Human Rights & UK Monarchy Rules



Have you ever wondered whether the British Royal Family and their Associates in the British Media (particularly those in the Royal Rota) live in an alternative universe compared to the rest of us?  Are there different forces operating in their zone?  Does the UK Monarchy use a different rule book when it comes to interaction with the Sussexes as opposed to every other family member? Is slavery still alive and thriving in the UK Monarchy? Is the chasing of Harry and Meghan around the world, for breaking of faux rules and/or protocol part of a new reality show that we have not been informed about?  Is the mission to break them psychologically part of a new game show of Endurance, and if so, who is behind the concept, and which tv network is financing it all? When does this new game show come to an end?  When is the last episode? Is this a nod to the Matrix, except in this case, there is no rule of law, just permission to chase two people who dared to have independent thought and wanted to live outside the location that has been designated for them?  Is this a new game show based on a group who are enslaved, and told that they are fortunate because of all the luxuries they can enjoy, but the downside is that you have no rights, abuse is regarded as character building for Royal life based on standards which enshrine preservation of the Institution. Anyone who dares to question this abusive oppressive society is pounced upon with the aim to break their spirit and to then rebuild them in the clone like stature of the other members.  If that is not acceptable to any objectors they are treated like slaves gone bad, and they are treated like prey – hunted down around the globe until they break or their heart stops beating.

Back in the real world, where laws do exist, this alternate universe is not recognised or known about.  Most people do not see the red flags about what is happening – all they see are two wealthy people shirking their responsibilities.  Those of us with sight and more importantly vision, recognise what is happening here, and it is a very dangerous game that is being played out in front of our eyes.  All the key groups who are acting as oppressors are those who benefit from the current set up. More importantly, if groups or individuals outside of that protected cluster did half of what has been going on for centuries in that protected bubble, it would be considered against the law; national or international. This article is a foray into basic human rights legislation, and how it is used when it suits certain people within that protected cluster, but how it equally is ignored when it comes to fake outrage about whatever Harry and Meghan are doing on any given day.  Most of the time, things have not been done or said or meant in the way the outrage is reported, but as Squad members know, truth is not a necessary element in this game, just like there are no established rules.

I am by no means a legal expert, so before any of the haters start to moan about this and that (we know they haunt our pages) this article is based on my perceptions and my thoughts of how the same legislation is used for some people in the Royal family but totally ignored when it comes to Harry and Meghan.  These are my perceptions of how certain groups have been given permission (direct or implied) to operate outside of established procedures in the pursuit of the two people who are now treated like modern day runaway slaves. UK Monarchy and its partners in the media are acting like an ex partner who cannot believe their other half has left, and in doing so, is publicly using abusive methods to gain sympathy for those with limited clarity on what is happening in front of them, in the hope that the couple will break and return.  The aim is for Harry to leave his wife and son and return to the Royal Family and be the acceptable face of the UK Monarchy, until the Cambridge children are adults, and then Harry would be part of the people in the Firm who serve no purpose and who are shoved into the background and form part of the Royal wallpaper pattern. Like I said earlier, if this occurred in any other family setting, legal groups would be concerned for the people within the framework, particularly the children born into that framework who are high in the Line of Succession. Children created to serve the monarchy.  Children born without rights.  Children who are born first are considered valuable; others are born to support the first born.  Children who are not allowed independent thought.  Children who are not allowed to fulfil their potential, and who must at all times devalue themselves in order to make the first born look good.  In any other walk of life, treatment of children along those lines would be considered anything but positive, and on several fronts, is a breach of human rights.

This is a preamble around Human Rights legislation – both International and local.  I hope that at the end of this piece, increasing numbers of people begin to question what is going on here. I will refer to a few elements of the legislation but I have also included sections which I hope give food for thought which will lead you to question other implications.

Context of Human Rights Legislation

Key points:-

  • What are Human Rights?
    • Human Rights are standards that allow all people to live with dignity, freedom, equality, justice and
    • Guaranteed to everyone without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
    • Human Rights are part of international law, contained in treaties and declarations that spell out specific rights that countries are required to uphold. Some countries incorporate human rights in their own national state and local laws.


  • Why are Human Rights important?
    • Human rights reflect the minimum standards necessary for people to live with dignity.
    • Human Rights give people the freedom to choose how they live, how they express themselves and what kind of government they want to support.
    • By guaranteeing life, liberty, equality and security, human rights protect people against abuse by those who are more powerful.


  • Human Rights Characteristics


  • Where do Human Rights Come From?


International Bill of Rights:-

  • The right to equality and freedom from discrimination
  • The right to life, liberty and personal security
  • Freedom from torture and degrading treatment
  • The right to a fair trial
  • The right to privacy
  • Freedom of belief and religion
  • Freedom of opinion
  • Right of peaceful assembly and association
  • The right to participate in government
  • The right to social security
  • The right to work
  • The right to an adequate standard of living
  • The right to education
  • The right to health
  • The right to food and housing

Who is Responsible for Upholding Human Rights?

ANSWER: Under Human Rights Treaties, governments have the primary responsibility for protecting and promoting human rights.  However, governments are not solely responsible for human rights.  The UDHR[i] states:-

“Every individual and every organ of society shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international to secure their universe and effective recognition and observance.”

The provision means that not only the government, but also businesses, civil society, and individuals are responsible for promotion and respecting human rights.

When a government ratifies a human rights treaty, it assumes a legal obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights contained in the treaty.

UK Monarchy and Protocols v International & UK Law in Terms of Privacy


  • Article 8

A private and family life: Nobody should be able to secretly watch what you are doing without good reason – and we have the right to enjoy family life in the way we choose.

  • The right to a private life protects your dignity and autonomy (your right to be independent and make your own decisions about your life).
    • That includes:
  • the right to personal autonomy and physical and psychological integrity (this right means you must not to be physically or psychologically interfered with)
  • respect for your private and confidential information, including the storing and sharing of data about you
  • the right to control the spreading of information about your private life, including photographs taken covertly.

NB//  Article 8 is the Section of the Human Rights legislation that was used  in the communication from Prince William’s legal team to UK media and whoever else, and all action ceased, and even comments made by some reporters on social media was removed; I am guessing by the authors.

My question is why this International piece of legislation, which is in force with some amendments to ensure that it suits the UK legal framework, does not appear to be applied to the Sussexes?  Whether it should come into play as Prince Harry is a UK citizen, or whether it is applicable in the USA as this is now the home of the Sussexes?  I have no idea.  I am not a legal expert at all.  I am merely inquisitive as to why UK media are using the same piece of legislation in different ways for 2 members of the Royal Family. i.e. one is allowed to use it to stop articles and discussions about his private life, but the other is chased around the world and written about daily with no regard to the law in existence.  Regardless of titles, Prince Harry and his family are no less deserving of protection under the law than anyone else.

If examined closer, as I have been doing in recent weeks, there are many aspects of the law on Human Rights that members of the Royal Family are not allowed to do , according to media mouthpieces with the authority of the Royal Family.  The reality is that, it is not illegal for them to do so, but more protocol (some written down, others not so) about what is deemed right for the members of UK Monarchy to allow themselves to be embroiled in.  e.g. politics.  Most people know that the Royal Family do indeed involve themselves in politics, frequently, and just because they are not seen visiting or speaking with politicians in front of cameras, it goes on.  Senior civil servants from the government and Royal Palaces have a revolving door arrangement, so it is beyond naïve to state that it does not happen, and it is inequitable to publicly chastise the Sussexes via a torrent of click bait articles in tabloid publications suggesting to their readers that interference in politics took place in the USA Presidential voting process.  I would suggest that there is likely to be a far higher percentage of political activity going on behind the scenes with various members of the BRF and politicians around the world, as well as within the UK; it is just done out of sight most of the time.

It is not illegal for members of the Royal family to vote in elections, it is just something that the Queen has decided is not appropriate for them to be involved in.  In my mind, in the future, when all USA documentation is finalised, there is no reason whatsoever that Prince Harry could not vote in an American Election process, irrespective of whether or not the UK Royal family and their associates in the media are unhappy about that prospect.

The only member of the UK Monarchy who is above the law is The Queen.  Anyone else in the Royal family who may have transgressed can be charged (e.g. Princess Anne was charged for a speeding offence. Driving at 90+ mph in a 70mph zone) but cannot be arrested in the presence of The Queen, or questioned on the grounds of or near to any Royal Palaces.

  • Family Life – there is no set description for what constitutes a family. This element is usually applied in cases where children are removed from the family home, for whatever reason.
  • Respect for Your Home – You have a right not to have your home interfered with such as by surveillance, or unlawful entry or evictions which have not followed due process.
  • Respect for Your Correspondence – You have the right to uninterrupted and uncensored communication with others; a right that is particularly relevant when challenging phone tapping and the reading of your private communications.

It is time for sensible people of the UK to cease thinking of members of the Royal Family as people that you own based on the tax you pay towards their existence.  There are questions to be asked about

  • whether a modern society needs and should pay for a Monarchy?
  • There are questions to be asked about how many in the family line should be funded by the UK taxpayer.
  • Is it right in this day and age to have children brought into this world, to be used as chattels and have a life mapped out for them from birth to grave?
  • Is it right that the first born child of a senior Royal is considered a future King or Queen regardless of whether they wish to take on that role, and more importantly have the competence to do it?
  • Are we saying that modern day slavery within Royal circles is acceptable?
  • Children are prevented from reaching their full potential.
  • Children are used as objects not human beings.
  • Children have no rights within Royal circles but they do if born outside of it.
  • Treatment of children in this way would be considered to be abusive outside of Royal confines.


Prince Harry and his wife Meghan have been treated like pariahs because they dared to:-

  • want to work for a living
  • Did not want to be a third wheel for his older brother and wife, merely because he was born 2nd.
  • Royal Family and their media Associates in the Royal Rota have tried to make it difficult for the Sussexes to leave, by quoting all manner of restrictive reasons why it was not a good idea; that did not work.
  • The Royal Family have attempted to punish Prince Harry for marrying someone who was not from the gene pool usually fished in for spouses, in order to continue the parasitic way of living off UK public.
  • The Royal Family have spent the last 4 years of a bullying and harassment campaign against the newest member of the Royal Family and who also is a person of colour. I wont say any more about that due to litigation that is ongoing, but needless to say the campaign backfired, and the couple left the UK.
  • UK media professionals constantly and openly used phrases that ordered Meghan to go back to her own country. Prior to that there was talk of shipping her and Harry off to Africa, as if the whole continent of Africa could be used by the British Royal Family as some kind of dumping ground punishment to place those who did not abide by the rules??
  • Rules that they were born into, and had no say in composition. Rules that morphed into various permutations dependant upon the anger that the British Media wanted to pretend existed on any given day.

Recently one QC wrote on one of the popular social media platforms about the “undertones of racism written by Royal Rota Reporters.  The QC referred to the implications for people of colour in the UK if someone like Meghan could be treated this way, what hope for ordinary people?

Like clockwork, one of the reporters from that Rota, who regularly posts negative comments about Meghan and implies that Harry is a weak and easily led man etc etc., responded to the QC admitting that “there were indeed undertones of racism in the reporting but that the QC should know that “undertones” is not against the law.  Let that sink in for a moment.  We have always known that this has existed from the start 4 years ago, and we were gaslighted every time.  Now that same pack feel confident and secure enough to admit they choose their wording carefully but it is indeed racism that is the main theme here.

One of the Royal photographers made a short video a few weeks ago, pretending to show sorry about how things had turned out, and was begging Harry to return to help out the Cambridges.  Even admitted that the reason for all the disgusting press coverage was because Meghan would not meet with them and agree to allow them to profit off the Sussexes and their son.  He said through fake emotional distress that if Meghan had allowed access, the press could have seen her as human (as opposed to what??) and she could have seen them as human too.  Blah blah blah.  Less than two months later, that same photographer had an article in one of the tabloids this month, now stating that the Sussexes “deserve all the abuse” that they are receiving.  I stated in all of my articles since March 2020 that the treatment of the Sussexes, commencing with Meghan since 2016 has been abusive, which has become worse over time, and the dangers to the Sussex family have increased because of the behaviour of the Royal Family and their partners in abuse in the British media.

All of the activity against the Sussexes is in breach of Human Rights legislation.  None of what the Sussexes have done in leaving an abusive environment is against UK or International Law. Prince Harry will always remain a Prince of a Future King, and nothing can change that.  All this talk of removing various Titles is meant to cause emotional harm.  Some have been removed, and others may be in the future.  Removing the Dukedom would require an Act of Parliament.  Good luck to them with that, if that is yet another desperate route the BRF and media friends wish to see happen.  For one, it requires legislation to remove something from someone who has not broken any laws and has not in fact done nothing wrong.  Secondly it will open the door for automatic removal of other statuses of other members of the Royal Family, and thirdly, this will be not be a good look of the UK to the rest of the world.  It would be based on vindictiveness and malice merely because a couple expressed their right to walk away from abuse.

I have a concern about children born into that type of regime, that no amount of wealth can heal or even pretend to look better than what is actually happening.  Any other family doing what the Royals do to and with their children would have child services on their doorstep.  Child slavery then turns into slavery of adults, and this belief by some media pundits that they have rights to what happens inside a woman’s womb and who should be there to see the action etc.  It is grotesque.  A for other matters relating to children, stretching far back in Royal history, one would have thought there is much that the Royal family and the media could and should be focussed upon.

If the Royal family cannot function without two people and their child who they chased away because of their abuse towards them, then it speaks volumes about the work ethic and popularity and income generation of all the others.  I am of the firm opinion, as a non legal person, that this treatment of the Sussexes is in breach on multiple aspects of Articles of basic Human Rights legislation.  Royal protocol is not the law, and protocols stated in respect of the Sussexes is not written down anywhere, just something expected should happen in respect of the Sussexes only.

Article 8 was quickly pulled out of the magician hat for one Prince on an alleged rumour.  Harry and Meghan could build furniture with the volumes of actual incidents of actions in breach of the law on multiple articles including Article 8.  My caveat being I am a non legal person, but I stand by my opinion.  All of this actions against Harry is pushing him further away from his blood relatives, not bringing him closer.  No one rushes to return to their abuser. Litigation could take place at any time, on so many fronts, and may well do so in the future.

I think the Royal family should just get on with what the cards that they dealt themselves, and be glad that the Monarchy is still hanging on by a thread.  I personally, if given the opportunity to remove the structure of the Monarchy, would vote to do so.  The behaviour of people who Harry should have been able to rely on to welcome and protect his wife and son, have been behind the abuse.  I have gone from not caring about what members of this family did from day to day, to now wishing for the Monarchy to end, based on their behaviour towards Harry and Meghan and their son (and now an additional newborn)  over the last 4 years.  Their actions have ensured that people like myself who did not really care about them, have now become very interested in seeing the whole thing come to an end.  The actions of the Royal Family have now ensured that their biggest income generator, and with admirable skillset and experience between them, caused the Sussexes to walk away, and now their rise to global icons has already happened, because of the disgusting treatment by the Monarchy and its media.

All the protesting and gutter behaviour about the Sussexes leaving the UK and now already living a better quality of life, and safer and protected more so than in the UK, is being done by people who were better off with the Sussexes staying within the fold.  All those protesting are worried that the Royal Family cannot survive, or will at best be severely low on popularity and income generation in its current form, which means less income generation for the tabloids and tv talk shows which have nothing to offer to compete in any meaningful way with the growing number of streaming services and online news networks.  I call it karma.  The remaining Royal Family in the UK are popular with a reducing demographic. The added value of their existence will continue to come under focus when more and more people of the UK are affected by the impact of Brexit on their lives and their income, and will ultimately lead to questions related to the definition of the added value of the British Royal Family, particularly when the Queen is no longer here.  Growing evidence that the two future heirs have a vastly reduced number of supporters.  The 2nd most popular person to the Queen, is Prince Harry, the person who the Royal family and its media arm chased out of the UK, for that very reason, and who are now realising the true ramifications of that error. The treatment of the Sussexes has been in breach of multiple aspects of the law, including International Law on Basic Human Rights.

The legislation is there.  The abusers want to hope that the Sussexes never feel the need to use it in future legal challenges. That being said, i would like to see that decision taken out of the hands of the Sussexes.  To be fair, they are doing more than fair share, to remain standing in the volume of hate activity thrown towards them, with abusive actions taken hidden by perceived protection under the law of a monarch.  There are multiple serious breaches in Data Protection legislation which should be included in the portfolio of measures that should occupy the minds of interntional legal institutions.

Ivy Barrow






Articles 1 and 13

Articles 1 and 13 of the ECHR do not feature in the Act. This is because, by creating the Human Rights Act, the UK has fulfilled these rights.

For example, Article 1 says that states must secure the rights of the Convention in their own jurisdiction. The Human Rights Act is the main way of doing this for the UK.

Article 13 makes sure that if people’s rights are violated they are able to access effective remedy. This means they can take their case to court to seek a judgment. The Human Rights Act is designed to make sure this happens.

[i] Universal Declaration  of Human Rights:- all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and