Queen Charlotte, Princess Diana & Doria Ragland

Created Huge Impact on British Royal History

& You Will Never Hear Described in this Way by the Current British Monarchy


Hello everyone.  Todays podcast takes a helicopter view of 3 mothers, who are connected to the British Monarchy, either directly or via marriage, and whose children appear to have ruffled the Royal establishment figures and protocols, following in two cases, like their respective mothers did – purely by being themselves.  In all 3 family stories, the element of people of colour plays a role, and the way the British Monarchy reacted to people who had independent thoughts, is very similar over the centuries.

What does it say about a system that procreates to extend the line of power, and where the first born male is treated as though they are anointed by some kind of high power, and the people of the realm are meant to worship them without question.  In all 3 cases, history books show how pressures were placed upon individuals who had independent thought, and many hurdles were put in their way.  In the case of the first family, there was no tabloid press or social media, so history was written how the Royal Family wanted people of the future to be informed.  Some people were practically erased from history and conversations, by changing their names and giving them finance, and moving them far away from the Royal family itself.  There is clearly a history of ‘dumping’ people in what was deemed at the time to be a ‘far away place’, where they would be forgotten about, and where any children involved were not recognised in the Line of Succession, even though they were born within a marriage, and they were given a new name and Title.  Any born outside of marriage, are not spoken about, and if they do receive funds, it is not something the general public will ever hear about.

In the case of Princess Diana, there was the existence of tabloid media, but as the media has an unwritten contract with the British Royal Family, any news that was published and circulated around like confetti, was such a force that a lone person, who had no means of giving their side of the story independent to that same media, life was very difficult when the establishment turned on her.

In the case of Prince Harry, tabloid media was bad and is even worse now.  The links between newspaper owners, government officials, Aristocracy and the Royal Family is strong and social media is now a major player in the communication industry.  Tabloids now also publish their stories online alongside the falling sales of printed news reports, therefore the establishment messages are high volume and play a great part in persuading public opinion.  The added element which none of these partners at the top of the societal tree considered initially was the input of members of the public from across the globe, using social media platforms to question and debunk lies and deception, as well as use it to promote their particular views of the world, as well as use it for fun and entertainment.

The addition of a person who was not a member of the British establishment to the mix was majorly underestimated and disrespected in the first few months of the person concerned being linked with Prince Harry.  That new person was the then Meghan Markle, someone who the UK media regarded as a low key USA actress in a little known TV drama.  Meghan has a very strong mother, who she has a very close bond, and Doria Ragland who has remained silent and dignified, gave her only child a very strong background and education in social issues that exist and how they impacted on ordinary people.  Doria worked as a social worker, and therefore worked daily with people who the system was trying to help and keep their heads above water.  Doria was also a yoga instructor, which by definition allowed her to learn about relaxation and breathing techniques, and how to remain calm and in control along with a fitness approach to day to day life.

All of the so called Royal experts (better known as the Carnival of Clowns) immediately started to use words in which to describe Meghan and her lifestyle and it not being typical for the women who marry into the Royal family. Phrases to the effect of ‘it wont be serious’, ‘it is only a fling’, ‘no way Harry would marry someone like that’ etc etc etc., started to appear in newspaper articles and tv interviews.    All those that said those things, were soon to find out that nothing could be further from the truth.  They would soon learn that this was a person who was bi racial (her description of herself) and who worked hard to achieve her place in the acting profession, and who was a regular member of a hit tv show that had been running for 7 years was not going to be a ‘push over’ for the notorious tabloid Royal Reporters. Meghan was a multi millionaire in her own right, by hard work not birth canal. Meghan is multi lingual and double majored in theatre and international relations.  Meghan applied for an internship at the US Embassy and as a result spent time in the Buenos Aires US Embassy.  Meghan already had an interest in politics and initially believed that her future career would be in USA politics.  Becoming a successful actress in Suits, changed all of that, and then meeting Prince Harry, ensured that she was about to enter into an entirely different career environment.  The UK media once realising what Meghan was potentially bringing to the table, then started to amplify Royal Family concerns (we suspected and now know) of the implications for the Royal Family life that existed ‘before Meghan’ and began to interview Royal experts who then began to use the phrase of “degree wife”  ie the marriage, if it took place, would last at most 3 years.  The disrespect was huge.

This podcast will show the golden thread of circumstance and outcomes which run through all the Royals, and you will hopefully come to the conclusion, like I did, that when you track the outline journey of all three matriarchs children,  and come up to the present day with Harry and Meghan, you will hopefully see the patterns and the evidence of the dark forces going on in current times, and you will see nothing that is happening to The Sussexes is accidental.  That is not to say that I think the individuals and organisations behind the ‘treatment’ considered the consequences of their actions, because I do not believe that for a moment. I believe the traditional tried and tested methods over centuries was considered to be all that was needed, but those people are realising that is no longer the case.  Despite that, it seems that they are continuing to do the same things, and expecting different outcomes. So, let me take you all on this journey through history culminating in ‘The Sussex experience.’

Queen Charlotte


                                                                                                                              Figure 1King George III

In the course of their marriage, the couple became parents of 15 children: George, Prince of Wales (b.1762), Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany (b.1763), Prince William, Duke of Clarence (b.1765), Charlotte, Princess Royal (b.1766), Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (b.1766), Princess Augusta Sophia (b.1768), Princess Elizabeth (b.1770), Prince Ernest, Duke of Cumberland (b.1771), Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex (b.1773), Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge (b.1774), Princess Mary, Duchess of Gloucester (b.1776), Princess Sophia (b.1777), Prince Octavius (b.1779), Prince Alfred (b.1880) and Princess Amelia (b.1783).

St James’s Palace was the official residence of the Royal couple, but The King had recently purchased a nearby property, Buckingham House.

Figure 2 Buckingham House 1710

   Became Buckingham Palace when it was extended.


In 1762 The King and Queen moved into this new house, making it Buckingham Palace. Charlotte loved it – 14 of her children were born there and it came to be known as ‘The Queen’s House’.

Frogmore House

Queen Charlotte also purchased Frogmore House in Windsor Park in 1792 as a country retreat for her and her unmarried daughters. Frogmore played a key part in the celebration of King George III’s Golden Jubilee in 1809:


Kew Palace & Kew Gardens

The Queen was also an amateur botanist, who took a great interest in Kew Gardens. Kew Palace, then known as the Dutch House, was bought by George III in 1781 as a family home. Charlotte’s interest in botany led to the South African flower, the Bird of Paradise, being named Strelitzia reginae in her honour.

Figure 3 Strelitzia reginae


Many places around the world have been named after Queen Charlotte: Charlottetown (Prince Edward Island, Canada), Queen Charlotte Bay (West Falkland), Queen Charlotte Sound (South Island, New Zealand), Charlottesville (Virginia, USA), Charlotte (North Carolina, USA) and Mecklenburg County (Virginia, USA).


Phiippa Hanault – Queen Consort in the Low Counties now known as Belgium (POC before Queen Charlotte) 

I included this Queen Consort, because of the historical recorded description of this lady, in terms of her features.


Figure 4 Queen Philippa Hanault

“Philippa of Hainault (24 June 1314 – 15 August 1369) was the Queen-Consort of Edward III. She was the daughter of the Count of Hainault in the Low Countries (now in Belgium), an area that had once been ruled by Moorish tribes. It would appear that perhaps, in Philippa, there was a genetic throwback to the darker colouring of the erstwhile rulers. Edward II sent a man to Hainault to report back on his son and heir’s mooted bride. The man gave the following feedback:


“The lady whom we saw has not uncomely hair, betwixt blue-black and brown. Her head is cleaned shaped; her forehead high and broad, and standing somewhat forward. Her face narrows between the eyes, and the lower part of her face is still more narrow and slender than the forehead. Her eyes are dark. Her nose is fairly smooth and even, save that is somewhat broad at the tip and flattened, yet it is no snub nose. Her nostrils are also broad,

her mouth fairly wide. Her lips somewhat full and especially the lower lip…all her limbs are well set and unmaimed, and nought is amiss so far as a man may see. Moreover, she is brown of skin all over, and much like her father, and in all things she is pleasant enough, as it seems to us.”


No contemporary images of Philippa exist; those that we have show a very standard, delicate featured, Caucasoid woman, absolutely nothing like the woman that the little “brown” girl described above would have grown into.

Philippa was an avid patron of the arts, a capable regent when her husband was away warring and a prolific mother. She was known for her kindness and restraint, frequently interceding with her husband and successfully pleading for the lives of those who had been sentenced to die. Philippa also is known to be the “most royal” Queen-Consort of England due to four of her great-great-grandfathers all having been kings (of France, Aragon, Naples and Hungary).”



The  majority of this narrative about the Dukes of Sussex centres more on the first Duke not least to prepare the ground for the comparisons and similarities with the present day, of which we already know so much.  So please bear with me as I spent time on the summary of the first Duke.  Along the way you will each most likely identify things that link to Prince Harry’s situation in some way or another.  There is truly a wealth of information out there about most members of the British Royal family going back centuries.  This podcast barely touches the surface of the information about the 12 siblings of the first Duke of Sussex, let alone the information about his parents, whose mother was considered to mixed race by a few brave historians, but on the whole most historians did not comment about it.  You may have noticed, if any of your watched the Netflix series Bridgerton, that Queen Charlotte was in fact portrayed as a person of colour without actually referring to the fact.


The First Duke of Sussex – Prince Augustus Frederick

  • Born on 27 January 1773, in Buckingham House, London.
  • Died on 21 April 1843 aged 70. Residence: Kensington Palace, London.
  • Burial – 4th May 1843. Worth stating here that Prince Augustus specifically requested not to be buried on any Royal estates.  Hence he was buried in Kensal Green Cemetery, London, opposite his sister, Princess Sophia another ‘outsider’ in some ways as she was unmarried and a child, with the names of two possible men who could be the father.
  • Married twice. First spouse was Lady Augusta Murray.  The marriage took place in 1793 against the wishes and without approval of the Monarch.  The marriage was subsequently annulled 1794 on the grounds that the Prince did not seek approval from the Monarch and got married anyway.  The Monarch never approved of the marriage, hence the reason it was annulled.
  • 2nd marriage was to Lady Cecillia Underwood, which took place in 1831
  • Both times Augustus married for love but the monarch did not approve of either of the chosen spouses and so did not approve either of the marriages. As a direct result of this, neither of the Duke’s children were considered legitimate heirs to the title.
  • The parents of Prince Augustus was King George III and Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. NB Queen Charlotte is listed by a few historians as being of mixed race.  Most of the paintings of the Queen also confirm this point, but as per usual with such matters, particularly in those times, history was not so much rewritten, but the ethnic origin was just not referred to in the majority of the official records. 
    • I make this point because of the political causes that became a focus for Prince Augustus, and which were very unpopular with the British Royal family at the time. One could argue, successfully in my opinion, that there seems a lot of denial about Queen Charlottes ethnicity but there are written pieces which state that Queen Charlotte comes from Portuguese family line, and she is indeed of mixed race. Prince Augustus took up causes that I suspect his mother would have been more than proud – just like our current Duke of Sussex.  Causes such as agreement in and vocal about his views to abolish slavery, reformation of Parliament, Catholic emancipation and the removal of existing civil restriction on “Jews and Dissenters” which referred to Protestant Christians who separated from the Church of England in the 17th and 18th


  • Prince Augustus met his first wife in Italy. 2nd daughter of the Earl of Dunmore.  The couple secretly got married in Rome in 4th April 1793.  The Kings Minister of Hanover affairs was sent to Italy to escort him back to London.
  • the couple married again without revealing their full identities at St Georges, Hanover Square, Westminster on 5th December 1793.
    • Both marriages took place without the consent or even the knowledge of his father.
  • In August 1794 the prince’s first marriage was annulled on the grounds that it contravened the Royal Marriages Act 1772, as it was not approved by the King.
    • Prince continued to live with Lady Augusta until 1801 when he received a parliamentary grant of £12,000 and the couple separated. Lady Augusta retained custody of their children and received maintenance of £4000 a year.
    • In 1806 Lady Augusta was given royal licence to use the surname of ‘de Ameland’ instead of Murray.
  • 2nd Marriage
  • A year after the death of his first wife, Augustus married a second time in May 1831 – again in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act to Lady Cecilia Letitia Buggin the eldest daughter of Arthur Gore, 2nd Earl of Arran and Elizabeth Underwood a widow. On the same day, Lady Cecilia assumed the surname Underwood by Royal Licence.  She was never titled or recognised as the Duchess of Sussex, however she was created the Duchess of Inverness in her own right by Queen Victoria in 1840.


  • In 1838 Augustus made reference to meeting a scientist called John Hershell, and gave a speech where he spoke about the compatibility of science and religion. He tried to challenge the inequality and social injustices, which eventually his stance on such topics caused further division between the  Duke and his family.  The Duke and his father were very much estranged at this point.


Princess Diana

“Anywhere I see suffering, that is where I want to be, doing what I can.”

Figure 5 Leprosy

Throughout her life, Diana devoted herself to serving others, especially those without a voice. She was President or Patron of over 100 charities as a part of her royal duties, many of which did work on behalf of homeless and disabled people, children, and people with HIV/AIDS.

After 1996, Diana continued to work as either Patron or President for Centrepoint, the English National Ballet, Leprosy Mission, the National Aids Trust, Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street and the Royal Marsden Hospital. In the year before she died, Diana tirelessly campaigned to ban the manufacture and use of landmines.

Figure 6   Aids

“Everyone of us needs to show how much we care for each other and, in the process, care for ourselves .” – Diana

Diana made many visits to North America, visiting hospices, schools, charities and fundraising galas, and touched the lives of many wherever she went. Other major overseas visits included Angola, Australia, Bosnia, Egypt, India, Pakistan, and many European countries.

The Princess spoke out on a wide range of issues and used her high profile to raise awareness as well as funds for charitable causes. She is rightly recognised and respected today as a true humanitarian.

Diana, Princess of Wales with Mother Theresa of Calcutta.

Figure 7 Princess Diana in Calcutta Mother Teresa Mission


Ken Wharfe, a former Met Police officer, has accused the royals of being envious of Diana’s popularity with the British public in 1997, but he believes her sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, have carried on her legacy.

“20 years on we are now speaking about their mother more than ever before.”

And he claims her efforts to modernise the family has been reflected in her royal engagements, as well as in how she raised William and Harry.

Ken shared: “She would take them to Kensington High Street, take them to the cinema. They were great regulars of Bill Wyman’s Sticky Fingers restaurant.”

And of the Princess’ popularity, Ken added: “The problem with Diana in this family is they could not deal with her popularity, they couldn’t cope with it – basically they were jealous.

“They couldn’t do it themselves and they wouldn’t acknowledge just how good she was at it, this was a problem.

“Their attitude was ‘this has been going on for a few hundred years lets not wreck it’ – they weren’t moving with the times and the couldn’t honestly bring it round to say ‘we’ve got somebody here who is changing its direction’.”


Prince Harry  – 2nd Duke of Sussex

Historical Data re Dukedom Title and Ownership

The Duke of Sussex title has only ever been used twice in the Peerage of the United Kingdom.  The current Duke of Sussex is Prince Harry, and the previous holder of the title was Prince Augustus Frederick, the 6th son of King George III.  Prince Augustus was given the title of the Duke of Sussex on 24th November 1801, along with the following titles:- Baron Arklow and Earl of Inverness.

The 2nd creation of the Duke of Sussex title (which takes its name from the County of Sussex in England) was announced on 19th May 2018 and made official by Letters Patent on 16th July 2018, to Prince Harry.  The current Heir apparent is Archie Mountbatten Windsor.

  • Prince Harry holds subsidiary Titles of the Earl of Dumbarton and the Baron of Kilkeel.
    • Earl of Dumbarton is a title of Scottish nobility, referring to Dumbarton in the area of West Dumbartonshire in Scotland.
      • The title has been created twice. Once in 1675 in the Peerage of Scotland, and then a 2nd time, but once in the Peerage of the UK in 2018.
    • There were a few dukedoms vacant for the Queen to choose from as the wedding approached. They were:- Clarence, Connaught, Kendal, Ross, Sussex and Windsor.  There were also a number of unoccupied dukedoms including Cumberland and Albany.
      • Lucy Hulme from Debretts Peerage was of the opinion that Prince Harry would only receive English and Scottish titles, whereas Prince William being higher in the Line of Succession would receive 3 which would include Ireland.
      • Debretts anticipated that the Queen would choose from the vacant dukedoms, which she did in fact do. Lucy Hulme also stated that factors that might be taken into account include who held the title previously and whether or not there were any negative connotations.  Windsor had negative connotations as it was the title given to Edward VIII after his abdication in 1936.
      • Experts felt that Sussex was the favourite with Clarence being the next most likely. The Duke of Sussex title became extinct around 200 years ago. The previous holder of the title didn’t have any legitimate heirs and there is no terrible or controversial history associated with the title.
        • Let me state here that I whole heartedly disagree with this last point regarding the choice of the Sussex dukedom not having any controversy attached to it. I will come on to my reasons shortly.
      • The titles can be inherited but cease to be called ‘royal’ once they pass beyond the grandsons of a monarch.
      • As with any peerage, once the title becomes extinct, it may subsequently be recreated by the reigning monarch at any time.

Meghan Markle Joins Prince Harry in the UK 2016

UK meltdown begins.


A summary of Meghan’s work experiences including charitiable projects, and also worked for 7 years on the TV hit Suits.


Meghan wrote an article for TIME called “How Periods Affect Potential,” about the way menstruation can hinder a woman’s potential if she doesn’t have access to tampons and pads. Markle wrote:

“I traveled to Delhi and Mumbai this January with World Vision to meet girls and women directly impacted by the stigmatization of menstrual health and to learn how it hinders girls’ education. One hundred and thirteen million adolescent girls between the ages of 12-14 in India alone are at risk of dropping out of school because of the stigma surrounding menstrual health.”

Meghan also supported World Vision’s Clean Water Campaign in Rwanda in 2016.


Meghan’s work with the Myna Mahila Foundation is also tied to her support of World Vision. According to Vanity Fair, at this organization, “women manufacture sanitary pads to sell in communities. The effort not only provides these resources to girls, but also fosters open communication about menstruation.” Meghan’s commitment to women’s issues, and the open discussion of topics such as menstruation, is important for communities everywhere.


One Young World’s mission is to “gather young leaders from around the world, help them make lasting connections & create positive change.” Meghan was a Counsellor in One Young World Summits in Dublin, Ireland (2014), and Ottawa, Canada (2016). At 2016’s Summit, she delivered a talk alongside Justin Trudeau and famously called out the Suits creator for gender inequality for requiring her character to do so many semi-naked scenes on the show.

This content is imported from YouTube. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.


In November 2016, Meghan  wrote for ELLE UK about her experience working with the United Nations: “I was in a van heading back from Gihembe refugee camp in Rwanda. I was there as an advocate for UN Women; I had a week of meetings with female parliamentarians in the city’s capital, Kigali, celebrating the fact that 64 percent of the Rwandan government are women–the first in the world 
where women hold a majority.”

Meghan made her dedication to humanitarian work clear in the essay, writing, “This type of work is what feeds my soul. The degree to which I can do that both on and off camera is a direct perk of my job.”


Meghan’s advocacy on behalf of women began when she was just 11 years old. Upon seeing a sexist advertisement on TV, Meghan wrote letters to Hillary Clinton, Linda Ellerbee, Gloria Allred, and the company responsible for the ad. Markle received replies from all three women, and the soap company changed the wording in the commercial.

As Meghan revealed at the UN Women‘s Conference in Beijing in 2015:

“The soap manufacturer Procter & Gamble changed the commercial for their ivory clear dish-washing liquid. They changed it from ‘Women all over America are fighting greasy pots and pans’ to ‘People all over America.’ It was at that moment that I realized the magnitude of my actions. At the age of 11, I had created my small level of impact by standing up for equality.”


Meghan posted on Instagram, “Exercise your right to vote—sadly, not everyone in this world has it, so if you do, please let your voice be heard.” She has continually encouraged women to speak up for themselves, and exercise the power they have to inform politics.

While she is no longer patron of the Royal National Theatre and the Association of Commonwealth Universities, she still has ties to Smart Works and Mayhew.


Current and Former Duke of Sussex

  • They were/are considered somewhat rebellious – eg they challenges age-old traditions and shatter Royal stereotypes
  • Queen Victoria considered the first Duke of Sussex to be her favourite Uncle, who did the honour of escorting her down the aisle when she married Prince Albert in 1840.
  • An unspoken attitude to the existence of mixed race within Royalty at that time; I would say that not much has changed.
  • Prince Harry had to officially request permission to marry Meghan. With the world looking, the Queen did not opt to refuse, yet as we all know now, and most people acknowledge that this was not one rogue member of staff but a concerted effort by the BRF to ensure that no wedding took place.  I personally feel that even if the Queen had refused permission, Harry would have married Meghan anyway.  In my mind he is very similar to the first Duke of Sussex.
  • History gives an insight on how the Monarch has the power to erase hereditary entitlement or recognition if they so wish, under a variety of legislation/acts that only Royals would ever have the need to use. The wording of the very Acts themselves meant that no person outside of that structure could call upon it.
  • Note how names are changed (like the 1st Duke of Sussex first wife. Using a name from her side of the family, and was in effect given money and a different Title to make it look better, but she and her children were still excluded but sugar coated by giving her a Scottish title and lived at a distance.  When Augustus died, it was deemed he had no legitimate children to pass on his Duke of Sussex title, even though they had been born within a legitimate marriage but one that was not approved by the Monarch.
  • Meghans removal from Archie’s birth certificate, but her Title remaining, is significant in my opinion. History will show the Royalty element, but no mention of the person behind the title.  Slavery mentality in full view.
  • Without giving ideas to people, I can see a variety of ways the BRF could have used aspects of Royal law and procedures, to ‘other’ Meghan if Harry had put the Royal family first. Harry leaving scuppered much of that scope of choice I am sure.
  • I maintain the choice of the Sussex Dukedom was not accidental, though I think the Royal family had different ideas in terms of its relevance, than a sane thinking non misogynistic person could see. I am sure that there was a very high element of shade when the choice was made, and very little of it was seen in a positive light, but courtiers and media could spin it like it was a fabulous wedding gift to the couple.
    • I believe that the first Duke of Sussex would have liked Harry and Meghan. They stood their ground when all around them were shooting poison arrows.
    • The first Duke married who he wanted despite family opposition that he knew would follow. Both of his marriages were for love, and he did his best in the times that he lived in, to secure payments for his first wife and children before they separated for good.  The annulment made no difference to the emotions involved.
    • Augustus was never considered at the level of other brothers in the family. He was seen as the weak one due to his asthma, and yet he was the one who quietly became very interested in the arts and music and politics, and very outspoken on slavery and race issues.  He was very well read too.  His living quarters were never as palatial as others in his family, but he travelled a lot and experiences more about life outside of Royalty.
    • Prince Harry had a tiny 2 bedroom cottage on Kensington Palace grounds. He was always treated like 2nd  When he asked for accommodation for him as a married man, he was allocated Frogmore Cottage, not a section of Frogmore House.  Former servants quarters, and still the smallest accommodation by far compared to the rest of the wider family.  In the same grounds of Frogmore is another Royal who was deemed to be a rebel, Edward who gave up the throne to marry Wallace Simpson.  Everything thrown Harry’s way, on the face of things, looked easy to spin in the media, but when examined closely, it was/is all shade
    • Harry paying the faux renovation costs for a property that had designated funds in the Sovereign grant, in one go, scuppered the 12 repayment deal that the Royal family tried to sell to Harry. It is no coincidence that the Cambridge children would become adults in 10 and 12 years respectively in terms of George and Charlotte.  Once gain trying to use him as the Royal workhorse and Whipping Boy for distraction press coverage, but still prepared to cast him aside at the BRF convenience in 12 years time, under the disguise of him paying back a fictitious debt.
    • You can see already how the institution is trying to do to Harry and Meghan’s children, what was done to The first Duke of Sussexes two children. Ie removed from the line of inheriting anything from their father upon his death. Packed off into the background, with his mother allocated a name from her mothers side of the family, and over time, meaning it would take an element of prior knowledge to find details of this lady and her two children.
    • Every shady act done by the BRF and the media to stop the wedding taking place failed. The fact that the BRF acted quickly to remove footage of the Australian news interview with a certain person, who admitted this plot existed and people were paid to stop the wedding. All footage in the main high profile countries, as well as footage on the internet, was removed in hours.  If this was not true, the brf would have been silent.  The official reason for its removal was that two former gossip publication personnel were named as being involved, and that they threatened to sue if it was not removed.
    • The Sussexes are free, and are not dependant on the BRF for their existence. The Sussexes are involved in impactful work globally and are very high profile. They have options.  Augustus stipulated that when he died he did not want to be buried on Royal grounds.  I hope that Harry and Meghan do something similar when it comes to the Christening.  I will of course respect their choice, but this pick and mix approach that the BRF keep on pushing in order to deflect or to make the Firm feel relevant and important, is becoming tiresome now.  Leave them to their games.  They are in the dust clouds of the Sussexes now anyway.

My takeaway from looking into the life of the first Duke of Sussex is that Prince Harry has more in common with the first Duke on the things that Royalty want to pretend does not exist, or did not happen in that way. The Royal Family were trying to appear generous and celebrating the marriage, when in fact every so called gift, was a rotten apple, and much like their day to day life, it was all performative and nothing of real substance.  I will think of both Dukes of Sussex as kindred spirits, who married who they loved, and did not follow Royal tradition and protocol just because it was there.  They both were and are independent thinkers, and who were involved in wider initiatives outside of the traditional Royal family performative tasks.  I think that the Dukes would have liked each other, and the mixed race element in the family line, despite what the majority of records show, is an added joy.  The Sussexes are making history with a range of innovative projects which are benefiting a wide scope of people.  Meghan is the first Duchess of Sussex, not least because the Queen could not be seen to refuse the marriage, so despite trying other activities to destroy this union, the fact remains that history will show Meghan’s name and Title, just like the American Birth Certificate, so the one amended in the UK is the only document that is different, compared to all the others in history books of the future, as to the reasons behind the amendment.



Queen Charlotte, Princess Diana and Doria Ragland all had their share of being treated differently, simply because of their independent thought.  Whilst Queen Charlotte should and could have taken over Royal business when it became clear that her husband was indisposed to his deteriorating mental health, there were moves within the Royal establishment to keep Queen Charlotte away from Royal business.  It seems that Queen Charlotte was not too upset about that, and put her talents towards other things, which still stand and/or written about in history books, and which are still sort after today.  The names of those who opposed her involvement in Royal life, not so much.

Of the 15 children that Charlotte and her husband King George III , it was the 6th child Frederick Augustus and one of his sisters (Princess Sophia) who did not act in accordance with Royal procedures and protocol at all times.  Frederick became the 1st Duke of Sussex, as explained earlier, and he specifically gave instructions that when he died he did not want to be buried on Royal land. It was clear that he had a fractured relationship with his father, and his children born within one of his marriage, were removed from succession of the Duke of Sussex Title, and they and their mother were moved to Scotland, and their name changed, and given an annual sum to live on.  Over time, no one would really be aware that they were once Royalty.

Frederick’ sister Sophie was a single mother, with question marks over two males who could be the father of her child.  Both are buried in a non Royal cemetery as stated earlier in this article.

It seems that the British Royal family still refuse to move with the times – using old methods that will not be successful in todays climate and if truth be told, has not worked for many decades. One would think that having a couple like the Sussexes would be considered an asset to the Royal family.  Instead the Sussexes have had to leave the UK for the sake of their mental health, and have stepped back from Senior Royal duties.  The mouthpiece of the Royal family ie the UK tabloid media continues to hound them on another continent, but they are still safer than in the UK.  I am certain the law will soon curtail the illegal behaviour by media people on a USA family. The UK are playing fast and loose with Sussex security in the UK, going as far as refusing to allow Prince Harry to pay for additional security from the Met Police, alongside his own security people, because of the Intel information that the Met police will have, and a private security organisation will not have.  Other people pay for Met Police services, but a son of the next King has been refused, despite there being two incidents in 2021 where Prince Harry’s safety was compromised, including paparazzi chasing the car that Prince Harry was a passenger.  Which set of circumstances does that remind you of?  The UK want to pick and choose when to continuously print stories asking if the Sussexes are going to attend this or that.  Not because they like them, but because they make more money printing stories about the Sussexes, even though they will treated harshly in whatever fantasy tale is written by each Royal Reporter.  How any PR team which the Royal Family profess to have hired in recent times, can think this kind of daily harassment and increasing risk to a Prince of the realm, is any way looking good for the Monarchy and its future is beyond me.  All based on fragile egos, which ultimately will be the main cause of the demise of the UK Monarchy.  There are more than enough members of the Royal family involved in questionable activity, but instead the Uk continues to harass a family who refused to be a distraction to others activities by being the Royal punchbag for media to earn coins.  It is not going to be accepted and the people who will lose the most are those who currently cannot hide their jealousy and racism.  Not a good look for a family who still are exempt from equality laws of the UK and who are now planning visits to countries who are not in the Commonwealth.  The Red Flags are appearing about the timeline of the UK Monarchy.  Countdown has begun.  Just watch.


To bring this topic to a close, a few words on this subject, is an extract of an article from the Washington Post.  It sums up the theme running through UK Royal history from the 13th century to the present day, and at the heart of the treatment of those with independent thought, wrong shade of skin, or who outshone the heirs to the throne.  Nothing has changed, and the common denominators remain the same. This is why it will ultimately come to an end in the UK.


By Petula Dvorak

May 17, 2018

The British calendar is splattered with bloody anniversaries commemorating hundreds of years of violent battles and murdered monarchs. So finding an untainted date for the wedding of Meghan and Harry was fraught with historical land mines.

May 26? On that day in 946, King Edmund (The Magnificent) I was murdered at a party in Pucklechurch.

June 8? On that day in 1042, King Harthacnut dropped dead at a wedding banquet. Officially, he drank too much and had a stroke. But poisoning conspiracy theories abound.

June 14? That was the day in 1645 that at least 1,000 royalists were slaughtered at the Battle of Naseby.

How about July 1? In 1916, it marked the beginning of the Battle of Somme, one of the bloodiest battles in all of recorded military history.

Come on, royals. You didn’t see this one coming?

May 19, the day Meghan and Harry will marry, is the same date that redheaded King Henry VIII had his wife, the fashionable and outspoken Anne Boleyn, executed.

Oh, and Harry’s real name is Henry.

In a royal court sodden with etiquette that dictates everything from the way a cup is held to the way legs are crossed, how did anyone rubber-stamp a wedding date on such a horrific anniversary?

Royal historian and Anne Boleyn biographer Claire Ridgway said “it would be tricky to find a date in English history that is not linked to something awful.”

“I don’t think the link to Anne Boleyn came into the equation when picking the date, it would have just been based on what worked out best with the busy lives of the royal family,” Ridgway demurred.

Sure, that’s possible.

Other historians believe the family did look at the date and all its connections between past and present, but decided to keep calm and carry on.

Hannah Jewell, our own British-American pop culture host, explains Prince Harry’s engagement to Meghan Markle. (David Jorgenson/The Washington Post)

“I think the royal family would almost certainly have considered the fact that the date is the anniversary of Anne Boleyn’s execution,” said Elizabeth Norton, a British historian who specializes in English queens and the Tudor period.

But she believes any bad juju has long since vanished with the passage of time. The British remember Anne Boleyn —  the subject of countless books and movies —  but not May 19th. It’s not marked on any calendars, the way Guy Fawkes Night is.

It’s not a May 8 — V-E Day, when World War II ended in Europe, which is still celebrated and remembered as a date, Norton said. Or like Sept. 11 in the United States.

“Anne Boleyn’s execution is obviously not an event that is still commemorated, but it is remembered to some extent; Anne’s story is very well known,” Norton said. “I expect that the royal family reasoned that it was long enough ago and not widely enough known to be a problem.”

Even so, she said, “it is hardly an auspicious date for a commoner to be marrying into the royal family and, as the 500th anniversary of Anne’s death approaches in 2036 there will be considerably more publicity about the coincidence of the date.”

Henry VIII was already married when the ravishing Anne Boleyn caught his eye. He tried to make her part of his harem of willing mistresses, but she insisted on marriage.

Henry VIII went on to marry four more times: to Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr. When he died in 1547, he was buried in St. George’s Chapel. Hello! That’s where Meghan and Harry (Henry)  wedding on May 19 took place.


Closing with more words from Ken Wharfe (I have a number of issues with things he has said, particularly recently, but these words are spot on:-

He explained: “We now know Diana did change and modernise, whether we like it or not.

Now it is so different from what royalty was in the 1980s.

And of the Princess’ popularity, (worth repeating from earlier because this is the same reason for the treatment of Harry and Meghan)  Ken added: “The problem with Diana in this family is they could not deal with her popularity, they couldn’t cope with it – basically they were jealous.

“They couldn’t do it themselves and they wouldn’t acknowledge just how good she was at it, this was a problem.

“Their attitude was ‘this has been going on for a few hundred years lets not wreck it’ – they weren’t moving with the times and the couldn’t honestly bring it round to say ‘we’ve got somebody here who is changing its direction’.”


This is what they tried to do to Meghan and ultimately Harry as well, but they are now already trying to duplicate Harry and Meghan, and in one person’s case, has gone from dressing like Princess Diana to the Duchess of Sussex now.  After 20 years this individual is still trying to find her own identity, because somehow whatever she entered the Royal family with, has long since been removed and left behind a empty shell, dressed to the orders of Royal people, because I very much doubt that this has come from the lady herself.  All I see are people trying to copy clothing styles or personalities.  Until they develop a style and personality of their own, that is of interest to the masses, then the Institution is doomed.  I am referring here to all of the tax funded Royal family members.  Visiting cash rich nations, whilst ignoring the ones the UK likes to hang on to on paper (as it clings to its empire days) who are part of the Commonwealth, is not a good look.  Trying to strengthen the hold on a UK Monarchy from external funds outside the established parameters is questionable.

Harry and Meghan, just like the 1st Duke of Sussex developed projects and interests outside the traditional activities of the Royal family.  Frederick was well travelled and as a result cam across many experts in various subjects, which informed the way he took on causes.  The Sussexes are developing a global portfolio and basically are leaving the UK Monarchy in the dust clouds.  Like the first Duke of Sussex, all the refusals and barriers placed in their way, have proved to be stepping stones to further success.  The UK BRF still have not learnt any lessons from a “few hundred years” of doing the same things producing the same results, which are little benefit to current society.


Ivy Barrow

23 Jan 2022



Reference Sources



















1 Comment

  • Excellent, excellent article and podcast Ivy! The dots are indeed connected in no uncertain way! The 21st century will see a resetting of the Sussex legacy.

Comments are closed.