Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

It’s interesting how positive headlines about Harry coming in from the cold are being used to mask negative ones about Sarah Ferguson

332 replies

Inotherwordspleasebetrue · 21/09/2025 08:08

This is blatant speculation but I’m beginning to think that Harry was right all along and that the Buckingham Palace press machine uses stories about the lower ranking royals royals to protect the core of the monarchy.

So, on this occasion, to distract from damaging stories about Sarah Ferguson’s e-mails and back-tracking with Epstein, especially given the Yorks recent prominent appearance at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral, my theory is that the Palace has given a tacit nod to a story about Harry coming back in from the cold, knowing that any story about Harry or Meghan will immediately hit the top slot and overshadow anything else?

Buckingham Palace must think people are very dim, or rely on the fact that they swallow this propaganda whole without questioning it?

Of course this time Harry will be happy because the headlines are favourable to him. And on a human level everyone loves a story about a reconciliation between father and son. But generally I think the British public are being played by all of this spin to cover up the type of story about financial murkiness that Andrew Lownie uncovered and wrote about in his latest book?

All of which leads me to wondering why the Royal Family and the men in grey suits are once again protecting Andrew and Sarah? Is it simply because Andrew is the King’s brother, and therefore close to the Crown, or is it because Andrew’s financial dealings are not much different to what most of them do in the RF, but just a bit more blatant and extreme?

Who knows what the truth is any more?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
Thedom · 23/09/2025 09:24

SuziQuinto · 23/09/2025 09:13

I can't believe that Sarah Ferguson's attitude wasn't changed after that disastrous "cash for access" fiasco.
She was actually filmed asking for a significant sum of money for access to Prince Andrew. I didn't think she'd stoop any lower, yet here we are.

Exactly, and that was something like £500,000, so the £15,000 she supposedly borrowed from Epstein is more than likely a fraction of how much he actuallly gave her, that would barely pay for a handbag and a pair of shoes. Lownie’s estimate is probably much more accurate, possibly even underestimated.

SynysterGates · 23/09/2025 09:34

Mylovelygreendress · 23/09/2025 08:07

As Many of us have said , H and M are such a divisive couple plus seem to be repeatedly snatching failure from the jaws of victory that there is lots to discuss . Everyone agrees that A and S are shameless , arrogant, despicable people so there’s not a lot to discuss . Comments go “ I agree” “ me too “ and me” etc

always the "divisive" excuse.
i don't think being mean about her body shape, her clothing choices needs "discussing"
(not aimed at you, but in general) yet god help anyone that calls Kate thin.

Inotherwordspleasebetrue · 23/09/2025 09:44

Mylovelygreendress · 23/09/2025 08:07

As Many of us have said , H and M are such a divisive couple plus seem to be repeatedly snatching failure from the jaws of victory that there is lots to discuss . Everyone agrees that A and S are shameless , arrogant, despicable people so there’s not a lot to discuss . Comments go “ I agree” “ me too “ and me” etc

I don’t understand this perspective at all I’m
afraid.

H and M are not more divisive than Andrew and Sarah when you look at the objective facts of what each couple have done.

There is also a lot to discuss in relation to A and S. Who knew about Andrew’s alleged illegal financial wrongdoings and who made the decision to cover them up?

Does no one care that our then head of state enabled a member of her family to potentially break the law and allegedly abuse trafficked women?

Are the trade envoy papers going to be released for public scrutiny? Has there been an investigation in to the alleged Chinese spy incident? Is there going to be a public enquiry?

I still believe the inappropriate level of vitriol aimed at Harry and Meghan is strategic in order to cover up much worse things within the core of the RF.

As has been said by pps on this thread, the Monarch will be protected at all costs; no wonder who becomes collateral damage.

Essentially, what it looks like is that, if you keep quiet within the RF, it doesn’t matter how you behave, you will be sheltered behind a wall of privacy. As long as you get away with it and it doesn’t become public knowledge, you will be protected by the palace machine. So you can allegedly be a philanderer while presenting a family first image, or exploit trafficked women, or even potentially break the law and commit fraud, as long as you don’t speak out, or be disloyal to the Crown, who will use their influence to enable you, or their wealth to protect you, and pay off people who are threatening to expose you in court, It really beggars belief!

But if you speak up publically against the RF, or criticise them in any way , or you don’t play ball, like Diana or Harry, your reputation is crushed, you are accused of having poor mental health, and you will find door after establishment door slammed in your face, You are briefed against globally and left discredited and exposed. Until you come to a deal with them not to speak out again and then relations thaw a little

It does make you wonder what the RF are keeping in the closet?

Presumably it is deemed good for the country that the UK has a monarchy because it lends tradition, stability, historical continuity etc? But all of that is undermined unless we are led by a head of state who is open, transparent and accountable. Not one who is willing to pay a large sum of money to stop evidence of sexual abuse emerging in court.

If the RF had any integrity at all they would not have paid Andrew’s settlement to Virginia Giuffre and they would have put an end to his trade envoy job the minute evidence of alleged fraudulent behaviour was confirmed.

Edited to add that, in summary; there’s plenty more questions for those set against H and M to discuss about A and S! Eg potentially serious wrongdoing and illegal behaviour that could extend right to the heart of the monarchy. They just deliberately choose not to do so because it might undermine their own beliefs that the late Queen and Charles & Co can do no wrong! They are choosing to believe the Palace spin and by focusing on H&M are ignoring far more important and serious questions.

OP posts:
SuziQuinto · 23/09/2025 09:46

@Inotherwordspleasebetrue I agree with you about A's ludicrous "trade envoy" job, although I do wonder what the Foreign Office were thinking.
However, do you have evidence they paid off Virginia Guiffre?
Is that what she said?

Puzzledandpissedoff · 23/09/2025 09:48

SuziQuinto · 23/09/2025 09:13

I can't believe that Sarah Ferguson's attitude wasn't changed after that disastrous "cash for access" fiasco.
She was actually filmed asking for a significant sum of money for access to Prince Andrew. I didn't think she'd stoop any lower, yet here we are.

But why would it be changed, SuziQuinto?

It made a few headlines at the time - not that they were telling us anything we didn't already know about how she operated - and she had to do a bit of "Oooo naughty me!!", but that won't change a basic personality

And especially not when she's still allowed access to the royal teat ...

SuziQuinto · 23/09/2025 09:50

Puzzledandpissedoff · 23/09/2025 09:48

But why would it be changed, SuziQuinto?

It made a few headlines at the time - not that they were telling us anything we didn't already know about how she operated - and she had to do a bit of "Oooo naughty me!!", but that won't change a basic personality

And especially not when she's still allowed access to the royal teat ...

Yes, my mistake to think that she'd actually reflect on her greedy, grasping behaviour, and make some changes.
You're right, of course!

jumpingthehighjump · 23/09/2025 10:00

SynysterGates · 23/09/2025 09:34

always the "divisive" excuse.
i don't think being mean about her body shape, her clothing choices needs "discussing"
(not aimed at you, but in general) yet god help anyone that calls Kate thin.

Totally agree.

So H&M are divisive which makes for good discussion? But always those that loathe the couple say the same... "but everyone thinks Andrew and Sarah are awful so there's nothing to discuss!" In other words, don't talk to me about the real grifters, let's get back to talking about Meghan's tinpot business, hope it's failing!

Absolute bollocks. There's a lot to discuss about them. How they were allowed to get away with what they did for decades whilst the RF knew. How they both lied to the public and how come we accepted that? How much money they took off of Epstein. How Charles and/or Willliam will deal with the ongoing Yorks crisis. What the daughters are up to. How the charities worded their cut off of Sarah.

The latest news on Sarah is worldwide... Europe, USA etc yet all some posters want to discuss is the fact Meghan has a short torso and wears clothes that don't suit her. And how her jam is runny.. Ridiculous.

jumpingthehighjump · 23/09/2025 10:03

@Inotherwordspleasebetrue Excellent post. I should have read it before I posted mine!

Inotherwordspleasebetrue · 23/09/2025 10:06

SuziQuinto · 23/09/2025 09:46

@Inotherwordspleasebetrue I agree with you about A's ludicrous "trade envoy" job, although I do wonder what the Foreign Office were thinking.
However, do you have evidence they paid off Virginia Guiffre?
Is that what she said?

It has been widely reported that the late Queen helped Andrew pay the estimated £12 million to Virginia Giuffre, part of which was given to an anti sex-trafficking charity, to settle the case and buy silence on Andrew’s behalf and cover up his disreputable behaviour.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220216-prince-andrew-s-settlement-worth-%C2%A312-mn-as-anger-mounts-in-uk

Prince Andrew's settlement 'worth £12 mn' as anger mounts in UK

Disgraced British royal Prince Andrew faced a call Wednesday to "live out his retirement in ignominy" after reportedly settling a sexual assault lawsuit for a whopping £12 million ($16.3 million, 14.3…

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220216-prince-andrew-s-settlement-worth-%C2%A312-mn-as-anger-mounts-in-uk

OP posts:
Inotherwordspleasebetrue · 23/09/2025 10:09

jumpingthehighjump · 23/09/2025 10:03

@Inotherwordspleasebetrue Excellent post. I should have read it before I posted mine!

Not at all jumpingthehighjump

It’s refreshing not to be posting the minority view for once!

And you raise the all-important question that I forgot to include;

How is Charles going to proceed now?

OP posts:
CathyorClaire · 23/09/2025 10:14

SuziQuinto · 23/09/2025 08:58

I read this morning that author Andrew Lownie claims that Epstein gave Ferguson £2m. We shall see what comes out.
It wouldn't surprise me.

I read this morning that author Andrew Lownie claims that Epstein gave Ferguson £2m.

I have said for years that £15k seemed a rather insignificant amount for a prince to get himself in hock to someone like Epstein for.

Essentially, what it looks like is that, if you keep quiet within the RF, it doesn’t matter how you behave, you will be sheltered behind a wall of privacy.

This is the pro-Andrew argument I've seen so many times.

Harold flapping his gums (admittedly v. poor behaviour) is apparently far worse than Randy lying to the nation on the public service broadcaster because Randy has kept his trap zipped where family secrets are concerned.

As I always say it's perfectly possible to find them all appalling albeit in different ways.

Inotherwordspleasebetrue · 23/09/2025 10:17

SuziQuinto · 23/09/2025 08:58

I read this morning that author Andrew Lownie claims that Epstein gave Ferguson £2m. We shall see what comes out.
It wouldn't surprise me.

Oh! I somehow missed that nugget of information!

That would certainly make more sense.

OP posts:
SuziQuinto · 23/09/2025 10:21

Inotherwordspleasebetrue · 23/09/2025 10:17

Oh! I somehow missed that nugget of information!

That would certainly make more sense.

Yes, I very much hope that this all comes out. I just can't stand that grasping, gurning, entitled pair.

CurlewKate · 23/09/2025 10:23

Inotherwordspleasebetrue · 23/09/2025 10:09

Not at all jumpingthehighjump

It’s refreshing not to be posting the minority view for once!

And you raise the all-important question that I forgot to include;

How is Charles going to proceed now?

Edited

I assume the King is going to continue the “never apologise, never explain” no comment policy which appears to have worked so well in the past. The focus is now on Fergusson, so if anyone needs to be thrown under a bus she’s ready and waiting.

SuziQuinto · 23/09/2025 10:24

CurlewKate · 23/09/2025 10:23

I assume the King is going to continue the “never apologise, never explain” no comment policy which appears to have worked so well in the past. The focus is now on Fergusson, so if anyone needs to be thrown under a bus she’s ready and waiting.

She doesn't need to be "thrown uder the bus"!
She's brought all this upon herself. She's not some naive victim of a villainous RF.

CathyorClaire · 23/09/2025 10:27

How is Charles going to proceed now?

A bit more sabre rattling about RL, a bit of careful puff about the Yorks not being seen at official events, then back to hand wringing and business as usual.

Basically his notorious aversion to confrontation and general beastliness will kick in big time.

ThePoshUns · 23/09/2025 10:39

I would love to see KC cut them both off completely (S&F) once and for all. They bring nothing to the RF and do not deserve a penny more from the public purse or the duchy.

CurlewKate · 23/09/2025 10:44

SuziQuinto · 23/09/2025 10:24

She doesn't need to be "thrown uder the bus"!
She's brought all this upon herself. She's not some naive victim of a villainous RF.

No, she’s not an innocent victim. But she is a useful distraction to take a little of the heat off those of Royal Blood….

DelightedDelicious · 23/09/2025 10:45

Pollqueen · 22/09/2025 21:41

I don't think there's any correlation between the Harry leaks/stories and the news regarding Fergie's emails with Epstein, but I do think there's a link between Ghalaine's recent testimony and the sudden release of the Mandellson emails and then Fergie's

Plus, the sudden story of Fergie being a frenemy of Ghislaine and her having her sights on Epstein as told by Ghislaine. I think Maxwell is behind all of this and is now going to take others down with her. Maybe this is just the start

Those that breathed a sigh of relief at Epstein's death may be sweating a little now

Maxwell is only about herself and her release - she will take down no one or she may agree to throw a few selected people (selected by others) under the bus in their attempts to make this distant from Trump and all the other men involved.

Spectre8 · 23/09/2025 10:47

Inotherwordspleasebetrue · 23/09/2025 09:44

I don’t understand this perspective at all I’m
afraid.

H and M are not more divisive than Andrew and Sarah when you look at the objective facts of what each couple have done.

There is also a lot to discuss in relation to A and S. Who knew about Andrew’s alleged illegal financial wrongdoings and who made the decision to cover them up?

Does no one care that our then head of state enabled a member of her family to potentially break the law and allegedly abuse trafficked women?

Are the trade envoy papers going to be released for public scrutiny? Has there been an investigation in to the alleged Chinese spy incident? Is there going to be a public enquiry?

I still believe the inappropriate level of vitriol aimed at Harry and Meghan is strategic in order to cover up much worse things within the core of the RF.

As has been said by pps on this thread, the Monarch will be protected at all costs; no wonder who becomes collateral damage.

Essentially, what it looks like is that, if you keep quiet within the RF, it doesn’t matter how you behave, you will be sheltered behind a wall of privacy. As long as you get away with it and it doesn’t become public knowledge, you will be protected by the palace machine. So you can allegedly be a philanderer while presenting a family first image, or exploit trafficked women, or even potentially break the law and commit fraud, as long as you don’t speak out, or be disloyal to the Crown, who will use their influence to enable you, or their wealth to protect you, and pay off people who are threatening to expose you in court, It really beggars belief!

But if you speak up publically against the RF, or criticise them in any way , or you don’t play ball, like Diana or Harry, your reputation is crushed, you are accused of having poor mental health, and you will find door after establishment door slammed in your face, You are briefed against globally and left discredited and exposed. Until you come to a deal with them not to speak out again and then relations thaw a little

It does make you wonder what the RF are keeping in the closet?

Presumably it is deemed good for the country that the UK has a monarchy because it lends tradition, stability, historical continuity etc? But all of that is undermined unless we are led by a head of state who is open, transparent and accountable. Not one who is willing to pay a large sum of money to stop evidence of sexual abuse emerging in court.

If the RF had any integrity at all they would not have paid Andrew’s settlement to Virginia Giuffre and they would have put an end to his trade envoy job the minute evidence of alleged fraudulent behaviour was confirmed.

Edited to add that, in summary; there’s plenty more questions for those set against H and M to discuss about A and S! Eg potentially serious wrongdoing and illegal behaviour that could extend right to the heart of the monarchy. They just deliberately choose not to do so because it might undermine their own beliefs that the late Queen and Charles & Co can do no wrong! They are choosing to believe the Palace spin and by focusing on H&M are ignoring far more important and serious questions.

Edited

100%

If this was Harry and Meghan who had done this there would be all these questions and then some and we would be on thread number 20 by now with the sheer amount of comments thay would be made, questions asked and so on.

SuziQuinto · 23/09/2025 10:53

CurlewKate · 23/09/2025 10:44

No, she’s not an innocent victim. But she is a useful distraction to take a little of the heat off those of Royal Blood….

She's not distracting from anyone. Prince Andrew has been headline news.

SuziQuinto · 23/09/2025 10:54

Spectre8 · 23/09/2025 10:47

100%

If this was Harry and Meghan who had done this there would be all these questions and then some and we would be on thread number 20 by now with the sheer amount of comments thay would be made, questions asked and so on.

It's pointless saying that. This is about the Yorks.

My2cents1975 · 23/09/2025 10:55

I do very much agree with previous posters that too much is made of M's wrinkled clothes and runny spead. I think a much more interesting conversation would be why David Boies, the lawyer for Virginia Guiffre believed that M could be a material witness.

H claimed M thought his godfather was a purse-holder. Yet David thinks differently to the extent it is in print. And Montecito with its global communications office is silent.

Meghan Markle ‘is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did,’ says lawyer David Boies

Virginia Giuffre’s lawyer says Meghan Markle may testify in Prince Andrew case

Meghan Markle ‘is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did,’ says lawyer David Boies

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/meghan-markle-prince-andrew-trial-b1980527.html

bluegreygreen · 23/09/2025 11:02

Agree. The Duchess of Sussex's presence in those circles is the open secret that is continually ignored.

jumpingthehighjump · 23/09/2025 11:04

Andrew bought the lease of Royal lodge in 2003.

In 2000 he brought Epstein, Harvey Weinstein and Maxwell to QE2s birthday party and JE and M had holidayed at Balmoral and Sandringham. In 2001 Andrew was on a yacht in Thailand with Epstein and a lot of topless woman, pics are out there

At that time Rosa Monckton Chief Exec wrote a piece for Vanity Fair talking of Epstein's predilection for young beautiful girls and Andrew attended parties with Epstein filled with 'young Russian models'

Yet QE2 still agreed to him buying the 75 year lease of Royal Lodge thereby meaning he could never er be ousted. WTAF. Why?

The Queen enabled him big time and the royals just react after the event when they've been found out.
They are not proactive but reactive
It's pathetic