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?

Never understood the wedding thing. What was the point of lying about it? Was it a non Anglican wedding or something? Was she brought up in a different faith?

She was baptised in to the Church of England shortly before her wedding to Harry by none other than the Archbishop of Canterbury.

She was originally Episcopalian apparently, although went to a Catholic school. Trevor E is Jewish, I believe, but I don’t know if she converted.

I gather she’s quite easy going on the religious and denominational front, like many people.

The ‘three days before’ wedding thing was like some massive brain fart on camera, of which she and Harry have very many.

Agree that it would be helpful if the accounts were more detailed, and generally more open and transparent.

Absolutely not the crime of the century. I do think it was a bit rude to suggest that her wedding was just a spectacle for the public and she didn't want it at all. The public really turned out for them and celebrated the wedding.

Then when Harry talked about wanting to get married at a bigger church and have a bigger guest list, basically he wanted his wedding to be a State occasion, just like William, it made Meghan's comments seem a bit strange.

So not a crime but rather rude and ungrateful. It's a long time ago now though and I feel that Meghan at least is creating a life she is happy with now.

i can't say im bothered about the wedding. I think she can say what she likes about her own weeding.
its not like i got them a present.

On the news now 3 charities have disassociated themselves from Sarah Ferguson. Excellent news.

Good

And now a breast cancer charity as well. I’d like to think her and Andrew will slink away and stay out of public view permanently but I doubt it.

Yes, it is - though TBH I'm not sure what the point was in having her in tthe first place

The others certainly didn’t spend £72 million on a coronation which imho was unnecessarily opulent, given the cost of living crisis, and particularly after the country had spent £162 million on the Queen’s funeral!

We'd also spent £28m (plus more in security costs) on a Platinum Jubilee knees-up celebrating a sovereign who was for the most part too ill to attend.

Three eye wateringly expensive events in the space of a year.

I agree.

She's been tainted for years.

Yes I was surprised to learn that she had any patronages at all

It's good news of course but you do have to wonder why she was still their figurehead after her association with Epstein was previously disclosed let alone the undisputed revelations about her charity grifting in Andrew Lownie's book.

You also have to wonder what material difference it will make to her.

My guess is she'll still be wafting round Royal Lodge and possibly even be seen gurning away at family events just as her ex has been allowed to do after similar taps on the nose.

Hardly 'dumped with'. She pursued him quite conscientiously. They married very quickly.

By contrast Wallis Simpson played a dangerous game and it backfired and she became ensnared. She was still writing forlorn love letters to her ex for years after the marriage. She made herself a hard bed and laid in it out of duty. She inspires pity.

Meghan is going on podcasts gushing over how much she and Harry are in love and what a 'Fox' stud he is. She likes the Duchess title and if it wasn't for the Queen's intervention, would be selling 'Sussex Royal' merch. Wallis would have preferred to have avoided the marriage and the title altogether (going by the couple of documentaries I have watched on the subject).

Meghan wanted a good marriage with prospects. She was actively looking for a match and networked studiously until a combination of luck and effort presented the opportunity of Britain's (then) most eligible bachelor. She hasn't been 'dumped' with anything. I think Harry's vulnerabilities would have presented themselves long before the marriage. She still wanted in. Others had walked away.

Tongue in cheek, but didn't you help pay for it?

Or was it funded entirely from the Queen's private wealth?

@Delphigirl
Who knows. Interesting that William was reported as being so agitated he vomited and was crying before Harry’s Oprah interview though
I've never heard/seen anything about this. Where did you get this from?

Sounds like it came out of Tina Brown’s arse

If they did have a private Buddhist (or something) ceremony in a garden I don’t think we would have paid for that. We would have paid for t he big do but as Royalists are always telling me, it’s soft diplomacy and worth every penny….

It was a bit awks that the Archbishop of Canterbury had to issue a statement denying that he had conducted an illegal marriage 😬
But mainly the problem I think is the implication that they were pushed into a big wedding to keep the proles happy and none of it was for them. And then it turns out they wanted St Paul’s or Westminster Abbey and were told no 😂

They could easily have had a small and private wedding if they’d wanted, so pretending that they had to compromise on that because of public demand when actually they were asking for something even bigger is pretty dishonest and a bit shit really.

You also have to wonder what material difference it will make to her

Sod all I suspect, Cathy - after all the charities may find it easy to get rid of her, but for the various reasons mentioned I doubt it's so simple for the RF if they want Andrew to remain content

I think a very good example of this is Sarah Ferguson herself and the toe sucking scandal many years ago! Headline news at the time and yet now we all know that her husband was cheating on a far bigger scale!

We were all lead to believe that it was her cheating that resulted in their divorce.

But I suspect they don’t own seventeen or so properties including vast tracts of land!

I wonder if they could have. Imagine the gossip!

@Poirot1983Her behaviour in more recent times is reprehensible but on reflection, SF was treated appallingly. Do you remember the comment ‘The knives are out for Fergie’ from one of the courtiers (possibly Robert Fellowes) when she decided to leave Andrew?
Regarding H and M’s wedding, they could easily have had an arrangement like Charles and Camilla’s. They wanted the spectacle and M wanted a tiara.