The Harkles Win The Most Disliked Celebrities Of 2023
TW beats her puppet husband by coming first
The Harkles did win this accolade—the most disliked celebrities of 2023. They came out top with pals Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres and James Corden also making the top 10. Of course, that’s just from people who have bothered to vote, but is a good indication of public opinion mainly in the US, so the Harkles can’t keep blaming the British tabloids.
The news that Queen Margrethe II of Denmark is to abdicate in a couple of weeks has been a surprise to some as she is very popular and has reigned for more than 50 years. She will effectively resign on the 52nd anniversary of her ascension after a period of health issues. Many will see her as a wise monarch, who has been putting her house in order (removing titles from those who will not have royal duties) in recent times, and there has been the training Prince Christian who came of age this year. She leaves the Crown in safe good hands with a popular heir and his heir who has been taking on more royal duties. Can the same be said of the British Royal Family?
C3, at 75 years old is only 8 years younger than Queen Margrethe, and while William and George are next in line and things seem safe and secure, the issue of Harold’s status is still a bone of contention for the British public. This is because the government seem to be ignoring or turning a blind eye to some of the laws that protect the Crown, and one can only deduce that this is at the request of the current monarch.
Until the British government and C3 (who can make requests to them) addresses the issue of Harold still retaining the status of a Counsellor of State when he is not domiciled in any part of the UK (as per the law), and where the law states he should be removed until he returns due to what seems like an incorrect interpretation of the law, then how can one view C3 as having his house in order? As George has another 8 years before he comes of age, an updated Regency Act would clarify issues and help secure the Crown. As per the law, Harold would not qualify as a regent, therefore, would not qualify as a CoS, but the government are choosing to turn a blind eye to the law IMHO which makes one question whether the monarch is putting duty above all else. Ignoring the Harkles does not make the Crown safe, but is procrastinating on matters of state, again IMHO. While no one is advocating that C3 abdicate, he should at least have his house in order to deal with the worst case scenarios, and he hasn’t done that IMHO as Queen Margrethe has done.
Should anything happen to George’s parents before he comes of age, then who would be regent? It is presumed to be Harold as the next adult in the line of succession under the current laws, but he does not reside in any part of the UK as per the law so would be disqualified. One might think that’s fine as it will then pass to the next adult in the line of succession, but we have seen Harold make petty and ridiculous legal challenges to his security detail (taking the government to court), and the likelihood is that he or his puppet master would challenge the law claiming that as Harold was still listed as a CoS and not removed as per Letters Patent, therefore qualifying him as a regent. Can the British government take the risk that Harold could be in charge of the monarchy given his recent history of challenging the government, and who appears to be abusing the judicial system and using it as a platform for issuing personal and hostile subjective statements under the protection of the court to create his victim status? The government has a duty to protect the Crown for the People, and I would question as to whether they are doing this, and if they think they are whether they are doing an adequate job.
Archewell may have published a public copy of their 990 form, but it is what it omits that raises more questions. A retired auditor who has worked for HMRC and for US financial institutions gave me their thoughts on the public copy that was made available as if they were given the accounts to audit. Bear in mind, the IRS will have the final and signed copy and it would be up to them to carry out an audit.
The interest received on funds declared looks as though they could be transferring income/donations on and off book to different accounts. (This is what auditors look for when an entity has multiple companies and accounts and opens up further lines of questioning.)
As a tax exempt entity, Archewell is supposed to receive public support via donations and to show there is support.
Archewell received only two major donations of $1 million each, and questions arise of when (late on in the year to make the accounts) they were made and by whom.
If the above donations had not been made, then only $911 would have been raised in 2022, and their status as a charitable entity would have been in jeopardy as there would be little evidence of any public support or approval to warrant their charitable status.
There are concerns that the majority of the charities that grants were given to are political in nature, leading to the possibility of political interference from Archewell and the original donors of the funds to Archewell, therefore it should be deregistered to comply with the statute and governance of registered charities in the USA.
Without the identity of the 2 x $1 million donations and why this information was omitted, one can only suspect that there might be a reason to hide this. Obviously someone knows, as the person or entity would have had to have listed it in their accounts. But what is more telling is that no one else seemed to have donated to Archewell in 2022. Last year, there was a $10 million (anonymous Silicon Valley Community Foundation via a Donor Advised Fund—DAF ) and $3 million donation, again with the identities of the donors being omitted (Winfrey was a rumoured to be a donor in exchange for the ‘interview’ that she doesn’t want to talk about).
The retired auditor gave me this scenario based on their previous experience of auditing accounts…
Say for example the long established Gandalf Trust wanted to donate funds to the Bilbo Foundation, but didn’t want the IRS or the public to know that Gandalf was supporting Bilbo on the quiet because it would look hypocritical and show bias (and would come under public criticism), how would they do it?
As the Gandalf Trust already donates to the Frodo Trust and Samwise Trust who receive funds for youth programmes, what could happen is that the Gandalf Trust could give $3 million to the Frodo and Samwise Trusts, and ask them to donate $1 million to the Bilbo Foundation.
The IRS might not think it unusual because the donation is coming from a legitimate entity.
The red flag for the retired auditor was the donations being split into 2 x $1 million donations, with no other major donations being listed. Most entities would have no issue being named as a donor as they will have to list them on their own accounts, and the figure being exactly the same throws up a red flag as if they had been intentionally divided. For a company that has spent close to $500k on individual contractors for PR, it doesn’t appear to have generated much public support in terms of donations.
Christmas at Sandringham appeared to be relaxed and cheerful, with several members of the family wearing the scarf that C3 had gifted everyone. The public are still divided over the Yorks, not necessarily because Sarah aka Fergie was invited this year, but because the loyalty of Beatrice and Eugenie to the Crown is in question due to their relationships with the Harkles. Harold might be their cousin, but like the war in Ukraine, everyone must choose a side (either Ukraine or Russia) and it’s either the Harkles or the Crown—you cannot support both.
Let us hope that 2024 will be a stable and peaceful year around the world. Somehow, I doubt those words can be used to describe the antics of the Montecito circus.