u/Feisty_Energy_107

Head of Dubai-based ports giant DP World quits after Epstein links revealed - BBC News

You may recall the former head of global ports operator DP World, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem was named in the Epstein files. He appears to have exchanged hundreds of emails with Epstein for over a decade.

Graham Smith of Republic saw an opportunity to go after the Prince of Wales, as Earthshot received funding from DP World. Earthshot was reported to the UK Charity Commission by Graham after Sulayem appeared in the files and his formal complaint made the press.

He posted the response from the Charity Commission on Republic's X page, which I found via Instagram. Unsurprisingly, he is a bit salty about it.

https://preview.redd.it/bxm87j11rw2h1.png?width=721&format=png&auto=webp&s=400a6ac3e484c1aafea1a2a7eebd151f3027a97b

https://preview.redd.it/7tgqkgearw2h1.png?width=1290&format=png&auto=webp&s=a277fa4281893e6aabeacd1825cb402840c70bb5

Princess Kate’s Star Visit Comes as Meghan Markle Dips on TikTok - Newsweek (archived)

https://preview.redd.it/rme8cddsug2h1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=80736443f6539574d3d264212510ad182ac1c147

I know it is annoying those in media still compare Catherine with Meghan. I would agree with those who say it is lazy clickbait journalism.

But I thought it interesting enough. As we recently saw that Neil Sean say the palace are concerned about the Wales's ability to connect with Gen Z. Gen Z (ages 13-24) approximately make up 60% of TikTok users. Also, the largest age groups on the platform are those aged 25-34 and 18-24.

Royston argues the Princess of Wales public appearances (Italy) received stronger and more positive attention online than Meghan Markle’s recent media efforts, particularly on TikTok. The piece sees this as a part of a broader trend in which the Princess of Wales generates steadier public goodwill and engagement, whereas Sussex-related campaigns and exclusives no longer dominate conversation in the way they once did. Even crucially the negative interest is dipping.

Earlier period (2023): Meghan and Harry content was heavily discussed on TikTok, but much of it was negative. Even so, the posts were getting huge engagement numbers (likes, discussion, shares).

Now: Engagement has fallen not only for supportive content, but also for critical content.

https://preview.redd.it/0ohihmlj6h2h1.png?width=767&format=png&auto=webp&s=5c929a509d4e0fdd948f2eb959a58b57f1c58133

Royston notes, it coincided with a significant dip in Australian traffic on Meghan's As Ever online shop.

https://preview.redd.it/s1pox3i3m92h1.png?width=320&format=png&auto=webp&s=bfdbce120ef270efb6216a63745576af3b02c6d0

https://preview.redd.it/5acqjn1ul92h1.png?width=1320&format=png&auto=webp&s=0630b90074ecbc5c24b5f02b40ea44e945290891

I can’t think why Meghan wanted penguins, how about you? /sarc

About nine days ago  Charlotte Griffiths, wrote about Theo Rycroft, the deputy private secretary to the King. She claimed 'it is understood' his 'number one mission' and career ambition is to reunite William and Harry. How Rycroft is becoming a great hope for King Charles. A diplomatic genius, it was he who managed to get Charles and Trump on good terms during the US state visit. Adding palace insiders now believe Theo might be the key to mending the strained relationship between the King, Prince William, and Prince Harry.

https://preview.redd.it/54qwvlipe32h1.png?width=664&format=png&auto=webp&s=df139e8a1fd64b9e4d71d6bfca42cc08b9f54093

Well, she's is doubling down on this with this short video. Archived

(The Sussexes are very desperate it seems.) Imo she obviously received some kick-back before, with the previous article by people not believing this of a palace aide. One of the comments in the post even said Theo came out and denied it.

At 1:21 secs she covers by saying of course the palace aides say they are neutral and it is basically not their place. However, she still pushes with this is the "rumour" she has heard behind palace walls and acts as if the palace aides are pretending to us and the media.

https://reddit.com/link/1thmws1/video/fto0rn9ii32h1/player

https://preview.redd.it/wqwef63t8j1h1.png?width=803&format=png&auto=webp&s=354315bee0b4d15a4c4ee6694493fd1f65b4b27c

Is she packing for Switzerland, per chance? And, I think that logo is of course Italian designer Giorgio Armani. What are the chances?

https://preview.redd.it/1aqasphwt91h1.png?width=1794&format=png&auto=webp&s=6d26d4b37a5fa3337ae68dc4a2fc757a76daa235

A really good article from Judith Woods. In part:

>"The impression persists that he is a 41-year-old man-child still trying to carve out a post-working royal role for himself, which leads us to second-guess his true intent every time he espouses a new fervently held belief.

>So much so that even when we might agree with the Duke of Sussex’s sentiments, his whole global aristocrat-activist schtick leaves us feeling uncomfortable."

>"I’m not sure where he gets the idea that his earnest, usually aggrieved personal commentary is of inherently greater value than anyone else’s because he used to live in draughty castles. His lived experience is laid bare on every page of his misery memoir, Spare. Does he really need to recap his personal truth every time there’s a new geopolitical happening?

>Where the Princess of Wales humanely creates space for other people, the tone-deaf Duke of Sussex relates everything back to his own journey and his own growth.

>Where Catherine radiates empathy and makes others feel seen, Harry gives off entitlement and projects self-importance. It’s why she represents the best of Britain and our royals are better off without him."

The Independent article started okay but It ended terribly. The author lost me by that point.😞😫. Archive is in the link.

Opinion: Kate Middleton's new chapter in Italy is reviving memories of Princess Diana (archive) From Hello, by Emily Nash.

https://preview.redd.it/rx6n09gz6z0h1.png?width=1794&format=png&auto=webp&s=f7134bb909d82cddcbd0a8e41a4b7c349499420e

The headline should say using her 18 months in the RF to make money. I don't believe it to be honest. But still it would be funny if it were true.

What more can she say when supposedly she has been at her happiest and done with the prove it game?

EXCLUSIVE: Meghan Markle Rumored to Prep Explosive Netflix 'Cry Baby' Doc (Archived)

https://preview.redd.it/xdhow21g2j0h1.png?width=589&format=png&auto=webp&s=e13524c1dd91d41e3c58e2e098d6282907bc7626

Meghan Markle is said to be positioning herself for a deeply personal Netflix documentary chronicling what insiders told RadarOnline.com will lay out her her "seven years of woe."

One insider told us: "Meghan views this as a decisive shift in momentum – in her mind, she's moved back into a position of strength when it comes to her partnership with Netflix.

"After months of uncertainty, she now feels reassured that she still holds real value to them, and that gives her far more confidence about calling the shots going forward.

"There's an increasing sense among people close to the situation that she's gearing up to share her story in a far more unfiltered and emotionally driven way than anything she's done before for Netflix.

"Rather than carefully curated projects, this would be something much more raw and personal – potentially a documentary-style series that walks through the challenges, pressures and setbacks she's faced over the past several years, in her own words and on her own terms. It will essentially be another cry baby performance from Meghan, but she needs to make cash somehow!"

The insider added: "There's already talk that this could be framed as a deeply personal account of her time in the royal spotlight – the pressures, the fallout, the sense of isolation. It will draw the usual criticism she gets for 'moaning', but from Meghan's perspective it's about reclaiming her narrative and setting the record straight in her own words."

Another source said: "Meghan has a very clear understanding of what has resonated most with audiences so far – it's the moments where she's been candid about her own life and experiences that have really cut through.

"She knows that when she leans into that level of openness, it generates far more attention and engagement than the more polished, lifestyle-focused projects she's tried to develop.

[Italics mine: In other words her lies, word-salad and revisionist history, generates far more attention and social media clicks, than her one-pot pasta.]

"From Netflix's perspective, that kind of deeply personal storytelling is where the real value lies. They're looking for content that sparks conversation on a global scale, something with emotional depth and a sense of access that viewers feel they wouldn't get anywhere else. Compared to that, the lighter, more curated formats just don't carry the same impact or long-term appeal for them."

Meghan posted nothing on either her own IG account or As ever, for Mother's Day. No picture of some chocolate covered flower sprinkles, no breakfast tray arrangement from the little ones. No photo of H's gift of a beige coffee mug with "World's Best Mom" on it. Not even an Earth Mother comment from Meghan herself.

Nothing!

Very unusual for someone who documents everything. Of course, Catherine's trip to Italy is coming up this week, so I'm sure there will be a post incoming.

https://archive.ph/2026.05.10-031223/https://www.dailymail.com/news/royals/article-15804419/King-aide-mission-heal-William-Harry-rift.html?ns\_mchannel=rss&ns\_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter\_mailonline

By Charlotte Griffiths, so we know what this means when reading any story of hers.

She writes: "Former diplomat Theo Rycroft, who became deputy private secretary to the King in February, is understood to have made it his 'number one mission' and career ambition to reunite the pair, [Prince William and Harry] who have not spoken since Queen Elizabeth's funeral in 2022."

"Sources say Mr Rycroft, married to Flora Astor, half-sister of Samantha Cameron, believes the situation has become 'f****** ridiculous' and is keen to resolve it 'urgently' for the King's sake.". One source said: 'He thinks it's time to knock their heads together. The mood is, "He's not wrong".

"Friends of Mr Rycroft say he has quickly gained **influence within the King's inner circle,** not simply because of his **establishment connections** but because of his reputation as a calm and politically astute operator capable of navigating difficult personalities and delicate situations – skills he could put to great use in trying to reunite the warring brothers."

It's interesting upon re-reading it especially with how cynical I am of the press. Charlotte is at pains to say how impressive he is, while I reckon Harry really needs another ally inside the palace, especially after the disaster of Australia.

She mentions how palace sources were impressed both with his handling of the visit with Prince and Trump in Paris. And with the King and Queen's US trip last month, marvelling at his ability to help bridge diplomatic sensitivities between Mr Trump and the King.

"One insider said: 'Theo believes that Harry and William need to be forced to shake hands and allow Charles to repair his relationship with Harry.'. *(i.e. it's Prince William's fault)*

The source adds: 'I would be very surprised if Harry doesn't see Charles when he is in the UK.

'Theo would not be one of the many aides at the palace wishing to block a meeting.

**'But while he may be outnumbered, after the US visit he is the most respected man in the building right now.'**. 🤔.

If this is true and Rycroft has been leaking, it is inappropriate and unprofessional. He shouldn't be mouthing off saying that the King's Heir needs his head knocked together with Harry.

I posted yesterday a bit from Tom Sykes substack post linking what happened to Andrew recently with a balaclava-clad man, to Harry and his security issues.

I have now the full article from the Daily Beast: Why Prince Harry’s Worst Security Nightmare Is Coming True (Archived)

In the article, Tom’s basic argument is that Harry still faces an unusually high level of danger because of who he is and what he’s done publicly.

He argues Harry should receive official security because:

• Harry remains a globally recognisable royal target, even after leaving working royal duties. He mentions the 'stalker' at the Courts and Royal Lancaster Hotel.
• The usual nod to his 'military service' in Afghanistan and public comments about it increased threats from extremists.
• The tabloid attention, paparazzi pursuit, and online hostility create additional risks.
• Private bodyguards cannot fully replace government-backed protection because official security teams have access to intelligence, police coordination, and threat monitoring that private firms do not.
• Harry says the downgrade in his UK security makes it unsafe to bring his wife and children to Britain regularly.

Tom’s broader point is that the threats against Harry did not disappear when he stepped back from royal work, so removing state-level protection leaves him exposed in ways ordinary celebrity security cannot handle.

Of course the counter-arguments are:

• Harry chose to step away from being a working royal. Official, taxpayer-funded protection is tied to performing public duties on behalf of the Crown, not simply being born royal.
• Many high-profile people face threats. Politicians, celebrities, former officials, and wealthy public figures also receive threats but generally pay for private security themselves.
• He already has substantial private security resources and is not being left unprotected.
• Granting him permanent publicly funded security could create a difficult precedent. Other non-working royals or former officials might then argue they deserve similar treatment indefinitely.
• Security decisions in the UK are supposed to be based on risk assessments, not status or personal preference. The expert committee determined his protection should be reduced.
• Harry increased his own exposure through media projects, interviews, memoirs, and litigation that kept him constantly in the spotlight while criticising royal institutions and discussing sensitive subjects publicly.
• Harry lives primarily in United States, so UK taxpayers should not be expected to fund full-time protection for someone residing abroad.

A few quotes from the piece and as you scroll down further to the end, I found really imo irrelevant comments against the RF.

https://preview.redd.it/90a95909550h1.png?width=812&format=png&auto=webp&s=c3b15de72772dcf19c59516eff1a84beedd659bf

https://preview.redd.it/5wbk8u6c550h1.png?width=795&format=png&auto=webp&s=8b771f9bc0d22e6a328e9685fd88e349eb016c8d

The Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC) is a UK government body, not something directly controlled by the Royal Family. The Royal Family can provide input or communicate concerns, but they do not formally control the final decisions.

Security levels are supposed to be based on threat assessments, role, risk, and public duties. Not personal grudges that deny Harry because of feelings.

In Harry’s legal challenges, the UK government’s position has been that:

• RAVEC made the decisions independently,
• neither King Charles nor other royals had authority to simply “restore” Harry’s police protection,
• and the monarch cannot personally order taxpayer-funded security outside the established process.

https://preview.redd.it/5j816mdx550h1.png?width=770&format=png&auto=webp&s=31ff8b76c55c4fc4802763cea6a69b80c559e584

https://preview.redd.it/w0bf71e0650h1.png?width=763&format=png&auto=webp&s=cba2fa362d2720e886935c20d53d3e94f109694a

I thought back in January according to insiders, it was "nailed on"? “It’s now a formality. Sources at the Home Office have indicated that security is nailed on for Harry,” according to the Daily Mail.

https://preview.redd.it/vdi8ngul650h1.png?width=693&format=png&auto=webp&s=410f35a78c764dbacd9335fc1e876945e15d44f3

Then about Meghan and the children possibly not coming back, Tom says:

https://preview.redd.it/d3t8njyr650h1.png?width=758&format=png&auto=webp&s=c2e20171a1dc54ac7b0952aa3622373ff8e054cf

https://preview.redd.it/04dtvimv650h1.png?width=782&format=png&auto=webp&s=45819e36d04eb0e25c2113769442ec0a48da2cea

I think that is what the press would like to see, Harry turning up the same day of Trooping the Colour. As I said above, the RF can provide input, but they do not make the decision.

https://preview.redd.it/cbkd8xs4750h1.png?width=760&format=png&auto=webp&s=bcf0656314d6f04b7b9922d486c9935dfe3904f0

https://preview.redd.it/4ihu55k6750h1.png?width=772&format=png&auto=webp&s=f2916f3b561d5b2db8595607a733466df4c23592

Meghan Markle Aide Takes Aim at Old Media Ally Over Money Claims - Newsweek (Archived)

Meghan is not happy with Dan Wakeford. So Jack Royston at Newsweek has her response to Dan's "Truth" about their "Empire" post on his substack Celebrity Intelligence.

https://preview.redd.it/r5txlpxdgxzg1.png?width=755&format=png&auto=webp&s=2ab54ead669db5d6efffcfa819f45d9a3929098e

https://preview.redd.it/w0e5wtyrdxzg1.png?width=865&format=png&auto=webp&s=66d3b7649c82d5bd876b09318e08ff113522dec5

https://preview.redd.it/e6b8x24xdxzg1.png?width=781&format=png&auto=webp&s=18970ebe2f069c01600f23b28811e30dd36ab906

https://preview.redd.it/i1p058iydxzg1.png?width=801&format=png&auto=webp&s=64db83c907cb3c08e33b1fe6346c4ff5a79a2a5c

https://preview.redd.it/5w0ube30exzg1.png?width=796&format=png&auto=webp&s=017ae770e6e61b7db4bf3563fa2aed201384a98d

This is the People cover that Wakeford published on her behalf in Feb 2019.⬇️

https://preview.redd.it/40gmu7r7exzg1.jpg?width=576&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=076725b9fe8fcdfb8762792a148654075334e8c5

Then this is the Us Weekly cover, September 2024 ⬇️.

https://preview.redd.it/42ios8sdexzg1.jpg?width=557&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d8fa895d9809fa27d05037c7f6175e8c1d093dc5

This is the story from Wakeford when he moved over to that publication. This was in response to The Hollywood Reporter piece titled "Why Hollywood Keeps Quitting on Harry and Meghan" and again from Meghan's camp who needed a rebuttal.

Notice Dan clearly didn't spend too much time thinking about a title for each one.

And, it is quite funny to read Meghan's spokesperson (i.e. Meghan) here from Jack Royston, that they have an issue with 'unnamed sources' and that "heavy lifting" they are doing.

Because when you look back at the People issue where it mentions these five friends giving no names. Just identifiers as 'former co-star', and 'long-time friend'. Where it also says in the article, (...) "the women who requested anonymity to protect the private relationships they hold dear"_.

And, in the Us Weekly piece it says, "sources close to Meghan." Meghan doesn't have an issue then.

Remember in the press Meghan and Harry said they wanted the Irwin family to meet with them, when they were in Australia. It was in the tabloids that the Irwin's turned them down, because of loyalty to William. This was a summary box from New Idea at the time.

https://preview.redd.it/a9x3ddfdyqzg1.png?width=606&format=png&auto=webp&s=36feb53212024351fd002e9252a94fa43eaabd17

Plates may fly in Montecito as Robert has posted a charming video on his Instagram page saying:

https://reddit.com/link/1t6h7rm/video/xam4zlnsyqzg1/player

https://preview.redd.it/t0001nvnyqzg1.png?width=463&format=png&auto=webp&s=7f410fab5e6d833dcc6709158afb94db5ebb1bf6

These are the cute moments Harry and Meghan and their children miss out on. Especially as they are so desperate to be considered Royal. Because when they were working Royals, in Australia I recall they refused to name an Australian fire-fighting plane after Archie. But things like that and this with Robert Irwin are a way for the (younger) Royals to connect with people and organisations.