Palace PR strategy in the wake of AMW-Epstein scandal

[Asmuchastheypossiblycan]

I’ve just seen who I think was a Sky news reporter, reporting on the King’s visit to the Colchester area today, laying out what is obviously the current BP PR strategy in the light of reason developments in the AMW-Epstein scandal.

She said that the Palace wanted it to be made very clear that the RF are very much not ignoring this story and wanting it to go away, and referred her back to Edward’s words about the victims earlier in the week.

But that their policy nonetheless was going to be carry on with their engagements as usual, as they have faced difficulties before, and will do so again.

I’ve no doubt that this is difficult for KC and family but AIBU to think that in the light of what has happened, and the covering up of ALW’s financial and sexual wrongdoings, this isn’t really good enough?

Surely it’s not right that AMW is above the law?

Also, a man in the crowd shouted out a question to KC about whether AMW would be investigated, and two policeman moved him away!

Last time I looked, I thought we lived in a democracy which welcomes free speech?

Why aren’t reporters and members of the public allowed to air their views on this situation and express that AMW should be investigated?

Otherwise isn’t the Palace PR strategy in reality advocating “one rule for them and a different one for us?”

Really @wordler ?

Where were these very good lawyers when the Windsors used their privilege to publicly blacken the name of Andrew’s accuser and use 2 categorical statements that she was lying ?

That was blatant corruption

Absolutely. They thought they could silence her and buy her off. Akin to every other rich and powerful goon out there.

Except these are doing so on our public funds.

BREAKING: The Epstein survivors are releasing this ad on this Super Bowl Sunday to send the message that they will not “move on” from the largest sex trafficking scandal in the world. #standwithsurvivors

https://bsky.app/profile/jimacosta.bsky.social/post/3meegaqgn6c2r

Oh don’t be so melodramatic, ukisgaslit. If someone makes allegations against you, you are entitled to defend yourself. The central issue of the case was whether Andrew and Virginia had sex on the three times she alleges, and whether Andrew believed she had consented if they did.

I know we all like to think we know what happened between them. We can certainly come down very hard one way now since Andrew’s clearly demonstrated himself to be a habitual liar. But none of us were there at the time and none of us know what happened. And, taking hindsight out of the question, Andrew’s lawyers, Andrew’s family and the Palace’s PR team obviously were being told, vehemently, at the time by Andrew that he didn’t do this. And they are entitled to act on that - they weren’t there in the room with them either and each side can only go on what the party they are dealing with tells them.

The case was also settled without an admission of liability from Andrew (the agreed statement they put out at the time specifically said so). So no, this is not corruption.

Again @Serenster you are placing your whole argument on a falsehood

You are trying to equate the Windsors with you or I.

But the Windsors are not that .
They are our head of state and head of state religion
Moreover they knew that Virginia was telling the truth .
They had known for years .
That the Windsors used their privileged position not once but twice to try to shut down accusations- accusations we now all know were true - was abuse of power

Moreover they knew that Virginia was telling the truth

How?

@Serenster

And as you argue that we can all defend ourselves in court , which of course we can , why then did Elizabeth pay off Andrew’s accuser ?
Andrew wanted his day in court we are told
In fact he could have it now if he wasn’t being protected by the Windsors .

And, taking hindsight out of the question, Andrew’s lawyers, Andrew’s family and the Palace’s PR team obviously were being told, vehemently, at the time by Andrew that he didn’t do this.

I have to say, this doesn't wash with me. Continually, there were questions about Andrew, for years. Very many will have tried to go through channels to warn QE2 what was going on. Charles strongly advised her that Andrew should not take on a TE role.
She knew. Others knew. So to take Andrew at his word was pretty stupid to say the least. He was heavily involved with dodgy people in the middle east and obviously Epstein. Yet they took him at his word. God knows why

@Serenster

How ? Seriously ?
The multi million pound security we pay for that’s how

And we have an email exchange where Epstein complains about the very statement that BP put out and aide said he’d be in touch with the palace press office an ‘find out ‘ who issued the statement !
The palace aide then asked that Epstein keep them informed so they could prepare .

Do keep up

There are any many excellent reasons why people, yes, even people who have done nothing wrong, settle cases to avoid the cost, risk and uncertainty of a trial. Add in a foreign court, a jury trial and a scandalous subject matter and Andrew settling was an entirely sensible decision. His legal team would have been telling him to avoid going to court.

It was an entirely sensible call for Virginia Guffre to make too - she would have faced an incredibly difficult cross examination given she had recently withdrawn allegations that Alan Dershowitz had sexually abused her, eventually saying she had been mistaken when he sued her for defamation. Her legal team would have been telling her to avoid going to court.

A case this high stakes for both parties when they both had absolutely everything to loose? Absolutely normal for it to be settled. 90% of civil claims are settled.

And show me who else at Buckingham Palace read those emails? And was Andrew’s security team in the bedroom with him and Virginia?

Your argument depends on the Royal family (and I suppose you mean the Queen) being omniscient, and being closely briefed about everything her adult son, with his own house and own office team, was doing, seeing and corresponding with. Presumably the Queen did that for all her children too? And her grandchildren? And the other working royals? It’s a wonder she had time to get anything done. The security guards are there to guarantee safety. They are not spies.

I’m not saying it’s ethical but lawyers don’t always take feelings about morality into account when advising clients what to do best to protect their own interests.

You don’t believe Andrew and the monarch took legal advise then and now?

This particular thread asks what palace PR should do now - I read that to mean what should they do to protect the monarchy.

That’s why I imagine there’s some difficult discussions going on between PR and legal.

@Serenster

That’s a long post that didn’t really go anywhere

They settled because the Windsors can never face a court case

Let’s hope there’s a few on the way .

You don’t address my other points and I’m sure it’s clear to everyone that the statements put out by Buckingham Palace, using their position to denigrate Andrew accuser , all before anything had reached courts was an abuse of power
It was also totally unnecessary. To me it indicated panic .

They knew that Andrew had years of a close relationships with Epstein , they knew that Epstein was convicted of solicitation of a child
Yet they didn’t condemn Epstein.

They condemned an innocent woman and no doubt hoped to slap her down

Lawyers are only acting unethically if they know their client is lying to them and continue to act for them and assert they are not guilty. Otherwise, they are perfectly entitled to advise them as they normally world.

Even if you know your client is guilty, your lawyer is still entitled to defend you by making sure the other side has proved their case to the appropriate legal standard. They can also point to mitigating factors. This is perfectly legal and ethical as it’s an important protection for everyone. No-one should face legal consequences when the decision is not properly made.

I think it’s quite clear we’re unlikely to agree, ukisgaslit. Dismissing my posts wholesale probably doesn’t help!

I think the men in grey suits and security officers knew exactly what was going on and the Queen was told a sanitised version.

@Serenster

You asked how I know they knew?
You won’t accept that the multimillion pound security would have informed BH that a convicted pedophile was regularly visiting.
I do not believe that but you can believe what you want.
But we know that Andrew asked his security staff to ‘dig up dirt’ on Virgina and that Andrew had ( illegally of course) obtained her national insurance number
Andrew then emailed the queens office to boast about this .
This was several years before BH abused their position and publicly stated that VG was lying .

@Emotionalsupporttissue

Perhaps .
I do not think Elizabeth was the person we are told she was
But no matter - she could think what she
likes .
What she should not have done however was abuse her privileged position to bring down the full weight of the institution on Virginia and publicly call Andrew’s accuser a liar .

You know an awful lot about the inner workings of the Palace, the Royal family and the Met security services, ukisgaslit. Or at least, you think you do….

These have all been reported on

There's a very interesting AMA over on Reddit in progress by a former member of staff the Royal Household.

Now THAT I would find amusing.

I remember on one occasion at the Polo Charles was horrified to see Harry cleaning his own boots. That tells you such a lot.

Poor innocent Queen. No one told her anything that was going on in her own household. Maybe they should pick their staff more wisely?