Prince Harry has reportedly received multiple warnings from the palace for breaching the terms of the Sandringham agreement, particularly financial support. On January 10, 2020, Duchess Meghan was conspicuously absent from the Sandringham Summit attended by Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Charles, and Queen Elizabeth.
Prince Harry spoke candidly about the meeting in both a Netflix documentary and a revealing interview with Oprah Winfrey. He announced that the royal family had stopped providing him with financial support. ITB News linked this revelation to his refusal to remove the Palace's name from a lawsuit he filed against British media sources.
Criticism was leveled at Oprah Winfrey for not saying whether Prince Harry had actually breached the agreement at the Sandringham summit, or whether there had been a conflict over the terms of the deal. Prince Harry appears to have agreed to all terms in January 2020. But by June of that year, he had broken at least one condition. As a result, his financial support was terminated in July 2020. In her statement, Queen Elizabeth emphasized that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle no longer want to rely on public funds and want to become financially independent. Despite their ambitions, Prince Harry, who is almost 40 and no longer a minor, claimed his father had financially insulated him. Clarence House rejected this claim. More than four years after the Megxit deal, Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan are still battling the fallout. They believed that their ambition and self-satisfaction enabled them to make demands on the monarchy. However, they had no authority to enforce these demands. After their departure, the couple became obsessed with reframing the story to portray the royal family and King Charles as ruthless, even if the truth contradicted this story.
The story was recently revived by Byline Times, a publication that is about to make a notable debut by recycling the Sussex family's history and repeating the famous story while citing anonymous sources. This is considered to be the cause. They claim that £700,000 of funding was cut because Prince Harry insisted on appointing a royal adviser in one of his cases. However, this claim appears to be unsubstantiated, raising questions about why Prince Harry, who has a large personal fortune, needed financial support from his father.
Indeed, the Sussexes' decision to leave the royal family appears to have been a calculated plan. They imagined working as part-time royals and enjoying the perks without the responsibilities or approval of the monarch. They announced a plan (“Megxit”) and waited for it to unfold as desired. However, Duchess Meghan and Prince Harry were not experienced negotiators. Their attempts to create a kind of hostage situation with the monarchy failed.
They needed influence, a key piece of the royal puzzle, to force the monarchy to comply with their demands or accept their terms. This did not happen, and as a result they lost all royal privileges they had expected from King Charles, including financial support and security. These measures were deemed necessary by the Crown. Yesterday, the world's most famous bullies gave a lecture on bullying and we witnessed hypocrisy on a grand scale. The topic of both sermons, including Prince Meghan, was cybersecurity. These two are not the righteous voices to discuss this issue, but I still grieve for those who have lost loved ones to cyberbullying.
Even though they repeatedly say they want things to improve and give the impression that they care about cyberbullying, their moral principles seem to have changed for their convenience. Harry and his wife preach about online safety, but their actions seem to contradict what they are against. When their supporters, bots, or die-hard fans engage in intimidation and bullying, they appear unfazed.They express concern regarding social media safety, but their verbal views do not align with their own behavior or that of the people they employ.
Megan and Harry are embodying hypocrisy by pretending to be concerned while their actions suggest they may not be working for the greater good. They have demonstrated a willingness to censor media for their advantage, and possibly for the benefit of more powerful figures than themselves. Megan faced a bullying report, raising questions about the distinction between cyberbullying and mistreating colleagues, resulting in official reprimands.
The Sussexes pay individuals on social media to make death threats, spread lies, insult, and intimidate. They are guilty of the acts they condemn, sometimes directly and more often by proxy. Her Sussex team includes the likes of Bot Sentinel founder Christopher Bowie, who has caused significant damage on social media and appears to be on Harry's list.
إرسال تعليق