Prince Andrew Thread 3

[Roussette]

Here is the previous thread...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_royal_family/4443261-Prince-Andrew-Thread-2?watched=1&msgid=114083283#114083283

Camilla Long doesn't mince her words in her personal description of the RF in the Sunday Times today.

I wouldn't mind reading that LadyE

@Roussette

I wouldn't mind reading that LadyE

She's not a fan of the Sussexes, so you may not appreciate her entire body of work.

I've managed to lock myself out of my DHs Times account so I won't be able to see it. Ooops! I better go and tell him!
I'm used to the non-fans of H&M!

Just came across this rather ummmm….. interesting article in the DM on PA. I had to have a wry smile at the source (a Royal Protection Officer) who turns out to be no angel himself.

If it’s true I’m embarrassed for him and how embarrassing for the rest of the family that this has been made public. It can’t be true surely?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10408383/Duke-York-shout-scream-maids-messed-collection-60-stuffed-toys.html

Gosh!

And there's an hour's programme on Tuesday on ITV
"Ghislaine, The Prince and the Paedophile"

I'll have to watch that

I was just coming on to see if anyone has seen "teddy gate" yet.

A laminated picture of about 60 teddies in situ, andew goes mad if they are moved.

The person who saw them said something like " I thought it was odd but I put it down to the English Upper classes needing teddies to express their emotions. This grown man after all was still living in mums house doing a made up job to fill his time"

Ouuch.

The DM really are twisting the knife.PA clearly pissed someone off there, they are relishing his fall from Grace.

@OverByYer

The DM really are twisting the knife.PA clearly pissed someone off there, they are relishing his fall from Grace.

Well we all are, to be fair!

You don't need to have pissed off the Daily Mail for them to publish hatchet jobs on you, in fairness. They print whatever vile shite they think there's an appetite for.

Lots of info about the lease in prh's link..🤓

Andrew deserves a hatchet job.
What is of more interest to me is that Maxwell supposedly went in and out of the Palace at will and there is speculation that Maxwell and Andrew were having an intimate relationship.

@OverByYer

The DM really are twisting the knife.PA clearly pissed someone off there, they are relishing his fall from Grace.

They just write what will make them money.

Lets face it, the teddy bear story would have been published if it was about anyone very famous, as it is so strange.

I have to say, having linked to the article originally, it has made me feel slightly uneasy. I wonder if the press/media are now going too far with the reporting on PA and to make a televised documentary with this type of content I don't think is necessary. His two daughters are going to see the aftermath of this documentary splashed across all the papers on Wednesday.

What is of more interest to me is that Maxwell supposedly went in and out of the Palace at will

I read this in another article too. Also that he’d said she didn’t have to sign the book every time.

I'm confused I thought people on here said the daily mail ridgedly supported the royals?
The article is I think quoting the TV program that's coming out?

I've just found the mail reflects what's going on at the time, so if you look there is lots of fun poked at Boris, lots of serious pieces about Boris and some balance there.
It doesn't ridgedly support Boris however like the guardian does... Or have totally titled optics deeply political like the guardian.

Stormzy.

I don't think so.

I think a grown man going mad over his teddies and shouting at staff is the troubling behaviour.

Caveat. Unless he has undisclosed sen.

@JanuaryBluehoo

I'm confused I thought people on here said the daily mail ridgedly supported the royals? The article is I think quoting the TV program that's coming out?

I've just found the mail reflects what's going on at the time, so if you look there is lots of fun poked at Boris, lots of serious pieces about Boris and some balance there.
It doesn't ridgedly support Boris however like the guardian does... Or have totally titled optics deeply political like the guardian.

Lol yeh the DM is an impartial voice. Absolutely never seeks to whip up public opinion or push its own agenda. Definitely never publishes anything designed to provoke a strong emotional response to manipulate people.

That's a good one.

I read too , more than once, that Ghislaine went in and out of the Palace at will. And apparently security tried to bring this up with PA and got nowhere. He was really a law unto himself wasn't he. But what could anyone do? Complain to the Queen... Charles?

A lot of this is because his behaviour in so many different ways has never been addressed before.

I do find this false memory nonsense such a victim blaming act. Apparently Maxwell tried it in her defence too. It obviously didn't work.

On the family... I do wonder what the newish husbands of B&E think. They were marrying minor royals and all that privilege entails... Ascot sitting in a carriage, standing on the balcony, royal functions...
Now they are the son in laws of a disgraced royal. This was rumbling along when they married but a thousand times worse now.

@JanuaryBluehoo

I'm confused I thought people on here said the daily mail ridgedly supported the royals? The article is I think quoting the TV program that's coming out?

I've just found the mail reflects what's going on at the time, so if you look there is lots of fun poked at Boris, lots of serious pieces about Boris and some balance there.
It doesn't ridgedly support Boris however like the guardian does... Or have totally titled optics deeply political like the guardian.

I agree @JanuaryBluehoo - I read across several news sources and I have found (Covid itself being the exception where there was a lot of scaremongering) that the DM has shifted somewhat and certainly it’s coverage of Boris and the PA case has been pretty much down the middle. They have also ran some very successful campaigns in the public interest. I gave up on the Guardian a couple of years ago.

I'd like to hear more about that other witness whom Virginia Guiffre apparently texted along the lines of, "She got to have sex with him." I wonder if this were technologically possible and whether there's any record of it.

Andrew could reasonably argue, "She clearly consented then. What case have I to answer? Let me talk to get psychologists and look into her finances to see 1) when she changed her mind about consenting and decided she'd been coerced and 2) what other motive she has for making these claims against me. Look at all these other deals with X, Y and Z..."

Of course, to do this, he'd have to stop lying through his royal teeth about never remembering meeting or touching the girl. He'd have to admit there was sex.

It's unfathomable almost how great a hole he has dug for himself with that ridiculous Newsnight performance.

Of course, it's possible he was telling the truth, never touched her, and he's just cursed with being the world's guiltiest-looking bastard.

On the family... I do wonder what the newish husbands of B&E think. They were marrying minor royals and all that privilege entails... Ascot sitting in a carriage, standing on the balcony, royal functions...
Now they are the son in laws of a disgraced royal. This was rumbling along when they married but a thousand times worse now.

Maybe it's troo love.

Maybe it's troo love

I don't doubt it is. I was just musing on the change in circumstances and wondering what they think about it all. It's affecting them too.