As long as people read these tabloids and the tabloids make a lot of money on the ferocity of articles...I'm not sure Harry and Meghan can change that through this documentary, if everything they'll feed even better the "gutter press".

I like the logic. Here, https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-by-age-group/ we can see that 16-24 year olds are significantly more unemployed than the older age groups, telling us that this age range who are who are mainly anti-brexit clearly can't be arsed to work. We need to get rid of this cancer without delay.

Does anyone else have any conclusive analytics on todays nationally important topics ?

It's just a pity they can't turn that same ferocity on the likes of Prince Andrew and his (cough) "alleged" dalliances with paedos and child traffickers. Instead they are going all out over a couple who are guilty of being what seems to be at best - whiny millennials. Seems the Palace is also able to keep a lid on Will's rumoured affairs, too. Naughty boy!

Ooh, what tangled webs these royals weave...

With that I agree 100%!

"As far as I know Catherine (and her family) was "eviscerated" by the gut press before her wedding with William, even after their wedding.."

One of the biggest lies peddled about Catherine was the one about her mother talking her into applying for a place at St Andrews University because William was going there.

Catherine had her place before William, who only decided to go to St Andrews 2 weeks before the start of the first semester. He was bound for Edinburgh to study Geography. However, as he was quite private and just wanted to get on with his studies the palace felt Edinburgh wouldn't be a good idea as it's a busy city and he'd be photographed there. St Andrews was chosen as it's small and on the coast of Fife, but it has easy access to both Edinburgh and Dundee and is not far from the Highlands.

He was known for occasionally going to the Opal Lounge at George St in Edinburgh with Catherine and their undergrad friends (plus her sister and brother were at Edinburgh, but her brother dropped out due to his dyslexia) There was a private room at the back of the club they used. Rest of the time in St Andrews he was pretty ordinary, shared a student house after moving out of halls and went to the local shops for sweeties and stationery, the locals never batted an eyelid (they're used to celebrities because of the golf). They also went to Anstruther in the East Neuk with friends for fish and chips (Tom Cruise has rocked up there for fish and chips as well, one of his kids was at St Andrews for a bit. He was in the queue next to my sister in law's mum, again nobody batted an eyelid - us Fifers are not easily dazzled by celebrity ).

On their graduation day we were driving to Edinburgh and passed the Queen's motorcade coming the other way at the Forth Road Bridge.

Most people in that age group are still in school. What's your point?

no its not, its because they are lazy. Its got as much validity as your hopeless connection between brexit voters and monarchy sentiment.

Get them to work. youngsters nowadays never know how good they've got it.

Maybe you indeed you didn't go to school past 16, but the vast majority of people in the west actually do.

Prince Andrew's accuser, who claimed in interviews that she was scared/forced/disgusted (at the prospect of having sex with him, on receiving her instructions from Ghislaine Maxwell, she claimed), yet posed in a photo with him (immediately prior to the abuse, she said), with her arm around him and smiling broadly, has withdrawn her claims against Alan Dershowitz, saying she "may have made a mistake". As with Prince Andrew, her allegations concerned more than one alleged incident and Alan Dershowitz vociferously denied them, saying he had never even met her.

Prince Andrew accuser Virginia Roberts now says she 'may have made a mistake' when she said she was forced to have sex with Alan Dershowitz at the bidding of Epstein - as she sensationally drops case


If you buy into this woman's story about Prince Andrew, it makes sense to believe he was complicit in Epstein's criminal activity. Since I thought her Prince Andrew story didn't add up and see even less reason to believe her now after this turnaround, I tend to think Prince Andrew was like most people - knew nothing about his friends' sexual activity, let alone was involved in it. As for him going to New York after Epstein's conviction to break off contact, it could have been because he felt he "owed" Epstein, for staying at his homes and possibly taking his money (since Epstein apparently did give money to Fergie).


New details reveal the friendship between Epstein and Prince Andrew dissolved after the Duchess of York referred to Epstein as a pedophile

Fully agree that all the nuts and bolts of the story "probably" add up but my point was that tabloids don't really worry too hard about the abundance of facts, balance or truth so, if we were to apply the same journalistic style to Andrew as has been applied to Meghan and Harry, it's odd that they haven't run a billion articles on him for the clicks and shares. They ran a fair few but they were heavily on the side of discrediting the accusers and how upset the Queen and Charlie were about the whole thing.

To be honest, I had not clue about Andrew's existence prior to the "scandal". Now his annoying, plump and arrogant face is forever imprinted in my brain. So not sure what is the volume delta between articles then and articles now, but the interest in the ineptitude and arrogance of the royal family seems to be quite consistent. Luckily for the tabloids, the royal family itself doesn't even need to be nudged to produce something brilliantly stupid every now and then, they're guaranteed to do so every so often

I cannot possibly imagine the Queen not having mentioned to Andrew the kind of company Mr Epstein was. Liz' was connected like no-one else on this planet, save Professor X ;-)

She knew most leaders of the world personally, knew some of them since their childhood. She probably had unofficial contacts even into GCHQ. It's inconceivable (from my POV) that she didn't urge Andrew to distance himself from Mr. Epstein.

In dubio pro reo - he may actually just be a stupid upper-class twit, but stupidity is not an excuse when it comes to these kinds of allegations. And especially not if you are a member of the royal family and a stand-in for the Queen.

He wasn't 20 anymore at that point, where you could attribute that to inexperience.

In any case, in classic Liz "never complain, never explain"-fashion, we will likely never know what the Queen knew about this and what she told Andrew (I doubt he will admit something along that line) - and we only have this interview, where he put another nail into the coffin of the British monarchy.


As for Harry and Meghan - I cannot understand what these two hope to get out of this?
What's the end-game? If he can't have the thrown, nobody else should have it?
It's just awful to watch (even if you don't actually watch it). A literal train-wreck.

"he may actually just be a stupid upper-class twit"

I think Andrew is an arrogant stupid upper class twit. Andrew and Fergie stick together because they know all of each others unsavoury secrets.

Quite the detective you are

The underage girl was smiling in the photo, therefore no underage sexual abuse took place? Andrew denied ever having met her until the photo came out, but she's the one who is lying?

Do you remember everyone you've ever met? And I suspect you've met a hella lot less than Andrew has over the years.

I thought it's obvious. Money. They need to continue living lavishly by actively avoiding any work, something neither of them is qualified for.

God it’s like talking to a brick wall. Did you actually go to school at all ?

I think Andrew is a bit of an idiot, but I don't think he slept with Virginia knowing that she was "trafficked/enslaved". I hope she was told to keep him happy and he thought she was doing so of her own free will. Still dumb though.

As for Virginia, I find it hard to believe she couldn't get away from Epstein. She wasn't locked in. She had plenty of opportunity to run away - as she finally did in Thailand.

a) she was not underage

b) she was not underage, therefore no underage sexual abuse took place

The legal age for prostitutes back then was 16.

c) nobody remembers everyone, so yes she is

Tom

I think the terminology used here is "grooming".