2022: "..if Archie were in school in the U.K., she’d never be able to do school pickup and drop-off without it being a royal photo call with a press pen of 40 people snapping pictures.
'Sorry, I have a problem with that. (..) That makes me a strong and good parent protecting my child,' Meghan says."
Now, in 2026 Archie will be going to school here. 🤦♀️
A new puff piece from Roya. "The way the wind is blowing, he’s going to want to be here [the UK] more and more…. He wants more of a foothold here, more trips back, less courtroom drama. And he always loves seeing his family.” 😏
Or in other words...
The US has been a flop for the Sussexs, and Harry is struggling to get sponsors for Invictus. Also he knows his royal prestige needs a top up to remain in any way of interest.
Is it:
A) Judge Nicklin
B) A Fortune Cookie
C) Jiminy Cricket from Pinocchio
D) Princess Charlotte
E) All of the above
“What we’ve seen in the last 24 hours is what accountability looks like". This is a reaction from Harry, to the news from a New Mexico court ruling against Meta. Meta has a $567 million fine against them, as New Mexico’s district attorney accused them of knowingly allowing its platforms to harm young users and enable child sexual exploitation.
Harry praised the multi-million penalty as an example of “accountability.”
>“The bar has moved, and every platform still choosing engagement over safety should take notice. Change cannot wait another day,” the Duke of Sussex said.
>The Duke of Sussex said the latest ruling marks a turning point in holding technology companies accountable for the impact their platforms have on young users in a statement shared with PEOPLE.
>“For years we’ve argued that big tech’s harm to children was a choice, not some inevitable side effect. This is not an accident. It is not a glitch,” Harry, 41, said.
>“What we’ve seen in the last 24 hours is what accountability looks like. This is what happens when the law finally catches up to decisions made in boardrooms, product meetings, and algorithm reviews — decisions that put social media engagement ahead of safety,” he continued.
From In Touch magazine. Harry is trying now to spoil Prince George's big day starting at Eton, and undermine the Waleses decision to send him there.
Seriously, Hazbeen, nobody wants to hear your never ending tales of woe. So shut up!
Hannah Waddingham On Ted Lasso's New Season, Fame & Friendship | marie claire
Hannah gives an interview to Marie Claire. In part about Anthony Head …
https://archive.ph/YZIRj - From GB news.
The interim payment must be paid by the 28th August.
They sound so fake. Like a Hallmark card. https://archive.ph/2026.07.29-124145/https://people.com/meghan-markle-shares-prince-harrys-advice-for-tough-times-12029118
Sir Clive Alderton, who has served as Principal Private Secretary to both the King and late Queen since 2015, is leaving in the summer 2027. Harry famously referred to Sir Clive as “The Wasp” in his memoir Spare. This following his involvement in discussions surrounding the Sussexes’ future role within the monarchy. Buckingham Palace will now begin the search for a new Principal Private Secretary, with candidates expected to come from both inside and outside the Royal Household.
From the DM:
Shall we speculate how the Sussexes may spin this news? How this is a step towards Charles and Harry's reconciliation. How it was Alderton's fault for not letting Harry to stay at BP?
Also, I already have seen speculation Charles will appoint Tobyn in the role, or perhaps another media person. As we already have Rhiannon Mills as part of the palace team.
>When Prince Harry launched eco-firm Travalyst in 2019 to make tourism more environmentally friendly, he and his wife Meghan were called hypocrites because of their frequent use of private jets.
>That year, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex reportedly made four such trips in the span of 11 days.
>King Charles’s younger son responded that ‘no one is perfect’ and ‘we can all do better’.
>But would Harry’s words wash with Travalyst’s newly appointed director Graham Miller?
>I can disclose that Miller has expressed contempt for frequent flyers and has even compared them to criminals who drive under influence.
>‘There was a time when mentioning on a Monday that you’d just flown back from Milan or New York made you sound sophisticated. Now it’s like boasting that you drank five pints and drove home,’ he said in 2020, when he was a lecturer at the University of Surrey.'
>In July 2019, Harry said: ‘Every choice, every footprint, every action makes a difference.’
>But in August that year, Harry was criticised for flying by private jet to stay with Sir Elton John in Nice.
>He defended himself, saying: ‘Occasionally there needs to be an opportunity based on a unique circumstance to ensure that my family are safe.’
>Three years later, the duke told the United Nations that climate change was ‘wreaking havoc on our planet’.
>But eyebrows were raised again a year later in 2023 when Harry and Meghan took a 40-minute flight from an airstrip near their California mansion to watch pop star Katy Perry perform in Las Vegas.
>And that year they flew 2,000 miles from New Jersey to the exclusive Caribbean island of Canouan in a Falcon 7X for a holiday, later flying in the same aircraft to Atlanta, Georgia.
I think with the amount of private jets Harry and Meghan take, their blood-alcohol level must be through the roof. Does Harry tell Miller, "Just one more flight, then I'll quit"?
Rob Shuter (I know, I know!) says Meghan's sources told him she was in disguise last week in the UK.
Think baseball cap, scarves (in the heatwave!) wigs and sunglasses. Just like when she was dating Harry, apparently.
https://substack.com/@robshuter/note/c-297842243?utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
Tell me you're bothered that no one cared you were here, without telling me you’re bothered no one cared you were here.
Catherine meanwhile, wasn't seen in public for a couple of months and everyone lost their damn minds. You had everyone tweeting using the hashtag "Where is Kate", and coming up with the most ridiculous theory's. Meanwhile Meghan hasn't been seen in public in well over two months, since Geneva and no one cares.
Harry & Meghan's Plan to REVERSE Megxit - Daily Mail's Boshoff Reveals All | The Royalist
Tom Sykes had Alison Boshoff on his podcast to discuss her latest article. Boshoff confirms her sources are all Sussex side, which isn't a surprise.
Also, how even seven years later, it's still very much the Sussexes trying to force through their desired half-in/half-out. Also, not a surprise.
Both Alison and Tom have been told that the Sussexes plan on showcasing the children in the UK using Invictus events next summer. Alison has been told they'd be there for ten days. Tom was told an entire month. 😲
They have been told that the children will be brought over to the UK in September and then around Easter next year to prepare for the showcasing at Invictus events next summer. Tom made a joke about school doesn't clearly matter in the same way security now doesn't matter. These are obstacles to the Sussexes objectives, no matter how it affects the children's routine.
Tom says there is a house in Portugal which was bought off plan, which in his opinion looks like a staging post for the return to the UK.
Alison also reveals something that didn't make it into her article: Harry "deplores" the notorious security briefing given to ITN during the UK visit (re. the document saying he was under terrorist threat) which was used to try and force some movement on security. So much so he is planning changes to his communications team.
Tom shared the Sussex comms team gives him contradictory information from one day to the next. One day, "Harry is so happy in California", the next, "he wants to spend more time in the UK," as if they hadn't just briefed Tom. Tom says the comms team are only briefing that frequently, with changing information because Harry and Meghan tell them to. So blaming the comms team is unfair.
Following on from the post on Alison Boshoff's article where I've quoted the last sentence above. I see that Roya and Kate Mansey are hoping to use the Wales children against Prince William in relation to meeting with the Sussexs. They know Prince William will be an immovable object but it won't stop them using his family to benefit the Sussexs.
Unfortunately I had hoped the teen/adult Wales children would be enough for the press to get their fill of. But it looks like the Sussexs will still be a topic even then and if they meet. The press won't let it go.
😏 I hope.they.keep getting his title wrong just as the little "Prince of England" 🙄 does with his.
From The Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2026/07/10/prince-harry-this-morning-alison-hammond-invictus/?WT.mc\_id=tmgoff\_tw\_post\_this-morning-alison-hammond-invictus/
"The Duke of Sussex said Britain needs to develop more “national resilience” as he promoted the Invictus Games in Birmingham.
Attending an event to mark the one-year countdown to next year’s Games – the first to be hosted in the UK since the inaugural 2014 event – he told ITV’s This Morning that perseverance needed to “grow”.
Speaking about the disabled participants in the competition, Prince Harry said: “I think that when you’re really up against it, how you decide to use that trauma, that experience or that loss, how you use that to really grow that resilience in yourself – I think that’s where people can connect to it.
“And now, more than ever, we need to grow the national resilience here in the UK, but also around the world.”
The headline made me laugh. He's preaching about resilience when he is the most whiny man-child there is. The same person who went on national television and told Oprah aged 36 that, "Pa cut me off financially."
🤡
When you've just remembered where you left your last remaining hairs. 😆
A kind sinner posted the People story saying Meghan is NOT coming. Yet Ward for the Telegraph says she will, but will not be seen in public.
The desperation here with Sussex PR is manic, now even the two media they give stories to, are at odds.
The fact that Harry was too late accepting the BP invitation, and basically showing zero courtesy is lost on the horticulturalist. This is the spin from the Sussex camp - the problem is the court case says BP.
Then if that was true, why was BP offered in the first place when they knew he has an ongoing case that is waiting for the Judge's verdict?
It says:
Prince Harry warns of Invictus Games attack
Terrorists could create a "mass casualty event" if Prince Harry is targeted at the Invictus Games, the Duke's private security company has warned the Government. A 40-page risk assessment found that Prince Harry faced an "elevated risk" in the UK, where five of the six known home-grown terror plots against him originated. At least four individuals responsible for those threats are thought to be out of prison, their whereabouts unknown.
Page 7
He REALLY hates being told no!
The Princess of Wales has donated money to 11 year old, Ted Haslam's JustGiving page. Funds raised go to Molly Olly's Wishes.
This opinion piece, and it's a douzy, is from The I paper.
**Paying for Harry’s security is Charles’s fatherly duty by Stefano Hatfield.**
>“With Prince Harry due to arrive in Britain next month, the row over his security entitlements has resurfaced. It is believed that he is reconsidering bringing his wife Meghan and two children after his request for police protection was rejected.
>Supporters argue he remains uniquely vulnerable. Critics point out that he chose to stop being a working royal and cannot expect the same privileges. However, this time, there is a significant new piece of detail that changes the equation – and answers the question of who should pay for it.
>Buckingham Palace has, for the first time, disclosed the King’s personal tax payments: more than £30m since he succeeded his mother. The King’s financial position has never been clearer. So why is he not paying privately to protect his son, his daughter-in-law and grandchildren?
>This is no longer really an argument about whether taxpayers should foot the bill. **Nor is it about whether Harry has enough money and should fund it himself. Thanks to Netflix, Spotify, Penguin Random House, inheritance and other ventures, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (inset) are themselves thought to be worth many tens of millions of pounds. The point is that neither of those facts addresses the central issue.**.
(Asterisk mine)
>Harry’s security risk exists because he was born into the Royal Family; it is not dependent on whether he undertakes engagements on its behalf. He stopped being a working royal, but he did not stop being the King’s son. Anyone intent on harming a member of the Royal Family is unlikely to concern themselves with the distinction between “working” and “non-working” royal before choosing a target.
>That’s why this increasingly feels much less like a constitutional issue and more like a family one. Palace officials may argue that funding Harry’s security privately would blur constitutional boundaries or create awkward precedents – both valid concerns. But, surely, they are ultimately outweighed by something simpler. A father who possesses extraordinary private wealth can materially reduce the risk faced by his son. Most fathers would not hesitate.
>Charles has worked hard to project an image of a more compassionate institution than previous generations. This decision sits uneasily with that ambition.
>You do not have to admire every decision Harry has made to reach that conclusion. The reality is that his security profile is unique. Nor does it absolve a father of responsibility because his son no longer works in the family business.
>The King’s newly disclosed finances have unexpectedly stripped away the argument about affordability. What’s left is a question of will. And that is a much harder one for Buckingham Palace to answer.”. (How have these disclosures done that? I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that the King is wealthy.)
I can't wait for the future opinion pieces about King William being wealthy and how he should support his brother financially, because you know... Diana would want it.
