Page 19 of 27 FirstFirst ... 9151617181920212223 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 391
Like Tree949Likes

Thread: Inbred Rich People: The Royalty Thread Part 3

  1. #271
    Elite Member lindsaywhit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Novice View Post
    Is it to cover up his finger marks on her neck?
    Damn. Never even occurred to me - obviously. I really hope she's just whiny.


  2. #272
    Elite Member Novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Beyond Caring, then hang a left.
    Posts
    45,537

    Default

    She might just be cold?
    lindsaywhit likes this.

  3. #273
    Elite Member rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    47,183

    Default

    The Queen's NEW annus horribilis: Andrew's disgrace, Philip's crash and Harry and Meghan's jetsetting... A.N. WILSON explains that for first time in generations, Her Majesty lacks a wise adviser - and the price may be ruinous

    By A.N. WILSON FOR THE DAILY MAIL
    PUBLISHED: 22:13, 18 November 2019 | UPDATED: 07:47, 19 November 2019


    On November 24, 1992, the Queen gave a speech to mark her four decades on the throne. It was memorable for a phrase she used that is now in common parlance — ‘annus horribilis’, the Latin for ‘horrible year’.
    She and her family had had to contend with Prince Andrew’s separation from Sarah Ferguson, Princess Anne’s divorce, the publication of Andrew Morton’s revelatory biography of Diana, exposing her disastrous marriage to the Prince of Wales (the couple’s separation would be announced the following month), and a devastating fire at Windsor Castle, later controversially repaired at a cost of tens of millions to the public purse.
    With characteristic understatement, the Queen said it was ‘not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure’.

    +


    On November 24, 1992, the Queen gave a speech to mark her four decades on the throne. It was memorable for a phrase she used that is now in common parlance — ‘annus horribilis’, the Latin for ‘horrible year’. Pictured: The Queen at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday

    Yet I would argue that this year is proving even more ‘horrible’ than 1992.
    Some of the Royal Family’s calamities in 2019 can be put down to bad luck; others to poor judgment. But at least one, however, is of such seriousness that, if it continues, I believe it could threaten the monarchy itself.
    I mean, of course, the Duke of York’s association with the sex criminal and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who committed suicide in a New York jail in the summer.
    The damage done to ‘the Firm’ by the Duke’s disastrous interview on the BBC with Emily Maitlis cannot be underestimated.
    It raises troubling questions about his reckless decision to agree to the interview in the first place — fevered discussion of Epstein had mostly died down — but also about who is advising the Royal Family and who is actually running the show.

    +9

    One calamity is of such seriousness that, if it continues, I believe it could threaten the monarchy itself. I mean, of course, the Duke of York’s association with the sex criminal and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who committed suicide in a New York jail in the summer, writes A. N. WILSON. Pictured: The Duke Of York with BBC interviewer Emily Maitlis

    First, let us look back at the other events of this royally disastrous year. It began with a car crash near Sandringham in January, in which the then 97-year-old Duke of Edinburgh — far too elderly to be at the wheel of a car — was involved in a collision in which a woman broke her wrist, another was hospitalised, and a nine-month-old baby could very well have been killed.
    Prince Philip, no doubt under legal advice, took a long time to apologise, amid mounting public anger. It was a sad event, because it underlined the frailty of the Duke who had bowed out of public life the previous August.
    Imagine if that crash had been fatal. Suppose Philip had died or the infant had been killed. More than 60 years of devoted public service would have ended in ignominious tragedy.
    Since that incident, almost every month has brought news to make a monarchist wince and for the Queen to bear.
    The Duke and Duchess of Sussex had the potential use of splendid apartments at Kensington Palace following their wedding last year.

    +


    The bachelor Harry — a brave soldier in Afghanistan and the founder of the Invictus Games for wounded military personnel — was rightly regarded as an amiable figure by most of the public. Harry, Duke of Sussex, has been a rather different proposition. Pictured: Harry and Meghan during their ITV documentary

    Yet rumours suggested that, as Meghan does not get on with the Duchess of Cambridge, Harry and his wife moved in the spring of this year to Frogmore Cottage in Windsor Great Park — refurbished at a cost of £2.4 million to the taxpayer.
    In May, the joy surrounding the birth of their son Archie was tainted, in the public’s mind at least, by the secrecy surrounding it.
    Then, last month, the couple travelled to Africa, and initially won plaudits for their engagement with the crowds and willingness to show off their son.
    However, in an ill-judged ITV documentary made during the tour, Harry confirmed a ‘rift’ with his brother William — ‘we are on different paths’ — while Meghan lamented the difficulties of being a new wife and mother, saying she was merely ‘existing not living’. This overshadowed its success.
    It did not escape notice that this privileged pair were complaining about their lot while visiting some of the poorest people on the planet.

    +9

    Zara Tindall (centre), daughter of the Princess Royal, was revealed by the Mail this year to be in receipt of £100,000 annually for giving advice to Hong Kong millionaire Dr Johnny Hon (left), a generous fellow who, it further emerged, also paid the Duchess of York sums amounting to over £300,000

    Almost simultaneously, the couple launched their unwise war against Britain’s free Press, amid claims they had done so without seeking the advice of senior Royals.
    The bachelor Harry — a brave soldier in Afghanistan and the founder of the Invictus Games for wounded military personnel — was rightly regarded as an amiable figure by most of the public. Harry, Duke of Sussex, has been a rather different proposition.
    Having spurned the tradition of spending time in summer with the Queen at Balmoral — a holiday with Elton John in Nice travelling by private jet, however, did appeal — he has now let it be known that the Sussexes won’t be staying at Sandringham with the Queen over Christmas, either.
    Instead, they will fly to America to spend Thanksgiving with his mother-in-law and take a break of six weeks.

    They are far from the only offenders. Zara Tindall, daughter of the Princess Royal, was revealed by the Mail this year to be in receipt of £100,000 annually for giving advice to Hong Kong millionaire Dr Johnny Hon, a generous fellow who, it further emerged, also paid the Duchess of York sums amounting to over £300,000.
    No crime or wrongdoing was committed in any of these cases, but the public was left wondering quite why members of the Royal Family felt entitled to such large sums of cash — particularly after we, the taxpayers, had paid large sums to police the wedding of Princess Eugenie to Jack Brooksbank in October 2018.
    At the very least these revelations threaten the good esteem in which the Monarchy is held.

    +9

    It began with a car crash near Sandringham in January, in which the then 97-year-old Duke of Edinburgh — far too elderly to be at the wheel of a car — was involved in a collision in which a woman broke her wrist, another was hospitalised, and a nine-month-old baby could very well have been killed, writes A. N. WILSON


    +9

    Imagine if that crash had been fatal. Suppose Philip had died or the infant had been killed. More than 60 years of devoted public service would have ended in ignominious tragedy, writes royal biographer A. N. WILSON. Pictured: Prince Philip, 87, sitting in his car with Lady Brabourne

    All of these misdemeanours have been put in the shade by the troubles of the Duke of York.
    Quite frankly, it is difficult to recall anything more scandalous in the history of the Royal Family in a generation. The Queen’s second son stands accused of having sex — which he emphatically denies — with Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre), hired some years ago by Epstein as an underage ‘sex slave’.
    I will not reiterate the many jaw-dropping moments in his interview with Emily Maitlis except to say he appeared to have no sense of how his fraternising with a convicted paedophile and his defence of his actions would be perceived by the public.
    Even if we take him at his word that he does not recall meeting Roberts, it was shocking to me that at no point did he express any sympathy for the young girls ensnared by Epstein into his revolting world. On the contrary, he said he was pleased to have known Epstein and found it ‘convenient’ to stay in his various houses, and was happy to have made new business associates via this friendship.
    The Duke’s only fault, in his own eyes, was that he was too ‘honourable’. He clearly did not understand that simply being acquainted with someone such as Epstein shows a ruinous lack of judgment.

    +9

    The Queen’s second son stands accused of having sex — which he emphatically denies — with Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre), hired some years ago by Epstein as an underage ‘sex slave’. Pictured: The Duke of York and Emily Maitlis

    Just imagine if the Duke were later made to give evidence in a U.S. court, providing further details of his association with Epstein and perhaps being forced to concede that the photograph of him with his arm around the teenager’s waist was not, as Andrew’s ‘friends’ insist, a fake. Imagine such evidence being given in the same week as, let us say, Charles’s Coronation?
    The scandal could fatally upend the public’s faith and trust in the Monarchy — a trust sustained in large part by enduring respect for the stalwart sense of duty displayed by our 93-year-old Queen.
    In the 1930s, the Royal Family lived down accusations that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were sympathetic to Hitler. The Firm has survived adulteries and squirm-making public rows in the decades since.
    This scandal is different. It seems likely that the Duke was simply too arrogant and naive to realise his TV fiasco would unleash fresh torrents of hostile reaction.

    +9


    In the 1930s, the Royal Family lived down accusations that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were sympathetic to Hitler. The Firm has survived adulteries and squirm-making public rows in the decades since

    And sure enough, along came Rohan Silva yesterday, a former Downing Street aide who describes himself as ‘a brown boy from Yorkshire’, to reveal that Andrew once told him: ‘You’ll never get anywhere by playing the white man’, and, ‘If you’ll pardon the expression, that really is the n***** in the woodpile’.
    Cue more denials from the Palace: denials, alas, that many will not believe. The Prince can now expect non-stop public denunciations, as more people come forward with examples of his tactless behaviour.
    As a whole, of course, the country wants the Monarchy to continue. Republican pressure groups attract vanishingly few supporters.
    The Prince of Wales has worked hard, through his Prince’s Trust and many other admirable schemes, to do good and improve the lives he touches. Together with the Queen, he has also done much to strengthen links with the Commonwealth.
    Yet all this fine work could so easily be cast away. The trouble with royal credit is that, as the evidence of the years has shown, it can evaporate almost at once when some new scandal surfaces. Just remember how angry and hurt the public was, however unfairly, when ‘Buckingham Palace’ — that is, the Queen — was considered to be responding unsympathetically to the sudden death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997.
    It took years for the royal brand to be rebuilt, and now here we are again.
    For me, one final factor truly makes this annus horribilis more horrible than the last and that is the plight of the Queen amid this turbulence.
    With the Duke of Edinburgh — for so long the family disciplinarian — playing a less active role, and now without her former private secretary Sir Christopher Geidt, who gave her such wise counsel, she is seen by some as being adrift.

    +9

    With the Duke of Edinburgh (pictured) — for so long the family disciplinarian — playing a less active role, and now without her former private secretary Sir Christopher Geidt, who gave her such wise counsel, the Queen is seen by some as being adrift

    Historically, this fate befalls constitutional monarchs who do not have good advisers at their side. Queen Victoria was saved from many a gaffe by her Private Secretary, Sir Henry Ponsonby. Our Queen’s grandfather, George V, would never have weathered the storms in the constitution without Lord Stamfordham.
    Both his son George VI and our present Queen were helped by the steadying common sense and Machiavellian shrewdness of Tommy Lascelles.
    All these men saved the monarchs from their own worse faults — and were passionate monarchists, too.
    It was a disaster when Geidt, the best secretary the Queen had, was ‘eased out’ in 2017.
    The Prince of Wales’s team had objected to Geidt’s attempt to reduce the autonomy both of Charles’s court at Clarence House and William’s at Kensington Palace, instead ‘centralising’ operations.
    Those of us who want the Monarchy to survive must hope the Royal Family will be visibly pared down as it embarks on a new decade. Its only members on public show should be the Queen, Charles and William and his family.
    The rest should aim to keep a low profile: no more interviews, lawsuits, bids for public sympathy or dollops of cash from millionaires.
    They should stand back and allow a damaged institution to be rebuilt.
    If they fail to do so, we have every reason to fear for our continuing trust in an institution that defines the very essence of our nation.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-adviser.html
    I have some famous friends and I have mostly not famous friends.

  4. #274
    Elite Member Novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Beyond Caring, then hang a left.
    Posts
    45,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rollo View Post
    The Queen's NEW annus horribilis: Andrew's disgrace, Philip's crash and Harry and Meghan's jetsetting... A.N. WILSON explains that for first time in generations, Her Majesty lacks a wise adviser - and the price may be ruinous

    By A.N. WILSON FOR THE DAILY MAIL
    PUBLISHED: 22:13, 18 November 2019 | UPDATED: 07:47, 19 November 2019


    On November 24, 1992, the Queen gave a speech to mark her four decades on the throne. It was memorable for a phrase she used that is now in common parlance — ‘annus horribilis’, the Latin for ‘horrible year’.
    She and her family had had to contend with Prince Andrew’s separation from Sarah Ferguson, Princess Anne’s divorce, the publication of Andrew Morton’s revelatory biography of Diana, exposing her disastrous marriage to the Prince of Wales (the couple’s separation would be announced the following month), and a devastating fire at Windsor Castle, later controversially repaired at a cost of tens of millions to the public purse.
    With characteristic understatement, the Queen said it was ‘not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure’.

    +


    On November 24, 1992, the Queen gave a speech to mark her four decades on the throne. It was memorable for a phrase she used that is now in common parlance — ‘annus horribilis’, the Latin for ‘horrible year’. Pictured: The Queen at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday

    Yet I would argue that this year is proving even more ‘horrible’ than 1992.
    Some of the Royal Family’s calamities in 2019 can be put down to bad luck; others to poor judgment. But at least one, however, is of such seriousness that, if it continues, I believe it could threaten the monarchy itself.
    I mean, of course, the Duke of York’s association with the sex criminal and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who committed suicide in a New York jail in the summer.
    The damage done to ‘the Firm’ by the Duke’s disastrous interview on the BBC with Emily Maitlis cannot be underestimated.
    It raises troubling questions about his reckless decision to agree to the interview in the first place — fevered discussion of Epstein had mostly died down — but also about who is advising the Royal Family and who is actually running the show.

    +9

    One calamity is of such seriousness that, if it continues, I believe it could threaten the monarchy itself. I mean, of course, the Duke of York’s association with the sex criminal and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who committed suicide in a New York jail in the summer, writes A. N. WILSON. Pictured: The Duke Of York with BBC interviewer Emily Maitlis

    First, let us look back at the other events of this royally disastrous year. It began with a car crash near Sandringham in January, in which the then 97-year-old Duke of Edinburgh — far too elderly to be at the wheel of a car — was involved in a collision in which a woman broke her wrist, another was hospitalised, and a nine-month-old baby could very well have been killed.
    Prince Philip, no doubt under legal advice, took a long time to apologise, amid mounting public anger. It was a sad event, because it underlined the frailty of the Duke who had bowed out of public life the previous August.
    Imagine if that crash had been fatal. Suppose Philip had died or the infant had been killed. More than 60 years of devoted public service would have ended in ignominious tragedy.
    Since that incident, almost every month has brought news to make a monarchist wince and for the Queen to bear.
    The Duke and Duchess of Sussex had the potential use of splendid apartments at Kensington Palace following their wedding last year.

    +


    The bachelor Harry — a brave soldier in Afghanistan and the founder of the Invictus Games for wounded military personnel — was rightly regarded as an amiable figure by most of the public. Harry, Duke of Sussex, has been a rather different proposition. Pictured: Harry and Meghan during their ITV documentary

    Yet rumours suggested that, as Meghan does not get on with the Duchess of Cambridge, Harry and his wife moved in the spring of this year to Frogmore Cottage in Windsor Great Park — refurbished at a cost of £2.4 million to the taxpayer.
    In May, the joy surrounding the birth of their son Archie was tainted, in the public’s mind at least, by the secrecy surrounding it.
    Then, last month, the couple travelled to Africa, and initially won plaudits for their engagement with the crowds and willingness to show off their son.
    However, in an ill-judged ITV documentary made during the tour, Harry confirmed a ‘rift’ with his brother William — ‘we are on different paths’ — while Meghan lamented the difficulties of being a new wife and mother, saying she was merely ‘existing not living’. This overshadowed its success.
    It did not escape notice that this privileged pair were complaining about their lot while visiting some of the poorest people on the planet.

    +9

    Zara Tindall (centre), daughter of the Princess Royal, was revealed by the Mail this year to be in receipt of £100,000 annually for giving advice to Hong Kong millionaire Dr Johnny Hon (left), a generous fellow who, it further emerged, also paid the Duchess of York sums amounting to over £300,000

    Almost simultaneously, the couple launched their unwise war against Britain’s free Press, amid claims they had done so without seeking the advice of senior Royals.
    The bachelor Harry — a brave soldier in Afghanistan and the founder of the Invictus Games for wounded military personnel — was rightly regarded as an amiable figure by most of the public. Harry, Duke of Sussex, has been a rather different proposition.
    Having spurned the tradition of spending time in summer with the Queen at Balmoral — a holiday with Elton John in Nice travelling by private jet, however, did appeal — he has now let it be known that the Sussexes won’t be staying at Sandringham with the Queen over Christmas, either.
    Instead, they will fly to America to spend Thanksgiving with his mother-in-law and take a break of six weeks.

    They are far from the only offenders. Zara Tindall, daughter of the Princess Royal, was revealed by the Mail this year to be in receipt of £100,000 annually for giving advice to Hong Kong millionaire Dr Johnny Hon, a generous fellow who, it further emerged, also paid the Duchess of York sums amounting to over £300,000.
    No crime or wrongdoing was committed in any of these cases, but the public was left wondering quite why members of the Royal Family felt entitled to such large sums of cash — particularly after we, the taxpayers, had paid large sums to police the wedding of Princess Eugenie to Jack Brooksbank in October 2018.
    At the very least these revelations threaten the good esteem in which the Monarchy is held.

    +9

    It began with a car crash near Sandringham in January, in which the then 97-year-old Duke of Edinburgh — far too elderly to be at the wheel of a car — was involved in a collision in which a woman broke her wrist, another was hospitalised, and a nine-month-old baby could very well have been killed, writes A. N. WILSON


    +9

    Imagine if that crash had been fatal. Suppose Philip had died or the infant had been killed. More than 60 years of devoted public service would have ended in ignominious tragedy, writes royal biographer A. N. WILSON. Pictured: Prince Philip, 87, sitting in his car with Lady Brabourne

    All of these misdemeanours have been put in the shade by the troubles of the Duke of York.
    Quite frankly, it is difficult to recall anything more scandalous in the history of the Royal Family in a generation. The Queen’s second son stands accused of having sex — which he emphatically denies — with Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre), hired some years ago by Epstein as an underage ‘sex slave’.
    I will not reiterate the many jaw-dropping moments in his interview with Emily Maitlis except to say he appeared to have no sense of how his fraternising with a convicted paedophile and his defence of his actions would be perceived by the public.
    Even if we take him at his word that he does not recall meeting Roberts, it was shocking to me that at no point did he express any sympathy for the young girls ensnared by Epstein into his revolting world. On the contrary, he said he was pleased to have known Epstein and found it ‘convenient’ to stay in his various houses, and was happy to have made new business associates via this friendship.
    The Duke’s only fault, in his own eyes, was that he was too ‘honourable’. He clearly did not understand that simply being acquainted with someone such as Epstein shows a ruinous lack of judgment.

    +9

    The Queen’s second son stands accused of having sex — which he emphatically denies — with Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre), hired some years ago by Epstein as an underage ‘sex slave’. Pictured: The Duke of York and Emily Maitlis

    Just imagine if the Duke were later made to give evidence in a U.S. court, providing further details of his association with Epstein and perhaps being forced to concede that the photograph of him with his arm around the teenager’s waist was not, as Andrew’s ‘friends’ insist, a fake. Imagine such evidence being given in the same week as, let us say, Charles’s Coronation?
    The scandal could fatally upend the public’s faith and trust in the Monarchy — a trust sustained in large part by enduring respect for the stalwart sense of duty displayed by our 93-year-old Queen.
    In the 1930s, the Royal Family lived down accusations that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were sympathetic to Hitler. The Firm has survived adulteries and squirm-making public rows in the decades since.
    This scandal is different. It seems likely that the Duke was simply too arrogant and naive to realise his TV fiasco would unleash fresh torrents of hostile reaction.

    +9


    In the 1930s, the Royal Family lived down accusations that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were sympathetic to Hitler. The Firm has survived adulteries and squirm-making public rows in the decades since

    And sure enough, along came Rohan Silva yesterday, a former Downing Street aide who describes himself as ‘a brown boy from Yorkshire’, to reveal that Andrew once told him: ‘You’ll never get anywhere by playing the white man’, and, ‘If you’ll pardon the expression, that really is the n***** in the woodpile’.
    Cue more denials from the Palace: denials, alas, that many will not believe. The Prince can now expect non-stop public denunciations, as more people come forward with examples of his tactless behaviour.
    As a whole, of course, the country wants the Monarchy to continue. Republican pressure groups attract vanishingly few supporters.
    The Prince of Wales has worked hard, through his Prince’s Trust and many other admirable schemes, to do good and improve the lives he touches. Together with the Queen, he has also done much to strengthen links with the Commonwealth.
    Yet all this fine work could so easily be cast away. The trouble with royal credit is that, as the evidence of the years has shown, it can evaporate almost at once when some new scandal surfaces. Just remember how angry and hurt the public was, however unfairly, when ‘Buckingham Palace’ — that is, the Queen — was considered to be responding unsympathetically to the sudden death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997.
    It took years for the royal brand to be rebuilt, and now here we are again.
    For me, one final factor truly makes this annus horribilis more horrible than the last and that is the plight of the Queen amid this turbulence.
    With the Duke of Edinburgh — for so long the family disciplinarian — playing a less active role, and now without her former private secretary Sir Christopher Geidt, who gave her such wise counsel, she is seen by some as being adrift.

    +9

    With the Duke of Edinburgh (pictured) — for so long the family disciplinarian — playing a less active role, and now without her former private secretary Sir Christopher Geidt, who gave her such wise counsel, the Queen is seen by some as being adrift

    Historically, this fate befalls constitutional monarchs who do not have good advisers at their side. Queen Victoria was saved from many a gaffe by her Private Secretary, Sir Henry Ponsonby. Our Queen’s grandfather, George V, would never have weathered the storms in the constitution without Lord Stamfordham.
    Both his son George VI and our present Queen were helped by the steadying common sense and Machiavellian shrewdness of Tommy Lascelles.
    All these men saved the monarchs from their own worse faults — and were passionate monarchists, too.
    It was a disaster when Geidt, the best secretary the Queen had, was ‘eased out’ in 2017.
    The Prince of Wales’s team had objected to Geidt’s attempt to reduce the autonomy both of Charles’s court at Clarence House and William’s at Kensington Palace, instead ‘centralising’ operations.
    Those of us who want the Monarchy to survive must hope the Royal Family will be visibly pared down as it embarks on a new decade. Its only members on public show should be the Queen, Charles and William and his family.
    The rest should aim to keep a low profile: no more interviews, lawsuits, bids for public sympathy or dollops of cash from millionaires.
    They should stand back and allow a damaged institution to be rebuilt.
    If they fail to do so, we have every reason to fear for our continuing trust in an institution that defines the very essence of our nation.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-adviser.html
    They don’t mention Williams alleged affair with his best mate’s wife.


    And this is the newspaper being sued- ace to grind much #dailyheil???

  5. #275
    Elite Member Ravenna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,726

    Default

    They are far from the only offenders. Zara Tindall, daughter of the Princess Royal, was revealed by the Mail this year to be in receipt of £100,000 annually for giving advice to Hong Kong millionaire Dr Johnny Hon, a generous fellow who, it further emerged, also paid the Duchess of York sums amounting to over £300,000.
    Uh wut? ... advice? What is the real story?
    crayzeehappee likes this.

  6. #276
    Elite Member OrangeSlice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Studying with Master Grumpy Cat
    Posts
    10,893

    Default

    So...are the Royals hookers now?
    Labelwhore likes this.
    "Schadenfreude, hard to spell, easy to feel." ~VenusinFauxFurs

    "Scoffing is one of my main hobbies!" ~Trixie

  7. #277
    Elite Member Sarzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    15,987

    Default

    Advice, eh? Interesting.

  8. #278
    Elite Member ShimmeringGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,975

  9. #279
    Elite Member Novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Beyond Caring, then hang a left.
    Posts
    45,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarzy View Post
    Advice, eh? Interesting.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...hess-york/amp/

    The Duchess of York and the Queen’s granddaughter Zara Tindall have reportedly been paid tens of thousands of pounds to advise to a Hong Kong tycoon.

    Mrs Tindall was paid £100,000 a year for a non-executive directorship at the Global Group of companies owned by tycoon Dr Johnny Hon, it was reported on Saturday.

    She was reportedly appointed to advise on horse racing for a sports investment arm in return for attending just two board meetings by telephone a year and four company functions.
    The Duchess of York was paid almost £300,000 from a firm chaired by Dr Hon, as well as a £72,000-a-year retainer for her non-executive directorship of his film investment company in Hong Kong, according to an investigation by The Daily Mail.
    Lawyers for Mrs Tindall, 38, daughter of the Princess Royal and already an ambassador for Rolex and Land Rover, initially said it was “wholly untrue” she was a non-executive director of Dr Hon's Global Group.
    But they later accepted she had held that role when the newspaper provided documentary evidence of the £100,000-a-year contract between her and Dr Hon's firm.
    Sarzy likes this.

  10. #280
    Elite Member Brando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Novice View Post
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...hess-york/amp/

    The Duchess of York and the Queen’s granddaughter Zara Tindall have reportedly been paid tens of thousands of pounds to advise to a Hong Kong tycoon.

    Mrs Tindall was paid £100,000 a year for a non-executive directorship at the Global Group of companies owned by tycoon Dr Johnny Hon, it was reported on Saturday.

    She was reportedly appointed to advise on horse racing for a sports investment arm in return for attending just two board meetings by telephone a year and four company functions.
    The Duchess of York was paid almost £300,000 from a firm chaired by Dr Hon, as well as a £72,000-a-year retainer for her non-executive directorship of his film investment company in Hong Kong, according to an investigation by The Daily Mail.
    Lawyers for Mrs Tindall, 38, daughter of the Princess Royal and already an ambassador for Rolex and Land Rover, initially said it was “wholly untrue” she was a non-executive director of Dr Hon's Global Group.
    But they later accepted she had held that role when the newspaper provided documentary evidence of the £100,000-a-year contract between her and Dr Hon's firm.
    Shady people are shady.

    Though, I would not turn down a $100,000 a year position where the job tasks are a couple of conference calls and photo ops.
    lindsaywhit likes this.
    When you came in the air went out. And every shadow filled up with doubt. I don't know who you think you are, But before the night is through,I wanna do bad things with you.

  11. #281
    Elite Member Novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Beyond Caring, then hang a left.
    Posts
    45,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brando View Post
    Shady people are shady.

    Though, I would not turn down a $100,000 a year position where the job tasks are a couple of conference calls and photo ops.
    That’s how directorships work, this isn’t unusual to have someone like this on the board as a figurehead. She probably gets paid more than most but have that value to his client base to justify it.

  12. #282
    Elite Member BITTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    GUTTED
    Posts
    25,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Novice View Post
    They don’t mention Williams alleged affair with his best mate’s wife.


    And this is the newspaper being sued- ace to grind much #dailyheil???
    Are there any decent people in the House of Windsor? Seems like Anne is the only one. And there are reports of her rather brusque personality...but she does her duties without complaining about them.
    "I am a social vegan; I avoid meet!” Anonymous Introvert

  13. #283
    Elite Member rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    47,183

    Default

    Kate seems unproblematic. It's good to be bland.
    Sleuth and DawnM74 like this.
    I have some famous friends and I have mostly not famous friends.

  14. #284
    Elite Member Novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Beyond Caring, then hang a left.
    Posts
    45,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BITTER View Post
    Are there any decent people in the House of Windsor? Seems like Anne is the only one. And there are reports of her rather brusque personality...but she does her duties without complaining about them.
    Brusque, fair, swears like a sailor- what’s not to love?

  15. #285
    Elite Member Lofty Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Novice View Post
    Brusque, fair, swears like a sailor- what’s not to love?
    I love her!
    I'd like to add her work ethic, her dry humor and also her horrible fashion decisions.
    Novice and DawnM74 like this.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Inbred Rich People: The Royalty Thread Part 2
    By twitchy2.0 in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 3351
    Last Post: September 23rd, 2019, 01:14 PM
  2. Tremendous people. All the best people. The general politics thread.
    By twitchy2.0 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1721
    Last Post: May 11th, 2018, 10:33 AM
  3. Inaugurination and beyond: Trump thread part three
    By twitchy2.0 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2632
    Last Post: May 16th, 2017, 07:17 PM
  4. The Royalty Thread
    By BITTER in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 3277
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2016, 07:25 PM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 13th, 2010, 09:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •