The Wrinkled Flamingo showed up to perform for the paparazzi with a po-faced co-star, while the extras in the hospitality box were supposed to look grateful to be in their presence. The event was a basketball game, the LA Lakers versus the Memphis Grizzlies, where normal people wear comfortable casual clothes to watch the game, while Walmart Wallis opted to perform in a wrinkled flamingo outfit.
Harold looked bored and uncomfortable most of the time, and there were boos from the crowd when they appeared on the kiss-cam, with TW giving a wave instead. There were the usual poses of clasped hands, fist punches in the air, and of course the poses with her faux smile with the mouth wide open, and the claw pawing away.
This was obviously a PR stunt and a couple of days later it became apparent as to why she was wearing a crumpled pink short suit. It had been designed by STAUD, owned by Sarah Staudinger, the new wife of Ari Emanuel, the CEO of William Morris Endeavor (WME agency). She had worn an outfit before by STAUD, the unflattering olive dress during the Southern Africa tour which hardly inspired anyone to wear the said outfit.
A quid pro quo, or part of the low commission deal? A few days later, WME announced that TW had been signed to the agency and would be handling her projects. The deal had probably been agreed a while back, but the announcement appeared to be timed for the Sussex PR campaign during the Coronation countdown.
This was of course to be expected, and it began the day before the game when Misan Harriman promoted TW’s new look as she introduced him for a TED talk. The WME announcement was promoted as an exclusive through the current Sussex platform, Variety magazine. However, many are wondering why they have signed someone with little talent, and where the ‘talent’ is the use of a royal title through marriage?
Harold’s case against News Group (The Sun) surfaced with a 31 page witness statement (rant) from Harold during the three day hearing. The statement reads like the ravings of a mad man, with inconsistencies that are usual with someone who is unstable or high. One minute TOS claims he didn’t know about the hacking until after the deadline for initiating a case, then he says he was prevented from making a claim due to an alleged deal made that involved the late Queen. He then claims the late Queen gave him permission to pursue the case even though the lawyers had stated that he could not. He also blames the media for how he has turned out, claiming they coerced him to play a role!
The basic premise is that he and his lawyers appear to admit to the filing being outside of the six year deadline (events from 2012), but is pleading for an exception, claiming the now King had prevented him from pursuing the case. This is because (subjectively) he believed that Charles and Camilla didn’t want anything to draw attention away from their roles, preparing to be King and Queen Consort, and that the alleged ‘secret deal’ by the Royal Household prevented him from making a claim in 2018. Basically, he is blaming the Royal Aides, the late Queen for making a deal, and of course C3 for preventing him making a claim earlier and is asking for his case to be an exception to the rule of law.
He also breaches William’s privacy by releasing details of a private settlement William had made, where he donated the proceeds to charity. It is claimed the information was released to persuade the judge that the time limits should not matter as it is believed William’s claim was settled in 2020. However, it was settled out of court and privately, therefore, it is possible it was initiated within the six year timeframe, and negotiations had taken a number of years to reach a settlement. Harold’s statements are patchy and lack consistent detail as if he has picked out parts that he has chosen, but they paint an incomplete picture which like TW’s ANL is confusing because there are omissions. If Harold was offered a settlement (alleged to be £200,000) then it makes his case less credible because the other party have made an offer to settle. That is what the courts want to see, and by refusing to settle, Harold looks as if he is out for revenge which is not what the courts are for.
A further hearing will be held in July 2023, but as this case appears to be based on the same alleged statement from Gavin Burrows (allegedly hired by the media outlet to hack phones) who claims that the statement is false and that he has not signed it, and one wonders how can the case proceed if this is so?
This was then overshadowed by the latest Coronation news of the addition of ‘Homage of the People’, and to be frank, there is little excitement. I’ve seen a few houses with flags and a few streets with bunting, but many shops haven’t really bothered yet with any displays or photos of C3 in the window and it’s less than a week now.
I’ve eavesdropped on conversations around town over the past week, and seniors who are the same age as C3 were discussing where to go on the day to escape having to see the Coronation. Others said ‘It’s only Charles and it’s not worth bothering with,’ and others had no interest. By contrast, the Platinum Jubilee was celebrated because people had time for the late Queen and respected and admired her. So far, while people accept that C3 is the King, it doesn’t mean they have to like or respect him, and the ‘Homage of the People’ has alienated fence sitters, anti-monarchists, and monarchists themselves.
BP appears to have read the room incorrectly again, but was this a PR move to try and write the history books? I’ve looked at both sides, and when the Homage of Peers was removed from the ceremony, one did not expect it to be replaced with the Homage of the People. Upon reading the news, I was initially appalled and considered it an unwise move to resurrect ancient Common Law from medieval times and to try and pass it off as inclusive and modernising the monarchy. The first things that came to mind were the Peasants’ Revolt, and that Charles I lost his head through arrogance and expectation of his subjects doing as he demanded.
The Homage of Peers was traditional, and because their titles and land have been derived from service to the monarchy, it is acceptable that they pledge their allegiance to retain the privilege of such titles and status in society. It should have remained (IMHO) and no one would have had an issue with it, and people would have been ‘interested’ in watching Harold pledge his allegiance to his father. Ironically, does the pledge mean anything of substance because Harold pledged his allegiance to the Nation and the late Queen, yet he has failed to honour that pledge by betraying his country through attacks, and by challenging the government by way of judicial review because he believes he is entitled to a specific protection detail that is paid for by the government?
What have the People in return? A one-off extra Bank Holiday in exchange for a lifetime pledge of allegiance that will be recorded on film and entered in the history books?
When broadsheets have to moderate or disable comments on the Homage of the People story, then you know the masses don’t approve. Lambeth Palace said they were ‘excited’ to include the Homage of the People, at which point how can one have faith in the Church of England if they truly believe asking people to pledge allegiance to an unelected head of state by claiming it is the law today? While those in public office such as judges, MPs, and those in the Armed Forces must take an oath of allegiance, that is because they are working for the Nation. Those who choose to become citizens of the UK or a Commonwealth country also declare an oath of allegiance as part of the process. In both of these cases each person knows that is part of the process and willingly accepts it. How can you be excited about advocating allegiance to someone that you don’t necessarily know or trust, and are told it is voluntary but is also alleged to be the law? What it does prove is that the Church, BP, and C3 are out of touch with People.
Much as been said of the wording where people are quibbling over the words ‘invite’ and ‘asked’ to pledge their allegiance. What one must look at is the intent with the implied expectations, and it was assumed that the public would embrace this without question, yet quite the opposite has happened, and has seemed to have alienated the masses. Others are complaining that it’s a choice as to whether you wish to pledge your allegiance or not, but is it really? If you are in public and don’t pledge, then people will judge you, yet equally, the masses will judge those who choose to pledge their allegiance. You have a choice behind closed doors, but not when you are in public as you are obliged to follow suit.
It creates an awkward and embarrassing situation where those who have pledged their allegiance before to the late Queen and her heirs have stated they don’t need to do it again, and there are people who support the monarchy, but feel it should be C3 who should be pledging his allegiance to the People, for he is supposed to serve the People, just as the late Queen did on her 21st birthday.
The Homage of the People was a bad idea (IMHO), and look at the words—these imply that the People will serve and respect the Sovereign whether they pledge their allegiance or not. People around the UK and abroad will be invited to pay homage, and is claimed to be voluntary, but the inclusion of the words ‘according to law’ contradicts the voluntary claim.
“All who so desire” to say together: “I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law.”
“God save The King”
“God save King Charles. Long live King Charles. May The King live for ever.”
That is the kind of language used in Communist states, and that dictators use in repressive states. Instead of appearing modern, the attempt to appeal to the masses and to look popular in the history books as a loved monarch has backfired. This was the kind of language used when during serfdom and when peasants were forced to pledge their allegiance to the Lords. It’s hard to see why any sane person thought that by adding this it would make people feel included in the ceremony when they are told the law tells them to effectively pledge their allegiance.
Why are people miffed about this? Because the pledge is made to appear voluntary, but with the implication that it is the law to do so. For instance, at a public event, people are asked to stand for the National Anthem—there is no law or punishment if you choose not to, but you are expected to abide by the request and will look out of place if you don’t. Some stand reluctantly and mouth the words while others stand because they feel they have to. When you have to insert the words ‘according to law’ the voluntary aspect of the invitation is eliminated.
As for Charles to ‘live for ever’, this is poorly worded as no one lives for ever and as he 74 years of age, he is the oldest monarch and his reign won’t be as long as his mother’s reign. However, failing or opting not to to pledge allegiance isn’t punishable by law (as far as I know), but recent monarchs have not requested the citizens to pledge their allegiance to them, and the move to add this in a more democratic society seems to be at odds with the concept of democracy and equality. People pledge their allegiance to their country, and not necessarily an individual these days. Eyes will be on Harold to watch him swear his allegiance— that’s if he shows up for the Coronation.
