Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: News about Andrew and Sarah  (Read 12724 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Gemsheal

Large Member
******

Reputation: 590

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1584


I make my own memes




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2022, 03:27:24 PM »

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

ďThe spirit of the artist doesn't belong to one person or another.  It belongs to all of us.  Don't keep its playfulness and generosity buried." 
Gloria Vanderbilt - Woman to Woman
Miss Marple

Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 1890

Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 7174





Ignore
« Reply #16 on: April 01, 2022, 03:37:58 PM »

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.
Logged
getafix

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3772

Offline Offline

Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, British

Posts: 20343


Bye-Bye MEDiana Who!!!!




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2022, 12:23:29 AM »

ahh the gift that keeps on giving...


carry on, chaps Banana

G Smiley
Logged

ANDREW DENTON: Yes. What did... When you first met, what did you see in each other? CROWN PRINCE FREDERIK: What did we see in each other? We saw... Well, it's a bit hard. It's a bit blurry, in a way, because it was just after the Olympics had started and it was one of those evenings where...
Future Crayon

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3833

Offline Offline

Posts: 13724


Til and Phil fan account




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2022, 11:31:33 AM »

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







Logged

Cool your jets, everyone
Miss Marple

Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 1890

Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 7174





Ignore
« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2022, 02:09:02 PM »

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

Large Member
******

Reputation: 590

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1584


I make my own memes




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2022, 03:06:30 PM »

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.
Logged

ďThe spirit of the artist doesn't belong to one person or another.  It belongs to all of us.  Don't keep its playfulness and generosity buried." 
Gloria Vanderbilt - Woman to Woman
Curtains

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1678

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3616





Ignore
« Reply #21 on: April 02, 2022, 03:25:29 PM »

I am a little surprised that the tone is that Bea & Eugenie were ďdraggedĒ into it.  Based on this story, Eugenie took 25,000Bp - thatís 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 Andyís 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 Beaís wedding, for the Guiffre settlement.  Unless that chalet was La Petit Trianon, it canít 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, thatís it for Eugenie.  Bea hasnít 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 donít think Sarahís 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.
Logged

"Some of it's magic, and some of it's tragic: but I had a good life, all the way." - Jimmy Buffet, America's premiere poet
Future Crayon

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3833

Offline Offline

Posts: 13724


Til and Phil fan account




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: April 02, 2022, 03:38:08 PM »

I am a little surprised that the tone is that Bea & Eugenie were ďdraggedĒ into it.  Based on this story, Eugenie took 25,000Bp - thatís 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 Andyís 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 Beaís wedding, for the Guiffre settlement.  Unless that chalet was La Petit Trianon, it canít 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, thatís it for Eugenie.  Bea hasnít 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 donít think Sarahís 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
Logged

Cool your jets, everyone
Princess MS

Warned
Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 768

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 4013





Ignore
« Reply #23 on: April 02, 2022, 04:02:40 PM »

I am a little surprised that the tone is that Bea & Eugenie were ďdraggedĒ into it.  Based on this story, Eugenie took 25,000Bp - thatís 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 Andyís 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 Beaís wedding, for the Guiffre settlement.  Unless that chalet was La Petit Trianon, it canít 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, thatís it for Eugenie.  Bea hasnít 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 donít think Sarahís 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
Logged
Princess MS

Warned
Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 768

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 4013





Ignore
« Reply #24 on: April 02, 2022, 04:06:12 PM »

I am a little surprised that the tone is that Bea & Eugenie were ďdraggedĒ into it.  Based on this story, Eugenie took 25,000Bp - thatís 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 Andyís 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 Beaís wedding, for the Guiffre settlement.  Unless that chalet was La Petit Trianon, it canít 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, thatís it for Eugenie.  Bea hasnít 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 donít think Sarahís 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...
Logged
kbart

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 131

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 264





Ignore
« Reply #25 on: April 02, 2022, 04:14:55 PM »

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...
Logged
jolene

Large Member
******

Reputation: 304

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1571





Ignore
« Reply #26 on: April 02, 2022, 04:35:04 PM »

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.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1319

Offline Offline

Posts: 5206





Ignore
« Reply #27 on: April 02, 2022, 04:44:14 PM »

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. 

Quote
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.
Logged
Bunnyette

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 86

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 224





Ignore
« Reply #28 on: April 02, 2022, 04:52:15 PM »

I am a little surprised that the tone is that Bea & Eugenie were ďdraggedĒ into it.  Based on this story, Eugenie took 25,000Bp - thatís 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 Andyís 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 Beaís wedding, for the Guiffre settlement.  Unless that chalet was La Petit Trianon, it canít 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, thatís it for Eugenie.  Bea hasnít 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 donít think Sarahís 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 Zaraís 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
Logged
LongMaySheReign

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 175

Offline Offline

France France

Posts: 296





Ignore
« Reply #29 on: April 02, 2022, 04:53:36 PM »

This is not a good look on Eugenie. I expected better from her, so I'm disappointed.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: