u/DeepSouthSinner

Lauren the Insider interviews a doctor within this video, one whom packs a background directly involved with children and our online community, but Ms. Farrow begins with the recent photo-bombing by Prince Harry's wife, pointing out that she was attempting to push down the negative press surrounding her trip to Geneva.

She mentions that it was also a further attempt to become relevant once again, but that it basically came off like a used piece of plastic wrap clinging for dear life to fine china, when it was intended to remind all that she was once near the royals.

To drive her point home, Ms. Farrow shows photographs of the Prince and Princess of Wales' wedding, highlighting the stark difference in poise and conduct compared with that of Prince Harry and his wife.

Ms. Farrow quickly moves on to the failed Geneva venture, mentioning that after having put on a black suit, Prince Harry's wife did as usual and pretended to be one whom she was not, in order to push a censorship crusade, but that she could not successfully do so, being a low-grade actress tripping over her own hypocrisy in the process, as she allegedly recited a plagiarized speech written by someone else, proving once again that she was the wrong person for the role.

Basically pulling an Epstein, she hides behind philanthropy and charity, falsely believing that such will protect her from being fairly critiqued, as she attempts to rebrand herself countless times, Ms. Farrow posits; this time via behaving like a streetwalker wearing too much make-up in the middle of the day at a bus stop, attempting to garner attention from the few passersby, in my opinion.

Ms. Farrow does not believe for one second that Prince Harry and his wife care at all about children being online, because their own children are used by them online for attention and almost daily. I agree that such would be a fair and logical assessment.

Her perspective is that their censorship crusade precisely echoes what the Labour Party have been doing and continue to do, via the online safety bill, and that such is their only true motive.

Forty-three (43) too many deaths last year within the U.K., in comparison to the 87,000 annually born into households of sexual harm, leads Ms. Farrow to believe that Prince Harry and his wife are nothing but frauds, when it comes to prioritizing the protection of children.

Ms. Farrow points out that neither of them are willing to get into the weeds, so to speak, stepping up to help charities which deal with the taboos of society, such as the Prince and Princess of Wales do with addiction and homelessness.

Her experience heading up a charity in the past, combined with her professional background has led Ms. Farrow to become personally aware that most celebrities involve themselves with charities, for no other reason than to increase positive press, and that many of those celebrities have even gone so far as to grossly refer to the unfortunate children as, "Children on the scratch."

It is at this point, when Ms. Farrow introduces Dr. Alison McClymont, a previous guest upon her channel.

Dr. McClymont possesses close to one decade experience directly relevant to detrimental online behaviors and children.

https://www.dralisonmcclymont.com/

They share an interesting, back and forth dialogue with one another, for approximately ten minutes, commencing shortly after the 7:00 minute timestamp.

It would be fair to form the opinion that the nice doctor believes Ms. Markle was not qualified to speak upon the matter over in Geneva, for starters..., just as she also knew Prince Harry was not qualified to speak at a previous engagement.

Not long after the 16:30 time stamp, Ms. Farrow begins discussing what many refer to as "Project Thaw," and she highlights a few things having recently taken place on Youtube Channels and Mainstream Media, relevant to all from her perspective.

While I realize that Ms. Farrow has received numerous requests to lengthen her videos, I believe that this one could have/should have been condensed; however, I still recommend it.

"It's already a red flag that you chose Meghan Markle to come speak on behalf of the World Health Organization. Like that in itself should tell you run the other way.

What Meghan is not sharing with everybody is that there are real solutions that exist already, that don't require this kind of centralization and control of information...

In summary, and not to belabor this any longer, what we've seen here with Meghan is classic emotional manipulation, dressed up as trying to be compassionate.

And what she's doing here, that Meghan and Harry are so good at, is weaponizing tragedy, and in this case, weaponizing grieving parents and these heartbreaking child memorials to bypass reason, framing any skepticism as indifference to dead children by pushing a false choice between quote unquote, protect the kids and free speech and demanding global safety by design standards from a World Health Organization stage.

What she's doing is engineering urgency for institutional capture of power, vague harms language that inevitably creeps into throttling lawful adult speech, eroding the First Amendment, and shifting power away from the parents to distant regulators and the algorithms that these dangerous people want to control."

There's some good stuff within this video, thereby I recommend the listen, because The Royal Grift surpasses the entertaining sideshows and gets down to discussing serious business.

During the first fifteen minutes of this episode, Lady C highlights how she believes that both Prince Harry and his wife have aligned themselves with the far left, as a means to ruin both the royals and civil liberties.

She begins by reminding all that both individuals function as a team, and for many years now have been attempting to control the media, while elaborating that P. Harry was never politically active, prior to meeting his first wife.

Access to the internet is controlled via an off/on button located upon each device, and it is the responsibility of each parent to utilize such whereas children are concerned, as opposed to curtailing the liberties of all others via censorship, Lady C simply but eloquently points out to all.

Lady C does describe the WHO as a now "deeply ominous organization," currently headed up by the Chinese Communist Party, and that WHO is led by Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, whom she goes on to describe as an Ethiopian politician, and interestingly enough, a former member of the Mangistu regime. I'm unclear as to where she obtained the latter knowledge, but it is highly possible and since buried in disinformation/propaganda.

Dictator Mengistu was the radical communist whom personally strangled the 82 year old Emperor Haila Selassie, Lady C claims, which remains a matter of historical debate; however, it has been firmly established that the murder occurred on the order of dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam's Marxist junta (the Derg) in 1975.

If interested in the regime and its Marxist relevance, you can learn more about it here:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85S00317R000200070003-9.pdf

Being how Lady C. wastes no time during her introduction and remains on point, I highly recommend the listen, because she does a much better job than I could via mere summary.

I do not know whether she published it before or after Ms. Markle's little WHO stunt, simply because I have intentionally not paid any attention to it, other than looking at a few photographs which unsurprisingly indicated that maybe less than 50 individuals were present for it.

The video was uploaded Sunday, approximately 15 hours ago, and the following was pulled from Lady C's description box:

00:00 Introduction from Castle Goring

01:00 Meghan Markle & WHO Appearance – Geneva “Digital Harm” Event

04:30 Prince Harry, Censorship & The First Amendment Debate

08:00 Meghan, Archewell & The World Health Organization Explained

12:00 Harry & Meghan “Thought Police” Criticism – Online Speech Concerns

15:00 Prince Harry Popularity Collapse – New Poll Numbers Revealed

18:00 Should Harry & Meghan Be Removed From The Royal Website?

21:00 King Charles “Jealousy” Rumours – William & Catherine Debate

24:00 Prince Edward & Sophie Praised – The “Ideal” Working Royals

27:00 Meghan Markle Surrogacy Questions – Archie Birth Story Examined

31:00 Meghan & Harry Hospital Claims – Epidural & Water Birth Controversy

33:10 Final Thoughts & Closing Remarks

...prepared/uploaded today by Ms. Avid Gardener...

Lauren the Insider interviewed Mr. Will Geddes:

https://www.willgeddes.com/about

I have cut straight to the interview, which begins approximately eleven minutes into the video, but this is the summary from her description box:

"In this explosive episode of Lauren The Insider, I’m pulling back the curtain on the most controversial royal legal battle of the decade.

I’m joined by world-leading security expert Will Geddes—a man who actually oversees security for foreign Royal families—to expose why Prince Harry’s relentless demands for taxpayer-funded protection are being branded a 'hoax.'

Is this a genuine concern for safety, or the ultimate tantrum from a 'petulant child' desperate to reclaim his IPP status?

Together, we’re asking the hard questions the mainstream media avoids: Who is really footing the bill, and is this legal battle actually a calculated attempt to maintain a royal lifestyle Harry voluntarily walked away from?

PLUS: I reveal the shocking proof that the mainstream media is starting to turn, with some outlets now coming onside to protect Harry’s narrative.

This is a deep dive into royal entitlement and media manipulation you simply cannot afford to miss."

Within this video, Ms. Beebs Kelley rants, and she does so for quite some time, as she shares her perspective based upon her own investigation of the games via various sources, all listed within the last ten minutes along with proposed solutions to issues in which she clearly identifies.

The following summary was pulled from her description box:

"Spotlight VS Substance:

'Harry's clinging to the only thing he has left while Meghan ruins the brand'

Has the Sussexes' control over Invictus Games Foundation, lack of financial support & demands to create a world stage for themselves finally reached a tipping point?

Breaking News of Invictus Games losing their biggest sponsor, Boeing, another in the sponsor exodus, has led to increased scrutiny around their financials & format and the Duke & Duchess of Sussex themselves.

Prince harry's fixation on an olympic level event scale and a financial model that justifies less than 1% of the budget in direct-to-veteran funding reveals that the IGF is outside it's means & capability- why?

So Harry doesn't lose the only thing he has left.

Today's video investigates the Invictus Games & the controversy around Prince Harry & Meghan Markle's control over the foundation.

I'm exposing who IS funding Harry's program and who ISN'T, the miniscule percentage of participants, and all the trouble behind the scenes.

It's been clear since Megxit/2020 that Prince Harry & Meghan Markle view the Invictus Games as their key opportunity to be center of attention, and an anchor to their PR campaign.

By keeping the IG as a huge, stadium-level event much like the Olympics- they can feel elevated, they can feel royal again.

But the lack of prioritizing the veterans themselves can no longer be ignored.

If the mission of the IGF is to support veterans globally, then they're not fulfilling their promise, today's video exposes the layers of problems, and the simple solution they're choosing not to act on- only because of Harry.

...* Disclaimer: This video analyzes news stories, reports, public domain information & content, is for entertainment purposes only and falls under Fair Use intended for commentary, education & critique. In this video, I investigate Invictus Games, the IGFoundation & the Endeavour Fund- sharing discoveries from the official invictus website, wounded warrior games websites, department of defense and the IGF website. Information includes news about recent funding changes, lack of sponsors, new sponsors leaving, questions the sustainability of the current model and the complaints aired by veterans, spectators and communities about the IG."

Mr. Robert Jobson describes an article published two and one-half weeks ago within an Australian women's magazine, as nothing more than a press release for Meghan Markle, and he goes so far as to chastise the editor, for having published it.

Personally, I skipped through close to the first seven minutes of this video by Dan Wootton of Outspoken, simply in order to avoid hearing her nonsense.

Much more interesting was the latter part of the video, which dealt with her husband and in a rather straight forward manner, beginning approximately nine and one-half minutes into it. I have fast forwarded the video to just before that point, sparing each of you the reciting of the article.

Turbulent-Winter-701 mentioned within a related post entitled, "Star Mag..." by none other than California's Ruth_Lily, that this was an excellent video by The Royal Grift, causing me to listen to it.

I admit that I was falling asleep during the middle, simply because TRG took the time to carefully read out the referenced article, coupled with the fact that it's almost midnight, east coast time.

Due to such, I am going to make myself listen to the latter half once again, and possibly edit this post with additional summary (or put it in the comments).

She occasionally peppered her reading with interesting commentary, but held most for the last five minutes.

Beginning at the 18:25 timestamp, she opened up full throttle with two Highgrove photographs.

I do recall TRG mentioning that she thought this is likely a Markle Puff Piece. She mentioned how they purportedly countered at a point within the article, and to the best of her memory, they had never once done so with anything having previously been published within it, which only sufficed to strengthen her theory.

*** She managed to pull me out of my slight slumber toward the end, via mentioning the recent Invictus chatter, elaborating that she was actually the one having originally broke down the Invictus figures some eight months ago for all, and that she intends to soon revisit her data in an up and coming video, due to Boeing having dropped out; so, some may be interested in looking out for it, being that she is well known for methodical research.

----------

This is the description from her video (but more is covered):

"Could an unlikely friendship between King Charles III and Donald Trump be the key to bringing Prince Harry back to the UK?

In this video, we dive into a shocking new report detailing a 'desperate plan' to engineer a royal reunion without blowing up the fragile family truce...

The Secret Conversations: How King Charles reportedly confided in Donald Trump about missing his son 'terribly.'

The Visa Factor: The 'brutal but effective' scenario where legal pressure on Prince Harry’s U.S. immigration status could force a return to British soil.

Prince William’s Stance: Why the Prince of Wales remains 'unchanged' in his position, creating a difficult divide for the King.

Meghan Markle’s Reaction: Why an 'involuntary' return to England would be the 'worst possible scenario' for the Duchess of Sussex.

Project Thaw: Inside the quiet behind-the-scenes push to bring Harry back into public life in Britain.

Is this a brilliant diplomatic move or a recipe for royal disaster? Let’s discuss in the comments."