mlndy boyd

Bank accounts? No need when their public charity filings show Archewell bleeding millions in expenses while donations cratered. Invictus facing sponsor exits, budget crises, and board resignations is all in the news—not Daily Mail fanfic. Calling verified reports 'gullible' while ignoring the facts? That's peak Sussex Squad cope. 😂

@rebalynn3234 @TudorChick1501 Did you look at their bank accounts? Cos if not then why would you think they are running out of money? Lol. All that you said shows that you are a dailymail reader and also follow Taz and the idiot who calls herself Meghan's mole, sigh. Stop being gullible!!!

All of these trolls mean and miserable on X, whilst Meghan celebrates a beautiful life with Prince Harry. She won. 🤣🤣🤣

No, the 'gutter press' didn't chase her out — she and Harry chose to quit royal duties after just 18 months, cash in on their titles with Netflix deals, Spotify podcasts, and Harry's memoir Spare, while publicly trashing the family that welcomed her. The Palace bent over backwards: they funded renovations, gave her a wedding, titles, and protection. She repaid it with Oprah claims, bullying staff allegations, and ditching family events. Harry hadn't met her father because she cut ties with him pre-wedding. Actions have consequences — this was never about 'disrespect'; it was about wanting celebrity freedom without the duty

@RFitzwilliams NO !IT'S YOU AND THE GUTTER PRESS CHACE HER OUT WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FOR HER TO SIT AND TAKE DISRESPECT AND THE PALACE DONE NOTHING ABOUT IT.

Looking back at the Sussexes Wedding 8 years ago I remember a superb ceremony and universal approval from an admiring press. Who would have thought that Harry would never have met her father & that they would not only have stepped down from royal life but brutally attacked the RF

@KenyaMonicais @grok is this accurate?

Leaving this right here. #HarryandMeghan #MeghanMarkle #PrinceHarry

@MattWallace888 Speculations no proof

It is becoming harder and harder for Taylor Swift to hide her secret

good come back Thought for 2s Love the revolutionary zeal, but let's check reality before the history rewrite: 'Stolen jewels': The Crown Jewels aren't the King's personal bling—they're state property held in trust, unsellable, and symbols of centuries of British (and yes, imperial) history. Most countries have artifacts from conquests; demanding selective repatriation while ignoring how many empires (including others) built their collections is just performative. The Koh-i-Noor was "gifted" under treaty—messy history, but opening that door globally would empty half the world's museums.instagram.com Properties to the government: The Crown Estate (worth billions) already belongs to the Crown (i.e., the state), not the King personally. He surrendered its profits to the Treasury; the Sovereign Grant is just ~12% of those profits (~£132m for 2025/26) to cover official duties like palaces upkeep, staff, and diplomacy—not his pocket money. The rest goes straight to public funds. Handing Buckingham Palace over for "year-round revenue" ignores that it's already a major tourist draw because it's the working royal residence.commonslibrary.parliament.uk Inheritance tax: There's a longstanding sovereign-to-sovereign exemption (agreed in 1993 when the Queen started voluntarily paying income tax) precisely because key assets mix official/private use and the institution needs continuity/independence. Private royal assets do get taxed when going elsewhere. Calling it "avoided" skips that it's a deliberate constitutional setup, not a loophole dodge

@LindaMagui48909 @MlndyB @hol40900 @grok King gives back all stolen jewels to the countries they stole them from. All properties which belong to the country give back to Govt, open doors all yr round to make money. King pay the inheritance tax he avoided when Queen died and pays tax on all his wealth the list goes on

Beatrice takes an Uber. Camilla flies commercial. Meanwhile, her father Andrew keeps his armed guard – paid by you. The crown wants credit for slumming it. No thanks. Abolish it. 👑🚕🔫

Pointing out your defense of selective privacy stunts isn't 'lying'—it's quoting you. No one's 'telling her what to do with her kids.' We're noting the contradiction: lecturing the world on child online safety one minute, then dropping backshots (or clearer ones) for likes the next. That's not controlling—it's calling out hypocrisy. If consistency bothers you, that's a you problem. Focus on spotting it."

@MlndyB @King0243_PJC Please point to my defense? You're so filled with unhappiness you are lying on ME? It wont work. After those lies you still wont feel any better about yourself. Im discussing YOU. You'll never tell her what to do with her kids. Your attempts to do so are delusional + controlling.

Brittany, you are a vulture circling the Sussexes for scraps, obsessively trying to bully Meghan into revealing her children’s faces, schools, and private lives so the outrage machine around your content can keep running. Unlucky for you, she has protected their privacy with remarkable discipline: back-facing photos, no clear images, no identifying details, nothing that gives strangers genuine access to Archie or Lilibet. Most people outside their inner circle would not recognise those children today. That is protective parenting, not hypocrisy. The real exploitation is your business model: manufacturing outrage, demanding public access to children for clicks, then crying “exploitation” when Meghan shares a carefully controlled family moment. It is deeply cynical and transparently predatory. Your entire online identity depends on monitoring Meghan’s every move. Maybe log off, touch grass, and find work that does not revolve around harassing a mother for engagement.

Telling someone to 'focus on themselves' while rushing to defend a celebrity's selective privacy stunts is peak irony. If Meghan wants to lecture the world on online safety, she shouldn't use her kids for Instagram likes the day before. Consistency isn't 'dictating lives'—it's calling out hypocrisy. You focus on spotting it

@MlndyB @King0243_PJC Mindy you dont get to determine how people live their lives. Focus on yourself and becoming a better person.

Incredible video of what a popular, respected, and beloved real royal arriving to an event.

This is a fabulous point!!

Stalker? Nah, just a taxpayer who watched Harry lecture the world on privacy while you two monetize selective 'family moments.' My profile's consistent scrutiny of public figures. Yours? Endless defense of half-measures that scream engagement farming. Projection called—it wants its mirror back. 😌"

@MlndyB @King0243_PJC Look at your profile. Nothing but wall to wall Harry and Meghan. You’re a stalker.

@Ordinarypathta1 @King0243_PJC Stalking? It's a public post, genius. The real delusion is calling half-measure engagement farming 'admirable discipline.' Touch grass and find better arguments.

@MlndyB @King0243_PJC Stalking strangers then accuse them of engagement farming? You can’t make this stuff up. Seek help please.

Projecting much? Wanting consistency from public figures who monetize 'family moments' while lecturing the world on child privacy isn't creepy—it's called basic scrutiny. The real red flag is defending half-measures that scream 'engagement farming' over actual privacy. Touch grass. Bye!

@MlndyB @King0243_PJC If you feel enraged by strangers concealing their children’s faces on sm, somebody needs to go scour your hard drive. Seriously.

Your point on selective privacy stands out because it's a consistency test: Harry has spent years on global stages warning about online child exploitation and the dangers of digital exposure, yet Meghan's Instagram (and their occasional family shares) includes those curated back-view or silhouette shots of the kids that keep engagement rolling without full anonymity

If Meghan's 'discipline' is so admirable, tell her to stop posting the kids entirely instead of drip-feeding backshots for likes. Selective privacy is just marketing. You're mad at the wrong vulture." "Defending 'back-facing photos only' as heroic parenting is wild. Either keep them private or don't. This half-measure lets Meghan farm attention while you attack critics for wanting consistency. Glass houses, mate.

Exactly—other people’s lives matter too. So if random celebs want to post their kids for engagement while preaching 'privacy,' the public gets to comment on the hypocrisy. She doesn’t get to control everyone’s feed and then cry foul when people notice the selective marketing. Consistency or quiet, pick one."

@Lilocah1 @MlndyB @King0243_PJC it’s other peoples lives too and if they want to post pictures of their kids she can fuck off

Sharing 'beautiful moments' with fans while Harry tours the world decrying online child exploitation is the definition of selective privacy. If it's truly just innocent family snaps, post them normally — or don't post at all. Drip-feeding backshots for engagement while claiming protection is the half-measure. That's not a 'me' problem; it's a consistency one

@MlndyB @King0243_PJC She’s sharing beautiful moments with her fans. Trailing and latching on to things you don’t like and complaining about them is a “you” problem.

I'm advocating through public discourse like this—pushing platforms for practical, privacy-respecting tools first (granular controls, targeted AI detection, transparent algorithms). Government mandates often overreach and backfire. What specific policies are you pushing your reps for? Or is this just 'someone should do something'?"

@MlndyB How are you advocating your government to implement better safeguards?

The important part is how social media platforms can instill better safeguards to protect vulnerable users. @MlndyB How do you want to achieve this?

Harry & Meghan's IG mirror selfies with the kids on the floor as props? That's curated influencer content from a multi-million dollar Montecito mansion after they publicly burned the 'contract' and signed Netflix/Spotify deals while complaining about media.'Authorized by the palace for good press' — yes, that's literally how the entire Royal Family has operated for decades, including the Sussexes when they were working royals. Harry himself called it the 'invisible contract' — the trade-off of access and positive stories for privacy. William and Kate release official photos from public events (like Charlotte at football) for the calendar and archives. That's transparent, not some shadowy deal.bbc.com

@MlndyB @RiaW383778 @benjic_parody William and Kate showing their children is wholesome? But Harry and Meghan protecting their children’s faces is somehow shady? Critical thinking skills jump right in the trash when it comes to your hate for Meghan.

Posting a sweet photo of your daughter helping you pick out your outfits isn’t “using your child as a prop.” Filming a half-assed video with your daughter because you couldn’t be bothered to show up to the woman's final is.