Optics Check: Waleses public support for Andrew: William and Catherine’s driving and embracing Andrew is a massive error?

[Foxypuppy]

Are the Waleses and the Andrew Unity Drive A bridge too far? Seriously, why were William and Catherine protecting Andrew?

I’ve always been a supporter of the Prince and Princess of Wales, but I am finding it harder and harder to defend their recent excuses and petty behavior regarding 'family unity'.

Specifically, I’m looking at the optics of William personally driving Prince Andrew to church at Balmora Daily Mail report here

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12449837/Prince-William-drives-disgraced-uncle-Prince-Andrew-church-Balmoral.html

This wasn't just a family carpool; it was a deliberate, televised statement of support. William was in the driver's seat, Andrew in the passenger seat, and Catherine in the back.

At the same time, we have royal commentators like Jennie Bond stating that William and Catherine would 'rather have Andrew as a neighbour than Meghan and Harry. Independent article here

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/william-kate-meghan-harry-frogmore-b2295732.html.

I understand that family dynamics are complicated and that they feel betrayed by the Sussexes' interviews. However:

1. Harry and Meghan are a family feud involving books and Netflix deals, though they couldnt protect Meghan against racism, not even make an statement
2. Prince Andrew is a man associated with Jeffrey Epstein, impliyed in e-mails to ne object in the death of a girl, hes a well known liar and with multi-million dollar settlement alongside much other bizarre stuff.

How can William and Catherine justify being part of the face of Andrew’s rehabilitation even after he was impliyed while being so publicly cold toward William’s own brother? Does anyone else feel like their moral compass is slightly off here? Surely a sister-in-law isn't worse than the Andrew crimes? Why he royal family and media even tried to protect him and only acted this year?

That list is an absolute joke !

That being said, there are photos of Meghan holidaying with a group of women in S. France and one of the women is Epsteins’ girlfriend, Karyna Shuliak. We know from the files, she was brought to the US by Epstein from Belarussia, so she must have been Epstein’s girlfriend at that point when they were holidaying together. Interesting she is referred to in the Epstein files as Meghan Markle and not as her married name, while Harry is referred to by his Duke of Sussex title, also Virginia Guiffre planning on calling Meghan as a witness in the PA case.

It’s intriguing that only the Yorks and Sussex’s names, from the British Royal family, come up in the Epstein files.

Epstein seemed to have had tentacles everywhere.

Meghan and Harry are part of the RF so yes, they are complicit in the cover up, and like the rest of them, Harry especially as he was there longer, turned a blind eye. However they are also fairly irrelevant to the RF going forward. The King could strip the titles from the children and that would be that. He hasn't done it. Neither Harry or his children are realistically going to be Heads of State. William and one of his children will. With no say for anyone in the matter.
Saying 'But Harry and Meghan...' all the time is not going to stop this happening again in the future. They are irrelevant to the future of the Monarchy. What will is the RF being scrutinised far more robustly, a thorough and independent investigation into the Royal Household and the Royal Protection Officers who were complicit and for the culture of deference to them to be well and truly gone.

I really think H and M would be a bit annoyed if they were considered “ irrelevant to the future of the Monarchy” @RainbowBagels ! Given their insistence on titles being used at all times and Harry ‘s (bewildering ) assertion that A and L could choose to be working Royals it seems that they see themselves very much as part of the future!

Exactly,I think Meghan is the only Royal who has publicly declared the ‘birthright’ of her children.

Actually, I think Andrew has said something similar about his daughters.

Well it doesn't matter what they think really, does it? According to the current rules, they will not be 'working Royals' and are irrelevant. They have titles because Charles, the only person who has the power to remove them, has decided not to. He can fantasise about them being working Royals as much as he likes ( much as AMW did) but they cannot be. This is why the RF needs to be reduced drastically to just the Monarch and the heir. None of this 'Of the male line' business. None of them to have Prince/Princess titles unless they are children of the Monarch or heir. I would go further and say only the heir should have them, and only the heir should be expected to be a 'working Royal. The rest of them have the same status and titles as Zara, Peter, Lord Snowdon and Margaret's daughter who's name I've forgotten.

It was Harry actually.

Harry said it as well? They do love their RF status.

Why would/should have KC stripped their titles?

Some of these comments are really depressing. One thread has hundreds of comments saying that W&C's children need to be protected due to being in such an unusual position; inappropriate contact with the public; abnormal fawning over them etc, and then Catherine now gets criticised for wanting to be present for said children.

Secondly, why is her involvement/deals with Branson any worse than any other business dealings? You think if she had any idea re parties on his island, she'd have spent time and made deals with him?

Additionally, the comments re her not speaking up about AMW seem to be more angry/venomous(?) than some other comments re the royal men.

Why on earth is she getting so much flak for vile men's actions?

Because re Bea and Eugenie, they are using their titles to schmooze in the ME like their parents and Archie and Lilli will just be 2 American kids with irrelevant titles. There is no need for them to have them ( not that there is any need for any of them to have them).

Interesting that QEII was able to opt out of royal life for a couple of years around 1949-51 and moved to Malta, leaving her very young kids behind in the UK with the Queen Mother - so she could live a quiet life as a navy officer's wife.

Both the Queen and Diana chose to pack their kids off to boarding school at the age of 8 - and Diana only did half of the holidays because she and Charles were separated.

Knowing what is coming I think the Wales family are wise to be present in their life when the kids are young rather than leave their upbringings to staff and boarding schools.

I find it interesting that the only comment that Harry has made has been to deny that he punched Andrew in the face. I haven't seen Lownie's response to that.

However, since Harry seems to spend so much time talking to the press - First Amendment, Trump, social media, etc. you'd expect him to say something about the Epstein victims.

Does anyone know if Epstein used social media to find his young victims? Just wondering.

One very disturbing thing to come out is the head guy of the Lifetouch company which does the majority of annual school portraits for schools across the US was very involved with Epstein.

So photos, school info and often home addresses of millions of kids from 5 years old collected by this company.

That's so worrying.

The tentacles seem to be everywhere. I actually don’t know what to think anymore.

Protecting her children? 🙄 By letting them hang around Andrew, who was just moved to Wood Farm earlier this month following the newest DOJ dropsqnd vacationing on yachts owned by billionaires with 'bloody money'?

Let’s be real: while some royalist people spread AI-generated fake news about Meghan, the literally show William’s own charity, the Earthshot Prize, being reported to the Charity Commission. Why? Because their 'founding partner' (Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem) was just outed in the Epstein files as the guy Epstein sent 'torture video' jokes to. If Kate wants to be a stay-at-home mom and look the other way while the men around her do business with these people and she does appearance with greasy Andrew and Sarah, that’s her choice, but then no one shouldn't be paying her a taxpayer-funded salary to do it. If you don't work enough or do anything to protect the people, you shouldn't be on the payroll. Simple.

What evidence do you have that the Wales DC “ hang around Andrew “?
Wood Farm is around 4 miles away from Amner Hall.

Goodness, double negatives and incomprehensible sentences galore. Are you quite ok?