There's been plenty of ink spilled today about Prince Andrew's interview with the BBC last night and whether or not he was appropriately sorry (or truthful) about his interactions with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Andrew's explanations may have sounded limp (I don't drink. I don't recall meeting that women. I was busy that night, taking Beatrice to the Pizza Express in Woking), but unlike his spin doctor, I think the interview was a good idea.
Andrew's reputation was in tatters and his business and charity projects were overshadowed by his role in the Epstein case.
And the lives of his daughters were on hold too, leaving them unable to bid for a place as working royals, or even get someone to design them a wedding dress, as long as the unanswered cloud of accusations hung over Andrew's head.
Now that he's spoken out, the Royal family can decide what to do with him.
More precisely, Charles can decide what to do with him. Or, given Charles' hopeless dithering and poor health, William can.
According to the Times, William's team has been leaking unflattering stories about Andrew to the media for several months.
These days, the greatest threat is information that can damage the Royal Family's reputation and weaken public support for its existence.
Which brings us back to Duchess Meghan.
Meghan likes to collect information about the Royals, all the way back to her dating days with Harry, when she was reportedly caught taking photos of private areas of Kensington Palace and was escorted to the airport and sent back to Canada.
And she likes to share information about the Royals.
It seems likely that Kate's falling-out with her neighbor Rose Hanbury, and William's reported one-on-one dinner with Rose, transmogified into rumors of a torrid affair with the help of Meg and her minions.
The rumors were 'confirmed' by Meg's Soho House cohort Giles Coren, a Times food critic, who tweeted that "everyone knows" about the affair before quickly deleting the tweet.
The Royals can't be enthusiastic about having them around at a place and time when they let their hair down - particularly William, who is known to be privacy-obsessed.
But Meg already has plenty of information about the Royals she would have collected during the time they were trying to welcome her into the family, plus information she could have elicited from Harry both before and during their marriage.
What will she do with that information? How could she benefit from sharing it? And how could she be kept from sharing it, if that's what the Royals would prefer?
Giles Coren is a good example of this type of "friend."
What's more, the information doesn't even have to be true. A powerful technique is to mix true information, particularly information that can be publicly confirmed, with information that is false and potentially damaging.
For example, in a multicultural Britain, the suggestion that Royal Family Member Z made statements that were racist or Islamophobic would be shocking, and raise questions about whether a traditional monarchy can really reflect modern Britain.
The most damaging person to attach this to would be William, who has emerged as the family's great hope for the future.
As Thomas Markle once confirmed, Meghan loves to "bend the rules". It certainly wouldn't be hard to imagine her threatening to share information that would damage the Royals, either directly or through "friends".
Whether nor not this information is true or not is immaterial. (After all, Marie Antoinette never really said 'let them eat cake', but that didn't help her avoid the guilliotine.)
Meghan has supposedly been collecting information ever since she arrived in the UK and sending it overseas for safekeeping; giving her love for writing about herself, this seems likely, and the Royals probably know it.
It's an interesting question, because people in power will do what they have to do to protect themselves. After all, look at what happened to Epstein.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that William met with Hillary Clinton this week.
Andrew's explanations may have sounded limp (I don't drink. I don't recall meeting that women. I was busy that night, taking Beatrice to the Pizza Express in Woking), but unlike his spin doctor, I think the interview was a good idea.
Andrew's reputation was in tatters and his business and charity projects were overshadowed by his role in the Epstein case.
And the lives of his daughters were on hold too, leaving them unable to bid for a place as working royals, or even get someone to design them a wedding dress, as long as the unanswered cloud of accusations hung over Andrew's head.
Now that he's spoken out, the Royal family can decide what to do with him.
More precisely, Charles can decide what to do with him. Or, given Charles' hopeless dithering and poor health, William can.
According to the Times, William's team has been leaking unflattering stories about Andrew to the media for several months.
Information is power
Centuries ago, the greatest threats to the British monarchy were the Spanish Armada or the French Army.These days, the greatest threat is information that can damage the Royal Family's reputation and weaken public support for its existence.
Which brings us back to Duchess Meghan.
Meghan likes to collect information about the Royals, all the way back to her dating days with Harry, when she was reportedly caught taking photos of private areas of Kensington Palace and was escorted to the airport and sent back to Canada.
And she likes to share information about the Royals.
It seems likely that Kate's falling-out with her neighbor Rose Hanbury, and William's reported one-on-one dinner with Rose, transmogified into rumors of a torrid affair with the help of Meg and her minions.
The rumors were 'confirmed' by Meg's Soho House cohort Giles Coren, a Times food critic, who tweeted that "everyone knows" about the affair before quickly deleting the tweet.
What information does she have?
Meg's penchant for storing and sharing information, and perhaps Harry's penchant for sharing it with her, would be a very good reason they will not be joining the family for Christmas at Sandringham this year.The Royals can't be enthusiastic about having them around at a place and time when they let their hair down - particularly William, who is known to be privacy-obsessed.
But Meg already has plenty of information about the Royals she would have collected during the time they were trying to welcome her into the family, plus information she could have elicited from Harry both before and during their marriage.
What will she do with that information? How could she benefit from sharing it? And how could she be kept from sharing it, if that's what the Royals would prefer?
NDAs can be circumvented
Certainly, if there is a divorce, Meg's monetary settlement will come with a non-disclosure agreement. But NDAs increasingly aren't worth the paper they're written on, and they can easily be circumvented by having "a friend" disclose sensitive information, potentially via social media.Giles Coren is a good example of this type of "friend."
What's more, the information doesn't even have to be true. A powerful technique is to mix true information, particularly information that can be publicly confirmed, with information that is false and potentially damaging.
For example, in a multicultural Britain, the suggestion that Royal Family Member Z made statements that were racist or Islamophobic would be shocking, and raise questions about whether a traditional monarchy can really reflect modern Britain.
The most damaging person to attach this to would be William, who has emerged as the family's great hope for the future.
The tell-all book
So, let's say Meghan gets kicked out of the family, possibly with Harry trailing behind her. The Sussex branch signs an NDA and gets a certain amount of money, but quickly spends that amount and wants more.As Thomas Markle once confirmed, Meghan loves to "bend the rules". It certainly wouldn't be hard to imagine her threatening to share information that would damage the Royals, either directly or through "friends".
Whether nor not this information is true or not is immaterial. (After all, Marie Antoinette never really said 'let them eat cake', but that didn't help her avoid the guilliotine.)
Meghan has supposedly been collecting information ever since she arrived in the UK and sending it overseas for safekeeping; giving her love for writing about herself, this seems likely, and the Royals probably know it.
Dead-man's switch?
An interesting question might be: does Meghan's so-called 'diary' have a dead-man's switch? If something were, uh, to happen to Meghan, is the information set up to be disclosed anyway?It's an interesting question, because people in power will do what they have to do to protect themselves. After all, look at what happened to Epstein.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that William met with Hillary Clinton this week.
Comments
I don't understand why the royals needed this toe-curling interview to be pushed into taking action. The Epstein stories have been around for nearly 10 years, and came back into focus several months ago. Since then, the royals have shown him support, with him being photgraphed going to church with the queen in the summer. If they had any sense, they would have quietly retired him from public life months ago. But increasingly, it seems as though they don't have sense.
Published in 1782, Book VI of the Confessions was composed in 1765-1769, i.e. before the arrival in France of the daughter of the Emperor of Austria, the "great princess" of which Jean-Jacques Rousseau speaks, must be Louise-Marie-Thérèse Victoire, of France, daughter of Louis XV and Marie Leszczynska, aunt of Louis XVI. But in the collective memory, these words are attributed to Marie-Antoinette.
Nutty, as you say so well, Meghan's team will probably one day attribute to Prince William or other members of the royal family words they will never have spoken or give them another meaning. And some people will believe it as a truth.
This woman seems dangerous in her madness.
The only way Meghan can get 'kicked out of the family' is by divorcing Harry. So long as she remains his wife, she will remain a member of the royal family.
"I don't think it's a matter of like or dislike, but survival of the BRF. William is the future of the family and it's up to him to protect the monarchy. If that means sacrificing PA then that's what will be done."
Agree with that. However, that would require a certain ruthlessness which the queen lacks when it comes to her favourite son, and which Charles seems to lack in general. William is a different story, but he has no real power within the family as yet.
Andrew is 59 and really isn't needed now that there are so many healthy younger royals. I don't understand why the royals don't issue some statement to the effect of 'HRH the Duke of York is retiring from public duties to focus on his private charity work (or whatever)'. He's a total liability and the dark shadow he is throwing over the entire family isn't going away any time soon.
@Holly Thank you for the insight! That makes perfect sense.
Agree with all, yet perhaps William has more power than we think as evidenced by his meeting with HRC which is very curious.
Just my opinion. Perhaps William does despise PA. Seems like the majority do at this point! lol
I never heard that MM was taking photos and then escorted to the airport while dating Harry. Interesting.
Harry married her after that incident and the Royals allowed the marriage, why?
As for Will meeting Hill, I don't think there was anything sinister in that. I actually have a couple of theories egarcimh that, and my first theory seems quite credible to me.
While HRC was in UK to promote her book she also launched an important education and women's leadership program at King's college. If you recall, a few months ago I mentioned that Hillary would be launching a women's leadership world series with Julia Gillard in association with King's college, this was on the 13th of Nov. I'm an alumnus, details are available on site an the unis social media. As part of the behind the scenes of that program series she likely met a few important people. I'm guessing her meeting with PW could be part of something similar.
Another theory, PW recently did a stint at MI6. Now I'm guessing, but I feel that his newer more dynamic role as the face of BRF also involves being involved in world affairs, and he met up with Hills since she is the former US secretary of state. Whatever the reason may be, it was official announced by the CC. So it wasn't clandestine. If it was about epstien or mm (and about some covert op regarding either of them), isn't it likely that they would keep it secret? (Not that they couldn't discuss this officially but just think)
I don’t doubt that every phone call and email Meghan has made/sent has been recorded. We don’t know what information Harry has shared with her of what she has snooped out on her own. One of the papers had a story a while back about H going ballistic over a diary M left out where staff could find and read it. I don’t doubt that M and Andy ‘knew’ each other from her yachting days which leads me to ask; how much can M repeat that doesn’t implicate her in a negative way?
As far as Andy’s interview, I was dreading seeing it but didn’t feel right commenting on it unless I did. The comments in the DM made it sound like he came across a a pompous, entitled, elitist brat but I didn’t walk away with that impression. The reporter was relentless in asking the same questions over and over and, while he seemed frustrated by that, his answers stayed the same. He could have insisted that his dealings with JE were mostly business and the fact that he stayed in his homes, he was in NY and Florida on business which is why he wasn’t in his company more. The records show that Andy and Sarah we’re together on a couple of trips to the island which wouldn’t lend such a visit to opportunities for accosting Miss Roberts. She may have been being coerced by JE but the photo of her with A shows a smiling at ease young woman.if she was being forced would A have known that? Andrew is a foolish creep but I want to think that he would draw the line at forcing a woman against her will. When asked if he thought she was lying about her encounters with him, to his credit he didn’t call her a liar but stuck with his story that he didn’t remember any of it.which makes me wonder-was there any drug use going on at those parties? 1/
@Alice I agree with you about the Clinton meeting - it could have been completely innocent. Or it could have covered several topics. William's interest in MI6 and intelligence is interesting for a lot of reasons. I wonder if he's started having access to the daily "red boxes" sent from the prime minister to the Queen and Charles.
I disagree with you about this, though:
Williams team leaking info on Andrew is a fitting example of missing a little but of truth with rumour that you just cited @Nutty. There's no way it can be verified, nor can it be completely dismissed.
Sure, it can be verified. Suzie Creamcheese, journalist, can come out and say directly (or say in her memoirs) that William's representative John Doe contacted her on September 17, 2019 with this information about Andrew. It was probably a phone call, but if the contact was made via email or text it's even easier to verify.
Lots of this information about how Diana played the press came out after her death.
I doubt they were recording all of Meghan's electronic communications at the beginning of her relationship with Harry - that would suggest that they would have been recording Chelsey and Cressida as well, which seems like a lot of extra staff time.
At some point, however, they probably did begin to do so - the point when they realized they couldn't trust her. It would be interesting to know when that was.
@Alice France, thanks for your interesting information about the French Royals! Personally, I think that the fate of the French Royals - and the Russian and Greek Royals - is something the Windsors think about every day.
"Whatever the reason may be, it was official announced by the CC. So it wasn't clandestine. If it was about epstien or mm (and about some covert op regarding either of them), isn't it likely that they would keep it secret?"
I would think they mentioned the meeting on the CC in the interests of transparency. If it later became known that William had met a senior political figure and didn't disclose it, it might lead to suspicion.
Also, as I recall, the mention was pretty terse, simply "HRH met Hilary Clinton" and not much more. If they had been meeting for 'innocent' reasons wouldn't they have added 'in order to discuss women's education' or something like that? At the very least, the fact that they met just days before this disastrous TV interview is... interesting.
Andrew stayed as a guest of Epstein AFTER the latter had served time for sex offences.
The fact that he would do so in itself disqualifies him to represent the United Kingdom and to be a public servant subsidised by the taxpayer.
Back to the H&M saga... I’m just shaking my head over the whole situation. I seriously doubt they were invited to Christmas at Sandringham. As Nutty said, how will the family be able to let their hair down and talk freely when they know every word is being recorded for later use? I one who doesn’t believe they have a baby in their possession and since they don’t, now can they appear at a family gathering without an Archie? So far none of the family has admitted meeting him. We’ve seen some photoshopped pictures that don’t even appear to be the same child.M must have dug through all the family photos and availed herself of the ones online but she still hasn’t managed to accumulate more than a few different clothing changes. The same ones appear over and over with some, like wearing a Panama hat at a christening, being inappropriate choices for the event.
I have four children and delivered countless more so I wasn’t fooled by the faux pregnancy. Meg didn’t think this fake baby thing through. Is there a doll that can pass as a preschooler? What about when he leaves for Eton? That baby shower was pink-themed and we know she wanted a girl for merching purposes. The gender neutral baby was dressed in blue when he met Desmond Tutu. Is hiding a firl child as a boy the ultimate disguise?
H&M has all kind of elaborate plans for a holiday in LA but as soon as it was revealed that H had more obligations in the U.K. and M would travel on alone, she did an about face. Is she that afraid of him being out of her control? NOw she says she’s bringing Doria (apart from her SO) to the U.K. for a holiday not celebrated there and that they will serve a nonexistent Thanksgiving dinner at a homeless shelter. How much crazier can she get?
At least Randy Andy has given his side of the story-as unsatisfying as it was. Maybe now his daughter can find a designer willing to create a wedding dress for her. As for the other two? I’ll just wait and see what happens next. The next few weeks promise to be very entertaining.
I don't know how much they've shared with Meghan, but they've certainly shared a lot with Harry over the years, particularly when they thought he was going to be an integral part of the team going forward.
If Harry shared pillow talk with Meg along the lines of "I think they really did kill my mum" or "I've always wondered if Hewitt is my dad" or "Andrew isn't Philip's son, you know" or "The Queen actually really likes Donald Trump, and finds him charming" or "Kate and Wills almost split up this one time" or "Pa says he really doesn't think the Commonwealth has a future", any of that information could be enough to trouble the Royal Family.
The question is, would Meg be seen to be credible?
If they were smart, they'd have her release some information and then show it to be 100% wrong, which would raise questions about her credibility going forward.
They were just used to trusting people, and seemed to have thought Meg would "get it" once she spent more time with the family.
Also, surveillance, even electronic suveillance, is very time-consuming and expensive. Is MI6 going to spend that on a potential terrorist, or spend it on Meg?
Does anyone have a link please?
Thinking about Andrew - I have not seen the interview.
I do know the BE talked about what happened as being not very high up on the list of offenses (we all can agree that what he actually did was horrible). And that he was allowed greater freedoms than he should have.
Is it possible that Andrew really did not know what BE was charged with and only learned later?
"They were used to trusting people...." I'm having a hard time with that statement.
Here's the interview if you really want to watch it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=gtgaGMANaD4&feature=emb_title
It could also be that past generations of royals hung out with some unsavory characters - Philip comes to mind, wasn't that a plotline in "The Crown" - as well as the Queen's uncle David (Edward VIII), who lived a pretty wild life before his marriage.
Powerful men have also long exploited young women. If you've ever read "The Girl on the Red Velvet Swing" or other media about the Stanford White killing in 1906, the stories they have about the girls used as 'party favors' at gentlemen's events is pretty sickening.
Tell me more. What I'm saying is that they were not used to people joining the family (Kate, Jack, Mike Tindall, Autumn) sharing their secrets with the world.
Sophie Wessex was an exception, of course, but after her big mistake she was brought back into the circle of trust. Fergie never was.
So I saw a bit on YouTube and some highlighted snipets on Twitter here and there.
And I finally realised why this whole thing is so sickening:
A younger version of myself (within the age bracket these men like) would've totally fallen for them. I know it's gross now, but a younger me would've went *swoon*, I know it's taboo/disgusting to think about. But some girls have daddy issues and it's not cool to take advantage of people's vulnerabilities like that.
It's revolting.
Hillary, don't you have better things to do?
Oh, right. You don't.
(FFS at least with the parliament people you could say something like, "don't you have an election/Brexit to deal with?" LOL.)
I don't think they have ever trusted MM. The potential yachting connection to PA makes me think she was already known to them. I doubt they trust Harry either. He's too much of a loose cannon.
I believe the secret diaries is just a bluff on the part of MM and her backers. Lots of positioning going on right now by different players in this most interesting game.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1205518/meghan-markle-prince-andrew-news-duchess-of-sussex-prince-harry-royal-family-latest
Following on from what someone said earlier, when Dickie says this, then it's serious.
Meghan could never be a quarter so interesting, and how he deals with his brother and sister-in-law will be fascinating to watch.
As to Meghan, much depends on Harry. As the child of the future king, his position is much like the current royal children - Anne, Edward, and ...Andrew. While Charles stated he wanted to streamline the Monarchy, it was in reference to Bea and Eugenie, not Andrew (if I am wrong, please correct me). So Harry is the master of his own future, literally. If he shapes up and brings MM under control, he will remain intact. Current circumstances indicate these next months will determine his and MM's future. As to loose cannon MM - I cannot imagine a divorce: she loses the HRH, the money, the clout, and she could lose Archie if she protests too much.
Jokes apart, I'm of the opinion that he is the current generations Prince Phillip, taking over many of the responsibility Phillip had. Makes logical sense to me. I can't seem to digest the fact that given williams childhood, the drama, the melodrama, he came out totally unscathed. I admire his role, and the way he is going about it. But I'm sure great power comes greater responsibly. He will need to be the villian in this and have to take a public enough stand as regards Andy, Harry ad Meghan. I.sure than doesn't come easy and family ties are tricky that way, but in order to safeguard his position and for his family he will need to do something. I'm sure he is already. We just wouldn't know, at least not just yet.
I’m curious as to the story this week that leaks about PA are coming from someone senior in PW’s office, and recall the story about Charles and Andrew having a shouting match a few weeks/months ago. That was really interesting but we heard no more details.
Yes, Nutty! It’s funny how he’s been portrayed as aloof when his speeches have carried an intuitive fluidity that only Diana had. Harry and Meghan speak and tread and wail loudly, but PW had a soft touch that seems far more impactful. Boy do I wonder what she would think of all this!
Yet he shows no signs of that. He's visibly stepping up to the plate now. At the cenotaph a week ago today he was absolutely a king in waiting. More so than his father. No, I think he will be horrified and frustrated with having to witness his uncle, brother and sister-in-law turning the BRF into an endless slow-motion train wreck while he can only wait on the sidelines.
There have been no peeps from HRC since her meeting with William. May be coincidence because she was wrapping up her UK tour, but it is remarkable that she chimed in with such ardent support of MM and was received by William during a purported press tour for a book All mere days from the taping of Andrew’s BBC interview. Really?
Someone mentioned that HRC could have been prepping William for his Middle East tour; it may be there was a little of that. It would be a good premise for getting her to KP, but if so, I hope he also gave her a polite what-for over her stepping into the Markle debacle and Brexit. She has not been Madam Sect for years in a constantly changing Middle Eastern landscape,, but she had just declared herself a Meghan Markle backer, and her husband is FRIEND OF RON BURKLE and was more than just acquainted with EPSTEIN.
We cannot forget William’s intelligence work over the summer. I have never subscribed to conspiracy theories before, but we are in interesting times. The BRF is in quite a conundrum and I do not envy Prince William.
What's interesting to me now is that all this is happening while Charles is on a tour. He was I did this week and is now in NZ. We know the royals follow the unwritten rules that noone upstages a Royal on tour. So for the interview to happen while Charles is away to me is strategic. Almost as if they were wanting for PC to be as far away as possible when the shit hits the fan. The interview happened with palace approval so PC must have known about this.
The news that HnM won't attend Christmas has also come out while PC is away and it too did get blown out of proportion, with the Q being dragged into the news articles as well. How does one believe that PC is unfazed by this while on tour? So he must know, and wants to be seen to be physically distanced from these shenanigans. And that is why I believe all the more that someone (cough cough ...wills) is at the helm.of things, letting the troublesome royals dig their own grave with these PR disasters.
"Is it possible that Andrew really did not know what BE was charged with and only learned later?"
Who is 'BE'?
Could someone be confusing Jeffrey Epstein with Brian Epstein, manager of the Beatles?
1) Epstein isn't dead and it's feckless to believe what we see in "the news". Like you wrote, Nutty, that Markle could have a kill-switch, so could Epstein, so he is more dangerous dead than alive, especially considering the real evidence he has stored somewhere to keep him safe and protected, and in billionaire status. He's a high-ranking mason, too, they protect and rescue each other. Two guards working there that night, one on Epstein's floor and one in the gate tower were eyewitnesses to him being removed in a transfer van, upright in a wheelchair, front cuffed, after the 04:15 checks. Both are now on "administrative leave" which I bet is somewhat like Guantanimo, posted that he alive and well. One of the guards posted his fright of being doxxed and disappeared but removed it almost immediately - yes, I saw it and took a screen-shot of his post before it was removed. I tried to post it everywhere that day, and it WOULD NOT POST (pardon my shouting).
2) I didn't think it possible for anyone to annihilate the reputation and credibility of the royal family more than Meghan Markle. I was wrong.
3) With all that head shaking I wonder if Andrew's head is a snow globe.
4 He "weirdly distinctly" remembers going to (comet) Pizza (lolita) Express that night - with extra Freudian cheese, please.
5) Where's Ghislaine and who's her Daddy again? She's with Epstein in his property in the Marshall Islands (Pacific Ocean). For more precise connections on that and the human trafficking going through those islands, See the youtube channel Amazing Polly.
Regarding Andrew, there are no words to describe this interview, but looking at possible motives for him throwing himself under the bus like that, there must be something bigger they need to hide and we can only presume it has something to do with Markle. I think Wills is a red-herring, and find the theory she's trying to destroy Wills so Harry can be king absurd - she's have to off the entire family.
I doubt they fear anything she could ever disclose because I'm sure she signed an NDA before she was married which would prevent any settlement in case of divorce. Look what they did to her when she was caught taking photos? They exiled her - which I think could be her greatest fear because it does appear she's been banned from every royal house. She'd also lose her "son", which could be played in her favor as a victim, but I doubt it because they could in turn expose her lies about carrying him which would paint her as one of the biggest liars in history. Meghan's motivations are fame and money - without the latter, she has no hope of achieving and maintaining the former.
I can't help but think that the royal family has been through people trying to damage their reputation for centuries, and so far, no one has done more than a few scratches and one or two gashes like Henry VIII's first divorce against the Church which was easily healed with an Hegelian Dialectic cha-cha (thesis, antithesis, synthesis or problem, reaction, solution) and the creation of the Anglican Church (Episcopalian in America) was the synthesis. That and David's marryiage to a twice-divorced American for whom he gave up his throne, are pretty huge, yet still the monarchy survives.
So IMHO it is doubtful this little trollop with a horrid reputation already has the moxie, brains, or means to harm them at all. Unless she has videos of murders or baby-sacrificing, or maybe Her Maj partaking in a Satanic orgy, of course. Even then, still, royal PR can twist it to, "we can't tell you why but it was in the interest of national security", or simply debunking the evidence as fake or doctored.
Love the blog, Happy Sunday everyone!
I think Dickie Arbiter may not speak regularly with HM any longer, but he is sending her an urgent message via the press today.
>Whatever Meg has is her special brand of truthiness written on woke papyrus with fancy vegan quills.<
Whether you were joking or not, I can certainly imagine that Megs WOULD write about BRF 'secrets' in her special beautiful caligraphy to be preserved for all posterity (just like she did with the letter to her father). I think she believes she is making significant contributions to history (as much as I hate to say it). I can just see these efforts by her to be used in excerpts in a tell-all book post-divorce. I see why people think she would be bound by an NDA, but only if she consents to it; she could/would still get a hefty largess without having to settle ( Nutties I am not trying to reopen a legal argument that happened the other night)
This may seem far fetched, but I would dare say there could be surreptitious recording devices installed in Frogmore that the Harkles are unaware of. It's not their property but a 'grace and favor' home. If I was the Queen, I would not trust either of them. Maybe Megs/Harry doesn't live there because they feel they are being spied on (in more ways than one).
And I do think William is getting information that Charles receives (like the Red Boxes) because although he is not next in line, it is quite possible that the Prince of Wales may suddenly die with the Queen still living (and William needs to be prepared).
How crazily inconsistent of him to insist in the interview, several times, that he wasn't close to Epstein and yet he apparently needed to go in person and stay for 4 days while breaking off the relationship.
The photo of PA at the door of Epstein's house, letting out a young woman, reminds me of the unlikely parallel he drew with life at Buckingham Palace with staff coming and going all the time. Only if Hugh Hefner was our monarch.
2)Regarding the report that it was William's office that encouraged Andrew to do this interview, as someone else said further up, this can neither be proved or disproved at this time. The Daily Mail reports that it was Andrew's principle secretary who encouraged the interview, despite Andrew's reluctance.
3) Regarding William's time with M16 being related to his meeting with Clinton, I don't recall Clinton being particularly successful in her role as Foreign Secretary.
Me personally, no way would my kids be in the same house as him. No matter how large the house.
"How crazily inconsistent of him to insist in the interview, several times, that he wasn't close to Epstein and yet he apparently needed to go in person and stay for 4 days while breaking off the relationship."
He's nothing but a liar.
In the interview he states that he ceased contact with JE after he was aware that he was under investigation late in 2006, so why did he need to go and break off the relationship with him again in 2010?
Duh!!
one thing I discovered is if I make a comment I can check the box to have thread delivered to my inbox. kind of solves my problem with site. still struggle to post but as previously stated my knowledge of all things royal is limited, voyuer is perhaps best
but with this thread I am reminded of how odd or telling? it was when Spacey made that wacky video all the while clutching that royal cup
https://www.thetanster.com/blog/2018/12/26/c2ezkkwgzrr1w5zoosnd0w5vq3td51
There’s been mud slinging going on between the royal family in the past (Charles with his brothers particularly). However, not sure I buy William leaking rumours about Andrew to the press.
@Ava C, I agree with your comments.
"...is that enough for you to allow your children around someone who enjoys coerced 15 year old nether regions? It is certainly not for me.:
Surprisingly every day many of us with children will be in a social setting with potential child molesters (or even convicted ones) such as parties, church gatherings, s[prts events yet we don't know it. It is far better to actually know of someone's proclivities/heinous past conduct in order to protect oneself/children. I ha a neighbor with a child molestation conviction and he would not ever allow a child to come to his house ever; he shut his house lights off at Halloween so no children would knock on his door. Some try to prevent any future problems with children.
lol it is nearly indescribable. just watch it. to me it came off as a huge threat against royal family
All this is why he’s so intriguing to me! He certainly seems kingly in projecting his role as steadfast and iron-clad.
Someone made up the idea that Megs was taking pics and was escorted home and there is zero proof of that"
Proof of rumor? Meghan hasn't sued over it.
An attraction to post pubescent girls, while repugnant to those living in first world countries, is not considered abnormal by psychiatric standards, although for social and legal reasons, most men refrain from giving in to the attraction.
Recall, however, that marriage to 13 year olds is quite acceptable in certain parts of the world.
The problem with the behaviour of Epstein and his friends, in my opinion, is that the relations were apparently non consensual. And sexual assault is clearly wrong.
Having said that, people often tolerate behaviours in family members that they would not accept in others.. mafia families being one of the most obvious examples.. or the U.S. Kennedy family.
>ateyes he is probably required to do that per his probation officer etc.<
No he wasn't on probation because he did 'straight time in Texas and got out with no probation. He did it because he never wanted any appearance of impropriety.
"CatEyes: The rumour has not appeared in the mainstream media."
Then she could 'doxe' posters as she has done in the past!
Agree with all you say about peados.
In the UK we have something known as Sarah's Law. (named after a little girl who was abducted and killed in a very well known case) Parents can either phone their police station or drop by and ask for a 'Child Sex Offenders Disclosure Scheme Form', which will then notify them of any living in their area.
Sorry I mentioned 'doxing' because although it hasn't according to you appeared in mainstream media, our dear Nutty said:
"Meghan likes to collect information about the Royals, all the way back to her dating days with Harry, when she was reportedly caught taking photos of private areas of Kensington Palace and was escorted to the airport and sent back to Canada."
I think a lot of items may not appear in mainstream media, but still, are true. After all, mainstream media, by and large, seems to be kissing her 'arse' as you Brits say. How sad that there are few investigative pieces on Meghan if any.
"Oh, and how all her life she was an outspoken political activist and how tough it is she shouldn't speak on those issues anymore (no signs she's paying attention to that one)."
Well, aside from the fact that the only thing she was active about was self-promotion, of course she can keep speaking on the political issues that so concern her. Just not in her role as a public servant. She can have sophisticated political discussions with her famously intellectual husband all day long at Froggy Manor should she so desire.
Many people are asked to refrain from possibly controversial subjects while at work. Why should it be any different for her? She's a D list actress who became famous by marrying a dumb prince. Why should her opinion on politics or indeed anything else be worthy of attention?
Sounds good but it would be helpful if they could digitize the info and post it on a website, it would be so much easier for everyone that way, Then if you're visiting an area you could just look it up without the trouble of phoning the police or asking in person. But truth be told, I bet most people don't bother to check, even those that express such concern about their children. People have such good in them they often don't think the bad exists in others in their daily life.
Yes, that would be a much better solution. There are a few websites that have been set up by people who list all known sex offenders but nothing 'official' as far as I know.
My husband and I were always wary of people around our children when they were young. I wish more people were!
I suspect that due to the sensitive nature of the Andrew stories, comments will have been pre-moderated. Hence the relatively low numbers.
With this set up, it was very easy for JE to return to his former lifestyle and was embraced by ALL. Not just PA. New York society and all the other circles in which he traveled (apparently he was very charismatic and made it a point of cultivating the intelligencia by making enormous donations to academics entitles like MIT and Harvard). So while I think anyone with a brain would have seen what was essentially a whitewash of his first trial, I do think that PA, for what ever reason (and I think we can all surmise WHAT reason), could with some fairly concrete evidence state, “Hey, I wasn’t the only one who thought that his first conviction wasn’t that serious. Look at his lenient sentence, how he was able to conduct his businesses from home five days a week. He didn’t know these girls were underage. His sentence reflects that. Is that the mark of a serial predator?” Had PA gone that route, instead of him basically asserting his “honor” and the fact he was in a coma half the time, he might have come across better. Again, posters who comment on how it was so disgusting that after JE’s first conviction and anyone who was anyone should have run away fast, don’t take into account that the first conviction had NO ramifications on his status in society. Certainly half of New York didn’t care. And there are still people who believe in Woody Allen and Roman Polanski’s innocence. I don’t happen to think so, but plenty of actors have no problems appearing in their movies. It is in there interest to do so. And it seems that is was in many people’s interest to ignore that JE was a pedophile. And I do think that people who say, they were on the plane, that JE, IMO, ran two lives. Many people visited his island because, apparently, he threw great parties, Normal parties that didn’t include children and lots of drugs. Of course, he also threw those kinds of parties as well. He lived a bifurcated life.
While the world and certainly the nation is preoccupied with Randy Andy and his lack of scruples, Meghan can regroup, lay low, avoid making a tiny peep.and actually diappear for a few months. Zero contact with press, just enjoy her baby, count her lucky stars and then reemrge in March with a brand new PR strategy of being the perfect princess and redeem her image with actual BRF advisors to guide her in her role. All this, of course, provided she actually wants to stay and thrive in her role as a member of the BRF.
"Half of New York" aren't senior members of the royal family, subsidised by the taxpayer and whose job is to represent Britain abroad. There is no excuse for Andrew's behaviour, nor would any have been accepted. Anyone who hangs out with a convicted sex offender is vile, but the standards are and must be higher for someone who is a public servant de luxe.
The very best Andrew could have hoped for would be that this would all blow over in time. By doing this mindbogglingly stupid interview, he has blown all that. I simply cannot see how he can continue to play a part in British public life.
Oh I’m not sure whose “eyes wide shut” ball it was. Perhaps not JE? 🤷🏼♀️
Almost makes one wonder whether it was them, rather than William, who knew someone who knew someone else who put Andrew and his principle secretary up to this.
"While the world and certainly the nation is preoccupied with Randy Andy and his lack of scruples, Meghan can regroup, lay low, avoid making a tiny peep.and actually diappear for a few months. Zero contact with press, just enjoy her baby, count her lucky stars and then reemrge in March with a brand new PR strategy of being the perfect princess and redeem her image with actual BRF advisors to guide her in her role. All this, of course, provided she actually wants to stay and thrive in her role as a member of the BRF."
Oh, absolutely. This would be a wonderful opportunity for the Harkles to press 'reset' on their image. I've heard quite a few people say that their decision to avoid Xmas at Sandringham is now vindicated and while I doubt Andrew's behaviour has anything to do with their decision, for those who don't follow such matters closely - which is to say most people - it would sound plausible and even admirable.
But I would say there's precisely zero chance Meghan will keep a low profile and make the most of this opportunity handed to her on a silver platter. She simply can't. Publicity to her is like oxygen to most of us. She will squander the opportunity, just as she squandered the immense good will shown to her at her wedding. I have very little doubt of this.
It was not a winning strategy for her.
I hadn't forgotten. I've been scanning for news but nothing yet!
I agree with you on that.
I also think it is even a mistake for her to sue...so many things also can come up through the discovery process and a vigorous defense firm would probably love to tear her to shreds (even if they can't use the material per se) it could be devastating to get bad information into the hands of the sued media.
"I think a lot of items may not appear in mainstream media, but still, are true. After all, mainstream media, by and large, seems to be kissing her 'arse' as you Brits say. How sad that there are few investigative pieces on Meghan if any."
I completely agree that the mainstream media avoids reporting everything that they know about the RF. Has always been thus.
However, that doesn't mean things reported outside of the MSM are necessarily true. Indeed, much of it is untrue.. whether about Smirkle or anything else. Of course, the source is important. Here in Canada, I until recently followed a particular Twitter account whose author was known to be privy to a lot of insider political information in Canada. He would often break stories days, weeks or even months ahead of the MSM. But he was a known entity who wasn't shy to appear also in MSM, and who had a good track record.
But when it comes to Smirkle, there seems to be a lot of rubbish posted on some sites, with no "receipts", as they say.
"However, that doesn't mean things reported outside of the MSM are necessarily true. Indeed, much of it is untrue.. whether about Smirkle or anything else."
Of course. People should be smart enough to realize that the majority is just people's opinions repeated by others. Or rumors repeated by others, but even the best blog authors repeat thusly
Some thoughts:
All she has is a photograph and her accusation. What corroborating evidence has she provided?
The photograph... I think it's real, however Andrew is likely photographed with an untold number of people. Would this particular photo be memorable due to the woman in the photograph or the setting? Was it common enough that he wouldn't remember?
Sweating... how incredibly stupid to claim he doesn't sweat due to a condition. You just know there's a race among the tabloids to post photos of a sweaty Andrew. There was one this morning, but the tabloid couldn't figure out if he was sweating or the shirt was shiny. Perhaps it would have been credible if he could have named the medical condition. He also stated, I'm paraphrasing, that at the time the sexual activity allegedly occurred, he didn't sweat, but made it seem like he now sweats. He should have explained how he was "cured."
I doubt he's being investigated because no attorney/barrister/lawyer/mouthpiece would allow their client to give an interview if there was an ongoing investigation.
Is she pursuing a civil claim? Is such a claim permitted in the UK? She's flogging a book. All this publicity peeks interest in the book. But what about a civil lawsuit? Is this all leverage to get a payout?
At the very very least he maintained a relationship with a convicted sex offender, staying as his house guest for 4 days AFTER he had been convicted and jailed for sex crimes.
That is more than enough reason for him to be withdrawn from public life without delay.
Also, the BBC’s royal correspondent says that no one is in charge at BP any more, which is becoming more and more apparent every day. I think Her Majesty has checked out, Philip is a non-entity, Charles is incapable and ineffectual, and William is the only hope with any backbone and common sense.
Also, on another blog, someone pointed out that the items that Meg is suing over are the ones that don’t involve people who could be called to testify. This makes sense - for example, she doesn’t bring up throwing the teapot in Australia because it could be confirmed by the staff member under oath.
On the other hand, the avocado story wouldn’t have started if her makeup artist/friend/hanger-on hadn’t posted the photo and comment on his IG account.
I rarely read anything Liz Jones has written. However, I fell for the clickbaity headline...LIZ JONES'S DIARY: In which I want to be more Meghan
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-7651571/LIZ-JONESS-DIARY-want-Meghan.html
Best quote from the article, "I think I am going to Be More Meghan. Believe that it is not enough to survive: that I should thrive, I deserve to be happy and adored. I admire women like her: they expect only the best for themselves. Even after giving birth they are able to get dressed and, miraculously, nothing is inside out or stained. And put on make-up. They believe life should be wonderful. They take me-ternity leave."
"I deserve to be happy and adored."... Adoration is much like respect, you don't deserve it, you don't demand it, you earn it through your actions, giving of yourself.
"[t]hey expect only the best for themselves."... If Liz was living in the real world, she would understand that women everywhere put others before themselves, giving the best of themselves to their families, children, friends, loved ones. Mature, adult women aren't so selfish to expect the best for themselves. Self-obsessed narcissists expect the best for themselves... but this was written by Liz Jones.
"Even after giving birth they are able to get dressed and, miraculously, nothing is inside out or stained. And put on make-up."... We didn't actually see Smeg right after she gave birth. We saw her 2 days later. Funny no mention of the nanny, cook, housekeeper, laundry service, hair and makeup person.
Me-ternity leave! We could all use some Me-ternity leave when the BRF finally addresses the Suxxit Situation.
>>>At the very very least he maintained a relationship with a convicted sex offender, staying as his house guest for 4 days AFTER he had been convicted and jailed for sex crimes.<<<
Yes, he should withdraw to private life, however not evidence of criminality.
Going by how the other men at the event are dressed, the dress code seems to be fairly casual. However..... he's the guess of honour so could at least look as though he made some effort! That bloody creased grey jacket again!
But at least the wife stayed home, so there's that.
I completely agree. Andrew doesn’t have to be guilty of anything. However his continued association and friendship with an ex sex convict is a serious issue. It begs questions of Andrews’ integrity, principles and moral standing. He and his ex wife have a history of being associated with truly dodgy individuals, and it’s already been shown that Fergie not only knew Epstein well too, but accepted money from him.
"Yes, he should withdraw to private life, however not evidence of criminality."
In the absence of a trial is is not evidence of criminality, but it certainly is evidence of appallingly poor judgement and a total lack of concern for the women and girls abused by his 'friend'. As he might say himself, very 'unbecoming' in a public servant.
"ll she has is a photograph and her accusation. What corroborating evidence has she provided?"
Many victims don't have corroborating evidence, hence the 'she said/he said' scenario. However, the standard of proof is different in a criminal case versus say, a civil case, Or just a simple accusation (out of court)
Yes. If the minimum standard for enjoying a life of luxury representing Britain at taxpayers' expense is simply not having been convicted of a crime, then what actually is the point of the royal family?
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/17/17/21124448-7695303-image-a-12_1574013087772.jpg
Exactly, with Andrew and the Sussex’s between them, we might not have long to find out. The royal family is looking more unwanted and redundant by the day.
He may have done nothing illegal, but he still comes across as a creep. That said, even Bill Clinton in his prime would have been hard pressed in doing an interview like PA's & coming out looking better than he looked going in. Bill was, & to some degree, is still a very clever & persuasive person.
Speaking of Bill, years ago, a very liberal blog called Wonkette mentioned that Bill was a regular on what the writer called 'Ron Burkle's f**K plane.' Burkle is an both an investor in SoHo house & a confederate of Epstein's, as well as a big contributor to the Democratic party. So, yeah, it's interesting that William met with Hillary.
HIllary hasn't been SofS for several years, but she may still have useful contacts at State, even in the Trump era. She's been hinting at jumping into the 2020 race, but I think the Epstein connection would be a big danger to her. Can't get much 'swampier' than that, & Trump, if he's the nominee, would go town on that. She would taint the whole Democratic party.
As for Megs, I think the RF are hugely relieved the Harkles won't be there, & they'll have a much more relaxing time over Christmas. The body language at their public appearances with Megs is showing borderline revulsion toward her, even on Harry's part. He's become quite adept at avoiding what Harry Markle calls 'the claw,' & you almost never see photos of him smiling at her, even the SA beach snog looked highly staged. The Harkles were hilariously in the royals version of Siberia at the Remembrance gala. Don't know how long Harry is going to be happy about things like that.
I'm not much of a subscriber to conspiracy theories, (although Epstein's alleged suicide is very disturbing), so my guess is that Megs is a lifelong grifter working mostly on her own. Her disheveled public appearances & her jr. highschool level speeches, don't show much input from professionals. Her pr pros have managed to place a lot of silly stories, but I think if there were any shadowy malign group working to undermine the RF, the much smarter thing would have been to have groomed a perfectly dressed & behaved, well spoken & demure royal-bot to deeply infiltrate the RF's slightly rickety family infrastructure. I think that the RF have been on to Megs for some time. I have wondered if the PA fiasco, Brexit, PP's retirement, etc. have made them less nimble. Hopefully, they can up their game.
- pants dripped on by something.
- pants too short.
- jacket wrinkled.
- tan boots inappropriate with dark pants. Surely he could get similar boots in black?
>>>a total lack of concern for the women and girls abused by his 'friend'<<<
Acknowledging any abuse may by some be taken as an admission of guilt.
Not when the person concerned has been convicted and imprisoned for their crimes.
May be his worst look ever! PC needs to drag H to a tailor. What did he spill on his pants? He needed new shoes, but those are innapropriate.
"pants dripped on by something."
*shudders*
He's being accused of crimes that are contemporaneous to Epstein's crimes. He wants to appear that he has no knowledge of those crimes, which includes not acknowledging the victims. Also consider this, there are other very high profile and powerful people involved. He doesn't want to open that can of worms. Bill Clinton was involved on the Lolita Express and flew something like 26 times! Bill Clinton is being accused by one of the victims. Has he uttered even one peep? Hillary has met with Smeg and William and is considering a presidential run. Is Andrew being singled out for a particular reason?
> the absence of a trial is is not evidence of criminality, but it certainly is evidence of appallingly poor judgement and a total lack of concern for the women and girls abused by his 'friend'. As he might say himself, very 'unbecoming' in a public servant<
Yes, so true.
@Lurking
>Acknowledging any abuse may by some be taken as an admission of guilt.<
Andrew could have chimed in after his friendship ended and condemed Epstein (it speaks volumes about him saying nothing essentially, for years.) How many times have other notable people disavowed their one time friend after they got in trouble? Its partly in the timing of one's statements not just the action itself.
LOL That thought crossed my mind as well. He looks very off to me so anything's possible.
But knowledge of his crimes is now a matter of public record. Epstein was tried, convicted and imprisoned for them. He has to know about these crimes because everybody else does. For him not to even acknowledge the suffering caused to innocent women by a man he considered his 'friend' is shockingly callous. Especially as it appeared that Maitlis was giving him a chance to say something along those lines when she said 'Is there anything else you wish to say?' at the end of the interview.
" Is Andrew being singled out for a particular reason?"
Singled out? He CHOSE to give this gobsmackingly stupid interview.
And if questioning the fact that a massively privileged public servant had a long 'friendship' with a convicted sex offender is 'singling out', then I'm all for it.
That is a GENIUS point! Like, someone with many of the qualities of Diana but vetted for maturity. And if she were expected to have children, then by all means, please this time try to recruit someone with actual smarts, perhaps even an intellectual or nerd of some sort. (I know; tall order, right?) But if this system and family is ever to survive (and I hope it's on its way out) they badly need an influx of some brains.
" How many times have other notable people disavowed their one time friend after they got in trouble?"
Andy had a hard time getting his story straight on this. He repeatedly claimed that Epstein wasn't really his friend, and that he just knew him through his partner/pimp Ghislaine Maxwell. Yet at the same time we are to believe that he flew across the Atlantic to spend 4 days in the home of this friend who wasn't really a friend, in order to tell him that their friendship which wasn't really a friendship was over?
Not singled out for the interview, singled out as to the group of men that are complicit. No one is hunting for Bill Clinton's head. There was a list of powerful men on the flight logs to the Lolita Express. Why aren't we hearing more about them?
Alan Dershowitz is suing Virginia Roberts Giuffre for defamation regarding her claims about him.
One thought is that he's ensured his own departure from all things royal. But the other is that he was speaking the way the family all do behind closed doors. Which is to say that they all consider themselves to be above criticism?
Remember how reluctantly the RF acknowledged the sorrow of the nation over Diana's death. What I found far more shocking than the princes walking behind the coffin was them going to Crathie Kirk hours after news of her death.
Both signalled an absence of emotional intelligence which I sense is a gross failure in the family as a whole. Where there is an appearance of EI I suspect it has been coached. William seems better at showing it than many of the rest of the family. HMQ appears ice cold and Andrew is likely her favourite because he shares her chilly self-possession.
Although I'd describe myself as a Royalist because an elected head of state would be infinitely worse, I doubt if I'd want to spend time with any of the blood royals.
I'd have binged the series if she'd kept her opinion of me to herself! As things stand I really don't want to watch it.
Another example of hubris making a person feel untouchable.
Interesting. However, it ‘could’ be because Prince Andrew is still in a very high profile paid public position within in a powerful family. He didn’t have to talk though, in that sense he’s made everything far worse for himself. Yes, Bill is a previous President, just not holding the same position of power. If he is a suspect or guilty of anything, of course he should face justice. I don’t know who’s wanted for questioning in America, I only know Clinton and Trump have been filmed and photographed with both Epstein and Andrew.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7695233/Videos-Prince-Andrew-partying-nightclubs-beautiful-young-women-French-Riviera.html
"Not singled out for the interview, singled out as to the group of men that are complicit. No one is hunting for Bill Clinton's head. There was a list of powerful men on the flight logs to the Lolita Express. Why aren't we hearing more about them?"
How many of them are publically funded representatives of their country?
I don't care about Bill Clinton. I do care about someone who lives off taxpayers' money and whose one job is to represent Britain.
" I can’t positively say that Andrew doesn’t do his job as a representative of the royal family. If he does a fair amount of charitable events, acts as an advisor to his mother, participates, in general, with whatever the royals do, then I think there can be an argument made that he is fulfilling his obligations as a royal servant."
He's not just representing the royal family though, is he? He's also representing Britain. He was trade rep for Britain until recently.
If someone is trailed by scandal - and not just an extramarital affair or being photographed drunk at a nightclub - but consorting with a man convicted of very serious sex crimes, then how can he possibly do a good job of representing the monarchy and the country? What charity wants to be associated with such a person? The royals are public servants. They only enjoy their massively privileged lives for as long as the public tolerates them. They don't actually DO much. They don't earn their privilege. They simply need to be born, and conduct themselves with a modicum of dignity and decency. I'm slightly amazed that I have to explain why being 'friends' with a convicted sex criminal makes it impossible to represent crown and country, but there you go.
When I watch her in The Crown, I am now very aware that I am watching Olivia Coleman. (well, part of the reason.. I also thought that Claire Foy did a better job of portraying strength and vulnerability simultaneously.. ).
The only thing that Coleman's version gets right (due to the costume department) are the low hanging boobs. For the life of me, I have never understood why QE doesn't wear a proper fitting bra.
But these people were generally not raised in happy families conducive to normal childhoods. The way they were raised in such a cold and rigid manner makes my skin crawl. It's surprising that any of them come out well adjusted.
Helena Bonham Carter's Princess Margaret reminds me of the now zaftig Megs, with her bad temper & chubby arms. Margaret, from what little I've read about her, was an impossibly waspish imp, not a garden variety diva. Edward St. Aubyn did a devastating & hilarious send up of Margaret in one of his Melrose Plant books.
As I watched the first episode, I thought Olivia Colman, who is such an expressive actress, was having trouble showing the queen's almost super human emotional control. She actually made her seem much warmer & softer than I imagine her to be.
Yes it’s well documented, but it’s not a crime to being a ladies man if you’re single and free, and not doing anything illegal, there are a lot of powerful men and just normal men who are like that. The whole Epstein thing is something else though. Andrew fraternising with an ex sex convict and around a lot of very young girls is not acceptable behaviour, whilst holding a highly paid public position. Huge difference between the two.
Yes, I was responding to the article you posted regarding PA partying in the French Rivera with young women, not the Epstein situation.
Oh yes! It said he was sweaty too, I didn’t want to read too much! Yuck!
Apologies about my confusion.
"And who was complicit in all this? The monarchy itself. Like so many of our institutions it is no longer fit for purpose. What does it produce? This man who doesn’t know whether he has been upstairs or downstairs in a house; who talks of sex for men as being a “positive action” when this is a case about child abuse. All the evidence is there of what Epstein did and what Andrew and his enablers all knew when the two men met in 2010.
"None of it is new. The royals inhabit this sordid world. A “straightforward shooting weekend” is actually, it turns out, a party given for the partner of a paedophile?
"This is what it means to be born to rule. To over-blink in the headlights of a simple question, but to not bat an eyelid at the systematic abuse of young women. This is what entitlement looks like. Shabby, dodgy and scared as hell. The country stares back at this dissolute man in blank disgust."
Part 1
he Queen did not give her approval for the Duke of York’s Newsnight interview about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, The Telegraph has learnt.
Palace insiders accused the Duke’s private office of “operating in a silo” as it emerged Her Majesty was only made aware of the primetime interrogation by Emily Maitlis after it had been set up.
Rather than ending speculation about the Duke’s behaviour, the hour-long programme revived the controversy and generated fresh questions about his movements and various “alibis” he gave.
Serious questions were being asked at the Palace about why the Duke had been exposed to a no-holds-barred interview without any preconditions attached. It left him having to answer repeated questions about whether he had ever had sex with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, an Epstein sex slave, when she was 17, or with other young girls.
One former senior courtier described the interview as “excruciating” while others said it was a “car crash”, but sources close to the Duke said he stood by his decision and claimed he had answered the questions with “honesty and humility”.
It came as the Prince of Wales was urged to consider downgrading the Duke’s status as a working royal when he becomes king. The Duke also faced questions over a £15,000 loan his ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York, accepted from Epstein, particularly regarding whether he had a hand in arranging the loan and whether it was made before or after the Duke claims to have cut off contact with the disgraced billionaire.
Evidence emerged yesterday that conflicted with his explanation for why Ms Giuffre’s claims of sex with him were wrong. In particular, his suggestion that a photograph of him with his arm around her waist could have been faked because he never wore casual clothes in London was undermined by pictures of him wearing a near-identical outfit on a night out in the capital.
Meanwhile, the NSPCC distanced itself from the Duke, former patron of its Full Stop campaign, after he said his role meant he “knew what to look for” if children were being abused. The charity told The Telegraph: “Prince Andrew was a patron of the NSPCC Full Stop Campaign, which ended in 2009.”
Royal insiders left little doubt yesterday about the level of anger among Palace staff at the Duke’s decision to grant the BBC interview, and about the advice he was given.
One royal source said: “The statement Buckingham Palace issued said the Queen was aware of the interview but not that she approved it. It’s extraordinary how this has unfolded, without any real consultation with the Palace press office or even the Queen’s private office. It does seem as if the Duke of York’s private office is operating in a silo, which is really quite dangerous because there is a lack of accountability there. Internally, this is being seen as a f--- up.”
A Palace spokesman would only refer to a previous statement that the Queen was “aware” of the interview.
“We cannot comment further,” she added. One royal adviser said: “This interview was completely unprecedented in offering a royal up for one hour on one subject without any questions being off limits.
“Ordinarily you would say to the BBC, ‘He’ll talk about X for 10 minutes but he won’t talk about Y or Z’.” Why didn’t they insist on the Duke being filmed carrying out royal duties and make the Epstein allegations a smaller part of a wider documentary?”
A source close to the Duke last night told The Telegraph they “deliberately didn’t want to do it like that because it would have looked like a set-up”, but conceded the programme “did not have enough focus on his work”.
The Duke said in the interview that he had “let the side down” but failed to express any remorse for his friendship with Epstein, saying the “people I met and the opportunities I was given” through Epstein had been “useful”.
Jason Stein, the Duke’s press secretary, left the Palace by mutual agreement last month after disagreements over the handling of the allegations. Mr Stein made clear to friends the Newsnight interview “was not a good idea”.
Attention has since turned to the role of the Duke’s private secretary Amanda Thirsk. The Duke is alleged to have told his staff he was “not doing Newsnight” before being persuaded by Ms Thirsk to accept the BBC’s request. For the past six years, the Cambridge University law graduate has been a director of his Pitch@Palace project, which introduces entrepreneurs to potential investors.
In 2016, she became embroiled in a row over the Duke’s dealing with Timur Kulibayev, the Kazakh oil and gas tycoon, who bought the Duke’s former marital home of Sunninghill Park for £3 million over the asking price.
On whether the Duke’s private office had been “operating in a silo”, a royal aide suggested that it was ultimately the Duke’s decision to proceed with the interview.
The aide denied the Duke had done the interview for fear of further allegations being made against him. Although the Metropolitan Police has ruled out questioning him, a civil case against Epstein’s estate continues in the US, alongside an FBI investigation.
Asked whether the Duke would be willing to cooperate in any investigation in America, the aide said: “If the FBI reached out and asked him to talk, then he’ll take legal advice and do the right thing.”
ENDS
@Ava c thanks for the article
Yes, the queen didn't approve this disastrous interview, just as she didn't approve the Harkles' somewhat less catastrophic 'documentary'. But it seems nobody much cares what the queen does or does not approve of these days. Sad but true. And Philip, once the real force in the royal family, also appears to be old and tired. Charles is hopeless, leaving William the only one with the touch of Michael Corleone coldness neccessary to hold The Family together. But William as yet doesn't have the rank to impose his will (!) on the family. It's all one great big royal mess.
The questions I have are: 1) is “marching” (money making) common and accepted in the family and 2) how has andrew been allowed to get away with these things in the past?
For goodness sakes, the oil tycoon owns are part of real estate on Windsor castle grounds!
Have the PR peeps at BP lost the plot, it doesn’t seem like they are liaising with other these days nor know what they are doing. The Sussex’s have their PR team there too I believe. Crises management is required, before it all tumbles down like a house of cards on them all.
I have a hard time understanding why he would not have run this by other Palace advisors rather than taking the advice of his daughters, of all people. (if advisors still exist....as stated elsewhere, it does seem like no one is in control of the entire lot of them).
Just throwing this idea out there, but did his daughter think that this was a good way to get this story out of the way before her upcoming wedding? They should have stuck with never complain, never explain.
You left out the part where Trump had him kicked out of Mar-a-Lago and notified the authorities of his suspicions. You also left out the part out about the State Attorney's office (D) allegedly being prepared to let him walk. To be fair, he says he wasn't, but it was reported that a lot of people said that he was.
I have read that Acosta agreed to a plea deal because of (a) uncertainty of getting any conviction at all if he went to trial because Epstein had a lot of support (allegedly), and (b) he was himself allegedly being pressured by superiors. That says to me that there are some very, very powerful people that did not want him prosecuted who had (high) government connections. Then there was the curious fact that he was supposed to be checking in with the NY police every 90 days but did not do it once in 8 years. Again, that screams protection to me.
Perhaps the rumors that he was an intelligence asset were actually true. Regardless, he was reportedly a very intelligent, charming man and cultivated friends across a wide variety of disciplines with lots and lots of money to throw around.
I don't know what PA faces in terms of legal jeopardy, but I think that the RF would be better served if he quietly went to ground, perhaps for the rest of his life. You never read anything about the Duke of Kent or the Duke of Gloucester. They should be his models. Just go away, Andy. You're a creep. Of course, I feel that way about a lot of well known people, LOL!
I hope Hm and pp dont give up.
"Prince Andrew’s appearance on Newsnight was a turning point in British history. Royals have given interviews before, and about intimate matters, but they always enjoyed some degree of control and displayed some basic sense that people were watching. This felt more like a police interview."
[...]
"The Duke resembled a lump of veal crowbarred into a suit, and in case we forgot that this was a member of the royal family, not a second-hand car salesman caught with his hands in the till, Ms Maitlis ended with the necessary yet devastating protocol: “Your Royal Highness, thank you.”"
[...]
"If I sound like I’m being flippant, I’m not: I’m furious. What was missing was a proper acknowledgement of Epstein’s crimes. He was a child rapist. A disgusting, cruel, callous groomer and abuser of young women, a pervert who enjoyed wealth and powerful connections."
[...]
"All sympathy, however, vanished the moment he mentioned his “mental health.” Prince Andrew didn’t share his experiences in this interview: he deployed them for sympathy. He came under fire in the Falklands, you know; he does an awful lot of work for charity. And then he dropped the golden words that, whenever I hear them, make me want to put a bullet in the TV: dealing with Epstein had been “almost a mental health issue” for the frail old Duke of York.
"Of course people have mental health issues; of course it helps to talk about it. But the phrase is too often used to suggest that you are the victim of an existential problem you can’t fix and it’s unreasonable to expect you to – when, in reality, the way you feel is a reaction to a concrete situation that’s well within your control. If, for example, you feel overwhelmed by being a royal, stop being a royal."
That last line "If, for example, you feel overwhelmed by being a royal, stop being a royal" could equally be addressed to H&M. People are totally losing patience with their messes now. As others said earlier, H&M's only hope is to stay quiet for at least 6 weeks. Maybe till Spring 2020. Then do their jobs by the book. Otherwise God help them.
However, I want to see all three to stop being royal and forever.
Interesting reading Telegraph readers' comments on PA, that someone took the time to complain that they aren't allowed comments on articles about THAT SUSSEX WOMAN (their caps!). You get the feeling that's not an isolated case. PA's iniquities aren't dampening down the anger about Meghan.
The Telegraph deleted all the comments a little while later. Guess it got too hot for them. They want to preserve access to the RF.
I expect the Queen will really be aware now of the need to provide for her favourite son so he's not left to the mercies of Charles and then William. I mean over-provide for him. When I think of Charles with Andrew, I think of the future Edward VII glaring at John Brown and then the Munshi. Both such favourites with Queen Victoria, yet the statue of John Brown was smashed and the Munshi was kicked out the moment Edward became king. Doesn't matter that Andrew is royal. His luck has run out.
It’s wishful thinking for many. Even The Duke of Windsor wasn’t stripped of his status, and he still had an opulent lifestyle despite being exiled. I’d like to think that times are changing and the tide is turning, people don’t want to be treated like mugs and idiots by the likes of these royal wasters. The fallout just keeps on rolling. It’s not over till the fat lady sings...all eyes on the next few weeks.
https://www.diezminutos.es/familia-real/otras-monarquias/a29807012/meghan-markle-madre-incendios-los-angeles/
There's also frustration when the DT blocks comments as readers sometimes then use an article in a vaguely similar area to make their comments there. It all spills over. Meghan hasn't a chance in hell of controlling or redirecting public perceptions. Must be galling to her.
"As television interviews go, it was one of the most excruciating – and most sought-after – in British history. But when Prince Andrew’s painstakingly negotiated head-to-head with Emily Maitlis in Buckingham Palace finished, the royal appeared oblivious to the damage that had been done. In fact, he was so pleased with how things had gone that he gave the Newsnight team a tour of the palace afterwards."
He's so obtuse there isn't a strong enough word for it!
Also it now quotes the Newsnight editor as saying "He [PA] said he was going to refer up – one assumes that means checking with his mum – and on Tuesday they said they were going to do it and they wanted to do it quickly.” That all sounds remarkably slapdash. I know the palace was in the dark about Diana's Panorama until too late, but at least that was deliberate and carefully planned by the key players, not just chaotic amateur night.
Guardian article:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/17/meetings-rehearsals-and-approval-from-mum-newsnights-prince-andrew-coup
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1205518/meghan-markle-prince-andrew-news-duchess-of-sussex-prince-harry-royal-family-latest