The Social World

Category: Royals

  • Is Prince Harry about to spend a lot more time in Britain?

    Is Prince Harry about to spend a lot more time in Britain?

    For lovers of self-destructive hubris – a quality that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex surely possess in spades – the saga of Prince Harry’s security is surely the gift that keeps on giving. His attempts to obtain British taxpayer-funded armed protection whenever he brings his family back to the UK have been expressed with much fervor and repetitiveness. And now, in this season of miracles, it looks as if he might have got his wish after all. 

    It seemed certain, after various expensive and amusingly humiliating courtroom defeats, that Harry’s desire to hire members of the London Metropolitan Police as his private security detail whenever he is back in the country of his birth would be denied. He even railed against the UK government’s successful attempts to thwart his desires as a “good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up,” blustering: “The other side have won in keeping me unsafe. I can’t see a world in which I will be bringing my wife and children back at this point.”

    Those of us who are not losing sleep at the prospect of the star of With Love, Meghan once again bringing her special brand of joy to the United Kingdom were not, perhaps, beside themselves at this prospect. 

    Yet there has now been an unexpected volte-face, courtesy of Britain’s Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and the Home Office. RAVEC, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, has ordered that its risk management board be prepared to reassess Harry’s threat level for the first time since February 2020. This is not a suggestion that the prince poses his own danger to the country, but instead that he is considered a public individual who deserves police protection at the highest level, in the same vein as the King or the Prime Minister. And if the decision is upheld, once again the British taxpayer will be on the hook for police protection for the Sussex clan whenever they are in the UK.

    It should be noted that the final decision will not be made until next month, and that Ravec might still decide to maintain the status quo: cue weeping and gnashing of teeth if so. However, the fact that there has been a reassessment of this nature after a protracted and expensive court fight, which Harry repeatedly lost, must be seen as a surprisingly non-pyrrhic victory for the Duke of Sussex. It is also a suggestion that he was justified in the fuss that he has so consistently made. 

    Still, even if he is granted this belated Christmas wish, it is uncertain as to whether or not the Sussexes will be frequent visitors in the UK once again. This is despite the sentimental protestations that the King would like to see his grandchildren once again. Meghan has not set foot in London since Elizabeth II’s funeral in September 2022, and it is doubtful that she has any pressing urge to do so. Her husband’s largely successful solo trip in September – only slightly overshadowed by the eventual leaks of his rapprochement with his semi-estranged father – demonstrated that he is perfectly capable of conducting a quasi-royal visit home by himself and being well received in the process.

    Many might think that the current situation works well for all concerned, then, and would question the necessity of an expensive, time-consuming climbdown by Ravec. But in a year of consistently dreadful tidings for the royal family, the knowledge that 2026 might yet see a comeback by the cadet branch – with commensurate focus on the ongoing estrangement between Harry and his elder brother – is yet another reason for the Firm not to be cheerful.

  • Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should ignore Congress

    Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should ignore Congress

    As an American who respects the constitutional role and historical continuity of the British crown, I view the recent congressional request to interview Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor with disgust. In early November, several of the most progressive Democratic members of the US Congress sent a letter asking him to participate in a “transcribed interview” regarding his past association with Jeffrey Epstein, with a response deadline of November 20.

    While Congress is free to seek information, the request carries no compulsory authority over a foreign national residing in the United Kingdom. In this context, the decision to issue such a demand – despite its unenforceability – is less an exercise of legitimate oversight than a symbolic, politically motivated gesture. Its implications extend beyond the individual to the broader relationship between the United States and a cherished ally.

    No congressional body has the power to compel testimony from a British citizen living on British soil. The Democratic signatories are well aware of this limitation. They hold no subpoena authority in this matter, nor any realistic diplomatic leverage to transform their request into an obligation. What they do have is political incentive: Epstein’s network remains a potent source of scandal, and the opportunity to summon a disgraced royal provides ready-made headlines when so many prominent Democratic names are implicated.

    It is not as though Andrew has escaped consequences. Far from it. The King has stripped his brother of the remaining symbols of royal status: the style of His Royal Highness in any official capacity, his leasehold of Royal Lodge, and the last vestiges of public duty. A man who once served his country in wartime now lives in seclusion, his military titles and patronages relinquished, his public life reduced to silence. His 2022 settlement with Virginia Giuffre – substantial in scale, though without admission of liability – closed the civil litigation against him. He has repeatedly denied criminal wrongdoing, and no jurisdiction, British or American, has brought charges against him. The monarchy has taken its course. To pretend he remains unaccountable is to ignore the very real penalties he has absorbed.

    Why, then, must salt be poured on this wound by the US government? The Democratic members leading the request – foremost among them Representatives Robert Garcia and Suhas Subramanyam – frame their interest as part of a wider effort to “uncover the identities of Mr. Epstein’s co-conspirators and enablers.” Yet it strains belief that, five years after Epstein’s death and with Ghislaine Maxwell already serving a lengthy prison sentence, the testimony of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is uniquely indispensable – particularly when so many powerful and prominent Americans have escaped scrutiny. The timing is difficult to ignore: rudderless Democrats facing a fresh election cycle appear eager to present themselves as champions of justice.

    More troubling is what such a request implies about the relationship between sovereign states. The Crown has endured invasions, civil wars, religious upheavals and aerial bombardment, yet it has never sought validation by submitting its internal affairs to foreign legislative scrutiny. When Parliament executed Charles I, it did not appeal to European assemblies for absolution. When George III lost the American colonies, he did not send the Prince of Wales to justify himself before the Continental Congress. The constitutional monarchy has survived precisely because it understands its own prerogatives and responsibilities. Its legitimacy arises from the British people and the British constitution – not from congressional committees in Washington.

    Were Andrew to travel to Washington now – stripped of titles and shorn of institutional protection – he would be entering a political theater in which the rules are set entirely by those seeking to question him. There would be no adversarial process, no opportunity for cross-examination, and no safeguards against selective leaking. Congressional interviews are not judicial proceedings; they are political platforms. To expect a private British citizen, however notorious, to submit himself to such a process is to disregard both diplomatic custom and the principle of sovereignty.

    Britain has already acted. The King, exercising constitutional authority, has removed his brother from public life. The United Kingdom has determined the appropriate response to Andrew’s conduct. For American lawmakers to insist on an additional public reckoning – particularly those belonging to a party long eager to downplay the Epstein-related associations of prominent figures among their own ranks, such as Bill Clinton – is less a pursuit of justice than an attempt to distract and obfuscate.

    None of this excuses Epstein’s crimes or the moral failures of those who enabled him. But justice is not advanced by this shameless smokescreen. The Crown is larger than any one man, and it has acted to protect its integrity. The US government should acknowledge that action rather than attempt to supersede it.

    Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is under no obligation to respond to Congress’s request—and he would be right not to. Sovereign nations must know where their authority ends. It is time certain members of Congress remembered where theirs does.

  • Will the Andrew formerly known as prince appear before Congress?

    Will the Andrew formerly known as prince appear before Congress?

    Amidst all the ceremony and gravity of Britain’s Remembrance Day service on Sunday, one salient fact could not be ignored. The King has long talked of his desire for a “stripped-down monarchy,” and now he has his wish. The only male figures from the Firm who were out on show alongside him were the Prince of Wales and Prince Edward, who together had the effect of making the royals look a rather paltry selection compared to the grander gatherings of the past.

    We all know about Harry, but although some would like to see him, too, stripped of his royal title, Montecito’s second most famous resident continues to be able to refer to himself as a prince. This is not a luxury that his disgraced uncle enjoys any longer, as he adjusts to life not as Prince Andrew, Duke of York, but plain old Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. As he prepares to leave Royal Lodge for a more modest existence in a grace and favor home tucked in some obscure corner of the Sandringham Estate, he may look around and wonder if his disgrace is yet over. Well, judged by recent events, the bad news for him just keeps on coming.

    During his “heyday,” Andrew liked to present himself as a swashbuckling, entrepreneurial figure, thanks to his Pitch@Palace initiative, which invited would-be moneymakers to come to Buckingham Palace and get their businesses off the ground. Unsurprisingly, given his shame, this is no longer a going concern. Documents seen by the Guardian show that the last remaining part of the business, Pitch@Palace Global, has been wound up after its UK side foundered in 2021.

    Admittedly, after Andrew’s disastrous 2019 Newsnight interview, it is doubtful that even the most desperate would-be businessman would have seen the soon-to-be banned old Duke of York as the answer to their prayers, but the knowledge that this beleaguered endeavor is no more shows how total, and terminal, his disgrace is. (Lest we forget, it was from the Chinese arm of Pitch@Palace that the alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo emerged, suggesting that Andrew’s judgment when it comes to those he kept company with has always been terrible.)

    And what of middle England? Well, Andrew has a few supporters who argue doughtily for the presumption of innocence before guilt is proved. Yet the overwhelming majority of the country consider that enough wrongdoing has now been established to regard the former prince as unspeakable, and they are not afraid to make their feelings felt. Residents of Prince Andrew Road and Prince Andrew Close in Maidenhead are hoping that the names of their streets will be changed, to avoid the taint of association. One long-sufferer local, Kelly Pevy, told the Daily Telegraph that: “If you’re giving someone the address, it’s the first thing [they’re] going to say. When I speak to energy companies and they ask for the address, they make a little joke. It’s mentioned more and more, and so then you start thinking about it more.”

    It remains to be seen whether the dwellers of Maidenhead succeed in their petition to the local MP to end this little joke, but if Andrew takes a moment out from a head-down routine of self-pity and video games, he may by now be seeing the enormity of the disgrace he faces. The Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have asked that he be summoned to the United States and Congress to answer questions about the precise nature of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Although they have no legal power to compel him to attend, Andrew knows that to do so would be potentially hazardous. Not only could he be prosecuted for perjury if any part of his testimony is false, but his presence in America would open him up to investigation, even arrest, for his alleged activities with the then-17-year-old Virginia Giuffre.

    Andrew Mountbatten Windsor – there is currently some debate as to whether his last name will be hyphenated or not – is as maligned as anyone in public life today. Yet if he had stopped playing Call of Duty on Sunday and watched his elder brother and nephew remember the fallen, he would have been aware of what real courage and real sacrifice look like. Andrew, by contrast, is an insignificant figure, too sinister and grim to be pathetic and too boring to be laughable. His downfall, in all its embarrassing little details, reflects the man perfectly.

  • Is Meghan Markle making a thespian comeback?

    Is Meghan Markle making a thespian comeback?

    As Britain’s royal family attempts to maintain a “business as usual” approach in the aftermath of the biggest scandal to have engulfed the institution in decades, the pair responsible for its last existential embarrassment have been notably silent. You might have expected, as Andrew was showily stripped of all his titles, some sanctimonious comment on the Sussex Instagram account, some hashtag-laden exhortation always to stand with the victims of abuse. But no. Those of us who were wondering why this has not happened now have an answer, of sorts. Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, has returned to her old profession: acting.

    In truth, it is unclear as to whether Meghan’s appearance in the forthcoming picture Close Personal Friends will be the greatest test of her thespian abilities. She has been cast alongside the starry likes of Henry Golding, Brie Larson and a couple of nepo babies, Jack Quaid and Lily Collins, in what is said to be a comedy about two sets of friends, one famous and one not. So, who is Meghan to play? A fairy godmother type, bringing together the civilians and celebrities in one joyous accord? Or a jaded roué of the Madame de Merteuil school, casting a cynical eye over the frolics of the young? Alas, the role is not quite as demanding as that. Instead, she has been cast as herself.

    This may, in fact, be challenging to pull off, given that it has not been clear for some time now who the “real” Meghan Markle is. Still, it has been briefed by an excitable insider that the role – which is, presumably, a cameo rather than a co-lead – represents a significant opportunity for her. “This is a massive moment for Meghan and signifies a return to doing what she truly loves. She has been swamped with offers but this one felt right. It is Meghan’s way of gently putting her toe back in the water and seeing how she enjoys being back on set. Everyone involved is super-excited, and have been sworn to secrecy about her involvement.” (That went well, didn’t it.) And, of course: “Prince Harry is, of course, really supportive and quite simply wants Meghan to do whatever brings her joy.”

    Her husband has been busy in his own right. He published an essay – well, at 647 words, more of a think piece – about his great love of Britishness, in which the Montecito exile declared that: “The banter of the mess, the clubhouse, the pub, the stands – ridiculous as it sounds, these are the things that make us British. I make no apology for it. I love it.” To this short list of clichés, he might also have added “the public attitude toward anything that my wife does.” It is fair to say that, while Andrew Windsor’s record levels of unpopularity make Harry and Meghan look like adored titans in comparison, neither of the Sussexes are exactly beloved in his home country. Her appearance in Close Personal Friends is unlikely to make much difference to that.

    While Meghan has been a consistent – some might say pervasive – presence on our screens over the past few years, she has not acted since Suits finished in 2018. Still, a quick glance at her hitherto undistinguished filmography is a reminder of what we have been missing. Pictures such as Horrible Bosses, Dysfunctional Friends and A Lot Like Love and such roles as “Hot Girl” and “Junior FBI Agent Amy Jessup” suggest that we have not been missing out on the next Cate Blanchett or Jessie Buckley in our midst.

    However, Meghan has made the most striking impact on public life, for good or ill, as herself. And so it seems appropriate that she has chosen to make her comeback in the part that she is most comfortable playing. Will this be the beginning of Meghan Markle, Thespian mark II? As with everything else she does, only a fool – or a close personal friend – would bet against it.  

  • King Charles will make a splash at US-250

    King Charles will make a splash at US-250

    If only work had started sooner on the new extension to the East Wing of the White House. Then President Donald Trump might be able to inaugurate it with a party for the man who owns arguably the grandest ballroom in the world (one Mr. Trump knows well).

    Discussions are ongoing for a state visit to the US by King Charles III and Queen Camilla next year. President Trump has now logged an unprecedented two state visits in an easterly direction and common courtesy dictates a return invitation for the Windsors to pay a visit to the White House.

    Next year is the obvious date. It will be 250 years since the US came into being by extracting the colonies from the rule of the King’s fifth great-grandfather, George III. As divorces go, it has proved to be the most enduring and amicable bust-up in history – and that surely warrants a party. Some readers will be old enough to remember the euphoric events in honor of the 200th in 1976. The late Queen Elizabeth II was the guest of honor back then. Next year will also be her centenary so there will be a poignant subtext to the visit, not least because Trump was the last state visitor of her record-breaking reign.

    So how will things pan out this time? Overall, they will certainly be more upbeat than might have been expected had Kamala Harris won the presidential election. The last administration was treading very warily around the 250th for fear of looking triumphalist. Back in 1976, the anniversary celebrations were a straightforward “three cheers for the heroes of the Revolution,” “down with the evil Redcoats” and “no hard feelings.” Philadelphia turned out in force to welcome the Queen sailing in aboard the Royal Yacht Britannia carrying a brand new Liberty Bell from the same Whitechapel foundry that had made the original. And the partying went on and on. Ahead of 2026, the Democrats were agonizing about the elephant in the corner of Independence Hall. How to handle the Founding Fathers’ extensive links with slavery while those villainous Brits, rather awkwardly, had been offering emancipation? Maybe it was time to tone down all that revolutionary hoopla.

    Trump is certainly not going down that route. He will see things in much the same way Gerald Ford saw them in 1976: this was the birth of the greatest nation on Earth, warts and all, with all the freedoms that followed. In other words, it’s going to be big. Very big. And there is really only one other nation which needs to be at the party (though the French might claim an invitation to the top table).

    In 1976, the only debate was choosing which day the Queen should arrive. She had been invited for July 4 but thought it best to let the US have its moment. “Forgiveness can only go so far,” a waspish British embassy spokesman told the New York Times. It was decided that she should arrive on July 6 instead. No sooner had she stepped off the Britannia than she was delivering the first of several George III jokes. As she declared in Philadelphia: “Without that great act in the cause of liberty 200 years ago, we could never have transformed an Empire into a Commonwealth!”

    The bicentennial royal tour included Boston and New York, where the Queen insisted on a trip to Bloomingdale’s and Prince Philip jauntily wore a “Big Apple” sticker on his dinner jacket. The centerpiece was the White House ball in Washington, with Bob Hope acting as master of ceremonies. It also featured a fabulous faux pas which enraged Ford and greatly amused the Queen. As he led her on to the dance floor, the bandmaster chose that moment to strike up “The Lady is a Tramp.”

    I would envisage a little more history in the mix this time around. The King has always been fascinated by George III – whom he feels is greatly misunderstood – and the Royal Archives have recently digitized hundreds of thousands of Georgian documents with generous American support from organizations such as the Omohundro Institute of Early American History. I made a program about it all for the BBC. What sticks in the mind – along with firing guns at Yorktown and seeing Ivan Schwartz create the first American statue of the tyrant King since 1776 – is the way in which George moved on so swiftly from his “America is lost!” trough of despair to building the foundations of today’s “special relationship.”

    That, incidentally, was a banned phrase in British diplomatic circles at the time of the bicentennial. Timid Foreign Office mandarins were worried that it sounded presumptuous and that it might irk the UK’s European allies (Prince Charles was specifically ordered to remove it from his 1970 speech to the Pilgrims Society of Great Britain). That will certainly not be the case next year. Expect to hear it trumpeted at every turn following the President’s heartfelt words on the bilateral relationship at the Windsor state banquet in September: “‘Special’ does not begin to do it justice.”

    It should be a great party. Make that two parties if the Prince and Princess of Wales (as I expect) also undertake a US 250 tour of their own. Mr. Trump just needs to keep a close eye on his bandmaster.

    Robert Hardman writes for the Daily Mail and is the author of The Making of a King: Charles III and the Modern Monarchy (Pegasus Books). This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 10, 2025 World edition.

  • Prince Andrew finds refuge in video games

    Prince Andrew finds refuge in video games

    Oh God, not that. That’s all we need, I thought, reading in a long account of Britain’s Prince Andrew’s current travails that “according to visitors to Royal Lodge,” he now “spends much of his time playing video games.” Even before all the unpleasantness with the child-rape allegations against Jeffrey Epstein, one of the Prince’s more embarrassing qualities was his appearing as an “ambassador” for this or that – usually accompanied by a helicopter trip to a golf course.

    Now he’s reduced – no chopper, no putting green; woe is him – to being an ambassador for adults who play video games. As an adult who plays video games, and even writes about them from time to time, I generally welcome news of figures in public life who do the same. Not on this occasion.

    Does it not, after all, play into the worst stereotypes of the hobby? We are invited to picture this paunchy blue-blooded delinquent – a man so gauche he’s said to have rejoiced, lifelong, in demanding his phone extension end in 007 – sitting in his monogrammed underpants and his silk robe, surrounded by old pizza boxes, hammering away at the PlayStation into the small hours of the morning because he has nothing else in his life. Curiously, the exiled Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is also said to spend most of his time holed up in his Moscow apartment gaming. Rumor has it that he tends to play World of Tanks, a multiplayer online game in which he prefers using Russian equipment.

    What games is Andrew playing, the likes of me can’t help but wonder? The generic mobile game Royal Match – in which you shuffle gems into rows of the same color to rescue a portly royal personage from drowning, being eaten by a snake or locked in prison – would be a bit on the nose. Is he trash-talking noobs in some Call of Duty multiplayer lobby? Again, unlikely: a man with the prince’s ego wouldn’t stick long at a game in which the hand-eye coordination of a 65-year-old is tested anonymously against that of a teenager. I prefer to imagine that he’s playing through some deep, long, immersive, cartoony, learn-at-your-own-pace one-player game of the sort that bears no relation to reality. Super Mario Galaxy, say, or Zelda: Breath of the Wild.

    In that case, we can say that this situation is decipherable – that if you were watching the only life you have known crashing around your ears, you might like to escape into another world. A defining quality of good video games – which makes them as addictive as other things that share this property – is that they are deeply absorbing. They take you out of yourself and into another place. That is not in and of itself a bad thing. Humankind cannot, as a wise man once said, bear very much reality.

    It strikes me that video games could offer a safe and harmless outlet for the prince’s bruised ego. He is a man, after all, who sets very great store by rank and station. He loves to be called “Sir.” A couple of weeks ago, a bit before the Firm harvested his various titles like Mario running through a cache of power-ups, it was reported that he had emailed Epstein saying “We are in this together” fully three months after he claimed to have ceased all contact. Andrew has always denied any wrongdoing. What struck me most strongly, apart from him contradicting his earlier statement, was that said email was apparently signed: “A., HRH The Duke of York, KG.” Could there be anything more cringe-inducing than following that slightly nauseating just-the-initial signature with a cavalcade of formal titles? Even if this was the work of a standard email footer, it tells you something about the man.

    All those titles and honors he collected, cherish them as he did, arrived by accident of birth. They were imaginary honors – no more substantial than pixels on a screen. Yet there’s something to be learned from that. Even if the wider world disdains him and the titles he hoarded are gone, he can acquire some new ones in the virtual world. Better ones, in fact.

    For any achievements he earns in a video game are ones he will have gained by working for them. My 11-year-old was cock-a-hoop when he cracked platinum ranking in Rocket League (a game where you play soccer with cars, m’lud) – and I don’t blame him. It’s a positively Ruritanian honor as far as the outside world is concerned, but it means that in this small arena, he excels. Same with, say, a purple parse on Ragnaros in Warcraft Logs.

    They don’t hand video game achievements out for free. You have, in the parlance of that world, to grind for them. There’s no shortcut to the muscle memory that allows you to navigate the final level on Bubble Bobble or learn how to snapshot trinket procs for the optimal feral rotation; no way of bypassing the endless matches you need to play to optimize your team on FIFA.

    Just ask Elon Musk. So hungry was he for the approbation of the video game community, the big wally, that he claimed to be in the top 20 Diablo IV players in the world – only to be called out when live-streaming a game which showed that he had only a semi-shaky grasp of the skills involved. It was widely concluded that he had been getting other players to “boost” his character. No great surprise. Reaching that sort of rank in that or any other game would require not only unusual talent but the investment of much, much more time than Musk can reasonably be expected to have devoted to it.

    You can’t rank up in video games, as you can in the royal family, by whining at Mom until she gives you another medal, feathered hat or garter ribbon. You need to work at it. So if Prince Andrew devotes himself to collecting 121 stars in Super Mario Galaxy, we should regard it as the closest thing this wretched creature will get to redemption.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 10, 2025 World edition.

  • Prince Andrew no more

    It’s all over for Prince Andrew or, as he is now known, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. The former Duke of York, ex-trade envoy and, for all we know, Grand Pooh-Bah of Kazakhstan, has been stripped of every one of his titles. Andrew has also been ejected from his Windsor mansion by his brother, the King.

    In a terse, angry statement, Buckingham Palace that said that: “His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honors of Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence. Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation. These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him. Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.”

    And, with those 109 words – six more than the original statement that sent this rather tarnished Adam out of his garden of Eden, or at least the Royal Lodge that he had been living in, rent-free for decades – Andrew was removed into banishment.

    The language of the statement is unprecedented. “Censures” is a word that is particularly damning. So, too, is the statement’s sign off: that the Royals’ ‘thoughts and utmost sympathies’ are with abuse survivors.

    No doubt some will still choose to defend Andrew. Seven percent of the public expressed sympathy for Andrew this week, despite the publication of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir. Yes, 93 percent of Brits may have turned their back on Andrew, but it’s still remarkable that anyone is willing to stick up for Andrew.

    Perhaps they are entitled to, just as there are those who believe that Elvis is living in platonic bliss somewhere. But the realists will see that Mr. Andrew Windsor, as we can now, finally, call him, has been served the punishment that his arrogant, selfish actions have merited all along.

    Andrew can skulk in some ignominious corner of the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, England for the rest of his days. Few would see that as anything other than a fitting judgment on a man who refused to believe, even when confronted with the most damning of evidence, that he had done anything wrong. Posterity, and his public, will contend otherwise.

  • Duchess of York’s email to Epstein spurred by ‘chilling’ call

    Duchess of York’s email to Epstein spurred by ‘chilling’ call

    Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York and former wife of Prince Andrew, has come under scrutiny this week after an email that saw her praising pedophile Jeffrey Epstein was unearthed. The Duchess’s spokesperson said that Ferguson had received a “chilling” phone call from the criminal after she gave an interview in 2011 confessing to have made a “terrible, terrible error of judgement” in accepting £15,000 from Epstein and insisting: “I abhor pedophilia” After the phone conversation, Ferguson emailed Epstein to say she “humbly apologized” for criticizing him publicly and described the convicted child sex abuser as a “steadfast, generous and supreme friend.” Good heavens…

    In light of that correspondence with Epstein, the Duchess was dropped as a patron by a number of charities – including a children’s hospice. Defending Ferguson, her spokesperson and adviser James Henderson recalled:

    People don’t understand how terrible Epstein was. I can remember everything about that call. It was a chilling call and I’m surprised anybody was ever friends with him given the way he talked to me. He said he would destroy the York family and he was quite clear on that. He said he would destroy me. He wasn’t shouting. He had a Hannibal Lecter-type voice. It was very cold and calm and really menacing and nasty.

    Henderson told the Telegraph that as a result of the call, he saved Epstein’s number to ensure he would never pick up again if the pedophile chose to make another call. But while her adviser may understand the rationale behind Ferguson’s gushing email to Epstein, the charities she has worked with for decades are not quite as forgiving. After years of philanthropy, the Duchess has had her ties to organizations including the Teenage Cancer Trust, the British Heart Foundation and the Children’s Literacy Charity severed.

    Ferguson’s former husband, Prince Andrew, settled a civil case out of court with the late Virginia Giuffre – who accused him of sexually assaulting her on three occasions when she was 17 years old, accusations he denied. Andrew’s Newsnight interview in 2019 on his friendship with Epstein further damaged his reputation and he no longer uses the title His Royal Highness in an official capacity. More recently, ex-UK ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, was sacked from his role after email exchanges with Epstein were uncovered – showing the diplomat had offered to help the pedophile try and overturn his conviction.

    But will the intervention of Ferguson’s adviser earn her much sympathy? Cockburn wouldn’t be so sure…

  • How Princess Kate and Melania Trump bonded

    How Princess Kate and Melania Trump bonded

    President Trump arrives back in the United States today, and Keir Starmer will have returned to 10 Downing Street breathing a sigh of relief that this unprecedented second state visit went about as well as it could have done. However, there may be different feelings in Buckingham Palace and the other royal residences. Certainly, Trump’s open admiration – even obsequiousness – for King Charles, who he described as “a great gentleman [and] a great king” – would have been received well. But the King himself maintained a poker face throughout the visit, with his only pointed remarks at the state banquet about the need for a lasting peace in Ukraine giving anything away about his own thoughts.

    Trump’s typically unorthodox and free-association speech at the same dinner, however, contained one surprising touch, when he remarked about how the Princess of Wales was “so radiant and so healthy and so beautiful.” On the one hand, the implicit nod to her having gone into remission after her cancer treatment might be seen as a thoughtful, even humane allusion. On the other, the president’s obvious admiration for Catherine, whom he sat next to during the banquet, might be seen as tipping over into straightforward infatuation. In one of the pictures released of the event, she is looking at Trump with a mixture of amusement and slight bafflement; he, meanwhile, is grinning as if he is the luckiest man in the room, if not the world.

    Entertaining visiting dignitaries is par for the course for the Princess of Wales, however, and a little gallantry from the 79-year-old American is to be expected. A more unexpected offshoot of the trip, however, is the genuine rapport that appears to have grown up between Catherine and Melania Trump. It might have been expected that the bulk of the hosting duties would have gone to the Queen. But Camilla is recovering from a bout of sinusitis, and so it was the Princess of Wales and the First Lady who headed to meet a bunch of scouts in the grounds of Frogmore House, which proved a surprisingly auspicious event.

    Dwayne Fields, the aptly named chief scout, told the Times that:

    From what I’ve seen, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were to go away and collaborate on something in the US…I would love to see the Squirrels section exported to the US and I wouldn’t be surprised if Mrs Trump goes back and talks about what she’s seen, what she’s experienced and what she saw others gaining from the experience.

    Fields also observed that the First Lady and Catherine found “a lot to talk about.” Certainly, in pictures released of the event, the often stern-looking Melania seemed as relaxed and cheery as she has ever been in public, telling the scouts that her favorite insect was a “ladybug” – “the first ladybug!”, one child quipped, showing a future as a raconteur – and thoroughly enjoying the opportunity to bounce balls around a parachute with the children.

    There were many reasons to be relieved that the trip went so well. As one palace source recounted:

    The visiting party was very easy to deal with and very appreciative of the hospitality. All elements of the pomp and pageantry created an awesome spectacle. You can tell from the expression of the principals how much they appreciated it.

    Full credit will, of course, be given to the King and Queen, as it should be, but a great deal of kudos should also go to Catherine, whose re-emergence into public life and the spotlight this year has demonstrated how much she was missed last year. Charming both the Trumps, in wholly separate ways, is a tough gig, but she managed it with flying colors. Radiant, healthy and beautiful, she might very well be, but a savvy operator, too. And if a “womance” of sorts beckons with the First Lady, that might end up being the most special relationship of all.

  • Is Prince Harry’s charm offensive working?

    Is Prince Harry’s charm offensive working?

    Over the weekend, Prince Harry attracted the best headlines and coverage in Britain that he has received for months – possibly since he and Meghan staged their abdication of all responsibilities and fled to Montecito in 2021. This was all because of his carefully choreographed charitable and public endeavors. The praise included “how easy he made it look” and how Harry had “stopped sulking and played a blinder.” Even the Daily Telegraph wrote that “it was genuinely gratifying to see Harry back in Blighty, doing what he does best this week” and urged Prince William to reconcile with him.

    This was exactly what Harry had wished for with his quasi-royal visit to his home country. In order to celebrate, naturally, he gave an exclusive interview to the Guardian, that well-known bastion of royalist sentiment, to mark his trip to Ukraine after his British visit. Those expecting revelations about his father after their brief meeting earlier in the week would be disappointed. Harry stuck to the party line, speaking highly of his work with the Invictus Foundation and his military service. 

    This made Harry sound like a respected statesman. It also certainly makes a change from petulant serial litigant, although I suspect that I am in the category of the media that he detests. He said to the Guardian that:

    It is only in certain elements of the press where you see this talk about me being down or saying I am not smiling. This comes from people who think they know what I am thinking and how I am feeling. They are wrong.

    Some of us have had to sit through Harry & Meghan, where he’s definitely not smiling, but clearly that wretched show was not a fair insight into his psyche. He sniffed instead that “I think parts of the British press want to believe that I am miserable, but I’m not. I am very happy with who I am and I like the life that I live.”

    The interview was positive – almost sycophantic in places – and included the attention-grabbing hint that Harry probably had a private audience with Zelensky during his visit. If that had been made public, it would have gone down poorly with the British government, who tend to frown on freelance diplomacy of that sort. Harry was asked whether he had regrets over any of his actions, and he responded with typical bullishness:

    I don’t believe that I aired my dirty laundry in public. It was a difficult message, but I did it in the best way possible. My conscience is clear.

    He refused to acknowledge that he may have been recalcitrant (“it’s not stubbornness, it is having principles”) and described Spare as “a series of corrections to stories already out there. One point of view had been put out and it needed to be corrected.” Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. 

    The Prince Harry charm offensive stands at an interesting crossroads. Many people would prefer that he were in closer touch with the royal family, less out of filial obligation and more because he might be easier to influence or control. He himself appears to wish for more regular family visits to Britain, saying, “I feel a lot of support from the British public. Even now, when I feel like I have been destroyed by certain members of the British press.” Even those who are now praising him are not spared. Instead, Harry remarked that:

    For as long as I have known, certain elements of the British press have tried to speak on behalf of the nation. I think they are out of touch with the nation on lots of things. They hope to bring the public with them, but… I think the British public can speak and think for themselves.

    Although Harry tried to conjure up his mother’s spirit in the interview, remarking, when it was said that he followed his own path, “You know who else did that? My mum,” I was also reminded of another America-based royal, the Duke of Windsor. Like Harry, he left the country because of his love for a divorced American; like Harry, he became bored in exile and started pining for England. While the former Edward VIII initially believed his people’s great love for him would see him returned to popularity, he soon discovered that their affection for him only went so far, and he ended up spending his days miserable and alone in Paris, with only Wallis for company. 

    It remains to be seen which path his great-great-nephew will take, but Harry might be well advised to bank the goodwill that he’s received from this visit, concentrate on mending relations with his father and wider family behind closed doors and then – and only then – give any more interviews. Otherwise, the whole process of blame, anger and media outrage is likely to repeat itself all over again.