Andrew, The Abbey, Fergie and The Fraudster

[CathyorClaire]

Last thread closed so I thought I'd amalagamate the latest antics for further discussion.

Also wanted to reply to this post near the end:

Perhaps the opportunity to contribute via cleaning jobs will soon arise for them, perhaps even faster than Andrew imagines, if he is up to knowing how to turn on a vacuum that is

He allegedly sent for a maid to climb four sets of stairs to close his curtains. I think he'd struggle with a vacuum

Off to read up on the entirely unsurprising reports on links to the fraudster.

@AnastasiaRomanov

Also Eugenie living in Harrys house presumably for peanuts. That’s up to them of course, but all part of the picture.

It’s not Harry’s, it’s ours.

Something that sticks a bit now all this has come about is the very, very public emphasis on The Wedding being Privately Funded and all the conclusions the unquiet plebs were supposed to draw from that.

Sickening.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

(The Queen) understood that declining to follow the request of her government wouid lead to a constitutional crisis far larger than that of sorting out the prorogation

I don't doubt it, EdithWeston, but unfortunately this once again blows a hole in an argument for having a constitutional monarch - that they're a defence against a government's worst excesses

I'd ask what they could do which would ever bring any action, but never mind; with Charles and his incessant meddling soon to come we may well find out

Who makes that argument thought? Genuine question - because it can’t be anyone who knows anything about constitutional law. The reserved powers of the Crown are extremely limited and in no way operate as any kind of check on the Executive. As Edith Weston says, any attempt by the Monarch to step outside the conventions that operate would be a constitutional crisis.

Serenster you see it on here - and in real life - quite often: suggestions that the Queen holds Boris to account / she safeguards our freedom / the monarchy saves us from tyranny and more, usually with something about "they cost only 67p a day / bring in through tourism more they cost" tacked on for good measure

And all of it indicating that the speaker has a rather loose grasp on reality

The narrative around the daughters has always been - but they turned out so well despite their parents. Sadly it seems that they have been caught up to some extent in the grifter way of life.
Andrew and Fergie have always reminded me of the awful innkeeper couple in Les Miserables.

I watched Spencer on Prime the other day. Gosh isn’t it dreadful, the music, the acting, the script, just the worse film I’ve ever seen.

I was watching with my mum, who loves The Crown, after about 20 minutes she said “I can’t stand 2 hours of this, it’s giving me a headache because I can’t stop frowning at it”

@LizzieSiddal

I watched Spencer on Prime the other day. Gosh isn’t it dreadful, the music, the acting, the script, just the worse film I’ve ever seen.

I was watching with my mum, who loves The Crown, after about 20 minutes she said “I can’t stand 2 hours of this, it’s giving me a headache because I can’t stop frowning at it”

I put up with it for 20 minutes before I gave up. It’s one of the least engaging films I’ve ever seen, I’d have been gutted if I’d paid to see it in the cinema.

Yes it is absolutely dire. I watched it with a
sort of fascinated horror!

@StartupRepair

The narrative around the daughters has always been - but they turned out so well despite their parents. Sadly it seems that they have been caught up to some extent in the grifter way of life. Andrew and Fergie have always reminded me of the awful innkeeper couple in Les Miserables.

That’s a very good analogy!

@Puzzledandpissedoff

They are not gullible teens, they exactly know what they were doing

Well, we don't yet know the details of what, if anything, they've done - but I agree they're adult women and that any responsibility should be theirs if they really have got involved

I found it a bit worrying to see the "get the defence in first" posts around them being coerced/groomed when so little is known, but perhaps that's just a reflection of the usual MN thing of the menz being blamed for everything?

One of those posts you mean was probably mine. It wasn’t meant as “get the defence in first”. I think the fact that B&E were made princesses at all was ridiculous.

Personally, however, I’m tempted to give them the benefit of doubt until proven otherwise, as far as the shadiness goes, because I have a problematic parent and it took me all of my twenties for the scales to fall from my eyes.

Nobody wants to believe badly of their parents if they love them. Most young people remain at least partly dependent on their parents into their twenties now. The student finance system, for example, is designed that way. The royals are (nearly) all kept dependent into adulthood (one of the things wrong with the system).

I can imagine a scenario in which two nice girls with dodgy parents are being told “this is fine”, “this is consultancy”, “this is how it’s done for tax”. Especially with staff and advisers complicit and apparently fine with it too.

I can also imagine the opposite, TBH.

The trouble is Beatrice has married a man with ££££££s and so is now capable of easily stepping away. Eugenie has married a booze salesman (who knows what he earns really?) and is entangled in the H&M cottage situation. So she would have to be morally stronger and more prepared to downshift her lifestyle to walk away from it all.

Andrew has repeatedly insisted that his daughters are entitled to a certain level of living and prestige. I hope they haven’t internalised that.

I think we have to constantly remind ourselves... we have only become aware of these huge payments to the Yorks because of a court case.

If this woman had not been duped by a fraudster (a friend of Andrew's) we would know nothing of it.

How many more payments like this are there? From dubious characters, topping up their privileged lives??

I have had my arse handed to me on a plate many a time when I have questioned the daughters in any way... and I've only done it very gently. But in the past, I've been flamed for daring to suggest they might well be aware of what their parents are like. I have some sympathy for them, but not much. How awful to see all their parents' grifting unravel in front of them... but there was a time Beatrice managed to have 17 holidays in one year, on Roman Abramovich's yacht, Abu Dhabi, other oligarch's yachts, jetting all over the world... all with police protection paid for by us. Just imagine the cost!!

The two daughters aren't as bad as their parents but no way are they innocent in all of this... they have been brought up with privilege and expectation and it shows.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/04/new-questions-raised-over-prince-andrews-award-to-selman-turk?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Appalling. This article details how Turk won the Pitch@Palace award (basically... cheating) and nine days later paid PA £750,000 for the privilege.

@Roussette

I think we have to constantly remind ourselves... we have only become aware of these huge payments to the Yorks because of a court case.

If this woman had not been duped by a fraudster (a friend of Andrew's) we would know nothing of it.

How many more payments like this are there? From dubious characters, topping up their privileged lives??

I have had my arse handed to me on a plate many a time when I have questioned the daughters in any way... and I've only done it very gently. But in the past, I've been flamed for daring to suggest they might well be aware of what their parents are like. I have some sympathy for them, but not much. How awful to see all their parents' grifting unravel in front of them... but there was a time Beatrice managed to have 17 holidays in one year, on Roman Abramovich's yacht, Abu Dhabi, other oligarch's yachts, jetting all over the world... all with police protection paid for by us. Just imagine the cost!!

The two daughters aren't as bad as their parents but no way are they innocent in all of this... they have been brought up with privilege and expectation and it shows.

I thought B and E didn’t receive protection? Andrew is supposed to pay for it. Zara andPeter don’t get protection either. This is why it’s ludicrous that Harry expects it when he’s moved abroad and does nothing for the RF anymore.

They had protection at the time I believe.

B and E no longer receive protection. P and Z never did.

Though any of the royals might get it from time to time, when on Royal duties

Harry will have his based on the situation at the time of each visit (they've not said 'never' rather that it will be based on itinerary and threat assessment). Harry is seeking review of that decision because he thinks it should be 'always)

The Duke of York, as a non-working royal, wouldn't get security. His position is anomalous and needs attention.

Harry isn’t a working Royal though, so surely his situation is the same as that of his cousins and his Uncle?

@AnastasiaRomanov

Harry isn’t a working Royal though, so surely his situation is the same as that of his cousins and his Uncle?

Yes, and Harry has a unique position, in that every visit will be assessed, whether working or not.

I thought B and E didn’t receive protection? Andrew is supposed to pay for it. Zara andPeter don’t get protection either. This is why it’s ludicrous that Harry expects it when he’s moved abroad and does nothing for the RF anymore

At that point B&E did receive protection. Paid for by us. Not by Andrew.

It will have cost millions to follow Beatrice round the world, a drop in the ocean compared to what Harry is asking for when he doesn't come here anyway

B and E no longer receive protection

I know that! I was pointing out what they were entitled to at the time. Until Charles stepped in and stopped it

The Duke of York, as a non-working royal, wouldn't get security. His position is anomalous and needs attention

Too right. He still gets protection I believe. Well.. he did as of February. If that's changed, I'm happy to be corrected

Harry isn’t a working Royal though, so surely his situation is the same as that of his cousins and his Uncle?

See my last post

There is so much about this latest development that I find intriguing. I reckone Coutts knew something was amiss hence so many questions being asked about where the money came from and for what purpose.

Eugenie seems to be a chip off the old block. Beatrice, well she may have not known anything about the £750k for her wedding as it didn't go into her account - but seems very unlikely.

There should be way more transparency around the Royal's money for sure.

And the family should be totally slimmed down in terms of jobs/money etc. Being a spare doesn't seem to do many of them much good. Way better for them to live relatively normal lifes and just earn their own money.

And the family should be totally slimmed down in terms of jobs/money etc

That's what Prince Charles has long been promising

I am struggling to see how B’s wedding could cost £750,000 given it was during Covid times and very , very small ?

Yes and her dress was the queen’s and only needed altering. Maybe that’s what raised suspicions as was way more money than it would have cost?