GeorgWood

[The Jewish Chronicle @JewishChron]

How did we cope without Prince Harry’s wisdom on the Middle East, Anglo-Jewry and Judaism?

https://t.co/fRxH3MoWW1

[Royal News Network @RNN_RoyalNews]

Just the title of this article made me laugh out loud, but the whole article is rather brilliant. Here's the best line: "Prince Harry is, in effect, some random bloke who lives in California with his wife and kids. But when you have as towering an ego as the Duke of Sussex seems to possess, why let your near-total ignorance of the subject and your lack of any relevant credentials stop you from opining?"

Again, allowing Harry, the Earl of DUMBarton, to speak on such matters is PR malpractice. He's not remotely qualified to speak on this matter in the slightest and continues to show himself as an idiot on the international stage. Perhaps Harry wants to be a world class statesmen like his brother or father, but given that he's too dumb to create a podcast on hot chocolate, I believe is also too dumb to have any discernibly coherent or intelligent view on matters in the Middle East. He should stick to surfing in a swimming pool. That's Harry's level.

https://t.co/pfYpE4AQnB

[Rebecca English @RE_DailyMail]

The King, Queen, Princess Royal, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester at today’s Buckingham Palace garden party ☕️ 🥪 🍰
Many of today’s 8,000 guests are first responders

[Royally Sage @sage1411]

Let me help preserve this for humanity. 😂

[GeorgWood @GeorgeLuff84]

@itvnews @chrisshipitv Why are you giving him airtime!!!!!

[Eric Daugherty @EricLDaugh]

🚨 REPORTER: Prince Harry wants you to do more in Ukraine

TRUMP: Prince Harry? How's he doing? How's his wife? I know ONE thing. Prince Harry is NOT speaking for the UK. That's for sure. I think I'M speaking for the UK more than Prince Harry! 🔥

[GeorgWood @GeorgeLuff84]

'How's his wife?': Watch Trump hit out at Harry over Ukraine war remarks - Sky News https://t.co/4VdD3ZVbRA

[GeorgWood @GeorgeLuff84]

@according2_taz @nancytsidley I wish he’d just fuck off… so bored of people entertaining his claptrap

[Zarah Sultana MP @zarahsultana]

Yesterday I was suspended from the Commons and escorted off the parliamentary estate for calling the Prime Minister a barefaced liar.

I would do it again.

Every person in this country knows that Keir Starmer is exactly that.

I will always speak truth to power.

[GeorgWood @GeorgeLuff84]

@according2_taz God I wish they’d actually just go away….. I’m sick of hearing about them

[༺𝐻𝑅𝐻 𝐿𝒶𝒹𝓎 𝒥༻ 👑 @HRHLadyJ]

Griffiths’ Sussex Cheerleading: Flirty Messages, a Harmless Tweet, and the “Security Crisis” That Isn’t

Oh, the delicious, slightly faintly nauseating irony.

In the latest masterpiece of “journalism” from the Mail on Sunday, Charlotte Griffiths, longtime Sussex cheerleader in chief, and the woman who once exchanged “mwah xxx” texts and nostalgic “weekend of naughtiness” banter with Prince Harry, has declared that Markle’s £1,400 per head girls’ weekend retreat in Sydney is being “overshadowed by growing security concerns.”

The supposed villain, according to the article, is an online “troll” who allegedly plans to infiltrate the event and secretly record everything.

Except if you actually read the X post Griffiths breathlessly parades in her article, and even screenshots for maximum drama, that’s not what it says at all.

The post is from @MeghansMole, who wrote: “I hatched a plan with a friend who lives in Sydney to attend the best life weekend, they have been accepted & has a spot secured. Good luck figuring out who it is, Meghan 😊.”

So to be clear, the person Griffiths’ article frames as a troll isn’t even the one attending. Her friend bought the ticket, was accepted, and secured a spot. There’s no threat, no mention of hidden cameras, no declaration of sabotage.

Just someone saying their friend's going to an expensive commercial wellness event and ending the post with a cheeky smiley face.

That’s it.

That's the great security crisis now apparently overshadowing Meghan wellness weekend.

And, predictably, other outlets that do zero reporting of their own have now lifted this entirely fabricated narrative and run it as fact, amplifying a manufactured security scare fed by a well placed Sussex mouthpiece.

What a pathetic, manipulated, and entirely predictable state journalism is today.

If this is genuinely just a paid weekend event for adults, it’s hard to see why one mildly cheeky X post about a ticket holder has suddenly become a national “security concern.” It now warrants a headline, a full page spread, and dramatic language about infiltration.

Griffiths injected the “secretly record” angle entirely on her own. She turned a post that never mentioned cameras into an infiltration plot, complete with implied recording devices.

It follows the same long-standing pattern: Griffiths spots a random anti-Sussex social media post, exaggerates the threat, and rushes it into print as proof that Meghan's under siege even from ticket-buyers at her own paid event. This is peak Sussex media protection racket.

It gets even more absurd if you remember this point.

Meghan has publicly said she only sees about 1% of what is written about her online. One percent. And yet somehow a obscure X post, which was neither nasty, threatening, nor defamatory, has been blown up into a fully fledged media story about security risks and infiltration.

Or are we to believe that Griffiths was so troubled by this non-problem that she felt compelled to carry the banner for the Sussexes?

So which is it? She sees almost nothing written about her, or she and her team are monitoring random social media posts closely enough to turn one into a security storyline in a national newspaper?

You can’t really have both.

It also raises a very practical question. Is this just setting the scene for something else? If this event, which even supporters admit isn’t exactly selling out, fails to pull in the numbers needed to make it worthwhile, what comes next?

Does it quietly go ahead anyway, or does it get shelved?

And if it does get cancelled, does “security concerns” suddenly become the reason?

It would be a very convenient and commonly used talking point. Not lack of demand, not ticket sales, not profitability, but safety concerns. Something nobody can really argue with and nobody can easily verify. A ready made reason sitting there in advance, just in case.

Or perhaps this is simply another example to add to the ever growing list of security concerns that seem to follow Harry everywhere. Another incident that can be pointed to later, another example that can be referenced whenever the subject of protection, danger, and risk comes up again.

Either way, the whole thing feels very carefully positioned.

None of this should really come as a surprise.

For well over a decade, Griffiths has operated as one of the Sussexes’ most reliable and consistently sympathetic voices in media. Her stories have an uncanny habit of appearing at exactly the right moment with exactly the right framing. Sources who only seem to echo the Sussex version of events, narratives that appear just when they are most useful, and coverage that rarely strays far from their preferred storyline.

But the real irony in all of this is almost too perfect.

Just days ago, in the final stages of Harry’s privacy lawsuit against Associated Newspapers, which is the very publisher that employs Griffiths, a caché of 2011 to 2012 Facebook messages between Harry and Charlotte surfaced in court.

Harry had testified under oath that he barely knew her. Met her once at a party thrown by mutual friend Arthur Landon. Had no idea she was a journalist. Immediately cut contact when he found out. No relationship. No ongoing friendship. Nothing to see here.

The messages read like the most awkward exhibit imaginable for “liar, liar, pants on fire,” and told a very different story.

Harry messages her: “It’s H, in case u were confused by name and picture!!! X.” He calls her “sugar.” He talks about “movie snuggles.” He jokes about drinking her under the table. He fondly recalls “our weekend of naughtiness” and gives her his private mobile number.

Griffiths replies: “Hello Mr Mischief… What a fun weekend of naughtiness, can’t we all get up to no good in the countryside every weekend damn it?? Smooches, CG String. Xxx.”

It’s friendly, familiar, and clearly more than a one time introduction at a party. It’s the very opposite of “I barely knew her, Your Honour.”

And yet here we are in 2026, and the same woman Harry swore was practically a stranger continues to step up, hold the line, and churn out pro-Sussex propaganda.

The whole situation looks deeply awkward.

This latest “story” isn’t an exclusive.

It isn’t investigative reporting.

It isn’t a story at all.

It’s a social media post about a friend buying a ticket, twisted by Griffiths into trolls, infiltration, and “security fears,” all to pull sympathy for the Sussexes. Meghan isn’t facing an organised threat. She’s hosting an over-priced lifestyle retreat for paying customers.

It all feeds the same familiar narrative. Even when they are hosting a luxury weekend event, there still has to be a sense that someone, somewhere, is out to cause trouble.

The Facebook messages didn’t just embarrass Harry in court. They also cast a very long shadow over years of Sussex coverage.

Every glowing Griffiths exclusive, every sympathetic Sussex story, every conveniently timed narrative now looks rather different when you know the history.

Griffiths isn’t just another journalist merely covering the Sussexes. She’s carrying water for them. Still. After everything. After the texts. After the lawsuit against her employer. After the world saw just how close she once was to one half of the Montecito brand.

And now we're meant to believe that a friend of a ticket holder posting a cheeky message on X represents a serious security issue worthy of national coverage.

It would almost be funny if it weren’t so transparent.

[Lady C @LadyColinCampb]

I confess, I am genuinely entertained by the Charlotte Griffiths/Prince Harry saga.

It's been well known for some time that she and Harry used to have penetrating conversations, so it was all the more surprising when Harry stood up in court and perjured himself stating that a) he didn't know she was a journalist, b) stopped associating with her when he found out she was one, and c) had the unmitigated gall to make out that she was a liar about the depth of their relationship, when in fact he is the one who was lying.

Associated Newspapers parting shot at the close of Harry, Elton John, David Furnish, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, Simon Hughes and Doreen Lawrence's attempted money grab into Jonathan Rothermere's deep pockets has been to publish just enough of the written exchanges between Harry and his snuggle companion and fellow (former) drunkard Charlotte Griffiths, which indicates that they had a very intimate and enduring relationship of some standing, which opens up the question: Will Mr Justice Nicklin feel obliged to refer the matter of Harry's untrue testimony to the Police for investigation as to whether he should be charged with perjury?

While I doubt that Mr Justice Nicklin will have much of an appetite for breaching the practice whereby most judges in civil matters turn a blind eye to untruthfulness under the principle that shading the truth is to be expected as each party tries to win, the fact is, Harry should be charged with perjury. Not only did he knowingly lie, but he also did it in anticipation of making a shed load of money in damages. So it's both perjury and extortion.

[Queen Esther @XOQueenEsther]

Dear Invictus Games Foundation,

You say the foundation exists to support the recovery and rehabilitation of wounded, injured, and sick service personnel. Everyone agrees with that mission. No one is questioning the courage, sacrifice, or experiences of the veterans who compete. They deserve respect, recognition and the spotlight.

But your statement tries to blur an important distinction. Questioning the direction, leadership, or public image of the Games is not the same as diminishing the experiences of injured veterans. Criticism of how Invictus is being presented is not criticism of the men and women who served.

By suggesting that questioning anything around the Games is “disrespectful,” you effectively shield the organizers and the celebrity figures attached to it from scrutiny while placing veterans in front as a moral barrier.

If the focus truly belongs on courage, recovery and camaraderie, then the spotlight should remain firmly on the competitors themselves. Yet increasingly the public narrative around Invictus revolves around Prince Harry and especially Meghan Markle, who is neither a veteran nor a participant in the Games.

When coverage of an event meant to honor wounded service personnel becomes dominated by Meghan Markle’s appearances, wardrobe and personal publicity moments, it is fair for people to ask why. Especially when she does not even wear Invictus merchandise to promote the Games while reportedly spending lavishly on personal presentation during the events.

If Invictus truly believes the focus should remain on those who served, then the simplest solution is obvious. Put the veterans back at the center and stop allowing the Games to become a stage for the attention whore Meghan Markle.

[GeorgWood @GeorgeLuff84]

@sage1411 How can he encourage psychological safety when he doesn’t allow anyone to ask him difficult questions ! That is the complete opposite ….. what a moron

[The Royal Family @RoyalFamily]

The Duchess of Edinburgh has visited Somalia, at the request of the @FCDOGovUK, to continue her work supporting survivors of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) in the region.

Her Royal Highness met President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud at Villa Somalia, and afterwards joined his daughter Jihan Hassan Sheikh Mohamud to meet survivors of conflict-related sexual violence perpetrated by al-Shabaab.

In Lower Shabelle, The Duchess visited a Somali village to meet the wives of Somali forces, who explained the challenges they face while their husbands fight for a more secure and stable Somalia.

Visiting a hospital in the centre of Mogadishu, The Duchess learnt about the impact of a UK-supported sexual and reproductive health service programme operating in regions affected by insecurity and displacement.

Read more on https://t.co/qE9dcx9h5x (link in bio).

[GeorgWood @GeorgeLuff84]

@XOQueenEsther And who probably paid to get the business up and running …… 🤔

[HarrysGreySuit @hrrysgreysuit]

It has been announced that Duke will be a keynote speaker at the International Association of PRIVACY Professionals Global Summit in Washington DC.

👇
Which happens to coincide with a major appearance by the King and Queen.

Duke must have told them to write this part - the organisers describe Harry as a ‘humanitarian, mental health advocate, environmentalist and military combat veteran.’ 🤣🤡

1-800-rent-a-moron
https://t.co/qScEDnUGr4

[Camilla Tominey @CamillaTominey]

Prince Harry is the king of insufferable, bloviating hypocrisy. This week’s column👇🏻 https://t.co/x9Eio3rO3C

[Angela Levin @angelalevin1]

Well said Queen Esther

[Queen Esther @XOQueenEsther]

So let me get this straight.

Prince Harry walked away from duty, responsibility, and service.
He trashed the institution.
Monetised his grievances.
Accused his family, his country, and his people of cruelty and abuse.
Moved to California to cosplay as a persecuted celebrity.

And now, after all that, the UK taxpayer is expected to automatically fund armed police protection for his visits.

Not because he serves the country.
Not because he represents the Crown.
But because he made himself a global target by running his mouth for money.

This is not “fairness.”
This is rewarding recklessness.

Security risk is not something that magically appears.
It is created.
By interviews.
By books.
By Netflix tantrums.
By deliberately inflaming hatred while cashing the cheque.

You do not get to light the fire and then demand the public pay for the fire brigade.

And let’s address the emotional blackmail being wheeled out right on cue.

“Family visits.”
“Children’s safety.”
“Grandfather.”

Interesting how the kids only become relevant when taxpayer-funded perks are on the table.

Meghan Markle chose to leave.
They both chose to leave.
They chose distance.
They chose exposure.
They chose profit over privacy.

The UK did not exile them.
They flounced.

Calling this a “formality” is insulting.
Calling it compassion is dishonest.
Calling it necessary is absurd.

Millions of people face threats without armed police escorts.
Public servants who actually work for the country do not get this level of protection.
But a California resident who despises Britain apparently does.

If he wants state protection, he can return to state duty.
If he wants a private life, he can pay for private security.
What he does not get is all the benefits with none of the responsibility.

This is not about safety.
It is about entitlement.

And the British public should be furious.