The 'Destabilisation Strategy' ~ A Weak Monarchy And An Anti-Monarchist Government
The superb ‘Slow Horses’ aired its season finale this week where the destabilisation theory ended up becoming a reality, but that’s television isn’t it or is it? Watching the recent events in the UK, one cannot help but feel that there is an actual ‘destabilisation strategy’ in play, where suddenly the People who question things (and have cause for concern) or who protest, are silenced by the government with ‘what you say, do, or display can cause someone distress’ and can lead to someone being detained, or arrested for expressing an opinion, valid criticism, or even displaying a national flag. For a democratic country, where people are supposed to be free to speak their minds, what is happening is inherently wrong and is reminiscent of how extreme political groups (like Nazism and Stalinism) got their foot in the door to undermine democracy. The Harkles, like the current British government don’t like to be challenged and will shut down criticisms in order to push their own narrative. That is of course undemocratic and dangerous, because there is the truth (through facts), and a ‘perceived truth’, but by silencing the truth through threats, it means that people are being dictated to with a specific narrative and the actual truth gets buried.
I don’t buy into conspiracy theories but assess the facts available around me to decide what is happening in the world. What I see is a weak and sick monarch, add a royal sibling embroiled in scandals of a friendship with a convicted sex trafficker with an ex-wife who took millions from the aforementioned, and a son and his wife who publicly attack the monarchy and members of the monarchy with false allegations on a global scale, misleading people that they represent the RF and who monetise the titles despite being requested not to, coupled with an anti-monarchy government, and this has created a perfect storm for destabilising a country with a political party in power that has concealed Communist policies. Destabilising the monarchy is a key element of any Communist regime, and such political figures would snap up the opportunity to discredit the monarchy, and to strip people of their titles or status.
The current Labour government has been in power and control for less than 18 months (July 2024), and during this period the UK has seen unimaginable changes, and not one has been for the better of the country or the People. The millions of millennials who had been bleating about how the country needed a Labour government for more than a decade have suddenly gone silent as too, have the Labour celebrity campaigners. They can’t applaud bad and destructive policies that have affected them, but they can’t criticise them either for fear of looking, well, stupid and foolish. Some of these are friends of mine, whose social media posts were packed with socialist rhetoric. They are now silent as they realise they had been duped. There is a reason why many people who have lived through Labour governments would not vote for them again, and the younger voters have just figured out that some of the ‘oldies’ knew what they were doing by voting for anyone but Labour.
For those unfamiliar with UK politics, here is a short potted history of how we got here and how it relates the crisis the Monarchy currently faces. The Labour Party is a left wing political party and is traditionally the party of the working class, created in 1900 to strive towards bettering the lives of the working class and is still backed by the trade unions. It is also the party that is anti-monarchy (like The Guardian newspaper) and is a party many Republicans support. The Republic movement’s (pressure group) aim is, ‘To achieve the abolition of the British monarchy in favour of a democratic republic.’
The previous Labour leader was Jeremy Corbyn (2015-2020) who was transparent about his Communist beliefs, and this concerned many Labour supporters who are not all far left Communists or anti-monarchists, and this led to the ‘Red Wall’ where solid backbone Labour supporters turned blue (Conservative). Everyone thought it was too dangerous to have Corbyn as a Prime Minister who stated he would never use nuclear weapons if the UK was attacked thus endangering the security of the nation due to his personal beliefs. It says something when life long Labour voters trusted Boris Johnson more than Jeremy Corbyn!
Corbyn was at least open and honest about his beliefs but Labour members knew they would never get voted in with him as a leader. Enter Starmer, who became leader in 2020 to present day.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives were having their own internal power battles with the unpopular Sunak trying to buy his way into power, and failing to be elected by Conservative members not once but twice after forcing the elected Boris Johnson out. Johnson had held a snap election to allow the electorate to vote for him and his party in December 2019 after he become the leader of the party when Theresa May resigned in July 2019, even though a general election was not due for another 18 months. The Conservative Party are generally monarchists.
A coup to oust Johnson increased in speed, and a leadership challenge led to Liz Truss being voted as leader, where Sunak failed to be elected (losing to Truss was another embarrassment). Another coup ensued to oust Truss in 2022, and Sunak was not the favourite to win, but the other candidates were persuaded not to contest the leadership. Sunak, as the only candidate for the leader of the Conservative Party became Prime Minister by default and had not been elected by Conservative members or by the electorate. He was disliked by the public for the underhand tactics of removing the elected Johnson and Truss, and there was no way he was ever going to win a general election due to this and the polls predicted this. Therefore, the ‘Red Wall’ that had turned blue didn’t go back to red, but people either didn’t vote or chose Reform as an alternative.
Labour under Starmer won by default as the ‘Red Wall’ that secured a Conservative victory had crumbled. Labour supporters who didn’t trust Corbyn thought Starmer would be safer Within a few months, many Labour voters were dismayed and felt betrayed by Starmer doing a u-turn on promised policies, including the loss of the winter fuel payment for those of state pension age within weeks of gaining power. This left many elderly and vulnerable people choosing between eating or heating leaving communities to try and solve matters by setting up warm spaces as the price of gas and electricity also increased.
Some began to say Corbyn would have been better than Starmer because at least you knew where you stood. Later, it was revealed that Starmer had a Communist activist background and within the space of a year, liberties began to be curtailed as protesters against practically anything were detained, warned, or arrested for social media posts, or for holding a placard citing that what was written may cause someone to feel distressed. The number of illegal migrants increased as the Labour government rejected the Rwanda plan to send asylum seekers with criminal backgrounds there, and they were/are housed in 4 star hotels with full meals, all bills paid, access to dental and medical facilities via a QR code, given a cash allowance, and a mobile phone. Protests against the unfairness of migrants receiving housing and medical care as a priority over citizens began, as crimes increased in some areas with migrants stalking and harassing women, and the government said the rights of the migrants supersede that of the UK citizens (quote from Yvette Cooper, the then Home Secretary when a hotel case was challenged in the courts) who demanded that the migrants be moved away from residential areas and schools due to safety concerns of children walking home who were being followed by migrants.
The current government has limited free speech, and is trying to impose digital ID on the masses in what seems to be an attempt to monitor people and to control them. People have been detained for displaying or holding a George Cross or Union Jack flag, citing that it could cause distress to others, while some police are calling the display of flags as a ‘hate crime’ at protests, while others have been told to remove flags from their homes as it upsets some people. Yes, it’s beyond ridiculous. Meanwhile, businesses are closing down or failing due to tax increases imposed by the government, coupled with the NI hike and increase in minimum wage. This meant businesses were making less profit, paying more in tax, and so have had to close stores, cut staff working hours, and let staff go instead to keep the business afloat.
What does this have to do with the Monarchy? An anti-monarchy government that knows it has as single term with a sick monarch at the helm will inflict as much damage as it can on destabilising the monarchy, making decisions that cannot be reversed. Does the loss of Andrew’s titles affect anyone? No, not at all, but it’s a win for the Republican movement. Does Andrew being forced out of Royal Lodge benefit anyone? Again no, because at least it was being lived in and it’s not as if it can be rented out to just anyone as a historical royal home. Therefore, the stripping of titles appeases the Labour supporters and the Republicans who want to see the monarchy abolished. But by destabilising the monarchy slowly means it will become weaker, especially when it is in a fragile state (the added issue of the Harkles was not dealt with and has now festered into a problem where only an official exile and formal removal of the titles can save the monarchy) making it easier for abolition to become a reality.
The difference between Corbyn and Starmer is that Corbyn was open about his Communist beliefs while Starmer concealed them, and so the electorate were misled into voting for a closet Communist party to govern. Two thirds of the country did not vote and only 9,708,716 people (out of 69.23 million people in 2024) voted for the current Labour government, while Starmer claims he wants to create a new Britain, yet no one wants his vision and most of us quite liked Britain as it was already. The polls indicate that Starmer is the most hated Prime Minister of all time and even beat Tony Blair. That in itself tells the world that the country despises and doesn’t trust the current government who are not serving the People they were elected to serve, and do not represent their interests (financial scandals already with the Chancellor and former Deputy PM*, where the latter resigned).
While the government advises the monarch, it’s quite another thing to control or mislead the monarch, and the formal stripping of titles is what Republicans and anti-monarchists want, and only benefits them.
*A new Deputy Leader was voted in and the unions asked voters to vote for candidate A, and in an act of defiance many voted for candidate B (87,407 votes, from 14,000 ), not because they were better suited for the role, but stated it was because they were more likely to damage the party and bring the government down (quoted from a union voter). Candidate B had also been fired by Starmer only 6 weeks ago, making candidate A his preferred choice.
The previous Labour government was during a period of relative stability within the Royal Family back in 2010 (Gordon Brown) before Harold’s Las Vegas escapades.
Before TW married into the RF, the Republican movement was seen as a bit of a joke and no one took them seriously. When I began to document the Harkle saga, I was inundated with people posting Republican comments, as they took advantage of any platform that was critical of the monarchy to spout their rhetoric (I deleted and blocked these posts). I might criticise the RF and the monarch, but that doesn’t make me an anti-monarchist. I am neither a monarchist nor an anti-monarchist, but believe in a monarchy that serves the People with respect, honesty, and integrity or as close as it is possible. Right now, that simply isn’t the case. I blame it on a poor intake of ‘men in grey’ who have been ineffective and who have offered poor advice to the RF, and ineffectual communications and PR staff who tried to spin excuses for the Harkles and got caught looking stupid when their lies were outed.
The Republican movement has grown, mainly because the People have been dissatisfied with how BP/RF have handled the Harkles, by allowing them to monetise the titles, to go around freely making false accusations about senior members of the RF and the UK, disrespecting the Crown, carrying out engagements and visits under the guise of representing the RF, and using their titles to circumvent protocols within the judicial system. We also saw BP/CH/KP protect and defend the duo when formal allegations of them bullying staff were revealed showing little to no concern for the victims. That does not sit well with the People, and then we have the ‘dark cloud’ of the births of the alleged children where no medical professional has signed to say they witnessed their births from the body of TW. You can see why people are disillusioned with the RF when they disrespect the People they allege they serve, and lie to protect members of the RF when they have acted improperly or illegally.
Naturally, there have been scandals within the RF for centuries but we don’t get to hear the context or what really happened until decades or centuries later when the parties involved have passed. There was the late Queen Mother and her gambling debts that her daughter paid off, Margaret who was a heavy drinker and smoker and who had a number of unsuitable companions, Charles and Camilla both committed adultery, and Sophie was caught in a sting where there was an offer of cash for access to the RF within her PR company.
Then there was Sarah Ferguson, who brought shame and embarrassment to the RF and the British (the toe sucking incident). Even today she hasn’t learned her lesson as we discover she had been taking money from Epstein for more than a decade, but didn’t come forward with the information and hoped no one would find out. What I found galling was how both of her daughters would exclaim how amazing she was in their social media posts. They can love their parents behind closed doors, just as the mothers of criminals do, but don’t try and convince us that Sarah Ferguson is ‘amazing’. This helped contribute to the downfall of the Yorks, as she continued (as she had the right to) to use the Duchess of York title, and it’s no small matter when at least 6 charities publicly declared they did not wish to be associated with her when details of emails she sent Epstein after he had been convicted were released.
Prince Andrew, as his birth certificate names him took the step to voluntarily no longer to use his ducal title and to hand back the honours he had been granted in a BP statement on 17 October 2025. This was in agreement with the rest of the RF. Certain media outlets have loathed and hated Andrew for decades and there has been a witch hunt to take him down. The Daily Mirror would run non stories on him when no other papers did and there were serious issues happening in the world, so he must have upset someone there, and the BBC website ran about 10 stories on him in one day as they seem to despise him (and who cares what Virginia Robert’s trailer trash brother and sister-in-law think?)
The fact is that Andrew was disliked by many for being rude and arrogant, yet that isn’t a crime. He did serve his country in the Royal Navy and was active during the Falklands War, so these are facts that are undisputed. He is also stupid, and has poor judgement in choosing Sarah Ferguson as a wife, and Epstein as a friend, yet these again are not crimes. There may well be some dubious dealings he’s been involved in or associated with in, but then again so has C3 (cash for honours) when he was the Prince of Wales.
In the time between him announcing he was going to voluntarily cease using his titles, to another statement being issued stating that the titles and the prince title were to be formally stripped (17 October to 30 October) the tabloid media continued to hound him. They wanted him out of Royal Lodge and the prince title to be stripped, and it happened, how and why? It looks like the government had a hand in this with leaks within the offices of the Crown Estate claiming Andrew had failed to pay rent for X number of years, and that he was paying less than Edward. These are supposed to be confidential and private contractual matters, so it appears the current government were digging for information to remove Andrew. Why isn’t anyone asking how this information got into the public domain which enabled it to be questioned by MPs and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC)?
If C3 had wanted to formally strip his brother of all his titles then why didn’t he do that in the 17 October 2025 statement? Why change your mind less than 2 weeks later unless the government intervened and proffered ‘advice’? Why are the censures deemed necessary? The loss of the titles changes nothing in the lives of the masses, and one questions whether this action would have been taken with Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on the throne and under a Conservative government?
The Harkle saga was not unexpected when TW ensnared Harold and moved herself into Nottingham Cottage, complete with a dog making it much harder to kick her out. However, historians will debate as to whether it could have been handled better.
The Royal Marriages Act passed in 1772, was in place to ensure that those of royal blood did not marry unsuitable partners and to avoid scammers and charlatans from marrying into royalty. It was repealed in 2013 by the Succession to the Crown Act where only the first six in line to the throne needed the consent of the monarch to have a legally binding marriage where any issue (born of body) could inherit any titles. Therefore, Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II could have made them wait as her own parents did before she married, or even had said ‘no’ but there were fears of the race card and a defiant and disrespectful Harold who would cause more mischief. Harold had already ‘dumped’ TW once, and when she managed to get her claws back into him after stalking him at some events, she was not going to stop as in her mid-thirties her opportunities had dried up. BP and the RF had already tried to push her away, but the prize was too big for her to give up trying, after all she had no job and no home, thus had nothing to lose.
While some will prefer the conspiracy theory that TW was hired to infiltrate the RF and take it down, she has always been an opportunist and Harold is not the first wealthy or well connected male she has put her claws on in an attempt to better her status and bank balance. The previous ‘marks’ had proactive family and friends that took measures to make sure she stayed away from their loved ones.
The Harkles wanted the monarchy to work for them, and they took advantage of whatever privileges they could get with the titles and status they had back in 2018. Despite being told they should not monetise the title, TW continues to do so with her ‘As ever’ range but seemed to have to be told to halt the use of the title on the affiliate link site. They are dining out on the ducal title…
There is nothing stopping Harold from choosing not to use his title as we have seen from Andrew’s statement, where he voluntarily gave them up, but Harold’s title is the only ‘talent’ he has to offer as a commodity. When asked why he won’t stop using the titles when he has been outspoken about how much he loathes the monarchy and claims that it damaged him and that all within the RF are trapped, he simply said it wouldn’t make any difference, although we all know it would.
Take away the titles and it sends a message that the Harkles are not formally associated with the British Royal Family, and that what they do or say does not represent the UK or the RF. That’s what needs to happen and the excuse is that it has to go through Parliament. It doesn’t informally, but does formally. If Harold cared about the reputation of the RF he would cease to use his titles (as Andrew has done), but without them he is nothing and doors would not open and there would be no more freebies.
I think removing Andrew’s prince title was a step too far, so was this the ‘advice of the government to the monarch’ because it looks like it? Why would C3 agree to Andrew relinquishing everything except his birth title, only to decide it needs to be formal less than a couple of weeks later unless there was government ‘interference’? Perhaps they didn’t think C3 would agree, and that’s the danger with a sick and weak monarch who relies on advice from others. When the statement says that C3 is initiating procedures to remove the titles formally, can we believe that when there is an anti-monarchy government rubbing its hands in glee that they can control the monarchy?
I recall when Parliament was open, Clive Lewis MP (a Republican member) refused to swear allegiance to the King when sworn in, saying that all elected members should be allowed to take their seat in Parliament without swearing allegiance to the King and his heirs. He had to in the end in order to speak in the House of Commons, but indicates that there MPs in Parliament who wish to see the monarchy abolished.
I take this oath under protest and in the hope that one day my fellow citizens will democratically decide to live in a republic (a state without a monarchy).
Until that time I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, according to law. (Lewis)
What is the difference between Andrew and Harold and their situations?
Andrew is obnoxious, rude, arrogant, and stupid. But he has not used his titles, or for monetary gain since he stepped back from public duties and public life. He has not been disloyal to the Crown, he has not made false allegations against members of the RF. He does have an embarrassing former wife, and his daughters also appear to choose their friends poorly with some dubious friendships. Eugenie has been singled out as untrustworthy as she chose to visit the outcast Harkles in the USA and has been considered a ‘traitor’ for doing so even after the Oprah interview, where her beloved grandparents had been slyly ‘attacked’ by TW.
His ‘crime’ is to be associated with Epstein, and was accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl who was a member of Epstein’s staff. That in itself (if true) is not illegal (as the age of consent is 16 years old) but is morally questionable. The problem with Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s version of events is that her father stated that he gave her permission to go and work for Epstein, both he and she knew what she’d be ‘doing’ as no one hires an untrained masseuse to travel around the world to give massages with all expenses paid. Other victims have come forward to say Giuffre recruited them for Epstein and was not the victim she claimed to be. People are asking why didn’t she go after other men? There are many other high profile names in the Epstein list, and people are not necessarily sympathetic towards Andrew, but are asking why aren’t these other ‘names’ being investigated if she really sought justice?
He is now reduced to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, yet it is alleged his daughters will retain their titles but this is still in the air as it looks as everyone is making up rules as they go along and interpreting things that suit them because there is no precedent. The HRH is up to C3, and they were born Princesses, but if their father is no longer formally a Prince, should they be permitted to retain the titles despite LP issued by George V in 1917 to limit the number of princes and princesses? How can they hold the title which stems from who their father is, and who no longer has a prince title? They are both married and have the names Mrs Jack Brooksbank, and Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi already.
Harold should be stripped of his titles as he won’t relinquish them voluntarily, and he like Andrew is seen as obnoxious, rude, arrogant, and he is untrustworthy and has been deceitful and disloyal. Besides falsely accusing members of the RF of various things such as racism and abuse, he has permitted his wife to monetise the title and that was the aim from the start by trying to merchandise Sussex Royal until the late Queen put a stop to it. Then there is the question of interfering with the line of succession (treason) with his issue where they is no official medical evidence that they were born of body from his spouse.
In simple terms, the crime of treason is when a person knowingly produces someone (or themselves ) who has no legitimate claim to the throne, as one that does and is added to the line of succession. This could be someone using a false identity (as has happened in the past Perkin Warbeck), or passing a child off as born of body when it was either adopted or born via surrogate as DNA is not a qualifier for legitimacy, as DNA did not exist when the rules and protocols were established.
Harold should be reduced to Henry Mountbatten-Windsor, and TW still retains her legal name of Rachel Meghan Markle, or she could use Meghan Windsor? As for the faceless children, their birth certificates state the name Mountbatten-Windsor, but then again are they entitled to use Mountbatten as that is only for direct blood descendants?
The latest is the government is seeking to strip Andrew of his naval military honours. Honestly, surely their energy and time could be spent on more constructive matters that actually benefit the masses? Andrew losing another title or his medals affects no one’s life and makes no difference to anyone’s day. He’s not even using any tax payers funds, so what purpose does it serve except to destabilise the monarchy and to take any perceived power from them? Perhaps they told C3 this is what the People want and he agreed because he thinks it will endear him to the People, yet few care or discuss Andrew’s plight on the streets because it doesn’t affect their lives. He hasn’t been disloyal or bad mouthed the RF or the UK unlike the Harkles who use any opening to criticise the monarchy, yet seek to enjoy the privileges of holding a royal title without doing any of the work.
Over the past few days, people have realised that there has been a witch hunt to take Andrew down, and are questioning why should medals and honours he acquired while actively serving his country should be taken from him. He served in the Falklands War, defending the country in contrast to Harold who may have served in Afghanistan (against the wishes of the government) but the UK was not at war with Afghanistan and so he wasn’t technically defending the country.
The focus should be on Andrew’s mental health, and if his siblings and family care, they will take precautions to support him. Arrogance, rudeness, and stupidity are not crimes after all but publicly losing everything and being forced to leave your home will not be easy. People should remember he is still a brother, father, and grandparent.
The stripping of titles is akin to going to the Tower and being beheaded, yet when we think back to Tudor times, the public didn’t know the truth behind the execution of Anne Boleyn and it wasn’t until centuries later when historians pieced together a credible version of what really happened. Plots and rumours in court (like media witch hunts today) contributed to the execution and Henry VIII wanting another wife. Perhaps the same will be here, but is Andrew a traitor? Is Harold a traitor? The People seem to believe the latter is, and while Andrew appears to be an arrogant and unpleasant chap, a traitor he is not and perhaps he is falling on his sword as an act if duty to the Crown?
The removal of Andrew’s titles (voluntary and formally) has opened the door to permit the Sussex titles to go without the race card being thrown around. The question now is when will Harry’s titles be stripped, and not if, but why hasn’t it been done yet? Even when the titles go, the issue of the ‘issue’ in the line of succession has not be dealt with and is not an issue that should be used as a bargaining chip.