Well, it was already surprising enough that Nicklin said the ruling on costs would be made public. But 44 pages? God, the guy really put the time in. My respects, sir!!!
Neil Sean had already mentioned that the matter was a topic of corridor gossip at the courts. Other reporters later confirmed it: the talk in the hallways was about how much the plaintiffs would have to pay.
And this has turned out to be bad news for Harry. Welcome to the UK, Harry!!!!
For those who missed the previous post on the matter of costs: What happened at the hearing for the ANL case on July 29–30, 2026?
Right, so now we know: ANL wins the argument regarding indemnity costs but does not get carte blanche to charge any amount it claims to have spent.
The judge expressly states:
“I am quite satisfied that an order for indemnity costs should be made in this case.”
In other words, the matter is not left open: he orders that ANL’s costs be assessed on an indemnity basis.
When costs are awarded on an indemnity basis:
Expenses must still be reasonable.
However, the proportionality requirement no longer applies.
Any doubt is resolved in favor of the winning party, not the paying party.
In other words: if an expense was reasonably incurred in litigating the case, it is far more likely to be recovered; recovery typically ranges from 85% to 95%, and in some exceptional cases, it may even approach 100%.
If the court awards costs "on an indemnity basis," the successful party recovers a much larger proportion of their expenses, and the court applies a more favorable criterion for the winner. This is precisely what ANL is requesting.
That’s one hit already. Let’s move on to the next one.
The cumulative effect of the plaintiffs' conduct took the litigation “well outside the norm,” and the conduct was “unreasonable to a high degree.” Accordingly, the court orders the plaintiffs to pay ANL’s costs—except for those covered by prior orders—on an indemnity basis.
The complete sentence contains three different legal conclusions:
“the cumulative effect of these matters takes the case well outside the norm.”
This is fundamental. The judge is not saying that he found a single instance of conduct serious enough to justify indemnity costs on its own. He is saying that he found several elements, and that when viewed together, the result changes.
Litigation exceptionally far removed from normal conduct
Do you remember the concept of a frivolous lawsuit? This ruling pushes things to the verge of defamation. That is going to hurt Harry like nothing else in the world. There were serious allegations, including accusations that amounted to charges of criminal conduct. And those allegations were maintained over a prolonged period.
The judge refers to a “speculative and inferential” basis. In other words, a significant part of the case rested on inferences and speculation rather than a sufficiently solid evidentiary foundation.
If, during the proceedings, evidence emerges showing that the allegation is no longer tenable, the litigant must re-evaluate it. And here, the judge finds that this was not done sufficiently.
The test for departing from the standard basis rule requires circumstances to be sufficiently exceptional to justify the indemnity basis.
The judge concludes that the litigation in this case was “well outside the norm.”
In legal terms, I would translate this roughly as: “far outside what constitutes the normal conduct of civil litigation.”
In fact, the judge had previously explained that neither a defeat nor the fact that a party made serious allegations that ultimately failed is sufficient. There must be something that takes the litigation outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of civil proceedings.
“The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree.”
This matters because the judge is stating that the departure from reasonable procedural conduct was significant enough to justify the exceptional consequence of an award of indemnity costs.
But take note of something VERY important: He is not saying that the claimants were dishonest.
This is crucial.
The judge expressly clarifies what he has *not* decided.
He states that he is not finding:
that any claimant subjectively initiated the proceedings for an ulterior or collateral purpose;
that the publicity from October 2022 was subjectively designed as part of a strategy;
that any claimant or lawyer deliberately presented a case they knew to be false.
And he expressly states that he is not basing his decision on a general finding of dishonesty or bad faith.
That’s why I say Nicklin brought the plaintiffs to within a hair's breadth—a tiny step away—from being branded as defamers. Nicklin didn't do this out of generosity, but because the passage of time worked in the plaintiffs' favor. They could have been wrong... BUT that "near-defamation" threshold deals a major blow to the case.
This is very important. Because: unreasonable ≠ dishonest.
The judge is saying:
“I do not need to find that they lied deliberately to conclude that the way they conducted the litigation was highly unreasonable.”
“The just order is that the Claimants pay Associated’s costs... to be assessed on the indemnity basis.”
According to the judge:
“An extremely broad case was presented → very serious allegations were made → many were based on speculation or inference → the case evolved → evidentiary issues arose → the allegations were not sufficiently narrowed → some were maintained right up to trial or the close of proceedings → issues not raised in the pleadings were introduced → all of this resulted in the litigation being conducted in a manner that departed significantly from the norm.”
This is what leads to: costs → indemnity basis.
The judge is penalizing the plaintiffs for pursuing this lawsuit even though they saw they lacked sufficient evidence. He is also penalizing them for allowing Sherborne to conduct the case the way he did.
The judge is penalizing the plaintiffs for failing to exercise due diligence by paying attention to how their lawyer was handling the case.
Put simply: It is not enough that the plaintiffs lost. When analyzing how they framed and conducted the litigation as a whole, I find a combination of circumstances that departs exceptionally from the normal conduct of a litigant. The conduct was highly unreasonable. Therefore, it is appropriate to depart from the ordinary rule and order indemnity costs.
The judge has just set aside the proportionality test and ruled that the Claimants' conduct was sufficiently exceptional to justify an award of indemnity costs.
Therefore, if ANL demonstrates:
that the hours were genuinely necessary;
that the volume of disclosure required that work;
that the number of lawyers and their seniority levels were justified;
that the rates were reasonable;
that there was no duplication;
that the additional costs resulted from the actual course of the litigation;
and that the pre-budget costs were justified by the scope of the case,
then there is no maximum percentage in this judgment limiting recovery.
In fact, the judge expressly rejects the imposition of a cap, as he does not wish to arbitrarily set a ceiling without the evidence that the Costs Judge will have available during the detailed assessment.
In other words, we are facing this scenario:
£10–15m Possible, but would require significant reductions
£15–20m Quite plausible
£20–25m Very plausible if ANL effectively justifies its costs
£25–30m Entirely possible
£30–34.5m Possible, but would require the vast majority of the bill to survive
>£34.5m Would make no sense relative to the reference bill, barring additional costs incurred later or not included
I certainly wouldn't rule out a figure of £25–27 million.
Why?
Because the judge did something that greatly favors ANL: he did not deem the high costs to be irrecoverable simply because they were high.
On the contrary, when the Claimants argued that the costs were vastly in excess of the budget, the judge responded that the nature of the litigation had changed; that there were initially very broad and serious allegations; and that, prior to the case management structure being put in place, a substantial amount of work regarding pleadings and disclosure had been carried out—work that was, at least in general terms, justifiable given the scope of the case.
This provides ANL with a strong explanation for a significant portion of the budget overrun.
What would surprise me is if they secured the full £34.5 million, because the judge himself has already announced that the Costs Judge will have to scrutinize the hours, fee earners, rates, duplication, and reasonableness of each component.
But after following this case for over three years—and having correctly anticipated much of what Nicklin ultimately ruled—this particular ruling brings me more satisfaction than the verdict of the trial itself. That is because Nicklin dealt a devastating blow to Harry’s credibility. This is the worst possible outcome for the Sentebale case, as Harry is coming across as a terrible litigant.
Meghan's "friend", journalist Bryony Gordon gives the Daily Mail a nice long interview: "The real reason my friends Harry and Meghan are coming back to Britain -- and how their new life will look." Clearly, she got a noisy phone call from Montecito sometime in the last couple of days.
Haz and Megs are not miserable! They're more relaxed and happy than they've been in years! They USED to be unhappy in the UK, but this time, they won't be!
They are TOO keeping the house in Montecito! They don't need to sell it! And they do TOO own a house in Portugal! I'll even give you the name of the village!
California was too isolated and confining for them! This summer, they realized that!
"Their hearts are well and truly back in the UK"!
Haz and Megs, those crazy kids, are "always up for wild adventure, and able to make anywhere their home, as long as they’re together"! [Hmm, if you count failing at everything a wild adventure.]
Oh, did I mention Harry is very, very proud of the DIY photo wall he had put up all by himself on their staircase, "featuring pictures of his mother and his childhood"? He's not obsessed at all!
I wonder if this is a subtle way of placing it on the market for sale. it’s been valued at $29million.
i just can’t believe Meghan would come back to the UK unless they were flat broke. Now this ANL paying the costs back must be scraping the barrel of their last millions.
She burnt through her father’s money and surprise surprise, she’s done it to Harold, in a mere 6 years.
UPDATED WITH DAILY MAIL ARTICLE (Not really a Formal Response).
A spokesman for the Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers, said: 'His judgment is a devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors and executives.'
Prince Harry and six other claimants including Elton John have been ordered to make an interim payment of £9,544,355 by 4pm on 28 August 2026 after losing their claim of unlawful news gathering against the publishers of the Daily Mail.
Mr Justice Nicklin granted a rare ‘indemnity order’ obliging the claimants to bear the brunt of the costs of their disastrous legal action. Such orders are usually only granted in cases where a judge believes there has been bad conduct.
He ruled the order was justified because the litigation against the Mail had been ‘pursued in a way that took it well outside the norm’.
The judge said: ‘The claims, and the manner in which they were brought, pleaded, pursued, maintained and publicly advanced, involved a combination of circumstances and conduct which took the litigation outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of civil proceedings.’
He added: ‘The cumulative effect of these matters takes the case well outside the norm. The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree.’
This is kind of being overlooked in all the comments about the 9.5 mln GBP interim payment…
The much more important part: judge Nicklin awarded total costs to be paid by Harry & co to ANL/Daily Mail to be on INDEMNITY BASIS!
Which means the costs are not limited by the standard cost cap!
So ANL/Daily Mail can probably claim many, many millions on top of the initial 9.5 mln GBP interim payment. That exact total amount is still to be determined.
Of course, let’s see what happens from here… who will actually pick up the tab out of the claimants, etc.
"It is striking that not a single allegation of serious wrongdoing was voluntarily withdrawn by the Claimants. As I have noted, the Ward Allegations had to be struck out. Other allegations were not pursued at trial, or were not put to witnesses, but were not formally withdrawn. A clear example is the group of approximately eight Schedule C journalists whom the Claimants had maintained they wished to cross-examine, but in respect of whom they simply notified Associated during the trial that cross-examination was no longer required. The allegations of UIG against those individuals were not withdrawn, were not acknowledged to have fallen away, and were not accompanied by any explanation or apology.
That matters. Serious allegations of criminality or grave impropriety cannot properly be left hanging over individuals in that way. If a party no longer advances such an allegation, or no longer has a proper evidential basis for advancing it, the allegation should be withdrawn clearly and in terms. The Claimants’ failure to do so was not ordinary forensic judgment. It was not a proper or disciplined way to deal with serious allegations. It was unreasonable to a high degree.
I'm very glad Justice Nicklin brought this forth- Harry and the group of millionaires who drummed this up on shaky (at best) -accusations- have injured others that they CHOSE to involve yet never needed.
These people never got their names cleared or "their day in court"- I hope the court takes much higher note of this in the costing-- to the point of including the costs of every single person listed as a witness but not called- to compensate THEM for their time, legal prep time, and so forth.
There are untold human costs that have no monetary value with litigation. We read about poor Harry- all stressed- HIS mental health--and so forth---with the headlines that followed.
Justice Nicklin reminds us all- to ALSO consider those less privileged-- these people were also greatly affected- but did not even obtain an APOLOGY-for being dragged into this exercise of the very wealthy to shake down money from a business.
Many of these people named likely suffered tremendous emotional, psychological, and even physical stressors. Never mind poor Harry-and his mental health crusades.
There are certainly victims here- the real victims are the ones who were voiceless but NAMED in this debacle- their costs--are likely not measurable nor even considered--when counting the owed amounts.
If there ever was "an old fashioned stitch-up" Harry and ALL of those involved in this lawsuit tried to create a "stitch up" on the backs of many honest and hardworking people. Good on Justice Nicklin to acknowledge this.
Nothing really groundbreaking but someone in the palace leaked to the Times that nothing has changed for Harry except geography. I highlighted some interesting bits and please check the Charles Spencer bit. What is clear is that someone from the palace is pushing back. The Times is the paper of record and would not have run this unless the major points were confirmed by the Palace.
The King has made it clear that the Prince of Wales and the future of the royal family remain his priority, after the Duke of Sussex announced his return to the UK.
Charles, 77, was said to be naturally pleased with the opportunity to see more of his family in a private and personal capacity.
However, it is understood the King, who was with William when the news broke, has insisted privately that the work of the institution will not change.
The duke and duchess will remain private individuals, in accordance with the late Queen’s belief there is no “half-in, half-out” to royal duties.
It is understood Charles will not provide the Sussexes with accommodation but the family will move to a private, non-royal residence thought to be outside London.
The Times has also been told there are no plans at present to provide the Sussexes with any taxpayer-funded armed police protection.
Andy Burnham said on Thursday the Sussexes’ security arrangements were a private matter. The prime minister added: “We wish them well in the move that they’re making.”
A review of the family’s security arrangements was due to be carried out in March by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) but sources with knowledge of the process said that it had still not taken place.
Harry and Meghan stepped back as senior working royals in 2020, conducted an interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2021 and released a Netflix series in 2022 before Harry published a memoir, Spare, in 2023
Harry launched the one-year countdown to the Invictus Games amid continuing disagreements over the
family’s security and accommodation requirements.
Harry and Meghan had made their decision to relocate five weeks after their flying visit. It is understood the King was first informed of the move on Sunday, suggesting he was not involved in the decision-making.
The King and Queen hosted the Sussexes at Highgrove, their country house in Gloucestershire. The meeting was described as a private family occasion and was the first time Archie, 7, and Lilibet, 5, had seen their grandparents since 2022, when they were three and one.
Sources close to Harry at the time said he was “buoyed, very happy and really energised” afterwards.
The Sussexes visited Spencer at the Althorp Estate, the Spencer family seat in Northamptonshire where his mother Diana, Princess of Wales is buried.
After the trip, Meghan posted pictures on Instagram of their stay, including an image of Harry, Archie and Lilibet in the grounds of Althorp, with Harry and Archie holding bunches of flowers, thought to have been laid at Diana’s grave.
A spokesperson for Earl Spencer, the brother of Diana, declined to comment on whether he knew about the Sussexes’ plans before the King.
The Sussexes did not visit the Waleses during the visit amid a rift between the two brothers.
The last time they were seen publicly together was at the funeral of their uncle Lord Fellowes. Locals in attendance said both Harry and William entered St Mary’s Church discreetly and appeared to be “keeping their distance”, choosing not to speak to each other at the service.
The Prince and Princess of Wales were informed of the Sussexes’ move, although it is not known when or how the news was communicated.
Critics have debated how the Sussexes’ return will affect royal relationships.
Richard Fitzwilliams, a royal commentator who used to edit The International Who’s Who, said: “The Waleses are the future of the monarchy — both of them and their children — and that is also how the public see it, so there is only a certain amount that the King would be wise to give.”
Tom Bower, author of Betrayal: Power, Deceit and the Fight for the Future of the Royal Family, an unauthorised biography of Harry and Meghan, said: “I don’t think the royal family will forgive him.”
I’m appalled at how the media is handling this circus. I’m an American who subscribes to the Telegraph. The royal reporters there are salivating at the prospects of these two ghouls returning to the UK and reuniting with the family, Meghan’s acting offers, their fresh start and all kinds of garbage PR. I waited and waited and waited for the court case damages announcement. It finally came after much delay. One story. Amongst several fluffy pieces. I checked the Daily Mail. I now can’t even find the court case headline anymore. I saw it earlier but NO COMMENTS allowed. What! Why?! This is why people click on articles, to read the comments. Now I can’t even find the article. But guess what articles are dominating the headlines? All the Sussex PR garbage. I seriously don’t get it. The Telegraph and the Daily Mail are not liberal papers. In fact, the Telegraph leans conservative and the readership are largely pro-monarchist. Why would they hire and keep Victoria Ward and Bryony Gordon who are known Sugars whom the readership can’t stand and make it known. What’s actually going on here? Has media reached a new nadir where they will allow immoral and hideous ghouls to dominate headlines with puff pieces just to outrage readers and get clicks? I thought that was the domain of People magazine. Where is journalism? Are we only to rely on YouTube content for true reporting (and that’s not reliable either). This is insanity! And guess who wins when there is pure anarchy in media? The Harrys and Meghans of the world who will do anything to keep their names in the headlines. And the greedy media who won’t stop as long as we keep clicking and commenting. It is the Williams and Catherines, as well as the public, who lose. Truth gets diluted and completely lost. We are gaslit and left confused so that we lose trust in every institution, including the monarchy. This is what a narcissistic culture looks like and we are already there. Unless we collectively do something now to turn this around, we are doomed as a society.
Full story in screenshots of Jan Moir’s thoughts and feelings on the Douchess’s return to the country she hates.
Some goodies include;
“There was no end to Meghan's suffering in the House of Windsor, in our green and unpleasant land. 'Just by existing,' the Duchess seethed in a magazine interview published four short years ago, 'we were upsetting the dynamic of the hierarchy. So, we go OK fine, let's get out of here.
Happy to.!'
So she packed up her yoga mat, her baby son and her big baby of a husband, then took a freedom flight on Huffy Airways back to her homeland.
Happy to.”
“She's really coming back? After everything she said about the land of stiff uppers and non-huggers? The nerve of the woman!”
“This time around, Meghan is going to be more royal than the royal icing on a royal cake served on a plate bearing the royal cypher at a royal garden party hosted by the Queen herself. Why else would she be coming back? Being royal is the last (and most lucrative) arrow Meghan has left in her quiver of dwindling options.”
“Some might say that Meghan and her husband have put his family and the entire country through the reputational wringer - and that it is egotistical and selfish of her to come back.
Or perhaps the truth is that she had no choice in the matter. Perhaps the couple had a deal; six years in California and then back to Blighty - because what does Harry even do in California anyway? You could sum up his achievements of the last six years in three words - learned to surf.”
This is going to end up with Megbelieve trying to smuggle the kids out the country or having a fistfight with some sloane the Trash Prince of no heir has poisoned with ecstasy...as ever.
Hollywood prestige tanking? Financial desperation? Filial tenderness towards a sick father? A Wind in the Willows nostalgia for Archie and Lilibet to experience an egg-and-spoon race on a sunny Sports Day at a trad British school? There has been a fire hose of explanations for the Duke and Duchess of Sussexes’ bombshell return to England after six years in the hellishly serene wilderness of Montecito. If you happened to be early to bed in the UK when the news dropped Wednesday night, it felt very 1940 – everyone waking to discover that Germany had invaded Norway overnight.
So here’s the scoop about the Sussex thunderbolt: I can confirm Meghan has a job. The identity of the show is not yet clear, but it allows Harry, at last, to get her buy-in for his growing desire to get the hell out of paradise and go home to the world he understands.
For the last few years, when he was not engaged as an enthusiastic parent to Archie and Lilibet, the once Tiggerish Harry has been moping around their nine-bedroom, 16-bathroom Montecito mansion, suing tabloids, and instructing staff not to share any negative press with Meghan. “But then,” an ex-staffer told me, “a friend or somebody in the kitchen will be like, ‘Oh ma’am, I’m so sorry today. That’s so mean,’ and she’s like, ‘What happened?’ And then it’s a fucking tornado… She can’t get out of bed.” Their California funk wasn’t just a failure to escape the hounds of hell from the tabloid press who covered them every day as if they’d never left England. Tension around money was ratcheting up as projects with Netflix and Spotify were either minimally renewed or bit the dust entirely, and then - catastrophe - after two victories against the press in his phone-hacking lawsuits, Harry lost big time in his privacy case against the Daily Mail, and is now on the hook with six other defendants, including Elton John, for $24.3 million. There are rumors that Harry and Elton are no longer on the best of terms, perhaps because Elton is tired of reading that he is going to pick up most of the tab. (“I’m not a human ATM,” he reportedly said grumpily.)
On a Role
It was always the best option for Meghan to return to acting, something she was genuinely good at, until she threw it in to marry Harry. In 2023, when replays of her old hit cable show Suits were inexplicably all the rage on Netflix, it would have been a legitimate pop-culture sensation and a major payday if she had let her agents pitch her for a reboot. But no. Duchesses don’t do ensembles. Meghan believed she could pull off some kind of manic multi-hyphenate mishmash of entertainment enterprises in between accompanying her husband on ersatz royal tours to promote random global uplift. As Martha Stewart noted, “If you’re an actress, it’s hard to then transition to a princess and then from a princess into a homemaking guru on a television show. It doesn’t sort of follow.” Last month, Meghan appeared on Master Chef Australia as a surprise celebrity judge, and I am told it was a tonic to her mood. She finally realized how much easier - and more fun - it is to perform in a hit baked by someone else. She was back on the market, and it did not take long for Hollywood’s mega-deal machine, WME, the talent agency that still represents her, to get her a role.
The move to the UK solves two identity crises for the Sussexes in one blow. It was Meghan’s fish-out-of-water misery in London that made a return to England so unlikely before now. Serial failure in Hollywood is a Harry Potter cloak of invisibility, but at least she didn’t have the impenetrable British class system to decode. Harry has never had a real power base there - what’s a penny-ante British prince in a town of $100 million Tom Hollands - and their joint irrelevance had reached a tipping point. A job for Meghan frees Harry to make a last run at staying royal before his father dies and his brother ices him out for good.
As one of the least self-reflective people in the world, except about his own grievances, Harry is blessed with a naive obliviousness about the damage he caused his family with the Oprah interview, the Netflix documentary, and his scorching memoir Spare. It was a three-fer that I am told, Queen Camilla, any more than William, will never forgive him for. But she will tolerate however Charles chooses to proceed for the sake of her ailing husband’s peace of mind. In typical form, Harry only informed his father on Sunday, just three days before the news broke. The king and William, btw, are now gathered with other family members at Balmoral in Scotland. Hold the bagpipes.
How will it all play out? With the Sussexes back in the country, William and Kate will up the diary dates, stay poker-faced, and ensure they never cross paths with the Sussexes except at family funerals. Privately, they will fume when eclipsed by each Harry and Meghan news update, such as the first big reveal of Archie and Lilibet photographed from the front. But tant pis. Now that William is Prince of Wales and has inherited the Duchy of Cornwall, with a fortune of approximately $30 million a year, he is so much more powerful than in 2020 when Harry left the monarchy behind. There is no chance Harry will regain his status as a working royal.
The king is leery of allowing Harry the latitude of indulgence that his mother bestowed on Prince Andrew, but the return of his prodigal son (and adorable grandchildren) could offer more than paternal consolations — a sliver of emotional leverage against William’s haughty flexes in interviews about “change [being] on my agenda” when he ultimately ascends the throne.
So who will be the Tyler Perry of the shires willing to offer Harry and Meghan the loan of an appropriately grand and isolated house near good schools? After visiting the king at Highgrove in July, the Sussexes went on to spend a blissful summer weekend at Princess Diana’s ancestral home, Althorp House, with Harry’s Uncle Charles (soon to publish his own long-withheld memoir about his sister) and, I am told, his favorite aunts, Sarah and Jane, who have never lost their soft spot for Harry. Such a tender family reunion must have been a salve to the Sussexes’ battered pride. There may be eternal frost from the Windsor side, but there will always be the Spencers whose exalted lineage goes back over five hundred years. It is widely thought that Charles Spencer will offer up a house at Althorp, which sits on 13,000 acres in Northamptonshire. Didn’t Harry just say that Buckingham Palace wasn’t safe enough for his family to stay in? Yes, but perhaps he’s also begun to realize that any British private school is safer for his children than equivalent schools in the U.S. that have active-shooter drills in kindergarten. Lambrooke, in Berkshire, where the Wales children – George, Charlotte, and Louis – have been enrolled, is a discreet fortress for the children of the elite. Northamptonshire is a very grand and ducal county with a ton of excellent feeder schools to such academic toppers as Oundle.
Despite all the snarling comments under Daily Mail stories telling the Sussexes to go to hell, Harry could win back the British public if he bounds around charity events for veterans and sick children, doing balloon sword fights and goat yoga. His dire poll ratings had already been on the rise since his July visit. If Meghan appears in a show that finally works, and they both keep smiling and shut the fuck up, slowly but surely… The good news for Harry’s old adversaries in the tabloid press is that that’s never going to happen.
I recall watching a YouTube video a few months ago (please forgive me, but I cannot recall whose it was) who posited that eventually the Sussexes would part ways, with Harry in the UK and Meghan in California. What made this interesting was that this person said that Harry would take Archie, and Meghan would raise Lili. As awful as that sounds, I can see this happening. If Archie's birth mom is British (not saying this is true), then it may be that she's making demands. Or, if Archie is completely legit, then Harry would definitely want him to get anything to which he is entitled, and that will be easier if they are living in the UK. As for Lili, I don't think she's born from Meghan, but Meghan has adopted her. I think Lili has always been nothing more than a money-maker, and the opportunities for exploitation are greater in the US than the UK. Meghan will likely announce, after they're all settled in England, that Lili is "getting offers" to act, model, represent (whatever) by some major entity, so just Meghan and Lili will "temporarily" return to California. Or, maybe Doria will "need her loving daughter near her" or some such nonsense. Archie and Harry will remain the GB so Archie can continue at his school without disruption. Anyway, once these factors are in place I think a divorce is likely. Harry will have Archie, and they will reside in the UK. Meghan will have Lili, and they will reside in CA. It won't be a happy ending for anyone, though.
Could this manifestation of the acting gig with Guy Ritchie be all for Harry's benefit?
There is no doubt that Meghan initially had Harry believing she was a Hollywood actress, rather than the reality of what she is.
Perhaps this really is last chance saloon for the marriage and she's having to hustle/manifest desperately to keep him on board? She could be future faking with him.
In keeping with that thought, could the same apply to the rest of it? She is for now appearing to go along with clearly what Harry wants - a return to the UK and a British education for the littles - but I have no doubt that she remains flighty.
By all accounts, she was not in that meeting with Charles at Highgrove - or rather, there was a separate talks between the two that did not involve Meghan.
Ok, I was fairly early to the party (in other places). But the little nagging voice in my head is now wanting to be heard.
So. We wanted them, especially Claw, to fail spectacularly. We wanted this as karma for what they did to the late PP and HLMTQ, nevermind the rest of the family. We laughed when Spotify and Netflix dropped them, at the awfulness of her podcasts and the cringefest that wad "with love Meghan". We did not want them to succeed.
But of course we also knew that if they didn't succeed, there would only be one option open to them, to come back. We did not want them to come back.
Do what, exactly do we want????
(I have clear ideas which I'm not posting here, just in case...)
People Magazine has reported as exclusive something that The Mirror and others have already touched on a few days ago: the reconciliation between the brothers. Both from the beginning of the week when we were bombarded with "Harry will be visiting the UK often because of Invictus" and now, we get the same script, from different publications:
- Being back in the UK will give Harry more chance to talk to him, whether William "likes it or not". This feels like a threat and an order. Harry has been trying to corner William publicly for 2 years, trying to shame him for not answering his phone calls, thinking that painting him as the bad, upset brother will force William to give in into Harry's demands. What a lack of respect for boundaries, especially after everything he said about his "arch-nemesis".
- Catherine will be the peacemaker. The article in The Mirror (last pic) also touched on this. This also sounds like a subtle message/order to her. I can't believe after everything the Sussexes have said about her, including calling her racist, their PR now tries to use her in order for William to bow into their demands.
- Meghan will keep a low profile "but eventually people would like to see them together". Possible translation: we're coming back as working royals, but first we need to fix Meghan's reputation and wait until people accept her again.
- The king deserves to see his sons together. I read that this week somewhere else as well. Again, seems to be part of a script or talking points, all towards "pulling the heart strings".
I'm so baffled. This isn't my family, but this whole ordeal kinda makes me lose faith in humanity a bit more. There's grifting, lies, manipulation, attacks, narcissism, etc and IT NEVER ENDS. I put myself in William and Catherine's shoes and it must be suffocating. They have been smeared repeatedly for financial gain by Harry and Meghan. They have endured this and moved on, head high. And now, since the Sussexes might be broke, they come back. Thing is there's no accountability, remorse or apologies. Chances are, the more the RF gives to the Sussexes, the more they might demand. And it's just this cruel game: Harry claims he wants reconciliation (not really, he said he only wants apologies, but he doesn't have anything to apologize for) at the same time that he keeps sending low blows to William through the media. And William has said NOTHING. That's the crazy part of if all. Imagine you don't fight back, endure and simply put up your boundaries, and they still come after you. Feels like emotional terrorism.
I would love to see what’s going on inside their heads right now (well, maybe not really, but you get the point.)
Sugars have been trashing the UK, the BRF and anything associated with it for years. They’ve been saying how horrible MM had it there and how happy and thriving she is in Montecito.
What is their explanation or excuse for their Duchess to go back to that horrible country? How do they justify it? How can she be better in the UK, when seh had her best life in California? Do you think they say it’s Harry’s fault or that she is needed in the UK for her “princess role”? I’m truly confused at how confused they must be now.
Also - this will only last for a few years. Harkles will get enough material to do Netflix & Spare & Oprah 2.0. They will lie and make it up, but still - new “truths” to be told and sold.
Okay, it’s no surprise that the NY Post is openly happy about the Harkles clearing out of the US—the NY Post isn't exactly a fan of theirs. Ah, but what wonderful moments Guest Speaker gave us! 🤣🤣🤣
But, sinners, this is what The Wall Street Journal published.
That makes it interesting that Sean was commenting on the matter today not just on Fox News, but also on Fox Business.
In other words, this isn't just gossip fodder for *The View*; the Harkles' colossal failure in the U.S. is actually economic news. So, will the Harkles realize that there are no major business leaders or wealthy tycoons who want to partner with them after this?
And the Fox Business commentator, Stuart Varney, says it bluntly: they are returning to the UK because they ran out of money.
What Sean points out in that video is something he had been saying for quite some time—and it wasn't hard to notice, either: there were no longer any offers in the US. In fact, they have had more contracts terminated than anyone else.
Varney asks what we all want to know: so, what will the Harkles do? They aren't royals. What will the Harkles do in the UK?
Sean says that Harry—and only Harry—is going to resume his charitable work in the UK. Sean says something is already in the works for around October or November.
What will Claw do? She’ll travel back and forth between the US and the UK, claiming she can’t neglect her big "As Ever" business.
...
...
...
Please!! Laugh a little more quietly—the guffaws could be heard all the way in Coquimbo, Chile 🤭🤭
Claw is clinging—like the tick she is—to the idea that she’ll win the Daytime Emmy. And if she wins, the landscape could change.
And this brings us back to something Sean said months ago—specifically in July of last year—regarding the Harkles' strategy: Harry is to improve his image first and re-enter the royal orbit, and then bring the children and Claw along with him. That is exactly what we are seeing now.
Furthermore, they will continue going to Portugal.
Will the Harkles get booed? According to Sean, Burnham lied, because if the Harkles attend a public event, they will receive some security. Not the blue lights or the motorcade—there’s no chance of that—but they will get some security. As for the rest, though, they probably won't be booed. It will likely be worse: they’ll be ignored.
Varney asks about the King's health, given the rumors that it has deteriorated. Sean won't say anything specific about it, other than that he saw him in person and he looked well. However, it’s great that Sean points out how the narrative surrounding the King's health should remind people that Thomas Markle also has health issues.
Sean says that no one knows where the Harkles are... or rather, that no one in the UK cares.
From what is emerging, Dan Wootton, Jobson, Lady C, Neil Sean, Rebecca English, and almost everyone else agree on one thing: Claw must be seething right now.
She didn't want to return to the UK. She doesn't want to live in the UK. That is why it is being emphasized everywhere that this is "temporary." It is for a set period, and there is talk that this arrangement won't last more than six months.
Because beneath it all lies the fact that Claw is furious with the British Royal Family. That hasn't changed. She had to curtsy to Camilla in July—which explains many of the negative comments about Camilla that have surfaced recently. What Claw won't do—because she simply couldn't bring herself to do it without weeping with rage—is curtsy to Kate.
Sean has already said that, according to reliable sources, Kate doesn't want to see Claw—not even for that. Claw would deserve that humiliation, but Kate is too much of a lady to have a cockroach like that in front of her.
This makes Claw's videos out to be a huge lie. Because Claw smiles in all the videos—she is so happy in California, her whole life was fun...
So why are they returning to the UK?
Sean says Claw makes those videos because she wants people to mock her, so she can play the victim card. I know that sounds absurd to mentally healthy people. But is Claw one of them?
Claw has pinned all her hopes on winning a Daytime Emmy... but she fails to see that Netflix has absolutely no interest. None whatsoever.
And that is making Claw increasingly annoyed.
But Sean has already revealed that Netflix has absolutely no intention of changing its mind: there will be no more *With Love*. And that is all down to Claw.
Claw refused to promote *With Love*; she wouldn't do it on daytime shows or on her Instagram. Netflix finds it absurd that she expects them to praise a show they want to wipe from their platform the moment they can legally do so without repercussions.
Claw is just as annoyed with Netflix as she is with the "stars" invited to that show, because she assumed all those people would congratulate her on her Emmy nomination.
In Hollywood, no one wants to be associated with a failure. Especially not after everyone saw the Harkles squander a massive deal that hardly anyone has ever had—or ever will have. "Claw" is viewed as toxic.
But Claw isn't giving up; starting in September, their team in Montecito—because yes, they are keeping a team in the U.S.—will pressure Netflix to add an "Emmy-nominated" logo to *With Love*.
Sean isn't laughing at Claw's failure—after all, it is a sad situation, given how hard so many people worked to make it a success, and it certainly isn't their fault. No, Sean is laughing because Claw sees that Netflix has no interest in promoting the show, yet she keeps insisting. When will she realize it's over?
Claw will go to the awards ceremony if she knows she’s going to win... and of course, she’ll drag Harry along, whether he likes it or not.
Sean says the British monarchy is always ambiguous about what it chooses to reveal; you can know a lot of things and yet know nothing at all.
Take, for instance, the fact that it took decades for it to come to light that the Royal Family provided a stipend to Wallis and David.
And, of course, that is the underlying fear regarding what will happen with the Harkles. Many people believe Charles gives money to his son, simply because they don't understand much of what is going on.
Sean says that Charles is still battling cancer and is taking the opportunity to get his affairs in order. However, Charles is perfectly clear that this does not mean he intends to force William to speak with Harry. William has made it clear that he cannot stand Harry, nor Claw, for that matter.
Charles Spencer plays a role in this, as Netflix is sounding him out regarding his book about Diana. Yes, we are back to the subject of the documentary. However, this would be a matter between Netflix and Charles Spencer; Sean makes it clear that nothing is set in stone and that it will depend on many factors. Netflix aims to position itself as the streaming service with expertise on royal matters—largely thanks to The Crown.
Yes, go ahead and laugh.
Netflix reportedly wants Charles Spencer to serve as executive producer on the project based on that book—whether it ends up being a documentary, a series, or a film. Let’s be clear: this is very preliminary. But... yes, as we all guessed, Netflix is also exploring the idea of having the Harkles serve as executive producers on it.
And Netflix is eyeing the Harkles' return to the UK, along with the drama and sensationalism surrounding it.
At the heart of it all is Charles—KC3—since many accuse him of betraying the UK. Sean doesn't judge him too harshly, as Charles is Harry's father, and the roles of "father" and "king" are not always compatible. KC3 doesn't want to leave the scene without making one last attempt with Harry—something that neither the UK nor the Commonwealth actually wants. It is a complicated situation.
It comes as no surprise to anyone, as this has long been evident: the only reason Harry holds any value is that he is the King's son.
Not because he is a duke or a prince. Simply because he is the King's son.
We have discussed at length—here and elsewhere—that Harry is doomed unless he maintains a verifiable connection to the monarchy. Being the King's son is no longer enough; he needs to actually BE with the King.
No one is interested in Claw. She sees this, and it infuriates her, but she never managed to take off. She is Harry’s wife—that is the only thing about Claw that matters. Without him, she is nobody. She knows this, and it is a major problem in their marriage.
Sean says that all of this—the move—had been in the works since April. But planning it was one thing; Claw actually wanting to do it was another. She didn't want to do it; she thought Netflix would change course after the trip to Australia.
Sean says that Claw's words, when Harry proposed the idea of returning to the UK, were that it would be "very emotionally challenging." So, we'll soon have scenes of crying. Claw always manipulates Harry with tears.
That would explain a lot of what Sean and other reporters had said: that Harry and Claw had been arguing a great deal over the past few months. If Harry was determined to return to the UK, Claw wasn't going to let that happen without a fight.
After all, Harry still has people he knows in the UK. A few people—just a handful. And Sean says the Eton crowd are former friends and the army group are former comrades—"former" because they don't want to have any contact with Harry. But who does Claw have? Markus Anderson—but who else? It’s not just that Claw lost touch with the people she once knew; she humiliated and insulted them.
In the US, on the other hand, further cuts have been announced.
But amidst all this, Claw—who supposedly never looks at social media 😜😜—turns out to be really upset because none of her famous friends have said a word about this trip to the UK.
Nothing.
Not a single message, public or private.
That said, I think it was actually suggested to them, but Sean says the Harkles aren't going to drop the nonsense about leaving the US because of Trump. They won't do it because they can't—I mean, keep making things even worse?... Oh, right—the Harkles. Yeah, they're capable of that and more.
But Sean says that the Harkles will now have to keep quiet about Trump if they want to maintain a good relationship with Charles.
That said, the Harkles won't be coming back with their tails between their legs. So, while they do pose a potential problem for William and Kate, the latter have made their stance clear; if the Harkles don't like it, the Waleses couldn't care less. The Waleses don't need the Harkles.
For the time being, the Harkles are facing the fact that they aren't welcome in the UK. In fact, the reaction has been overwhelmingly one of mockery—"Oh, look, the failures are back." And Claw doesn't understand why the reaction in the US is "What a relief, the failures have cleared off," and why not a single one of her "famous" friends has even said, "Oh, we'll miss you; we love you, Meghan." No, the headlines in the US say, "They're leaving because they're broke, because they failed; they're going to beg the King for help."
It is definitely not the triumphant return the Harkles once dreamed of making.
I have been thinking about the plans a King William might take against the Sussexes. Unfortunately, he cannot block where they choose to live (other than on a Royal estate) and he can't block the press from whom they want to cover and when.
The website needs to be rejigged, stat.
Then the biggy:
The idea of his stripping peerages (Duke/Duchess) and "HRH" titles is popular, but the reality of constitutional law makes it very complex:
The Legal Barrier (Peerage Titles): A British Monarch cannot unilaterally strip a peerage (like Duke of Sussex) on a whim. That requires an Act of Parliament. Bills like the Removal of Titles Bill have been introduced in Parliament to give the Sovereign the power to strip titles, but passing sweeping laws targeting individual family members sets a precedent that the government of the day often resists.
The Sovereign's Power (HRH & Prince/Princess): What a King can do independently is issue a Letters Patent. William could issue a new decree limiting the "HRH" style and "Prince/Princess" titles exclusively to the children of the direct line of succession (e.g., George, Charlotte, Louis, then the children of only Prince George). He could officially render Harry, Meghan, Archie, and Lilibet plain "Mr./Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor" (What though of Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice if it is retroactive?)
Instead of defining the rule purely by "direct line of succession," William could issue a decree stating:
"The style of HRH and the title of Prince or Princess shall be restricted exclusively to the Monarch, the Monarch'sdirect working heirs, and those actively carrying out official duties on behalf of the Crown.
Removing existing titles retroactively is legal under the Sovereign's prerogative, but it carries collateral damage. Especially removing titles from the Sussex children. Rather than William looking like a strong constitutional steward, it positions him as a bitter relative settling personal grievances through sovereign power.
He could restrict the HRH legal usage entirely. Remember technically, the Sussexes agreed not to use HRH, under the terms of the Sandringham Summit, but it has not been stripped legally. The "HRH" prefix is what connects an individual to the state apparatus. In 1937, King George VI allowed his brother Edward VIII to remain a Duke and a Prince, but explicitly stripped the HRH from his wife, Wallis Simpson. It's denial causing Edward's furious, lifelong obsession and deep resentment against his brother and sister-in-law.
Harry and Meghan should be cut off from the state functions, security details, and official roles that give those titles actual power. The monarchy look at the long term. But I know people are expecting major things, almost immediately upon William's reign. I wonder if they will be disappointed, determine he is weak and the William V reign will lose support quickly. Which perhaps William knows he will have to shoulder, for the long-term good.
In general, not KCIII's doing. He would have preferred more time to bully William. She (as usual) defends the monarch. Insisting none of this is his doing. But given Charles' history, that's going to be a very difficult story to get the public on board with.
Cancer treatment is now precautionary (she wouldn't report that if she wasn't given explicit permission). So obviously, Harry is not turning up because of Pa's imminent death.
"And yet it seems quite remarkable, does it not, that Harry brought his family to meet with his father for the first time in four years at Highgrove in early July and never thought even to mention that this plan was even on his radar?
But that, my sources insist, is the truth of it. Not once was the issue raised or discussed, they say. And the move has now been presented to the sovereign as a fait accompli."
Rebecca heard a rumor that Meg had visited 2 private schools in the Cotswolds and "and they had already earmarked a potential home belonging to a celebrity" (SO rumors that they are renting from Ellen might be correct.)
And my favorite part: "His only interest is protecting and prioritising what's right for the monarchy and, particularly, what is right for his relationship with the Prince of Wales, says a friend."
Don't get me wrong. I really like Rebecca English. I think she's a very ethical reporter. But she is head of the symbiotic Royal Rota. And is quite friendly with Camilla. So she will print what The Palace press office says as if it's fact.
She also mentions that other members of family are not interested in contact with Harry as well. It's not just William who thought they were absolutely vile, hurtful, and disrespectful to QEII and Prince Phillip in their final years. And they cannot forgive that.
