News about Andrew and Sarah

[Gemsheal]

Ugh, more slime.   Or should that read, more Andrew.   And Sarah too, what a surprise.   

[Miss Marple]

I just wish they would stop. Both. They had the privilige - Sarah went off with her toe-sucking lover and Andrew blew his position. They should not take money from shady people now instead. Why can't they acknowlege that they were not cut out for a representation job and blew the position they had.

[getafix]

ahh the gift that keeps on giving...


carry on, chaps

G

[Future Crayon]

Day two of the latest Andrew story. He has paid the money back, according to the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60961791 but also dragged his daughters into the mess

[Miss Marple]

Will he ever learn that there is no free dinner in life?

[Gemsheal]

https://www.dailymail.co....ss-Beatrices-wedding.html

The poor Queen.  She's the one I feel a modicum of pity for ... Though I suppose Andrew will have explained it all away to her.

[Curtains]

I am a little surprised that the tone is that Bea & Eugenie were “dragged” into it.  Based on this story, Eugenie took 25,000Bp - that’s not exactly being dragged into anything. While Bea may or may not have known that Andy (I just erased another description) was funding her wedding via other sources.  What was Andy’s quid pro quo on that?

The money from the sale of the chalet seems to have been spent several times over - for his lawyers, for Bea’s wedding, for the Guiffre settlement.  Unless that chalet was La Petit Trianon, it can’t have stretched to over all of those items.  The Queen has to have written checks for at least part of that (attorney fees I think?).

IMO, that’s it for Eugenie.  Bea hasn’t been noted as knowing how her wedding was funded, but Eugenie surely knew that taking her cut was not proper.  However, this begs another question - maybe this happens to Eugenie so often - a stray five-figure quid showing up in her account - that she no longer questions its provenance.

Sarah & Andy - I don’t think Sarah’s grift ever stopped, she just got slightly better at hiding it.  The two of them better be hitting their knees and praying for HMTQ to live as long as her mom.

[Future Crayon]

I am a little surprised that the tone is that Bea & Eugenie were “dragged” into it.  Based on this story, Eugenie took 25,000Bp - that’s not exactly being dragged into anything. While Bea may or may not have known that Andy (I just erased another description) was funding her wedding via other sources.  What was Andy’s quid pro quo on that?

The money from the sale of the chalet seems to have been spent several times over - for his lawyers, for Bea’s wedding, for the Guiffre settlement.  Unless that chalet was La Petit Trianon, it can’t have stretched to over all of those items.  The Queen has to have written checks for at least part of that (attorney fees I think?).

IMO, that’s it for Eugenie.  Bea hasn’t been noted as knowing how her wedding was funded, but Eugenie surely knew that taking her cut was not proper.  However, this begs another question - maybe this happens to Eugenie so often - a stray five-figure quid showing up in her account - that she no longer questions its provenance.

Sarah & Andy - I don’t think Sarah’s grift ever stopped, she just got slightly better at hiding it.  The two of them better be hitting their knees and praying for HMTQ to live as long as her mom.

The Telegraph uses the word "dragged" five times on its front page, which is, as you say, somewhat leading. What a family. Parents who are as dodgy as they come, and two daughters who at best are majestically incurious where their money comes from

[Princess MS]

I am a little surprised that the tone is that Bea & Eugenie were “dragged” into it.  Based on this story, Eugenie took 25,000Bp - that’s not exactly being dragged into anything. While Bea may or may not have known that Andy (I just erased another description) was funding her wedding via other sources.  What was Andy’s quid pro quo on that?

The money from the sale of the chalet seems to have been spent several times over - for his lawyers, for Bea’s wedding, for the Guiffre settlement.  Unless that chalet was La Petit Trianon, it can’t have stretched to over all of those items.  The Queen has to have written checks for at least part of that (attorney fees I think?).

IMO, that’s it for Eugenie.  Bea hasn’t been noted as knowing how her wedding was funded, but Eugenie surely knew that taking her cut was not proper.  However, this begs another question - maybe this happens to Eugenie so often - a stray five-figure quid showing up in her account - that she no longer questions its provenance.

Sarah & Andy - I don’t think Sarah’s grift ever stopped, she just got slightly better at hiding it.  The two of them better be hitting their knees and praying for HMTQ to live as long as her mom.

The Telegraph uses the word "dragged" five times on its front page, which is, as you say, somewhat leading. What a family. Parents who are as dodgy as they come, and two daughters who at best are majestically incurious where their money comes from

[Princess MS]

I am a little surprised that the tone is that Bea & Eugenie were “dragged” into it.  Based on this story, Eugenie took 25,000Bp - that’s not exactly being dragged into anything. While Bea may or may not have known that Andy (I just erased another description) was funding her wedding via other sources.  What was Andy’s quid pro quo on that?

The money from the sale of the chalet seems to have been spent several times over - for his lawyers, for Bea’s wedding, for the Guiffre settlement.  Unless that chalet was La Petit Trianon, it can’t have stretched to over all of those items.  The Queen has to have written checks for at least part of that (attorney fees I think?).

IMO, that’s it for Eugenie.  Bea hasn’t been noted as knowing how her wedding was funded, but Eugenie surely knew that taking her cut was not proper.  However, this begs another question - maybe this happens to Eugenie so often - a stray five-figure quid showing up in her account - that she no longer questions its provenance.

Sarah & Andy - I don’t think Sarah’s grift ever stopped, she just got slightly better at hiding it.  The two of them better be hitting their knees and praying for HMTQ to live as long as her mom.

The Telegraph uses the word "dragged" five times on its front page, which is, as you say, somewhat leading. What a family. Parents who are as dodgy as they come, and two daughters who at best are majestically incurious where their money comes from

The whole family is the same...   Anne and family and Edward too and of course Andy ... Charles as well ... they are all on the take...

[kbart]

I don't understand this talk of money for Beatrice's wedding. She had a tiny, private, wedding under Covid rules. There's never been any indication that there were more guests than just closest family. The dress was borrowed from the Queen, as was the tiara. The wedding was "at home", OK a small Windsor chapel (not St George's), the flowers also came from Windsor. I feel she may be a victim/fall guy of her car-crash parents in this... it has all the hallmarks of Andrew and Sarah's avarice - they both have form in this but AFAIK their daughters do not...

[jolene]

I don't understand this talk of money for Beatrice's wedding. She had a tiny, private, wedding under Covid rules. There's never been any indication that there were more guests than just closest family. The dress was borrowed from the Queen, as was the tiara. The wedding was "at home", OK a small Windsor chapel (not St George's), the flowers also came from Windsor. I feel she may be a victim/fall guy of her car-crash parents in this... it has all the hallmarks of Andrew and Sarah's avarice - they both have form in this but AFAIK their daughters do not...

Don't get that either. Bea had a tiny wedding with a borrowed dress and borrowed tiara.

[Oh_Caroline]

The payment "for the wedding" was made in November 2019.  At the time the public was unaware of the plans for Beatrice's wedding and it wasn't until February 2020 that was announced that the wedding was planned for May 2020 at the Chapel Royal, St  James's Palace with a garden party style reception at BP.  COVID would ultimately change things to the small private ceremony in July 2020 at the Royal Chapel of All Saints, Windsor.  The extent of the original plans and the accompanying expense is unknown.

I've had concerns about Eugenie for a while and this article reinforces them. 

Eugenie last night became the first member of the York family to offer an explanation, saying £25,000 she had received from 'a long-standing family friend' had been to help with the cost of catering for a surprise party for her mother's 60th birthday.

In a statement issued last night, Eugenie said: 'I suggested that any contribution could be made directly to the caterers, but in the event provided my account details to which two payments were made totalling £25,000, which I then transferred on to the company organising my mother's party.'

The princess, who is consulting her lawyers, said she did not know Mr Turk or Mrs Isbilen.

Yesterday Andrew's spokesman said: 'We are unable to comment on an ongoing legal case.'

I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that they find it completely normal for other people to pay for parties they organize and hold.  I was raised very differently and would have been so embarrassed had I needed to accept "contributions" from "family friends" to pay for a party...really to pay for anything.

[Bunnyette]

I am a little surprised that the tone is that Bea & Eugenie were “dragged” into it.  Based on this story, Eugenie took 25,000Bp - that’s not exactly being dragged into anything. While Bea may or may not have known that Andy (I just erased another description) was funding her wedding via other sources.  What was Andy’s quid pro quo on that?

The money from the sale of the chalet seems to have been spent several times over - for his lawyers, for Bea’s wedding, for the Guiffre settlement.  Unless that chalet was La Petit Trianon, it can’t have stretched to over all of those items.  The Queen has to have written checks for at least part of that (attorney fees I think?).

IMO, that’s it for Eugenie.  Bea hasn’t been noted as knowing how her wedding was funded, but Eugenie surely knew that taking her cut was not proper.  However, this begs another question - maybe this happens to Eugenie so often - a stray five-figure quid showing up in her account - that she no longer questions its provenance.

Sarah & Andy - I don’t think Sarah’s grift ever stopped, she just got slightly better at hiding it.  The two of them better be hitting their knees and praying for HMTQ to live as long as her mom.

The Telegraph uses the word "dragged" five times on its front page, which is, as you say, somewhat leading. What a family. Parents who are as dodgy as they come, and two daughters who at best are majestically incurious where their money comes from

The whole family is the same...   Anne and family and Edward too and of course Andy ... Charles as well ... they are all on the take...

Perhaps.  At least Zara’s open about her sponsorships and I think the others are just smarter about who they deal with.   Bea& Eugenie are well practiced in the art of blind indifference just like Granny

[LongMaySheReign]

This is not a good look on Eugenie. I expected better from her, so I'm disappointed.