Behind the royal façade: what are they hiding from us?

Prince Charles and the sinister valet

Prince Charles’s former ‘indispensable’ valet Michael Fawcett has been frequently mentioned in many other places, and not in a good way. He sounds very unsavoury indeed. He eventually resigned after much criticism but came back as a freelance organiser.

The DM book extract says this about him:

“He knew precisely how to please him. When the Prince arranged to have a dinner for donors in Hong Kong, for instance, Fawcett shipped over a full set of eighteenth-century china and glasses from England. He also brought a set of special bells used by Charles to summon his staff.

In his guise as a valet, he travelled everywhere with his master. Such was the trust that Charles invested in Fawcett that the valet became his Rasputin, empowered to outflank everyone at court.

For that reason, the Queen had no time for him. Observers at a dinner in Holyrood noticed that she cringed when his name was mentioned. In Charles's eyes, however, he could do no wrong.“

Special bells? Different notes for different people?

It seems that the Queen has little influence over Prince Charles now.

Michael Fawcett was also involved with the billionaires who bought access to Prince Charles:

“If Fawcett took against one of the charity donors, the Prince would echo his judgment.

One casualty was John Studzinski, a sophisticated and generous American-born investment banker. Invited to a lunch at St James's Palace, he'd given a finely worked speech about raising funds for the homeless. Afterwards, Charles told an organiser, 'John shouldn't have made the address, because Michael says that he doesn't give me enough money.'”

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5529153/The-Prince-sale-super-rich-offered-favours-Charles.html

John Studzinski is a familiar name from the Epstein Connections thread.

Prince Charles comes very badly out of all of this. He is definitely not monarch material.

The snowball effect

It is all very well to remove all Prince Andrew’s privileges and sideline the Sussexes, but it might all backfire.

Maybe Princes Charles and William think that they are safeguarding the monarchy by removing some rotten apples, but it might have the opposite effect in that with nothing much to report about the black sheep, the media will turn all of their attention to the remaining royals.

There is something called the snowball method for clearing debt that may be relevant here.

The debt snowball method is a debt reduction strategy where you pay off debt in order of smallest to largest, gaining momentum as you knock out each balance. When the smallest debt is paid in full, you roll the money you were paying on that debt into the next smallest balance and so on.

When various royals step back or are relieved of their duties, the others have to carry the load and bear the scrutiny. For example, knocking out Prince Andrew may mean that Prince Charles’s dealings with Jimmy Savile and various other unsavoury characters will be highlighted yet again - and this time it will stick.

Get in some industrial-sized boxes of popcorn!

Crimes against the English language

It is interesting to see how some of the royals express themselves when they speak for themselves as opposed to using a scriptwriter.

Some of Meghan Markle’s effusions are beneath contempt. Prince Andrew showed his level in the recent interview.

The recent endorsement of Prince Andrew by Sarah Ferguson deserves some kind of award for sheer awfulness. “He for me”; “put his shoulder to the wind”... they deserve each other. They also deserve severe punishment for their crimes against the English language!

Surely the whole point of the royals is that they should be special and set a good example.

Here is the disgusting Tweet in question:

Contradictions, speculation, ‘sources’ and ‘friends’

One thing that makes the Epstein mess even worse is the lack of genuine information from official sources and the rush to fill the vacuum with speculation, misinformation and spin, not to mention attempts to shift the blame.

There are many conflicting accounts of who did what.

The Queen for example knew about the impending interview and gave permission for it; she also knew nothing about it!

Who really was for and who really was against the idea?

The Queen is in full control of everything; the Queen is incapable of dealing with the current crises in the royal family.

It was the Queen’s decision to fire Prince Andrew; it was Prince Charles who was the hatchet man.

Prince Andrew is gone for good; the royals are waiting for things to die down and be forgotten so they can re-instate him.

Why don’t they realise how bad it makes them all look?

And after all that we know now, who would believe an official announcement anyway?

The royal finances

I have vague memories of Queen Victoria and a huge legacy that she used to buy Balmoral with. I am not sure where the money she paid for Sandringham came from.

I know that the Queen wanted to pay for the repairs to Windsor Castle with public money, which caused much outrage.

I think it would take a team of expert investigators many years to get the true picture.

I hope that the royals are getting the message that they are running out of credit.

The serial spender

Her financial problems go back beyond 2010, I remember reading about them at the time as they made headline news.

From Wiki:
"In the mid 1990s, the Duchess reportedly had a £4.2 million deficit in her bank account which she paid off by going on "a four-year earning spree" in the US."

I can't remember where I read this recently, but it was said that she would take her daughters on binge shopping sprees. You'd think that after owing millions you'd reform your spending habits, but obviously not.

Sarah's troubled past - a royal puppet?

I meant to get this posted a couple of days ago, but the more I looked the deeper the rabbit hole became.

Firstly, a bit of background from what I remember of the public sentiment prior to the wedding of Andrew and Sarah in 1986. Although only 33 years ago, attitudes were a lot different then, and there was much feeling from the public that she was an unsuitable bride. Believe it or not, many still felt that royal brides should be virgins, and as Sarah had cohabited twice with a couple of boyfriends, a lot was said about her ‘shabby past’. I suppose that Randy Andy’s past was irrelevant, quite a double standard there. I even saw comments that a Register Office wedding would be more appropriate. The odds were stacked against her from the start.

Sarah alleged in the series Finding Sarah in 2011, broadcast on the Oprah Winfrey Network, that she had suffered physical and emotional abuse from her mother and father. She said that “'When she used to hit me because I didn't sit on my potty or wouldn't eat, a little vein would come up on the centre of my head near my red hair.’ It was this vein that her mother dubbed the 'sign of the devil' as she tried to beat it out of her.”
www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1394550/Sarah-Ferguson-reveals-television-abuse-inflicted-mother.html

However, almost two months later she reneged on that story that was broadcast to millions. She said that it was a joke, she was being light-hearted and that she idolised her late mother.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020672/Sarah-Ferguson-My-mother-didnt-beat--just-joke.html
“I was just being light-hearted. She was a wonderful mother and I loved every moment with her … I loved my mother and father. They gave me the most idyllic childhood.”

Are we seriously meant to believe that? She makes allegations of abuse about her late parents, and says that it was ‘light-hearted’ and a ‘joke’? What would her sister and other relatives think of that? She also said that as a child she left messages around the house for her mother such as this one: “I used to leave messages for her when I was little, saying, ‘I'm frightened you're going to die in a car crash.’ Obviously, I had a premonition.”

What a strange thing to say. Her mother Susan Barrantes was killed in 1998 in a car crash in Argentina that decapitated her. That’s such a shocking thing to happen, so if she idolised her mother, why bring up her death in such a way?

Looking at all this, if she had a troubled childhood, a legacy of trauma from abuse may explain the impulsive, over the top behaviour that she has exhibited over the years. It’s interesting to note that Ghislaine Maxwell claimed that her father beat her when she was a child (mentioned in the first post of the Epstein Connections thread).

Sarah has remained with Andrew for years, even though they are divorced. Ghislaine stayed with Epstein even though he wouldn't marry her.

Could Sarah have been fulfilling some sort of purpose as someone who could be controlled? Why has she pretty much remained under the same roof as Andrew for so many years since their divorce? I’ve seen some interesting pictures with telling symbolism, such as these butterfly shoes:


I think you also posted a photo of her Alice in Wonderland shoes UnseenI . This necklace is odd - who has a key as a pendant? Is she the captor or captive?


Here’s a painting of a fragmented Sarah:

Sarah Ferguson

These posts raise many points, one of which is that like attracts like and people on the same wavelength are often drawn together. Perhaps they really are ignorant consciously of what the other has done or is like below the surface, but unconsciously they recognise and home in on each other.

I am thinking of Jane Andrews, who was Sarah Ferguson’s aide and dresser for nine years. She had a difficult time as a child, was eventually diagnosed as having Borderline Personality Disorder and was convicted of murdering her boyfriend.

She was discussed in several posts in November 2017 - Page 2 of this thread - as one of many disturbed people who worked for the royals over the years. She was not the only killer.

What is even more interesting in the light of what we have recently learned is that she and Fergie took to each other immediately they met.

What does this say about Sarah Ferguson?

Another Andrew scandal

The public like salacious stories, but there is a financial scandal in the Mail on Sunday today that is equally damaging. They allege that Andrew used his position of trade ambassador to find wealthy clients in 2010 for the new private investment bank of his friend, David Rowland.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7742275/Prince-Andrew-used-position-Britains-trade-envoy-help-tycoon-plug-private-bank.html

"Andrew's close friendship with Mr Rowland, a former tax exile for more than 30 years, was already controversial. The Mail on Sunday has previously revealed how the secretive financier helped pay off the Duchess of York's massive debts – just months after he met the Queen and Prince Charles at Balmoral – and how he and Andrew secretly flew to Libya together."

He got a prime seat at Eugenie's wedding, that's him just behind Eugenie's head looking at the camera.


The cost of a trip to China:
"Royal accounts show the cost to the taxpayer of Andrew's charter flight to China – and then on to the United Arab Emirates for a day, where he attended the Dubai World Cup horse race – was £23,586. The trip cost UK Trade and Investment, a Government department, an extra £7,700."

Seeing as many were still in dire straits at that time due to the austerity measures, this story of underhand dealings using taxpayers' money and whatever he may have gained from this personally will not go down well with the British public.

Indeed, I think that there is going to be a greater clamour for transparency in the royal finances.

The true extent of the Queen's personal wealth is unknown. She is rumoured to own personal property in the USA and Canada which is held under a blind trust (not publicly stated who the real owner is), it is common knowledge that she owns a horse stud in Kentucky. It's rumoured that she owns some very expensive Park Avenue property in New York, and I read years ago that she owns a vast tract of land in Colorado.

Many would argue that this belongs to the people.

Pitch@Palace and the Queen

Prince Andrew introduced the Queen to some P@P entrepreneurs in 2016. Her interest and approval would have attracted more candidates, which would have made more money for Prince Andrew.

It is probably RIP P@P now!

Although a sex scandal will always get most people's attention, I think that using taxpayers' money to feather your own nest under the guise of royal duties deserves serious investigation. It's corruption.

The Mail on Sunday appears to have done a detailed investigation supported by documentation; if that turns out to be true there should be a serious reappraisal of the royals' use of public funds. It's not as if they're short of a few bob.

Financial irregularities

“The Mail on Sunday appears to have done a detailed investigation supported by documentation; if that turns out to be true there should be a serious reappraisal of the royals' use of public funds.”

The DM and the MoS have been doing a good job for many years now.

A Chinese army of citizen journalists, investigators, bloggers and dot connecters is also hard at work shining a light on the royals and collecting damaging information.

It is all far too complicated for me!

A blue Christmas for Prince Andrew?

I imagine that it won’t be a very good time for any of them this year, except for the small children.