CassandrasCats

And that is the real, entire source of the discontentment, vindictiveness and narcisstic rage. The fact that her offspring was not going to get the same treatment as all the Camb kids. A change of the letters patent for him right before birth or even afterwards.

Now let´s take a look at all her contradicting statements in one single interview. The Countess of Monte Deceito in her woe-is-me sitdown:

“While I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie. It’s not their right to take it away. "

... ehm, except yes it is. Welcome to the monarchy.

Might want to have a chat about that with the King of Sweden too. I mean okay, it´s Sverige. Different ball game. But you don´t know or even care about the rules of the very monarchy you married into. So what´s the difference. It´s all just a Game of Thrones with fancy crowns, isn´t it?

"They didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess. He wasn’t going to receive security. This went on for the last few months of my pregnancy, where I’m going, ‘Hold on for a second.’

Oh I bet you were rattled. Because that was the day you realized: F***, I hustled for years to get close to the Windsors, I boinked and married this insufferable male, and now I´ve even got myself knocked up for it to amount to absolutely nothing! Where is my damn payoff?

"We’re not saying don’t make him a prince..."

Freudian slip right there. EXACTLY.

It wasn´t your choice not to title him because you allegedly wanted him to have a "normal life". You were told no, pure and simple.

And you very much did want him to be a prince, and you gave it away with the way you worded that sentence in the interview. You unknowingly confirmed in this reply that you had never offered to forego titles.

Had you honestly not cared whether or not he´d be titled, the correct and truthful sentence would have needed to be: "We´re not saying MAKE HIM a prince."

"... but if you’re saying the title is what’s going to affect the protection, our son needs to be safe.”

Guess what hun, the Yorks were titled at birth and still are, they are currently the grandchildren of the reigning monarch, and yet Andrew - son of the Queen - had to pay in the past and still must dole out for their protection from his own pocket. Because his mom, late dad and his oldest brother decided so a long time ago.

He could do so over the years because until his "firing" he actively worked as a senior royal for decades, and fulfilled the duties that were placed on him by the institution. Thus he received his generous apanage. For anything else his now grown up daughters want and need in life, they have to come up for it themselves by working jobs.

Sarah Chatto and her brother David Armstrong-Jones are the niece and nephew of the Queen, their mother once was the spare and a globally known, sought after glamorous figure. Her children were not titled, and they did just fine. Nobody gave a shit about them, they were safe their whole lives and went on to have productive regular careers.

And you think your 7th in line kid should be more important than all of them, is in graver danger than all of them ever were, and therefore should get the full shebang service of 100% externally funded royal protection? And of course under no circumstances can you be expected to cover the expenses yourselves as a married couple and parents! Although it was you who declared that you don´t want to continue working full time as senior royals because you rather want to be half in/half out and completely free to make your own monetary million dollar deals.

Make it make sense. The sheer chutzpah. The entitlement.

You are basically quitting a big shot company because you want to go create your own business, be self employed and fully line your own pockets. But on your way out you still want to keep the CEO title, the panorama office at the top, the free limousine and chauffeur service the company used to provide, the health insurance, and a monthly salary from your former employer. Because that´s how it works, right?

Also the Countess of Monte Deceito in the same interview:

"All the grandeur surrounding this stuff is an attachment that I don’t personally have, right? I’ve been a waitress, an actress, a princess, a duchess."

Ehm... sorry, did I miss this alternate timeline in which you were a Princess? Anybody out there help me get into the loop?

You aren´t one, you never were one, you will never be one. Princess Henry doesn´t count, hun. Because nobody ever called you this title in the past nor do they call you this today.

Plus, you never bothered to become a British citizen; you hauled your behind right back to the American continent after an 18 months stint as tourist-royal on British soil... where you obviously hated everyone and everything. Most of all the institution that catapulted you into your new station and title in life. So technically you should not even be allowed to officially carry the duchess title and insult the people of Sussex with it.

Funny though that you hold onto exactly that title as if your life depended on it (well, actually it does. My bad.)

You say "I´ve been a duchess", like it´s a thing of the past. But then you plaster every book you publish, every post about anything you do or don´t do with 5 million reminders that you are "M, the Duchess of Sussex".

You are married to Haz-been, you are a has-been, but strangely your title never makes it to the realm of your claimed have-been...

Oh, last but not least, by the way: true British Princesses actually know the lyrics of the national anthem.

"I’ve always just still been Meghan, right?"

You sure were, hun, the whole world has seen that.

"So, for me, I’m clear on who I am, independent of all that stuff. And the most important title I will ever have is 'Mum'. I know that."

Well then you should be jumping for joy! If you supposedly already have your most important title in life and your precious kid has his too - Mama´s Boy that fills your eyes with tears of joy, just like you wrote it in "The Bench" - then why the desperate clamoring to Duchess for yourself and Prince for kiddo?

Gotta make up your mind, estimated Countess. Can´t ride two horses with one ass. Or in your case, meaning: You´ve got to make up your mind which lie you want to continue to tell yourself and the world about the titles and why you left the firm, and finally stick to just that one.

Why can't Harry just uphold his duty towards his brother and share their mutual love for their mother?

For weeks now we have been "tortured" by the constand PR machine churning away from the Faux Montecito Sussex Court.

1. Will Prince Harry even attend? Boohoo, his family ignored him at the funeral of the patriarch of the Royal Family the Duke of Edinburgh?

2. Then it was: can he come due to TW (the wife) being in her fakency and alleged birth (not of her body)? 3. Also, TW (the wife) intends to write and deliver some cockamamy speech for a woman she herself never even knew...

4. Then came the whole "Lilibeth Horror Case". After all those lies were dispersed it was again:

5. will Harry even come? 6. Then it was: TW will attend, in order to "support" her husband.

With the newfound Buckingham Palace Modus Operadi on Causa Sussexes IT IS: she is not welcome! Ever. This time with clear background information, that Prince William kicked the Sussexes to the curb, once the brothers divorced their offices and life causes.

Finally, we get the real inside, behind-the-scenes reasons for their mean lies on the Oprah Winfrey Shit Show. I say: hop on the plane. Do your quarantaine. See whomever will desire to remain friendly with you Harry. Fulfill your family obligation. And afterwards off you go, to your horrible wife in the Faux Montecito Sussex Court.

No one truly misses the man you are today. We do not like your behaviour. You are not to mistreat Her Majesty The Queen in any way, shape or form! And YES that includes hurting her next of kin.

I fully expect them to say William was the one commenting about the baby’s skin color after this. Battle stations! Book excerpt

The Times

Prince William ‘split his household from Prince Harry after Meghan bullying claims’

June 07 2021, 7.00am BST

‘So, are you saying,” asked Oprah Winfrey, talking to Meghan and Harry in their famous interview of March 2021, “that there were hints of jealousy?”

She was inquiring about the Sussexes’s wildly successful tour of Australia and the South Pacific of late October 2018, and the couple shifted uncomfortably in their plush wicker chairs.

“Look,” replied Harry, “I just wish that we would all learn from the past.”

By bringing up “the past”, the prince was venturing into an area that was almost taboo. He was making a sensational comparison between his mother and his wife. Harry was suggesting that Meghan had demonstrated in Australia the same massive star quality as Diana and was now having to face the family envy that went along with that.

“It really changed,” he said, “after the Australia tour, after our South Pacific tour . . . it was . . . the first time that the family got to see how incredible she is at the job. And that brought back memories.”

Memories of what? Again Harry shied away from putting words to the almost unmentionable. But Oprah had prepared and polished this moment, like so many others in the interview, and she had a reference ready to prompt her prince’s revelation. The latest, fourth season of TV’s The Crown had depicted Charles and Diana’s 1983 tour of Australia, showing how Diana had been “bedazzling” in her ability “to connect with people”. Episode six had depicted how the crowds would groan when they realised that Charles, not Diana, was walking down their side of the street — hence the beginnings of the “jealousy” on the family’s part.

“So is that what you’re talking about?” asked Oprah. “It brought back memories of that?”

“Yeah,” Harry finally replied in a fashion that was both dismal and unmistakably aggressive.

What on earth had happened, viewers had to wonder, to the old and once-familiar happy side of Prince Harry?

When trying to define the moment that marked the decisive rift with his brother William — the break-up and actual separation of the joint household they had established together in 2009 — Harry would fix upon his triumphant return with Meghan from their Australian tour at the end of October 2018. But if asked the same question, William would have fixed on a more specific event: the explosive argument he had had with his brother earlier that month.

Both brothers agreed how bitterly they had clashed back in the early days over William’s attempt to slow Harry’s courtship of Meghan — “Don’t feel like you need to rush this . . . ” But both of them had subsequently moved on. Harry’s transparent contentment with Meghan had relaxed the tensions, give or take the odd row over bridesmaids’ dresses. The “no speaks” had eased just a little by the time “best man” William escorted his brother down the aisle in May 2018.

Then five months later came the conclusive and determining rupture — the division that has lasted to the present day — though here the brothers’ retelling of history diverged. As Harry explained it to Oprah, Meghan’s Australian tour success sowed the jealousies that caused feelings to “change”. According to this scenario, William and Kate resented the Diana-like popularity that was generated by Harry’s wife. William had a different recollection.

We now know that Princes William and Harry were no longer on speaking terms before the Sussexes set off for Australia. Feelings had already “changed”, as Harry put it, and drastically so. The brothers had parted on extremely poor terms, with the trouble centring on Meghan’s stringent treatment and alleged bullying of her staff.

Most Kensington Palace courtiers were noted for the comparatively long tenures of their comfortable and prestigious jobs. But it came to look as if employees could not wait to escape service with Harry and Meghan. Those who left formed themselves into an informal fraternity that they titled the “Sussex Survivors’ Club”. They had finally hit back, and their organising agent had been PR man Jason Knauf.

The joint communications secretary for Kensington Palace — who was still, at that date, working on behalf of both of the brothers and their wives — had become concerned by the numerous stories of mistreatment being brought to him by colleagues whom he knew well and trusted.

Texas-born and New Zealand-educated, Knauf, 34, was a popular character in Kensington Palace, widely noted for his friendliness and loyalty towards his colleagues. He had been considered a real “catch” when the brothers snared him from the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2015, and one of his concerns was that professional management practices should be more effectively enforced inside the traditional British palace. Knauf’s American sensibilities caused him to see the Meghan situation as raising principles of human resources management in the palace system that needed to be formally addressed.

Knauf’s first priority was to set down the facts, as he saw them, for the record: “I’m very concerned,” he emailed to William’s private secretary Simon Case, in a document he drafted in October 2018, “that the duchess was able to bully two PAs out of the household in the past year.”

Knauf described Meghan’s treatment of one aide as “totally unacceptable . . . the duchess seems intent”, he wrote, “on always having someone in her sights”. Specifying another staff member, Knauf alleged Meghan had been bullying her as well, “seeking to undermine her confidence”. His office had received “report after report”, he wrote, from people who had witnessed “unacceptable behaviour” by Meghan towards this member of staff.

“Meghan governed by fear,” claimed one courtier. “So many people said it. Nothing was ever good enough for her. [She] humiliated staff in meetings, [would] shout at them, [would] cut them off email chains — and then demand to know why they hadn’t done anything.”

As early as 2017, around the time of the couple’s engagement, according to a subsequent report in The Times, a senior aide had spoken to the couple about the difficulties caused by their treatment of staff. “It’s not my job to coddle people,” Meghan was said to have replied.

“Americans can be much more direct,” wrote the authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand in defence of the duchess, “and that often doesn’t sit well in the much more refined institution of the monarchy.”

A Brit might have raised an eyebrow at Meghan’s alleged behaviour, then looked the other way. The Yank decided to act. Knauf was actually one of Meghan’s most senior advisers — her chief adviser, in fact, when it came to public relations. Earlier that year she had gone to Knauf for help when drafting the disputed letter of severance that she sent to her father. She valued his PR expertise.

Before that, Knauf had helped Harry to word the fierce anti-media statements that he had framed to try to protect Meghan from press harassment, both as his girlfriend and then as his fiancée. The PR man had taken considerable stick from some of his non-royal contacts who criticised him as being overprotective in fighting the newcomer’s corner. Like so many people in all the palaces, Knauf had started off on Meghan’s side.

But as the months went by the American’s feelings became more ambiguous, as numerous colleagues — women whom he greatly respected — continued to bring him stories of what they said they had suffered at Meghan’s hands.

“I can’t stop shaking,” one aide had told a colleague in anticipation of an encounter with Meghan. Another reported that the prospect of confrontation with the duchess had made her “feel sick”. “Emotional cruelty and manipulation”, were the words of a third, “which I guess could also be called bullying.”

The b-word featured prominently in the accounts of several, along with an even more sinister set of initials: PTSD. Post-traumatic stress disorder was a deeply serious condition to allege — flashbacks, nightmares and feelings of deep anxiety — but that was how one complainant said that they had felt.

Several people maintained they had been “humiliated” by the duchess, and that criticism extended to Harry as well.

“I overheard a conversation between Harry and one of his top aides,” recalled one Kensington Palace courtier. “Harry was screaming and screaming down the phone. Team Sussex was a really toxic environment. People shouting and screaming in each other’s faces.”

Shouting and screaming? PTSD? Making people feel sick? Prince William went ballistic when he heard the “dossier of distress” that Knauf had gathered. We do not know whether the communications secretary brought his allegations directly to his boss or submitted them via Simon Case. What we do know is that the prince was astonished and horrified. He was instantly furious at what he heard.

“I remember Christian Jones [William’s press secretary and later private secretary] explaining to me how the Cams [the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge] are paternalistic with their staff,” recalls one royal correspondent. “They copy the Queen in that respect with all her Christmas parties and Christmas presents to her people. They’re proud to treat their staff like family. They recognise that they don’t get paid loads of money, so they are just really nice to them. So this was a very deep clash of philosophies, with Meghan being used to a Hollywood service culture — getting exactly what she wanted whenever she wanted in that famous way that Harry said.”

William personally knew and liked all the individuals whom Knauf had named in his dossier. The prince regarded them as assets to his household — colleagues to be cherished and for whom he was responsible. Human beings. Like Knauf, the prince was appalled that his respected staff may have been put in this position.

For William, Knauf’s allegations also clarified something that the prince had long believed — that Meghan was fundamentally hostile towards the royal system, which she failed to understand as an outsider. William wondered if she had not wanted to leave from the very start — even dreaming, perhaps, that she could whisk Harry back with her to North America.

But Meghan’s lawyers and PR representatives said this was quite the wrong interpretation of their client’s thinking and behaviour in a statement that they issued to The Times early in March 2021. They denied all allegations of bullying as inaccurate and the product of what they described as a “smear campaign”. The duchess wished to fit in and be accepted, they insisted. She had left her life in North America to commit herself to her new role.

I have never met Jason Knauf. What you have just read is based upon the published accusations that Knauf set down on paper — refuted as “defamatory”, it must be stressed again, and “based on misleading and harmful information” in the view of the Duchess of Sussex’s lawyers. It also relies upon William’s personal account of these events to one of his friends who then spoke to this author.

The moment the prince heard the bullying allegations, he related to this friend, he got straight on the phone to talk to Harry — and when Harry flared up in furious defence of his wife, the elder brother persisted. Harry shut off his phone angrily, so William went to speak to him personally. The prince was horrified by what he had just been told about Meghan’s alleged behaviour, and he wanted to hear what Harry had to say.

The showdown between the two siblings was fierce and bitter. William’s pre-engagement questioning of Meghan’s suitability had been quite reasonable, in William’s opinion. His fraternal doubts had been provisional, based upon how the new recruit appeared to be. The elder brother did not really know Meghan in those early days.

But now William had seen enough of his sister-in-law to feel sure that, sadly, he did know her and that many of his reservations linked unhappily with what Knauf’s colleagues had alleged. William believed Meghan was following a plan — “agenda” was the word he used to his friend — and the accusations he had just heard were alarming. Kate, he said, had been wary of her from the start.

Meghan was undermining some precious principles of the monarchy, if she really was treating her staff in this way, and William was upset that she seemed to be stealing his beloved brother away from him. Later courtiers would coin a hashtag — #freeHarry. It was only half a joke.

“Meghan portrayed herself as the victim,” recalled one Kensington Palace staffer, “but she was the bully. People felt run over by her. They didn’t know how to handle this woman. They thought she was a complete narcissist and sociopath — basically unhinged. Which was why the pair of them were drawn to each other in the first place — both damaged goods.”

William felt deeply wounded. “Hurt” and “betrayed” were the two feelings that he described to his friend. The elder brother had always felt so protective. He had seen it as his job to look out for Harry but this was the moment the protection had to stop. At the end of the day the British crown and all it stood for with its ancient traditions, styles and values — the mission of the monarchy — had to matter more to William than his brother did.

Harry, for his part, was equally furious that William should give credence to the accusations against Meghan, and he was fiercely combative in his wife’s defence. Some sources maintain that in the heat of the argument Harry actually accused someone in the family of concepts that were “racist”. But it must be stressed that neither brother has ever confirmed that the hateful r-word was used face to face.

Only William and Harry can know what they said to each other and they have respectfully maintained their silence on that. But Harry made clear to the world in his interview with Oprah that he considered his family’s response to Meghan to have been essentially racist — using the heavily freighted code words “unconscious bias” to provide an intellectual framework for his analysis.

Where could the two brothers go after such painful and damning notions had been thrown into their debate?

We have reached the crux of the drama. What painfully unforgettable and surely unforgivable things have been said? These are not passing differences. They are two core sets of values in conflict — love versus duty — going to the very heart and deriving from the deepest beliefs and loyalties of each man. Two opposing identities butting heads. In the months following the tragic and not-obviously bridgeable rift of October 2018 between William and Harry, the younger brother solidified his belief that his family were suffering from “unconscious bias”.

William, for his part, felt just as strongly about Meghan and the need for her subversive “agenda” to be removed from the operations of the British monarchy, which she did not appear to understand or respect. He certainly wanted Meghan removed, for a start, from the hitherto harmonious joint household that he and his brother had operated together for the best part of a decade. William simply did not want her or Harry around any more.

When accounts of the rift started seeping out through the winter months that followed, it was generally assumed that the volatile Harry must have set the pace in the splitting up of the joint Kensington Palace household. He was the brother who visibly departed, stalking off to set up a new home in Windsor, with offices for himself and Meghan in Buckingham Palace.

But the reverse was the case. It was William who made the decisive move. Following his furious confrontation with his younger brother in the autumn of 2018, the prince instructed Simon Case to start the process of dividing their two households immediately. William wished to be separated from Meghan on a day-to-day basis — and that meant being separated from his brother as well.

“William,” says a friend, “threw Harry out.”

©Robert Lacey 2021 Extracted from Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of a Family in Tumult by Robert Lacey, to be published by William Collins on June 24 at £9.99

https://youtu.be/MXugBMd6Zqg

•

•

The Countess of Wessex will appear on @BBC5Live today. In an interview with Naga Munchetty, The Countess discusses the ongoing prevalence of rape and sexual violence as weapons of war in conflict around the world, and the importance of raising awareness and supporting survivors.

The episode comes ahead of the International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict, on Saturday 19th June, 2021.

The Royal Family (@RoyalFamily)

Former Brexit Party MEP James Wells said: “Thank you @KopparbergUK for bringing to our attention your narrow mindedness and your support for divisive cancel culture We need a wider diversity of debate in the UK, not narrower which your action seems to support.”

The decision to remove its ads was also criticised by conservative commentator Darren Grimes who attacked the company’s hypocrisy: “‘Kopparberg is a drink for everyone’, somewhat contradicting yourself here like. Pathetic.”

New GB News presenter Michelle Dewberry also replied: “Imagine being @KopparbergUK and saying with a straight face that “you are a drink for everyone” and then wanting to pull ads from a section of viewers. Either you are a indeed a “drink for everyone” or you’re not.”

Kopparberg has not made any further comment.

On Tuesday, left-wing campaigners hailed victory after posting messages from German personal care brand Nivea and Dutch brewer Grolsch which appeared to show they had also suspended their advertising with the channel.

The activist group working in collaboration with Stop Funding Hate have set up a webpage showing which companies have succumbed to the threats of a boycott.

UPDATE: The Open University has now also reportedly suspending advertising on the channel.