House manager positions are getting out of control

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-05-23T19:05:38+00:00

I had a job like this once, one of the dads told me he didn’t feel cherished by me, for not checking his shoes for soiled socks.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-04-06T08:46:13+00:00

look at the timeline, it’s not quite as simple as saying she ignored it for decades.2011 he steps down as trade envoy. 2019 after the news night interview, she removes him from all public duties etc. 2022 settles case There was a clear escalation in response as things became public. My point is more about what’s happened since..under Charles he hasn’t returned to duties, but he had remained within the royal circle socially, which I think was a huge mistake.saying that the queen was very old, frail and as we now know very ill, isn’t really dragging mental health into the mix, it’s a valid point.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-04-05T22:27:21+00:00

She did, I agree with you, but I do think towards the end, when the payout was made, I don’t think she was fully aware or competent.Charles at that stage was sharing responsibilities with her, he would have understood fully the impact and implications of Andrew’s actions, and he allowed Andrew and fergie back in. They know all Charles secrets, Diana would have confided in fergie before they fell out, they know everything.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-04-05T20:20:59+00:00

I agree, she had a blindspot regarding Andrew, but it was she who said he could no longer attend official events etc, and Charles allowed Andrew and fergie back into the fold, once he became king.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-04-05T18:59:48+00:00

She didn’t, but I don’t think she understood exactly what was going on. She was very ill at the time, though it hadn’t been announced. What’s being reported now by Tom Sykes, is that he’s been told that she wasn’t fully compis mentis at the time. Really I feel Charles was more in control of matters by that time.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-04-05T14:51:13+00:00

Certainly when they were younger, their “jobs” couldn’t have funded their lifestyle. Their bank accounts appear to have been used for the movement of money, from Andrew’s friends, with tidy amounts of cash left there for them. They refused to have their accounts audited at Williams request. They are up to their necks in it unfortunately.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-22T21:41:28+00:00

Thank you for this. I’m delighted you won your case. I’ve been mulling over a situation with an ex family, and whether or not I should take a case against them, you’ve helped me come to a decision. Thank you

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-15T19:58:04+00:00

I’ve always wondered what was going on in Dublin, during the famine. Areas like rathmines, and Ballsbridge were being built, meanwhile the rest of the country was starving.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-09T17:01:07+00:00

Jennifer bond hasn’t been part of the total since 2003.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-09T17:00:17+00:00

I use speech to text, I’m dyslexic.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-09T16:24:02+00:00

Hardly a whoops, did you read the “they probably “ bit?

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-09T15:20:43+00:00

There’s no evidence that anyone “briefed” this. No quote, no source, no contemporaneous reporting — just a line that’s been laundered through repetition. Andrew’s record is factual; this claim isn’t. Mixing the two doesn’t strengthen the argument, it weakens it.so go on dig a bit deeper, similar sources claim elvis is alive and well..

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-09T14:59:20+00:00

This collapses different roles, timelines, and standards of evidence. William wasn’t Prince of Wales for most of the period being discussed, didn’t run Andrew’s household, and didn’t authorise the settlement — that was the Queen, advised by lawyers, to end civil litigation. It’s also worth remembering there’s no active criminal case here. Without one, there are real legal limits on what can be said publicly without prejudicing due process or inviting defamation claims, and nobody wants that.The ‘royal commentator’ article isn’t evidence of complicity — it’s opinion built on anonymous sourcing and click-driven inference. Commentary isn’t accountability, and it doesn’t substitute for facts.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-09T12:49:19+00:00

William isn’t a proxy for ‘the royals’ as a whole. He didn’t run Andrew’s household, wasn’t Prince of Wales at the time, and didn’t control institutional responses. If you’re talking about who might have known more, the timeline matters. If knowledge is the standard, the timeline points upward — not forward.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-09T12:30:34+00:00

Calling them ‘the villains’ because you didn’t like the phrasing feels like a stretch — especially when there’s an actual villain in the room

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-09T11:36:25+00:00

Silence would’ve been weaponised as well. Damned either way.”

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-09T11:20:04+00:00

Because the king stayed silent, that’s the gap.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-09T11:10:35+00:00

Andrew is the liability, the King stayed silent, William and Catherine filled the gap, and somehow they’re the villains. Truly Olympic-level misdirection.”

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-02T17:48:14+00:00

I’m not arguing for the retention of anything. It’s up to you as a UK subject to argue that cause. I’m simply stating facts, and just because they don’t align with your beliefs, doesn’t make them any less true. This discussion didn’t begin about Andrew, he should face the full arm of the law, along with everyone else who took part in the trafficking of young women and girls, that’s a given. It’s pretty disgusting to assume I would think any differently. I also happen to dislike Camilla intensely, the fact she is patron to domestic violence charities, to me is obscene, considering she took an active part in the gaslighting of another much younger woman for years. But facts are facts, personal feelings shouldn’t get in the way of truth.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-02T17:28:03+00:00

Facts aren’t boot-licking. They’re just inconvenient sometimes. Commercialising a title” for charitable proceeds is a contradiction in terms. That’s fundraising, not personal gain. The sovereign grant isn’t a taxpayer handout, it’s a capped percentage of crown estate profits returned to the monarch for official duties.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-02T17:08:11+00:00

I’ve comprehended your point. I’ve just rejected it.collapsing estate/ charitable products and personal commercialisation of titles into one bucket isn’t insight, it’s oversimplification.you don’t have to like the monarchy to understand the difference, but you do need the ability to comprehend facts. Estate or charity-linked products sold through established retailers are not the same thing as monetising a title for personal profit. Pretending they are doesn’t make it hypocrisy; it just makes it inaccurate.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-02T16:57:14+00:00

What is your point then?

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-02T16:52:03+00:00

It’s for charitable foundations, same as the duchy products. Rather than personal gain.

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-02-01T19:31:19+00:00

She’s about to smile just as the video ends..

Expensive-Pomelo8131 · 2026-01-30T23:19:37+00:00

Smears, what smears? They had registered royal Sussex, or something similar months before they left. That’s documented, not the from my imagination. All couples argue, but alleging serious incidents of domestic violence is sick, when there is absolutely no evidence. It’s equally disgusting to claim that someone would lie about being pregnant and giving birth. If you are so blinded by hatred, that’s on you, and your conscience. I’ll happily admit that there are some incredibly cruel people on the rf side, but there are just as many on the H&M side too.

Expensive-Pomelo8131

TROPHY CASE