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

The late queen obviously had a massive blind spot where Andrew was concerned. Unfortunately this now looks as if it is going to taint her legacy.

Having said that, Andrew had two parents and his father doesn't appear to have done anything to try to rein him in either.

The entitlement and greed of the Yorks is incredible. They lived the most privileged lifestyle imaginable and it still wasn't enough.

I have never really had any strong opinions about the RF. They are just there as far as I am concerned and although I am not convinced that abolition would result in anything better I think there does need to be a lot more transparency and scrutiny of their behaviour.

‘Last night a spokesman for the Duchess said that Epstein had threatened to sue her for defamation after her Evening Standard interview and she had been advised to try and 'assuage' him. ‘

That is an utterly ridiculous excuse, the guy had already made a plea deal admitting to soliciting a minor for prostitution, there is no way he could have sued anyone for defamation.

More lies.

Exactly. How could she had been advised that he had any case whatsoever for defamation when he was a convicted paedophile? More likely she learnt from the RF that you can do something shady, and if you get caught- there's a handy supply of lackeys willing to fall on their sword to take the blame!

What happened the £15 million they got from the Kazakh guy who,purchased Sunninghill? The Queen gifted that to them, so should have been cash in their pocket, did Sarah not get half the proceeds of that ?

Hear hear to this! 👏👏👏

That is quite...a read.

I tend to always try hard to get to the level that others are at.

So all the toiletries and beauty treatments: after decades of mocking and derogatory newspaper articles about her weight, her style and her looks, I can understand perhaps developing a paranoia and feeling the need to always have loads of toiletries and make up. I can't blame her for that, I remember the nasty stories.

I think weirdly the two things I found most shocking were owing the off-licence £500 - because one always sees people down on their luck at the local Newsagent begging to pay the few extra pence or a quid or two later, but you don't expect royalty to be in that position - and not paying her staff, and then expecting them to work out their leave unpaid, including Princess Alexandra's own granddaughter!!

I actually think Meghan fits in, and why not just let her merch off her Royal title.

They all rather seem to have a huge sense of entitlement!

Or it is just confined to the Yorks. I have no idea how princess Anne manages her budget or E&S. Whether they are as wasteful with food, private rentals etc

One needs context.

Why does no one hold the Royals accountable for their spending? Shouldn’t the govt be scrutinising how they spend taxpayers money? It’s disgraceful.

@Bladderpool Duke Of Pork 😂

There was also a rather jaw dropping post on Reddit for royal gossip pertaining to the Lownie book that said one of her lovers had a father that was convicted for the murder of a teenage girl in the 60s, and she ended up somehow creating a Love checks Quadrangle involving her, her lover, his mistress, her father and possibly someone else as a means to get back at Andrew who'd already slept with 12 women in the first year of their marriage.

It's been deleted now 😔

I don’t think people care about selling jam, though it does show a lack of imagination! It was more the other aspects. Having no intention of being a Royal in terms of service, lying about the RF, invading other people’s privacy eg Harry’s Spare but complaining about anyone commenting on them, the obsessive virtue signalling, calling the British racist and moaning and smearing about petty nonsense eg wearing tan tights, lip gloss, an Ikea lampshade, when they had such privilege. Selling jam and moving to California was not a problem in and of itself.

Yes, not paying the local newsagent £500 debt stuck out to me too, but then that’s just the “little people”! She must have been hugely chaotic to have been so spendthrift and careless at the same time. I mean she wasn’t working as such and had assistants as well - so plenty of time.

What most people refer to as the taxpayers money - the Sovereign Grant - which is a percentage of the profits from the Crown estates is monitored by government oversight and a government appointed board of trustees who publish annual accounts. What’s released to the public is not as detailed as I’d like but you can see the areas where the money goes.

The main bulk is to staffing wages and pensions, and buildings upkeep. Travel expenses for royal engagements come out of this too.

For anyone doing Royal ‘duties’ (apart from the male heir) their ‘wage’ comes from the monarch’s Duchy of Lancaster budget. So they are dependent on the monarch for their income. If the heir is male then they get the Duchy of Cornwall income to fund their household.

So when the Queen was alive she was funding all her children apart from Charles. He was funding himself and the households of William and Harry.

The Queen bought Gatcombe for Anne which she lives on, runs as a business and houses both her kids and their families.

Edward and Sophie tried making it in the commercial world away from Royal duties but when that failed plus the scandal of the fake sheik story they were quietly integrated back into the family firm and presumably funded by the Queen and now Charles.

The issue is that if you are going to represent the Crown as a working Royal you have to live within your means as determined by whatever the monarch decides to fund you. When you can’t do that you end up with the shady HIHO York wheeling and dealings.

So you have to ask why didn’t they both live within their means? So much of the problem stems from boredom I think. Having no job or meaningful way to spend your time, leaves a huge vacuum which becomes filled with the desire to seek gratification.

Yes probably. And for some people, being wealthy beyond comprehension is never enough. They want more

I think a lot also comes down to the company you keep. If you are surrounded by billionaires when your income level is millionaire and you have an entitled personality - rather than a grateful one - then you never feel satisfied.

Yes not paying “the little people”.
Disgusting 🥲
Mama and Papa Middleton’s company went bust and was sold on for a pittance.
Did the “little people” aka small suppliers ever get paid ?
Or HMRC ?

Agree, which is one of the reasons why they whole thing needs to be reduced to just the Monarch and heir. The rest of them need to find a purpose in their lives and find jobs with their hugely expensive educations and name recognition, just like the cousins of the heirs have to now. They are surrounded by people who are wealthier than them because they have access to the super wealthy, not on merit but because of who their mum/dad/brother is. The uber wealthy people are are often highly intelligent and manipulative. Which means minor members of a pretty dim family who are used to people doing everything for them and having strings pulled all over the place are easily flattered by wealthy people far cleverer than they are. They live a life getting handouts from their older sibling/parent with the prospect of doing nothing useful with their lives and getting more and more irrelevant. They are going to be dazzled by baubles they cant afford.

If you think of previous monarchs in history they had more of a role I think.

1. Military. Eg. Fighting France. Or the Crusades. Kings sometimes actually died in battle.
2. Religious. Kings and Queens often saw themselves as important religious (Christian) figures. Sometimes with real commitment. Even as special representatives of G*d on earth.
3. They cared about their countrymen and their country, to varying degrees and sometimes at least saw themselves as moral leaders.

It’s an interesting subject.

What happens if you are mainly a titular monarch? Eg. Prince William, if King, will be head of the Church of England - but has said recently that he’s not esp “religious” 🤷‍♀️!

Of course kings and princes (ie. usually males) have sometimes ran around having their way with various damsels, it seems par for the course and hardly surprising tbh. But if you have no genuine role, as in the Modern Era, I can see how a focus on money can become the mainstay of your horizons, with all the downsides that entails.

This.

Is she still facing criminal charges in Turkey ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17956643

re. meaningful roles as alluded to by @Letmeoutodhere . One of the ways in which the modern monarchy has established itself in relation to “the people“, I believe, is through general charity and voluntarywork. In the absence of a military or a religious role. Princess Anne is obviously a stalwart example here. In my local area, in Dorset, she visited a voluntary eco lookout body, Im not even a monarchist especially but it was nice to hear about it (after the fact!)

However, when charity work becomes just another arm of public relations, you are really in a bind and a fix. Eg. How could Sarah Ferguson be a patron of a charity that she hasn’t even had anything to do with for years. How can Prince Harry be a primary patron of an African charity, when he hasn’t visited for over five years? Or, Invictus, where there are questions over expenses, and PR e.g. using video for a Netflix documentary without permission.

The charities themselves, of course, get a royal patron. But how worthy is that in reality?

I believe there are lots of very rich people who give a lot of money to charity, completely or nearly completely anonymously. I believe Bill Gates has given a lot of money to research on malaria, for example. It really is awful when the Royal family or celebrities in general use charity as a PR exercise, unconscionable.

To add, the number of charities that Sarah Ferguson seem to be involved with, is simply in terms of sheer numbers,off the charts. I have a very small familiarity with Julia‘s House charity in Dorset. She has never been mentioned as a patron. What does that say? A meaningless and opportunist collusion of interests? Or is that me being cynical?

Are these sleeping patron charity roles just another meaningless, titular activity, or even worse, an adjunct to their own (the royal and the charity’s) PR in other words?

Some of the Royals are much more actively involved with 'their' charities (and arguably provide more benefit to them) than others. But overall I think the royals' charity 'work' is just an empty PR exercise. We now know that Charles & William directly profit through rents from cash-strapped charities as well as public services, to the tune of millions.

Good question.

It finally sold in 2007. They already had the very sweet deal on the RL lease (2003) and they didn't purchase the ski chalet (unsurprisingly more debt controversy there) until 2014 while the mews house purchase was a few years after that. I can't see either of them leaving £15m burning a hole in their pocket for that long so maybe spunked on parties, frocks, holidays and gifts as per?