The Tale of 2 Dukes of Sussex

The Tale of Two Dukes of Sussex

Introduction

This podcast will explore the dichotomy of the treatment of both Dukes of Sussex, by their respective fathers/Kings – in comparison to the treatment of other prominent Royals seen as exemplary. In all comparisons, the outcomes for both Dukes have been better than ever imagined, and in the case of the 2nd Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry is by far the most successful in terms of wealth and popularity and most of all, independence. The punitive actions taken against both Dukes, never achieved what both Kings expected. In today’s age of social media with the vehicle of the internet, each punitive action is publicised around the globe in seconds and is seen by most for what each action is meant to cause. It hasn’t worked. The reverberations from the games played already continues to wreak havoc on the ones dishing out the punishments. Weakening the very institution it originally intended to strengthen and prolong its existence. This podcast will look at the reactions to key decisions in history taken by both Dukes of Sussex and the subsequent punitive actions taken by both Monarchs (ie both fathers) towards their respective ostracised sons, and in particular the vindictiveness of actions taken both Monarchs against the Sussex children, (whilst all the other grandchilden in both Royal families were left alone). I will show the volume of direct matches in the range of punitive actions, and will include images and tables to show the matches. We will play an interactive game of Snap.

You will also see various significant dates in the calendar & decisions in respect of Meghan and Harry, and will eventually notice that none of the key dates were accidental. Definite meaning and inference intended behind each and every one. Clearly aiming for history to highlight the shade behind each key date. Anyone working in the Royalty sphere, and any person dealing with statistics and trends and patterns, aligned with historical knowledge, would see the game being played. None of it good. If by any chance, all these key dates etc are mere coincidence, then I would say Prince Harry’s words relating to meeting Meghan, which were “the stars were aligned” would apply here. There are so many similarities in actions and terminology that it is very accurate to say that history was almost repeated. The same attitudes and standard Royal Playbook of vindictive actions was rolled out, hundreds of years down the line, and advisors and the Monarch really thought that they were going to get away with it. Nothing was learned since the Diana era, ending in 1997, though in many ways, it is like Princess Diana is looking on from a virtual place somewhere, and smiling, and probably saying “not this time”. “We are not playing around today.”

The latest nonsense with the date of the Coronation can rightfully be considered the comedy section of the podcast. The silver lining in all of this, is that the world is watching, and if anything adverse happens to any of the Sussex family, it will not suddenly elevate the UK Monarchy and its Royal Rota to high levels of popularity – quite the opposite. Every action or slur made against the Sussexes is seen world wide for what it really is; how any advisor within the Royal establishment ever thought it would it would look good on the BRF just shows how past their use by date the Firm really is.

The Sussex children, along with interested people around the globe, will also be able to inform their children and subsequent generations will know what was done to their ancestor and his family, and what was done and continues to be done to Harry and Meghan and their children, until any international legal action is hopefully taken in the future.

All the Royal authors & Rota personnel and their fairy tales, should start to think about their futures. There is no justification for taxpayers or newspapers to employ so many people to write about 7 or less senior Royals, when the country which they are supposed to represent, is a mere smokescreen for performative actions which benefit no one. ie the public, the charity or even the individual performing for press and photographers, in rags that will sell less in the future anyway, as the business model of hunter and prey, and hate incitement rhetoric is falling out of favour. It will be helped into extinction when advertisers are penalised for their unethical stance of marketing products and services, on platforms and channels that incite hateful activity, and where people have died, or had mental health issues to contend with as a direct result of interaction with those creating ‘news’ for sale.

Both Dukes of Sussex

Figure 1: Augustus Frederick – 1st Duke of Sussex

Figure 2: 2nd Duke of Sussex – Harry Mountbatten Windsor

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 be 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 you watched the Netflix series Bridgerton, that Queen Charlotte was in fact as a person of colour without actually referring to the fact.

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 6^th son of King George III. Prince Augustus was given the title of the Duke of Sussex on 24^th November 1801, along with the following titles:- Baron Arklow and Earl of Inverness.

Baron Arklow was a title in the Peerage of the UK that has also been created twice. Arklow is a town in County Wicklow in Ireland.
- The Baron Arklow was created again on 24^thMay 1881. The last person to hold this title was Prince Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
Earl of Inverness was first created in 1718 and the last creation date (the 4^thtime) was in 1986 when the current Queen Elizabeth granted the title to Prince Andrew
- For the purpose of this podcast, I won’t go into the rules which governed when Titles could only be passed on to male heirs in the families concerned, but there is a wealth of information of the females who were older but passed over in favour of their brothers.
- The 2^ndthing I would like to mention, is note how The Queen gave this title to Prince Andrew her so called ‘favourite’, and despite everything that is going on in current times, still holds this title along with others. He is not a working Royal and he was involved in a globally known investigation – the case settled out of court in 1922 as The Queen gave Prince Andrew funds to pay off Virginia Guiffre who took legal action against Prince Andrew after many years of the Prince trying various ways to avoid having to respond to legal requests for information by the FBI. NB// note how Prince Harry has never been accused of any illegal activity, but was stripped of everything, but the one thing they cannot take away from him without Parliamentary discussion and approval is the Duke of Sussex title. One of the main current requirements for the removal of a Title such as the Duke of Sussex, is any illegal activity. We all know that Prince Harry is not accused of any illegality, but yet we still hear the paid trolls trying to make fetch happen, demanding that Harry should lose his title. What they all fail to understand, is that any removal of a Title from Prince Harry, would automatically have Prince Andrews, and possibly others, but a definite for Prince Andrew to have the Titles removed, along with Security, and a host of benefits he is currently receiving because of his mother. So, Parliament will only ever debate this issue if forced/encouraged to do so (depends on which versions put forward to justify such actions), without it having an automatic impact on other members of the BRF.

The 2^nd creation of the Duke of Sussex title (which takes its name from the County of Sussex in England) was announced on 19^th May 2018 and made official by Letters Patent on 16^th 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 2^ndtime, but once in the Peerage of the UK in 2018.

Royal Dukedoms in the UK [i]

In British peerage, a royal duke is a member of the British Royal Family, entitled to the dignity of a Prince and the style of His Royal Highness who holds a Dukedom.
Dukedoms are the highest titles in the British roll of peerage and the holders of these particular dukedoms are princes of the blood royal. The holders of the dukedoms are Royal, not the titles themselves.
They are titles created and bestowed on legitimate sons and male-line grandsons of the British Monarch – usually upon reaching their ‘majority’[1]or upon marriage.
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.

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 – 4^thMay 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 had a child, with the names of two possible men who could be the father.
Married twice.
2^ndmarriage 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.

Early Life

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 17^thand 18^th

1^st Marriage:-

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.

Prince Augustus met his first wife in Italy. 2^nd daughter of the Earl of Dunmore. The couple secretly got married in Rome in 4^th 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 5^th 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. The name was a distant name from Lady Augusta’s mother side of the family. We will come back to the name change in the Summary section of the podcast. .

Lady Augusta Murray

2^nd 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, 2^nd 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.

Lady Cecilia Letitia Buggin

Duke of Sussex Title & Involvement in Patronages

Prince Augustus was made a Knight of the Garter in June 1786. In November 1801 the King created the Duke of Sussex, Earl of Inverness and Baron Arklow in the peerage for Augustus. Due to the fact that Augustus was still deemed to have no legitimate children to pass on the titles, the Titles became extinct on his death in 1843.

In 1815 the Duke became a Patron of the Jews Hospital and Orphan Asylum, later to became the charity known today as Norwood Royal Patronage, continued with Queen Elizabeth II eventually becoming Norwood’s Patron

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.

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 1^stDuke 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.
Meghan’s 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.

- The audacity alongside naivety that the world and historians will not know or write about who is the mother of Archie Mountbatten Windsor; someone who is written about every single day, more times than the any member of the British Royal Family in any given year, is beyond foolhardy and more like wishful thinking of someone not in full control of their brain cells. Another element that needs to be included in the British Royal Family Comedy section of this podcast series. It is fast becoming worthy of a chapter of its own in the book. IYKYK.

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 spun it like it was a fabulous wedding gift to the couple. The Monarch’s own behaviour, or silence on the behaviour towards the Sussexes since 2016, makes both Monarchs complicit, and their intentions of the outcome of those actions, have backfired spectacularly. The Sussexes have reached global iconic status, and nothing that the BRF do from hereonin will ever change that. Self inflicted damage to the Royal brand by its own people. The irony.
- 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 2^nd 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 Wallis 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 year 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 again 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. The actions and intent have backfired. When a couple have reached global iconic status, petty behaviour and actions by people who play dress up and pretend to be diplomats and who truly believe that they were placed in those positions by a God and that the people of the UK should revere them and bow down or curtsey in their presence is like a back street jaded comedy performance. Outside of the UK very few people care about such things, and certainly do not in any way revere the family. The belief system and rules and structure built around this fantasy, is not revered outside the bubble in the UK, and definitely not in the world audience. Most of the global population do not buy into hereditary power, and as a construct, it will be extinct sooner than all the few remaining families recognise.
- 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 am glad that Harry and Meghan made their own arrangements regarding Lilibet’s Christening. I respect them in their choice, because this pick and mix approach that the BRF keep on pushing in order to deflect or to make the Firm feel relevant and important, on Key Dates is becoming tiresome now. Leave them to their games. They are in the dust clouds of the Sussexes now anyway and less than dust clouds to Sussex supporters.
- Anne Boleyn was beheaded on 19^th May 1536. Meghan and Harry’s wedding day was on 19^th May, 2018. Trying to link it to a negative event, but the Sussexes have surpassed all levels of such pettiness. The couple know their value.

- - Henry VIII’s second wife, was found guilty of high treason by a jury of her peers in the king’s hall at the Tower on 15 May 1536. She was executed by decapitation on 19 May 1536 – and is thought to have been around 35 years old at the time.

Things That Were Also Similar between the Dukes of Sussex and the Duke of Windsor – but there were many serious activities/interests of the Duke of Windsor Which Were Ignored? Why?

Let me say from the onset in this small section of the podcast. Far more detail and reference source links for you to explore further if you wish. My take on the areas of activity and interest of the Duke of Windsor and his wife, were serious enough, or unsavoury enough (dependant upon ones point of view of such matters) that it would have implicated many members of the wider Royal Family. Eg the links with Hitler, both in terms of admiration and actual face to face meetings. I will give more details shortly, but make no mistake, the Duke of Windsor was not alone in this area of activity. Just because a family changed from their German name to Mountbatten-Windsor does not mean anything other than a change of name.

Views and interests remained but were hidden behind contrived English accents. A few photos are around, but you will see more depicting the Windsors, and far less of Queen Elizabeth and her parents the King and Queen following the Duke of Windsor’s abdication. Royal Reporters diminish such photos of QE2 as if they were not accurate views, because she was just a child, and copying her parents. Photo depicting that salute appears in more than one of the reference sources listed below.

Not having to comply with the Equality Act, in her reign would suggest that views were very much in evidence. There are many areas of evidence that makes it crystal clear about the current Royal family views on Race, and it is also crystal clear of the white supremacy base that follows them and is likely employed by them in all palaces.

The Duchess of Sussex’s treatment since 2016 is rubber stamping the evidence file. The family and its mouthpieces can say all they want, they can gaslight all they want, the rest of the world know what they saw and continue to see and hear coming out of the UK government and its Royal Family.

Extract from an article in the Independent dated 23^rd April 2021 by Jade Bremner

“Edward succeeded George V on January 1936. The government and crown rejected his proposal to Wallis as the Church of England – of which the monarch was head – at the time did not allow divorced people to remarry in church.

King Edward ruled the British Empire for 324 days, and gave up the throne in December 1936, to be with Wallis.

But what did the couple do next?

Unlike Meghan and Harry, Edward and Wallis decided not to move to Wallis’s native America, but instead set up home in France.

The couple married six months after Edward gave up the throne, tying the knot at the Chateau De Cande, in Monts, France.

In 1937, the pair made a controversial visit to Germany, where they meet Hitler, who was rebuilding his army.”

Yet, it is the two Dukes of Sussex, who had independent thought, travelled and held wider views on topics that UK Royalty throughout centuries refused to acknowledge. It is both Dukes that history has maligned, and others who have committed far worse, and would be considered criminal outside of the Royal protective bubble, are written about in glowing terms.

Times have changed, and there will be many books written about Harry and Meghan’s experiences, and their philanthropic endeavours, and key books written by Harry and Meghan themselves. There is no book out there, that will be any more factual than what they produce in the future, compared to the Royal Rota bots masquerading as journalists and writers, producing propaganda and pretending its independently researched work.

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.

Yes I think the two Dukes of Sussex would have got along just fine.

Similarities in the Punitive Actions/Descriptions Taken/Used by Both Kings Against Their Duke of Sussex Sons & Wives

Both wives were painted in the media as being the one in the

Marriage that was in control. The wives were depicted as strong leading

And controlling their weak husbands.

Meghan’s name removed from Archie’s Birth Certificate – just

The title of Duchess of Sussex remains.

The first wife of Augustus Frederick had her name changed

By the Monarch using Royal Licence. The name was a distant name from within the maternal side Of the family. A way of othering her from the links of her and the

Children to British Royalty. Lady Augusta Murray was moved to a small town in Scotland, with the view that she would disappear from Royal society and use her

New name.

Augustus married again after the death of his first wife.

He married Lady Cecilia Buggin.

Once again the King did not approve of the marriage

And Lady Cecilia’s name was also changed by Royal Licence to Underwood.

Another attempt to deny her linkage to Royalty. Lady Cecilia was

Never recognised as the Duchess of Sussex, however she was

Created the Duchess of Inverness in her own right

By Queen Victoria in 1840. Queen Victoria’s favourite Uncle was Augustus, and who

she subsequently asked to walk her down the aisle on her wedding day.

The right wing have an issue with POC but no problem with

White German people changing their name, but still supporting

Hitler and Nazis; that was deemed perfectly acceptable.

The Queen making a Nazi salute was not done out of ignorance – it was

Done with full knowledge. You will see in the reference sources following this podcast

And article, that there were many members of the German side

Of the family who were openly Nazis. Even though

One member of the German family took in a family of Jews and offered

Them protection, the 3 daughters of that same German family married Nazis.

When Edward left the shores of the UK, he was not just thrown to the

Mercies of potential kidnappers. He had security not least because the Royals were concerned about an attempt to kidnap him and use him to barter with the UK. Edward went on to move to a Commonwealth country with his wife, and was given a diplomat role.

Harry was forced out without security, without funding, and his locations

Given away twice. No concern about kidnap or assassination for him and

His wife and children. Complete opposite for the couple who openly

Fraternized with an enemy movement and who caused a constitutional crisis in the Monarchy. Prince Harry was never going to be King – he posed no danger to that position but he was treated like a traitor. We all know why The Sussexes were treated differently, but the BRF and advisors underestimated the Sussexes big time. Time and time again, the point is proven that this Royal family cannot read a room and is the reason for their almost daily failures/embarrassments.

There are many more examples of the dual standards in treatment to both Dukes of Sussex and their wives and children and the King who had to abdicate but who was looked after and protected and given different duties. Probably going to be recorded as one of the biggest mistakes, if not the biggest mistake, in UK Royal history, and the level and type of abuse encouraged to do life threatening things against this family and do so without the blink of an eye.

Such cruelty and vindictiveness done for personal gain of the remnants of the BRF is a noose around their necks, and they all in turn will come to rue the day that they ever embarked on this hunter and prey activity against one of their own and his family, and considered that it would be acceptable, as others had been removed from life over those 1000+ years without a moment of reflection or regret. The stakes are very different now, and I firmly believe that all this self indulgent activity which benefits anyone but the people of the UK, will come back to haunt The Firm on a global scale. The rabbits are no longer hiding and are standing tall in the spotlight, holding every weapon of truth to disarm this pattern of behaviour which will be forced to cease. The Prey is prepared for the Hunters on commission, and the world is watching too.

Ivy Barrow

260223

Reference Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Sussex#:~:text=Although%20Prince%20Augustus%20Frederick%20was%20survived%20by%20a,and%20unable%20to%20inherit%20titles%20from%20their%20father.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-44180674

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/was-queen-charlotte-black-heres-what-we-know/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Augustus_Frederick,_Duke_of_Sussex

https://www.thoughtco.com/queen-charlotte-biography-4175819

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a20751869/duke-of-sussex-anti-slavery-abolitionist-royal-wedding/

https://www.historyofroyalwomen.com/category/meghan-markle/page/2/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1478028/royal-family-sussexes-windsors-similarities-history-repeats

https://www.historyextra.com/period/tudor/anne-boleyn-death-execution-where-buried-how-die/