I’ve been reading comments regarding a child who is somewhere in line to the the British Crown. Being as we are drowning in lies, some of us have taken up the study of liars. One of these, Jésus Enrique Rosas, The Body Language Guy on various platforms, was reviewing a new book and a photograph, noting the oddity that the alleged child belonging allegedy to the alleged Duke and Duchess of Sussex is a child whose face has never been seen. Who ever heard of taking a photo to announce the birth of a new child and not showing the child’s face in the photo?
We learn the answer to this: Exclusive rights to the child’s image has been sold to the highest bidder, by the alleged mother of that alleged child.
The comments have more information than the body language analysis in this case. Media people are looking really afraid to talk about the subject of identity fakery at high levels, perhaps because they are complicit fakers themselves. The subject here is a new book called ”Revenge” by Tom Bower, which deals with many Royal oddities, in a carefully worded way. It’s not a blog like this, written by a penniless nobody, pointless to sue and impossible to blackmail. No, it’s a real book and he’s a prominent Barrister not wanting to be brought to court.
I also learned in the comments that the British people are aware that group photos of the baby with the Royal family are photoshopped and that there is general anger about it. It’s commonly known that an image of the Queen and Prince Phillip looking at a horse was cut and pasted into a photo to make it look like they were thrilled with this imaginary baby whose face is completely hidden by a shawl.
This is the comment that I thought better to cut and paste entirely:
Comment by SusieUK (this is a youtube comment 17 hours ago, not me):
“you are utterly right that this is about exploitation. As a Brit, let me explain… When Tom Bowers says they were staring at a shawl, he’s being sarcastic, but that’s exactly what he means. The photo, indeed, showed them staring at a shawl where you couldn’t see his face. There’s no deeper significance than that. Though it is a HUGE statement. It means – reading the book and this chapter – that Meghan had sold the rights of this child’s image to the highest bidder. Turned him into a public spectacle that SHE controlled and wants payment for. That isn’t how a birth in the line of succession to the British Royal family works. And those who have any decency, beyond our shores, will recognise that fact too.
“The British form of Government is a Constituitional Monarchy. That means it exists as an invisible, traditional contract between the Monarchy and people – with the Government having the Parliamentary powers. But the Monarchy is there as a safe guard and buttress against Parliamentary abuse. It has existed for centuries in this form. When Meghan suddenly decided that she is selling out the birth of a child in the line of succession to the highest bidder for her own gain, she has NO IDEA what she is doing… It doesn’t work like that. The normal scheme of things is deeply engrained in the British psyche. This is one of the reasons why the British Public has turned against her…
“You don’t sell Royal images, photos or lives like this. That is why Tom Bower states, jokingly – “they were staring at a shawl”. This woman (Meghan) is beyond decent human laws, let alone Royal protocol. You can’t sell the identity and image of a British Royal child’s line of succession to a NBC, Netflix or equivalent bidder… It’s too tacky for words.”.
2 thoughts on “Culture and Traditions of Professional Fakers”
The role of “Megan Markle” is being played by Meghan O’Toole King. The infant is one of two purchased by this tranny.
Watch the movie that I posted entitled “The Dance of Life” and pay attention to the names in the credit list.