Some people suggested they will get around this by bringing in good talent which is a fair comment and good idea. However ..., The Twits won’t be able to produce decent content, they’re not talented. All they’ve got is simpering ‘poor us, the Palace is so mean’ bollocks and they gave that to Orca.
Made to Give up teaLucky Charles. He’s got there strong women behind him: Mummy, Camilla & Anne.
I reckon when it came to sibling sparing, Anne got him in a half Nelson to the ground many a time.
Had C not made an honest woman of Camilla, they’d be a case (say i) to appoint Anne as Sister Consort alongside Charles.
Whaaaaaat!
No tea?
But he’s British.
That’s tantamount to cultural white(!)washing.
Poor Boy, he must be so parched.
Wish they would make the Harkles invisibleWhat does it mean? Nothing. It's word-swill. It's garbage. It's basically the Harkles' version of Nathan Barley.
Have they said what the job title is for this senior advisory role?Catherine St Laurent hasn't left Archewell, she's just been headed to a senior advisory role apparently but this kind churn is unusual
I'm going to save that for the next time I'm 'debating' with idiots on TwitterJust a bit of contradictory nonsense ...
Wonder how long she worked with Melinda Gates, was it more than a year?A good looking woman like that is going to be gone in 3...2...1....
Smeggy won't want Hazno eyeing her up!
I really enjoyed thatI haven’t seen this guy in ages but I am HERE for the psychic reading....
And the comments
Really...so you couldn't say 'to the tune of Shotgun, Return to Sender, I want it all'? etc etccopyright may be an issue...
Thank you very much for this advice Stargazerlily, I really appreciate it. I agree that petitioning the PM might gain some equilibrium and I think Harry has demonstrated through his behaviour he is thoroughly unsuitable as a ‘spare’. They still need to be securely muzzled in some way though don’t they.I'm a lawyer, but not a constitutional lawyer. Until the lunacy of the Warby decision, I would have confidently advised that the law is not an ass and that common sense and fairness will usually get you there. On top of Meghan and Harry's lies, the summary judgement decision has therefore been particularly hard for me to deal with. But, anyhow - as far as treason goes, there are views that the law is outdated and that newer legislation (eg on terrorism) is more fit for purpose. However, in my view treason remains the correct way to describe the disloyalty to country shown by Harry. I have therefore written to Boris Johnson, to suggest that the correct response should be to remove Harry and his offspring from the succession. You might like to do the same.
Previous major gigs seem to have been 5 and 7 years.How long was
Wonder how long she worked with Melinda Gates, was it more than a year?
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I'm a lawyer, but not a constitutional lawyer. Until the lunacy of the Warby decision, I would have confidently advised that the law is not an ass and that common sense and fairness will usually get you there. On top of Meghan and Harry's lies, the summary judgement decision has therefore been particularly hard for me to deal with. But, anyhow - as far as treason goes, there are views that the law is outdated and that newer legislation (eg on terrorism) is more fit for purpose. However, in my view treason remains the correct way to describe the disloyalty to country shown by Harry. I have therefore written to Boris Johnson, to suggest that the correct response should be to remove Harry and his offspring from the succession. You might like to do the same.
Outstanding. I'm on it. Thankyou for sharingI'm a lawyer, but not a constitutional lawyer. Until the lunacy of the Warby decision, I would have confidently advised that the law is not an ass and that common sense and fairness will usually get you there. On top of Meghan and Harry's lies, the summary judgement decision has therefore been particularly hard for me to deal with. But, anyhow - as far as treason goes, there are views that the law is outdated and that newer legislation (eg on terrorism) is more fit for purpose. However, in my view treason remains the correct way to describe the disloyalty to country shown by Harry. I have therefore written to Boris Johnson, to suggest that the correct response should be to remove Harry and his offspring from the succession. You might like to do the same.
Absolutely amazing! Thank you so much!Something like this perhaps (I found it more effective to send letter, because email contact was bogged down and email was just returned after 3 days):
Boris Johnson
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Johnson
The monarchy exists only with the consent of the people and is accountable to the people through Parliament.
When do you plan to hold the Duke and Duchess of Sussex accountable for their treasonous disloyalty, as demanded by the overwhelming majority of the British people?
I respectfully request that you initiate action to remove Harry and his offspring from the succession. The justification for this is as follows:
Tempting as it may be to bury your head in the sand and keep passing the buck back to Her Majesty the Queen, this is no longer a purely private family matter. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have traduced not only their own family but also our constitution, the fabric of British socitety and the people of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. They have deliberately exposed us to vilification from around the world and incited division where previously there has been cooperation and commitment to improvement for the common good, of which we should be proud. They have justified this action with a catalogue of lies, cruelly brought before the public in the US and worldwide for maximum humiliation and personal financial gain. It is simply not acceptable that they should be permitted to do this from a position of British royal status.
Meghan and Harry have chosen for themselves a path which is incompatible with their retention of royal status. Royal status should be reserved for those individuals who assist the Monarch in fulfilling the Monarch’s role. That role is to sustain our hereditary constitutional monarchy, uphold our values (including integrity, free speech, fairness and natural justice) and act as the glue which binds us together within the UK and with the people of the Commonwealth, presenting our best face to the world and facilitating shared problem solving and mutual support. It is a role which necessarily comes with obligations and constraints – so, for example, it is by its nature a role which is in the public eye, which cannot be done in secrecy or under standard terms of employment, because it takes precedence over other interests. It cannot be combined with political activism, accepting freebies or making commercial deals for personal financial gain where conflicts of interest cannot be avoided. In return for this undoubtedly onerous commitment to public service, we bestow on royal persons significant wealth, privilege and opportunity.
Any and all persons with royal status should believe in the role, undertake the obligations with enthusiasm and be prepared to observe the inherent constraints. Harry and Meghan clearly do not – they have told us as much and that is their choice. The Queen, with the assistance of Parliament as necessary, should therefore remove all of their royal status – by which I mean titles, place in the succession (both Harry and his offspring), and any continuing funding from the Crown Estates or British taxpayer.
Yours sincerely etc
his reading from before the wedding in 2018....I really enjoyed that
'Former Chief of Staff Catherine St-Laurent has transitioned to a senior advisory role' according to their press statement. So she's left her old post of Executive Director, Archewell Foundation and has been replaced by James Holt.Catherine St Laurent hasn't left Archewell, she's just been headed to a senior advisory role apparently but this kind churn is unusual
Eight years... So another example of a competent professional with a great track record, who refuses to stick around the chaotic Harkles.How long was
Wonder how long she worked with Melinda Gates, was it more than a year?
Mine too ... he's also now into Lady C. He spotted the lies straight away, and said her body language was giving her away. He's an ex cop who takes no bull shitMy husband has no interest in either of them. Doubt he could pick Megan out in a line up but reluctantly watched the interview with me. He had her sussed within two minutes flat and this was before I even said anything at all. Most people can see right through her.
Eight years? Wow, so Smegs peed her off in under a year. Seems as if working for the Harkles is a poisoned chalice.'Former Chief of Staff Catherine St-Laurent has transitioned to a senior advisory role' according to their press statement. So she's left her old post of Executive Director, Archewell Foundation and has been replaced by James Holt.
If she's resigned, but remains on the payroll for the time being while working her notice (or while the lawyers thrash out a settlement) being shifted to 'a senior advisory role' is a pretty standard corporate cover for gardening leave.
Eight years... So another example of a competent professional with a great track record, who refuses to stick around the chaotic Harkles.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?