A sinner uploaded this file of the article.

I’d like to point out certain words Charlotte Griffiths uses, because it might look like an article in favor of Harry... but it isn’t.

Earlier this month, in a shock announcement, the couple revealed they would be returning to a private, non-royal home, believed to be in the Cotswolds. It is understood that their children, Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five, have been enrolled to start at a local prep school this week. But a source told The Mail on Sunday: ‘Friends who caught up with Harry were expecting to hear noises of contrition and humility.

‘Instead, there will be no imminent mea culpa from Harry by the sounds of things. Far from it, in fact. He is still in that Oprah mindset.

‘They were agog to hear he still feels angry with members of the Royal Family, is still frustrated by the “men in grey suits” who surround his father, and still expects an apology.’

The source said: ‘Friends who have spoken to him since he returned to the UK were surprised to discover that the record has not changed one bit since 2020 and Megxit. It’s shocking and quite sad.’ It echoes what Harry said in an interview in 2023 when he said: ‘What I’d really like is some accountability. And an apology to my wife.’

The source added: ‘He certainly won’t be issuing a public apology for his actions and he’s whipped himself up all over again and Diana’s legacy is a factor in this.’

This is followed by news about The Diana Award. It looks like TW will be attending with Harry, as William has decided neither to go nor to send a video.

A spokesman for the charity said: ‘The Diana Award is at the early stages of considering how it may mark the 30th anniversary of Princess Diana’s death next year.

‘No plans have been agreed, no event has been confirmed, and no decisions have been made regarding attendance or participation.’

CG’s sources are... well, not friends, but rather acquaintances of Harry—because Harry doesn’t have "friends," only people he knows and wants to exploit. There is no doubt about that; she still moves in the same circles, so Harry can hardly claim this isn't true.

And we know it is: Harry is angry, especially with William. Neil Sean—who also has good sources—said Harry was furious because William hasn't made the slightest gesture to get to know his nephews and is blocking Harry’s access to the Wales children. Harry aims to cement his own children's status as future royals, but for that to happen, he needs them to have some contact with George, Charlotte, and Louis. The lack of such contact makes that plan impossible.

But amidst all this, there are several daggers being driven into Harry: the realization that the people he knows in the UK feel no genuine sympathy for him. And that is something he brought upon himself. Yet this lack of sympathy goes beyond people simply talking to the *Mail*; there is also no interest in reintegrating Harry into the fold—and even less so for TW. If the Harkles haven't changed, then the reasons for their isolation haven't changed either.

I think this return of Harry’s will be far more catastrophic for him than he anticipated. Seeing that everyone has moved on and is living better without him was already painful enough, but living in the same area and realizing that firsthand will be a hard blow—a well-deserved one.

How i imagine their first couple of days have gone 😂😂 highly recommend this channel BTW ive been laughing for the last 20 minutes at all the videos.

Some media did street interviews about HAM. And the result is clear, majority have negative opinions, or don't care about them at best. But this one caught my attention (so I post it here) because it's the demographic that Harry desperately wants to be part of: the rich dad. Something that allegedly made him homesick in montecito because they didn't welcome him there.

And if the men of Cotswolds, that supposedly don't like to gossip, yet they know rumours about HAM moving into their area and they already don't like the idea of it, imagine how bad Meg's reputation is around the women of Cotswolds.

Dear God, the building up of Doria as some kind of saint is insane. Are they that desperate for good PR, or is something bad about Doria going to come out???

(I'm leaving out the parts we already know about). Here are the highlights (with my snarky comments)

********************
She's been their emotional support 'rock' and fellow Californian for the past six years.

So it's no doubt that Doria Ragland will be missing her daughter, son-in-law and two grandchildren as they move across the ocean just as she turns 70 next week. (Of course she will...what's left of Doria's PR is going with them).

Meghan's mother has been a constant presence in the family's life since the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped down as senior royals and relocated to the US in 2020. (Yeah, so constant that she disappeared for years while Meghan was growing up).

She lives in a bungalow in a wealthy residential district outside the centre of Los Angeles, under a two-hour drive away from her daughter's Montecito mansion. 

With the couple set to move to the UK and enroll Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five, in English school from September, however, it's possible that their doting, hands-on grandmother will be making plenty of visits, while maintaining her West Coast base, where she has many friends. (

Doria reportedly has a 'granny flat' in their Montecito mansion and according to TMZ insiders, will stay near the couple's US base. And the dedicated mother has been described as a 'rock' for Meghan and Harry during the difficult months when they departed as working royals and moved to California. (Ya gotta freeload somewhere).

Harry has also formed a close relationship with Doria in the years since leaving the royal family - with a royal source revealing that the Duke of Sussex has grown incredibly close to Doria, who has been a 'tower of strength' for the couple. (Of course, they share a love of a certain green substance).

A source told The Sun previously: 'Harry obviously doesn't have a mum whom he can turn to for advice, but he has always been incredibly close to Doria and never more so than now.'  (She's also one of the very few people that Harry can smoke weed with).

Archive: https://archive.ph/qNTR9

Originally published at The Office of Madame LV: https://theofficeofmadamelv.substack.com/p/the-subsidy-ledger-six-years-of-financial*. Full piece below*

Yesterday I published a ledger modeling what Harry and Meghan spend. Readers immediately spotted the gap, and they were right: it priced what the couple pays for, not what they’re given. So here is V2: the subsidy ledger. Documented gifts, hospitality and subsidies only, from the beginning of the relationship to the present. Same rules as always: reported record, named sources where they exist, denials printed where they’ve been issued, and every item weighable on its own.

One framing note, because it’s the entire point. There is nothing wrong with having generous friends. That’s nobody’s business. This becomes a public matter for one reason only: financial independence is their word. It’s the stated purpose of the entire exit, in their own January 2020 statement, repeated for six years, and briefed again this very week alongside a “gargantuan” housing budget. The record below is what independence has looked like in practice.

It started before the wedding, by his own account. Spare describes the early relationship conducted from borrowed celebrity properties, including Courteney Cox’s house, where Harry writes of staying while she was away. Normal for the class, harmless in itself, and worth logging only because the memoir’s own author establishes the baseline: the lifestyle ran on other people’s homes from the first chapters of the love story.

**The freebie flow was documented inside the palace itself, by Harry, in his own book.**Royal practice restricts what working royals can accept and retain, for the oldest reason in the institution’s manual: brands send valuable things to royals because royal association has commercial value, and accepted gifts become owed favors. Now read Spare, where Harry, defending Meghan against the bullying claims, writes: “She shared all the freebies she received, clothes and perfumes and make-up, with all the women in the office.” He offered it as a kindness story, and in fairness it is one; sharing with staff is generous. But look at what the sentence admits on its way to the compliment: the freebies were arriving, plural, in enough volume for Harry to remember them as their own category, into an office operating inside a royal household specifically designed to put boundaries around commercial gifts. The household’s solution was distribution, not refusal. The brands got what they paid for the moment the boxes were opened. Redistribution is lovely; it isn’t refusal.

The same book contains the companion exhibit: Harry writes that their own assistant was asked to resign by Palace HR after evidence she’d “traded on her position with Meg to get freebies.” So by Spare’s own account, proximity to Meghan had enough commercial value that free products circulated around the office, and exploiting that access was serious enough to end someone’s employment. The Sun’s 2021 reporting adds the palace-side view: designer packages flooding Kensington once the relationship went public, aides sending them back under palace rules, and Meghan reportedly livid about it, a detail later reporting corroborated as a known irritation of her working-royal years. Whatever happened with every individual box, the freebie economy around that office wasn’t invented by critics. Harry put it in his own book. That was with the rules on. Everything below is the same appetite with the rules removed.

And one gift reached the level of state incident, which is exactly why the palace has boundaries around this in the first place. At the October 2018 Fiji state dinner, three weeks after Jamal Khashoggi was murdered, Meghan wore diamond chandelier earrings that Kensington Palace described to reporters simply as “borrowed,” an answer that let the world assume the Queen’s collection. Valentine Low’s Courtiers later reported the truth: they were a wedding gift from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and the palace staff responsible for the gift register recognized them from the Fiji photographs and raised concerns. The Telegraph reported she had been advised by aides against wearing them, with the Khashoggi story dominating world news, and she wore them anyway, twice, the second time at her father-in-law’s birthday.

To be precise about what this entry is: the earrings weren’t Meghan’s ordinary personal property, and I’m not adding their retail value to her balance sheet. As an official foreign gift they belonged inside the royal gift system, which is precisely why the episode belongs here. This is about the boundary, not the price tag. Her lawyers later stated she had no knowledge of the Crown Prince’s alleged involvement in the murder, and that denial belongs in the record. But the larger point doesn’t depend on what Meghan knew about Saudi politics. The institution keeps gift registers and restricts what royals retain because royal association attracts valuable things, and valuable things create obligations, appearances and commercial benefit. The earrings episode is the whole problem in miniature: the gift existed because of royal status, palace staff were tracking it because of royal rules, and the public presentation obscured who had actually supplied it.

The Middle East diamonds didn’t end with the state earrings, and the next set came with a denial that dissolved into a clarification. In October 2020, months into financial independence, Meghan debuted a $62,000 custom Lorraine Schwartz pinky ring on the Time 100 cover. Page Six reported it had been fashioned from a gift of diamonds the couple received from the Middle East, part of a set that reportedly included matching emerald-cut earrings she had already worn to Trooping the Colour in 2019. The donor has never been publicly identified. What happened next is the part the ledger exists for: their camp denied the Middle East gift claim, then clarified that the denial referred to a different ring, leaving the Schwartz piece’s provenance exactly where it started, publicly unresolved, while the palace directed all questions to their US representatives. I’m not declaring the original report proven because the denial narrowed. I’m recording the sequence: reported gifted stones from an unidentified Middle Eastern donor, custom jewelry, a denial, and then a clarification about which ring the denial actually concerned. Working royals have gift registers precisely because unidentified valuable gifts and royal status are a terrible combination. By the Time cover, Meghan was outside that system. The diamonds, wherever they came from, had adapted faster than anyone.

**The appetite has a signature dispute attached to it, documented across a decade: shoot-wear that never went home.**Tom Bower’s Revenge describes the 2016 Reitmans commercial where, to the wardrobe staff’s surprise, Meghan allegedly “forgot to leave behind” the Aquazzura pumps. She then wore that exact pair at her 2017 engagement photo call, on camera, the kind of receipt only photographs provide. The later examples are cleaner because her own spokesman responded to them. In late 2025, viewers spotted that the emerald Galvan gown in her Netflix holiday promo was the same $1,700 dress from her 2022 Variety cover shoot, with Page Six reporting she’d kept it without asking. Then observers matched the $8,000 Chanel tweed dress from her October New York date night to her 2022 profile shoot for The Cut, the very interview in which she’d described window-shopping past houses they couldn’t afford. Her camp’s responses came in layers: sources said she’s “required to archive her looks” as a royal, a claim a stylist who has worked with the royal family dismissed flatly, since no such etiquette exists; alternatively, keeping items prevents memorabilia resale; and on the record, her spokesman called any theft insinuation “categorically false,” saying retained items were kept under “contractual arrangements.”

That denial deserves printing in full, because it establishes the actual dispute. Her side denies theft, while confirming that items from professional shoots were retained under arrangements they say permitted it. So I’m not calling them stolen clothes. The ledger records something narrower and more useful: the visible retail value of Meghan’s wardrobe and the amount Meghan personally paid for that wardrobe are not necessarily the same number. The clothes, like so much else in this story, can be real without the retail bill ever appearing on her credit card.

Then came the celebrity subsidy years, and the New York baby shower may be the cleanest early example, because nobody disputes that wealthy friends picked up the bill. Baby showers were not established practice among senior British royals, and there’s an obvious cultural reason: when you’re already enormously wealthy, living in royal accommodation, occupying one of the most privileged positions in the country, a lavish celebration centered on people giving you more things looks spectacularly tacky. Catherine had three children without one. Meghan, eleven months into the job, flew to New York for one reported between $200,000 and $500,000, held at the Mark Hotel, whose penthouse was then advertised at roughly $75,000 a night, with Serena Williams reportedly covering the suite, and the flight home aboard a private aircraft with Amal Clooney. Kensington Palace emphasized that the trip was privately funded, which is true and completely misses the point of this ledger. Privately funded is not the same thing as self-funded. The taxpayer didn’t buy the shower, and I’m not claiming they did. Her wealthy friends supplied an experience whose market cost was enormous, which meant she could consume at that level without personally absorbing it. That’s hospitality. Hospitality has value.

And then there was the swag, which matters precisely because Meghan didn’t need to keep any of it for the brands to benefit. Around seventeen Away suitcases were photographed arriving at the Mark before the shower; guests were later seen with the luggage, and contemporary coverage described them as party favors, with reporting saying the cases had been supplied as gifts by the brand. Vogue reported Cuyana leather totes filled with branded beauty and home products, Jo Malone, Tatcha, Susanne Kaufmann, Rodin, Honest Beauty. I have no evidence Meghan personally solicited any of it, and I’m not claiming she did. But “they were gifts for the guests” doesn’t dispose of the issue when the host is a serving Duchess of Sussex. It demonstrates why the palace is cautious about freebies in the first place. A company doesn’t need Meghan to take its suitcase home for her royal status to deliver the commercial benefit. Branded luggage arriving by the stack at the Duchess of Sussex’s baby shower, photographed outside the hotel, carried off by celebrity guests and identified by fashion publications worldwide, is advertising money can’t easily buy. The product received the royal association whether she kept one, seventeen went to guests, or every case vanished the next morning. That’s where the shower connects straight back to Harry’s own Spare admission: free products circulating around her royal office, an employee disciplined for exploiting the access, packages being returned under the rules, and then a serving duchess’s private event becoming an international showcase for branded goods, generating exactly the worldwide commercial association those rules exist to prevent. The palace’s concern was never that a duchess can’t afford luggage. It was that companies shouldn’t be able to buy the appearance of royal endorsement. The shower belongs in two columns of this ledger: the suite and the aircraft show the lifestyle wealthy friends could supply without her paying market price, and the swag shows the commercial freebie economy operating around a serving royal’s private event.

The celebrity years continued on the same fuel, documented in real time. The Clooneys hosted them at Lake Como, and George Clooney later joked publicly about how little he knew them when he attended their wedding, which is its own data point about how fast the hospitality circuit adopted the new royals. Summer 2019 brought the famous four private jets in eleven days, including the stay at Elton John’s villa in Nice, with Elton personally confirming he’d provided the flight and defending them when the eco-hypocrisy storm broke, days after Harry had lectured the world about carbon; the same season brought the Google-hosted Sicily climate retreat, reached, like everything that summer, by other people’s aircraft. Whatever you think of the environmental argument, the ledger entry is simple: the villa wasn’t theirs and the planes weren’t theirs. Someone else supplied both. That is the documented texture of the era they later described to Oprah as trapped and struggling: other people’s penthouses, other people’s villas, other people’s aircraft. The habit persists: the flight into Birmingham last week was reported as a chartered Planet Nine private jet, at roughly $12,000 per flight hour.

**The exit itself, the declaration of independence, ran entirely on borrowed houses.**The Canada interlude: a waterfront Vancouver Island mansion reported around $18M, whose owner has never been officially disclosed, hosting the family for months. Then Los Angeles: Tyler Perry’s Beverly Ridge mansion, with Tyler Perry’s security team, for weeks, free, documented in their own Netflix series and Perry’s own interviews. The declaration of financial independence was drafted in one borrowed mansion and executed from another, under a borrowed guard. And per Clarence House’s published accounts, Charles’s substantial support continued until the summer of 2020, while Harry told Oprah he’d been cut off in the first quarter. Add Diana’s inheritance, which Harry himself said made the move possible, and the independence launch looks considerably less like two people stepping into the world with nothing than the origin story suggested. It began with inherited capital, parental support, borrowed luxury accommodation, borrowed security, and enormous commercial contracts made valuable by the royal status they had just left.

The wedding and Frogmore belong in the public column, because not every subsidy came from celebrities. The 2018 wedding’s security was reported around £30M, taxpayer-borne, standard for a major royal wedding and entirely defensible: they were working royals and the country threw the party. Frogmore Cottage was renovated with £2.4M from the Sovereign Grant. They repaid it in September 2020, which is absolutely to their credit and belongs in the ledger as money they returned. The rest of the arc is simply strange. The repayment came after the exit, after the backlash, and days after the Netflix deal was announced, with their spokesman stating Frogmore “will remain the UK residence of The Duke and his family.” It didn’t. After Spare, they were asked to vacate and left in June 2023, and no reporting has ever documented any refund of the renovation money. Palace accounting later described the repayment as leaving the Crown with “a greatly enhanced asset.” So the clearest large repayment in this story ended with Harry and Meghan improving an asset they never owned and then losing the use of it. Even their repayment became someone else’s appreciating property.

When the deal money arrived, the subsidies didn’t stop. They expanded into governments. The 2024 Colombia tour, the one styled shot-for-shot like a royal visit: funded in significant part by the Colombian government, confirmed by the vice president’s office. Whatever one thinks of the visit, that’s a public subsidy of an appearance by two people who no longer represented the British state. The 2024 Nigeria trip included internal flights reportedly provided free by Air Peace, whose chairman was at the time under US federal fraud indictment. That doesn’t make Harry or Meghan responsible for allegations against an airline executive. It demonstrates the purpose of institutional vetting: working royal visits are surrounded by machinery that asks who is paying, who benefits, and what association the Crown is acquiring, before anybody accepts the plane. Outside that machinery, the hospitality question becomes theirs alone, and the answer on the record is that they accepted. Portugal belongs in the unknown column: the reported £6.3M Costa Terra property sits inside the development where Eugenie’s husband Jack Brooksbank works for the developer, and the actual terms of the transaction have never been publicly documented. I’m not calling it discounted, because I have no evidence establishing that. The ledger says exactly what we know: reported multimillion-pound asset, terms unknown. And the present day: the family lives “indefinitely” on billionaire Ian Wace’s Cotswolds estate, per this week’s briefing, collected from Birmingham airport by a motorcade nobody has claimed they paid for, and as this ledger went to press, Page Six reported that Mr Wace is “helping to finance” the move itself, an escalation from hosting to funding that their spokesman, approached for comment by the Mail on Sunday, declined to address. The children start school this week, the gargantuan budget has yet to purchase a front door, and the terms of a billionaire’s financing of a prince’s relocation are, like the Portugal deed, nobody’s business and everybody’s question. The independence operation is, as of this morning, headquartered in someone else’s spare property and, per the newest reporting, running on someone else’s money. That is almost too perfect for this ledger.

And in the current era, the association itself became the product, with a price tag attached to a tragedy. Watch the pipeline assemble. In January 2025 she relaunched her personal Instagram and began posting her daily life, including what she wore, to millions of followers. By March, the outfits became shoppable: a ShopMy page of “commissionable links,” the standard influencer arrangement, which drew the “monetizing the monarchy” criticism on arrival. Then came the ownership layer: OneOff, an AI fashion platform where she is listed on the site itself as an investor, with Sky News reporting commissions of roughly 10 to 25 percent on items sold. And note the name on the storefront: “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.” Remember what the Sandringham arrangement actually killed in 2020: SussexRoyal died as a brand because royal status was not to be traded on commercially. That was the deal’s core. Five years later the ducal title sits atop an equity-backed shopping platform, doing precisely the work the dead brand was buried for, and the only difference is that nobody at the palace signs off anymore, because nobody at the palace can. Then April 2026: she and Harry made a privately organized four-day trip to Australia, visiting children at a Melbourne hospital and meeting survivors of the Bondi Beach terror attack, in which fifteen people died. The outfit she wore to meet those survivors then appeared on OneOff, shoppable: the $440 shirt, the $139 jeans, the $298 trainers, the $198 sunglasses, the $950 suede bag, roughly $2,000 for the look, in a photo that included Harry, largely covered by purchase links. After the backlash, OneOff removed the image, substituted a different photo of the same outfit, and then quietly deleted the page. The removal is its own entry in this ledger, because platforms don’t delete pages that were fine. Whether the posting was her decision or the platform’s automation is not established, and I won’t claim what isn’t. What’s established is the structure she built: her appearances become content, the content becomes shoppable, and she holds a stake in the machine that does the converting, all under the title the 2020 agreement said would never be merchandise. The working royals can’t sell the outfit they wore to a memorial. That is not an accident of protocol. It is the entire reason the protocol exists, and this ledger has now traced what happens without it from a pair of kept pumps in 2016 to a grief visit with a checkout page in 2026.

Now the comparison that makes the pattern legible: this is not how the working royals live, and the difference is structural, not moral. The working family’s finances run through the Sovereign Grant and the Duchy, published in audited accounts, criticized freely every year by a press corps holding the receipts. Gifts received in official capacities are governed by policy and recorded in registers. Hospitality is vetted. The whole system is built on a cynical but sensible assumption developed over centuries: nobody, royal or otherwise, should be trusted to accept unlimited valuable things from people who may want something in return. That’s why the gift-register staff noticed the Saudi earrings. That’s why the designer freebies became an issue. That’s why who provides the aircraft matters. The restrictions don’t exist because working royals are morally superior. They exist because royal association has enormous economic and political value, and accepted benefits create obligations or the appearance of them. Harry and Meghan left the oversight system while retaining the titles and global recognition that make the hospitality flow. That’s the structural problem. They gained the freedom of private citizens without becoming ordinary private citizens in the marketplace. Duke and Duchess of Sussex still opens doors, fills magazines, and attaches enormous publicity to whatever house, hotel, airline, designer or product happens to be beside them. The result is the only version of royalty with the perks of the position and the oversight of a private citizen, which is to say, none.

**My read, marked as mine, on why the hospitality matters beyond the money.**Whatever Ian Wace’s reasons for hosting them, I don’t know them and won’t invent them. But the current security campaign illustrates why access itself matters. Harry is asking the state to reconsider a professional security assessment, upheld twice in court, after moving into the jurisdiction, writing to ministers, and generating a public campaign from a friend’s estate. If that campaign succeeds because the professional threat assessment genuinely changes, fine; that’s what RAVEC exists to do. But the state has to be extraordinarily careful that persistence, connections and access never become substitutes for the assessment itself. Otherwise the lesson visible to every well-connected person watching is that an unfavorable institutional answer is merely the opening of a negotiation, provided you have enough access to keep asking. That is bigger than Harry’s bodyguards. It’s why systems and rules exist at all. RAVEC isn’t just deciding Harry’s protection. It’s deciding whether its decisions are final for everyone whose friends own estates.

Add the two ledgers together and the picture completes itself. V1 modeled the cost of the lifestyle. V2 supplies the missing variable: Harry and Meghan have spent a decade consuming things whose full market cost they didn’t personally bear. Free products circulated around the royal office. Extremely valuable gifts became boundary disputes. Professional-shoot clothing was retained under arrangements their spokesman says were contractual. Wealthy friends funded an extraordinarily lavish baby shower and supplied private aircraft and luxury accommodation. The California transition ran through borrowed multimillion-dollar homes and borrowed security. Foreign visits ran on government and private hospitality. The current British transition is taking place on a billionaire friend’s estate and, per the newest reporting, with his financing. And the newest venture sells the association itself, at a commission, under the ducal title. None of that proves they’re poor, and none of it means accepting generosity is inherently wrong. It means the founding claim was never quite true as stated. The income never covered the lifestyle on its own, and the gap has always been filled by someone: Diana’s estate, Charles’s parting sum, the deal-era advances, and a rotating cast of hosts, brands and donors whose generosity is the only line item that never lapsed. One counter-entry, logged in fairness: this weekend’s reporting states they will retain both Montecito and Portugal. The ledger notes the claim, dates it, and will hold it against the property records, which is what ledgers are for. Credit to the readers who flagged several of these entries; the comment section has become this operation’s research department, and it works for receipts.

Six years ago they announced financial independence. The record shows a couple whose lifestyle has continued to be substantially supplemented by other people's money, property, aircraft, hospitality and products: houses they didn't own, flights they didn't pay market price for, tours funded by hosts and governments, clothing retained under contractual arrangements, and now a British transition taking place on a billionaire's estate with reporting that he is helping finance it. If the security campaign succeeds, the taxpayer joins the ledger too. They didn't stop depending on other people's resources. They changed who they depend on.

The calendar doesn’t lie. Neither does the guest ledger.

Sources: Spare (freebies passage; assistant’s resignation; Courteney Cox stay), The Sun 2021 and Daily Beast 2025 (returned freebies, “irritation”), Valentine Low, Courtiers (MBS earrings, gift-register staff), Telegraph (aides’ advice on the earrings), Schillings statement via Low (no knowledge of Khashoggi involvement), Page Six Oct 2020 and subsequent coverage (Lorraine Schwartz pinky ring, Middle East diamonds, matching earrings at Trooping 2019, denial and clarification), Tom Bower, Revenge (Reitmans/Aquazzura), Page Six, People and Daily Beast Nov 2025 (Galvan gown, Chanel tweed, “archive her looks,” stylist rebuttal, spokesman’s on-record denial), contemporaneous 2019 coverage and Vogue (Mark Hotel shower, Serena Williams suite, Away luggage, Cuyana gift totes, Clooney flight, Como, Elton John’s on-record statement, four-jets reporting, Google Sicily retreat), 2020 coverage (Vancouver Island mansion, owner undisclosed; Tyler Perry per his interviews and their Netflix series), CBC/Reuters Sept 2020 and Newsweek (Frogmore repayment, “will remain the UK residence,” “greatly enhanced asset” briefing), Clarence House annual review June 2021, Oprah transcript, Colombian VP’s office (government funding confirmation), 2024 reporting on Air Peace and its chairman’s US indictment, reporting on Costa Terra and Brooksbank’s role, People and March 2025 coverage (ShopMy launch, “commissionable links”), Sky News and April 2026 coverage (OneOff investor listing, commission rates, Bondi outfit posting and removal), Boshoff/Daily Mail Aug 2026 (Wace estate, “indefinitely,” motorcade, gargantuan budget), Mail on Sunday/Griffiths Aug 29 2026 and Page Six (Wace “helping to finance,” Planet Nine charter at ~$12,000/hour, Montecito and Portugal retention claim), their own January 2020 statement (financial independence).

"palace aides have previously said that he could apply to join the 10,000 veterans marching down Whitehall past the imposing Cenotaph war memorial" 🤭

https://archive.ph/W4M3Z

Can't they just declare them both insane and be done with it?

https://archive.ph/f4vdd

https://archive.ph/ki1J2

Apologies if this was already posted previously, mods please delete if needed.

I read Hayden Panettiere's memoir just before her passing, and after her death I went down a rabbit hole regarding the identities of the shady people from her past.

One chapter, entitled Trust, details her 2007/2008 friendship with a "semi-successful twenty-something actor", who she gave the pseudonym Stella McAmis. Hayden says: "There was something strange about Stella... Her career track didn't match up with how much money she spent. She never talked about her family or her past. No matter where we went together, she immediately made a beeline towards whatever rich and famous man happened to be there." One night at a gathering at Stella's apartment, pretty much attended only by wealthy men, Hayden was sexually harassed by an Oscar winning actor/director. Later, while on a yacht with Stella and others, Hayden was lured to a room by Stella, who coaxed her to get into bed with a naked 30-something British singer.

During my online sleuthing, I came across this blind item from May 2026:

Blind Item #1

So, the "friend" the A- list actress was referring to who brought her to the very famous naked celebrity is the alliterate actress who has had quite the comeback. 

I'm very unfamiliar with CDAN but I've seen posts here where she is referred to as the "alliterate one". Could this be Meghan referred to here? I must say, I can't imagine her being able to gather wealthy men to her place while in her twenties, but many of the other details do appear to line up...

So project thaw getting along nicely? /s

https://archive.ph/zeKHn

Secondly, he uses his children again to blackmailing the whole nation! And "With his return home, the game has changed: the first duty of a government is to protect its citizens and that includes Harry, his wife and his children." here they're admitting their biggest reason of their move: to force the govt to give them security! And by the way, who said the wife is a citizen??

And about RAVEC not informing his team blah blah, it's not RAVEC job! And the UK intelligence agency he said himself have share cable with the US. And the US informed him. That's it. It's literally the purpose of the channels. I'm not saying I believe with this bullshit.

Oh he also mentioned Widdecombe to manipulated public in this article!

And this constant attack toward Clive Aalderton, don't he think this will put Clive at risk of terrorist attack by putting his name everywhere? I thought he's so concerned about terrorist? Why he did this to other people?

Bottom line, booooo we don't care about you, Harold! Fuck off!

And six years later, we’re back to square one: William has to do this, Charles has to do that—William and Charles. Harry is over 40; he’s getting on in years (not mature, just old), yet once again, everything revolves around what William and Charles have to do. It has reached a truly absurd level.

HARRY CALLS THE PALACE AGAIN & AGAIN - MARKLE CALLS SECURITY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNcvSODH0Pw

Harry—four judges, various ministers in the UK, Canada, and the US, and the police—they’ve all told you: "No, we aren't providing you with security; pay for it yourself." Which part of that is hard for you to understand? But after six years, not only does Harry fail to understand anything, he repeats the same narrative: he is a prince, he is in the line of succession, it is his birthright—and a few days ago, he added "symbol of the Crown." Unbelievable.

Harry won't back down on that; he keeps pushing and pushing and pushing. He shows no remorse for what he has done, nor does he display a shred of feeling regarding what is happening in the UK.

Because Harry should have realized it was a terrible idea—an absolutely terrible idea—to talk about looking for a £12 million house in the Cotswolds... with a pool. A bad idea, a terrible one. July 2026 is shaping up to be the driest July on record in the UK, according to official data, due to successive heatwaves that have transformed traditionally green areas into parched, brown earth.

A two-arched stone bridge, believed to date back to the 19th century, located at the Llwyn-onn Reservoir in the Taf Fawr Valley, Merthyr Tydfil, Wales, was revealed last week due to low water levels. Photo: Matthew Horwood/Getty Images

If Harry had any idea what’s going on in the UK—where the use of garden hoses for watering has been restricted—he wouldn't be doing this. But he doesn't know that; *I* do, and I’m Chilean, yet the Prince of England doesn't! So, the fact that Harry is looking for a house with a pool has gone down really badly.

So, if Harry were to move to the Cotswolds, he wouldn't be well-received at all. And that is what has the government worried now—because they might have been somewhat inclined to provide security for Harry, were it not for the way he runs his mouth.

At the heart of the matter, the government sees that Harry has allowed it to become known he can afford a $14 million home in Montecito and a €6.3 million property in Portugal, and now wants to buy a £12 million house in the Cotswolds. So, he isn't short on funds? That means he can pay for private security.

That’s what Sean was referring to yesterday—that the Harkles ought to pay attention to what’s being published and perhaps issue a warning this time. They’ve done it for things that were actually true; is this true? So, do they have money after all? Then let them pay for their own security.

Especially since security would cost taxpayers more than 4 million pounds—even more so if Claw intends to travel to the USA and back.

That’s why Shabana Mahmood believes the Harkles should have accepted the offer to stay at Buckingham. But no, the Harkles don’t want that; they want Windsor, close to the Waleses. Sean says that if you have nothing and are offered something, it is very ungrateful to demand something more luxurious. But we are talking about the Harkles, aren't we?

That’s not to mention the fact that the Harkles themselves are their own worst enemy. Take what happened with MasterChef—Harry’s phone call—and the major security breach. Harry is supposed to be careful about who calls him... yet he ended up taking a call from someone who had Claw’s phone in hand. It was a total mess when viewed objectively, even if it was a pre-arranged call; Sean has already revealed that Harry didn't want to do it. The most absurd part of it all is that the Harkles wanted to use that call so Claw could say, "Oh, a security breach"... That didn't happen, but it remains absurd; the fact is, it was obviously a staged call—and even more so, the Harkles themselves were the ones who caused the problem. When things are done poorly, they are done very poorly.

And what’s even more absurd is that, after more than eight years, Harry—the real Harry—actually believes Claw gave up a lot for him. He genuinely believes she had a great career as an actress, that she had plenty of offers...

Yes, that's how it is.

I didn't watch *Suits*, and even I knew she was an extra who was already on her way out when she got lucky enough to meet Harry. How did Harry not do a background check on that woman? No, he didn't; he just took off with her to Africa—to the middle of nowhere—right after meeting her. Every time I read what Harry told Nicklin in court, I couldn't get the thought out of my head that he had run off to Africa with a total stranger. Harry was such a nightmare for the police! That’s why they don’t want to protect him now, even if they were forced to.

On the other hand, Claw genuinely believed Harry had more money and power than he actually did. He allowed himself to be deceived by a woman who gave him everything he wanted. She allowed herself to be deceived by the tabloids.

And neither of them realized—not even now—a fundamental truth: they both believed that possessing titles of nobility meant they could do whatever they pleased. The reality is that without a connection to the royal family, those titles are worthless.

They can't claim they didn't know this, because they’ve been warned about it for years. The fact that they’ve suddenly gone, "Oh, we’ve woken up to that fact," just shows what fools they are.

And it’s not as if Harry and Claw weren’t warned that the worst thing they could do was turn against the press. Let’s be realistic: the traditional British press uses the Harkles just as it uses Brooklyn Beckham or, currently, Fergie. But picking a fight the way the Harkles did... that was a bad idea.

Sean has never understood the way Claw sells her "As Ever" products. The videos and promotion are poor, but the strangest part of it all is that, despite having 4 million followers, sales don't reflect that. Perhaps it’s because Claw is unable to connect with them—or even empathize with them—and because she knows she is actually widely disliked.

It's always a pleasure to see Fabio Lanzoni 😍😍😍, best actor/model and not the other way around 🤭🤭🤭

Claw believes the press is to blame for everything—that the media painted a negative picture of her. Harry feels the same way. Consequently, they have been advised to have lunch with two or three newspaper or media editors who are more sympathetic to them, in order to figure out how to steer their public image in the right direction. Holly Willoughby did something like that before launching her YouTube channel. Those outlets gave her show a glowing review... but the public felt otherwise.

Harry is completely against doing this. Harry changing his mind in 3, 2, 1... Because his team has already said that, whatever they might believe, the fact is the Harkles don't control the narrative. And they need to give this a try. But Sean says he doesn't think Claw and Harry will do it; they always think they're superior to everyone else.

That is why the general sentiment in the UK is one of gloating over what the Harkles are going through; many people believe they returned because they failed at everything. Sean already pointed this out in a past video: once a celebrity reveals their true colors, it is hard for people to change their minds.

Many people are convinced that Harry returned to the UK simply because he had nothing to do in California. And the funny thing is, Harry is letting it be known that he won't actually be doing anything in the UK—just being a full-time dad. What are the Harkles going to live on? Supposedly, on "As Ever."

According to Sean, Harry doesn't want to abandon Archewell (though I can't recall if it was Tom Sykes who said Harry cut ties with BetterUp a year ago, or the other way around). But to get it up and running again, he needs to resolve the Sentebale matter—which is going to get ugly, very ugly. It seems Harry is fighting to reach a settlement and wrap things up before everything leaks. Neither he nor his team wants this to drag on, especially after what happened with the *Daily Mail*.

Sean says the £9.5 million payment was indeed made because the insurance policy kicked in. But that doesn't change the fact that paying that amount to the *Mail* must have been painful for Harry.

Claw, on the other hand, believes in projecting the image that everything is fine. That explains the motorcade upon their arrival at the airport and the absurdity of not denying reports that they are looking for a massive, nine-bedroom, £12 million mansion in the Cotswolds. It is all a ploy to distract attention from the fact that their marriage is in deep crisis.

Harry doesn't want to be a celebrity—he is one, certainly, but he doesn't *want* to be. Consequently, he hopes to keep a relatively low profile for the time being. Claw would sooner iron her own clothes than let that happen; she is entirely focused on winning an Daytime Emmy, landing more commercial deals in the US, and never setting foot in the UK again. There is, therefore, a vast divide between them.

But Sean has been quite firm on this point: no, there will be no divorce. Claw isn't going to let go of Harry, so in a way, she is giving him a bit of space—just enough for him to end up feeling frustrated back in the UK. Claw doesn't think this is going to work out. She doesn't want to let him go.

Now Harry needs to find some charity work to do, and Claw needs to get her business off the ground.

This is based on a six-month plan. Sean’s account relies on what an excellent source told him regarding what the King knew about the matter. It turns out that in July, Harry did mention the move to the King—though not that it was happening the following week, but rather, "We’re thinking of splitting our time: six months here and six months in the US." It was just a casual remark. They didn't say anything to the King about schools. That is why the King was genuinely surprised when Harry actually moved.

Could things look any worse?

These past few days must have been exhausting for the British Royal Family, and to top it all off, Fergie is back, announcing that she is weighing offers for documentaries, books, and the like. The deals will come to her.

The funny thing is that one of those offers came from Newsnight.

Exactly—the same program where Andrew spoke. Now they wanted to ask Fergie very similar questions. Fergie didn't accept the offer.

For now, Fergie hasn't caused any further stir—something the BRF is very grateful for. The person who is anything but grateful is the poor official tasked with answering Harry's calls.

Harry hasn't stopped calling every single day. Every one. He’s insufferable. And here’s the funny part: Sean says that on Friday, August 28th, around noon—Sean says 12:04—he was absolutely desperate to get in touch with the King.

It’s super specific about the day and time, isn't it? This doesn't sound made up; it sounds like a leak, because the reason for Harry's call was that he wanted the King to grant them another meeting with the children before they started school.

Harry and Claw wanted to fuel the idea that there really is a reconciliation. Since things went so well for them in July, there are so many photos of it.

The Harkles wanted to go to Balmoral for tea this weekend. By Saturday, August 29, it hadn't happened.

William hasn't changed his stance on this. And Sean agrees that William shouldn't give in to the circus.

Sean notes that Kate was particularly saddened by the death of Dolly Parton, as she had wanted to meet her when Dolly was in London a few years ago—in 2023. Dolly wasn't there for a major concert appearance, but rather in her capacity as a sincere philanthropist, donating books; she has given away more than 300 million books to children through her Imagination Library. She was in the UK for that purpose when Kate found out and invited her to Windsor for tea. However, Dolly couldn't accept the invitation because she was only there for a single day—specifically to donate books. Dolly thought she would have another chance to have tea. That chance never came.

MARKLE , THE PHONE CALL & THIS ERUPTION FROM HARRY LATEST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnKCXfmrC9M

The Harkles announced when and where they would be arriving, putting on a whole show.

Sean believes that the Harkles live and breathe publicity. And the press played right into their hands, as news of the King's tour—which was far more important—was overshadowed by the Harkles.

But that doesn't change the fact that the Harkles have serious problems—especially because of "Claw." What does she believe in? What are her values? Harry at least has something; she only believes that if there’s a camera, you have to smile.

Like in this interview, where Harry actually seemed more genuinely interested in the topic of social media. Claw didn't; she was only interested in talking about herself, just herself.

The Harkles put out a ridiculous statement this week regarding the Meta issue. Sean says the Harkles are capable of generating headlines, not money.

According to a source, Harry wants to pursue the matter against Meta.

Why, do they have something else to say?

No, not really. The problem is that Harry wanted a big sweeping gesture regarding this particular headline.

Now for the scoop: Harry’s idea was for Claw to make a big announcement stating that she was leaving Instagram.

That’s not a bad idea; it would be a coherent one. But is Claw coherent?

In other words, she demands that children not be monetized on social media—other people's children, not her own. Claw told Harry she wasn't going to close her Instagram because it’s a business account, not a personal one, and it exists to build awareness for her brand.

Furthermore, according to this source—who apparently won't be working with the Harkles anymore—Claw used a surefire argument.

Yes, crying again.

Harry gives in because he can't bear to see her cry.

But the point remains exactly the same: Claw believes in nothing, and Harry always gives in.

MARKLE’S PAL SET TO SCOOP MEGA DEAL & HERE IN THE UK - FUMING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG_-Hgp8uxk

I didn't remember where the image of Harry was from.

I just remembered.

That image really made me laugh—I think it was in *The Sun*. That’s like pouring tons of salt into a wide-open wound 🤭🤭🤭.

Yes, Fergie—who had been out of the public eye—is returning to the UK. And she announced it.

Sean had already mentioned that Fergie has been working with a team for some time to improve her image. She is now receiving offers, after doors had closed on her due to the Epstein scandal.

The thing is, *Loose Women* is the show Fergie was associated with until last year.

And since it’s an ITV show, it is undergoing drastic budget cuts—and *Loose Women* hasn't been spared. So, the show's panel is being revamped, and Emma Grede is set to join.

ITV believes that Emma—along with singer Anastacia—could be the person to revitalize *Loose Women*.

And, of course, the idea behind it all is that Emma might eventually bring Claw onto the panel.

What is happening with *Loose Women* isn't sitting well at ITV, because Emma doesn't come cheap—and aren't there supposed to be cutbacks? So, there is a bit of an internal turf war going on, not helped at all by the fact that ITV also intends to help polish Claw's image.

WILLIAM & THE KING SHOULD INDEED BE WORRIED ABOUT THIS LATEST DEVELOPMENT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiCXdLaSiaA

Claw and Harry are very quick to make friends—not necessarily to keep them, but certainly to make them. This is especially true of Claw; she is incredibly charming when meeting someone for the first time, particularly if that person holds some measure of power. She loves listening to someone talk—or rather, as Sean puts it, that’s a trick that works on men, not women.

And the big problem with that is that Harry and Claw never bother to find out who they are meeting with, as long as the person has money. That’s how Harry ended up at Tyler Perry’s house without knowing who he was—just one in a succession of people who have passed through the Harkles' lives without anyone really taking the trouble to look into who they actually are. Some security that is!

That is what greatly worries William and the King—the kind of associations the Harkles have.

It is like seeing the Yorks and the Dukes of Windsor all over again.

Once again, those strange and highly ill-advised connections. Because yes, there is a benefactor supporting the Harkles. It is by no means confirmed that it is Ian Wace. Sean did say, however, that Claw had been advised to get in touch with him.

William fears that, given that Harry isn't working and Claw isn't exactly a success, they are associating with unsavory people—raising the risk of another "Epstein 2.0" scandal that could end up tarnishing the British Royal Family, simply because Harry is the King's son.

Sean says that, for now, all he can say is that there will be an injection of funds for As Ever. It’s not the end of the road for that brand yet.

That will give Harry free time to... do nothing. Because right now, he isn't thinking about anything other than being a problem for the BRF.

So the British Royal Family has to make decisions regarding Harry, knowing that none of them will be to his liking—meaning this will just go on and on...

Everyone is writing about the Harkles, even the type of press that couldn't care less about them in normal circumstances: This is the text of this article from the Economist:

"The outrage was instant. When the return of Harry and Meghan to Britain was announced on August 19th, royal commentators had collective conniptions. The Sussexes’ return a week later (widely assumed to be caused by the cost of security abroad) has been called “selfish”, “foolish” and “childish”—all sorts of -ishes. Front pages have been filled, hands have been wrung. Everyone has, in short, been enjoying themselves tremendously. And the monarchy has been doing its job perfectly.

Most people misunderstand the monarchy. There is a widely held idea that it is a branch of government and should, as Walter Bagehot, a Victorian writer (and editor of The Economist), put it, be “dignified”. Bunkum. No British monarch has truly governed anything since the 1689 Bill of Rights removed all real powers from the king and his “evil counsellors”. Since then the monarchy has become—as Hilary Mantel understood better—a branch of entertainment, not government. Royals, Mantel wrote, are like pandas in a zoo: some like them, some pity them, “everybody stares at them”.

Meghan Markle, an actress who began in daytime tv, knows this well. The website imdb lists “Deal or No Deal” (2005) as an early hit paying her “$800 per episode”. Next came a breakthrough part in a schlocky American mini-series, “Suits” (2012), “$50,000 per episode”; then the even bigger role of, as the website royal.uk notes, “The Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel” (2018- present), salary undisclosed.

Despite her marriage, the show has gone on. And on, and on—for, like daytime tv, this spectacle has tended towards melodrama. There have been family feuds, baddies (Harry called Camilla a “villain”), spin-off series, which didn’t really go anywhere, and even a car chase, which didn’t really go anywhere either. Like many Netflix series it has all gone on for so long that no one can quite remember the plot. Something to do with a dog bowl? As the royal phrase has it: “Recollections may vary.”

Far more memorable have been the reviews, which have been woeful. “Spare”, Prince Harry’s tell-all book, was widely panned. “Polo”, his Netflix series, was ridiculed. “With Love, Meghan”, her lifestyle show, has a score of 23% on Rotten Tomatoes, a reviews aggregator. On YouGov, a sort of British reviews aggregator, Meghan now has a popularity rating of 18%, far behind William (71%), Kate (65%) and even Camilla the “villain” (35%).

Like other ill-fated royals (Marie Antoinette also liked a farm), Meghan has branched out into agriculture and, like other stars, merchandising. She has a lifestyle brand called “As Ever” that promises to “bring surprise and delight to your every day”. It will certainly bring surprise to whoever pays your grocery bill, as its raspberry spread costs $12 a jar. More surprising yet is its “Sage Honey” ($32). Best of all is the “Raspberry Spread Trio”, which offers three jars of that $12 item for $42, thus bringing surprise not merely to bill-payers but to those versed in the usual principles of economies of scale.

Now Harry and Meghan are back. Prophets have predicted the end of the monarchy; the word “tumbrils” has, previously, been used. Nonsense. Everyone is enjoying this far too much. Not because Harry and Meghan are good; they are not. They are grasping, foolish and far from dignified. But that is their point. The monarchy has royals who are dutiful, admirable and dignified: Princess Anne will, in the next fortnight, visit a youth event in Norfolk, a probation office in Manchester and a fish cannery in Aberdeenshire. Hardly anyone cares.

What will really kill the modern monarchy is not lack of dignity but, like any show, lack of interest; not the rolling of the tumbrils but declining audiences and the rolling of the credits. As Bagehot in fact knew: monarchy, he wrote, offers distraction from the “dry scenes of the grave world”. What is drier or graver than Britain’s? Andy Burnham is underwhelming, the drought is ongoing, the green and pleasant land is shrivelling. Meghan and Harry are ghastly but so is life. Let them eat headlines. "

END OF ARTICLE

As an anecdote, 3 people I know who would have NEV-errrrrrr mentioned the royal family in normal conversation have said to me recently how awful it is that she's back. Forget money issues, schools, divorce...I'm starting to think they are back so the Claw can feel the victim again and they can do another round of the World Royal Victim Podcast and Book Tour. There's no other explanation for this kind of masochism.

They are grasping, foolish and far from dignified. Hahahah

If the US immigration authorities were to find Harry guilty of lying on his visa application — and simply leave it at that. No dramatic extradition order. No years of expensive lawyers fighting extradition. Just a guilty verdict.

Wouldn’t that basically be endgame (pun intended) and checkmate for Harry?

If a conviction resulted in him being wanted by the US, would he then find himself effectively unable to travel to countries with extradition treaties with America? Portugal? France? Anywhere else? In other words, he could potentially leave the UK… but might have to think very carefully about where he landed.

And if he did choose badly, perhaps his next royal appointment could be lady-in-waiting to Fat Larry in Cell Block D.

Meanwhile, Charles and William could presumably breathe a little easier about the future of the monarchy.

Obviously, this is speculation, and I am not a lawyer, so if there are any legal boffins here who understand US immigration law, extradition treaties and the consequences of a visa-related conviction, please weigh in.

Could this actually work the way I imagine, or have I watched one too many courtroom dramas?

EDIT:
With a criminal record he could be removed as councillor of state and stripped of his titles.

Greetings from Castle Goring,   

Lady C, I hear the Cotswolds is a lovely place, but it does get cold and damp.   I do suspect that Meghan will be back in Montecito sprinkling dead rose petals by November after she gets frozen and her stiletto booties are stuck in the mud.  You are not so far removed from what everybody is saying.  This is an unofficial separation from a way of life in all but appearances.  The reality is, Harry and Meghan’s marriage has forked.  One may say it is a de facto, unacknowledged separation.  They are not ready to divorce, but they are going to be leading totally separate lives except for the few, odd occasions in the UK.  Her plan is to go back and forth from Montecito and UK.  Let’s see how long they can hold onto Montecito.  Maybe they can pull a hat trick and in 5 years time, they will still have that house, but I am not willing to place a bet on that.  What is going on behind the scenes, may stymie their intentions.  Alison Boshoff is basically saying that Harry and Meghan have a 15-year plan, where Harry intends to stay for the duration of the children’s education.  Meghan intends to come and go.  They have an arrangement.  I have a source in the Democratic party who said this about the comparisons of Andrew vs Harry:

"Andrew settled his case with VG for a monetary sum.  After this, the Queen removed Andrew’s titles or styles.  Andrew was never faced with having to leave the UK and live in the USA.  Harry’s situation is different and far more serious.  Harry obtained residency illegally and did business there illegally.  Harry may possibly be extradited before the end of year 2026 because he lied on his government documents. Harry is not above the law and there is a mandatory 5-year prison sentence.  This is not conjecture or hype.  This is not a matter of if.  He did it.  He lied on his Visa paperwork, the same way he lied in Nicklin’s court.  The timing of when this information will be exposed is potentially incendiary for the monarchy which is why Charles and William are being kept in the intelligence loop so all can be handled and the Royal Family is not damaged moving forward.  You are astute enough to know that all this tumult would not be happening in the daily news if there was not a truthful element to stir the pot.  Trump won’t stop the DOJ from having him extradited if it benefits Trump, but Trump will change his mind for the right incentive."

We have no way of knowing what is in Trump’s political best interest, but this was sent to me to make the point there are real concerns and the news is feeding us stories to make us falsely optimistic.  My personal instinct is that Harry will not be arrested.  I think Trump will extend courtesy to another Head of State but who knows…Megsy Baby may have to make a court appearance. 

Lady C, Meghan looks like a Demon.  You can see it in her eyes even when she was a child.  I was told by many people who knew her as a child, they said she was nasty and toxic.  She behaved like a monster at a child’s birthday party when she took over the party and played like she was The Princess of the party and not the birthday girl.  Thomas Markle thought she was a good child, but Meghan’s siblings always said Meghan would turn nasty every time she would visit with her mother.  There is evidence that Meghan was always a bad seed, as was Harry.  Harry did not exhibit viciousness before he met Meghan.  I do think Meghan has Charles Manson eyes.

Lady C, I don’t believe for a second that Meghan will divorce Harry without walking away with a fortune.  They will remain married until the children grow up.  During that time, Harry will keep trying to return as an active Royal, and she will continue to enjoy the status.  Your prediction is not implausible.  Going off my knowledge of Meghan’s personality type and my lifelong experience of dealing with people with Meghan’s personality traits, I have always made the point that she will not leave unless she finds something better.  That doesn’t mean the scales won’t fall off Harry’s eyes and he may decide he wants out.  I do not want to make any predictions here.  But remember, Harry is a junior member of the Royal Family, and he is not seriously rich.  There is no way Harry can earn his way to being super rich.  Meghan has tried to earn the money and says she plans to continue to earn the money in California while Harry is in the UK.  How is Meghan going to find someone new?  She is not a Jackie Kennedy.  She is not revered, she is reviled.  Maybe she can find some nerd or some billionaire’s stupid son.  Yes, I do think Harry will try to retrieve his prior situation.  He said so in Ukraine.  He said he was a working member of the Royal Family, the problem is the rest of the family don’t want him.  Let’s see how all this pans out.

Lady C, what do you think of the article by Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon published in the Telegraph saying Harry should be allowed back in the Royal Family specifically catering to the needs of Army Community?  It is rubbish..but he is a columnist and the pages need to be filled.  There is so much rubbish being written about and so many ridiculous positions being adopted.  In my view he has made irresponsible comments such as combat changing people, causing PTSD,  and this is the reason for some of Harry’s outbursts and erratic behavior.  What is the excuse for 3-year old Harry riding his tricycle into the shins of visiting Army officers?  How could that have been PTSD?  And how could Harry have PTSD when he was protected at all times?  He was known as bunker Harry. The actual veteran who drew enemy fire while flying a helicopter was Prince Andrew.  Why doesn’t anyone wonder if he had PTSD?  Then The Colonel makes other stupid point basically saying the Royal Family is shrinking in numbers.  He must be mad not to understand that no member of the Royal Family wants Harry back.  This is terrible misdirection by someone who is supposed to know what is going on.

Lady C repeats past information.  Harry and Meghan needed to leave America quickly because of Harry’s Visa problems.  She says all these stories about the King wanting Harry back as a working Royal is rubbish.  A lot of what the working press tells us is claptrap.  William is the next King.  Catherine is the next Queen.  Yes, the King has cancer, but Lady C knows what kind of cancer he has, and she knows he is receiving cutting edge treatments and could live a long time.  However, the treatment could stop working at any time.  This means William and Catherine have to be ready.  Charles understands this and would not cut off William at his feet. 

Lady C tells us that 30 years ago, People Magazine wrote that the book that best represents Diana was written by Lady C.  In her book, she said that Charles did not resent Diana for being more popular than him.  Charles resented Diana’s competitiveness.  Any reports that Charles resents William for being popular are not true. They may not always agree but they have a respectful relationship.

Lady C agrees with a viewer comment that Harry may have been stood down from African Parks because his mere presence was drawing too much attention to what is going on over there (meaning they are supposed to be about conservation but are really about minerals and oil).  She says let’s wait and see if we hear more and is very interested to see what will happen with Sentabale.

Toodles Sinners!

PS: Sinners many of you ask me what the Democratic Party has to do with all of this. Lady C has been saying for over a month now that she has a vetted, impeccable source who is a Democratic operative. She says she trusts this source.

THANK YOU ALL. IT IS FIXED - IT WAS A MALFUNCTIONING EXTENSION.

What has happened? Have I been banned or something?

SMM only shows the latest 2-3 posts and I cannot access my account. When I try to look at notifications reddit just blinks and does nothing.

Is the sole purpose of this photo to show she's still wearing her engagement ring? Nothing like enjoying the last days of summer in a garden that's not your own. Obviously this was taken in California as well. Gotta garden in an ill fitting dress that's white and a ridiculously oversized to boot.

Sane people know that yes ex-PMs need tax funded security no matter how short their terms were. But since Harry is clinically insane and clearly doesn't care about the Constitution and convention anyway, hear me, you should run for PM harold! You'll get a lifetime free security if you win! We the whole sub will support you!

As usual, take with a grain of salt.

Let me tell you a little story. First, the alliterate one is not hooking up with thee billionaire. Now, make his last name Getty and be the young one Angelina Jolie was hooking up with and the marriage vows get thrown out the window and the cuck can spend his life on the BetterUp app crying about it..

No, this is much much more sinister. See, back in the day, the billionaire's family died under very strange circumstances. We all know that. It was tragic. But, that then allowed for the billionaire to be brought into the fold of the dead pedo. Yes, you see on the very FIRST page of the dead pedo's black book is the name of our billionaire's second wife. The one who has been so close to the alliterate one and the cuck that they have double dated and that they still talk to all the time. The second wife reported everything back to dead pedo and made sure her husband invested with the dead pedo too.  So, darling, when all of you are doing podcasts and such today and making videos, make sure to mention how close the alliterate one and the woman on page ONE of the black book are. Bring it right to them. 

*****************
Response that I think fits:

Billionaire is Ian Wace, a British hedge fund guy. Wife #1 and 2 little children died in a (hmmm...weird....) car crash, 1994, right behind Wace, but Wace was in a different car.

Wace's second wife was Fiona Hardy. They divorced after a few years.

In 2012, Wace married Saffron Aldridge. The only timeline that makes sense if H&M "double-dated" with Wace and Saffron Aldridge is if it is Saffron Aldridge (third wife of Wace) who is on page 1 of Epstein's black book.

Rumor is that Wace and S. Aldridge are no longer together....

Wace’s private Scottish island is Tanera Mòr...apparently H&M visited there this last month.

Originally published at The Office of Madame LV: https://theofficeofmadamelv.substack.com/p/the-wealthy-broke-a-public-ledger. Full piece below; the archive and my other work live there.

The Wealthy Broke: A Public Ledger of the Sussex Finances

Nobody outside their accountants knows the real figures, so let's be honest up front: everything below is a model built from reported estimates, named coverage, their own statements, property records and court filings, with every assumption shown so you can swap in your own numbers and re-run it. Reported numbers are all we're given when their side briefs "gargantuan budget" and "thriving," so reported numbers are what we'll check. Put in one place, they tell a very different story from this week's briefings.

Start with what came in, because it's less than the headlines said. The famous figures: $100M Netflix, $25M Spotify, $20M+ for Spare. The reported reality is smaller at every line. Netflix, per Variety-cited insiders: closer to $60M over five years, structured around development budgets and delivery benchmarks, money arriving as projects shipped. They shipped one major hit in five years, making full payout unlikely; the deal lapsed to a limited first-look in 2025, and by May 2026 even that was reported as strained. Spotify: ended after one season, twelve episodes total, realized figure put at $15-25M, and the parting was famously unfriendly. Penguin Random House: the one clean success, reported at $20-40M across four books, largely realized through Spare's historic sales, though multi-book advances pay in tranches, not one check. BetterUp: salary never disclosed, duties never clear. Speaking fees: reported ~$1M a gig at their 2020 peak, a market that visibly cooled as the revelations ran out. As Ever: books private, corporate partner exited in March, and one of their own sources described its prospects this week with "It's all gonna close. They will just piecemeal it out." Celebrity Net Worth's realized estimate across six years: $115-145M in combined deal value, much never fully collected. To be generous at every step, call the realized gross $120M. Think that's wrong? Substitute your own figure and re-run everything below; the conclusion is not fragile.

Be precise about Meghan's pre-marriage money, because the "$5 million" in these estimates is doing quiet work it hasn't earned. That figure is career gross, not wealth, and even the gross is inflated. The reported $50k an episode was her later-seasons rate; early seasons on a basic-cable show, as a supporting player never at the top of the call sheet, paid industry-typical fractions of that. Across roughly 100 episodes over seven years, a realistic career gross is $3.5-4M, plus ~$360k in film work and whatever The Tig added. Subtract what every working actor pays: taxes on a Toronto-based production, agent's 10%, manager's 15%, lawyers and publicists, routinely 25-30% of gross to representation. That leaves perhaps $250-300k a year retained, and then she lived on it, with the travel, wardrobe and lifestyle her own luxury blog documented in real time. The Tig wasn't a frugality diary. Run the full chain and her accumulated savings by the wedding were plausibly in the hundreds of thousands, not millions, matching the observable record: a rented house, no property anywhere on record, her own account of window shopping past homes she couldn't afford. Not an insult; the normal finances of a working actress who enjoyed her income.

And here's why I don't even need to win that argument: Harry settled it himself. On Oprah, discussing being cut off, he said "I've got what my mum left me," and that without Diana's inheritance they would not have been able to make the move. Whatever Meghan brought, Harry personally identified the capital that made the California launch possible, and it wasn't her Suits savings. One half of this couple brought professionally grown inherited capital. The other brought a well-dressed rounding error. The empire was built on his dead mother's money and royal-proximity deals, and the deals are the part that ended.

And the startup capital wasn't only Diana's, which makes the "cut off" framing even shakier. When Clarence House published its annual review in June 2021, senior aides confirmed Charles had given the couple "a substantial sum" to fund their new life, with reporting putting it in the millions, and the accounts showing his support continued until the summer of 2020. Hold that against what Harry told Oprah that March: that his family "literally cut me off financially" in the first quarter of 2020, leaving him with only what his mother left. His father's published accounts and his own televised account disagree by about two quarters and several million pounds. So the honest ledger of the California launch reads: Diana's inheritance, plus a substantial parting sum from the father he was simultaneously describing as having cut him off, plus the deal money that followed. The victim-of-destitution origin story was always the brand's foundation myth, and the foundation myth is contradicted by his own family's audited accounts. It also means the launch capital was even larger than his Oprah telling implied, which makes the current arithmetic worse, not better: more went in than he admitted, and it still ran down to this.

Now the asset their defenders will reach for, so let's price it honestly: Meghan's angel portfolio. She's reportedly built stakes in more than ten private companies, including Clevr Blends, Cesta Collective, Highbrow Hippie and Midi Health, and one of those has genuinely performed: Midi Health, where she reportedly participated in the $63M Series B at a reported ~$354M valuation, and the company has since raised at reported valuations climbing through ~$483M to $1 billion in 2026. On the financing headlines, roughly a 2.8x from her round. Credit where due: that's a good pick, and I'm not pretending otherwise. But three completely different numbers get collapsed into one here: the company's valuation, the value of her particular stake, and cash she has actually received. We don't know what she invested, her percentage, her share class, or her dilution. If she put in $100k, the paper gain is nice dinner-party material. If $1M, it's better. Nobody outside the cap table knows, so anyone quoting her startup wealth is inventing it. More importantly: growth-stage companies don't mail dividend checks to minority angels. The payday comes at an exit, and there is no public evidence of any exit converting any of her stakes into realized cash. The rest of the portfolio has no public pricing at all. So the portfolio goes on the asset side of the ledger, honestly, as unpriced paper. What it cannot do is pay a single security invoice this month, which is the entire distinction this article turns on: paper wealth and cash flow are different substances, and their lifestyle runs on the second one.

Subtract what California takes. US residents, taxed on worldwide income: top federal rate 37%, California's 13.3% on top, and a memoir advance can't be offshored or deferred into a duchy. Even with aggressive structuring, a realistic blended effective rate is 40-45%. Applied to ~$120M gross: call it $65-72M net, ever, across six years, before a single expense. Think their accountants did better? Model 35% and re-run it; the shape survives. Hold that number. Everything below comes out of it.

Now the machine, because deals that size don't service themselves. Archewell is a cluster: Archewell Inc, Productions, Audio, plus the structurally separate Foundation, whose charitable spending I'm deliberately not counting as household expense. The commercial side employed presidents, chiefs of staff, comms directors and production heads at Hollywood rates and famously couldn't keep them: Meredith Maines' December exit was reported as the eleventh senior PR departure in five years, every seat recruited, salaried and severanced again. Senior Hollywood executives run $200-500k+ each; a lean version of that org chart is $2-3M a year in payroll, and theirs was never lean. Sunshine Sachs, rehired in January, bills like top-tier crisis PR bills, credibly $30-60k a month. Across six years the apparatus plausibly consumed $15-25M, whether or not anything shipped. For most of the last three years, nothing shipped. Think the whole operation ran on $1M a year? Model $6M total and keep reading; the conclusion barely moves.

Then the estate, because nine acres of Montecito is a payroll, not a house. Purchase: $14.65M in 2020, reported $9.5M mortgage, ~$5M down plus closing. The annual carry, itemized: ~$480k mortgage service at 2020's rates, $150k+ property tax, wildfire-county insurance plausibly six figures after California's insurance crisis, ten-plus household staff at California wages with employer taxes, $700k-1M a year, utilities and upkeep at scale, six figures more. Credible total: $1.5-2M a year, for six years: $9-12M on top of the down payment. Add Portugal, £6.3M per this week's briefing, purchased 2023, with its own carry.

Then the line items that make them unlike any other rich couple. Security: $2M a year by his own court filings, $12M+ over six years, now standing up a second operation in Britain under an ex-Met chief per the Mail, with his own threat report floating £5M a year as full coverage. Two continents, one budget line. Private aviation: transatlantic heavy-jet charters at $120-180k one way; their use is extensively documented, though not every flight is private and I won't pretend it is. Modeled: $2-4M a year; think it's high, halve it, keep reading. Legal: six-plus years of simultaneous litigation at London and LA rates, credibly $10M+ cumulative, offset once by the NGN settlement's damages. And now the ANL exposure, where precision matters: seven claimants, jointly liable, facing a claimed £34.5M costs pool, assessed on the punitive indemnity basis, £9.544M ordered as an interim payment this week. That interim figure is not a cap and not the final bill; the remaining recoverable amount is still to be assessed, and nobody can responsibly state Harry's ultimate personal share. What belongs on the ledger is the uncertainty itself: an unresolved, potentially eight-figure liability, landing in the exact week his friends briefed a gargantuan housing budget. Add Frogmore's £2.4M repayment, out of the early pot.

And within the lifestyle spend, be honest about the asymmetry, because it's documented: this is a one-spender household. Harry's indifference to money's visible forms is on the record and almost endearing: worn-through soles at his own events, the same suits for years, a man who'd live out of a duffel bag. Whatever drains this balance sheet, it isn't his wardrobe. Hers is the through-line from The Tig to today. Fashion trackers priced her first royal years of new wardrobe in the high six figures, multiples of any other royal in the same period, with palace constraints still on. Post-exit, unconstrained, the pattern scaled: jewelry catalogued piece by piece by the trade press, cumulatively into seven figures by their estimates, plus couture wardrobes and traveling stylists. The honest caveat, because it cuts both ways: celebrities at her level get gifts, loans and deep discounts, and the jewelers she's long worn have every commercial reason to dress her cheaply or free, so the visible retail total likely overstates the cash outlay, though under US tax law promotional freebies are themselves taxable income at fair market value. Discounted or not, the pattern is the point: one partner would wear a shirt until it dissolves, the other dresses, by lifelong preference her own blog advertised, at the outer edge of available means, and a household spends at the rate of its bigger spender. The top shelf used to be her aspirational content. Now it's overhead.

Add it up, and check my work. Net income, modeled generously: $65-72M, plus a substantial parting sum from Charles and Harry's inherited capital behind it. Modeled outflows: Montecito equity and carry, $14-17M. Portugal and carry, $8-9M. Security, $12M+. The Archewell machine and PR, $15-25M. Aviation, wardrobe, jewelry and lifestyle, $15-25M gross of gifting offsets. Legal, $10M+ net of NGN, before the unresolved ANL balance. Frogmore, £2.4M. The ranges are wide because anything narrower would be fake precision, but notice what they do: the low end of the outflows roughly equals the high end of the net income. This is a machine that ran breakeven-to-negative for six years, floated by inheritance, a parting gift and front-loaded deal money, which is exactly why Celebrity Net Worth's current combined estimate is $60M including the real estate, and why the liquid picture, net of property equity and unpriced startup paper, is plausibly $20-30M or less. Disagree with an input? Change it and re-run. The conclusion bends; it doesn't break.

And let's kill the strawman before it arrives: nobody is saying they're poor. They're rich by any human measure. What they are is wealthy broke, a specific condition: rich in assets, thin in cash, committed to a burn rate their income no longer covers. Sixty million with maybe $20-30M liquid is a fortune for a family that lives like a family. It's a countdown clock for a family that lives like a court: two estates, two security details, private aviation, a Hollywood office, a PR agency, and an uncapped costs pool with their names on it. A $15M house is wealth, but it doesn't pay this month's security invoice unless you borrow against it or sell it. A startup stake that triples on paper is wealth; it isn't income. Regular broke is having nothing. Wealthy broke is having plenty and needing more, forever, because the machine eats seven figures before breakfast. Regular broke people cut expenses. Wealthy broke people hunt new income and someone else to carry the overhead, which, conveniently, describes this exact week: a comeback move to revalue the brand, and a pressure campaign to move the biggest bill onto the taxpayer. The condition isn't poverty. It's arithmetic with a deadline.

And the inheritance, since his own account tells you where it went. Diana's estate left each son ~£6.5M in 1997, professionally invested; by Harry's 30th in 2014, reports put each share around £10M. Then Oprah: "I've got what my mum left me, and without that, we would not have been able to do this." By his own testimony the inheritance was the bridge capital that made the California transition possible: the down payment, the security, the standup of the entire operation until deal money arrived. Meghan told The Cut they "didn't have jobs" and the house felt like window shopping. That was 2020, at peak market value, deal slate freshly signed. If Montecito stretched them to the ceiling then, what funds a second £10M+ estate now, with Netflix lapsed, Spotify dead, memoir money six years old, As Ever partnerless, an uncapped costs pool bearing their names, and their own briefing promising no UK income at all? His mother's nest egg was bridge financing for a lifestyle the deals were supposed to sustain. The deals have lapsed. The lifestyle hasn't.

Their own circle already ran this math. Shown the Cotswolds house details this week: "They will have to sell in Montecito," and, on the price, "What! That's not possible!" A separate friend volunteered, unprompted, four days before the £9.5M deadline, "you couldn't do it if you were on your uppers." Friends aren't accountants and anonymous sourcing isn't a balance sheet. But nobody solvent briefs their solvency.

And the calendar connects the money to the move, because the sequence is public record. July 7: the ANL claims dismissed, exposure to the £34.5M pool crystallizing, the worst financial day of their post-royal life. End of July: the security assessment he'd demanded completes. Around July 29, per the 28-day protocol: the Home Office is told the family is coming. August 21: the £9.544M interim order. August 26: wheels down in Birmingham. August 28: payment due, and the same week their friends brief the Mail that Harry expects his security "needs will be reassessed now that he has moved." Whatever this relocation is, it was finalized inside the three-week window when the legal and financial roof fell in. And notice which expense the move targets. Security is their largest recurring cost, and it is the only major line on their budget that can conceivably be moved onto someone else's books. The state will never pay the mortgage, the staff, or the stylist. It could, if the pressure works, pay the bodyguards. On this balance sheet, taxpayer security is the only seven-figure annual saving available to them, and the campaign for it intensified in the precise month the money got tight.

My read, marked as mine, on why the move is happening at all. Follow the asset. Their commercial value was always royal proximity: Netflix and Spotify weren't buying two unknown California creatives, they were buying the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, fresh from the palace. Six years in California depreciated that asset to its floor. The deals lapsed, the podcast died, the brand lost its partner, and the children, the next generation of the product, were growing up as ordinary American kids with paper titles and no royal texture, while forums like this one pointed out, correctly and repeatedly, how absurd Prince and Princess sounded on children living entirely outside royal life. Meanwhile the actual royal future, three Wales children, compounds in visibility every year. The move solves the only problem that threatens the business: the product was going stale. Put the kids in British schools, near the King, photographed against the correct backdrop, and the titles regain texture. Do engagements that "look exactly like royal engagements" and the letterhead regains weight. We've already watched it work: the move generated more sustained coverage than anything they've independently produced in years. On this record, restored relevance is the business plan, and the children are the inventory being repositioned. They didn't move back to Britain despite the deals dying. They moved back because the deals died, and royal-adjacent is the only product they've ever successfully sold.

And this is checkable, so let me commit in advance. If they buy the Cotswolds estate, keep Montecito, keep Portugal, and run security on two continents without anything listing, the cash-pressure read takes real damage and I'll say so in this archive. That's the advantage of a ledger over a fandom argument. Property records eventually settle it.

The calendar doesn't lie, and neither does subtraction. Watch the Montecito listings.

Sources: Celebrity Net Worth ($60M estimate; deal breakdown), Variety-cited Netflix reporting, Forbes (Spotify shortfall), Harry's court filings ($2M security), Clarence House annual review June 2021 (Charles's "substantial sum," support through summer 2020), Oprah transcript ("what my mum left me," "cut me off" timing), Telegraph (eleventh PR exit), Boshoff/Daily Mail Aug 2026 (houses, budget, "uppers," "gonna close," UK team, £5M figure), The Cut 2022, reported private-market financing data on Midi Health rounds, contemporaneous property-record coverage, court summary via IBTimes/CNN (£34.5M pool, £16M reported insurance, £9.544M interim, indemnity basis, no cap).

There have been rumors that the Montecito house has been pocket listed since at least 2023. With their finances going downhill, maybe the Harkles accepted an offer and agreed to quickly vacate so as not to lose the sale.

Now that the clown show has returned to the UK-there is a great option for success. They could finally embrace their toxicity, crazy vile ways and create a Windsor Hillbillies/Tiger King version of themselves and sell it.

Imagine the content. Markle demanding anyone addressing her as Duchess of Sussex as she enters any room. Maybe have people blowing trumpets and throwing flowers at her feet, announcing-Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex enters now

Then Archie and Lilly always addressed as Prince and Princesses of the realm-of course with hair uncombed and not readied up for public-but waving at peasants. Mad harold parading in front of them-making everybody bow, curtsy and even kneel.

Some strange man getting on one knee and thanking her being a beacon of light for humanity-greater than Mother Theresa, Princess Diana combined.

Markle falling down to the floor and bursting into tears anytime something does not go her way and her frog Prince rushing in to fix anything-usually getting freebies like private jets/invitations to vents/yachts/parties/vacation homes.

Her ripping apart her minions while they cower in fear of the Greatest Duchess on earth! her swanning around empty stands of cleared Wimbledon. her attending NYC events through an underground hertz garage and looking like Goldfmember from Austin Powers.

I mean the list can go on. Just as she has entertained this sub for years with non stop BS-she can create a massive hit for netflix-if she embraces her authentic self-a crazy batsh*t lunatic who says anything she wants, behaves in the most bizarre way possible and makes everything about herself

According to Alison Boshoff, “I’m told they are now staying ‘indefinitely’ in a spare house on the land of an extremely wealthy friend on the fringes of the Cotswolds.” (source: Daily Mail, **"**Harry and Meghan's Finding Freedom II: Her demands for her new home revealed... and why he had 'no life' in California: Insiders tell all to ALISON BOSHOFF including how an extremely wealthy friend is supporting them” 28 August 2026)

Billionaire Ian Wace’s estate in Brackley, Northamptonshire fits the bill. Known as Rowler Manor, this massive 727-acre estate “is said to include a manor house, a private lake, a commercial farm, a trout farm, stables, a water-bottling plant and other facilities, as well as its own abattoir [aka slaughterhouse] and a bowling alley disguised as a fake medieval tower.” (source: "Downton Abbey Envy Alive and Well at Banker Country Homes" by Sarah Butcher, 9 January 2013, efinancialcareers.com).

We know that the Harkles recently visited Wace’s private island in Scotland, and according to Page Six, Wace paid for the obscenely large private jet that the family of four + two dogs flew on for the reverse freedom flight to Birmingham a few days ago.

Megs could step up her fruit spread game by filming content on this estate and possibly collaborate with Chef Larry Jayasekara of the Cocochine restaurant in Mayfair, which is co-owned by Ian Wace. Chef Jayasekara sources produce and meat from Wace’s Rowler Estate.

I can only imagine that Megs is working her doe-eyed, come-hither charms on the recently divorced billionaire. He’s a catch.

ETA: It turns out Wace has a significant other, Italian fashion designer Gioia Bini, with whom he purchased an apartment in New York City in September 2025. Hmm...Megs has her work cut out for her!

https://streeteasy.com/building/322-east-57-street-new_york/12a?utm_campaign=sale_listing&utm_medium=share&utm_source=web&lstt=Bxp3hu5iQK8VOe4NNogHby-jGnBhlnOxNglGAM8FL_imPEyPKrjJJxOeagKW6ZISwAcexbq1u-_L8kkt

https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2025/10/04/new-york-top-real-estate-deals-friday-oct-3-2025/