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
Is Fergie required to pay back the ? millions of dollars loan from Epstein?
I was under the impression that it was $15,000?
Is Fergie required to pay back the ? millions of dollars loan from Epstein?
We need to make a list of people likely to 'commit suicide' next so we can hit them up for a loan.
That's a clever thought. I have read of some people that have committed suicide for that very purpose or the real
sneaky ones who go missing, by setting it up that they fall over the side of a boat and are presumed drowned
I hope nothing happens to Harry because of Meghan If he really is depressed as it appears. However, I believe some of his actions have contributed to his bad feelings (such as the things causing friction with his brother).
G’night!
You would think the Queen would lay down the law and have rules of conduct the royals 'should' follow. It's about time. Then if they don't follow them, the wayward person should not expect all of their privileges, period!
I know, right? Whenever I needed money, it never occurred to me to call a, well, snap, he's not technically a pedophile, I believe, so whatever the label is for a guy who likes to have sex with underage women because he's probably so bad in the sack that an adult wouldn't have him? Anyway, never occurred to me to call one for a loan. I thought Capital One extended credit to just anybody.
I think we can blame this on the lack of Walmart stores.
Yes, you’re right. I don’t think Meghan used a direct quote, but she at least definitely paraphrased. A lot of people suspect Harry no longer thinks for himself, and this may prove it!
I believe that it was already acknowledged that Smirkle wrote Harry's speeches for him.
"....I believe, so whatever the label is for a guy who likes to have sex with underage women because he's probably so bad in the sack that an adult wouldn't have him?:
Since it is late at night I will respond that there is a reason which would turn off most adult women having sex with Epstein...and it's not pretty. He has a weird tiny misshappen member (if you get what I mean...I read it...thankfully I never saw it or I would of laughed out loud). LOL
Just noticed that Torontopaper1 has been busy. Since Nov. 2, 2019, they have made four tweets, the most recent being Nov. 14. Here it is:
Darling, not a smart move justifying your behaviour by mentioning the troubled son. The sovereign wasn't amused. ... By the way we still remember the yachts, Seagrams, Soho.
The other three tweets say the Harkles aren’t wanted at Sandringham, some of the money has been cut off, and the last one chided Mayhem for charging an appearance fee to bakery for her most recent visit/photo op.
Would they even know? I expect royals, like celebrities, get asked to have pictures taken with the public frequently and I doubt that they would remember the 50th person on any given day.
His stained trousers were just the piecé de la resistance in an outfit that saw him looking wrinkled, sweaty and red-faced as he showed up to greet groups of high-achieving teenagers, many of whom come from households where alcohol is presumably forbidden. It's rather indelicate to say so, but one has to wonder if he smelled as bad as he looked, or at the very least smelled like a brewery.
The BBC online ran a piece yesterday suggesting that "no one was in charge" at Buckingham Palace.
I don't know if that's true or not, but at any rate it doesn't make sense to run a billion-dollar company with all four of your top people over age 70, and at least two of them - possibly all four of them - suffering from serious health problems.
For me, it's a sign that he just doesn't give a sh*t about this sort of thing.
It's interesting that the DM has published never seen photos of Prince Andrew's partying across the globe, in exclusive night clubs, with famous and exotic women, because we all need to remember that this lifestyle is EXACTLY the same one that PH has been leading up until recently. All the fun, none of the responsibility and none of the coverage that would make him look like a waster. This charity 'work' (he must be soooo exhausted from it all) must be a real drag.
I also enjoy the comments on the Telegraph,some very astute male finger pointing thoughts. Always interesting. Sometimes outright funny.
Can't shake that image of 'lump of veal crowbarred into a suit" of Andrew. Spot on.
@Louise
I also think Clair Foy was so much more relatable as the Queen. Her face was so transparent and easy on the eye. My very young daughter is having trouble with relating to the new actress. And so do I.
Why did Hillary not use Skype,why meet William in person?
'It could also be that past generations of royals hung out with some unsavory characters'......indeedy!
A couple of words from me, Mountbatten, Kincora.
And this is precisely why hereditary monarchy is such a terrible idea.
Now THAT is one royal scandal I would like to see investigated. But it won't happen, at least not during the lifetime of the queen and Prince Philip.
@Nutty: My take from the interview is that i believe him for five reasons.
It was very clear that his team had combed through his diaries to make sure he could have perfect recall about events. Security have to log these details with the UK equivalent of the State dept. Very easy to request the information even if it was over 20yrs ago.
The fact that Virginia isn't logged in the diaries either means his team especially security were lax on the job OR he never met her. Both scenerios mean she's not logged. And if she's not logged he can say with a degree of sincerity that he never met her because she doesn't have proof beyond that photo.
His personal habits and peculiarities. In her account of events, Virginia said,' He bought us drinks' and that, 'he sweated profusely'. These two statements have always bothered me because anyone who spends time with Andrew knows he doesn't drink and yes, he doesn't sweat in any way that can be described as 'profusely'. I know the media is now posting pictures of him at parties, but he is wearing light shirts and no sweat patches. I've often wondered whether it was simply phrasing on her part and therefore i'm a terrible person for doubting her account because of these two phrases.
These two points above can be tested in a court of law and it would be extremely careless of him to talk diary entries and personal habits if he didn't have the evidence to back up what he said. The media led by DM is now trying to fact check his statements. They even found afew medics who to their disappointment confirmed the existence of Andrew's sweating peculiarity and the fact that rare as it is, tends to occur with millitary people who've seen combat.
Regular people really do not understand how entitled and out of touch these people are. They are callous and lack empathy because that's how they are raised. I was strongly reminded of Claus Von Bulow who was accused in the 80s of attempting to murder his wife Sunny. The ensuing court case was spectacular and was made into a film called Reversal of Fortune. Claus was such an unsympathetic character that his own lawyers refused to put him on the stand. He had the best legal team in the world and he treated them like dirt on his shoes. As far as he was concerned, they were staff and impertinent in asking him details of his life nevermind that it was needed to make his case.
Charles and the Queen are not unblemished characters who can censure Andrew. In May 2019, Charles had to answer for his own friendship with pedo Bishop Peter Ball. Queen has had too many incidences of her own callous behaviour which has been glossedbover by a syncophantic press and a good PR team to reposition her as a beloved granny.
Well if PA was hanging with undesirables do you think the security team would make an official log of it? Are you 100% certain they were even there? Do the security logs show them making similar entries when he was partying with Ghislaine Maxwell and Heidi Klum? Come on, it's a ridiculous defence IMO.
And your idea that he couldn't have met her because 'he bought us drinks.' HE BOUGHT THEM DRINKS!! And how can you say with 100% certainty that he doesn't drink. Do you know him? Have you been out with him and gone to clubs with him? Or is it that he says that he doesn't drink, or is it 'unnamed sources' qho I am sure are totally unbiased.
He can't sweat? Again, says who? Where's the proof? And so what, if you're in a sweaty club and you can't sweat (sorry I'm laughing while writing this) then you can still be sweaty as the atmosphere sticks to you. And guess what: "If it’s left untreated, hypohidrosis can cause your body to overheat. Overheating requires quick treatment to prevent it from worsening into heat exhaustion or heat stroke. Heat stroke is a life-threatening condition. You should call 911 or visit an emergency room if you’re having a heat stroke."
Sounds like he's living a dangerous life when going out clubbing in summer whilst visiting the extremely hot South of France.
These reasons are not a 'defense.' They are statements that are completely unverified and anyone can look at them and think they're a load of absolute bollocks which are totally unproveable. Unless of course Andrew releases full details of his entire medical history. And as I have shown, that' a red herring anyway.
https://talkingtarot.tumblr.com/post/189140726842/channeling-meghan-markletarot-reading-november
TT still sees that the marriage is over energetically, as it has been for some time. What will Megsy do next?
'she is specifically working on doing different creative projects and endeavors while in America. I wouldn’t be shocked if this was a book, interview, talk shows, etc of some sort that allowed her to be creative and use her voice'
'she’s going to go straight back to her old ways, whether liked or not, of being an influencer and blogging about food and stuff because that’s honestly the stuff she likes to do and what fulfills her ambitious spirit. She likes the hustling and grinding on celebrity life and being busy with tons of creative projects,'
IMO any NDA or promises to be discreet from Megsy will be worthless. She just talks and talks and she will be saying a lot, believing that it is building the image she wants for herself. As with the PA interview, it could go horribly wrong for her unless she does a lot of honest, in-depth self-analysis.
I think Harry had stained pants and looked disheveled without tie and that awful leather necklace not because of a drinking problem but because he wants to look relatable. He thinks that teens love informality and has probably convinced himself that men in suits are uptight. He also mentioned Greta in his speech, which shows to me how relatable he desperately tries to come off. The fact is, the Royal Family are doing nothing to rein in their members. I like the Queen, but she needs to abdicate and Charles is too soft. William seems to have inherited the backbone of Prince Philip and the grounding from Kate.
As for Andy...
Hebephile is the category for those interested in early onset pubescence (11-14), and ephebophile for those interested in the last teen years (15-19). Not yet classified as paraphilia in the same way as paedophilia, although still terrible as we all see most of these teens come from vulnerable family situations. I do think PA was, as a poster mentioned, probably interested in the young teen girls who cannot tell how bad he is.
Does he really have a medical sweat problem? Was he really there at Pizza Express in Woking? Like Alicefrance hinted at with the interesting explanation of "let them eat cake", public perception will later overrule the "truth". Andy isn't popular, whereas Meghan still is. I can imagine the future seasons of the Crown further distorting that view. (N.B. I don't watch the Crown, and I think Olivia Colman is full of it for wading into support for the Meghan press war. Olivia chose to stay working in the field despite not being able to cash in on good looks, but supports such a gormless, whingy fellow actress who complains when she doesn't get the things she believes she deserves because...?)
If the rest of them can't be like William and Kate there's no hope for the Windsors in this modern media age. W&K are an interesting guide. Yes, they also live in the utmost luxury but because the public can see them behaving properly and even regally now, with a happy well-adjusted children, they are accepted and defended from the sugars online at the speed of light. It's OK for Kate to wear an expensive dress to an event as she is going to be Queen and we know she's not going to behave disgracefully in it (or at any other time) thereby rendering all that expense worthless. They are keeping their end of the bargain. That pact that exists between the people and the monarchy. Anne and Sophie are the same. But really, the Windsors have only a tiny proportion maintaining that pact.
The BRF is now on a knife-edge. Especially with the NHS in their greatest winter crisis ever and a possible hard Brexit looming. When I think of all the essays I used to write about the origins of the French and Russian revolutions, I can see so many factors in play here too. The English* don't really go in for revolutions but the future Charles III needs to remember Charles I and James II (the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution in 1688). When the pact is broken, someone or something will step in and change it. It feels as if we are living through the second Stuart Age.
*I'm not forgetting Scotland but these were before the union. Scotland has even more grounds for grievances at the moment.
I respectfully but strongly disagree. The only place where Harry would look relatable like that would be in any of our cities late on Saturday night, when the police are picking drunken people out of gutters. I can't think of anyone else who would be seen in public like that. At the Royal Albert Hall! Think how smartly all those elderly war veterans dressed, many on tiny pensions. How normal people earning a living have to dress. Harry was doing his equivalent of a job. Anyone else would have been fired.
They log everything about their principal's day and file it with the command. These logs are kept for decades. Does that mean they don't make mistakes? No. Or their principal figures out ways to sneak people past them? Yes. But in the main they maintain meticulous records of their principal's movements and who they meet.
This information can be acquired from the dept by FOI so Andrew would be an idiot to make his claim if those records haven't been checked. That was very evident in his interview because his ability to recall pizza express with such detail could only have come from the security logs.
The Heidi Klum parties are a very public fact. They are not hidden and draw alot of media. Look through that guestlist and you will see everybody good and great of NYC present. Articles are written about them every year. The one specifically mentioned by @tatty was memorable for the theme (Hookers and Pimps) and the fact Andrew attended and was photographed throughout standing next to a scantily clad Heidi in a black wig. (a simple google search shows this)
The drinking and sweating thing is not a secret. Never has been. And i'm sure if he went to court, he'd produce the medical files to prove it. Therefore i do not have to prove it to you.
You can’t defend the indefensible. It’s a clear show of lack of respect, (for his role within his family) the position he holds and to the individual’s he’s come to see. He either simply doesn’t care or take his role seriously anymore, in either case it’s inexcusable.
My husband is one of those who dress scruffy in order to show his intellect haha. He used to work as a quant in an algorithmic trading firm. As a trained physicist, he took immense pride in distinguishing himself from "the suits" by his daily fancy dress as a hobo (dirty trainers with holes, mismatched socks, faded light t-shirt stained with actual coffee instead of dark trousers with water spots). Now that was looking like he came from a gutter. In comparison to him, Harry is smart casual, albeit sloppy and could feasibly get into many a Michelin-starred establishments with that outfit from what I've seen.
That's why I tend to think the leather necklace, open neck, sloppy clothes is Harry's equivalent of showing his disdain for the establishment and showing how he's "different" and down-to-earth and not stuffy like a traditional Royal, and in particular, is more serious about work because he cares less about his clothes. It's the same attitude as well when one attends the symphony or opera any more. Wearing a suit and tie or pearls and a fancier frock is seen as gauche or that you're not as serious about the music. Rather strange to me, but here we are. Plus, one of the photos shows a girl wearing black jeans and a yellow top, so I doubt the teens are that caring about Harry. And Harry was never one for professionalism.
@lizzie, if it's that same JCrew linen jacket, it could definitely get that wrinkled. I don't understand why it is so popular in the states, as the quality is shockingly poor for the price.
And perhaps Harry does have a problem with coke and drink. But it is feasible that he looks shabby for more than one reason.
I'm not totally naive, and I know Harry has issues, but I struggle to believe he would knowingly show up at an event in clothing that was so visibly soiled.
As for Andrew, I think it's helpful for the public to see the extent of the bubble the BRF live in. The fact that he expressed zero sympathy or concern for the victims isn't surprising. I'd bet Andrew considers them so much lower on the evolutionary chain than him that he doesn't even think they have feelings. His answers were so bad, so inept, and so devastating to his credibility.
I really do feel bad for Her Majesty. I've been resistant to suggestions for awhile now that she is losing her touch, but even I have to admit if her second son was allowed to film this interview, with no conditions attached to it, or if Andrew felt he could do the interview without consulting the Queen, and if Harry attends an event, however informal, looking like a slob, that Her Majesty well and truly isn't in charge anymore. The inmates are running the asylum.
I'm truly shocked that the Queen appears to have such little control over her immediate family.
They all represent her whenever they are in public, and they all know that. It's drilled into them from birth. They are representing the Queen.
And THIS is how they treat her?
It's truly shocking to me.
@Ava C, not only does Harry not look capable of doing his job or any job, but he also looks completely incapable of taking on a parenting role for an infant. Would you want this guy near a baby?
@Marie, your husband dressed down, but he had the advantage of having other useful job skills. What other job skills does Harry have? His job is to look presentable, turn up sober, shake some hands, give a speech, and then go home.
Also, if Harry wants to look relatable to the kids, why doesn't he wear some of the high-end British street designers the rappers favor? If he turned up in British-designed athleisure, for example, that would really make a fashion statement.
Anyway, we have some new celebrity support for Meghan over the past few days. I'll be adding Naomi Campbell, Olivia Coleman, and Helen George to our evolving list of public Meg supporters.
And THIS is how they treat her?
It's truly shocking to me.
Nature abhors a vaccum, particularly a power vaccum. When one exists, someone will take advantage of it. The only question is whom.
I'm also sure that they are not present in either an official capacity, or at all, for every thing that PA does. You use the Heidi Klum party as an example. Ok so that was a well known party but that doesn't really prove anything at all. After all, we don't know if protection officers were there? And if they were, we don't know what they have written. How can you write down who he met in a club...
Or there is the St Tropez party that was also mentioned in the DM article where he went on a speed boat with 6 other women and went to different clubs.That's one example of Randy Andy being out and about and no one has heard of it. You claim that there would have been a Protection officer there (or more than one!) who was not only present (I doubt it), and who then able to know who PA interacted with, including the women on the speed boat.
And the thing is, that St Tropez party would have been one of MANY that PA goes to that we don't know about. So there was a photographer there for that one, I wonder how many nights out Randy Andy has had that we don't know about. More than one I would bet. Or more than a 100. Or 200.
Wonder if he had a royal protection officer for the 4 days he stayed with Epstein in NYC after he had been in prison? I look forward to seeing those notes. Just an FOI request away...
And here's another point, if there were not any protection officers staying there at that time, then that shows he can go off and do things on his own.
Which means that his life is not so neatly documented as you claim.
What is being claimed here is that wherever he goes, whatever he does, whoever he meets, there will be a royal protection officer present, and that they are also taking notes about who is there. No. No way. It doesn't happen.
I know people that grew up in Barbados in the expat community and have talked about when he was there and getting up to shenanigans. I could use them as a primary source, and also tell you of the stories that they heard about PA as proof. And I wonder if royal security protection officers were there too!
Seriously, even if they went clubbing with Andy, how are they going to document anyone that he meets. And if these records are so open to the public, how is it that he can get involved with European dictatorships and yet we, the public, are largely in the dark about who we met, and where, in order to make these friendships? Let alone anything else connected with all this Epstein stuff.
After all , I can just submit an FOI and, surprise surprise, I can find out everything I want about any senior royal. Job done! Their lives are open books! Except...
Let's face it, you and I both know that this highly organised and info intensive system doesn't exist to the level you describe.
The fact is that PA goes to places, and does things, without royal protection officers present. Even serving US Presidents have been known to go around without Secret service agents. But Prince Andrew? Nope, every single thing he does will be documented and filed and available for everyone to see.
And even if protection officers were present, then we have no idea ehat leeway there is. Going clubbing is not the same as an official event, or taking daughters out to have apizza with us oiks.
I wait with interest to see the royal protection officer notes of when he stayed with Epstein for four days and numerous other times. Or the notes of that night in St Tropez. It's an FOI request away apparently.
Anyway, apologies for my tone, I don't want to get in a side argument about this which happens a bit too often on here. I've made my point, you've made yours and hopefully we can agree to disagree respectfully. Have a nice day:)
However, I don't think it matters. A kid's birthday party would be in the afternoon or early evening. Tramp's nightclub doesn't shut until 5 am. So he could very easily have done both - it's not an alibi.
In any case, as I've said before, whether or not Andrew is guilty of criminal activity with Virgina Roberts, it is a fact that he continued a 'friendship' with a convicted sex offender AFTER he had done time for his very serious crimes. That alone is reason enough for him to be withdrawn from public life immediately.
I was PA many years ago to a man whose girlfriend and mistress both worked in the same building as us and he was always juggling them. I used to think it would shorten my life. I also felt truly sorry for Bill Clinton's personal secretary as she was a woman of great integrity. During the Lewinsky scandal and Kenneth Starr's investigation I used to think about her a lot. Andrew's people could still find themselves part of a formal FBI investigation as to his movements. Legal opinions yesterday were that his interview has made this more likely.
"Andy isn't popular, whereas Meghan still is."
I agree with you that Andy isn't popular. He's always been one of the least popular members of the firm, and those who've worked with him apparently detest him too.
Meghan though? I don't think she is popular, at least not in Britain. It's not that most people dislike her, they just don't much care. All the shenanigans we disucss in great detail here are entirely unknown to the vast majority of the population. She's simply not that interesting for them. By contrast, Andy's spectacularly stupid interview was headline news in all the papers and TV news stories, and everyone is talking about it. No comparison. Meghan's behaviour is little more than an irritation to the royals. Andrew's, by contrast, could and likely will damage the monarchy quite seriously.
Yes, that's the crux of it. An indisputable fact. No further investigations necessary in order to remove him from public life.
I would say it’s an excellent point if not for all the other clues we’ve had from Harry that he is simply a mess. Whether it is substance- or depression-driven, both, or something else altogether is not clear.
What is clear regardless is that it’s disrespectful to his gran and the institution that pays his way. I actually snorted when I read Andrew’s comment about the open-neck shirt in the photo with Virginia Roberts—something like “Those are clearly my traveling clothes; I wear jacket and tie at all times when in London, duh, so that photo isn’t real.” What a contrasting way of thinking from the other part of the trio that Dickie Arbiter says must go.
(Off topic but I have to say I feel absolutely miserable for the York girls. Eugenie strikes me as so likable, but you British posters would know better than I about the two of them. I do think it’s totally odd that she gave up her home for Harry to film with Ed Sheeran.)
As for Andrew I believe he never gave a second thought to the women he met, never questioned their age and never even suspected Epstein's motifs in supplying girls to his "guests". He is entitled spoilt brat sure the world exists for his pleasure. I am absolutely convinced E was piling up a nice blackmail portfolio on many, many people. That is why he had been murdered.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7694969/Tobias-Menzies-prefers-live-incognito-despite-role-Prince-Philip-Netflixs-Crown.html
"The Crown star Tobias Menzies has lent his support to Meghan Markle suggesting that a public attachment to 'an older idea of femininity' is behind her teething pains as a royal.
The 45-year-old, from north London, who stars alongside Olivia Colman in the latest series of the Netflix drama, said that a traditional view of women royals being seen and not heard has led to some friction for the American former actress.
'These roles really illuminate where we're at with gender politics,' he said. Adding: 'What's going on now with Meghan and the tabloid press seems pretty full-on.'"
Hilarious coming from a cast member of The Crown. If the Queen's role was to only be seen and not heard, there wouldn't be much material for a TV series...
It's not just 'women royals'. It's all royals. And it may be a traditional idea, but it's a bloody good one as far as royals are concerned. As we've seen with the catastrophic Prince Andrew interview, pretty much any times the royals open their mouths to utter anything other than banal platitudes, disaster ensues.
Royals aren't elected. They aren't even appointed. They get their huge life-long priviliges through birth. They aren't experts in anything other than royalling, and sometimes not even that. Why should anyone want to hear their opinions? The queen had it right in this regard at least. She's been the most famous person on earth for half a century and more, but can anyone think of a single memorable think she's actually said?
Colman was a bad choice physically (no chin and protruding teeth). Was she intentially meant to make the Queen look fat and unattractive?
Very true, was saying to my fiance when looking at the reports r.e. the PA interview that one of the many aspects of royal privilege was the fact that when they want to be heard, there is an entire industry who will transmit their message to an audience of millions.
If PH was just a normal average chap with the same looks and intelligence and wanted to get involved in claimate change activism, what would be his platform?
Let alone when defending yourself about being friends with a prolific sexual predator etcetc.
I also agree r.e. the MM popularity-most people aren't too bothered either way about her (although my own informal research has shown that most people acknowledge she's a fake/hypocrite). In contrast we're a bunch of loons for getting so involved:)
In any case, I don't think it's as watertight as is being claimed here, as royals have been known to manipulate these records. Charles, for example, supposedly asked his RPOs to omit all of Camilla's visits from the log, and they complied. Andrew could easily have done the same with any visitors he wished not to be made official.
Thank you for this. I think people take what’s written in a tone they wish to believe, and (at times) take umbrage when none was intended. It’s all too easy to forget that the written word will almost always lack the true nuance. It’s a passionate and lively blog for discussion, with participants possessing wide and varying opinions and knowledge.
King GeorgeV then sent his sons out to mingle to save them from the same fate as his cousin , the Russian Czar. The interaction between the RF and the public has always been carefully controlled.
And it makes sense because if you think about it too much, there really is no place or use for a Royal Family. What kept them going all these years was the mystique. In other words, if you actually know what goes into making the sausage, you no longer want to eat it.
> I am absolutely convinced E was piling up a nice blackmail portfolio on many, many people. That is why he had been murdered.<
Epstein DID, in fact, keep info on the 'big shots' visiting him and their actions. It's been discussed that some of his massive wealth was from blackmail against his associates.
You know that despite the roots of the revolution had been in obsolete feudal system, wide spread corruption and poverty as well as systemic power abuse, the triggers were in the royal family.
Empress Alexandra had been widely disliked and viewed as arrogant, cold and interfering from the day 1. Nicholas II had been viewed as spineless and bending to her influence.
But the real trigger was coronation disaster with thousands dead and injured in the fight over "coronations favours". Nicholas II uncle, Sergey had been responsible for arrangements and crowd control measures and this catastrophe had been correctly held as his failure.
Nicholas did nothing to address public outrage and punish his uncle (who was married to Alexandra's sister Ella), so from the very moment of his coronation public mood turned against the royals. Consequent mistakes deepened it and eventually resulted in widespread contempt and disrespect, even hatred towards the royal family. This was a major factor in bolsheviks managing to sell "get rid of the royals" manifesto.
History teaches us it is very dangerous for the RF to always protect its members whatever the cost.
So true, I said a similar thing/words to the same effect on the last blog post. Since the late 1960s we’ve gradually become privy to the private lives and behind the scenes of the royal family. As I said then....familiarity breeds contempt.
"And it makes sense because if you think about it too much, there really is no place or use for a Royal Family. What kept them going all these years was the mystique. In other words, if you actually know what goes into making the sausage, you no longer want to eat it."
Well, exactly. And I love your metaphor!
Do you remember that scene in 'The Crown' where the queen grudgingly allows specially selected plebs to tour the palace and shake hands with her? She was horrified. But now 'walkabouts' and public appearances are the norm. Even so, we still very rarely hear from the royals except in bland, pre-prepared speeches, and that's how it should be. Nobody wants to hear their opinions. That's not what they're for.
I think Kate and William have the right balance between being 'accessible' and maintaining some kind of mystique. Even so, they will be tainted by the antics of Uncle Andrew - and to a very much lesser extent, the Harkles - and the question of just why, in a democratic age, we should bow the knee to people who are no better than us will remain.
Harry in his stained and wrinkled clothing might be relatable, but if the Royals are "just like you and me", then why would we want or need them?
If they're just like me, then go get a job , pay your mortgage and save up for a vacation.... just like me.
>Harry in his stained and wrinkled clothing might be relatable, but if the Royals are "just like you and me", then why would we want or need them?<
Is Harry really 'relatable' because I have never seen anyone looking like that (a slob) in my 40 years of work history! He is a disgrace to the BRF. And Meghan isn't much better considering her 'boob displays' and the side-slit dress she wore 'down under'.during the tour. They dress like they don't care, Well surprise, surprise the public is not caring about the spoilt royals. As far as celebrities giving support to Meghan, I don't think it is really going to gain traction. The public, by and large, could care less about her and many seem to despise her.
They log everything about their principal's day and file it with the command. These logs are kept for decades. Does that mean they don't make mistakes? No. Or their principal figures out ways to sneak people past them? Yes. But in the main they maintain meticulous records of their principal's movements and who they meet.
This information can be acquired from the dept by FOI so Andrew would be an idiot to make his claim if those records haven't been checked. That was very evident in his interview because his ability to recall pizza express with such detail could only have come from the security logs.
The Heidi Klum parties are a very public fact. They are not hidden and draw alot of media. Look through that guestlist and you will see everybody good and great of NYC present. Articles are written about them every year. The one specifically mentioned by @tatty was memorable for the theme (Hookers and Pimps) and the fact Andrew attended and was photographed throughout standing next to a scantily clad Heidi in a black wig. (a simple google search shows this)
The drinking and sweating thing is not a secret. Never has been. And i'm sure if he went to court, he'd produce the medical files to prove it. Therefore i do not have to prove it to you.
FWIW, I agree. I referred in an earlier blog post to how scheduled they (royals) were and that records are kept. If he said that he was in a pizza parlor with his daughters, it is because records were checked and found that he was involved with a birthday party at the time.
As far as VR claiming him to be "sweaty", I believe that this is just to negatively manipulate public opinion; i.e., fat old guy dripping sweat all over a poor defenseless girl. Inflammatory verbiage such as "sex slave" versus "willing prostitute that could leave whenever she wanted and take fabulous vacations around the world with her illicit earnings" again was to inflame public opinion and to encourage PA to pay up. Her self-description as "sex slave" offends me because there actually ARE child sex slaves that have been found chained in buildings here, rented to and raped by immigrants. They do not get to leave. They do not get vacations. They do not get designer clothes. Often their poor broken little bodies are tossed out like so much trash. She was not a sex slave.
I expect that she has been paid off by several men whether they had sex or not just to avoid the nuisance lawsuits. She's been making her living as a prostitute for a very long time, first actively, then via blackmail/extortion.
Didn't Scotland Yard investigate her claims and find them to be without merit? I expect that they checked his medical records as well as the security records and the official schedule and found that her accounts did not match for the dates that she specified. Plus, of course, her being of legal age made the whole thing moot.
I don't give a damn about Andrew but it appears that he is being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion after the ruling that her accusations had no merit. As for Andrew's visit to Epstein, yeah, don't believe the stated reason about friendship and honor yada yada. Figure it was probably related to blackmail IMO. It may have been against him, or perhaps he was there as an intermediary to plead for or make a payment for another.
Personally, I'd like to see prostitution legalized for protection for all parties involved but I suppose the sexbots are going to render actual prostitutes obsolete eventually.
It’s by and large the British public don’t care at all, not a case we could care less. Just talking to friends and family about Meghan, shows the amount of dislike about her and yes, despising her too. A couple of people I know, would vehemently support her in the beginning, but not now, they now see what so many saw, even before that awful cringeworthy engagement interview. Harry married the most inappropriate women he laid eyes on.
And perhaps Harry does have a problem with coke and drink. But it is feasible that he looks shabby for more than one reason.
Marie, a thousand times yes! I have had to go to expensive hotels for conferences. Yes, Florida is a vacation destination and resort casual is pretty much business dress year around, but the people staying there dressed no differently than the homeless people in the parks.
Andrew says he doesn't sweat...well if the FBI interrogates him over his Epstein involvement, he'll sweat, in fact, he might pee his pants!
The FBI hasn't exactly been covering itself in glory lately. If they wanted to interview me about what time my it was according to my phone, I'd refuse without having my own recording device and an attorney present.
I am glad you are pointing out salient points regarding VRG because things bothered me about her being a 'victim' as opposed to a willing participant. How many times have underage minors done things of their own choosing whether willingly prostituting themselves or taking a gun and mowing down others at their school/ Now I'm not bashing child sex victims as it is so repugnant what is done to children in this regard!
I haven't mentioned it on here before because I felt like it was a bit, how can I say, politically incorrect.
But...is having sex with a 17 year old girl illegal? What makes her a sex slave in this scenario? I am completely on board with the idea that it is most certainly predatory and rather horrible behaviour (to put it mildly). I'm not familiar with the laws of various countries including my own, and don't really want to look it up (the internet tracks us all). But if a 40 year old man wants to have sex with a 17 year old girl, is that actually illegal (depending where you are obviously). Unpleasant-yes.
I think Epstein was a horrible person, the same with Andrew. And all of this really stinks due to the levels of manipulation involved. But I'm also a bit unsure of what law has been broken. If the age of consent in the USA is 18 then it's clear if the 'offence' took place on US soil.
I'm not totally happy to be thinking this to be honest but I do think that there does need to be some understanding that we're not dealing with a 10/12 year old here. a 17 year old has less agency than a 23 year old, but would all this be acceptable (well, ok, maybe not that. Legal?) if she was 18? It appears so.
Apologies if this is beyond the pale and also off topic, happy to delete it.
Age of consent in UK is 16.
Age of consent in Canada is 16. (Was 14 until 2008)
Age of consent in Italy is 14.
Age of consent in UK is 16.
Age of consent in US varies by state.
In Massachusetts, with parental consent a boy has to be at least 14 and a girl at least 12 (yes, 12) to marry. A judge may also have to give permission.
Age to enlist in US Army, Navy, or Marines with parental consent 17, without parental consent 18.
Currently in the US there is some debate about whether 16 year olds should be allowed to vote. (Currently must be 18)
Here's an article from 2018 about ages of consent.
https://www.theweek.co.uk/92121/ages-of-consent-around-the-world
So in the case of Virginia Roberts it's not a legal issue but one of optics. Now there's a PR term! I'm aware that she claims she was a sex slave/trafficked and that is where things get more complicated.
Obviously Epstein was supposedly involved with 14 year olds and that must be what the legal issues (rather than optics) are with PA.
All MM and PH have to do now is absolutely nothing for a few weeks. The heat is off.
But does she have any sense?
"Obviously Epstein was supposedly involved with 14 year olds and that must be what the legal issues (rather than optics) are with PA."
I believe the youngest age mentioned with regard to Epstein was 12. (girls trafficked from France)
"Accountancy firm @KPMG ended their sponsorship contract with the Duke of York's @pitchatpalace on 31st October. Understand negative press coverage surrounding Prince Andrew in recent months was a factor in their decision making."
Officially it starts today. She’ll we see how long the pair can remain quiet and out of the press? Let’s not hold our breath!
"Or maybe they have a misshapen teeny weenie."
Having watched 60 mins Australia this afternoon, I learned JE's was like a small egg.
*gags*
So in the case of Virginia Roberts it's not a legal issue but one of optics. Now there's a PR term! I'm aware that she claims she was a sex slave/trafficked and that is where things get more complicated.’
So agree, but I think the sex slave trafficking part is the thing that’s tripped up Andrew the most IMO. I keep reading and hearing, the girl was 17 so above the age of consent. Well yes for the UK, but allegedly the girl being held as a sex slave and trafficked for it is the very tricky and illegal part of it . He must have been aware of the salacious going on’s and with so many young girls around Epstein a lot of the time. Even if he wasn’t part of it, a lot of people assume he was a witness and therefore complicit in some way. Still continuing a so called friendship or association (Andrew can’t seem to make up his mind ) with an ex sex convict, brings up some very questionable and unsavoury things about him as a person.
How's that 'drawing a line under it' thing going for you, Andy?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7698021/Queen-goes-horse-ride-Windsor-Castle-grounds-days-Prince-Andrews-car-crash-interview.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=60&v=U93rSSf5RVU&feature=emb_title
https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-Duchess-of-Sussex-get-the-British-public-back-on-her-side
Yet again, seeing it listed shows it's not rocket science. Most women could do it. Of course she doesn't want to. There we have it. No solution but to bring it to an end. Read the riot act - no change - adios.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7698843/Kate-Middleton-dons-slinky-Alexander-McQueen-gown-joins-William-Royal-Variety-Performance.html
I can imagine Meghan wandering in her bedroom in L.A tonight, watching those pictures and calling SS to find fake stories about Kate and William for tomorrow headlines (eg. Kate's private secretary, Catherine Quinn)
>>>I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I would think Her Majesty's BLOOD FAMILY would have more respect for her than they are showing.
They all represent her whenever they are in public, and they all know that. It's drilled into them from birth. They are representing the Queen.
And THIS is how they treat her?
It's truly shocking to me.<<<
I looked at the photo of Harry's stained trousers. They looked like light-colored jeans to me. We Americans prefer to use 'pants', particularly for such a casual pair as these, but I will use trousers though these don't really rate so fancy a word owing to 'pants' meaning underwear in Harry's homeland. I guess we can give him (slender) props for at least remembering to put trousers on.
Haz really looks none too clean these days. Since he took up with Megs really, unless he's in some sort of uniform. He seems to value his sporting attire much more than his regular clothing. Rather than stains, those spots appeared to be wet, as though he'd spilled some water on himself in the car. Might be something other than water but I doubt it's grease or something that would have been set in before he left.
It's probably drilled into the Royals that they ought to pace a spare outfit prior to an engagement just in case of mishaps like these. Not that Haz is probably giving 2 Fs about that, but if he'd had a spare pair of trousers, his RPOs could have pulled in somewhere discreet while he changed.
His facial hair is always neatly groomed . . based on the rest of his attire and his sweaty, greasy face usually, I'd expect him to be working on some ZZ Top foliage by now, maybe with some food stuck in. A complete disinterest in personal grooming is generally one of the first casualties of a drug habit. That plus possibly no mirrors at Froggy House? (Rofl.)
Well, that was supposedly his last engagement before 'the break'. Let us see if the Harkles really, really Go Away. I'm not banking money on it. Meghan will find a way to stay in the news, I'm sure.
I just read the above, truly excellent piece and correct at every point! Meghan as you say won’t ever change and I agree with Anni, too much water under the bridge now to turn it around, we’ve seen the really ugly side of Meghan.
Of course things may not stay within her control. KPMG's withdrawal from Pitch@Palace could be just the start. I was unhappy to be reminded of PA's connection to the Outward Bound Trust during the Newsnight interview. When Prince Philip handed his role to PA after decades of support (I grew up in an Outward Bound School where Prince Philip would visit) I was disappointed at the choice even then. PA has been a joke for years. Edward would have been better. At least he's dutiful and one day is expected to become Duke of Edinburgh. Maybe his role needs to be expanded now.
In retrospect, the RF should have just let her spill whatever she had to spill and they could have done damage control. If it's likely Epstein-related, it's all coming out now anyway, and how could she throw Andrew any further into the sh*t without splashing herself? It's common knowledge that she's acquainted with Ghislane Maxwell, and there's only one way that could have come about. She couldn't very well play her Epstein card without implicating herself in any number of illicit activities.
Just goes to show, never, ever, ever give in to a blackmailer. Whatever information she had, or claimed to have (probably just like she claimed to be pregnant by Harry prior to November 2017--if so, where's that baby? Smoke and mirrors, that's all she's got.
Thank you.
>>>Oh, Meghan is a blackmailer is she?.<<<
That's another of my working theories, yes.
There seems to be some consensus on the grapevine that the RF offered Meghan a hefty cash settlement in 2017 to bugger off and leave Harry alone. He had ended the relationship around Christmas of 2016, but in under a year they were engaged. That was quite a turnaround. I've heard it floated that the reason the entire family looked so grim on the wedding day (Charles at least put up a good front) is that Meghan had initially agreed to their terms before realizing that she could potentially cash out a whole lot more as part of the RF. Since Harry was well over her nearly a year prior, one wonders what her bargaining chip was . . a(nother) faux pregnancy? Or some incendiary dirt about Andrew and his dalliances with the Epstein cohort?
Nothing is 'proven' . . but none of the family was thrilled to have her on board, including the groom, say many watchers.
Blackmail wouldn't be out of this one's wheelhouse at all, methinks. They should have let her do her worst and dealt with it. She's hardly the first woman that Harry knocked boots with and got tired of, but all the others had the decency to go away.
Meghan has so many secrets . . this would be just one more.
In retrospect, the RF should have just let her spill whatever she had to spill and they could have done damage control. If it's likely Epstein-related, it's all coming out now anyway, and how could she throw Andrew any further into the sh*t without splashing herself?
I've become much more skeptical over the past few years, so I'm looking for the *real* reason behind PA's interview. The surface, or "official" reason: to put to rest the Epstein rumors. Given the negative reaction, maybe PA truly is delusional, or maybe there was another reason (possibly to neuter any blackmail material held by Meggy or others)???
The Epstein rumors/comments have been floating around for quite some time, so why now? What has changed? Epstein's death and photos of PA in NYC, VRG's comments have been appearing again, but was this really enough to force such a change in behavior? Why was this interview done so quickly? There wouldn't have been much difference between interviewing/broadcasting this past week or in a month, so why now?
Wildly speculating, but perhaps PA was given a deal that he can't refuse (*grin*) where he'd throw himself on the public relations spear in return for a generous retirement package? But again, why now?
@Milk, no Sugar . .
That is another very plausible theory. It'd be hard to prove, if they did get hitched secretly in Africa without any family witnesses that Haz was fully in command of his senses and if he did marry her then, did it freely and without impediment or coercion.
Because if he did not, that would be grounds for an annulment on the basis of fraud. Of course if they got married *again* in the sober light of day surrounded by his family (if not hers) that is going to be harder to nullify.
I've heard others suggest maybe she told him she was pregnant which is why they got married very quickly. Who knows ...
Why now. Yes indeed. Lots going on behind the scenes no doubt.
I’m pretty sure I read today it took a year to organise, if that’s what you were questioning? I agree though, why now? Perhaps just to end the endless speculation, all its done is set a bloody great bonfire alight, that’s got some endless supply of fuel. The FBI still might want to question him, it’s not off the table.
There are photos of them signing the register.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-20/prince-harry,-left,-and-meghan-markle,-right,-sign-their-weddin/11129114
Real wedding, real baby, real problem!
Interviews given by Megsy, Harry and Andrew show that their wealth and position (globally famous) has nothing to do with talent nor achievements nor character. They have all three shown themselves to be self-absorbed and clueless.
Who the heck, besides Andrew, thought the interview was a good idea? Andrew speaks in the quintessential British way - using understatement for very serious topics and showing an odd awkwardness when talking about personal topics. Those immersed in American culture and the narcissism of celebrity (refer to Megsy) just do not understand and rather identify with the outraged accusations of paedophilia and sex slaves. (In the interview he obviously told some whopping lies that the DM alone quickly exposed. How he was not prepped for the interview and the problem of these lies was not foreseen is a mystery.)
Supposedly Megsy's support comes from 18-35-year-olds. I find this odd. She is nearly 40. I can understand that 30-35-year-olds may identify with her and she feeds the fantasy that they too can become fabulously wealthy and famous. But how can those under 25 identify with someone who is so much older? Perhaps they find manners and class intimidating and are very influenced by American online culture (the shallow material aspects of it)? When I was that young, I did greatly admire some older people, but they were great novelists, scientists, explorers, engineers, surgeons. Why do young people today find Megsy so inspirational?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7699443/RICHARD-KAY-asks-time-Prince-Charles-plan-streamlined-monarchy.html
Unemployed Prince Harry, Meghan Markle Announce Plans To Give Baby Up For Adoption
https://www.theonion.com/unemployed-prince-harry-meghan-markle-announce-plans-t-1834173545
LONDON—Stunning fans of the royal family across the world with their decision to break from age-old traditions of monarchical lineage, unemployed couple Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced Friday that they plan to give up their soon-to-be-born baby for adoption.
“It was a hard choice to make, but with both of us continually out of work, it felt like the right thing to do,” said the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in a joint statement released by Buckingham Palace, explaining that ever since Harry was discharged from the army and Markle’s acting career began to languish, the pair has been forced to rely primarily upon public assistance.
“We’ve already stretched Harry’s military pension and Meghan’s residuals from Suits as far as they can go. And while we thought at first Harry’s grandmother might be able to look after the baby, the truth is she’s getting very old. Ultimately, we took a look at the life we’re living right now and realized that no child deserves to be brought up in circumstances like this.”
The couple went on to add that they might still choose to raise children someday, noting that they are on a public-housing wait list for a castle of their own.
>>>>> The palace said a full programme of Pitch@Palace events would continue. However, the organisation’s webpage listing its supporters, which previously included KPMG as well as the likes of Air Asia, Bosch, Standard Chartered, the Stelios Philanthropic Foundation, Bank of China and Barclays, had been taken down.
Another partner, AstraZeneca, said it was reviewing its involvement in the scheme. A spokesman for the pharmaceutical company said: “Our three-year partnership with Pitch@Palace is due to expire at the end of this year and is currently being reviewed.”
The insurance company Aon confirmed it had asked after the BBC interview for its logo to be removed from the Pitch@Palace website, where the firm was described as a global partner. But it said that its name should never have been on the webpage in the first place as it has never been involved in the scheme in any capacity and was at a loss as to how it had been included.
Most of the charities and other organisations to which Prince Andrew has given his patronage, or with whom he holds some other role, remained tight-lipped on Monday, offering neither support nor condemnation.
However, the Outward Bound Trust, founded in 1941, said it would be holding a special meeting to discuss the allegations against the prince, formerly a trustee but now a patron of the charity.
A spokeswoman said: “We are coordinating an additional board meeting that will take place in the next few days. On the agenda will be a discussion of the issues raised by the interview given by Prince Andrew on Saturday.” >>>>>
It's the Outward Bound Trust I mentioned earlier. Close to my heart. PA is the complete antithesis to all their values but, as I said, I don't think they had much choice re: PA as he followed on from his father.
"But Glowworm, here you are bringing up politics in response - just let Nutty remove the offending comments? I do agree with what you're saying though - I get sick and tired of people bringing politics in to every darned thing."
I sympathize with Gloworm. I wanted to say something but I was afraid to. See Gloworm mentions it and you criticized them (exactly what I didn't want to happen to me). Especially the OT extensive comments about Hillary that had Nothing to do with Meghan.
>>>>> KPMG was one of the founding partners of Pitch@Palace, the Duke’s startup mentorship scheme that provides a platform for would-be entrepreneurs.
Its decision to sever ties with the initiative will be considered a major blow for the Duke, and the first concrete sign of a potentially hugely damaging fallout from his “disastrous” BBC interview over his relationship with Epstein.
Other key sponsors have indicated that the Duke may yet suffer a catastrophic backlash.
The Outward Bound Trust, one of the Royal Family’s favourite charities, said it would be reviewing the Duke’s patronage at an additional board meeting this week that had been hastily arranged in the wake of the Newsnight interview.
Nick Barrett, chief executive of the charity, said: “We wouldn’t be having the meeting if there weren’t concerns. We are taking this super-seriously.”
The Duke was only named patron of the charity in March, taking over from the Duke of Edinburgh, who had held the role since 1953. He had previously been chair of the charity's trustees since 1999.
[...]
Youth development charity Power2, for which he is patron, is reported to have said its position remains “unchanged” but added: “We will continue to monitor the situation closely.”
At Huddersfield University, where the Duke is chancellor, the students' union panel has voted on a motion to lobby him to resign. The result of the ballot will be published in the next few days. >>>>>>
Also of interest in same article:
>>>>> The Telegraph has also learnt that more legal documents are due to be released in the US relating to the predatory sexual activities of Epstein that will name the Duke.
A judge will decide whether to unseal the new tranche of documents within weeks. >>>>>>>
>>>>>. Among Royal watchers, there is a concern that the grip on Palace business previously in the iron fist of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh has begun to loosen. The Queen is 93 and Prince Philip is 98 and it may be no coincidence that both the Duke of York’s ill-advised interview with the BBC and a statement released by the Duke of Sussex, in which he went to war with the British press, both went ahead without prior approval of the monarch.
Christopher Wilson, a respected, Royal biographer, said: “Prince Philip was the guiding hand, the disciplinarian, and now he’s out of the picture, it’s become a bit of a free for all. Just look at Harry and Meghan freelancing out their PR and doing their own thing - there is no central command at Buckingham Palace anymore. You can see the disintegration.”
Mr Wilson said the Epstein scandal threatened to impact on the wider Royal family - and could even damage the Queen’s legacy.
“The Queen has been hugely compromised. She’s coming towards the end of her reign and this will be seen as a colossal loss of judgment,” said Mr Wilson, who urged the Prince of Wales to fill the power vacuum.
“Prince Charles really now needs to step up and crack the whip,” he said, adding ominously of the Epstein scandal: “It will undoubtedly get worse before it gets better.” >>>>>
https://blindgossip.com/the-rules/
Sorry to raise an issue, but Hillary is not OT. Sara Latham, a Sussex pr functionary, worked for HIllary. Hillary has said she 'wanted to hug' Markles. Stories claiming Hillary has 'cuddled' Archie have been published. Hillary had a visit with Prince William. Like Prince Andrew, Hillary's husband, Bill Clinton, apparently flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane either 26 or 28 times, & apparently they both visited his island of the lost girls at some point. Hillary is knee deep in the Megs mess, & she put herself there. I say this as an American whose roots in America go back to the 16th Century, & who voted for both Bill & Hillary. Sorry, but them's the facts, unpleasant as they are.
@CatEyes - I meant no disrespect in pointing that out to Glow Worm and I certainly hope s/he didn't take any offence. I do think that it's Nutty's job to moderate and delete as s/he feels appropriate - it's not up to posters here to tell others to comment.
Before you jump on me you should carefully read my remark. I said OT remarks about Hilary that don't have to do with Meghan. And I don't care what your 16th whatever ancestry proves because it does not give you a legitimate right to mischaracterize my comment. Reread my statement. I clearly was mentioning Off Topic political comments about Hilary that had nothing to with Meghan. Like just now you are bragging about voting for the Clintons, and that Has Nothing to do with Meghan.Good grief!!!
I'm talking about bragging about Hilary that happened the other day when someone was going on and on about how Hilary was so for women, children, etc.._I could of written some scathing factual comments to rebut that supposition but I did not because Nutty Does Not want us to do so when it is not germane to the discussion.
I imagine if you said that to a born & bred English person, they'd be puzzled?
If you follow a TV show long enough (or look-up info on a film you're interested in seeing before you decide to finally leave the house for its sake), you might notice a pattern where the actors/directors will repeat the same talking points over and over and over at the press interviews...
I'm not sure actors are even allowed to voice their own *genuine* opinions while promoting their work?
Take everything they say with a grain of salt.
It's all very see-through...
The most genuine thing to come out of that lot, I felt, was when the one actress said she'd contacted the spirit of some dead royal to ask for her permission (apparently the actress always does this when playing the dead) and then the dead royal's spirit gave her acting advice (something about how she'd deliberately used her cigarette holder as an instrument to make a statement).
But most actors are, in person, very dull people. And most aren't that interesting. Or even have inner-lives. (It's exhausting because the very narcissistic ones are always trying to be the centre of attention yet there's nothing interesting about them.) So they have to rely on a PR script because not all actors have fun stories about seeing mediums to ask for permission, etc.
Speaking of the spirit realm, when I was in my most recent past-life (before I reincarnated into this current lifetime) I'm pretty sure I hated Wallis Simpson's guts! I probably used to call her "THAT AMERICAN" or such snooty something like that! (I just *feel* like uttering it all the time, it's sitting right there on the tip of my itchy tongue—I can physically feel it.) LOL.
I'm actually surprised Madonna hasn't said anything. She made that film "W.E." with the nice soundtrack.
(Sorry to go so far off-topic. Andrew's so icky.)
My point being: They're just a group of actors trying to keep their jobs, I really wouldn't give them a hard time about it.
Most of us do things we don't necessarily enjoy doing to earn a living too (a.k.a. adulting LOL).
If I were a Wal-Mart greeter, I'd put on a sunny cheery smile and say, "Welcome to Wal-Mart, Wallis!" Even if deep down I loathed that American...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7699617/Biographer-N-WILSON-writes-time-generations-Queen-lacks-wise-adviser.html
An extra wrinkle for Haz, if he did tie the knot without his grandmother's knowledge or permission (which he was constitutionally required to obtain until the birth of Louis) . . could Granny have voided the marriage on those grounds? Or is the requirement to seek Granny's permission not really binding at all, but we have only been led to assume so all these years? Elizabeth was required by Parliament & her own conscience to deny her sister marriage to a divorced man, when there really was no probability that Margaret would ever be constitutionally relevant--the Queen already had two heirs by this time. Public sentiment & the media were largely for the couple, but ER rested on Church law. Margaret's choice, if she insisted on Captain Townsend, was to give up all her titles and Royal standing. It was too high a price to pay.
Margaret would be the first Royal since Henry VIII to divorce her rebound man, Lord Snowdon, and would set off a chain reaction of divorces amongst the Queen's children. 3 out of 4 divorced heirs is not a good record at all for one as devout as the Queen. She acquiesced to Harry's marriage to a divorced woman, but we can only imagine what she might have said behind the scenes against it. There was no talk of forcing Harry to give up his title . .not officially, but 2 years on, that seems to be what Haz is agitating for, even if doesn't know what the hell that would really mean for the rest of his life.
The year to come should be interesting . . f we can stand it.
The jacket PH is wearing at PAH is cheap to begin with. The sewing around the armholes is just awful, there's no way to iron something that was so poorly constructed that it was wrinkled from the start. PH is an extreme tightwad judging by his wearing the same cheap, wrinkled, stained clothing wherever he goes. PH must let Markle keep any money they get, foundation donations, merchandising, interviews, appearances, for her spending money, and he keeps his money for himself. Lifelong confirmed tightwads do not suddenly become generous with other people, not even a spouse, or children.
One hopes that they can find another Tommy Lacelles or Lord Geit but since they are notoriously cheap with their salaries, I don't know whether a qualified person would want the job. As I have commented earlier, the RF currently seems to attract staff who use the position as something to pad their C.V., before they move on.
One can only hope that the RF will understand that urgent times call for urgent measures and offer an attractive salary to a qualified person. Because it doesn't matter who the monarch is.. Elizabeth, Charles or William, if they don't have a qualified advisor.
Someone made a really good point earlier, or it may have been in an article. Queen Victoria had Henry Ponsonby, George V had Stamfordham and George VI and the present Queen had Tommy Lascelles, but now the grey men who served for a lifetime seem to be gone. The BRF is now a career stepping-stone. Catherine Quinn was brilliant but is now leaving. They desperately need someone to look out for them who really knows them and can work in that environment. They need the long years of service to provide continuity. To learn the lessons from the past.
However those days have gone. I don't know anyone who stays or plans to stay in their job indefinitely. When I was a child in the 1960s-70s it was the opposite. It's great that people lead more varied lives now, but as with so many other things, the BRF remains in a different age to ours. So they continue to need what doesn't exist anymore.
I wonder if that could apply to both? Neither one looks especially well put together. With the depression comes a horrid tiredness as though everything is just too much effort whether it is taking a shower, sweeping the floor, or doing the laundry.
With all the heat on Prince Andrew, how is it possible that Ghislaine Maxwell, who is almost universally described as Epstein's procurer and pimp of the young teenagers, is still out and about? Is she in hiding? Do we know if the authorities are looking for her? I wonder how much she's been paid by Prince Andrew and others of his ilk to keep her mouth shut if she is brought in for questioning and/or arrested.
I believe he is just a slob. Like wearing those pair of shoes with the hole in the sole; wore them forever. He sure doesn't carry himself or has the polished look of a military man. I bet his grandfather is ashamed of him. I think his 'gran' is just indulgent of his actions, just like she has been with Andrew.
I have read that it is thought that this person is someone who knows or knew Meghan either professionally or socially from Meg’s days with Suits in Toronto, and is familiar with how Meghan uses and then dumps people but is not in direct contact with her now. But they seem to have an information source who still has some level of contact with Meghan. These posts are interesting and have grabbed my curiosity.
I used to read on Skippy's blog what TrontoPaper wrote but it never seemed to be anything of significance. I heard the same thing that maybe they were previously acquainted with Megs. However, I don't know what they have written of late. Anything other than some taunts toward Megs?
(The other day I was looking at Piers' Wikipedia page to see what his deal was with Arsenal & it says under his "Personal Life" section that he used to identify as a woke righty back in the day... The Oasis brothers are the same way about ManCity. Weird. Piers dahling if Meghan did slide into your DM, I'd love to see some screenshots. 🧾)
Also, if the rumour about Meghan throwing a pot/cup (?) of tea at an assistant is true, are we really surprised that Naomi Campbell is a fan? (I'm sorry I couldn't help myself it's terrible I know LOL.)
I think it has something to do with Beatrice’s wedding planning. The whole thing is being overshadowed by her father’s misdeeds. She can’t seem to find a venue, cannot get anyone to make her a dress, maybe even having trouble getting a caterer. It’s such a big mess that she has not even been able to set a date.
For all of Andrew’s faults, he does love his daughters. Maybe he thought he could “draw a line under” his Epstein connections so Bea could have her special day unencumbered by her father’s problems.
You should've seen the look on his face. So mellow, so emo...
For he too was once a close friend to somebody who eventually entered high office... (he even ordered her an Über for her first date with a prince) only to be ghosted by that person once they'd reached the top...
Goodness, that interview must've been like therapy to him!
Also, you can totally picture Piers Morgan with a secret lurking account on Twitter: he'd use it to follow and read what other public figures say about him. And then when he finds somebody say something that hurts his feelings, he blocks them on his main account (the one with the penguin avatar) to let his feelings be known.
☝🏼 This should be on AO3. Allegedly.
(Morning, Nutty! Have a safe trip!)
It appears that Virginia Giuffre also filmed an interview with the BBC Panorama team THREE weeks before Andrew's and is furious that it still hasn't been shown.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7700167/Virginia-Giuffre-claims-sex-Prince-Andrew-filmed-BBC-interview.html
@Nutty,
Also wishing you a safe and pleasant journey.
A little bit more on Virginia Giuffre. The DM is chock-a-block with articles today.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7700529/Jeffrey-Epsteins-sex-slave-Virginia-Giuffre-spotted-Prince-Andrew-denied-sex.html
From everything I've read about being bipolar, it is far more up and down in it's effects - as name indicates, and can also involve feverish activity. I have had experience of clinical depression, and know someone else who was also severely affected. I once spent several days and nights, cold, because my duvet had fallen on the floor but it was too much effort to pick it up. I didn't do anything. That was the worst point, but it was preceded by a long time of still working but absolutely crashing after work. I maintained appearances for work, but when I could no longer do that I stopped. I would never have left my house in the mess Harry was in.
I don't see signs of serious depression in Harry yet, just going by his expressions, his eyes, his manner, although of course I'm not a doctor. It's more a case of him looking petulant or aggrieved. Also, he looks pretty much back to his normal self at events without Meghan in terms of mood and body language (but not grooming). So I'm sceptical about this as a possible cause for Harry's falling standards, but as it's such a dreadful experience to go through, I hope qualified people are keeping an eye on him.
I hope you'll excuse the personal nature of this post, but I think it's an important point.
The Prince Andrew interview – a dissection.
https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/11/19/prince-andrew-interview/content.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7698471/Meghan-named-2019s-powerful-dresser-overtaking-Kylie-Jenner-Cardi-B.html
https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/11/19/prince-andrew-interview/content.html'
Thanks for this link to a very useful and interesting analysis of the transcript of the interview. PA is completely out of his depth and lacks understanding of current views of power relations, especially between women and men. He really seems to not understand that being rich and powerful does not make it OK to surround yourself with teenage girls for your sexual gratification. (Note that there are still parts of the world where this is seen not only as acceptable but as a man's right, my country being one of those places.)
'Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for paedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child, for the attraction to be diagnosed as paedophilia.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia). Epstein was not a paedophile but sexually exploited post-pubescence teenage females. People confuse paedophilia with age of consent. I live in a country where men rape babies and children under the age of 10 (I think it happens all over the world, but we are just more open in dealing with the problem.) and this is not the same problem as sexual exploitation of teenage females that I mentioned above. The age of consent is different in different parts of the world and even within a country like the USA. For older men to sexually exploit teenage females is not only common but most women encountered some version of it when they were teenagers. To simply use the local law to address the problem is to actually ignore it or excuse it. Which country has the best practice and thinking for the problem? Perhaps that country should lead the way in changing attitudes and behaviours.
IMO Megsy is out of her depth in the BRF. Both Megsy and PA seem incapable of the deep change required in attitudes and beliefs, which translate into what they say and do. They should both be retired from active royal duties and it should be made clear that anything they do in the public is personal and not funded in any way by the BRF.
"Epstein was not a paedophile but sexually exploited post-pubescence teenage females. People confuse paedophilia with age of consent."
I agree. The number of people who don't understand this distinction, genuinely stuns me!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7701035/Huddersfield-students-launch-campaign-Prince-Andrew-resign.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7701239/The-TOXIC-Duke-Standard-Chartered-latest-big-firm-cut-ties-Prince-Andrew.html
No offence is intended with my comment.
"I think a lot of people are aware of the key differences between paedophilia and age of consent."
It depends on the people and their level of intelligence.
Twitter, (in particular) and some newspaper comment sections are rife with people indiscriminately labelling others as 'peados' or 'nonces' for the most ridiculous reasons.
Sadly true and I agree, and I’ve seen a lot of it elsewhere.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7701305/Dickie-Arbiter-says-Queen-putting-brave-face.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7701003/MP-Chuka-Umunna-says-Prince-Andrew-fly-evidence-Jeffrey-Epstein.html
Thanks for posting the Tortoise Media article.
That was excellent!
It will not get better while she is among them but will probably get worse. I predict mental problems getting deeper as well as errors of judgement.
General health problems will get worse too. Money problems will strike. General dissent will deepen. Problems with the law.
Just like her own family. Just watch and see.
https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/post/189167008371/duchess-meghan-is-nearly-15-weeks-pregnant-due
I said ‘some’ girls at 14 and 15 are savvy...in my book that means street smart, and know what they want, who they are etc. I never mentioned any of Epstein’s girls because I’ve only read/heard about one particular girl,; Victoria. The others I have no idea about, and I don’t know about Victoria’s background.
I addressed the sex trafficking thing in a different comment, and that’s a whole other ghastly issue.
I knew someone would take my comment out of context, but nevermind. :o(
My personal opinion is that he's either lying or covering up something. It could be his own personal peccadilloes. I think that he knows more about the whereabouts of Ghislaine than he has revealed. I also think that he is very aware that Epstein was in a very secure location and ended up mysteriously dead regardless.
The people that say that THE FBI needs to get to the bottom of it need to remember that the FBI have been covering for both of the Clintons.
If PA does know anything, who is he to trust. His daughters do not have protection details, do they?
I didn't know much about Virginia Giuffre, (I think that's who you meant?) until I watched the 60 mins Australia video yesterday. I have a much better understanding of her now.
She was molested before encountering Epstein, so she was easy prey for him.
I believe her and I admire her strength and courage.
Here's the link if you're interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQOOxOl9l80
Also, I agree with your definition of the word 'savvy'- as that's exactly how we Brits use it.
"My personal opinion is that he's either lying or covering up something. It could be his own personal peccadilloes. I think that he knows more about the whereabouts of Ghislaine than he has revealed. I also think that he is very aware that Epstein was in a very secure location and ended up mysteriously dead regardless."
I agree 100%
"The people that say that THE FBI needs to get to the bottom of it need to remember that the FBI have been covering for both of the Clintons."
Now that I had no idea about. Shocking if true.
I was replying and commenting on Sandie’s info and the definition of a paedophile, I wasn’t really getting into the specifics and history of Epstein’s case. I think wizardwench thought I was.
You're more than welcome.
"I was replying and commenting on Sandie’s info and the definition of a paedophile, I wasn’t really getting into the specifics and history of Epstein’s case."
Yes, I was doing exactly the same!
I would add that some girls at 14 or 15 are very savvy and forward for their age group and know exactly what they are doing, differences are also found within different cultures East and West alike. Some teenagers mature emotionally much quicker within some cultures compared to others, and of course some are slower within that same culture. I would add I’m not trying to generalise, just some differences I’ve seen and noted.
No, they're not "savvy". They either don't know any better (have been abused from a young age), think they know what they're doing or are desperate.
1. He has/had a medical condition that made it impossible for him to sweat. There are numerous photos showing him drenched with sweat while at a party or leaving a nightclub AFTER the Falklands War.
2. He always wears a suit and tie when in London. There are numerous photos of him dressed casually in London.
3. He doesn't hug for photos (strangers or otherwise). There are numerous photos of him not only hugging young women but also laughing while posing for sexually suggestive photos.
4. Him and Fergie had a rule to never leave their daughters home alone. There are verifiable times when they both were away from home at the same time, and sometimes both abroad.
I no longer believe anything he says! It really is a mess.
As for his accusers ... they do love giving interviews and having media attention. If you have been sexually assaulted or enslaved, report it to the authorities as soon as you can, give a full and honest account to them with all evidence you have and then stay away from the media and let the authorities do their work. If they refuse to prosecute (or even investigate) then engineering pressure from the media is understandable, but regrettable because humans very easily fall into the mindset of an irrational lynch mob (plenty of historic and contemporary examples). (By the way, none of the girls were chained or locked up, cut off from contact with their family or friends, or imprisoned. The phenomena of human trafficking and imprisonment for slave labour or sex slavery is real.)
She doesn't mention much about how she was expected to be a recruiter to bring in younger girls.
She also doesn't mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars she has reportedly collected from the British tabloids with the PA stories. She also didn't mention how much settlement she collected from Epstein.
Here is an article from the Miami Herald outlining some of the monkey business involving his trial: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article219494920.html
I disagree that Hillary is not relevant, however. She & Bill are both intertwined with Epstein. As I said in my earlier post, they've both both visited the island of lost girls, & Bill is on the Epstein plane manifests multiple times. Bill also has ties to Ron Burkle, whose reputation is similar to Epstein's. They're both big Democratic Party donors. Burkle is one of the investors in SoHo House, which Markle reportedly has lengthy ties to. Hillary has linked herself publicly to Megs on numerous occasions. It's interesting that the shoe hasn't dropped on the Clintons re: Epstein, but Andrew is on the hot seat.
This blog is dedicated to discussing Megs, but this post is about Prince Andrew & his Epstein problems. There are links between Megs, the Clintons, Prince Andrew, Epstein, & Burkle. There has been speculation in many places, including this blog, that Prince Andrew may have come across Megs prior to her engagement to Harry in circumstances that were not quite the equivalent of a royal garden party. I think my silly 16th C. reference was an indication of how embarrassed I am by the sleazy Clintons as an American. Yes, Hillary's added her name to a lot of legislation & hard work of other people, but Bill & HIllary have always been only about themselves, like Megs. Hillary's flogging a book, & the Clinton foundation is losing money. I wasn't 'bragging' about voting for the Clintons, I was trying to indicate that my opinions weren't entirely partisan, obviously, in your case, I wasn't successful. Them's the breaks!
An elderly Hollywood male hooker published a book about his life several years ago. He had extremely lurid stories to tell about Tinsel Town icons like Spencer Tracy & Katherine Hepburn. Every word may have been true, but who can tell? Not only were there no corroborating witnesses, but all of the people he mentioned were long dead!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10381287/prince-andrew-billionaire-money-royal/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1206348/prince-andrew-net-worth-epstein-interview-salary
There's also one from last month that passed me by, reporting that PA is the third richest royal with £57M.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10174751/prince-andrew-questions-fortune-third-richest-royal/
I didn't read the book by Elderly Hollywood Male Hooker. *sigh* So many books, so little time (grin). If you tell me that the great love story between Hepburn and Tracy was just a bearding arrangement, I'm going under my desk with a bottle of wine.
Thank you for your apology! I likewise want to apologize to you! I want to say I have appreciated your comments overall and you add to the discussion herein. About that 16th century remark, I was going to say I have native American blood so I 'trump' you (no pun intended) LOL but it's not authenticated. *sheepish grin*
No argument from me there, either. Not only did I want my man to be pretty close to me in age, to attract my attention he had to be fit, strong, good looking, tall, extremely intelligent, have a wicked sense of humor, have a southern boy drawl, a Sam Elliott mustache, be well read and like to visit bookstores, have an excellent vocabulary, did not mind his significant other reading 5 different books simultaneously, and must acknowledge my divinity. Oh, and a bass voice and a hairy chest were non-negotiable. Elderly princes, attorneys, or Epstein types would have been invisible to me.
Sorry for the image. The urologist surgeon probably didn't have enough to work with! LOL Besides 'EpStain' needed a complete replacement,
I cannot fathom how Andrew could even want to talk to him after his first arrest. I wonder if PA had to see him, like pay him hush money or else threaten E. to be quiet (or else).
Yes, a big Agree! I read today in a brief blurb that Fergie pushed PA to do the interview. I would like to be a fly on the wall and know what was said after the criticism starting rolling in. Since Plan A failed, what is Plan B? Maybe Andrew should offer a million$ into a fund for child traffic victims. I thought one of the PA's daughters (Beatrice?) had that issue as patronage or a cause she supports.
I also saw a headline that Andrew was to go to BP for a crisis meeting. Talk of him stepping down. That is the least he can do! If Charles was King, PA would be forced into retirement no doubt IMO.
I didn't watch it either. I could tell from the comments and what excerpts I read it would be a waste of my time. I figured he would not have a 'leg to stand on' and would attempt to insult the public with unreasonable explanations.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-andrew-us-document-cache-on-jeffrey-epstein-could-sink-beleaguered-prince?ref=home