There Can Be No Peace With Someone Who Wants to Destroy You. Remedy? Cut the Emotional Attachment

Episode 131

There Can Be No Peace With Someone Who Wants to Destroy You

Remedy? Cut the Emotional Attachment

Introduction

Victims may respond to abuse in several ways including consuming drugs or alcohol, and/or by showing signs of humiliation, detachment, anger, and retaliation. Victims may also interpret abuse very differently including expressing feelings of guilt; this might depend on their social or cultural context. Victims can be resilient in some respects: it is important not to compare them to other victims but to consider how their day-to-day life has been affected. Refer to the Domestic Abuse prosecution guidance for further advice on self-defence and issues relevant to particular groups.

Stalking or Harassment

In cases of stalking or harassment, the support and safety needs of victims should be identified from the outset, and continually considered throughout the life of a case, by the police in dialogue with the prosecutor. Where available, this should also be informed by any specialist support the victim is receiving, for example, through an Independent Stalking Advocacy Caseworker (ISAC) or an Independent Domestic Abuse Advisor (IDVA). Improving a victim’s safety and managing risk through relevant protective orders is important. It may help to increase their confidence in the criminal justice system and facilitate their participation in the investigation and prosecution process.

Many cases of stalking or harassment will come within the definition of “domestic abuse”.

Prosecutors should also apply the following guidance, where applicable:

Domestic Abuse: Policy Statement
Domestic Abuse prosecution guidance
Controlling or Coercive Behaviour prosecution guidance
Statutory guidance framework: controlling or coercive behaviour
Stalking Protection Act: statutory guidance for the police
Sentencing Council Guideline on Harassment and Stalking

CPS Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy

The Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy provides an overarching framework for crimes identified as being primarily, but not exclusively, committed, by men against women within a context of power and control. NB Examples:- Printed and Televised Media personnel, So Called Royal Experts proudly and without fear of any admonishment from their employer, speak freely of their opinions of Meghan and Harry, but the majority of their ire is for Meghan, and always outwardly racist in content. Shocking to see this on UK tv screens daily, and to see the content and frequency of the venom. USA ELECTED OFFICIALS WHERE ARE YOU? 8 YEARS AND COUNTING AND YOU FIND THIS ACCEPTABLE. How many thousands of lives need to be lost before it triggers action? At the time of writing this the total in respect of Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, the total is 2,920 days and counting. Using the figure of 10 articles a day about Meghan alone in one UK newspaper, when in fact it is more than double that most days, but just to be generous with this total, that amounts to 29,200 from one newspaper. The newspapers are Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, The Sun, Daily Express, are the main tabloids, and then the semi tabloids are The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Financial Times. For the purpose of this podcast, the latter 4 also write things that would be frowned upon in a legal case, and often behind a pay wall, the grift is desperate these days, just to put food on the reporters tables each day. So out of the kindness of my heart, I have omitted them from this generous experiment. At 10 articles a day referring to Meghan, by the Fab 4 tabloids week day editions, the total amounts to 116,800 articles, and if we add in the Sunday editions of 3 of those prolific writers of abuse content relating to Meghan, and again be generous, and state that each write 10 articles on a Sunday about Meghan, the total is:- 116,800 + 10 articles x 52 Sundays x 3 Sunday tabloids = 1560. Final Rounded Up total is 118,360. It is well over double that total and that is for one year. Add another 7 years to that approximate 50% figure, and that is just one calculation of one type of abuse against Meghan in particular over the last 8 years. I rest my case in relation to just one form of co-ordinated harassment against Meghan The Duchess of Sussex.

Stalking or harassment should be addressed within the overall framework of VAWG and human rights. The patterns and dynamics involved in these cases need to be understood to provide an appropriate and effective response. Though most reported victims of stalking or harassment are women, the CPS recognises that some offenders will be women, non-binary or identify in a different way and some victims will be men, non-binary or identify in a different way.

All references in this guidance are gender neutral and are applied to all suspects and victims of crime irrespective of gender, or sexual orientation, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

Refer to the Domestic Abuse prosecution guidance for further information about the gendered approach to prosecutions.

Harassment may be committed against two or more persons. This limb of the section 2 offence requires proof that the defendant intended to persuade any person not to do something that they are entitled or required to do, or to do something that they are not under an obligation to do. This covers collective harassment, whether directed towards members of the same family, neighbourhood, protected characteristics, trade or profession, organisation, or institution.

The following principles may assist when considering whether there is sufficient evidence of a course of conduct:

The concept of harassment or stalking is linked to the course of conduct which amounts to it.
The course of conduct must comprise two or more occasions: section 7(3) PHA 1997.
Harassment includes alarming a person or causing them distress: section 7(2) PHA 1997.
The court should adopt a cautious approach where a course of conduct is based upon a few incidents which are widely spaced in time. The issue for the court is whether the incidents, however many they may be, can properly be said to be so connected in type and in context as to justify the conclusion that they can amount to a course of conduct: Pratt v DPP [2001] EWHC Admin 483.
The court must consider whether the incidents give rise to a nexus sufficient for there to be a “course of conduct”: Patel [2004] EWCA Crim 3284.
There is no requirement that the incidents comprising the course of conduct need be of the same nature.

The prosecution does not have to prove motive, or a particular behaviour. However, what may link different incidents in “type and context” and demonstrate a “nexus” is if they arise from a common motive or behaviour. For instance, for stalking, if the conduct is fixated, obsessive, unwanted and repeated, or if the conduct demonstrates a common delusional belief that the victim is in love with the suspect.

“Stalking”

Section 2A (3) PHA 1997 sets out examples of acts or omissions which are ones associated with stalking. The listed behaviours are:

following a person
contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means
publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person, or purporting to originate from a person
monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email, or any other form of electronic communication
loitering in any place (whether public or private)
interfering with any property in the possession of a person
watching or spying on a person

This is not an exhaustive list and prosecutors should consider the offending in the round as to whether it reflects the concept of “stalking”. “Stalking” may be understood as a pattern of Fixated, Obsessive, Unwanted and Repeated (FOUR) behaviour which is intrusive.

Information about types of stalkers and how stalking can impact victims of this crime can be found in Annex A.

Cyber Stalking

Stalking or harassment can take place on the internet and via other technologies. This is sometimes known as “cyberstalking”. This can include the use of social networking sites, email, chat rooms and other forums facilitated by technology. The internet can be used for a range of purposes, for example:

to locate personal information about a victim
to communicate with the victim
as a means of surveillance of the victim
identity theft such as subscribing the victim to services, purchasing goods and services in their name
damaging the reputation of the victim
electronic sabotage such as spamming and sending viruses
accessing spyware or malware
tricking other internet users into harassing or threatening a victim

Further guidance can be found in Social Media and other Electronic Communications prosecution guidance.

Cyber bullying in social networks and online abuse concept. Vector flat cartoon illustration of upset girl character. Young woman crying in front of laptop screen due to haters messages

“Substantial adverse effect”

The phrase “substantial adverse effect on another’s usual day-to-day activities” is not defined in section 4A PHA 1997. The guidelines issued by the Home Office suggests some examples:

the victim changing their routes to work, work patterns, or employment
the victim arranging for friends or family to pick up children from school (to avoid contact with the stalker)
the victim putting in place additional security measures in their home
the victim moving home
impact on physical or mental ill-health
the deterioration in the victim’s performance at work due to stress
the victim stopping /or changing the way they socialise

There should be no assumption as to what a “typical” victim might look like or behave like when assessing the evidence as to “substantial adverse effect”. Victims may respond to abuse in several ways including consuming drugs or alcohol, and/or by showing signs of humiliation, detachment, anger, and retaliation. Victims may also interpret abuse very differently including expressing feelings of guilt; this might depend on their social or cultural context. Victims can be resilient in some respects: it is important not to compare them to other victims but to consider how their day-to-day life has been affected. Refer to the Domestic Abuse prosecution guidance for further advice on self-defence and issues relevant to particular groups.

Building on examples within the Statutory Guidance Framework, relevant behaviour of the suspect can include:

isolating a person from their friends and family
depriving them of their basic needs
monitoring their time
monitoring a person via online communication tools or using spyware
using digital systems such as smart devices or social media to coerce, control, or upset the victim including posting triggering material
taking control over aspects of their everyday life, such as where they can go, who they can see, what to wear and when they can sleep – this can be intertwined with the suspect saying it is in their best interests, and ‘rewarding’ ‘good behaviour’ e.g. with gifts
depriving them of access to support services, such as specialist support or medical services
repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless
enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim
forcing the victim to take part in criminal activity such as shoplifting, neglect or abuse of children to encourage self-blame and prevent disclosure to authorities
economic abuse including coerced debt, controlling spending/bank accounts/investments/mortgages/benefit payments
controlling the ability to go to school or place of study
taking wages, benefits or allowances
threatening to hurt or kill
threatening to harm a child
threatening to reveal or publish private information
threatening to hurt or physically harming a family pet
assault
physical intimidation e.g. blocking doors, clenching or shaking fists
criminal damage (such as destruction of household goods)
preventing a person from having access to transport or from working
preventing a person from learning or using a language or making friends outside of their ethnic or cultural background
family ‘dishonour’
reputational damage
sexual assault or threats of sexual assault
reproductive coercion, including restricting a victim’s access to birth control, refusing to use a birth control method, forced pregnancy, forcing a victim to get an abortion, to undergo in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or other procedure, or denying access to such a procedure
using substances such as alcohol or drugs to control a victim through dependency, or controlling their access to substances
disclosure of sexual orientation
disclosure of HIV status or other medical condition without consent
limiting access to family, friends and finances
withholding and/or destruction of the victim’s immigration documents, e.g. passports and visas
threatening to place the victim in an institution against the victim’s will, e.g. care home, supported living facility, mental health facility, etc (particularly for disabled or elderly victims

This is not an exhaustive list and prosecutors should be aware that a suspect will often tailor the conduct to the victim, and this conduct can vary to a high degree from one person to the next. Prosecutors should consider the conduct of the suspect in each individual case to assess whether it discloses controlling or coercive behaviour. There is plainly overlap with stalking and harassment.

Gathering Evidence and Case Building

The nature of stalking or harassment, particularly where the victim has been followed or subjected to periods of observation, will usually mean that the suspect has spent significant periods of time in the vicinity of the victim’s home, place of work or other places that the victim habitually visits. It is therefore important for investigators, liaising where appropriate with prosecutors, to consider if neighbours and other potential witnesses such as routine visitors to the area may have evidenced behaviour or the impact to the victim. Sources of evidence could include:

neighbours whose homes or workplace are in a line of sight of the location of the incident
residents or those working adjacent to likely routes taken by the suspect
those near to or who are users of potential sites for parking a vehicle
those who use nearby leisure facilities, e.g., dog walking, sports facilities and playgrounds
family or friends who may have seen a change in the victim’s behaviour or witnessed the serious effect the behaviour has had on the victim
where the suspect has obtained accommodation near the victim, the investigating officer should identify the address and interview neighbours about the suspect’s movements

On the 29 December 2015, the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour (CCB) came into force through Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. The stated aim of this new offence was to close “a gap in the law around patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour during a relationship between intimate partners, former partners who still live together, or family members” (Home Office, 2015a, p 3).

The Government definition of CCB as set out in the statutory guidance (Home Office, 2015b, p 3) is as follows:

“Controlling behaviour: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.
Coercive behaviour: a continuing act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.”

In addition, the controlling or coercive behaviour must take place “repeatedly or continuously”; the pattern of behaviour must have a “serious effect” on the victim; and the behaviour of the perpetrator must be such that they knew or “ought to know” that it would have a serious effect on the victim.^{[footnote 8]}

It was also anticipated that the introduction of this offence would enable the criminal justice system (CJS) to move beyond an exclusively ‘violent incident model’ (Stark, 2012) (Here on SGUK we have referred to Dr Evan Stark’s work in this area, and he is included on our circulation list), in which incidences of domestic abuse are investigated and prosecuted as individual and unconnected occurrences of violence, which can mask the underlying patterns of coercion or control in an abusive relationship (Tuerkheimer, 2004).

The review consisted of three elements:

an assessment of the available quantitative data from the CJS carried out by analysts in the Home Office;
a review of the academic literature, also carried out by analysts in the Home Office; and
a stakeholder engagement exercise, which involved interviews, workshops and surveys with a targeted group of stakeholders, that was conducted by Home Office policy officials.

Human Rights Legislation Applied Differently Between Two Brothers. Why?

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 were 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 across borders 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.

After Prince Harry announced in January 2020 that he and Meghan, would be stepping back from Senior Working Royal duties from March 2020, 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 that year, 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 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. As 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 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 produce 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 children over the last 5 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, promoted by the UK Royal family itself, via the disgusting treatment by the Monarchy and its media.

Not all insecure people are haters but all haters are insecure people”

Hate masks insecurities

The main groups which emerged very quickly in 2016 and have grown over the last 8 years are as follows:-

Royal Rota – the media voice in the tabloids for the British Royal Family.
Televised media – Daily chat shows with invited panel guests spent criticising the Sussexes for not conforming to patterns of behaviour of the rest of the RF for decades. Regarded as a failure in duty and therefore a traitor to the UK. Use emotional blackmail and language by saying it is an insult to the Queen who has given decades of service to the UK etc etc. These daily shows always use the same phrases and discuss the same topics and the same couple in their anger. Other members of the BRF are seen as innocent bystanders who are disappointed that this couple wish to be self financing. Even a member of the family who is wanted by the FBI for credible reasons for questioning, is protected by the RF and the press, and holds all of the tax payer funded privileges, whereas the Sussexes were stripped of everything that was important.
Government
Aristocracy
Keyboard warriors – daily writing race and hate inciting posts on various social media platforms without challenge. Over the last 4 years or so, the number have grown, or rather it is clear that many individuals set up multiple accounts and post hateful things, to give the impression that the number of people out there is high. The numbers are not as high as the first impression given but they are becoming dangerous, because of the ripple affect of their social media content. A drip drip feed of race bating.

Some groups lose out by the Sussexes leaving, eg BRF and the Royal Rota. Their mission is clear, and it is to protect the way of life that they had before Sussex independence. Like so many of these movements that develop, they are acting from a selfish point of view. They are not concerned about the wishes of individuals. It is about serving the collective, for the benefit of the groups which benefit from the current system. Anyone who attempts to change the order of things, is targeted in order to make them conform.

The Monarchy is a Cult. Something that people are born into, and who have no say on what they wish to do with their lives. If the individuals are high in the line of succession, they have next to no freedom of choice. The first born is everything and can do no wrong and must be worshipped, and subsequent children are created purely to serve the first born. The official term used is to call them “spares”. Those children have no rights, but would have rights if they were born outside of the Monarchy. No one is allowed to leave, and great pressure is placed on anyone who shows any signs of independent thought. This has been discussed In previous podcasts, and the history books are full of suffering of “spares” over the decades and how Royal life was like being a slave behind gilded gates. All funded by the UK taxpayer, who seem happy to do so, in order to have their figurehead family at the helm which notionally represented stability and memories of the former British Empire.

Coercive Control

Lets be clear here. I am not saying criminal activity in relation to the coerced control is the template for legal response to the type of activity that has been directed at Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex for the past 5 years. What I am saying is that under the basic tenet of Human Rights legislation, there are many categories of law that run parallel to what is going on with the Sussexes, and where action has been taken against people who are not considered powerful or wealthy. Yet when it comes to people in powerful positions and who have senior professional posts in the business or legal world, or are considered as influencers in certain areas of business or politics, then the world turns a blind eye until things become so serious, or what was once hidden comes to light, the powers that be are forced to respond in some way, even if it is decades too late for the victims of those activities.

When you read about these examples, if you replace “partner, ex partner, spouse” etc with all those groups of people who have abused the Sussexes, eg the Royal Family, the tabloid press Royal Reporters, Government by their silence are complicit, keyboard warriors, The Markle family – they are behaving like an ex partner who refuses to accept that the marriage is over, and have become g dangerously obsessed with pursuing them and putting their lives at risk.

If on the rare occasion the abusers are powerful and/or wealthy, and their victims are in a similar category, there seems to be a position taken that say to anyone caring to watch, that it is best to let them sort it out between themselves. No need for us to be interested. It is just rich folk doing their thing. If the victim is a person of colour, then it seems it matters even less. The view seems to be, the victim has the financial means to pay for multiple legal actions, and can move home several times in order to try and remain safe, can afford to pay for top class security teams etc etc.

Everyone knows deep down if the perpetrators were POC, it rarely takes decades for legal professionals to step in. If the victims are poor Caucasians and their abusers are wealthy and powerful etc, no one is interested, until the abusers have long since passed on. The basic aspect of everyone is entitled to protection under the law, seems to be pushed to one side. The danger with that is that victims are left to suffer, and if the abuse continues for years, the cost to the individuals concerned is more than financial, and therefore the damage to the authorities and the countries concerned is not easily repaired.

Damaged children become damaged adults. In all cases, key adults failed to recognise their need for help, and turned a blind eye. I have quoted this example previously, but in the case of USA athletics, children were being abused (physically and psychologically) over a 40 year period by one adult. An adult in a senior position, and his activities were known by other adults, who did nothing. The children reported incidents, and those children are now adults and this ceremony which took place in 2018 referred to 300 women who came forward. It was the Arthur Ashe Award for Courage. Every time I view this clip I cry.

The British Royal Family have alienated so much of our society, and their support base matches the current age profile of the family itself. There will be trouble ahead. Meanwhile Sussex supporters have all moved (virtually and otherwise) to Monticito. We are not Royalists so any attempts to ride the Sussex wave will be removed.

Learning point:- All those the UK Royal Family have alienated, will prove to be one of the largest mistakes the Family and its Advisors and Associates have made and it will be depicted in the history books. Sussex Supporters left with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. None are focussed on or interested in the day to day activity of the British Royal Family. The spotlight is all theirs.

The UK BRF embarked on a strategy almost 5 years ago, to remove or to stifle the threat of the new phenomenon of The Sussexes. All they could see was a major shake up in the way the BRF did things, and how their support base liked to see them. The mistaken belief that it was seen as a steady ship in rocky seas. UK residents used to like to see the stable family as the figurehead, in an otherwise increasingly shaky existence for most of the population. That perception was so far from the truth it is frightening to think that Advisors employed by the Monarch could not see the inherent risks with such a policy and the high chance of abject failure. All done to protect the way of life that was being enjoyed at public expense, and helped in that protection by media and aristrocracy and government and then add on all the members of the public who were actively encouraged to dislike the Sussexes approach to measurable activity, and where the dislike turned into real tangible hate activity.

The grave error made by the establishment with this approach was that unlike the treatment of “Spares” in decades gone by, the Royal Playbook used for time immemorial was that it was no match for current day news dissemination, and therefore things done behind palace walls, and deals unwritten contracts with media would become noticed by increasing numbers outside of the UK. The efforts to denigrate the Sussexes was focused on the newest member to join the family, aka Meghan. When they quickly discovered the strength and aptitude of this formidable accomplished woman, their hate activity revealed the underlying resentment based on race. The people at the top of any organisational structure, whether that be a business, a government, a family residing in the same place etc, are intrinsically linked in behaviour and attitudes. In other words, the employee at the most junior level of an organisation, behaves in the way that is acceptable to the direct Line Manager. If it was not, that behaviour would not take place in that environment. People do and say things that they know they will not be punished for etc. In the same process, that Line Manager’s attitudes and behaviour is reflected in the person that he/she reports to, for the same reasons, and so on. So, when you get to the top of the structural tree, just know that whatever is spouted officially about their love and support for this and that, they share the same ideology and belief system as the people at the bottom of the food chain and vice versa. If they didn’t those individuals would not be there, or life would be made very difficult for them, so they would leave when or if they were able to do so.

The idea that a person of colour could enter into such a hallowed place in the minds of so many of the UK people, and not be impressed by it, did not go down well. Meghan was there, and gave up everything because she fell in love with a man who just happened to be a Prince. Meghan was a millionaire several times over already, so expensive clothing and items did not impress her – she had been buying that and more, and most of the time better quality for herself for years, through hard work and perseverance. The Monarchy acquired theirs through inherited wealth based on stolen artifacts and slavery. The Commonwealth is just a modern version of the UK Empire, using modern day Master and Slave systems and processes.

Harry being a member of the BRF meant that hatred was not encouraged to be directed at him. Meghan was seen as the main cog in the Sussex wheel to be destroyed or damaged enough that she would tire of the whole shambles and return to her comfortable life, and that Harry would stay in the UK out of loyalty to his relatives. Like so many things, their thought process was fundamentally flawed from the start, and they took on Thanos but had no Avengers in their gene pool, apart from Harry. The Ginger Avenger and his growing army of loyal, competent, resilient and professional team members began to emerge. The icing on the cake was the global support network that emerged as a force of protection for the Sussexes from the obvious dangerous games being played by the Monarchy and its allies.

Sussex Squad was started by two women who recognised the playbook being used to try destroy Meghan and decided to risk their way of life to publicly speak out against the injustice and lies and tactics being used by the UK media on the obvious instruction of the BRF. This fact must never be forgotten. The Squad is now huge but we all must never forget, whether or not we all like each other, that this Squad was formed to protect the Sussexes, and its strength and power exists now because of two brave women at the start. Sussex Squad has gone from being ridiculed, referred to as bots, and patronised by Royal Rota personnel to the force that it is now. Our numbers across the globe are of telephone number proportions. In the early days, members of the Squad were threatened, their lives explored by Rota personnel, and attempts to destroy employment positions and introduce venom into their work spaces. The tactics used are the same that they continue to employ to varying degrees with members of the public, and to any famous person they wish to ‘come to heel’ and spill the beans on any Sussex activity. The Rota has come to realise, that the Squad is comprised of extremely competent individuals, many of whom have resources beyond the imagination of Royal Rota personnel, and the intellectual capacity to play them at their own games, and always win – no matter how long it takes – and have time to carry out a range of humanitarian fund raisers in the spirit of the Sussexes, as well as support any project announced by the Sussexes. We can do this in our sleep, whilst balancing many plates, and not drop any of them. Do not come for us unless we send for you, is an accurate phrase where we are concerned. This Squad is comprised of people from many nations, varied economic backgrounds, but we are all united in protecting the Sussexes at all costs. We are a global support network, not a fan base. We are not and never were and never will be Royalists. Supporting the Sussexes is a lifetime membership. We are not going away. Some of us have experienced first hand how low the UK media pals of the BRF will go. It is not a nice experience. The effects of such interaction stays with the person/people for ever. What does not break us, makes us stronger.

The game being played by the BRF for over 8 years is failing more each day. It is a game already lost, and its continued attempt to stay relevant, is like a game of Snakes and Ladders, where the BRF and its Advisors continually slide down the Snakes and each time they are getting nearer the bottom rung. I don’t recall a time when they progressed up any Ladders in this game. The UK Monarchy has already lost. You cannot compete where you do not compare. Each time the Sussexes do something, like clockwork you come out and do exactly what the global audience state you will do. You are so predictable. So bad at the game you started. By participating in this farce, you are increasing the speed of the demise of the institution that you all claim you want to sustain, if for no other reason than to give you relevance to your friends and family, because Lord knows no one else cares. You are all irrelevant to most people in the world, and a growing number of people in the UK, particularly the younger generation. Much of your support base is comprised of people who dislike Meghan and Harry, and not because they support the BRF and its causes. That is just one of many red flags that should concern you.

Closure on this Podcast

The letter I am about to read out to you all was featured in a podcast we did from 2021. It seems an appropriate and entertaining way to bring this particular episode to its end, but opened up so many additional research opportunities which our audience will hopefully find interesting in the future.

A newly discovered letter from a freed former slave to his onetime master created a buzz in 2012. A Letters of Note explains that in August of 1865, a Colonel P.H. Anderson of Big Spring, Tennessee wrote to his former slave Jourdan Anderson, requesting that Jourdan return to work on his farm.
In the time since escaping from slavery, Anderson had become emancipated, moved to Ohio where he found paid work and was now supporting his family. The letter turned up in the August 22 edition of the New York Daily Tribune. Here is an Excerpt:-

“Sir: I got your letter, and was glad to find that you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this, for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Colonel Martin’s to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again, and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me that Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance. On the “good chance” offered by the former slave owner:
I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here. I get twenty-five dollars a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy,—the folks call her Mrs. Anderson,—and the children—Milly, Jane, and Grundy—go to school and are learning well. The teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday school, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated. Sometimes we overhear others saying, “Them colored people were slaves” down in Tennessee. The children feel hurt when they hear such remarks; but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Colonel Anderson. Many darkeys would have been proud, as I used to be, to call you master. Now if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.
And then Jourdan explains that anything his former master could offer, he’s already earned on his own. Other than some back wages:
As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost-Marshal-General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you were disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years, and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages have been kept back, and deduct what you paid for our clothing, and three doctor’s visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams’s Express, in care of V. Winters, Esq., Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past, we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night; but in Tennessee there was never any pay-day for the negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.
And after a few more jabs about how his children are now happy and receiving an education, Jourdan concludes his letter with:
Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.”

This podcast & Blog Post takes note of the above letter from a slave to his former Master, and the year when it was written. It is also noted in various reference sources that this letter came to light in January 2012, and very quickly became viral due to its content and its reflection of a life in that point in time. The letter from the Master to his former Slave has been lost over the passage of time, but several sources confirm the validity of the response from Jourdan Anderson and his life post Plantation years, and his life with his wife and 11 children is documented, and also his death and that of his wife six years later and the location of the burial site.

I read through this letter several times and in doing so reflected how little had changed since 1865 when it comes to certain processes and protocols (many unwritten and very selective in their application) when looking at the UK Royal family. By the third reading of the said letter I could see so many experiences of the treatment of the Sussexes these last 5 years, running parallel to that of Jourdan Anderson and his family. What a reflection of a system that exists in the UK Monarchy, that we appear not to have learned anything from the experiences of and the whole concept of Master and Slave mentality way back in 1865. A system that is supported by the UK Government and supporting societal structures that exist, and who in turn are supported by this unwritten contract between mutual society benefiting from such an ideology. Make no mistake, just because some people live in Palaces behind gilded gates, and have gone out of the way to rewrite history in respect of the current Monarch and her family, there are plenty of receipts stored with dates and names of authors and publications.

The treatment of the only black person who entered the family through marriage is well documented and no amount of deletions of various articles in the last couple of years or so, can erase the evidence from the internet. Deletions going back to articles published since 2016, now there seems to be a need to erase that from memory and certainly over the coming decades, there is a hope that the new generations will only believe what they read. Supporters of the Sussexes come from all walks of life, and from all over the globe, and be assured records exist and future generations will know what truly happened. It is quite interesting to see the original documents filed and those that are on the internet now. One has to ask the question, why are these documents being altered, and why is it, only the two heirs to the British throne and their spouses who come out of this of hate inciting media publications without a blemish in comparison to the elements left to stand?

I decided to replicate the response letter from Jourdan Anderson to his former Master Colonel P H Anderson, and transpose the names to the Master being the UK Monarch and the Slave being Prince Harry using their publicised experiences since 2016. Knowing what we heard in the Oprah interview in March 2021, and guessing it must have been far worse than the snippets put into the public domain, this imaginary letter uses some of those experiences in place of Jourdan Anderson reply. Every offer from Colonel P H Anderson has matched some of the offers from the UK Monarchy establishment to Prince Harry since 2016, and all the abusive actions towards Meghan since 2016, including erasing her name from official documentation such as her son’s Birth Certificate, reinforced the behaviour to someone who is considered ‘less than’ the rest of the group. The only people to have been removed from official documentation in the Royal family, and have Titles taken away by proposing to change the law before the time it would come into force are the Meghan The Duchess of Sussex and her first born son in respect of him becoming a Prince when Charles becomes King. Notice the only two people of colour in the family have had these changes imposed. No other ‘married ins’ have had their names removed from Birth Certificates of their children or Titles removed, which in turn remove security provision for that individual. No other Senior Royal undertakes duties on behalf of the Royal Family without financial provision within the Royal accounts for any expenses incurred. Meghan was told that there was no money left in the accounts to pay her, so suggested that she return to acting to secure her own finances. All the tours that the Sussexes were sent on by the Royal Family had no provision for Meghan in terms of the cost of the cultural bespoke clothing that she wore to respect the country being visited. The final insult was to be told that she was not considered family and she was not an employee and therefore was not entitled to any medical assistance. Basically treating the couple differently to everyone else in the family. Abusive behaviour from day one to a couple who were dehumanised within the monarchy structure.

NB When I first wrote this fictional letter, Queen Elizabeth was the UK Monarch. Naturally being read out now in 2024, please transpose where applicable to “King Charles”.

JA:- Sir: I got your letter, and was glad to find that you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can.

IB: Your majesty, I received your communications via your UK tabloid media, that you would really like Meghan and I and the children to return to the Uk and once again live on Royal grounds, and help with various Senior Royal duties for at least the next ten years, by which time, George will be 21 and my family and I would no longer be needed, and would have to leave our home. I suspect that despite others living rent free, or close to that, in various Royal homes, and do none or very little Royal duties, with no mention of a tenancy expiry date, I somehow doubt that Meghan and I would have the same privilege.

Reports suggest that all would be much better now, but there is no evidence to support that view in the daily articles written using the Sussex names in the headline, and when anything does actually pertain to my wife and I, it is always in the most negative and hate inciting rhetoric. So forgive me if I struggle to see how things would be any better. On the odd occasion I have visited the UK, the reports before and following my visits have been vitriolic, and the period in between pure fantasy, or in plain English, pure lies.

The UK is not a safe place for my family to reside or to visit, and definitely not my children. No other Royal children have been treated and referred to in the way my children have been, and as I wish to see no repeat of what occurred in my formative years, the children walking on UK soil remains a fantasy. Until there is evidence to suggest that my family is safe to visit, it will not happen. The UK will never be our permanent home, merely a stopping off place during an important Royal family occasion, such as weddings or funerals. Visits done to UK charities will be done under the Archewell banner, and will be reported on by the Sussex Communication Teams after a visit has been completed, and Meghan and I are back home in Montecito.

JA:- I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this, for harboring Rebs they found at your house.

IB:-I have long had my reservations about some of the same people that fraternise with certain members of the Royal family. Some of them not the most upstanding characters, which then calls into question the Royal Family member hosting such visits. I thought that some if not all of those friendships would have come to light by now, now that the world has moved on from slavery etc., but I suppose that only applies to people of colour – everyone else is ignored or accepted whatever their particular persuasion happens to be. UK Media will never question it openly. No doubt all part of the silent and unwritten contract between the BRF and the UK Media.

JA:-I suppose they never heard about your going to Colonel Martin’s to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable.

IB:-I imagine that whatever aspects are known about by the media, there are legal injunctions or measures of some kind in place, that ensure it is never mentioned on British soil at least. Yet, my family is vilified daily for simply breathing, and Meghan being a black intelligent articulate woman and our projects are making a difference in the world. I am guessing the Royals feel uncomfortable at that.

JA:_ Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living.

IB:-Although despite a number of warning shots fired at me, as I took my family away from a toxic environment, I am glad that you are all still living.

JA:-It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again, and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this.

IB:-It would do me good to go back and to the dear old home again. Not Frogmore, as you know we paid for all renovation costs for that property, despite you receiving funds for such a purpose from the Sovereign Grant, not never mind, we paid it anyway, and we paid rent a year ahead until the end of the following March. I consider myself the better person, but at the same time wanted to remind you that no other member of the Royal family has ever been asked to pay for renovation costs. I hear that one couple is on the move again, and ultimately they will have 4 homes. Well, one of the original homes had over a million pounds spent on the driveway, and now they are moving away to a another home on a Royal estate, as well as a new home near the in laws and new school for one of the children. No mention of reimbursement of those costs at all. Mmmm I wonder???

Who can forget the uproar over one plane journey that I chose to use for the safety of my family, and one which was supplied by a friend, so was at zero cost to the taxpayer, and there was a matching energy cost reimbursed by said friend. I don’t need to go into detail about the 4 planes that were used in a PR stunt that went badly wrong, to try and claim that that particular family travel economy most of the time.

This years Royal accounts, show quite a few anomalies, but I am sure that I do not need to point those out to you, but I will mention one. The amount of taxpayer funds spent on the purchase of a private helicopter, and then funds spent on new shrubbery and hedges put around the perimeter of the area, to shroud or I would say hide, the coming and going from that particular household in said helicopter. According to the accounts over £80 was spent on fuel for this mode of transport, in one year, and a year when the pandemic was in full swing, and most of the year was spent in Lockdown. So, one cannot help wonder where were the journeys heading to and why, because all engagements at the time, were done via Zoom, yet when my mother in law travelled a mile or two in a crown vehicle to meet with the ladies of the Hubb Kitchen, with Meghan and I, again there was uproar. Do you see a pattern emerging here. I might add, when the sister of one member of the Royal family travelled several miles in a Royal vehicle to go to watch a tennis match that was deemed to be not a problem at all.

JA:-I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me that Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance. On the “good chance” offered by the former slave owner:

IB:-When I returned to the UK to attend my grandfather’s funeral, it would have been nice to stop by and see one or two people, but when I was informed by a few media articles and several social media platforms, that I would be a target for who knows what, I decided to attend one of my own charity events, without informing UK media of my travel plans, and news came out, as I was preparing to leave the country and return to my home and family. Eight years of questionable media coverage, and breaches in several Articles of Human Rights legislation, it seems that it is not at all safe for my family and I to feel free or safe in my former home country.

JA:-I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here. I get twenty-five dollars a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy,—the folks call her Mrs. Anderson,—and the children—Milly, Jane, and Grundy—go to school and are learning well. The teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday school, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated.

IB;- I would like to know particularly what the good chances you propose to give me. I am doing very well over here. Meg and I own our home, and we have multi million pounds contracts in place, and more coming. Along with that we have impactful global projects running helping people in crisis. My wife is called by her name, and not the disrespectful names that are always used in UK media, and my children are no longer referred to as animals, and the shade of their skin is not an issue. We are treated very kindly and we feel very much accepted and part of our community.

JA:_Sometimes we overhear others saying, “Them colored people were slaves” down in Tennessee. The children feel hurt when they hear such remarks; but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Colonel Anderson. Many darkeys would have been proud, as I used to be, to call you master.

IB:- Sometimes we hear others saying “he dressed up in a Nazi uniform once” and was often seen falling out of night clubs. Thankfully the children are too young to understand such reporting by UK Media and its right wing followers, but there is more than enough evidence of receipts that clearly show that I have moved on from such activities, around 20 years ago now. I will tell them when they are older, that it was a learning time for me, after much disruption in my teenage years, and the experience of losing someone I held close to my heart. I will also tell the children that it was no disgrace to be a member of the Royal Family as such, but like in any situation where more knowledge is gained, one learns to see the wood for the trees. As a Spare, I was proud to serve the Queen, and as a grandson who had lost his mother at the age of 12, I was pleased to have my grandmother to call upon when I needed emotional support.

Looking back that emotional support was somewhat stilted, as I now know that was not something that came easily to my grandmother but she made an attempt. It was something I never experienced from anyone else in the family, so I was grateful for the crumbs I received.

People looking in from the outside, think they know what goes on behind the gilded gates and continually say they wish they were in such a privileged position, they would be proud to serve. Words are easy if you have no lived experience of the things you revere. All that glitters is not gold, and if it is, it most likely was stolen from the commonwealth.

JA:-Now if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.

IB:- Following four years of being abused by UK media and TV associates, on the orders of the Royal family, things were becoming more difficult by the day. My wife (who by the way was called by a variety of names, none of which were positive, and when any name was used, it was always her surname as a single lady. Never was Meghan ever treated with the respect like all the other ‘married ins’ to your family. I hesitate to call it my family, because I have been treated like a traitor and called that and worse, since 2016 when it was announced that Meghan was my girlfriend. Things just went downhill from there.

The BRF sanctioned abuse of my wife and our unborn child. At no point since 2016 was there every push back from the family about the abuse being directed at Meghan in a variety of ways. Four years later it was time to seek freedom.

Due to the loyalty I have for people who I work for, I try to aim to be as fair as possible. Meghan and I offered to spend 50% of our time working for no reward, out of respect for the Queen. The offer was turned down. All of my military titles were stripped away from me, and my security was removed without Notice, along with finances. A risk I was born into and therefore inherited, and the risks increased due to the volatile media reports daily, but it was clear I was being punished.

With that in mind, please outline for me what remuneration would you be prepared to pay for my wife and I to visit the UK from time to time, to carry out Royal duties. The offer of working for free expired in January 2020 following refusal from the Queen, no doubt persuaded by my father and brother, in the hope that the security aspects and the lack of finance would drive us back into the abuse behind gilded gates. Let us not forget the family gave details of my location both in Canada and then again in Tyler Perry’s home in LA. The abuse in the UK drove my wife to suicidal ideation and all medical assistance was refused. We have excellent cover now in Montecito. We also have a top class security team, so my family and my home is very much protected.

And then Jourdan explains that anything his former master could offer, he’s already earned on his own. Other than some back wages:

IB:-I think that anything you could offer me now, would be far less than we already earn, outside of your former plantation.

JA:-As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost-Marshal-General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you were disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future.

IB:-As for the freedom which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score. I received my free papers on 31^st March 2020. You were under the impression that it was going to be March 2021, but I never wanted a 12 month review. I knew that I was never returning, no matter what was offered, not least because the family turned down my offer of working 50% of our time for free. Meghan and I would need to feel safe to return and that we would be treated justly and kindly. The evidence to date does not indicate that, however, we do have a proposal for you to consider. In no particular order, we ask for the following:-

Remuneration for all the time we worked as Senior Royals, bringing in millions to the UK along with the billions received from the ripple effect of the wedding in 2018. Our departure was Constructive Dismissal.
Remuneration for all the expenses that Meghan paid herself, as no provision in the accounts was made for her upon marriage to me. Attending all those successful tours, whilst paying for her own attire etc. No one else in the Royal family has to do that, but Meghan was singled out.
Travelling whilst heavily pregnant, to an area that at the time was volatile in places. It was a successful tour, but 100% guaranteed no other couple would have been sent there in such an unsettling period, let alone when Meghan was heavily pregnant. At least her helicopter journeys were done for Royal duties on that tour, (unlike some members of the BRF) and done well considering her stage in pregnancy. Another Royal family member always has approximately 12 months off during pregnancy and maternity leave, and no one questioned it all. Cost of all the culturally aware outlay on clothing for that tour for Meghan.
Meghan’s name put back on the UK Birth Certificate for our son. The USA has the correct details, because of course our children have dual citizenship.

These things will enable us to try and move one from the experiences of our time on the Royal Plantation behind gilded gates, and may well help to heal our interactions, if any, and justice and friendship in the future.

JA:-I served you faithfully for thirty-two years, and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages have been kept back, and deduct what you paid for our clothing, and three doctor’s visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to.

IB:- I served you faithfully all of my life. I was brought into the world as a Spare. No point in describing it like anyone else having children. In the BRF people are told to have more than one child, particularly a 2^nd child as back up if anything happens to the first born, who is line for the throne. The life of a Spare is one where you cannot have any ambitions of your own, and you are there purely to be a support system for the older siblings. As soon as that older siblings has children, your role diminishes, and when the eldest child of the heir reaches 21, the Spare is discarded. No matter how it is packaged, history has clearly shown the life of Spare throughout the decades is an abusive one, and often was tragic. I managed to secure freedom, despite all the hurdles put in my way, and the warning shots fired by family members and media alike. It is still horrific to remember the fake tears on tv begging me to return, but to leave my wife and children behind. It is still horrific to me to see people from the Carnival of Clowns go on tv in the UK and give several interviews wishing for a tragedy to occur to my wife, because it would somehow encourage me to return and help others in the Plantation out, and if by chance other wives were to meet a tragic end, it would bring some of the slaves together to comfort each other. So, I would love to hear what you could possibly offer me and my family to return to work for you, when as I stated earlier, that I am financially comfortable now and for the foreseeable future.

JA:_ Please send the money by Adams’s Express, in care of V. Winters, Esq., Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past, we can have little faith in your promises in the future.

IB:-Please contact our Communications team with your suggestions, and we will see if there is recognition of payment for past endeavours, in order to give us faith for promises in the future.

Jourdon Anderson

JA:- We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night; but in Tennessee there was never any pay-day for the negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.
And after a few more jabs about how his children are now happy and receiving an education, Jourdan concludes his letter with:

JA;- Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.

JA:-In answering this letter, please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up, and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve—and die, if it come to that—than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood. The great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.

IB:- In answering this letter, please state if my children would be safe. I would rather stay here, than have my children ill treated and shamed by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. If I decide to return, my wife and I can search for good schools. I am already aware of excellent establishments near our former home which will ensure an excellent education. We wish them to have a global education and for them to form virtuous humanitarian habits.

Say Howdy to my brother for me. I have not forgotten the incident at the wedding, where Meghan was on the receiving end of an action. I know that it is not public knowledge, yet, but it is only two names that ever get mentioned, and only legal action taken by the family have prevented it from coming to light. I have time.

From your former Spare & Wife,

Ivy Barrow

12th May 2024