Prince Andrew, Duke of York Current Events 5: November 2009-June 2010


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I've read these reports in other, respectable newspapers, and not once was it intimated that the Ambassador was 'shocked'.

This is merely typical Daily Mail headline nonsense, as is its seeking a comment from republican members of the community, who, predictably, prophesy that the end is nigh for Prince Andrew.
 
The fact that Wikileaks released a document or two with discussion about the Duke of York does not make all discussion of Wikileaks relevant to this thread. US criminal sentencing guidelines and Hillary Clinton are among the topics that can safely be deemed off-topic here.

wbenson
British forums moderator
 
Last edited:
Mermaid1962 said:
People have to be able to say what they believe and think in private meetings, and those meetings and correspondence have to remain confidential. Otherwise, truth would never be spoken between high-level people. :ermm:
Click to expand...

In theory, I agree, but as more information becomes digital, it's more likely that we'll see more such "leaks." I read in another article that "it would have been impossible to steal so many papers" (if the memos had all been on paper). But it's much easier to "steal" digital information, because all the information has been consolidated in one database.

Since the 1990s, there has been a movement towards "e-government" (electronic government) which includes more standardization and centralization in a single database, and more information sharing across departments. This is supposed to improve efficiency, but it will also make governments more vulnerable to hackers.

Leaders, business people, and Prince Andrew should no longer assume that anything they say "in private" will stay private.
 
I think the term "in private" will have to be redefined so that politicians, governments and others can be sure of its meaning.
 
:previous: Well the sniping about who pays for the wedding got them nowhere and noone has the inside scoop about who's designing the wedding dress, is Fergie invited and where the honeymoon is so, they'll just have to roast Prince Andrew until someone coughs!
 
I agree Marg, but I really don´t believe that Prince Andrew is a good representative for British Trade, especially as he has allegedly said his only qualifications are "genetical".
There must be more competent people about. The idea is good, a son of the Sovereign, and HRH sounds impressive, but that seems to be about it, nothing more. He would be perfect if he just limited himself to being charming but as I have heard more than once, he is, despite his lovely smile, not at all charming.
 
Well funny enough, the comments in the Daily Mail are mostly positive! People are saying Andrew is a good ambassador for trade because he speaks his mind and stands up for Britain. I agree that Prince Andrew tries do his absolute best. The article about "inferiority" has a bit of truth to it, I think...all the royals know that they are seen to have privileges they haven't earned, so they often work overtime to prove themselves.

My problem with Andrew isn't so much his "rude" comments (I'm sure he's not the only person to say things privately that he wouldn't say publicly) but the fact that he spends so much time trying to promote British business in countries that are very, very corrupt. From the leaked cables, it seems that Andrew doesn't endorse corruption but accepts it as the status quo in certain countries and turns a blind eye to it. Not only that, but he seems to have personal friendships with some of the corrupt leaders/businesspeople (eg. Timur Kulibayev). I know that developing personal connections is part of the role, to an extent, but who are Prince Andrew's other friends? After a while, when a person spends a lot of time at their work, their "work" connections become their only friends.

I just have a feeling that someone is going to deceive/take advantage of Prince Andrew eventually. He is not as dumb as the papers make him out to be, but (IMO) he's also not as clever as he would like others to believe. I think he lives in the past a little bit...a lot of his statements sound like he sees Britain as the imperial power it was in Victorian times. Actually, I appreciate Andrew's patriotism...it's refreshing...but also a little unrealistic.
 
Last edited:
Given the intricacies of doing business these days, particularly in cross-cultural, international forums, there's an increasing tendency for misunderstandings. The Telegraph of London, reports:

Ms Gfoeller speaks six languages. None of them, alas for her, is the patois of the British upper classes. A businessman present at the brunch where the crass remarks were made says: “Prince Andrew has a very dry sense of humour which Tatiana did not understand.”

As for the prince's alleged criticism of investigations into corruption, I merely wonder what is the difference between 'bribery' and 'commission'. Both can be covert depending on circumstances, and every single country, including yours and mine, and its emissaries, engage in it.

The salient fact is that Prince Andrew can negotiate with Arab royals on equal terms, in their eyes. He understands how to do business in a ME context and has an inherited advantage where and when it's needed, and this annoys and frustrates some others.

Nor do I really think that Andrew's lost in the halcyon days of the British Empire; however, those days certainly still resonate in a great many parts of the globe, including parts the ME, and give the UK an unappreciated and diplomatically irksome advantage.

As for dealing with those whom some might think 'undesirable' - dear me! Just who are some of the shadowy figures that our respective governments deal with to obtain a commercial advantage? I could easily compile a list of names of influential criminals, cruel dictators, and murderous governments with whom the West willingly does business.

A few months ago I wrote on the Forums that I believed that there was a 'get Andrew' campaign. I still think so. It would be worth a great deal to some corporations to remove Andrew's influence from the most lucrative of markets.
 
The Duke of Kent had the job before Prince Andrew did, but he didn't seem to attract the same sort of attention.


Wisteria said:
I agree Marg, but I really don´t believe that Prince Andrew is a good representative for British Trade, especially as he has allegedly said his only qualifications are "genetical".
Click to expand...
 
Mermaid1962 said:
The Duke of Kent had the job before Prince Andrew did, but he didn't seem to attract the same sort of attention.
Click to expand...
The Duke of Kent doesn't have a wife who tried to sell access for cash. . .:whistling:
 
But even before the access for cash debacle, there was criticism of Andrew because of the particular way he went about his job. Did the Duke of Kent do it significantly differently than Andrew does it? Is there any way of measuring their "success" or lack thereof? Or did the Duke of Kent get less publicity because he's the Duke of Kent and not The Duke of York, son of the Queen?


Russophile said:
The Duke of Kent doesn't have a wife who tried to sell access for cash. . .:whistling:
Click to expand...
 
Mermaid1962 said:
But even before the access for cash debacle, there was criticism of Andrew because of the particular way he went about his job. Did the Duke of Kent do it significantly differently than Andrew does it? Is there any way of measuring their "success" or lack thereof? Or did the Duke of Kent get less publicity because he's the Duke of Kent and not The Duke of York, son of the Queen?
Click to expand...


I believe that is one of the reasons why the Duke of Kent resigned and it was given to the Duke of Kent - to raise the profile of the position and to use Andrew's position as the son of the monarch to promote British stuff abroad, particularly in the Middle East and newly emerging countries that still see royalty as something special.
 
:previous: I guess the bottom line is just that, the bottom line and I think Andrew must be working out for British Trade. It's amazing how playing golf with a Prince beats "Trade Talks" with a suit! :D
 
Well, as one other poster posted here awhile ago, a lot of business does get discussed on the golf links.:flowers:



MARG said:
It's amazing how playing golf with a Prince beats "Trade Talks" with a suit! :D
Click to expand...
 
Iluvbertie said:
The more of these articles that keep coming, and the DM will keep them coming, the greater the calls for Andrew to be stripped of this position and retired from public life.
Click to expand...

So true. I honestly think that is what they're aiming for. The WikiLeaks articles didn't cause enough of a stir (people actually praised Andrew for standing up for Britain) so now the media is finding people who don't like Andrew, and getting them to write critical articles.

I do think that much of the Daily Mail article is true, however. I've seen interviews with Andrew, and he has a tendency to go on and on at length about his trade ambassador job, or the navy, and at the end of the interview you realize he didn't say much at all. I think he really does work hard, though. The "HBH" throughout the article is just rude.
 
Do you have any idea why the DM is particularly hard on the Yorks? I don't think that it comes to anyone as a great surprise that Prince Andrew is boorish. What surprised me though was the suggestion that he's "mentally challenged." Good grief!:bang:

Regardless of what he's like privately, he does very, very well in public appearances.


Iluvbertie said:
The more of these articles that keep coming, and the DM will keep them coming, the greater the calls for Andrew to be stripped of this position and retired from public life.
Click to expand...
 
Iluvbertie said:
The more of these articles that keep coming, and the DM will keep them coming, the greater the calls for Andrew to be stripped of this position and retired from public life.
Click to expand...
But that wouldn't be bad for an avowed republic supporter like you. So alls good.:flowers:
 
Mermaid1962 said:
Do you have any idea why the DM is particularly hard on the Yorks? I don't think that it comes to anyone as a great surprise that Prince Andrew is boorish. What surprised me though was the suggestion that he's "mentally challenged." Good grief!:bang:

Regardless of what he's like privately, he does very, very well in public appearances.
Click to expand...

The DM was a great supporter of Diana and with her demise they are one of the ones that felt her loss greatly. To me the anti-royal rhetoric comes from the loss of their inside information from Diana.

They know that William and Harry are almost sacrosanct being Diana's sons and Charles is fair game but only to a point as he is the future King and thus some miniscule respect has to be given.

Andrew made the mistake of marrying Sarah, will never be King and so it a good target - like his daughters and the constant calls for them to get real jobs (for crying out loud they are still both at uni).

The DM feeds on the most negative aspects of society and being anti-royal is one way of doing that but when it suits them they will do the pro-royal stories as they will do what sells.
 
It seem to be the most negative of the tabloids, definitely. The news reports seem to be trivial coverage about celebrities or else shocking tales about lurid crimes and corruption.


Iluvbertie said:
The DM feeds on the most negative aspects of society and being anti-royal is one way of doing that but when it suits them they will do the pro-royal stories as they will do what sells.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Iluvbertie said:
The DM was a great supporter of Diana and with her demise they are one of the ones that felt her loss greatly. To me the anti-royal rhetoric comes from the loss of their inside information from Diana.

They know that William and Harry are almost sacrosanct being Diana's sons and Charles is fair game but only to a point as he is the future King and thus some miniscule respect has to be given.

Andrew made the mistake of marrying Sarah, will never be King and so it a good target - like his daughters and the constant calls for them to get real jobs (for crying out loud they are still both at uni).

The DM feeds on the most negative aspects of society and being anti-royal is one way of doing that but when it suits them they will do the pro-royal stories as they will do what sells.
Click to expand...

I think you a definately right Iluvbertie. Anne are her family don't have the royal titles, being Diana's sons William and Harry are untouchable,
Edward are Sophie keep a low profile (and good on them for that). I'm sure as far as HM and the DoE are concerned Sophie is the prefect daughter in law, and she seems a very nice woman but for whatever reason she doesn't seem to have struck any kind of cord with the public in the same way as Diana or Sarah. She isn't at all unpopular but she isn't a big favourite either. People don't really interested one way or another in Edward or Sophie and so they aren't really a target for the tabloids.
Tha leaves Andrew and his family, of course Sarah down through the years has given the media plenty of fodder, and has deserved some of the negative press, but the DM seem to bash her just for fun, like it's a sport.
She makes herself an easy target when they have no one else to write about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

iceflower
Prince Albert & Princess Charlene Current Events Part 6: January 2024 -
Replies
9
Views
3K
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
  • Sticky
United Kingdom: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
2 3
Replies
63
Views
4K
Biri
B
Marengo
  • Sticky
Liechtenstein: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
doro
doro
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
Prince Daniel's Current Events, Part 4
Replies
15
Views
2K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
CrownPrincessJava
  • Sticky
Italy: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
Replies
4
Views
418
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom