WTAF is up with Sentebale's latest lawsuit against Prince Harry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about h & m.
We really don’t have the facts.

I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about William's role.

We have some facts, and they all point to William. We have the fact that Willy "Africa is mine, Harold!" buddy Iain Rawlinson serves as one of Sophie C's remaining two trustees, and Rawlinson sat by Sophie's side during her barnstorming tour of the UK where she trashed Harry on every show that would have her. Rawlinson still hasn't resigned despite the travesty that is this nuisance lawsuit, which doesn't use new donor funds for sick children. We have the fact that this lawsuit just names Harry and former trustee Mark Dyer, when a total of 6 trustees put their names to that resignation letter that trashed Sophie. We have the trustees' resignation letter, which speaks volumes about Sophie C's hostile takeover. We have pictures of Sophie and William chatting at William's Earthshot.

Discovery will tell us who is the mysterious donor that's filing this nuisance lawsuit. My money's on William. Or maybe it's the tabloids, who wouldn't do it without William's OK.

The fixation by the megan and harry super fangirls on William is so strange.

Every article about William is about how much he hates Harry and can’t wait to strip his titles when he’s king. There’s no more there, there.

+1. This is what I don’t get. Every article about William is about how, when he’s king, he won’t cut ribbons and his first act will be to strip Harry’s titles. That’s it. Hardly seems like king material.

Reporting from gossip mags makes him unkingly? He hasn’t stated he is striping titles, Charles hasn’t. His brother sold him out in spare - sharing private details from behind closed doors of both him and his wife, having his mouthpiece omid scoby insinuate that his wife and father are racist. I can fully understand why he has cut Harry off. What retaliation has William actually done to Harry? Nothing, he just won’t speak to him after the betrayal.

+100

This is how I see it too. The gossip mags may print unflattering things about stripping titles, but this just seems like more media lies.

I dunno. Tom Sykes claims to be well-connected, although as is often the case, his "sources" could just be his own whims. https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-plots-bonfire-of-royal-titles-when-he-becomes-king/

I hope he strips h and m titles. They claimed they wanted out but continue to try to use it to make money.

I mean, Charles has any number of gift shops at his various residences, where he sells jam, china, dog bowls, and Burberry. The money goes into his pockets too, and not into renovations which are still picked up by British taxpayers. Zara Tindall has multiple brand deals. How is this different?

Charles and Zara both actually serve and respect the people of England.

How does Zara serve the people of England?

Zara is not a working royal, does not have security aside from occasionally one-off engagements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about h & m.
We really don’t have the facts.

I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about William's role.

We have some facts, and they all point to William. We have the fact that Willy "Africa is mine, Harold!" buddy Iain Rawlinson serves as one of Sophie C's remaining two trustees, and Rawlinson sat by Sophie's side during her barnstorming tour of the UK where she trashed Harry on every show that would have her. Rawlinson still hasn't resigned despite the travesty that is this nuisance lawsuit, which doesn't use new donor funds for sick children. We have the fact that this lawsuit just names Harry and former trustee Mark Dyer, when a total of 6 trustees put their names to that resignation letter that trashed Sophie. We have the trustees' resignation letter, which speaks volumes about Sophie C's hostile takeover. We have pictures of Sophie and William chatting at William's Earthshot.

Discovery will tell us who is the mysterious donor that's filing this nuisance lawsuit. My money's on William. Or maybe it's the tabloids, who wouldn't do it without William's OK.

The fixation by the megan and harry super fangirls on William is so strange.

Every article about William is about how much he hates Harry and can’t wait to strip his titles when he’s king. There’s no more there, there.

+1. This is what I don’t get. Every article about William is about how, when he’s king, he won’t cut ribbons and his first act will be to strip Harry’s titles. That’s it. Hardly seems like king material.

Reporting from gossip mags makes him unkingly? He hasn’t stated he is striping titles, Charles hasn’t. His brother sold him out in spare - sharing private details from behind closed doors of both him and his wife, having his mouthpiece omid scoby insinuate that his wife and father are racist. I can fully understand why he has cut Harry off. What retaliation has William actually done to Harry? Nothing, he just won’t speak to him after the betrayal.

What makes him unkingly is his laziness. He's on another 3 1/2 week vacation as we speak, and this is his 3rd or 4th vacation this year. When he is "working," it's about once a week, and usually involves something dumb like barista cosplay, where he's rude to Kate, at some place that already has plenty of business. Also he flies celebs into his Earthshot event (btw an Epstein buddy was a major early backer), so he can do photo ops with them. And let's not start on him and Kate grabbing their 4th or 5th "forever home" last year, and kicking out a children's museum and dogwalkers.

I say all this as someone who wants the monarchy to succeed. Maybe in reduced form, give back some of those palaces, reform the duchy scams. As a 1/2 Brit, I do think it serves a purpose for national identity, fun etc. But William and Kate have really got to step it up if the monarchy is to survive, because the younger generation doesn't relate to the Waleses at all according to polls. You can tell the UK press is worried, too.

I don’t see William as lazy at all. Sounds like Sussex camp feeding the media

DP. You can look up the numbers yourself and see that William did substantially less work than his dad has while dealing with cancer and did less than 202 royal engagements in 2025. When you consider a countable thing is a zoom meeting with staff then that is basically nothing.

I think that you can argue that the royal work they do is basically useless and stupid but if you accept the job then it’s lazy not to do the work.

+1. When you’re earning £25m/year while a fifth of your country struggles with poverty (no kidding, look it up), you really need to do something. I guess constitutionally he can’t get involved with policy, so cutting ribbons it is.

England imported a ton of poverty, culture clashes and dependency over the past decade.

That is a political issue, not a royal family issue.

DP. How does this follow? Because they’re wasting money on one set of people best to ignore another set they are wasting money on?

It’s an order of magnitude. This is not the biggest issue concerning voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about h & m.
We really don’t have the facts.

I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about William's role.

We have some facts, and they all point to William. We have the fact that Willy "Africa is mine, Harold!" buddy Iain Rawlinson serves as one of Sophie C's remaining two trustees, and Rawlinson sat by Sophie's side during her barnstorming tour of the UK where she trashed Harry on every show that would have her. Rawlinson still hasn't resigned despite the travesty that is this nuisance lawsuit, which doesn't use new donor funds for sick children. We have the fact that this lawsuit just names Harry and former trustee Mark Dyer, when a total of 6 trustees put their names to that resignation letter that trashed Sophie. We have the trustees' resignation letter, which speaks volumes about Sophie C's hostile takeover. We have pictures of Sophie and William chatting at William's Earthshot.

Discovery will tell us who is the mysterious donor that's filing this nuisance lawsuit. My money's on William. Or maybe it's the tabloids, who wouldn't do it without William's OK.

The fixation by the megan and harry super fangirls on William is so strange.

Every article about William is about how much he hates Harry and can’t wait to strip his titles when he’s king. There’s no more there, there.

+1. This is what I don’t get. Every article about William is about how, when he’s king, he won’t cut ribbons and his first act will be to strip Harry’s titles. That’s it. Hardly seems like king material.

Reporting from gossip mags makes him unkingly? He hasn’t stated he is striping titles, Charles hasn’t. His brother sold him out in spare - sharing private details from behind closed doors of both him and his wife, having his mouthpiece omid scoby insinuate that his wife and father are racist. I can fully understand why he has cut Harry off. What retaliation has William actually done to Harry? Nothing, he just won’t speak to him after the betrayal.

+100

This is how I see it too. The gossip mags may print unflattering things about stripping titles, but this just seems like more media lies.

I dunno. Tom Sykes claims to be well-connected, although as is often the case, his "sources" could just be his own whims. https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-plots-bonfire-of-royal-titles-when-he-becomes-king/

I hope he strips h and m titles. They claimed they wanted out but continue to try to use it to make money.

Taking the titles away isn’t going to do anything unless it also causes mass amnesia as to who they are related to. The bulk of the entertainment market is Americans it’s meaningless to them to no longer be Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The mistake was not enticing them to stay in the fold in order to maintain control.

Totally agree. I couldn’t tell you where Sussex is on a map, but i do know that harry and Meghan are the king’s son and DIL, and future king’s brother and SIL. Taking away their titles will look so petty to everyone but royal super fans. We all saw what it took to finally take action against Andrew. Harry whining isn’t nearly enough to reach that level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And there it is. It's often said that the Venn diagram of MAGA and royalists/Sussex haters is a circle.

That's ridiculous. I'm the opposite of MAGA - I curse the MAGAs I see and can't wait to see them out of power. I canvassed door-to-door for Harris.

I also think H&M are big grifters who didn't think twice about using those poor cancer kids FACES for H&M's publicity, yet refuse to show their own children's faces on social media. Such hypocrites. So much for them claiming they want privacy - they want the complete opposite!

You can call me a Sussex hater if you want (just because I notice obvious grifting) but please don't call me MAGA!

Hit a nerve? Sure, we all know lots of racist liberals who blame immigration for the US' problems.

Not.

I didn't care for Meghan's show. But liars like you make me feel sorry for her. The photo showed the back of the cancer kid's head, so you could only see Meghan's face (and derangers like you tried to turn Meghan's face into an evil, calculating look, but whatever). You're forgetting that Kate was the one who used a cancer kid's actual face last year. And the Sussexes never said they want privacy--that's a lie and you can't find a source for that--they said they wanted boundaries and for the press to stop tapping their phones. Learn the difference.

You're the liar. I just googled and found at least 5 photos of H&M and the hospital kids full faces. Apparently I can't post the link here, but it's easy to find them. They come up right at the top of the search.

Of course you can post the pictures here. Click on the "img" (for PDFs or PNGs) or "url" (for weblinks) right above your post, making sure to click before and after your links.

I mean, even if you did find children's faces, is that so bad? Your beloved Kate does it all the time. What about Kate using cancer patient Liz Hatton repeatedly, and showing Liz's face on the royal insta page?

Also, surely the parents signed something. The Sussexes must be very well aware that one of their previous visits to sick children ended up with haters like you sending hate tweets to the sick childrens' parents.

You still lied when you said they only showed the backs of the children's heads, although now you say "even if you did find children's faces".

Before photo with Meghan:



After:



More photos of the children's FACES:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And there it is. It's often said that the Venn diagram of MAGA and royalists/Sussex haters is a circle.

That's ridiculous. I'm the opposite of MAGA - I curse the MAGAs I see and can't wait to see them out of power. I canvassed door-to-door for Harris.

I also think H&M are big grifters who didn't think twice about using those poor cancer kids FACES for H&M's publicity, yet refuse to show their own children's faces on social media. Such hypocrites. So much for them claiming they want privacy - they want the complete opposite!

You can call me a Sussex hater if you want (just because I notice obvious grifting) but please don't call me MAGA!

Hit a nerve? Sure, we all know lots of racist liberals who blame immigration for the US' problems.

Not.

I didn't care for Meghan's show. But liars like you make me feel sorry for her. The photo showed the back of the cancer kid's head, so you could only see Meghan's face (and derangers like you tried to turn Meghan's face into an evil, calculating look, but whatever). You're forgetting that Kate was the one who used a cancer kid's actual face last year. And the Sussexes never said they want privacy--that's a lie and you can't find a source for that--they said they wanted boundaries and for the press to stop tapping their phones. Learn the difference.

You're the liar. I just googled and found at least 5 photos of H&M and the hospital kids full faces. Apparently I can't post the link here, but it's easy to find them. They come up right at the top of the search.

Of course you can post the pictures here. Click on the "img" (for PDFs or PNGs) or "url" (for weblinks) right above your post, making sure to click before and after your links.

I mean, even if you did find children's faces, is that so bad? Your beloved Kate does it all the time. What about Kate using cancer patient Liz Hatton repeatedly, and showing Liz's face on the royal insta page?

Also, surely the parents signed something. The Sussexes must be very well aware that one of their previous visits to sick children ended up with haters like you sending hate tweets to the sick childrens' parents.

Apparently Beyond Australia filed a complaint stating that parents did not give consent, children were photographed without permission, and more.
That is as unacceptable as someone sending hate messages to the sick children’s parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about h & m.
We really don’t have the facts.

I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about William's role.

We have some facts, and they all point to William. We have the fact that Willy "Africa is mine, Harold!" buddy Iain Rawlinson serves as one of Sophie C's remaining two trustees, and Rawlinson sat by Sophie's side during her barnstorming tour of the UK where she trashed Harry on every show that would have her. Rawlinson still hasn't resigned despite the travesty that is this nuisance lawsuit, which doesn't use new donor funds for sick children. We have the fact that this lawsuit just names Harry and former trustee Mark Dyer, when a total of 6 trustees put their names to that resignation letter that trashed Sophie. We have the trustees' resignation letter, which speaks volumes about Sophie C's hostile takeover. We have pictures of Sophie and William chatting at William's Earthshot.

Discovery will tell us who is the mysterious donor that's filing this nuisance lawsuit. My money's on William. Or maybe it's the tabloids, who wouldn't do it without William's OK.

The fixation by the megan and harry super fangirls on William is so strange.

Every article about William is about how much he hates Harry and can’t wait to strip his titles when he’s king. There’s no more there, there.

+1. This is what I don’t get. Every article about William is about how, when he’s king, he won’t cut ribbons and his first act will be to strip Harry’s titles. That’s it. Hardly seems like king material.

Reporting from gossip mags makes him unkingly? He hasn’t stated he is striping titles, Charles hasn’t. His brother sold him out in spare - sharing private details from behind closed doors of both him and his wife, having his mouthpiece omid scoby insinuate that his wife and father are racist. I can fully understand why he has cut Harry off. What retaliation has William actually done to Harry? Nothing, he just won’t speak to him after the betrayal.

+100

This is how I see it too. The gossip mags may print unflattering things about stripping titles, but this just seems like more media lies.

I dunno. Tom Sykes claims to be well-connected, although as is often the case, his "sources" could just be his own whims. https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-plots-bonfire-of-royal-titles-when-he-becomes-king/

I hope he strips h and m titles. They claimed they wanted out but continue to try to use it to make money.

Taking the titles away isn’t going to do anything unless it also causes mass amnesia as to who they are related to. The bulk of the entertainment market is Americans it’s meaningless to them to no longer be Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The mistake was not enticing them to stay in the fold in order to maintain control.

Totally agree. I couldn’t tell you where Sussex is on a map, but i do know that harry and Meghan are the king’s son and DIL, and future king’s brother and SIL. Taking away their titles will look so petty to everyone but royal super fans. We all saw what it took to finally take action against Andrew. Harry whining isn’t nearly enough to reach that level.

I’d be pissed if I actually resided or worked in Sussex and these jokers are using the regions name as if they represent my best interests.
Let it be up to the residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about h & m.
We really don’t have the facts.

I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about William's role.

We have some facts, and they all point to William. We have the fact that Willy "Africa is mine, Harold!" buddy Iain Rawlinson serves as one of Sophie C's remaining two trustees, and Rawlinson sat by Sophie's side during her barnstorming tour of the UK where she trashed Harry on every show that would have her. Rawlinson still hasn't resigned despite the travesty that is this nuisance lawsuit, which doesn't use new donor funds for sick children. We have the fact that this lawsuit just names Harry and former trustee Mark Dyer, when a total of 6 trustees put their names to that resignation letter that trashed Sophie. We have the trustees' resignation letter, which speaks volumes about Sophie C's hostile takeover. We have pictures of Sophie and William chatting at William's Earthshot.

Discovery will tell us who is the mysterious donor that's filing this nuisance lawsuit. My money's on William. Or maybe it's the tabloids, who wouldn't do it without William's OK.

The fixation by the megan and harry super fangirls on William is so strange.

Every article about William is about how much he hates Harry and can’t wait to strip his titles when he’s king. There’s no more there, there.

+1. This is what I don’t get. Every article about William is about how, when he’s king, he won’t cut ribbons and his first act will be to strip Harry’s titles. That’s it. Hardly seems like king material.

Reporting from gossip mags makes him unkingly? He hasn’t stated he is striping titles, Charles hasn’t. His brother sold him out in spare - sharing private details from behind closed doors of both him and his wife, having his mouthpiece omid scoby insinuate that his wife and father are racist. I can fully understand why he has cut Harry off. What retaliation has William actually done to Harry? Nothing, he just won’t speak to him after the betrayal.

+100

This is how I see it too. The gossip mags may print unflattering things about stripping titles, but this just seems like more media lies.

I dunno. Tom Sykes claims to be well-connected, although as is often the case, his "sources" could just be his own whims. https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-plots-bonfire-of-royal-titles-when-he-becomes-king/

I hope he strips h and m titles. They claimed they wanted out but continue to try to use it to make money.

I mean, Charles has any number of gift shops at his various residences, where he sells jam, china, dog bowls, and Burberry. The money goes into his pockets too, and not into renovations which are still picked up by British taxpayers. Zara Tindall has multiple brand deals. How is this different?

Charles and Zara both actually serve and respect the people of England.

How does Zara serve the people of England?

Zara is not a working royal, does not have security aside from occasionally one-off engagements.

She serves England through equestrian sport, medaling in the 2012 Olympics as a representative.
She shows respect for the royal family and for her country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about h & m.
We really don’t have the facts.

I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about William's role.

We have some facts, and they all point to William. We have the fact that Willy "Africa is mine, Harold!" buddy Iain Rawlinson serves as one of Sophie C's remaining two trustees, and Rawlinson sat by Sophie's side during her barnstorming tour of the UK where she trashed Harry on every show that would have her. Rawlinson still hasn't resigned despite the travesty that is this nuisance lawsuit, which doesn't use new donor funds for sick children. We have the fact that this lawsuit just names Harry and former trustee Mark Dyer, when a total of 6 trustees put their names to that resignation letter that trashed Sophie. We have the trustees' resignation letter, which speaks volumes about Sophie C's hostile takeover. We have pictures of Sophie and William chatting at William's Earthshot.

Discovery will tell us who is the mysterious donor that's filing this nuisance lawsuit. My money's on William. Or maybe it's the tabloids, who wouldn't do it without William's OK.

The fixation by the megan and harry super fangirls on William is so strange.

Every article about William is about how much he hates Harry and can’t wait to strip his titles when he’s king. There’s no more there, there.

+1. This is what I don’t get. Every article about William is about how, when he’s king, he won’t cut ribbons and his first act will be to strip Harry’s titles. That’s it. Hardly seems like king material.

Reporting from gossip mags makes him unkingly? He hasn’t stated he is striping titles, Charles hasn’t. His brother sold him out in spare - sharing private details from behind closed doors of both him and his wife, having his mouthpiece omid scoby insinuate that his wife and father are racist. I can fully understand why he has cut Harry off. What retaliation has William actually done to Harry? Nothing, he just won’t speak to him after the betrayal.

What makes him unkingly is his laziness. He's on another 3 1/2 week vacation as we speak, and this is his 3rd or 4th vacation this year. When he is "working," it's about once a week, and usually involves something dumb like barista cosplay, where he's rude to Kate, at some place that already has plenty of business. Also he flies celebs into his Earthshot event (btw an Epstein buddy was a major early backer), so he can do photo ops with them. And let's not start on him and Kate grabbing their 4th or 5th "forever home" last year, and kicking out a children's museum and dogwalkers.

I say all this as someone who wants the monarchy to succeed. Maybe in reduced form, give back some of those palaces, reform the duchy scams. As a 1/2 Brit, I do think it serves a purpose for national identity, fun etc. But William and Kate have really got to step it up if the monarchy is to survive, because the younger generation doesn't relate to the Waleses at all according to polls. You can tell the UK press is worried, too.

I don’t see William as lazy at all. Sounds like Sussex camp feeding the media

DP. You can look up the numbers yourself and see that William did substantially less work than his dad has while dealing with cancer and did less than 202 royal engagements in 2025. When you consider a countable thing is a zoom meeting with staff then that is basically nothing.

I think that you can argue that the royal work they do is basically useless and stupid but if you accept the job then it’s lazy not to do the work.

Britain needs to have a conversation with itself about what the monarchy needs to do to stay relevant and keep its position. Making racist arguments about the country's poverty being down to immigration doesn't begin to solve the monarchy's specific viability problem.

Polling repeatedly shows that 1/3 or more of Britain's population doesn't support the monarchy. This climbs a lot higher for younger Brits. So when you see that 70% like Charles, or something, usually that's 70% of people who support the monarchy, and a true figure for Charles' own support would need to be scaled down by 1/3 to under 50%. And the problem is only going to get worse as the royalists die out. So the monarchy needs to figure it out.

That is not exactly how math and stats work...

OK. You tell us. If 2/3 of the Brits support the monarchy (1/3 don't support), and of those two-thirds 70% like a particular royal, then it sure looks like 46.2% (=.70*.66) of the TOTAL British population support that particular royal.

Now show your own math. We'll wait!

You are just doing the simple math so your numbers are not accurare.

There are people in this survey who don't like the monarchy but approve of Charles. There are people who love the monarchy that don't approve of Charles, preferring Charles to step down for William.

In your 70% approval for Charles group, there is a percentage, perhsps a large percentage, who do not care for the monarchy but think that Charles is doing a decent job by championing their causes or appearing benevolent and grandfatherly. That 1/3 of people who reject the monarchy did not respond as some monolithic group, with uniform hatred of all things British, especially when you get down to approval numbers of individual people within the monarchy, especially the senior citizen royals and the child royals, who are more of a blank slate.


You are just looking at the simple number summary, not actual survey results. A basic stats class will show you how numbers from surveys can be manipulated, and that respondents who answer one way on a broader question tend to not answer as a monolithic identical group on all questions, especially when the questions start getting more specific and nuanced, down to specific people and specific issues. For example, I suspect Princess Anne has fairly high approval rates from people who want the monarchy dissolved

You are doing the simple math, and it ain't mathin' or stattin'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about h & m.
We really don’t have the facts.

I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about William's role.

We have some facts, and they all point to William. We have the fact that Willy "Africa is mine, Harold!" buddy Iain Rawlinson serves as one of Sophie C's remaining two trustees, and Rawlinson sat by Sophie's side during her barnstorming tour of the UK where she trashed Harry on every show that would have her. Rawlinson still hasn't resigned despite the travesty that is this nuisance lawsuit, which doesn't use new donor funds for sick children. We have the fact that this lawsuit just names Harry and former trustee Mark Dyer, when a total of 6 trustees put their names to that resignation letter that trashed Sophie. We have the trustees' resignation letter, which speaks volumes about Sophie C's hostile takeover. We have pictures of Sophie and William chatting at William's Earthshot.

Discovery will tell us who is the mysterious donor that's filing this nuisance lawsuit. My money's on William. Or maybe it's the tabloids, who wouldn't do it without William's OK.

The fixation by the megan and harry super fangirls on William is so strange.

Every article about William is about how much he hates Harry and can’t wait to strip his titles when he’s king. There’s no more there, there.

+1. This is what I don’t get. Every article about William is about how, when he’s king, he won’t cut ribbons and his first act will be to strip Harry’s titles. That’s it. Hardly seems like king material.

Reporting from gossip mags makes him unkingly? He hasn’t stated he is striping titles, Charles hasn’t. His brother sold him out in spare - sharing private details from behind closed doors of both him and his wife, having his mouthpiece omid scoby insinuate that his wife and father are racist. I can fully understand why he has cut Harry off. What retaliation has William actually done to Harry? Nothing, he just won’t speak to him after the betrayal.

+100

This is how I see it too. The gossip mags may print unflattering things about stripping titles, but this just seems like more media lies.

I dunno. Tom Sykes claims to be well-connected, although as is often the case, his "sources" could just be his own whims. https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-plots-bonfire-of-royal-titles-when-he-becomes-king/

I hope he strips h and m titles. They claimed they wanted out but continue to try to use it to make money.

I mean, Charles has any number of gift shops at his various residences, where he sells jam, china, dog bowls, and Burberry. The money goes into his pockets too, and not into renovations which are still picked up by British taxpayers. Zara Tindall has multiple brand deals. How is this different?

Charles and Zara both actually serve and respect the people of England.

How does Zara serve the people of England?

Zara is not a working royal, does not have security aside from occasionally one-off engagements.

She serves England through equestrian sport, medaling in the 2012 Olympics as a representative.
She shows respect for the royal family and for her country.

As a private citizen athlete, not a royal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And there it is. It's often said that the Venn diagram of MAGA and royalists/Sussex haters is a circle.

That's ridiculous. I'm the opposite of MAGA - I curse the MAGAs I see and can't wait to see them out of power. I canvassed door-to-door for Harris.

I also think H&M are big grifters who didn't think twice about using those poor cancer kids FACES for H&M's publicity, yet refuse to show their own children's faces on social media. Such hypocrites. So much for them claiming they want privacy - they want the complete opposite!

You can call me a Sussex hater if you want (just because I notice obvious grifting) but please don't call me MAGA!

Hit a nerve? Sure, we all know lots of racist liberals who blame immigration for the US' problems.

Not.

I didn't care for Meghan's show. But liars like you make me feel sorry for her. The photo showed the back of the cancer kid's head, so you could only see Meghan's face (and derangers like you tried to turn Meghan's face into an evil, calculating look, but whatever). You're forgetting that Kate was the one who used a cancer kid's actual face last year. And the Sussexes never said they want privacy--that's a lie and you can't find a source for that--they said they wanted boundaries and for the press to stop tapping their phones. Learn the difference.

You're the liar. I just googled and found at least 5 photos of H&M and the hospital kids full faces. Apparently I can't post the link here, but it's easy to find them. They come up right at the top of the search.

Of course you can post the pictures here. Click on the "img" (for PDFs or PNGs) or "url" (for weblinks) right above your post, making sure to click before and after your links.

I mean, even if you did find children's faces, is that so bad? Your beloved Kate does it all the time. What about Kate using cancer patient Liz Hatton repeatedly, and showing Liz's face on the royal insta page?

Also, surely the parents signed something. The Sussexes must be very well aware that one of their previous visits to sick children ended up with haters like you sending hate tweets to the sick childrens' parents.

You still lied when you said they only showed the backs of the children's heads, although now you say "even if you did find children's faces".

[photos deleted because so many photos would take up the entire page and people can easily scroll back to your photos]

Again, so what? Here's Kate with young Liz Hatton:





Moreover, you could make a solid argument that your photos were taken by others and posted on their own newssites. Whereas Kate formally posed her photos with Liz, using royal photographers like Chris whatshisname, and then Kate posted these on Kensington Palace's Instagram.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about h & m.
We really don’t have the facts.

I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about William's role.

We have some facts, and they all point to William. We have the fact that Willy "Africa is mine, Harold!" buddy Iain Rawlinson serves as one of Sophie C's remaining two trustees, and Rawlinson sat by Sophie's side during her barnstorming tour of the UK where she trashed Harry on every show that would have her. Rawlinson still hasn't resigned despite the travesty that is this nuisance lawsuit, which doesn't use new donor funds for sick children. We have the fact that this lawsuit just names Harry and former trustee Mark Dyer, when a total of 6 trustees put their names to that resignation letter that trashed Sophie. We have the trustees' resignation letter, which speaks volumes about Sophie C's hostile takeover. We have pictures of Sophie and William chatting at William's Earthshot.

Discovery will tell us who is the mysterious donor that's filing this nuisance lawsuit. My money's on William. Or maybe it's the tabloids, who wouldn't do it without William's OK.

The fixation by the megan and harry super fangirls on William is so strange.

Every article about William is about how much he hates Harry and can’t wait to strip his titles when he’s king. There’s no more there, there.

+1. This is what I don’t get. Every article about William is about how, when he’s king, he won’t cut ribbons and his first act will be to strip Harry’s titles. That’s it. Hardly seems like king material.

Reporting from gossip mags makes him unkingly? He hasn’t stated he is striping titles, Charles hasn’t. His brother sold him out in spare - sharing private details from behind closed doors of both him and his wife, having his mouthpiece omid scoby insinuate that his wife and father are racist. I can fully understand why he has cut Harry off. What retaliation has William actually done to Harry? Nothing, he just won’t speak to him after the betrayal.

+100

This is how I see it too. The gossip mags may print unflattering things about stripping titles, but this just seems like more media lies.

I dunno. Tom Sykes claims to be well-connected, although as is often the case, his "sources" could just be his own whims. https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-plots-bonfire-of-royal-titles-when-he-becomes-king/

I hope he strips h and m titles. They claimed they wanted out but continue to try to use it to make money.

I mean, Charles has any number of gift shops at his various residences, where he sells jam, china, dog bowls, and Burberry. The money goes into his pockets too, and not into renovations which are still picked up by British taxpayers. Zara Tindall has multiple brand deals. How is this different?

Charles and Zara both actually serve and respect the people of England.

How does Zara serve the people of England?

Zara is not a working royal, does not have security aside from occasionally one-off engagements.

She serves England through equestrian sport, medaling in the 2012 Olympics as a representative.
She shows respect for the royal family and for her country.

As a private citizen athlete, not a royal

+1. Spending millions on riding lessons and the best horses (I ride, I know what it takes) is not the win pp thinks it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about h & m.
We really don’t have the facts.

I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about William's role.

We have some facts, and they all point to William. We have the fact that Willy "Africa is mine, Harold!" buddy Iain Rawlinson serves as one of Sophie C's remaining two trustees, and Rawlinson sat by Sophie's side during her barnstorming tour of the UK where she trashed Harry on every show that would have her. Rawlinson still hasn't resigned despite the travesty that is this nuisance lawsuit, which doesn't use new donor funds for sick children. We have the fact that this lawsuit just names Harry and former trustee Mark Dyer, when a total of 6 trustees put their names to that resignation letter that trashed Sophie. We have the trustees' resignation letter, which speaks volumes about Sophie C's hostile takeover. We have pictures of Sophie and William chatting at William's Earthshot.

Discovery will tell us who is the mysterious donor that's filing this nuisance lawsuit. My money's on William. Or maybe it's the tabloids, who wouldn't do it without William's OK.

The fixation by the megan and harry super fangirls on William is so strange.

Every article about William is about how much he hates Harry and can’t wait to strip his titles when he’s king. There’s no more there, there.

+1. This is what I don’t get. Every article about William is about how, when he’s king, he won’t cut ribbons and his first act will be to strip Harry’s titles. That’s it. Hardly seems like king material.

Reporting from gossip mags makes him unkingly? He hasn’t stated he is striping titles, Charles hasn’t. His brother sold him out in spare - sharing private details from behind closed doors of both him and his wife, having his mouthpiece omid scoby insinuate that his wife and father are racist. I can fully understand why he has cut Harry off. What retaliation has William actually done to Harry? Nothing, he just won’t speak to him after the betrayal.

+100

This is how I see it too. The gossip mags may print unflattering things about stripping titles, but this just seems like more media lies.

I dunno. Tom Sykes claims to be well-connected, although as is often the case, his "sources" could just be his own whims. https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-plots-bonfire-of-royal-titles-when-he-becomes-king/

I hope he strips h and m titles. They claimed they wanted out but continue to try to use it to make money.

Taking the titles away isn’t going to do anything unless it also causes mass amnesia as to who they are related to. The bulk of the entertainment market is Americans it’s meaningless to them to no longer be Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The mistake was not enticing them to stay in the fold in order to maintain control.

Totally agree. I couldn’t tell you where Sussex is on a map, but i do know that harry and Meghan are the king’s son and DIL, and future king’s brother and SIL. Taking away their titles will look so petty to everyone but royal super fans. We all saw what it took to finally take action against Andrew. Harry whining isn’t nearly enough to reach that level.

I’d be pissed if I actually resided or worked in Sussex and these jokers are using the regions name as if they represent my best interests.
Let it be up to the residents.

Get over yourself. The Waleses haven't bothered to learn Welsh, except for that time Willy said he was using Duolingo, and that other time they read from a teleprompter. Charles spent what, six months, studying Welsh in Wales with a private Welsh tutor before his investiture as Prince of Wales. That's another thing, William didn't even bother with an investiture as Prince of Wales. The residents of Sussex thank you for your concern, though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about h & m.
We really don’t have the facts.

I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about William's role.

We have some facts, and they all point to William. We have the fact that Willy "Africa is mine, Harold!" buddy Iain Rawlinson serves as one of Sophie C's remaining two trustees, and Rawlinson sat by Sophie's side during her barnstorming tour of the UK where she trashed Harry on every show that would have her. Rawlinson still hasn't resigned despite the travesty that is this nuisance lawsuit, which doesn't use new donor funds for sick children. We have the fact that this lawsuit just names Harry and former trustee Mark Dyer, when a total of 6 trustees put their names to that resignation letter that trashed Sophie. We have the trustees' resignation letter, which speaks volumes about Sophie C's hostile takeover. We have pictures of Sophie and William chatting at William's Earthshot.

Discovery will tell us who is the mysterious donor that's filing this nuisance lawsuit. My money's on William. Or maybe it's the tabloids, who wouldn't do it without William's OK.

The fixation by the megan and harry super fangirls on William is so strange.

Every article about William is about how much he hates Harry and can’t wait to strip his titles when he’s king. There’s no more there, there.

+1. This is what I don’t get. Every article about William is about how, when he’s king, he won’t cut ribbons and his first act will be to strip Harry’s titles. That’s it. Hardly seems like king material.

Reporting from gossip mags makes him unkingly? He hasn’t stated he is striping titles, Charles hasn’t. His brother sold him out in spare - sharing private details from behind closed doors of both him and his wife, having his mouthpiece omid scoby insinuate that his wife and father are racist. I can fully understand why he has cut Harry off. What retaliation has William actually done to Harry? Nothing, he just won’t speak to him after the betrayal.

What makes him unkingly is his laziness. He's on another 3 1/2 week vacation as we speak, and this is his 3rd or 4th vacation this year. When he is "working," it's about once a week, and usually involves something dumb like barista cosplay, where he's rude to Kate, at some place that already has plenty of business. Also he flies celebs into his Earthshot event (btw an Epstein buddy was a major early backer), so he can do photo ops with them. And let's not start on him and Kate grabbing their 4th or 5th "forever home" last year, and kicking out a children's museum and dogwalkers.

I say all this as someone who wants the monarchy to succeed. Maybe in reduced form, give back some of those palaces, reform the duchy scams. As a 1/2 Brit, I do think it serves a purpose for national identity, fun etc. But William and Kate have really got to step it up if the monarchy is to survive, because the younger generation doesn't relate to the Waleses at all according to polls. You can tell the UK press is worried, too.

I don’t see William as lazy at all. Sounds like Sussex camp feeding the media

DP. You can look up the numbers yourself and see that William did substantially less work than his dad has while dealing with cancer and did less than 202 royal engagements in 2025. When you consider a countable thing is a zoom meeting with staff then that is basically nothing.

I think that you can argue that the royal work they do is basically useless and stupid but if you accept the job then it’s lazy not to do the work.

Britain needs to have a conversation with itself about what the monarchy needs to do to stay relevant and keep its position. Making racist arguments about the country's poverty being down to immigration doesn't begin to solve the monarchy's specific viability problem.

Polling repeatedly shows that 1/3 or more of Britain's population doesn't support the monarchy. This climbs a lot higher for younger Brits. So when you see that 70% like Charles, or something, usually that's 70% of people who support the monarchy, and a true figure for Charles' own support would need to be scaled down by 1/3 to under 50%. And the problem is only going to get worse as the royalists die out. So the monarchy needs to figure it out.

That is not exactly how math and stats work...

OK. You tell us. If 2/3 of the Brits support the monarchy (1/3 don't support), and of those two-thirds 70% like a particular royal, then it sure looks like 46.2% (=.70*.66) of the TOTAL British population support that particular royal.

Now show your own math. We'll wait!

You are just doing the simple math so your numbers are not accurare.

There are people in this survey who don't like the monarchy but approve of Charles. There are people who love the monarchy that don't approve of Charles, preferring Charles to step down for William.

In your 70% approval for Charles group, there is a percentage, perhsps a large percentage, who do not care for the monarchy but think that Charles is doing a decent job by championing their causes or appearing benevolent and grandfatherly. That 1/3 of people who reject the monarchy did not respond as some monolithic group, with uniform hatred of all things British, especially when you get down to approval numbers of individual people within the monarchy, especially the senior citizen royals and the child royals, who are more of a blank slate.


You are just looking at the simple number summary, not actual survey results. A basic stats class will show you how numbers from surveys can be manipulated, and that respondents who answer one way on a broader question tend to not answer as a monolithic identical group on all questions, especially when the questions start getting more specific and nuanced, down to specific people and specific issues. For example, I suspect Princess Anne has fairly high approval rates from people who want the monarchy dissolved

You are doing the simple math, and it ain't mathin' or stattin'

Hahahaha. You don't know how surveys work. Poor you. I worked on surveys at a place you've heard of.

There are (at least) two ways to eliminate the non-monarchists before asking the questions about whether respondents like individual people within the monarchy, Charles, William, or the others. Use one of these methods, then proceed accordingly.
(1) Ask an initial filter question, such as "do think the monarchy should continue?" If they answer "no" then don't ask them the follow-on question about how they feel about Charles or the others.
(2) Include in your popularity question (do you like Charles?) some options for "don't know", "refused," "He should abdicate" and "I don't want the monarchy." Eliminate anyone who gives these other answers and, again, you're left with the pro-monarchists.

The fact that more people (33%) *as a whole* dislike the monarchy than dislike Charles (30%) or William (maybe 25%?) individually actually suggests one of the above is happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about h & m.
We really don’t have the facts.

I hope it goes to court, so the truth comes out about William's role.

We have some facts, and they all point to William. We have the fact that Willy "Africa is mine, Harold!" buddy Iain Rawlinson serves as one of Sophie C's remaining two trustees, and Rawlinson sat by Sophie's side during her barnstorming tour of the UK where she trashed Harry on every show that would have her. Rawlinson still hasn't resigned despite the travesty that is this nuisance lawsuit, which doesn't use new donor funds for sick children. We have the fact that this lawsuit just names Harry and former trustee Mark Dyer, when a total of 6 trustees put their names to that resignation letter that trashed Sophie. We have the trustees' resignation letter, which speaks volumes about Sophie C's hostile takeover. We have pictures of Sophie and William chatting at William's Earthshot.

Discovery will tell us who is the mysterious donor that's filing this nuisance lawsuit. My money's on William. Or maybe it's the tabloids, who wouldn't do it without William's OK.

The fixation by the megan and harry super fangirls on William is so strange.

Every article about William is about how much he hates Harry and can’t wait to strip his titles when he’s king. There’s no more there, there.

+1. This is what I don’t get. Every article about William is about how, when he’s king, he won’t cut ribbons and his first act will be to strip Harry’s titles. That’s it. Hardly seems like king material.

Reporting from gossip mags makes him unkingly? He hasn’t stated he is striping titles, Charles hasn’t. His brother sold him out in spare - sharing private details from behind closed doors of both him and his wife, having his mouthpiece omid scoby insinuate that his wife and father are racist. I can fully understand why he has cut Harry off. What retaliation has William actually done to Harry? Nothing, he just won’t speak to him after the betrayal.

What makes him unkingly is his laziness. He's on another 3 1/2 week vacation as we speak, and this is his 3rd or 4th vacation this year. When he is "working," it's about once a week, and usually involves something dumb like barista cosplay, where he's rude to Kate, at some place that already has plenty of business. Also he flies celebs into his Earthshot event (btw an Epstein buddy was a major early backer), so he can do photo ops with them. And let's not start on him and Kate grabbing their 4th or 5th "forever home" last year, and kicking out a children's museum and dogwalkers.

I say all this as someone who wants the monarchy to succeed. Maybe in reduced form, give back some of those palaces, reform the duchy scams. As a 1/2 Brit, I do think it serves a purpose for national identity, fun etc. But William and Kate have really got to step it up if the monarchy is to survive, because the younger generation doesn't relate to the Waleses at all according to polls. You can tell the UK press is worried, too.

I don’t see William as lazy at all. Sounds like Sussex camp feeding the media

DP. You can look up the numbers yourself and see that William did substantially less work than his dad has while dealing with cancer and did less than 202 royal engagements in 2025. When you consider a countable thing is a zoom meeting with staff then that is basically nothing.

I think that you can argue that the royal work they do is basically useless and stupid but if you accept the job then it’s lazy not to do the work.

Britain needs to have a conversation with itself about what the monarchy needs to do to stay relevant and keep its position. Making racist arguments about the country's poverty being down to immigration doesn't begin to solve the monarchy's specific viability problem.

Polling repeatedly shows that 1/3 or more of Britain's population doesn't support the monarchy. This climbs a lot higher for younger Brits. So when you see that 70% like Charles, or something, usually that's 70% of people who support the monarchy, and a true figure for Charles' own support would need to be scaled down by 1/3 to under 50%. And the problem is only going to get worse as the royalists die out. So the monarchy needs to figure it out.

That is not exactly how math and stats work...

OK. You tell us. If 2/3 of the Brits support the monarchy (1/3 don't support), and of those two-thirds 70% like a particular royal, then it sure looks like 46.2% (=.70*.66) of the TOTAL British population support that particular royal.

Now show your own math. We'll wait!

You are just doing the simple math so your numbers are not accurare.

There are people in this survey who don't like the monarchy but approve of Charles. There are people who love the monarchy that don't approve of Charles, preferring Charles to step down for William.

In your 70% approval for Charles group, there is a percentage, perhsps a large percentage, who do not care for the monarchy but think that Charles is doing a decent job by championing their causes or appearing benevolent and grandfatherly. That 1/3 of people who reject the monarchy did not respond as some monolithic group, with uniform hatred of all things British, especially when you get down to approval numbers of individual people within the monarchy, especially the senior citizen royals and the child royals, who are more of a blank slate.


You are just looking at the simple number summary, not actual survey results. A basic stats class will show you how numbers from surveys can be manipulated, and that respondents who answer one way on a broader question tend to not answer as a monolithic identical group on all questions, especially when the questions start getting more specific and nuanced, down to specific people and specific issues. For example, I suspect Princess Anne has fairly high approval rates from people who want the monarchy dissolved

You are doing the simple math, and it ain't mathin' or stattin'

Hahahaha. You don't know how surveys work. Poor you. I worked on surveys at a place you've heard of.

There are (at least) two ways to eliminate the non-monarchists before asking the questions about whether respondents like individual people within the monarchy, Charles, William, or the others. Use one of these methods, then proceed accordingly.
(1) Ask an initial filter question, such as "do think the monarchy should continue?" If they answer "no" then don't ask them the follow-on question about how they feel about Charles or the others.
(2) Include in your popularity question (do you like Charles?) some options for "don't know", "refused," "He should abdicate" and "I don't want the monarchy." Eliminate anyone who gives these other answers and, again, you're left with the pro-monarchists.

The fact that more people (33%) *as a whole* dislike the monarchy than dislike Charles (30%) or William (maybe 25%?) individually actually suggests one of the above is happening.

I forgot option three. Many survey groups have proprietary panels of people they survey. Many survey groups also pay people to participate. These aren't necessarily bad things, if your panel is representative and weighted honestly. But survey groups like YouGov are notorious for exploiting this format (did I mention I'm in the industry?). So, the answer is obvious. Create your own, bespoke panel of pensioners and royalists, and ask them your very tailored questions that help you eliminate the people from that Republic group and other non-royalists.

[Anonymous]

It's not about posing with kids or not.

It's about the *hypocrisy* of getting paid to make speeches about the danger of kids being online and being shown online, about making a big point of hiding your own kid's faces in *your* photos, and then showing *other* people's kid's faces for your own publicity.

Kate posed with a cancer patient - but she also allows her own kids to be photographed and shown to the British public. So she is a not a hypocrite.

I'm calling M&H out for being hypocrites, not debating the merits of whether or not kids should be photographed.