Harry & Meghan #405 Harry, you've got the wrong number!

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
it's time to snatch from friendly forum:


1704481264015.png


About pregnancy contract with Trev:

archive.ph

Meghan Markle's pal exposes details of old ‘pregnancy contract'

archived 5 Jan 2024 15:13:20 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph

And of course, the greatest actress of her mind:

archive.ph

5 Big Reasons Meghan Markle Could Make a Surprise Appearance on Sunda…

archived 5 Jan 2024 14:04:23 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph
 
Ndrangheta said:
I thought it was because if they had carried on with the trial The Queen might have been called as a witness and that would have opened a massive constitutional can of worms?
Click to expand...
PC wanted the trial stopped, but it went to the wire. At the last minute HM had "a recollection" that Burrell had been given permission to keep some of Diana's possessions.

"Some items were missing, including secret tapes Diana had recorded of a former valet against Michael Fawcett, Charles's right-hand man. (sexual assault iirc, and recorded by Diana).

Knowing these could potentially be made public sent Charles into a panic, according to Tom Bower, author of Rebel Prince, the best-selling biography of the then Prince of Wales which first uncovered the true extent of Burrell's extraordinary collection."
 
Scotch Mist said:
The last video is interesting about the Dutch printing - far less books to be pulped!
Click to expand...
I'm just now watching the full version of this intelligent, open interview with this this historical expert, Dr Andrew Lownie.

The interview starts with his research for a book he wrote about Earl 'Dickie' Mountbatten - Charles' 'Honorary Grandfather' and mentor.

Dr Lownie asked for the FBI files on Mountbatten. They documented his "p-hile predeliction and use of boys"
The FBI told Dr Lownie that the files had been destroyed. He asked when they were destroyed.
The FBI replied, "When you asked for them."

*Earl Mountbatten was Charles' MENTOR throughout his youth and early adulthood*
How did that affect his life, marriage to Diana, his parenting, his affiliations with p-philes...?

This full version is worth watching - it gets worse.
 
TheCutiePatootie said:
Are you saying 17-year-olds are too old to be abused?

Sorry for being obtuse. I just need to understand the first sentence.
Click to expand...
If she was under 18, in theory her parents still had legal control and responsibility of her. So that is why I want to know where her parents were in this. She should still have been living in the family home unless she was an emancipated minor. A person has to go to court to become an emancipated minor and a judge has to determine that you are mature enough to take responsibility for yourself for you to no longer be under the supervision of your parents. I never saw it noted that VG was an emancipated minor. By the age of 17 a person should have a handle on determining right from wrong and have a sense of self and be able to protect yourself from walking into a harmful situation. If a person is that naive, then their parents should exert better management of their child. So where were her parents?

A person of any age can be abused and I did not reference or use the word abused in my post. Many times abuse happens and a person doesn’t realize it until later. Many times there is the opportunity to avoid it in the first place. Don’t be in the wrong place, in the first place. Taking responsibility for actions is always a good thing.

BTW. It is forgotten that VG had previously received a settlement from another man to keep her mouth shut. When she and her husband ran through that money, they went looking for more and found attorney David Boies a real shark. Prince Andrew was the designated victim and easy mark. Alan Dershowitz told her to go to hell.
 
LadyMuck said:
A good read. Re the differing press reports

Click to expand...

Well if Charles abdicates ''under pressure '' getting rid of William will take about..5 years.
Yes, it sounds unbelievable .
Not sure who is profiting from the ''elevation '' of William against Charles but it certainly isn't William , because William then gets to ''inherit '' the leftover ''negatives '' of Charles .
It must be a ''celebrity '' like view on the Monarchy , because I certainly don't see the benefits.
The ''optics'' are that the Households operate independently , and that's not the wrong approach .
Conflicting reports create ''plausible deniability .''
 
DM Me Hun said:
It’s real. It was taken at Buckingham Palace during the mourning period the night they were waiting for the Queen’s coffin to return from Scotland. If I remember rightly, the press had been asked not to try and get photos of the family inside the palace and then lo and behold, one appears with Smeg looking directly at the camera.
Click to expand...
yes that's how I remember it at the time, there was plenty discussion's on here about it
 
LadyMuck said:
Bookworm. 'If we are to take KCs word that nothing nefarious happened when he knew Savile then shouldn't we also take PAs word that nothing happened'

Click to expand...

Thanks @LadyMuck :coronation:
BookWorm thought the JE list of names would be released in one hit, but they're coming out bit by hit and this makes her suspicious that the big names will be exonerated. We won't see the nasty stuff.

She's not prepared to speculate or judge PA until the same scrutiny is applied to King Charles's friendships with people like Jimmy Savile, Laurens van der Post and Peter Ball.
She's not saying anything nefarious happened with PC and Savile, but the same should apply to PA as what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
PC said he was not involved with Savile. Neither do we know with PA and JE.

BookWorm said it was wrong for Beatrice and Eugenie to be dragged in just because GM and JE were invited to Beatrice's 18th. We have no proof, ditto SoHo House. Guilt by association. People need to separate fact from fiction and we need hard evidence.

The document contains many names, some incidental with no evidence of their involvement in JE's crimes. Epstein had a busy life and knew lots of people.
BookWorm noted that Johanna Sjoberg in her statement said that she was a 20-year-old student recruited to work for Epstein. Legally an adult.
 
Plantagenet said:
If she was under 18, in theory her parents still had legal control and responsibility of her. So that is why I want to know where her parents were in this. She should still have been living in the family home unless she was an emancipated minor. A person has to go to court to become an emancipated minor and a judge has to determine that you are mature enough to take responsibility for yourself for you to no longer be under the supervision of your parents. I never saw it noted that VG was an emancipated minor. By the age of 17 a person should have a handle on determining right from wrong and have a sense of self and be able to protect yourself from walking into a harmful situation. If a person is that naive, then their parents should exert better management of their child. So where were her parents?

A person of any age can be abused and I did not reference or use the word abused in my post. Many times abuse happens and a person doesn’t realize it until later. Many times there is the opportunity to avoid it in the first place. Don’t be in the wrong place, in the first place. Taking responsibility for actions is always a good thing.

BTW. It is forgotten that VG had previously received a settlement from another man to keep her mouth shut. When she and her husband ran through that money, they went looking for more and found attorney David Boies a real shark. Prince Andrew was the designated victim and easy mark. Alan Dershowitz told her to go to hell.
Click to expand...
The mother:
Mother.png


It's complex, but the events we are discussing here are 23 years old.
And objectively Rose Hanbury is less then a year younger than Virginia , and the Marquis is three months younger than Andrew , under different circumstances they could've met, maybe had a initially hidden relationship and then gotten married, and nobody would bat an eyelid about ''age differences .''
It's the situation .
 
2 Blinds - allegedly...
7. ENTERTAINMENT LAWYER 01/04 **8**
Hopefully, somewhere in the documents will be how the royal paid off his debt by offering up one of his children. (BLIND ITEM REVEALED 09/20/19) (BLIND ITEM REVEALED 01/30/20)

28. ENTERTAINMENT LAWYER 01/03 **14**
The alliterate one has been trying to snag Vanity Fair Oscar tickets. The thing is, her demands are through the roof and nothing that even the biggest of big A++ listers have asked for through the years. Not even close. Plus, she wants extra tickets for hangers on and publicists and they just don't do that. Finally, the buzz is her husband has no desire to attend at all. Meghan Markle



 
Churchill's Ghost said:
Oh waaaauggghhhh, the grieving King who had just lost both parents in a short amount of time and now had the pressure of taking the crown wasn't warm and nurturing enough to the Stoats...

nypost.com

Meghan Markle, Prince Harry were ‘alienated’ at last gathering with King Charles: expert

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex joined the royal family at Westminster Abbey in Sept. 2022 for the late Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral.
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
It's not going too well for the author of that article in the comments section 😃
I've noticed that the NY post always write anti monarchy/pro Harkles articles but the people commenting never agree 😄
 
Bookworm makes a good point re Keir Starmer and the Republic group wanting the police to investigate PA - why aren't they going after KC for his 'meetings and friendships' with Savile and Hall, going for the top and not someone lower down the chain who is retired anyway (PA)
 
Cinnamon.girl said:
Thanks for this and to whoever suggested (Chita?) screenshots of tweets, as I can either never read them or they've disappeared so I miss a load of stuff.
Click to expand...

I now scroll on by if I see a post that is just a link to a tweet with no explanation what the link will take me to.
9 times out of 10 the tweet is gone or there's a message saying cannot load, try again later.

So a screenshot is best.
Also it can be saved as evidence if needed.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top