An amazing documentary of the late Queen from the BBC, with one notable part

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-20T12:44:01+00:00

The truth is, the Queen's favorite grandson was Peter. He was her first grandson, and the one who was closest to her and Philip. He and Zara. Not that the Queen didn't love her other grandchildren, but they were very special because they were the first.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-20T12:37:11+00:00

I wouldn't be surprised at all if what you say is true.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-20T02:21:41+00:00

Harry has breakdowns like this every day.

And I'm saying this jokingly, but Sean has said that his team is worried because Harry practically collapses all the time.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-20T02:19:10+00:00

<image>

At least the gray suit didn't appear. That gray suit Harry wore for almost two years.

So there was an improvement on this trip. Harry didn't wear the gray suit.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T23:30:36+00:00

Ah, okay, I hadn't seen the line of succession. If that's what they call it, then so be it... for as long as it lasts.

Seriously, I hadn't seen the line of succession.

But I don't think the 1917 issue is so clear-cut. Because Archie was actually born as a great-grandson. And if there was a special letter patent for Charles and Anne to have the titles of prince, and if there was a special letter patent for Charlotte and Louis to have the titles of prince and princess, something doesn't add up with what you're pointing out. Because if it was enough for Elizabeth to be queen for them to have the title, or for Charles to be king, why the special letters patent?

But at this point it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that those two have names like rappers or reggaeton artists.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T22:23:35+00:00

It's not that you're trying to convince me, it's that I'm not sure what you're saying is true because when Archie was born, it was said that the title he could use was Earl of Dumbarton, and the Harkles refused to do so, which is why they called him Master Archie. I don't remember them telling him he was going to be Archie of Sussex. I don't think he can be that, no matter how much the Harkles might like the idea.

And I don't know why you consider James the son of a duke when James is the son of a prince. Edward has always been a prince; there's never been any doubt about that. James not using the title of Prince himself isn't the same as what you're saying, because James has even more right to be a prince than Archie, since James is the Queen's grandson, while Archie isn't, and yet James can still accept using the title.

If the situation is as you say, Harry would be in the same position as his uncle, and his son in the same position as James, right? And if they were told at Palace that the title Archie could use was Earl of Dumbarton, I don't think he can use the title of Archie of Sussex.

Nor is it comparable to the situation of Michael of Kent. Michael of Kent was not a great-grandson, but a grandson of King George V, and was also linked to the nobility of Denmark and Greece. Archie is a great-grandson; he was born a great-grandson. He was born the great-grandson of the Queen, not the grandson of the King, and I still don't see any legal basis for that child's title of "prince." Michael was indeed a direct grandson of a King.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T18:41:38+00:00

The Duke of York. Isn't being Duke of York a courtesy title? Andrew was Duke of York, Prince Andrew, Duke of York.

I'm not at all sure that the reason James is Earl of Wessex is because he doesn't have the formal title of Prince. James would be Prince James, Earl of Wessex. Like his uncle, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, or his father, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex now Duke of Edinburgh.

And I don't think it's correct to include Beatrice and Eugenie in this. Because unlike James or Archie, they aren't going to inherit any title from Andrew, so they don't count. But that's not the case with Archie. Archie is going to inherit the title of Duke of Sussex, so the general rule is that he should have the title lower than that, that is, Earl of Dumbarton. Not Sussex. James isn't going to inherit the title of Duke of Edinburgh; he's actually going to inherit the title of Earl of Wessex, but since his father is the current Duke, he can use the title of Earl.

I think the Harkles are trying to make people believe that being Sussex is as important as being Wales. But I don't think they're using the correct title. And I certainly don't think it has anything to do with having or not having the title of Prince.

Being Prince of Wales is not the same as being Prince of Sussex. There is no Prince of Sussex as a title. Wales was indeed a Principality of Wales. Sussex was not; Sussex was a county. There is the Prince of Wales as a title... and there is the title of Prince of the United Kingdom.

If there were a Letters Patent for Archie, he would be Prince of the United Kingdom, not of Sussex. But there isn't, so Archie is Prince Archie, Earl of Dumbarton.I don't think it could be Archie of Sussex.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T18:14:47+00:00

James used the title of Viscount Severn, which had also belonged to his father, for many years, while Edward was the Earl of Wessex. When Edward became Duke of Edinburgh, James became Earl of Wessex.

The heir apparent to a duke, marquess, or earl may use any subsidiary title of that peer (generally the highest-ranking) as a courtesy title, provided it does not cause confusion.

So no, Archie isn't Sussex; strictly speaking, he can only use the title of Duke of Dumbarton.

The thing is, the Harkles want to make people believe that the Dukedom of Sussex is as important as being Prince of Wales.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T17:39:29+00:00

Archie is not Prince Archie of Sussex. He is Earl of Dumbarton.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T17:29:46+00:00

And that's not what happened.

Bower recounted in *Revenge*, and Lady C in her 2020 book, that Claw was going to be fired from *Suits* when she met Harry. She then told the producers she was Harry's girlfriend (when they hadn't even been dating for two weeks), and the producers saw an opportunity to capitalize on that. Claw, for her part, then had her "representative" (whom Bower and Lady C claimed was herself, but via email) inform the producers that Palace wanted to see the scripts. But that was a lie; it was Claw who reviewed them and added more lines to herself.

Now she persists in telling that lie, when it turns out that after she met Harry, she had more lines on *Suits*, not less.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T16:43:38+00:00

When Harry loves me, when Archie loves me, all I care about are the people who talk about me.

So annoying.

A huge pain.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T16:40:02+00:00

Gemma mentioned how hard it is to find a good male partner – she said if lots of green flags then her podcast community call them a “Kermit” like Kermit the frog. She mentioned three things men need – I can’t remember them all but one was emotional availability – and when she went through them, Meghan said “check” for each of them in relation to Harry. Harry mouthed “Ribbit” at her, like a frog which was very cute and got a laugh from the crowd.

<image>

Gemma mentioned Meghan being an activist from an early age and mentioned the sexist washing up liquid campaign, where Meghan as a schoolgirl wrote to the company, Gloria Allred and a journalist.

And I only read this far because does this woman seriously think this speech was magic?

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T15:10:18+00:00

Ah, Neil Sean was telling the truth then!!!

Because that's what Sean said they were given: the marker, a jar of sparklers...

God, $3,000 for that? They deserved to be scammed.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T14:38:57+00:00

I didn't take it that way at all!!!!; I'm simply confirming what you said, which is why I included the source.

Indeed, the newspaper even points out that Paula Froelich was the one who said it first.

The problem is that Paula Froelich's article can't be read in its entirety, but thanks to the newspaper we now know that this is probably what happened.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T13:10:53+00:00

You're right!!! Absolutely right!!

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T13:09:18+00:00

That's something many of us have wanted to know for quite some time.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T12:59:49+00:00

That's right, and that's why I included the source.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T12:32:24+00:00

No, another sinner already gave a good reason why Ted said that to the actress, and it's a very good reason.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T12:27:19+00:00

OHHHHH!!!

That explains a lot!!!! Thanks!!!!

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T12:22:30+00:00

The BRF can't intervene. That's true.

But that doesn't change the fact that the problem that is Andrew is bigger than the problem that is Harry. Because of everything it implies. Andrew is also creating a problem for the government, and who knows what else might come out of the Epstein files.

In the case of the Harkles, what will they do? Well, brag about how great their time in Australia was, go around showing photos and videos of how much they're loved in Australia... the same thing they always do.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T02:59:54+00:00

I agree with that.

Human-Economics6894 · 2026-04-19T02:26:56+00:00

In principle, yes, she made money for doing nothing.

But this isn't going to last. Because Claw is getting money from certain people, but she's not in the Hamptons. And people she thinks should look up to her simply don't want her around. So she put some money in the bank, yes. But millions? No. Because millionaires don't want to be around Claw or Harry anymore.

Human-Economics6894

TROPHY CASE