King Charles treatment of AMW vs PH

[andIsaid]

Does anyone find the contrast really unsettling?

People can say it was wrong of PH to speak about the family etc BUT we cannot say that without also recognizing that KC did exactly the same thing - wrote a book, did the Dimbleby interview etc. In his case though, the late Queen did not cut him off, kick him out of his house etc. Perhaps because he was the heir and perhaps behind the scenes?

No matter what anyone thinks of the rights or wrongs of PH actions, they are not even a shade of grey to AMW.

Revelation after revelation strongly suggests that the family have known all along what they are dealing with.

It is probably why that high profile crisis manager was hired - it suggests they knew what was coming (how did they know?).

For me, this whole debacle highlights that there is real moral paucity in that family and I do wonder why we are stuck with them as our heads of state.

Or a case of "keep your friends close but your enemies closer"?

AMW has known KC a lot longer than PH has, and SF and Diana were pals once.

A billion?

Surely you must have raised an eyebrow at a billion?

Come on now.

The poster seems fair minded though.

She is correct - the focus on the family right now is due to the corrupt and abusive behavior of one of them, and the tendency of others to close ranks around him.

They have done this to themselves.

As the poster said.

Did you read the article?

Also is Kate that popular?

I wondered that.

She has been berated as dull, boring clothes, lazy, doesn't speak well in public.

Meghan seemed confident, driven & outgoing from the outset.

Perhaps the whole structure was too rigid for her?

H seems to have needed it though to support him?

Have you ever actually listened to Meghan?

Scott Rouse from the Behavior Panel just did a comparison of Meghan and Catherine:

It's worth a watch.

I think Meghan has a lovely mellifluous voice

No, actually listened to what she says. The content of her speech.

I see that Andrew STILL HAS RPOs. Why is he allowed to keep tax payer funded security?

The exaggerated vocal fry annoys me - as it does with all (usually) Californians who utilise it. The Kardashian's are notorious for it.

And it's not so much how Meghan speaks but more the content of it. It's the sort of speeches that at the time around good, but when you read it back it's just word salad.

Did anyone respond to this?

Andrew still lives on a royal estate with RPOs. Harry is in court fighting for the right to pay for police. Harry also had his military roles stripped a full year before Andrew. That’s about it.

I don’t think they were continually fed to the wolves at all. Quite the reverse.

Yes, I did.

It does not hold up.

I still raise an eyebrow. Two actually after reading the article!

Andrew still lives on a royal estate with RPOs. Harry is in court fighting for the right to pay for police. Harry also had his military roles stripped a full year before Andrew. That’s about it.

The King has made it clear there is a duty of care to Andrew, his choice but there’s no need to pretend that it exists for Harry who has to sue the Government to pay for security.

Harry court case isn’t about security, that one already happened and he lost.
the new one is against ANL and is quite interesting we have been following it on another thread.

No - Harry is in court suing the Mail over 14 articles that he didn't like (mostly about him and Chelsy) written between 2001 and 2013. For Harry it still seems to be about the noughties and Chelsy.

So far the legal case has cost £38 million.

Errr … no.

And he persuaded Doreen Lawrence to get involved and it really isn’t going well at all.

No the "researchers" for this legal action seem to be worse than the tabloids they are suing having paid cash for witnesses.

The key witness is refusing to appear because he claims to have been threatened by Prince Harry's legal/research team

I wonder what the royal protection officers are going to say about Andrew’s conduct and Harry’s conduct when the whole house of cards comes down?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15579011/Andrews-former-royal-protection-officer-says-told-shut-Met-claimed-ex-prince-brought-women-Buckingham-Palace-multiple-times-week.html

Andrew is toast, for good reasons. I think that’s been agreed on, particularly on this MN board, for a long time.

Will other royals go down with him, and for what? There’s the whole problem of them potentially enabling Andrew and turning a blind eye - that, we know.

There’s also another issue that could bite Harry on the bum. And that is the potential misuse by the ‘principals’ of the royal protection officers to allow them to carry out offences. In Harry’s case it’s on record, for example, that he assaulted photographers and, shamefully, a half-asleep Taylor Hawkins (the late Foo Fighters drummer).

I expect the royal protection officers story will have legs.

sex crimes and assaulting photographers, one and the same uh

You’ve said a whole bunch of nothing.

No, that’s why I clearly distinguished between them.

You are not a serious poster. Bye.

Sex traffickers and abusers swanning in and out of BP but it’s the mixed race woman they choose to investigate for bullying, I have to laugh.

also reports of Andrew bullying staff for years are just surfacing but it’s meghan they released a statement about. Ok.