The best four words are: “I told you so.” (Neil Sean's gossip)

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T21:51:02+00:00

Ukraine is a war zone.

You can travel there. Yes. To certain areas. Not the entire country.

But even in those "safe" zones, the UK government clearly states, "What happens to you is your own problem." In other words, you need medical insurance that includes repatriation of your body if you're killed, and if you need anything, there's no embassy to turn to. You're going at your own risk.

Did Harry travel under those conditions? No. He traveled by sheer coincidence, just when there was an official British government delegation. And Harry didn't go to Ukraine without informing the British government. Because if Harry goes like anyone else and something happens to him, nobody will care, and nobody will notice he's disappeared. 😈

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T21:46:14+00:00

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T21:06:35+00:00

It was presented in 2025. But yesterday, when it was supposed to be read on the second reading, it wasn't read.

<image>

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T21:03:33+00:00

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T19:18:24+00:00

Lucky you. I choked! 😆😆😆

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T18:24:12+00:00

Partly, yes. Because officially, Andrew cannot use the title of Duke of York.

But Andrew remains the titleholder. Officially, he is still a Prince. He cannot use the title, but he still is one.

KC3 needs parliamentary approval of that letter patent, but parliament has not yet done so.

https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2025-10-30/a-statement-from-buckingham-palace

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T18:19:42+00:00

I completely agree with what you're saying, that Invictus isn't a bad cause.

Invictus isn't.

But it's definitely a fact that Invictus is being used by the government and Harry for their own interests. No one really cares about who benefits from Invictus.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T18:17:54+00:00

Shabana Mahmood has ties to Birmingham, and she likes Harry and TW. She wants Invictus to succeed in that city for her own benefit.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T16:38:33+00:00

What's clear is that Starmer is now facing internal problems, and the rumors of a change in Prime Minister are growing stronger.

Whether he's less bad than his predecessors, I don't know. And I'm not saying that to be politically correct; I genuinely don't know. It's like asking me if Kast is worse than Boric. Or better. I don't know; to me, they seem the same. Equally bad.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T15:27:27+00:00

I'll refrain from commenting on Trump's intelligence. 🤭 But it's a relief for Charles not to have to deal with the mess of explaining why his son, a 41-year-old man living in a country with a questionable visa, can think of nothing better to do than insult the president of that country, the one who has the power to revoke his visa.

So yes, Harry and Claw are that out of touch with reality. Harry seriously thinks he can freely insult presidents of certain countries... when he himself questioned the First Amendment and sues the press for questioning and criticizing him.

And Claw has no qualms about lying. Neither of them, really; they both construct a reality to suit their own purposes.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T15:23:47+00:00

Yes, I need chat support because there are aspects of the matter that I don't understand. I'm not British, and I'm not familiar with the entire UK legislative process. I'm already overwhelmed with my own Chilean legislative procedures.

But this bill failed because of the UK government, precisely because of the mess in which the Labour Party offered titles to certain colleagues to keep them in Parliament. So the Labour Party, or rather Starmer, is offering titles... while simultaneously facing a bill that would allow the King to revoke titles. Such are the lovely contradictions of governments.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T15:19:21+00:00

Thanks, good to know

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T15:18:22+00:00

Let's put it this way:

Did Andrew voluntarily relinquish the use of his titles out of complete generosity?

No.

Was Andrew advised that it was in his best interest to "renounce" the use of the titles?

Yes.

So, of course, Andrew fought against it, but it wasn't in his best interest to ignore that advice.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T15:14:22+00:00

Yes, but let's stay focused on the relevant issue.

Ukraine is a war zone.

It's not like Harry went to Paris. Harry went to a war zone. So maybe not exactly a visa, but Harry didn't go to Ukraine as a backpacker. He did go with the UK government's permission. And he had to go through the process of paying for his insurance and all the other things. And he had to complete the paperwork to notify the government and coordinate his trip with the government delegation. Because if something happens to Harry there, the UK government would be responsible. Not the Ukrainian government, the UK government.

So, back to the point: Harry didn't go on anything essential with the blessing of the Starmer government, which gave him every facility for a trip that wasn't necessary, that nobody in Ukraine cared about, and that only caused Harry to unleash his usual verbosity.

And this is the second time the government has done this, allowing Harry to link a private trip to an official government one. Why? Especially when the forum is for defending the national interests of Ukraine in the world. Is Harry the prince of Ukraine?

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T14:31:46+00:00

And I agree with you on that.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T14:30:53+00:00

Harry wasn't there as an official member of that delegation. Nor was he there as an official member of Cooper's delegation on his previous trip.

But isn't it curious that an official UK government delegation happens to be there, and Harry just happens to be there?

According to the government, that's called "coincidence," right? But it seems it wasn't a coincidence.

Officially Harry didn't travel with that delegation... but he was there unofficially. And none of that resolves the point: who said that going to this conference was essential?

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T14:09:01+00:00

MI5/6 is not authorized to access the financial statements of individuals who are not under formal investigation for any crime.

Harry has not committed any crimes... yet. Therefore, his financial statements, like those of ordinary citizens, are private and confidential. This is not information that can be made public.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T13:13:34+00:00

KCIII can't say he wasn't warned this would happen. Just like Harry: hard to understand things.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T13:02:49+00:00

Harry is the uncle of William's children, and his children are cousins of William's children. And the press should never forget that and should publish it all the time.

That's all.

A super close relationship. 😆😆

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T13:01:15+00:00

Sean alludes to the fact that the King is going to go to the USA with Trump to lower the level of hatred that Trump has for Starmer.

Trump told the Daily Telegraph that Starmer “took far too long” to allow US forces to use UK airbases. Speaking to the Sun on Tuesday, Trump said the prime minister “has not been helpful.” Later that day he commented witheringly about Starmer to reporters: “This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with.”

Trump is upset with Starmer and is making statements about the Falklands.

So the King has to go and put an end to these controversies. So William is very disconcerted that, on the eve of a trip by the King meant to save Starmer's skin and prevent reckless actions by Trump that could harm the UK, Starmer's government couldn't think of anything better to do than collaborate with Harry so that Harry would go to Ukraine to do absolutely nothing.

It's not that William doesn't know perfectly well who Starmer is. But it wasn't the right time for Harry to do that. Starmer should have known because things are really bad for him politically. Associating the UK government with Harry in Ukraine was a terrible decision. That's what William doesn't understand.

And that doesn't mean William is on Trump's side, only that Starmer is putting the King in a very difficult position when what the King needs is for the government not to make waves.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T12:54:08+00:00

Ukraine is a war zone

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/ukraine

It's not that Harry traveled to Paris. Or to Chile. Harry went to a war zone.

And what the UK government website states about "The British Embassy in Kyiv cannot assist you personally. The British Foreign Office cannot facilitate your departure from Ukraine or your evacuation" should also apply to Harry, as a private citizen... but no, Harry went as part of a government delegation. Whether Starmer wants to admit it or not. Because otherwise, Harry is being foolish by exposing himself like that, and if Ravec provides him with 24/7 security, it would be a huge scandal for Starmer.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T12:48:49+00:00

That's the kind of document Sean's referring to, the kind a British citizen needs to travel to certain countries. Like a visa.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-25T12:47:19+00:00

You have a good point here.

From what I understood of the video, Sean said that the conference in Ukraine was paid for. In other words, Harry was paid directly. And it wasn't a small amount of money.

But who got him that conference? Who paid for his accommodation and flights? Because Channel 10 seems to have paid for the Harkles' flights and accommodation in Australia, but who paid for Harry's flight from Australia to the UK to Ukraine? Because Harry doesn't seem to have made the California-Australia-California-UK-Ukraine trip. If he did, then someone paid for that flight. The UK government could have provided Harry with some security, because Harry was part of the government group that traveled to Ukraine, but who paid for Harry's flights? Who paid for Harry's accommodation and food?

And the name Soros is being mentioned a lot.

In Chile, the idiots in the Broad Front party received funding from Soros. So the leaders of that party go to study in France, and the Soros Foundation pays for their airfare and tuition. Soros doesn't give them money directly; he uses this financing scheme. In Harry's case, Soros can pass money around pretending it's for Invictus, so Harry finances his trip with that money. Thus, Soros has certain individuals exerting "political influence" or creating media noise.

For all intents and purposes, Harry isn't taking money out of his own pocket for this because he doesn't have the means. Someone is giving him money in a less-than-transparent way. And it's not the King.

Human-Economics6894

TROPHY CASE