important documents as well”

Then she allegedly wanted to escape to Syria before returning to the U.S. in the future for more attacks.

A woman who picked up a call to the number listed for Bowie’s mother hung up when contacted by News Media Friday.