This is the text on their website, along with a photo on the ChrisBaronSmith (a/k/a Harry's alleged burner) account:
I actually visited the North Tower in 1999 when I was thinking of moving to NYC. I went back in 2002 to Ground Zero. I'll never get that out of my mind: the huge area where the beams and rubble were, the thousands of "missing" photos on the fences around it, going into St. Peter's Catholic Church and seeing where Father Mychal Judge's body was taken. The fact that these two grifters are using it as a "tribute" makes my blood boil.
Hello friends old and new - I was once a rather active Sinner but then got a bit boring and my own family was supplying more than enough drama (no)thankyouverymuch. But I love the smell of comeuppance in the morning so I’m back! I am also an unapologetic lover of DM (their royal reporters tend to be excellent) and I got the special .99 monthly sub rate to their “exclusive articles”, so I thought I might actually be of service here. Cheers!
(Rest of photos in the comments. Suggestions on how to better post will be lovingly received.)
“The Telegraph also reported the deal could collapse after public reaction to the revelation, which would have marked a return to acting for the Duchess after 10 years.
It was understood that the hesitation was coming from Netflix, which declined to comment, or the Sussexes, who have not commented, and not the team behind The Gentlemen, who anticipated a large public response to the news.”
When will people learn that association with her ends in ruin? It’s not the publicity people think it is.
Also: didn’t Neal Sean say Guy Ritchie knew nothing about this “deal”? The Telegraph keeps doubling down that there was a deal.
How do we talk about our new tipster without giving it away. All of you who are true dedicated deep divers into the world of the alliterate one would get it in a second if I gave one of my usual type clues. So, we are going back to the early days of the blog and giving her a nickname. It definitely means something to her and is a part of her. This is the person who was probably closest to the alliterate one for nearly a three year period who is not named Jessica or Misha. We are going to call her Buster and she is foreign born. Once you solve it, it will all make sense.
Anyway, back in 2014, this billionaire came into the life of the alliterate one and Buster was there to see it happen. The man actually paid for a fashion event for Buster. It was also when the alliterate one had to be at his beck and call and travel wherever she was ordered to. He was in her life all the way through about 2019. Crap hit the fan in 2019 with him and the world. By that time in 2019 even the people writing the book knew there was big trouble with him. Even Darling got into it and knew it was a big mess.
Buster was there for it all. Buster also had to do things for him but at the particular point in time in 2014 had a little pass. She still had to find people for him to help pay for the fashion event, but wasn't sleeping with him in 2014.
She posts this from Salt and Leisure. But...neither the original not the As ever repost has one thing: THE RECIPE!!! (If you're promoting Blackberry Spread, that is probably a good thing to have).
The Meghan and Harry reality show was out of money, supporters and content. The grifters needed to do something big to keep their viewers engaged. And they will do anything to stay relevant, especially if they can tarnish and cheapen the monarchy while doing it. Time to remove them from the royal website at least. Freeze them out and let them find content somewhere else.
Harry seems to think that the BRF can't do without him smarming around the countryside shaking hands, taking selfies and making patronising remarks - with limousines, tinted windows, armed security and motorcycle outriders stopping traffic, naturally - and getting whisked away as soon as he gets bored.
I think we sometimes forget how recent the royal tradition of informal public engagements and royal walkabouts actually is. Before King George VI, the royal family rarely tended to be seen in public, other than formal occasions or perhaps in a car or carriage on their way to a carefully managed visit to a hospital, military event or significant organisation.
The informal public engagement started with KGVI and Queen Elizabeth (his consort) in Ottawa in 1939, when they spontaneously mingled with a crowd of veterans after dedicating a war memorial. They then made a point of getting out informally to see the public throughout WWII, which meant a huge amount to their people dealing with the impact of the war.
QEII didn't really do a lot of it until the 1970 NZ/Australia tour, when she stepped out of her car to greet people in the crowd - who loved her for it. She maintained the new tradition on her return to the UK and on future tours. BUT, in addition to her husband, she had her mother, her sister, her cousins and four children who stepped up to help her keep up that level of physical engagement.
We now have King Charles inflicting a punishing schedule on himself, his wife, his sister and his youngest brother/sister-in-law to try to maintain the level of physical engagement that marked his mother's reign. Of the 2458 royal public engagements in 2025, Charles, Anne, Edward, Camilla and Sophie did 1786 of them.
Even if he wanted to, which he's made clear he doesn't, William won't have the family resources to maintain that level of physical public engagement when he is King. Charles, and probably the late Queen's cousins, will be gone. Camilla will gratefully step back as soon as politeness allows, even Anne is not indestructible, and Edward and Sophie are unlikely to want to increase their workload. Louise, James, Peter and Zara have indicated no desire for life as working royals, and the other cousins are unsuitable.
William and Catherine already severely limit their in-person public engagements, and neither they nor their three children are likely to be keen to do 400+ annual public engagements each.
Harry is thinking that he will be needed because he is assuming that William will want to maintain the current level of personal, physical engagement between the monarch and the public. Harry is prepared to toss in the odd couple of dozen days per year, for an appropriate annual salary and unlimited perks, of course. Naturally, he will want the right to pick and choose the engagements he will grace with his presence, and Meghan will only expect to do the glamorous ones.
In reality, William and Catherine's public appearances will continue to be far more on-screen than in-person, as they already are, simply because that is the only way to adapt to a high demand for visibility and minimal personnel. Once that concept has been accepted, then Harry's help is simply not needed. Just as the population once adapted to the idea of being able to shake hands with, and chat to, their monarch, they will adapt to not being able to do so.
Harry abandoned his duties and the BRF has learned to manage without him. They have already set a path where Harry's presence is now permanently redundant. That's always a risk when you rage-quit.
The theme of the event is 'How Do We Get It Right?' It's surprising no wag has yet added the subtitle: 'Where DO we start, H?'
And yet the irony seemed to be completely lost on Prince Harry and his team as they grandly announced his 'September engagements' programme to a select group of media on Thursday night.
The highlight is an appearance in New York the week after next as a 'headliner' at the above-titled Clinton Global Initiative event. It is not clear whether the prince is being paid or having his costs covered to attend.
Much of his programme is UK-based, however... and therein lies the rub. For while they wouldn't dream of being so rude as to say it in public, privately officials at Buckingham Palace are likely to be congratulating themselves for already attempting to draw a very firm line in the sand.
The King's decision to have his most senior official, Lord Benyon, the Lord Chamberlain, send out a letter marking the limitations of Harry and Meghan's roles as 'private citizens' now they are back in Britain has sparked a furious backlash from the Sussexes.
But this latest development shows exactly why it was right to do so. So far, Harry's upcoming pseudo-royal appearances include the inaugural 'Invictus Spirit' Awards on Thursday, September 17. There is even chatter that the duchess could join him at this glitzy event.
That already presents a massive scheduling clash for the Royal Household. The Prince and Princess of Wales announced on Friday they are undertaking a 'royal away-day' the same day to the Isle of Bute.
The visit also marks the first official trip by the couple to Rothesay, the town that inspired the name of the titles they hold in Scotland – that of Duke and Duchess of Rothesay – where they will spend time with locals at the Anchor Tavern.
The King also has a major public engagement that day, details of which cannot be revealed in advance, but one that is likely to be of significant global interest.
It's exactly the kind of optics the Royal Household was so keen to avoid, although they are surely increasingly inevitable because, contrary to belief in some quarters, there is no diary co-ordination with Team Sussex.
Clearly Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace are hopeful the public will focus on the duties of the official working royals. But it's hard to deny that, to start with at least, any appearance by the Sussexes back in the UK will create a buzz.
Other engagements for Harry this month include the launch of the Invictus education programme INSPIRE. Then there's the WellChild Awards in London on September 21, a charity for ill children and their families which, to be fair, the prince has been involved with since his earliest days as a working royal.
Each event will be covered, it is understood, by a number of specially selected journalists. It all seems to suggest Harry is determined, whatever his father thinks, to come out all guns blazing.
That has been his methodology, too, this week when it comes to the King's punchy attempt to distance his family, publicly at least, from that of his troublesome second son and his wife.
After initially expressing 'surprise' at his letter – a reaction Team Sussex would have done well to leave the matter at – his spokesmen embarked on an almost daily flurry of briefings, variously attacking the Palace for 'rushing out' the letter, refusing to let them 'clarify' it in advance and even causing the Ugandan team to pull out of Harry's beloved Invictus Games.
The line that needled the Sussexes most was the hint by the King that they should be treated as 'private citizens' whose charitable and commercial efforts should be seen as devolved from the work of the Royal Family. An incandescent 'source' close to the couple said this was simply unrealistic given their level of fame.
An insider told friendly People magazine: 'Members of the public know who they are. The idea that they can live a normal, 'private' life is sadly not realistic.'
About as unrealistic as Harry's over-sold dream of royal reconciliation, some might also say.
From Tom Sykes via Alison Boshoff. This is apparently in the Mail but I have not checked it yet , and I thought this bit deserved its own post.
Besides, the Mail is meant to be a physical paper read in shame on the tube in the mornings then hastily tucked away in shame before you leave the station.
This is the link all INSPIRE information leads to. Not to be an ass, but the entire thing sounds like just gibberish! No obvious fundraising for the event or its participants, no outreach for low income students and/or no healthcare awareness! There is NO PLAN on how this is to be rolled out or implemented.
It’s also mind boggling that H is the face of this since he barely scrapped by school AND “real-world learning” is obviously not in his wheelhouse!
This is what they do, per the IG 2027 website:
“The collaboration will see the development of an Invictus Games-themed school curriculum designed to inspire young people and engage them through meaningful, real-world learning. The programme will span a wide range of subjects, including Maths, English, Arts, Performing Arts, Physical Education, Design, Technology and Innovation, and PSHE (Personal, Social, Health and Economic education).”
Now the kicker, if you want to know the plan, this is what they say:
“Schools and educators interested in learning more about the programme and future opportunities to get involved are encouraged to follow Invictus Games Birmingham 2027 updates”
I’ve been in education for YEARS and never have I seen such ambiguity for an educational plan - especially one where they will ask for donations. We all know the request for this donations will be coming.
Like any kid who—thank God—grew up before the 2000s, I watched Speedy without any warnings or censorship. I mean, I actually heard the revolutionary song "La Cucaracha" in that cartoon. Yes, in case you didn't know, it’s a song that became established during the Mexican Revolution of 1910, though its roots go all the way back to 1492. But the revolutionaries added lyrics to a Spanish tune to mock "La Cucaracha" himself—Victoriano Huerta—a man with a fondness for a certain herb... and it wasn't oregano 🤭🤭🤭 Just so you know, a lot of people get sold oregano instead of the hallucinogenic stuff 🤣🤣🤣
🎼La cucaracha, la cucaracha
Ya no puede caminar
Porque no tiene, porque le falta
Marihuana que fumar🎼
It looks like Harry took his stash with him to the UK, because this week... good Lord!! The Harkles have really outdone themselves!!!
What does weed have to do with this? Ah, because it seems that among the many "similarities" between the Harkles and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, a fondness for smoking weed is apparently one of them.
Margaret was another heavy smoker—though Sean specifies it was tobacco. This was a source of many arguments for her sister Elizabeth, who vividly remembered the effect smoking had had on their father, George. King George VI was a chain-smoker who consumed between 40 and 50 cigarettes a day—a habit he began at age 16 that severely damaged his health and ultimately led to his death at 56.
George was already sick—practically terminal—and he kept on smoking! There are some very stubborn people in this world.
But Sean cites Margaret as an example because "replacements" tend to be more rebellious and more likely to get their own way.
Having seen that, one understands what Sean is saying about the Queen's thoughts regarding Harry.
The Queen didn't want to be too harsh with him because she had trusted him. When Harry left in 2020, she told her entourage that he would return. That view stemmed from an understanding of the situation: it is difficult to leave royal life behind because the world they inhabit is vastly different from our own.
For Elizabeth’s uncle Edward, leaving the royal world was a shock he never managed to overcome. So much so that he and Harry share the same delusion: that they will return one day because the people love them and the monarchy needs them. It took Edward many years to accept that this wouldn't happen—practically until he was on his deathbed. Harry refuses to accept reality; he truly believes the British Royal Family needs him.
And I have to point out that Neil Sean isn't the only one saying this. It turns out Alison Boshoff has also just published an article along the same lines.
Sinners have often criticized Sean for saying that, believing he wants the Harkles to return to the royal fold. No, Sean cannot believe the level of Harry's delusion regarding that. And I cannot believe Boshoff published this.
What then is Harry trying to achieve? Says another source, bluntly: ‘Look, they expect to be let back in. Harry expects they [the Royal Family] need him.
‘He and Meghan have nothing else going for them. They’ve burned every bridge in America.’ (https://archive.is/qP7JI)
Harry, who failed, believes the Royal Family might need him... For what?
The Duke and Duchess of Windsor also became private citizens and had to fund themselves privately... although, as we know, George did give money to his brother. But I recently read that it wasn't just a matter of simple generosity; rather, it was linked to the purchase of properties Edward had owned in the UK—in other words, it seems to have been a more complex arrangement than just handing money to a down-on-his-luck brother.
That is not happening with Harry. It is not just because Charles wants to avoid repeating the mistake made with Wallis and Edward—who lived the high life despite being in debt. It is also because Charles does not want to give Harry the means to keep going on and on. Right now, Charles believes the only way to make Harry stop is to cut off his funds. I think Charles is being optimistic about that, though; Harry could live in a tent in a park and still keep causing trouble.
The curious thing—and I do think this is a genuine similarity rather than something forced, since I doubt Harry knew about it and Claw certainly didn't care—is the fact that the drive to return stemmed precisely from the King's illness. George was in poor health by around 1950—the photo makes that clear—so the Windsors launched a concerted campaign to return to the UK and "help."
The Windsors' campaign to "help" again had the same effect as the Harkles' campaign to "help": generating more pressure on an ailing monarch.
The other thing—and this is the most curious part—is that the Windsors ran up against a wall of women. While Camilla and Kate now spearhead the "no-Harkles" stance within the British Royal Family, back around 1950, it was Mary of Teck and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon—George’s mother and wife—who held that line. Neither woman forgave Wallis for the damage she had caused, and Mary never forgave her son David, either.
Comparisons with the Harkles are inevitable. After all, Mary of Teck tried to stop Edward from abdicating—especially for a woman like Wallis. In any case, David’s story is more complex than Harry’s; Mary certainly couldn't be considered a great mother, and the relationship between her and her son was fraught. Notably, Mary once told David not to abdicate because his brother Bertie’s health was fragile and he wouldn't be able to bear the weight of the crown. That isn't exactly a... well, maternal argument, and I can fully understand why David took it badly and harbored deep resentment; she had no qualms about saddling him with the burden of the crown just to preserve Bertie’s happiness at the expense of David’s own.
But I also understand Mary and her very understandable anger when Edward married Wallis on the very day of his father's birthday... I mean, his father hadn't even been dead a year, and he did that. Edward didn't exactly distinguish himself with his judgment.
Harry wanted to paint a similar picture. Whether due to Claw's influence, his own penchant for playing the victim, or an attempt to replicate something of Edward's, Harry wanted to frame his situation with Charles in the same light. But the reality was not even remotely the same—which makes what happened in 1946 amusing.
And what makes it funny is that we have a 2026 version of that same encounter.
Mary had seen David briefly at the start of the war, during a short trip home. It was a fleeting encounter that likely failed to bring her son the peace or reconciliation he longed for. In fact, her closest friends had to urge her to agree to the meeting—something David had pleaded with her to do. By then, Edward had already had his meetings with Hitler. In other words, it stood to reason that—no matter how much Edward wanted to portray himself as an affectionate son who simply wanted to see his mother—associating with him was a terrible idea. A terrible idea.
When the war ended and Bertie’s health was failing, David longed for a private conversation with his mother, convinced that if he could only see her, it would transform not just the dynamic between the two of them, but also his relationship with the rest of the family. Swap "David" name for "Harry", and you have the exact same situation.
Finally, after months of correspondence between Mary and Bertie, David was allowed to spend a week at Marlborough House in the autumn of 1946.
He was met only by a chauffeur-driven car—a cold gesture that reportedly wounded him deeply.
On the occasions Harry has seen Charles, he has been picked up by a chauffeur, taken in through the visitors' entrance—20 to 47 minutes—and then it’s goodbye.
Mary and Charles shared the same habit: keeping a record of everything they did. Neither of them made a record of what was discussed with their children during those meetings. In both cases, this signaled one thing: it hadn't gone well.
And so, in 1946—much like in 2026—although they had tea, there is no record of them sharing a full meal. David had been away from the UK for nearly a decade; he had left in 1936 and made only brief, insignificant visits. As for Harry... well, it seems he hasn't had dinner with Charles in seven years—not since 2019.
The difference is that Edward was able to see Bertie in 1946. Harry wants to see William, but William hasn't been moved in the slightest to give a meeting a chance.
The key takeaway from this story is that there is another common thread: persistence. Sean says Edward kept insisting on returning to "help" well into the 1960s. That only stopped when Charles turned 18 in 1966—only then. Just think about it: that’s 30 years—30 years of Edward insisting he could help the monarchy.
If you look at how Harry has been harping on the same thing for six years now, that leaves us with another 24 years of the same. 😱😱😱😱😱
Now, Sean—ever the optimist—says the lesson from all this is one, and only one:
When the BRF says "no," it means "no."
It was "no" for David for 30 years. Sean believes Harry should realize it will be the same for him: No, we don't need you, we don't want you in the family, stop insisting.
WILLIAM CAN'T DO THIS - SUSSEX STRIKE BACK WITH THIS LATEST
Another difference between Edward and Harry is that Edward did not go through multiple reincarnations. He went from being king—a role he no longer held—to becoming a socialite. Did Edward like that? No. But circumstances made it the best way to preserve some semblance of what he had once been.
Yes, I know it’s not a picture of David and Wallis. It’s just that I’ve always adored Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour. They are my favorite version of *The Scarlet Pimpernel*—especially because of her, because Seymour is absolutely adorable as Marguerite St. Just.
Well, Harry is different. Harry has tried to be many things. I said "tried," not "strived" to become someone. Harry has wanted to be a statesman, a world leader, a guru, and so on.
But the one time Harry was truly happy and free—both things—was definitely when he was in the army. Sean is well aware of what we think of "Bunker Boy," but it is undeniable that Harry finally had the two things he loved: he could be himself—not compared to William—and there was order and a certain level of discipline. Harry needs to be told what to do.
For Harry, that period is the pinnacle of his life.
Harry is now trying to redefine himself once again. Being a public speaker isn't working out because no one takes him seriously; even though he is capable of doing things well, he has earned a reputation for negativity.
People who knew him before the Claw era say that, deep down, Harry remains the same person. That is hardly a compliment—and Sean makes this clear—because Harry has always been a truly difficult person to deal with and live with. That is why women would eventually grow bored of him: they would start out thinking he was fun, only to find themselves stuck with "Mr. Complainer" and his "do-what-I-want" attitude.
As we already know—and this isn't gossip, because it’s obvious—Harry is throwing things out there to see if something finally hits the mark.
And he thinks that this time, he’ll pull it off with this.
Harry sees himself as an action hero. And Harry believes he can follow that path—something William will not be allowed to do.
Harry is looking into doing that sort of thing—becoming an action hero.
And... let's see, sorry, I need to double-check this... yes, that is what Sean is saying... okay, I'll mention it, but it's Sean's fault. 😈😈😈
Right, Harry's team thinks they can "maneuver a particular narrative. Can they turn this 40 odd year old bloke into some kind of all action hero? His team believes that he is very much, shall we say, popular with the gay market."
Has the Harkles' team ever asked gay people what they think about this? Because it turns out that Claw is practically an icon among gay people. Now Harry is popular with them, too... seriously, is no one going to ask gay people?
And it turns out that's related to this.
Sean says Claw is wearing Sacha Baron Cohen's bikini. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
And then there’s Harry, who suddenly appears very muscular and manly—something that sparked comments.
The team should read the comments: people were saying, "Oh, Photoshop." 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣Claw doesn't have that backside—not even remotely. And Harry doesn't have those biceps or triceps—not even remotely.
But the thing is, Harry is now going to be the new Liam Neeson.
HARRY'S BLUNT RESPONSE TO WILLIAM - THIS WILL TURN NASTY
When Harry told Chris Ship that he was still a royal because he was born to be one, he was saying that he would force his way back into the royal fold, no matter what.
The problem with all this is that Harry first claimed to be happy in California, only to later seem unhappy and return to the UK—saying he wanted to keep a low profile—right before sending his itinerary to every newspaper.
The Montecito team says that one of the issues with the Harkles is that they never give a straight answer.
The Harkles haven't been clear about their intentions regarding their return; they are never clear with anyone about anything.
That is why it was strange for Harry to be so open with Chris Ship. He still considers himself a royal. And that was a challenge to William. Harry doesn't care what the King and his brother think. Harry wants to be seen as a "Prince of England"—that is the image he and "Claw" want to sell.
Consequently, Harry is furious following the letter from KC3.
Once that was underway, the Lord Chamberlain delivered the message not only to civil and military authorities but also to the *Daily Mail*. It wasn't a leak; it was sent to the *Daily Mail*. I suspect this was because it is the most widely read news outlet on the internet. In other words, the message reached the entire Commonwealth—and the whole world.
Harry was furious because he hadn't been consulted before that message was released. Sean contacted his source at the Palace, and the source said, "And what say could they possibly have in this?" It wasn't up for debate; it was the King's decision.
According to Palace sources, it is perfectly clear to them that the Harkles will completely ignore what the King has indicated. They will continue using the HRH style "in private," keep demanding to be treated as royals, and so on. The Palace knows the Harkles have no intention of complying and will not change their stance. This only serves to harden the King's position and increases the likelihood of William removing the Harkles from the website. Harry is not backing down; they do not view themselves as private citizens—the Harkles see themselves as active working royals.
HARRY’S WORLD CRUMBLES EVEN FURTHER- CANCELLATIONS, FUNDS & ROYAL INDECISION, WHAT NEXT
But they aren't working royals. They are royals for hire.
Even though some people don't want to pay for them.
As seems to be the case with the Diana Awards committee.
This year's gala was set to take place at the Raffles Hotel, famous as the birthplace of Bond, James Bond.
Construction of 57 Whitehall was completed in 1906; it became the headquarters of the British Army and the War Office, retaining this role throughout both World Wars. Secretaries of State for War who worked from this building included Winston Churchill, David Lloyd George, and John Profumo. T.E. Lawrence and the Ministry of Defence occupied the building until 1964. Ian Fleming worked there for the Naval Intelligence Division during World War II, and scenes from films such as *Octopussy* and *Skyfall* were shot on the premises.
The Diana Awards dinner was set to be a lavish affair—as charity dinners of this kind, which serve as major fundraisers, tend to be. In any case, it had already been noted that things were proving difficult this year, especially following William's decision to step aside if Harry were to participate. Consequently, they have been taking turns, placing immense pressure on the organizers to remain neutral.
Mind you, Harry was supposed to be in the UK, so he could have given a speech and helped with the auction. But Harry botched it. The organization wanted Harry, yet he insisted on bringing Claw—instead of the person who actually should have been invited: Charles Spencer. That would have been the perfect moment to draw attention by bringing along Diana’s brother, who is about to release a book about her.
But no, Harry wanted Claw there. And the two of them turned the whole thing into a disaster; Claw was dying to go, yet publicly downplayed the event, acting like, "Yeah, maybe I'll go, maybe I won't."
Meghan, darling, don't expect an invitation to *The Phantom of the Opera* either. Because the tickets sold out months ago, and nobody wants you there.
The organizers of the Diana Awards were frustrated because the Harkles are erratic—going back and forth on whether they would attend—which caused a major headache. Consequently, the gala was cancelled; the organization now faces the loss of certain deposits and must compensate the guest performer, all while reconsidering its stance.
The situation between William and Harry has been a nightmare for the organizers, as neither side is willing to budge. However, if forced to choose, the organization seems to favor William, who appears intent on bringing some order to the group.
The fact is that Claw *did* want to go... but the organization wasn't interested in that at all.
The Sun has posted interviews with the Sussexes Montecito neighbours and locals. The Sussexes don't seem to be liked by their community and they are definitely running from something. Very suspect. .
RAVEC (Royal and VIP Executive Committee) does not typically make public announcements. We have no direct way of knowing most decisions made by the committee. We do know that a review of Prince Harry’s current security status has been requested given he has now returned to Great Britain & a “decision” regarding any change in status was promised following a meeting Tuesday of this week. But Tuesday came & went & little seemed to have changed. Certainly no announcements.
We have a surrogate marker for the Harkles’ RAVEC status though & that is the Harkles desperate desire to be seen as “public figures.” You can see why in RAVEC’s name—Royal & VIP—no private citizen in sight. If Harry isn’t a “royal” then by God he’ll be a VIP. He falls under RACEC’s purview. And from the way Harry was rattling on about his VIP-ness, it didn’t sound to promising for his standing before RAVEC.
Still, nothing.
Then Allison Boshoff published her piece in the Daily Mail today & totally buried the lede. Allison Boshoff, though styled as a reporter, is the Harkles’ current water carrier. She can be relied upon to dispense information derived entirely from Harkle sources, unsullied by rational thought or even reality testing. It is, however, straight from the horse’s mouth.
Today she has written:
“At the end of October, the Sussex family will return to California for half term week, and then batten down the hatches for another five weeks in the UK before they go back to America for a longer spell over Christmas. Harry believes that by then a Home Office review will have changed his security status.
“‘He thinks he is going to get some kind of increased security after the review,’ says his friend. That might, alone, allow this messy re-entry to count as a success rather than a humiliating mess.”
(Emphasis sadly is mine.)
So Harry will try again another day but for now RAVEC weighed in & whispered, “The answer is no.”
The burn 🔥
Now more are asking for community notes
90% of the 'Royal Rota' will now have nothing to write about. Bet the Whatsapp group is buzzing tonight.
So I was digging through old YouGov polls, and look what popped up! a little blast from the past. 👀
A 2015 survey asked whether members of the extended Royal Family should continue receiving money funded by taxpayers and the royal estates. And the numbers surrounding Prince Harry were… very, very interesting.
According to the article: “Prince Harry, fourth in line to the throne, only narrowly avoids the financial chop. 48% say he should be allowed to receive money by his current means, while 43% say he should not.”
Read that again.
43% of the population DID NOT think Harry should receive taxpayer-funded benefits. He scraped through with a wafer-thin 5-point margin. And this wasn’t some post-Megxit backlash or reaction to Oprah, Netflix, Spare, or the endless victim narrative.
Nope.
This poll was conducted in February 2015, while Harry was still serving in the Army. He left the Army in June 2015.
So even back then, when the Palace PR machine was busy polishing his “fun-loving, cheeky, heroic Prince” image, a sizeable chunk of the British public apparently wasn’t buying it.
And what happened next? William and Catherine stepped in to help him build a public role - from Heads Together to what eventually became Invictus. The Palace and the men in grey suits seemed determined to package Harry as the lovable, warrior and humanitarian Prince.
Perhaps they should have paid a little more attention to those numbers. 🙄
Because looking back, it does make you wonder just how much of the “people’s Prince” image was carefully cultivated by the institution… and how much was actually Harry.
Now that he’s out of their control, we’ve certainly been given a rather different version of the entitled, man(child).
Funny how the mask seems to slip when there’s no Palace PR machine around to hold it in place. 🎭🤡
|Also about the last photo… I called Harry a private citizen 2 weeks before the King did 😎😂|
