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

[Inotherwordspleasebetrue]

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?

That is really excellent news. Fingers crossed that they get that extra vote!

There would have been a public outcry if any senior member of the RF had tried to block that prosecution going through!

A senior member did stop a prosecution, @Inotherwordspleasebetrue, when the late Queen brought Burrell's trial to an end with some ridiculous excuse about a remembered conversation which could very obviously have been disclosed much earlier

Yes there was comment at the time, but like so much else with the RF it was quickly brushed aside - probably because many didn't want to accept the glaring inconsistencies

Yes I do think someone needs to look into Andrew's time as a trade envoy but I'm not sure who you mean when you say 'we'. The only way things will come to light is if there is the political will to find the facts. Since I'm pretty sure that both politicians and civil servants will be found culpable in enabling his grifting I'm not confident it will ever happen.

That’s true! That was all very odd wasn’t it?

Especially as the late Queen remembered Burrell talking to her about taking some of Diana’s papers back to his house for safe-keeping and what was actually found by the police was over 300 items of clothing, photos, keepsakes, etc.

Journalists speculated that Burrell must have threatened to say something really incriminating in court!

There were lots of rumours that Diana had something on Charles but I won’t repeat them here as it could all just be scurrilous tittle tattle.

Edited to add that no one seemed particularly perturbed by the thought of the monarch interfering in a criminal court case which is outrageous if you think about it!

Sure it was reported extensively at the time as I remember Burrell kept repeating “the Queen came through for me”… yeah right … and there was a BP internal enquiry I think but then it was all washed and dried and put away and no further discussion followed!

That was all very odd wasn’t it?
Especially as the late Queen remembered Burrell talking to her about taking Diana’s papers back to his house for safe-keeping and what was actually found by the police was over 300 items of clothing, photos, keepsakes, etc.

I believe it was said the police found papers too, @Inotherwordspleasebetrue, but I wouldn't quite say it was "odd" - more what I expected to happen, having been surprised that Burrell was prosecuted in the first place

If you've not already read it, Norman Baker's And What Do You Do? has an excellent chapter on this - in fact someone's just started a thread about the book and no doubt it'll be mentioned on there

A depressing thought but yes that’s probably the reality of it!

I am sure the general public would be very interested in finding out more facts. Let’s hope a politician can pursue it.

Thank you! I must order a copy!