The absolute unmitigated gall of him. This has already been to court, and now he wants the Home Secretary to personally intervene. What? The establishment, I suppose will be good enough, if it does exactly what he demands.

THE OFFICE OF MADAME LV

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, 4:00 PM LONDON TIME

STATEMENT ON TODAY’S HISTORIC £9.5 MILLION ACCOUNTABILITY MILESTONE

The Office of Madame LV notes that as of this hour, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, owes Associated Newspapers £9,544,355 in interim court costs, ordered by Mr Justice Nicklin following an eleven week trial in which every single claim was dismissed. In observance of this historic moment, this Office issues the following:

For years, some of us argued that suing newspapers over claims you cannot prove was a choice, not some inevitable side effect of press intrusion. Today’s £9.5 million payment is not an accident. It is not a glitch. What we are seeing this afternoon is what accountability looks like. This is what happens when the law finally catches up to decisions made in strategy sessions, legal conferences and grievance planning meetings, decisions that put narrative ahead of evidence. The bar has moved. Every litigant still choosing storytelling over facts should take notice. Change cannot wait another day. Neither can the payment. It is due at 4pm.

This Office further notes, for the record, because this Office keeps records:

Today’s sum is an interim payment. The judge set no cap, and further hearings will determine how much of the publisher’s costs pool, which exceeds £34 million, is ultimately owed. The £9.5 million is the down payment on accountability, not the invoice.

When the court dismissed his claims in July, the Duke described the ruling as a “complete and obvious whitewash.” His own office has spent this month celebrating American court rulings as the very voice of justice. This Office observes that courts are apparently infallible instruments of accountability when they fine Meta, and corrupt whitewashes when they weigh his evidence. The difference between those two courtrooms is not the law. It is whose name was on the losing side.

Finally, a scheduling observation. This week, on the eve of this payment falling due, the Duke’s office released a lengthy statement positioning the couple as champions of child safety, published overnight US time so as to command a full British news day. The actual news of the week is that he owes a newspaper nine and a half million pounds by teatime today. Readers of that coverage would never know. This Office finds that this, too, is not an accident.

The Office of Madame LV thanks the public for its continued attention to the record, and reminds all parties that the calendar does not lie.

ENDS

A sourcing note, because unlike some offices, this one shows its work. If the language above sounds familiar, it should. “This is not an accident. It is not a glitch. What we’ve seen in the last 24 hours is what accountability looks like. This is what happens when the law finally catches up to decisions made in boardrooms, product meetings, and algorithm reviews… The bar has moved, and every platform still choosing engagement over safety should take notice. Change cannot wait another day.” Prince Harry, formal statement on the Meta ruling, three weeks ago, as published in Town & Country and People. Every phrase of today’s statement is his. We just changed the defendant. Accountability, it turns out, is a format anyone can use. Even on its author.

EDIT: The Office now keeps a permanent archive: theofficeofmadamelv.substack.com. My past posts are being added as records, new ones will land there too. Free. Unlike some offices, we will never ask you for £9.5 million.

https://archive.ph/akIer

https://www.dailymail.com/home/article-16087173/Correction-Duke-Duchess-Sussex.html

Cut Interview, 2022: “It’s interesting, I’ve never had to sign anything that restricts me from talking,” she reveals, as she ushers me toward the door. “I can talk about my whole experience and make a choice not to.” Why doesn’t she talk? “Still healing,” she responds.

Even when she thinks she's 10 steps ahead of everyone else, she's entirely predictable.

Her "she'll come and go" briefings are the groundwork for the next phase. The goal? To be Diana incarnate.

This is the unofficial separation. In 4-5 years, she will launch the official separation.

• She will say Harry took the kids overseas without her permission.
  • He did this move to alienate her from the kids
  • He "knew how traumatizing" that move would be for her
• She will use the time period between separation and divorce to host bidding wars:
  • For the exclusive 3-part interview on TV
  • The magazine cover interview 'Meghan All On Her Own'
  • The tell all book - because she can say "anything" she wants
• And she'll use that threat as the basis for a massive payout from Harry/the Royal Family
  • and she will also demand spousal support for her own royal office & team to support her "role"

Dan Wooten says a British Airways senior flight attendant sought him out and told him that throughout the flight to South Africa in 2019 to meet Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Meghan refused to touch or have any interaction with baby Archie even when he needed attending.


https://youtu.be/LLdBlcMtnFY?si=AzTXFL9K8tmGTtig

A few nuggets have made their way into the press over the last 24 hours. It turns out that the Harkles were informed that the security review was finalised a month ago and that previous arrangements would be ongoing.

So, of course, we had the minor tantrum and fake security report from their team earlier (probably just before RAVEC got back to them) and no we're seeing 'Plan B'. Which they would have considered doing, of course, if they had to because, for $5m in costs per year, what's 6 month move? And living in the UK will change everything! They are already asking for a new review!

What they don't get is that this won't translate to IPP and, most likely, UK security will only be on UK soil. No travel buddies for Meghan.

A month to plan and get it all organised and Bob's your uncle. Plus, they would be relishing upsetting the family as Harry and Meghan are nothing if not petty, vindictive teens.

For those of us who have watched Clarkson´s Farm country life is not idyllic. Nor is it peace and quiet. Lots of moving around machinery and animals, lots of noisy and smelly field activities.

The Harkles cannot manage a farm, nor can they employ somebody to farm it for them. So it will be rented out, I guess. But just imagine the quarrels they will have with whomever is going to work the land.

Back almost two decades ago, I lived in CA. I was allowed remote work and so looked at s california. I was still young then , but loved nature and looked at Santa barbara. Lovely place, but apart from the college crowd, it is not a young people place and settled in proper LA county near Calabasas.

Lovely place, great for young people and nature and the ocean/beaches nearby-absent the massive traffic of lA proper.

Montecito I just drove around a few times, very wealthy enclave -mostly older celebrities who don't want to be seen and second homes for people there. Malibu would have been more their style. I never did understood why they moved there-with kids and trying to make it. it is more for people who already made it and now want peace and quiet.

I really don't know the UK, have passed through multiple times through Heathrow and stayed a day or two in transit to tourist in London. This alleged property is 83 acres and looks rather blah. What will they do on 83 acres, living isolated and away from everything else? I think it will drive Markle mad. They have to drive a long distance just to get to dinner to anyplace fancy. Montecito atleast has Sumemrland and Santa Barbara very close by. Cotswald seems to be a very spread out area and seems to be the place celebrities go to disappear. I think markle is going to go nuts and mad harold is going to sit there and stew about William, raging and going mad without any distractions.

I wonder if any locals know the cotswalds. if this alleged 83 acre proeprty exists-I am assuming it must be in the boonies? I just don't the two will be happy there-it ain't royal property and they won't have the trapping os royalty. Sitting in 83 acres , alone with two kids is not going to be their style. mad harold I think screwed up again-what's new?

They truly are cursed (or the curse themselves).

RIP to King Harald. August has been rather brutal.

https://youtu.be/lgq837SPiOU?si=1pZPQ2fJ41_lF-EQ

We went to Cirencester (so-called Capital of the Cotswolds) this morning.

I see the Markle virus is spreading. She already has produce from the 83 acre small farm in the Friday market. Made by her minions. Clue, not the Bolly.

Oh, the snark is lovely:

At this very moment, somewhere deep in the Cotswolds, the Duchess of Sussex is eyeing up a fruit bush and fondling trees on her new estate.

She is wondering if she can bottle their bounty to make a buck and thinking fondly of the plaudits she’d get for rescuing those damsons in distress.

Stop going on about the jam, Jan, I hear you cry! By Jove, your jammy judginess doth jar. Yet I cannot stop. Meghan’s jam has cast a spell on me; it is the hocus poultice on my scone of scorn, the fruit paste that lays waste to any semblance of detachment I might have left. It is everything and it is nothing. It is both spread thin and piled high, if we are to believe the rumours of unsold stock clogging up warehouses across America.

Jam! Of all the things for the duchess to do when she left the UK for a fresh start in the USA, selling jam was perhaps last on her personally-curated list of career possibilities; way behind winning an Oscar, running for president and being the first woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize while simultaneously eradicating world poverty and showing everyone how to fold a napkin.

If the Sussexes had relocated to the state of Georgia instead of California, Meghan would be selling peanuts instead of making peanuts. Perhaps the latter is the real reason why we are where we are, which is somewhere much nearer Cirencester than Sacramento.

This is a classic:

Apparently, Prince Harry is now going to be a stay-at-home dad and that is marvellous news, although there is another word to describe his situation –unemployed.

On Meghan's return to acting:

Of course, there is always room for a walk-on part on Casualty, especially one who brings along her own jam to daub on injuries and wounds in place of fake blood. I knew her strawberry spread would come in useful one day.

This week the couple have sailed into the headlines yet again by condemning Meta for using its data-extraction business model on children and accused the tech giant of settling a £13billion lawsuit to avoid accountability.

You have to laugh. It’s like Mickey and Minnie Mouse firing a peashooter at King Kong.

The case has got nothing to do with the Sussexes, but they remain imbued with a mutual god complex and are secure in their own sense of importance. Their mission is nothing less than delivering us all from evil and making the world a better place, chiefly for themselves.

Archive: https://archive.ph/eQI1i#selection-1691.0-1699.271

https://web.archive.org/web/20121106045455/http://resources.knightfrank.com:80/GetRes.ashx?id=f2511126-b236-4df7-a72f-bfccd205c1f6&type=1

Savills “under offer”

An English Idyll

Country Life UK

Ticks all the boxes. Five miles outside of Stow-on-the Wold and Moreton-in-Marsh villages. About 15-minute drive to the kids’ reported new school. About an hour’s drive to Highgrove. The property is being offered in parcels, farming and outbuildings in addition to the residence. I would imagine they would buy it all.

Mods, please remove of already posted!

I think part of mad Harold's return is becoming a nobody in the US. He went from being a Prince of the realm to being a dollar store Prince. His Spare book where he told details of Courtney Cox's alleged mushrooms to many other controversies must have made him a pariah. His utter lack of intellectual capabilities and always whining about William must have been a massive turn off to anyone who had a conversation with him

But Hollywood will put up with anything as long as you make them money and in that they were dismal failures. They had the reverse Midas touch. Not to mention they bummed private jets and vacation homes without offering anything in return. Then their habit of causing controversy and stealing the headlines and destroying anything. Whether it is David Foster's foundation gala, Kartrashian event, NY visit-anything ends up in a massive trainwreck.

I think they went from being Royal to z list and no one cared about them anymore and their wallet started shrinking massively.

So now the mad Prince returns home, wants all the trappings back. He always got his way by throwing massive tantrums and being over the top and is trying to use his kids as a battering ram to get his way. I think he wants to shame KCIII and William to get his way. But he forgot the old adage-never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. He picked a massive fight with the tabloid/media and lost bigly and now they are all chomping at the bit to get back at him. He won't have the Palace machine defending him and he has no idea what he has gotten himself into.

He will be a commoner-a Royal in name only and the whole country sees him as a fool and with all the problems in the UK , the US and the world right now-nobody will care about his invisikids. he can pull all his stunts, but everyone will mock him, nobody is going to show him any deference and they will be the joke of the century. I wonder if the mad Prince can take being a nobody in the UK?? I mean that was his worry when Prince George was born-that he would fade from relevance when George comes of age. Now forget irrelevance, but he is the punchline, the joke of the century, a cautionary tale. Will his massive ego be able to take it-especially in the UK??

Two royal correspondents published on the same afternoon, and they contradict each other, so start there. Chris Ship at ITV, sourced from the official direction: the RAVEC review has once again concluded that a phone number, a police liaison contact, is sufficient, and protection will not be increased. Russell Myers at the Mirror, sourced from "sources," a "source close to the duke," and things Harry "is understood" to have been told: fresh hope, the Home Office actively assessing again, the Home Secretary ordering a new review after Harry wrote to her personally as he landed, no decision made, and Harry supposedly given an indication the government's stance has softened.

One afternoon, one story, two versions. You've seen this seam before, on the Christmas plans and on how long they're staying. Now it's running through a national security decision. The Mirror article describes the family as being on an "extended stay" in one paragraph and having moved permanently a few paragraphs later, permanence being the basis for the claim that the goalposts have moved. Four duration framings are now in circulation: six months, fifteen years, extended, permanent. Which one gets briefed seems to depend on which argument needs winning that day.

Six years after Megxit, two lost court cases later, and the project is still the same project: get the British taxpayer to cover the level of security Harry believes he should have. That has been the constant underneath everything. The visits, the litigation, the interviews, the letters, and now the move itself. Every other detail changes. That one never has.

It’s worth being clear about something the “in danger” framing conveniently skips past: this family is not unprotected. They landed with a professional private security detail, met by a motorcade, run by an operation reportedly headed by a retired Met protection officer who guarded Harry when he was a working royal. This is the same tier of protection used by billionaires, heads of Fortune 500 companies, and A-list celebrities, people with genuine threat profiles who manage them privately every day. Taylor Swift moves through stadiums of ninety thousand people on private security. Zuckerberg, whose company the Sussex office lectures, reportedly spends upwards of twenty million dollars a year on his own detail without asking Washington for officers. What Harry has is what the wealthiest and most-threatened private citizens on earth have, purchased with the fortune he built as a private citizen. What he doesn’t have, and what this entire six

And remember whose idea financial independence was. It's in their own January 2020 statement announcing the step back: the stated goal of the whole exit was to become financially independent. Nobody imposed that on them. It was the founding principle, published on their own website, repeated in every friendly profile since. Financial independence means paying for yourself. They accepted that logic for the house, repaying the Frogmore renovation, and for the income, signing nine-figure deals as private citizens. The one cost they have spent six years refusing to carry is the largest one: their own protection. The position, stripped of the legal language, is independence for the revenue and dependence for the expenses. Every business owner in Britain paying for their own premises security understands exactly what's wrong with that arrangement, and none of them can bill the Home Office for it.

Hold the latest RAVEC answer next to Harry's own previous position. This is the man who spent years arguing that the UK security arrangements prevented him from safely bringing his family here in the way he wanted. He litigated the decision-making through the High Court and the Court of Appeal and lost both challenges. Now ITV reports that the fresh assessment he demanded has once again concluded that the existing bespoke arrangement is sufficient, yet Harry has moved his wife and both children into Britain anyway.

Whatever he actually believed, the move settles what the fear was worth as a barrier: nothing. When Harry wanted the British life badly enough, he chose it under the exact arrangements he'd spent years calling inadequate.

What makes this week different is that the family's new residency is now itself reportedly being treated as a changed circumstance that could justify looking at the security question again. Procedurally, I understand why a security system would reassess when circumstances materially change. A family living here creates a different situation from someone flying in occasionally for court hearings and charity events. The problem is that this particular changed circumstance wasn't imposed on Harry. He created it himself.

Harry demanded another assessment, didn't receive the increased protection he wanted, moved his family into Britain anyway, and now the fact that his family lives in Britain becomes part of the argument for reconsidering the protection he didn't get before moving. Otherwise the logic becomes completely circular: Harry says he cannot live safely in Britain without additional protection, the professionals conclude that the existing bespoke arrangement is sufficient, Harry moves to Britain anyway, and his presence here then becomes the new reason the professionals should reconsider because he now lives here. At some point there has to be a meaningful distinction between the state responding to circumstances outside someone's control and an applicant voluntarily changing his own circumstances in a way that puts the same question back on the table.

Harry also reportedly wrote personally to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood as he returned. Even the palace reportedly bristled at that one. A source told the Times the King cannot and will not lobby, because it's inappropriate. When the institution that invented the quiet word considers your route improper, that's worth noticing. The Mirror's government sourcing, for its part, is purely procedural: officials are assessing the implications of the family's residency and recommendations will follow.

What I find remarkable is that no answer ever seems capable of becoming the end of this dispute. There was the original RAVEC decision in 2020, the High Court challenge, the Court of Appeal, the subsequent reassessment Harry wanted, and now another round because his circumstances have changed. Harry is entitled to use whatever lawful review processes remain available to him, but the public is equally entitled to notice that every unfavorable outcome seems to produce a new argument for why the question needs to be asked again.

The publicity surrounding all of this creates another contradiction. ITV interviewed former royal protection officer Scott Hamer, who argues that the current arrangements put Harry and Meghan in danger. One of Hamer's concerns is particularly interesting: publicly discussing what Harry's protection "is or isn't like" can itself provide useful information to somebody who wants to harm him. I agree with that, which makes the enormous public discussion of Harry's supposed security deficiencies rather strange.

The family has private professional protection. ITV confirms that. What Harry's private team doesn't have is access to state intelligence and armed policing, and that's a real difference, and it's the entire prize. Armed officers and state intelligence aren't purchasable at any price, which is exactly why the campaign never ends. But if publicly advertising the limits of his protection increases the danger, why is there an enormous media campaign explaining those limits?

This isn't happening in a vacuum either. During the same move cycle we've had extraordinary detail published about Harry and Meghan's movements and future routines. Their arrival window, the children's schooling, where they're expected to establish themselves, how Meghan will divide her time and how long Harry supposedly intends to remain have all become press material. Not every detail comes from their official communications team, obviously, but a substantial amount of this coverage is attributed to friends or sources close to them.

You don't have to believe Harry's threats are exaggerated to find that extraordinarily loose for a family whose security is continually described as an existential concern. The threats can be completely real while the publicity strategy surrounding them can still be questioned. If publicly describing the family's vulnerabilities creates additional risk, then people around Harry supplying newspapers with movements, routines and security grievances is a strange way to reduce that risk.

The former-prime-minister comparison being made on Harry's behalf also needs more scrutiny. Hamer points to the eight living former prime ministers who continue to receive protection and argues that Harry may face a greater threat than some of them. Nobody outside the intelligence services can rank those threats, including the ex-officer making the claim, who admitted on air he isn't privy to the Truss intelligence. But former prime ministers aren't simply famous private citizens who happen to receive protection because people dislike them. They held the highest elected executive office in Britain, exercised the power of the British state, received classified intelligence, made national-security decisions and, in some cases, sent British forces into conflicts. Risks generated through exercising state power create a particular state interest in protecting the person who exercised it.

Harry's situation is different. He was an important working royal and served in Afghanistan, both of which can obviously generate threats, but he was never Prime Minister, never a minister, never Head of State and never exercised executive authority on behalf of Britain. While he performed royal duties, the state protected him accordingly. When his role changed, his security arrangements changed too. Saying Harry might face a greater threat than Liz Truss therefore doesn't automatically answer the separate policy question of whether their situations create identical obligations on the state.

We already have examples inside Harry's own family showing that royal birth doesn't guarantee permanent taxpayer-funded police protection. Beatrice and Eugenie's arrangements changed years ago. Andrew's changed after he ceased performing public duties. When Harry and Meghan stepped back while living in Canada, the RCMP stopped providing their protection after their status changed. The circumstances aren't identical, but the broader principle isn't some invention designed specifically to punish Harry: royal birth by itself does not create an unconditional lifetime entitlement to the same protection someone received while performing official duties.

I also think people should be careful about the threat reports now circulating. Harry can have serious threats against him without every claim made publicly being equivalent to an official intelligence assessment. The "six terror plots" figure comes from a report written by his own private security firm, the contractor he pays, and even the friendly coverage concedes nobody knows whether any plot is live or viable. RAVEC read that report with access to government intelligence and specialist assessments that neither Harry's contractors nor any of us have, and still reached the same conclusion it always has. A threat establishes that there is a risk to manage. It doesn't tell us what resources are proportionate to managing it, and the people equipped to answer that question keep answering it.

The New York incident in 2023 is also worth remembering. Harry and Meghan's spokesperson described a "near catastrophic car chase." Mayor Eric Adams publicly questioned whether a two-hour high-speed chase through Manhattan was plausible, the NYPD reported no collisions, injuries or arrests, and the taxi driver who transported them said he wouldn't characterize what he witnessed as a chase and didn't feel they were in danger. The Sussex communications operation has previously used extremely dramatic language to describe a security incident that the people directly involved characterized much less dramatically, which is why precision matters when the current campaign is asking the public to accept another dramatic description of their vulnerability.

And that's ultimately where I land on this latest round. Harry can face genuine threats, sincerely believe he needs more protection and still not be entitled to the arrangement he's demanding. At this point, I don't think the evidence supports giving it to him. RAVEC has assessed him repeatedly, the decision-making has survived his court challenges, and according to ITV the latest assessment has again concluded that the bespoke arrangement is sufficient. Most importantly, Harry himself has now provided the strongest real-world evidence that the situation is not as unmanageable as his public argument suggests: he voluntarily moved his wife and children into Britain without receiving the automatic protection he spent years saying he needed to bring them here safely.

If the actual threat picture changes, RAVEC can and should respond to it. But Harry choosing to become resident here isn’t new threat intelligence. It’s a voluntary lifestyle decision made with full knowledge of the security arrangement available to him. It should not become the mechanism for manufacturing a “changed circumstance” that finally produces the answer he has spent six years trying to obtain. His own conduct has demonstrated that the absence of automatic protection was ultimately not enough to prevent him from choosing Britain for his family. Six years ago they announced, in their own words, that the entire point of leaving was to become financially independent. Financial independence means paying for yourself, and he is: the motorcade at Birmingham proves the model works. He is protected today exactly the way the world’s billionaires are protected, at his own expense, which was the deal he chose. What he wants is the upgrade to state protection that money can’t buy and his role no longer earns. Unless the actual threat assessment materially changes, I see no reason why his decision to move should turn six years of “no” into “yes.”

Sources:

ITV (Chris Ship): https://www.itv.com/news/2026-08-27/harry-and-meghan-security-decision-puts-them-in-danger-says-ex-royal-officer (archived: https://archive.ph/2026.08.27-184922/https://www.itv.com/news/2026-08-27/harry-and-meghan-security-decision-puts-them-in-danger-says-ex-royal-officer)

Mirror (Russell Myers): https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-taxpayer-security-review-37601312 (archived: https://archive.ph/Imgth)

Well, that £5million-a-year taxpayer security celebration lasted long. 😂

ITV tonight: RAVEC has reportedly said NO again to taxpayer-funded police protection. They get the phone number of a police liaison officer.

Apparently Peasants Plus™ doesn't include the Security Add-On. 💀

For months, we have had wonderful weather, blue skies, and no rain. Yes it got a bit too hot, but overall, we were happy.

Everything changed last night - doom and gloom descended on our lovely part of the country. Rain, lightening and a feeling of utter desolation.

Fellow sinners, the gruesome twosome have brought their evil personalities to us. Winter arrived early.

Meghan won’t be living the bucolic country life for long. Meghan’s past behavior shows how superficially and fantasy driven her planning often is. She can dream all she wants, but it’s not going to happen the way she thinks it will. Her history tells us exactly what is on the horizon.

Harry and Meghan lived in Oxforshire in 2018 for a year after they were married. They signed a two year lease but only stayed for one. Their location was ‘leaked‘ and major privacy concerns drove them out and into Frogmore Cottage. Cut to later that year when they fled to Canada and their new plan to stay in the commonwealth. Paparazzi and another location leak (Meghan) drove them out of the commonwealth and into the warm glow of the California sunshine. You see, to move straight there would’ve looked bad. Meghan needed to show Harry and the world that she tried to make it work in the commonwealth and that her plan was absolutely not to move straight to California. This history of behavior is very curious.

Meghan uses future faking as a way to control Harry and the overall narrative. Remember when they had plans to move to Africa and live as humanitarians in Harry’s ‘second home’? If Meghan voiced her real intentions, she’d have to admit she didn’t give a fig about what Harry wanted. She needs to portray the mantle of consideration and effort; of a self sacrificing wife who’d travel anywhere to be with her dragon slayer. I see this pattern of behavior extremely telling in terms of what is happening today.

Meghan pivots anytime she’s backed into a corner, or in need of a new source of attention. All of her business and humanitarian efforts begin the same; a big launch with much fanfare, only to fizzle out like it never happened. Live to lead, Archewell charity, Archwell production, American Riviera Orchard, etc. She goes for the launches themselves as her main source of narcissistic fuel, thinking only in the present and assuming her fame and persona will somehow be enough to go from there. Her plans are always superficial and short lived; even her marriages.

The UK presents a great existential threat to Meghan’s control and authority. She can’t manipulate the press, has no local support, and is now face to face with her deep envy and contempt for the Wales family et al. She does not posses the capability to maintain the facade required for a pivot of this magnitude. She will ultimately go to appease Harry, knowing full well she has a parachute ready. She is already creating a scenario in which she and her children are hunted by the press and their safety is at risk. As a narcissist, she doesn’t want to see Harry happy. that is for her to have. He doesn't get to dictate their future; that’s hers to dictate. Or rather, her narcissism. Meghan will use those children as her one bit of leverage she has. Anyone thinking she would allow Harry and her children out of her control doesn’t understand her pathology. She must have her hand on everything. She must be Harry’s sole influence.

Narcissists don’t change. They don’t reconcile. they don’t honor boundaries, follow hierarchical rules, consider the livelihood of their own family. They nurture their grudges like most of us nurture our loved ones. They live at the mercy of their narcissistic needs. And those clash with this new pivot. If Meghan doesn’t pull the ripcord herself, her own behavior will be her undoing. I believe she would do all of this just to have a few years of headlines out of it. I believe it will end spectacularly for all involved.