Meghan Markle Megxit Finale?

      Comments Off on Meghan Markle Megxit Finale?

Meghan Markle is “Royally Stripped” but still retains her Titles and Style

New York Post illustration – Meghan & Harry

It’s now official! Meghan Markle is Royally stripped of her patronages. This according to an official announcement by Buckingham Palace on 19th February 2021. This might be all is well, but Markle still retains her titles and style. Unless her titles and style are completely removed, closing the book on Megxit remains to be seen.

Why Meghan Markle should be “Royally Stripped” of her Titles and Style

Meghan Markle still represents a “power player” despite the fact she will not return to royal life. This is because she continues to “bank” on her title as the Duchess of Sussex. She continues to be billed in this way for all speaking engagements, Spotify and Netflix deals. Whilst she cannot use her style of HRH, she is still allowed to financially gain from that association. Furthermore, she is considered “Princess of the United Kingdom” because of her marriage to Prince Henry of Wales, but most likely Princess Henry of Wales since she is no longer a “working” royal.

If Meghan Markle intends to sever ALL ties with the British Royal Family, she should leave the way she came in, sans titles, style and honorific. To retain such prestige is deceitful. Markle should do so without reticence, as it would be the right thing to do.

Some may argue that Wallis Simpson retained her title as the Duchess of Windsor. But those who know history can argue that it was King George VI that drew up Letters Patent (1937) that bestowed the Dukedom and title of Duke of Windsor to his brother, the former King. Wallis Simpson became her Grace, the Duchess of Windsor upon her marriage to His Royal Highness. Furthermore, Simpson was never styled HRH.

Meghan Markle is “Royally Stripped” – Erasing Meghan Markle

As of 28th May 2020, Meghan Markle’s HRH style was removed from The Royal Family website. The style, however, needs to be ‘officially’ stripped.

Meghan Markle’s Lame Response: “Service is universal.”

In response to the Buckingham Palace announcement, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry put out, “Service is universal”. Did anyone expect anything else from a spoiled Narcissist? The unremarkable Ms. Markle never cared about “service” unless it was to elevate herself.

Mayhew “Staged” PR

The “staged” photo below is a “classic callous” Markle move. It was a PR stunt at Mayhew Animal Welfare Charity in London. Here she posed with a “distressed” dog. She is crouched down touching the dog’s back. Her eyes are looking up and she has one hand over her mouth. She “indicates” to the audience that she is very concerned. She looks “weepy”. This was posted to the Sussex Instagram site in January 2020.

Markle was appointed this Patronage where they re-home dogs and cats. But what has she done with her own dog, Bogart? She ditched him in Canada so she could go off to the UK to become Princess Diana 2.0.

Rich results on Google's SERP when searching for 'Meghan Markle'
Sussex Instagram

Meghan Markle is “Royally Stripped” – A chip off the Diana block

There are plenty of parallels made by keen observers including Andrew Morton, who wrote a book. Markle and Prince Harry announced they were expecting their second child on Valentine’s Day, 14th February, similar to Diana, Princess of Wales who did so on 13th February. It is quite ironic that Prince Harry is the second son who also publicly announces he is having a second child in similar fashion to his mum.

However, unlike Diana, Princess of Wales, the ‘Monticeto Windsors’ still maintain their style HRH, albeit they were directed not to use them during the Sandringham “Megxit” agreement.

Odd Wikipedia entries (Extended) – Tom Bower Revenge

Editors Note (29-July-2022): Confusion in Tom Bower’s book ‘Revenge‘ warranted our response. Gabrielle Bourne Media (GBM) is aware of the excellent readings of the book by others, including ExposingSMG, The Royal News Network and Lady C (dramatisation). Thank you to our loyal followers for the “heads up”.

However, there are inaccuracies in the book pertaining to the Wikipedia entries of 9th October 2016 that we have to address. We will explain. Additionally, we are planning an extended feature about these changes. Furthermore, GBM will provide a complete summary of Tom Bower’s book to coincide with Prince Harry’s “Hagiography”, in a point by point analysis, and perhaps rebuttal. Stay tuned.

Most readers are confused about Tom Bower’s “writing style”, it appears by the comments we received. Mr. Bower is an “intentional” writer and he leaves plenty of “clues”. In films and other visual art format, this would be called “easter eggs”.

Now, let’s dissect the issues with the Wikipedia entries on 9th October 2016 mentioned in Tom Bower’s book.

Odd Wikipedia entries – The Tig

The Tig was already referenced on 28th October 2014. This was under the heading, “Personal Life“. The description said Markle was “the face behind The Tig“. That changed to “the founder of the Tig” on 13th November 2014. So, it’s not possible that these updates occurred on 9th October 2016.

There was no mention of the Tig in the 8th November 2016 update, where Kensington Palace announced the relationship of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. On 14 December 2016, The Tig was mentioned under the heading, “As Actress” in one line that “Markle is the founder and editor-in-chief of lifestyle site The Tig“.

What is clear, based on further investigation, a Wikipedia “comparison” went viral on the internet in 2020. This may be what Mr. Bower believed to be accurate. Mr. Bower should have contacted Gabrielle Bourne Media, instead. We had been tracking Meghan Markle’s “revisionist history” since 2018.

Odd Wikipedia entries – Rwanda and World Vision

Rwanda and World Vision was NOT an update made on 9th October 2016. It was already referenced on 29th June 2016, under “Personal Life“.

Tom Bower’s Revenge – Wikipedia 9th October 2016

There is evidence that ‘significant‘ updates were made to Meghan Markle’s Wikipedia page, leading up to the ‘official’ palace announcement of her relationship with Prince Harry on 8th November 2016. These changes included adding an “Humanitarian” heading, and deleting any reference to Deal or No Deal and briefcase number 24.

What is really odd is the fact that Wikipedia skips over the 9th October 2016 edits in their public archive. Instead, the archive jumps from 22nd September to 8th November 2016.

Not Sunshine Sachs – Contrary to ‘popular’ belief, the changes were NOT made by Sunshine Sachs but another PR agency, traced by their unique IP address used to make the edits. Tom Bower does not mention who made the edits, only referencing “a PR agency in Los Angeles”. Gabrielle Bourne Media knows that PR agency and it is not Sunshine Sachs.

Odd Wikipedia entries – Kensington Palace

The 8th November 2016 was significant because that was the day Kensington Palace confirmed that Markle was in a relationship with Prince Harry. But to elevate Markle with an “Humanitarian” status from “obscurity” void of any significant charity experience was very strange. After all, Markle was a PR spokesperson.

In addition, a line was added to her “Personal life“. The line stated that “It was reported in November 2016 Markle had waived the right to financial support from Engelson”.

Odd Wikipedia entries – Up and down grades WTF?

Wait for it. Yet more edits. Our webmasters thought WTF was appropriate. We will explain.

Meghan Markle held on to the “Humanitarian” headline until WTF occurred on 20th May 2017, “Humanitarian” was swapped out for “Other Activities“. Additionally, Corey Vitiello was mentioned. There is an interesting ‘overlap’, since Vitiello was still living with Markle whilst she was ‘seeing’ Prince Harry. Wikipedia, however, cited Markle was dating Vitiello “prior to dating Prince Harry“. The line about “financial support from Engelson” was removed.

Then WTF again. Is someone trying to tell us something? On 18th October 2017, “Other Activities” was swapped out for “Other Work“. This might be the case that Markle never added to her very, very, very short PR charity history. As we had been banging on about since day one, Markle is no Humanitarian. There is also a Vanity Fair entry. Then WTF again, as the “Humanitarian” heading returned on 3rd December 2017.

Markle was then “downgraded” to “Charity work” on 21st May 2018. This was after her marriage to Prince Henry of Wales. This was the right move since Markle was never an “Humanitarian”. On 18th October 2020, however, “Charity work and activism” was added. Then again it was changed to “Charity work and advocacy” on 14th December 2020. These constant revisions made it very clear that Markle was not happy with just “charity work”. No, she had to add a bit of “padding”.

Markle in constant revision

Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne had confirmed to Daily Mail on 7th April 2018 that Markle “wanted to be recognised as an humanitarian”. But pretending to be an Humanitarian when you were not is fraud. Markle also pretended to pay for her education. She gave a speech at University of the South Pacific in Suva, Fiji claiming she did.

Here is an example of another Markle education fakery. On 12th June 2008, Wikipedia noted that “Markle would eventually go back to Northwestern for her Master’s in International Diplomacy”. But in an entry on 28th October 2014, it was changed to she “expressed” an interest in going back for her Master’s. The problem with these entries are they are complete polar opposites.

It is true any qualified editor can make edits on Wikipedia. Celebrity pages, however, are usually maintained by a representative.

Who is Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne?

Meghan Markle sycophants, fanatical media and the general public may not be aware of how Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne and Kruger Cowne elevated the “unknown” Suits’ actress. We presented our findings in “The Minx Report” in May 2018.

It’s amazing that the fanatical media haven’t bothered to investigate Markle’s charity “service” claims. They were too busy fawning over Markle, calling her a “breath of fresh air” to bother to check the facts. So, we did the investigation in the interest of the public trust in the United Kingdom. If you read The Minx Report in 2018, you understood why our “elation turned to “suspicion” after the infamous BBC interview in November 2017.

Gina had confirmed that Markle expressed interest in working with her. Gina worked with Meghan right up to a week before Markle went public with her relationship with Prince Harry. In 2017, Wikipedia noted she joined Prince Harry with the charity Elephants Without Borders. The “charity” works and events Markle is solely credited with since 2014 was due to Gina. In addition, Gina secured “endorsements and sponsorship deals with leading brands“. And how did she end her relationship with Gina? In typical Markle fashion, via email. After that, it was through Markle’s attorney for something so trivial as to the use of a photo.

Unless you actually knew who Gina was enough to do a search, the lack of fact-checking by the fawning media was deafening. Gina has more insights about Markle than the media. This included the fact that Markle Googled Prince Harry prior to their first meeting.

Rich results on Google's SERP when searching for 'Meghan Markle'
Brendan O’Neill Spiked 22-Feb-21

Meghan Markle is “Royally Stripped” – The Final Word

~ Sky News Australia 22-Feb-21

Price Harry and Meghan Markle demand privacy yet are only too keen to “publicly opine” about almost every left-wing issue there is, says Sky News host Alan Jones. “They like the media attention but only when it involved drip-feeding us plebs with woke messaging”. He said the Queen has “thankfully seen them off,” after the two “cut ties” with the Royal Family. Mr Jones said Harry and Meghan have been continuing on with their “nonsense,” all while Prince Philip remains in hospital. “As with all things Harry and Meghan, it’s all about them,” Mr Jones said.