How Dark Will The Baby Be?
Todays podcast will explore the worlds of double standards, when it comes to the UK Royal Family and its explanation for decisions on a range of things, over many decades. I will list just a few examples, from many more included in the Reference Sources below, and as the podcast progresses, you will start to see common themes appearing. I will also cover the area, from a non legal brain or qualification, but from common sense and how the law applies to different people in the chain of command.
It is important to remind everyone, as I suspect many are not aware, no reigning Monarch in the UK can be charged with any crime. So moving forward, whether or not any of suspect suspicious activity, should it occur, and I have no information to suggest that is the case, but if a suspicion is raised, the tabloid will pretend to be shocked and to care etc etc, but deep down nothing will come of it, because it is the Monarch.
If it is a member of the family involved in any shady business, that person or people can be questioned and charged, but they cannot be questioned, or served with legal papers, if they are on the same premises as the Monarch, at that moment. So as a hahaha moment, if anything should occur in the coming years, by any member of the BRF, if you see a pattern of the same individual or individuals, constantly rushing to be where King Charles is based on any given day, your mind should be processing that activity in a different way, and thinking of other reasons than wishing to be with their sibling as an example.
Over recent months there have been a few scant articles about things being transported about in a shopping holdall, but nothing to suggest that anything untoward took place, and if it did, the then Prince of Wales was not involved. My non legal brain just shifted to, these stories will hang around for varying periods of time, until such time as be becomes King, and then none of them will be able to quote his name in any of their fairy tales. Someone else in the circle will no doubt fall on their sword in due course, and claim all kinds of apologies, but I feel certain that person will not be living on bread and water, and will be living a comfortable life in the background, and in time, with the help of the tabloid media, there will be a torrent of distraction stories, and so called scandals to report on for the next few years, that any doubts or questions about money in holdalls, or charity accounts not quite adding up or reflecting activity suggested elsewhere, will be omitted from the public domain.
My caveat for all of above, they are my personal thoughts on the process and possible outcomes, and nothing I am stating is new. There is a history of this with any person or group who is considered should be immune to such questions or thoughts. In the case of the current King, in my mind he was acting as the unofficial Regent for much much longer than any report or statement issued to the general public, about the capacity of the then Queen. Whatever the truth, I am expressing my thoughts on the matter, not being trained in the law or the Monarchy version of the law – the latter of which seems to change dependant upon whom the target is, and whose skin they have manged to get under.
In terms of being in breach of the law, there is a whole chain of people who have carried out acts on the instruction of others, and even though to date, many if not all, have been protected by powerful people, and some have fallen on their sword out of loyalty or promise of being looked after etc., that chain of command has no doubt grown enormously. One only has to look in the incitement of hate business model and strategy that has been employed since 2016. It is a whole corporation now, with activity in parts of the world, not just in the UK behind secure gates. Something of that nature could not be dreamt up or managed or delivered by any close to home. As I believe, the chain of command is long, very long indeed.
There are people in UK media, for an example who have breached certain areas of the law on more than one occasion, and I am certain that they feel protected. I believe that they are very wrong, and they should get ‘lawyered up.’
Not everyone is going to fall on their sword. Not everyone is going to just lay low and keep quiet. Others will appear on every tv network, who will have them, and like it has already been proven, when any feel so confident that they are protected, they will be (and have in at least one case to date) become loose with their mouth and the sounds that come out of it. I bet that person no longer has the contact number that is still functional now. The speed in which footage was removed from the airways that day, was evidence in itself, of the command chain. In due course, the questions will rise way above the debris at the bottom. That line of front line harassment and bullying has been used up now, and too many truth bombs dropped. The double standards are building, and there are enough people in that supply chain of law breaking, to bring the truth to the forefront. History books WILL reflect the truth of this campaign, and the impact it has had to the UK.
But let’s just list a few examples of double standards in the next section of this podcast and in the section following on from that, I will quote from various UK publications, all of whom are part of the invisible contract. Someone needs to consider the risk of injury of trying to ride the fence since 2016, and to remind themselves, only Royalty have some chance of scape from the full force of the law, but the rest of you doing their bidding, or unknowingly doing the bidding of someone else, needs to remember that you are the fodder. You are expendable. In terms of media, Royal Rota, you are just fish bait – remember that when you spout your venom and your racists tropes towards the Sussexes. As one of you went into print, when tabloids were accused by a current QC about the tone of the majority of the articles on the Sussexes, particularly Meghan, contained an undertone of racism. Within minutes of that being placed on a social media platform, one of those hacks, happily posted that there was indeed a tone of racism in most of their articles. (happy to put that in writing on a public forum) but that writing undertones of racism in a newspaper every day is not against the law. Once again, I say with my non legal brain, if the theme of articles over almost 6 years of coverage, contain tones of racism, which is one of the many areas that the UK Media personnel skated around thinking they were being smart, I would say, there is a case to answer. A case on more than one level, and it needs to be answered and questioned in a place of law. I am sure that day is coming for a few in UK media professions, and I mean printed as well as televised. There are other groups, but that is the main one, which is not a surprise as they are bottom of the food chain when it comes to the societal groups I have mentioned times before since 2016.
Lets name some of the examples, Section Two of this article, and explore a few of those examples in detail, in Section 3.
How Dark Will The Baby Be?
Some examples of offensive and tone deaf rhetoric by members of the BRF, orTeam UK (govt officials) or its media on BRF behalf.
Ex-Pat or Immigrant?
English or European?
UK Monarchy or English Monarchy?
Royalty or Not Real Royalty?
White Refugee or Black Refugee?
Criminal Activity or Royal Life?
Mistress/Concubine or Adulterer?
Office Worker or Servant?
Prince Harry or Prince Andrew or One and the Same?
The Sussexes or The Cambridges?
Which Commonwealth Countries need a Visa to travel to the UK and Which CW countries do not?
Refugees or Roaches?
Treatment of Meghan v Kate in the media.
The clear as day double standards used in the press for Meghan v Kate
Office Worker (who attend for minimal hours) and Servants who work long hours and paid poorly.
The ethnic origin split between those who work above stairs, and those who do not is stark – not least because there was a policy to do just that if one worked for UK Royalty. The BRF are exempt from adhering to the Equality Act, so it is no surprise.
I am born here and I am British v No, but where do you really come from,
where do your people come from?
How dark will the Baby be?
Details of Some of the Above. The remainder are in the reference sources.
Ex Pat or Immigrant:-
UK media pundits in all scenarios use the same phrases and descriptions. When discussing the fall out of leaving the European union, and the sympathy for the people from the UK who left for a life abroad in Europe, are always, without fail described as ex pats. Ie patriots. The same media when discussing coming to live and work in the UK, no matter how many years they have been here, they are described as immigrants when they people of colour.
Dictionary definition of these two labels is as follows:-
Expatriate:someone who lives outside of their native country 2. Immigrant: someone who comes to live permanently in another country. Right off the bat, we see a problem: both words apply to anyone that lives outside of their ‘native’ country
A Name Change Helps:-
“The House of Windsor had only been established in 1917, in response to World War One, and Mountbatten served as a stand-in surname for Prince Phillip. He originally came into the world as Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark, but was forced to renounce his titles when he married Elizabeth and thus took his grandparents name as his surname.
On 13 June 1917, the Germans began daylight raids on Britain and in one of the first attacks 18 children were killed when a bomb fell directly onto Upper North Street School in Poplar. German Gotha bombers carried out the strike – by coincidence, the same name as the royal family.
News of the proposed name change first appeared in the Manchester Guardian in mid-June 1917.
All references to German names within Royal circles were changed, not least because in Britain, the anger over the above the loss of life of the children from the East End, London. Saxe-Coburg and Gotha changed to Windsor.
- One of the sacrifices Prince Philip had to make before he married Queen Elizabeth II in 1947 was changing his surname, amid concerns over his foreign roots. He changed his family name from the German Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg to Mountbatten – an anglicised version of his mother’s surname, Battenberg.
White Refugee or Black Refugee?
Black Refugees have been described as Roaches by UK right wing press and some elected officials, and all of the UK right wing press use emotive language and show graphic images and terminology meant to stir up hate. Only black refugees are being transported to another continent to be “processed” – it is only legal challenges which have temporarily stopped that action being taken.
White refugees have been supplied with an online Visa system which is processed within days for necessary escape from warfare conditions. White refugees can travel to the UK within a few days. White refugees are offered housing within the UK households who themselves have been given funds to help these desperate people fleeing war. Lots of logos and banners produced welcoming, and rightly so, people from the Ukraine. No such process is in place for black refugees. All people fleeing war and the subsequent fear for loss of their lives, deserve this treatment, but there is no denying, the UK has once again proved itself adopting double standards when it comes to the treatment of white and black people fleeing war zones.
Which Commonwealth Countries need a Visa to travel to the UK and Which CW countries do not?
It is simplest to state that none of the white countries within the Commonwealth need a Visa to enter the UK. There are a very small number of black nations in the CW who are given the same facility. Visit the gov.uk site for the long explanations of why and whom is given what or not.
Intimate Gesture at a Funeral
Extract from publication Kidspot – 3 Photos 3 different reactions
“A random Twitter user, @Bomb2240, with only 35 followers, noticed as they watched the royals at Westminster that images of Beatrice and husband Eduardo Mapelli Mozzi, and Zara and Mike Tindall, holding hands as husbands and wives, attracted no comment…
Whereas Meghan and Harry doing the same was deemed “offensive”.
Along with photos of the couples doing what couples do, especially at times of sadness, the Twitter user tweeted:
“Everyone criticizing The Duke and Duchess of Sussex for holding hands but why isn’t anyone criticizing Zara Tindall and Mike Tindall, also Princess Beatrice and [her husband].
“This shows how the British people are being RACISTS.”
The tweet quickly attracted 21 000 likes, 7000 retweets and 1500 comments.
Double Standards Towards Prince Harry and Prince Andrew – Re Security
The internet is calling out the double standard of the British government regarding the taxpayer-funded police protection of Prince Andrew and Prince Harry‘s rejected attempt at personally paying for one for himself, his wife Meghan Markle and their children.
According to Harry’s legal representative, the royal applied for a judicial review of the British government’s decision to not allow him to pay for police protection for himself and his family when they were in his home country.
Double Standards Towards Prince Harry and Prince Andrew – Re Uniform
“Prince Andrew will get a chance to wear his military uniform in honor of Queen Elizabeth II while Prince Harry has been prohibited from donning his in a move that one author told Newsweek was “totally tone deaf.”
Only working royals have been given permission to wear a military uniform to Elizabeth’s funeral on September 19.
That means Prince Harry and Prince Andrew, the only living royals to serve on the front line, will have to wear suits.
However, Andrew, the Duke of York, who was accused of rape in a civil lawsuit in New York, will be allowed to wear his military uniform at the final vigil in Westminster Hall. He denied the rape allegation and settled out of court while admitting no liability.
No such opportunity in donning his military attire has been found for Harry, whose Invictus Games tournament for wounded service men and women regularly brings the armed forces community together.
Prominent U.K. commentator Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, author of This is Why I Resist, told Newsweek: “It’s deplorable double standards here”.
“Prince Andrew was stripped of all of his honorary military titles because of the disgrace he brought to the Royal Navy and the Royal Family following the accusations of sexual abuse by Virginia Giuffre.”
Double Standards Re Bullying When it Came to Meghan or Prince Andrew
The Duke – who was forced to step back from frontline royal duties because of his friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – was described as a “very difficult person”.
A source told …….. “People were shouted at regularly by the Duke of York and there would be crying in the corridors.
“These staff members are not pushovers either, and they put up with an awful lot so it had to be very bad to have affected them in this way.”
The insider continued: “Perhaps they didn’t feel brave enough to go into it at the time, but they may do so now.”
All the UK tabloids reported that Buckingham Palace had launched an investigation relating to Meghan bullying allegations. We all know how that one turned out. Disappeared into the ether, and hidden behind asinine Royal rhetoric in an attempt to cover the fictitious investigation that will never apparently be reported to the public.
The Duchess of Sussex has been accused of “emotional cruelty” as it was claimed she faced a bullying complaint from one of her closest advisers at Kensington Palace. The complaint reportedly alleged Meghan “drove two personal assistants out of the household and was undermining the confidence of a third staff member”,
One tabloid reported publicly that 12 people had come forward regarding bullying from Prince Andrew. No more heard about that one either. The BRF knew one would be discussed in a court of law, and the other would go the way of all contentious incidents within palace walls, concerning the Caucasian family members – into the metaphorical filing cabinet of ‘nothing to see here’. Both supposed bullying investigations were seemingly placed in the same filing cabinet, with the words that they palace will look for any lessons learned. On the evidence of the last 70 years, that has never taken place, so no one held their breath when this was put out as an end to the matter. BRF Public Relations team is like no other anywhere on earth, and is not meant in a favourable way.
It is worth also mentioning here, “(quote from the Independent) that the Royal family did not publicly announce a probe into Prince Andrew’s friendship with the late Epstein after the latter was federally charged for sex trafficking minors in 2019. Virginia Giuffre was one of the alleged victims of Epstein’s sex trafficking ring, has claimed that Prince Andrew had sex with her three times including once when she was 17 years old and therefore a minor under US law.
UK Tabloid Terminology when Referring to People of Colour
Sarah Vine for the Daily Mail:- Memo to Meghan: Brits prefer true Royalty to fashion royalty.
A few Blue Tick responses from a host of quotes and responses from uk media personnel between 2016 – 2019.
- Wonderful response from reporter Omid Scobbie:- Memo to Sarah: Brits prefer proper journalism to thinly veiled racist opinion pieces.
- Response from Nimco Ali:- Meghan uses her platform to celebrate women and Sarah Vine uses hers to tear them down. Trust me I know which one is on the right side of history. Yup it is not you Vine.
- Liz Jarvis – I haven’t met the Duchess of Sussex, but I did share a flat with Sarah Vine, and I am sure I would like Meghan.
- David Lammy MP – What a wicked, nasty, mean-spirited little Englander missive by Sarah Vine on Meghan Markle. The very worst of our country on show here. Totally unrepresentative of the majority but shamlessly full of racist tropes nonetheless.
- Suzzanne Moore – Jesus F Christ – leave Meghan alone Sarah Vine. You don’t even need the money. I am sure you used to be a decent hack. This is vile and yes racist.
- Josie Ensor – Let’s take for example Saeah Vine’s coverage of Kate compared to her coverage of Meghan. “drab to fabulous in a new style for the Duchess of Cambridge”.
- Unnamed – I am far from being a Royalist but the way media hacks like Sarah Vine and that Dan Wootton are going after Meghan Markle is quite something to witness. These people are the same that would slag Diana off then cry crocodile tears when she died. What is it about Meghan they hate?
I have pages more but I think the point has been made on this topic in this section. I will close this particular one, but trust me when I say that there is now 6 years of data, and the themes and the regulars who allow their personal bias to enter into publications stand out gloriously, when it comes to looking for evidence. All of them thinking that their press badge is like a suit of armour. I believe that they are wrong, and I also believe that some of them will feel the hand of the law, and it will not be UK law enforcement, who for a variety of reasons, wont or cannot exercise their duty in this regard, likewise the legal profession as a whole. This last one covers more than one area of how to alienate groups of people or nations with this kind of rhetoric in Uk publications, but will not fly outside of it to anywhere near the way the UK population is bombarded and indoctrinated with the opinions of a small number of people who want their way of life to continue undisturbed. All from the top tier of societal groups/professions and in terms of the business owners, none of the major publication owners reside in the UK anyway, but have the control of what is described as news.
- Libby Purves wrote an awful piece in the Times giving her thoughts on the Baby Shower organised and paid for by friends of the Duchess of Sussex. The event was held in New York. Friends who are wealthy and generous – only a problem when the event is for a black women the UK establishment are not happy that she is part of their group now, and way more intelligent and accomplished in her own right, and also extremely wealthy before she net Harry. Remember no public funds was spent on Meghan’s party, unless you count the security detail for a member of the Royal family. Libby Purves piece used such phrases as “daft flaunting wealth” was to be expected among stars; “the clash comes when a free spending American TV celebrity, the independent Ms Markle becomes the British Queen’s grandaughter in law”
Jane Marchant a reporter from the Guardian made these observations and wrote an article in March 2019 regarding the inequity of the coverage in the UK press and the clear bias in the negative tone of the language used in articles and various tv presenters/personalities being far too eager to take seats on the high profile bandwagon, no doubt to keep or raise their own questionable celebrity status. Jane Marchant highlighted the last sentence in the last bullet point above, commencing with “the clash comes when ……” Jane states “just consider the adjectives in that sentence: Meghan is not just flashing the cash (free spending) but foreign, famous and, possibly worst of all, an independent Ms”
There was a piece by Marina Hyde in the Guardian on the 28th Feb 2019 who pointed out the negative treatment of Meghan in UK media, in comparison to anyone else in the Royal Family. She stated “where is the Royal Family in terms of stopping this circus?
The number of people who used to work for Princess Diana who also joined the gravy train of negativity in print, including Patrick Jephson, a retired equiry who wrote a book entitled the Meghan Factor who took to the Daily Fail to ‘warn Meghan about accepting freebies (aka The Baby Showere) and where it might lead. According to Patrick there is always a hidden price to pay for what he described Meghan as “the freeloading Royal”. The absolute Caucasity!!! It has all underlined the growing sense I much of the British media that Meghan is somehow “just not one of us” according to Mr Jephson.
Racism Drove Us From The Royal Family
There was one clear thread throughout Meghan and Harry’s dynamic interview with Oprah Winfrey on Sunday night: They believe they were driven from the royal family because of racism.
It was explicit in perhaps the most shocking allegation: that a member of the royal family came to Harry while Markle was pregnant with their son Archie with “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he was born.”
Meghan said that she was shocked to learn that Archie, the first mixed-race great-grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II, would not be given the title of prince—and would also be denied security protection, something that concerned Markle given the racist harassment she and her family have received since becoming a royal.
Meghan refuted the widely reported belief that it was she and Harry who didn’t want their son to have a title. She wasn’t concerned about whether her son would be called “Prince,” but was worried for his safety, she said. “They didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess. He wasn’t going to receive security,” she said. “We’re not saying don’t make him a prince, but if you’re saying the title is what’s going to affect the protection, our son needs to be safe.”
Racism has long been one of the overarching issues that has shaped Meghan’s time as a royal, even before she was an official member of the family. When the couple began dating in 2016, Prince Harry released a public statement via Kensington Palace in defense of Meghan’s privacy and safety, where he called out racist and sexist press and social media—an action he repeated after their marriage and the birth of Archie.
Meghan and Harry’s willingness to engage with the issue of race not only made the Oprah interview a must-watch broadcast, but also sent a clear message of their break with the mores of the monarchy, which is typically reticent when it comes to addressing race.
Meghan has been subject to relentless (and often blatantly racist) tabloid coverage by the British media, a discomforting parallel to the rabid media interest in Harry’s mother, the late Princess Diana. Harry has noted on multiple occasions that his biggest fear is “history repeating itself,” something that he thinks could pose even greater danger to Meghan because of her race.
The tabloid coverage also pitted Meghan against her sister-in-law Kate Middleton—with a report emerging six months after Harry and Meghan’s wedding that as a bride-to-be she made Middleton cry over dresses for the flower girls. But Meghan said “the reverse was true”—though she insisted that she and the Duchess of Cambridge made amends.
Meghan believes the Palace could have quashed the reports, but refused. She cited the incident to show how the intensely negative public scrutiny and lack of support led to an emotionally harrowing first year as a royal.
She revealed that she began having suicidal thoughts while she was pregnant with Archie in early 2019. “I just didn’t want to be alive anymore,” she said. “And that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought.” When she approached royal staff for help with her mental health, she was refused.
Harry talked about his frustration from the lack of support from his family, in the face of racist attacks on Meghan. “For us, for this union and the specifics around her race, there was an opportunity—many opportunities—for my family to show some public support,” he said. “And I guess one of the most telling parts and the saddest parts, I guess, was over 70 female members of Parliament, both Conservative and Labour, came out and called out the colonial undertones of articles and headlines written about Meghan. Yet no one from my family ever said anything. That hurts.”
After Oprah with Harry and Meghan aired on Sunday night in the U.S., many prominent Black American women sent messages of support to Meghan on social media, including her good friend Serena Williams, who attended her 2018 wedding, activist Bernice King and inaugural poet Amanda Gorman.
Serena Williams:- “I know first-hand the sexism and racism institutions and the media use to vilify women and people of color to minimize us, to break us down, and demonize us,” Williams wrote on social media, later noting that she wanted Meghan’s daughter, her own daughter, and others’ daughters “to live in a society driven by respect.”
Bernice King, the daughter of late civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., called out the monarchy in a tweet, writing that “royalty is not a shield from the devastation and despair of racism,” while Gorman drew parallels between Meghan and Diana. “Meghan is living the life Diana should have, if only those around her had been as brave as she was. Meghan isn’t living a life without pain, but a life without a prison.”
It’s a sentiment that only increased following Meghan’s claim that the royal family tried to silence her, but was willing to lie to protect other members.
“They were willing to lie to protect other members of the family, but they weren’t willing to tell the truth to protect me and my husband,” she said.
On March 9, Buckingham Palace released a statement on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II, addressing Meghan and Harry’s interview with Winfrey.
“The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan,” the release read. “The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan, and Archie will always be much loved family members.”
The statement was released less than 24 hours after the broadcast aired on March 8 in the U.K., following its premiere in the U.S. on March 7.
On March 11, Prince William was asked by a reporter during an appearance at a London school if the royal family is racist. “We are very much not a racist family,” William said in response. He also said that he had not spoken to Prince Harry since the Winfrey interview, but that he will do so.
I would like to show the full quote from Serene Williams that I touched on briefly earlier:-
My closing thoughts on this podcast are these. No matter how many words are spouted by members of the BRF, or how many rigor mortis smiles are on display for the camera shots, or how many black children are included in the photo opp, or how many black premises the BRF visit, the fact still remains that the BRF has many centuries of history that clearly state their point of view on race. The whole modus operandi of the Monarchy is to ensure that it stays in place. Actual benefit to the UK is secondary, and any benefit to non white people is not even third. It is more about the optics and saying the right things – though increasingly even that is still outrageously poor. The BRF lives its life in a protected bubble shielded from all reality outside of aristocracy.
In 2016 the Monarchy and the UK had an opportunity to at least respect all people of the world, not just those who are white and rich. Artificial Intelligence could certainly do many aspects of the so called work that so called journalists in Uk tabloids, and the lack of empathy within the Royal family for anyone who is equally wealthy is not the image that the top societal UK family should represent. You all do not even appear to show empathy to each other, so heaven help the wider population, and in terms of people of colour, they are not even seen as human beings in that establishment.
I have never been a Royalist, but I became a follower and supporter of Princess Diana. When she left us, I had zero interest in UK Monarchy. I had no interest in what any of you did from day to day, I just knew that my tax contribution could go to better usage elsewhere. I did, however, maintained my interest in Harry and William, but it became clear very quickly that the Royal virtual microchip had been firmly implanted in William from birth, and the seeds were now growing and showing their need to bloom. From that era commenced, my interest was on Harry only and then the absolutely fantastic Meghan who entered his life. From then on, my interest was reawakened in Royal life, and to see whether or not this breath of fresh air into this dusty archaic institution would start to bear fruit of progress. Within the first 6 months of hearing about Meghan and Harry’s relationship I became an avid and active supporter, and for the first time an avid republican. The behaviour and treatment of Meghan in particular, and then Harry because he refused to be like the rest of the clone like males in that family, became a driving force for people like myself to step up and let all the haters know Meghan and Harry are not and will never be alone. Sussex Squad is a global support network like no other, and it is a phenomenon that the aristocratic set will never understand. We do things out of love and wanting to uplift others, you all do things for money, no matter the source. That is not an ideology I support. Meghan and Harry represent what many of us in this world would like to see more of.
I need a separate paragraph to point out to the establishment, it is not savvy to disrespect certain countries, or professions, or laugh at your disrespectful jokes in front of camera (it begs the question what you joke about in private) and then go and visit those said nations and expect to be welcomed. The inhabitants of those countries are not slaves. The working class people in the UK should not be worrying about having to choose food or heat in their homes, whilst UK Royalty puts on lavish entertaining spectacles for the other Royals around the world, as some kind of show. The cost of those lavish functions, it is offensive to people who go hungry or freeze in their homes. Another major error was to abuse Meghan in the way that you have done, and continue to do it via your media partners in the Uk and Australia. Hiding your hands whilst continuing with the abuse, and then visit or send your two wax work figures who are on paper next in Line, to one of those nations your societal group despise, and expect to be welcomed with open arms – it should not be a surprise to you. Every abusive action taken out on Meghan, there are millions of people around the world, who can identify being on the receiving end of such actions. Every one of us is and will remain a defender of Harry and Meghan, and not supporters of UK Monarchy. The damage done in the last 6 years will take many decades to recover from, and I am certain UK Monarchy does not have many decades left. To send a member of the BRF to the USA which is the birthplace of the very person that has been abused beyond measure for 6 years and expect success, is a fools errand. The USA is not a Commonwealth nation and has made it very clear Monarchy is not something that USA people are interested in to bow and scrape to anyone visiting from such an establishment.
As a UK born and raised person, all I see from the BRF in the last six years is abusive behaviour and for the last three, public funds have been and are continuing to fund vanity projects while ensuring that the next in Line stays in Harry and Meghans dust clouds, in an effort to appear relevant alongside being vindictive and equally abusive. Not a good look for future relationships with any nation. PS none of those vanity projects in two decades have been completed yet. Just saying.
Harry and Meghan have numerous projects completed and ongoing with measurable successes and outcomes. What they have achieved since moving away from the UK is phenomenal, and the global accolades coming in are a testament to that. Every time Harry and Meghan are praised on a global stage the UK media and Royalists have apoplexy – again not a good look. It seems, if Harry and Meghan sneeze, it causes heads to explode in the UK. I think your advisors should ask themselves, how is it that every time things don’t go too well for BRF, it is the fault of Harry and Meghan outshining you all? Two things I would like to say in response to those points. If Harry and Meghan going about their lives causes the BRF to feel outshone, the UK has a problem. If an appearance or event causes the BRF to feel forgotten about, ask yourselves why? Your starting point should be to ask Uk media tabloid editors, why 95% of their articles are about the two non working Royal family members. The media make more money from writing about two people who are not working Royals. UK Monarchy has many problems regarding its ‘workforce’ but Harry and Meghan are not the cause of any. A one minute trailer for a 6 part documentary series beginning soon, produced a proliferation of articles in UK tabloids, and all of them stating it outshone the actual British Royals. From my non Public Relations knowledge, I would say if a one minute trailer derails the Uk Monarchy, then that Monarchy is in SERIOUS trouble and continuing abusive actions across borders aimed at Meghan in particularly, is not the way to improve your standing. International law exists for a reason. The UK Monarch is above the law (that in itself is an issue for me, but that is a whole other subject) but no one else is, and a press badge does not make people immune either.
Meghan and Harry, we feel your pain, and we share your joys. Sussex Squad will always have your back. We cover 24/7 across all time zones. Just know that we are all doing our bit behind the scenes supporting you and your projects and many of our own which follow the same philosophy. We are like virtual parents and Aunties and Uncles who will always have your back. We are immensely proud of you. The squad has your back.
UK seems to be on this alienate people and nations since the Brexit vote, but expect to secure meaningful trade deals. The population of the UK, particularly the working class is suffering because the top societal groups managed to persuade a sizeable proportion to hate certain groups of people. The business model of hate incitement continues to grow. It does not bode well for the UK or England, when Scotland and potentially Wales and Northern Ireland claim their independence. Time has come for that top tier societal group to focus on things that help the country and cease putting the majority of the Uk resources in chasing and trying to punish two people who decided to have an independent self funding life. Creating Spares like items in a row of test tubes does not create duty, it creates bondage. I respectfully state that Harry and Meghan are not the problem, but there are many self created problems within the UK that could do with a little more attention right now.
The attitudes towards Meghan joining the BRF has reinforced what most people of colour experience most days. We have come to realise that no matter what is stated on paper as being a necessary requirement for something, when it comes to people of colour, we are always expected to have more. Even then, the atmospherics in such an environment is often not very welcoming, and we are made to feel that we are not welcomed. White people in those spaces, are never questioned about their qualification to be in such a space, it is assumed that they must alright, they are are there. Black people are afforded such grace. It is tiring to say the least. The higher up the social ladder one goes, the more insidious the push back, but it is there. I cannot imagine the suffering that Meghan endured, but POC have a fair idea. Equally we understand how hurt Harry must feel, when his hopes for acceptance from his family has resulted in the current state, and worst of all for BRF but the best for Harry and Meghan and their supporters, it was all done on a global stage. Witnesses and supporters have grown over the 6 years and will continue to grow. The reputation of the UK Monarchy has taken a very big hit, and it was all self inflicted. The BRF chose to wave a metaphorical artist palette of colours, pretending to be so inclusive and all prepared to paint a new painting to represent this new era of welcoming the first POC into the UK Monarchy for many centuries and the first POC UK Princess. Unfortunately, the palette was performative, and the only colour acceptable is still white. No need to paint a new portrait, there are plenty out there depicting the enslaved. UK Monarchy has made sure it is still operating loud and clear in the UK, by not only having offensive paintings in your homes, the stolen jewels you all parade around in but you reenacted Master and Slave in the way you have continued to hunt down Harry and Meghan, like slaves gone bad. Not a wise move. I repeat, there is International Law for a reason.
4th December 2022
NB Please note that these same allegations were reported in all the UK tabloids and the text I have used in the main body of the article is from all of them. I refuse to give them publicity, or clicks to boost their engagement figures by quoting them here. Readers can obviously make their choices, but I refuse to do so for their treatment of a range of people, with no regard to the impact on their lives as a resu