I would like to thank Mr. Sykes for contacting me this morning and showing me respect and supporting the fact of free speech in my comment. I appreciate his concern and his steadfastness towards his commentators. I am very grateful to him and all who supported me yesterday. A very wonderful community. Thank you Mr. Sykes.
I am so sorry I never read it. I more sorry that someone just thought they could take it down. I do hope Tom lets the whole world know who does such things and embarrasses them, or can they not be?
I managed to read your insightful and “first person” comments before they disappeared. When I heard they had disappeared, I was flummoxed. If H & M aren’t going to sue Bower for a multimillion dollar book why would they sue Substack over someone’s own reminiscences which would be easily checked.
I initially thought that maybe you had taken down your post due to harassment from mental defectives & Harkle operatives. I didn’t consider that it was censored by Substack reacting to complaint(s) from mental defectives & Harkle operatives. Frankly, I don’t know which scenario is worse at this point, or even distinguishable. It’s all intimidation and censorship. I do think Substack needs to provide a reason for the post’s elimination: what community ‘rules’ did it break? Something’s not stackin’ up.
I'm sorry harri. I'm a fairly new paid subscriber, but I pay for at least 66 substacks, and I used to think Substack was a "safe" space, but it's not. Every single one of them has bots and trouble makers. Just keep doing what you are doing! Especially with the Harkles!
I was thinking that too but didn't want to be offensive (not that you are, who would ever think a lady with such a cute name as yours could be offensive).
Yes Frau Katz, and I have reported and blocked all the brainfog, ozempic and most of those annoying bots when I see them, but then there are the "real people" too.. I don't want to seem elitist, because I'm not. I know there are lots of people that just can't afford it, and want to have a voice too (especially on political boards) I also free subscribe to several substacks and comment, or reply to people on notes and sometimes I don't even know how I've found them, just scrolling around, but I confess, my favorite subs are the ones you can't even see the comments unless you are paid (which I believe is fair and up to the content creators to set their own rules because it just feels safer and most people there are like minded and it's more private) ) but I have blocked people on those subs too...being paid doesn't mean one is not an asshat, but at least I don't have see them or interact with them.
Just a ‘not very nice’ event for you that leaves you with a bit of a bad taste indeed. I’m so pleased to see that Tom has your back and is outspoken about the entire matter. Take good care and God bless 🙏 Cheers 🥂
Oh, I never noticed that before, because I have definitely deleted comments of mine. "Comment removed" is when it's been reported? Thanks for the info Frau.
Really? I am a paid sub to him and love him, but don't think I've ever seen him make comments about it, but he gets a much different group of followers. So good for him, and thanks for letting me know!
Dr. Chandauka was right. Despite his attempts at damaging the Royal Family & Monarchy with allegations in his book “Spare” & NF documentary “Harry and Meghan”, Harry ended up doing more damage to his own brand than he did to his family’s. In contrast to the negative sentiment directed at H&M, public support for the institution of the monarchy remained relatively stable, with the royal family faring better in sympathetic sentiment than did H&M. Following the release of his book & the NF docu, Harry’s net approval rating in the U.S. dropped 45 points in one month, dropping from +38 on December 5, 2022, to -7 by mid-January 2023 (per Newsweek). And polls conducted by YouGov after the release of "Spare" showed that popularity for H&M reached record lows in the U.K., with 68% of British residents holding a negative opinion of Harry in early 2023. Evidently all this & Harry’s reported greed in asking for a double donation amount according to Bower, was a big factor in Sentebale losing their big donor Haruhisa Handa. What was astonishing was that H reportedly was shocked when Dr. Chandauka informed him of this – we knew he was thick but this revelation takes it to new heights.
We have seen for ourselves that Harry really doesn’t put in the hard work at his charities & seemingly thinks that his lip service & releases to the press will suffice – that what he says he loves the public & big donors will love too & be supportive & donate to his causes. He was so used to the Palace aides picking up all the grunt work & making him look like a star. Well-deserved criticism points out his inability to manage organizations without the support of the British Royal Family's & Monarchy’s structure & that is still valid to this day, particularly for his biggest charities the Archewell Foundation & the Invictus Games.
Thanks Tom for fighting for freedom of speech for your subscribers!
Yes Harri! Thank goodness Tom is fighting for us. Now i wonder if someone reported your comment & caused SS to delete it. Since SS doesn't arbitrarily remove comments (i do believe that when they say they don't) i'm thinking that someone got the SS admins to delete it.
Maybe. I just need a tutorial on all of this. Lol. mine was just fact based and observations. We will see what happens but i really need to learn all of this. Lol
I don’t get it, you simply confirmed Bower’s reporting by citing your own experience — and the Bower quotes are still up. You didn’t write anything bannable. In our little corner of the RF discourse, this is a Streisand Effect moment.
harri, if I may suggest, paste a copy of your interesting comments into a note app or file on your electronic device prior to posting here. It only takes seconds and then, if it is somehow deleted by goblins or ???, you'll have a copy to repost. Not only that, but here on Substack you can also click on "share to notes" in order to have a copy.
I've never had a comment of mine disappear (and I admit on some political boards there have been some doozies, plus I take screenshots of most things I post) but I have reported many posts for spam/bots (I go into the profile to see when it's a spammer then report and block) but you still have to give a reason for reporting. After all this time I still don't know how this place works. If someone reports something (other than spam) does it go to the Substack owner especially when it's a paid member? Substack is getting so big. I don't think they were prepared for this growth and have been making changes (plus the app and web are different) and AFAIK there is no customer support to speak with.
You are so right, Substack is not ready for the growth it has achieved. It has so many quirks & inabilities (like copying text from another source to a Substack note or chat just as one of many examples). If someone reports your comment, note or chat thread & it's removed, according to Substack guides you don't get a notification - they suggest you contact the author if its a comment on an author's article/post. This reinforces their blanket/canned statement that the founders don't have a designated content moderator position overall (beyond the content creator/author who is responsible for content moderation on their own substacks) & they themselves don't remove content unless it's flagrant violation of Substack's legal content rules.
Thank you so much for the info Jeanie. I appreciate it. (plus all the "lives" and videos. I want to read, not watch). It's why when it's obvious spam I report it just because they are so annoying, and possibly carry viruses and they do violate Substack rules. For the rest, I choose to block. I'm not the Substack police, but I can control who I want to see or interact with, and make the most of the little controls they give. This has been an eye opener today!
YW Robin! We should all do as you do & make our content the best we can with the few tools we have here. I think it'll improve & i do like SS--i don't mean to sound like a whiner LOL. Cheers!
Bower's is the first full account I've come across of Dr. Sophie's interaction with Harry. Like you, she does the due diligence -- surveyed 50 corporate donors on the value of Harry's brand. And the Meghanator's. Stunning and I have read nothing about it in the low (or even the higher) places I frequent.
My impression of her is that she's smart & educated. But imagine Harry being stunned & shocked about this brand audit (when the polls were indicating such & media was beginning to be very critical) & then later claiming Chandauka & the brand audit damaged him & his wife. From the TT extract - Harry speaking to Chandauka via Zoom: '“Your brand audit has damaged me. You shouldn’t have done it.” Harry implied that he had suffered psychological harm from the audit. Harry repeated Meghan’s alarm: Chandauka’s audit had also damaged his wife.' 🤦♀️
That's like saying to the math teacher, your giving me an F damaged my brand. It's a sulky teenager's argument -- as I recall the KP Sussex survivors used that epithet for Harry and Meghan at the time of their marriage.
I see no good future for these people. (The pic of her Jumbotron performance at Invictus is nauseating, like the picture of a succubus invading its prey.) Even if William forgave Harry, as I think he should, and let him back into the family without Markle, as I think they should. (Based on universal shrink advice on how to deal with a narc: No Contact.)
Yikes - that image of "a succubus invading its prey" is really impactful/powerful. I can't shake off that image now. I honestly don't see Harry ever separating from Markle unless there was some catastrophic event to cause it. Very thoughtful comment Jeannette, thank you.
Well, not everyone agrees that the Royal Family has fared better in the eyes of the public. When you look at everything that was revealed about the Yorks (Andrew, Fergie and their children) in Andrew Lownie’s book entitled and everything that’s come out in the Epstein files, I don’t know how you can hold the Queen Elizabeth’s and possibly King Charles’ in high esteem. Andrew not only engaged in sex trafficking and abuse, he abused his position as trade representative for financial gain and traded British intelligence for personal gain. The Queen covered for him and enabled Andrew and then the Royals took a hard line with Harry and Meghan. Andrew was literally committing crimes but the Royal Firm vilified H&M to protect Andrew and get the attention of the family criminal.
to businessmen and politicians from other information to square the family’s treatment of Harry—including all their selective leaking to the Royal Rota and tabloids did with respect to financial dealings and then add
No, they were referring to a different time period, pre the Andrew revelations and just after the release of, “Spare” and the Netflix series when sympathies were mostly with the Royal Family.
Hope when William is king he overrules his extremely weak father (who is terribly unfit to be king in my opinion) and strips Harry and Meghan of their titles.Charles has let the Andrew and Harry problem go on for far too long.Look forward to William being king and finally taking action.Roll on king William and Queen Catherine
No - that is a slanted way to portray what she said. She said that both are problems that need to be taken care of & did not intimate in any way they are the same or equivalent. She didn't say one was worse or better than the other. She just said they both need taken care of & have gone on far too long & she's right.
I didn't portray or slant anything. I would hope people don't consider it the same level of problem. The way some people write about Harry and Meghan, one would think they were criminals.
I think Andrew MB is an amoral and entitled person who preyed on young, helpless girls. He married someone perfectly suited to his worldview and, as much as I did not want to believe this initially, his daughters’ reaction to his situation and the revelations from the Trump files show that their concern is only inward.
In contrast, Harry and Meghan seem to be entitled and greedy in that they feel that they should have had more from the BRF institution with no rules. It’s a perspective but not a sin. However, it could lead to sins and wrong actions. I do think that losing their title would be mercy for them in the long-term. Then they could actually do what they want without thinking of how it reflects on the royal family. Right now, both Harry and Meghan are holding themselves back to playact being a dignified royal albeit in exile.
Well put. It's my understanding that H&M left the RF because they, especially she, chaffed at adhering to the traditional RF institutional rules, finding them too restrictive. Meghan seems to have had a particularly difficult time with the expectations. Perhaps she needed counseling and assistance, prior to marriage, to help her understand what she was letting herself into. Or maybe she did realize, but decided she wouldn't comply. William reportedly tried to counsel Harry that he shouldn't rush into marriage, Harry apparently took it the wrong way. So, instead of just retiring to California leaving it all behind, they went scorched earth. This is not a crime, but they burned bridges. There is no half in/half out any more. I agree with you, without their titles they could live as they wish. This is what Charles should realize, but procrastinates, allowing them to flounder while still playing off their titles to everyone's detriment. It seems Meghan relishes the pseudo status of her title and would not willingly relinquish it.
I agree with everything you said but do H&M really want to live without the titles? Considering how much they use them, saying that they can live as they wish to might not be correct. I think they want all the entitlement of royalty, without any of the responsibilities that go with entitlement. My opinion.
It's almost laughable that they try to use their titles in the US. We truly do not recognize or care about titles in the US. I can't imagine that anyone is impressed with the titles here.
I agree Andrew M-W is an entitled oaf, and he certainly has grave questions to answer re his 'trade envoy' antics with alleged spies. I fundamentally disagree however that the girls involved with Epstein were 'young and helpless'. From what I've read of what they allege, the girls were quite happy to accept money, contacts, scholarships etc in exchange for sexual favours, and in fact sought to recruit other girls for the same purpose, which makes them the opposite of victims. The only true victim I'm aware of was the 14 year old whom Epstein sexually exploited, and it was this he was imprisoned for.
I have to differ. I have lived in Palm Beach County for 35 years, from before Epstein was first convicted and have followed his story and crimes from its beginning getting into the news. Many of the girls exploited and abused were teens, children !, pulled into his orbit using various means. The greater Palm Beach area, which includes the island of Palm Beach, where Epstein lived and Trump's Mar a Lago, is an environment of great economic disparity. Many lower income girls have became easy prey for wealthy men who are willing to provide economic advantages to them in exchange for sexual favors. Epstein was the worse we know of, but there have been "sugar daddies" tempting, luring and providing for the girls around here for a long time. These are not women, they are children. Actual young women were also exploited, we can agree many knew what they were getting into, but there were hundreds of young girls recruited by Epstein and Maxwell over the years. He was actively recruiting vulnerable young girls starting around the early 1990's, buying them things, paying for whatever... they were victims. Please read Nobody's Girl.
Here's a current NBC story on how Epstein operated in New Mexico, same as he did in Palm Beach. It gives a graphic explanation how girls were exploited. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna261370
To bring this around to topics at hand, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is accused of taking full advantage of Epstein's "girls" and is "accused" of sexually exploited them, in exchange for Epstein paying them to service him.
And they say that those girls/young women were exactly who Ghislaine looked for to procure for Jeffrey...vulnerable, no confidence, little education, low expectations, never really had a decent home life - so so sad & so so predatory.
No, apart from the craziest, some of whom seem to think it's worse. For me it just confirms that hereditary wealth and privilege, combined with lack of proper scrutiny are very bad things.
I'm not sure. To me it comes down to Free Will. The bad ones in royalty choose to be that way. Look at Princess Anne. A beautiful example of royalty. She chose to go the good way and not the entitlement way.
It’s outrageous that Substack is censoring content that is not obscene or criminal.
I hope you find the original comment or that ‘Harry’ sends a fresh comment.
It should be self-evident that wounded warriors should compete against the similarly wounded. It’s hardly a level playing field to have physically damaged people playing against physically healthy (but emotionally damaged) people.
This is indicative of Harry’s lack of involvement. Since Meghan hijacked Invictus for her own self-aggrandizement, the trajectory of both interest and participation has dropped a lot.
Harry never had a grasp on the purpose of Sentebale. He wanted another African charity, that’s all. He loved using it for exotic travel at the charity’s expense and organizing celebrity polo matches so he could play polo.
He’s ruined everything he touched. There’s very little left. He will never address the overdressed elephant in the room: his grasping, grifting wife. She turned Invictus into a running fashion show and sounded the death knell when she marched (in short shorts and flapping sandals) at the head of a participants’ parade. She acted similarly when she shoved Dr Chandauka around in the Sentebale polo photos. Ugly.
The Sussii have long had a practice of censoring people and content that is critical of them. They do this using a subcontractor team originally originally employed for them by Sunshine Sachs who specialize in bots and mass reporting/targeting X, quora, and youtube accounts that criticize them. I understand the Sussii have again retained this specialty group and we've seen many high profile Megxit accounts sudddenly disappear on X. Also, if certain forbidden topics are mentioned, Charles sics Shillings on the platform or poster to serve injunctions/orders on them demanding they take it down or be found in contempt of court pursuant to the Contempt of Court Act of 1981, which can result in fines and even a jail sentence. If Harri's post inadvertently touched on such information, Substack could have been served with one of the orders. Youtube, Quora, Facebook, all have been served such orders as have their contributors so why not substack?
If that’s whats happening, that really ticks me off. I’m a strong believer in free speech and the First Amendment. I may not agree with a view, but I’ll strongly defend the speaker’s right to say it.
I agree with you. I am also a strong supporter. But let's not forget that Harry ridiculed our First amendment. So he's probably really fine with comments against him being taken down. Or to be correct, comments he thinks are against him taken down.
It truly makes one wonder who exactly is backing the Sussex behind the scenes and what are their true agendas? Is it the political left or is it the Palace and his father?
The notion that the serious political left is somehow behind a plot to bring back the Sussexes is genuinely hilarious. The serious political left wants no trick with hereditary wealth and privilege, especially those members of it who boast about killing people.
To be honest neither option is appealing. The other option could be WEF globalists such as George Soros here in the US and which of course would include King Charles who is a member and supporter of the WEF. Though one would think Charles backing them would be self destructive for the monarchy don’t you think?
I've been saying since we started noticing their money troubles that Charles has been giving Harry money. There's no way they can live the way they do without some type of income that they're not getting from anywhere else.
There have been Royal YTubers who have proved to be credible that have mentioned Charles behind the scene assistance regarding his endeavors as well as the use of Royal property in NYC so i would not be surprised if financial help is included. After all Harry is his favorite and seems to be following Charles globalist’s views. Perhaps the media and the left and Charles would prefer Harry as heir to William? There has to be a reason why Charles refuses to remove them from the Royal website.
It’s not either/or because they are one and the same. The UK government is the political left and Charles, who is WEF and Davos, is in lockstep with Starmer. Both have been helping Harry and I’m sure both would prefer to see Harry as King rather than William.
Excellent info Tom. I am appalled to read that there may be some "editing" going on behind the scenes of Substack. I wish I could have read the post written by Harri. But from what I gather, along with what Bower's book seems to indicate, I predict a major scandal involving Invictus on the horizon. It's about time they were called to account in terms of how they support (or don't support) veterans. It's all very well for them to get on their high horse and say people don't understand or underestimate PTSD. Being this indignant is an effort to deflect from the root of the issue - how they pander financially to the Harkles. Any criticism of Invictus is immediately rewritten to be criticism of veterans, and that is NEVER the case.
You are so right - i just read a criticism of IG management by Harry last night that was turned (not so cleverly) into a criticism of the wounded veterans themselves in an effort to shame the criticizer. It's a transparent ploy that is so fake it doesn't have the effect they try for but makes them look foolish.
Once again, the haemorrhaging of vast amounts of money to people who are not the intended recipients of the charity. There should be a best practice percentage that charities work to whereby a minimum % goes to direct delivery. Too many charities feel like rich people’s scams and PR grifts.
Indeed. That's why I never donate to big charities or those with celebrities as founders/trustees. I donate to my local hospice, the local animal shelter, and that's it. I know what they spend donations on. I'd rather give a tenner to a homeless person than one penny to any charities like Invictus, Sentebale, Oxfam et al.
I'm with you. I donate to two local animal shelters that I KNOW care for animals and adoption... my dear Kitty came from one. I also donate to our local hospice, our local Audubon society and to some school fundraisers. As for donated goods, our local cat shelter runs a very nice thrift store as does Habitat for Humanity, so I take donations to one of those, not Goodwill anymore. GW apparently skims better quality donated goods to sell on line and no one knows where the profits go.
watchdogs like Charity Navigator aggregate info like this so that people who want to donate have the info & tools to decide if they want to donate to a charity & know that their donations are well spent.
Charity Navigator is an excellent resource. They don't control, they inform all who are interested, after looking at reported best practice percentages for a number of categories. People can make up their own minds about contributing.
Since the post was about harri's personal experience of Invictus, and revealed some performative and morally suspect behaviours on their part, I'm going to bet it was someone on the Invictus team, especially considering their riposte to Mr Bower's claims, which was purely an appeal to emotion, and dealt with none of Mr Bower's specific allegations. The question of course, is how they were able to interfere with Substack.
So glad we are in the same boat. If it doesn't get put back i will rewrite from memory. It was just facts and observations. I had been to the 2016 Games. Hopefully it will go back up.
Who was that who just had a comment deleted Harri? Or did the commenter delete it themselves? Gosh, this "comment deleted" goings-on is starting to get kinda creepy.
No - i am referring to that comment previous post above Harri's post where Harri replies back "So glad we are in the same boat"... he was replying back to someone else that now says "Comment deleted".
My first comment is back. Which is very weird because comments don't usually disappear and then reappear. Im really disappointed with substack for interfering with and shutting down legitimate, polite comments. Thank you Tom for addressing this directly.
As I mentioned earlier today, you can save/copy your comments prior to posting [longer ones in particular, heavy with information] to your own device, computer, tablet, phone... whatever you use. I use the "Notes" app on my laptop as it's very straightforward and easy. After writing it here, just copy and paste onto a new note, then click Reply here and done. If something happens to your comment, you can repost from Notes. No one but you can delete from your own notes.
I'm glad you're going to pursue this with Substack, Mr Sykes; I erroneously assumed you were censoring posts, my heartfelt apologies!
Re Sentebale- the extract in the Times was interesting, and included information not mentioned at the time of the implosion. Reading about it then, I thought it was probably six of one etc, but the extract makes me more inclined to believe Miss Chandauka than I did at the time. Although I'd like to hear Miss Myazaki's side of it. What seems very odd to me is that, as far as I'm aware, Prince Seeiso has never commented on the debacle at all, I wonder why? Re Invictus, it's disgraceful that their riposte to Mr Bower is simply an appeal to emotion - a logic fallacy which proves nothing at all, and fails to deal with any of Mr Bower's claims. They'll have to do better than that!
All in all, the extracts so far have revealed some interesting and not very fragrant things; I'm looking forward to reading the whole book.😁
Prince Seeiso didn't comment but another family member in the Lethoso royal family did: Chief Khoabane Theko, criticized Prince Harry regarding the Sentebale leadership dispute & the Harry-Chandauka debacle. Theko stated that Harry lost interest in the charity, which was co-founded in 2006, after marrying Meghan Markle & moving away from royal life. He claimed that Harry's lack of engagement "totally killed the spirit of the Sentebale's survival" & expressed disappointment that the Duke had not visited Lesotho frequently, citing a 6-year gap between visits to the country prior to 2024 (which THAT visit was forced on Harry due to problems that Chandauka later made public). Theko also expressed shock that Harry would leave the charity at such a critical time. He noted that the Duchess of Sussex had never visited Lesotho, stating, "She's a far-away person for us, we do not know about her". It's most likely that Bower either interviewed Theko or took Theko's comments under advisement for his book.
I shall certainly tune in to your live show. It’s always informative and entertaining.
I commented yesterday about Harri comments about actually attending Invictus events and his valuable comments about the 2016 event programme including divers members of the royal family who were involved.
I’d still like to know the facts of when Invictus was launched and at which junction it became Harry’s gig. Please let us know Tom the whys and wherefores of Invictus.
Very mysterious about the “editing” of your Substack. ?!
Re Bower books I read the last one when it was published. Now listening to it as audiobook simultaneous with reading The Royalist.
I will get the new one as audiobook when it’s published later this month.
Interesting about the demise of Sentebale. At the time it split up it sounded like a nasty poisonous split. With many people on far too high salaries. If it’s not about Africans needing support what is it about ?! I remember the woman of colour telling the prince it shouldn’t be about polo
Over on X, anyone who makes derogatory comments, directly on the Invictus page, about Harry, Meghan or about how much $$ Invictus spends on them, gets deleted. When the comments get numerous, they turn off comments.
The algorithm does automatically when mass reporting occurs.That's what's been going on. It's not Elon or any person doing it. The Sussii evil team knows how to trigger the algorithm.
Everybody to boost the podcast--i.e. make it appear higher in search results and rankings--do these things:
*Like and subscribe to Tom's podcast on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify. If you don't use Apple Podcasts it's very simple to open the (free) app, find his podcast, and like/subscribe/rate even if you don't plan to listen to it there. Spotify also has a free version if you don't want to pay for commercial-free Premium.
*While you're in Apple podcasts, give the podcast 5 stars and leave a nice comment. Apple relies on this data so it + subscribing makes a big difference.
*If you have Spotify, subscribe to the podcast and leave a nice comment on the episodes. Spotify doesn't have a way to rate, so subscribing is the main data the company uses.
I think he said it won’t be out until tomorrow. (First on YouTube and then later that day or the next on the podcast platforms—Apple & Spotify.) I assume it’ll be called The Royalist.
I forgot to mention that in Apple you can grant the 5 stars repeatedly, just leave the screen where you left the rating and come back to it. Doing all this stuff will help the podcast find a larger audience, and that would be great because frankly the existing royal podcasts are trash. :)
Am DELIGHTED about the podcast Tom! I find it easier to listen to pods than keep up with YouTube, so really looking forward to it. In the meantime, the stuff about the deleted comment is weird, but fascinating. I read the comment at the time and thought it was exactly as you say, insightful, factual and respectful. Please @harri keep contributing and don't let the forces of darkness put you off! Bower's stuff is always worth reading, despite his politics, which wouldn't be mine. But I've usually found his written material to be well researched and insightful. It's certainly more worthwhile than the PR guff and propaganda put out about the Royal family by the mainstream press. 🤢
We are all aware that Invictus began with King Charles, Prince William and Harry. Harry is not the founder. Harry is not the person to be in charge. We can all see what going on. Invictus should fold really. It is a drain on the system. The Government should do the right thing and make sure the millions pledged go directly to the Veterans.
I would like to thank Mr. Sykes for contacting me this morning and showing me respect and supporting the fact of free speech in my comment. I appreciate his concern and his steadfastness towards his commentators. I am very grateful to him and all who supported me yesterday. A very wonderful community. Thank you Mr. Sykes.
I’m not at all surprised. Tom has a backbone. I love that. That’s why I subscribe. He’s one of the good guys.💕
Yes, i was very grateful for his response.
I agreed with you Annabelle about Tom . He is one of the good guys!
He really works hard. I admire that.
Yes he sure does. Tomorrow he’s on live on The Daily Beast with Plum, Shauna and Andrew Lownie .
I know! I’ll be watching!:)
He gets a lot of criticism that I think is unjustified.
That’s such a shame . He’s excellent and is really upping his game.
Glad to hear it, Patti!👍❤️
Sorry your comment was deleted, would have loved to read it! Bots be botting / trolls be trolling, I guess.
Thank you.
I am so sorry I never read it. I more sorry that someone just thought they could take it down. I do hope Tom lets the whole world know who does such things and embarrasses them, or can they not be?
Keep contributing Harri, I found your comment fascinating and respectful.
Completely agree!
I managed to read your insightful and “first person” comments before they disappeared. When I heard they had disappeared, I was flummoxed. If H & M aren’t going to sue Bower for a multimillion dollar book why would they sue Substack over someone’s own reminiscences which would be easily checked.
I initially thought that maybe you had taken down your post due to harassment from mental defectives & Harkle operatives. I didn’t consider that it was censored by Substack reacting to complaint(s) from mental defectives & Harkle operatives. Frankly, I don’t know which scenario is worse at this point, or even distinguishable. It’s all intimidation and censorship. I do think Substack needs to provide a reason for the post’s elimination: what community ‘rules’ did it break? Something’s not stackin’ up.
I am sorry I wasn’t given the opportunity to read your comment. This is all getting to be outrageously scary and it’s getting worse, not better.
I'm sorry harri. I'm a fairly new paid subscriber, but I pay for at least 66 substacks, and I used to think Substack was a "safe" space, but it's not. Every single one of them has bots and trouble makers. Just keep doing what you are doing! Especially with the Harkles!
The ones that permit comments by free subscribers seem to get bots.
I was thinking that too but didn't want to be offensive (not that you are, who would ever think a lady with such a cute name as yours could be offensive).
Thank you!
Yes Frau Katz, and I have reported and blocked all the brainfog, ozempic and most of those annoying bots when I see them, but then there are the "real people" too.. I don't want to seem elitist, because I'm not. I know there are lots of people that just can't afford it, and want to have a voice too (especially on political boards) I also free subscribe to several substacks and comment, or reply to people on notes and sometimes I don't even know how I've found them, just scrolling around, but I confess, my favorite subs are the ones you can't even see the comments unless you are paid (which I believe is fair and up to the content creators to set their own rules because it just feels safer and most people there are like minded and it's more private) ) but I have blocked people on those subs too...being paid doesn't mean one is not an asshat, but at least I don't have see them or interact with them.
Just a ‘not very nice’ event for you that leaves you with a bit of a bad taste indeed. I’m so pleased to see that Tom has your back and is outspoken about the entire matter. Take good care and God bless 🙏 Cheers 🥂
Very impressive, indeed.
The deleted comment is bizarre. I understood that only people could delete a comment: the person who made it, or the Substack manager.
In the latter case it says “comment removed” not “comment deleted”.
Good point...
I bet it’s a bug. If Tom complains they’ll look into it.
Oh, I never noticed that before, because I have definitely deleted comments of mine. "Comment removed" is when it's been reported? Thanks for the info Frau.
I subscribe to one Substack (Paul Krugman) who is free most days but responds promptly to reported comments so I’ve seen it in action.
Really? I am a paid sub to him and love him, but don't think I've ever seen him make comments about it, but he gets a much different group of followers. So good for him, and thanks for letting me know!
I know about because he gets bots on his free posts. I or someone else reports them and they’re removed every time.
Like Meidas and Aaron Parnas and Robert Reich!!! It's a full time job just reporting the bots on those 3 🤗
Always. And he works hard. I admire that.
Hi Harri—it’s me. Glad to find you here. Missing you.
Dr. Chandauka was right. Despite his attempts at damaging the Royal Family & Monarchy with allegations in his book “Spare” & NF documentary “Harry and Meghan”, Harry ended up doing more damage to his own brand than he did to his family’s. In contrast to the negative sentiment directed at H&M, public support for the institution of the monarchy remained relatively stable, with the royal family faring better in sympathetic sentiment than did H&M. Following the release of his book & the NF docu, Harry’s net approval rating in the U.S. dropped 45 points in one month, dropping from +38 on December 5, 2022, to -7 by mid-January 2023 (per Newsweek). And polls conducted by YouGov after the release of "Spare" showed that popularity for H&M reached record lows in the U.K., with 68% of British residents holding a negative opinion of Harry in early 2023. Evidently all this & Harry’s reported greed in asking for a double donation amount according to Bower, was a big factor in Sentebale losing their big donor Haruhisa Handa. What was astonishing was that H reportedly was shocked when Dr. Chandauka informed him of this – we knew he was thick but this revelation takes it to new heights.
We have seen for ourselves that Harry really doesn’t put in the hard work at his charities & seemingly thinks that his lip service & releases to the press will suffice – that what he says he loves the public & big donors will love too & be supportive & donate to his causes. He was so used to the Palace aides picking up all the grunt work & making him look like a star. Well-deserved criticism points out his inability to manage organizations without the support of the British Royal Family's & Monarchy’s structure & that is still valid to this day, particularly for his biggest charities the Archewell Foundation & the Invictus Games.
Thanks Tom for fighting for freedom of speech for your subscribers!
Love the facts. Isn't it great to have Mr. Sykes fighting for freedom of speech?
Yes Harri! Thank goodness Tom is fighting for us. Now i wonder if someone reported your comment & caused SS to delete it. Since SS doesn't arbitrarily remove comments (i do believe that when they say they don't) i'm thinking that someone got the SS admins to delete it.
Maybe. I just need a tutorial on all of this. Lol. mine was just fact based and observations. We will see what happens but i really need to learn all of this. Lol
I don’t get it, you simply confirmed Bower’s reporting by citing your own experience — and the Bower quotes are still up. You didn’t write anything bannable. In our little corner of the RF discourse, this is a Streisand Effect moment.
Exactly!!!👍👍👍👍🎯🎯🎯
I've had a couple innocuous comments disappear so I imagine it's just a glitch with Substack and not anything nefarious.
harri, if I may suggest, paste a copy of your interesting comments into a note app or file on your electronic device prior to posting here. It only takes seconds and then, if it is somehow deleted by goblins or ???, you'll have a copy to repost. Not only that, but here on Substack you can also click on "share to notes" in order to have a copy.
Thank you for that help. I didn't know that is what it meant. Lol. Not sure any of them are interesting but will do that from now on. Thank you Joan
Fact-based! You must be a witch we need to silence! The sun revolves around the earth!
It says “comment removed” in that case.
I've never had a comment of mine disappear (and I admit on some political boards there have been some doozies, plus I take screenshots of most things I post) but I have reported many posts for spam/bots (I go into the profile to see when it's a spammer then report and block) but you still have to give a reason for reporting. After all this time I still don't know how this place works. If someone reports something (other than spam) does it go to the Substack owner especially when it's a paid member? Substack is getting so big. I don't think they were prepared for this growth and have been making changes (plus the app and web are different) and AFAIK there is no customer support to speak with.
You are so right, Substack is not ready for the growth it has achieved. It has so many quirks & inabilities (like copying text from another source to a Substack note or chat just as one of many examples). If someone reports your comment, note or chat thread & it's removed, according to Substack guides you don't get a notification - they suggest you contact the author if its a comment on an author's article/post. This reinforces their blanket/canned statement that the founders don't have a designated content moderator position overall (beyond the content creator/author who is responsible for content moderation on their own substacks) & they themselves don't remove content unless it's flagrant violation of Substack's legal content rules.
Thank you so much for the info Jeanie. I appreciate it. (plus all the "lives" and videos. I want to read, not watch). It's why when it's obvious spam I report it just because they are so annoying, and possibly carry viruses and they do violate Substack rules. For the rest, I choose to block. I'm not the Substack police, but I can control who I want to see or interact with, and make the most of the little controls they give. This has been an eye opener today!
YW Robin! We should all do as you do & make our content the best we can with the few tools we have here. I think it'll improve & i do like SS--i don't mean to sound like a whiner LOL. Cheers!
Bower's is the first full account I've come across of Dr. Sophie's interaction with Harry. Like you, she does the due diligence -- surveyed 50 corporate donors on the value of Harry's brand. And the Meghanator's. Stunning and I have read nothing about it in the low (or even the higher) places I frequent.
My impression of her is that she's smart & educated. But imagine Harry being stunned & shocked about this brand audit (when the polls were indicating such & media was beginning to be very critical) & then later claiming Chandauka & the brand audit damaged him & his wife. From the TT extract - Harry speaking to Chandauka via Zoom: '“Your brand audit has damaged me. You shouldn’t have done it.” Harry implied that he had suffered psychological harm from the audit. Harry repeated Meghan’s alarm: Chandauka’s audit had also damaged his wife.' 🤦♀️
What a crybaby. Harry needs to man up and stop being a wimp who is psychologically damaged by someone on a daily basis. Geeze.
That's like saying to the math teacher, your giving me an F damaged my brand. It's a sulky teenager's argument -- as I recall the KP Sussex survivors used that epithet for Harry and Meghan at the time of their marriage.
I see no good future for these people. (The pic of her Jumbotron performance at Invictus is nauseating, like the picture of a succubus invading its prey.) Even if William forgave Harry, as I think he should, and let him back into the family without Markle, as I think they should. (Based on universal shrink advice on how to deal with a narc: No Contact.)
Yikes - that image of "a succubus invading its prey" is really impactful/powerful. I can't shake off that image now. I honestly don't see Harry ever separating from Markle unless there was some catastrophic event to cause it. Very thoughtful comment Jeannette, thank you.
Unfortunately, I have seen it before. She gives me the total willies.
I have to agree...
Very well said!
TYVM! :)
🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯👍👍👍👍
Well, not everyone agrees that the Royal Family has fared better in the eyes of the public. When you look at everything that was revealed about the Yorks (Andrew, Fergie and their children) in Andrew Lownie’s book entitled and everything that’s come out in the Epstein files, I don’t know how you can hold the Queen Elizabeth’s and possibly King Charles’ in high esteem. Andrew not only engaged in sex trafficking and abuse, he abused his position as trade representative for financial gain and traded British intelligence for personal gain. The Queen covered for him and enabled Andrew and then the Royals took a hard line with Harry and Meghan. Andrew was literally committing crimes but the Royal Firm vilified H&M to protect Andrew and get the attention of the family criminal.
to businessmen and politicians from other information to square the family’s treatment of Harry—including all their selective leaking to the Royal Rota and tabloids did with respect to financial dealings and then add
No, they were referring to a different time period, pre the Andrew revelations and just after the release of, “Spare” and the Netflix series when sympathies were mostly with the Royal Family.
Hope when William is king he overrules his extremely weak father (who is terribly unfit to be king in my opinion) and strips Harry and Meghan of their titles.Charles has let the Andrew and Harry problem go on for far too long.Look forward to William being king and finally taking action.Roll on king William and Queen Catherine
Do people seriously equate Andrew's scandal with Harry's situation?
No - that is a slanted way to portray what she said. She said that both are problems that need to be taken care of & did not intimate in any way they are the same or equivalent. She didn't say one was worse or better than the other. She just said they both need taken care of & have gone on far too long & she's right.
Actually, she wrote "problem," not "problems."
It's the comment section of a newsletter. She doesn't have a proof reader/editor. Our brain runs ahead of our fingers, we're not typists.
so your interpretation may be right, but so may the person's you responded to.
I didn't portray or slant anything. I would hope people don't consider it the same level of problem. The way some people write about Harry and Meghan, one would think they were criminals.
I've never seen any commentary on the Sussexes portraying them as 'criminals'. Where have you? Rather hyperbolic.
You misunderstood/misread her comment. Look closely at it again. She said, "one would think they were criminals" (from the way some write about them.)
I don’t.
I think Andrew MB is an amoral and entitled person who preyed on young, helpless girls. He married someone perfectly suited to his worldview and, as much as I did not want to believe this initially, his daughters’ reaction to his situation and the revelations from the Trump files show that their concern is only inward.
In contrast, Harry and Meghan seem to be entitled and greedy in that they feel that they should have had more from the BRF institution with no rules. It’s a perspective but not a sin. However, it could lead to sins and wrong actions. I do think that losing their title would be mercy for them in the long-term. Then they could actually do what they want without thinking of how it reflects on the royal family. Right now, both Harry and Meghan are holding themselves back to playact being a dignified royal albeit in exile.
Well put. It's my understanding that H&M left the RF because they, especially she, chaffed at adhering to the traditional RF institutional rules, finding them too restrictive. Meghan seems to have had a particularly difficult time with the expectations. Perhaps she needed counseling and assistance, prior to marriage, to help her understand what she was letting herself into. Or maybe she did realize, but decided she wouldn't comply. William reportedly tried to counsel Harry that he shouldn't rush into marriage, Harry apparently took it the wrong way. So, instead of just retiring to California leaving it all behind, they went scorched earth. This is not a crime, but they burned bridges. There is no half in/half out any more. I agree with you, without their titles they could live as they wish. This is what Charles should realize, but procrastinates, allowing them to flounder while still playing off their titles to everyone's detriment. It seems Meghan relishes the pseudo status of her title and would not willingly relinquish it.
I agree with everything you said but do H&M really want to live without the titles? Considering how much they use them, saying that they can live as they wish to might not be correct. I think they want all the entitlement of royalty, without any of the responsibilities that go with entitlement. My opinion.
It's almost laughable that they try to use their titles in the US. We truly do not recognize or care about titles in the US. I can't imagine that anyone is impressed with the titles here.
I agree Andrew M-W is an entitled oaf, and he certainly has grave questions to answer re his 'trade envoy' antics with alleged spies. I fundamentally disagree however that the girls involved with Epstein were 'young and helpless'. From what I've read of what they allege, the girls were quite happy to accept money, contacts, scholarships etc in exchange for sexual favours, and in fact sought to recruit other girls for the same purpose, which makes them the opposite of victims. The only true victim I'm aware of was the 14 year old whom Epstein sexually exploited, and it was this he was imprisoned for.
I have to differ. I have lived in Palm Beach County for 35 years, from before Epstein was first convicted and have followed his story and crimes from its beginning getting into the news. Many of the girls exploited and abused were teens, children !, pulled into his orbit using various means. The greater Palm Beach area, which includes the island of Palm Beach, where Epstein lived and Trump's Mar a Lago, is an environment of great economic disparity. Many lower income girls have became easy prey for wealthy men who are willing to provide economic advantages to them in exchange for sexual favors. Epstein was the worse we know of, but there have been "sugar daddies" tempting, luring and providing for the girls around here for a long time. These are not women, they are children. Actual young women were also exploited, we can agree many knew what they were getting into, but there were hundreds of young girls recruited by Epstein and Maxwell over the years. He was actively recruiting vulnerable young girls starting around the early 1990's, buying them things, paying for whatever... they were victims. Please read Nobody's Girl.
Here's a current NBC story on how Epstein operated in New Mexico, same as he did in Palm Beach. It gives a graphic explanation how girls were exploited. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna261370
To bring this around to topics at hand, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is accused of taking full advantage of Epstein's "girls" and is "accused" of sexually exploited them, in exchange for Epstein paying them to service him.
Thank you for sharing this NBC link Joan. It is so powerful. I recommend that everyone read it.
Virginia Guiffre (sp?) was abused by her father. Such young women are vulnerable.
And they say that those girls/young women were exactly who Ghislaine looked for to procure for Jeffrey...vulnerable, no confidence, little education, low expectations, never really had a decent home life - so so sad & so so predatory.
Exactly.
No, apart from the craziest, some of whom seem to think it's worse. For me it just confirms that hereditary wealth and privilege, combined with lack of proper scrutiny are very bad things.
I'm not sure. To me it comes down to Free Will. The bad ones in royalty choose to be that way. Look at Princess Anne. A beautiful example of royalty. She chose to go the good way and not the entitlement way.
But, what did Anne know about Andrew's business affairs, the women, etc. We don't know.
No.
yes but in different ways
yes
It’s outrageous that Substack is censoring content that is not obscene or criminal.
I hope you find the original comment or that ‘Harry’ sends a fresh comment.
It should be self-evident that wounded warriors should compete against the similarly wounded. It’s hardly a level playing field to have physically damaged people playing against physically healthy (but emotionally damaged) people.
This is indicative of Harry’s lack of involvement. Since Meghan hijacked Invictus for her own self-aggrandizement, the trajectory of both interest and participation has dropped a lot.
Harry never had a grasp on the purpose of Sentebale. He wanted another African charity, that’s all. He loved using it for exotic travel at the charity’s expense and organizing celebrity polo matches so he could play polo.
He’s ruined everything he touched. There’s very little left. He will never address the overdressed elephant in the room: his grasping, grifting wife. She turned Invictus into a running fashion show and sounded the death knell when she marched (in short shorts and flapping sandals) at the head of a participants’ parade. She acted similarly when she shoved Dr Chandauka around in the Sentebale polo photos. Ugly.
What you say is all too true.
🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯👍👍👍👍
The Sussii have long had a practice of censoring people and content that is critical of them. They do this using a subcontractor team originally originally employed for them by Sunshine Sachs who specialize in bots and mass reporting/targeting X, quora, and youtube accounts that criticize them. I understand the Sussii have again retained this specialty group and we've seen many high profile Megxit accounts sudddenly disappear on X. Also, if certain forbidden topics are mentioned, Charles sics Shillings on the platform or poster to serve injunctions/orders on them demanding they take it down or be found in contempt of court pursuant to the Contempt of Court Act of 1981, which can result in fines and even a jail sentence. If Harri's post inadvertently touched on such information, Substack could have been served with one of the orders. Youtube, Quora, Facebook, all have been served such orders as have their contributors so why not substack?
If that’s whats happening, that really ticks me off. I’m a strong believer in free speech and the First Amendment. I may not agree with a view, but I’ll strongly defend the speaker’s right to say it.
I agree with you. I am also a strong supporter. But let's not forget that Harry ridiculed our First amendment. So he's probably really fine with comments against him being taken down. Or to be correct, comments he thinks are against him taken down.
Here is a Guardian article discussing the abuses of these laws to silence investigative journalists. Shillings and Harbottle, both royal law firms, had led the way to protect the powerful. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/08/the-worst-law-on-earth-why-the-rich-love-london-reputation-managers
Yikes!
I suspect a Substack bug.
It truly makes one wonder who exactly is backing the Sussex behind the scenes and what are their true agendas? Is it the political left or is it the Palace and his father?
The notion that the serious political left is somehow behind a plot to bring back the Sussexes is genuinely hilarious. The serious political left wants no trick with hereditary wealth and privilege, especially those members of it who boast about killing people.
That’s why Yvettte Copper and the labour party are backing Harry. They are antimony marches and think below average IQ HarryHarry helps their cause
This is, frankly, ludicrous. “Antimony matches" 🤣
Antimony is a metal.
Still scratching my head on that one. 😂
anti monarchy sorry!
Hereditary wealth = champagne socialist.
To be honest neither option is appealing. The other option could be WEF globalists such as George Soros here in the US and which of course would include King Charles who is a member and supporter of the WEF. Though one would think Charles backing them would be self destructive for the monarchy don’t you think?
The question is does Charles care about the monarchy or is he more concerned with cementing in his position in the NWO?
The radical left??
I've been saying since we started noticing their money troubles that Charles has been giving Harry money. There's no way they can live the way they do without some type of income that they're not getting from anywhere else.
There have been Royal YTubers who have proved to be credible that have mentioned Charles behind the scene assistance regarding his endeavors as well as the use of Royal property in NYC so i would not be surprised if financial help is included. After all Harry is his favorite and seems to be following Charles globalist’s views. Perhaps the media and the left and Charles would prefer Harry as heir to William? There has to be a reason why Charles refuses to remove them from the Royal website.
USAid was the backbone of their income during Biden.
It’s not either/or because they are one and the same. The UK government is the political left and Charles, who is WEF and Davos, is in lockstep with Starmer. Both have been helping Harry and I’m sure both would prefer to see Harry as King rather than William.
The political left
Excellent info Tom. I am appalled to read that there may be some "editing" going on behind the scenes of Substack. I wish I could have read the post written by Harri. But from what I gather, along with what Bower's book seems to indicate, I predict a major scandal involving Invictus on the horizon. It's about time they were called to account in terms of how they support (or don't support) veterans. It's all very well for them to get on their high horse and say people don't understand or underestimate PTSD. Being this indignant is an effort to deflect from the root of the issue - how they pander financially to the Harkles. Any criticism of Invictus is immediately rewritten to be criticism of veterans, and that is NEVER the case.
You are so right - i just read a criticism of IG management by Harry last night that was turned (not so cleverly) into a criticism of the wounded veterans themselves in an effort to shame the criticizer. It's a transparent ploy that is so fake it doesn't have the effect they try for but makes them look foolish.
Exactly!
🎯🎯🎯👍👍👍
Once again, the haemorrhaging of vast amounts of money to people who are not the intended recipients of the charity. There should be a best practice percentage that charities work to whereby a minimum % goes to direct delivery. Too many charities feel like rich people’s scams and PR grifts.
Indeed. That's why I never donate to big charities or those with celebrities as founders/trustees. I donate to my local hospice, the local animal shelter, and that's it. I know what they spend donations on. I'd rather give a tenner to a homeless person than one penny to any charities like Invictus, Sentebale, Oxfam et al.
I'm with you. I donate to two local animal shelters that I KNOW care for animals and adoption... my dear Kitty came from one. I also donate to our local hospice, our local Audubon society and to some school fundraisers. As for donated goods, our local cat shelter runs a very nice thrift store as does Habitat for Humanity, so I take donations to one of those, not Goodwill anymore. GW apparently skims better quality donated goods to sell on line and no one knows where the profits go.
there ARE best practice percentages.
watchdogs like Charity Navigator aggregate info like this so that people who want to donate have the info & tools to decide if they want to donate to a charity & know that their donations are well spent.
Charity Navigator is an excellent resource. They don't control, they inform all who are interested, after looking at reported best practice percentages for a number of categories. People can make up their own minds about contributing.
That’s good to know, thank you.
Could Harri put the comment back up on this post? Let those who didn’t have a chance to read it do so & let’s see if it gets removed again!
I remember reading Harri's post, but would like to read it again.
Thank you.
If I knew how I would. Lol. I only comment here and just joined Shauna at Vintage Reed.
It’s very suspicious that someone is deleting your post/s,
what do they have to hide we must wonder?
Since the post was about harri's personal experience of Invictus, and revealed some performative and morally suspect behaviours on their part, I'm going to bet it was someone on the Invictus team, especially considering their riposte to Mr Bower's claims, which was purely an appeal to emotion, and dealt with none of Mr Bower's specific allegations. The question of course, is how they were able to interfere with Substack.
That's the big question. Not that the comment was taken down, but how was it taken down. That's where the corruption seems to be.
Could you rewrite it please?
Can you just share your observations again? It doesn't have to be verbatim the words in your first post.
So glad we are in the same boat. If it doesn't get put back i will rewrite from memory. It was just facts and observations. I had been to the 2016 Games. Hopefully it will go back up.
Who was that who just had a comment deleted Harri? Or did the commenter delete it themselves? Gosh, this "comment deleted" goings-on is starting to get kinda creepy.
It is. If I want censorship, might as well back over to reddit. Or X where accounts calling out the Harkles are being suspended.
Exactly. But SaintMeghanMarkle over on reddit is cool with good stuff & no censoring/suspensions.
That's disturbing. I've never been on X, but I thought Elon Musk didn't believe in censorship!
It was Harri.
No - i am referring to that comment previous post above Harri's post where Harri replies back "So glad we are in the same boat"... he was replying back to someone else that now says "Comment deleted".
Please please do so. We cannot let them win.
Just put the comment (or the gist of it) on Tom’s newsletter today? Same here, I don’t post only comment, still trying to figure SS out 🙄
My first comment is back. Which is very weird because comments don't usually disappear and then reappear. Im really disappointed with substack for interfering with and shutting down legitimate, polite comments. Thank you Tom for addressing this directly.
That is weird. I need a tutorial on all of this. Lol. Glad it is back.
As I mentioned earlier today, you can save/copy your comments prior to posting [longer ones in particular, heavy with information] to your own device, computer, tablet, phone... whatever you use. I use the "Notes" app on my laptop as it's very straightforward and easy. After writing it here, just copy and paste onto a new note, then click Reply here and done. If something happens to your comment, you can repost from Notes. No one but you can delete from your own notes.
Great suggestion!👍😎
I'm glad you're going to pursue this with Substack, Mr Sykes; I erroneously assumed you were censoring posts, my heartfelt apologies!
Re Sentebale- the extract in the Times was interesting, and included information not mentioned at the time of the implosion. Reading about it then, I thought it was probably six of one etc, but the extract makes me more inclined to believe Miss Chandauka than I did at the time. Although I'd like to hear Miss Myazaki's side of it. What seems very odd to me is that, as far as I'm aware, Prince Seeiso has never commented on the debacle at all, I wonder why? Re Invictus, it's disgraceful that their riposte to Mr Bower is simply an appeal to emotion - a logic fallacy which proves nothing at all, and fails to deal with any of Mr Bower's claims. They'll have to do better than that!
All in all, the extracts so far have revealed some interesting and not very fragrant things; I'm looking forward to reading the whole book.😁
Prince Seeiso didn't comment but another family member in the Lethoso royal family did: Chief Khoabane Theko, criticized Prince Harry regarding the Sentebale leadership dispute & the Harry-Chandauka debacle. Theko stated that Harry lost interest in the charity, which was co-founded in 2006, after marrying Meghan Markle & moving away from royal life. He claimed that Harry's lack of engagement "totally killed the spirit of the Sentebale's survival" & expressed disappointment that the Duke had not visited Lesotho frequently, citing a 6-year gap between visits to the country prior to 2024 (which THAT visit was forced on Harry due to problems that Chandauka later made public). Theko also expressed shock that Harry would leave the charity at such a critical time. He noted that the Duchess of Sussex had never visited Lesotho, stating, "She's a far-away person for us, we do not know about her". It's most likely that Bower either interviewed Theko or took Theko's comments under advisement for his book.
Thanks Jeanie, I didn't know that. Interesting this has not been mentioned by Harry, eh? As far as I'm aware!
He wouldn't would he? LOL.
I shall certainly tune in to your live show. It’s always informative and entertaining.
I commented yesterday about Harri comments about actually attending Invictus events and his valuable comments about the 2016 event programme including divers members of the royal family who were involved.
I’d still like to know the facts of when Invictus was launched and at which junction it became Harry’s gig. Please let us know Tom the whys and wherefores of Invictus.
Very mysterious about the “editing” of your Substack. ?!
Re Bower books I read the last one when it was published. Now listening to it as audiobook simultaneous with reading The Royalist.
I will get the new one as audiobook when it’s published later this month.
Interesting about the demise of Sentebale. At the time it split up it sounded like a nasty poisonous split. With many people on far too high salaries. If it’s not about Africans needing support what is it about ?! I remember the woman of colour telling the prince it shouldn’t be about polo
Matches in the Cotswolds or some such ….
Over on X, anyone who makes derogatory comments, directly on the Invictus page, about Harry, Meghan or about how much $$ Invictus spends on them, gets deleted. When the comments get numerous, they turn off comments.
Invictus has ducked real scrutiny for a while now, perhaps Bower’s claims will finally force their hand.
I predict yes. It absolutely will.👏👏👏👏
not unexpected from X.
It is to me, I though and believed Elon Musk was against censorship and supported free speech. Another illusion shattered. 😣😥
The algorithm does automatically when mass reporting occurs.That's what's been going on. It's not Elon or any person doing it. The Sussii evil team knows how to trigger the algorithm.
"the algorithm" is what programers are told to program. and Musk definitely directs what he wants the algorithm to do.
Musk against censorship? Only when it comes to votes.
are you serious?
He may not know. Somebody needs to raise the issue with him directly.
They are working on fixing the bot army problem.
👏👏👏👏👏
Everybody to boost the podcast--i.e. make it appear higher in search results and rankings--do these things:
*Like and subscribe to Tom's podcast on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify. If you don't use Apple Podcasts it's very simple to open the (free) app, find his podcast, and like/subscribe/rate even if you don't plan to listen to it there. Spotify also has a free version if you don't want to pay for commercial-free Premium.
*While you're in Apple podcasts, give the podcast 5 stars and leave a nice comment. Apple relies on this data so it + subscribing makes a big difference.
*If you have Spotify, subscribe to the podcast and leave a nice comment on the episodes. Spotify doesn't have a way to rate, so subscribing is the main data the company uses.
-- Signed, Silicon Valley born and bred :)
Merci! Will do❤️
I can’t find his podcasts on Apple. What is the name of it please…
I think he said it won’t be out until tomorrow. (First on YouTube and then later that day or the next on the podcast platforms—Apple & Spotify.) I assume it’ll be called The Royalist.
I forgot to mention that in Apple you can grant the 5 stars repeatedly, just leave the screen where you left the rating and come back to it. Doing all this stuff will help the podcast find a larger audience, and that would be great because frankly the existing royal podcasts are trash. :)
That anyone besides Tom could delete comments is outrageous.
Am DELIGHTED about the podcast Tom! I find it easier to listen to pods than keep up with YouTube, so really looking forward to it. In the meantime, the stuff about the deleted comment is weird, but fascinating. I read the comment at the time and thought it was exactly as you say, insightful, factual and respectful. Please @harri keep contributing and don't let the forces of darkness put you off! Bower's stuff is always worth reading, despite his politics, which wouldn't be mine. But I've usually found his written material to be well researched and insightful. It's certainly more worthwhile than the PR guff and propaganda put out about the Royal family by the mainstream press. 🤢
No worries, I certainly will. It was just a bit confusing. Thank you
We are all aware that Invictus began with King Charles, Prince William and Harry. Harry is not the founder. Harry is not the person to be in charge. We can all see what going on. Invictus should fold really. It is a drain on the system. The Government should do the right thing and make sure the millions pledged go directly to the Veterans.