Over the past two years, I have consistently highlighted the real money problems faced by Meghan and Harry. The deals with Netflix, Spotify, and book publishers were not as lucrative as claimed. I have emphasized that Netflix was primarily a development deal, Spotify was incentive-based, and the book deal, like many others, depended on performance rather than guaranteed income.
Moreover, I forecasted that around May or June, the couple would face financial difficulties that would become public knowledge. This prediction aligns with my earlier forecast, 18 months ago, that they would be evicted from Frogmore in January. The reasoning behind this was straightforward: January marked a year of Harry not paying rent, necessitating the estate manager to take legal action for eviction.
The Spotify situation followed a similar pattern. The length of the contract made it evident that it was canceled last year, particularly given the controversies surrounding the couple during Christmas. The recent announcement of Spotify's opportunity to exit the deal confirms its failure since September of the previous year. Based on Meghan and Harry's published accounts, they earned a total of 9.8 million dollars in 18 months, including the proceeds from the Netflix and Spotify agreements.
With ongoing settlements and the release of information regarding Harry's lawsuits, the evidence clearly demonstrates their poor decision-making. In the latest lawsuit, the revelations further highlight their lack of prudence. While David Sherborne, their lawyer, has undoubtedly profited, earning over 8.5 million pounds from the couple, it is interesting to note their connections with Elton John, who they flew with on his private jet and stayed with at his villa. Coincidence? I think not.
Equally intriguing is the fact that Meghan and Harry flew to California via a private jet, as requested by Oprah, who also made approximately 50 million dollars from their interview. In contrast, the couple did not directly earn any money from Netflix, despite the streaming platform making substantial profits from their projects and the documentary series, similar to "The Last Dance," which lacked talent fees for its participants, including the couple. These factors contribute to their relatively modest income of 9.8 million dollars, far from the anticipated hundreds of millions.
As I previously pointed out, their inability to upgrade their home and the need to cancel security services, resorting to ad hoc freelancers, further support the financial challenges they face. In a sense, it appears that they have become victims of their own arrogance, a common Achilles' heel for malignant narcissists, which we will delve into more deeply later.
Another revelation from Harry's witness statement and testimony is his implication that he doubts being Prince Charles's biological son. As an adult, Harry expressed concern about being ostracized from his own family. This astonishing claim can be found in his witness statement, and it raises questions about the true dynamics within the royal household. Interestingly, Harry has even addressed this topic in his book, where he mockingly refers to Prince Charles as "Triple C" for never publicly confirming his paternity and makes light of the entire situation.
Oh, poor victim Harry, the one who claimed to be the late Queen's favorite but wasn't even invited to be by her side on her deathbed. He never had a private vacation with her, unlike his other grandkids. Yet, he insists he was her favorite. It's quite interesting how Sophie and others managed to have that privilege. How peculiar!
Harry, a self-proclaimed psychopath, decided to walk away from his family. If there was any doubt about his psychopathic tendencies, just take a look at how he has abandoned all sense of charity. He hasn't extended help to veterans in the U.S. or his fellow comrades-in-arms. The only homeless people they claim to have helped are women and children.
Now, Harry claims his life's mission is to change the UK media. However, it's worth noting that he conveniently leaves out the ordinary people who were victims of phone hacking. Including them in his cause would give a voice to those who lack the means to take legal action. But no, Harry isn't interested in giving them a platform. It seems Meghan and Harry only care about themselves and have no regard for the less fortunate.
Harry doesn't deserve any sympathy. The Harry we once loved, the coked-up party boy, reveals his true nature when the party ends—he becomes nothing more than a big loser. It's noticeable that the people who speak highly of Harry are often connected to partying and pub outings.
Interestingly, all the women he ever loved eventually left him. According to Harry, it was the media's fault that they departed. But hardly anyone noticed, proving that we are victims of state and validation. Let's examine the Letters Patent of 1917, which many people misinterpret. It outlined intentions regarding titles for Beatrice, Eugenie, Charlotte, Louis, Louise, and James. All of them deviated from the Letters Patent.
For example, let's consider the case of Charlotte and Louis. The Queen made them prince and princess because Charles had expressed his intention to reduce the size of the monarchy. He had repeatedly mentioned plans to reduce the number of princes and princesses. It's quite strange that, unlike other royal families who have been downsizing, Charles is actually increasing the numbers.
It appears that Charles' idea of reducing the monarchy entails diminishing the significant work and events the late Queen used to undertake and sometimes fund. There used to be six such events, but now there are only three, with reduced catering as well. Commonwealth events have been canceled. It seems that King Charles has changed his tune after more than 20 years. There's something odd happening, and some speculate that everything will eventually go to Camilla and her children. While it's unclear, there's an air of peculiarity surrounding the situation.
If one reads the Letters Patent carefully, they will notice it doesn't mention parents or specific dates. So the argument that someone is not a prince or princess because their parents didn't want it doesn't hold water. It would suggest that parents are more important than the monarch. It's interesting how people selectively validate their claims based on the Letters Patent.
The Letters Patent was never the right instrument for such matters. It is intended for honors and titles, not as a tool for this particular purpose. If one delves into the historical context, considering the time of the Great War, it becomes evident. However, in places like Australia, the UK, and the US, critical thinking is often replaced with state and validation. The inconsistent adherence to the Letters Patent—one instance followed, another not—is quite obvious. Yet, I find these arguments intriguing in their own way.
Supposedly, Harry is not Charles's son. Who knows? But what we do know is that he exhibits psychopathic traits, and every woman he loved ended up leaving him. The media was blamed during the trial, suggesting that they were responsible for the breakups. It's interesting how this went unnoticed by many. We are indeed victims of state and validation.
The dire future for Harry and Meghan has unfolded in a manner far graver than initially anticipated. Their financial struggles, legal issues, and strained family relationships continue to dominate headlines, showcasing the consequences of their actions and the challenges they now face.
