House of Cards

SGUK Episode 72


  • The 7 pillars are weak. None of them are strong in their own right, and combined they form a weak foundation to build on.
  • The next layer of the construction is inherently weak, not least because no preparation was ever made for the kind of metaphorical bricks that could be utilised in a way that added value potentially and at the very least, maintained solidity in the structure.
  • The approach appears to be picking random bricks that appear available for hire on the ‘help yourself’ skip on Crown land.
  • Only certain shades of bricks are acceptable.
  • The strength of each brick appears not to matter, as long as one is not stronger and longer lasting than the others, as this creates inherent weaknesses to be exposed in all the others.
  • The methodology and approach seems to be, gather the right numbers of bricks from within Crown property services, and ensure that they fit the colour palette approved by the Monarch and the societal pillars that benefit from the structure and provide support and backing for its longevity. ie government, police, newspaper barons and their Royal Reporters along with televised media, and of course the Aristocracy.
  • There are no visible strategic plans in place, in terms of workforce planning, therefore when or if any of those weak bricks start to fail, there is never any danger officially of the whole structure falling to its knees, because all the establishment does is place another brick in the wall. “Just Another Brick in the Wall” is a famous track on the 1979 album The Wall, by Pink Floyd

Just Another Brick in the Wall

Who would have thought that a trilogy of tracks on a rock album from the late 70s, could ever be used as an analogy in a podcast and article about the UK Royal Family?  Here at Sussex Global UK, we do things a little differently in order to bring key points into the consciousness of the listening and viewing audience. I am in the age group which constitute most of the UK Royal family supporters, but I am in a minority (in more ways than one) in that age group, as I do not and have never supported any Monarchy anywhere as a construct.  I do, however, love music among many topics, and therefore my back catalogue of memories and therefore analogies goes way back and deep.  So just for a few moments, bear with me, as I outline the framework for this podcast, and my belief that the UK Monarchy is weak as a house of cards, and by using a description of a building structure and framework, and the need for a strong foundation and thought needed for the brickwork used and its placements, and the same level of detail needed when the time comes for maintaining the structure, and the considerations needed for the materials to be used, in order to ensure longevity of the structure, and not just covering up cracks that have appeared, or vacancies, with a plaster that has been in the First Aid kit for years, and will have very little benefit to the wound, and in fact will fall off in a short period and expose the original wound to further deterioration.

A quote from one of the reference sources listed below, regarding the meaning behind all 3 sections of the Brick in the Wall song and lyrics.*

“The beginning. Part 1. Sets the scene with the protagonists first blow from life.  His father abandoned the narrator, whether that is in death or otherwise, and creates a level of distress. Daddy, what else did you leave for me? Daddy, what’d ya leave behind for me?

Part 2 continues the assembling of emotion.

Part 3 concludes the trilogy with the determination that everyone has simply been ‘just bricks in a wall.’


Think here of a Monarch passing, and the aftermath within the family of how to move forward.  Moving forward in terms of the Monarchy as a construct, The Firm, and also the emotional impact.  As we have discussed in previous podcasts, there appears to be no real workforce planning and much thought, if any, of strategy moving forward.  E.g. look at the numbers of patronages that exist in the structure, and the totals quoted in accounts every year.  It is not rocket science to see, that even if every person subsidised or taken care of completely with tax payer funds, had a proportion of these patronages against their names, it would be impossible to cover all of them anyway.  No different to when all these organisations were listed against the names of those who were considered Working Royals.  It is complete nonsense to believe that one individual could physically be present in these organisations throughout a 12 month period.  On that same token, it would have have looked cosmetically better, to spread all these names of organisations out among all those receiving ta payer funding.  It matters not that they would never get around to seeing many, if any at all, but that is no different to the fiction written now every year, against the names of a much smaller group.  The Queen was listed as having the most, and even when she was agile, and fit for all manner of activities, she would never and never did make it to even half of those listed.

It makes zero sense to put things into records just for the sake of it, when the reality is a stark contrast.  The fact that the official line is that the Monarchy is a slimmed down one now, with only 7 senior Royals, is misnomer.  Slimmed down implies that less public funds will be required as we are only paying for 7. Unless everyone else has removal vans booked or payments are going to commence in relation to their accommodation and expenses, then I do not see how this is a saving to the public purse.  The lack of planning and thinking about the future in terms of the practicalities of being more than a  figurehead family when the Queen passed on is staggering.  Just like the fact that 77% of Royal supporters are over the age of 65 therefore does not bode well for the future of the Monarchy, the ‘slimmed down’ Monarchy misleading description as to the team who are going to take the Monarchy forward, matches the statistic relating to the age profile of those who support having a Monarchy at all.  It is like poetic justice.

The analogy of the song also matches in terms of the trilogy aspect.

  • Parent leaving, and the emotions that follow. How are they meant to cope?  What can be done etc?
    • No preparation evident so far, from the current Monarch as to how things would be and what therefore needed to be in place. Actions hinted at over the years, seem to focus on the Monarch himself, and not The Firm.  Planning seems to have been around processes and systems and protocols.  Establishing a Kingship and in so doing ensure that the Queen Consort was looked after in the much talked about Coronation next year, or whenever.  It does not seem to a priority for those under the age of 65 in the UK population, not in droves anyway.  In case, some people have missed it, the UK is about to enter into a long drawn out recession, and we have moved from 3 hour power cuts on the regular, to now the possibility of 7 day power cuts.  We should not be surprised, therefore that the resource being directed towards a Coronation of a Monarch is not high in the thought processes of most people of the UK.
    • The first in Line to the throne, appears to have similar thought processes, relating to when/of he becomes the next Monarch. It seems no one is expecting the current one to be in that position for many decades, not least due to current age.
      • The next in Line is probably going to continue with the current approach. Ie what is in it for him?  What will the newfound power enable him to do.
      • It would be a pleasant surprise if any of the 7 senior Royals could show a modicum of understanding about the state of the nation right now, because none of those who hold power, and therefore responsibility of the inhabitants of the UK, going without basic resources on a regular basis for the foreseeable future, opulence and vanity projects by the BRF is not going to go down well.

UK residents will become powerful bricks in the wall of the UK.  People cold and hungry and in increasing debt, do not make a country stronger.  I the same way, propping up a failing construct like the The Firm with people who are ill equipped to make any real tangible difference is building additional weakness into the structure, through no fault of their own.  The process is not similar to just plugging in another appliance, or replacing a light bulb.  We need as a country and its leaders, to be thinking a little further than a nursery class lesson plan.


A Few Examples of so Called Scandals within the Royal Family, which now Royal Rota No Longer Mention ; Only The Sussexes are described as being the ones to Bring Down the Monarchy.

There are many more, but I have just chosen a selection to make my point about threats to the lifetime of the Monarchy, and where weaknesses exist and double standards are in full swing.  As discussed in Podcast 36 and republished again recently, you will recognise the playbook used, when it comes to distraction stories.  The BRF are known for choosing a Whipping Boy or Scapegoat, to convince the public that all the ills, or at least all the major ones, all point to one person.  When the target is chosen as being the distraction from more activities that really should concern the British public, the Whipping Boy individual, becomes a Scapegoat, if they are lucky enough to escape the toxic mess developing every day.  To date, there has been years of Prince Harry being the Whipping Boy for others discretions, and when he married someone that the BRF did not approve of, particularly the ethnic origin of the new family member (despite official protestations as that not be being the reason) there was a further 4 years of being the UK media chew toy, and since 2020, the Sussexes have become the Scapegoat for the BRF.  Many of the public have fallen for the rhetoric, but I am confident that more and more people are waking up to the game being played, and will start to recall quite a few major acts by some individuals, which could have and may yet bring this family down.  “Recollections may vary” continue to be the response used by The Firm, when asked about certain things, but let me refresh a few memories for them. Each of the following have weakened the Monarchy, and to ignore these and many other things, and blame a couple from stepping away from abuse, and moving to another continent to make a new life, and earn their own money to do so, is apparently a death knell to the Monarchy in the UK. All the ones we pay for with our taxes, that we are never given an opportunity to vote how we feel about having a Royal Family or not, are not enough to sustain the Monarchy, but one person and his wife and child leaving is a traitor.

Underage Drinking by Prince Charles at 14 years of age

A cherry brandy for underage Prince Charles

On a boarding school sailing trip to the Isle of Lewis, 14-year-old Prince Charles and his classmates were taken to a pub at Stornoway Harbour, where the prince ordered a cherry brandy.

Unfortunately, this caught the attention of a tabloid reporter, and the story made headlines around the world. The incident resulted in the firing of Charles’s bodyguard—and friend and confidant—Donald Green.


Mark Phillips Love Child

While he was married to Princess Anne (the daughter of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip), army officer captain Mark Phillips had an affair with an art teacher in New Zealand named Heather Tonkin. In 1991, a DNA test during a paternity suit confirmed that Tonkin’s six-year-old daughter, Felicity, was fathered by Phillips. Princess Anne and Phillips divorced the following year.


Princess Diana’s private phone call

On New Year’s Eve in 1989, Diana, Princess of Wales, spent over 20 minutes chatting on the phone with her close friend James Gilbey, a salesman for British carmaker Lotus and heir to a gin fortune. During their talk, Diana makes reference to her unhappy marriage and Gilbey repeatedly calls her “darling” and “Squidgy.”

Unbeknownst to them, someone was recording the call. The conversation was later picked up and recorded by two different ham radio operators, Cyril Reenan and Jane Norgrove. Eventually, the tapes made their way to the press. In 1992, the entire transcript was published, and one newspaper even set up a special phone line that readers could call to listen to the audio. The incident became known thereafter as “Squidgygate.”


Prince Charles’s private phone call

Not long after Princess Diana’s private phone call was made public, her estranged husband went through a similar ordeal. In early 1993, newspapers published the transcript of a secretly recorded phone call between Prince Charles and his longtime friend Camilla Parker Bowles from December 1989. In it, the pair use highly intimate language to express their devotion to each other, and Charles tells Camilla he loves her.

The so-called “Camillagate” tape suggested that Charles and Camilla had been romantically involved for years. It further fuelled speculation that the affair was the primary reason for Charles and Diana’s separation.


Prince Charles and Diana’s public admissions

In a 1994 television documentary, Prince Charles confirmed to journalist Jonathan Dimbleby that he had committed adultery—an admission that undermined his attempts to rebuild his popularity in the wake of Camillagate and years of media reports on his deteriorating marriage.

Then, in 1995, Diana told her side of the story in a TV interview with the BBC’s Martin Bashir, in which she discussed her difficult marriage, her struggles with post-partum depression and bulimia, and her own extramarital affair with her riding instructor, James Hewitt.

Reportedly angered by this airing of dirty laundry, the Queen wrote to Charles and Diana in December 1995, urging them to divorce. Their divorce was finalized in August 1996.


Sarah Ferguson’s compromising photographs

A sensational scandal broke in 1992 when Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, was photographed sunbathing in Saint-Tropez with her financial advisor, John Bryan, who appeared to be sucking on her toes. She had separated from her husband, Prince Andrew, a few months earlier.

Even so, the photographs provoked a backlash against Ferguson, who was portrayed by the media as crass and selfish, and further sullied the image of the royal family in a year that had already seen the divorce of Princess Anne and the revelation of Charles and Diana’s troubles in the tell-all book Diana: Her True Story.


The royal family’s silence after Diana’s death

In the days following Princess Diana’s death in a car accident in Paris on August 31, 1997, there was an outpouring of grief across the United Kingdom and around the world. But the royal family remained silent, and they were criticized for what was seen as an aloof response stemming from resentment toward Diana.

But on September 5, Queen Elizabeth broke the silence with a live address from Buckingham Palace in which she spoke of Diana’s warmth and kindness. That same day, the Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, and his sons, William and Harry, greeted crowds of mourners on the streets of London.


Prince Harry’s visit to a rehab centre

In 2001, Prince Charles arranged for Prince Harry to visit Featherstone Lodge, a heroin detox centre in London, so that the 16-year-old prince could get a first hand look at the dangers of drugs. This came after Harry had admitted to smoking cannabis and drinking alcohol to excess at his father’s home, Highgrove House, and at a nearby pub.

Although Harry’s visit to the clinic lasted just a day and was intended as an educational experience, the press jumped on the story, one of the first of many incidents that gave the prince his bad-boy reputation.


Princess Anne’s criminal offence

In 2002, Princess Anne became the first member of the modern-day royal family to be charged and convicted of a criminal offence after her bull terrier, Dotty, ran loose and attacked two children near Windsor Castle. The princess was fined and ordered to have the dog undergo training.

The following year, one of Queen Elizabeth’s corgis had to be put down after being bitten by Dotty.


Sarah Ferguson’s tabloid blunder

Sarah Ferguson became embroiled in another scandal in 2010 when she was caught offering access to her ex-husband, Prince Andrew, in exchange for £500,000. At the time, Prince Andrew was serving as Britain’s trade envoy; Ferguson told someone claiming to be a foreign businessman that she could “open any door” he wanted once the payment was wired to her bank account.

The man turned out to be an undercover reporter for the tabloid News of the World, and the story was published a few days later. Ferguson apologized, saying that her financial difficulties were “no excuse for a serious lapse in judgment.”


Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s difficult decision

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex—otherwise known as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle—announced in early 2020 that they were stepping away from their royal duties.

The rest of the royal family, who were not consulted before the news was made public, were reportedly “disappointed” and “hurt.” After a family meeting, the Queen expressed her support for her grandson and his wife in their pursuit of a more independent life.

Harry and Meghan have since settled in Santa Barbara, California, and have given up their royal patronages and use of the titles “His/Her Royal Highness.”


NB  The BRF did know about the situation.  The family had been involved for many months about the issues, and Prince Harry subsequently publicly said there was nothing being agreed.  The situation was just been kicked into the long grass.  Then a tabloid journalist sent a communication to the Sussexes whilst they were in Canada in Nov 2019 (the location had been given to the tabloids after Prince Charles as he was then, cut finance, removed security from the Sussexes and leaked their location in Canada.  The journalist gave the Sussexes 10 days to respond about the story that the couple were planning to step back from Senior Royal duties in 2020.   On January 8th 2020, Prince Charles read out a statement back in London, to inform everyone that they were stepping back from Royal duties and that they would be living abroad from the end of March 2020.  Harry released the news before the tabloid ran with their version of the story.


Prince Andrew’s sexual assault lawsuit

In August 2021, Prince Andrew was sued by Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of sexually assaulting her when she was 17 years old. This came two years after Andrew’s disastrous interview with the BBC, in which he attempted to defend his friendship with American financier Jeffrey Epstein, who had killed himself in prison while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

The lawsuit was settled out of court in February 2022, in a deal that requires Andrew to make a substantial donation to Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights. Although Prince Andrew has made no admission of guilt, a statement filed with the court said that he regrets his association with Epstein and “accepts that [Giuffre] has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks.”

In light of the allegations against him, Prince Andrew was stripped of his honorary military roles and royal patronages, and can no longer use the title “His Royal Highness” in official settings.


There were many more examples of ‘scandals’ – where people are no longer with us, I have chosen not to mention them in this article, but they are contained in the reference material sources below.

Of the examples given for Prince Harry, I have the following to say:-

  • The Rehab incident, took place many months before Prince Charles chose to mention it, giving the impression of him being a caring father, and that he persuaded Harry to seek help. Harry attended the Rehab for one day.  There were other things going on in Royal life at the time that the Rehab story was given to the tabloids.  Sensible people who understand the rules and the methodology of the invisible contract with the Royal Rota, is such if there is something that The Firm does not wish to be publicised in the media, then another story is given in place.  Hence the Rehab story months after it occurred, and made to look like it was recent and lasted much longer.
  • The ever famous Nazi costume is always dragged up when detractors from reality like to continue to hammer Prince Harry with the offending image. No mention has ever been printed about William dressed in an equally offensive costume, and that he suggested the Nazi costume, and they left the said party together with their friends, but you will never see a mention of William in any article published.  The golden rule is any wrong doing of the heir or their partners, will never be reported on, and that someone else will be have to highlighted with a tale of some kind to keep the tabloids happy.  Harry was used in his Whipping Boy role, as he was told would be the case from an early age, and that he would never be able to give his version of events.
  • There are at least 2, possibly 3, other scandals reported on by the press, that I have listed in this article, which I consider to be more damaging to the Monarchy than someone choosing to leave and work for a living. The people concerned, are residing in a 50+ room property, just two people, and are funded via UK taxpayers, and have around the clock security still, but the media will have the public believe, and unfortunately many have fallen for the hype, that Harry and Meghan are the problem and the cause that the Monarchy could be destroyed by their actions.


UK public need to wake up and smell the coffee.  How anyone can consider the UK Monarchy to be secure is beyond me, and to those who think that the Sussexes leaving the Monarchy and now resident in another country, is the cause of the BRF demise, need to look closely about the friendships that members of the BRF have made over the last 6-7 decades, and how many of those friendships have resulted in many of those people who are not members of the Royal family, being convicted of serious crimes.  Majority of those crimes being in the same category. It raises questions about judgement of BRF members, and also whether or not any members of the BRF have been involved in any way.  Right now there is a new case being made about a member of the BRF and another which was ongoing for years, was settled by the BRF member with an out of court settlement, for someone the Royal claimed never to have met.

These in my opinion are far more damaging, and will continue to be so, along with many other actions by Royal family members, to the future of the Monarchy.  As long as the UK continue to use The Sussexes for distraction stories, knowing what those games nearly caused, and surely should know the last 6 years of activity encompasses many aspect of the law that have been breached.  Expect the day to come when some if not all of those could end up in a legal setting, not least because these things have been done against a USA citizen on Uk and USA soil.  Someone in the Plantation behind gilged gates, needs to think deeply where this is taking the BRF reputation, which was not great to start with, but the treatment of a USA citizen and family in this way (and a person of colour at that) will continue to have global repercussions for decades to come.


Dictionary Definition of a House of Cards. 

A few examples in the Reference Sources, but one in this article is sufficient to give you an idea.

Definition: An unstable or weak structure or plan.

Origin of House of Cards

Likening a precarious structure to a house of cards has been around for centuries. This idea started in the Middle Ages in Europe and earlier in China.

An elegant use of the phrase, although far from an early example, can be seen in John Milton’s 1641 Of Reformation Touching Church Discipline:

  • Painted Battlements of Prelarty, which want but one puff of the King’s to blow them down like a past-board House built of Court-Card.

The allusion here is obvious and quite literal, referring to a deck of playing cards. It is possible to stack playing cards in such a way that the cards form a tall tower. The cards in this tower are not flat, but rather standing up on their edge. The structure is layered, or tiered, in form. Although this tower can look tall and impressive, a slight breeze or jostle will send the entire thing into ruins.

The figurative meaning keeps this imagery. An organization or an endeavor might seem grand or stable at first glance, but it could collapse at any moment.


To repeat : Although this tower can look tall and impressive, a slight breeze or jostle will send the entire thing into ruins.  The figurative meaning keeps this imagery. An organization or an endeavor might seem grand or stable at first glance, but it could collapse at any moment.


Ivy Barrow



Reference Sources