Eh I don't know. I just don't exactly think that is the kind of thing, those words, Charles would say to his ex brother in law at any time.
Think of the timing of that.
He had been getting along with her. Her brother, not so much.
The calls about what was happening with the kids previously - I think it was that someone was insisting they bring the kids to the Palace to display them or make them see the flower displays and Philip said they would not (the kids were dealing with their feelings - I seem to remember that they were not certain exactly where William was as he was up in the hills somewhere). The family was circling the wagons about protecting the kids from what they saw/felt could create long term problems. I suspect they had numerous discussions just in that time period of how to help care for the kids in addition to all the funeral planning.
He's just come back from joining his ex sisters in law to bring back the body. He fought his mother about his even going, how they were going to fly there and back, he could see that the crowds were becoming moblike in I must show how much I am grieving displays (heartful but at some point it was becoming tad bit performative). And, he was fighting to give her a higher status funeral than she might have expected being ex HRH (and certainly not merely a private family only one).
So I don't see why given how distraught he was after that trip, thinking (he is a heavy thinker) about what this now means for the kids he loves, how he will have to try to step in (not like he doesn't already have a lot on his plate) ways that Diana would no longer be able to that it would be likely that he would come out and say that no one is going to remember her next month - to Charles S or anyone else not in the Spencer family.
BUT ... perhaps having yet another person trying to tell him what they/he should not do - coming from yet another person who was not a parent of the kids nor someone who dealt with the kids daily, weekly or on any sort of a regular basis was really bad timing on someone else's part no matter how much they claimed they knew what she would or would not want.
What I could believe is that Charles (PW) told Charles S that he (CS), not being a parent of the two boys in question did NOT have the right to determine what the kids were or were not going to do in no uncertain terms. That some anger in the tone of voice may have come out could be in the very likely that happened category I think.
We also look at Charles S's behavior. He did not appear to have really been a major part of the lives of the kids before his "grand" speech at the funeral. It is kind of murky about how much he did participate in their lives after her death.
What is interesting is that this now comes out after the Queen has passed and Charles is now king. In some ways it comes off as similar to that funeral speech - aimed at the royal family, specifically Charles, in a setting where they/he are constrained by protocol from responding (never explain). The appearance of one last chance to stab a person in the back (served cold) publicly?
The other thing is that CS and CS alone appears to have the complete control of where people come to for her grave. I can understand that controlling the mob interest initially was reasonable (and a wise idea). Long term though it meant that even her kids had to go through him to get to her while he's making money off every person who walks through. It optically might have been good to have money donated to one of her pet charities and him less so? Perhaps William might not give her HRH back but instead bring her body back so he, his kids might be able to have a closer, easier access to remembering her. There are probably fewer and fewer people feeling some need to visit her grave as years pass.
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.
Nutty and us Mods strive as much as possible to make this a welcome and
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. Nothing you would not mind having your name associated with on the front page of the local paper, above the fold.
-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. x
The Spencers failed in their family duty - whoever heard of a divorcee being buried by her ex's family? To make that nasty eulogy his only contribution was reprehensible.
It looked as if Charlee PoW was afraid that Al Fayed would intervene and the story is that he asked the Queen if she wanted Diana brought home in a Harrods van?
I made a mistake and (I think) the system will not send you the emails. Please resend your post to be certain.
Does it support the description of Charles' behavior in Spare?
He does mention that Charles S was against the boys walking. PP comes off as kind of agast at the thought but offers to walk with them if they do.
A lot about how uncommunicative his father is. Leaves notes instead of talking. Nothing about being giddy.
The CS funeral speech was about how everyone (including the BRF) stalked her.
Comment that he and William were the only men who loved her or loved her the most. (ouch - not quite as in sync with CS or that his father could have a lot of conflicted feelings through the years)
I always understood it was best not to criticise how people behave after a death, especially if it was unexpected and traumatic. Shock can have strange effects, as I found earlier this year.
This part of a comment in the DT is a lot more telling.
'As a Buckingham Palace press secretary at the time, we were never asked about any criticism made by the then Prince of Wales about his ex-wife. The media were all over the latest twists in the 'war of the Wales' , and yet we heard nothing on or off the record. Prince Charles maintained total silence to protect his sons, and to his detriment.
I was duty press secretary when Diana Princess of Wales died, so I can tell you that the royal family was in deep shock.'
I hope the book gets the contempt it deserves.
Diana is said to have told her brother than Charles was in love with his valet. Now that's a new one out of nowhere and totally contra to the idea only Camilla was a foe, three in the marriage and all - wait> didn't that come out in the Bashir deal and Bashir came through CS?
That CS finally agreed to walk with his ex brother in law and the kids to protect Charles from the unhappy close to seething mob. People are good at making themselves the center and hero in a retelling of how they were part of history.
Then there is the statement that the late queen offered to restore the HRH to so it could be on the headstone but Charles S turned it down. Robert Fellowes was alleged to have mentioned this offer in the train ride up. He passed in 2024.
Could there really have been an offer? maybe. Given how the late HM tried to walk that Christian walk, that attempt to reach out, offer some type of Christian compassion. The people who might know more would be CS's sister, widow of Robert and Charles/William either from the time or through the years over tea. And I am not certain that any of the trio might speak out to confirm or reject this. What is unclear to me is why CS and CS alone would have the authority to accept or reject the offer (especially after it was made after he gave his funeral speech which was not BRF friendly). I mean she had other siblings including Robert's wife who were also as equally related and worked closely with HM.
What I don't know is if she really could legally state that her brother is the children's guardian should she pass. And not the children's father. That's a Say What? Nor can I believe that the lawyers involved in the divorce would just accept that document unquestionable that the bio father is unsuitable enough to have her brother as the best option. And then, remember, there is that pesky legal document about the grands of the reigning monarch before you get into the optics for the royal family which the kids are still part of and all. I would have thought his lawyers would have fought it down.
And, oh what about the alleged romantic connection to the late Queen with his father shut down by Mountbatten? When exactly was that supposed to have happened in what is known about her schedule for access? And was she really all that interested in alternatives to Philip before you get into what ever Mountbatten had going on behind the scenes.
You know, it is easy to make claims. In an era when proof appears in DNA, film on the cloud, computers and more basic paper notes by staff, not having access to that level can make any claim, true or not, a lot harder to verify especially when much of this was happening when that level of documentation did not exist. And, especially when so many of these people who could state yea or nay in a court of law have all passed.
Personally, I don`t think that walking behind the casket is such an ordeal. I`ve had to do it at a much younger age. Granted, I didn`t have such a large crowd around me, but it was still pretty large. When these things happen, you don`t have much room for any emotion other than grief. I think Hairy made a big deal of it because he heard and remembers the adults bickering about it
I would be very interested in what Lady C has to say about all of these claims. She knew Diana as she wrote a book about her, and is also familiar with the back story.
I also knew that she wore a seatbelt under protest in the UK because it was the law but never when abroad. It was my first thought when heard the dreadful news. The second was that Charles was now free to remarry.
The `love for the valet' story seems to have been based on Charles needing `personal assistance' at the time he had broken both wrists playing polo. The story died as soon as this was pointed out.
The version I read of the report of Charles having his beloved dog rehomed was that Diana was jealous of his affection for the creature.
I agree with your comment. Charles Spencer seems to have some grievances against the BRF and has chosen to air them publicly. Not for the first time, but this time in writing. Remind you of someone?
Other than needing money - he's on his third or fourth marriage - I don't know why he has to regurgitate all these facts and gossips and he doesn't seem to care who he will hurt in the process, but maybe that's the aim. Again, this sounds very familiar. I think that perhaps he was peeved at not being consulted - I don't think he was - or not listened to about William and Harry walking behind Diana's coffin. As for the 'blood family' protecting Diana's sons, it doesn't look like he has been a positive influence on Harry.
It was rumoured for a long time that Charles (as Prince) had an affair with his valet. The rumours were unsubstantiated. The police investigated an 'alleged misconduct in the royal household and found it unsubstantiated'. Diana was convinced Charles was in love with his valet. Spencer is biased and his book will be a travesty of the truth.
Di-vorce $$$
Charles Spencer couldn’t care less
when his sister spiralled
asked for help with her mess
Spouting his bile later
righting her wrongs
Vowing to care for
her bereft sons
Thirty years gone
nothing done
His actions now clear
all along
An eternal cash cow
That’s her Swan Song…
M-academia Nuts
Here you go darlings
your new school
No need to worry
there’s only one rule
All must obey you
you’re special you see
Grandpa is head of Monarchy
Soz little darlings
we got it all wrong
The drive to school
took too long
Here’s a new school
it’ll do for now
We’re trying to get closer to
PoW…
I’ve never heard this before
I don’t believe it
I do believe Spencer is hard up
divorce number???
Not a nice man, neither was his
father by all accounts
says all you need to know
about Earl Spencer
@WildBoar
Charles has never had a voice
Poor man, a good man
I find this Diana thing tasteless the lady aught to have right to rest in peace.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/charles-spencer-claims-prince-harry-170000859.html
Charles Spencer claims Prince Harry was ‘allowed to spin out of control’ after Princess Diana’s death
BANG Showbiz
Sat, 19 September 2026 at 6:00 pm BST
4 min read
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.
'Earl Spencer last night accused King Charles of 'gaslighting' him in a dramatic escalation of their furious row over Princess Diana.
Speaking exclusively to The Mail on Sunday, the earl denied that he wrote his bombshell memoir because he was motivated by money and said his late sister would be 'cheering from the rafters' at his book. '
I think Earl Spencer has made his point in the book, that's his own point of view and he should now leave it at that. The King has his own point of view and doesn't need to be insulted. If Spencer didn't write the book for money, then why wait for 29 years to write it? I don't understand what he is trying to achieve. He really needs to put a sock in it. His attitude is very undignified, particularly as he knows the BRF motto 'never complain, never explain' and therefore Charles can't defend himself. He's just getting more and more unpleasant.
I had also noticed that, as good as she was with the public, she was incapable of sustaining personal relationships. ( I'm not including her marriage; although she could certainly have handled things better, I think Charles bears slightly more blame in that failure)
She was estranged from just about all of her close friends and family members at least once; at any given time, she would have not been on speaking terms with at least one close friend or family member. I think she could be petty and spiteful.
All that to say, I can easily see her spreading tales about Charles and his valet out of spite, or a mean joke, and I can also see her being jealous of the close relationship between them, and misinterpreting it, or, again, misrepresenting it out of spite. And honestly, in this day and age, would we even care if it were true? It is nobody's business accept a spouse who may have been cheated on. I don't believe it, but I also don't care if it's true, other than to think poorly of Spencer for exposing it.
As little do I care if KCIII did say she'd soon be forgotten. I don't believe it, but if it's true, I'd say the 2 men had gotten in to a rage with each other, and coupled with raw grief, anything could have been said. I also never minded what Spencer had to say in his eulogy, however inappropriate it may have been. I note that, as mentioned above, he doesn't seemed to have followed through on any of it, although I doubt the Windsors would have made that easy.
I had the book on pre-order, but canceled it when these snippets came out. A man who has been married 4 times, without being widowed, undoubtedly has some issues of his own.
Harry seems to inherited the worst traits on both sides of his family.
In his eulogy, Spencer said . . . 'I pledge that we, your blood family, will do all we can to continue the imaginative way in which you were steering these two exceptional young men' . . . and "We [he and his sisters] fully respect the heritage into which they have both been born and will always respect and encourage them in their royal role' . . . Harry either missed their guidance, if any, or else it didn't benefit him.
Laura Kuenssberg interviews Spencer.
Did anyone watch it? The comments are all pro-Spencer, hard to tell how many are die-hard Diana-ites.
I got the impression that Kuenssberg didn't believe a word he said (the narrowed eyes were the give-away) but he acted as if butter wouldn;t melt in his mouth. Strange that nobody has pointed out that most what he's saying now contradicts what he said then...
I understand that William can't (and probably won't) take part in this Diana-this-and-that chaos but Harry has not said anything to defend his papa. I mean that he is such a blabbermouth and no more active part of the Monarchy so he could say something for his father but maybe he enjoys his uncles' attacks and agrees with them. That is he behaves like a skunk.
A Very Private School: A Memoir by Charles Spencer, Simon & Schuster Audio
English | March 12, 2024 | ISBN: B0CCSV1NQP | 7 hours and 57 minutes | M4B | 233 Mb
INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLER | NPR BOOKS WE LOVE 2024 | PEOPLE’SBEST CELEBRITY MEMOIRS 2024 |TOWN & COUNTRY’SBEST NEW ROYAL BOOKS 2024 |THE TIMES (LONDON) 10 BEST BIOGRAPHIES AND MEMOIRS 2024 |WINNIPEG FREE PRESS’SBEST BOOKS 2024
NOW WITH A NEW AFTERWORD
“A tour de force.” —The Washington Post
In this poignant memoir, Charles Spencer—the 9th Earl Spencer and younger brother of the late Princess Diana—recounts the trauma of being sent away from home at age eight to attend boarding school.
A Very Private School offers a clear-eyed, first-hand account of a culture of cruelty at the school Charles Spencer attended in his youth and provides important insights into an antiquated boarding system. Drawing on the memories of many of his schoolboy contemporaries, as well as his own letters and diaries from the time, he reflects on the hopelessness and abandonment he felt at aged eight, viscerally describing the intense pain of homesickness and the appalling inescapability of it all. Exploring the long-lasting impact of his experiences, Spencer presents a candid reckoning with his past and a reclamation of his childhood. And now, in a new afterword, Spencer reflects on the aftermath of his memoir’s publication, including the outpouring of support and solidarity from fellow abuse survivors.
but listen to the description of this one:
'Spencer proves himself more than a match for the story. He guides the reader well through the dramatic twists and turns of these years, which first placed Henry on the throne, then seemed set to deny the succession of his progeny. Spencer has a particularly good eye for detail, enriching his account with vivid pen-portraits of the main players … Fast-paced and immensely enjoyable'
Does it know something we don't?
I find the description of A Very Private School a tad melodramatic. Was it the publisher's blurb? Spencer and Diana were traumatised by their mother leaving the family, Spencer in particular as he was only 3 so perhaps this coloured his view of boarding school life.
(Dan Wootton Outspoken)
Beyond all the grief of the two sons, it meant that all the soft pr they were doing to bring Camilla into the public realm as part of his life (he's moving on like she's moving on) was not only down to basically zero but would need to stay there for a very long time. Optics both within the family and publicly.
What I think about them themselves is a very different matter.
I don't listen to her videos, I just read the transcript, it's quicker.
Yes. I bet they have. I don't this this one person reflects the opinion of the country. At best, people just don't care about the duo. As for
Kelly McKee Zajfen, you may wonder, she is a 'former model, non-profit co-founder, and a close, longtime friend of Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex.'. So longtime no one has ever heard of her. Perhaps seeing how beautiful Catherine looked yesterday, * had to show how popular she is.
Thotsold
Her latest bestie
by upping her schtick
Allowed her child
to be used by one-trick
Applauded and missed?
she must have been pissed
The Kingdom’s United
cease and desist…
GWAH Lustrous
Just listened to the latest
Gyles Brandreth podcast
‘Rosebud’
He interviewed Jamie Lowther Pinkerton
He served as Equerry to the
Queen Mother
and later Private Secretary to
William and Harry
He made an analogy regarding
helicopters and the brothers
Harry would fly at top speed
clipping trees
Wills carefully navigated
horrendous storms
The Spencer's were always
denied Royal inclusion
until Diana…
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16164647/Amazon-sponsor-Prince-Harry-Invictus-Games-Birmingham-2027.html
So Bezos is going to get involved with Invictus, it seems. The games would be shown on Amazon Prime.
Perfect description.
... But the heir to the throne is understood to have decided against appearing in anything on screen to avoid any further conflict with his estranged brother Prince Harry.
... William does not want him and Harry to be 'pitted against each other' in a film and remains 'really emotional' about Diana's death, reported The Sunday Times.' (DM)
William is showing wisdom and restraint and is being prudent. He is totally right to have nothing to do with yet another documentary that will be certainly biased and will add nothing to the current situation.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/royals/article-16169625/Meghan-Markle-former-agent-Ari-Emanuel-parted-ways.html
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/meghan-markle-may-revive-british-230100152.html
I really can't imagine it. She'd have to swear allegiance whether she became a citizen or subject.
That's right, it's all about implying that they're serious, in hope of money for security. There's now a `report' that their goons (Merriam Webster 2nd sense) identified `foreign paparazzi' haunting the area around the new school.
Hoping for citizenship? "To apply as the spouse or civil partner of a British citizen you must have lived in the UK for the last 3 years." (https://www.gov.uk/british-citizenship)
That's living here full time, paying one's dues (eg council tax, TV licence), fixed addresses, not sofa-surfing and sponging off those with more money and sense, maybe even in employment.
As if!
Her hungry vanity was not pampered properly?
Apologies: Bob Dylan
Blowin’ In the Wind
Aristopcrazy
How many men
must meg have laid down
Before she nailed her wan pan
How any yachts
must meh have sailed on
Before she bagged hazzers gland
And how many times
must the alliterate one lie
Before she’s forever canned
The answer, my friends
She’s pissing in the wind
The answer, Ari said is
She’s Binned…
Fallace and Vomit
Just before
Ravec’s conclusion
Paparazzi appeared
to foment their delusion
I’m disgusted to say
they’ll get their own way
Highest security
poor Brits will now pay…
You get the gist.
Spencer's book. I think the sound has dropped in intensity as the lawyers are now involved. Piers appears to be pushing for the pulping of what remains of the unsold stockpile. If he wins, I doubt a first run would be that big of a collector's item.
People who write memoirs usually are the steadfast, kind, loving hero through all such terrible events which would bring down a lesser person.
The Royal Family must be shocked each time when Harry shows how he has lost all the dignity he once had as an active member of the Family.
I wouldn't put it past the Cotswolds two to have leaked some info about the school so that police protection can be justified. Nothing from these two would surprise me any more.
My thought exactly but it's difficult to convey an ironic or sarcastic tone of voice in words alone!
'The calendar - 'inspired by her Montecito home and garden' - features a festive illustration of the £11million mansion she and Prince Harry called home for six years.
A press release declared 'every detail was considered with care, including countdown numbers hand-painted in Meghan's own penmanship using edible gold lustre'.
Flavours include strawberry, raspberry, blackberry and orange marmalade, plus what is described as a 'special chocolate finished with Meghan's own flower sprinkles'.'
Absolutely spiffing! I think I'll pass, though.
Well, US has problems with the concept of `Christmas' so it's hardly surprising that she can't get `Advent' right.
At that price, I'd expect, at the very least, that the `lustre' would be hand- gilded with 24carat goldleaf by scribes in an enclosed order of Orthodox monks whose normal employment is icon painting.
Second thoughts - scrub round that - no scribe worthy of the designation would care to be associated with the vulgar handwriting she calls `calligraphy'. Paul Antonio Attong is a world-class scribe, goodness knows what he'd make of her and her pretensions:
https://www.instagram.com/pascribe/
It seems there's a copy of this `masterpiece' for sale on ebay for some ridiculous price (£20K, ll but 1p). The blurb surely was written by *?
SMM has the details.
The baroness has shown that Harry's tots are no more or even that what her dogs are for her. Horrible woman!
And who would wish for themselves a father like Harry?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGzN023CzPI
'An Absolute Masterpiece of Modern Royal History: Museum-Grade Association Copy of The Bench personally inscribed by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
This is a completely unique, historically significant presentation copy of The Bench, featuring a spectacular handwritten inscription by the author, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Written in the Duchess's highly celebrated, fluid signature calligraphy style, the personal message links the Sussexes directly to the heart of the British Royal Family.' No, it doesn't.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/40567260/harry-meghan-pictured-pub-lunch-uk-return/
Dirges Adventures of Sinsin
My countdown to Yule
Would see her and her fool
realise their adventivity
Misadventure using Christmas
Forgetting Saint Nicholas
no room at Chick Inn or Nativity…
Yes, this is so true. We are under constant threat from certain people, and H&* have to bleat about their security. If they just keep quiet and out of sight, keep a very low profile, they'll be safe. They do have security anyway, just not police protection. They're just peeing in the wind.
I've been `proper poorly' today and don't know if I'll stick it out or retreat to bed. Shall try to make notes/ record it.
It's the usual load of sycophantic BS.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nigel-threatens-deport-meghan-markle-100000620.html
I watched the H&* and their money documentary, only for 20 pr 30 seconds here & there and fast forwarding a lot. Their lifestyle is said to cost $20M/year, IIRC. Most of it is, as you said, sycophantic BS.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheBritishRoyalFamily/comments/1wy970p/buckingham_palace_unveils_new_25_unfilled_advent/
https://www.dailymail.com/news/royals/article-16186101/meghan-launches-wicker-hostess-basket-royal-festive-hampers.html
Apparently, this `article' appeared in the Independent. WTF's the matter with them?
And if you believe that...
I think that when you betray someone for money once you will betray them again when money is needed and the second betrayal will be ten times worse, but I am a cynic. I know that narcissists never regret or repent and they hate you if they are in a situation where they must feign repentance.
This is what the priest bullied by the Sussex Squad had the 'audacity' to say.
'The row began when Anglican priest and London university chaplain Reverend Daniel French suggested that people could instead buy a £6 Christian advent calendar that is almost 20 times cheaper and contains Fairtrade chocolate.
The alternative he recommended also raises money for a leprosy charity and comes with a 'little booklet on the meaning of Christmas', he told his followers.
Sharing an image of Meghan alongside her As Ever product, Rev French wrote: 'For £5.99 you can pre-order a Christian Advent Calendar with Fairtrade chocolate from the Meaningful Chocolate Company. A donation is made to The Leprosy Mission.''
And there is the difference - a donation to The Leprosy Mission. With *, charity begins at home.
I did not find anything specific in the sister's book ... but in Tom Bower's Revenge, p 26, he does state graduation from the university was in 2003. That tracks with the sister's book about high school graduation in 1999, p 128 as I recall - that photo - headshots of her dad with her as she is wearing her graduation cap.
“Many people have commented about the moving vans in Montecito. I have heard the same thing.
What I did not understand and now this makes sense is Tyler Perry held the paper on the Monticeto home. And he called the note due.
Hence the bolt to the UK.”
Second:
“ Rob Lowe CONFIRMS Tyler Perry SOLD Meghan And Harry's Montecito Mansion ... https://youtu.be/Qp16ExCLpZA?is=5xiYAOuoefCLqgs_ via @YouTube Interesting! ”
Apparently this gossip has been all over the ‘net for many days, and may not be true. If I just flogged a falsity to our Nutty group, I apologize.
I thought it would explain the unbelievably quick inexplicable rush to U.K. Now I don’t know. Nothing those two do makes any sense to me, so Tyler kicking them out sounded like it would explain so much. Who knows?
'In the podcast produced by The Spectator magazine, of which Gove is editor, he discussed Charles Spencer's new book with assistant editor Madeline Grant, wife of a Church of England vicar.
The pair made a series of claims about Lord Spencer, including that he was on 'bad terms' with his sister, Princess Diana, when she was killed in a car crash in 1997, and that he was 'monetising her death' by publishing the book.'
They also alleged that Spencer had refused Diana permission to stay with William and Harry at Althorp, his stately home in Northamptonshire. Spencer has demanded that the podcast be removed from The Spectator's website.'
Nothing new here, I think everybody knew. It's a bit different from a historian (Spencer) making a factual error about the year when Piers Morgan was editor of the Mirror.
I think most of us, at one time or another, have wanted something to be true about them that we read somewhere or, several somewheres.
And then I think of things like the alleged project Thaw or that it would be simple to come back, be accepted and still get the half in/half out - and I realize some things may really be that obvious clue of what direction they are going in.
Sure the King (and Queen) met with him, the kids and then her but ... since then there was the clarifying letter and nothing.
I trust that Prince William understands that the character, behaviour and temperament of his brother will not change whatever William does. The pus of Harry's jealousy and hatred will burst again and again and the only way to protect his family and himself is to stay away, far away from Harry and his wife.
If the Family give in the next step is Harry's court case against the King and William where he demands the half of all royal monetary assets as his TRUE RIGHT because that is why he is in Britain, getting the money he was incapable to earn for himself in the USA and getting it from his Family.
.https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/2255016/meghan-markle-royal-feud-best
Page Six says 'Meghan Markle and Prince Harry aren’t planning to apologize to Prince William and Kate Middleton over their bombshell 2021 Oprah Winfrey interview — despite reports claiming otherwise.
“It is total rubbish,” royal journalist Tom Sykes told Page Six Wednesday regarding the rumors.'
In any case, even if they did, it would be a mealy-mouthed apology and it would take a lot more to reset the relationship with A&C.
I wanted to believe the Tyler Perry landlord/owner explanation but you’ve disavowed me of it now. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted!
They're a waste of space, as ever.
Sorry to disappoint you. I can't vouch for the veracity of the articles. I thought they might have bought the house via T Perry. Apparently they bought their house through an LCC.
All is not lost, however. I've found this YouTube video 'Tyler Perry loaned Harry and MM $14m in 2021 to purchase the Montecito home with conditions that the loan will be repaid in 2024 but they reneged on that agreement. When Tyler Perry called Harry about repayments Harry stopped taking his calls. So I believe that Tyler Perry has possibly liquidated them in the USA.'. Again, I don't know the truth of it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E1BSIN5QZYg
* is wearing £25,000 of gear (tone deaf, some people are financially struggling), among others a pair of extremely wide trousers and as usual, trailing on the pavement. I don't know how she didn't trip up over them. They were Ralph Lauren ones and might have looked fine on someone 6ft tall but not *.
What I noticed is that hand on the right, raising their glass has a bracelet (brown) which just disappears.
* looks just awful. Her trousers look awful. Her top is not tucked in and doesn`t match. Her huge coat overwhelms her. Her overall image is one of a dishevelled scarecrow.
It reminds me of Hairy and his more awful half.
That woman has totally lost her looks. Maybe it is true that constant lying makes you ugly, the baroness is a very good example of that. Those horrible clothes must be so horrible for purpose. People do not register her lined and haggard face when they check her white trousers in the dirt. So that is a win win for her.
If that is the best she has to offer I doubt very much that any Arab oil billionaire will fall passionately in love and offer her a lucrative new life as an oil billionairess any time soon. Pity, but so it goes.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/meghan-and-malala-yousafzai-enjoy-tea-at-claridges-in-london/ar-AA2dP0Hj
The text is all a-glow about the warm mateyness but the pics make it look as if M is threatening, domineering, about to beat her up.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/prince-harry-m-student-grief-152236927.html
Article is published in full. H claims to be a `student of grief'. Someone pass the sickbag please.
Meghan was a monster even as a teen, her mother' WAS incarcerated, says family friend who banned her
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WsO8p-LMtU
'The MasterClass course promises to "teach the tools to turn loss into growth and unlock the resilience that lives within each of us".'
Well, it hasn't worked well in Harry's case. Loss into growth, resilience - no, these have passed him by. Moreover, Hawwy is not qualified; he's experienced grief but has no formal qualifications to try and 'help' or counsel others.