Harry & Meghan #467 Harry the People's (magazine) Prince.

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
Amiyaya said:
I will never understand how they were allowed to secretly birth 2 children - and one of them in America, and have them added to the LoS without a murmur. No one else has been allowed to do this - what makes them so special? And if she wanted to ‘modernise the monarchy’ then being open and honest about fertility issues and surrogacy would have given them huge star power - Edward and Sophie were very open about their struggles to good effect.
Click to expand...
I think the RF were frozen with fear over being called racists.
 
Xales said:
If this comes out I will be interested to see how the royals try and twist them being in the line of succession but not being 'of the body'.
A lot of people already don't want a monarchy and this fraud and trying to deceive us plebs could push more to that idea.
Click to expand...
BIB your post
"If this comes out I will be interested to see how the royals try and twist them being in the line of succession but not being 'of the body'.
A lot of people already don't want a monarchy and this fraud and trying to deceive us plebs could push more to that idea."
In two sentences you've summed up what's behind this circus. The rest is a load of puffery to stop us from seeing what's behind it, which is constitutional fraud and it is a really serious issue.

Thanks @MoodyBlue and @Chita for the title and summary.
Are things getting sorted, @wibble ? Glad you're still posting.

This mini-Royal tour is soft PR for the Stoat alone, low-key to make him look good and it's been pitched just so.

It's odd that Edward is never in the news apart from two nasty articles about him being a jerk, even though he carries out such a lot of engagements. Not much about Anne either but endless gushing over Cam.

Jmo but DB's gong is in the bag. A DE poll was 60/40 in favour of a knighthood but reader comments are against. Why do a poll when it's nothing to do with DE readers but with the Honours Committee who are "an unappreciative bunch of C..ts"? I bet they're even more unappreciative now knowing that Chuck has a track record for selling Honours and has brought the System into disrepute to a degree. My devious mind wonders if the poll was commissioned to make it appear that Chuck was giving into popular demand and awarding a knighthood to this blond selfless sporting God?

We're being softened up. First The Inked One an Ambassador to The King's Foundation in June. Now a PR blitz on The Addams Family falling out with the Stoats, the stick-insect and her Tattooed OH scowling as they emerge from an exclusive restaurant with their lumpen offspring. Who cares??? Sir Dave pictured with William, William imo being used.

Reader comment:
Morecambe14 HRS AGO
"Tom Bower is a highly respected investigative author. I've just finished reading his biography of David Beckham. I never thought Beckham was worthy of a Knighthood, and after reading Bowers' book I'm convinced that awarding Beckham a Knightood would devalue the honour."
 
The Sun

This bit. If Smeg ever wants to go down the 'paranoid/obsessed' route for a divorce/custody at some point, Justice Fancourt just handed her a huge advantage yesterday by dismissing the bugging/tracking devices claim for lack of evidence.

She could claim all sorts of things and Hazza's court cases will provide the fodder.

.
Meghan has reportedly been frustrated with Harry’s legal cases, which are still dragging on through the courts in London.

And the couple reportedly disagreed on how to raise their children, Archie, now five, and Lilibet, three.

Harry, The Sun has been told, did not want the kids to be seen in public in case they were photographed.

But Meghan would allegedly prefer a more relaxed lifestyle, allowing them to attend more local events.
Click to expand...

www.thesun.co.uk

Are Meg & Harry leading separate lives? Pals reveals their fears

THE megawatt smile we have not seen for so long is back. Prince Harry beams from ear to ear in photos taken on his latest trip to his beloved Africa. But missing from the snaps of the Duke with chi…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk
 
Last edited:
FrancesDundee80 said:
I had my birthday a week ago and I wanted to have a small dinner for my friends and I couldn't get the list to below 20. Friends from high school, from college, from different workplaces and, of course friends-of-friends-who-become-friends. All close, all people who would have my back and that can count on me. The next day, I had lunch with my close family and we were 10. I am not an actress, I always lived in the same city, I am not famous and I wanted something small and private. Still I had 30 people to celebrate with.

The ILBW, marrying into TRF had to invite complete strangers and had five friends and her mother with her. This, right there, told us everything we needed to know about her.
Click to expand...


I did the same thing. I am not a person who really makes friends at all, but even I have five friends (all that I have had over 40 years) My immediate family (siblings and their offspring/families - not counting my husband’s family) is 45. Extended family that I am still in close contact with is another 14. Family friends that are as close as family add another dozen or more people. Holidays at my mom’s are regularly 50 people. Extending that out to who I would have invited to my royal wedding, I could easily get to 100, even when I was 36. We know that the RF gave her free reign to invite whoever she wanted (I’m actually surprised that she only invited actors she didn’t know and not producers and directors)
 
wisebutwild said:
Sorry to hear about your mum @Amiyaya . Prayers for her recovery and big hug for you.
Thanks @Chita for starting the new thread and love your recap, made me giggle. Congrats to @MoodyBlue for the fab title.

What do we think about this I saw on another site ……. The Ffarchie baby looks younger but there’s not 5 months difference between the two babies?

View attachment 3205278 q
Click to expand...
IMG_1226 (1).jpeg

We always said on here that no way could this Ffark who met Tutu have been 4 months old. I believe it's a little girl, borrowed for the day and returned after the PR event. Some connection with SoHo House or a photographer, polo?

In all the videos and photos, this little Ffark keeps her eyes on her mother (or father). There's some v creepy footage where the Ho stalks across the room towards the baby like a praying mantis, and the baby looks scared.

Note this was a Royal Tour, announced by the Palace. Who did they think this child was?
The Sussexes had cocked up the Fiji tour earlier and were rude to the GG in Australia, but were sent on this Royal tour to South Africa and cocked it up as well.

This version of Ffark has an opposite squint to Gavin Gingras, who's another FFark. Also has different ears.
 
Cinnamon.girl said:
BIB your post
"If this comes out I will be interested to see how the royals try and twist them being in the line of succession but not being 'of the body'.
A lot of people already don't want a monarchy and this fraud and trying to deceive us plebs could push more to that idea."
In two sentences you've summed up what's behind this circus. The rest is a load of puffery to stop us from seeing what's behind it, which is constitutional fraud and it is a really serious issue.

Thanks @MoodyBlue and @Chita for the title and summary.
Are things getting sorted, @wibble ? Glad you're still posting.

This mini-Royal tour is soft PR for the Stoat alone, low-key to make him look good and it's been pitched just so.

It's odd that Edward is never in the news apart from two nasty articles about him being a jerk, even though he carries out such a lot of engagements. Not much about Anne either but endless gushing over Cam.

Jmo but DB's gong is in the bag. A DE poll was 60/40 in favour of a knighthood but reader comments are against. Why do a poll when it's nothing to do with DE readers but with the Honours Committee who are "an unappreciative bunch of C..ts"? I bet they're even more unappreciative now knowing that Chuck has a track record for selling Honours and has brought the System into disrepute to a degree. My devious mind wonders if the poll was commissioned to make it appear that Chuck was giving into popular demand and awarding a knighthood to this blond selfless sporting God?

We're being softened up. First The Inked One an Ambassador to The King's Foundation in June. Now a PR blitz on The Addams Family falling out with the Stoats, the stick-insect and her Tattooed OH scowling as they emerge from an exclusive restaurant with their lumpen offspring. Who cares??? Sir Dave pictured with William, William imo being used.

Reader comment:
Morecambe14 HRS AGO
"Tom Bower is a highly respected investigative author. I've just finished reading his biography of David Beckham. I never thought Beckham was worthy of a Knighthood, and after reading Bowers' book I'm convinced that awarding Beckham a Knightood would devalue the honour."
Click to expand...

“lumpen offspring” 🤣👏
 
Amiyaya said:
I will never understand how they were allowed to secretly birth 2 children - and one of them in America, and have them added to the LoS without a murmur. No one else has been allowed to do this - what makes them so special? And if she wanted to ‘modernise the monarchy’ then being open and honest about fertility issues and surrogacy would have given them huge star power - Edward and Sophie were very open about their struggles to good effect.
Click to expand...


Race. That is it. If she were a bog standard white girl, IF they would have let him marry her (which I doubt), they (and the press) would have been all over these irregularities.
 
Scotch Mist said:
Of course they'll try the angle that they were deceived along with everyone else but they must have found out the truth, whatever it is, a long time ago. The fact that Meghan turned down the Royal doctors must have raised some eyebrows.

The RF have covered up for the Harkles and that is going to damage their reputation when it all comes out. If we can't trust them over that then why should we place any faith in them 🫠
Click to expand...

I think that the RF were incredulous when they realized the scam H&M were pulling and were really shocked. Can they get out of it? If they come out first and take control of the situation, I think it is possible. They can use the health of Prince Phillip and then the early onset of HMTLQ's sickness. They can claim that bringing the scam out to the public would only cause them intense sorrow and possibly hasten their deaths and so they kept quiet.

Will it work? I don't know but perhaps it could.

The one thing that the Monarchy offers is stability. You know who your Head of State is and, for the most part, they do their duty faithfully to their people. I think that is something that is not lightly thrown away, particularly because one of the RF was conned by a very clever, manipulative grifter. Hazno is not innocent at all but to throw away 1,000 years of history and tradition because of Meghan Markle would be a crime in itself.

This is just my opinion, of course, but I can tell you absolutely that living in a Republic at this point in time stinks.
 
Chita said:
Medical records are private.
The RF will use that when challenged about surrogacy secrecy.

Meghan and Harry insisted on privacy.
Click to expand...
The privacy issue is always used to cover up fraud, like in the visa case and the Stoat's IPP case being heard in camera. The possible Army and Bugga.Up violence, and more.

If they want to keep their surrogacy records private, that's fine but it's a no-brainer that such surrogacy rules them out of the LoS. Instead they're illegally in the LoS, while both sides hide behind a bogus "privacy" issue over the surrogacy which makes them ineligible in the first place! You couldn't make it up and it could only happen in England.

Nobody wants to see her surrogacy records. Knowing what we know of this disease-ridden hag I can't think of anything worse, so go away and be private. What we do want is transparency and honesty, not deceit and excuses.

What's really being kept "Private And Hidden" is that they all broke the law. This is the issue that everybody ducks, and the "Private Legal Surrogate" is an example.
 
Last edited:
Amiyaya said:
I will never understand how they were allowed to secretly birth 2 children - and one of them in America, and have them added to the LoS without a murmur. No one else has been allowed to do this - what makes them so special? And if she wanted to ‘modernise the monarchy’ then being open and honest about fertility issues and surrogacy would have given them huge star power - Edward and Sophie were very open about their struggles to good effect.
Click to expand...
@SunsetBeach mentioned racism and RF fears of appearing vindictive, which is very true. The Ho homed in on these weaknesses and used them ruthlessly, and it was a ratchet.

I believe she has receipts so nothing has been done, and she could have "left" a copy of her journal in Frogmore as a marker. Nothing is by accident though we're carefully schooled to think it is.

Obviously racism and vindictiveness didn't apply to other Royal births, so they were witnessed by doctors as legal and put in the LoS following the law.
Imo the Stoats are childless, but have been able to use to great effect unique circumstances that apply only to them - criminality, vengeance, insanity and racism. She knew about the Colonial sensitivity, the virtual paranoia about the past particularly as exhibited by Chuck, and she was right.

The Ho wanted titles, which surrogacy precluded by law, so they used blackmail to get what they wanted. TRF gave them plenty of ammunition, and still are. The idea that the Ho would blaze a trail for surrogacy is laughable, as her only interest is herself and big money.

Her instincts are good, hunter that she is and a quick learner. We saw how TRF bent all the rules for the Ho when she was with them and after they left, saw how they buckled in the Susan Hussey sting and threw her and William under a bus, saw how they wilted under cockroach Scrabie's outing of Catherine as the other royal racist. Threw Catherinr under a bus and didn't show support by attending her Christmas concert a week later.
Allowed the SS to harry and hound the Waleses.
The Ho's got them pegged, they both have.
 
Last edited:
wisebutwild said:
A tattler on here had this ‘lady’ for their avatar once but I’ve forgotten who it was. Can anyone remember who had it and are they still on here with a different avatar?
Click to expand...
That’s Cam from Modern Family. It was fun the first seazons, then they over stretched it and i lost interest. Just like our two pretentious cunts: they long overstayed their 15 minutes. Time for them to bugger off and live in privacaaay
 
goldshoes said:

HRH The Duke of Sussex v News Group Newspapers Limited - Find Case Law - The National Archives

caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Not sure if this has been posted already ?
Click to expand...

Ok I’m gonna need the Cliffs notes on this as I’m not smart enough to read and understand an entire judges ruling but the DM was reporting that Harry’s claims that he was bugged were thrown out…is that what this is?
---
GalaxyGirl70 said:
Daily Mail claiming that they spent his 40th birthday apart......

https://www.12ft.io/https://www.12f...nce-harry-birthday-hiking-friends-meghan.html
Click to expand...

Ah well maybe they had a separate hubbie n wifey celebration where she roasted him like a chicken 🤣🤣
 
goldshoes said:

HRH The Duke of Sussex v News Group Newspapers Limited - Find Case Law - The National Archives

caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Not sure if this has been posted already ?
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this.
I tried to read it and got totally lost, but am in awe of someone who could come up with this brainy judgment. Maybe someone on here clever can decipher it?
The case seems to be getting denser and denser, so dense that I've nearly lost track what it was about in the first place but it must be costing a fortune. Who's paying? What a criminal waste of money, and what an awful example this privileged arrogant fool is setting, taking the pee out of the public, Monarchy and judiciary. Anyone else would have been shut down once and for all, not indulged.

ETA I wonder if Harald's obsession with being bugged and eavesdropped, wanting to prove it in Court, relates to his mother being shown "proof" that she was being spied on by a journalist? He's always maintained that this was related to her death.
If Harald was eavesdropped on at all, that is.
I should imagine that any sleuth would only have heard juvenile witterings and seen emojis, going for a burger, ya, getting hammered.
 
Last edited:
GlassesReading said:
View attachment 3205849 q
Lots on X at the moment about the #dumb prince. This one made me laugh because of the photo but I've no idea what it means? Looked it up as US slang but I don't think it can be what they mean? or maybe it is? Oooh dear.
Click to expand...

Could it refer to the Strawberry Fields in the Beatles song …… lyrics below ….. seem to fit Hash Harry ……

Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to strawberry fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry fields forever
Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone, but it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me
Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to strawberry fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry fields forever
No one I think is in my tree
I mean, it must be high or low
That is, you can't, you know, tune in, but it's alright
That is, I think it's not too bad
Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to strawberry fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry fields forever
Always, no sometimes, think it's me
But you know, I know when it's a dream
I think I know, I mean a yes
But it's all wrong
That is, I think I disagree
Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to strawberry fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry fields forever
Strawberry fields forever
Strawberry fields forever


ETA …… or just found this ……
The strawberry field question is ….. if you were walking past a field of strawberries would you go and take some? Would you climb a fence to pick them. How many would you take? If you answer ‘yes’ you would cheat on your partner etc. see below

People on TikTok are using answers to the strawberry question test, to determine how likely it is that your partner would cheat. A “yes” to taking the strawberries in the field signifies a higher propensity to be unfaithful. This is heightened even more by the willingness to climb the fence and the number of strawberries taken.
 
Last edited:
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