TOS has been working it seems, and his employer (BetterUp) chose to share a few gems with the world — all I can say is that if these are the best clips they had, God knows what was edited out! Obviously, BetterUp probably paid a hefty price to have a slot and to promote the company, at the Masters of Scale Summit, but how can you take it seriously with such gibberish being uttered? BetterUp bought TOS for his title, and not his world salad sermons.
We hear the same old phrases that TOS has been repeating, except this time he claims he wants to be the best friend, or best buddy possible. Is there is a difference between a friend and a buddy? Has he got any left? With pals like James Corden who are publicly outed as being rude in public, who would want to be his friend? Corden initially claimed he did nothing wrong, even after he apologised to the owner of the restaurant where he had been outed as a rude customer, and he arrogantly thought he had got away with the scandal. Alas, the backlash continued and he then stated that he was wrong and realised that he had been rude, but didn’t think he had been. Basically, he is apologising because he has no choice and because the world decided he was rude and behaved inappropriately. Perhaps he should have listened to his pal TOS, and should learn to be a better friend and human being?
It’s hard to stifle a giggle when you hear TOS pitching BetterUp on stage, claiming that we all need therapy and coaching and that it can change your life. Well, it can in the hands of qualified professionals, and only if you feel you need it. Therapy is very different from coaching—the former deals with coping with specific issues, whereas coaching is paying for a paid-for-friend to listen to your woes and dilemmas and who can give you advice without the fear of losing a friend. Quite frankly, TOS is hardly a good example of someone who has had either, as it is apparent to many that he is in dire need of intensive therapy.
The underlying theme that both TOS and TW/No.24 promote is that the world is a big bad place, and that everyone is a victim and is suffering from trauma, and that they have the solution to it all! In the video clips you want to shout ‘Tie up his hands for the love of God’, as he flings his arms around like a slippery eel trying to escape the jaws of a shark. He throws in the words ‘to scale’ as terms of success, but as ever, does he even know what he is talking about? He talks about being a the best boss he can be for his employees—well, he failed there where there have been so many Sussex staff resignations. Coupled with the bullying allegations from former members of the Royal Household, who had worked for the Monarchy longer than TOS had—who would take advice from a boss that has bullied staff into having to resign and who have to have therapy to cope?
He then has a dig at his upbringing, claiming that people are a product of what they are ‘exposed to’ and plucks a figure out of thin air, claiming that 99.9% are suffering from unresolved grief, trauma, or loss. You can only think WTF did he come up with that figure, and who did that survey? Where did he do his psychology degree? Was it an online BetterUp course? You’d think he had brought up in an orphanage, abandoned, and left starving and homeless the way he is carrying on…
His claim is, that due to his upbringing as a privileged prince, he is suffering from ‘unresolved’ issues. It’s quite clear that therapy doesn’t work for TOS, as he has had therapy since he was a child. He has even admitted this over the years with William in joint interviews, yet since meeting No.24, his recollections do not suit the Sussex brand narrative and his recollections now vary into the realms of Pinocchio, and ‘you big fat fibber’.
TOS also arrogantly states that he wants to be the best leader he can be—would that be the leader of the Sussex cult? While the issue of TOS being removed as a Counsellor of State is discussed again, it should be reminded that legislation exists already to remove him by Letters Patent due to the fact he is non-resident in the UK and is absent from the country. It is not necessary for a Counsellor of State to be a working member of the RF, but non-residency is a disqualification, for example, if TOS still lived permanently in the UK, then he is entitled to be a CoS. This means that if TOS returns to the UK permanently, then his position as CoS, as long as he is still in the line of succession would be restored.
It is up to C3 to issue Letters Patent to do this. Previously, the question as to where TOS was domiciled was in question, but C3 in his own words stated that TOS is living overseas. (Regency Act 1937; Section 6, Subsection 2.)
For subsection (2) of section six of the Regency Act 1937, (which makes provision as to the persons who are to be the Counsellors of State to whom royal functions may be delegated in accordance with the provisions of that section) there shall be substituted the following subsections :—
“(2)Subject as hereinafter provided, the Counsellors of State shall be the wife or husband of the Sovereign (if the Sovereign is married), and the four persons who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, are next in the line of succession to the Crown, or if the number of such persons next in the line of succession is less than four, then all such persons :
Provided that, if it appears to the Sovereign that any person who, in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this subsection, would be required to be included among the Counsellors of State to whom royal functions are to be delegated, is absent from the United Kingdom or intends to be so absent during the whole or any part of the period of such delegation, the Letters Patent may make provision for excepting that person from among the number of Counsellors of State during the period of such absence.
TW, aka as No.24, is trying to cash in on the title again while she still has it, with an announcement that she would be a guest speaker at the Indianapolis Downtown Marriott, for the Women's Fund of Central Indiana, who are holding ‘The Power of Women: an evening with Meghan the Duchess of Sussex. People with more money than common sense will be asked to sign a disclaimer that they do not work in the media, and pay $10,000 for a table of 10, where $5,000 is tax deductible. A basic table os $5,000 for 10 seats, so the cheapest seat is $500! The event is closed to the media, but of course the organisation are doing this for PR, as is No.24, so basically they wish to control copyright of the content. I wonder if Netflix will show up as they must be struggling for some decent material?
I imagine on the night, the room will consist of people with not particularly high levels of intelligence if they are willing to spend money to listen to a word salad sermon. Surely if they have cash to spare, they can donate it to worthy causes such as the homeless during winter, rather than to spend $500 on a meal and to watch a grifter in action?
The event is being held on 29 November 2022, and the social media pages of the organisation already limited comments, and even deleted the post about the event due to the negative comments. One local news channel posted the story, and few seem to be excited about the event. It’s clear that the organisation are using TW/No.24 for the ducal title, because would they be interested in the girl from ‘Suits’ that posted pictures from a jet set lifestyle on Instagram, because that’s what she was?
Yesterday was podcast day, so who was the ‘victim’ that needed to be saved this week? It was the inevitable angry black woman, where No.24 declared herself to be 43% Nigerian (where Nigerians have claimed her as theirs, and they are welcome to her), and she used it as a platform to defend her bullying actions. She has claimed she was not difficult but was particular—that’s another way of saying you are arrogant, demanding, and can be a bully.
“You’re allowed to set a boundary. You’re allowed to be clear, does not make you demanding. It does not make you difficult, it makes you clear.”
That is the subjective view of No.24, but many consider it to be inappropriate and bullying behaviour. These are the rules according to the bully herself, and a bully often makes excuses to justify their actions. There is no excuse for rudeness, and multiple sources have quoted her rude remarks—one can be clear and assertive without being rude or aggressive. Is ‘being particular’ the new word salad terminology for being a passive aggressive bully? Cleary, No.24 has no boundaries when it comes to rudeness or human decency…
