Speaking of royals writing books ...

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

With due apologies for the Mail link - go on, you know you want to - it seems Sarah Duchess of York's done a Mills and Boon novel: www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9852775/Sarah-Ferguson-Duchess-York-releases-debut-Mills-Boon-novel.html

Knowing how much MN posters enjoy a good cerebral read I couldn't resist posting it ...

I'm sure he is a good grandfather, I don't doubt it.

But it's a bit of a stretch to say he is 'a thoroughly good man, a good, kind man'
Yeah... when he isn't sleeping with procured underage girls

I agree @Roussette. He is I'm sure a good, kind father, grandfather and 'husband' (in inverted commas as I suspect they are back basically as man and wife.)
But for me, this is part of her silly romantic delusion as can she not see that it is not a view shared by others that he is a good man.
He isn't, he's allegedly done some unpleasant things, definitely hung out with unpleasant characters, definitely abused his salaried/financially supported position and is reportedly very entitled and arrogant to anyone he considers beneath him*

*basically anyone that is not him or his immediate family!

She called one of her sons in law (who sells tequila) a superhero. 🤣

She clearly loves him very much, so is it that unreasonable that she would believe him over the word of a woman who she doesn't know? Wouldn't you expect that someone you love would believe your word over that of others?

One woman Nightly.
There are reportedly others too. Young procured girls.

And leaving the Epstein strong connection aside, (which he said he does not regret) there is plenty more he has been involved in.
(corruption, backhanders, Kazakstahn arms sales, friendships with corrupt people from despotic regimes... the list is endless)

@Roussette

I'm sure he is a good grandfather, I don't doubt it.

But it's a bit of a stretch to say he is 'a thoroughly good man, a good, kind man'
Yeah... when he isn't sleeping with procured underage girls

We don't know that he has done that.

Let's wait and see what comes out eventually.

He's too protected for the truth about him to come out, I feel. As long as he doesn't decide to do a golfing holiday in the US (he will never be able to enter the country again), it will be probably just be allegations. However, his 30 year friendship with Maxwell and thereby Epstein will be put under the microscope.

@Roussette
I havent really followed the situation but I thought only one woman was underage and that was Virginia Roberts Giuffre. And that was in NY. However she has said that her memory is foggy over dates so she might not have been underage. Who knows? Honestly, if there is so much evidence, I don't understand why the FBI isn't getting on and prosecuting the case. They're not going to get PA to go to the USA and UK is not going to deport him, so let's hear the evidence.

No. There's far more to it than that from what I've read.

The case is being heard end November, it's been postponed because of the mountain of evidence and depositions and flight records showing details of passengers to his various properties, and in Andrew's case demands to the Met Police for Protection officers diaries etc. Further witnesses for the Maxwell case have come forward, no idea how that affects PA.

Oh ... and PA confirmed in his interview he stayed in Epstein properties in NY, Palm Beach, and Caribbean and Guiffre Roberts says he was with her in Santa Fé Epstein ranch for two days.
Who knows.

Again I don't know much but just googled PA and Santa Fe and it appears that in 2003 PA met with Gov of New Mexico. There's no report of where PA stayed. It's a woman called Deidre Stratton who says that PA stayed at the house in 2001 or 2002 with a "neurosurgeon". PA wasn't there in those years so she said it could have been another year. Again her memory's not clear. But no mention of VRG being there.

That's the problem when court cases are held so long after the fact. Its hard to pin down dates and facts for both the prosecution and defence.

[quote moonbedazzled]@Roussette
I havent really followed the situation but I thought only one woman was underage and that was Virginia Roberts Giuffre. And that was in NY. However she has said that her memory is foggy over dates so she might not have been underage. Who knows? Honestly, if there is so much evidence, I don't understand why the FBI isn't getting on and prosecuting the case. They're not going to get PA to go to the USA and UK is not going to deport him, so let's hear the evidence.[/quote]
Prince A is small fry in all this, there are plenty more influential people who were in Epstein's circle but they don't have 'the name'.

Virginia Giuffre said she first met him at Ghislane Maxwell's house in London, which is where that photo is set. The age of consent here is 16 and she was seventeen.Then she met him somewhere else in the USA at a party later on, where the age of consent was 18. Who knows what actually happened?

The big thing is that Epstein was convicted of a sex offence against someone underage and served time (though he was allowed out every day to go to work). Prince Andrew continued his association with him after that but so did all the others, they believed what Epstein said about not knowing and that he just copped a plea. After that life went on as usual.

What nobody except for Ghislane knew, was that he actually had a predilection for underage girls and she sourced them for him. That is so sordid but also odd because Maxwell was in love with the man, she was his girlfriend.

I think that shows how plausible and manipulative Epstein was (perverts often are), everyone liked and admired him. He did help a lot of people, in science, technology, industry, etc who still say they got so much out of the relationship.

There is a lot for the FBI to go through,it will take time. I doubt Prince Andrew can add much quite honestly. Had he not been the Queen's son, we would probably have never heard of his connection to Epstein. He can speak to the FBI from London, Americans are allowed to travel here now.

Let's wait and see how it pans out.

moon Yes, as I say, who knows. She VG has said she was there with PA.

Maggies the age of consent in NY was less than 18 when she says she was with PA

And he 'got off' the original charges because the Florida Attorney gave him a plea deal , it was known then as a 'sweetheart deal' and his punishment did not reflect his activities and the prosecution had violated the victims rights. He spent 3 months in prison, he wasn't sent to a State prison but a private wing of a reform centre, as you say, he was allowed out every day and eventually the Attorney resigned over it as there was an outcry.

Andrew's judgement was appalling. As it has been with many other activities I spoke of above.

There is so much more I could say here but I will save it for the trial in November, and yes, we'll see.

Prompted by this thread, I just watched the interview with Christine Bleakley on Lorraine. I hope the book is successful. I'm the same age as the Duchess of York and it's nice to see older people starting something new. Back in the day, Mary Wesley was an author who began her career in her seventies! There's hope for me yet.

She is the Duchess of York, she didn't lose that title.

I liked how positive she was about the Wales sons and their wives.

[quote Roussette]@Iamthewombat

'Fraid so![/quote]

Sorry that was the wrong quote. It was meant to be the photos of Fergie.

@FullMoonInsomnia

Apparently she’s written 70 books according to something I read! What were they? I’ve heard about Budge the helicopter but not aware of any others. She talks grandly about her ‘work’. I’m not sure what that is. Using her title is just ridiculous. She is t married to Andrew and she isn’t a working member of the RF.

There’s a number of children’s books that I’m aware of. And she’s associated with a number of charities. I’m sure your work is more important and grand but she’s allowed to be proud of herself.

She’s Sarah Duchess of York as she kept that title in the divorce - and that’s customarily how one formally styles a former wife of the royals. She lost HRH in the split. If she remarried (someone else) she would no longer have use of the title. We saw the same with Diana. She went from HRH The Princess of Wales to Diana, Princess of Wales. There are plenty of titled ‘minor’ royals who aren’t working members of the family.

Press are still nasty about her - according to one tabloid her book has tanked - because it's merely 32 on the chart, not top 20

Came on here to discuss this. It is featuring on the History Extra podcast which usually has academics and real experts on it so I am rolling my eyes.

It is co written by Margarite Kaye who speaks well about the historical context and is obviously there to reel her in. Sarah is all over the shop and this sounds like self insert fan fiction. They keep calling her Duchess which grates. She also name checks HMQ as great support. Really?

I won't be reading.

@AvantGardening

I know the protocol but it sticks in the craw when she’s trading off her title to make money (again), writing complete drivel and promoting her awful ex husband (again). I just find her nauseating. The work with her charities is something g useful because she’s using her status for good. The books are just self promotion to line her already very comfortable nest. She lives off Andrew and therefore she’s living off the tax payer, and using her title to make more money.

Indeed, @FullMoonInsomnia. She is promoting her former husband. She was providing a character reference during a chat about her new book which was unnecessary. Maybe Andrew will be exonerated, who knows. Even so, from what I've read, he's done little to merit such praise. I could be wrong.
We shall see.

I saw her very briefly on the one show (I didnt get to the part where she talked about her book) and thought she seemed very likeable (to my surprise!)

@Antsinyourpanta

I saw her very briefly on the one show (I didnt get to the part where she talked about her book) and thought she seemed very likeable (to my surprise!)

People do like her. She's made her mistakes, unfortunately well publicised which goes with the territory, but by all accounts she is a warm hearted person. She and Andrew have managed to co-parent well and brought up two lovely children.

Her book sounds quite interesting if you like romantic, loosely historical fiction. Good luck to her.

[quote FullMoonInsomnia]@AvantGardening

I know the protocol but it sticks in the craw when she’s trading off her title to make money (again), writing complete drivel and promoting her awful ex husband (again). I just find her nauseating. The work with her charities is something g useful because she’s using her status for good. The books are just self promotion to line her already very comfortable nest. She lives off Andrew and therefore she’s living off the tax payer, and using her title to make more money.[/quote]
Well plenty of people trade on their name and connections. It’s just how it is. Likewise there’s plenty of horrific writing published and she’s entitled to her own views of her ex husband.

The Royal Lodge is leased to them from the Crown Estate. We aren’t paying for its upkeep and a rent was agreed.

As for living off Andrew, he’s funded privately by the family now he’s not working. That’s their concern not ours. And you’ve just been very rude about her self promotion of her paid work and nest egg so obviously she can’t do right for doing wrong in your eyes.

How are we supposed to address a divorced duchess? Is it still, 'your grace'?! I find the whole thing laughable but fascinating (and where PA's concerned, revolting).