So, on and on it will always be true. >> Greetings from Castle Goring from Mickey, Aurora, and from me. Without further ado, I am going to plunge in with what Joan Bonnett or Bonnet, don't know which one it is, says, "Lady C, just saw the wonderful news about Thomas Markle senior's new love. If he gets married, will Meghan attend the wedding invited or uninvited?" You're very funny. It's always wonderful when people find someone whom they love and who loves them. Isn't it? It's always wonderful. I gather that it is sincere love. Thomas Markle is actually a very loving and a very lovable man. Also, he is in a country where human relations are in some ways more straightforward, and I'm choosing my words carefully, than on the North American continent. I don't want to say too much at this juncture because, you know, speculation in the early days is not necessarily fruitful. But, it's wonderful. Caroline Graham broke the story. And Samantha has been in touch with Well, she's been in touch and done a through Dan Wootton who did a a very lovely piece on her feelings about the whole thing. And of course, she and I are in touch as well. She's actually not been well, if the truth be known. She's had a bad case of flu, which, as we all know, can be a real killer. But, I don't want to repeat what Dan said. If you want to know what Dan said, go and look at on uh on Dan Wootton Outspoken to see what he said and what she said. But, basically, to summarize, everybody's happy except Meggie baby. Meggie, can you believe it? Meggie baby is mizzy. She's absolutely mizzy. She thinks she's going to get a stepmother of her own age. Poor Meggie baby. It's all about Meggie baby. And isn't it terrible? So, you asked the question, will Meghan attend the wedding? Invited or uninvited? Well, I think it would take a miracle for Meghan to be invited, and even she wouldn't have the brass neck to appear uninvited. And she wouldn't want to go on invited in any event. And she wouldn't want to go invited either. So, I think it's a no-brainer. So, I hope that answers the question. I'm very pleased for Thomas Markle Sr. You know, a lot of people in that part of the world are very loving. And also, not only does Thomas Markle have many personal qualities that appeal to less cynical and less sophisticated people than he might hitherto have come across on the American continent. I'm trying to be diplomatic about this. But, they are genuinely very loving. And I have no reason to disbelieve that it is a genuine human connection. And of course, from Rio's point of view, that's the name of the young woman in question. Well, not so young anymore, but to me, young. Uh, I don't because I don't want to emphasize these difference too much. But, there's absolutely no reason why she would not find Thomas Markle lovable. And the age gap wouldn't matter that much. To the Rios of this world who go more by the heart and the practicalities, you know. This is the real situation. She's a nurse. He's an older man who's ill. They have a clique. They develop a relationship. There's no reason to for anybody to think it's not true. I think Thomas Markle deserves to be happy. And if he gets happiness with this lady in question, I think great. I'm very happy for both of them. And in many ways, it's a clean slate and in many other ways, he would be prestigious in her eyes, which is really nice for him because he is deserving of respect and I will leave it at that. And go on to what Val Manston says. Greetings, Lady C. Prince Philip died on the 9th of April 2021, one day before my husband of 52 years passed away. So many other people also said that. Thank you very much for that, Val Manston. I was quite frankly so had so much going on and I did the math and of course, I was only off by a year, but if I'd stopped to think, of course, it was after the uh well, after the Oprah interview. And so that had to be 2021, not 2020. But I've also always said math is not my strong point. Sorry. But thank you, all of you, for pointing out my error and omission. Uh because when I did the math, I knew he died at 99. And I actually knew he died shortly before his hundredth birthday. So really, it was very sloppy of me. And I confess sloppy and really silly. But I hope that you will agree with my attitude, which was it was basically sufficiently trivial that because I just did the math and got it wrong. Naughty me. Mickey, are you going to discipline Naughty? Mickey says she'll give me love later. Marsha Bass says I love that William called Harry's bluff and said, "Yes, bring the kids. All the royals will be there to meet them." Imagine Harry and Meghan having to face all the people they lied about. And all those they haven't yet lied about. Because let's remember there have been significant omissions. That's well, I suppose now that Amid Scabies has been martyred there might be a vacancy in the Ministry of Propaganda. But yes, William called his bluff. I mean, nobody really seriously believes that Harry and Meghan were going to show up with those two children. And that Harry and Meghan were going to be able to corner his father and make mincemeat of him. Aside from the fact that well, I went through the holidays, so I don't think I really need to go through it again. But the fact of the matter is Harry will not have expected to receive a positive outcome. Let me put it that way. And therefore, it's yet another cat to fly for yet more column inches on a Monday or a Tuesday and by the Thursday or the Friday, the caravan has moved on to something else. People are starting to make the point that it's all so predictable and it's all so tiresome and it's all so boring. And so William called his bluff. There was no way that the situation as presented by Harry was ever going to materialize. I think I made that quite clear. So, I don't think I need to belabor the point further, do you? Beverly Rich says, "Lady C, I am American, so forgive me if I don't get everything right. I seem to remember that Diana was afraid the crown keep her children. Could you explain that? I seem to remember the crown has ownership of children in the line of succession. Therefore, if that is the case, could Charles and or Harry get the children to England and use that to keep them with Harry in England? Thank you and take care. Beverly Rich, first of all, uh the word ownership is not particularly appropriate in this circumstance because nobody owns chattels with spirits and souls anymore. That's serfdom and slavery. You are actually referring to George II declaring that the elder children of, I think it was the three eldest children, I should say. Because there were two lots of children that Frederick, Prince of Wales, and his wife had. And they had the three elder children, if I remember correctly, were effectively seized by George who absolutely loathed his son and his son loathed him. And he actually booted him out, literally, and they had to rent a house in London, and he seized the three eldest children, and the parents were not allowed to have anything to do with the children except with the king's permission. And there were long periods when neither the Prince nor Princess of Wales actually had any real interaction with the children. They weren't allowed to do anything about their education. They didn't live with the parents, they etc. etc. etc. George II claimed that as monarch he had the right to determine in the fate of the heirs to the throne. And the three children were the three immediate heirs after their father. That was the basis upon the but it's it was a declaration. It's never been a law passed by Parliament. It's not on any statute book. It's just a declaration made by King George II. Even if such a declaration had any validity in the United Kingdom because Harry and Meghan's a matrimonial home is in a Montecito, California. English law would not apply under the Hague Convention to which both the United Kingdom and the United States are signatories. And the Hague Convention deals with rarely where children should be brought up in the event of a divorce, etc. And one of the cornerstones of The Hague Convention is that the matrimonial home becomes the jurisdiction at the time of a separation or divorce. That is Montecito. So, California law, California state law, and United States federal law, and United States treaties within the international community, namely The Hague Convention, would necessarily trump any claim that the monarch had, even if it were English law, which it is not. So, of course, if Harry and Meghan establish residency over here, and they then break up, then English law kicks in. And if she took the children to the United States of America, they could be returned to England as a result of The Hague Convention. So, I hope that answers the question. Joe A C says, "Harry is treating the king, his father, as he did his grandfather and grandmother, preying on the old and ill and vulnerable. Despicable behavior." Yes. I actually do not think that Harry is the instigator or creator of these game plans. Not only do I think Meghan is, but I understand from people in the know who know her and him well that she is the brains behind the whole operation. And as we all know, Harry doesn't have any brains. Well, I take that back. He definitely has one brain cell. It's quite a large brain cell. I think it's when I think when it's unfurled, I think it's quite impressive, so I'm told. Oh, but he doesn't really have the brains. Meghan, also, as she has shown in her treatment of her father, is cold, callous, and cruel. She has absolute ice in her veins. She doesn't have blood, she has ice. Harry, by going along with it, and Harry, by playing these games, you could say, is praying on his gra- his his father the way he did on his grandfather and grandmother. I think they didn't care about Prince Philip or the Queen. I think they cared only about the money they could make. Harry and Meghan are in desperate financial straits, desperate reputational straits, desperate lifestyle straits. Nothing that they have tried recently has worked. The only things that actually worked, and they worked only initially, were the JP Morgan speech, BetterUp, which he even managed to get the palace to be involved with, uh then there was the Oprah interview, which did, I understand, benefit them financially to the tune of, if I'm not mistaken, it was $10 million, so it said. So it said. When you're dealing with Harry and Meghan, you have to be really careful what you accept as fact. But the story was spread that they did Oprah for nothing, and that it was not a financial deal. Mhm. Shall we have Mr. Piggy flying? Oh, no, Mr. Piggles says he's very put out that he's not flying. HE'S GOING TO FLY >> MR. BIGGINS. SORRY. Silly me. They don't care that Charles is ill and vulnerable. They only care that this will get everybody talking. This will get column inches. This will get attention. They will be able to do whatever they want. Uh and they always do whatever they want. And tomorrow it's a different story. But they would really love to be able to have those photo ops with Charles. Remember, they tried to have the photo ops with the late Queen and didn't. So, they would like photo ops with Charles. Do you seriously think that Charles is so naive that he doesn't see what is going on and that he doesn't understand that happy families would be played while Meghan was playing everybody else financially and that it was all really a business transaction being presented as something else. I just say that for what it's worth. But yes, you're absolutely right. Harry is cruel and he is irresponsible and he is heartless. But, if you think he's pressing his family's buttons, the electricity was disconnected sometime ago. Let's leave it at that for the moment. Muriel Griffin says, "Has Harry forgotten he's trashed the royal family? Has he got amnesia? The public haven't got amnesia. What a shame." "Harry is drug addled." "Harry and Meghan both are so delusional that they actually believe the rubbish that they spout while they're spouting it. And the following day, they believe the opposite." "Has he forgotten that he trashed the royal family? Well, he's brazenly denied it." You need to remember that when Tom Bradby asked him, because Tom Bradby was obliged to actually ask Harry one or two awkward questions. And this, if you recall, was at the time of Harry's memoir Spare Me. Sorry, my mouth slipped. Spare. I forgot. The me wasn't there. It should have been, but it wasn't. >> Harry was asked by Tom Bradby and he denied that he and Meghan had accused the royal family of racism. Yet they very clearly did on Oprah. Not only did they clearly do it on Oprah, but they then were given an award by Kerry Kennedy as a result of the broadcast of their show, and it really was a show. Meghan and Harry, do you remember? Or Harry and Meghan, I forget which one it was. The Netflix six-part series. That they asserted that there was institutional racism in the royal family. And they were given an award specifically for fighting racism in the institution of the monarchy. Then he has unmitigated gall to spin around and say oh when Tom Bradby asks him about it. Oh, no. No. No, we never accused anybody of racism. The press did. Interesting that one isn't it? Are you aware that the looks like Meghan Markle? And it looks like Harry. Mhm. That's a really interesting one. But, Harry and Meghan either don't know or don't care about what they said yesterday, and nothing adds up. And that's very classically drug addict behavior. It's also very classically seriously disordered personality behavior. And sometimes the two go hand in hand. Rather like salt and pepper. Meghan and Harry, the two trees that are intertwined forever. Just like H&M. We saw those trees and we didn't even bother to look at the house. We just thought, "Those trees are us. We've got to buy the house." And Sorry. Got to have a big flying again. Well, they have amnesia, but we don't. And the bombardment of the public with disparate stories has already reached the point where people are commenting on how fed up they are with the barrage. So, Joanna Davis says, "Hello Lady C from the US state named in honor of Queen Elizabeth the First. Virginia's very beautiful. Is Hugo Vickers as great a writer as Victor Hugo?" Interesting question. Uh they are totally different writers. Uh, Victor Hugo was writing about social issues and using the novel as a basis for his books on social issues. At the time that Hugo Victor Hugo was writing, France had been and continued to be in considerable political turmoil. And he was describing the social condition and the realities of the social condition and the consequences of really many of the evils within society. Because remember, the 19th century was the age of industrialization and the breakdown of the agrarian society, which had hitherto been the norm throughout the whole of history, meant that there was tremendous poverty, tremendous social conflict, tremendous disaffection, and tremendous political upheaval. Great suffering. Suffering economically that was unheard of in the agrarian world. Because in the agrarian world, the lord and master was responsible for the fate of those who were less well off. And of course, there were always abuses, but they were far fewer and farther between than became acceptable when you didn't know the people around you. The lord and master would have known, if not personally, he'd have certainly known and his family would have basically known the people in their community. And they were responsible for the people in their community. And most people actually, unless they were truly very irresponsible or really rather evil, they took their social responsibility and the of and the social contract that was inbuilt in society see sufficiently seriously that it continued for thousands of years. All of got that got thrown out with industrialization because once the world ceased to be an agrarian world and it became an industrialized world, the jobs in the country dried up and people moved into the towns. And while the lord and master had been and I keep on using that expression because that's the expression that used to be used and it had meaning. Because they might have been the master of people's fates, but they also understood if they didn't master their responsibilities, their edifice would come crashing down. Well, it came crashing down as a result of industrialization, which then introduced huge poverty because the shop owner, the factory owner, the businessman didn't have the social contract with his employees that the landlord, the great land owners, again, I just use the proper term, lord and master, had with those in his orbit. That's what Victor Hugo was writing about and wrote about it very well. Hugo Vickers is a biographer. He's not a novelist. He's written one or two novels, but he's not a novelist. He is a biographer. I would have said he is a good biographer. Uh will he go down in history as as great a writer as Victor Hugo? Well, you can't compare apples and oranges. But will Hugo go down in history as one of the great biographers of all time? Because Victor Hugo is going down in history as one as the great authors of all time. I don't think I would like to actually enter into a judgement because I think it would be unfair to Hugo who is a good biographer. And also I am aware of the fact that royal biography is a very specialized field and it's not necessarily regarded with the gravitas that other fields of biography are. Which hampers any royal biographer, full stop. And if you then have a royal biographer who is successful and achieves great recognition in terms of their literary ability you have to effectively do it as a work of fiction which is what Hilary Mantel did with Wolf Hall and her books on Henry the VIII and all and all Thomas Cromwell. It has to be said I thought she was a fine biographer. I didn't think she was a fine writer. And ironically enough her failings as a writer or what commanded her to the literati nowadays because some of them are so obscurantist that they think if you can understand it it's no good. It's got to be unintelligible. And in fact, her first book was and I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'm sure people will disagree with me, but that's fine. To me, it needed to be another draft. And when the book came out uh the criticism was that very often people didn't know who she was speaking about because she would her her language was so opaque that who which he is she speaking about? Or which she is she speaking about? It wasn't clear. So, then she upped the ante thereafter. She is acknowledged now as a great historical writer. I actually think Hugo is a better biographer. Well, in terms and and as a writer because Hugo's writing is very clear. And I like clarity. I don't think clarity is something that you should be condemned for. It's something if you lack that you should be condemned for. But that of course is because I'm not at the forefront of the modern taste in literature, which is if it's understandable and intelligible it must be condemned. Only if it is totally unintelligible and totally can't be understood. Well, then there's a genius there somewhere. Let's try to find it, the genius. Of course, the genius doesn't exist. But so I hope that answers the question. And thank you very much for asking it. And I hope that you will keep in the questions and comments. Let me know what ground you would like us to be covering and let's open up the world that so much is going on. Let's have other stuff that is topical and relevant. Like anything. I mean it's up to you. But let's open the floodgates and see what where where the water washes us up. So, please, anything, any subject. Thank you so much. Take good care. Godspeed. And if you have truly enjoyed this video, would you care to like, share, subscribe, press the notification bell. And take good care. Bye-bye.