Andrew returning to public life

[antelopevalley]

"Prince Andrew — who recently paid a multimillion-pound settlement to Virginia Giuffre to keep her allegations of sexual abuse, which he denies, out of court — is set to make a controversial return to public life on Monday.

As a member of the Order of the Garter, this country’s oldest and most senior order of chivalry, Andrew, 62, will appear alongside senior members of the royal family at the Garter Day service at Windsor Castle."

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/palace-to-support-andrew-in-rebuilding-his-life-as-poison-prince-makes-surprise-return-to-public-duty-r6jskx9b3

Yes exactly. So tired of seeing salacious gossip presented as fact.

I have NO idea on PW or his doings, and would never present it as fact. He could've played away or he could not, no idea. However, I do wonder if he was able to muzzle the press if it were true and if so, by what means

(That doesn't mean I think it's true and FWIW I don't care if he did or didn't. It is a RF thing after all. PAnne's exhusband fathered another child whilst still married to her!)

Yes exactly. So tired of seeing salacious gossip presented as fact

And in a similar vein, the number of people who don't seem to realise that The Crown is not a documentary

Have you seen what some of the political, legal and church folk of a certain age get up to? There must be a reason why we are here and they are there.

Just been listening to a bit of Dead Ringers (sometimes you just need a change from sniggering about tampons) and they mentioned that Andrew had been found to be actually suffering from Covid 17 "but he said it looked 19 to him".
Which I quite liked.

However, I do wonder if he was able to muzzle the press if it were true and if so, by what means

He said to them, essentially, that’s not true and if you publish it I’ll sue. And, since Prince William doesn’t often sue the Press (he did when the French magazine Closer published the topless photos of Kate), and when he does he wins, they clearly thought the better of it.

Some alleged extracts of his lawyer’s letters to the Press have been circulated ( “In addition to being false and highly damaging, the publication of false speculation in respect of our clients’ private life also constitutes a breach of his privacy pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention to Human Rights.” - who knows if they are true, but they certainly are what lawyers would write in these circumstances!).

Anyway, plenty of famous people get lawyers to write these kinds of letters to the press to try and stop stories being splashed across the press, and often the papers shrug their shoulders and publish anyway. Because they are sure they are right, and so they are willing to take the risk. To take Charles and Camilla as a good example, Prince Charles could have written as many cross lawyers’ letters are he wanted, but if the paper had the tampongate tapes up their sleeve there is no way they would have backed down. And royal affairs and marriage issues are, obviously, fantastic for clicks and sales (See: Charles & Diana, Andrew & Fergie - even Peter Phillips’ recent separation was widely covered and he’s hardly a high profile royal). The reason we can surmise they have published nothing more in Williams case is because they had no evidence of anything, and so he’d likely win if he did sue them.

Just couldn’t help yourself, could you.
Wasn’t a question.

ha ha, Am I allowed to laugh at that. He deserves it.

No I think he got an injunction against them which is why they didn’t publish. Oh well, believe what you want, including that PW has never strayed, if you like. It’s unsurprising anyway, given that his father and grandfather (and mother) had affairs constantly. I think turning a blind eye to infidelity is a big part of the RF.

I know! I remember a colleague coming into work after finishing s3 and saying ‘I can’t believe how Charles treated Diana’ as if it was all factual.

No I think he got an injunction against them which is why they didn’t publish.

He definitely didn’t get an injunction.

People keep saying 'The Crown is not a documentary' but the thing is I was around when Charles and Diana married etc and I remember hearing years ago about a lot of the stuff that is covered in the series. About how she was treated, her bulimia etc. I also read the book Diana did with Andrew Morton. I've also heard and read a lot of stuff about other royals, Princess Margaret for example,her failed relationships, her unhappiness, the awful entitled way she behaved towards ordinary people.

My point is that the writers of The Crown have done their research, they are not in general just making up random stuff for the sake of an exciting drama, as some people would want you to believe.

yeh, they can't give us the behind closed walls conversations word for word, but so far, it's all how it panned out.

There were a few eked out bits, the disabled relatives in a home, that was one bit they had no evidence of. It made margaret look good.

Fairness compels me to point out that (Charles) visited New Zealand, India and the Solomon Islands in late November 2019 and then the pandemic did intervene

You're absolutely right, Serenster, though it doesn't change the recorded and very obvious bias towards visiting the gulf states

You're also correct that, in theory, it's down to the Foreign Office to decide on royal tour destinations. However I distinctly remember (I'll try to find it) one biographer writing that pressure had to be brought to persuade him to prioritise Commonwealth nation visits above his own interests

That's interesting, Serenster. I thought that it was reported at the time that he did get an injunction. I definitely remember reading this, although, admittedly, the source may not have been credible.

There were two disabled relatives in a home. Totally true. If this is who you mean

Very sad. One died in only 2014

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerissa_and_Katherine_Bowes-Lyon

The RF basically denied their existence and had nothing to do with them
And pretended they were dead when they weren't

www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3167561/truth-behind-queen-elizabeths-hidden-cousins-who-were

My point is that the writers of The Crown have done their research, they are not in general just making up random stuff for the sake of an exciting drama, as some people would want you to believe

They totally do that!

Their treatment of Princess Margaret is a good example. They ignored the papers released by the national archives that showed exactly the deal that the Queen and Anthony Eden had worked out (she could marry Peter Townsend, keep her royal title and her civil list allowance, live in the UK country and even continue with public duties). The only thing she would have had to give up was her place in the succession. Margaret decided she didn’t want to marry him after all, though.

This was absolutely not how it was presented in The Crown though, as it didn’t fit with their narrative of the Queen being prepared to exile her sister from the family to ensure the stability of the crown. They showed the Queen as refusing to help her sister and treating her coldly.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38032464

That's interesting, Serenster. I thought that it was reported at the time that he did get an injunction. I definitely remember reading this, although, admittedly, the source may not have been credible

If the heir to the heir of the British throne had obtained an injunction preventing the press from publishing anything, trust me, we would all know it. 😀

A normal injunction suppressing a story can be reported in England and Wales, but the identities of the people involved are concealed - this case is a good example.

www.independent.co.uk/news/people/famous-woman-wins-court-injunction-to-stop-details-of-her-affair-with-high-profile-married-man-being-leaked-by-lover-a53336.html

Injunctions only apply in England and Wales, though, so if you want Scottish papers from publishing you’d also have to get a similar order (an interdict) in Scotland. Neither of those are effective worldwide though, so international press organisations can report on the full details without any sanction.

In order to stop even limited details like the one above getting out, you need a superinjunction. They prevent the (English and Welsh) press even saying there’s been an injunction granted. But they are very easily thwarted by people in other jurisdictions publishing the story - Ryan Giggs’ superinjunction was unmasked in Scotland, Gordon Ramsay’s superinjuncted dispute with his father-in-law was published in the US etc.

So, basically, getting an injunction or superinjunction just brings more attention to what you are trying to conceal. As Jeremy Clarkson, who took one out, said

“Injunctions don’t work. You take out an injunction against somebody or some organisation and immediately news of that injunction and the people involved and the story behind the injunction is in a legal-free world on Twitter and the Internet. It’s pointless”

Ryan Giggs’ superinjunction was unmasked in Scotland, Gordon Ramsay’s superinjuncted dispute with his father-in-law was published in the US etc. oh I remember Ryan Giggs case , it was huge , they kept saying his name on Twitter then finally some MP named him at parliament. I didn’t even know who he was , but the superinjunction sure did make the case big.

I am sure the alleged ( by some) affair will be clarified when H publishes his memoirs . After all for the rumoured advance he has received the publishing house is going to want him to dish the dirt .

Oh really? That is a scurrilous assumption and well you know it

Has he ever mentioned Andrew?
NO not once

I find it amazing how some posters seem to know the content of the book before it's out. Odd. Last year you were all up in arms because it was going to overshadow the platinum jubilee. Posters going on and on and on about it, how disgusting it was.
Has it overshadowed the jubilee? Lol. NO

He seems determined to follow in his mum's footsteps even though the interview and book didn't work out too well for her either.

@Roussette

Oh really? That is a scurrilous assumption and well you know it

Eh ?? Scurrilous assumption? My word , a nerve has been touched!

It is basic common sense and really does not take too much brain power to deduce that for H to have received the rumoured advance , publishers won’t be happy if he just chats about his views on corgis .

Didn't know he like corgis

I think you're deluded if you think he's going to talk about his brother's supposed affair. When no one else has and no one even knows if there was one. Scurrilous, ridiculous...whatever you like to call it

Assuming something daft likes this gives you a reason to have a go at him I suppose.

Rumoured advance is a rumour. Yep