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?

Well if Kevin doesn't like it!! I don't know him though

It doesn’t have to a book. Leaking bits and pieces of whatever he knows to the daily m or telegraph would be harmful to the royal family.

I was thinking the same thing. Anne seems to be the exception atm.

Lownie said that it was made clear that Queen didn’t want hear it. This was in regard to his ‘work’ as trade envoy.

I do think the Queen should have dealt with Andrew differently.

Having said that, as trade envoy he was answerable to the government of the day. They are also culpable.
If advisors were telling the Queen of his misdeeds as envoy, they will also have been informing ministers.

The yorks set up is an odd one. Are they together or just good friends? I admit that I’d like to be a fly on the wall at some of the family meetings.

I think this shows that, contrary to what we are told, politicians, diplomats and civil servants will follow the monarch’s lead in any situation like this.

I’m halfway through Lownie’s book and I thought I already had a pretty low opinion of Andrew and his ex wife but things that they were involved in are flabbergasting.
How the hell they were allowed to behave as grubby, greedy and downright sleazy beats me.
I think the late Queen has a lot to answer for them getting away with soliciting money, freebies and kudos for years.
The more I read of this book the sicker their behaviour becomes.

Much cheaper

Last time I posted this it was rubbished... well it would be wouldn't it...

See above ⬆

Yes, it gets worse and worse every page I turned. Sarah was grifting off of any company who would talk to her, how she behaved as far as money, entitlement, greed and crassness was just disgusting. Her and Andrew enabled and encouraged each other, they grabbed money from anyone, a lot of ME Oligarchs and ME minor Royals who were buying access for cash, diamonds, anything.

And I think the daughters are cut from the same cloth, given they are spending a helluva lot of time in Doha, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and anywhere that will have them. Then, what a coincidence, Andrew can suddenly afford to keep Royal Lodge. They are schmoozing in the ME on his behalf.

Yet people get worked up about a lipgloss or an extra sausage on a plate. You couldn't make it up.

I do think it's because Royalists find that Andrew & Sarah's behaviour shines a very bad light on the whole of the royal family and the Monarchy, so they can't bear it. But Harry and Meghan have gone so they are fair game to attack day in day out.

@jumpingthehighjump I agree about the daughters. It's the same wilful ignorance that has always happened with the Royals, where they think they should be allowed to do what they like until they are found out, then they all close ranks.
@Inotherwordspleasebetrue I also agree re the Trade envoy business. They knew he was awful and was doing more harm than good. Ministers are ultimately responsible yes, and should have stood up to TLQ but they should be standing up to the Monarch on many things but dont. We'll never know what happened anyway because yet again, a member of the RF has been protected to the hilt.

Me too!

It is indeed an odd set up.

I caught an interview where Lownie said the same. He said SF was very loyal to PA in public but spoke about him very differently in private. So I don’t think we should believe the. “old friends” spin either!

So what is in it for both of them?

And what is in it for the royal family to have them both still reside at Windsor?

It must be a “keep your enemies closer” scenario which I doubt will persist when William takes the throne.

Or that, as in the case of other Epstein issues, the politicians know they may also be implicated?

Agree with this entire post 👏

If only some brave MP would lobby Parliament for the hidden trade envoy records to be released for public scrutiny.

Do you think so? In addition to Mandelson? I guess it’s always a possibility!

I think that people objected to the infographic before because of (a) lack of sources to scrutinise and (b) the fact that the UK number is taken from 2023, the Coronation year, so clearly skewed.

Well, I had enough. Let’s put the crown in a museum and give Charles a presidency mandate and finally transition towards a republic, with the next president democratically elected. Like today.

Well no, not really. That's an image arguing that the British are more expensive than their European counterparts. That wasn't my point. My point was that there are no European monarchies that don't do official state entertaining and that they are generally a lot more flamboyant than ours. That image doesn't prove the contrary. If anything, the graphic shows that you can run a reasonably large RF with all the jewels and pomp much cheaply than we currently do in the UK, and retain all the glamour. You (and the other poster) may think that the British monarchy can do it more cheaply than they currently do, and that's a really valid discussion to have, but we won't do that by eliminating state banquets, restricting titles and not wearing jewels that they already have in the vaults. All of that is pointless window dressing which doesn't tackle the real causes.

I suspect (but no actual idea) that there may be government going ons at the time that may implicate those in power at the time. Scratch my back sort of thing. Again love to be a fly on the wall!

You’ve dragged this silly illustration out again.

Sources? Parity? A graphic isn't that informative without details of how the sums were arrived at.

i find it odd that people are so sure PW will sort PA out. seeing as he has been seen driving him around,.
hopefully he will realise that PA is much worse than his brother.

I thought you wouldn't like it.

Will this do instead?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/windsors-v-borbons-comparing-the-public-pay-of-european-royal-families

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/windsors-v-borbons-comparing-the-public-pay-of-european-royal-families

Better?