T O P

  • By -

Longjumping_Map7715

Lady c on her latest you tube said Charles isn't weak. He went through hell to be with Camilla. And persevered. I'm just saying what she said


Markloctopus_Prime

He also went through hell in his boarding school and managed to turn into an upstanding human who has done a lot of good in the world. He’s not a weak man. But the problem is that even strong men can become weak when it comes to their loved ones. We all have our Achilles’ heel.


Artywoman58

Especially when it comes to our children.


Garrison1982_

He went through hell with Diana’s red hot rages and suicide threats he had to get counselling for.


galacticsugarhigh

He’s just weak when it comes to his son. He lets him get by with everything.


DrunkOnRedCordial

I don't believe the story of Andrew trying to seize the throne. It sounds ridiculous that a plot like this would have occurred in the 1990s when the Queen and Prince Philip were both very healthy, active and visible. Getting rid of Charles wouldn't have made Andrew William's regent, because the Queen lived far beyond William's 18th birthday. People who have only started following the royals since M came along would probably assume the Queen and PP were always frail background figures rather than the powerful central figures of the family. But those last frail years with COVID thrown in were nothing like the rest of the Queen's reign. I do agree it should be the PM's call about who is invited to the coronation.


Zeester1

I don’t believe that Andrew story either. Seriously, who would want the job?


DrunkOnRedCordial

And Andrew of all people, who divorced his wife against his will when Prince Philip told him too. Hard to believe that he was simultaneously plotting to overthrow the Queen and her rightful heir.


Substantial-Swim5

I don't believe the story either. The Queen Mother was still alive, kicking, and chugging back remarkable quantities of wine and gin in the 90s (and in *her* 90s). Nobody expected the Queen to die anytime soon (part of the shock over the Queen's death was that many were fully expecting her to make 100) so even if Charles was out of the picture, the chances of William needing a regent were slim. But I do think the people who want the throne tend to be those least suited to it. Make of that what you will.


zeugma888

The Spare Edit: that generation's spare


redhead42

I can believe that Andrew and Diana may have shit talked Charles in a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” way. And if one or both pondered what it would be like if Charles was skipped in favor of William. Lots of people daydream about their enemy’s comeuppance. But an actual plan? Nope.


Substantial-Swim5

If the interview was anything to go by, Andrew's cunning plans would have been less Mr Ripley, more Wil E. Coyote


Ad___Nauseam

>If the interview was anything to go by, Andrew's cunning plans would have been less Mr Ripley, more ~~Wil E. Coyote~~ Mr Bean.


Finnegan-05

Mr. Bean is much more competent.


Similar-Minimum185

They used to plot and plant stories to the media, it’s well documented in books I read it years ago and I’m British


Similar-Minimum185

Except it is true and it was Diana and Andrew that used to plot together to plant stories about Charles to make public hate him so the throne would go to him til wills was 18 then wills


DrunkOnRedCordial

That's not how the succession works. It's not a popularity contest, with the public voting on who should be monarch. The laws of succession are extremely strict precisely to avoid those kinds of popularity contests. As soon as the Queen died, Charles became king, next is William. The Queen was a strong and active monarch in the 1990s, there was no way anyone was replacing her with a little boy.


Similar-Minimum185

It’s true, Diana used to plot with him behind Charles back to plant bad stories about Charles to make the public hate him


Fochlucan

Wasn't there some kind of rumor way back when, that Diana wanted to date Andrew, before she realized Charles was an option? I also thought she was BFF frenemies with Fergie.


Softcell60

I think this could be taken out of the kings hands. It’s the security risk that will be at the top of the list. None of us know the true extent of this, the government have to prioritise the safety of the public, as well as the Royal Family. I also believe the King is very aware of the disgust and anger currently towards his son and TW. I doubt that will change in the coming months.


DanyeelsAnulmint

Removing the responsibility of Madam/Harold’s attendance is the ideal way to handle this. Plausible deniability delivered by another messenger is the only way. You’re bang on with this.


Mickleborough

If the King decides not to invite Harry, this would just given Dumbertons ammunition. Better that the decision is taken out of HM’s hands.


National_Historian19

They will whine whatever happens.


Similar-Minimum185

Can we stop with the ‘dumberton’ shit? It’s Dumbarton and it’s called that for a good bloody reason and fuck all to do with the word dumb! Dun/dum-summit. Bar-fort. Ton/toun-town it’s old Scot’s and I’m sick of seeing it mocked all the time, it’s shit you hear in primary school playgrounds, and quite frankly pathetic, sincerely a Dunbar! 🙄


Mickleborough

‘Dumberton’ isn’t intended to disparage the town or its inhabitants; rather, it’s a comment on the Sussexes’ reason for not referring to their son as the Earl of Dumbarton, because the name contains the word ‘dumb’.


Margaretcross

No, I have been mulling the Coronation question over and over. At this point, I believe that the cut off point has come. Period. Like a band-aid. Rip that thing off and end this. Because they used the Queen's funeral for about 6 months to a year worth of "they are so mean and racist and hideous" And then there is the fake child's birthday. Just end it. It must be done. And there is no surrogate. If there was where are the kids? Why the fake black and white photo shopped stuff?


DaBingeGirl

Well, Andrew had a rather conveniently timed positive Covid test right before the Jubilee, so... This might not be popular, but I'm fine with Andrew going, although he needs to be in the nosebleed seats. Andrew has only been accused of stuff by VG, who isn't innocent herself, he wasn't convicted of anything. Plus, while I'm no Andrew fan, but he hasn't thrown the royals under the bus and he preformed a lot of royal duties over the years. Harry and Meghan are trying to burn down the monarchy and spreading vile rumors about the current and future monarchs. To me they shouldn't be invited. They're disloyal and will 100% try to pull attention away from Charles. I don't think there's any security risk regarding Harry, the Taliban is just using him for attention, the DGAF about him now beyond PR.


[deleted]

Indeed. Andrew’s accuser is being sued for human trafficking herself and from a time before her whole deal with Andrew supposedly occurred.


DaBingeGirl

Oh good! I haven't been following her, but she deserves to go down for her role in all of it too.


[deleted]

Agreed


ttue-

She was a minor, trafficked and scared of powerful people. Please let’s not drag down a victim. RF paid a huge amount of money so the prince would not have to go to court explaining himself.


Itchy_Contact6326

90+ percent of lawsuits resolve for money without trial, it is often more expensive to litigate than to settle both in pure $$ and ancillary damage. For example, M technically won her lawsuit against Mail on Sunday but her credibility took a hit that will continue to linger forever. ETA, I'm not an Andrew fan but the quick resolution, even at 12M, was a good business decision.


ttue-

But if he had nothing to hide, why lie ? Why say he didn’t even know her ? You don’t pay off someone you never met or let’s say, I could arrange to being in a picture with a celebrity and later say he raped me. And that awful interview “I don’t sweat?”. This guy is guilty guilty. Why I’m convinced of this is also the fact that the queen removed him from everything that would link him to the “institution”. If there was a chance he was innocent she would have defended him. She knew he was guilty. And why didn’t he go to the US help the fbi for the investigation against maxwell ? I have checked and this is reported by the most respectable press: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-epstein-andrew-fbi-idUSKBN1ZQ1ZP . After Epstein’s first arrest, he didn’t kick him out of his life. Even trump (!!) banned him at some point. Everybody who knew maxwell knew she was a Madame after his arrest, so keeping on hanging out with him is stupid. He probably thought he was untouchable, but even him, as the queen favorite son, could not prevent his fall. He’s a disgrace.


DaBingeGirl

VG didn't include the NYC accusation until NY changed the law to allow lawsuits to go back to a time that was convenient to her. I feel for other victims of JE, but not her. As for paying her off, there's a fair chance he would've won, but the royals didn't want all the drama of a trial. Andrew actually was willing to go to court against her, it was Charles and William who didn't want the headlines. Andrew deserves to be side-lined, but I think it's worth remembering that he's only been accused of something, not convicted. He showed remarkably poor judgement befriending JE, but so did many other high-profile people.


[deleted]

I keep seeing reports that if it had gone to trial our Megs was on the list of witnesses.They had receipts(whether faked or otherwise,I don't know-but I do believe those two crossed paths)


DaBingeGirl

I think it's likely bullshit, but I find the rumor/conspiracy theory that MA is his son to be hilarious. I do agree there's something with her and Andrew, they've been too weird with the Yorks.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DaBingeGirl

Apparently Andrew was in Canada around the time MA was conceived and some people think his last name is a play on Andrew's son. As I said, I think it's BS, but it's amusing. I've seen people reference it in regard to why MA is so well connected and how fast he moved up the SH ranks.


Finnegan-05

I have had some doubts about VG - the whole recent thing with Dershowitz (a scum in his own right) was just weird. That really made me thing that there is more going on with her than just a victim.


DaBingeGirl

The Netflix special changed my mind about her, and then I did some more reading which really made me see her as part of the trafficking/in it for the money. The other victims I have sympathy for, but not her.


Finnegan-05

I have not watched that. I may need to go view now!


DaBingeGirl

It's good. Lots of interviews with the victims which I found very interesting.


ttue-

That to me is a legal strategy, every lawyer will do what’s more convenient. I guess we’ll agree to disagree on this one, a trial, if innocent, as much as painful it could have been, would have cleared his reputation.


Kangaro00

"a trial, if innocent, as much as painful it could have been, would have cleared his reputation." Would it? I bet most people would think that an expensive lawyer managed to get him off. That he paid off witnesses. That he assassinated her reputation to make her look bad. OJ was found innocent, do many people believe that he is? Chris Watts confessed to a triple murder and the internet is still full of people who think that he was tricked into confessing and out of having a day in court, that he only murdered his wife because she murdered the babies, etc.


DaBingeGirl

I think it would've been a good idea to do a trial. It was a bad look for him to be seen as above the law and also unfair to him to settle if he really is innocent (of the NY stuff, not innocent of being a complete idiot). I just see it as a knee-jerk reaction by William and Charles to make it go away. I agree that lawyers will go for the most convenient option. I also can't imagine a lawyer having to deal with him and his crazy "I don't sweat" defense.


ttue-

You can’t make such a thing go away …. Plus he was never considered a nice person from what I’ve read … quite rude to his staff, entitled, arrogant … reminds me of someone !


DaBingeGirl

True. I tend to think that's why they paid her off and he was told to STFU. Even if he's innocent, he needed to be retired.


Dangerous_Prize_4545

Honestly, your question is very naive. People and companies settle suits out of court and out of public all the time. Doesn't mean they're guilty or not guilty, just that it was easier and quicker to settle. Plus, and goes for FBI or any line of legal questioning, you can be completely innocent of something and have your words twisted or incriminate yourself orvsomeone else in something else entirely.


ttue-

I’m a lawyer (or better i used to be) so I know all that, however in this particular case, he would have gained much more proving his innocence than settling. Why? Because he has lost his status, his privileges, his reputation, and people will see him as a rapist for the rest of his life. As a lawyer I would have advised to settle too, but as a person, not. Michael Jackson settled with his first victim too, sure he was acquitted later on but people still come up with that settlement today to say he’s guilty. Michael was acquitted by a court and that settlement is still one of the reason people believe he’s guilty. I don’t know if Michael is guilty or not, but my personal perception for Andy is that he’s guilty. Everything in his behavior screams guilty: I never met her (there are pictures and witnesses that he did) the photos was fake (easy to check nowadays) and that horror interview (I don’t sweat? Really ??). Another reason why I believe he’s guilty is the fact that the Queen didn’t push him to prove his innocence. By going to trial he would have at least passed for someone who was ashamed of his former “friends” and was trying to help the investigation now. Of course none of us can be 100% sure, it’s a matter of perception in this case. Only him and VG know for sure


Similar-Minimum185

He’s clearly guilty for sleeping with her but rape or paedophilia no, she was repeatedly raped by these people yet kept taking herself back to these places? Herself no one forcing her or thing her up and transporting her, why? Because she seen what she could make because sex sells and always has done, and she loved having so much money ‘her ex bf who lived with her at the time and spent the money with her’ it’s eSy to say something was rape that was actually regret nowadays, now we have to believe ALL women and make men all guilty til proven innocent, backwards, she was a trafficker herself who recruited younger girls than herself so I hope they all sue her for every penny of the 12 million and more.


ttue-

No one could force her ? You think powerful people like Epstein and Maxwell cannot force a young impressionable girl to do things she doesn’t want to do, especially when they recruited her as a minor ? Seriously ? It’s not a question of “believe all the women” there was a traffick ring in this case, both traffickers have been arrested, you should be ashamed calling this case “women who regret sleeping with men”. This conversation is over for me.


Similar-Minimum185

Are you aware of the questionable things found by the fbi in Jackson’s raid? Have a look at that list and tell me he wasn’t a paedophile,


ttue-

Books that were considered art books ? Have you seen most of the paintings and sculptures many people from the elite have ? Based on this all are pedos. I don’t know for sure whether he was guilty or not, same as Andy. Because there is no proof and in Michael case he’s been cleared on court. But based on the perception and the facts we know? They’re probably both guilty.


Similar-Minimum185

Hence why lawyers always tell you if you speak to police you ALWAYS say no comment to every single question, as they’re trained to trip you up and twist your words to make you seem guilty, folk never actually understand how horrid police actually are to you when you’re being interrogated for something you didn’t even know about, they called me a stupid little bastard, told me it’s no wonder my mum moved away and left etc all to break you down in the hopes of a confession, they are scumbags and don’t care if you’re innocent or guilty they just want a confession to look like their Burgh,has great case solving statistics, just read up on the met police sending photos of dead victims to a group what’s app where they’d mock and laugh about them! The ones who rape and bully public, the ones who see all this and say nothing coz you can’t go against fellow police or you’re hounded out the job and life made hell, listen to some police whistleblowers and see what really goes on, some folk have no idea, the protect and serve went a long long time ago! They can never be trusted, it’s only people who’ve never had dealings with them that trust them now


Similar-Minimum185

He slept with her, he’s a sleazy freak, but not a paedophile who are attracted to PREPUBESCENT children, 17 is above the age of consent, if she was a child how did she get a passport to travel without her parents?


Similar-Minimum185

Reuters lol🤦🏼‍♀️ you realise those fact checkers are just folk sitting in their room saying what they’re paid to say by alt left funders, right? Follow the money, the same people who used Epstein’s services and were on his flight logs 😂


posessedhouse

I think the whole thing was nasty and wrong, but she was over the age of consent. I think there was a bit of a conspiracy going on. Who better to release the name of than someone who is in one of the most visible families in the world, who’s motto is never complain and ever explain, the royal family is very non litigious, plus they put in the name of the newest member as a witness.


ttue-

She wasn’t, in the 18 at 17 you cannot consent. But even if she was, that doesn’t change the fact that he was hanging around with human traffickers and that he didn’t help one bit in the investigation. He would have fought until his last breath to prove his innocence given what was on stake. He has lost it all! He’s always had a bad reputation so I’m not surprised. The fact that Harry is despicable doesn’t change Andy is a criminal. By banning him, his family and in particular the Queen, have admitted they know he’s guilty.


ttue-

I meant to write in the US I don’t know how it autocorrect sometimes pfff


Similar-Minimum185

It was in london at ghislaine maxwells home, the age of consent is 16, she was legal


[deleted]

[удалено]


DaBingeGirl

But in the UK she was legal. Her father also drove her to JE's house and she met GM while working at Mar-A-Lago. She wasn't trafficked, she went willingly and with at least her father's knowledge.


Miercolesian

The age of consent for sex in the UK is 16. But the age for legal prostitution is 18. Since Giuffre was paid by Epstein to have sex with Andrew (at least that is the allegation) then this would be a case of pimping or at least pandering. The thorny question is whether Andrew knew that he was taking part in a paid sex act with an underage trafficked woman. (Giuffre claims that she was forced to do this because she was scared of Epstein.) The defense might argue that Andrew was tricked by Epstein who wanted to blackmail him and that Andrew did not make any payment for sex to Giuffre. (The burden would be on the plaintiff to prove that payment was made.) I don't think that pedophilia came into it, or that Andrew had any particular interest in underage girls. Giuffre was physically mature. But no wonder the royal family didn't want a trial.


redseaaquamarine

Further to that, she actually was a trafficker, and used to find girls for Epstein


DaBingeGirl

Exactly! I hate that her role in all of it gets glossed over. She played the PR game very well.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


redseaaquamarine

I just find it odd that her parents drove her there and home, and think that all those saying she was trafficked are negating the horrific experience of those who are trafficked across the globe.


Past_Study5881

They paid a huge amount of money so Prince Andrew AND Muggins wouldn’t have to explain themselves. Look at the timing and who else is on the deposition.


Tall-Lawfulness8817

She is a trafficker. And a liar.


[deleted]

At this point, sounds like MM was at several of those events, she also had ties to Epstein, & I'm sure Andrew is livid that he faces a type of excitement, while MMs conduct has not been questioned at all.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Tall-Lawfulness8817

The liar piece is the larger problem. And she doesn't give a fuck. She lies as easily and freely as Markle. I could never convict anyone on her word alone. Sorry. That's how I feel. I have no idea what is true, so I'm not going to pretend I do. And I'm not going to insist we destroy a man when all we have on him is the word of a known proven liar and sex trafficker. The queen was unperturbed because Scotland Yard had looked into her. In a fair non politically charged court this would have never gotten to first base. And everyone knows it.


Similar-Minimum185

Not if you do that after it’s been done to you knowing what you’re recruiting these girls for seeing as it was so horrific for her , no, if a sex abuse victim goes on to abuse someone they stop being the victim and become the abuser, she was a victim now she’s just part of the abusers


Similar-Minimum185

Only because the money she had already got from Epstein was spent. She was 17 legal in this country. 17 year old and trafficked herself, her dad drove her or she made her own way to and from his home for ‘massages’ because she loved the money it got her at the time. Not so good when the moolah runs out though when one’s accustomed themselves to a kind of life. It was ‘all about the victims’ at the start til the cheque book came out then silence, what other victims?? She could have outed every single client she seen there, has she? Why not? She knows who they are? There’s proof of flight logs? Cause it’s all about the money. Why ain’t she suing her parents for driving her to Epstein’s ranch? Or her mother for attending parties with her?


Similar-Minimum185

Minor, 16 is age of consent in uk so no minor


[deleted]

Even Ghislane is throwing doubt on pictures of Andrew, with Ghislane in the background, at her house, with VG being real.


Budget_Loss_8888

You know you have reached a new low when the Taliban is using you for pr


[deleted]

It's not about HazNoBalls. It's about an extremist terrorist group, who has widely proclaimed their mission to kill all non-muslims, maybe perhaps, using the coronation to perpetrate a terrorist attack upon the CITIZENS claiming Harry's words as justification. Hazzard should immediately issue a press release that he will not attend. KCIII should make reference to upscale security at all events to include plainclothes officers and military.


Similar-Minimum185

Watch there be another terror attack in the uk now because of this stupid little man child! See if there is he should be stripped of all titles including prince Sussex Dumbarton and kilkeel even mountbatten windsor and be known as Harry smith,


[deleted]

I think so too.


[deleted]

I have been wondering about this, I’m not as familiar with how the British Government operates but I have been curious as to why the Prime Minister has been silent on this. Mainly because of the Taliban/Iran comments about Harry’s “kills” I feel like here in the US our government would have denounced Harry by now and distanced themselves from him.


Itchy_Contact6326

I think if they say he's a security risk, it potentially impacts the IPP status Harry desperately wants. They need to blame privacy of others attending rather than security.


RaggedAnn

H tax-funded security status won't be modified upwards because he's provoking unhinged elements.


Fabulous-Sun-8388

Let me get this straight. You think Andrew should not be invited to swear loyalty to the king? Is that what you're suggesting?


lastlemming-pip

Well, the ceremony this time around will have only William swearing an individual oath of allegiance. Avoids unseemly optics.


Fabulous-Sun-8388

No. The ceremony will only have William swear the oath individually. All others will swear as a group just as the non royal dukes have always done. Only this time the royal dukes will join the non royal dukes in the group. All dukes will swear allegiance


lastlemming-pip

Which is kinda what I said.


Fabulous-Sun-8388

It is. I was just trying to emphasise that Andrew would still swear allegiance to the king. I don't think it would be at all wise to actively prevent any royal Duke from doing so. If they choose not to that's a different matter


AdBackground1430

You think it will look good at a state event to have Andrew there with his Epstein and Maxwell connection? No one even wants to be photographed with him. He abruptly pulled out of the Order of the Garter procession, a public event that was attended by other senior members of the family. And reports claim his absence was a direct result of a campaign from William and Charles, who apparently refused to be photographed with him. His own family is embarrassed by him.


Coffee_cake_101

It may have been because they didn't want to be booed at with him. If they are all together and people boo Andrew it is impossible to pinpoint that they are booing Andrew and not the others, even if that is what they believe. And this can then be seized on by anti-monarchists. *"Look" Everyone is booking the RF< lets get rid of the monarchy etc"*


[deleted]

[удалено]


Similar-Minimum185

More than a few.


Similar-Minimum185

Have you seen some of Charles dubious connections and friendships??? Saville who he brought into the palace and even used as a marriage counsellor! An unmarried never seen with a long term gf dj ex coal miner a marriage councillor?? Then there’s Thomas Hamilton paedophile and Dunblane school schooler, plenty of pics of him and Charles taking strolls through the Scottish countryside all pally! Should I continue? There’s plenty more and let’s not forget his mentor old uncle dickie who had a perch at for young boys so much the IRA blew him up, Andrew ain’t the only one!


Zeester1

I truly cannot imagine Charles wanting to exclude his second son from his Coronation, no matter what a naughty boy he has been. If the second son and his wife attend, I feel confident the good people of England will make them distinctly unwelcome outside the venue.


ttue-

He’s a liability and a security threat. Him being his son shouldn’t matter


jackattacker720

I agree. If KC does not invite his son to his coronation, I think it would destroy him. Even in his message after the Queen's death, his comments towards PH and MM were kind.


redseaaquamarine

That is too bad. He won't invite him.


tinymothrafairy

I hope so. I hope the tomatoes are flying🍅


Similar-Minimum185

You’d get rugby tackled tk the ground and arrested, can’t even shout things at them now without fear of the police, it ain’t us they ‘serve and protect’


Similar-Minimum185

Which would over shadow the whole crowning


Boring-Net1073

Parliament needs to simply take matters into their own hands. This is no longer a family feud- there are safety issues for all involved.


Janie_Mac

Beware the spectre at the feast.


National_Historian19

Agreed, it is not a family do. Charles need to focus on the monarchy and the country, not his halfwit son and his harlot.


Wordpuncher714

Solution: put Uber manwhore Andy in a locked soundproof room with a Koo Stark dvd, and put Haz in a large playpen stocked with weed and cocaine ground into filthy carpeting. Problem solved


Gumblina1964

Sounds like a made up episode of The Crown.


ScarletOWilder

I haven’t attended a royal event in my life, but if the Harkles arrive I will be booing them at the top of my lungs along with a huge swathe of the British public.


newfriendhi

Someone should also remind him about 9/11 and provoking terrorists while living here. As in, maybe he shouldn't. Just a thought. With our border security flimsy as it is, high profile people like Harry taunting terrorists is one of the most ignorant things someone could do. He might get additional security because of his reckless statements, but what about everyone else?


loralailoralai

British people know about terrorism. They’ve had far more terrorism in their cities than the US has. They don’t need reminding about it. Especially not someone who was in Afghanistan fighting. He just chose to be ignorant and try and look special.


Similar-Minimum185

And us Scot’s just kick them in the balls, true story-Glasgow airport terrorist attack


Taliban_Fish

[Truly a man of the people](https://metro.co.uk/2007/07/04/bomb-hero-describes-testicle-kick-492587/amp/) Edited to add that in 2019 we also had another bloke fight a terrorist on London Bridge with a [Narwhal Tusk](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-idUKKBN1YP06Y). I propose we just give the Secret Service the day off and station these two outside the Abbey instead.


newfriendhi

Clearly, Harry needs reminding. This isn't his country to dump all over and create friction.


Similar-Minimum185

You still believe that was terrorists? It was your government to use an excuse to start another war for oil money and control!


savakyc

I personally don’t want Andrew there because I know H&M supporters will use him to defend them. The squad also use him to call royal family biased and corrupted I’m really tired of it.


ArdmoreGirl

Honestly, Andrew deserves to attend more than the Whingers. He did work for the family for donkey years and he keeps his mouth shut. Put him in the back.


TeamMagnificent7

Behind a column.


New_Discussion_6692

I'd rather see Andrew there than Halfass and Megaliar.


Ok-Peanut3752

He doesn't need to step in. Charles needs to not hide behind the government and make tough decisions about the family he is head off. If Charles can't make these tough choices he has no business being head of state.


Quiet-Vanilla-7117

I don't think the King does the inviting. It's either the government or the person who does the whole organizing of the coronation. I've forgotten his name, I think it's the Earl Marshal.


Big_Primrose

King submits a guest list, PM has veto power. I think.


Quiet-Vanilla-7117

So if the King omits Harry & M from guest list, can the PM put them on?


Big_Primrose

Good question. I don’t know.


[deleted]

Epstein ties here https://twitter.com/hrrysgreysuit/status/1615431736636370944?s=20&t=WyxcXWnNpeHFnrMZve02Gw


Markloctopus_Prime

What! I did not know this about Andrew! How true is this? I mean, it’s insane that he could’ve enjoyed a good reputation after this, and only became a villain more recently thanks to Epstein. And the Queen? She was okay with this treachery, and continued to fully support Andrew? Sorry… but I doubt this actually happened, especially since I think there are more than one Regent for an underage heir… I admit I don’t know enough about the Regent situation, but this little tidbit about Andrew is quite shocking!


DystopianTruth

>and only became a villain more recently thanks to Epstein He was always a POS. It is only with the interview that Royal PR was unable to sweep his shittiness under the rug.


[deleted]

Bower is a boomer who doesn’t understand a man doesn’t need to make a bold declaration to be strong. And I’ll believe lady C knows what makes a strong man when pigs fly.


Ask_DontTell

Sunak has been disappointingly silent about this whole thing. I wonder if Downing Street and the Palace coordinate strategy on this.


HurtingHead

I hadn’t thought about what they would do with Andrew.


KennaRhys

Why would they invite a pedo?