The Sussexes have managed to stay out of the media recently, with the exception of Nigel Farage's mostly accurate but unhelpful comments about them.
Instead, the spotlight has focused on Prince Andrew and his connection to the recently deceased sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the many financial missteps of Sarah Ferguson, Andrew's ex-wife and longtime paramour. Sarah has repeatedly used her royal association for financial gain.
What is it about the second son, the spare, that tempts them towards dissolute living? And why are both Andrew's and Harry's wives involved in dodgy financial situations?
Does the knowledge that you will never actually reign give second-in-line princes (and their wives) a sense of invincibility and irresponsibility, or just a demoralizing lack of purpose?
"Randy Andy" and Harry both enjoyed heartthrob status as very young men. Does that popularity give them the sense that they can basically get away with anything and the public will forgive them?
Andrew, at age 59, seems rather bitter. Is that Harry's future too?
What about Prince George, Duke of Kent - Queen Elizabeth's uncle and the brother of King George VI - another spare who pursued a wild lifestyle before his early death?
It is, after all, possible to live a useful life even if you are not at the top of the line of succession; Princess Anne and the Wessexes have done pretty well for themselves.
And how can what they've learned from Andrew's situation be applied to Harry and Meghan's case?
Instead, the spotlight has focused on Prince Andrew and his connection to the recently deceased sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the many financial missteps of Sarah Ferguson, Andrew's ex-wife and longtime paramour. Sarah has repeatedly used her royal association for financial gain.
What is it about the second son, the spare, that tempts them towards dissolute living? And why are both Andrew's and Harry's wives involved in dodgy financial situations?
Glamour, position, but little money
Is it just the access to glamour and position without the funds to pay for it?Does the knowledge that you will never actually reign give second-in-line princes (and their wives) a sense of invincibility and irresponsibility, or just a demoralizing lack of purpose?
"Randy Andy" and Harry both enjoyed heartthrob status as very young men. Does that popularity give them the sense that they can basically get away with anything and the public will forgive them?
Andrew, at age 59, seems rather bitter. Is that Harry's future too?
What about Margaret?
The Queen's sister Princess Margaret was another "spare". How does her dissipated lifestyle and depressing end fit into this pattern?What about Prince George, Duke of Kent - Queen Elizabeth's uncle and the brother of King George VI - another spare who pursued a wild lifestyle before his early death?
It is, after all, possible to live a useful life even if you are not at the top of the line of succession; Princess Anne and the Wessexes have done pretty well for themselves.
What will happen next?
What do you think the Royal Family should do about Andrew and Fergie now?And how can what they've learned from Andrew's situation be applied to Harry and Meghan's case?
Comments
In any case, the BRF needs to return to a more stoic philosophy and have their members spend more time doing things which forge a good character.
I think in general, the 2nd born don't grow up with any expectations on them, when in fact they should, as all the indulgence placed on them with nothing really in return has proved disastrous.
Re: Andrew & Fergie, I think HM has a hard task on her hands regarding those two and even more so in light of the Epstein case. If she does nothing she'll be seen as protecting a man who has allegedly slept with a groomed teenager and trafficking victim (age of consent is irrelevant in the UK as it's 16 here).
Thinking about Andrew and Fergie now makes me dislike Prince Philip even more. What a jerk! Allegedly Fergie was supposed to spend the week in Scotland with Andrew but had to leave early because of PP. I wonder if PP's anger is misdirected? Yes, Fergie was a terrible embarrassment to The Firm but it doesn't seem that Andrew takes zero heat for his horrific behavior?
And honestly, which is worse, sucking some guy's toes in public or hanging out with a pedo and sleeping with underage girls? Leave it to the patriarchy to be horrified by sucking toes out of wedlock while covering up the exploitation and abuse of young girls.
FFS! This family is so out of touch and dysfunctional. Ugh.
I think it takes a strong character to make a success of being lower in the succession. With everything handed to you on a plate and your every need catered for, it’s oh so easy to lose your way. For any character you had to be fatally softened. Especially as there’s none of the compensatory rigour you would have from a more senior position. You’re given enough rope to hang yourself. For me, this explains everything. The Queen sets the tone, and I see her as a kindly, indulgent but distant parent. She would like her children and grandchildren to behave properly, but she won’t stop them if they don’t. Prince Charles will be even worse. He’s already doing incalculable harm, bankrolling obscene expenditure for two minor royals. He seems to be totally at odds with the times we’re living in.
You may say ‘but these are adults, not children’, but are they? Most of them are dependent on mummy’s or grand-mummy’s purse-strings so they lack many of the experiences that turn us into true adults. They are shielded from the realities of their minor positions until it’s too late for them to save themselves. It’s too late for Princes Andrew and Harry, but it’s not too late for the youngest generation. If not in the immediate line of succession, they need to know, by the time they start school, that they will have to provide for themselves. For this to work fairly, they should not be expected to participate in public works of any kind unless they wish to. And if they wish to, they should not expect the kind of money more senior royals receive in order to ‘keep up’, unless they can earn this themselves doing a good day's work for a good day's pay. For family occasions such as weddings and funerals where they will necessarily be present and in the public eye, I think it would only be fair to provide some minor kind of financial support per occasion. But that’s all. No Givenchy! The BRF needs to draw a line and say 'this ends now'.
But of course they won't.
Where as the heir is fawned upon from day they were conceived. Every care is taken to ensure they are healthy, educated, well received by the public. They are groomed with care from birth. And especially in a patrical society, the heir becomes the apple of the eye and the spare lives off of their reflected glory, they always come sexose, not really prioritized.
In the royal family, the children's upbringing is quite unorthodox. Child care is relagated to nannies and such, the monarchs and their spouses hardly see them and probably arnt as hands on.
Ofcourse that changed drastically in recent times, with Diana shocking the queen and queen mother when she completely took over her children's day to day upbringing. Diana famously said, that she is extra sensitive and caring towards Harry bacause most people treat William and Harry differently on account of Will being heir apparent and Harry is often neglected/ignored by other people in the family.
So it's only natural to assume that these Spares grow up being entitled, obnoxious. They crave attention and power their whole lives, and once they marry and essentially become independent, they go on a rampage trying to make their mark.
Of course my above thesis could very well be summarized by giving the exam of Scar, from Lion King. And we know who is supposedly notoriously crazy about Lion King.
As days go by, Harry seems to embody the spirit of Scar more and more.
We know if Philip was sitll an active duty royal, this scandal.would have been dealth quite differently. In the past, he has been rumoured to be the one calling the shots on their divorce, her immediate dismissal from Balmoral post the toe sucking news broke out, he reportdly also reigned Andrew in when there was controvercy over him being the trade envoy, and forbade them to be seen in public together. This was as much to punish Fergie as Andrew.
Also, Andrew also left the very next day, right after Fergie. So something must ahve gone down. Also the annual game season at Balmoral was cancelled, supposedly due to a tic/beetle epidemic. But maybe it's something else, and mood at the castle is just too grim and dour for summer festivities.
I happen to like Prince Philip and his dedication to protecting the Queen and because he’s a member of the greatest generation he has their dedicatiom to family. (The Crown TV series was terrible to him).I do think Fergie is a lowlife but nowhere near the level of Markel who seems intent on causing harm to the royals.
I do think that the over focus on Andrew by the media only serves to protect much much bigger fish involved in the Epstein case. Do you remember Nutty the CDAN blind about the gay royal? I always assumed it was about Andrew and that the long-standing relationship with Fergie was lavender. If true what’s Andrew going to do announce that he’s gay as a defense? And in which case one would ask if Epstein wasn’t procuring him boys (a la Kevin Spacey allegedly)? I also think the lavender marriage could be equally true about Harry.
I haven't seen any evidence that Andrew has done anything illegal. His public accuser is somebody that has moved back to America with her husband. She is writing a book and trying to turn it into a bestseller. (Colorado is a high cost of living state for those overseas.) There's nothing wrong with improving one's fortunes by writing a tell all, but I would take any accusations with a 50# bag of salt. Sensationalism and innuendo sells. Facts do not. Accusations are on the front page. Retractions are not.
I'm going to be opening a #10 can of worms here, but she willingly entered into prostitution. She *could* be selling widgets or making deliveries for Amazon, but it looks to me as though she has decided that her easiest path to the most money is still prostitution, quelle surprise. What a great way to kill any future employment prospects not related to sex! (Y'all will just have to imagine the giant facepalm.) Maybe she could open a robot brothel.
Just because someone is "willing" doesn't make it right to use them?
It is hard for you to feel sympathy for "Andrews girl" because now she is a grown married woman about to make money by writing a book. But it was not she who was used by Epstein. It was the child in her who was used by Epstein. You should try to remember that. Epstein and all the men who bought those girls did something wrong.
I hope she make a lot of money from her book.
Today that is impossible. I honestly believe that Andrew was trying to be useful as his Grandfather was as the Duke of York, pre 1936. He obviously choose the wrong people to be friends - can happen to anyone, just not on a global scale.
Harry had guidance - the army. What happened? Did the Firm decide this was too dangerous for someone in the top ten of the heirs? Now Harry is picking up the mantle carried by Charles as to ecology/ environmental activist; the problem is he needs to live the lifestyle of such a person. Charles could do this on his estates, but not travel-wise as the heir. Hence the difference. Harry needs guidance in the worst way - he does not have an "Uncle Dickie" as Charles did. Andrew will land on his feet (I write his before ALL the Epstein details are revealed). Harry - no so sure.
Charles is a dunce. The results of his O levels were never made public . Two A-levels (History B, French C.) And yet he promotes homeopathy and a bunch of other bs.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8374901/Sack-the-Duke-of-York-as-trade-envoy-says-former-ambassador.html
He was appalling at it, and an active hinderance.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14235330
The link between PA and the shady character who bought his old house for far more than it was worth is also interesting.
I've little sympathy for Andrew, he blew all the public goodwill he had post Falklands conflict, by being an arse and having exceptionally poor judgement. Who knows what else will emerge.
The curse of the spare.. as much as the heir is revered, the heir also have a lot of demands from early on. They get pushed to be the best they can be, given the material. The heir usually has a very distant relationship to the regent, there are a great many people having a say so regarding their future. And for the regent the heir is the living embodiment of the regents mortality. It´s not a healthy set up. Both PA and PH were set up for the army, they both could have had a long career there, keeping their noses clean and serving the monarch and nation. Both decided it was too much work at some point. Well the point came when it was no longer action based, but more strict army routine. ELF, Edward Lane Fox, was the one who transformed public perception of PH. Single handedly. He saw the writing on the wall during the Harkles courtship and handed in his resignation. And now we all see Harry as he has always been, and most likely will continue to be. As for the spares indulging in everything the heir cannot, of course they would. This is the one area where the heir is not in competition and spares get to rub in the heir´s face. It´s a massive long tantrum.
Margaret in the Crown has a very pointed conversation with Elizabeth, that E was their father´s pride but M was his joy. Cue joy leading to massive overindulgence.
Harkles, or MM has badly miscalculated the consequence of high jacking Eugenie´s wedding. Right now PA is more than happy to leak everything and anything about Harkles to take the heat and headlines off himself.
The downfall, in recent 7 decades, of the Empire & British military has also contributed by being less of a position spares could occupy.
Royal siblings no longer have many governorships to choose from, so can’t be shipped off well away from Britain to get in trouble in private.
The success of the Commonwealth system replaced governorships, and rightly so, as nations gained independence from the former Empire.
Andrew left the Navy in part due to Fergie feeling tired of being alone so much and the problems his constant absence created in their marriage.
I think PH was just lazy but unwilling to apply himself beyond his small comfort level to study up, take the required exam for promotion. So Granny just gave him a promotion anyway.
Spares have opportunities beyond measure, but often fail to use those productively.
Andrew seems to have brought all his worst qualities to the fore since his Randy Andy days. As The Queen’s favorite, he’s not going to be shipped off anywhere or punished.
I think Margaret, Andrew and now Harry all chose to marry partners who were revels against the system and encouraged their royal spouses to push or break boundaries. I think Harry will also end up divorced and remain his brother’s problem since Charles won’t do anything and is also under Nutmeg’s ring-merching thumb.
Great post Nutty and you’ve picked up on a pattern of truth.
You fail to see any evidence that Andrew did anything illegal? Probably because MI5 has been busy lo these many years in concealing it. *I* fail to see any evidence that these girls willingly became "prostitutes." As minors, they HAD no will--they were all under the age of consent.
Let's also bear in mind that, in international law, everybody under 18 years' old is considered a child (1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child).
I think the heir and the spare system is all but set up to fail. You can see it in the history of Britain, in the literature even. The heir may have a tougher time of it in terms of expectations and inescapable duty, but at least he has a purpose, whereas the spare is left mostly to fend for himself trying to find a reason for living other than to spend money.
I think the Queen suffers from mommy guilt like so many of us, only magnified because her loyalties are torn not just with a job, but a country and a people. Add in the fact that she's a really very elderly lady now, when she should be slowing down and taking it easier, but looking around at the constant messes her family create, she's probably overwhelmed, at times. She's aware that Andrew could have benefitted from more discipline, that Harry seems to have gone off the rails, that Charles is a bit of a ditz, but that there's no longer much that anyone can do. She may be resigning herself to the end of an era in British history. I'm sure it's bittersweet.
It's just so irksome to the rest of us, we who think of what we could accomplish, had we but world enough and time (and no need to make a living)--and these younger children, these "spares" just.do.nothing. with their lives but drink, drug, debauch . . .
There's really not that much difference if we compare those of yesteryear with Andrew and Harry. Although they are banned from government and political involvement, they both could have done far more and far better if they'd been educated fully in what ever occupation they wanted to pursue. The problem is that as spares, they are so sheltered and that's made them both so socially retarded to such an extent that they have no ambition, no burning desire to achieve and master anything. Instead, it's all about acting out, party, travel, shop, party more and now and then show up to give a vacuous, patronizing speeches about things they clearly don't care one whit about, like climate change or social media.
And now, for Harry, it's too late. He's too hard wired to take the road less traveled and truly find his passion. Instead, he's emotionally stuck at about age 16 and probably won't mature and realize that it's time to stop using Diana's death as his excuse for anything that goes sour in his life. I think he will continue to be bitter, though and sadly, that bitterness and resentment will continue to grow as his disgusting wife feeds and supports ongoing resentments. Little Miss Poor Me thrives on it. It feeds her supply and she delights in sparking Harry's rage at anyone who opposes her. And when they get blowback, oh, that's ok. We'll just blast the "haters" and trolls and dox them all for being "racist." Overplayed and falling fast, they can't keep using that forever. History shows that by overplaying any cards like that gets the masses on the move with torches and pitchforks at their gates.
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/meghan-harry-and-archie-took-private-jet-to-ibiza/news-story/610ad2501ccc729ce6d87114376e38b8
Has anyone heard about this? Seems a odd place to take a doll.
As for financial dealing with Epstein? What makes Sarah guilty of taking money from him? He offered, and he got her out of a mess. Her crime is she didn't pay him back! I'm sorry, I can't remember who said it, but blood money spends the same as regular money. So far, the only crime I see from Andrew and Sarah is they are stupid and hung with the wrong crowd. Give me proof. Just like the William and Rose affair....give me proof. If the proof is there, then I'll agree. Not sure which post, but I think Andrew in the news is scapegoat for someone bigger. And that bigger is the Clintons.
Now, as for the topic...lol. Yes, the curse of the second son is running prevalent. I'm praying that Charlotte's life will be much different. I see her going off to college and hopefully gaining a good degree that matters. I also do see her continuing charity work with the family and then meeting a nice young man and starting her own family. I think I worry more about Louis than Charlotte. It seems the men have a harder time at it than women. Margaret was from a different time when women didn't even work full time. Remember, she and Elizabeth did not go to school and only had tutors.
Harry was on the right track. He had his wild days and sewed his wild oats so to speak and seemed to be heading down the right path. He joined the Army and did his duty, wether he saw action or not. Her served. (I'm a retired Chief Petty Officer in the United States Navy and now work civil service for the Navy). He was taking on the patronages of many respectable charities with grace and ease. He took on the Invictus Games and was a great representative. Then along came a spider...uh...Meghan. She changed him completely. He's a totally different person! Some are saying it's too late for Harry. No it's not. It's never too late. He needs to dump her. Sorry Archie, but dad needs to let your mom go. Then he can pick himself up, start doing appearances with William and Kate again showing his support for his big brother. Find a nice English lass, settle down again. Give Archie a wonderful, stable home and normal family life away from the A-List celebrity lifestyle. Geez...sorry for my rant! All of this is just my opinion right or wrong.
Ozmanda, the story was in this morning's DM. The commenters are super ticked off, mostly UK folks, fed up with the Harkles platitudes about carbon footprint, then going private jet here and there.
Philip has always favored Anne and, surprisingly enough, Edward. Edward will get Philip's Duke of Edinburgh title when he passes. Which leaves poor, pitiful Charles, who was nobodies favorite and often criticized for being too weak, eccentric and emotional by his family. No wonder he clings to Camilla.
Especially (but not limited to)
1) Why hop on a private plan and go to Ibiza, especially after all the talk about the environment yadda yadda
2) Why Ibiza? If I just had a child (ok lets just surmise there is a baby of some kind), Ibiza wouldn't be the place I would choose. I have a feeling if this is true there is another reason - maybe sourcing another surrogate since at some point they need to produce a mini human?
3) That HAVE to know all the social media backlash at previous travels (we know Sparkles has PR people monitoring it, and I will bet one or more has been reading this site and CDAN) Are they just so uncaring or completely stupid?
4)That whole Harry at the google camp thing boggles my mind still, he has no reputation in the IT arena so why was he even there? And doesn't he have a baby he apparently wanted to spend time with?
Ok I need a coffee.
f-up. Elizabeth’s father was a spare and in the end he was a level headed family man unlike his Playboy older brother David who was groomed from day 1 to be King like William, yet threw it all away nearly bringing an end to the monarchy.
I often think of Henry VIII who was also a “spare”. He was groomed to become part of the clergy, which in those days was a very high end elite job. He was a handsome popular prince & when he became King, he was actually very effective, together with his first wife Katherine, They ruled England pretty well. Unfortunately mental illness, disease and power ruined his reign and he ended up a fat, cruel despot. He is someone I often wonder what would have happened if Arthur had become King. The death of King Arthur would have a profound effect on the world for generations to come. All because the spare became the heir.
Before I graduated from high school, I had an adult job. I was enrolled in a local college at night. I had another job on the weekend. My boyfriend from high school was off at an ivy league college. I had rejected three proposals of marriage by then from men that should have been old enough to know better. At this point, things were *extremely* uncomfortable at home (as though they weren't uncomfortable enough before). My stepdad was very angry because I hadn't married the ivy league boyfriend so he could try to mooch off the (wealthy) family. I was still at home only to protect my mother and younger brothers and figured I was harming them as he took his frustrations out on them when I wasn't there. I went over my options and picked the best one. I joined the military and never looked back.
After I left, my middle brother 'ran away' and nobody knew where he was for several years. I figured he'd gotten tired of the crap from my stepdad, his real dad. Nope. My stepdad, his biological dad tried to kill him by hitting him in the head with a hammer. Why? Fifteen year old brother had gotten the roof metal slightly crooked on the last run. When he was being cursed at, brother pointed out that he couldn't tell whether he was keeping a straight line on the roof, and it was the job of the man on the ground to watch. Stepdad called him down from the roof and then suddenly swung at his head as hard as he could with his hammer. Uncle knew something was up and was standing beside stepdad and grabbed his arm and pulled him back while yelling at my brother to run. He did. Younger brother left home with nothing except what he was wearing, no money, not even his social security card. He never got to go to high school. He worked fishing boats in Alaska. He worked shrimp boats in the gulf. He cleaned out railroad cars. He killed turkeys at a turkey plant. When times were really hard and he couldn't find a job, he killed ducks in the park and ate them. (Nobody in the family told me what had really happened until after stepdad was dead.) Younger brother was dealt a really, really bad hand in life but he played it as best he could. He never, ever complained.
I had a great deal of unwanted and unlooked for male attention since I hit puberty. If I had wanted to engage in, let's call it what it is, prostitution, I had opportunity. I even had motive. Instead, I worked my butt off to claw my way up out of the mud. I do not care about their excuses. I save my understanding and pity for the Jayme Closs' of the world.
He talks about the demons of social media - then they launch their own IG!
She throws a ridiculously expensive "secret" baby shower - then in Morrocco at a school for young girls of all places, he makes that stupid comment 'is it mine' with a smirk.
Around the baby's biryh they go on and on about privacy - he pointed leaves her alone and undertakes unprecedented number of engagements, even joining his family.
In the engagement interview you can clearly see him rolling his eyes, averting his eyes, looking at the ground or staring at her when she is talking/lying/trying to paint an agreed upon picture.
At the baby announcement, he makes an unnecessary comment about babies chaninch their looks every two weeks implying that the next time we see the bub he would be looking completely different. Also, he held the baby so tightly, close to the chest, that even she couldn't see it. He wouldnt even turn her wayv. It almost seemed like she had to tug at the coat panel to have a look, to even give the devoted besotted mummy look to her baby.
At Google camp, he makes an imcompreincompre comment about tourists ruining popular holiday destinations for selfies (I still don't understand what the actual point was that he was trying to make) - all the while he knew they would be jetting off to Ibiza for private luxury holiday. Ibiza is a place from where MM famously took a ton of selfies, highlighting what a cool chillax life she has. He must have known this since she would have told him all about it, why it's her fav place etc etc.
There's a part of me that's beginning to think Harry believes himself to be the king of snark, throwing shade at his wife now and then. He probably thinks he is being over smart and sarcastic.
But jokes apart, it also shows the clear disconnect between them at the best of times. Like he is trying to shift the power balance more and more every time they are out in public.
I wonder if Harry and Meghan will be allowed to be at Balmoral while Phil is there, if they were ever invited in the first place.
Re: The Guardian. The Vogue issue came out, The Guardian has run two articles defending Meghan and her contribution to the magazine. Both were written by young white women who had freelanced for Vogue in the past.
Strange conflict of interest that doesn't put The Guardian in a good light.
That said, I think that the victim-blaming-shaming-political-soapbox-abortion-the Clintons-etc., etc. is making this a lot less fun that it was a few weeks ago. Just like I don't come here to preach my about my personal and political opinions, I really don't want to read those of others, either. I'm sorry that there are those without hearts big enough to feel empathy and compassion for trafficked teens, but young girls aren't prostitutes, they're victims, and I'm not enjoying reading this stuff. It was more fun when we were just dishing on markle and drinking contemptinis.
I totally agree with you
I haven't commented on this post mainly because it seems to have gone off topic
Although i have been reading the comments.
It seems some of the commenters perception IS that these teenagers seem to have wanted to be prostitutes because of financial reasons
And i have to say, i find these type of comments and mind set very disturbing.
Where are peoples compassion, understanding and moral compass?
i just simply don't understand
How is a young child/teenager responsible for being selected & groomed to fit these adults sexual agendas?
Seriously the mind boggles!
And because this teenager (now grown woman) is writing a book to make money, she is suddenly guilty of cashing in, why, because she has a story to tell?
I would think the money she will make for her 'tell all book' is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money and assets the 'groomers' in this situation have made from her 'services'.
Epstein owned an island for crying out loud.
I just cannot believe in the year 2019 people and worse still, women are blaming a young adolescent girl for the actions of adults
As i said it is a disturbing view point and one not to be admired
I much prefer when we are discussing MM but I must say that I am pleased to see that for a critical blog we are all respectful of one another's comments and opinions. Thank you, Nutty for your part in that as it is not always the case on others I have followed.
Your theory is very intriguing. If you're right, it certainly gives Harry equal agency in this Sussex Sh*t Show. This is a view I've been coming around to for a while now.
Like millions around the world, except for the more astute who had Markle's number from early on, I met news of the engagement with happiness for Diana's cheeky boy, who'd grown (so I thought at the time) into a more grounded man after a traumatic youth and early adulthood, and was thrilled to be settling down into family life like his admired (so I thought at the time) brother and sister-in-law. I totally bought the engagement photos and H.'s stated desire to be a dad. He is so good with children, and they respond to him in kind . . . but goofing with a baby in a photo op is a whole lot easier to simulate than being an actual, present parent to one's own child.
The engagement interview hit the first sour note . . she'd managed to successfully pass as the doe-eyed, sweet fiancee as long as she let Harry do all the talking at their engagement announcement--but the minute she opened her mouth, the caustic drip began . . starting with her incessantly talking over Harry while clutching onto his arm and the brazen denial that she'd had no idea who he was 18 months previously.
This was before I had full knowledge of the relentless Diana-stalking since the age of 15, the colorful family, the adult entertainment career or the personality disorders. I bought it all, and I feel duped.
But I feel duped most of all by Farkle's other half. I won't say 'better', because at this point I think he's the flip side of her same coin. This match was arranged, I now believe, as an arrangement between Like calling to Like. Harry's had his family to protect him from his own shortcomings for 35 years, and clean up his messes when he screwed up. Beyond that, he could always count on his cheeky adorable reputation as Diana's brave bereaved youngest and the nation's favorite to forgive him and give him a shine he doesn't possess in reality.
I think Harry can be that shiny prince in small bursts, when he feels comfortable and is doing something that interests him. Otherwise his attitude is poor, his application non-existent. The soldier prince hero of Afghanistan turns out to be a poseur who was an insubordinate douche bag who failed his tests and called his squadmate a racial slur. The Captain Wales gloss was so much PR spin, I now think. No true and dedicated soldier committed to veterans would have chosen to attend a vapid Disney premiere with half-naked American celebrities than represent the Crown at a veterans' memorial.
The overriding question has always been "WHY?' . . Why, when Harry held all the cards, in terms of power dynamic, prestige, wealth and fame, did he seek a binding legal contract with a two-bit grifter who was all hat, no cattle? Meg fancied herself an 'influencer' by taking all-expenses paid resort vacations and posting pictures of her food; Harry of England *was* a global influencer already, even if that influence was courtesy of his grandma and his late mother. He had nothing to gain by marriage to an American wanna-be . . . so I assumed that love was the motivator.
This casts a whole new, and darker, light on Harry's character. Maybe rather than being Megxit's enabler, *she* is his--the means by which he can achieve his aims of bringing William down, while playing the 'manipulated victim' for the court of public opinion. Then he can blame Megs for all the bad press and the profligate spending and the disrespect for the monarchy, etc. I think it's safe to say that even with his recent blunders--the preachy sermons and the tone-deaf jaunts to Google camp and Ibiza, that Haz still has more defenders than Meglodon does. Most people are quite happy to accord her Svengali Medusa status while reducing him to her Hapless Dupe status, because, after all, Hazza just isn't the swiftest arrow in the Royal quiver, poor lamb. He was a man in love and she deceived him with her American wiles, etc.
I'm getting a sick feeling that the truth is a lot more Machiavellian on Harry's part . . even if he doesn't know who Machiavelli was and certainly can't spell it.
It would be kind of delicious if Megxit winds up hoist by her own petard, wouldn't it? . . the scheming narcissist who believes she's playing her weaker mark to exactly where she wants him--only the player is being played in turn.
If Harry were truly the victim of spousal abuse, led astray by his own impetuous nature and compromised intellectual skills . . and he had sent up the tiniest signal flare that he needed help to extricate himself from this, don't we think William would be there, having his brother's back? The fact that the Cambridges have had to cut Harry and his wife absolutely out of their lives and anything to do with their charitable work speaks to me like the true source of the conflict is Harry. He's the oxygen feeding the all-consuming fire of greed that is his wife. But her greed is not *personal* . . she'd run ramshackle over anyone in her way and use anyone in a position to advance her aims. Harry's actions *are* deeply personal against William. He is the 'inside man' on this inside job. Meg-ophone is the more obvious chaos agent, but she's only a gauche outsider. Her poison is effective because one of the Family's own is aiming the syringe.
They both turn me absolutely cold. Meg never had any likeability, but I wonder if Harry realizes he's thrown away his biggest asset--the goodwill of the people--away like so much garbage. I'm not sure anybody will be able to forget his conduct and take him back into their hearts, since it's pretty apparent now that that former goodwill was based on a fraud. Turns out that Hazmat and Megxit are well-suited in all the very worst ways possible--to the detriment of us all, but particularly the British people and 'Archie', who and wherever he is.
I feel incredibly sorry for QEII. After 65 years of a reign marked by her own unimpeachable sense of duty for her people, this is how it will wrap up: her legacy tarnished by the scandals of her children and her grandchildren. William is going to have a tough row to hoe, if there's a row still left for him when the hoe gets handed down to him.
Charles has some good qualities, but they are not ones which one associates with a strong, decisive and unifying leader. Anne is no-nonsense and vigorous, and dedicated to duty, and unflashy--all traits of her mother. The transition would have been seamless to Queen Anne, but alas, not to be. One can't help feeling that she got screwed over by fate . .but maybe she is happier being the Princess Royal. She sure does the lion's share of the donkey work in the Royal family, to mix my animal metaphors.
I've worked in the dependency court and juvenile justice system with teens. I don't attribute innocence to anyone solely based on their age.
The person in question is pursuing a lawsuit against Maxwell and has a book to sell. I'm not going to take anything she says at face value. I will look at the entire picture, including the fact that she went back hundreds of times and has stated it was for the money. Someone who is 17 has free will. It is interesting that when she left Epstein she married sometime shortly thereafter at the age of 18. So I have to wonder how much coercion was truly involved.
"That gravity and vegetation can completely renew waste into clean water is amazing."
This isn't an accurate statement, or perhaps oversimplifying.
Reed beds do not clean the water sufficiently to produce potable water. They can pre-treat water that is then released into a watercourse or to filter water that has already been treated before the water is released into pond or lake to purify the water. Water that has only been filtered through a reed system is not potable. As for vegetation and gravity... it also requires time. However, consider this, there's a reason you shouldn't drink water from streams, lakes, or ponds while out in the wilderness.
@Alice, how do we know what he said at Google camp?
@Ozmanda, TOTALLY agree about Ibiza. A new mom wants to go there?
I also think what you said is exactly what happens...they are in too deep before they realise what is happening
As we know most young teens/ adolescents don't have the social skills to articulate their feelings or to navigate their way out of a tricky situation.
I know i didn't and i was fortunate to have been spared such a situation
I also admire people who have escaped poverty and difficult childhoods ...i being one of them,as like many, although it doesn't mean that we should lose our compassion & understanding for the people that weren't so lucky, in fact it should be a reason to have more compassion.
Children and teenagers are never to be blamed for sexual abuse...it is never consented and never welcomed
And to be blamed & victimised again by judgmental people makes my blood boil
It is not a moral flaw to have been manipulated by 'masters of manipulation'
If it were our daughter, sister niece then perhaps there would be a different perspective, being closer to home
I could read your posts all day!
I admire your writing style which is fluid, informative and always interesting
I look forward to your posts
Plus, it's implied and has been rumored elsewhere that Megs the yacht girl hookered up with Andy at some point back then. It would not surprise me. If any of this is true, fordgirl's post about and from CDAN, Charlatan, SoHO and Epstein and Toronto Paper, they all are echoing what Magi and Polly are showing, too. Looking ahead, I think the whole lot of them and their disgusting connections to each other are about to blow wide open.
Ghislaine Maxwell is probably going to ask for immunity and make a plea deal by revealing all she knows. After all, at this point she's looking at years in prison and we all know that when someone has nothing to lose, they'll spill all they know to survive.
Has anyone considered that TorontoPaper might be a group of Meg's fellow yacht girls who want to expose her?
Anne was also involved in Edward's crazy scheme to involved the Royals in game shows.
Oh, and she became the first Royal to get a criminal conviction when her two dogs injured someone because they were running free.
So, she's had her share of scandals.
To see how common this is (brainwashing 13-17 yo teens)watch the gut-wrenching documentary called Very Young Girls. It is so sad but I hope that some will watch it and gain sympathy for girls not as strong as the rest of us.
I know what you are trying to say. People are judging many things in the past by today's standards/morals.
We didn't have social media or the internet back in the day. There were many 17 yo women hanging out in Studio 54 and Annabelles and any of the numerous disco's and clubs. They were there for a reason, just as groupies hang at concerts. The interest was to find a man with money with little effort.
We were no innocents, we knew everything had a price. I honestly don't believe that the woman in the pictures didn't understand what was being offered to her didn't come for free.
There are a few articles out since the Google Camp. The reports say Harry gave a speech barefoot, to a crowd of A-list celebrities in attendance, and reportedly talked about the mance of mass tourism influx to popular travel destinations...how the selfie culture is ruining these once prestine places as more and more people go there, so other off beat, less selfie friendly destinations should be preferred to safe the environment.
There is no official confirmation from Google/BRF about the actual speeech, this is just what's been reported.
Charles working on the environment is a quiet endeavor, unlike his useless narcissist son who scolds everyone about the environment, but takes a private jet for a vacation.
"Someone like me?" What an bs statement. How dare I form an opinion contrary to your's! I bet you think you're a tolerant person.
You must mean someone like me who has spent the past 7 years learning as much as I can about brain development. You must mean someone who knows that teens as young as 14 can be tried as adults for serious crimes. Do you have any idea why they can be tried as adults? Here's a hint, because they know right from wrong and can understand that their actions have consequences. You must mean someone like me who knows that the age of consent in the US varies from 16 to 18. She was 17 when she had sex with Epstein in Florida, does that mean that sex was ok, but not the sex she had with him in New York? You must mean someone like me who knows that allegations have been made, but no trial and no conviction. Let's just throw due process out the window, because these girls were terrified that they went back again and again.
Unlike you, I don't infantilize adolescents. This person was 17 at the time. If you're not going to give a 16 year old or 17 year old agency over their own body, she shouldn't be permitted to drive, every sex act with every person, including those with others under the age of 18, and abortion should all be prohibited.
When Andrew declined to accept what they were offering, they went for Harry.
All speculation, of course.
Additionally, Ms. Roberts is not the only person making claims. Many girls have been too afraid to come forward (and why wouldn't they? Consider the now-deceased Miami cop who talked about being tailed by Epstein's goons). If you read the legal summaries and reports thoroughly, and not just headline summaries, you'll see that there are numerous unnamed girls of 14, and I recall some as young as 8. All the information has not been released, but there's more going on here than Ms. Roberts. However we should be grateful because she's risked her life by testifying to what was going on.
Finally, I do understand why someone who was raised amidst horrors will be angry that other people didn't do things the "hard" way. After all, while there is evidence that people who were sexually abused as children are tragically at higher risk of becoming perpetrators themselves, there are so many people who *don't* become perpetrators! It's horrible that those people who overcome what happened to them have yet another stigma to overcome. OTOH, why don't they become perpetrators? I'm of the theory that very often there is someone, some adult voice of wisdom, some person who showed them a bit of hope, even a moment where they watched a movie or read a book and something clicked, which gave them the idea that life could be different. Some kids never get that chance (saying this after having worked with impoverished and maltreated children). Why do some make bad choices and some good? Is it just because some are naturally good and some naturally bad? Maybe a tiny bit. But there's the possibility that no one ever told Ms. Roberts she could do better, that she shouldn't dare to dream of not being treated as a sexual object.
We don't know what drove her to Epstein's island, but we do know she was groomed, we do know she was treated as an object by people with infinitely more power than her, we do know they exploited dozens/hundreds of other girls who were even younger, and we know they had enough awareness regarding what they were doing was wrong to want to keep their actions secret.
Talking about Markle is certainly more fun, but it is interesting to consider how much she and the other members of the RF are a part of this gruesome underworld.
You're better connected for dirt than Luella Parsons . . . maybe you should start your own gossip blog!
Was it the affair with Andrew Parker Bowles that broke up Anne's marriage to Mark Phillips? I'm sure you must know. I was not aware of the circumstances that led to Anne's divorce from the father of her children. Charles and Camilla of course were an item in the 1970s before either of them was hitched, and Andrew Parker Bowles (Chas's best mate, allegedly) dated her at the same time. It appears both guys shared the Shand's favors concurrently, if not simultaneously, and then she marred APB while Charles was away at sea. I'm not sure I buy the 'affair with Charles as revenge' theory since it seems that Chas. and Cam never severed their emotional connection, even during the brief period of time they weren't sleeping with each other while married to others. If it was a revenge ploy, it's been remarkably long-lasting and permanent, since the revenge outlasted either of their marriages.
Game shows don't sound like Anne's style, but I will defer to your greater knowledge of past history where that's concerned. Anne's always seemed so dignified, it's hard to imagine her getting involved in tawdry TV entertainment.
It's very unfortunate for the victim that her dogs injured someone because they were not properly leashed; that is something that could happen to any civilian dog owner. Like Prince Philip's recent car accident that injured people, this was more an accident than anything done with malicious intent, so I think we can agree that this criminal conviction is nothing compared to the criminality which Andrew has embroiled the family in.
None of these people are paragons, but the Princess Royal has certainly been more of asset to the family than a detriment. Harder to claim that about any of her brothers, or the red-headed nephew.
Actually, the Spares would like to emulate Hilton and genwrate income off their fame and brand as well as get paid for showing up (Markle’s agenda), but they are not allowed to.
They went to Ibiza because of what it is. A celebrity mecca. And hedonism tossed in. And of course they don’t have the baby so the baby wasn’t along
I think Epstein, PH, PA, MM, MA....all connected somehow........can I borrow someone's Hercule Poirot hat? I prefer the Albert Finney one, please!
My distaste for all the musical beds and other mattress sports that go on in that world is extreme, but hey, that's just my Puritanical bourgie roots showing, or so they'd say. In a family whose head is also the spiritual leader of the Church of England, it's even more repulsive that the Queen's children and even her own husband are openly promiscuous and unfaithful to their partners when out of all the families in the realm, they should be setting an example for Godly living.
Ha, that's a good one. The Queen herself is a very devout woman. One of the most compelling episodes of The Crown, season 2 is the one that depicts Elizabeth's internal struggle between her hatred for her Uncle David and her Christian duty to practice forgiveness. She asks to meet the Rev. Billy Graham, who was in England for a crusade and seeks spiritual guidance from the young and earnest preacher from North Carolina. Phillip makes fun of her for consorting with a 'bible beater'.
If the the rumor that the Queen's closest lifelong friend, Lord Porchey, her racing manager is actually Andrew's father is true, that would humanize the Queen, but it would also drag her down to the same tawdy level as her children, who have brought so much scandal to the family. As a woman, Elizabeth might have entertained the impulse to stray, since Philip certainly did, many times . . but in the end I think her monarch side would have won out.
I guess in the rarified social circle the Royals have access to, they've probably all dated or married each other at some point in time, and shuffling around is common. The men probably all get together for lads' talk over brandy and cigars and compare notes as they likely have all shared the same women at some point or other. Making a foursome with one's brother/sister wouldn't be the most comfortable date evening going, I imagine. Since their circle is so small and exclusive it inevitably becomes a bit incestuous. I still don't believe that Camilla would have rekindled her affair with Charles strictly as revenge against Anne for Anne sleeping with her husband as Mischi suggested. That is a circuitous path to revenge, since Charles' bed partners didn't directly affect his sister. A better revenge surely would have been for Cam to sleep with Mark Phillips. Camilla interfering in Charles's marriage to Diana hurt Diana, and the Queen and indirectly the British people but Anne herself was not affected more than anybody else. I'm sure she's not in the habit of asking her brother about his sex life.
All of us have heard more about Charles and Camilla's sex life than we ever asked for and we can never scrub 'SquidgyGate' out of our aural memories.
One would have thought that Charles's passionate attachment to a mistress would have pleased the old Pater, being something of a chip off the old block, but PP no doubt still regards Chas as soft for being stupid enough to get so attached to the baggage that he had to go and marry her.
But you are so right . . .ODD describes everything about that family.
I've been doing a compare/contrast of Meg's ex's, Trevor and Cory.
Both men are educated, mature, accomplished achievers. Harry is not.
A producer and executive producer, who began with a degree in journalism then became a PA then worked for a casting agency before becoming a producer shows me someone who has ambition, optimism, goal oriented. Harry? No. None of the above.
Harry is a typical dilatant. He starts things full on like Invictus or a charity, then poof, he moves on, ghosts them. Trevor is still a producer; Cory is still a chef.
So I conclude that yes, Nutty, Harry isn't even close to the kind of guy Megs chose on her own and it is likely Marcus et al targeted Harry for Megs after failing to try on Andrew. OR, Andrew was just an in, a stepping stone to get closer information about Harry. Megs was possibly a schill, who was placed to target Andrew, to get to Harry, and create a win win in favors and profits from both princes.
Above Epstein's sex slavery acquisitions for clients, was first his abilities as a Match Maker. And Match Makers are always collecting information about people so they can create long lasting beneficial results.