The backlash is in full flow now and it's beginning to reflect on the Royal family at large.
THE BBC’s royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell has revealed that the Queen appears to have “lost central control” of Buckingham Palace. He made the claim after Prince Andrew’s Newsnight interview last night and the massive critical backlash.Royal expert Mr Witchell made the claim following the intense backlash to Prince Andrew’s interview with Emily Maitliss. Witchell told BBC News that interview was proof that the broader situation in Buckingham Palace unravelling. The BBC’s royal commentator said: “They would have advised, if their advice was sought, not to do it. The Queen was informed but she is 93 years old now, and she is not exercising the strong control she had, if she ever did.
Witchell agreed with ex-Buckingham Palace press officer Dickie Arbiter that Prince Andrew "bulldozed his way" into the BBC interview.
Mr Arbiter queried why the prince decided to answer questions about his links with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.For several months the Duke of York had been facing questions over his ties to Epstein, a 66-year-old US financier who took his own life while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges.
Mr Arbiter described the interview as "excruciating".
He said: "They will be wondering: was this the right decision? Was the right decision made? Who made the decision to put him on? Did he make it himself or did he seek advice within the palace? "My guess is that he bulldozed his way in and decided he was going to do it himself without any advice.
"Any sensible-thinking person in the PR business would have thrown their hands up in horror at the very suggestion that he puts himself up in front of a television camera to explain away his actions and his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein."
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
He's facing increasing demands to make a statement to the FBI.
His attempt to draw a line under the whole affair has backfired spectacularly.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Exactly, they won't show the deference that the BBC did.
He would just open himself up to charges of perjury.
I think he hoped that he could say ''look I've answered all the questions you have already in my TV interview''.
The interview has resulted in more questions than it has given answers.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Smitty-48 wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:46 am
That's where he could really get himself into trouble.
They better keep him away from American law enforcement, cause they are not going to go easy on him.
All his balderdash would fall to pieces under the scrutiny of the police.
"I don't sweat cuz I fought in the Falklands" lol. What a fuckin' buffoon.
He's fucking sweating now.
Of course, there are floods of pictures coming out of him leaving nightclubs with young women showing him sweating profusely.
For once Piers Morgan is right, he's treating us as mugs.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
His PR advisor resigned a couple of weeks ago after failing to persuade him not to take part in the interview.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
This is going to make the ''annus horribilis'' look like a Buck house tea party in comparison.
Could be the death of her majesty.
There have always been rumours that Andrew is the Queen's favorite son.
Last edited by Montegriffo on Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
