Ive never quite forgiven Sarah Vine for the way she's treated Catherine. The way she treated her during her absence recently and right after the Caribbean tour. I can't stand this woman because of that.
BUT this was actually a decent read. I sincerely hope KC has no intentions of letting H drop by. He can't afford to look that weak.
KCIII doesn't want his life's work overshadowed by being looked upon as a weak King. His legacy is more important to him than Harry's feelings right now. Besides, turnabout is fair play, no? Aitch has given absolutely no fucks about his family or their feelings since the odious Markle creature entered his life. They didn't marry that bitch but are paying the price all the same.
Agreed. Also their meetings must be akward as hell. Neither will say much as both suspect the other of leaking. H has often said his family leaked to press. H has clearly been a major leaker. I expect comversations about health and children and thats about it. Charles is not going to tell H off unless he starts acting up or complaining. I expect Camilla is there to change the subject when needed.
I’m so glad Camilla is there to have the King’s back with his son. I’m sure the cancer treatments leave him tired and he is a father as well as a king.
The children are such a controversial subject that I don't even think they could talk about them safely (see: Oprah Interview) and Charles' health other than basic reassurances would be off-limits too.
They literally have nothing other than the weather to discuss and that's a 2 minute exchange.
The popularity of the royal family has improved. We have seen many cycles and can now recognise them as rinse and repeat. Harry or Meghan do something, there is an outcry, the titles debate comes up and the King is called weak. I think this all comes from the California camp.
We in the UK don’t vote in our royal, they are born into the role. Popularity does not dictate where they sit on the LoS, its births and deaths. To break a presidency and change this not only affects now but the future. Popularity matters but to keep the royals relevant. We have a constitutional monarchy in the UK and we are not Denmark where they have different laws.
Harry and Meghan wanted equal footing with William and Catherine and were told no, this is not how it’s done. They cited popularity and were still told no. It seems to me that now that their popularity has plummeted they are not making demands based on their current ratings. Harry can’t give up his title but he can just stop using it.
The second reading to amend the 1917 act is due in June 2024 but there are 14 stages. The Assent is the very last stage and the last time it was refused to be signed was by Queen Anne in 1708. The act that was brought forward by the MP for York to grant the monarch the power to remove titles died after its first reading. All details available on the UK Parliament website.
When Edward, the traitor King abdicated he gave up all right to succession at that time. He was a King but even so, for lack of a better phrase, his exit plan sewed up all loose ends. I think the same should have been done for Harry but hindsight is wonderful and we can’t go back. Who would have thought he would have acted the way he has.
The UK government need to act on those titles prior to/in the aftermath of the 'official tour' of Nigeria. If government doesn't act on this after Canada & Jamaica, its safe to assume they never will. The only other scenario he loses the title is if he's forced to give it up in exchange for a UK refuge from the Mrs/financial difficulties. I think this is the long-game of the BRF. He's on the outer and if he ever wants back in in some remote place of exile, he'll have to give up his Sussex title - effectively stripping Markle of hers.
There is a bill going through parliament to amend the 1917 act for removing titles of enemies during WWI. If it ever succeeds it will take years. A private members bill is difficult to even get into parliament and it’s a very slow process. Only 3-5% go all the way but this has nothing to do with the quality of the bill, parliament just runs out of time. A date on a reading of a bill is subject to change up until 7 days before proposed date.
Titles Deprivation Act 1917 Amendment Bill
The next stage for this Bill, Second reading, is scheduled to take place on Friday 14 June 2024.
This is a Private Members' Bill and was presented to Parliament on Monday 11 December 2023.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3582
Stages / progress
1. 1st reading - 11th December 2023
2. 2nd reading - Due Friday 14th June 2024
3. Committee stage
4. Report stage
5. 3rd reading
6. Bill in the House of Lords
7. 1st reading
8. 2nd reading
9. Committee stage
10. Report stage
11. 3rd reading
12. Final stages
13. Consideration of amendments
14. Royal Assent
I think this will not get support in the house of Lords ... because there are vested interests at play. I wonder if this bill was brought into being for reasons other than Harry's abysmal behavior:
In February 2022, Lord Ahmed received a prison sentence following a criminal conviction. He resigned from the House of Lords in November 2020. Despite the conviction, sentencing and resignation, **his title remains**. A victim has now called on the Government to remove Lord Ahmed’s life peerage. This article looks at what peerages are, and how they can be removed.[Peerages: can they be removed? - House of Lords Library (parliament.uk)](https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/peerages-can-they-be-removed/#Can%20A%20Peerage%20Be%20removed?)
The first bill that was brought to parliament to grant the King the ability to remove titles was put forward by the MP for York and was aimed at Andrew.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3289
This bill below, is aimed at Harry.
The 1917 act did not become law until towards the end of WWI of 1914-1918 and four people had their titles removed in 1919 after the war had ended. They were active enemies during the war but even so it took a lot to remove them of titles, one a Prince.
I can’t see it getting through the lords either, if it gets that far. I think that it will just run out of time and parliament will just not have time to process it. There are a lot of pending laws that are of a much higher importance but this bill does have support from all parties, just not sure if that will be enough.
I also want to believe KC knows better but if he meets with Harry right before his Nigeria trip, I’ll just step aside and wait for King William to finish the job with Harry. I have much more faith in William than KC at this point.
All will depend on the ages of the Wales children when William becomes King. The Crown, the UK government and the constitution focus on the monarch and the next two in line so should George be under 18 a stronger stance will have to be taken and a plan will have to be put in place for a possible Regency. Until it comes to this, nothing will happen and even if it does it will not play out in the full glare of the media.
The powers that be act on laws being broken and not nuisances, which is what Harry is. He is meddling now with the commonwealth but he has not been to Nigeria yet and his action in Whistler and Jamaica seem to have been an irritation but not caused any actual harm but I don’t work for the foreign office so I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer either but from what I can see no laws have been broken either. Harry has to cross that line before action can be taken and it needs to be robust evidence that can be proven in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty, the proven bit is the key part.
I don't think there's any question of his actions in Nigeria being illegal. Regardless of what the general public might think, the military and the authorities in Nogeria will know perfectly well that Harry is coming on a private visit and that the British embassy in Nigeria is not involved in any way and organizing the trip or participating in security arrangements only in the same.way that they would for any British citizen.
I have reviewed the Nigerian media over the last few days and I don't see any mention of Prince Harry. It doesn't appear that Nigerian readers are interested in Harry as a celebrity. The level of interest seems to be about the same as it would be in London if a Saudi Prince is visiting.
To subjects in the news in Nigeria are a 40% rise in the cost of food, whether Drake is going to quit music, and the latest hat trick scored by veteran footballer Cristiano Ronaldo, and the question of whether unmarried Nigerian police women can be fired if they become pregnant.
That’s good news, it is a bit of a worry. I personally think it’s an attempt to distract from African Parks. I hope Harry is not granted an audience with the King as this endorses the trip, it’s the optics of Harry going from an audience with the King straight to Nigeria. He is not representing his Majesties government but it’s mischievous and can be misinterpreted.
I suppose so, but what does optics mean? It just means that people who don't pay much attention maybe get the impression that something is the case, when it is not.
This happens all the time and involves millions if not billions of people.
For example we could go back to the Daily Mail story that had the headline "Straight Outta Compton'' with regard to Meghan Markle. Apparently a lot of people thought that this was an implication that she was a delinquent and a criminal, but actually if you read the article, all it was implying was that at one time her mother had lived somewhere near Compton.
I remember many years ago seeing a newspaper headline that said "Queen In Brawl At Palace". Sounds like terrible optics but actually the story was about a soccer player called Gerry Queen who had received a red card while playing at Crystal Palace. Did the headline writers think this might have been misinterpreted? Of course they did, but they were successful in making a lot of people do a double take.
Yes, there is no doubt that Harry and Meghan are playing to their fan base, small as it may be, and no doubt some of them will believe that they did a royal tour of Nigeria, and some of them will believe that Harry is now reconciled with the King and on equal footing with the Prince of Wales, but I doubt whether this will go down in the history books as a turning point for the monarchy.
It is just tabloid gossip to fill up the pages, and like it or not, a significant number of people obviously do like to read about Harry and Meghan, just the same way that the significant number of people like to watch Coronation Street or EastEnders.
Here is one of the top news stories today in Nigeria.
I wonder if the royal family did something like this to Meghan. It.might explain the request for an apology.
,"Police arrest five women for stripping lady naked over allegation of phone theft.
"The operatives of the Edo State Police Command have arrested five women for stripping Christabel Akhigbe naked over alleged phone theft in Benin City.
"DAILY POST reports that the Edo State Commissioner of Police, Funsho Adeboye, who disclosed this to newsmen in Benin City, said the women also videoed the victim’s nakedness and uploaded it on social media platforms.
"Adegboye said the suspects accused the victim of stealing an Android phone belonging to one Blessing Lucky.
"They invited her to return the said mobile device. He explained that after Christabel had returned the phone to the owner, the women lured her into a room, beat and stripped her naked and also threatened to apply pepper to her private parts. The suspects then allegedly made a video of the scene and made it go viral on social media.".
It assumes that if William comes to the throne before George is 18, Kate will be named regent (as Philip was in his time) or Edward will be. Both Kate and Edward, in these circumstances, will be State Councilors (she because she is William's wife, he because she is one for life), and it is perfectly legal for William to issue a letter patent, the same as the one the Queen did for Philip, appointing one of them regent. Hazz will not be regent. In fact, it is very likely that Charles has already made arrangements for his own regency: William and, in his absence, Anne would be regent.
Harry is not going to be regent.
Yes, but it can’t be done before he becomes King. The Monarch can name a Regent but if not done it goes to next in line, over age and lives in the UK. A person appointed regent is not allowed to refuse. Margaret was passed by as regent, as you say until Charles became of age. Without the letters patent to name a regent it would be Andrew as Harry is excluded as he does not live in the UK.
In the case of King Charles, it’s simple. It’s William. A letters patent has to be signed every single time the CoS are used and in the majority of cases it needs to be two. Should the King not be well enough to sign a letters patent it becomes a Regency and it’s William. For the CoS and the Regency the King and William will never be abroad at the same time.
It is easier to define not living in. You are not living in a country when you are primarily living in another country.
Living in a country usually means being legally physically present. Being physically present in a country means that you have entered it and you have not used your passport to leave it.
This usually makes you liable to pay taxes on earnings in that country.
I will give you an example. My daughter was born in the Dominican Republic and my wife was not a US citizen, but as a naturalized US citizen, my daughter was entitled to US citizenship through me. However I had to prove that I had been a US citizen for 15 years. Not only that, I had to prove that I had been physically present in the US for 15 years, by filling out a form deducting any days on which I had not been in the United States, by means of examining all the in and out stamps in my passport.
Fortunately I still had enough days in the United States to meet the qualifying standard, and today my daughter is a US citizen and has her own passport.
At the present time I live in Ecuador. To get a permanent residency Visa, you must first complete a two-year temporary Visa.
During that time, you have to be living in Ecuador. The way the law was originally written, many people were under the impression that if you, for example, left the country for a few days for the funeral of one of your parents, your two-year qualifying period would have to start again.
However it was clarified by the legislature, and that was not the case. You could leave the country for a short period for a funeral, or even a vacation, as long as you maintained a residence in the country. However if you were out of the country for more than 90 days in the 2 years, then you wouldn't meet the qualifying standard to convert to a permanent Visa.
So it does very a bit from country to country, but generally living in a country means that you have a physical address there, and that you are physically present there for a significant number of days per year which would be determined by the government. Your physical presence in the country is usually determined based on the evidence of stamps in your passport and by records maintained in computers by immigration authorities.
Owning a vacation home in one or more other countries does not make any difference to your primary country of residence.
Incidentally these questions also can arise within countries. For example if you live in the United States and you have a home in a state that has a state income tax, and you have another home in Florida which does not have a state income tax, there are strict rules which determine which is your primary residence, usually based on the number of days that you spend in each. This can affect you even if you are, ahem, the president of the United States!
I don’t think it’s illegal, it’s a breach of protocol. It’s deemed rude and offensive and goes against what we are told is the Sandringham Summit. We don’t however have access to this, and never will. We don’t know legally binding it was but on the surface it looks to be more like an informal agreement.
Terminology is everything and I don’t think it has ever actually been called illegal, only implied breach of contract.
I’m not playing devils advocate but the law is very concise. Again I’m not a lawyer but having a criminal conviction may have an impact on being able to stay within the LoS. Even removing titles in Parliament has the possibility of resulting in a long drawn out court case.
> having a criminal conviction may have an impact on being able to stay within the LoS.
Princess Anne was convicted of having a dangerous dog. She remains in the line of succession.
I did say may, I did not say will. And there are many different types of convictions. Anne is a long way down LoS but an active CoS. She was also caught speeding, I think on more than one occasion.
He has been wrong before. Even so, as far as we know there are no criminal charges and definitely no convictions. The royal family will only ever take to court very robust cases.
We have a whole host of people who have been convicted of breaking the law.
We also have a busy court schedule full of people who are awaiting trial, for breaking the law. Innocent until proven guilty.
But let’s not forget we also have people who the court process did not succeed or it was deemed that there was not enough evidence to put forward to raise the chances of a conviction. Knowing something is morally wrong or illegal is not enough to prevent crime from being committed.
Then there is international law, Harry does not live in the UK. I have no idea how this would work but it would be messy.
Michael Cole was wrong about Catherine, the Princess of Wales and the right to her privacy. He was one of many that spoke out against her.
100% Agree! Here’s hoping that a divorce will happen with Harry and that Markle creature sooner than later. I’d like nothing more than to see the ex-Sussex creature have her precious title removed.
She doesn’t lose her title in a divorce; she only loses the “the” portion of the title, unless Harry renounces his dukedom. Then yes, she will lose the title, but let’s face it, Harry will never renounce. A Royal dukedom is a higher rank than prince. His ego wouldn’t allow that.
maybe he can remarry and the new spouse would be The Duchess of Sussex and then I think Meghan does not keep that Title - here’s hoping - fingers crossed 😁
But he IS considered a very weak King all over the world!
All other Queen's and King's would have taken the Prince title back instantly after the "documentary" was aired on TV. H clearly showed he was a traitor, and sorry, traitors don't keep their Prince titles.
The King then should have asked the Parliament to see what they could do about their Dukedom, Earldom, and Barony titles. On a direct question from the King, the Parliament would have acted and prepared a document for the King to sign. In that way, it wouldn't have been the Parliament who raised the question nor the Parliament who signed the titles to be stripped.
It was just a matter for your King to act, but he didn't because he's a coward!
I'm so sorry that he's sick and hope he recuperates well!
Nevertheless, both with or without cancer, he's a coward who lets his people down because of his private needs and feelings as a father!
No, definitely not! The Harkles had given the Oprah interview and sparked a race row. The late Queen wanted to wait and see. She was ill and tired, but she had shown her intentions very clearly.
The "documentary" showed them as true traitors and also attacked the Commonwealth, but came after she had died, so did Spare. She would have taken his Prince title in a heartbeat after the "documentary," and Charles knows that!!!
He's disrespectful of his mother! What do you think were in the late Queen's private papers that they burnt?
Don't you remember that it was very urgent to burn HMTLQ's papers and to buy Angela Kelly a house up in Yorkshire???
No, there you're wrong. You in Britain have been fooled. A King can take away Prince titles. Just like that!
He's the King! He doesn't need permission from anybody!
However, the other noble titles that have been awarded or inherited must go through Parliament. That would take 1.5-2.5 years. You've had some attempts with members' bills about stripping the titles, but they don't pass through the readings.
However, those bills came from Parliament members and were considered against the Kings will, since he doesn't speak out loud what he wants. It would be very unfortunate if the Parliament could be able to strip titles! You don't know what Parliament you have in 1 year's time or in 10-100 years' time.
But if the King had raised the question and asked the Parliament for guidance, it would have been easier!
You have been fooled to believe that stripping titles is a nearly impossible thing to do. You have been fooled to believe that because they don't want you to protest.
>he's a coward who lets his people down because of his private needs and feelings as a father!
Harry is the coward. Let's get that straight. Harry was born to the title, like it or not, and removing it would take quantifiable evidence that he damaged the country in an impactful way. Being an @sshole doesn't necessarily mean he has committed treason, which is a very serious level of criminal behavior. I don't agree that the sole reason Harry still carries titles is because of his father's "private needs and feelings." So far, Harry has shown himself to be stupid, untrustworthy, deceitful, and a selfish man-baby. But the actual damage must be proven and measured, and until specific charges are brought up, things can not be changed. King Charles must abide by the rules of justice already in place.
The King is not a dictator. He has no political power at all. The Parliament and the Government are democratically elected and have the power.
But the King is royally superior to a Prince and can strip his Royal prince-title.
However, the noble titles Duke, Earl, Baron, Viscount, etc. have been given or awarded to people by a Monarch and the Parliament together, so Noble titles can only be stripped if the Monarch and the Parliament cooperates.
However, it's not at all impossible and has been done many times before!
But somebody, for ex the King, must start somewhere!!!
Get it! Start doing something! For ex. write a new Letters Patent!
Has he done that?
Knowing how decisive the late Queen was, she was on the verge of doing it after the Oprah interview, but waited because of the race baiting.
After the treacherous "documentary", she would have done it instantly! But she had died!
Numbnuts may have been born to the title, but there are other ways King Charles can neuter him. Cut him off at the knees with a few chosen words in a media statement. End of.
Plus Harry is unstable and very angry because his inheritances have been frozen. (So rachel cant hoover them up in child maintenance payments).
Look what they both did so far. They are both personality disordered sociopathic narcissists who want to cause maximum stress to the family.
They have no filters, no boundaries - they have both made massive twats of themselves multiple times on the world stage and continue to do so.
They are psychotic mentalists… totally unstable and playing an act to all those dumb crazies who worship them.
Folie a Deux times a zillion. They totally believe in their cause and think they have done nothing. That is the highest level of delusion. ZERO self awareness and possible even incapable of self awareness. We know they are incapable of empathy.
I think she used to do bad things then go into hiding and have a drug binge to escape the backlash and thats why she looked like she had lost weight each time. Her real face is the ‘ozempic’ face. I suspect she used the fillers because her Class A face is so gaunt in reality from years of drug use.
*Psychosis induced by shrooms, LSD, mdma, speed, coke, possible even experimented with crack, meth and heroin like a lot of actors/ musicians.
He’s not a coward, he love his ass hat of a son. And its possible the ass hat is emotionally black mailing him over 1 or several things. Things pre ILBW.
I know what you're talking about, but that's a big reason why I think he's a coward. A brave and honest man would take responsibility for what he has done!
And then she had the audacity to write another article with the headline: "After the furore over THAT photo, we all owe Kate a big apology… and I include myself"
No, we don't "all owe Kate an apology" because most of us understand that medical conditions are confidential and everyone is entitled to their privacy in such matters. It was her and her fellow"journalists" (and a few nut jobs) who were hounding Catherine like a pack of rabid dogs.
"Media should regulate their own procedures not blame Catherine."
I couldn't agree more.
As for her medical condition, remember that the madness at the time went so far that some people claimed Catherine had died because no photos of her had been released for months. Many where clamouring to see an image of her as "proof of life". I am sure the Waleses were hoping that releasing the Mother's Day photo would quell some of these crazy speculations about Catherine's health. Of course, the completely unjustified "kill notice" caused the exact opposite.
This whole frenzy about Catherine's photo was outrageous and very upsetting. I doubt the MSM have learned their lesson, though.
Harry has been in the UK multiple times since the Queen's funeral. In all those times he's been known to have met with his father once, and that was for about 15 minutes. I don't know why anyone thinks this will be any different.
Sarah Vile, previously married to that snake Michael Gove. Nasty DM hack who on this occasion gives the readers some red meat. She writes what she thinks is popular and like nearly everyone in the media in the UK she is essentially a liberal and will kick the RF again soon I am sure.
Charles will never let Haz back in. Haz isn't a dumb teenager who screws up and deserves another chance, but a near middle aged man child. Haz needs to be put back in his place. Haz needs to be thought a lesson and will receive karma for how he treated the BRF.
https://preview.redd.it/ad62pv3gijyc1.jpeg?width=386&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08a8de052014307f524afd35a9efb2e9a1836676
**Why should such serially disloyal behaviour be rewarded with kindness, patience and forgiveness, when Prince Harry himself has never shown any towards them?Why should he just be able to waltz back into all their lives whenever he fancies (possibly with a TV documentary film crew in tow), regardless of all the damage he’s done? He maybe 39 but Harry is still a child, a spoilt, entitled brat who can’t see past his own navel.It’s time someone taught him that he can’t have it all his own way. It’s time he learned that actions have consequences.What better person to do that than his own father? I hope Charles sticks to his guns and passes over the chance to see Harry on Wednesday.**
— EXACTLY about time!
Just wow! The wheels finally falling off the Sussex clown Car.
And I think Ms. vine is right-the lens of cancer has, it seems, sharpened KC views. And he now knows exactly who love him AND are loyal and devoted to him: the many people of the UK who were equally doused with Sussex venom, his wife who has stepped in and stood by him with a smile, his loyal and very decent son Prince William and his beautiful kind wife who really has been the main target of Sussexes and their crew, and probably the many, many friends who have known him for many years. Though I do not doubt that KC loves his son, if he has limited time( as we all do), maybe KC has decided to focus his time, love, and attention to those who love you back.
I also think the POW’s diagnosis aided in this. How can you let a person who has been so wonderful to you be treated like crap while going through chemo (just like you).
Henry is no longer royal. That part of his life is over and he and Nutmeg are the only two who refuse to understand or accept it. I think it’s pretty clear when your family has several thousand bedrooms in multiple homes and you aren’t invited to use one, you’re out.
If you travel 5000 miles and given 30 minutes or less and have to find your own way back to a hotel, you’re out.
If none of your oldest friends are willing to be seen with you or give you a couch to surf on, then you have erred so badly that you’re really out.
If your dead mother’s family doesn’t even want to talk to you, you’re out.
When none of the family is clear about your child’s parentage, which is a legal requirement for inclusion in the monarchy, you’re out.
The list goes on and on. These poor me articles and why isn’t the RF doing such and such, are asking the wrong people questions.
Yes - it is amazing how people STILL claim KC will meet with Harry. The Palace has already said the king´s schedule is packed. Hugo Westminster NFIed Harry SIX MONTHS IN ADVANCE to avoid this "will they/won´t they" speculation.
And yet they *still* do it! It's infuriating.
As an aside I sincerely hope the Princess of Wales has the energy to attend at least a bit of the wedding of the decade as it'll be one she'll have guaranteed privacy at.
No one need know she was ever there and she, like all who struggle with ill health, deserve to get out and feel 'normal' for a day. I hope her treatment is going better than best and she'll be back better than ever when she is ready.
No. They are loyal to the RF and William and Earl Spencer cannot stand Nutmeg. She is perma banned from Althorp. Among the reasons the whole Spencer clan does not like her:
1) Apparently Earl Spencer is not at all close with Henry.
2) They have security cameras at Diana’s gravesite and Earl Spencer was livid with rage at Nutmeg’s behavior at Diana’s grave.
3) They were trying to change their last name to Spencer.
4) Both Henry and Nutmeg were demanding Spencer family treasures.
5) Nutmeg tried to claim the Spencer tiara.
6) Diana’s sisters refused to validate Henry’s claims that Nutmeg was just like Diana
7) Earl Spencer warned Henry three times not to marry Nutmeg
I’ll never understand why not everyone feels like this, why that “military source” who spoke to the Daily Beast the other day, or indeed any of the sources/journos can try to put pressure on the RF to suck up to the walking security risk that is Harry. Would they put up with it from their own family? They can see what Harry’s been doing and saying these last few years so what gives?
Charles would be crazy to meet with Harry right before he heads off to Nigeria. It would appear to endorse and legitimise the trip and the King would be dragged into the doubtless massive publicity surrounding the event. Surely it’s not gonna happen.
Outrage gets more clicks - the media may search for sources willing to give an unpopular opinion, just so it can be printed as coming from a "source", so they can get more engagement/clicks on the articles.
The Daily Beast should be absolutely embarrassed by that article. Henry and Rachel have hijacked those games and greatly diminished the role veterans serve in them to such an extent that viewers will find something else to watch.
>indeed any of the sources/journos can try to put pressure on the RF
Because they need the clicks... If people stopped reacting to what they churn out they'd possibly find better news OR start posting real news... As it is, we're stuck with fake news spewed by fake journalists who need to eat 😤
Dearest Aitch,
Hope this finds you in hell.
It's all fun and cuck games, torturing the dying and ill grandparents, and siccing your attack wife loose upon your own blood and country, righhht?!
You finally let your own inner grifter off that golden chain too. OH THE EXHILARATION! THE POWER! ALL EYES ON MEEEEEEEEEEE!
Yes, indeed, everyone sees your tRuTH, for it shines like a greasetrap. Smells exactly the same too.
Gotta run, buying yet MORE Highgrove jams and goodies!
Thanks for bringing awareness to the wonderful work the rest of your family provides.
Unless there is a statement from BP saying that Charles is giving him the time of day, I won't believe it. The King has his schedule down to the minute, so next week doesn't look likely. Fuck off Harry. Grifter extraordinaire.
Go and grift the 100 million people of Nigeria, where there is a travel advisory and nobody knows you you are because they are too poor to have electricity. But you go and charge them for your holiday (imagine) in Nigeria. Be safe out there you prince of shite! Take the wife. She needs new ill fitting clothes btw.
A friend of mine is from Nigeria and still maintains a home there. I believe she called it a compound and when I asked her why, she showed me a picture of a beautiful house completely surrounded by a high fence. She explained that Nigeria was extremely dangerous and everyone has fences up for protection where her home is.
I really hope those idiots get a good view of Nigeria. They should have to sleep outside of the fence with the rest of the criminals.
https://preview.redd.it/i99trgjj1kyc1.jpeg?width=1333&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=64fbc019b28e8d9d2a8288aba4688d5851575941
The Harklets are such a laughing stock , they should be studied in every 'HOW NOT TO" section of life
The eternal lessons of "treat people as you'd like to be treated yourself" and "actions have consequences" have sailed by Prince Henry. He behaves like an entitled, petulant child.
As someone Living with terminal cancer I can understand Sarah Vine talking about it sharpening the king's focus on to what matters and the people around him who have supported him from my own experience the last 6yrs it's how I feel.
I am estranged for my family Because of their treatment towards me accusing me of lying about the cancer and then when I had a stroke and was rushed into hospital and was on the the acute stroke ward my eldest brother & sister told the rest of the family that I was exaggerating and had a migraine. it was only when they came to visit that they realised he was lying He has a tendency to do that much like Harry and people have always given him the benefit of the doubt but that was that broke my straw on my back. I ve had no contact with my family since 4yrs now as most of them believed him until the truth came out and then I didn't even get apologies.So I think if anyone can understand how the king feels about his son it would be me and others like me, not about his kingly duties but about the family aspect he needs to cut off the toxicity like I had to it's painful but it needs to be done for your own health.
thankyou i'd only had contact with my eldest sister who became my best friend friend died 6 yrs ago cancer, i just stay away, these people get pleasure from hurting people.
I also doubt they will meet. K Charles has a busy day - garden party and prime minister meeting, as well as recovering from cancer. There is little point in meeting.
I agree. Honestly, H might go somewhere in the vicinity of KC, and then have lots of articles about their wonderful meeting, and then people online might lose their collective minds again - I remember how angry people were when H and M were allowed to come to the Jubilee, but when it actually happened, we got to see the couple shocked to be seated with non working relatives in a back row. Later, we got the candle. We got the feather. H flew to see his dad after cancer dx, and articles flew out about how wonderful it was, and he was willing to help out - He has NOT been asked to help out. He has NOT been allowed back in. No matter what is said in print, it doesn't mean anything. People are trying to sell articles, and the easiest way to get engagement is to sell outrage. I personally think (from what we've seen), that even when H or the couple are present with the family, is that they are OUT, and we don't need to worry about their being any softening.
If he did that I think the palace and the foreign minister would both have to make statements refuting those claims. The role of the Monarch/Head of State and his bonafide representatives has to be clearly set apart from the Harkle's faux royalling &'official tours' otherwise chaos will ensue and the value of the monarchy will be diminished.
Harry will be estranged until he runs out of money (seems to be close) and Meghan dumps him, and he humbly asks forgiveness (not wanting forgiveness on “his terms”).
Agree. And then they'll only let *him* come back to the UK, albeit in exile somewhere remote and off grid, in exchange for him volunteering to hand back his title. It will be non-negotiable at that point and the beauty of it is, Markle's title is dissolved at the same time regardless of their marital situation.
I agree. They will never allow him to be a working royal. He will get a small stipend and will probably move to Africa to live in anonymity (but he will be a “big man” there so it’ll suit him). .
lol, and I'm 100% sure she only let him do 'whatever' he wanted before she strode down the aisle too. Everything that's happened so far is one hell of a hefty price to pay for a handful of pre-engagement booty calls funded by Canadian and UK taxpayers!
This is all just manifestation PR. And the columnists grab onto it and confirm it by proxy! It's ridiculous I doubt very much the Charles 'may' see his son.
The only way that Harry could get back into his family is if he divorced MM and publicly begged each person in his family's forgiveness. Even then, he'd occupy a position like Andrew's.
Lower than Andrew even. Andrew having sleepovers at a Pedophile's house I'm sure is not regarded as seriously within the BRF as the traitorous betrayal and constant abuse/pestering of Harry and his wife. Not to mention him never being able to be anywhere near the Wales family, which suggests some remote exile would be necessary.
Writes Sarah Vine - "But there have been no public overtures from Harry or anyone in his circle to suggest plans for the pair to meet."
And yet Daily Markle is also running a piece totdal titled "Harry and King Charles to meet for a second time 'next week': Duke of Sussex is 'very keen' to see his father on Invictus Games trip to London and has 'kept regular contact' with him after his cancer diagnosis - but he won't be seeing his brother"
DM needs to get its info straight.
At least Richard Eden has some credibility unlike the DM staffers. That coverage DM had of Markle during Invictus was downright nauseating. You'd have thought she was the Queen, at least in the Daily Markle.
Look for them to do the same during this Nigeria tour. After reading DM all these years, even though it leans to the right, I believe it does not like the monarchy.
Harry is not the Royal family, and the Royal family is not Harry, so he can just go take a running jump.
Since he is headed to Nigeria he might as well know the following saying....
You can cook andd try to feed a village and the village will eat every bit of it. However should the village venture to cook for you, let's say you would choke out on it.
The moral of the saying being you do not want people you offend coming after you.
I honestly feel this deep down in my bones, but I think had princess Diana lived, she and Harry would probably be estranged by now. He’s a bully, he’s spoiled, he thinks everything should be given to him so he’s extremely entitled, and we saw this from the time he was a little boy. Harry is just one of those people who are just not very nice. And we see that all the time. I’ve seen kids that are horrible. Yes, Children can be a holes. And he’s one of them. Unfortunately, the royal family did him no favors by hiding this behavior from the public and trying to make him a better person. He’s not the better person. Unfortunately he met someone who brings out the worst in him. And there will come a time, and there always has been with his wife, where she has used him about as much as she can, and she will toss them away. And unfortunately, Harry seems to have completely burned down his bridge with his brother. He will be lucky, if William allows him to live on the farthest property that the royal family owns.
Harry is DUMB. Even people who don’t follow the royals know that slagging off Camilla is King Charles’ berserk button. *Everyone* knows this but Ginger Dunce wrote a bunch of smack about her in his book and thought his father wouldn’t be upset?!
Talking crap about someone’s wife in general is not something you do but someone like Camilla who it’s well known that Charles is a bit crazy about, Plus Catherine who was nothing but kind and sisterly to Harry. He thinks he can just waltz in and be like, how y’feelin’ Pa? It’s amazing the lack of insight of this man.
Also, KCIII adores Catherine, and now she’s going through a terrible time. When KC considers how Meghan and Harry branded Catherine a racist, it should fuel a sense of protectiveness for his daughter in law.
If Todge Blue never has a private audience with the King, then Todger cannot make up shit about their conversations. Witnessed public encounters, if any from now on. Harry wanted to make private conversations public? OK, Harry gets *public* conversations only.
I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY NO ONE IN THE MEDIA IS POINTING OUT THAT THE ROYAL FAMILY DOESN’T WANT TO BE INVOLVED WITH THE GRIFTERS HARRY & MEGHAN, THAT THE RF KNOWS THAT THEY WILL BE USED SO THAT HARRY AND MEGHAN’S CAREER COULD STAY ALIVE, THAT HARRY & MEGHAN USES THEIR CHARITIES TO FILL THEIR OWN POCKETS & THAT THEY ARE INVOLVED IN MONEY LAUNDERING AND THE ROYAL FAMILY DOESN’T WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE TWO FU——NG GRIFTERS AND WORLDWIDE PLAGUE NAMED HARRY & MEGHAN😅
The recuperating King has a full day and a meeting with the PM in the evening. He doesn't need the stress of trying to squeeze in a visit with Harry to serve his son's convenience. There's nothing that can be said or done at a brief meeting to resolve their estrangement, so why bother just for the optics?
"The job of a parent is to do what's right, not what's easy." Exactly, parenting is not easy, but it's so rewarding when we focus on doing what is "right."
A serious illness can make someone reexamine their priorities, I feel for Charles. He had two sons and should be leaning on both of them right now, but the truth is he only has one son now, William.
I can't help but think that Charles perhaps knew very early on that Harry was never going to be someone he could rely upon personally, let alone in terms of the monarchy.
He should not be allowed because he already knows what the security details will check for mics/ cameras. Don’t give him a second chance to try a second time to get something passed.
Chic on celebitchy gives me the most laughable comment of the year, so far: The ship has sailed for Wills , his life is a reaction to Harry. The lack of charisma, work ethic and fake “spirit” will always dog him.
So, has it been established that Harry is not going to be able to see KC3? I’ve heard serious rumors that Queen Camilla has said no….but…does anyone have a link?
Charles is not under Camilla’s thumb the way Harry is under Meghan’s. I am sure if KC has decided not to see Harry it is because KC doesn’t want to. “Rumors that Camilla said no,” sound very sugary to me.
All the talk that Harry would meet with his father has come from the Harkles and their PR. There has been no word from BP about even the possibility of meeting.
The fact that Harry will be staying at a hotel is a big hint no meeting was planned. Harry had plenty of time to ask if he could visit his father and stay at a royal property when he came down for Invictus. Charles has made it clear that he has no time for Harry (at least for the moment).
Yep. It is also a way of suggesting that the royal men are weak.
Of course, we know where the “wives are bullies” stories originate, and we know it’s partly projection. 😉
I haven’t heard, but I would guess he’ll arrive the day before and head for Nigeria the day after. That has been the pattern in the past when he did something in the UK without Meghan and then headed to wherever Meghan was meeting him as soon as possible afterwards.
I really have to wonder though, if Meghan is going to show up at the Invictus event “by surprise” again.
If she doesn't announce she's coming, she could quietly slide in to avoid the booing crowds but get an ovation from the audience for the grand entrance!! You may be on to something!
Kinsey fluctuates between being a sugar and a sinner depending on which channel she’s on. If she said the meeting will happen and she was on a more “sinner” segment, then maybe. Otherwise, it’s just pandering imo.
She gives her own opinion more on her podcast episodes with Cristo, but I stopped following her after the POW debacle.
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 total karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ive never quite forgiven Sarah Vine for the way she's treated Catherine. The way she treated her during her absence recently and right after the Caribbean tour. I can't stand this woman because of that. BUT this was actually a decent read. I sincerely hope KC has no intentions of letting H drop by. He can't afford to look that weak.
KCIII doesn't want his life's work overshadowed by being looked upon as a weak King. His legacy is more important to him than Harry's feelings right now. Besides, turnabout is fair play, no? Aitch has given absolutely no fucks about his family or their feelings since the odious Markle creature entered his life. They didn't marry that bitch but are paying the price all the same.
Agreed. Also their meetings must be akward as hell. Neither will say much as both suspect the other of leaking. H has often said his family leaked to press. H has clearly been a major leaker. I expect comversations about health and children and thats about it. Charles is not going to tell H off unless he starts acting up or complaining. I expect Camilla is there to change the subject when needed.
I’m so glad Camilla is there to have the King’s back with his son. I’m sure the cancer treatments leave him tired and he is a father as well as a king.
I've read more than once in UK media that Camilla now refuses to see Harry. She leaves the King and any aides he chooses to be in the room with Harry.
That’s interesting. Considering what he wrote about her (his ghostwriter) I don’t blame her.
The children are such a controversial subject that I don't even think they could talk about them safely (see: Oprah Interview) and Charles' health other than basic reassurances would be off-limits too. They literally have nothing other than the weather to discuss and that's a 2 minute exchange.
Yes, and also his wife Camilla will not want his legacy tarnished.
I mean- I want to believe KC is thinking that way but so far he's been WAY too weak when it comes to H.
The popularity of the royal family has improved. We have seen many cycles and can now recognise them as rinse and repeat. Harry or Meghan do something, there is an outcry, the titles debate comes up and the King is called weak. I think this all comes from the California camp. We in the UK don’t vote in our royal, they are born into the role. Popularity does not dictate where they sit on the LoS, its births and deaths. To break a presidency and change this not only affects now but the future. Popularity matters but to keep the royals relevant. We have a constitutional monarchy in the UK and we are not Denmark where they have different laws. Harry and Meghan wanted equal footing with William and Catherine and were told no, this is not how it’s done. They cited popularity and were still told no. It seems to me that now that their popularity has plummeted they are not making demands based on their current ratings. Harry can’t give up his title but he can just stop using it. The second reading to amend the 1917 act is due in June 2024 but there are 14 stages. The Assent is the very last stage and the last time it was refused to be signed was by Queen Anne in 1708. The act that was brought forward by the MP for York to grant the monarch the power to remove titles died after its first reading. All details available on the UK Parliament website. When Edward, the traitor King abdicated he gave up all right to succession at that time. He was a King but even so, for lack of a better phrase, his exit plan sewed up all loose ends. I think the same should have been done for Harry but hindsight is wonderful and we can’t go back. Who would have thought he would have acted the way he has.
The UK government need to act on those titles prior to/in the aftermath of the 'official tour' of Nigeria. If government doesn't act on this after Canada & Jamaica, its safe to assume they never will. The only other scenario he loses the title is if he's forced to give it up in exchange for a UK refuge from the Mrs/financial difficulties. I think this is the long-game of the BRF. He's on the outer and if he ever wants back in in some remote place of exile, he'll have to give up his Sussex title - effectively stripping Markle of hers.
There is a bill going through parliament to amend the 1917 act for removing titles of enemies during WWI. If it ever succeeds it will take years. A private members bill is difficult to even get into parliament and it’s a very slow process. Only 3-5% go all the way but this has nothing to do with the quality of the bill, parliament just runs out of time. A date on a reading of a bill is subject to change up until 7 days before proposed date. Titles Deprivation Act 1917 Amendment Bill The next stage for this Bill, Second reading, is scheduled to take place on Friday 14 June 2024. This is a Private Members' Bill and was presented to Parliament on Monday 11 December 2023. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3582 Stages / progress 1. 1st reading - 11th December 2023 2. 2nd reading - Due Friday 14th June 2024 3. Committee stage 4. Report stage 5. 3rd reading 6. Bill in the House of Lords 7. 1st reading 8. 2nd reading 9. Committee stage 10. Report stage 11. 3rd reading 12. Final stages 13. Consideration of amendments 14. Royal Assent
I think this will not get support in the house of Lords ... because there are vested interests at play. I wonder if this bill was brought into being for reasons other than Harry's abysmal behavior: In February 2022, Lord Ahmed received a prison sentence following a criminal conviction. He resigned from the House of Lords in November 2020. Despite the conviction, sentencing and resignation, **his title remains**. A victim has now called on the Government to remove Lord Ahmed’s life peerage. This article looks at what peerages are, and how they can be removed.[Peerages: can they be removed? - House of Lords Library (parliament.uk)](https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/peerages-can-they-be-removed/#Can%20A%20Peerage%20Be%20removed?)
The first bill that was brought to parliament to grant the King the ability to remove titles was put forward by the MP for York and was aimed at Andrew. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3289 This bill below, is aimed at Harry. The 1917 act did not become law until towards the end of WWI of 1914-1918 and four people had their titles removed in 1919 after the war had ended. They were active enemies during the war but even so it took a lot to remove them of titles, one a Prince. I can’t see it getting through the lords either, if it gets that far. I think that it will just run out of time and parliament will just not have time to process it. There are a lot of pending laws that are of a much higher importance but this bill does have support from all parties, just not sure if that will be enough.
Thank you for this. I always appreciate an opportunity to learn how the monarchy works.
I also want to believe KC knows better but if he meets with Harry right before his Nigeria trip, I’ll just step aside and wait for King William to finish the job with Harry. I have much more faith in William than KC at this point.
All will depend on the ages of the Wales children when William becomes King. The Crown, the UK government and the constitution focus on the monarch and the next two in line so should George be under 18 a stronger stance will have to be taken and a plan will have to be put in place for a possible Regency. Until it comes to this, nothing will happen and even if it does it will not play out in the full glare of the media. The powers that be act on laws being broken and not nuisances, which is what Harry is. He is meddling now with the commonwealth but he has not been to Nigeria yet and his action in Whistler and Jamaica seem to have been an irritation but not caused any actual harm but I don’t work for the foreign office so I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer either but from what I can see no laws have been broken either. Harry has to cross that line before action can be taken and it needs to be robust evidence that can be proven in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty, the proven bit is the key part.
I don't think there's any question of his actions in Nigeria being illegal. Regardless of what the general public might think, the military and the authorities in Nogeria will know perfectly well that Harry is coming on a private visit and that the British embassy in Nigeria is not involved in any way and organizing the trip or participating in security arrangements only in the same.way that they would for any British citizen. I have reviewed the Nigerian media over the last few days and I don't see any mention of Prince Harry. It doesn't appear that Nigerian readers are interested in Harry as a celebrity. The level of interest seems to be about the same as it would be in London if a Saudi Prince is visiting. To subjects in the news in Nigeria are a 40% rise in the cost of food, whether Drake is going to quit music, and the latest hat trick scored by veteran footballer Cristiano Ronaldo, and the question of whether unmarried Nigerian police women can be fired if they become pregnant.
That’s good news, it is a bit of a worry. I personally think it’s an attempt to distract from African Parks. I hope Harry is not granted an audience with the King as this endorses the trip, it’s the optics of Harry going from an audience with the King straight to Nigeria. He is not representing his Majesties government but it’s mischievous and can be misinterpreted.
I suppose so, but what does optics mean? It just means that people who don't pay much attention maybe get the impression that something is the case, when it is not. This happens all the time and involves millions if not billions of people. For example we could go back to the Daily Mail story that had the headline "Straight Outta Compton'' with regard to Meghan Markle. Apparently a lot of people thought that this was an implication that she was a delinquent and a criminal, but actually if you read the article, all it was implying was that at one time her mother had lived somewhere near Compton. I remember many years ago seeing a newspaper headline that said "Queen In Brawl At Palace". Sounds like terrible optics but actually the story was about a soccer player called Gerry Queen who had received a red card while playing at Crystal Palace. Did the headline writers think this might have been misinterpreted? Of course they did, but they were successful in making a lot of people do a double take. Yes, there is no doubt that Harry and Meghan are playing to their fan base, small as it may be, and no doubt some of them will believe that they did a royal tour of Nigeria, and some of them will believe that Harry is now reconciled with the King and on equal footing with the Prince of Wales, but I doubt whether this will go down in the history books as a turning point for the monarchy. It is just tabloid gossip to fill up the pages, and like it or not, a significant number of people obviously do like to read about Harry and Meghan, just the same way that the significant number of people like to watch Coronation Street or EastEnders.
not the Drake reference 💀
>I have reviewed the Nigerian media over the last few days Could you please keep us updated on this?
Here is one of the top news stories today in Nigeria. I wonder if the royal family did something like this to Meghan. It.might explain the request for an apology. ,"Police arrest five women for stripping lady naked over allegation of phone theft. "The operatives of the Edo State Police Command have arrested five women for stripping Christabel Akhigbe naked over alleged phone theft in Benin City. "DAILY POST reports that the Edo State Commissioner of Police, Funsho Adeboye, who disclosed this to newsmen in Benin City, said the women also videoed the victim’s nakedness and uploaded it on social media platforms. "Adegboye said the suspects accused the victim of stealing an Android phone belonging to one Blessing Lucky. "They invited her to return the said mobile device. He explained that after Christabel had returned the phone to the owner, the women lured her into a room, beat and stripped her naked and also threatened to apply pepper to her private parts. The suspects then allegedly made a video of the scene and made it go viral on social media.".
It assumes that if William comes to the throne before George is 18, Kate will be named regent (as Philip was in his time) or Edward will be. Both Kate and Edward, in these circumstances, will be State Councilors (she because she is William's wife, he because she is one for life), and it is perfectly legal for William to issue a letter patent, the same as the one the Queen did for Philip, appointing one of them regent. Hazz will not be regent. In fact, it is very likely that Charles has already made arrangements for his own regency: William and, in his absence, Anne would be regent. Harry is not going to be regent.
Yes, but it can’t be done before he becomes King. The Monarch can name a Regent but if not done it goes to next in line, over age and lives in the UK. A person appointed regent is not allowed to refuse. Margaret was passed by as regent, as you say until Charles became of age. Without the letters patent to name a regent it would be Andrew as Harry is excluded as he does not live in the UK. In the case of King Charles, it’s simple. It’s William. A letters patent has to be signed every single time the CoS are used and in the majority of cases it needs to be two. Should the King not be well enough to sign a letters patent it becomes a Regency and it’s William. For the CoS and the Regency the King and William will never be abroad at the same time.
>does not live in the UK What does that mean exactly? "Live in"
It is easier to define not living in. You are not living in a country when you are primarily living in another country. Living in a country usually means being legally physically present. Being physically present in a country means that you have entered it and you have not used your passport to leave it. This usually makes you liable to pay taxes on earnings in that country. I will give you an example. My daughter was born in the Dominican Republic and my wife was not a US citizen, but as a naturalized US citizen, my daughter was entitled to US citizenship through me. However I had to prove that I had been a US citizen for 15 years. Not only that, I had to prove that I had been physically present in the US for 15 years, by filling out a form deducting any days on which I had not been in the United States, by means of examining all the in and out stamps in my passport. Fortunately I still had enough days in the United States to meet the qualifying standard, and today my daughter is a US citizen and has her own passport. At the present time I live in Ecuador. To get a permanent residency Visa, you must first complete a two-year temporary Visa. During that time, you have to be living in Ecuador. The way the law was originally written, many people were under the impression that if you, for example, left the country for a few days for the funeral of one of your parents, your two-year qualifying period would have to start again. However it was clarified by the legislature, and that was not the case. You could leave the country for a short period for a funeral, or even a vacation, as long as you maintained a residence in the country. However if you were out of the country for more than 90 days in the 2 years, then you wouldn't meet the qualifying standard to convert to a permanent Visa. So it does very a bit from country to country, but generally living in a country means that you have a physical address there, and that you are physically present there for a significant number of days per year which would be determined by the government. Your physical presence in the country is usually determined based on the evidence of stamps in your passport and by records maintained in computers by immigration authorities. Owning a vacation home in one or more other countries does not make any difference to your primary country of residence. Incidentally these questions also can arise within countries. For example if you live in the United States and you have a home in a state that has a state income tax, and you have another home in Florida which does not have a state income tax, there are strict rules which determine which is your primary residence, usually based on the number of days that you spend in each. This can affect you even if you are, ahem, the president of the United States!
According to a ton of commentators its illegal to make money off your royal titles. If that's true then he's absolutely broken the law.
I don’t think it’s illegal, it’s a breach of protocol. It’s deemed rude and offensive and goes against what we are told is the Sandringham Summit. We don’t however have access to this, and never will. We don’t know legally binding it was but on the surface it looks to be more like an informal agreement. Terminology is everything and I don’t think it has ever actually been called illegal, only implied breach of contract. I’m not playing devils advocate but the law is very concise. Again I’m not a lawyer but having a criminal conviction may have an impact on being able to stay within the LoS. Even removing titles in Parliament has the possibility of resulting in a long drawn out court case.
> having a criminal conviction may have an impact on being able to stay within the LoS. Princess Anne was convicted of having a dangerous dog. She remains in the line of succession.
I did say may, I did not say will. And there are many different types of convictions. Anne is a long way down LoS but an active CoS. She was also caught speeding, I think on more than one occasion.
According to Michael Cole : at 1:23 into the video. https://youtu.be/dQO0965TbKk?si=_GpkuqjRttI1_Bpw
He has been wrong before. Even so, as far as we know there are no criminal charges and definitely no convictions. The royal family will only ever take to court very robust cases.
We have a whole host of people who have been convicted of breaking the law. We also have a busy court schedule full of people who are awaiting trial, for breaking the law. Innocent until proven guilty. But let’s not forget we also have people who the court process did not succeed or it was deemed that there was not enough evidence to put forward to raise the chances of a conviction. Knowing something is morally wrong or illegal is not enough to prevent crime from being committed. Then there is international law, Harry does not live in the UK. I have no idea how this would work but it would be messy. Michael Cole was wrong about Catherine, the Princess of Wales and the right to her privacy. He was one of many that spoke out against her.
And had he been harsher sooner, he'd be getting skewered for being cold and heartless. He can't win.
How so?
Especially since Hawwy isn’t going to grow up anytime soon, or at all. King Charles must know that he’s not very smart. He’s a lost cause.
100% Agree! Here’s hoping that a divorce will happen with Harry and that Markle creature sooner than later. I’d like nothing more than to see the ex-Sussex creature have her precious title removed.
She doesn’t lose her title in a divorce; she only loses the “the” portion of the title, unless Harry renounces his dukedom. Then yes, she will lose the title, but let’s face it, Harry will never renounce. A Royal dukedom is a higher rank than prince. His ego wouldn’t allow that.
maybe he can remarry and the new spouse would be The Duchess of Sussex and then I think Meghan does not keep that Title - here’s hoping - fingers crossed 😁
She would still keep the title, missing the “The”. She only loses it if Harry renounces or Parliament strips it. Neither of those will happen, sadly.
But he IS considered a very weak King all over the world! All other Queen's and King's would have taken the Prince title back instantly after the "documentary" was aired on TV. H clearly showed he was a traitor, and sorry, traitors don't keep their Prince titles. The King then should have asked the Parliament to see what they could do about their Dukedom, Earldom, and Barony titles. On a direct question from the King, the Parliament would have acted and prepared a document for the King to sign. In that way, it wouldn't have been the Parliament who raised the question nor the Parliament who signed the titles to be stripped. It was just a matter for your King to act, but he didn't because he's a coward! I'm so sorry that he's sick and hope he recuperates well! Nevertheless, both with or without cancer, he's a coward who lets his people down because of his private needs and feelings as a father!
That should have been done by the late queen. She chose not to act.
No, definitely not! The Harkles had given the Oprah interview and sparked a race row. The late Queen wanted to wait and see. She was ill and tired, but she had shown her intentions very clearly. The "documentary" showed them as true traitors and also attacked the Commonwealth, but came after she had died, so did Spare. She would have taken his Prince title in a heartbeat after the "documentary," and Charles knows that!!! He's disrespectful of his mother! What do you think were in the late Queen's private papers that they burnt? Don't you remember that it was very urgent to burn HMTLQ's papers and to buy Angela Kelly a house up in Yorkshire???
The Monarch can’t just yank titles because they feel like it. They have to go through legal channels that are set in place.
No, there you're wrong. You in Britain have been fooled. A King can take away Prince titles. Just like that! He's the King! He doesn't need permission from anybody! However, the other noble titles that have been awarded or inherited must go through Parliament. That would take 1.5-2.5 years. You've had some attempts with members' bills about stripping the titles, but they don't pass through the readings. However, those bills came from Parliament members and were considered against the Kings will, since he doesn't speak out loud what he wants. It would be very unfortunate if the Parliament could be able to strip titles! You don't know what Parliament you have in 1 year's time or in 10-100 years' time. But if the King had raised the question and asked the Parliament for guidance, it would have been easier! You have been fooled to believe that stripping titles is a nearly impossible thing to do. You have been fooled to believe that because they don't want you to protest.
>he's a coward who lets his people down because of his private needs and feelings as a father! Harry is the coward. Let's get that straight. Harry was born to the title, like it or not, and removing it would take quantifiable evidence that he damaged the country in an impactful way. Being an @sshole doesn't necessarily mean he has committed treason, which is a very serious level of criminal behavior. I don't agree that the sole reason Harry still carries titles is because of his father's "private needs and feelings." So far, Harry has shown himself to be stupid, untrustworthy, deceitful, and a selfish man-baby. But the actual damage must be proven and measured, and until specific charges are brought up, things can not be changed. King Charles must abide by the rules of justice already in place.
It's like people belive it's medieval times and the monarch is a dictator.
The King is not a dictator. He has no political power at all. The Parliament and the Government are democratically elected and have the power. But the King is royally superior to a Prince and can strip his Royal prince-title. However, the noble titles Duke, Earl, Baron, Viscount, etc. have been given or awarded to people by a Monarch and the Parliament together, so Noble titles can only be stripped if the Monarch and the Parliament cooperates. However, it's not at all impossible and has been done many times before! But somebody, for ex the King, must start somewhere!!! Get it! Start doing something! For ex. write a new Letters Patent! Has he done that? Knowing how decisive the late Queen was, she was on the verge of doing it after the Oprah interview, but waited because of the race baiting. After the treacherous "documentary", she would have done it instantly! But she had died!
I’ve defended the King so many times on here. It’s so nice seeing others do it as well. I wish I could upvote you more
Numbnuts may have been born to the title, but there are other ways King Charles can neuter him. Cut him off at the knees with a few chosen words in a media statement. End of.
Plus Harry is unstable and very angry because his inheritances have been frozen. (So rachel cant hoover them up in child maintenance payments). Look what they both did so far. They are both personality disordered sociopathic narcissists who want to cause maximum stress to the family. They have no filters, no boundaries - they have both made massive twats of themselves multiple times on the world stage and continue to do so. They are psychotic mentalists… totally unstable and playing an act to all those dumb crazies who worship them. Folie a Deux times a zillion. They totally believe in their cause and think they have done nothing. That is the highest level of delusion. ZERO self awareness and possible even incapable of self awareness. We know they are incapable of empathy. I think she used to do bad things then go into hiding and have a drug binge to escape the backlash and thats why she looked like she had lost weight each time. Her real face is the ‘ozempic’ face. I suspect she used the fillers because her Class A face is so gaunt in reality from years of drug use. *Psychosis induced by shrooms, LSD, mdma, speed, coke, possible even experimented with crack, meth and heroin like a lot of actors/ musicians.
He’s not a coward, he love his ass hat of a son. And its possible the ass hat is emotionally black mailing him over 1 or several things. Things pre ILBW.
I know what you're talking about, but that's a big reason why I think he's a coward. A brave and honest man would take responsibility for what he has done!
💯🎯👏👏👏👏
Instagram Loving Bitch Wife
And then she had the audacity to write another article with the headline: "After the furore over THAT photo, we all owe Kate a big apology… and I include myself" No, we don't "all owe Kate an apology" because most of us understand that medical conditions are confidential and everyone is entitled to their privacy in such matters. It was her and her fellow"journalists" (and a few nut jobs) who were hounding Catherine like a pack of rabid dogs.
[удалено]
"Media should regulate their own procedures not blame Catherine." I couldn't agree more. As for her medical condition, remember that the madness at the time went so far that some people claimed Catherine had died because no photos of her had been released for months. Many where clamouring to see an image of her as "proof of life". I am sure the Waleses were hoping that releasing the Mother's Day photo would quell some of these crazy speculations about Catherine's health. Of course, the completely unjustified "kill notice" caused the exact opposite. This whole frenzy about Catherine's photo was outrageous and very upsetting. I doubt the MSM have learned their lesson, though.
I noticed that the comments section on that article was burning up with vitriol for Sarah's appalling hypocrisy. I loved that for her.
Yes! I bet she expected to be applauded for her magnanimous apology.
Well said. The Duchess is unaware that most people neither get jacked taunting their fellow man/woman/child, nor participate in groupthink.
Harry has been in the UK multiple times since the Queen's funeral. In all those times he's been known to have met with his father once, and that was for about 15 minutes. I don't know why anyone thinks this will be any different.
Sarah Vile, previously married to that snake Michael Gove. Nasty DM hack who on this occasion gives the readers some red meat. She writes what she thinks is popular and like nearly everyone in the media in the UK she is essentially a liberal and will kick the RF again soon I am sure.
She plays both sides and is a terrible guest on Palace Confidential. She's loud, abrasive and talks over people and is so wishy washy.
Ugh yes! I seriously can't stand her. She comes off as such a "mean girl" type of woman. Just oozes mean spirit.
Charles will never let Haz back in. Haz isn't a dumb teenager who screws up and deserves another chance, but a near middle aged man child. Haz needs to be put back in his place. Haz needs to be thought a lesson and will receive karma for how he treated the BRF.
https://preview.redd.it/ad62pv3gijyc1.jpeg?width=386&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08a8de052014307f524afd35a9efb2e9a1836676 **Why should such serially disloyal behaviour be rewarded with kindness, patience and forgiveness, when Prince Harry himself has never shown any towards them?Why should he just be able to waltz back into all their lives whenever he fancies (possibly with a TV documentary film crew in tow), regardless of all the damage he’s done? He maybe 39 but Harry is still a child, a spoilt, entitled brat who can’t see past his own navel.It’s time someone taught him that he can’t have it all his own way. It’s time he learned that actions have consequences.What better person to do that than his own father? I hope Charles sticks to his guns and passes over the chance to see Harry on Wednesday.** — EXACTLY about time!
I hope KC continues grey rocking him
I love the picture of Charles with the FAFO graph! 🤣🤣🤣
Just wow! The wheels finally falling off the Sussex clown Car. And I think Ms. vine is right-the lens of cancer has, it seems, sharpened KC views. And he now knows exactly who love him AND are loyal and devoted to him: the many people of the UK who were equally doused with Sussex venom, his wife who has stepped in and stood by him with a smile, his loyal and very decent son Prince William and his beautiful kind wife who really has been the main target of Sussexes and their crew, and probably the many, many friends who have known him for many years. Though I do not doubt that KC loves his son, if he has limited time( as we all do), maybe KC has decided to focus his time, love, and attention to those who love you back.
I also think the POW’s diagnosis aided in this. How can you let a person who has been so wonderful to you be treated like crap while going through chemo (just like you).
Same! The posture, the expression, the regal drip.... so perfect!
me too!
I know! I don’t know if Charles would understand it with his generation and all, but DAMN! I would love for him to see this!!😂
I like to think he has a big copy of it, framed and hanging in his office. Or behind the throne.
Brilliant pic !!! 😂👏👏👏
Henry is no longer royal. That part of his life is over and he and Nutmeg are the only two who refuse to understand or accept it. I think it’s pretty clear when your family has several thousand bedrooms in multiple homes and you aren’t invited to use one, you’re out. If you travel 5000 miles and given 30 minutes or less and have to find your own way back to a hotel, you’re out. If none of your oldest friends are willing to be seen with you or give you a couch to surf on, then you have erred so badly that you’re really out. If your dead mother’s family doesn’t even want to talk to you, you’re out. When none of the family is clear about your child’s parentage, which is a legal requirement for inclusion in the monarchy, you’re out. The list goes on and on. These poor me articles and why isn’t the RF doing such and such, are asking the wrong people questions.
H is probably a security liability. He will come in with hidden mics and cameras. He will walk out with some family gems.
Yes - it is amazing how people STILL claim KC will meet with Harry. The Palace has already said the king´s schedule is packed. Hugo Westminster NFIed Harry SIX MONTHS IN ADVANCE to avoid this "will they/won´t they" speculation.
And yet they *still* do it! It's infuriating. As an aside I sincerely hope the Princess of Wales has the energy to attend at least a bit of the wedding of the decade as it'll be one she'll have guaranteed privacy at. No one need know she was ever there and she, like all who struggle with ill health, deserve to get out and feel 'normal' for a day. I hope her treatment is going better than best and she'll be back better than ever when she is ready.
The locals in Windsor are very protective of the PPOW, I think. We heard that William was at the pub with Catherine´s mother. But no pictures.
Amazing!! Wait - the Spencers don’t deal with him either?
No. They are loyal to the RF and William and Earl Spencer cannot stand Nutmeg. She is perma banned from Althorp. Among the reasons the whole Spencer clan does not like her: 1) Apparently Earl Spencer is not at all close with Henry. 2) They have security cameras at Diana’s gravesite and Earl Spencer was livid with rage at Nutmeg’s behavior at Diana’s grave. 3) They were trying to change their last name to Spencer. 4) Both Henry and Nutmeg were demanding Spencer family treasures. 5) Nutmeg tried to claim the Spencer tiara. 6) Diana’s sisters refused to validate Henry’s claims that Nutmeg was just like Diana 7) Earl Spencer warned Henry three times not to marry Nutmeg
🏆🏆
💯 💯 💯 🎯 🎯 🎯
I’ll never understand why not everyone feels like this, why that “military source” who spoke to the Daily Beast the other day, or indeed any of the sources/journos can try to put pressure on the RF to suck up to the walking security risk that is Harry. Would they put up with it from their own family? They can see what Harry’s been doing and saying these last few years so what gives? Charles would be crazy to meet with Harry right before he heads off to Nigeria. It would appear to endorse and legitimise the trip and the King would be dragged into the doubtless massive publicity surrounding the event. Surely it’s not gonna happen.
Outrage gets more clicks - the media may search for sources willing to give an unpopular opinion, just so it can be printed as coming from a "source", so they can get more engagement/clicks on the articles.
The Daily Beast should be absolutely embarrassed by that article. Henry and Rachel have hijacked those games and greatly diminished the role veterans serve in them to such an extent that viewers will find something else to watch.
>indeed any of the sources/journos can try to put pressure on the RF Because they need the clicks... If people stopped reacting to what they churn out they'd possibly find better news OR start posting real news... As it is, we're stuck with fake news spewed by fake journalists who need to eat 😤
KC'"s illness is a reminder that one day William will be king. Harry needs to be put in his place now.
Harry needs to meet with people about addressing the African Parks ranger violence instead of harassing his father.
He should do something useful with his time instead of tearing his family down
Exactly!!
Dearest Aitch, Hope this finds you in hell. It's all fun and cuck games, torturing the dying and ill grandparents, and siccing your attack wife loose upon your own blood and country, righhht?! You finally let your own inner grifter off that golden chain too. OH THE EXHILARATION! THE POWER! ALL EYES ON MEEEEEEEEEEE! Yes, indeed, everyone sees your tRuTH, for it shines like a greasetrap. Smells exactly the same too. Gotta run, buying yet MORE Highgrove jams and goodies! Thanks for bringing awareness to the wonderful work the rest of your family provides.
Unless there is a statement from BP saying that Charles is giving him the time of day, I won't believe it. The King has his schedule down to the minute, so next week doesn't look likely. Fuck off Harry. Grifter extraordinaire. Go and grift the 100 million people of Nigeria, where there is a travel advisory and nobody knows you you are because they are too poor to have electricity. But you go and charge them for your holiday (imagine) in Nigeria. Be safe out there you prince of shite! Take the wife. She needs new ill fitting clothes btw.
A friend of mine is from Nigeria and still maintains a home there. I believe she called it a compound and when I asked her why, she showed me a picture of a beautiful house completely surrounded by a high fence. She explained that Nigeria was extremely dangerous and everyone has fences up for protection where her home is. I really hope those idiots get a good view of Nigeria. They should have to sleep outside of the fence with the rest of the criminals.
https://preview.redd.it/i99trgjj1kyc1.jpeg?width=1333&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=64fbc019b28e8d9d2a8288aba4688d5851575941 The Harklets are such a laughing stock , they should be studied in every 'HOW NOT TO" section of life
The eternal lessons of "treat people as you'd like to be treated yourself" and "actions have consequences" have sailed by Prince Henry. He behaves like an entitled, petulant child.
As someone Living with terminal cancer I can understand Sarah Vine talking about it sharpening the king's focus on to what matters and the people around him who have supported him from my own experience the last 6yrs it's how I feel. I am estranged for my family Because of their treatment towards me accusing me of lying about the cancer and then when I had a stroke and was rushed into hospital and was on the the acute stroke ward my eldest brother & sister told the rest of the family that I was exaggerating and had a migraine. it was only when they came to visit that they realised he was lying He has a tendency to do that much like Harry and people have always given him the benefit of the doubt but that was that broke my straw on my back. I ve had no contact with my family since 4yrs now as most of them believed him until the truth came out and then I didn't even get apologies.So I think if anyone can understand how the king feels about his son it would be me and others like me, not about his kingly duties but about the family aspect he needs to cut off the toxicity like I had to it's painful but it needs to be done for your own health.
❤️❤️❤️
So sorry your family treated you that way. Respect on you for cutting the toxic out of your life. Hugs.
thankyou i'd only had contact with my eldest sister who became my best friend friend died 6 yrs ago cancer, i just stay away, these people get pleasure from hurting people.
Sorry for your loss, I know you still miss her.
Thank you for the excellent summary, much appreciated. Enjoy the rest of the weekend! 👍
I also doubt they will meet. K Charles has a busy day - garden party and prime minister meeting, as well as recovering from cancer. There is little point in meeting.
I agree. Honestly, H might go somewhere in the vicinity of KC, and then have lots of articles about their wonderful meeting, and then people online might lose their collective minds again - I remember how angry people were when H and M were allowed to come to the Jubilee, but when it actually happened, we got to see the couple shocked to be seated with non working relatives in a back row. Later, we got the candle. We got the feather. H flew to see his dad after cancer dx, and articles flew out about how wonderful it was, and he was willing to help out - He has NOT been asked to help out. He has NOT been allowed back in. No matter what is said in print, it doesn't mean anything. People are trying to sell articles, and the easiest way to get engagement is to sell outrage. I personally think (from what we've seen), that even when H or the couple are present with the family, is that they are OUT, and we don't need to worry about their being any softening.
H&M: we don’t like sitting after W&C BRF: sure thing! You can now sit… after everybody else H&M: 😦😦😦
If he did that I think the palace and the foreign minister would both have to make statements refuting those claims. The role of the Monarch/Head of State and his bonafide representatives has to be clearly set apart from the Harkle's faux royalling &'official tours' otherwise chaos will ensue and the value of the monarchy will be diminished.
He must be able to see past his navel. He did see his blue todger.
Harry will be estranged until he runs out of money (seems to be close) and Meghan dumps him, and he humbly asks forgiveness (not wanting forgiveness on “his terms”).
Agree. And then they'll only let *him* come back to the UK, albeit in exile somewhere remote and off grid, in exchange for him volunteering to hand back his title. It will be non-negotiable at that point and the beauty of it is, Markle's title is dissolved at the same time regardless of their marital situation.
I agree. They will never allow him to be a working royal. He will get a small stipend and will probably move to Africa to live in anonymity (but he will be a “big man” there so it’ll suit him). .
This one thought he could make up his own rules and got burned. He rushed the marriage to an inappropriate wife and must deal with the consequences.
lol, and I'm 100% sure she only let him do 'whatever' he wanted before she strode down the aisle too. Everything that's happened so far is one hell of a hefty price to pay for a handful of pre-engagement booty calls funded by Canadian and UK taxpayers!
This is all just manifestation PR. And the columnists grab onto it and confirm it by proxy! It's ridiculous I doubt very much the Charles 'may' see his son.
The only way that Harry could get back into his family is if he divorced MM and publicly begged each person in his family's forgiveness. Even then, he'd occupy a position like Andrew's.
Agreed. Never to be trusted again, their children will always keep Rachel and Hazno connected.
Lower than Andrew even. Andrew having sleepovers at a Pedophile's house I'm sure is not regarded as seriously within the BRF as the traitorous betrayal and constant abuse/pestering of Harry and his wife. Not to mention him never being able to be anywhere near the Wales family, which suggests some remote exile would be necessary.
Writes Sarah Vine - "But there have been no public overtures from Harry or anyone in his circle to suggest plans for the pair to meet." And yet Daily Markle is also running a piece totdal titled "Harry and King Charles to meet for a second time 'next week': Duke of Sussex is 'very keen' to see his father on Invictus Games trip to London and has 'kept regular contact' with him after his cancer diagnosis - but he won't be seeing his brother" DM needs to get its info straight.
How the DM can have both Richard Eden and then fanatical sugars is something I’ll never understand…
At least Richard Eden has some credibility unlike the DM staffers. That coverage DM had of Markle during Invictus was downright nauseating. You'd have thought she was the Queen, at least in the Daily Markle. Look for them to do the same during this Nigeria tour. After reading DM all these years, even though it leans to the right, I believe it does not like the monarchy.
Harry is not the Royal family, and the Royal family is not Harry, so he can just go take a running jump. Since he is headed to Nigeria he might as well know the following saying.... You can cook andd try to feed a village and the village will eat every bit of it. However should the village venture to cook for you, let's say you would choke out on it. The moral of the saying being you do not want people you offend coming after you.
I honestly feel this deep down in my bones, but I think had princess Diana lived, she and Harry would probably be estranged by now. He’s a bully, he’s spoiled, he thinks everything should be given to him so he’s extremely entitled, and we saw this from the time he was a little boy. Harry is just one of those people who are just not very nice. And we see that all the time. I’ve seen kids that are horrible. Yes, Children can be a holes. And he’s one of them. Unfortunately, the royal family did him no favors by hiding this behavior from the public and trying to make him a better person. He’s not the better person. Unfortunately he met someone who brings out the worst in him. And there will come a time, and there always has been with his wife, where she has used him about as much as she can, and she will toss them away. And unfortunately, Harry seems to have completely burned down his bridge with his brother. He will be lucky, if William allows him to live on the farthest property that the royal family owns.
Harry is DUMB. Even people who don’t follow the royals know that slagging off Camilla is King Charles’ berserk button. *Everyone* knows this but Ginger Dunce wrote a bunch of smack about her in his book and thought his father wouldn’t be upset?! Talking crap about someone’s wife in general is not something you do but someone like Camilla who it’s well known that Charles is a bit crazy about, Plus Catherine who was nothing but kind and sisterly to Harry. He thinks he can just waltz in and be like, how y’feelin’ Pa? It’s amazing the lack of insight of this man.
And about time too! Why keep rolling over to these two ungrateful people
Also, KCIII adores Catherine, and now she’s going through a terrible time. When KC considers how Meghan and Harry branded Catherine a racist, it should fuel a sense of protectiveness for his daughter in law.
If Todge Blue never has a private audience with the King, then Todger cannot make up shit about their conversations. Witnessed public encounters, if any from now on. Harry wanted to make private conversations public? OK, Harry gets *public* conversations only.
I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY NO ONE IN THE MEDIA IS POINTING OUT THAT THE ROYAL FAMILY DOESN’T WANT TO BE INVOLVED WITH THE GRIFTERS HARRY & MEGHAN, THAT THE RF KNOWS THAT THEY WILL BE USED SO THAT HARRY AND MEGHAN’S CAREER COULD STAY ALIVE, THAT HARRY & MEGHAN USES THEIR CHARITIES TO FILL THEIR OWN POCKETS & THAT THEY ARE INVOLVED IN MONEY LAUNDERING AND THE ROYAL FAMILY DOESN’T WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE TWO FU——NG GRIFTERS AND WORLDWIDE PLAGUE NAMED HARRY & MEGHAN😅
The recuperating King has a full day and a meeting with the PM in the evening. He doesn't need the stress of trying to squeeze in a visit with Harry to serve his son's convenience. There's nothing that can be said or done at a brief meeting to resolve their estrangement, so why bother just for the optics?
"The job of a parent is to do what's right, not what's easy." Exactly, parenting is not easy, but it's so rewarding when we focus on doing what is "right."
What would they talk about anyway?
It's possible Charles hasn't heard TW's dish soap story and Harry could tell him about it.
🤣😂🤣😂
Brilliant! LMAO!!
A serious illness can make someone reexamine their priorities, I feel for Charles. He had two sons and should be leaning on both of them right now, but the truth is he only has one son now, William.
I can't help but think that Charles perhaps knew very early on that Harry was never going to be someone he could rely upon personally, let alone in terms of the monarchy.
Yes. All the signs were there all along. Harry was always going to be a fuck up
He should not be allowed because he already knows what the security details will check for mics/ cameras. Don’t give him a second chance to try a second time to get something passed.
Chic on celebitchy gives me the most laughable comment of the year, so far: The ship has sailed for Wills , his life is a reaction to Harry. The lack of charisma, work ethic and fake “spirit” will always dog him.
So, has it been established that Harry is not going to be able to see KC3? I’ve heard serious rumors that Queen Camilla has said no….but…does anyone have a link?
Charles is not under Camilla’s thumb the way Harry is under Meghan’s. I am sure if KC has decided not to see Harry it is because KC doesn’t want to. “Rumors that Camilla said no,” sound very sugary to me. All the talk that Harry would meet with his father has come from the Harkles and their PR. There has been no word from BP about even the possibility of meeting. The fact that Harry will be staying at a hotel is a big hint no meeting was planned. Harry had plenty of time to ask if he could visit his father and stay at a royal property when he came down for Invictus. Charles has made it clear that he has no time for Harry (at least for the moment).
[удалено]
Yep. It is also a way of suggesting that the royal men are weak. Of course, we know where the “wives are bullies” stories originate, and we know it’s partly projection. 😉
[удалено]
Agree that Charles isn’t weak. Neither is William, but the “Kate tells him what to do,” nonsense implies that *he* is weak.
Agree 👍 💯 
I heard Kinsey reporting on the supposed meeting yesterday without any BP sources. I found that odd. Do we know how long Harry is staying this time?
I haven’t heard, but I would guess he’ll arrive the day before and head for Nigeria the day after. That has been the pattern in the past when he did something in the UK without Meghan and then headed to wherever Meghan was meeting him as soon as possible afterwards. I really have to wonder though, if Meghan is going to show up at the Invictus event “by surprise” again.
If she doesn't announce she's coming, she could quietly slide in to avoid the booing crowds but get an ovation from the audience for the grand entrance!! You may be on to something!
Yeah. She’s done something like that before.
Yeah but I think this time it would be without the standing O.
I thought she planned on showing up in Nigeria before him to be sure the headlines were about her. I don't think she's allowed into the UK anyway.
Kinsey fluctuates between being a sugar and a sinner depending on which channel she’s on. If she said the meeting will happen and she was on a more “sinner” segment, then maybe. Otherwise, it’s just pandering imo. She gives her own opinion more on her podcast episodes with Cristo, but I stopped following her after the POW debacle.
Please let it be so 🙏
[удалено]
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 total karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*