Neil Sean is full of horse manure. He has no better sources than Lady C, River, or any of the other coattail riders of this farce.
That's why he always uses his "allegedly" phraseology.
People close to the Queen, Charles, and William don't talk. The only people who might have leaked it are the Harkles themselves.
Tominey of the Telegraph and Wootton at the Mail, and Kate Nicholls may or may not have better sources, these types usually have some channel - but people like Sean, River, and Lady C don't. No one worth his gravitas as a good source would talk to these people.
What irks me as an Englishman, and full disclosure, I despise the Harkles and have participated heartily in most of these discussions when they aren't tinfoil hat flailing about whether the kids are real or were there, is that there are NO threads on Charles' latest attempt to violate his absolute boundary of public political neutrality, but without appearing to do so.
His remark about the Rwanda Migrant Project was clearly a planned leak from someone on his staff so that his opinion got conveyed. Then CH releases a statement indignantly insisting that of course the Prince is politically neutral, and using the phrase "alleged private conversations", a phrase that neither confirms nor denies that that IS what the PoW said.
In this way, the PoW got his political views out, some mysterious staffer is the real culprit, and Charles thinks no one sees him doing what he specifically promised NOT to do - again.
If he's too stupid to see that everyone knows that he got his political opinion out there this way but is trying to dodge responsibility for it (this IS a policy of the Home Office and therefore a political issue), then he really is not fit to be King and should step aside for William, or die suddenly of a stroke in the middle of the night - either way, saving the monarchy.
Why wasn't anyone interested in this story?
I admit it is far less entertaining than the Harkles' antics, e.g., Meghan, yet again, being caught plagiarising other people's words by posting a quote attributed to her on the web site of a women's organisation she supports, which turned out to be, except for two words, whole cloth, by e.e. cummings'. The organisationi had to issue an apology, put the full quote up the way cummings' wrote it, leaving more egg on the face of this unrepentantly ruthless mindless bitch.
But it's immaterial to the monarchy that we keep talking about. What Charles did is an ominous sigh of a refusal to acknowledge that his position puts limits on him, and a lingering view that he can do what he likes, sit on the throne, and get away with it, after publicly promising "not to be a meddling King" - because he has form here.
I'd have opened the thread myself, but given the absurd number of inane threads already up about Sussex kids, Cambridge kids, Fergie's outift, et al., I figured no one would read it and it would get 15 replies and wither on the vine.
But it's much more important, and, as an Englishman, it enrages me.
