Fergie Epstein email

[elprup]

Yet more damaging revelations for the Yorks. How did the Daily Mail manage to get hold of the email I wonder?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15118055/Fergie-Epstein-lies-exposed-bombshell-email-Andrew.html

How many would actually believe what he wrote, he lied to the world in his Emily Maitliss interview.
I expect he is another one who believes his truth is "just as much truth" as "so-called objective facts".

It's a fair point, IAmATorturedPoet, though again I suppose it would depend on what he had to say and if he offered any proof

I very much doubt we'll ever know though, if for whatever reason they continue to keep him comfortable

True. But my opinion isn't very high about them anyway, so nothing would surprise me to be honest.
So much is hidden away
Of course the media would go crazy.

I bet Andrew thinks he is in a really strong position if he does have shocking revelations.

Thanks for the link.

Is this a previously unpublished exerpt from the "we'll play some more soon" email or a different email? It's not very clear but either way it confirms again what we already knew about the bare-faced lying in the interview.

Also seems to bolster the theory that it was indeed Epstein who took the picture.

What a vile piece of work Charmless is and what fools he tried to make of the public who pay for him 😡

I agree and think there’s a possibility that what Andrew and Sarah have been doing all of these years, in terms of murky financial deals, and I’ll slap your back if you slap mine arrangements with dodgy foreign investors , is at the extreme end of what many of the RF are doing and have always done, and they don’t want that exposed.

I’m reading Norman Baker’s book, ‘And What Do You Do?’ atm and it contains an interesting chapter on questionable uses of monies originally raised for Charles’s charities and a lot of questionable sources.

For example. Charles developing a relationship with Enron and being wined and dined in Houston as guest of honour by its founder before the company’s shady dealings were exposed and it went bankrupt.

Tom Bower wrote about Charles’ association with someone described by the Daily Mail as a “shady Turkish billionaire” Cem Uzan who apparently supported Charles’ causes with a cash for access arrangement, and ended up In jail for fraud related offences and had been investigated in the USA for racketeering. And yet he was entertained at Buckingham Palace twice, was taken to polo, and to Ascot, had drinks with Lord Linley etc.

On page 215 of Baker’s paperback, he mentions two examples where surprisingly large proportions of monies raised for Charles’s charitable foundations allegedly ended up with the people running them eg Robert M Higdon who was MD of Charles’ Washington based Foundation.

Another entity was AG Carrick which distributed proceeds from sales of Charles’ art works and subsequently Highgrove products. The Telegraph reported that in 2011 no money had been distributed to charity for two years from a turnover of £4.35 million but AG Carrick had received £40,000 diverted from good causes. The official eventual explanation was that this was caused by losses but it managed to pay £500,000 in employee bills, among them Michael Fawcett.

And then of course there was the dodginess surrounding the fund raising for Dumfries House and Michael Fawcett’s activities, the latter having resigned, is it three times now? What others might call, taking the fall?

https://www.alliancemagazine.org/blog/prince-charles-foundation-under-statutory-investigation/

And yet, everyone continues to look the other way … .

And yet, everyone continues to look the other way …

.....Wasn't that an absolutely gorgeous outfit Catherine was wearing! She looks so well and the colour really suits her! She's such a great ambassador!.....

Sadly few are interested in their misuse of their collective positions.

Thank you @Inotherwordspleasebetrue thanks for those reminders, I have actually read Norman Baker's book twice but quite a few years ago.

I think there is so much that should be questioned but isn't. But being unable to question anything the Monarchy and RF do in parliament, makes it extremely difficult. They are protected. They are totally untouchable.

And yes, it all turns into superficial nonsense... 'look! Kate has a new ring on!'
'Kate has gone blonde!'
and all that sort of bollocks

Yes indeed! It’s depressing really how we are all so easily blinded! Harry and Meghan have been a godsend to the RF in that regard.

The Dumfries House episode in Norman Baker’s book gets even more fascinating. Too long to quote here but the house cost £43 million. And after a lot of fund-raising Charles still had a £20 million funding gap so he secured a loan based on the waterlogged farmland around the house, where Charles intended to build a Scottish Poundbury called Knockroon.

But what is mind-boggling to me is that the local Council had already rejected planning applications for building on this site! But they then apparently capitulated once a Prince was involved (as Charles was then) even though planning law is of course meant to be applicant neutral.

There was still a funding gap which was plugged between 2009 and 2011 via a now defunct investment bank, based in the British Virgin Islands, part of a network of more than seventy offshore companies, according to Baker, who handled billions of Russian dollars, managed by Ruben Vardanyan who strongly denied any criminal activity when interviewed by the BBC.

He said the donations were intended to “preserve architectural heritage in England” despite Dumfries House being in Scotland! And this helped to develop a relationship between him and Charles. In 2013, Charles visited Armenia where Vardanyan was establishing a college, where a tree-lined alley was named Prince Charles alley. Armenian students studied at Dumfries House and Charles thanked the donors. Vardanyan raised a further £1.5 million from
assorted Russian businessmen for which Charles threw a black tie dinner in 2014.

Norman Baker continues the story…

Obviously there was concern from UK government officials who made clear they wanted to see better due diligence before British institutions accept money from offshore foreign companies.

As for the proposed building at Knockroon, the Scotsman reported that of the 770 homes planned, only 31 had been completed and only half of those were owned by members of the public. This may have changed since the book was written. Not sure! But Baker states that the majority were sold to millionaire benefactors.

More financial murkiness is described and I should make it clear that all of this was investigated by The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator which concluded its investigation in to The King’s Foundation Foundation (formerly The Prince's Foundation) with a finding that while the historical governance sometimes failed to meet standards for decision-making and record-keeping, there was no evidence of misconduct by any trustees. OSCR is satisfied with the improvements made to governance practices and no longer has concerns about the overall health of the charity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47441114.amp

https://www.cumnockchronicle.com/news/23737117.dumfries-house-princes-foundation-metropolitan-police-investigation/

´

Kate has a new ring on!'
'Kate has gone blonde!'
and all that sort of bollocks

That's PR. It reminds me of when every stream on Google news entertainment section would inexplicably have a story about Lovely Holly Willoughby wears Lovely Dress. It helped that her husband was a big shot TV producer and she had a huge pr agency boosting her. Princess Kate is literally their only positively thought of member, with the possible exception of prince Edward and Sophie.

By the way does anyone watch the royal news programme on itv, Talking Royals? it was just on. It's billed as a visual podcast. Would there have been a 30 minute programme on national TV talking about the royals say 20 years ago?

https://www.advanced-television.com/2025/09/08/itv-commissions-talking-royals-visual-podcast/

To me it seems obvious that the RF brings its wealth and influence to bear in areas and ways unavailable to the ordinary British citizen.

The planning application relating to Dumfries House mentioned above is one example.

And using its influence to circumnavigate citizenship law, although the latter hasn’t been proven.

See the debacle about the then Prince’s Foundation facing scrutiny following reports in the Mail on Sunday and Sunday Times that the CEO of the Prince’s Foundation, Michael Fawcett, offered to make an application for a knighthood and British citizenship on behalf of a donor from Saudi Arabia after he sent six-figure donations to the Prince’s Foundation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9957943/Prince-Charles-closest-aide-Michael-Fawcett-forced-resign-damning-cash-favours-note.html

Again I should be clear that this was investigated by the Met and no wrongdoing was found:

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/police-ends-probe-into-king-charles-s-charity-over-cash-for-honours-claims.html#:~:text=The%20Met%20has%20concluded%20that,by%20Mahfouz%20or%20the%20king.

The honours system itself can be a murky area depending on who is donating for what reason!

Alliance magazine reported in 2021,
“Think tank and consultancy New Philanthropy Capital, which launched a project recently to promote more openness, emphasised the need for transparency: ‘Controversies over donations for honours would be avoided if philanthropy were more open and inclusive’, said NPC Chief Executive Dan Corry, a former government economist, adding ‘It is not good for the sector if people think it is all about rich people trying to get gongs.’ Corry also suggested it would be ‘naïve’ to think that the desire to receive an honour does not influence some major givers.”

Extremely well put, @Inotherwordspleasebetrue, and this is why I referred to Andrew being a useful lightning rod for these ghastly people

I've no more admiration for him than anyone else, but do get very tired of the "but Andrew" gambit we see so often
Yes he continued to befriend a known paedophile, yes there are question marks over his "charities", and yes he's involved in endless murkiness in the middle east, but how exactly does that differ from his brother?

No wonder we've seen no action from Charles to control him ...

I didn't buy Lownes book. Certainly wouldn't buy Andrew's. He might have been useful to foreign folks once upon a time. I suspect he's well past his sell by date.

I’m curious about the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. Is there the slightest possibility that pressure was brought bear on it when it was investigating matters pertaining to the Prince’s Trust?

All these financial matters are quite complex for ordinary people to understand, myself included. So it's easy to see why most don't really engage.

Andrew being pals with a paedophile and sex involved is much much easier.

Anyone watch the interesting documentary about Charles and William's finances and financial dealings as landlords ?
I think it was on Channel 4, within the past 18 months.

Yes, it was another eye opener about royal finances.

It certainly was eye opening @jumpingthehighjump

I didn't see but heard that some tenants were living in awful conditions. Mould, damp Etc

padronpepper · Today 14:58

I’m curious about the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. Is there the slightest possibility that pressure was brought bear on it when it was investigating matters pertaining to the Prince’s Trust?

We certainly don’t have any proof of that.

The OSCR states in its literature that it is an entirely independent body.

https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-oscr/what-we-do/

It should be noted that the public and Scottish Crown Estate managed land makes up 11% of Scotland – equivalent to around 857,000 hectares.

How can one prove the effects of wealth and influence generally though?

To be clear, I’m not referring to the OSCR here but speaking in general terms.

Questions were asked about the Met investigation in 2023 when it announced it would take no further action after an 18-month investigation in to allegations that the then Prince's Foundation, offered help to secure honours for a Saudi national. The Guardian reported this decision and highlighted criticisms of the Met for ending the inquiry.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/21/met-police-no-further-action-cash-for-honours-claims-king-charity-princes-foundation

Norman Baker’s response was:

“This is an incredibly open and shut case with the evidence provided in writing. It is astonishing how this matter is not being taken forward. We need an explanation from the Crown Prosecution Service and the Met police as to why no action is being taken. But the suspicion must be that no action is being taken because of the nature of the potential offender, rather than a proper assessment of the potential crime.”

Well I don't think we need any explanations as to why the Met haven't done anything!!!

Just another bit of corruption to add to their portfolio.

Deliberately so. Its all ' oh so special complicated rules' thatctheycarexall unfortunately tied to but can't do anything about that benefit them and prevent them from doing things like not charging charities rent or spending money maintaining their own property.

Exactly!

The duchies are a fine case in point, presented in such a way that it's almost impossible to work out what is really going on unless you're a forensic accountant.

Why is Parliament prevented from discussing issues relating to the Royal Family? Why are MPs prevented from asking any questions about Andrew's behaviour (when he was representing the country as Trade Envoy). Why were no questions asked about the cash for honours scandal (investigated by the Office of the Charity Regulator in Scotland). The Speaker quotes Erskine May (the bible of Parliamentary Procedure). Well that needs to be updated and fast imo.
Editing to add a link to a Guardian article of January 2022 which is very informative
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/25/parliament-monarchy-keir-starmer-queen

Excellent post. Thank you.

Worth noting that C paid well over the odds for Dumfries House and the loan was made to his charity rather than to him personally so he wouldn't have been liable had it gone tits up (as it very nearly did). Basically he personally decided it was worth 'saving for the nation' but got others to stump up the dough for his vanity project turned financial millstone.

I'm utterly convinced I read an article a while back in which he was prepared to host dinner and an overnight stay for donors coughing at least £100k but expected them to have committed to the sum before the hospitality otherwise he didn't consider it worth his while turning up.

Damned if I can find it now though 😡

Hastily cobbled together in news special on the Andrew Epstein email on NOW! ON CHANNEL 5!