Prince Andrew has chosen to step down from active royal duties due to his role in the Epstein scandal.
What do you think this means for the monarchy as a whole, and for the Sussexes in particular?
As Winston Churchill once (reportedly) said, "Never waste a good crisis." Will Charles show himself to be unusually decisive and use Andrew's situation as an excuse to slim down the monarchy?
What will the idiotic Sussex stans do, now that they can no longer insist that the media is harassing Meghan to cover up for Andrew's misdeeds?
And what does it all mean for Beatrice's wedding?
What do you think this means for the monarchy as a whole, and for the Sussexes in particular?
As Winston Churchill once (reportedly) said, "Never waste a good crisis." Will Charles show himself to be unusually decisive and use Andrew's situation as an excuse to slim down the monarchy?
What will the idiotic Sussex stans do, now that they can no longer insist that the media is harassing Meghan to cover up for Andrew's misdeeds?
And what does it all mean for Beatrice's wedding?
Comments
By which I mean, if they keep a low profile, forget the password for their Instagram account, no pap walks, no merching.... then they could come back after their 'family time' to make a fresh start as the new generation of (relatively) scandal free royals. As I've said many times, the Harkle shenanigans that we discuss at length here simply don't register with the vast majority of British people, while Andrew's interview has dominated the headlines these past few days. So the possibility is there that they could put the tackiness of the past year behind them.
But that's only if they are clever and can keep away from the headlines. A big ask for these two.
Wow. Did not see that coming this fast.
@Nutty, they completely crapped all over PC's documentary about his life's work. I think they found Charles' last nerve and stomped all over it. Jesus might forgive them but I don't think Charles will.
Andrew's "retirement" does not surprise me - the article about a second interview did shock me, and I hope that was a one-off from a rogue journalist. The Queen is not stupid - she cut her losses and is keeping Andrew close.
As to Beatrice and the wedding - the event just became a low profile. If I heard / read, it is Italy, so the Queen/ PP will not be in attendance, and may afford an opportunity for the York family to "trim the list" so to speak to make it low profile. Sad for Bea, but these are the cards that have been dealt. I just hope she finds the dress of her dreams and that she has a long, happy, married Life.
As for the Harkles I think this means they will be next to be under close RF scrutiny, especially the Sussex Royal foundation, which I think will likely become a source of financial scandal that will damage the RF even more.
It will be under the direction of Sara Latham, with behind the scenes guidance from Hillary, the Harkles will heavily skim off the top of Sussex Royal with little of the donations actually going to humanitarian causes not connected to their transactional friends, who will also reap benefits. It will just barely stay inside legal boundaries, but it will still be a scandal fueled by greed and entitlement by H&M. Watch them hire Doria for a high-paying position at Sussex Royal with loads of employee benefits most people can only dream about.
He hasn't been able to make any further progress because Andrew is the Queen's favourite and it's been well known for decades that he could do what he liked. An example of that was the Queen helping Andrew out financially to rescue Fergie from bankruptcy not once, but twice.
If Andrew has sunk his own ship with that very ill-advised interview, you can be sure Charles will seize the opportunity to keep him in the long grass. Charles is spoiled and petulant when it comes to "lesser" royals stealing the limelight, and Andrew's popularity when they were ginger always rankled.
I think Edward and Sophie will be okay, for years they have played the game and never put a foot wrong. They have also been frugal and value for money. Same with the Princess Royal. I think they will survive. But I think this will be the end of Andrew's hopes of keeping his place in the pecking order when the Queen passes away.
As for Beatrice's wedding. A popular view seems to be that her fiancé wants access to the doors her title can open. If the York ship is sunk, and if popular opinion is correct, there may not even be a wedding.
:-0 that should read "younger", not ginger!
"....Andrew's popularity when they were ginger always rankled."
:-0 that should read "younger", not ginger!
Thanks, Madge! (I was wondering in which dictionary to look up the meaning of "when they were ginger".)
Charles is spoilt, too, and can be vague and dithering, but he is dutiful and 100% behind the Firm. Apart from the liaison that broke up his first marriage, there's no hint of sexual scandal or financial impropriety attaching to Charles, and I think he's got a softer heart than anybody in the Royal family. He's been ridiculed for it enough by his Greatest Gen parents. I imagine Charles is relieved that his toxic younger sibling is voluntarily removing himself--if it was in fact voluntary. This just hastens what would have occurred under King Charles--Andrew, OUT.
I do not think Andrew's ouster will have any positive impact on the Harkles in terms of reversing public opinion toward them or the damage they have wrought on their own. Andrew may be a bigger dirtbag in the scheme of things, but the Harkles are simply smaller dirtbags with their own brand of dirt. They are a scandal running in tandem with Andrew, but also separate. If Meggsy was sitting on some juicy Epstein dirt against Andrew, she's waited too long to use it. Those arrows are now blunt.
Beatrice and Eugenie are two nice young women who will be unfairly tainted by the scandals of their parents for life, which is unfortunate. They both would be an asset to the the roster of working royals on their own merits, but with their parents' soiled and sullied reputations dragging behind them, they will never escape the taint by association. Maybe it's for the best; each of the girls can continue their own private philanthropy endeavors and hopefully will find happiness in their husbands and family life.
Sadly for Bea, it looks like a televised royal wedding from St. George's Chapel with the Queen in attendance like her sister received is no longer in the cards. Andy is just too dirty. I predict that Edo will assume the bulk of the cost for this wedding, which will be relatively small--and probably in Italy. Neither the Queen nor Philip would attend a wedding abroad, but perhaps there will be a small and very private ceremony at Windsor so the grandparents of the bride can be there.
2) I actually think that this is good news for Ms Common and Mr Wealth. No matter what nonsense they do now, they will look benign by comparison to Andrew. I think that they will be riding high in the new year.
After dumping Andrew, the RF won't want to dump these two as well as it will not reflect well on the RF to have to dump all these losers at the same time. It would be an acknowledgment that there are a lot of losers in the family. If anything, Charles may try to make Common and Wealth look good on purpose, to help us forget about Andrew.
If the Sussexes play it clever, this might be good news for them.
By which I mean, if they keep a low profile, forget the password for their Instagram account, no pap walks, no merching.... then they could come back after their 'family time' to make a fresh start as the new generation of (relatively) scandal free royals.
Sorry Liver Bird, but Meghan’s narcissism is just way too profound for her to become a low-key scandal-free royal. She worked her entire adult life climbing over the corpses of dumped family, friends, and at least one other husband to get to the rotting pile of international fame and celebrity. The Harkles might be quiet for six weeks, but attention, drama, and rancor are the mother’s milk of narcissists like Meghan. With her minion Harry at her side, she will continue to run wild until someone outside of her and Harry puts a stop to their behavior.
If she isn’t already pregnant, she will be by their second anniversary in May, so the Sussex dumpster fire will continue at least for another three to five years, possibly longer. But until she downloads a second child late 2020 or early 2021, it will be nearly impossible for HM or PC to do much more than threaten or scold Meghan and her doormat husband. I give the Sussex marriage 8 to 10 years. If it goes beyond that, it likely means Harry has been totally eviscerated by Meghan and is just a shell that tags behind her. It would highly resemble the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, an empty shell run by an interloper wife.
I hadn't considered that Edo would call off the wedding. I hope not, but if he's going to do it, it should be swift so his true colors are known. Bea is already doing stepmummy duty every day to his toddler son. I'm on the fence about Edo's intentions myself, but Andrew was already under a dark cloud when the couple got engaged, so it's not like Andrew's disgrace was something out of the blue.
Edo's already nobility and has got more money than Andrew, not to mention top-notch connections in his real-estate business, so it's hard to see in what ways Andy could burnish Edo's star at this stage. Edo is on the ascent and Andrew's been on the decline for years. It has crossed my mind that Edo hooked up with Bea because he enjoyed the limelight of celebrity attention and camera flashes, like his cousin-to-be by marriage, Madam Markle.
Poor Bea. I hope that Edo will go the distance for her; she's waited long enough for a good man. Daddy's timing is so inconsiderate!
I agree. Even those of us here who are highly sceptical of the Harkles acknowledge that nothing they have done compares to Andrew's activities. And when you bear in mind that most people - even if they find the Harkles a bit annoying and whiny - really don't mind them THAT much, then yes, they will come out looking good if they play their cards right. That's IF they play their chards right, of course, which remains very much to be seen.
I note that they released a pretty low key Instagram post to mark the queen's wedding anniversary. No word salad or gratuitious mentions of HRH the Duchess. So I dunno... maybe just maybe they are getting the message? It's early days yet though and who knows if Meghan will be able to resist the allure of pap walks and hanging out with the elite of Los Angleles, none of whom would have given her the time of day 2 years ago.
The gall it took to do that in Africa where women and children are subjected to daily horror, she truly has no compassion or empathy
Of course what made the difference was the withdrawal of corporate sponsors, charities etc. Money and influence are the only things that matter, not prolonged hostility from tax-payers and royal watchers, and for this reason I'm also doubtful about the likelihood of Charles and/or William being key players here. Watching corporate and charitable relationships collapse must have been scary. That's what the BRF DO. It's how they justify much of their existence. It also means the seeds of H&M's eventual downfall are probably to be found in their foundation. Deep and continued unpopularity isn't sufficient on its own.
I wonder if the Queen feels angry at being forced to shut down her favourite son and would therefore resist even further being pushed around about H&M? Either that or she'll be so upset about her favourite son that she'll be damned if she'll let H&M carry on as they are. Far less deserving of her support in her eyes. Could go either way.
Yes, I think the 'foundation' could end up being their downfall if it gets entangled with some sort of financial scandal, which it very likely will. That's probably some years down the line though.
I do think it would take some serious scandal to get them demoted though. Low level stuff about merching and whining on the TV isn't going to cut it. In any case, I suspect they'll be divorced before the proverbial hits the fan.
And as you said, I don't think that most of her behaviours even register with most of the public. Realistically, they don't seem to be a threat to the reputation of the RF.
I think that we will still be here years from now still discussing how we wish that she would go way.
Suing the MOS, who must have a strong case, to not be settling is bringing the wrong kind of attention to the RF at this time, she can’t or won’t stop being toxic to the Firm and yeah Charles has waited a lifetime for the top job, and Harry is obviously depressed and despondent
Also Nutty, you hit on my absolute least favorite Sussex Stan defense—the idea that because they have cleared the extremely low bar of not being child sex predators, they should not be criticized for anything, ever because not everyone in the family can say the same. 😳
Don’t forget Diana, Charles is the one who insisted on the State Funeral, against his Mum’s wishes
Charles is taking the public temperature and if Meggsy poses a threat to his lives work, it will be Buh Bye
"I continue to unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein."
When specifically asked if he regretted it in the interview he said he didn't because he met so many useful people etc. Then at the end, when invited to make some closing remarks, he again failed to express regret. Makes my blood boil. They must think we're passive creatures who'll just accept what we're given. Much like PA's views on sex as experienced by women.
Unfortunately, I don't know that DM commenters are in the majority.
I think that most people don't care one way or the other.
call me a conspiracy theorist, but here's how I see this entire saga:
PA was ordered to fall on his sword via the interview in order to nullify any Epstein-related material that Meggy might have been holding over the BRF.
The interview, from what I've heard, was absolute terrible both in what PA said and how the public received it (only 6% believe his denials?); the big takeaway for the public is that PA is guilty as heck & an absolutely clueless/entitled moron. At this point, everyone *knows* that he's guilty, so any future revelations (as @Hikari mentioned) are blunted.
Given how upset PA was over the idea that his daughters wouldn't be working royals, I doubt that he'd give up his role in the BRF easily, so there had to be extensive negotiations over his exit package (maybe an expiration date to keep him from delaying?).
We've talked before about how the BRF thinks that glaciers move too quickly, so the speed we've seen over the past few days tells me that this was already mapped out. With this in mind, I do think this has greased the skids for tossing out Meggy (& possibly PH). However, I do believe that Archie has some sort of package in place already.
Brits don't hate the Harkles. The vast majority don't really care. Harry was one of the most popular royals until a while ago and although he's lost that to some extent, he's still a lot more popular than Andrew was.
You can't judge by comments on an online tabloid. Trust me when I say that most people in Britain don't much care about the Harkles. They may find Meghan a bit annoying and 'Californian' but the vast majority don't hate her. The Andrew story is on an entirely different level.
PA out and most likely due to Andrew being their father, Eugenie and Beatrice might not ever become working royals, so there’s a lot more air in the room and Meghan will be there to inhale every molecule. She’s too much of a narcissist to willingly stay out of the limelight and she desperately wants to build the Sussex Royal brand into an internationally famous name — for herself.
Ha ha can’t a girl hope?
I think the RF has had it with Megs and her six week break may be something she didn’t ask for and could be extended,
She may actually get a bit frightened now because she witnessed what British media can achieve and how much information it can retrieve very quickly. I don't hold my breath about her dropping the case against MoS though. Such though might have crossed her mind however.
If Harkles mend their ways and stop whining Charles and Wills could just about tolerate them. RF doesn't need two huge scandals in a row.
Instead, he left his sword upright by the door, then tripped and fell on it.
The Sun also did an absolutely devastating article about his multi-million dollar properties and causal outings with worst dictators.
He was a fool thinking he can manipulate British media to his advantage. Meghan has the same misconception.
...PA was ordered to fall on his sword via the interview in order to nullify any Epstein-related material that Meggy might have been holding over the BRF.
The interview, from what I've heard, was absolute terrible both in what PA said and how the public received it (only 6% believe his denials?); the big takeaway for the public is that PA is guilty as heck & an absolutely clueless/entitled moron. At this point, everyone *knows* that he's guilty, so any future revelations (as @Hikari mentioned) are blunted.
Given how upset PA was over the idea that his daughters wouldn't be working royals, I doubt that he'd give up his role in the BRF easily, so there had to be extensive negotiations over his exit package (maybe an expiration date to keep him from delaying?).
We've talked before about how the BRF thinks that glaciers move too quickly, so the speed we've seen over the past few days tells me that this was already mapped out. With this in mind, I do think this has greased the skids for tossing out Meggy (& possibly PH). However, I do believe that Archie has some sort of package in place already.
freddie_mac, I like your tinfoil hat very much! You have some very interesting points to think about.
I too, fear that MM will only grow bolder because she can say "at least I'm not PA" and it's unfortunately true. She is becoming more prevalent in magazines, not shilling overtly for products but being featured in "What they Wore"-esque sections and her picture appears alongside cosmetics, with the footnote "MM's makeup guru loves...." etc. I think this is the type of celebrity she wants to be, lucrative marching and "woke" appearances like SmartWorks and the bakery. She appears to do very little official Royal business.
I'd shrug and say she seems shallow and greedy, but the chaos within the RF since her arrival can't be ignored. It appears the destruction of other RF members is as important to her as her own rising star. This is why she is harmful. Otherwise I'd be content to listen to her nonsense every now and then and look for her to sell Temptations cookware on QVC at 3 AM.
Andrew didn’t fall on his sword. In fact, in the Interview and the announcement, he [did] the complete opposite.
I had to go look up the precise definition, and you're right: "If someone falls on their sword, they resign or accept the consequences of some wrongdoing." I was thinking in more general terms of sacrificing himself for the BRF, sorry for the confusion.
@Jen
why did he HAVE to do the interview at all? Couldn't he have just walked away quietly, or was it necessary to ensure that if MM had any dirt that it would be worthless?
IMHO, PA and the RF needed to make sure that any info Meggy had was useless, ergo the interview (I've only glanced over a transcript -- I don't have the stomach to watch it). I don't think that fading away would have worked or that PA would have been willing to do that (he's tried to ride things out before); I do think that he had to be pushed into this exit strategy (maybe he was offered latitude on some elements).
I was also thinking the BRF need to call on others in the family to take up PA's work - if sponsors and charities still want to play. The obvious current slackers are H&M, but just thinking about that would make everyone inside the BRF and out throw their hands up in horror. What would international blue-chip companies make of the slovenly Sussexes? So, that being the case, what are they good for? They're not pulling their own freight. Everyone needs to pull their own freight in the real world, and today the BRF got a little taste of the real world ...
I think Megsy is done and does not want to do more than the bare minimum of royal duties and is going to be pursuing fame and wealth independently. Harry does not seem to be in a good space where he can be of real value to an organisation. But it will be interesting to see if the BRF have realised this about Megsy and Harry.
The wise course would seem the one finally taken to remove Andrew for the interim until the investigation is complete, long though it took to reach this stage.
IMO this is why William is publicaly, personally, and professionally distancing himself from his brother.
My prediction is that Meg and Harry will not be able to help themselves, and after a month or two of relative quiet, they will pick up with their shenanigans. There's going to be the ongoing drama about where they spent their holidays and with whom, and the litigation with the DM will still be dragging on. This Hillary Clinton visit isn't going away, either.
Will we get any Christmas cards with Archie? (Let's all pause for a good laugh. Megs will post a festive B&W Instagram image of the back of a baby's head or backside.)
I think they are basically in Andrew-land (Coventry), only there hasn't been an official announcement to that effect. This will be a separation by degrees. Let's watch the court circular in 2020 and see how many engagements are on tap for Harry and Meghan. They are acting up because they have been entirely left to their own devices, methinks--nothing is expected of them any more.
My theory about Christmas and Balmoral is this: Meghan has been banned from all Royal properties (excluding FroggyCott, officially), because she is so untrustworthy not to flog the silverware or photos from inside the residences. She represents a big security risk, not to mention what her presence does for the peace of mind of those near her.
1. Attend family events solo
2. Stay away as a couple
Even if MM returns from her mini-break and stays officially part of the family, I doubt she will ever be welcomed to any of the Royal houses for the rest of her marriage.
Yes, I know Christmas happens at Sandringham. I was vague. I meant that as well as the summer holiday location. Philip's primary residence is Sandringham now and I'm sure he doesn't want MM there, either.
Not so subtle shade for Philip from Smirkle. If he wasn't almost 100 years old, he would squash her like a cockroach.
You all need to read this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7708371/Britains-ex-consul-general-New-York-casts-doubt-dukes-alibi.html
They now have a precedent. They can announce that they will ask HM for permission to step aside from their Royal Duties. Once they publicly announce that, before they actually ask HM, she will be bound to accept their resignation, because they are in fact telegraphing to the world that they are not interested in having to do boring royal public duties.
Then they are free to travel the world, he a Prince, she a Duchess, both retaining the glamour of being 'royalty' and merch, sell themselves, get lots of freebies, and rake in the cash for their foundation.
The goal is to cut down on the number of 'working' royals living off the public purse, not add to them. There will be no new additions to the list of 'working' royals - the British public is in no mood to fund other useless people to shake hands and cut ribbons.
Yes I noticed the absence of the HRH. So sloppy. Just as I was about to grudgingly praise her for a relatively restrained Insta post, she does that.
"During the fallout which has followed, the monarch and the heir to the throne have been in close two-way communication about the potential damage to the institution.
I also understand that the Duke of Cambridge has been more than a mere spectator. 'Don't forget he has a long-term stake in this too,' says one friend of the family."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7708237/This-isnt-short-term-solution-early-retirement.html
If Harry has any brain cells left, he will kiss Granny's ass...without the ball and chain.
I doubt Charles forgot MM not showing up for his filming then showing that disastrous documentary.
https://youtu.be/dg_MIysNGIU
Also, how will this affect the Sussex's legal action against the DM? Surely they will be told to drop it. The main lesson that's been repeated ad infinitum this week is that royals should stay away from engagement with the media. And as for courts of law! ...
A historian interviewed on (BBC) Newsnight tonight was of the opinion that as PA is only 8th in the succession this has not seriously damaged the monarchy and the withdrawal from public life has brought closure. The crisis has been contained. I really don't see that. Simply because H&M have been baiting the country for 2 years. They are received with either dislike or indifference by the public. That's simply not enough now. PA has raised the temperature of the public mood, which was on a hair-trigger already because of H&M, and they must be living on borrowed time.
At one of the receptions yesterday, a Maori Elder asked Charles for one of his sons - meaning, as Governor General. I've previously suggested in other places that's what I could see Harry doing in time to come but have been shot down in flames. I do, however, feel strongly it will happen. Harry loves NZ and we love him.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10389795/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-alibi-new-york/
>>>> PRINCE Andrew’s alibi may have been weakened after British ex-consul general said he "doesn’t recall" the royal staying at his home during his New York trip. [...]
During Saturday's "car crash" of an interview with BBC’s Emily Maitlis, Prince Andrew said: "I think the date we have for that shows that I was in Boston or I was in New York the previous day, and I was at a dinner for the Outward Bound Trust in New York and then I flew up to Boston the following day.
"Because of what I was doing, I was staying with the consul-general, which is further down the street (from Epstein’s home).
"So I wasn’t staying there (at Epstein’s home). I may have visited but no, definitely didn’t, definitely, definitely, no, no, no activity."
However the royal's claims have not been held up at the other end, as one of the most respected British diplomats of his generation, Sir Thomas Harris, who served in New York from 1999 to 2004, told the Daily Mail he has "no recollection" of the prince staying at his official residence during the trip
He said: "It doesn’t sound as if he stayed with me. I don’t recall him staying with me."
Sir Thomas, 74, admitted he no longer had a copy of his 2001 diary, so was unable to be certain about comings and goings that occurred at his official residence 18 years ago.
Sir Thomas did point out, however, that prominent overnight stays by royals at a consul-general’s residence tend to be formally registered in the Court Circular.
No such stays were pencilled into the Court Circular for the dates of April 9-11 2001, when the duke was carrying out formal engagements in the US.
He added: "Normally, I would give him a dinner party in the evening," he said, noting that the absence of records of such an event "makes me suspect he wasn’t with me that night".
"If he stayed with me, we would normally arrange for businesses to come in. My understanding is that it would be in the Court Circular.
"I have no recollection of him staying at the address in April. I don’t have a note of the dates of all the visits – the Palace will. It doesn’t ring any bell whatsoever.". >>>>>>
He certainly stirred a hornet's nest with that interview.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7708741/The-Duke-Hazard-photos-Prince-Andrew-never-far-causing-crisis.html
Your comment made me think that in about 25 or 30 years, you can substitute the names of Archie and his sibling-to-be to describe the damage Harry and Meghan will cause for their kids. Their children will not escape their messed-up parents.
Bea can have a small classy wedding or elope (my choice). She can have a big party at a later date.
As for the bruises, this is quite common in the elderly due to decreased levels of muscle mass, which brings the blood vessels closer to the surface. Just a little bump can cause a big bruise.
1) Another impediment to a Cali base could very well be that HM and PC might need them to step up and take on some of Andrew’s charities. This will likely keep them full time in the UK and too busy to be building Brand Sussex, which strikes another blow to Meghan’s master plan. They will be kept busy with the charities they each currently have, plus which of Andrew’s charities are given to each of them. And we all just KNOW Meghan will be absolutely thrilled to be once again be a team player, as evidenced by her eager participation in the Fab Four with William and Kate. NOT!
2) I think HM and PC have finally realized Meghan totally dominates Harry, and that she has the potential to cause trouble on a large scale. Allowing them to ”do their own thing,” especially on the Left Coast of the US, is too far away from watchful eyes. The RF can ill afford any shenanigans from an out-of-control narcissist living several time zones away. The Sussexes will likely be kept on a short leash, which will drive Meghan into a control-freak freakout. Harry will bear the brunt of her anger in private, which could wake him up enough to realize her true selfish nature and move the marriage toward a parting of the ways.
So clouds sometimes DO have silver linings!
Happy Days - I like this thinking.
If things take the course I previously described to any degree that affects Meghan’s big plans, she will not take it well at all, but that’s just going to be too damn bad for her. Harry and Meghan won’t be in much of a bargaining position to carry out the development of the worldwide Sussex Royal brand. Awww. What a pity!
I totally agree.
I think (hope?)PC will come roaring home after his tour filled with the fire of righteous indignation. After a "come to Jesus" meeting with the entire family, discipline Wil be the watchword.
No shenanigans,no media leaks,no drugs, no grandstanding, no dressing like slobs. And work. Lots of work.
He has an incredible amount of rebuilding to do. And if a certain duo doesn't like it, they will have to go as well.
I hope he does this. I believe William would.
What do I think it means for the Sussexes? I think they were the first fired, TBH.
We now know that HMTQ did not want things to go down this way nor did she want to reprimand Andy in any way (probably because she believes him when he said he isn't involved). That's why this dragged in for so long. Charles has probably wanted to do something about it for a long time but couldn't. Andy making such a public spectacle of himself is awfully convenient for the powers that be. Forces TQ's hand to do something, Randy Andy is honourably retired before he is accused or dragged through hell by the press (there will always be the big question of did he or did he not but he is innocent till.proven guilty).
This is also Charles'way of telling this queen that it's your mess you sort it out and you better get it done before I come back. Which brings us to PH and MM. Now that is one mess that Charles brought upon himself, it was no one else's doing but his. He walked her down the isle, invited them to his garden party days after they were married to sort of legitimize them for the public.
This is his mess and he will need to sort it out because he unlike his predecessors is keenly aware of public sentiment, he respects his countrymen enough to know that his legacy his position is contingent to what the public feels about the monarchy. He will not tolerate the freedom, callousness or HnM to sully his position on his watch. I'm fairly certain that he will now do something soon about the Sussexes. He is now in charge and he is known to listen to Wills when he makes decisions. They will either be reigned in and rehabilitated or they will be relegated to the sidelines for good.
Harry and Meghan are openly attacking other family members. They are constantly taking digs at William, Kate and even their kids. They do it through their PR, which is passive agressive but very apparent. But they have also done it openly via their documentary and interviews. They have called.out the whole family for not being supportive, insinuated that the family is racist and blamed them.for their mental health problems and making their lives difficult. That is a heavy accusati, in that the family collectively is ignoring for now. But that hasn't stopped the Sussexes. The family for now has shown grace and restrain, the Sussexes not so much. So the BRF can not ignore them forever.
BRF supporting Andy looked like they have their head in the sand. BRF supporting HnM looks like they have no backbone and can't stand up fpr themselves or their own. (The attacks on Kate and the Cambridge kids are horrible and deplorable. How could Charles, William, their advisors continue to lwt this happen?!)
It will be very interesting to see what happens with Andrew's patronages. How many charities would really want Harry, given the way he's behaved over the past year? Everyone could see his rumpled appearance at Royal Albert Hall - what was that stain on his trousers?! - and I would imagine that the gossips in London society know a lot more about his alcohol and drug use than we do.
Meghan has done a rather poor job with her first few patronages, so I can't imagine anyone would be rushing to sign her up, either. Didn't she leave almost all of her appearances earlier than scheduled?
Anyway, I doubt the Sussexes will want the kind of patronages that would have them cutting ribbons in obscure parts of Britain either, although Granny/Charles may insist. Charles might say, come home and do the job we pay you for, or suffer Andrew's fate.
They may think they can travel the globe and live off the Sussex Foundation, but I'm not sure why big-money types would be interested in donating to the Sussex Foundation as it becomes increasingly clear that Harry and Meghan have no pull at BP. What do the donors get in return? Donations to the Clinton Foundation, often seen as the model for the Sussex Foundation, have dropped sharply since Hillary left her position as Secretary of State.
None of her claims have been proven true. And even if they are true and accurate, all it means is that a divorced man had sex with a younger woman above the age of consent, for which someone else paid her a bunch of money.
I am NOT saying this is all cool. It's gross and icky. But I don't see anything illegal here, even by Virginia's own admission. The only thing I think Andrew can be faulted for is remaining friendly with a guy who was a convicted pedophile -- disgusting, but not illegal.
Am I missing something here? What illegal thing is Andrew supposed to have done? Or is all of this "just" about his friendship with Epstein, and how that makes the BRF look? Again, I have not been following the story closely and am legit asking because I don't know the answer.
Also, Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.
'Throughout the Queen's reign, it has been a cast-iron rule that the Royal Family keep their heads down during election campaigns.
They can go about their business but they must avoid making headlines until the polls have closed and a winner can be summoned to the Palace.
That is how democracy works under a constitutional'
Re: the Virginia Roberts case in particular, Roberts states that she was tricked into the sex business at a young age by Epstein, as were many of the other girls in his circle. Andrew must have known what type of man Epstein was, and he should have been suspicious of why a pretty young woman was so eager to have sex with his middle-aged self.
And then, of course, he lied about the situation and was caught lying. He really isn't suitable for any kind of public role any more.
''Royals can be ruthless when they need to be - especially when the alternative is the risk of a public debate about the merits of monarchy
''The “removal “ of Prince Andrew is another sign of the behind the scenes slow, but inexorable, shifting of power from the Queen to Prince Charles
''The British Monarchy - a dynasty determined to survive - has now shown it will “sack” errant members who might threaten its longevity.
''The challenge for the royals now is what do they do with a prince with time on his hands
With Prince Andrew gone, his drive for his daughters to have public royal roles, diminishes/dies.''
I knew Charles will go into PR mode and stories of how he took charge of the situation will flood the media and that was exactly what happened. Watch what happens henceforth. Charles will want to prove that he can be firm as his father and he will do anything to boost people's confidence in him. So the Sussexes better watch out. Charles will want to counter the narrative that he and the queen have lost grip.
1. Epstein was not a paedophile nor was he charged or convicted of paedophilia. In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to a state charge (one of two) of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18. It is not even clear if the girls were below the age of consent. (Note that paedophilia is NOT sexual attraction and abuse of girls/boys below the age of consent but pre-pubescent. Puberty and age of consent are not the same thing.)
2. As a sexual offender, Epstein committed two offences: sex with underage (NOT pre-pubescent) teenagers, and procuring girls for prostitution (i.e paying them in some way for sex).
3. From 2008 to 2019 there were numerous civil lawsuits filed against Epstein, asking for compensation in the region of tens of millions of dollars. Some were dismissed, some Epstein paid to drop the suit and there were some who were paid off to not file a suit.
4. It was July 2019 that Epstein was arrested and charged with sex trafficking and conspiracy to traffic minors for sex (not paedophilia).
Although I am reluctant to state that Epstein was murdered, I am highly suspicious of the official version that his death was a straightforward suicide. Investigations were ongoing, including in France, and there were other, wealthy and powerful, people involved who were going to be dragged into the mess. I think there were a number of people who foolishly thought that if Epstein died, the investigations would stop.
Sandie -- my understanding is that Epstein had sex with a 14 year-old girl and pleaded guilty and was convicted of procuring an underage girl for prostitution and solicitation. But the FBI had identified literally dozens of girls, some aged 14, that he had also abused. He was designated a level three (high risk) sex offender. The victim's cutoff age for somebody to be legally identified as a pedophile is 13, so Epstein JUST squeaks by. So yes, you are correct that he wasn't a convicted pedophile, but only just. I was mistaken in that.
The only people I feel sorry for in all of this are the York girls. I've seen embarrassing parents before, but the Yorks take the cake. If I was Beatrice I would just chuck it all and have a family wedding at Edo's family's villa in Italy. It's gorgeous and quite stately.
The simple point being that she is displaying the same wide eyed shock as the people who were knew/worked with Jimmy Saville, or Harvey Weinstein, or who didn't know about widespread tax dodging by multi national companies in the EU by using Luxembourg. And it's the same wide eyed shock displayed by Prince Andrew when discussing Epstein. They all do the same damn thing and it drives me mad.
And it is this. All these people, on all these different issues, had simply no idea that this was all going on. They are shocked (just shocked I tell you!) at these accusations of impropriety and never witnessed anything themselves.
Basically, if all these people walked down a street and there were buildings burning on both sides then they would be shocked (just shocked I tell you!) that there were buildings burning. They didn't see anything, or don't recall seeing anything when they were walking.
It's the same thing applied time and time again.
For people to applaud the Queen for taking action is laughable in my opinion. He stayed with Epstein in 2010! What about all the partying he did up to 2010, and not with EPstein, but with all the other people that we have recently seen in the DM. He has been milking this lifestyle for years (hence the well known nickname Randy Andy) and the Queen is getting praise because she is acting now? Wow. What a trooper she is. A real moral compass in these desperate times...
Oh wait, of course, she had 'no idea' etcetc.
Interestingly, it shows just how much is kept from us peasants by the media here. We all know PA likes a party, but even now it's hard to know what he actually does every year. His 200 charities sounds a lot but what does he actually do all year? I'm guessing not a lot, so his retirement is actually a bonus for him as he is now free to live a life of leisure using who knows what funding. One thing we can be sure of is that he's wealthy. No one knows how much he has as the RF is VERY good at keeping things behind a barrier of secrecy. So don't feel sorry for him, he's on an even longer holiday than he has been on for most of his life.
And if they have been sitting on all this stuff with PA, well it makes you wonder what else they have on a divorced actress who has dropped all her old friends like a hot potato. Just a thought.
As for what all this means for PH and MM it can go both ways. They might be seen as an asset if they can keep their heads down and avoid the 'look at me' PR gaffes along with preaching down to us oiks while doing non showy charity stuff.
I can't imagine that this will be the case, but as Liverbird always makes clear, most people in the UK don't really have any opinion on them. It's a bit like the tv show Veep where everyone is in a self important bubble doing things that are all totally useless because no one actually cares.
The one thing that I think might be a real issue (and I'm aware my own personal prejudice may colour this a bit too much) is that people might be just a bit sick of the RF.
Any misstep by PH/MM will be seen as proof that the Royals are totally out of touch and have been living a life of unbelievable privilege for too long. Any fancy trips/expensive parties etc will most likely be questioned and too bloody right it should.
Also, on a lesser note, all this does show that MM is not being unfairly treated by the Press. They're not singling her out at all, and one of the trade offs with having a life of wealth and unbelievable privilege simply by marrying someone (or being born to the correct family) is that you don't get to take the mickey too much. Acknowledge you're lucky whilst at the same time performing the tricky balancing act of doing all you can to hide it. Not easy. And not something she is likely to be able to do?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/inside-queens-sacking-prince-andrew-20926614.amp
Greatly looking forward to Queenie's speech this Christmas.
Andrew will still have the income from HM 250k p.a. from the Dutchy of Lancaster unfortunately Plus whatever $£ in assets he's accumulated over the years 59 million it's estimated he's worth!? Still a disgrace
>>>>>>>Diplomacy has never been one of his strong points. When Pan Am flight 103 and its passengers were blown up and fell on the Scottish town of Lockerbie a few days before Christmas 1988, the Queen’s then deputy private secretary Robert Fellowes urged her to go there.
But fearing she would be a distraction from the desperate recovery work, she decided Andrew should go instead. He was not a good choice. He upset local people, where 11 residents were killed on the ground, by declaring it was ‘much worse for the Americans’ ( 259 passengers and crew were on the US airliner). And he added it had been ‘only matter of time’; before a plane fell out of the sky.>>>>>>>
Richard Kay is one of the two reporters on that article, so very experienced. I remember Lockerbie vividly and read all about it at the time. I bet lots of things are going to come out now about PA that were hushed up before. (BTW the soft porn photo of Koo Stark has been removed from the DM montage as of this morning. The other photo of her in there is fine. Thank goodness. I agree they should leave her alone.)
Journalists are remembering PA's navy days. I had a friend years ago whose husband was in the Royal Navy at the same time as PA and no one he knew had a good word to say about him. Especially as his presence was something they could have done without in the Falklands. Much as soldiers are reported to have said about Harry in Afghanistan. Harry really is treading a worn path as the second son.
I agree with other posters reflecting on the poor York girls that poor Archie may be in for a difficult time when he's older. Worse really, because no one has ever disputed that Andrew and Fergie are close to their children. They may be bad parents, but they are a close family. The only comfort I get about Archie is that he looks as if he lives his daily life without H&M. He really does worry me in case the person or people caring for him are only temporary.
@Ava C You state "One interesting aspect I read this morning is that it really bothered the Queen that all the PA coverage was affecting the coverage of the general election..."
To me this is the blatant puffery of PR that is accepted as gospel by people. That is the politically expedient way of framing it to make the Queen look good. Assuming that she actually thinks this at all as I'm guessing it will be 'Palace sources' which is code for PR/spin.
How about looking at it this way. "We need to put out a story to show that the Queen is concerned about PA and the actions of the RF [whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that she has done nothing about him for years] and we also need to frame it in a way that makes her look selfless and aware of how she needs to stay away from politics."
Which is more accurate? I think that's where the two of us will differ in our opinions:)
I agree with so much with Bootsy’s comment, but I personally think the British are mostly indifferent towards the royal family, unless we have reason to notice them, and we’ve had far too many reasons over the last 2 years.
Andrew has bought so much shame and negativity onto the royal family, he needed to be kicked into the long grass, but many people are sick to the back teeth of the Sussex’s for entirely different reasons. I can’t foresee Meghan or Harry changing, so they need to go.
For the royal family to overcome and survive, they need to remove the festering decay from within and slowly rebuild their reputation.
Raspberry, agree that the festering decay has to be removed but not sure they have the luxury of time on their side to rebuild slowly. I sense growing disenchantment with the whole lot of them.
New article from the daily mail quoting People magazine (make of that what you will)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7710195/No-one-royal-family-checking-texting-speaking-Harry-Meghan.html
"The royal rift continues: 'No one' in the royal family 'is checking in, texting or speaking' to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, source claims to People magazine".
To clarify, I agree with LiverBird that most people don't really care too much about the RF at all. This statement is made in relation to all stuff surrounding MM/PH stuff and the silly PR things and crying about being mistreated etc. All of that is of very little consequence to the majority of people here in the UK, except to people like us who are more 'engaged.'
However, the PA stuff is much more likely to annoy people who are less engaged in their affairs. People don't like having the shameless lifestyles of normal state benefits scroungers being shoved in their faces. Even less so if it's criminal and the scroungers are members of a rather snooty family who claim they are made of higher morals than us oiks. Which incidentally is what Andrew claimed in his interview!
Can it really work that way? Even if Charles was strongly campaigning for Andrew to go (and I don't doubt that) ultimately didn't the Queen have to agree? (vs "they" just said it was her decision?) I mean, would Andrew have even gone if it was just Charles saying it?
This is too little too late and reeks of damage control. HM seems to suffer from the same kind of hubris that Andy displayed in his interview , that royals are above reproach just because they are royals and should be cut some slack because of their privilage. PA might have been trying to get some pity out of the public with the interview and this latest action and his statement is also aimed at appeasing the public by appearing to do the honourable thing. HM could have acted long long ago, for damage control and just to save her family's reputation if for nothing else. But she did so now to save face. It's obvious. Which does make me feel that Charles prevailed as far as this decision goes.
He might have wanted to make it seem like the queen has taken this decision and wanted to be away with shit goes down, but it's clear that he did not like the way things shaped up just because his mother decided to be sentimental about a sin of her for once in her life.
The past week media took their kid gloves off and all we read was how Charles and the monarchy was ineffective. How Charles was weak and unfit for crown. Do you think he would have liked it?? No way! This decision probably had less to do with teaching Andy a lesson and more about establishing Charles as a rightful, just deserving king who isn't scared of making a difficult choice. That's also a good reason why HnM should be vary of continuing their shenanigans any more. Granny has effectively retired and Charles is tired of having the cloud of his mother, his father, his wife, his brother hanging over him questioning his position.
"Buckingham Palace today confirmed that Prince Andrew will continue to work on Pitch@Palace tech entrepreneurs initiative because it is a private venture. [...] A Buckingham Palace spokesman told MailOnline: 'The Duke will continue to work on Pitch@Palace but will look at how he takes this forward outside of his public duties, and outside of the Palace.'Naturally there will be a transition period while this takes place.'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7710203/Prince-Andrew-continue-work-Pitch-Palace-project.html
Andy wouldn't have gone if it were just up to Charles. Apparently has wanted Andy gone for years but his mother prevailed. Andy had to have done something catastrophic and then some more to justify his ouster. And this time he did. That's why he is out. Not just becyxharles wanted him out, but because this time the public sentiment is so high it cannot be IG oted, it was threatening the monarchy.
@Swampwoman - the wages for the royal household staff are not as fancy as some would think but they aren't meager by any standards. Some posts involve housing, a lot of the staff does live at Buckingham palace, some even at other palaces like Windsor or Tower of London. Some staff travels with the royals and get allowances for uniforms and upkeep of the uniforms. But it's been known for years that the royals don't pay exorbitantly well, the allure of being close to the royals and working for the crown is what attracts most candidates.
I have also heard about the low pay for Palace employees. Yes it is extremely low and how they survive I have no idea.
Well actually I think I do. My Dad's cousin's wife (yep work that one out) was Lady in Waiting to a member of the RF. A fairly low ranking member of the RF, certainly not the front line like this sorry bunch and of the older generation. So low in fact that I'm not actually sure what her name is!
The lady in waiting (my distant relative) were all from good families so didn't have to worry too much about the paltry pay conditions. I would guess that most people working for the royals are from 'good' aka wealthy/well to do families as well. The Middletons would be a good example!
@AvaC I'm guessing that the Pitch@Palace thing is a money spinner hence why he won't give it up. His whole existence is based on introducing people to each other (this was mentioned in the Epstein interview as well-he made good connections through him) and getting paid in direct/indirect ways so this would be a perfect cover for those activities?
> Andrew has also lost his £249,000 per year slice of the Sovereigns Grant. He now has no income and no job.<
Well he won't be applying for public assistance anytime soon as you Brits point out that his Mummy can provide for him out her Privy Purse (think its called). Then I read he is worth $57 million, well he can free up some money and use the cash to generate income, say putting it into real estate development with his soon-to-be SIL. I know some in my area that make 50% profit on their effort. Also I am aware of a solid investment firm that has one socially responsible fund averaging over 24%.return.
This smacks of them trying to weasel out of a definitive shutdown on the scale we all understood as of last night. Public and sponsors will be merciless if so.
I agree, they may not have the luxury of time. So many people are indeed disenchanted with them. Their blatant arrogance and self entitled demeanour, could be the very thing that leads to their own demise.
After what must have been horrific family arguments over Prince Andrew, the whiny article in the Daily Mail about how nobody is checking in to see how the Sussexes are doing was incredibly ill timed.
@Lizzie, I agree with Alice, no Charles couldn’t have acted solely alone, the Queen had to agree. Charles I’m guessing would have instigated it, because Andrews’ reputation etc., was threatening to bury the lot of them.
It is my belief that Andrew's interview with the BBC was meant as a preemptive strike (which of course backfired spectacularly). I think it has a lot to do with the 3,000 pages of testimony which are apparently due to be released in the Epstein case in the US within the next six weeks. My guess is that Andrew will be named in these documents and the interview was his attempt to get his version of the story out before more negative press coverage. My thinking is that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg re the Andrew/Epstein connection. And that the Queen and Prince Charles received information from the press or other inside information about what was in these documents and had no choice but to "retire" Andrew straight away. I agree M&H had better watch their backs, because the Crown always wins. If the Queen is able to fire her favourite child (even though it was years overdue) she will have no qualms about doing the same to the Harkles. She is still one tough lady. Sending the Harkles to New Zealand for the governor-general post might be an effective way to mask such a dismissal.
All of this reminds me of when she wrote to Charles and Diana instructing them to get a divorce. In the week after the infamous Panorama interview. By then we'd witnessed years of strife and royal ostriching. TV is obviously the way to go to get the head out of the sand.
I admit I do not know much about what a governor-general really does. But would Harry even be capable of pretending to do that job?
I know opinions on his IQ are mixed. But his recent behavior--- essentially claiming to have PTSD and be triggered by cameras, saying he has trouble getting out of bed in the morning, looking disheveled on more than one official occasion, giggling (or crying according to some) during a speech, looking either like he put his back out OR was exceptionally hung over near the end of the SA trip, being rude to that female journalist (rude IMO anyway), often looking angry, trailing after MM like a sullen teenager....
According to
https://gg.govt.nz/news/role-governor-general
The Governor-General "takes a leading role in public ceremonies, including opening new sessions of Parliament, holding honours investitures and attending other important commemorations and public events."
Could Harry do those things week in and week out?
Thanks to all who answered by question about whether PA's fate was decided by TQ or Charles
I'm incredibly confused as to how Andrew's interview all went so wrong in the first place. Surely the palace has media experts who would have been advising him to express remorse, concern for "Epstein's" victims, and coming up with a far better explanation for everything than "I don't remember." That things ended so badly suggests to me that he did not have the support one would typically expect for the Queen's favourite son. Very curious as to what happened there...
Andrew's PR manager, Jason Stein, resigned just before the interview went out. So it's not that he didn't have advisors, he just thought he knew best. Remind you of any younger members of the firm?
That is about it in a nutshell. It is astonishing that he told lie after lie in that interview (another has been exposed when he said he stayed with some official at the time a sexual encounter was supposed to take place and that has been exposed as a lie). I wonder if he has lied his whole life to get out of trouble because it seems to be completely irrational to lie repeatedly in an interview and expect not to be exposed.
Also, he really does not seem to understand why Epstein's behaviour was repulsive and crossed the line of being illegal (even if it did not do the latter, it was still repulsive).
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2019/11/21/two-years-on-from-invictus-toronto-2017/
Unherd also has a fun infographic of the most Royalist areas and least Royalist areas. Least royalist: Liverpool, followed by districts in Glasgow and Manchester.
I would take a 74-year-old man saying that he doesn't remember that PA stayed at that time but cannot check as he doesn't have his schedule any longer as an unverified claim, not as a lie. Anybody that stayed with me 18 years ago that needed me for verification of a certain date is SOL.
After what must have been horrific family arguments over Prince Andrew, the whiny article in the Daily Mail about how nobody is checking in to see how the Sussexes are doing was incredibly ill timed.
Oh, I disagree. I think it is quite well timed by accident (or karma). They planned it without knowing the PA would blow up so fast/so high. I think it could easily be a nice warning to them that no one is tolerated forever with their bad behavior.
I read that and thought: you really do think you are the center of the universe, don't you?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7710285/Prince-Andrew-smiling-waving-breaks-cover-time-Queen-sacked-him.html
I was astounded that actual adults would behave like that. I don't constantly check up on my brothers, children, or grandchildren, and vice versa. And for me and the brothers, the check in would go something like this "Hey, happy birthday!" "Thanks!" "So, you doing alright?" "Yep. How about you?" "Yep!" "Okay, talk to you next year!" "Okay, take care!"
It seems H&M expect to be only on the receiving end. The People article whining about no one checking in also said H&M were trying to figure out how to be "civil" to members of the RF. So I doubt they've reached out to family members nor is it likely anyone will reach out to them until they've figured out the civility issue!
H&M should realize Andrew’s fate could be their own. (I agree with others who believe Charles always intended Harry to be part of his slimmed down royal family.) Eventually, Harry will be as insignificant as the Windsor cousins he couldn’t find space for at his 600+ guest wedding.
"In the mid-2000s, a 53-page indictment was drafted, but never filed, against American financier Jeffrey Epstein. At the time, police in Palm Beach, Florida, had identified more than a dozen girls, as young as 14, who alleged sexual contact with him. One of the girls, Haley Robson, told police that she was paid to bring other girls to Epstein’s mansion for massages, before being pressured and paid to remove their clothes and submit to fondling and other invasive sexual contact. Instead of prosecuting the case, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida at the time — Alexander Acosta — offered a plea deal for two prostitution offenses, which carried a penalty of 13 months of incarceration with work release and a requirement to register as a sex offender. Epstein and his attorneys took the deal."
Hmmm, they took the deal. You're damn straight they took it!
1. Epstein was not a paedophile nor was he charged or convicted of paedophilia. In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to a state charge (one of two) of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18. It is not even clear if the girls were below the age of consent. (Note that paedophilia is NOT sexual attraction and abuse of girls/boys below the age of consent but pre-pubescent. Puberty and age of consent are not the same thing.)
Fourteen is below the age of consent in Florida (which is 16). It is perfectly clear that many of these girls were under the age of consent. Please note that this plea deal engineered by Acosta ignored the initial 53-page indictment. This sweetheart deal allowed Epstein to serve the majority of his sentence in his OWN home. Acosta's role in this plea deal (which was illegal) was considered so egregious that he was forced to resign as Secretary of Labor.
2. As a sexual offender, Epstein committed two offences: sex with underage (NOT pre-pubescent) teenagers, and procuring girls for prostitution (i.e paying them in some way for sex).
This minor sentence was part of the plea deal. I question how you go from a 53-page indictment to two minor offences in the blink of an eye. I will also point out that this plea deal included the provision that none of Epstein's co-conspirators could be indicted. How convenient. Also how convenient? Acosta was awarded a plum job with the new administration, only to resign in disgrace when his machinations regarding the Epstein case were revealed.
It is obvious that Epstein had plenty of political juice to whitewash his predatory behavior that extended over decades. What changed? I don't know, but we should ask ourselves that very question. He'd been protected for years. Years! It is certainly in the interest of several major political figures (Trump, Clinton, and PA just to name a few) to have Epstein portrayed as a man who was probably wearing beer goggles when he picked up those runaways on a street corner. It was dark. He didn't know how young they were. They looked hungry so he gave them a hundred dollars so they could get a meal. No! He set up a system in several states (New York, Florida, and New Mexico) and countries (his island "paradise") to procure very young women to service him and his friends.
It remains to be seen if the upcoming Epstein-related revelations will further sink PA with conclusive evidence that he consorted with minors. This is the first nightmare. The second one looming above his head is that there seems to be plenty of smoke regarding PA's finances. Once the media smells blood in the water (and I would say that forcing him to step back from his duties shows how vulnerable the BRF feels he is to possible revelations regarding either his sex life or his finances), they will start to feed on him. Much like his reputation as a skank, there have been lots of whisperings about his tendency to play fast and lose with money. I don't follow the royals, and even I know that his finances smell fishy. I suspect this will embolden the media to finally expose his financial house of cards.
There was another merching story in DM today about necklaces MM wore and the company thanked her publicly on IG in a gushing post. If that doesn't cheapen the RF I don't know what does. THAT is the celebrity she desires, easy work merching for companies and raking in cold cash.
Yes, the Harkles need to pay attend to the example of Andrew, or they will be next (yes, Harry and Meghan). The institution of the Monarchy is at stake and Charles intends to be King, no matter what the cost. If he can isolate and contain his brother, then He will not hesitate to contain his son IF the lesson is not learned and acknowledged with improved behavior and less press.
Articles like the People spread and the return of the SS daily dribble in the DM only reinforce the present state of H&M - the lesson has not yet been learned and they have not yet "regrouped." Perhaps they are in shock, or IMHO, do not believe the basic lesson applies to them. Narcsite.com has a great (three-part) blog called "A Very Royal Narcissist" and Harry Markle's post today have taken the gloves off to call MM for what she is - in it for herself.
It seems he can do as he wants after all.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7710285/Prince-Andrew-smiling-waving-breaks-cover-time-Queen-sacked-him.html
Now Andrew has been forced to face his appalling behaviour and lost the protection of HMQ the Harkles are the main problem, and if the knife is being wielded then MM is a very soft target.
Right from MM's admission to the RF it was evident that Andrew loathed her; if he has any knowledge of her association with JE he will throw her under a bus with great pleasure.
HMQ has sacked her favourite son, she may well be in the mood to remove the thorn in the side that the American actress has proved to be. Neither of the Harkles are very intelligent, and certainly underestimate the ruthlessness of the RF. If the top team decide that she's causing public disaffection for the monarchy she'll soon be history.
‘The royal rift continues: 'No one' in the royal family 'is checking in, texting or speaking' to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, source claims to People magazine’,
I agree, it shows just how up their own bottoms and pathetic the Sussex’s truly are.
I wonder whether they were informed of Andrew being cut lose from the family or simply ignored. Most likely they weren’t informed and therefore ignored, but it was too late anyhow, the article was already going to print.
They should heed the warning and think the writing could be on wall for them too. I’m hoping, oh I’m so hoping that these two will be cut too, and with no income.
"If the top team decide that she's causing public disaffection for the monarchy she'll soon be history."
I hope that what you said is true. If The firm is cleaning house and I hope they do a thorough job. The Harkle are a thorn in their side. Remove it. After all, you don't want to leave a thorn in a wound to fester!
No drama, no scandal just sorry you felt you had to go.
Oh I don’t know...there’s no better time IMO, the family is in a mess, better to clear out all in one go and get it done and over with. The effects of setting the Sussex’s adrift would subside, as they say, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
@Maggie, agree.
Actually, the age of consent in Florida is 18 but, IIRC, there was some wriggle room in that at that time. It was 18 if previously chaste. A 16-year-old runaway (or thrown away) kid that was voluntarily prostituting him/herself on the street for the previous three years would not count. Since Epstein had teens out recruiting teens, many of those may have been already self employed that took the better pay and protection.
As for the sweetheart deal, rumor here in Florida had it that everybody involved in prosecuting the case was under heavy pressure to sweep it under the rug because of Epstein's connection to President Clinton and other powerful politicians and businessmen. I'm sure there were more than a few in the county that had initially been prosecuting the case.
FWIW, if anybody is interested, now the kid has to be at least 14 and have sex with a person no more than 4 years older. So, a 17-year-old can have sex with a girl or boyfriend up to the age of 21. Lawmakers had to change it because a 16 year old having sex with another 16 year old were both being classified as sexual offenders for life. There were so many juvenile sexual offenders that it was hard to keep track of the 'real' ones (like Epstein).
Agree, that's one way of looking at it. The other interpretation is that in the face of an extremely serious threat to the institution of the monarchy the Harkles are still bleating on about poor Meghan and Harry.
The smart move would be to STFU. Of course this could have come from the Palace as a smart bit of hard-to-refute PR !
He details a very interesting timeline in the "romance", plus some photos from the Games which show Harry looking very uncomfortable.
I’ve never read the blog before, but totally agree there was some interesting perspective on the timeline and photos! It does make you wonder. However, whilst no-one held a gun to his head, he didn’t have to marry Meghan, but he still did. Why on Earth did he propose less then 2 months later, if he was that uncomfortable or not wanting to pursue the relationship? This wasn’t mentioned, or did I miss that?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/emily-maitlis-my-interview-with-prince-andrew-8hhclpwcf
There is no easy way to ask a senior member of the royal family about their links to a prolific paedophile. There is no easy way to ask a senior member of the royal family if they had sex with a minor. I have been turning these formulations over in my mind on the way to the interview and, believe me, there just isn’t.
I am heading across the courtyard of Buckingham Palace for the third time in as many weeks. I am lugging a huge silver Sweaty Betty bag bursting at the seams with shoes and jackets. It is so large and so bling that it looks as though I’m trying to move in. And I realise, as the armed police officers wave me across to the diagonal corner — “look for the glint of red carpet” — past the sentry guards and the formal front gates, that once I leave I am unlikely ever to be invited back.
Where does the story of this interview begin? Perhaps with our formidable planning team, led by Sam McAlister, who a full year earlier had approached the Palace to ask Prince Andrew to sit down and talk. Perhaps it begins in May, when the Palace returned the interest, suggesting that he might want to discuss a whole range of things — trade after Brexit, his projects, and Britain’s place in the world. His friendship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein was the one area they did not want discussed.
This rings alarm bells with our deputy editor, Stewart Maclean. His news antennae — and discomfort with being told what can or cannot be addressed, will become instrumental to this whole process. And so we decline — just out of principle. Red lines are never a good starting point for any interview.
Prince Andrew had known Epstein and his girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, for a decade. He had stayed with them, travelled with them, partied with them. What’s more, he had been named in the legal deposition of one woman — Virginia Roberts — who claimed that she had been trafficked to him for sex on three occasions. What did the Duke of York actually know of Epstein’s behaviour? And what had he himself done? Those questions were becoming harder to leave unanswered.
The Palace knew they had a problem. They had sent out statements vigorously denying the claims. But those perhaps lacked the conviction of a human voice behind them. And so we go to meet his team. They feel that a Newsnight interview is the only way to clear the air. To put across his side of the story. We feel we can afford no editorial interference. This cannot be a walk-round-the-garden chat — with a quick, euphemistic allusion to the scandal at the end. All the usual royal protocol will be out the window. This has to confront the issue head-on. Take the elephant in the room. Sit it down. And hear it speak.
Our talks are candid. All they demand from us is an open mind.
We discuss the now infamous photo that appears to show the prince’s arm around the waist of a 17-year-old Roberts. Some of his friends had called it a fake. Were they suggesting the same thing, I ask. They shrug. “We just ask you to consider everything.”
Our investigations unit had been sifting through the timelines, the court depositions, the photos, the money that’s changed hands. We had tried to determine what had come from media interviews and what had come from legal documentation. We endeavoured to match up dates and places. Quotes and witnesses. Then, on Monday of last week, we return to Buckingham Palace. We propose a 40-minute extended interview — with a set-up piece to explain the background of all that had been said. This time, it will — fittingly — be Stewart’s candour that will ultimately get the whole thing over the line.
We have finished laying out our pitch. An awkward moment of silence falls. And the duke tells us he must “seek approval from higher up”. It dawns on us then that he means the Queen herself. At 8am the next day we have a message telling us to call his office. The Queen, it seems, is on board.
From that moment the week becomes a blur. We have set up the interview for Thursday, and for two days I must carry around the weight of what we’re about to do without breathing a word. We draw up a list of far too many questions — every allegation, every twist in the narrative, everything we genuinely do not understand. We role-play the interview in an office the size of a kennel. The Newsnight editor, Esme Wren, takes the part of Prince Andrew and she bats away my putative questions by telling me — in assumed character — they’re “improper” or “tasteless” — unbecoming of the BBC (she is, as it turns out, fiercer, more obfuscating and more threatening with me than the prince will be).