Resurfaced pictures from a wild party in Saint-Tropez have poked a major hole in the royal’s story amid backlash over his disastrous interview.

submitted by Mnemonic from (news.com.au)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Mnemonic[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Hmm, I can see your side with some of his 'friends/people' egging him on to do this but him thinking it's a good Idea sounds like a detached royal/noble in my play book: I make a statement and it will be so.

This happened too: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/11/17/prince-andrews-pr-adviser-reportedly-quit-over-jeffery-epstein-bbc-interview/#78099220777f

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah I agree, I could see it going either way. They are quite detached. But if his PR advisor was obviously telling him not to, then why did he do it? Was someone else telling him to, or was it just a terrible decision he made all on his own?

[–]Mnemonic[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes his secretary (according to that 'PR-assistant article')

Andrew’s private secretary, Amanda Thirsk, had pushed for him to do the interview as a way to set the record straight and end the controversy that has become an embarrassment for the British royal family.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So he listened to his secretary over his PR guy, and it cost him dearly. Interesting

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"Sources close to Buckingham Palace."

"BECAUSE ITS ON THE NEEEWS, hey... cause I'll just believe it, I'll just believe, without a doubt in my mind."

Like most sources, should we believe anonymous ones, when the messenger, source or broadcaster can just lie?

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The British press and the Royals is a real thing on its own, especially the British.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And The source is?

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It says so right beneath the photos: "Picture: Coleman-Rayner Source:Supplied" Probably some gossip magizine from back then.