UK Monarchy & Human Rights
SGUK Episode 26
This weeks article and podcast draws upon a couple of previous podcasts on this subject and is updated with subsequent events since those publications.
Have you ever wondered whether the British Royal Family and their Associates in the British Media (particularly those in the Royal Rota) live in an alternative universe compared to the rest of us? Are there different forces operating in their zone? Does the UK Monarchy use a different rule book when it comes to interaction with the Sussexes as opposed to every other family member? Is slavery still alive and thriving in the UK Monarchy? Anyone who dares to question this abusive oppressive society is pounced upon with the aim to break their spirit and to then rebuild them in the clone like stature of the other members. If that is not acceptable to any objectors they are treated like slaves gone bad, and they are treated like prey – hunted down around the globe until they break or their heart stops beating.
Back in the real world, where laws do exist, this alternate universe is not recognised or known about. Most people do not see the red flags about what is happening – all they see are two wealthy people shirking their responsibilities. Those of us with sight and more importantly vision, recognise what is happening here, and it is a very dangerous game that is being played out in front of our eyes. All the key groups who are acting as oppressors are those who benefit from the current set up. More importantly, if groups or individuals outside of that protected cluster did half of what has been going on for centuries in that protected bubble, it would be considered against the law; national or international. This article is a foray into basic human rights legislation, and how it is used when it suits certain people within that protected cluster, but how it equally is ignored when it comes to fake outrage about whatever Harry and Meghan are doing on any given day. Most of the time, things have not been done or said or meant in the way the outrage is reported, but as Squad members know, truth is not a necessary element in this game, just like there are no established rules.
I am by no means a legal expert, so before any of the haters start to moan about this and that (we know they haunt our pages) this article/podcast is based on my perceptions and my thoughts of how the same legislation is used for some people in the Royal family but totally ignored when it comes to Harry and Meghan. These are my perceptions of how certain groups have been given permission (direct or implied) to operate outside of established procedures in the pursuit of the two people who are now treated like modern day runaway slaves. UK Monarchy and its partners in the media are acting like an ex partner who cannot believe their other half has left, and in doing so, is publicly using abusive methods to gain sympathy for those with limited clarity on what is happening in front of them, in the hope that the couple will break and return. The aim is for Harry to leave his wife and children and return to the Royal Family and be the acceptable face of the UK Monarchy, until the Cambridge children are adults, and then Harry would be part of the people in the Firm who serve no purpose and who are shoved into the background and form part of the Royal wallpaper Like I said earlier, if this occurred in any other family setting, legal groups would be concerned for the people within the framework, particularly the children born into that framework who are high in the Line of Succession. Children created to serve the monarchy. Children born without rights. Children who are born first are considered valuable; others are born to support the first born. Children who are not allowed independent thought. Children who are not allowed to fulfil their potential, and who must at all times devalue themselves in order to make the first born look good. In any other walk of life, treatment of children along those lines would be considered anything but positive, and on several fronts, is a breach of human rights.
This is a preamble around Human Rights legislation – both International and local. I hope that at the end of this piece, increasing numbers of people begin to question what is going on here. I will refer to a few elements of the legislation but I have also included sections which I hope give food for thought which will lead you to question other implications. I will discuss the abusive behaviour disguised as journalism and the mirroring of patterns of behaviour when an abi partner or family members (include in this group, members of the British Royal Family and their senior staff) follow the actions of an abusive perpetrator, and when that does not work, the course of actions will be explained and you will see how closely they match with what is described in law as illegal. If the abused shows signs of thinking about leaving, all manor of negative scenarios are described to the victim in an effort to make them stop thinking of escape. If the victim does escape, then sinister methods are employed to make them return to the abuse that they know. If that does not work, then all attempts are made to defame them in the public eye; the victim or victims cannot be seen to succeed. If years later this abuse is continuing, and now includes children of the targets, then more than one boundary has been crossed, and another representative needs to step in before a life or lives are lost.
In the case of Harry and Meghan and their young family, I have stated several times in previous podcasts, this couple are up against powerful forces. Ie the UK Monarchy, the Government, Media both written and televised, Aristocracy, Police Forces
- The Queen is the head of the Armed Forces
- The Queen ‘appoints’ upon the advice of the Home Secretary, the Commissioner of Police
- The Queen as Head of State, is supposed to remain neutral in respect of political matters. Most people know that the Royal family meet with representatives of Government about legal matters that they are concerned about, and the end result of these supposedly neutral matters is that the BRF are then allowed to be exempt from the requirements that everyone else in the country is held to account.
- Officially it is still stated that the Queen retains an important symbolic role as the figure in whose name justice is carried out.
- Worth mentioning here that in both civil and criminal proceedings, no action can ever be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law.
- Newspapers work hand in glove with the government and the Monarchy, and the Royal Reporters and TV media personalities pedal out the same messages daily. The hate groups have emerged from the content of the rhetoric, and are helped along on social media platforms by paid trolls and paid bots. Only those societal groups mentioned above benefit from the messages being repeated daily, and the social media platforms currently earn more for their shareholders from giving hate rhetoric and hate filled videos a platform. Hatred has been monetised in the UK.
Time well overdue now for the international bodies to step forward or step aside to allow those who wish to do something about this state of affairs.
Context of Human Rights Legislation
- What are Human Rights?
- Human Rights are standards that allow all people to live with dignity, freedom, equality, justice and
- Guaranteed to everyone without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
- Human Rights are part of international law, contained in treaties and declarations that spell out specific rights that countries are required to uphold. Some countries incorporate human rights in their own national state and local laws.
- Why are Human Rights important?
- Human rights reflect the minimum standards necessary for people to live with dignity.
- Human Rights give people the freedom to choose how they live, how they express themselves and what kind of government they want to support.
- By guaranteeing life, liberty, equality and security, human rights protect people against abuse by those who are more powerful.
- Human Rights Characteristics
- Where do Human Rights Come From?
International Bill of Rights:-
- The right to equality and freedom from discrimination
- The right to life, liberty and personal security
- Freedom from torture and degrading treatment
- The right to a fair trial
- The right to privacy
- Freedom of belief and religion
- Freedom of opinion
- Right of peaceful assembly and association
- The right to participate in government
- The right to social security
- The right to work
- The right to an adequate standard of living
- The right to education
- The right to health
- The right to food and housing
Who is Responsible for Upholding Human Rights?
ANSWER: Under Human Rights Treaties, governments have the primary responsibility for protecting and promoting human rights. However, governments are not solely responsible for human rights. The UDHR[i] states:-
“Every individual and every organ of society shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international to secure their universe and effective recognition and observance.”
The provision means that not only the government, but also businesses, civil society, and individuals are responsible for promotion and respecting human rights.
When a government ratifies a human rights treaty, it assumes a legal obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights contained in the treaty.
UK Monarchy and Protocols v International & UK Law in Terms of Privacy
- Article 8
A private and family life: Nobody should be able to secretly watch what you are doing without good reason – and we have the right to enjoy family life in the way we choose.
- The right to a private life protects your dignity and autonomy (your right to be independent and make your own decisions about your life).
- That includes:
- the right to personal autonomy and physical and psychological integrity (this right means you must not to be physically or psychologically interfered with)
- respect for your private and confidential information, including the storing and sharing of data about you
- the right to control the spreading of information about your private life, including photographs taken covertly.
NB// Article 8 is the Section of the Human Rights legislation that was used in the communication from Prince William’s legal team to UK media and whoever else, and all action ceased, and even comments made by some reporters on social media was removed; I am guessing by the authors.
My question is why this International piece of legislation, which is in force with some amendments to ensure that it suits the UK legal framework, does not appear to be applied to the Sussexes? Whether it should come into play as Prince Harry is a UK citizen, or whether it is applicable in the USA as this is now the home of the Sussexes? I have no idea. I am not a legal expert at all. I am merely inquisitive as to why UK media are using the same piece of legislation in different ways for 2 members of the Royal Family. i.e. one is allowed to use it to stop articles and discussions about his private life, but the other is chased around the world and written about daily with no regard to the law in existence. Regardless of titles, Prince Harry and his family are no less deserving of protection under the law than anyone else.
Most people know that the Royal Family do indeed involve themselves in politics, frequently, and just because they are not seen visiting or speaking with politicians in front of cameras, it goes on. Senior civil servants from the government and Royal Palaces have a revolving door arrangement, so it is beyond naïve to state that it does not happen, and it is inequitable to publicly chastise the Sussexes via a torrent of click bait articles in tabloid publications suggesting to their readers that interference in politics took place in the USA Presidential voting process. I would suggest that there is likely to be a far higher percentage of political activity going on behind the scenes with various members of the BRF and politicians around the world, as well as within the UK; it is just done out of sight most of the time.
It is not illegal for members of the Royal family to vote in elections, it is just something that the Queen has decided is not appropriate for them to be involved in. In my mind, in the future, when all USA documentation is finalised, there is no reason whatsoever that Prince Harry could not vote in an American Election process, irrespective of whether or not the UK Royal family and their associates in the media are unhappy about that prospect.
The only member of the UK Monarchy who is above the law is The Queen. Anyone else in the Royal family who may have transgressed can be charged (e.g. Princess Anne was charged for a speeding offence. Driving at 90+ mph in a 70mph zone) but cannot be arrested in the presence of The Queen, or questioned on the grounds of or near to any Royal Palaces. As we all know not everyone in the BRF is charged for breaking the law, and in terms of process of looking at or providing evidence for those who are pursuing a case certain important documents suddenly are lost or disposed of in error.
- Family Life – there is no set description for what constitutes a family. This element is usually applied in cases where children are removed from the family home, for whatever reason.
- Respect for Your Home – You have a right not to have your home interfered with such as by surveillance, or unlawful entry or evictions which have not followed due process.
- Respect for Your Correspondence – You have the right to uninterrupted and uncensored communication with others; a right that is particularly relevant when challenging phone tapping and the reading of your private communications.
It is time for sensible people of the UK to give some thought to the process of Monarchy and whether or not it is relevant in a modern society. Questions should be asked in terms of:
- whether a modern society needs and should pay for a Monarchy?
- There are questions to be asked about how many in the family line should be funded by the UK taxpayer.
- Is it right in this day and age to have children brought into this world, to be used as chattels and have a life mapped out for them from birth to grave?
- Is it right that the first born child of a senior Royal is considered a future King or Queen regardless of whether they wish to take on that role, and more importantly have the competence to do it?
- Are we saying that modern day slavery within Royal circles is acceptable?
- Children are prevented from reaching their full potential.
- Children are used as objects not human beings.
- Children have no rights within Royal circles but they do if born outside of it.
- Treatment of children in this way would be considered to be abusive outside of Royal confines.
Prince Harry and his wife Meghan have been treated like pariahs because they dared to:-
- want to work for a living
- Did not want to be a third wheel for his older brother and wife, merely because he was born 2nd.
- Royal Family and their media Associates in the Royal Rota have tried to make it difficult for the Sussexes to leave, by quoting all manner of restrictive reasons why it was not a good idea; that did not work.
- The Royal Family have attempted to punish Prince Harry for marrying someone who was not from the gene pool usually fished in for spouses, in order to continue the parasitic way of living off UK public.
- The Royal Family have spent the last 5 years of a bullying and harassment campaign against the newest member of the Royal Family and who also is a person of colour. Needless to say the campaign backfired, and the couple left the UK.
- UK media professionals constantly and openly used phrases that ordered Meghan to go back to her own country. Prior to that there was talk of shipping her and Harry off to Africa, as if the whole continent of Africa could be used by the British Royal Family as some kind of dumping ground & punishment for those who did not abide by the rules??
- Rules that they were born into, and had no say in composition. Rules that morphed into various permutations dependant upon the anger that the British Media wanted to pretend existed on any given day.
In 2019 Queen’s Council 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 5 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 last year, pretending to show sorrow about how things had turned out, and was begging Harry to return to help out the Cambridges. 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.
Toxic Working & Family Environment
All of the activity against the Sussexes is in breach of Human Rights legislation. None of what the Sussexes have done in leaving an abusive environment is against UK or International Law. Prince Harry will always remain a Prince of a Future King, and nothing can change that. All this talk of removing various Titles is meant to cause emotional harm. Some have been removed, and others may be in the future. Removing the Dukedom would require an Act of Parliament. Good luck to them with that, if that is yet another desperate route the BRF and media friends wish to see happen. For one, it requires legislation to remove something from someone who has not broken any laws and has not in fact done nothing wrong. Secondly it will open the door for automatic removal of other statuses of other members of the Royal Family, and thirdly, this will be not be a good look of the UK to the rest of the world. It would be based on vindictiveness and malice merely because a couple expressed their right to walk away from abuse. The light of the Sussexes will not be dimmed by anything that the UK does, and in fact every time they attempt another abusive act, or try and duplicate what the Sussexes are doing (always abject failure and low grade outputs) it only reinforces to the global community that the Sussexes were right to leave the UK for the state of their mental health. Meghan nearly died by her treatment in the UK, and there are many throughout history who did meet their fate, just because they were seen as a threat to a way of doing things in Royal circles.
Exhibit:-Breach in Basic Human Rights in Respect of Child
I have a concern about children born into that type of regime, that no amount of wealth can heal or even pretend to look better than what is actually happening. Any other family doing what the Royals do to and with their children would have child services on their doorstep. Child slavery then turns into slavery of adults, and this belief by some media pundits that they have rights to what happens inside a woman’s womb and who should be there to see the action etc. It is grotesque. A for other matters relating to children, stretching far back in Royal history, one would have thought there is much that the Royal family and the media could and should be focussed upon.
If the Royal family cannot function without two people and their child who they chased away because of their abuse towards them, then it speaks volumes about the work ethic and popularity and income generation of all the others. I am of the firm opinion, as a non legal person, that this treatment of the Sussexes is in breach on multiple aspects of Articles of basic Human Rights legislation. Royal protocol is not the law, and protocols stated in respect of the Sussexes is not written down anywhere, just something expected should happen in respect of the Sussexes only.
Exhibit:Article 8 was quickly pulled out of the magician hat for one Prince on an alleged rumour. Harry and Meghan have so many receipts of abusive and illegal acts against them; enough to contain volumes of 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 these 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.
From my non legal brain, I would have much to say in any legal setting on a number of fronts, and I am 100% certain that Meghan would win every one. Every accusation and every deed claimed to have taken place, and the abuse that Meghan has suffered, and the basic human rights violated, all fall within one of two areas, that this institution claims at various points in their fairy tales, not to exist or be in place.
- Exhibit:- Ie. Being a member of The BRF; being a Senior Working Royal (it must have been a mirage on all those tours and visits then); expected by the Royal Family to be treated during pregnancy by the Royal family medical team; expected to parade outside the Lindo Wing with the latest Royal baby; being expected as part of Royal duty, to parade the first baby of colour outside the Lindo Wing, and even to give the Royal Rota first signs of what shade the skin colour would be, in this Royal family that Meghan was not deemed to be part of anyway, apart from in publicity images which made the BRF look good. Secondly, not classed as an employee either, so not entitled to medical assistance for suicidal thoughts. Passport and credit cards, car keys, Bank Cards removed and kept by Human Resources Department. What for? No legal requirement for any employer to retain such documentation, just a photocopies and stamped with employer stamp and signed and dated that the original of each document has been seen and when. HR does not even need to see copies of such documentation, let alone keep it, for members of the public passing through, because remember Meghan was not family. No finance set up for her, she paid for everything herself. Not a family member either, and her child’s birth certificate had her name removed from it, and only the Duchess title left on this important document. An illegal act by the way, but a way of removing the name of an actual person from their child’s birth certificate. Master and Slave mentality.
Exhibit:- Toxic Signs
When is it appropriate to cut ties with a family member? Consider a few examples listed below. There are many more contained in the reference sources listed at the end of this article.
- Invalidating or ignoring your feelings
- Creating drama or crises
- Refusing to compromise
- Yelling, cursing or calling you names
- Gossiping or speaking ill of you behind your back
- Making unreasonable demands
- Playing the victim
- Refusing to apologise and if they do, its shallow, coerced or fake
- Lacking genuine concern or interest in you and your life
- Creating so much stress, anxiety and pain that your health, ability to work, or general well being are negatively impacted.
UK Media working in hand with the BRF and therefore complicit, and individually liable for any harm that is identified in any future litigation if things progress to that stage, for individual acts of abusive behaviour and trying to hide behind they ‘were just doing their job’ etc. When you think of the clout chasers, including the carnival of so called experts, aka clowns, and the unknown children’s authors who felt the need to come out from under their stones, and the clout chasers who were taken from their mausoleums to face cameras and spout nonsense, and let us not the ever growing obsolescence of the Royal Rota (they are attached to the Royal womb like embryos) and as the Monarchy falls in popularity and the questions increase relating to the need for one in a modern society, the same questions will and are being asked about the Royal Rota. Any person seen to potentially rock that gravy train of income, and lifestyle for these adult embryos, or take away perceived income from the otherwise unsold children’s authors out there, some have shown their true colours. I am waiting for all their best sellers to appear now that Meghan has moved on to another one of her many projects lined up. All of these people/groups are very much like toxic organisms.
Toxicity and the Impact on Mental Health
Toxic people are dangerous to our inner peace and they are dangerous to our self esteem. The secret to growth is learning how to identify them and detach them from our journey to happiness. Toxic people take the joy our of work and holidays.
Toxic people thrive on drama. It gives them sympathy and it gets them attention; best of all it allows them to manipulate the emotions of the people around them. A person who is identified by negative things in their life will only attract more negativity into yours. (extracts from medium.com – listed in the references at the end of this article)
Toxic people are obsessed with themselves and think only of their own feelings and opinions, showing little or no concern for others. They have a need to be the centre of attention and have control over the people and situations that surround them. Eg a self centred family member might demand that you babysit their children for free while a self centred box might demand that you work late, regardless whether or not you may have plans of your own with your own nuclear family.
Toxic people deliberately mislead when it comes to telling the truth, and are toxic to our inner peace and mental wellbeing. They make it impossible for us to trust anything that they say. Someone who is comfortable with telling small lies and equally at ease with telling big ones too. They will obscure and even reinvent the truth to conceal their flaws and mistakes.
Have you ever known someone who has an obsessive need to be right all the time? Being seen as wrong by anyone is like a rejection to them, and cannot be tolerated at any cost. These people will argue their point of view until they are blue in the face or buried in the ground. I can think of many examples from all the groups who have been toxic towards the Sussexes and in particular Meghan. If any of them are challenged about their version of the truth, they double down on their story, and their rage in evident for all to see. They can dish it out, as they say, but they cannot ever take being challenged. I am sure you all can think of a few. Seems to be a common trait with all the known toxic individuals and groups who have abused the Sussexes over or during the 5 five year period, and are some are continuing it now even though they are on USA soil.
Those people who are constantly stuck in a negative loop, rarely have a kind word to say about others. Most rational people know that there is a mixture of good and bad in people, but toxic people do not view people in that way. It would force them to look deeply at themselves and their approach to life.
Toxic people in our own lives, can sometimes be hard to spot. Ie they can be vile to others but not so evident to family or close friends. Observe the relationships of the people in your life and might just be surprised to realize some motivation you never noticed before.
This quote from one of my reference sources, I think is very apt for this podcast.
“Emotional and physical abuse, criticism, lying and emotional starvation are all signs it’s time to leave someone behind. If you spend your nights lying in loneliness or quiet heartbreak, it is a sign that things have run their course and come to a natural end.” I would say that this statements applies to leaving a situation behind, not just an individual
Many grassroots organisations worked hard to ensure that coercive control became a criminal offence. This has marked a huge step forward in tackling domestic abuse. Now it is important to make sure that everyone understands what it is.
Coercive control creates invisible chains and a sense of fear that pervades all elements of a victim’s life. It works to limit their human rights by depriving them of their liberty and reducing their ability for action. Experts like Evan Stark liken coercive control to being taken hostage. As he says: “the victim becomes captive in an unreal world created by the abuser, entrapped in a world of confusion, contradiction and fear.”
All the protesting and gutter behaviour about the Sussexes leaving the UK and now already living a better quality of life, and safer and protected more so than in the UK, is being done by people who were better off with the Sussexes staying within the fold. All those protesting are worried that the Royal Family cannot survive, or will at best be severely low on popularity and income generation in its current form, which means less income generation for the tabloids and tv talk shows which have nothing to offer to compete in any meaningful way with the growing number of streaming services and online news networks. I call it karma.
USA on a matter of principle, regardless of the individuals in this case, are you happy to sit back and not take action of 5 years and counting of abusive behaviour towards an American citizen on UK soil for 3 years, and the abuse has continued for the two since the couple had to flee the UK due to the increasing risks on their lives, and in once case two people threatening to end the life of Harry for marrying outside his race, are currently in jail. The abuse targeting all of the Sussex family on USA soil from the UK is obscene in its methods and made worse that both children are also targeted. The youngest child targeted when she was just four days old. In September 2020 the State of California passed a new law relating to Coercive Control, one aspect of the abusers repertoire, there to protect California residents. Why then, has the USA not stepped up to the plate to use the legislation that exists, to take action against UK media on behalf of others targeting and harassing a USA family who live in that State? Ordinary people cannot afford years of legal process and many are suffering in silence. Performative legislation is not enough. Action needs to be taken. So far it has been USA billionaires who have stepped forward for the Sussex family at crucial points in this escape from the UK, even providing security when the BRF pulled security without warning, and stopped all funding. Done with clear malice and intent to increase the risk to the already high possibility of harm to the Sussexes, helped along by the hate inciting rhetoric in the tabloids every day in the UK. Over 100 articles a day of venom, and their comment sections full of hate filled posts. Negative comments on any other member of the Royal family, the tabloids close their comment sections down. Time for performative legal measures to move onto actual activity, and not rely on USA citizens to provide the security and accommodation when the country of birth for Meghan stood by and did nothing at all. There may have been genuine reasons for that stance, and the Sussexes are now earning their own money and paying taxes, helping vulnerable groups and have their own security team. It is over due to sit back and watch abuse take place for such a long time, and not use the legislation that exists.
The legislation is there.
Articles 1 and 13
Articles 1 and 13 of the ECHR do not feature in the Act. This is because, by creating the Human Rights Act, the UK has fulfilled these rights.
For example, Article 1 says that states must secure the rights of the Convention in their own jurisdiction. The Human Rights Act is the main way of doing this for the UK.
Article 13 makes sure that if people’s rights are violated they are able to access effective remedy. This means they can take their case to court to seek a judgment. The Human Rights Act is designed to make sure this happens.
[i] Universal Declaration of Human Rights:- all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and