https://archive.is/20260627000715/https://www.dailymail.com/news/royals/article-15933083/Harry-Meghans-Megxit-deal-ALISON-BOSHOFF-Sussexes-agreed-return-UK.html
I'm not understanding a whole lot of things here.
They want to visit ... blah blah blah ... won't be leaked ... blah blah blah ... he's changed, he's now grown up? Wait, what? Where's he been all these years? and why do we need to be told he's changed without a how? This is according to some Anonymous Source (AS from now on -technically there looks like more than one)? But Haz had years of practice of not behaving like an adult when most people consider someone an adult. The people I know who can make that kind of level of reversal tend to be people who have joined AA and NA. Known track levels of support from people who have walked that same path. What support does he now have that he did not before?
Reviewing things historically, they left after being told they could not have half in/half out by the Queen. Well a sign of maturity is about being able to handle disappointments and moving on without appearing to be acting out. (my kids fill in my mantra: we don't always get what we want so figure out how to work towards it)
Coming back and doing the fun parts of being being the British Royal Family but going back to the US for commercialization opportunities - how is that different than half in, half out? That's still leaving all the hard work of representing the Firm on those who live there year round. (according to my kids, this is eating dessert as your meal instead of as you get dessert as a reward after you finished your veggies).
(and ... did you notice? the claim is that neither adult will do anything commercial on their trips. But what about the kids? Aren't we seeing them begin to step up, show as helping/ working up to increasing support of the various ventures - especially the food/cook stuff? A curated (meaning highly edited from certain angles) is not the same as the Wales kids who are learning how to work/live the lives of service to the Crown.)
AS also talks about how somewhere, some people in the UK do not have an issue with being "semi-royal". Really? I really don't remember much about the various public polls but I thought I remember it as they both were not particularly liked by the public. As in really low numbers. So, let's think this through logically, how does low numbers transfer into a majority of we have no problem with him doing X, Y Z in our country so the country is cool with this?
And, there isn't anything in there really from AS about what she is/plans to do to try to change opinion of her. The public or ... the family. That hazy details is exactly one of the problems of a lot of their ventures.
The article moves into this is really about reversing (oh, excuse me) getting past Sandringham's result and side steps it into hopeful about a different answer now that the main No Sayer is not longer around by dancing around it with a label of toxic.
AS ends with this lovely image of how the brothers can still love, care for each other and that there is some hope somewhere of them all playing happy family but that "... the wives may have to grit their teeth." Really? That comes off as a tad smug/patting Catherine's head while telling her that her feelings towards it all are inconsequential to the thought that the two brothers might become close again. (actually both wives kind of)
If we back up closer to the start, notice that because if we get this, and then that and then that, we have a really wonderful start to rethaw and restore all to before the flouncing off to Canada life. What is this? some kind of magic spell to undo years of various accusations, curious actions and so on.
How is that possible? I mean, let's be realistic after all that has come out of the Duo. That kind of thinking reminds me of the only episode of Mork and Mindy episode I ever watched which had Mork saying suddenly mean things to Mindy because he thought that's how you treat people. A simple I'm sorry is enough and can just undo everything ugly which just preceded it.
Besides, that whole elaborate plan to thaw or repair the relationships between people needs to have the total cooperation from the other side.
Swivel to look at any response from the Palace or the King. Crickets. They don't confirm or deny a single statement. Never explain. That is power. That is the power of gray rocking. So what will happen, will happen. And, then we and the rest of the world will know.
Comments
This blog may or may not be the blog you are looking for. If not, we wish you well and hope you find what you are looking for.
Guidelines for this blog is as follows:
-Keep discussions on the Sussexes. Politics must be strictly related to their involvement. Off topic subjects are permissible but should be limited and are subject to the discretion of Mods.
-Be civil and courteous in discussions.
-Posters who are disruptive will not have their posts posted.
-Anonymous or unknown posts are not allowed.
-We know that some of this is not family friendly. It can be a fine line sometimes on the topics such as sex and sexuality. Try to lean towards family friendly (thanks).
-Profanity has not traditionally been a problem, so let's keep it that way.
-We never encourage vindictive or other harmful actions.
-Please try to keep the conspiracy theories down.
-Do not discuss the blog, blog history, or other posters.
-No personal attacks both direct and indirect.
-Please de-escalate "fights" by dropping the subject. (please drop us a message that someone is treading on your last nerve so we can be aware that this is a problem).
-Please remember that the focus of the blog is on others, not any individuals posting here. So if your name is not attached to something posted, please begin with the idea that what is written is not likely to be directed at you if it upsets you.
-Posts which may be deemed too many flat statements/too provocative or mean spirited may not posted on the blog.
-Remember that not every one who reads the posts is happy about what is posted here. Please do not give out personal information. Be safe.
-Your privacy matters.
-Remember that certain sites require prior approval for reuse such as Harry Markle. Please respect their request on how to handle it. Links to share is a great alternative.
Mods do their best to ensure the guidelines are met. However, lapses happen because moderating this blog is a 24/7 responsibility and we all have jobs and families (and laundry) to care for. If you see overlooked issues, please feel free to message us so we can address them.
Thank you again for all your patience and support.
Moderation is still on.
Re your comment in the last post
'It this hasn't already been confirmed, this must be firm evidence that Ravec said `No'. Will there be another law suit?'
It now seems a certainty that Raved won't allow police protection: 'However, the family trip now appears uncertain after the government declined his request for police protection outside royal residences.' (Guardian). Harry has already lost two court cases re his police protection, he'd be foolish to try again. You know the definition of madness.
The decision is taken but the Home office, as far as I know so Charles can't help.
He's known for ages that he can't buy police protection and that it's only granted when the police themselves deem there to be a risk.
Nasty, lowdown, lyin' snake -belly schemers that they are.
Serious respect to her.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydwgy7125o
Royal household apparently saying that this is the first they'd heard of H & family's intended visit.
I know the Harkles are going to the UK for Invictus but this has nothing to do with * - she should remain in the shadows, which I know is not possible for her - and then, or before, they could visit Charles without announcing it to the public weeks in advance.
I must say I don't understand how the duo free to flog jam/spread and dried flowers when in the US and 'treated as cherished [?] members of the RF when in the UK is any different from from the current situation. Actually, Harry doesn't flog anything, it's Meg, and she should do it using her maiden name, not her royal title or anything royal adjacent . This would be a lot less objectionable.
I don't personally agree some that people in the UK don't have an issue with the duo being "semi-royal". Judging by the comments in the DM, they do have an issue with it and are not keen to see Harry, even less *.
The Grauniad inevitably sees it as the `rug being pulled from beneath their feet. Chris Shipp involved,.
We are again in the "they won't come" situation and we start the waiting time for "they will come" situation.
Has there ever been more waste of space needless oxygen consumption guy than Harry?
This sums it up accurately 'As one familiar with the situation says: 'For the sake of family harmony the Palace would have been perfectly happy with a peaceful and low-key visit. Yet, once again, they have turned it into a soap opera. It's tiresome.'' Not just the Palace, but the entire population of the UK.
Or is the REAL problem the fact that maybe NO ONE would be interested in those children who are in truth H's wife's last cards in this play which is her business?
It is not the fault of these tots but Harry and his wife play constantly these sick games with the backs of their uncombed heads that they have become extremely boring non content in the sussex story.
In addition, on arrival at Heathrow, H or he and the family, will be picked up on the tarmac and taken straight to BP or Sandringham or whatever other royal residence - no public transport for them - so no one will see them leave, and the royal residences will have security. It's a private visit, not a state one. And they managed quite well in Nigeria and Colombia.
We all know that at that point the tongue of mrs Harry was very brown every time she met a member of The Queen's family for she was selling herself hysterically to be accepted as Harry's wife!!
A liar without ANY moral courage is what she is.
On the other hand, they could fly under the radar, as it were, and we would be none the wiser. Remember H flying to Toronto back and forth to see his beloved, and we in the UK knew nothing about itat the time?
I don't think anyone is particularly interested in the children per se. We are more interested in whether they were born of the body.
Bear in mind that the King doubtless knows who the children really are - and who they aren't. Outsiders such as we are not privy to that information and our best guesses range across the spectrum from fully legitimate to non-existent.
Any assertion in the Press about the interior thoughts and feelings of any of the Royals should be regarded as unsafe, possible even `fake news'.
It describes in detail the extreme measures that have to be taken to keep Salman Rushdie safe. `The Satanic Verses', his novel which triggered it all, was published in 1988, almost 4 decades ago and, such was/is the wrath of the ayatollahs, he will never be safe ever again. Does Harry really think he qualifies for such care? (Don't answer that - he probably does!)
See this article too:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/salman-rushdie-on-2022-attack-that-nearly-took-his-life-and-writing-new-book-knife-60-minutes-transcript/
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2026/06/your-turn_0841244282.html#disqus_thread
I didn't mean to sound as if I'm dismissing the courage of others - the post is about the extreme measures that have to be taken when a person is the object of a fatwa - an edict that can be lifelong and when large numbers of individuals, motivated by ideology, can be in search of their quarry and the hunt can be world wide. H, as ever, doesn't know what he's talking about. As far as I'm aware, there's no fatwa on him and he certainly wouldn't wish for a life like Rushdie's.
For crying out loud, she's wearing crampons, presumably to persuade us that she has been, or is about to go over, the ice in the background. Got her fingers crossed too. No sign of an ice axe nor safety rope, let alone a qualified guide.
It's just a pose, like her `riding' was merely sitting on a horse.
IDK but it is possible (a theory) that if someone allegedly did not pay a lot of attention in their history class of how the role of the monarchy changed through history, adding in not caring a lot about their education and future role within the monarchy might be, one might wind up with the past glories of King Henry VIII with his absolute power as what King Charles can and cannot do in any disagreeable situation. Knowing also that UK history is not taught in the US, at best, one might have learned of how King Henry VIII handled problems but not much else (like Runnymede) would mean that anyone coming over would not necessarily have access to this person as the best source of how things work around the palace.
And when some people want something, they want it and aren't particularly interested in why that won't work out for them. They just want it and that ought to be enough to justify them to have. After all, the past years (multiple years) have been a long series of things not going as planned. Maybe sometimes people repeat trying something in hopes that it is a different answer (the one they want) this time?
As a side note, if there is any thing about the theory above, what I find kind of amusing is the idea that at one level there is the idea that the king ought to be able to fix this problem (security, less than favorable press) and then at a different one, how the family is fearful of how powerful (outshining and all that) the duo really are.
I did once read that the Eton beak (yes, that's what they're called!) who taught history had said in, absolute disbelief , to H ,
`How can you not be interested in history? It's all about your family...' (or wtte).
Once, the monarch's wishes were everybody else's command but H failed to take in that that ceased 300 years ago or there abouts..
She was never a beauty and now is the time to start live the life of a mature woman who has left her youth behind years ago and understands that fact and behaves accordingly!!
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1408043-prince-harrys-uk-visit-plans-leaves-buckingham-palace-weary-and-wary
'The Duchess of Sussex and her young children will not travel to London on Monday with Prince Harry after a demand for extra security was turned down.
The decision by the Sussexes is the latest twist after ten days of fraught discussions which are said to have reduced Harry 'to tears'.
Harry will fly to London alone on Monday. It is not known if he has accepted his father's offer to stay at a Royal residence.'
... 'But sources close to the couple have not ruled out Meghan and the children coming to the UK later in the week.' '
This is exhausting! I feel for Charles and the rest of the family. At least if * is not going to London, they can breathe a sigh of relief. As for H being 'reduced to tears', how old is he? 2? What an unedifying saga!
https://www.dailymail.com/news/royals/article-15952783/Prince-Harry-NOT-Meghan-children-London-King-Charles.html
That the deed was against young children is a reason I think the King aught to talk with his son because Harry's behaviour is indecent. He does not seem to understand what he is thinking. It not just him or his family who are at the risk if something happens! It is high time the King says: NOW, HARRY, YOU JUST SHUT UP!!! I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!!!
There is no reason for an adult man to go around year after year and cadge the things he voluntarily and happily gave up six years ago. His behaviour makes the Monarchy seem like a ridiculous circus without any dignity. And he is also risking the Wales children with his own with his sick ideas.
I completely agree. I believe there may have been UK legislation during the Second World War to prevent such loose and dangerous pronouncements by idiots. I wonder if it's still on the statute books?
Most of the engagements have been long planned and will see almost all of the senior working royals out on public duty.
In addition, the King will undertake several private audiences and meetings which are not highlighted in the diary in advance.'
Maybe Harry will get the message?
He, of all people, should know how things works at the Palace. Well, there's always the Ritz, about 5 minutes' walk away. Or he could pitch a tent in Green Park, even closer.
The Sun's headline: `PALACE SHOCK Harry will NOT stay at Buckingham Palace on his trip to UK after failing to accept offer in time'
I don't think the `Palace' is shocked - but I bet H is!
. . . ' there was confusion at the Palace on Monday when Harry's team briefed preferred media outlets, including the BBC, that he would be staying at Buckingham Palace this week, citing direct discussions with the King.
Within minutes - and only hours before Harry was due to land in Britain - those claims were publicly challenged.
Harry's spokesman subsequently issued an extraordinary statement expressing 'disappointment' and accusing Buckingham Palace of withdrawing the offer 'at the last moment'.' . . He never stops, he can never let go. He is so full of resentment, egged on by wifey very likely. Nothing is ever his/their fault. Harry seems hell bent on destruction and revenge, it seems to me. This is not the last we've heard of it.
Word on the street is that Harry was planning to make a televised statement about the court case tomorrow afternoon...from Buckingham Palace, which is ultimately why the invitation was scrapped.
Everything was in order and we were expecting them when we got a telephone call that informed us that their 14 year old "princess" was tired and they were going to came the NEXT day and enjoy their meal with us then. At that moment I said to my husband that he can call them back and tell them that we were very sorry but we were not going to be there to wish them welcome. My husband asked me that can we do that and I said that I can and that I will not sit as a hostess to such vulgar freeloaders. My husband was very happy and after telephone contact took his golf gear and enjoyed enormously his summer day playing till the evening.
When I remember my anger on that day I am very, very happy that the King said to Harry that he is not welcome. Because Harry is just like those freeloaders were with manners like swine.
H 'was pictured smiling alongside old friend Mr Harriman, chairman of the Southbank Centre, who wore an Anti-Apartheid Club T-shirt to the premiere of a documentary about his life.' 'Smiling'. So he's feeling better now after his tantrum.
Because people outside the UK are limited in what they can view from British media, I hadn't followed the case and the DM itself, since it was involved, didn't report much about it.
Hairy being dragged into such shady situations by shady people like Elton John and Baronness Lawrence, is going to continue until his dying breath.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/prince-harry-loses-london-privacy-41318324.html
I noted a few interesting paragraphs in the article.
'Bristling with anger, he told the judge his wife's life had been made 'an absolute misery', even though the Duchess of Sussex had nothing to do with the case.' [when he flew in to give evidence]
'Yet far from being a victim of phone hacking, evidence emerged that Prince Harry had spoken to journalists himself and even partied at a country house one weekend with a Mail on Sunday reporter who called him 'Mr Mischief'.
Harry called her 'sugar' and wrote to her: 'Miss our movie snuggles!!'
A period of dignified silence might be in order.
It indeed a “vindication” of the “Daily Mail’s” … something… but I’m not sure we can call it journalism. It is also an emboldening of their “journalism”, if that’s what we have to call it, because they will take from this a blessing to continue their f-ckery against their usual targets, the biggest of which are the Sussexes. And whoever else they decide is their enemy – more and more that means women and progressive people of colour. And, in my opinion, social progress, period. So, if journalism, real journalism, is meant to be a pillar of democracy, I’m not sure we can call the Daily Mail’s victory today a step forward.
For Harry and Meghan, this outcome ensures that the way they are covered in the Daily Mail and most of the other British tabloids, really, will continue, with likely much more ferocity, as if it weren’t already bad enough. But for the rest of the British royal family, it’s also a loss, because so many members of the institution, even at the highest levels, are deep in bed with these people, pretty much beholden to them. And this only reinforces that contract, in a way that isn’t actually beneficial to them, although they’re too stubborn and too scared to see it that way. Because the truth is, the monarchy doesn’t hold the power in this relationship with the tabloid media. The “great” British monarchy, an enterprise that has long considered itself superior and above reproach, is actually the weaker partner in this toxic marriage that they can’t cut themselves out of. Imagine that – the sovereign being submissive to a tabloid, that is the reality. And this is what Harry was trying to break them out of, even when he was an official working senior member of the Firm. For all that he’s been accused of – undermining the royal family, causing fractures and dissent – what his relatives and their advisors could not see is that they were already imprisoned by this dirty blood pact, and the way it’s looking now, they’ll never, ever be free.
The alliterate one might have to start doing OnlyFans to pay off all these legal bills she strong armed her husband into incurring.
https://youtube.com/shorts/pUFXOc_1oWI?is=EhSE8Jul_R70Qjni
I imagine they're all high-fiving each other , or quietly murmuring `Deo Gratias '', according to temperament. . Let's hope she sticks to it and that we don't get caught up in a `Has she or hasn't she?' situation
Diana took the kids to all kinds of places (fun like amusement parks but also more serious). The two kids were able to be real kids in those environments. Now, these kids don't get that total abandonment (fun or this is a value lesson) experience. If it happens, it is more about taking photos from the right angles, standing just so and maybe saying something which pleases the director and not talking to anyone who is not approved.
I hope Harry got the message.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/meghan-bring-archie-lilibet-britain-182344645.html
The original piece is from the Telegraph which `understands' they re coming
I asked CoPilot if there was any reliable evidence that CRII had actually mat the Invisikids - it claimed the both the PA and one other reliable source (Reuters?) had reported it as having happened at the Jubilee and had been photographed. The only photo I've been able to find tho' is one with H and a baby on the right side and the King to the left in a very unconvincing pose, hands behind his back, like a cardboard cutout photoshopped in. I'm still not convinced. If there really was a baby here, it's as if the King himself is reluctant to commit himself to welcoming the child as a member of the family.
https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2026/07/www-instagram-com-p-b41zrstlfey-1089585131_7f3a8c.jpg?resize=1405,1536&quality=90&strip=all
Plucked and Cucked
No room at the Inn
For prat and miss sin
the doors to the kingdom
are locked
No source for the gander
And no-one to pander
the goose who’s been
royally mocked…
S inked…
Losing face
over his latest case
A monumental litigious fail
No means No dough
can’t pay you know
Kudos to the dogged Daily Mail…
Susspex
The King’s played a blinder
a markled reminder
To those who question his rule
His hands are tied
regarding haz and his bride
The Crown comes before the
Royal fool…
Haz & Alison Hammond
Jeeze!!! No words!!
My toes are curling up at this exchange. Is H in line to be her toy boy?
God Save the King
Wearing a big red nose on his face could help Harry for even the people who do not know him would be forewarned: An Idiot Clown Is Coming!
Today it' has been revealed that she was murdered.
Harry aka the Duke of Sussex is exactly where his great-great uncle was. He has just lost his looks so much more quickly.
`No photos permitted', hence no evidence. It was said that BP confirmed it.
Did it happen?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/2227884/meghan-markle-archie-lilibet-king-charles-meeting
Repeating this as it looks as if my last post was swallowed before I pressed `Publish'. What happened to her swearing she'd finished with the RF?
Nobody reliable has published this yet so presumably it's straight from the horse's mouth. Has it really happened?
All the toadies are mentioned. The Reuters photo is legit - but from earlier this week.
King Charles and Queen Camilla host Prince Harry, Meghan and their two children Archie and Lilibet at Gloucestershire home
'The King was reunited with grandchildren Archie and Lilibet today.
. . . The get-together was organised amid a shroud of secrecy and a blaze of briefing to the media.'
I need my smelling salts. Harry's security was up to scratch, I take it.
A thoughtful post on SMM - it seems the Harkles got nothing of what they wanted.
Blind item #12
The ginger haired cuck has a film crew with him this week. That is probably not the wisest move if you want dear old dad to give you $50M for your legal fees.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2026/07/blind-item-12_02057303171.html#disqus_thread