Indeed. It´s so pathetic...
I think it didn't work because they are similar in their faults to a large extent.. Both of them are not very clever, selfish and thoughtless. I would not say that Sarah was as arrogant as Andy but she did I think get a bit high flown when married to him.. Being a Royal duchess went to her rather weak head. She had never had much money, now she had a lot more.. but it wasn't enough for her..She got extravagant and wanted to spend spend spend...
I am not sure that sufficient preparation would have helped; that's why his advisor recommended a 'written interview'. He could still share his story but they would have much more control on how it would come across.Minority opinion..but I do not believe that the fact that Andrew gave an interview addressing the Epstein controversy was the wrong decision. On the contrary it was what he should have done.
The huge, unmitigated disaster was the MANNER IN WHICH HE CONDUCTED HIMSELF. The answers he gave, his attitude...could not have been more offensive and self destructive.
What should have happened given all that was at stake was for Andrew to have FIRST been advised and prepared for such an interview by a team that included lawyers, public relations professionals and perhaps either HMQ or the PoW. Sarah should have had zero input if she in fact ever did.
Had Andrew projected the right response of humility, introspection, regret and compassion .in other words qualities that he has never been known to have...the interview might have indeed become a public relations coup for himself.
He could have averted this disaster.
Not sure I agree. Given the feverish press frenzy and allegations against him at the time, people would have needed to SEE and HEAR genuine...or the appearance of a genuine, mea culpa from the DoY.He couldn't because he is incapable of taking advice.. or "projecting the right response" because he didn't feel any remorse or any sense of wrong doing. He has little or no compassion for people whom he sees as lower in rank than himself.. and it was best to say nothng.Minority opinion..but I do not believe that the fact that Andrew gave an interview addressing the Epstein controversy was the wrong decision. On the contrary it was what he should have done.
The huge, unmitigated disaster was the MANNER IN WHICH HE CONDUCTED HIMSELF. The answers he gave, his attitude...could not have been more offensive and self destructive.
What should have happened given all that was at stake was for Andrew to have FIRST been advised and prepared for such an interview by a team that included lawyers, public relations professionals and perhaps either HMQ or the PoW. Sarah should have had zero input if she in fact ever did.
Had Andrew projected the right response of humility, introspection, regret and compassion .in other words qualities that he has never been known to have...the interview might have indeed become a public relations coup for himself.
He could have averted this disaster.
However, it seems that a 'real interview' would never go well... even with the best preparation (I assume Andrew was prepped rather extensively this time as well and surely expected it to go well) his true colors would shine through... While the media might not have been satisfied, it would probably have died down at some point. A lot of people were surprised at the time of the interview because the fuzz had already died down quite a lot at that point.
A written interview would obviously had more control over content but from a pr standpoint it would not have accomplished what needed to be accomplished under the circumstances.
Written answers to questions vetted in advance would not have satisfied a cynical press and public.
BINGO!! Given Andrew's...limitations..the thing to have done was to either keep silent and lay low OR submitted the written replies suggested by Somebody as a less satisfactory but acceptable alternative.
And Andrew does indeed take advice. Often.
From the wrong people.
