"🚨 ROYAL HEARTBREAK! — KATE MIDDLETON'S SAD ADMISSION ABOUT MEETING PRINCESS LILIBET!"
With Prince Harry and Meghan back in England – and the royal family rift still unresolved – Princess Kate’s heartbreaking admission about her niece, Princess Lilibet, reveals the personal toll of years of estrangement.
After spending six years in California, Harry, 42, and Meghan, 45, moved back to England in August with Prince Archie, 7, and Princess Lilibet, 5, bringing the children closer to relatives they have had little opportunity to know.
Although Archie was born in London, his younger sister has spent her entire childhood in the United States, far from the whose history is reflected in her name.
A family divided
Born on June 4, 2021, at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in California, Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor was named after Queen Elizabeth II, whose childhood nickname was Lilibet, and Harry’s late mother, Princess Diana.
By the time she arrived, however, her parents’ relationship with the monarchy had deteriorated following a televised interview that brought years of private disagreements into public view.
In March 2021, while Meghan was pregnant with their daughter, she and spoke with Oprah Winfrey about their experiences as working royals, including allegations that an unnamed family member had expressed concerns about how dark Archie’s skin might be before his birth.
When William was subsequently questioned about the allegations of racism, he offered a brief but emphatic response.
“We are very much not a racist family,” the future king said, according to
‘Both women were crying their eyes out!’
The interview also drew attention to Meghan’s relationship with Kate, particularly a disagreement over flower girl dresses before Harry and Meghan’s 2018 wedding.
Offering an account of the incident, reports that a former staff member said “both sides were really upset,” during the emotional exchange.
The interview also drew attention to Meghan’s relationship with Kate, particularly a disagreement over flower girl dresses before Harry and Meghan’s 2018 wedding.
Offering an account of the incident, reports that a former staff member said “both sides were really upset,” during the emotional exchange.
“I can’t wait to meet her because we haven’t yet – met her yet. So, hopefully, that’ll be soon.”
When the reporter followed up by asking whether she had FaceTimed with Lilibet, Kate admitted that she hadn’t even spoken to her over video.
“No, I haven’t. No,” she said.
The exchange, reported by Newsweek, drew sympathy from royal watchers who felt the princess had been caught off guard.
“She wasn’t ready to answer that question, but she handled perfectly,” one person commented, while another wrote, “I felt sorry for Catherine that they even asked her that. Perfectly handled by Catherine though.”
Missed opportunity
Kate’s hopes of meeting her niece appeared closer to becoming reality the following summer, when Harry and Meghan brought their children to Britain for Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations.
The June 2022 visit coincided with Lilibet’s first birthday, which was reportedly celebrated with a small gathering at Frogmore Cottage. However, William and were carrying out royal engagements in Wales and did not attend.
But they acknowledged the occasion with a birthday message, , “Wishing a very happy birthday to Lilibet, turning one today!”
Four years later, there is still no public confirmation that Kate has met her niece, although the Sussexes’ return to Britain could finally change that.
Harry has settled with his family in the Cotswolds, an area he knows well from time spent there with his father and brother, and with William and Kate living nearby, the opportunity for the two families to reconnect is now closer than ever.
Do you think Harry and Meghan’s return to England could help repair the royal family rift? Please let us know your thoughts in the comment section below!
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
