purpleflowers are beautiful

“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream”

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@NicolaN63342196 @UnRoyalReporter Here’s the verbatim excerpt from the article: “Claim or counter claim aside, there is no reference to the arrangement publicly or in the “related party transactions” section of accounts — where one would expect to see any payments that could constitute a conflict of interest”

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@LynneSmith99 @geoffreyMyers1 I may be a fan. But above all I hope I stand on the side of integrity and honesty that @geoffreyMyers1 and you seem to lack

There was a time when British civility and integrity were a thing. But these pillars of a decent society seem to have been relegated to period movies

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@NicolaN63342196 @UnRoyalReporter It was withheld from their accounting records so there’s violation of legal compliance and self interest disclosure issues here

[Richard J Aitch @RichardAitch]

Check out my latest article: Are the Sussexes and serving MPs receiving the level of security their risk demands? https://t.co/6JsODL4ZUn via @LinkedIn

#closeprotection #executiveprotection #harry #princeharry #meghan #harryandmeghan #royalfamily #kingcharles

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@andrewlownie For a minute I thought you were a serious Brit journalist when you wrote about her/their ties to Epstein. His heinous actions has had a devastating effect on so many lives

But now I see that you’re no different from other royal stenographers parroting the same tired lines

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@webst15976 @andrewlownie Brit media said they were broke a few months ago. Now you say they have money from Soros do they aren’t broke. Plus they also have jobs and business interests so any extra Soros money is just icing on the cake for them

Presumably you’re being bankrolled by your employer

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@FranS199 @Catofbengals So in other words Brit media including the BBC is part of a royal protection cabal

The “free Brit press” is only free to report mostly negative things about Harry and Meghan

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@JeanBear1 Since you’re posting about the Brit royals, can you let us know your opinion about this 👇🏻

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@JeanBear1 Great! Hope they had a good flight with no turbulence across the Atlantic

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@RoyalReporter Are you planning on writing an article about this 👇🏻

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@EffieRe11930884 @panquequereal There are a myriad of reasons why they moved so I don’t know why you think that they moved bc of security

Brit tabloid overdrive on negative anti Sussex articles is making you lose ability to think critically. Ingesting too much of anything isn’t good. Consider tabloid diet?

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@NicolaN63342196 @Isobel_waby You should if you’re truly interested in the truth

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@NicolaN63342196 @Isobel_waby Again, the issue here is that a Telegraph article says he did.

AI search is ~40 to 91% accurate depending on the platform and yours clearly doesn’t reflect the Telegraph’s claim

So go search for how the Telegraph came up with their evidence

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@PalmaSeljan @King0243_PJC @thetimes Nowhere in Spare does Harry say Doria received money. You are deliberately lying to demonize and drive up hate.

What is it that turned you into such a moral degenerate? Is it racism or are you mentally ill?

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@NSome1ne The question is did they bring Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet to connect them with their historical lineage? Or to meet with their grandfather or both?

It is important for the kids to connect with their history to help them make an informed decision later

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@NicolaN63342196 @Isobel_waby So are you conceding that an exception was made for Tony Blair to pay for additional security? If so, he set a precedent that should also be applicable to every person with the highest risk profile including Harry

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@NicolaN63342196 @Isobel_waby You posted from a AI search which did not capture this dissenting view

I am suggesting that given that the article disrupts your infallibility on the matter, the onus is on you to locate the actual source in the Telegraph article to verify the validity of your claim

[purpleflowers are beautiful @Purple_6_4]

@NicolaN63342196 @Isobel_waby I posted an article from the Telegraph

Instead of attacking me for disrupting your preferred narrative why not google the article, identify their source to verify the evidence

Of course you won’t do this bc it requires discipline, work and an open mind

[Gabriel Pogrund @Gabriel_Pogrund]

Years after we revealed Charles accepted suitcases stuffed with millions in physical cash and awarded an honour to a Saudi donor who paid for the privilege, the King’s operation is still opaque and opposed to the most gentle scrutiny.

The Metropolitan Police ended up investigating his flagship charity such was the scale of misconduct and its chair, its chief executive and trustees quit.

Yet the foundation — which receives public funds and champions Charles’s personal philosophy of “harmony” — still struggles with familiar issues: its new chairman and new CEO both left recently. Staff complain of being underworked and overpaid. At one point, billionaire donors were going to be given access to HRH’s taxpayer-funded trip to the Vatican and accompany him to meet the Pope. (I reported on the plan, which was withdrawn.)

The monarch officially has no role in his foundation. But he remains involved down to the minutiae and the palace accepted last year he’d grown frustrated at one gardener, of whom he thundered: “Don’t put me in front of that man again!”

This was the context in which sources contacted us recently to reveal that the charity had been making tens of thousands of undisclosed “consultancy” payments to the King’s sister in law — Queen Camilla’s sister.

The charity refused to comment for a week but after we approached the Palace, it abruptly acknowledged Annabel Elliot is a consultant providing advice on “branding” and “retail”. This, they claimed, complied with their procurement processes. What that process amounted to they would not say.

Sources saw it differently, saying it was difficult to discern the outcome of the work but that it appeared to include accompanying the King on official visits involving the charity and keeping him abreast of internal developments.

Claim or counter claim aside, there is no reference to the arrangement publicly or in the “related party transactions” section of accounts — where one would expect to see any payments that could constitute a conflict of interest.

The “cash-for-honours”, “cash-for-access”, “cash-in-bags” and “cash-in-suitcases” stories we broke have all been met with cold fury by the palace — but inevitably came from people within or close to it who did not think it helped the monarchy for its institutions to operate without good governance or basic accountability.

Read our latest below: