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
Bill is a disgustng sleaze and Hill is an enabler pretending to be a feminist.
She stood by her man because she wanted power. SHE is far more dangerous then Bill, and I firmly believe that she has made people disappear. Way too many people in their circle (who just so happened to wrong them) have died mysteriously, and that is no coincidence. Epstein is only the most recent.
Why is Clinton off the hook? Andrew is finished but Billy will sail into sunset? He has ties to E as well as Hillary.
It is curious, isn't it? There is a lot more evidence against BC than against PA including forcible rape.
I almost spit out my coffee when I read this because I thought that I had inadvertently posted what I had previously written but instead sighed and changed it into something blander. Yes, x 1,000. There's a reason that "Arkancided" and "Killary" have entered the lexicon of American life because the number of deaths of people that surround them would make a Mafia don proud.
She's like a malignant venomous spider sitting smugly in her web bloated with feeding off the bodies of her enemies.
PA made a vital mistake when he gave the no holds barred interview. He opened himself up to more scrutiny, and quite honestly, may have put the final nails in his own coffin. I certainly hope that the BRF will retire him now, for the sake of the monarchy.
>She's like a malignant venomous spider sitting smugly in her web bloated with feeding off the bodies of her enemies>
That is so 'rich'!! I am going to have to borrow that phrase. Much more graphic than the 'teenie weenie' remark about Epstain. lol
Ah, well, I need to cut the caffeine to the hamster in the wheel, throw it some carbs, and let it get back to hibernation so I can get on with my day.
Maybe Epstein really was helping them manage their money.
@Swampwoman, I think it's very possible that she was meeting with PW over shared interest with the King's College women's initiative thing; I believe someone else mentioned that up thread. It certainly makes more sense than anything else. I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the meeting...I imagine more was discussed, but of what nature, who knows.
@Fairy Crocodile, I am not familiar enough with Blair's crimes to know why he should be in jail...but does he have any ties to Epstein? LOL. Seems everyone does....
>So in some Meghan related news .... Mm has now been named the Time's most stylish person of the year. Really?? Meghan? <
You can put clothes on a scarecrow but it's still a scarecrow. We must be living in an alternate universe because Meghan and stylish are two words that don't belong in the same sentence. Even K.Kardashian can wear clothes better and that is not saying much. Yes, theTimes has certainly gone down in esteem, so much so, I don't even bother looking at it when I am in a doctor's waiting room.
So in some Meghan related news .... Mm has now been named the Time's most stylish person of the year. Really?? Meghan? The Meghan with the yak on her head, Meghan?? The Meghan who seems to be wearing bulletproof vests in all those south Africa shirts dressed Meghan?? Tell me this is a joke.
I believe that it means that there is hope for me as a style icon sitting here at my computer, nursing a cup of unsweetened coffee (I've sinned on the carbs and that is my repentance). I am currently sporting Einstein hair, fuzzy jaguar print pajama bottoms and a black long-sleeved T-shirt. I should take a selfie and send it to Time magazine except that I would then have to kill anybody that saw the picture and I haven't had enough coffee for that. Yet.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1165636/jeffrey-epstein-conspiracy-us-paedophile-tony-blair-prince-andrew-fbi-investigation
Blair is in E's little black book
> Hopefully Hillary will never become the first woman president of the USA.<
Oh, and she tries to remain relevant by floating that possibility with the public. Just the other day she played coy about her possible run. Well, that 'ship has sailed' and it is now sunk.
Maybe I missed it here, but has anyone posted about Bill's explanation on why he was 'Epstain's' guest on the Lolita Express, especially so many times? I don't know why the US media has not done an investigative piece on who was involved with the pervert (besides Ghislaine Maxwell and PA). Now that one, GM, she is a 'Teflon Donna'!!
@Swampwoman, I think it's very possible that she was meeting with PW over shared interest with the King's College women's initiative thing; I believe someone else mentioned that up thread. It certainly makes more sense than anything else. I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the meeting...I imagine more was discussed, but of what nature, who knows.
Hunh. Well, I would certainly like to see that curriculum. Hiding the bodies 101, how to hire a hitman for fun and profit, how to make big money in cattle futures, using your man to attain power even though he'd rather be selling used cars, burying bimbo eruptions, how to use character assassination for those bimbos that you can't bury, establishing foundations for pay to play, how to have an ambassador killed while secretary of state and blame it on an obscure film maker etc. And there were LOTS of et ceteras.
Claiming to be a feminist while simultaneously destroying other women's (and men's) lives and character does not sit well with me.
If I were PW, I wouldn't meet with her unless I had a spray bottle of holy water and a guard armed with pesticide and silver bullets.
Just a few comments on the above - I don't know that Bill Clinton has, actually, emerged unscathed from the Epstein accusations. Have you seen any of the Democratic candidates asking for his help or endorsement this year? His reputation isn't good, particularly among the under-40 crowd.
I also don't think that the Andrew revelations have been good for the Sussexes. There has been more and more talk about the need for a slimmed-down monarchy, and since Harry and Meghan have proclaimed their unhappiness, they would seem to be easy candidates for the chop. The bigger question would be about people like Princess Anne (old enough to retire) or the Wessexes (not old enough to retire) who do an enormous amount of work while causing very little trouble. Do they get the chop too?
Nevertheless, the maxim "never waste a crisis" applies here to Charles. If he misses this opportunity to cut back the Royal Family, he's very foolish.
Finally, conservative harpies are welcome here, as are left-wing harpies, as long as we stick to our main topic, which is the Sussexes. I am interested in everybody's point of view.
Don't know if that's still the case (too lazy to read Dutch lol the grammar's all wonky and I get confused).
"Teflon Tony" sounds catchier tho. "Teflon Jezza", not so much.
Jonathan Pie 🥧 says it's unhealthy for you to not listen to opinions that differ from your own, you know.
In other news, there's an app for that: https://youtu.be/430AkfgGf1M
Hi from my business trip.
Just a few comments on the above - I don't know that Bill Clinton has, actually, emerged unscathed from the Epstein accusations. Have you seen any of the Democratic candidates asking for his help or endorsement this year? His reputation isn't good, particularly among the under-40 crowd.
Hi, Nutty! Hope your business trip is fun and profitable.
If any Democrat politicians are, they certainly aren't publicizing it! It makes me throw up a little to say this (gag), but Bill in his day had a firm grasp on politics and how to win elections and his advice would probably be helpful. (Now I have to go wash my mouth out with laundry detergent because soap just isn't strong enough to remove the bad taste.)
The Gloucesters and Princess Alexandra have done a total of about 6 of those events while Harry did 1. Andrew did 0. Meghan did 0. And even William did only 4.
With slimming done that way it sounds like some things just won't be done anymore.
@nutty I think first on the chop would be the queen’s cousins, like duke and duchess of Gloucester and the duke and duchess of Kent, princess Alexandria, and prince and princess Michael of Kent who are all still working royals,
I don't think that shuffling the working elder royals (and the PoW's contemporaries) off to the Royal Assisted Living Facility as a reward for their long and faithful service while PA and PH and MM are still trotting about doing whatever it is that they do on the company payroll would be good optics. (Oh, lordy, I have to get the laundry detergent out again because I had to use that word optics that I despise.)
I'm probably wrong in my assumption of how the British people would view it though.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-andrew-considers-the-nuclear-option-after-new-epstein-accuser-revelations-another-tv-interview
This comes on the heels of a Yahoo! article yesterday enumerating all the 'false stories and rumors' which MM has added to her suit against the Daily Mail. (Oh, yes, it's no longer just Mail on Sunday in the crosshairs)
Most of the items which MM is alleging were damaging falsehood printed negligently by the DM have to do with the renovations to Frogmore:
NO orangeries, floating yoga floor, or copper bathtub. No Nanny suite for Doria. No extensive garden reno. I suppose the whole "Harry's installing a barbecue pit" will shortly be named also.
Imagine my surprise, since we have figured all along that Meghan herself has been the source of these endless 'rumors' swirling around FroggyCott, which her sugar media have dutifully printed as gospel. If they emanate from Meg's own office, why shouldn't they, no matter how increasingly bizarre.
Since the climate of England is inhospitable to oranges, it seems very unlikely indeed that some staffer at the Daily Mail decided to throw in a bit about Meghan having her own orangerie for a bit of the old S&G. Or a $6500 copper bathtub. Or the vegan nursery paint. With the grilling season so brief in England, it also seems a stretch that the paper would decide out of the blue to make up a story about Harry putting in a fire pit now, as Christmas approaches.
Meg appears to be suing the paper for printing lies she herself sent them. I hope the DM has all the documentation needed to prove those stories all came from her in the first place, in which case they are going to obliterate her in court. Being a narcissist, she presumably still thinks she can win and they are just going to roll over and give her a huge bucket of money. This is another of her income generating schemes.
Meg's cost to the Royal Family is proving incalculable on every level. She's assured herself of notoriety for the ages, which is fame, all right. Just not the good kind. But people years hence will know the name Meghan Markle. She's going to be a case study from hell for a number of fields.
Good.
I think THAT is deserving of a lawsuit for false stories and rumors.
Good.
Do you think that he's doing it voluntarily for the good of the family, or do you think that he's been taken to the woodshed for some long overdue discipline?
I also wouldn't be surrpised if he were trying to get ahead of an even more damaging story about to break.
Indeed, Mimi. When I read that Andrew was stepping down (or was asked/told to step down), I immediately thought that the Sussexes were going to be next on the PITA hit list.
@ Liver Bird: Oh, my word, I hope not. *sigh* Let me rephrase that. If there are horrific things going on, might as well expose it to the light and let it all get disinfected and punish the wrong doers.
I keep reading rumors about PP's precarious state of health and pray that it is not that.
I too was excited for Harry when he met Meghan but I sensed narcissism immediately and that has only exploded with all the things that have happened since their marriage. The worst being the disassociation that Harry has with his family now, his brother in particular. I, unlike others, have understood the silence of the senior members of the Royal Family early on. My mom's saying is 'Least Said- Soonest Mended". Now, however, things are SO out of control now with Andrew and Harry and Meghan, that the future of the entire Royal Family seems to be in jeopardy. Others commented on William throughout all of this- I too have noticed the change in William. Emphasis is always on Kate with her beauty, class and discreet confidence. What about William? He seems to have emerged as the powerhouse of the family. He's the only one who has shown outward signs of dislike to Meghan: the scarf incident, the expressions on his face at both Harry and Meghan's wedding and Archie's baptism. He seems to be friendly and and charming, but with a steely cool. He seems to be always observing. The term at MI6 was very intriguing. I believe that he will be a different type of monarch and is positioning himself in that order already. I think that Charles has a difficult time with confrontation, especially with Harry. You know...as a parent sometimes you have that child that is difficult to manage for both emotional reasons and just a lack of knowing what to do!
No 2nd interview with non-cops then?
The only good thing to come out of this is he put me off Pizza Marzano/Express (which I shouldn't be having anyway—pesky health issues). 🍕
Yeah, not craving pizza much these days... (Puke!)
Pizza Marzano/Express should sue his ass.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-50490066
Like why did he have to mention the business' name. Only a clueless jackass who's never had to earn a living [and a heartless "woke" vegan I saw on Udemy] could do such an inconsiderate thing to a business.
PS: Not saying his *victims* should be forgotten, just don't want to hear about/see HIS face anymore because it's revolting. He reminds me of a guy I had a crush on at my internship, he was my boss' boss' boss's boss' boss! (At least 4 levels above me!) Major power imbalance there (he was gay/monosexual tho so he was totally harmless to me and always appropriate, but just the fact that it's so easy for people like me to fall for people like him when you're vulnerable and young, thankfully I'm older/wiser now).
Start focusing on Deplorable Duo, Billy & Hill, maybe?
I agree with everyone who says they're no longer the power couple they used to be and thank goodness for that. But I disagree that Hillary met with William to brief him on the Middle East: to coach him on what? On "How To Be the Most Disliked Westerner in the Region"?
I don't care how "knowledgable" of actual facts a person is when their sentiments/actions are coloured by their "Ugly American" attitude.
(At least Barry Okboomer was a Third Culture Kid! Now that's a guy wity *perspective* for MoFA work.)
"Knowledge" is like knives: you can use them to nurture people through food or you can harm others. And Killary is no chef of international cuisine.
Remember when everybody thought Lady Gaga was original AF when she first came out? I thought she looked like a Kylie Minogue backup dancer from 2001: https://youtu.be/c18441Eh_WE
Does nobody know who Kylie is in the US or something?! Genuinely perplexed.
@SwampWoman, @Mimi, I didn't read the male hooker's book, just news articles about it. Sometimes publishers or writer's agents will seed stories in the press with a few dishy details hoping people will buy the books thinking there's even more dirt in them. I'm actually not much of a Hollywood gossip person, if you can believe that. I don't want the image of Kate & Spencer spoiled either. I tend to be highly skeptical of lurid unproven stories about dead people. I saw an article in the NY Times about a project on Mr. Rogers. If they uncover any dirt about him, I will probably never be able to get out of bed again.
@SwampWoman, your type of guy sounds pretty dishy.