Buckingham Palace shut down an ABC News report on Jeffrey Epstein in 2015

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II leads the royal family out on the balcony to view the flypast by the RAF at Trooping the Colour on Saturday 8 June 2019

I genuinely believe that there are so many stories – big, massive stories – which journalists and media outlets continue to sit on or bury for fear of being the first to break the story. We saw that with Harvey Weinstein – so many people knew so much for many years, and the New York Times and Ronan Farrow were exploring it separately, only NBC buried Farrow’s story and it took a while for the NYT reporters to finally get to break it. Something similar happened with Bill Cosby – many people knew a lot about him, but it took so long for the story to reach critical mass (which turned out to be Hannibal Burress making a joke). What else? We knew Matt Lauer was a sleaze but no one would say it out loud. And yes, so many people knew so much about Jeffrey Epstein for years, before he was arrested in 2008, and after he completed his bulls–t house arrest in 2010.

After 2010, everything should have been a blur of tell-all stories from Epstein’s many victims. He should have been persona non grata everywhere, to everyone. Journalists should have been lining up to help his victims tell their stories. None of that happened. Even back in 2015-2016, Amy Robach at ABC tried to put together a comprehensive piece about Epstein and Virginia Giuffre (Roberts) and… apparently, ABC killed it. Keep in mind that this was pre-Me Too. Project Veritas published a video of Amy Robach talking on a hot mic about how her bosses killed the story:

I… don’t really understand why this is some kind of “gotcha” moment for ABC or Amy Robach. I would think that many journalists pre-2019 have tried to do big, in-depth stories on Epstein and his connections and his crimes, only to be turned down by their editors, publishers or networks. Amy was just the one caught on a hot mic. What is interesting is the implication that once Buckingham Palace learned of the ABC investigation, they exerted pressure to shut it down:

“I’ve had this story for three years. I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts,” she says in the video. “We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told, ‘Who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.’ Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid that we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will. That also quashed the story…. It was unbelievable what we had. [Bill] Clinton — we had everything. I tried for three years to get it on to no avail and now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new revelations. And I freaking had all of it. I’m so pissed right now. Every day I get more and more pissed…. What we had was unreal.”

“Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.” Yep. The Queen isn’t some sweet old biddy with a gold piano. She’s an a–hole who protects her rapist son (her favorite son) and parlays access to her “popular” grandchildren as a way to shut down stories about the relatives she actually cares about. I don’t believe the Queen was sitting there, bitching out some ABC News executive over the phone. But she has a vast network of PR lackeys who can exert pressure and make threats. And we see once again… the palace has the power to shut down stories about Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein… but somehow it’s beyond their control to shut down at least *some* of the racist as f–k narratives around the Duchess of Sussex? No. The palace doesn’t do anything about Meghan’s treatment because they don’t want to.

ABC News released a statement about Robach’s hot mic and they just made it sound like they buried the story because Robach didn’t really have the story nailed down. Robach also released her own statement:

“As a journalist, as the Epstein story continued to unfold last summer, I was caught in a private moment of frustration. I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn’t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations. My comments about Prince Andrew and her allegation that she had seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private island were in reference to what Virginia Roberts said in that interview in 2015. I was referencing her allegations — not what ABC News had verified through our reporting. The interview itself, while I was disappointed it didn’t air, didn’t meet our standards. In the years since no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.”

[From THR]

I mean… what she says now is blatantly covering her bosses’ asses. It’s clear from the video that she believed she had enough to air the story back in 2015. She probably also feels like she let Virginia down. But yeah… again, a lot of people knew a lot of information about Epstein, but so many media outlets killed the story.

Britney Spears, Sam Asghari attends The Beauty Awards in Los Angeles

Duke of York Pitch@Palace event

Queen's Christmas broadcast

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid and WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

224 Responses to “Buckingham Palace shut down an ABC News report on Jeffrey Epstein in 2015”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Oh No says:

    ABC is trash. Liz is trash. Andy is a sexual predator who should rot in hell.

    If this is what we know, it makes my stomach roll to think of all the things we don’t

    • mk says:

      agreed and the Queen is trash too, she should rot with Prince Andrew-Epstein. I think we should all rename this prince as Prince Andrew-Epstein, forever binding the two together in social media.

      • Amy Too says:

        I’m fond of Prince Rapey McEpstein-Buddy.

        But otherwise agree. They are all trash. The Queen is weak and ineffectual where it matters (standing up to Borris, standing up for Meghan and Harry) and corrupt and dangerous otherwise. I never used to think this way about her, but the more I learn, the more I’m just disgusted. She is trash. The majority of her born-in family is trash. They’re not just weak and stupid, they’re outright dangerous. They’re championing a rapist pedophile and contributing to racist, xenophobic, misogynist bullying.

      • Nahema says:

        While I’m not here to defend the Queen, I would question how much of this is her doing. I find it hard to believe that she has the wits and savvy to predict these issues, let alone deal with them. I suspect that there are people who control her more than she controls them, even if she doesn’t know it.

        I also think she gives zero F’s about Meghan. There was lots of reporting on here about how much the Queen loves her in the early days, after the wedding but I think her outings with Meghan were more to make her look good than anything else. I still believe that the monarchy is strongly anti-American because history and because of Wallis Simpson. Remember a car that was used to transport Wallis Simpson was also used at H&M’s wedding? The Queen knows the significance of that.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Nahema I’m slightly confused as to what point you’re trying to make. In your first paragraph you say you think she isn’t as witty/savvy as people think, but in the second you say that she knew the significance of using that car at the wedding. IMO it needs to be one or the other.

        Personally I think she knows exactly what she’s doing, but none of us can know for sure. I do agree that courtiers seem to exert way more control than they should be able to, but I believe she ultimately has to sign off on everything.

      • Nahema says:

        @Lorelei I think both are possible. I think the Queen is shady and it’s been well known for years that she remembers the significance of jewellery/outfits/cars etc but I don’t think she could make power moves on her own. There are probably areas that she has a hand in but courtiers who amplify this according to their own personal feelings.

      • Amy Too says:

        But the Queen is so old and has been reigning so long now that probably everyone who works for her is someone she hired herself on purpose. It’s not like she’s some ingenue who’s just moved into the palace and has to work with a bunch of courtiers who have been there forever, and are older and more experienced than her, and she’s just waiting for them to die so she can replace them with “her people.” She’s been Queen FOREVER. I bet her people do a lot of work on her behalf, maybe not consulting her specifically on everything, but I think that’s because she trusts them to fulfill her wishes and follow the tone, traditions, and workplace culture that she herself has set over the decades and decades that she’s been Queen.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “I also think she gives zero F’s about Meghan”

        I so agree with the above statement because I personally believe QEII gave “zero F’s” about Diana. According to a Lady Colin Campbell, QEII once referred to Diana as “this tiresome girl we now have on our hands”. I find this very interesting because, again according to a Lady Colin Campbell book, QEII really liked (loved???) Sarah Ferguson.

    • DaisySharp says:

      Yes, mine too. If all the stories are ever told, will any powerful man be standing? I mean, we’ve heard things about Bill Gates and Epstein for god sakes. We don’t even know what we don’t know. It’s mind boggling. If it all ever comes out I think we wouldn’t be able to take it all in.

      Edit to say, well, Obama. President Obama will be left standing. I have many issues with him, but I do trust his integrity and character.

      Okay, so who else?

    • sandy says:

      I’m trusting ABC News over Project Veritas. PV is extremely shady—they were behind those anti-planned parenthood videos a few years ago, which were selectively edited.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Thank you! People should do some due diligence about what Project Veritas really is and what their agenda is. It ain’t got anything to do with the Royal Family.
        p.s. I also trust ABC’s legal and editorial department over the hot mike ramblings of Amy Robach.

      • Betsy says:

        Yeah, this gives me pause based on the Project veritas connection. It certainly sounds plausible, but this would be the first time Project Veritas was actually correct.

        That said….. it’s clear that very many rich and/or famous men are very very guilty of gross crimes. When does the dam break? When are they going to be named? We know Prince Andrew epstein and Alan Dershowitz; so far everyone else is just whispers.

        “No. The palace doesn’t do anything about Meghan’s treatment because they don’t want to” and to this I have to say, yeah, I think the smears are coming from or at the behest of William.

      • Becks1 says:

        I don’t understand what you mean when you say you are trusting ABC News over PV. ABC isn’t saying this video is fake or was doctored in anyway. They’re just saying they had other reasons for not pursuing the Epstein story at that time.

      • Le4Frimaire says:

        They’re really scummy and have doctored and edited videos that have gotten people wrongfully fired. However, I think their angle was more about getting the “ liberal media” and Clinton, than the Royals. Also, neither ABC or Rorbach denied the contents of the video. The main reason I think mainstream press isn’t covering it more is because Veritas is so biased with an obvious right wing agenda. James O’Keefe doesn’t care for the victims of pedophiles, just exposing the liberals. The royal thing is a side bar, but exposes how things operate. This type of stuff is usually gossip fodder over there, but not a word from a single royal reporter.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Sandy, Becks is right. PV is trash but Amy Robach came right out and made a statement admitting that she did make those comments. Regardless of PV’s reasons for releasing it, which I agree are shady and meant to make the “liberal media” look bad, it did still actually happen.

        I’m more interested in what the ramifications for the Palace will be.

      • Megan says:

        The source is way too sketchy. Until Ronan says it’s true, I will remain skeptical.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        IMHO, Ronan needs to jump on the Prince Andrew aspect of the Epstein story.

    • Nancy K. Barton says:

      There are hundreds of people who work/have worked at the Palace. I doubt very much that her Secretary asked what to do about reports of Prince Andrew on Epstein’s island in 2015. It’s far more likely that staff just automatically went into protection mode. Now that it’s hit the press, of course she knows. But her reaction to events tends to be do nothing; wait and see. There are hundreds of books written about her, after all.

      I’m not excusing Andrew, I just think it’s very unlikely the Queen ordered pressure to prevent his behavior becoming public knowledge, Now that it has become public knowledge, I’m sure she does know and is involved in any decisions regarding his legal position.

  2. Tanguerita says:

    I strongly feel that we don’t talk nearly enough about how shitty Queen’s behavior has been for decades. Her age shouldn’t be an excuse for her appalling conduct.

    • Seraphina says:

      Yes! I am getting pissed just thinking how fooled the public is with that God Save The Queen bullshit and how great she is. She cares about NO ONE but herself and her family. Actually, she cares only about keeping her cushy lifestyle and money. I recall a show I saw on Netflix about how the Russian Imperial family was denied to come to England for fear of how it may affect the BRF. And when it was revealed relative of the RRF broke down in tears. They only think about them selves. 😡

      • Becks1 says:

        @Seraphina – I found that fascinating. (it was episode one of The Royal House of Windsor.) The whole thing about how the British royal family made some very cold decisions to maintain power and status. It was awful. (I watched that about a year ago, and then after I made my husband watch The Windsors and he was all, “the royal family is German?” I made him watch that episode lol.)

      • Seraphina says:

        @Becks1, yes!!!! To all you said. It always shook me to think how heartless the King was to deny life to the Czar and his family. Crazy. All they care about is keeping that cushy lifestyle and the power that comes with it. and being able to pass it from the oldest on down.

        I once read some crazy story that the BRF are lizards or something. I thought, how crazy but it’s actually very on point: cold blooded— to the bone.

      • Nic919 says:

        Nicholas was first cousin to George V. And yet he let his cousin and his family get slaughtered.

      • Nia says:

        Exactly.And Diana and Meghan are others examples of their cruelty and selfishness

      • Iris's Grandaughter says:

        Just a thought. BP is all about protecting The Crown at all cost. What if, BP is protecting the 2nd in line by appearing to coddle TQ’s favourite son (TQFS). A bit of a conspiracy theory but what if TQFS has the goods on the 2nd in line and is using it a leverage?

      • Becks1 says:

        @Iris’s GD – you’re saying that Andrew could “out” William (Rose hanbury or something similar?) and the price for his silence is protection from BP?

      • Iris's Grandaughter says:

        @Becks1 – In my mind it can not be only as simple as TQ is protecting her favourite son, there has to be more. And, protecting The Crown and those in line to wear it is most important to BP Courtiers.

      • Holly hobby says:

        Yeah I vaguely remember the Russian family thing. I think the tsarina was related to Queen Victoria (daughter?). They flat out refused to let them in and they got murdered.

      • Holly hobby says:

        Brf are German because Victoria’s husband/cousin was. Yeah I watched the first two seasons of Victoria. Haha

      • Becks1 says:

        @holly – not sure about the tsarina herself, but Tsar Nicholas was a first cousin to King George (V? the Queen’s grandfather.) They basically looked like twins.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Holly hobby, The Tsarina Alexandra was Queen Victoria’s granddaughter via her second daughter Alice who married the Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine. King Edward VII was her maternal uncle. Therefore, Alexandra (Alix) was a first cousin to George V.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        BP is protecting Andrew because he’s a member of the royal family (Meghan just married into it, so she’s only a member as long as her marriage lasts), not because the Queen loves him. Which is why Charles will continue to protect Andrew after the Queen dies. They probably ALL have shady finances and connections, so they cannot allow a member of the family to be sued, subpoenaed, criminally charged, etc. It would set a bad precedent. Otoh, Meghan is an African-American — and attacks on her for being African-American is not something the rest of the royal family has to ever worry about, so they don’t care about *that.*

      • Smalltown Girl says:

        Hollyhobby actually the British Royal Family are German because Queen Anne had no living children and left the throne to her second cousin George of Hanover and then threw Victoria and Albert. They had stronger ties to German than England.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Becks1, I add in Prince Michael of Kent for royal triplets.

      • Tigerlily says:

        I think George V wanted to help out/rescue the Russian Imperial Family (his mother Queen Alexandra & Nicolas’s mother Tsarina Marie/Dagmar were sisters; Tsarina Alexandra/Alix was Queen Victoria’s granddaughter & also sister to Prince Philip’s grandmother…phew). At the time though there was a lot of anti German sentiment in England (after WWI) and the British royals were thought to be too German, hence the name change to Windsor. I think they felt saving the Russian Imperial Family would open them up to more criticism and George V waffled.

        Having re-read what I just wrote, what are the chances that being so g-d inbred makes the Royals a bit….um…oh never mind.

    • Jen says:

      But she wears colorful dresses so people can see her and came to the throne at an early age! That totally excuses her covering for a pedophile, moving money to offshore investments to avoid taxes, mismanaging funds that were designated to repair her palaces, and allowing racists to continue to represent the crown!

    • Kk2 says:

      Agree. Maybe we can stop pretending the queen is a sweet old lady now.

    • Flying Fish says:

      Exactly.

    • Sof says:

      Yes, I can’t believe there wasn’t more rage when she appeared in the Paradise Papers. This woman lives off tax payers’ money but chooses to invest her own fortune offshore?

    • minx says:

      The whole family are despicable freeloaders.

  3. Sierra says:

    I can see why Harry has gotten fed up with his family and the media.

    I don’t like a single direct bloodline member of the royal family sans Harry and Margaret.

    Queen is an enabler, Philip is a racist, Charles is selfish, Andrew a rapist, William the brother betrayer.

    • Devon says:

      A total S-show!

    • Enn says:

      Can I ask a serious question? Do we think Harry had no knowledge of this?

      What about Anne, Edward, Sophie, Camilla? Aren’t they all dirty AF?

      • Becks1 says:

        Knowledge of what? Knowledge that Andrew is super shady? I think they all knew that. Specific knowledge of this incident in 2015 with the palace shutting down the story? For some reason I don’t feel like Harry would have know. I feel like Kate and Will had to know if they were the ones being offered up. But I don’t necessarily think that every member of the royal family knew the efforts being made to protect Andrew.

        I do think Charles knows (and through him, Camilla).

      • Enn says:

        Know that Andrew is a pedophile and good friends with Epstein.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Enn – oh I think they all know that. I think they probably do a lot of mental gymnastics to excuse it though. People on this site spent a long time insisting that it wasn’t rape bc the age of consent in the UK is 16. I’m sure the royal family does the same.

      • Spicecake38 says:

        IDK who knows what in that family,and the grandchildren of TQ were young when Andy would have started his disgusting behavior (because I’m assuming it goes waaay back)and then their own perceptions and what they believed vs what they were told could easily confuse a young person,so I’m going to hold back on judgement of the younger ones and believe this to be on queen,Phillip,Chuck,Camilla(through her husband)and of course Andrew and Fergie.

        I have no way to comprehend what their money and lifestyle could ever be like,it’s un fathomable.I don’t know though how anyone could stay and remain part of that family.I so wish Harry and Meghan would come to the states and do charitable work,living as wealthy yet more normal people.They are too good for this BS.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        It is hard to know who knew what. The important thing, however, is that the Queen knows and had her people actively work to suppress the information. She’s the head of the family, she’s the Head of State and her actions are appalling here. This goes way beyond photo-ops of support to Andrew.

        This is why I think the Andrew scandal is so dangerous to the monarchy. Because it isn’t just the criminal and immoral actions of a single member – it involves the freaking Head of State showing public support to him whilst suppressing information. Add to that the fact the political mess that Boris Johnson pulled the Queen into made a dent in her image. The BRF can’t afford anymore scandals – and I don’t think it can afford anymore info of the Andrew-Epstein connection coming to light BECAUSE the Queen has actively interfered to protect him.

        The Duke of Windsor’s Nazi leanings and possible treasonous actions could have destroyed the monarchy in the 1940s – but the information was suppressed (it was easier back then) and he was cut completely loose from the BRF after WWII. He lived in exile and was never to represent the BRF in any kind of capacity. It was certainly a cold move in terms of the family relationship but it preserved the monarchy.

        The way the Queen actively protects Andrew + the fact that he still represents her is very damaging. It was already bad enough that Andrew hosted Epstein in the Queen’s own homes – Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral! This goes even beyond that.

      • Lorelei says:

        @ArtHistorian ITA with everything you said. But will there be any consequences for the Queen? I have absolutely no idea how it would work so maybe some Brits can weigh in, but will there be any fallout from this? Or will they just ignore it and hope it goes away? Is the Queen completely above the law and untouchable?

      • MsIam says:

        You could ask the same about B&E. Are they dirty too? I think siblings would know more about the goings on than the children do, since they may have more friends in common and would hear things. But the whole aristocracy is one big gossip bowl so probably a lot of them “knew” about Andrew’s comings and goings.

    • CoffeeCoffeeCoffee says:

      Such a good point about Harry! Thank you!

      He’s more in the world/of the world than many in that family (of course partly due to his age), even if it’s just a super-rich privileged version of the world the rest of us live in.

      He knows who supports him and who doesn’t. Who supported his mom and who didn’t. How many slights and insults (the racist pin his aunt(?) wore, the wallis simpson car) he and his wife have put up with.

      Man, i don’t envy them their wealth nor position. Rather be sitting in my office being a poor and eating my apple. At least these are my choices about my life.

  4. SM says:

    #abolishthemonarchy is all I have. Instead of Brexit they should abolish the monarchy and direct the money it absorbs to NHS.

    • Mignionette says:

      Here ! Here !

    • Grant says:

      Amen. The Queen is despicable. At this point, I hope someone (anyone) spits in her face the next time they meet her in public. How’s that for royal protocol??

    • Kiki says:

      That one I do agree. I have been saying that for years. #abolishthemonarchy

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I doubt that will ever happen. It seems like the British still have pride in all the pomp and circumstance of a monarchy. I’ve read comments here that the Queen “comforts” the public when something bad happens. That is bizarre to me as an American, that someone I’ve never met, who didn’t accomplish anything in life, who is in a position that my money pays for simply because of birth, can “comfort” me by showing her face. But, I’m not British, and I wasn’t raised to believe the royal family has worth. And I DO believe how people are raised makes a big difference in how they view the world — I know I’ve been brainwashed as an American, and why do so many people have the same religion as their family and culture? So being raised British, I think, affects people’s views of the monarchy. I don’t understand it, but I believe the public will accept almost anything the royal family does.

      • grumpy says:

        I don’t think the comments you read on here are representative of the British population. We aren’t raised to believe the royals have worth. What chance do we have to get rid of them – we’ll never get a referendum and even if we did and it was successful, presumably we would be told we were too stupid and didn’t understand the question.

  5. Roserose says:

    Amy’s words about being threatened by the palace is huge. I really hope that gets more coverage, but I’m sure it won’t.

    • MCV says:

      And in exchange for an interview with the blandest people on earth. I can’t.

    • Noodle says:

      And harken back to a few weeks ago when the Matt Lauer story popped up again the news cycle, and her name was the one commenters kept coming back to as one of his primary victims. Imagine being harassed by Lauer and have no voice, then shut down by KP. She has a lot of stories to tell and I hope one day she can tell them.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Noodle ITA and I hope she writes a tell-all memoir someday. IIRC she was very open a few years ago about her struggles with alcohol, and I really admired her for the way she handled it. She seems like a good egg whose had more than her fair share of sh!t thrown at her.

        The BBC covered it yesterday, but I have no idea if that was the extent of it or if they will keep the spotlight on this horrific story.

    • Christina says:

      Rose, that’s the part that needs to be emphasized: the BRP tried to kill a story about Andrew cavorting with prostitutes, only many of them WEREN’T PROSTITUTES. They were kids.

      This world is slanted against the vulnerable, but, when institutions like the BRF, that are supposed to promote social causes, do this they should be taken town.

      The Queen is a rotten human being, and the British age of consent crap doesn’t take into account the economic and psychological
      abuse of these girls, nor does it consider that young brains don’t fully develop until the early-to-mid twenties. So it’s ok to be 45 and screw a 16 year-old, but the 16 year-old can’t vote or hold a job or have other freedoms, but it’s okay because she consented.

      I’m nauseated…

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Even if these girl weren’t minors, age of consent is irrelevant if they were coerced because then they did not consent freely and that is rape.

      • Laughysaphy says:

        Age of majority or consent or whatever is irrelevant when an individual has been trafficked. Which these young women were.

      • Christina says:

        My age of consent comments are based on an earlier commented mentioning all of the commenters from England who mentioned that the age of consent in England is 16, so a segment of the British populace is all, “nothing to see here. She was 16 when they had sex, so coercion doesn’t apply because LEGAL CONSENT LAWS. I’m not saying that I agree. Quite to the contrary. And some of the women he Epstein paid for sex WERE women of age working as prostitutes, but they looked young.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Christina – I think that was me who made that comment. I didn’t mean that ALL the commenters from England were saying that (I honestly cant even remember who said it and where they were from), but it was definitely a talking point on here for a while – but not in defense of Andrew ,more just that “his actions in the UK weren’t crimes, that’s why no one in the UK is going after him and its up to the US.” But obviously, being trafficked removes the notion of consent from the equation entirely.

        But my point was more that if people here, who generally are pretty anti-Andrew, could maybe kind of sort of see a defense for his actions in the UK, you can see how the family could do some mental gymnastics to get there too.

  6. Kittycat says:

    The end of the Queen’s reign is going to be ugly.

    • Seraphina says:

      It can’t come fast enough! To have news and be scared to break it. And especially when taking into account how many people get wrongly accused in the press yet they are never vindicates.

      I hope the end of her reign (and the BRF) is ugly and swift. Time for people to wake up.

    • Alexandria says:

      After all the goodwill when she entered her golden years, how ironic that her reputation and legacy as her reign beings to end is now rubbish, at least to us.

      • Jen says:

        I think the goodwill was never based on facts. It was based on the cleverly presented facade – a facade that was in large part maintained by silencing the press as needed.

      • Alexandria says:

        Doesn’t matter what it was based on. Pity or PR or empathy or respect for tradition….the show should end now.

      • Spicecake38 says:

        Maybe she will see that karma is a bitch and doesn’t discriminate.

    • Lorelei says:

      The end of her reign should be today.

  7. PPP says:

    Mayyyybe all this horrible press targeting Meghan isn’t even about racism but about deflecting attention from Prince Anthony. It certainly ramped up the second the Epstein news broke.

    • truthSF says:

      Nah! It’s definitely about racism, which is why Meghan is the scapegoat. It is so naive to think racism isn’t the core to having the (only) black biracial member of your family to be the only one getting attacked repeatedly for following the same protocol as everyone else in the family, especially when she has a better work ethic than 90% of said family. Her being American and a divorcee is a just a way to help the RR hide the racism aspect of their attacks. Whether it’s to deflect attention from pedo Andy or Bill’s rose, Meghan will always be their scapegoat!

      If she were white, she would be getting nothing but praise for bringing a much needed positive change to the monarchy!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “Nah! It’s definitely about racism”

        Put on you tinfoil tiara and set the dial to MEDIUM:

        I think it is “sorta” about racism in this way: The people who are leaking rumors (half-truths, falsehoods and downright lies) to The Fail, The Dim and The Slow, may not be racist and the editors of said tabloids may not be racists but both know damn-well the the tabloid readers and commentariat ARE RACIST and anti-American to boot (chlorinated chicken anyone???) so the editors and Royal Reporters will reprint any negatives they can get on Meghan to increase sales of newspaper and generate online revenue producing click$ by stirring up the racist readers and racist commentariat.

        That concludes my tinfoil tiara conspiracy for the day.

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

        Huh. If their words are racist and their actions are racist, that’s enough for me. It’s not like they’re working undercover to bust the klan or something similar. Being judged by one’s words and actions is the best most of us can hope for, and is a damn fairer shake than what they’re giving Meghan and Harry.

    • Jen says:

      They could be using Meghan to detract, but also the reason they chose her as the scapegoat be because of racism. I do think there are multiple factors at play – racism, sexism, a needed scapegoat.

      • Spicecake38 says:

        The best way to detract from something they don’t want known is to change the focus of what people are talking about-throw Meghan under the bus and hope we don’t pay attention to Andy.

  8. Digital Unicorn says:

    Of course they made it go away – wouldn’t want Mummy’s little darling being held to account for his behaviour. The only way they are really going to prosecute Andrew is to follow the money – he’s up to his eyeballs in dodgy financial dealings on top of the sex with a trafficked barely legal young woman.

    I predict that once TQ passes Andrew will be fed to the wolves both by the press and the establishment. I still think Chuck won’t protect his brother, esp with what is coming out now – if Chuck wants the Monarchy to survive after him he’s going to have to make some tough decisions not just about his brother but his eldest son as well.

    • Chelle says:

      We can only hope that when Charles takes the throne even if it’s through the guise of slimming the ranks that he sidelines/sanctions Andrew both publicly and privately. I’m jaded though. Wealth offers its own protection. There are so many other men and couples that won’t be exposed to public censor because of their wealth and power.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        I think Charles will make Andrew disappear from the public. And cut down on his finances, including cutting off Andrew’s daughters. But Andrew is the second son of a monarch, so Charles will have to do the same to Harry and his kid(s) financially.

        BUT, I think Charles will protect Andrew legally. Not for Andrew’s sake, but for the rest of the family. Does anyone believe Andrew is the ONLY member of the royal family with shady dealings? Charles can’t open the door to subpoenas, investigations, lawsuits, criminal charges, etc. So Andrew will be given diplomatic immunity (“he was acting as the Queen’s emissary when that happened”) if authorities try to pursue any real action against him.

        So Andrew will be safe, but kept out of sight. If anyone thinks Charles will let the son of a monarch be criminally charged, they are dreaming.

      • Chelle says:

        @Mrs. Krabapple – I totally agree. I think Charles will offer legal protection but Andrew will not be afforded the “free” ride he gets now.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Mrs. Krabapple I agree with your assessment of how Charles will handle Andrew, but why do you think he would do the same to Harry? Harry isn’t a criminal who’s brought scandal and shame to the monarchy.

        And the Queen doesn’t treat everyone equally based on their status. Didn’t she give Zara & Mike some sort of mansion on Anne’s estate? But when Harry wanted to leave KP he and Meghan were given former servants’ quarters, and I’ve seen so many people denigrate it based the fact that it’s called a “cottage.”

        Charles should be able to treat Harry however he wants IMO because the situations aren’t comparable, but I guess we’ll see what happens soon enough.

    • one of the Marys says:

      Digital Unicorn please elaborate on the tough decisions regarding William, what do you think Charles will do there?

      • Hilary89 says:

        Well I do know that Charles as King could hold off investing William as Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall for years if he chose to. William does not become Prince of Wales automatically. It is really up to the Sovereign. For example, Queen Elizabeth was never Princess of Wales! She could have been, but her father didn’t give it to her. Henry the Eight invested his daughter Mary The First as Princess of Wales before the crap hit the fan! Now succession can only be changed with the permission of Parliament. Thus, if William has too many issues, (and I mean that literally since there are new rumors regarding the paternity of Marchioness of Cholmondeley’s youngest child) and Charles wanted to remove William, it’s possible. My only question would be would William’s entire blood line be removed with him? So yes, Charles has some tough decisions to make. In my opinion, Charles should make himself the last King of England and kill the Monarchy.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think William becomes Duke of Cornwall automatically as heir to the throne – its not tied to being Prince of Wales.

        Now…..whats that bit about the new rumors about Rose Who???? Rose who wiped out her Instagram over the weekend?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Becks1, You are correct. The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall titles are not tied together but they are held by the same person…the male apparent to the Monarch. Charles became Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall when his mother became Queen which was at the second of the death of George VI. However, Charles was not “invested” as Prince of Wales until he was 21 in a public PR show put on for the masses. This public show for PR with the masses started with Edward VIII. If Charles was never “invested” as Prince of Wales he would still be the Prince of Wales. If QEII had not had a coronation she would still be Queen as she became Queen the second her father passed. The coronation is nothing but a PR show for television cameras and a PR exercise by the Church of England to publicly anoint it head and Defender of the Faith.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Wait, what? The Houghton Hall IG is still up. She had a Halloween party for the kids and no plastic PP crap anywhere.

      • What. . .now? says:

        Wait, the fair Rose of Cholmondeley’s youngest child might be William’s? I thought the outting of the affair was delicious, but this–this is something insanely Scandalous. Him stepping out on Perfectly Keen Kate is one thing (as I know the aristocracy thinks nothing of this for the most part), but the future monarch actually fathering a child? Let me get my popcorn and some drinks.

        She better hope not, because those Windsor genes are STRONG. Look at little Archie — he is the spitting image of Harry — red hair and all! I suppose though, in a few years it will be obvious if the Chumley baby is a Windsor after all . . .

        I could dine on that tidbit of gossip for ages though…

      • Lorelei says:

        I love juicy gossip as much as anyone (I mean, I’m here!) but I actually hope the paternity rumor isn’t true and that it doesn’t become the kind of rumor that people talk about for decades, like Harry/James Hewitt.

        William is another story. He deserves to be spectacularly humiliated for adultery and it would be great if eventually some proof was released. But it would be so sad if this poor child was affected for the rest of her life because of poor, selfish decisions made by her mother.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Nota – no, Rose has a private IG. Well, i day private, it is now public, but with two pictures – one from October and one from 4 years ago. It’s clearly been scrubbed by someone.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The massive private wealth of the Windsors is also at risk. If the monarchy ends, all the legal and financial loopholes around the private estates and private money disappear. It is also endangered if Charles was skipped. The tax-free inheritance only works if the private wealth is inherited directly from one monarch to the next.

      If Charles is convinced the monarchy is failing, he has to make financial moves. The long-ago gossip of him donating Balmoral to Scotland would get him an enormous tax break, even if Scotland went independent and dumped the monarchy. He could divide the private wealth between his sons instead of it all going to William. They would end up paying large inheritance tax, but both would end up immensely wealthy even if the monarchy disappears.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Nota do you think there will be any consequences for the Queen or will they all just continue on with business as usual?

      • notasugarhere says:

        She rarely suffers consequences for long, and always manages to come back from what seem like ultimate defeats.

  9. S808 says:

    Prince Andrew is not worth any of this and I sincerely hope this torpedoes the British Royal Family. Nothing is worth squashing a story about a pedophile that could’ve saved victims but especially not an interview with Will and Kate. From a news standpoint, Epstein was much more news worthy, WTF ABC?!
    My (rough) new theory of why the abuse escalated for M is that The Queen (or her men) served up M&H (mainly M) on a platter to the British media in payment for silence in Pedo Andrew, only H&M won’t play ball. The BM is pissed cause they can’t talk about Pedo Andy and H&M won’t give them material to sell their shitty newspapers and get clicks to their shitty websites (which is why RRs keep saying they’re getting “bad advice” and need to “work with the media”). The other Royal Houses either got the green light to throw their gas on the fire or weren’t stopped when they did. None of them dare side with H&M cause the press knows where the bodies are buried. Anyway, fuck Queen Elizabeth and death to the monarchy.

    • Becks1 says:

      I think this theory makes sense. I don’t think it completely explains the smear campaign (I think there were other reasons for that in general) but I think it explains the attitude of “they wont go along with us.” I wonder if there was some sort of deal – lay off Andrew, lay off the Rose story, and the other royals will engage more (the Rose story was around the time we started seeing Will and Kate more open with their kids). Harry and Meghan refused to play that game and the RRs are ticked, because they are sitting on huge stories and they aren’t getting what they were promised, and the Queen is ticked that they wont go along to protect the other members of the family.

      It actually could explain a lot of the “HM isn’t happy with the Sussexes right now” stories. Of course the queen wasn’t happy with them if they weren’t willing to play nice with the press to protect Andrew.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “The other Royal Houses ”

      Which Royal Houses are you referring to?

      ETA: I have not had my ten cups of coffee yet and my mind is not firing on all cylinders.

    • Mignionette says:

      In all of this isn’t it shocking that the motivation to quash the story was the fear of loss of access to Waity and Gormless.

      Also considering that Kate’s central focus is children and mental health, being linked to this whole sordid affair in this way regardless of whether she ultimately made the threat does not bode well for her. How can you seriously campaign on issues relating to child safety when your Uncle-in-law was complicit in the rape and abuse of young girls.

      Of course the BBC have buried this story and will not go near it despite being the closest thing we have to state TV.

      It’s time to abolish the monarchy, revoke the licence fee from the BBC and finally commit to a written constitution so we can get out of our Brexit mess.

      • Tiffany says:

        “Gormless”

        Time of death: 8:53am.

      • Becks1 says:

        To be fair (and I cant believe I’m saying this), in 2015 Will and Kate were still considered “interesting” as far as I can remember. She was either pregnant with or had given birth to Charlotte (depending on the timing of this), and I can see how there would have been a big appeal to having an exclusive with them, especially if it included any footage of the children.

        Now I don’t think any such interview or access ever happened, and I know its easy to laugh at the idea of backing off Epstein/Andrew bc of promised access to W/K, but I feel like it wasn’t until after 2015 that some of their glow started to rub off and the workshy stuff started up etc.

        Maybe that’s just my American perspective though and it was different in the UK.

      • Lorelei says:

        As if Kate ever gave interviews, or ever says anything at all, for that matter! So ridiculous.

    • Amy Too says:

      Another bit of evidence for your theory is that Harry and Meghan never ended up going to balmoral this August either, probably because Andrew was there and balmoral was like “Good press for Andrew HQ” with all of the smiling church ride pictures.

      • Spicecake38 says:

        I’m also wandering if their six weeks off will actually include no time parading around with the rest of the RF at Christmas.I know others think that they will make the customary appearance,but walking to church of all places with these disgusting people on Christmas of all days is just stomach turning to me.

      • Mignionette says:

        I personally think H&M did go to Balmoral but they weren’t papped. The other alternative is that they may have been asked to ride alongside Andy to Church but declined to support him publicly so were thrown under their private jets as punishment.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Mignionette – I don’t know about Balmoral, only bc there are many reports that Harry usually doesn’t go to Balmoral, but I’m sure they spent some time in Scotland at some point over the summer; last summer they visited Charles at Castle of Mey and I don’t think we heard about it until months after the fact.

  10. MCV says:

    When the queen dies lot of things are going to come out.
    Her behaviour is disgusting but I don’t expect anthing else from a royal, one of the most priviliged person in the whole world. They don’t know what is to be accountable for your crimes.

    • STRIPE says:

      Yep. I am not surprised at all by this. This family believes they are ordained by God to live privileged lives above and at the expense of all of their subjects. They have be waited on and told “yes” their whole lives. OF COURSE they don’t think they would suffer any consequences for their actions.

      • Lorelei says:

        I know that the Queen believes she was ordained by god, but do we really think the rest of the family believes this, in the year 2019? I feel like the younger members of the family can see that for the BS that it is.

      • Becks1 says:

        I don’t know about how much someone like William believes he was ordained by God, but imagine someone who has been told he is better than everyone else because he is in this family, he will one day be king, he’s rich, he’s famous, accountable only to his father and grandmother and no one else (including the law) – even if you DONT think you’re ordained by god, you’re going to have one hell of a superiority complex.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Becks yes I definitely agree about the superiority complex. But if he doesn’t believe in the ordained by god nonsense, maybe he’ll be slightly less secure about being untouchable than the Queen is, as time goes on. This entire thing is such a shitshow.

  11. Lucy2 says:

    This whole thing is so disgusting. She must’ve been very frustrated, it sounds like she had it all locked down, and ABC balked.

    The really sad thing is while these networks sit on the truth and squash stories to protect monsters, those monsters continue to hurt many people.

  12. Sofia says:

    Disgusting. I honestly hope once Charles is King, he makes Andy take an early retirement and sends him to the middle of nowhere

    Actually you know what? No monarchy would be better at all. Down with all of them

    • DaisySharp says:

      And I think it’s naïve to not highly suspect Charles knows about all of this, and played his role in the coverup. Charles is no hero.

      • The Recluse says:

        Possible, but with his mother having all of the authority both public and private in that family, how much could he do about or against Andrew? My grandmother also over protected my uncle and the rest of us kept our distance to maintain our autonomy over our own lives and to stay free of the drama and dubious activity. No one member had enough on this relative, so there could only be collective wariness. When Grandma died, we all cut him loose and out of our lives. A similar dynamic may be at play here.

      • Elisa says:

        +1, and IMO TQ told Charles to do everything to bury the Andrew/Epstein story. Remember, the first big smear against Meghan started with Charles biography. I guess back then the RF already knew the Epstein story would break.
        Also, I’m glad TQ is finally called out for her responsibility in all of this.

  13. Becks1 says:

    This is just mind blowing to me. Not in a ‘I cant believe the queen would do this’ kind of way, I feel like most of us knew this was happening, but to actually have it confirmed like this? and I’m sure that the story wasn’t ready to air, but if you are told to completely drop it bc of pressure from BP, then obviously its never going to be ready (if that makes sense.)

    • Lorelei says:

      @Becks I feel like a scandal of this magnitude should basically force her to abdicate immediately. I know she won’t, but how do the British people stand for this??

      • Becks1 says:

        I don’t know. the idea that BP is pressuring news organizations to stop investigating legitimate stories because it makes the RF look bad – this is why the Rose Hanbury thing was so troublesome IMO. That wasn’t just William calling up the press and saying “hey, I know this looks bad, but lets meet for a beer and then you can take pictures of the kids at polo this weekend,” it was William actively threatening legal action if the press pursued to the story, to the point where people were afraid to mention it on twitter.

        If the royals will do that to block even the mention of a potential consensual affair, what will they do to protect the reputation of one of the queen’s children?

        And how do people stand for that, considering you don’t even have the recourse of elections?

      • Lorelei says:

        Exactly. They’ve always bullied the press, but in this case, the ramifications were that more trafficked girls continued to be victimized for years. This is next-level atrocious. I just can’t imagine that the Queen won’t face any consequences, but it seems like that’s the way it’s going to go. It’s so disgusting.

  14. Eleonor says:

    The only way to have a modernized monarchy is to get rid of all the Royals. End of it.

  15. Lightpurple says:

    The story blew up large yesterday because the right-wing pundits lwere desperately trying to distract from Gordon Sondland’s transcript revealing more quid pro quo in Ukraine and this fit right into Trump’s whole “fake news” attacks. They completely ignored that it involved the BRF and Andrew and instead played it as if this was just the media protecting the Clintons again, that this would somehow exonerate everything Trump ever did but the media hid it to continue the “fake narrative” that he is evil.

    • DaisySharp says:

      I have to admit, and I don’t think this speaks well of me, I get incredibly frustrated that Bill is always brought up about Epstein, but he was never actually accused of rape or molestation in this. Trump was. And yet, we don’t hear about that. Trump was also running a prostitution ring with Epstein, and it’s all right there, but nobody in the media dares put it together and spell it out. In fact, I think the case can be made he was running something worse than a prostitution ring; it was trafficking. But it’s all Bill Bill Bill. Yeah, that does piss me off.

      • Lightpurple says:

        Epstein had multiple contact numbers for Ivanka when she was 16 years old. Why isn’t that followed up on? Why is she, in the limited interviews she gives, never asked about it? Why do I think she was referring young girls to Epstein?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I understand the frustration with “BILL BILL BILL”. However, I want this whole this story to come out. I want to know the names of everyone involved and the degree of their involvement. If all one did was fly on a plane then so be it. If one took advantage of young girls then I want to know all about that too. If people are innocent then let’s acknowledge that innocence. If people are guilty then let’s nail them to the wall after they have done the “perp walk” in orange suit and hand cuffs for the TV cameras.

      • Mignionette says:

        EVERYONE who was involved should go down REGARDLESS of their political affiliation. To suggest otherwise is an affront to the survivors.

      • Lightpurple says:

        Anyone involved should face serious consequences but my point above is that the extreme right-wing was using this yesterday to distract from the revelations in the impeachment transcripts and they attempted to pin it all on the Clintons while once again striking out to discredit the press as Trump wants them to do. Shapiro, Kirk, Saavedra, and others tweeted multiple comments and stories about this, not a single one of which mentioned the BRF or anyone not named Clinton.,

      • Rapunzel says:

        LP- the Ivanka/Epstein thing is soooooo shady. But the Clintons will be scapegoats even after they die. Hell, if Trump dies of natural causes due to excess KFC, they’ll be the inevitable “Killary got him” conspiracy theories.

        I honestly think Bill used Epstein for of age girls (legal at least). And maybe knew young girls were there. But Andrew and Trump? I suspect they like ‘em young. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump likes them really young and that info has been held over his head to manipulate him by various shady folks like Putin.

      • DaisySharp says:

        Yes thank you LP and Rapunzel. I am not implying or suggesting Bill should be protected, I am stating I believe, with good reason, that Trump is an out and out pedophile and NO one is talking about it or connecting the many public dots on it. It’s all about Bill. who is not a pedophile, and who in the Epstein case still does not stand accused by any woman or girl. If he is accused, I will be right here yelling. But it seems to me the clintons are being used to cover up the dirty pedophile who hides in plain view and in our WHITE HOUSE. Currently. In our white house. IN the year of our lord 2019.

    • Lorelei says:

      @LightPurple ITA that this was the reason for the timing in the US, but the BBC covered it — and the headline is actually “amid Palace threats” — so that shouldn’t make a difference w/r/t the public reaction in the UK? At least I hope not, but who knows.

      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50296742

  16. mellie says:

    I’m over this lady. She is a piece of $hit. Sorry for those who think she’s amazing, but this just is disgusting. It would be one thing if her ADULT son had a DUI or something like that, but he assisted in f#$King human trafficking for God’s sake. She should have just let him suffer the consequences and written him off, because now this has tarnished her and her entire families reputation beyond repair in my opinion.

    • Mtec says:

      Not only that, but people like him are the reason why there is even a “market” or demand for human sex (rape) trafficking. Complete scum of the earth. Everyone involved in this should be imprisoned.

  17. DaisySharp says:

    Years before she had this interview, it was published in Vanity Fair that Clinton had been riding on the Lolita Express, and aides were flummoxed. So, she had no news there. Or, maybe that he was actually on the Island was news 3 years ago. Hmmm. I think he still denies that doesn’t he? This Prince Andrew stuff and the palace making threats to get it shut down, that is news. Not surprising news, but it’s news alright. And I wonder if Charles wasn’t involved in this?

  18. Mtec says:

    It’s messed up when a major news outlet is more concerned about having access to bland-ass royals over exposing known predators. I believe ABC probably had enough material to start an conversation, or at least to continue the investigation, but they killed it all just to someday be able to talk to W&K? —i understand it was pre-me too era but come on! This is unacceptable.

    • Mignionette says:

      Apparently they had it all, pictures, interviews – EVERYTHING. Makes you wonder how much we are not allowed to see or hear about because the RF have taken out injunctions to bar the disclosure of those items.

      Whilst I can see ABC’s reasoning for not disclosing, there are other means to leak such information so that it appears in a print publication that is not subject to/ or does not care about access issues. In fact that is something that happens all the time.

      The fact that those details took so long to trickle into the broadsheets and other outlets suggests heavy legal restraints behind the scenes. If I am honest this story is part of an agenda the media have . The story yesterday has now established a public interest angle to allow journalists to investigate what else is out there. It also blows several holes in the statements issued by Andrew over the summer.

      I’m waiting for the rest of this show …….

  19. Mumbles says:

    I also want to know what the piece had on Bill Clinton.

  20. Mignionette says:

    Patiently waiting on this years Queen’s Speech and Liz’s message of goodwill to all men whilst posing in front of a solid gold Piano….

  21. Catherine says:

    I hope this is eye opening for people who want to blame PW for everything the BRF does or does not do. The power lies squarely with the monarch, and she will use them as pawns to protect THE CROWN. She will sit back and watch the press tear her grandsons apart. She will sit back as Diana and her first born were dragged to hell and back. She will protect the direct line of succession – if (IF!!) it doesn’t negatively effect THE CROWN – over lower Members of BRF. She was furious with PC so….no protection. PA is her favorite but also: these stories would harm her.

    People around here yell “why doesn’t ______ do anything???” THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED. The Queen calls the shots. End of. “If you run the story on Andrew, you won’t get access to PW KM PH MM” This is the reality. She’s the only chess player. And when they move out of her protection, they are out in the cold. Frogmore cottage? Please google the palaces her children have, PW has. PH wanted independence, wanted to make his own moves: she gives him old servants quarters. The renovations?? Please guys, google PA palace, PE, Anne’s. Harry could live at KP and play ball or………

    The flip side (kind of): This is also why there were no photo ops of the Trumps with PW KM PH. That was an example of “protection” because it benefitted the crown. How? They did not want the tacky racist trumps with the stars if the BRF. TQ and PC did the heavy lifting because their government asked them to. TQ wasn’t going to let tacky Americans benefit off the power of PW KM PH (MM was on maternity leave).

    • Nic919 says:

      Charles and William have dealt with the press on their own. It’s not just always about the Queen. Charles certainly was the one working his own angles during the Diana years and then with the Camilla rehab. William made sure that his own personal Rose issue was dealt with too. The media will listen to the direct heirs of the monarch.

      What this does show is that the palace can choose to protect a member if they want to. And they didn’t want to protect Meghan. This would explain why Harry is pissed because he knows what the palace can do.

      • PsychoBot says:

        Both Charles and William can get stories relating to themselves pulled, Harry can not and maybe it partly has to do w him being a spare but I think, its mostly bc the stories are coming from CH/BP. How can they protect her from a mess they’re playing a hand in?

    • Becks1 says:

      So, I half agree with you, half don’t. I agree that the buck does stop with the queen and that the queen could have stopped the leaks about H&M as soon as they started (and the negative stories.) But I also don’t think the Queen is involved in every PR choice the royals make and I think Charles and William could have put a stop to the smear campaign as well (especially William, as I think a lot of the leaks were coming out of KP.)

      • PsychoBot says:

        I think if the stories were coming from KP Harry would have been able to get them pulled– it’s obvious that they were trying to do that and counteract w positive stories. His inability to do so can only mean that the stories had a much larger force behind them– much larger than his brother.

      • Becks1 says:

        Except that Harry wasn’t in charge at KP. William was. And there is speculation that that was one of the reasons for the seemingly abrupt move from KP to BP for the Sussexes.

      • notasugarhere says:

        William is in charge at KP and he gets the final say with that set of staff. He has been too busy throwing Meghan under the bus as cover for his own side activities.

      • PsychoBot says:

        Harry was an integral part of KP, he was not an employee during his time there. He had agency to cultivate a r/ship w the media that would’ve come in handy at a time like this. He’s not completely powerless, he just has less power than the persons who sanctioned the ruthless stories, and that’s why he’s unable to get them pulled. My point is, neither BP nor CH will clean up this mess to protect Meghan bc the stories currently provide a cover up for whatever is going on w Andrew.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Not with the old-school courtiers installed at KP. They answer to William, they do what William wants. Harry should have been removed from the same office as William when W&K married. He should have been moved under Clarence House or BP back in 2011, which was something Charles tried to do. He tried to get all the royal households functioning under one common office but it didn’t last. As long as Harry was in any office or Household with William, all staff would defer to William against Harry.

      • PsychoBot says:

        Nota, you have very strong opinions about these people and seem pretty knowledgeable about them and how they live and think, so I will take your word for it. William is an evil monster who orchestrated a year long campaign against his sister in law in an effort to curb negative stories about himself and his wife. It’s shameful.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Tongue-in-cheek, eh? Anyone watching this family could easily see the heirs are always protected over the spares. Sometimes it is the Firm protecting the heirs, other times it is the heirs happily throwing their younger sibling under the bus.

        Harry has always been William’s scapegoat and William has admitted that. He’s benefited from a certain fictional version of Harry. Now he takes an active role in protecting himself above brother, SIL, wife, and even kids. William cares about himself above all else.

      • PsychoBot says:

        Nota, not at all. I don’t particularly care about the RF enough to know how it functions as family and firm. I will not spend precious energy and data defending the elite, so really, I’ll take your word for it.

    • S808 says:

      The Queen holds the most power but as direct heirs, PW/PC are not powerless. They can absolutely throw their weight around when they want to and we’ve seen it in action. I’m not excusing them from the MM situation.

    • Spicecake38 says:

      Catherine,I agree with you.TQ is the one who says what happens.The others can try to influence or advise her but I believe she has to approve or disapprove whatever is put out there,just a street feeling I have.

    • Lowrider says:

      ALL the courts have media connections. It was not a coincidence that Will and Kate were photographed taking a budget flight during Harry’s private jet fiasco. Will’s KP team set that photo op up!!!

      Both Andrew and the Cambridge’s benefited from Meghan’s family issues playing out in the press and will continue to benefit when they have something to hide.

      Harry’s plea that he and Meghan will need public support through their press lawsuits is VERY telling. He is on his OWN with NO support from his Liz, Chuck and Will because they are in bed with the media. People on here demanding that Will do something to stop the attacks make me laugh.

    • Mignionette says:

      I am beginning to have a theory about mothers who protect their abusive sons. Essentially I believe that their protection of their sh*tty spawn springs from a place of their own predatory narcissism.

      Liz favoritism of Andy speaks to Liz’s character or lack thereof herself. She likely see’s Andrew as a reflection of herself so any attack on him is felt by her on a personal level.

      Conclusion. The RF is trash. After all these fukkers truly believe they are ordained / anointed by God….?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I really do not think that any living member of the BRF believe they are ordained/ anointed by God.

      • Elisa says:

        +1, her actions with regard to Andrew are VERY telling!

      • A says:

        @Bay, the Queen certainly has been raised to view her responsibility as monarch as something ordained by a divine power. I don’t know if that still holds for Charles and William though.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        They believe, which is why the monarch is also the head of the COE.

  22. HELEN says:

    “I genuinely believe that there are so many stories – big, massive stories – which journalists and media outlets continue to sit on or bury”

    this. this. this.

    imagine the things that are kept hidden.

  23. Smalltown Girl says:

    This is why I have a hard time with the theory here that William was the one mostly throwing Harry under the bus. Do I think he did a little? Yes and the plane thing was shady, but I feel like most of it was coming from Buckingham Palace as a way to detract from Prince Andrew. This story shows they were willing to use the younger royals as bait to protect Andrew. I think about 75% of the stories are related to protecting Andrew and finding a new target to deflect from the news stories about him and Epstein.

    • Lowrider says:

      “William was the one mostly throwing Harry under the bus. Do I think he did a little? ”

      More than a little.

    • notasugarhere says:

      William has been playing plenty of his own games, including against Meghan and Harry, to cover up the Rose stories.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Nota, I 100% believe as you do that William has been and is doing any & everything to cover up stories about “Rose Who?”.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay – I agree, and in my opinion as that becomes more and more obvious, it makes you wonder how serious of an affair it was.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks1, I do not think the affair was “serious” as in let’s divorce our spouses and set up house keeping but I do think it was much longer term than anyone believed at first. Remember, Louise, The Duchess of Manchester had a 30 YEAR affair with the Duke of Devonshire until her husband, Manchester, died and she was able to marry Devonshire.

        Also, there are stories about the 35-40 YEAR on-again and off-again affair between a certain Princess Royal and a certain retired officer holding the rank of Brigadier in the British Army.

      • Lady D says:

        Especially with the above rumours questioning the paternity of Rose Who’s youngest.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I have seen pictures of the Cholmondeley children in a Vanity Fair article on Houghton Hall from around 5 years ago (IIRC) and the children definitely belong to David Rocksavage. However, on many other gossip sites beside Celebitchy, the paternity of the youngest Cholmondeley child has been discussed.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Bay could you share which sites this is being discussed on? I want to catch up because I hadn’t heard this until today and now I’m so curious. But for the child’s sake, I hope you’re right.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Lorelei, I will go and look to see if I can find links. However, the discussions are just pure gossip and nowhere near the the level of discussion found on Celebitchy. I also remember paternity being discussed several time in the comment section of several Daily Fail articles but not sourced just comments. I think the whole rumor is just BS as the dates do not match IMHO.

    • Elisa says:

      +1, this is clearly sanctioned by BP.

  24. Rapunzel says:

    Tin foil hat theory- extra tin:

    I wonder if QEII hasn’t secretly decided to pass over Charles and go straight to Will as the next monarch.

    I’m not sure this possible, but I get this distinct vibe that Big Willy is playing ball with grandma in her vision for what the monarchy should look like after she dies. And Charles may be left out. These articles hyping Will and Kate make it seem like they’re next in line, and I can’t help but think that might be by design.

    It’s super far fetched, but I get the sneaking feeling that Queenie may not support Chuck if he isn’t willing to back Randy Andy. And I don’t think he is.

    Anyone more knowledgeable wanna chime in on just how outlandish this theory is?

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “I wonder if QEII hasn’t secretly decided to pass over Charles and go straight to Will as the next monarch.”

      This cannot be done as the succession is “laid down” in an act of Parliament. The only way to get rid of a UK King or Queen is to put them on trial as was done with Charles I.

      Getting rid of the UK Monarchy in total and absolutely is an entirely different question with an entirely different answer.

      • Rapunzel says:

        BayTampaBay- I realize it’s not possible with secession laws, but can’t QEII force Charles to forego the crown/abdicate his place in the line of secession?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I do not think QEII could force Charles to abdicate while she was alive unless Charles was willing to leave the UK and live in exile as the Duke of Windsor did. I do not see Charles being willing to live in exile in France, Turkey or Romania where he (or the Duchy of Cornwall) owns homes.

      • A says:

        @Rapunzel, there is no way for an individual to abdicate their place in the line of succession. The only legal mechanism that exists right now for any form of abdication is to inherit, and then give up the throne, and even that comes with some caveats, I believe.

    • Tiffany says:

      I don’t think Bill will go for that anyway. He wants to get his hands on that Duchy money.

      • Rapunzel says:

        @tiffany- this is an interesting point.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        What makes you say this regarding William getting his hands on the “money” and what do you think he wants to do with this “money”?

        It not like William does not get everything he wants as it stands now.

        I am very curious as I have never thought about this angle but see your point.

      • Tiffany says:

        @BayTampaBay. Bill will never continue on with what Charles has done to make the Duchy what it currently is. Bill will spend it like it going out of style and then make a appearance every two years at a tent the Duchy is under, before those tents go under.

        It will be just a large checking account balance that he will not need permission to access.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Tiffany, I am curious. What do you think William will spend money on? Do you think he will try to move more assets of The Duchy of Cornwall offshore?

      • Rapunzel says:

        What will Wills spend the money on? Wiglets, coat dresses, buttons, and wedges for Kate, of course.

      • Tiffany says:

        @BayTampaBay. The Middletons are gonna have to pay Uncle Gary back at some point. And I still don’t believe that Buckleberry is fully paid for.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “What will Wills spend the money on? Wiglets, coat dresses, buttons, and wedges for Kate, of course.”

        @Rapunzel, I do not see Bill Cambridge spending any money on Cathy except what is absolutely necessary for official functions.

        I do not see him buying her anything at Harry Winston or Cartier just for the hell of it or because he wants to make her day. I really do not think he cares for Cathy Cambridge in the manner Charles cares for Camilla, Harry cares for Meghan or Edward cared for Wallis. However, I may be dead wrong and for Cathy’s sake I hope I am.

    • Elisa says:

      @Rapunzel: I’m following KP on Insta and I noticed an icreasing number of engagements William is doing on behalf of TQ (yesterday he was presenting some sort of medal to people of merit). This was the 2nd time within 2 weeks…so maybe you are on to sth. :)

  25. GR says:

    If anyone’s curious, NPR has an interesting story on this – there may possibly have been some legit reasons why ABC’s lawyers had to be cautious. But yeah, all these disgusting men, and their female accomplices, should go to prison for life.
    https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/776482189/abc-news-defends-its-epstein-coverage-after-leaked-video-of-anchor

  26. OriginalLala says:

    The BRF stinks from its very rotten head.

    #ABOLISHTHEMONARCHY

    • Lowrider says:

      That’s what I have been saying! The rot starts at the top!

      Betty needs to go and take her nasty courtiers with her. HOWEVER, Chuck isn’t any better and Willy is shaping up to be just as nasty as Betty!

      Throw the WHOLE monarchy away! LOL!

  27. MellyMel says:

    The Queen is a disgusting piece of trash! I can’t stand this family. I only care about Harry, Meg & Archie.

    • Lowrider says:

      Only the kids should be spared. You can already see some creepy people framing Charlotte’s personality as “sassy” and “rebellious” . It’s gross.
      Poor Charlotte, Archie and the other one are going to used as bait to hide the adults transgressions.

  28. Bookworm says:

    The only time that ice queen was forced from her bubble was when Diana died and the world (esp Tony Blair) forced her to show respect for how “her people” were grieving.

    This Andrew slimey oozing was going on long before Meghan was around (even Amy is referring to 2015) so I wish people would keep focus on the Andrew problem without jumbling it with Meghan’s situation.

    I think they’re two completely separate things – both bad but not related. Meghan would have been a press target whether or not Andrew ever existed. It is only a distraction from Andrew if we allow it to be.

  29. Tourmaline says:

    Project Veritas is a right wing entity and specializes in trying to bring down Planned Parenthood. Just for some context.
    I know in this case it appears the video is not doctored, Amy Robach says she did say those things, but I also believe there was more to ABC not airing the story in 2015 beyond the things Amy was caught on hot mic talking about. The types of things that were said in the ABC statement about legal and journalistic reasons.

    Have Kate and Will ever done an interview with ABC? Not to my knowledge.

    I don’t have any doubt Buckingham Palace ruthlessly tried to shut down the story in 2015, because they are still doing so. They are actively trying to paint Prince A’s main accuser Virginia as a liar, on the basis of things like his finger girth in the incriminating photo, and also because the tank top Virginia is wearing in that photo was the same tank top she was photographed in months later. Why would a trafficked teen wear the same shirt twice, hmmm this is real CSI level stuff the Palace is trying to pull–just so lame. If I was a member of the BRF I would be so freaking embarrassed to be part of an organization that is doing this stuff. But I predict A will face no legal consequences, he’ll continue to be trotted out at events, watch for him on Remembrance Sunday, in a matter of months he will be walking his princess bride daughter down the aisle and his daughters and ex will gush about what a great man he is and his old mum will BEAM.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Tourmaline I agree with all that you said, but I also think that ABC’s legal reasons for not running the story should be completely separate from the actions of the Palace. It is an undisputed fact that the Palace threatened them, and even if that wasn’t ultimately the reason that ABC didn’t go forward with it, the Queen should still be held accountable for the attempt.

      It reminds me of a lot of the stuff going on with Trump — his supporters are trying to claim that just because some of his plans didn’t have the intended outcome, that what he did wasn’t wrong. And no, the fact that he made the REQUEST is impeachable regardless of whether or not it succeeded.

  30. betsyh says:

    WHERE is Ghislane Maxwell?

  31. Chelle says:

    It’s all a clusterf*ck but what it also shows is how QEII’s identity as a monarch is deeply interwoven with that of a mother.

    She is, at once, assigned to protecting and upholding the moral/legal/cultural image of the monarchy and the BRF as an enterprise but then she wants to protect / hide and obscure the wrong-doings of her son, reportedly her favorite son. Mothers are known to do that. Hence, the photo-op ride of her and Andrew to church (of all places). He is both under the protection of the crown and his mother.

    Those things still have currency but it’s ebbing. The old grey men as well as she are aging. The public sees and hears way more than what they did back in the 50s and even right up to the early 2000s. In the wake of #METOO and just a sea change, in general, keep quiet and carry on is no longer as viable as a strategy as it used to be as well as the saber rattling from BP.

    In some ways, I feel for her (not more than I do for the women who were exploited). I feel for her because she Is placing her legacy and goodwill as a monarch on the line (even after the Diana fiasco) to protect her son but perhaps in detriment to the longevity of monarchy. I think Charles can hold it down. Just. But not W/K. They don’t have the gravitas to do it. Not when faced with Brexit sentiments, which won’t go away, an aging uncle and aunt (SF) who continually embarrass the BRF and in-laws who will make power grabs once William becomes king.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “in-laws who will make power grabs once William becomes king”

      Are you referring to Carole Middleton?

    • A says:

      I don’t think her protecting the institution of the RF and what she sees as her responsibility as her mother to her favourite son are two separate things. I think she very much views covering up Andrew’s criminal activities as essential to upholding the image and integrity of the RF, until such time that it suits her or the institution she represents to cut him loose. But this is a group of incredibly image conscious individuals, and their first instinct will always be to cover up the ugly truth for the sake of appearances. That’s exactly what she’s doing here. I don’t doubt that at least some of the outsize effort comes from her wanting to protect Andrew though. I think she truly believes that he is innocent of everything, which is born from her favouritism. She would not extend that same belief to any of her other children, that’s for sure.

      • Chelle says:

        Mmmmhhhhmm. I hear what you are saying. You could very well be right?. After all, when Andrew ran home to whom was he running to for protection? To mummy or to the monarch?

    • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

      Thank you for that excellent analysis, Chelle. I agree with everything.

  32. Liz version 700 says:

    I said yesterday when this broke that I bet stories like this are why the fixer left. I think there are so many disgusting incidents like this…where the Queen made things disappear or Andy did things no fixer could smooth over. They were probably just out the door to other less impossible fixer clients….

  33. A says:

    I don’t trust Project Veritas one bit, but this is mostly stuff that we all already knew. Prince Andrew is a fcking dumbass and he had relations with an underage girl who was sexually trafficked by a known predator, whom he continued to stay friends with long after said predator had gone to prison on charges of child sexual assault. People knew about this, and the palace shut all of them down, and continues to protect Prince Andrew from being extradited to the US for a deposition on this case.

    There are a lot of reasons the Queen is protecting him. One of them is that he is her favourite son. The other is that he is an existential threat to the monarchy that she has worked her whole life to preserve. Neither of these are an adequate excuse for what she and her palace enablers are doing. They are literally insisting that Prince Andrew is above the law because he is a royal. In a just world, he’d be stripped of his titles, and then shipped off to the US to answer for his behaviour. At a time when global inequality is so high, and when tensions are so fraught at home with Brexit and further austerity measures, they’re really really treading a thin line here.

  34. Mego says:

    What I find amazing is that they buried that story for fear of not having access to the Lamebridges? 🧐

  35. Willz says:

    Every story that airs or is published is done so very artfully and with a specific purpose in mind. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. I don’t believe for a minute that ABC was surprised by or opposed to this leak. Somebody felt it was time to let this out and it’s evident it has something to do with shaking the Monarchy.

    Let it rumble.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Excellent theory!

      Maybe Trump is trying to throw QEII under the bus to protect himself by diverting the press and commentariat attention in the Epstein scandal to full focus on Andrew. It sorta serves QEII right as Karma is a Bitch!

  36. blunt talker says:

    Someone mentioned above about Johnny Carson making some kind of joke about Prince Andrew being a pedophilie. I read the article yesterday and hope some finds the clip where Carson said this. These powerful pedos in the world have known about Prince Andy a very long time. Other wealthy men in the world have known about him a very long time. As soon as this was published and shown yesterday and daily fail article about Meghan’s uncle was published today. Tell me this is not a coincidence. Deflect, deflect, and deflect. Most people who can read, write, and comprehend can see what the royal family is trying to do to keep Pedo Andy from being in the headlines. His crimes are more serious and he should be the leading story.