Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

Is there another couple in the world like The Sussexes?

1000 replies

veraswaistcoat · 23/01/2025 10:54

I was musing last night about this aspect - they had the world at their feet. Despite what Sussex Supporters like to suggest most people in the UK nodded their heads " yes it was lovely Harry was getting married finally" . I had never heard of the bride myself as I don't watch American tv shows of that ilk. She was black or biracial? It didn't even enter my head what colour she was initially and then as coverage started it didn't make one iota of difference one way or the other. I recall the day of the wedding - it was sunny and the pubs were full of royal cheer broadcasting the wedding.

And then it all started to where we are today.

Are there any other couples in the world who have gone through such a downfall? Is this a feature of the social media arena today?
We see P Diddy and Blake Lively and others exposed now through SM.
You can't count the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in this category as they were always unpopular.

Can you think of any examples of people who have fallen so spectacularly?

I know people say " they live in California, they have money blah blah" but their reputation is one that most people would not want.

Is it purely because of their seeming complaining and sense of entitlement ? I mean you don't see the real philanthropists in this way - in fact you rarely hear about them and what they do.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
Jacquette · 02/02/2025 22:16

Jacquette · 02/02/2025 21:19

Yes, the lawyer also said he could seek thevsystement of Andrew's ex- wife, or Andrew’s brother (I assume he meant Charles), could have been a witness too; like Meghan. So perhaps the Queen paid up for all of them?

I’ve noticed in regard to this story that it is copied and posted quite frequently on here, but the bit about Sarah and Charles as potential witnesses is always left off.

“
Meghan Markle may be called to depose over legal action against Prince Andrew, said the lawyer of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who has accused the prince of sexually assaulting her when she was 17.
^^
Ms Markle could have some “important knowledge,” David Boies, the attorney representing Ms Giuffre, told The Daily Beast on Tuesday.
^^
Mr Boies said he might seek to depose Ms Markle as part of the civil suit slapped against the prince by Ms Giuffre and said he believed Ms Markle could be expected to “tell the truth.”
^^
“She is somebody we can count on to tell the truth,” Mr Boies said. He also believed that she might have picked up some “important knowledge” about the royal’s behaviour.
He said Ms Markle was a “close companion to Prince Andrew and therefore probably saw what he did.”
^^
He also cited three reasons for Ms Markle to be a potential deposition subject.
^^
“One; she is in the US so we have jurisdiction over her. Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.
^^
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on, to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes,” the lawyer added.
^^
^^
^^
^^
“Ms Giuffre is suing the prince over claims she was forced to have sex with him when she was 17 years old. The prince, however, has denied all allegations.
^^
Mr Boies confirmed “we would likely take one or two depositions of people close to Andrew who would have knowledge of his actions. That might include his ex-wife. It could possibly be his brother.”
^^
However, the star attorney said no firm decision has been taken regarding Ms Markle’s deposition yet.”

Show quote history

Why the laughing emoji munny girl. I’ve just added in the bits that were left out?

Jacquette · 02/02/2025 22:22

Munnygirl · 02/02/2025 10:03

Because they all follow the same script.

Show quote history

No in fact, you ‘follow a script’ now. Accusing people who don’t post negative posts about Meghan of following a script, is in fact following another script. A commonly used script used by posters who only want agreement with their negative opinions of Meghan and sometimes Harry.

NormaMajors1992coat · 02/02/2025 22:24

What is happening here imo is you are trying to stifle opinions you don’t like by casting suspicion on posters that don’t post negatively about Meghan.

Sure, Jan 👍

Munnygirl · 02/02/2025 22:46

Jacquette · 02/02/2025 22:22

No in fact, you ‘follow a script’ now. Accusing people who don’t post negative posts about Meghan of following a script, is in fact following another script. A commonly used script used by posters who only want agreement with their negative opinions of Meghan and sometimes Harry.

Show quote history

You are still on script Jacquette well done

Jacquette · 02/02/2025 22:46

NormaMajors1992coat · 02/02/2025 22:24

What is happening here imo is you are trying to stifle opinions you don’t like by casting suspicion on posters that don’t post negatively about Meghan.

Sure, Jan 👍

Bye, Felicia

Jacquette · 02/02/2025 22:53

Rhaidimiddim · 02/02/2025 11:25

So if Ms Guiffre told the truth about Andrew and is thetefore a credible source of info. What do you think she knew about Meghan Markle's links with Andrew and Epstein?

Show quote history

I posted further on about how the lawyer also sok about questioning Sarah and Andrew’s brother (Charles?) also. But that gets left off most cut and pastes of articles on here.

Sorry JammyTodger , no more talk re Andrew on this thread from me from now on. Promise.

BigWillyLittleTodger · 02/02/2025 23:23

Jacquette · 02/02/2025 22:53

I posted further on about how the lawyer also sok about questioning Sarah and Andrew’s brother (Charles?) also. But that gets left off most cut and pastes of articles on here.

Sorry JammyTodger , no more talk re Andrew on this thread from me from now on. Promise.

Edited
Show quote history

As it appears you are referring to my post about keeping on topic, are you saying that @FromTheOfficeOfJammyTodger and me are the same poster? You do realise that no poster can sock puppet on a thread don’t you? Mind you maybe you don’t, the rules changed when you left a while back so maybe check out the new rules now you have returned.

Jacquette · 02/02/2025 23:43

@BigWillyLittleTodger I’ve mixed up posts because you both use Todger. I didn’t realise I’d made that mistake. My apologies.

I’m not accusing you of sock puppeting. It’s not possible now anyway, as you say.

BigWillyLittleTodger · 02/02/2025 23:50

Thank you @Jacquette

Extiainoiapeial · 03/02/2025 07:10

veraswaistcoat · 02/02/2025 15:07

This is ringing bells.

Show quote history

What does ringing bells mean

Should I know, just catching up on the thread and see this

Baital · 03/02/2025 07:48

Jacquette · 02/02/2025 22:53

I posted further on about how the lawyer also sok about questioning Sarah and Andrew’s brother (Charles?) also. But that gets left off most cut and pastes of articles on here.

Sorry JammyTodger , no more talk re Andrew on this thread from me from now on. Promise.

Edited
Show quote history

But why would the (very recent) wife of Andrew's nephew know anything about his behaviour?

Andrew's ex-wife who he remained close to, or his brother - possibly. Although unless the lawyer had a specific reason to include them (e.g. they had been present on some occasions) it does seem a bit of a blackmail tactic, to embarrass rather than get relevant info.

When was Meghan a 'close associate' of Andrew?

Baital · 03/02/2025 07:49

Sorry, I have re-derailed! Ignore....

ThePoshUns · 03/02/2025 07:50

The implication being that MM was part of the Epstein wider circle?

Spectre8 · 03/02/2025 07:57

Baital · 03/02/2025 07:49

Sorry, I have re-derailed! Ignore....

Oh dear naughty naughty. 😏

jeffgoldblum · 03/02/2025 08:13

Meghan was a friend of Epstein's girlfriend/ lover and has been pictured with her , I assume that was the connection.

Thedom · 03/02/2025 09:13

Makes sense they would want to depose Sarah Ferguson, she was living with Andrew through all of the time he was closely connected to Epstein. she also benefited from Epstein's 'generosity' as did their daughters (As Sarah was living outside the jurisdiction of the US, not even sure if they could have issued a subpoena)

By contrast Harry was living in the US, and was around the RF during Andrews friendship with Epstein, easier to subpoena him than any of the family living outside the US, which makes so the Meghan Markle angle a different fish altogether, by the time she met Harry, PA and Epstein's relationship was done, supposedly. she was barely a member of the RF for any length of time, theoretically her only knowledge of Epstein and Andrew should have been nothing more than hearsay from Harry. The lawyer throws a few hints. possibly red herrings, about a prior association with PA.

FromTheOfficeOfJammyTodger · 03/02/2025 09:17

It's a valid question @Baital . Why would someone who thought Andrew was the Queen's butler have any idea about his (before her time) associations with Epstein to warrant the lawyers name checking her? If they wanted to make a media impact, name checking the (then) future heir to the UK throne and his (quite famous in the US) ex wife should have been sufficient.

jeffgoldblum · 03/02/2025 09:18

Just a heads up,
I have just discovered from threads in active that last night , horrific csa images were posted on some threads here on mn .
It was done in the night apparently.
I sincerely hope that none of the regular posters here saw them ( and I mean all of the posters, regardless of which side you take)

Take care all 💐

FromTheOfficeOfJammyTodger · 03/02/2025 09:18

X-post with @Thedom

FromTheOfficeOfJammyTodger · 03/02/2025 09:27

jeffgoldblum · 03/02/2025 08:13

Meghan was a friend of Epstein's girlfriend/ lover and has been pictured with her , I assume that was the connection.

Oh really? I never knew that.

jeffgoldblum · 03/02/2025 09:36

I will add the lady in question was in no way implicated in any of his activities, so this is no indication of anything untoward about Meghan ! , just that this may be why she was mentioned.

FromTheOfficeOfJammyTodger · 03/02/2025 09:46

Well guilt by association is enough for some....

MrsGusset · 03/02/2025 10:49

Somewhat off topic but I was highly amused to see that in Page Six Abigail Spencer has described Meghan as being “the most glorious human being on the planet”. Her remark leading to a barrage of comments beneath the article.

Exclusive | Meghan Markle's BFF Abigail Spencer defends duchess from backlash

This follows Abigail's Instagram post at the time of the cooking show trailer that began:-

“So elated for you Meghan! How lucky are we to get a glimpse into your heart song, magical thoughtfulness and deliciously wonderful ways January 15th! Can't wait for all to fall in love with #withloveMeghan....

Ms Spencer appears to have quite a way with words.

Exclusive | Meghan Markle’s BFF Abigail Spencer defends duchess from ‘painful’ backlash: ‘Most glorious human being’

Spencer told Page Six she can’t wait for people to watch Markle’s upcoming Netflix lifestyle show so they can see “who she actually is as a person.”

https://pagesix.com/2025/01/31/royal-family/meghan-markles-bff-abigail-spencer-defends-duchess-from-backlash/

Rhaidimiddim · 03/02/2025 10:50

BigWillyLittleTodger · 02/02/2025 21:40

Was waiting for that deletion, not surprised one bit.

I can't even remember what I wrote now.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.