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
This time, once we cross the courtyard of Buckingham Palace, we are taken into the Queen’s own entrance. We will film in the south drawing room — in truth, a modest ballroom — and we will reach it through a seemingly endless journey the length of the extraordinary Marble Hall, where investiture ceremonies are performed. The walk is dazzling, stately and, frankly, intimidating.
I am trying to understand the significance of the Queen giving us her own formal quarters in which to film, but it feels like a code I do not properly understand. Is she endorsing her son? The need for this interview? Or am I reading way too much into every step, merely because there are so many of them? The door to the stateroom opens before me and all I can focus on is the carpet, a swirling, blinding riot of reds and yellows.
It is making me dizzy, but I can’t take my eyes off it. Which is why, as I trip into the room, Bag Lady Supremo, I do not realise the duke is there before me. I have no free hand to shake. And if I curtsy now I may not make it back up again.
I quickly sidle off to the loo, see I have chocolate on my teeth, and start to scrub with what I realise too late is a palace hand towel.
This is the most disastrous start to any interview I can imagine. And then I suddenly recognise it for what it is: pure stomach-gripping nerves. And the recognition of something so obvious relaxes me.
Back in the room, the duke and I begin the preamble — small talk. He seems at ease, fascinated by the mechanics of the whole process, laughing at the number of cameras Keith and Jonathan have set up. The sound engineer, Paul Cutler, comes to mike me up. The duke notices a trail of a wire from my jacket and is looking pained. His engineering brain has kicked in and it seems to him really obvious the wire should be on the other side, tucked around the opposite edge of the chair so it won’t stick out. He starts directing the mike placement until the cameraman and the sound engineer are following his orders. He finally sits back, satisfied that he has solved a technical conundrum for the team. He does not seem particularly nervous. He doesn’t seem like a man who’s about to decide his own fate in an on-camera interview.
“Your Royal Highness,” I begin, “we’ve come to Buckingham Palace in highly unusual circumstances. Normally we would be discussing your work and duty. Today you’ve chosen to speak up for the first time. Why have you decided to talk now?”
I’m expecting him to embark on a long ramble about his work and his royal duty. But he doesn’t. He does something that stops me in my tracks. He just answers the question directly. “Because there is no good time to talk about Mr Epstein and all things associated, and we’ve been talking to Newsnight for about six months . . .”
The elephant, it seems, has joined us. Right from the word go. And it is a relief to me to hear the name said out loud, an acknowledgment we are both here to discuss the thing we knew we must. And thus begins the most extraordinary encounter of my professional life. A man who has not talked publicly on this subject for a decade has now been permitted to do so and won’t stop.
He tells of their friendship, and what he got from it. Tells of Ghislaine Maxwell, and how she had been the initial link. And he is vehement in the denials of his own wrongdoing. He cannot ever remember meeting Roberts, he tells me. I am trying to understand if he knows he didn’t or if he just can’t remember. It seems a vital difference. And I need to hear which he believes.
He pauses, thinks briefly, and tells me: “No, I have . . . I don’t know if I’ve met her, but no, I have no recollection of meeting her.”
Other things bring more clarity. He has come prepared to admit that he made a grave error of judgment — staying with Epstein after his conviction. He let the side down. “The side” being Buckingham Palace and all it stands for. But when I ask if he regrets the Epstein friendship I get a breathtakingly candid “no”.
He talks about the “opportunities that I was given to learn by him” and he tells me he’s guided by honourable behaviour, by which I think he means that you can’t break up with a mate (who is a convicted paedophile) without doing it in person. He must have known what Epstein was like, I press. Roberts’s legal team has said that you “could not be around Epstein and not know”. The duke reminds me that he was a patron of the NSPCC. He would recognise “what the things were to look for”. He swears he never saw them.
By now his words will have been pounced on and pored over. Bitten off, spat out. Chewed and, maybe, swallowed. People will make their own minds up about what they heard and saw. And some minds will have been made up long before they even saw him speak to me.
In person he is courteous, affable and eager to please. There is no question that he shies away from, no issue with which he refuses to engage. Indeed, I reflect afterwards that there have been more riders and red lines drawn in the interviews I’ve done with C-list celebrities and backbench politicians than with the Queen’s reportedly favourite son.
From an interviewer’s perspective he has been everything you could ask. Approachable and expansive, polite and generous with his time. He has given me fresh detail, new thoughts and told me things I had certainly never heard before. It is what we want from every encounter. It is what we long to hear.
Our news world is so often full of bland figures trying wilfully to be more bland. Say nothing. Avoid scrutiny. Dodge and deviate from every question asked. And whatever comes of this, I must admit to respecting an interviewee who is prepared to approach head-on every single thing that he is asked.
Back in the south drawing room I collect my bags. The floor is being transformed by palace workmen. It looks for a minute as if railway tracks are going down. The kind young woman who has shown us in sees my confusion. “It’s for the Buckingham Palace cinema,” she tells me. “All the people who work here come along. It’s Judy tonight if you want to stay.” But my day has already hit peak surreal and I think I need to disappear.
“Perhaps you want to get everyone along for Sunday,” I say. “It’s the new series of The Crown.” She looks momentarily apologetic. “We had Downton Abbey last week. But we don’t do The Crown here.” With that, finally,
They badly need to appear as victims (tabloids and BRF), that's why even if they're off for 6 weeks, they keep pushing their pity party narrative.
Concerning Charles, he's been underestimated because of a poor (1st) marriage.
However, I do think he will be ruthless when it comes to protect the Crown (his crown) against any person who would attempt to sabotage it (including his son).
On a completely different topic, I wonder if Kate is pregnant (I hope so :-)) : she seems to be tired lately +Kensington Palace suddenly cancelled Kate's attendance to the Tusk Conservation awards.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7711251/Kate-Middleton-not-attend-awards-children.html
Has Meggy contacted her father to see how he is doing?
Have H&M’s ever considered his Grandparents are frail and elderly, and perhaps more needing of checking up on themselves?
It seems he can do as he wants after all.
Miggy, why shouldn't he? It isn't a royal engagement. He's not under arrest. He isn't even, at this time, accused of doing anything illegal, just distasteful.
At this time, PA has been convicted in the court of public opinion for acting like an anal sphincter for not groveling or apologizing and being all haughty. I am still withholding judgement on the entire matter. I don't have enough information, but some things are off.
Now, about Epstein's 'suicide': There were too many coincidences for me to believe. Since I do not believe in the coincidences that led up to his suicide, I have to wonder whether (a) this was a pretext to take him into protective custody, or (b) somebody very, very powerful orchestrated that murder.
I'm wondering how a sex slave is keeping all those detailed records. If she were indeed a sex slave and not a trusted associate, why would she be allowed to keep a dear diary and record all of her liaisons in great detail? The bossman and bosslady are recording everything for blackmail purposes. Detailed notes could be used against them.
Dershowitz accused her attorney of being the one that told her to accuse Dershowitz and he said he had tapes to prove it. I don't know the truth of that but, if it is accurate, maybe the attorney(s) also told her to accuse PA.
These 'Kate is pregnant' stories come up every few weeks, but - not that I have any inside knowledge or anything - I doubt she and William will have another child.
If he didn't want to be 'convicted in the court of public opinion' why on earth did he volunteer to do that wretched interview? Nobody forced him.
And in any case, if you are a public servant living a life of great luxury subsidised by taxpayers, then the public has every right to 'convict' you of being an arrogant, boorish shit who showed no remorse for being 'friends' with a convicted sex criminal. It's a wee bit more than "not groveling or apologizing and being all haughty".
"Blind Item #10
The alliterate royal has at least three separate meetings with production companies and her agent lined up for when she is in LA. "
So this is a 6-week break from royal duties but not from her personal agenda...
Apparently they are working on their mental health collaboration with Oprah (that could explain - according to Danja zone- why Harry wants to appear to be so miserable).
Re: "No one is checking in, no one is texting", the Mail story was based on the People cover story, which was must have been well underway before the Andrew interview even took place, let alone his sudden defenestration. I don't think it was a reaction to the Andrew news.
It would be interesting to know if the Sussexes knew about Andrew's "retirement" before the rest of the world did. Anne and Edward probably did, but did anyone bother to tell Meg and Harry?
If she does anything, it would probably have to be reality or voiceovers. Nobody wants to see her in Shakespeare.
If he didn't want to be 'convicted in the court of public opinion' why on earth did he volunteer to do that wretched interview? Nobody forced him.
I can't blame PA for wanting to get out of town, but this is certainly another PR fail. He isn't in prison, but how hard is it to lay low for a few weeks?
Agreed. It's probably too early in the year for skiing, but it might have been a good time to take a vacation somewhere out of the way.
https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/post/189215219431/submission#notes
This shows that she edited her Wikipedia page in October 2016 to add and emphasise humanitarian work and to delete references to her time on Deal or No Deal (as the suitcase girl). Nope Megsy, you cannot erase your past, deny it or lie about it, nor sue anyone who mentions it - ask PA how that worked for him - the lying and denying parts!)
Remember the timeline: Met May 2016, October 2016 started dropping hints on IG to out the relationship and withdrew from her PR agency ...
I posted a comment earlier today. It was answered but removed later on . I know it was my mistake and I acknowledged it. But you deleted it. Are you sanitising your blog!
>> Nobody want to see her in Shakespeare.
Respectfully, Nutty, you're very wrong. I would pay good money to see her in Shakespeare. I need a good laugh.
Looks like the plane has been grounded! :)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7712625/Royal-Family-step-force-Prince-Andrew-cancel-junket-Bahrain.html
@AVerySunShinyDay
Thanks for posting. Interesting!
You and me both! Lol
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/11/prince-andrews-fatal-error/
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/11/prince-charles-is-now-pulling-the-strings-of-the-monarchy/
Sussex Great Forest
Plant a Tree Plant Hope
Sussex great forest tree planting campaign. Nov 23, 2019 - May 6, 2020
twitter: @sussezGtForest IG @SussexGTForest
"Hashtags are not enough. we have a responsibility as well, that if you're part of the social media and engaging in that way, we're not just giving people more things to chart about but actually something to do, and what's the action". Duchess of Sussex
"Why shouldn't he? It isn't a royal engagement. He's not under arrest. He isn't even, at this time, accused of doing anything illegal, just distasteful."
Of course he's not under arrest but the Queen & Prince Charles demanded that he keep a low profile by stepping back from his duties. He should have listened and gone to ground until the dust settled. By planning the Bahrain trip, he was rubbing salt in the already bloody royal wounds!
Anyway, the latest news is that the trip is off again!
They have a Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/SussexGtForest
Is this Harry making amends for his carbon footprint, so that he can fly private again without any guilt?
> Hunt, as have others, blames the departure of Sir Christopher Geidt for all of the House of Windsor chaos. I'm puzzled, because the Daily Mail had several stories earlier this year saying Sir Christopher had returned to the queen's service to try to restore order.<
I'm glad you asked if Sir Geidt is still in the employ of the Queen. I have read both he was and he wasn't. Someone here said he was appointed in a position at Kings College, but that doesn't mean he is not also working for the Queen.
>Sussex Great Forest
Plant a Tree Plant Hope<
In honor of the Domesday Duo, I will plant a quarter-acre of hope this spring. I will plant some Okra seeds of this special kind that grows to be as large as a small tree, 12 ft tall. I chose Okra because the plants are horribly itchy and the pods slimy inside. It reminds me of Meghan, slimy and repugnant.
I would be tempted to send her on unglamerous, our of the way, un-chic engagements with stern royal supervision such as Princess Ann. Perhaps several weeks of private tutoring by Camilla in humility and patience. With luck, she would explode in rage claiming that she get her due or she will quit...Of course, that would be acceptable.
Imagine MeGain awarding blue ribbons at a farm show or other function. Almost as demeaning as being a suitcase girl.
I am looking forward to the Sussex audits ... Royal, English and IRS.
While they are auditing, they should look at Andy's projects.
The royal family needs to hold Andrew's passport and send him to a country house, perhaps with his father to minimize security costs ( which the British tax payers still pay). Prince Philip will prevent Fergie from advising Prince Andrew.
Wonder in Harry called Andrew to see if he is alright...
>>>>>>> Prince Andrew’s shocking embroilment with Epstein is only the tip of the iceberg in what has been the worst year in royal history since the Queen’s last "Annus Horriblis" of 1992. The negative press garnered by The Duke and Duchess of Sussex on multiple occasions this year have been coupled with more minor, though no less grave PR slips – from the Duke of Edinburgh’s car crash to Zara Phillips’ payments from a Hong Kong billionaire.
The question is, in eliminating Andrew from public life, has the Queen gone far enough? Perhaps now is the time to shift the focus onto the Royal Family’s most trusted members. She will be counting her blessings that William and Kate have proven themselves to be a safe pair of hands and their knack for rising above the political fray will be sorely needed once Charles takes to the throne. Beyond this, it’s difficult to see anything but risk in involving a wider circle of royals in the monarchy going forward.
With the Duke and Duchess of Sussex allegedly considering a move abroad, it’s an opportune moment to ask whether a royal role is desirable either for them or the British public. Harry and Meghan have been keen to shape their own agenda of causes since their marriage but their chosen issues have very little to do with furthering our national and Commonwealth interests, or promoting Britain abroad. >>>>>>
Do hope the press and public keep up the pressure on H&M.
Anyway, the latest news is that the trip is off again!
He doesn't strike me as a man with a particularly well-developed ability to feel empathy for people around him. No, that isn't entirely it. Somebody put in a link here either early this morning or late last night about the Lockerbie terrorist incident where he completely outraged everybody by saying something to the effect that the tragedy was much worse for the Americans because Americans had a larger quantity of people killed. It was quite factual numerically but judged to be very insensitive because that isn't how most people weigh tragedies.
He was likewise judged to be *very* insensitive and lacking in empathy for the Epstein victims. He thought he did well by answering the questions to the best of his ability, but people expected more emotionally-nuanced answers and he doesn't speak fluent emo. I don't think he speaks even pigeon emo.
He did step back from his duties. I think if anybody wants him to keep a low profile, they would have to explain exactly what a low profile entails.
You know she doesn't do it for "privacy" because she showed it to her imaginary friends to show to Kneepads magazine...
MAYBE STOP WASTING PAPER IN YOUR ATTEMPTS PLAY THE MEDIA?
I swear the only thing she has in common with Diana is her talent for playing the media. (Everything else is just cosplay. Which is creepy in itself because who cosplays their MIL?! WTF? But that a whole other topic for a whole other post...)
I have a paper-planning hobby (It's a Japanese/Asian thing, look it up. Although Americans started doing it too in the past couple of years but their planners are humongous. I prefer the smaller Italian brand.)
Like this is my hobby: https://qz.com/712334/more-than-a-schedule-not-quite-a-diary-inside-japans-joyful-all-paper-planner-culture/ + https://www.vogue.com/article/tokyo-japan-best-stationary-stores
I. Am. Obsessed. In. Stationery.
So obsessed I have taken part in #ShopYourStash just to make use of stationery from over 10 YEARS ago.
And even I don't send paper letters unless *totally* necessary (like that time I had to mail a printed-out NDA for a firm that won't accept e-signatures). And I use every single page of any planner I have; if there are leftover papers, I rip them out for scrap paper.
I'm so sick of these faux-"woke" preachers yapping about how "hashtags aren't enough" (most original thing I've ever heard from the very type of people who takes part in every #PrayFor hashtag ever).
Everytime a woke wanker opens their mouth and says something preachy it's carbon emission.
I'd rather inhale cow fart.
I #PrayForYouToSTFU and just live your life like someone who actually cares about the environment.
Why don't *you* start shopping your stash?
Let's see *you* not buy a single item of clothing in 2020.
Let's see *you* not merch for fast-fashion brands like H&M.
I'd love to see your weekly waste bin...
Bet it's full of used hashtags.
(Full disclosure: partly because I'm broke but if i wanted to I could've worked extra hours which I haven't done. Deliberately. Because I find I'm more grounded without disposable income & I enjoy it.)
Next year I'll be focusing on wearing clothes that I've only worn once (the once I decided to keep & not donate).
I haven't bought anything from H&M since 2007.
I'm serious Meghan. If you really want to make a SPLASH! Don't buy a single item of clothing in 2020.
Imagine all the attention you'd get. Lol.
🍿
Thank you for posting the article about the interview. Fascinating reading!
I'm serious.
Not a peep.
Except for maybe the thjs: https://time.com/5279252/windsor-homeless-royal-wedding/
Unless she takes another civilian's social media handle again.
Challenging you to actually do something real and relatable here (And it's something that the public can easily verify on a public figure). Nothing buzzword-y, just pure action.
Do it and I'll stop being such a "hater".
Coverage across the world emphasised the 'star-studded' nature of the event and how lavish it was, whereas Meghan is stating, in legal documents, that they were old friends and it was far less expensive than reported. Given the DM was only one of hundreds of publications reporting the same information, how can they be singled out? And surely it matters that such a glitzy venue was chosen, which would be known to garner maximum publicity? She could argue the US was chosen, rather than where she lives now, as the US was her home, but her home was on the opposite side of the country.
Also, as the cost of the baby shower is one of the central issues of the lawsuit, won't this risk dragging people like Amal Clooney into court to back up their case? She's been conspicuously lacking 'A' list support for months now. As H&M look increasingly unstable in their dealings with media and the law, it's unlikely real celebrities will want to be involved with them going forwards. And yet pursuing and emulating 'A' list celebrities and lifestyles is Meghan's driving force in all she does.
There's an interesting article I've found on the Spear's site * about how H&M should have dealt with negative media coverage:
https://www.spearswms.com/meghan-markle-a-high-risk-media-strategy/
* Spear's (formerly known as Spear's WMS or Spear's Wealth Management Survey), founded in 2006 by William Cash, is a bimonthly British magazine for high-net-worth individuals and those in the financial service industries. It has been called "the Bible of the banking fraternity by GQ and "a European rival to Forbes" by The Evening Standard. Its subscribers include over 30,000 of Europe’s decision-makers and wealthy. [Source: Wiki]
As others have said, trying to portray Pitch&Palace as a private matter and therefore not part of PA's retirement as a working royal is stretching things too far and the press and public are already on incredulity mode.
Thank you. Wondered why everyone was thanking you for posting that so checked it out. Really fascinating stuff.
She looked so brave and not at all nervous. I thought she looked like a badass.
The Part about the carpet & the bit about the loo reads like that genre of fiction that's hard to determine (the kind Haruki Murakami and Paulo Coelho belong to). Never know what to call that genre.
LOL they "don't do" The Crown now, do they... hark-hark-hark.
‘It is clear that the Queen still misses her former Private Secretary, Sir Christopher (now Lord) Geidt. He was the discreet architect of those triumphal years either side of the Diamond Jubilee – steering the monarchy around potential pitfalls like coalition politics or reforms to the royal succession – but was edged out in a mysterious restructuring of the Royal Household in 2017.’
This is the second time in recent days I’ve read that Lord Christopher (now Geidt was eased out in 2017. I’m confused as to why people still think he’s employed by the royal household?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7712937/ROBERT-HARDMAN-week-proved-real-royal-power-lies.html
"This is the second time in recent days I’ve read that Lord Christopher (now Geidt was eased out in 2017. I’m confused as to why people still think he’s employed by the royal household?"
Probably because of articles like this one from March 2019.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6841115/EDEN-CONFIDENTIAL-Queen-brings-loyal-lieutenant-eye-Meghan-Harry.html
It says TQ "quietly" appointed him as her "Permanent Lord in Waiting" earlier in 2019.
"How Terebleh, terrbleh fasena*t*eng..."
(Thanks, Ava C! 💜)
I don't for a second think the honourable members of the esteemed sussex squad would come up.with this on their own. It's likely to be a strategy similar to the damage control global baby shower that happened after the NYC baby shower. To get the hastag going and trending must have taken some efforts so kudos to the PR minions who have been working on it. The timing of it sucks though doesn't it?!
Firstly, people have forgotten about the Phone scandal by now, or at least worst this GS have happened since then. So they could have let the sleeping dogs lie. Secondly, meghan and Harry's holiday dilemma has been all over the news lately and just as mere speculation. They themselves have let it be known via various outlets that they are taking a much needed break to celebrate Thanksgiving in LA, then backtracked and said they are spending Christmas away but Thanksgiving here, then said they are actually going to be here the entire time. Her poor stans probably this k she has shelved her plans to go away because she doesn't have a private jet anymore and so they are offsetting all wannabe xarnob footprints for her.
With all the confusion over their holiday plans I also feel something is off behind the scenes, things may not have planned out as well as they hoped. They should have rightfully been in La by now and noone would have had a problem with that. Why are they still here? I mean they can borrow my frequent flyer miles if they are cash strapped.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6841115/EDEN-CONFIDENTIAL-Queen-brings-loyal-lieutenant-eye-Meghan-Harry.html
https://the-charlatan-duchess.tumblr.com/post/189221884884/lady-colin-campbell#notes
I agree with everything she said other than her statement that one crime (paedophilia) was worse than the other (sexually abusing minors). Confusing the two leaves us unable to have a realistic conversation about and do something effective about both. The age of consent differs across the world and within countries like the USA, but we need to have a conversation about why these laws exist and why it is unacceptable for teenage girls to be sexually exploited by older men. DM has an article about a new accuser suing the Epstein estate, and there is a photo of her in a helicopter with Epstein. To me, the photo is chilling and repugnant, but many would admire Epstein as a man of power and wealth (and, I presume, charm) who was able to have his pick of beautiful teenage girls, irrespective of their age, circumstances or the law.
Although I think his accusers are climbing on the bandwagon, making accusations against a man who is dead and cannot defend themselves, asking for lots of money (and sometimes, perhaps, bending or elaborating the truth), they are highlighting a problem and no one yet is having a full and useful conversation about that.
Sexually exploiting teenagers (including minors, which is illegal) is different from but as bad a paedophilia.
You are correct about that DM source. I probably should have researched more carefully before posting it. But it apparently was correct about Geidt being appointed according to the Court Circular. Whether it was to keep an eye on H&M is another matter!
"The Queen has been pleased to appoint the Lord Geidt to be a Permanent Lord in Waiting to Her Majesty with effect from 4th March, 2019."
https://www.royal.uk/court-circular?text=Lord+Geidt&mrf=&date%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=22%2F11%2F2018&date%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=22%2F11%2F2019&id=
"They should have rightfully been in La by now and noone would have had a problem with that. Why are they still here?"
Are they still here? I don't think anyone has a clue where they are. They could be in Antartica for all I know! Which sort of proves how nonsensical their 'we are constantly hounded by the British press' line is.
Also a story about daddy's little princesses and how they will fair now that he's been sacked. Will they be taken care of by BP? Doubtful....
Wouldn't it be nice if they were in Antarctica? They could stay in an igloo and burn Meg's wigs to stay warm. Meg could obviously fashion harpoons out of her many makeup brushes to hunt for fish and they could pretend it's roast chicken. Are how would be taken care of by kind polar bears who Harry saved on one of his many humanitarian wildlife missions, they just be the kindest to the most beautiful princess's magical baby. And the best of all, they would've to take a private jet to and fro because a grateful, woke humpback whale would ferry them on it's back. They would be so at home because the magical land of Antarctica is just like the most magical land of Africa, only white but that would be racist to say so they are going to name it aftarctica. (And Harry's gonna be it's new king)
So yes, he’s been reappointed and employed as ‘Lord in waiting’. It appears he’s not employed in the same role as before? What a shame!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7714121/Prince-William-Prince-Harry-lot-hurt-unresolved-issues-says-friend.html
Apparantly that was just the tip of the iceberg, and Epstein also arranged for her debts - of up to 5 million - to be 'restructured'. Fergie is famously terrible with money.
But the private wealth of individual members of the firm is always a bit of a mystery. Because they get so much given to them for free - houses, transport, clothes, security etc - it's very hard to know how much they are worth as individuals. Same goes with Haz. Meghan might be in for a nasty surprise in the eent of a divorce.
Harry and Will aren't "boys" and, in fact, are almost middle-aged men (and are middle-aged according to one UK survey that found the majority of responders thought middle age begins at 35.) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7458147/Middle-age-begins-at-35-and-ends-at-58.html
One part of the DM article stood out to me:
"The confidant added that Geidt 'really had the boys’ backs,' and offered a side channel around their father, Prince Charles when difficulties arose."
If true, no wonder Charles wanted him gone. I might have felt the same way.
This gives me hope. Once RF realizes the damage they may actually do something about Sussexes too.
I give this drama 6minyhs before she does something inexcusable and us forever excused out of London.
I think Charles is not quite the mattress people take him to be.
Does anyone seriously believe this was set up by their 'fans' and not their increasingly out-of-touch PR?
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?'
1. I think the blogger misinterpreted body language during the Invictus Games. The emotion I read on Harry's face when she walked in with Markus was the excitement that comes from infatuation.
2. She manoeuvred her way into a marriage very soon after meeting Harry: started selling herself as a humanitarian, shut off all ties that would be an impediment (PR agency, merching deals, though she kept her IG until the very last and hired a business team in LA, gave up the lease on the place she had shared with Corey in Toronto, resigned from her acting gig, moved to London and in with Harry, even though she could not stay without a job and could not afford a place of her own, started distancing herself from her family, including her father whom she never saw again ...).
3. She outed the relationship, made sure it was made very public, love bombed and bewitched Harry with long intimate talks about shared ideals and goals, and so on, and basically put him in a position where he could not break off the relationship and could not slow it down (she could not stay in London unless he married her, and she had no job, home or even car in the USA or Canada, and the wealth the media reports she has is way over-estimated).
Harry and Megsy could become like Andrew and Fergie (sticking together, supporting weaknesses instead of helping the other to grow and learn and be decent), but reliable tarot readers have seen for ages that she will leave him and divorce is inevitable. (They have been picking up since Trooping the Colour, in readings done BEFORE the event and the incidence on the balcony, that behind closed doors, Harry is cold and withdrawn with her and they are not agreeing on a lot of things, but he is trying to hold onto the fantasy and will stick to the commitment, no matter how miserable the marriage becomes.) Megsy wants the merching and influencing lifestyle and to live her life without any interference from anyone (basically to do what she wants). She has gained the global fame she wants, and once she is out of the BRF, she can go on as many talk shows she wants to in order to defend herself and talk, talk, talk. What she needs to put in place is the wealth (that is all hers and she can spend without any hindrance). I also think that the dramatic events around Andrew will impact on the Sussexes and make it difficult, if not impossible, for Megsy to use the BRF for her own agenda in future.
I agree. Plus, it was reported that Meghan had Scotland Yark police protection at the event, so it's obvious that her attendance there was as Harry's 'official' girlfriend. They may even have been already quietly engaged.
Thank you for the corroboration of my observations! (I had thought to myself that Prince Andrew seems like every socially-awkward engineer of my acquaintance.) Y'all should probably think of him more as an Aspy than a normi
This is so embarrassing because my father is a macroeconomist, I should know better. Sorry for the confusion.
Why were MM & MA escorted out of the Invictus games by security if they were expected?
If they weren't expected, did they "crash" the event?
If they did crash the event, why did they turn up the next day?
Why wasn't it a red flag to Harry and the rest of the RF when MM did the "Wild about Harry" article once they were dating?
Perhaps in the early days the RF chose to ignore MM, hoping she would fade away.
It was reported at the time that Meghan was accompanied by British police protection officers, so no.
Agree and a lot of parents would feel the same. I believe he went because, and I quote, ‘He stepped down in July 2017 amid reports of tensions between Buckingham Palace and Clarence House over the transition of power from the Queen to the Prince of Wales.’
Maybe Charles thought he got too powerful. It’s a bit of a mixed bag and certainly a big bag of egos (Princes’, and powerful staff, not a good combo).
We are all here to talk about H&M; if there isn't NEW stuff, then I suppose some may bring up older things to discuss that they've wondered about, since there are many here with a wealth of knowledge. I don't see a problem with it, to be honest. I have learned a LOT about the UK from just this forum. I want to visit my ancestral land even more now!
This is so embarrassing because my father is a macroeconomist, I should know better. Sorry for the confusion.
People also have a tendency to confuse "gross income" with "net income". A lot of people (like employees) can't seem to understand that because a small business takes in 1.5 million dollars U.S. per year, it doesn't mean that there is actually 1.5 million lying about just taking up space like just like cats, only green. It may mean that their expenses were 2 million U.S. and the business is going to close down if they can't quit hemorrhaging money. (We had that problem when we had government contracts because those b*stards are notoriously slow paying. Never again.)
Net worth itself is a fairly nebulous concept. Anything is only worth what somebody is willing to pay for it at a certain point in time and, if somebody has to liquidate, the sharks gather drawn by the scent of blood and the assets are sold at nothing near their previous estimated "worth". If I have a particular real estate for sale and am in no particular rush to sell it, I can wait until I get my asking price. If I have to have the money for an operation for a family member, that real estate will be sold ASAP whether I get my asking price or not. If I'm in REAL financial difficulty, the IRS will seize it and sell it for what I owe in taxes (grin).
Market conditions change daily. Real estate values fluctuate with world conditions, political trends, local conditions (I'm looking at you, California!) and stock markets. I don't take estimated net worth with a grain of salt, I want an entire 50 lb. bag.
Somebody with an estimated net worth of $50-odd million *cough*Prince Andrew*cough* might have it all tied up in investments and real estate and be hard pressed for cash to pay the ex's enormous credit card debts. That purported $50 million may be grossly inflated. If he's running with the big dogs, though, that $50 million would be regarded as spare change.
Epstein was supposed to be a hotshot financial wealth manager/investor. Perhaps PA was seeking mentoring on how to get and stay rich. Epstein probably left out the blackmail and espionage parts.
I'm glad PA's trip to Bahrain got cancelled. When i saw he was going, i was shocked he would blatantly do that right after all the revelations. He needs to go dark, just be invisible. I do wonder about his finances. I think he has been funded for years by his various "friends/contacts" for access to the RF. Who knows what information he had traded for his funding.
PA should've just "owned" his reputation - Randy Andy - and then said to his knowledge he never had sex with underage or unwilling women. Didn't he used to brag about all his conquests? Had sex with over 1000 women or something like that? I don't consider him a Pedo just a dog taking advantage of his status. All those pics surfacing at all those parties with the rich/privileged. What a life.
Just like Harry, he has never had to deal with real consequences of their behavior. Any dirty dealings were covered up. They got their hand slapped, hung their head and then went back to their partying ways.
I agree.
Here in the US, i want the files on Epstein revealed. All the stuff. I want the truth to come out and heads to roll.
>>>>> A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman would not comment on reports the duke had stepped down from leading Pitch.
She said: 'The duke will continue to work on Pitch and will look at how he takes this forward outside of his public duties, and outside of Buckingham Palace. We recognise there will be a period of time while this transition takes place.' >>>>>
Published about an hour ago. So information is all over the place. Readers comments show people are losing what remains of their patience. They want PA gone in all spheres. Just gone.
From Charles' end he's had the experience of:
(1) ending PA as working royal
(2) PA confirms he's planning to run Pitch@Palace from private sphere supported by Queen's money and is about to fly to Bahrain
(3) Charles stops the Bahrain trip
(4) Confirmed Pitch@Palace to be given up by PA entirely and now called Pitch
(5) PA still entertains hopes of running Pitch in some manner separate to BRF
and just to make the worryingly florid Charles' blood-pressure go even higher
(6) Fergie rolled up at Buckingham Palace looking a state, grinning and waving to everyone.
Poor Charles.
Christmas is just spending time with family, so not much anyone can do about that. I get the impression the withdrawal it’s very long term, if not indefinitely. I don’t think there’s many in the UK that want to see him on any public duties etc.
That ghastly women has zero sense of occasion, and blatant indifference to public feeling and sentiment. She and Andrew are true birds of a feather, who I wish would just bugger off!
Your comments about estimating someone's wealth are spot on.
Would that were true. She's just switching formulas.
Fair warning: this is going to be obnoxiously TL;DR for a first time poster.
I think it's fair say that the Sussexes are the authors of their own failure, for many reasons: arrogance, ego, unoriginality, and an utter lack of true insight into their own selves least amongst them. With all of the professional help they employ, this should not be as glaringly obvious to the general public as it is. However, once they decide on a whip-smart plan, nothing and no one can deviate them from the path they've chosen to global super-stardom.
Prince Charles' (rebuffed) offer of a 9000 acre Herefordshire estate is a case in point. Had they been less rigid and more thoughtful it might have occurred to them that this could have been a perfect vehicle from which they could springboard several of their stated goals, and given them actual creds.
Imagine what initiatives it would be possible to implement on a property of that size, in a beautiful if remote, part of the country? "Sussex Home Farm" could have been a bloody goldmine in terms of money and reputation.
Allot a portion to eco-glamping, set-up yurts, and rent that out for corporate team-building events, hen dos, yoga retreats, green weddings, Google Global Summit 2022;) etc... Hello Travalyst model.
Bee-keeping (honey), organic fruit (jams, small batch cider, etc), free-range everything all available at the farm store, and online. International shipping available for the sugars. PC, I'm quite sure, would be beside himself to lend his expertise and experts to such an endeavour. Plus brownie points galore.
How about pottery and textiles? Hire some master artisans, take on a few apprentices, and get those studios producing. Shear some of the farm sheep and voila Sussex Home crockery and table tat.
What next? A spot of forestry management perhaps. You know, for an ACTUAL Sussex Forest. A polo pony stud farm and polo venue - why not?
Had they chosen this route, Haz could have had the privacy he claims to want for his family, and I don't see anyone objecting to a "From the Duchess' Kitchen Blog" so ole Megsy could out-Goop Gwynny and very subtly merch. They could have contributed to the training and employment of young Britons and the local economy, and silenced the critics who rightly claim that they seem to care nothing for the UK. It would also give them some real-life experience to bring to the table for their charity initiatives. But they want everything now, on their own terms, no flexiblity, no true investment of time or effort.
Beavis and Buttpads are determined to do America.
That's Real Property Megsy.
AliOops
Imagine what initiatives it would be possible to implement on a property of that size, in a beautiful if remote, part of the country? "Sussex Home Farm" could have been a bloody goldmine in terms of money and reputation.
Magnolia/Waco Texas
nice thinking
"Meghan Markle - with her mixed ancestry, American accent, sharp mind, strong work ethic, and outspoken voice- has turned a spotlight on British sexism, racism, and xenophobia. History will prove her to be a gift."
This sums up much of why I am so hostile to her. From the beginning she's viewed our institutions and way of life as her own personal battleground. She's never wanted to represent us in the way a member of the BRF should. She wants to work against us, from the inside, using our hard-earned money for obscenely expensive clothes that she is too lazy or strung out to even iron or put on straight.
She shows none of the qualities of a good wife or mother (in either the 1950s or modern sense). Her family is visibly failing to thrive, to use her word. She enables her husband's worst qualities when she is supposed to do the opposite. Don't get me wrong. Harry is equally culpable, but his sins are more ones of omission and stupidity. She knows just what she's doing.
Rant over.
Like others, the PA saga makes me even more impatient about the delay dealing with H&M. I agree it'll be a long wait yet, unless PA pushes Charles' temper into the stratosphere when he gets back from New Zealand, and it spills over onto H&M. We can but hope.
"Meghan Markle - with her mixed ancestry, American accent, sharp mind, strong work ethic, and outspoken voice- has turned a spotlight on British sexism, racism, and xenophobia. History will prove her to be a gift."
This sums up much of why I am so hostile to her. From the beginning she's viewed our institutions and way of life as her own personal battleground. She's never wanted to represent us in the way a member of the BRF should. She wants to work against us, from the inside, using our hard-earned money for obscenely expensive clothes that she is too lazy or strung out to even iron or put on straight.
She shows none of the qualities of a good wife or mother (in either the 1950s or modern sense). Her family is visibly failing to thrive, to use her word. She enables her husband's worst qualities when she is supposed to do the opposite. Don't get me wrong. Harry is equally culpable, but his sins are more ones of omission and stupidity. She knows just what she's doing.’
I absolutely agree with you. Meghan is a poisoned chalice against the royal family and Britain and all that it values.
Totally agree. The only thing Meghan likes about Britain is its taxpayers' money.
Nobody forced her to marry a member of the British royal family and take a prominent role in that family. Nobody forced her to have a televised wedding, with security paid for by the British taxpayer. Nobody forced her to take on a royal British title. Nobody forced her to do any of it, yet all she does is whine and claim she's there to 'modernise' an (Andy aside) highly succesful instituion she claimed to know very little about 2 years ago.
But in any case....
" sharp mind, strong work ethic, and outspoken voice"
Sharp mind? Her Instagram reads like it was written by a pretentious 14 year old. And that's before I even consider the syntax errors (that's my teacherly self coming out!) And her Tig blog was all about selling a vapid lifestyle which could only be achieved by buying stuff (a % going to her of course). No evidence of sharp minds there.
As for 'work ethic'? Is this the same Meghan who has just taken 'family time' after working perhaps a grand total of 4 or 5 days before coming off 'maternity leave'? Thte stuff she's done to promote herself doesn't count.
Outspoken voice? When? Where? Has she ever once, in her life, taken on a genuinely risky cause or make a genuinely controversial statement? One that might have the potential to damage her career? Ever? Inane word salads about 'empowerment' hardly count as 'outspoken' unless, again, you have the mentality of a slow 14 year old.
" has turned a spotlight on British sexism, racism, and xenophobia."
Pardon my French but... f**k off. The real Ann Boleyn, a highly intelligent and courageous woman, would be horrified to be associated with this idiot.
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Can the Brits wrap her up and return her to Toronto or forward her to Malibu?
>My opinion of the idea they “crashed” an invictus game (please). There isn’t much about H&M lately so people are making up and digging up old rumors etc. can’t write about Harry Markle if there is no news about Harry and Markle.<
Things are brought up because new information turns up or people get info they didn't know about, For example, I believe you wrote in the last couple of days that Lord Geidt is recently no longer in the Queen's employ. Some people just posted he was. So if you have a dated account of when he left it would be illuminating.
Choose the large PDF file of the sovereign grant. It lists the queen’s household members and how many meetings the different people attended etc. LG is listed no where.
>@cateyes someone posted the link to the royal finances for 2018 and he is not listed as a household executive nor did he attend any meetings so I’m going with numbers and facts and not skippy who refuses to be wrong.<
!. 2018 is irrelevant.
2. I never mentioned Sippy so that point is immaterial.
Besides others here have posted he was brought back in Queen's employ earlier in this year, 2019. Besides, the Queen might neet with him private on sensitive matters.
@Nutty Thank you very much! I enjoy your blog immensely, and appreciate the effort you put into it!
I was already grumpy today and this quote is straight out of Wichita, Kansas. It put me right off my lunch. I agree with other posters who suspect this Twitter account is probably MM.
I was thinking today how her last name "Markle" is unfortunate and just sounds like a verb to con someone, or like "heckle" or "bristle." What does her American accent matter? Yes, she's from the States. Keep it moving. I'm not sure what people mean when they talk about her strong work ethic, and there's the commentary again about being whip-smart. Ugh.
The SmartWorks collection just put more goods in circulation when they weren't needed. The women probably would have preferred access to childcare at a reasonable cost or help paying for groceries, medicine or healthcare. A personal shopper could help them find discount clothes already on the market.
What does her Vogue magazine accomplish? Does Jane Fonda really need to be introduced to society by MM? JJ, featured in the issue, has gone on the record with her vile remarks about HMTQ. Surely MM knew about that?
She is outspoken, but has also been shown to be a habitual, documented liar. She admits as much in the "Fraud" clip on Twitter. Her cavalier attitude about the lie: "It's just one piece of paper" is revealing. She appears to also have a habit of passing other's ideas off as her own.
PS. However, on this issue, Skippy (and others) appears to be right unless you can provide proof otherwise
https://www.royal.uk/court-circular?text=Lord+Geidt&mrf=&date%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=22%2F11%2F2018&date%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=22%2F11%2F2019&id=
>If Geidt is advising the queen, he is doing an absolute shit job.<
Lord Geidt can be doing an Excellent Job advising. It is the Queen's decision what to do with the advice given.
Why do people care about him and bring him up?
@CookieShark She certainly does! Those embryonic kicks of thriving and not merely surviving did not originate with her ladyship. She obviously carefully and mindfully curated them.😁
This person is an urbanised, weaponised, woke Sarah Palin, just as pretty, just as interesting, just as relevant in the grand scheme of things. I nearly typed "impactful" until I remembered I have taken a vow to bash myself in the calf with a spork should I ever utter that word.
The pretentiousness of that load of tripe is the dead giveaway though "I shall bedazzle thee with my buffet selections of plagiarised twaddle, and ye shall be in awe." I really feel like you could just go "Supercalifragilisticexpialdocios" and some of these people would be all "our Kween studied Classical Languages as well as Saving the World at NW"
Lord Geidt is a remarkable guy. He is someone I would want on my side and not me trying to go up against him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Geidt,_Baron_Geidt (may not be up to date)
>>@abbyh right which is why I personally believe he has nothing to do with Harry and Meghan because they are doing what they want off script etc. Rogue. If he is in the picture, they make him look ineffectual at best and I doubt he would stick around for that— not a good look for him.<<
So by that logic then the Queen needs to go to, because she looks ineffectual because the Harkles are off-script, rogue. LOL
"We must wait for those ventriloquisers at The Crown to get around to the full dramatisation a few series from now. The bad news is their failure to have bought in early to the character of Prince Andrew, a role they will undoubtedly need to cast in light of events. The good news is they can probably now get actual Prince Andrew to play it, given his revised schedule has more windows than Buckingham Palace."
[...]
"My favourite was the suggestion that the prince could do another interview, to put right the omissions of the first. And in one sense, why not? God knows, there were other places he could have gone – claiming to have caught porphyria from a sofa once owned by George III, for instance, or to have been chemically castrated in ’Nam."
[...]
He and his far-from-estranged ex-wife were always a pair of rolling liabilities, with Fergie’s decades of financial incontinence a worthy foe for even the royal family’s vast coffers. Incredibly – and yet entirely credibly – she was in Saudi Arabia at Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s summit at the moment he was recording his BBC interview. “Everyone has been so nice here in Riyadh,” she gushed, presumably lucratively. “I think that comes from good leadership.” What can you say? Other than never mind the bonesaws; and that there are few people in public life who have provided such a consistently baroque series of answers as the Yorks to the rhetorical question, “How stupid do you actually have to be … ?”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/22/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-sacked
In the discussions of who in the royal family could step up to 'work' as the Queen's representative if the Yorks are sidelined, & the Harkles decamp to America, is Lady Gabriella Kingston worth mentioning, or is she too distant from the throne? She seems lovely, & is one of the few royals, including Megs, who seems to have had a fairly rigorous education. Her mother is a bit problematic, but Lady Gabriella, like the York daughters, seems to justify not penalizing the children for the misdeeds of the parents.
>>>> Of course, events relating to Andrew’s crisis have been very far from painless – despite his stunning failure to mention Epstein’s victims. But it has certainly felt like a unifying moment for a divided nation, and that is surely worrying for the royal family. A YouGov poll found a mere 6% of people thought Andrew was telling the truth. This week it has been hard to escape the distinct impression that people from all sides of various divides have come together to agree the prince was a true wrong ’un. And then to wake up the next morning and think: I am biologically incapable of sweating because I ODed on adrenaline in the Falklands.
So it remains to be seen if this unprecedented Buckingham Palace containment strategy will work. What can be said with some confidence is that Prince Charles’s forthcoming reign has long felt like a coach crash waiting to happen, and that this grotesque drama feeds into that. Along with David Attenborough, also 93, the Queen is perhaps the last consented-to link with the postwar consensus. Après her, the essential personnel are a complete shower.
This week, we caught a glimpse of the Windsors’ potential exposure when the Queen departs the earthly realm. Members of the royal family are not too big to fail any more. That feels of a piece with our deeply fractured nation, in which so many institutions have revealed themselves as no longer up to the job. Shortly after the EU referendum, a French diplomat likened the British government to a cartoon character that has run off a cliff but not yet realised it: “They’re in the air now, but at some point they’re going to look down and fall.” Those words ring uncomfortably true for much beyond government on this septic isle. All sorts of jigs are up, all at once, for a post-imperial country that has been running on its own fumes for decades. Things go along much as before, until – seemingly abruptly, but not really – they don’t. What now for it all? I can’t help thinking of that great bit of Hemingway dialogue from The Sun Also Rises. “How did you go bankrupt?” “Two ways,” comes the reply. “Gradually and then suddenly.” >>>>
I disagree that Marina Hyde is always good value. She did a sneery 'Leave Meghan alone!' article a few weeks ago. In fact, all she really does these days is sneer. She used to be genuinely funny but now she's just smug and superior.
@NeutralObserver
There is zero chance of this or that royal being 'recruited' to live off the public. It just isn't going to happen. The aim is to have fewer royals, not have cousins most of the public has never heard of getting paid by the taxpayer for hand-shaking duties. That would not go down at all well with the British people, and the royals know that.
"Her mother is a bit problematic, but Lady Gabriella, like the York daughters, seems to justify not penalizing the children for the misdeeds of the parents."
Thing is, royalty is all about who your parents are. Most of them are pretty mediocre. Some are a lot worse than mediocre. If it's considered OK to have individuals live off the taxpayer just because of how their parents are, then I guess it's also OK for them not to have those privileges because their parents have fallen out of favour. It's not like any of them have earned all their huge privileges.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/royals/the-queen-reportedly-brought-back-this-trusted-aide-just-to-keep-an-eye-on-meghan-and-harry/ar-BBVnCmZ?li=AAaxbod
Is she slow to act or makes decisions we wouldn't, perhaps? But 1 or 2 actions do not define one's career or rule. I personally can't think of a ruler who has a more illustrious or successful or long rule as the Queen. Even dictators the world over who have had an iron fist (ie. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, etc..) and controlled everything can't equal the success as she has.
I say this as an American who just has a respect for her but not devotion.
The queen has several permanent Lords in Waiting, who are retired members of her staff. This is a high honor.
He is chancellor of King’s College in London. This is a salaried position, his job.
He has ceremonial positions and volunteer unpaid part time positions. For instance, he is in charge of the queen’s Funeral arrangements. 2019 finance reports will be out soon enough.
In other words, he has not taken Megan and Doria into custody and he is not holding them in the Tower of London lol.
Is she slow to act or makes decisions we wouldn't, perhaps? But 1 or 2 actions do not define one's career or rule. I personally can't think of a ruler who has a more illustrious or successful or long rule as the Queen. Even dictators the world over who have had an iron fist (ie. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, etc..) and controlled everything can't equal the success as she has.
CatEyes - I would rather a slightly slow response than someone who shoots from the hip and later regret it. Like you, I have a lot respect for her.
She didn't get that knowledge/ability to look for the long term problems of an easy/fast response by a two or four year term of office as the democratic "rulers".
found this
http://www.the-crossword-solver.com/word/royal+ruler
(as if any of us needed more royal distractions?)
I see that Meg has given an unasked-for comment on the Andrew situation.
According to The Telegraph (behind a paywall):
"The Duchess of Sussex is said to have been horrified by the manner in which the Duke of York dismissed allegations that he had sex with a teenager.
"A friend of the Duchess of Sussex said the interview had “left everyone watching it wanting to curl under a table. It just got worse and worse and worse”.
"The Duchess, formerly an actress, is champion of a series of causes that are the antithesis of everything the Epstein scandal represents.
In the Newsnight interview, Emily Maitlis asked the Duke if he had ever had sex with Ms Giuffre or “any young woman trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein”.
The Duke replied: “No and without putting too fine a point on it, if you’re a man it is a positive act to have sex with somebody.”
Harriet Wistrich, a lawyer at the Centre for Women’s Justice, said on Friday: “This clearly suggests a very sexist stereotypical view of sex as something men do to women. It also makes no sense as to why it would be more likely you would remember it. The whole sentence – and interview – has no authenticity about it.”
Here's another piece from behind the Telegraph paywall: they've given an elderly white male journalist the unenviable task of writing an article called "In Defense of Prince Andrew."
Here it is:
"When the whole world condemns someone, it is a journalist’s duty to look at the other side. I therefore want to make the case for the Duke of York in his Newsnight interview. If you start from the position of a juror, rather than of our judge-and-jury media, you believe that the accused is innocent until proved guilty. On that basis, Prince Andrew did all right.
"Given his state of knowledge at the time, he was not automatically wrong to be friendly with Jeffrey Epstein. It is the misfortune of being a famous person that lots of other famous people want to be your “friend”. Although you should be wary, you cannot always know dark facts about them.
"Many famous people were Epstein’s “friends”: that, it turns out, was the way he operated. Prince Andrew seems to have taken Epstein on trust because he (the Prince) was a long-standing friend of Epstein’s friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who vouched for him. I wonder why the interviewer, Emily Maitlis, did not pursue the subject of Ms Maxwell.
"He admitted this had been a misjudgement; but it sounded believable that he had thought that merely telephoning the man would have been “a chicken way of doing it”. If a person has committed a crime, even a foul one, anyone with a Christian upbringing is taught that they must try to forgive and treat that person fairly.
"As for Prince Andrew’s denials of meeting Virginia Roberts, drinking and dancing with her, and sleeping with her, they seemed firm and backed by some evidence. The fact that a photograph exists which seems to show him with his arm round her waist does not – in the wicked world of photo-shopping – prove anything. Given the risks involved, it is surely hard to believe that Prince Andrew was lying on this point: if it is proved that he did, that is the end of him.
AHe was also wise not to speculate on Ms Roberts’s motives. In the interview, he appeared slightly crass, but never nasty. He was not under any duty to express shame about the fate of Epstein’s victims, because his behaviour – if his account is true – never affected any of them.
"Overall, he quite convincingly portrayed what it is like to be a well-meaning but not very able minor royal swimming in the shark-infested waters of international fame. His performance was not, to use the phrase everyone now parrots about all interviews with people they don’t like, “a car-crash”.
"Nevertheless, the Duke should never have given the interview, and particularly not in Buckingham Palace, which made it look like a matter of state. In his mind, I suspect, it was something seen in isolation – a way of stating his case which could clear the air. He and his advisers seem to have made no allowance for how the BBC – and the media in general – work.
"Although he trusted the BBC with the interview, it immediately rubbished him once it had aired. By Monday morning, the Today programme had Nick Robinson trying to browbeat Andrea Leadsom into condemning the Prince, which the shadow minister, Barry Gardiner, going way outside normal political limits, had just done on the same show.
"A journalist, who had himself interviewed Prince Andrew in 2017, came on air to say how “arrogant” he was. The usual sharp American lawyers who thrive on such cases popped up to express shock. Emily Maitlis, presumably without consulting the Duke’s office, revealed the background to the interview in a newspaper. The royal fly was caught in the spider’s web.
"One could not help being grimly amused by the harrying of the Prince, who has so little power to fight back, by a corporation which for many years ignored the sexual predations of its employee Jimmy Savile. It was Newsnight, the very programme on which the Prince appeared, which ditched its investigation into Savile under pressure from the top of the BBC.
"In her piece, Maitlis absurdly claimed that this was a more amazing interview than the famous 1990s ones with the Prince of Wales and with his ex-wife, Diana. This suggests that she prejudged the case against the Duke; if she believed that his only offence was staying with Epstein, she would recognise this as an interesting, but minor story of a man who is only eighth in line to the throne."
But "netto" vs. "gross/bruto" is way easier to tell apart.
How come Andrew's ex has so much credit card debt?
I don't understand how westerners get into so much credit card (consumer) debt in the first place. Are the banks too lenient or what? The banks in Indonesia would never allow it, they'd chase you until you pay. They have scary debt collectors.
There are so many finance shows on YouTube and true crime shows where people open new CC accounts over and over and I'm just like, "how?"
I only managed to get my one credit card account by showing them that I had an emergency card my parents gave me for paying medical bills. Before that they kept rejecting my applications (which was frustrating because I just wanted a card with a safer/smaller limit that I could use to book hotels and use online as a safe guard—I just didn't want my *debit* card with all the liquid funds' number floating in the Interwebs, one time we got a call from HSBC because somebody used my credit card number to buy a laptop in Russia). It's very hard to get a credit card approved in Indonesia.
Always baffles me when I see foreigners get into so much credit card debt.
But I'm guessing if you're Andrew's ex you get special treatment? I know some people do priority banking (the kind where they know you personally & they'll even send you a cake on your birthday I kid you not). Maybe she got into debt because the banks were reluctant to make her pay?
Anyway, one more paragraph cribbed from today's Telegraph, headline "Prince Andrew's 'sacking' shows why it's time to pare back the Royal Family":
"With the Duke and Duchess of Sussex allegedly considering a move abroad, it’s an opportune moment to ask whether a royal role is desirable either for them or the British public. Harry and Meghan have been keen to shape their own agenda of causes since their marriage but their chosen issues have very little to do with furthering our national and Commonwealth interests, or promoting Britain abroad.
"They have a natural attraction to cause célèbres like feminism, conservation and climate change – and, whilst many would agree with the worthiness of these issues, their agenda could be pursued much more effectively by the royal couple without taxpayer funding and the restrictions of political neutrality."
The Telegraph, aka the Palacegraph, is one of the voices of the British establishment, so this isn't just the thinking of random bloggers.
Yes, most *normal* people would be "horrified", Meghan.
How is that news?
In fact, why don't you stop acting like Andrew's behaviour is news to you? I'm sure knew what you were getting into, Ms. I-Didn't-Know-Much-About-Harry-I-Just-Hoped-He-Was-Nice...
I didn't realise you were auditioning for the role of Captain Obvious.
Okay, it might just be her undoing and the final nail in her coffin. Does she not understand that you just don’t talk about other royal family members in public?! Her words and actions are mounting to an awful lot now. Her
arrogance and utter stupidity is breath taking.
I need my tea and porridge after that!
Thanks! 💸
This family is cursed... 🔮
Whenever they talk, it just gets worse~
Yes, I am so looking forward to the day when these young know-it-alls reach the ages of the men and women they seem to think are too old to breath- assuming they themselves are not taken out of the gene pool by obliviously walking in traffic while texting on their phones.
First of all Andy hasn't really been proven guilty of anything criminal, he's basically guilty by association at this point in time. He is utterly stupid and dug his own grave, but still not proven guilty by law. So say this in a telegraph article Meghan is basically calling him out for being guilty, at least that's how it will look to her crazy squad people. She's not winning any brownie points from the thinking public.
If she is so up in arms about how these poor girls were mistreated them why is she so keen on hobnobbing with Hillary who supported her sex addict husband and vilified his victim on national TV. Why is she so desperate to associate with Oprah who supposedly was close pals with Weinstein, it's well documented and she was even called out for it. Jesus, Meghan. Pick your battles, girl! You are on very very thin ice, just disappear for 6months, ditch your ineot PR team, go bake Christmas cooywith your mum. Don't be so deaparate, it's embarrassing to witness now.
6 months, how about a lifetime? We’ve had over 2 years of her and too many have had their fill of her. Enough is enough, she needs to go.
Moi, je suis 'orrified!
My friend 'Illary and her 'usband Bill are equally 'orrified.
C'est terrible, les hommes de pervert!
Do English people actually care about an American having an American accent?
Or is somebody tweeting a straw man fallacy in an American accent?
Serious question. Do Brits actually care?
Yes, Fergie's a compulsive spender and has been for decades. I remember some journalist accompanying her on a shopping trip - she was buying expensive furniture she had no use for. "Maybe I could give it as a gift to somebody," she said as she bought a couple of designer chairs she could not use.
Her extreme spending is something she has in common with Duchess Meghan. Unfortunately, Meg can't offer shady money men and oligarchs the proximity to power that Fergie could until early this week.
I don't think Meg/AnneBoelyn really has much interest in what British people care about. That's part of the problem.
I've pointed out before that Meg has never been a salesperson, and this is just another illustration. When you're selling something, you think about what the buyer wants, not what you want.
The issues that Meg cares about are not, by and large, the top preoccupations of the citizens of the UK. She never seemed to make a sincere effort to understand what the British people need or desire.
Nobody would care a damn about Meghan having an American accent or an American anything else if she only accepted that her 'job' from now on is to represent Britain, and respect the ways of the British royal family that she married into. They might even find it cute that she had cute little American foibles and celebrated strange (to us)
festivals like Thanksgiving. Provided it was clear that she realised that Britain was both her home and her job. Wouldn't be that hard, you would think. But she couldn't hack it.
Thanks. 💜 I thought that was odd!
I should not have used the word "wiser" when mentioning PP and the car crash. Most likely, he is wiser due to his age! I should have written common sense. After all, he could have used an RPO to drive him at the time of the crash, since reflexes are less at his quite advanced age, and maybe even his sight is also.
Common sense (lack thereof) may also be applicable with respect to his judgment too since I have read he was a serial adulterer and that seems ill-advised married to the Queen, head of the COE. I am 67 so by no means am I bashing the elderly, as quite the opposite I have a healthy regard for us 'old folks'. lol I agree it is not uncommon for young people (even 30, 40 yr. olds) to be quick to count us out because of our age
But it never once occurred to me that she would subsequently come out to publicly renounce one of her in laws.
Perhaps this was pay back to Andrew for his having blocked her (with his body) from posing near the Queen on the balcony for Trooping of the Colours.
Or perhaps it was meant to annoy the Royals across the board. It does not help the family when they criticize one another in public, and I don't recall that this has ever been done before.
I wonder whether Eugenie (or was it Beatrice) regrets lending out their cottage for Harry's videoclip?
And she hired Harvey Weinstein's PR company to make sure we're all aware of that.
She herself made a living portraying illicit sex scenes to the public, went off with Harry for an overnighter where sex probably was the focus of the trip mere days after meeting him and mosy likely landed Harry based on her sexual proficiencies alone (if he would admit it). I find it repugnant that she is concerned about young women as she is no decent role model my 3 daughters would have emulated.
1. She will issue a denial and throw her friend under the bus, or imply that the media made it up.
2. She is well on her way to leave Harry and thus the reports in the media build her brand as a feminist for her post-BRF life (but, Megsy, video clips and photos of you using sex to promote yourself are all over the Internet, as commentators have pointed out!)
3. She is blind and tone deaf about how to behave and thus will think the reports are a good thing that will increase her value as a modernising member of the BRF.
I think that there is going to be more strict control of M&H after the Andrew scandal, and the BRF will be keen to make it a great Christmas for the Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh. Will M&H turn up for a Sandringham Christmas? Will Doria be with them? Will they stay away and be at Frogmore? Will they be in LA, where Megsy can work on building her independent brand and make her deals? Will they be at one of their wealthy celebrity friend's mansion (Ellen, Oprah ...)? Will they have a Harry Christmas in the African bush (imagine Megsy and Doria camping in the bush in the heat of the summer!)
I go for #3. "She is blind and tone deaf about how to behave and thus will think the reports are a good thing that will increase her value as a modernising member of the BRF."
Even though she's supposedly on 'family time' she simply cannot resist the opportunity to portray herself as a principled feminist. Never mind that Andrew's links to Epstein have been known since long before she chose to become a 'working' member of the royal family. It'll go down a treat with her deluded fanz, however, and that's all she cares about.
"Will M&H turn up for a Sandringham Christmas?"
They've already issued a statement saying they will not, so I can't see them backtracking on that. Once you tell the queen you're not interested in being her guest, I doubt you would be given another chance if you change your mind.
The latest we've heard is that Doria is flying over the Windsor for Thanksgiving, which makes absolutely zero sense. Thanksgiving is just another day of the year in Britain. Why would an American woman fly out of America to celebrate a uniquely American festival abroad? Especially when her daughter has all the time and money in the world to come to her?
Obviously she knows full well how men view sex since she has made a career out of pleasuring men.
Along the lines of Kate making her a baby shower in London and Her Majesty making her a birthday party at Balmoral?
And the children's book that she was writing?
The speculation around their Xmas plans is bizarre though. So the latest is that Doria will come over to Windsor for Thanksgiving but they will go to Los Angleles for Xmas? Just so odd to me. I thought the whole point was that Meghan wanted to be in America for Thanksgiving? It's just a normal day everywhere else in the world, incl. Britain.
And the MM/PH trip to the US is off because they were told they had to finance it themselves. Flights for a nanny, a couple of protection officers and their (overtime) wages during an extended vacay were way too expensive for them to underwrite themselves. Famous friends may have offered a place to stay, but I'm certain they would not have offered to foot the payroll too. Much cheaper just to buy Doria a flight to England. And US thanksgiving makes perfect sense, as Doria no doubt has time off work to travel.
It was not followed by "and then she went to Frogmore and cuddled baby Archie", but it might have well have. I think that it was in MSM, but it looked like a Kate gives Meghan baby shower type story.
Also, not sure the York girls will be as chummy with H and M now that she has said that about their father. Hairy will no doubt support and defend his darling wife!!!!!!!! I am waiting to hear what Hairy has to say or what any of them have to say about Meghan’s being “horrified” remark. Meghan is “horrified” all right and not in the way we are talking about right here. 😈
@SirStinxAlot
I do think MM and Harry can take Archie to the US. After all, they do their own things and they don’t care of any disagreement which would be expressed. If they want to go to the US with or without Archie, that’s what they will do.
The day the BRF will question Archie’s custody : we’ll know for sure. She doesn’t miss an opportunity to attack the BRF, that’s why she'll be vocal when she’ll organize another pity party for her baby’s custody.
"Most of the factual drama we witness for ourselves. Take for example the refusal to show any pictures of Archie without the drama of trying to make it into a conspiracy theory. By this I mean, why would anyone consider it normal to start with the feet and gradually work upwards? We also had the inconsistency of timings regarding the birth. First we were told she was in labour and in another breath we were told the baby had been born (hours) earlier. How on earth could anyone make an error like that? We also had the fuss regarding the Queen’s top and apparently best in the world Physicians being disallowed to follow the practice of confirming the birth. This resulted in some problems regarding the notice which is always displayed outside Buckingham Palace.
"All the above was not fabricated. At the time of the marriage Harry mentioned the fact that Meghan did not have a family, or words to that effect…… Meanwhile, it would appear her father paid all her fees for schooling and had her accompany him on a daily basis whilst he was working on set. There are also numerous pictures of her with her family as she grew up. All these pictures can be seen online and on Quora. She denied her half brother’s existence. In fact she stated she did not know him. I could go on and on."
So funny about photos of Archie - "why would anyone consider it normal to start with the feet and gradually work upwards?"
https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-drama-surrounding-Duchess-Meghan-is-fabricated-by-the-press
Due to her personality and the way she lives her life and treats people, she will always be seen as a hypocrite when spouting what should be normal, good, human sentiments. Quite rightly. The hostility towards her is absolute. From Telegraph readers too. The Queen should take note. There's no way back for PA or Meghan.
Paraphrasing here
1. How do you like the family you never had now?
2. She's angry because Andy forgot her. Lolol
First of all Andy hasn't really been proven guilty of anything criminal, he's basically guilty by association at this point in time. He is utterly stupid and dug his own grave, but still not proven guilty by law. So say this in a telegraph article Meghan is basically calling him out for being guilty, at least that's how it will look to her crazy squad people. She's not winning any brownie points from the thinking public.
Heh. I do not think her audience is the thinking public.
I agree on the PA not actually having done anything proven to be criminal. Now, there may be something on the blackmail recordings that Epstein had but, so far, he's done nothing wrong legally. At this point, I'm just facepalming while simultaneously shaking my head and muttering "aspies!" because if he truly is the engineer type (which is the vibe I got from his interview as well as from what his interviewer actually said), he doesn't really understand the nuances of guilt by association.
It is like trying to explain the differences between the shades of red and green to somebody with red/green color blindness. It can be quite frustrating when you do not understand that the other person has red/green color blindness, but they don't understand that they have it either. (Red/green color blindness runs in my family.)
Daily Telegraph readers would constitute the thinking public and they reacted very badly to her intervention. As you're in the US you may not be familiar with their demographic. Basically the wealthy/professional/educated classes. I think the Queen would pay attention if she ever reads online to see the comments. I believe her grandchildren bought her an iPad a few years ago and it's said she uses it.