Video from The Royal Grift channel: Harkles' shell game.
It was 'called off' or 'not happening' after it was - then it wasn't - then it was...And now it has? But it hasn't.
So weary of the boomerang press and the olive branch publicity and all that goes with it. The world has bigger things on their mind right now.
Did the Palace officially announce anything? I don't know. I don't even care. Whether they got their $ or last drop of tears or whatever: Isn't it a family, private matter. Why do they keep manifesting and recycling headlines for her (must be) gargantuan scrapbook.
Is this about showing up the press due to the court losses against them? If I were a reporter or journalist I'd boycott the Harkle PR.
Give it a rest please. This is such a childish game.
Ann Widdecombe overview on life and the future. She "got it right" retiring from politics in 2010, she said. She was nearly 68 in this video.
Asked about how she might be remembered, Ann's reply included "she can't foresee" but if she "follows (her) mother," she could have "another three decades" in life. (Her mother, Mrs. Rita Widdecombe, died at 95.)
Posted because Ms. Widdecombe's outlook seems bright and cheerful here, despite a rather pointed edge to the questioning.
Police said the incident is not being treated as terror-related or politically motivated. British interior minister Shabana Mahmood said t
Ann Widdecombe was found deceased 9 July 2026, at her residence. On 10 July 2026, a 26 year old male suspect is in police custody, under suspicion of her murder. She was 78.
From 1987 to 2010, Ms. Widdecombe was a conservative Member of Parliment, in the House of Commons.
I loved his point about explaining. If a person respects another person, no one has to over-explain. He compared 'someone from a normal (he means, healthy) family' simply saying no, to someone from a (toxic?) family writing multiple drafts and a 3 page letter explaining their no.
If someone over-explains, odds are they are used to not being listened to. Odds are they face a debate or a pseudo-litigation, so they write up a (proverbial) court brief, hoping to be acquitted.
Boundaries are negotiated in toxic relationships - not respected.
This came up on 'suggested for you' on Insta.
I only am there to read, so I don't post, I observe. And so I get all sorts of things 'suggested' on there. I have a fairly eclectic 'follow list' as well.
In this case: the above images popped up on there, as a slideshow. The poster is called 'crafttochrist' - by her own description, 'she left the occult for Jesus.'
That is just to give some context. But I feel the above text images, by her, apply to so many situations today, and are well observed. I was gullible to such machinations for most of my life.
Some will add deception to it, and put a veneer of being 'inquisitive' or 'challenging' or 'instant bff.' If you just met someone and they 'love bomb' you (it can happen with anyone, including boss, friend, coworker) listen to your intuition. It is okay to change topic or say no.
If someone pretends to 'want to know more' or to 'ask questions' and something feels off: listen to your intuition. Some people will draw you out just to chop you up. (The why does not always matter.)
Mockery, sarcasm, feigning need: listen to your intuition. If you can just block them, that's likely best. Each piece of energy you give someone who is there with malice, they will savor like a steak cooked in butter.
The one who love bombs while asking so many questions: Listen to your intuition. I have been smear campaigned and slandered or libeled later in such a method, more than once, because I didn't realize - no matter how little you have, someone else wants it; others harm for fun.
For what it's worth: I have been online almost since it began: So, about 30 years. I have seen and experienced different things. I remained in denial and had to learn 'the hard way' each time. (Don't be me.)
She puts it succinctly in each text image, above. Online trolls do some of these methods indiscriminately. Food is food, to a hungry goblin. The advice stands on its own, without a spiritual context; but, to believers, there are indications this is all energy or spiritually based as well. The final image above is a list by her, quoting Bible passages.
I hope anyone will be helped by any of this. Credit for the images is to 'crafttochrist.' I tried sharing their post directly, but it would not work.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE DEBATE OVER SLAVERY When Thomas Jefferson included a passage attacking slavery in his draft of the D
Did you know an anti-slavery passage, 168 words in length, was removed from the Declaration of Independence?
According to Thomas Jefferson, Georgia and South Carolina, along with some state representatives from northern colonies, refused to sign the Declaration of Independence, unless the following was removed:
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
The 'he' refers to King George III.
Years ago, I felt disbelief upon hearing the Founding Fathers owned slaves. I recall trying to connect what seemed not to connect: The "all men are created equal" while slavery remained legal. What was the discordance which allowed that, I wondered, and found no answer.
Today I learned the author of the Declaration had included an anti slavery missive, but that some refused to sign until its deletion. A new type of disappointment, and puzzlement. Jefferson himself had slaves; he had children via a slave, who was also his wife's half-sister. History and humans are complex, is the best I can do with this.
But look how strongly this is worded. Had that passage remained, would freedom for all have resulted? The colonists mostly knew only a structured class system, with beliefs such as 'the poor are inherently inferior.' In the movie 1776, the Franklin character says: "First things first; independence." It would take nearly another century before the opening lines of the Declaration were rendered less ironic.
I heard this in the movie (it went over my head, clearly, as a child), so I looked it up. And to my surprise, this was true. What would have happened had those 168 words stayed in?
At least for a moment it was considered, a thought. But not one all would allow, at that time. It would later take a Civil War and President Lincoln's sacrifice on that cause (his assassin admitted that), to rectify.
Amazing. And just for curiosity sake: a rough draft of the Declaration of Independence.
snowghoul
kaledo-art
stormborns
discoholicmusic
blakekathryn
theartofmadeline
baratheonpilled
