The Yorks 2 !

[jeffgoldblum]

Sorry missed end of thread !
had a slight hiccup.
anyway thread 2 ready for tomorrows new article. 😁

@vera99 by all means keep the blizzard going - I wouldn’t wish housework on anyone!

Actually, I can see how discussion of Andrew’s parentage could be considered relevant to the question about his notable differences to his siblings. Even assuming that the rumours were unfounded, they must have had a psychological impact on him. And they would have been known to his peers-which can't have been fun.

Seriously? 🙄

The RF en-masse or just Andrew?

You are comparing the proverbial apples and oranges here, Vera.

i don’t think we should get into arguing about which set of behaviours is worse- they bear no relationship to each other. Andrew and Sarah wasted vast funds and in A’s case, may have committed actual crimes and certainly misdemeanours. They both will have damaged the UK’s reputation in the world to some degree.

H&M’s behaviour strikes most people at a deep, visceral level because it relates to family betrayal, bullying and lying. They also damaged the UK - in their case through actual and planned media exposure of their various allegations. Could blather on, but let’s leave it there.

I despise Andrew and Sarah (was never a fan, and that’s putting it mildly!) but it doesn’t change or soften my low opinion of the Sussexes. Two totally different matters.

Unfortunately some of the behaviours outlined in these articles could actually have been written about either couple!

The Queen turned a blind eye to her son’s behaviour for many years. That certainly tarnishes her legacy.

You are comparing the proverbial apples and oranges here, Vera.

I agree. Each couple is vile in their own very unique way with neither one of them being less vile than the other.

I wonder if Andrew's behaviour over money fed into the decision to deny Harry and Megan half in half out?

Upthread someone asked if this changes opinions about the late Queen. It has changed mine to a certain extent in that i think she erred far too far on the side of forgiveness and second chance with Andrew. He should have been forced to step away from official duties far earlier. In this area she certainly didn't put duty before family. But then hindsight is 20/20.

Yes. Why not seriously?

Like Harry?

The thread isn’t about Harry.

I wonder if Andrew's behaviour over money fed into the decision to deny Harry and Megan half in half out?

That is a really good point, I wonder if it did play any part. They also had the experience of Sophie trying to do the half in / half out, which also ended up in a bit of a disaster.

This is unrealistic. It won't happen especially when there are so many dealings with some of the Middle Eastern countries. It can't go there. There's a whole background of military and trade support there. It won't happen. You are naive if you think this would happen. All Governments and institutions have their murky underbelly.

Well lety's agree to disagree and move on !

The Mail has picked up on the Telegraph’s article and highlighted King Charles’s apparent inability or unwillingness to deal with the problem. They also suggest that Prince William is likely to take a much tougher line. My cynical view is that this is a carefully placed softball for William to hit when the time is right perhaps performatively during his own coronation, if that happens in the near future (which isn’t outside the realm of possibility). It would give the Royal Family a convenient opportunity: exclude Andrew from the coronation, strip him of his titles, and allow William to symbolically ‘stamp’ a new era of royal accountabilitywithout ever addressing the deeper issues. And of course, it will be heralded with much fanfare, when in reality it’s nothing of the sort. We have the law and Parliament for a reason, and no one however high they are born should be exempt from their remit.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-14975371/andrew-stripped-prince-title-william-king.html

Even when you are talking about the effect of a disputed paternity? I disagree.

Oh come now!!! , he was mentioned in the article! 🤣 , and yes I was serious and no I won’t say I told you so!
however you opened the door and posters are well within their right to walk straight through it!
obviously this was for @curlewkate!

I agree it won’t happen. Andrew will likely spend much of his spare time as a guest of Arab princes, whoring in palaces far beyond the public eye, and the Royal Family won’t care or mind as they kill dissent and free media there - literally.

If that was directed to me, I honestly don’t understand!

Really ? Seriously?

With Andrew and Sarah it is all about greed and money. I remember a program about them before their wedding and the cameras followed Sarah into an art gallery. Maybe one where she had worked? Her eye fell on a very nice painting and she said something like ' this would be a wonderful wedding present for us if anyone is wondering '. I've always remembered the flash of naked greed as she spoke. It was really brazen.

Andrew requested a faberge egg apparently!
a perfect match for each other!

It may do if convincingly proved. It’s largely surmise at present.

I don’t think that (struggles to find adjective which will not get my post deleted!😲) WOMAN ever worked (I could stop there…) in an art gallery. Some royals have, including Helen Windsor, but I think Fergie was a good-time…er chalet, girl mostly .

Happy, if very surprised, to be corrected.

Fair enough. I suppose it’s likely that the rumours had an impact on Harry too. I didn’t really think about it because there were so many other bizarre elements to Harry’s upbringing that we don’t really need another one. Andrew, however, had a very similar conventional royal/posh upbringing to his siblings, but appears so different to them that anything that differentiates him is interesting. Whether the rumours have any truth or not.