YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → LADY C BREAKS SILENCE! Harry's Marriage, Meghan Questions & Sussex Financial Mystery!

LADY C BREAKS SILENCE! Harry's Marriage, Meghan Questions & Sussex Financial Mystery! — Transcript

by PALACE SECRETS · 2,624 words · 496 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00And Lady C, well, have had so many
0:02brilliant questions coming in
0:05from our outspoken members. So I want to
0:07get straight to them.
0:11Muday says Lady C, Archwell was found to
0:14be delinquent earlier in the year.
0:16Is it close to Archwell filing its
0:18second lot of accounts? I noticed on
0:20Charity Watch that it was noted they
0:21have not been filed. And where are the
0:23Sussex pair getting their money from to
0:25sustain their lifestyle? Is it from
0:27donations?
0:32>> Well,
0:33they Harry and Meghan's
0:36Archwell cannot take donations from the
0:39public.
0:41It's one of the conditions of their
0:43category of
0:46mix and match because they're
0:48part corporation,
0:51part
0:52charity.
0:54But they are bound by certain rules and
0:56regulations and laws which they have
1:01been
1:03well, skirting around
1:05because in their last accounts, I mean,
1:09I have
1:12a financial genius. He's an accounting
1:15genius
1:16who keeps me up to date on the reality
1:19of Harry and Meghan and their financial
1:22activities.
1:24And in their last accounts,
1:27the
1:29interest
1:31that they earned for the year
1:34was on $222,000.
1:38So that means that that's the entire
1:41amount that they had
1:43permanently for the year
1:46in their investment account.
1:50Notwithstanding that fact, I
1:53don't remember, but I think in the first
1:55accounts it was
1:58uh
2:0011 million and the second lot it was
2:02nine million.
2:04So
2:05my accounting genius said that it's oh
2:08it's fairly standard
2:10that people when they're moving money
2:13around they're smoke and mirrors that
2:16they move the money around and
2:20uh and but
2:22they
2:23they're not
2:25>> Half of you watching this are not
2:27subscribed to Dan Wootton Out Spoken.
2:29That subscribe button it is completely
2:31free and turn on the notification bell
2:34to be alerted to our new episode.
2:36>> Archwell does not have the millions
2:40available to it on a daily basis. On a
2:44daily basis it had 222,000
2:50but they spent more money or
2:54or an approximate amount of money
2:57on
2:59on expenses that they did it's I I'm I'm
3:02not very arithmetical so I I don't have
3:06my notes in front of me. I actually did
3:08a show on this or a part of a show on
3:10this.
3:10>> Which you can watch on your brilliant
3:12YouTube channel which if you haven't
3:15subscribed to I recommend everyone does
3:17because it's must watch.
3:20>> But so you know it's it's it seems that
3:24they really I my reading of the
3:28situation is
3:30they have a maxi they had a maximum of
3:3411 million dollars which they have been
3:37playing around with and moving around
3:40and it went from 11 million to nine
3:42million.
3:44Doubtless this year it will go down even
3:46more.
3:47Uh
3:48you know they earned pretty well for the
3:51first year that they were in the United
3:54States before they became so unpopular
3:59and so with each year it's going to be
4:02diminishing returns.
4:04But they they don't have a great deal of
4:07money.
4:08Uh, they have a massive
4:10mortgage on their house. They have
4:13massive expenses.
4:16And
4:17where did the money come from? I suspect
4:20some of it would have been inherited,
4:23and some of it came from
4:26their dealings.
4:29And of course,
4:31if you put things through corporations
4:35and charities, you save on tax.
4:39So, and Meghan very sophisticated into I
4:42mean, she's you know, if ever she
4:45decided that she wanted to cease being a
4:47scrubber, she could become a laundress.
4:50>> [laughter]
4:53[applause]
4:55>> Oh, I bow down to you, Lady C. My
4:56goodness, that's hilarious. Okay, Dave
4:58Murphy
4:59from Australia.
5:01And he's a big fan of yours, Lady C. He
5:02asks,
5:04Harry looks miserable to me. I think he
5:07is stuck between a rock and a hard
5:09place, but can Lady C see a scenario
5:12where Harry could return to the UK? And
5:15how would joint custody work in the
5:17event he chose to leave Meghan so he
5:19could still see the kids?
5:28>> I'm not sure that's a
5:30valuable question to answer
5:33because
5:35it's it's too complex. But in a best
5:39case scenario,
5:43if they separated
5:45and he and if they were divorced let's
5:47put it that if they were actually
5:49divorced
5:51and
5:53he
5:54moved back to England,
5:58he would see the children presumably
6:00some of the time they'd be allowed to
6:02come to England, and the rest of the
6:05time,
6:06uh
6:07he'd have to see them in the in
6:09California.
6:11Uh unless of course she should marry
6:15some billionaire and waft off with him.
6:18But I I think Meghan is going to prove
6:21to be like Angelina Jolie.
6:24Uh there are some women who will do
6:26anything
6:27to
6:28to work over a man.
6:30And children are fair game.
6:33>> Mm.
6:33>> And they will use the children.
6:35And I have little doubt that if there
6:39was a divorce, unless it was in Meghan's
6:43worldly interest,
6:46she would bend over backwards to be as
6:49nasty as possible. That's just her
6:52personality.
6:54>> Yeah, and it's why Harry was so stupid
6:57to move away
6:58because obviously it means the
6:59jurisdiction
7:01is in California,
7:03which is bad for him.
7:04So it's virtually impossible for him to
7:06come back. He's trapped. Although
7:07Elizabeth Byrd asks, why on earth is
7:10Harry trying to get back to London? This
7:12is this rumor Lady C that he wants to
7:15find a way back.
7:16Uh also, does Lady C believe that Harry
7:19and Meghan are in fact separated?
7:25>> I don't believe a thing that comes out
7:27of Harry and Meghan's mouth.
7:29Uh
7:30I know that they were
7:32trying to say last year,
7:35not now, last year, that they were
7:38separate separating. And I said at the
7:41time
7:42uh
7:43I'd heard it from two very liable
7:45sources, but I didn't I was not prepared
7:48to believe it until I actually saw it
7:51happen.
7:52And
7:54uh
7:55[clears throat] I know the marriage is
7:56very volatile and very up and down,
7:59which it would be because they're both
8:02pretty unstable and volatile
8:04individuals.
8:06Uh but I don't think it's positively
8:08volatile.
8:10See, it's not an Italian marriage
8:14and then
8:15and then you
8:16hug and make up and and it's all blood
8:19and it's it's it's not blood, it's all
8:22thunder but no lightning to strike
8:25anybody. I don't think I think their
8:27marriage is I think they're both very
8:33toxic personalities
8:35and two toxic personalities
8:38when they're not fighting everybody else
8:40will be fighting each other.
8:44And
8:47I mean I I don't really want to answer
8:49the question too too particularly
8:52because I don't believe in speculating.
8:56>> No, indeed.
8:57Uh Kathleen
8:59O'Mahony
9:01asks, I would like to know were Megan's
9:04children born of her body
9:07or via surrogate, which is obviously
9:09something that you cover
9:11in the updated edition of your brilliant
9:15book and I'll put a link for the book
9:18in the description.
9:21>> Well, of course, Dan, you will know we
9:23both have to be very careful how I would
9:26answer that because otherwise it could
9:29cause massive problems for us legally
9:31and financially.
9:34Let me put it this way.
9:37Megan's performance
9:39throughout her pregnancy
9:42was
9:43very bizarre
9:45[snorts] and
9:47whatever
9:49went on
9:50was
9:53definitely not what normally goes on.
9:58Whether it was
10:02Megan
10:05padding
10:07and
10:09Megan uh
10:12playing with the size of her bum or
10:17something else.
10:19It's
10:22there there is a story there to come out
10:26and I I feel sorry for the royal family
10:31because they have been
10:33they have been uh
10:35and and of course this Megan knows
10:40would be injurious to the royal family.
10:43So and this is also possibly why she
10:48has played things the way she's played
10:51them. It's it's a malicious and
10:53destructive
10:55mode of behavior
10:57that
10:59she has thought would put the royal
11:01family in a no win situation.
11:04But in fact
11:07if the royal family would simply have a
11:09bit of gumption
11:11they would find that they could put they
11:13could use all of this to put her in her
11:17place and in a no win situation.
11:20But they're obviously either not
11:22resourceful enough, not imaginative
11:24enough, not experienced enough
11:26and not brave enough. But it would take
11:30great courage because unless it were
11:32properly handled
11:34you know it could very adversely rebound
11:38upon them.
11:39And they are very mindful of the fact
11:42that Megan has played the color card
11:44from the word go.
11:46And that anything to do with those
11:50children and how they came into
11:53existence or the doubts as to how they
11:57came into existence
12:00or to cover the whole of the
12:02possibilities
12:05would have possibly racial implications
12:10because there will always be the doctor
12:13shoulders who
12:15because she's a woman of color when of
12:18course it's nothing to do with that at
12:21all.
12:22>> No.
12:22>> I mean women of color give birth every
12:24single day of the week without any
12:27irregularities and any speculation.
12:30And I've never known another woman of
12:32color or another woman without color
12:36to have
12:37to have performed in a pregnancy the way
12:39Meghan did, you know? I mean that bump
12:42had more ups and downs than Elizabeth
12:47Taylor and Richard Burton's marriage.
12:49>> [laughter]
12:50>> You're coming up with them today Lady C
12:53is on fire. [sighs]
12:54What I just want to say about this Lady
12:56C is that I'm not very across the birth
12:59of Lily bit because obviously that took
13:02place in California, but I was very very
13:06closely covering the birth of Archie and
13:08I think a lot of people forget that I
13:10was asking serious questions about this
13:13right back in May 2019. I published a
13:17column in the Sun with a whole load of
13:20questions for Buckingham Palace. Why did
13:23Harry and Meghan's American PR Sarah
13:24Latham promise to alert the media the
13:26moment Meghan went into labor only to
13:28wait 12 hours to do so? Why did she then
13:31seem to lie about it by eventually
13:33announcing Meghan wasn't labor 9 hours
13:35after she had apparently given birth?
13:38Why was the announcement delayed until
13:401:00 p.m.? There are so many questions
13:44around Archie's birth. I was asking the
13:47questions at the time, but I guess I had
13:51more trust in what Buckingham Palace was
13:53saying at that point. Uh but I was
13:55always asking the questions. I literally
13:57write in this column Lady C it's almost
14:00too ludicrous to believe.
14:03>> Well but we still don't have the
14:05answers. We still don't have the
14:06answers.
14:07>> I didn't know that you'd done all of
14:09that then and good for you, but the fact
14:11of the matter is
14:13asking Buckingham Palace when Buckingham
14:16Palace was being misled by Harry and
14:18Meghan.
14:20Uh, Buckingham Palace was relying on
14:22them for
14:24for
14:25for information.
14:27And they, you know, it's it's if they
14:31chose to not provide the information to
14:34Buckingham Palace, which again shows a
14:37degree of irresponsibility and
14:39malignancy
14:40because then
14:42the average ordinary expected response
14:46>> Half of you watching this are not
14:48subscribed to Dan Wootton Out Spoken.
14:50That subscribe button, it is completely
14:53free. And turn on the notification bell
14:55to be alerted to our new episode.
14:57>> Welcome back. Lady Colin Campbell has
15:00once again been discussing Prince Harry
15:02and Meghan Markle. And this time the
15:03conversation touches on several subjects
15:06that continue to attract public
15:07attention. From questions about the
15:09finances of the Sussexes's Archwell
15:11organization to speculation about the
15:13future of Harry's marriage, the
15:14discussion raises some interesting
15:16questions about the couple's life in
15:17California. One particularly intriguing
15:20subject is the possibility of Harry
15:22returning to the United Kingdom if his
15:24marriage were ever to end. But what does
15:26Lady Colin Campbell actually believe
15:28could happen? What do the financial
15:30figures she discusses tell us? And how
15:32much of the wider speculation is
15:34supported by evidence? In today's video,
15:37we'll examine the key moments from the
15:38interview, look at the claims being
15:40made, and consider what they could mean
15:42for the Sussexes. Let's begin. The
15:45interview begins with a question from a
15:46viewer about the financial position of
15:48Harry and Meghan's organization,
15:50Archwell. The viewer raises concerns
15:53about the organization's reported filing
15:55history and asks where the Sussexes
15:56obtain the money needed to maintain
15:58their lifestyle. This is an interesting
16:00question because Archwell has attracted
16:02considerable attention since Harry and
16:04Meghan established their life outside
16:06the royal family. However, it is
16:08important to distinguish between the
16:10finances of a charitable organization
16:12and the personal finances of the people
16:14associated with it. They are not
16:16necessarily the same thing.
16:18Lady Colin Campbell begins by discussing
16:20the structure of Archwell and the rules
16:22that apply to its charitable activities.
16:24She argues that the organization
16:26operates under a particular arrangement
16:28that comes with financial and regulatory
16:30obligations. Her central point is that
16:33charitable organizations must follow the
16:35rules governing their status, reporting,
16:37and use of funds. This is an important
16:39subject because transparency is
16:41essential for public confidence in any
16:43organization that operates within the
16:45charitable sector. But questions about
16:47financial reporting should be answered
16:49using the actual filings and relevant
16:51regulatory information, rather than
16:53assumptions about how much money an
16:54individual or organization has
16:56available. Lady Colin Campbell then
16:58refers to financial figures that she
17:00says were discussed in previous
17:02accounts. She mentions an interest
17:04figure of approximately $222,000
17:07and refers to earlier amounts of around
17:09$11 million and $9 million.
17:11According to her interpretation, those
17:13figures suggest that the organization's
17:15available funds may have changed over
17:17time. She also suggests that the
17:20Sussex's financial arrangements are more
17:22complicated than simply looking at one
17:23figure in an annual report. This is
17:26where careful analysis becomes
17:28particularly important. An
17:30organization's interest income,
17:32investment balances, annual expenditure,
17:34and total assets are different financial
17:36measurements. They should not be treated
17:39as interchangeable. For example,
17:41interest earned during a financial year
17:43does not necessarily represent the total
17:45amount of money an organization has
17:47available. Likewise, a change in
17:49reported investment balances does not
17:51automatically establish financial
17:53trouble or explain where every payment
17:55has gone. The proper way to understand
17:57the organization's financial position is
17:59to examine its complete accounts,
18:00including income, expenditure, assets,
18:04liabilities, and any relevant notes.
18:06Lady C's comments raise questions worth
18:08examining, but the figures need to be
18:10checked against the original financial
18:12documents before firm conclusions can be
18:14drawn. The interview considers what
18:16might happen if Harry and Megan
18:18separated, but a hypothetical question
18:20is not evidence that a divorce is
18:21imminent. These subjects are connected
18:24by the public's continuing interest in
18:26the Sussex's future, but they should not
18:28be confused with one another. Financial
18:30questions require financial records.
18:33Questions about a possible return to
18:35Britain require reliable information
18:37about Harry's plans, and claims about a
18:39marriage require evidence rather than
18:41speculation. That distinction is
18:44particularly important when discussing a
18:46family with young children. Lady Colin
18:48Campbell's discussion has raised several
18:50interesting questions about Archwell's
18:52finances, Harry's possible future in
18:54Britain, and the long-term direction of
18:56his marriage. Her comments about the
18:58organization's financial figures deserve
19:00to be considered alongside the original
19:01accounts, while her discussion of a
19:03possible separation remains
19:05hypothetical. The biggest question is
19:07what happens next. Will the Sussex's
19:10provide further clarity about their
19:12charitable activities? Could Harry
19:14develop a closer relationship with the
19:16United Kingdom again? And will the
19:18public eventually hear more about the
19:20private challenges facing the couple?
19:22For now, the interview offers opinions
19:25and possibilities rather than definitive
19:27answers. What do you think about Lady
19:29C's comments? Do you believe Harry could
19:32eventually spend more time in the UK, or
19:34do you think his future will remain
19:35firmly in California? Share your
19:38thoughts respectfully in the comments.
19:40Subscribe for more royal family news,
19:43celebrity developments, and detailed
19:45commentary. Thanks for watching.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of LADY C BREAKS SILENCE! Harry's Marriage, Meghan Questions & Sussex Financial Mystery! by PALACE SECRETS, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 2,624 words across 496 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.