November 5, 2025 • 29 mins
This episode goes behind the polished words of Buckingham Palace to unpack the public relations machinery that managed the downfall of Prince Andrew.
In October 2025, King Charles III formally removed all of Andrew’s titles and evicted him from his Windsor residence.
On the surface, it looked like accountability.
But beneath the royal phrasing lay a carefully timed communications plan.
We’ll walk through the anatomy of that plan: how one resurfaced email reignited the scandal, how two precisely timed statements reframed it,
and how the Palace’s language turned a personal disgrace into an institutional act of duty.
Want More Behind the Breakdown?
Follow The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson on Substack for early access to podcast episodes, private member chats, weekly live sessions, and monthly workshops that go deeper than the mic. It is the inside hub for communicators who want real strategy, clear judgment, and a little side-eye where it counts.
Follow Molly on Substack
Subscribe to Molly's Weekly Newsletter
Subscribe to Molly's Live Events Calendar.
Need a Keynote Speaker? Drawing from real-world PR battles, Molly delivers the same engaging stories and hard-won crisis insights from the podcast to your live audience. Click here to book Molly for your next meeting.
Follow & Connect with Molly:
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_02 (00:00):
Let's talk about how some scandals end.
Because they don't collapseovernight.
They build slowly, deliberately.
And then one day you wake up, orit's later in the afternoon on a
Friday, and there's a palacestatement that sounds
compassionate on the surface,but underneath it's pure
(00:21):
strategy or deflection.
That's what just happened toPrince Andrew, or as he's now
officially called, AndrewMountbatten Windsor.
Late last week, BuckinghamPalace confirmed that King
Charles had stripped Andrew ofall royal titles, including
Prince Andrew.
His lease on Royal Lodge, theWindsor estate he had occupied
(00:43):
for decades, was terminated.
He was instructed to move toprivate accommodations.
Effectively, it was a royaleviction.
The palace calls it necessary,and they said it was done with
the utmost sympathy for acertain group of people.
Let's talk about that group, whyit matters, and get to the real
(01:06):
story, the one underneath thosepolished statements and about
how we got here.
And when you line up the events,you see something that always
appears in these types ofcrises: a pattern.
It's not random, it's a system.
Let's review a royal scandalthat unfolded in three phases:
the trigger, the timing, thenthe words.
(01:29):
Let's go through each piece bypiece.
Hey there, welcome to the PRBreakdown Podcast.
I'm your host, Molly McPherson,and this week it's all about
Prince Andrew.
I know if you're on socialmedia, if you're reading news
accounts, there are so manyarticles about this.
But I want to focus on one areathat I don't see much content
(01:51):
about, and that is looking atthe statements themselves,
backed up by the events thathappened.
Because scandals are rarelyabout a single moment.
They're about accumulation, aslow build of stories and
documents and outrage untilsilence becomes impossible.
And for Prince Andrew, thattrigger wasn't new.
(02:13):
It was old.
It's been lurking for a longtime.
And one of the things thatbrought him down was an email.
That email that wouldn't goaway.
In January of this year, an oldemail resurfaced in the press.
And it's the one showing thatAndrew had stayed in contact
with Jeffrey Epstein after theperiod he claimed their friend
(02:34):
up ended.
Now, in the 2019 BBC Newsnightinterview with Emily Maitless, I
watched it again on Fridayafternoon.
I took a quick lunch break.
And next thing you know, on mylunch break, I am watching the
entire program on Netflix calledScoop about the interview.
(02:54):
It sucked a major portion out ofmy day, but I got sucked into
it.
And then after work that day,throughout the night and then
into the weekend, I watched thatinterview, the actual interview
over again because it isfascinating to see what happened
and where, not necessarily whereit all started, but the sheer
(03:17):
arrogance that Prince Andrewthought that he could outrun or
outsmart this crisis from thatinterview.
I highly encourage you to watchthat interview, but I'll be sure
to add a few clips in here justin case you don't get around to
it.
But that is the interview wherehe claimed because of his time
(03:38):
with the Royal Navy he could nolonger sweat.
It was also the interview wherehe said very specifically that
he was at a Pizza Express.
Just for a second, listen toEmily Maitless.
SPEAKER_01 (03:51):
Why would you remember that so specifically?
Why would you remember a PizzaExpress birthday and being at
home?
SPEAKER_00 (03:56):
Because going to Pizza Express in Woking is an
unusual thing for me to do.
A very unusual thing for me todo.
I've only been through Woking acouple of times, um, and I
remember it weirdly distinctly.
But as soon as somebody remindedme of it, I went, Oh yes, I
remember that.
But I have no recollection ofever meeting or being in the
(04:19):
company or the presence.
SPEAKER_02 (04:20):
So all those sharp details that Angela remembered,
yet he was forgetting so manythings about Epstein.
He always had this look on hisface, like, what?
I don't know what you're talkingabout.
I don't know what you mean.
But then when he had to rememberthose specifics to get around
the lie, you've all been there,right?
You know someone who's lying toyour face.
(04:41):
That's what they do.
They always just double down onthe details.
Andrew had insisted that he hadonly seen Epstein once after his
conviction and had cut ties in2010.
But that email, dated February2011, told a different story.
Prince Andrew wrote to Epstein,thanking him for their last
meeting and saying, quote, let'splay some more soon.
(05:03):
That phrase that became tabloiddynamite.
It suggested ongoing familiaritylong after the supposed break.
And honestly, no one who haseven a surface knowledge of
Prince Andrew should besurprised.
It was included in a set offinancial conduct authority
court documents and hadtechnically been public since
(05:24):
early this year.
But in October, British paperssplashed it across their front
pages.
Why?
Because now it landed in adifferent context.
One of the most important partsof a crisis that a lot of people
forget to look for, and that isthe timing.
The timing coincided with a waveof other unflattering headlines,
(05:45):
all reinforcing the same storythat Andrew's version of events
couldn't be trusted.
Now I just mentioned thenewsnight interview.
Let's go back to that newsnightinterview because it's the
bedrock of this entire crisis.
So back in November 2019, theDuke of York sat down with BBC
journalist Emily Maitless toquote set the record straight.
(06:08):
The goal was damage control.
If you watch Scoop on Netflix,you know everything that was
happening behind the scenes.
The result, however, wasreputation collapse.
In the interview, Andrew deniedever meeting Virginia Duffre,
denied any sexual contact,saying he was home with his
children after visiting, veryspecifically, Pizza Express.
(06:32):
Claimed a medical condition,prevented him from sweating,
contradicting Jufre'sdescription, and said staying
with Epstein after hisconviction was wrong.
The interview was supposed tohumanize him.
Instead, it made him lookdelusional.
Like honestly, he thought thathe was going to convince
Maitless, the UK, the rest ofthe world, everyone paying
(06:55):
attention.
Such a delusional, egocentricthought.
But within 48 hours, his publicduties were suspended.
Within a week, sponsors andcharities had cut ties with
Prince Andrew.
And by early 2020, the monarchyhad quietly exiled him from
public life.
So when that 2011 emailreappeared showing continued
contact, it just wasn't anotherheadline.
(07:17):
It directly undercut his onlypublic defense.
Then came the literary wave.
In 2025, royal biographer AndrewLouney published entitled The
Rise and Fall of Prince Andrew,a deeply researched but scathing
portrayal.
It chronicled Prince Andrew'syears of arrogance and
questionable business deals andhis behavior that was so
(07:39):
off-kilter, planting him as aman shaped by privilege and
detached from accountability.
That along with his wife,Fergie, as well.
Shortly after, Virginia Dufrey'sposthumous memoir hit shells.
The book revisits herexperiences with Epstein and
detailed Prince Andrew's allegedinvolvement, bringing the
accusations back into themainstream conversation.
(08:03):
And a conversation, by the way,that is still swirling around
President Trump.
Both of these books were widelycovered, reviewed, dissected.
The effect wasn't newinformation necessarily, but it
was the repetition ofinformation.
They made sure his name stayedactive in the cycle of
Epstein-related coverage.
(08:23):
Even his ex-wife, SarahFerguson, Fergie got pulled back
into the storm.
Old correspondents surfacedshowing she had privately
maintained contact with Epsteinas well, even after his
conviction, thanking him forfinancial helps with debts.
When that became public again in2025, several of her charitable
affiliations distancedthemselves from Fergie.
(08:44):
And that in turn reigniteddiscussion of the couple's
shared judgment or lack of it,even though they've been
divorced since 1996.
So by October of this year, thenarrative had metastasized.
It wasn't about a single act oreven a single person.
It was about the royal brandtolerating proximity to a
(09:04):
predator.
Now, across the Atlantic, onthese shores, U.S.
lawmakers have been demandingfull disclosure of the Epstein
documents.
Thousands of pages of SEAL courtfilings.
There are so many crediblereports that Andrew's name
appeared in flight manifests andguest lists for Epstein's
private island and New Yorktownhouse.
British outlets began asking,would the monarchy survive
(09:27):
another Epstein release?
And at that point, the palacewasn't dealing with the rumor.
They were dealing with aninevitability.
This was a storm that wasn'tgoing to go away.
As one Royal Insider told TheTimes off record, quote, there
comes a point when silencebecomes complicity.
And that's when the PR machinefrom the royal family from
(09:49):
Buckingham Palace switched on.
Now let's talk about the fiveincidents that finally stacked
up to trigger this renewedcrisis.
So one, the email contradiction,that's proof that he lied.
Two, it directly conflicted withsomething that he said on the
Newsnight interview.
That's a credibility disaster.
(10:09):
Three, the books, it's thesustained narrative damage.
Four, the Fergie connection.
It's just the collateral op.
Everything those two touch orany of their dealings are
tainted.
And five, the Epstein documentpush, the political urgency on
both sides of the Atlantic.
(10:29):
Individually, one by one,survivable, but together they're
catastrophic.
That's the incident that createsthe trigger that turns private
embarrassment into aninstitutional crisis.
And once the monarchy felt thatheat, the next phase kicked in,
and that's the timing.
So often PR is about emotion,but when it comes to the royal
(10:53):
family, it's not.
It's about the sequencing.
So when the pressure hits itspeak, the palace doesn't react
instinctively.
If you think back to all theroyal crises that have happened,
Harry and Meghan, PrincessCatherine, Kate Middleton with
her cancer diagnosis, the hidingof it, the covering of it, and
then the eventual revealcalibrates the royal family,
(11:17):
Buckingham Palace.
They calibrate the moment toact.
It's precisely the moment wherethey feel that doing so seems
morally inevitable, butpolitically controlled.
And that's what happened here.
We have no idea knowing what'sgoing on behind the scenes.
People assume because it's theroyal family that everything is
proper, everything is right,everything is a board.
(11:39):
But if you watch any of theaccounts of the royal family, if
you watch The Crown on Netflix,if you watch Scoop, if you read,
if you follow news accounts, nowwe nobody really knows exactly
what goes on behind the royalwalls and behind closed doors.
But collectively, when thesethings start to accumulate, you
(11:59):
can see the patterns there andsee how they operate.
And certainly there was astructure to what happened here.
Now, the first step was the softlanding.
That happened a couple weeks agoon 17 October when Andrew
released his own statement.
I did a post on social media.
I'll include a link in the shownotes.
It happened on a Friday, earlyafternoon.
(12:22):
So that meant it was releasedlate Friday, UK time.
And I remember just hoppingonline real quick.
I started filming before I evenread the statement because I
knew even in the first read, Iwould be able to glean what was
happening there just from howthe statement was written.
And because it was from PrinceAndrew, I could assume right off
(12:42):
the bat, there wasn't going tobe accountability.
It was going to be deflection.
There was going to be egoembedded in the words of the
statement.
And the statement delivered.
This is what he wrote (12:52):
quote, in discussion with the king and my
immediate and wider family, wehave concluded the continued
accusations about me distractingfrom the work of his majesty and
the royal family.
I have decided, as I alwayshave, to put my duty to my
family and country first.
With his majesty's agreement, wefeel I must now go a step
further.
I will therefore no longer usemy title or the honors which
(13:14):
have been conferred upon me.
But he also reiterates, Ivigorously deny the accusations
against me.
It reads like a voluntaryresignation.
In those words, with hismajesty's agreement, in other
words, this is Prince Andrewdeciding on his own that he is
going to go a step further anddecide to no longer use his
(13:36):
title or honors which have beenconferred upon me.
It's more like a gesture wherehe's saying, I'm doing this for
the good of the family.
But make no mistake, that isstage one of the palace playbook
because there's no way thatPrince Andrew, we don't even
need to know him.
Hey, by the way, I actually didI meet Prince Andrew?
(13:58):
I can't remember.
Years ago.
So this would have been 1998, Ithink.
Prince Andrew, I was at a dinnerreception with Prince Andrew on
the Constitution in Boston.
So at the time, this was myformer husband, military.
There was some military event.
And he was on the boat.
No, I didn't meet him, but I sawhim because I thought if I met
(14:21):
him, then I would have beencurtsying.
And honestly, why would he meetme?
I was on a date.
I wasn't even a military spouse.
I was just on a date at thatpoint.
And I was probably had a fewcocktails of me.
But I definitely saw PrinceAndrew.
And now that we hear all thisstuff about Prince Andrew, I
wonder what he was doing inBoston.
Who knows what was going on inBoston when he was visiting?
But he's just not someone.
(14:42):
Because I remember watching himand knowing at that time, back
in the late 90s, he was stillknown as the Randy Andy.
Was he divorced from Friggy atthat point?
I believe so.
When I saw him, gosh, now cometo think of it, I'm thinking as
I'm recording this, I wonder ifDiana was alive.
Because I feel like Diana wouldhave been alive.
It was right around the time.
(15:03):
You know what?
I bet I saw him right beforePrincess Diana died, as a matter
of fact.
Because I think I would havebeen paying attention far more
to Prince Andrew, knowing thatPrincess Diana died.
I'm sorry.
Thank you for going along withme on this whole thing.
It was definitely beforePrincess Diana died when he was
on that boat in Boston.
But anyway, the point is he wasalways known as carried himself
(15:25):
in this rather arrogant way.
And I just remember the buzzaround him that time that he was
definitely that way.
Now, two weeks later, after hisstatement, comes the hard
landing.
And that came out just a fewdays ago from this recording on
30 October.
So just 13 days later, the kingissued a formal statement.
Well, technically it was throughBuckingham Palace.
(15:46):
The statement said, quote, HisMajesty has today initiated a
formal process to remove thestyled titles and honors of
Prince Andrew.
Prince Andrew will now be knownas Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
His lease and royal lodge hastoday provided him with legal
protection to continue inresidence.
Formal notice has now beenserved to surrender the lease,
and he will move to alternativeprivate accommodation.
(16:07):
These censures are deemednecessary, notwithstanding the
fact that he continues to denythe allegations against him.
Their Majesty's wish to makeclear that their thoughts and
utmost sympathies have been andwill remain with the victims and
survivors of any and all formsof abuse.
That was not a suggestion.
It was an execution order.
Cloaked in royal courtesy.
(16:30):
Within hours, the BBC, Guardian,Times, and AP all published the
full text verbatim.
So that uniformity alone tellsyou the palace had pre-cleared
distribution.
Now, if you look at all theother content out there and the
royal content on social media,so many other theories as to who
really chimed in on thestatement.
(16:50):
Was it Prince William who waspressuring the king to do this?
People magazine assumed justfrom the language, you know,
discussing the victims of abusethat Queen Camilla and Princess
Catherine, Kate Middleton, thatthey had something to do with
it.
I don't know.
I don't think it's quite asloosey-goosey.
I think this was definitelydriven by the king in support of
(17:14):
everyone else.
Now, removing the title Princeis unprecedented in modern royal
history.
It effectively erases hisidentity as a working royal,
slightly different than Harryand Megan, where they made the
choices to leave.
So that's why their situation ismuch different than what's
happening to Andrew.
(17:35):
And the change from AndrewMaubat in Windsor, that's his
legal surname, symbolizes atotal reclassification from
member of the firm to just aregular private citizen.
So evicting him from the RoyalLodge just seals that
transformation.
So that property had been underlong-term lease, which,
according to reports, Andrewdid, I think I saw that he
(17:58):
contributed$8 million towardsrenovations of that lodge, but
really wasn't paying much ofanything to live there.
But living there gave Andrewcertain legal protections,
preventing the removal from thatlocation.
But by serving formal notice,the palace signaled it was
willing to override thoseprotections under royal
prerogative.
(18:19):
So in PR terms, that'ssubstance.
It's not just optics anymore,it's action.
October 17th and October 30thannouncements form what crisis
managers like myself might calla two-step disassociation
strategy.
Step one is the voluntarywithdrawal that lets the subject
appear to act out of conscience.
(18:40):
It reduces sympathy, backlash,preserves dignity.
And then step two, it's theinstitutional enforcement.
It follows up with formal actionthat cements the decision,
framed as necessary rather thanpunitive.
Perhaps they allowed Andrew hisego in that first statement, but
(19:00):
they knew that the hammer wascoming down in the second one.
It's the strategy of emotionalsequencing.
People don't revolt against aprocess that feels inevitable.
It's just easier to accept itthat way.
And that's why those 13 daysmatter.
They weren't about hesitation.
It was about conditioning publicsentiment.
(19:22):
At least that's my impression ofit.
I don't think that we had arandom Andrew statement.
And then two weeks later, thepalace decides that they have to
go now.
I think there was a lot ofpressure there.
It could have been a monthlater, but it was a part of a
two-step strategy.
And there is some precedenthere.
(19:43):
The palace has used similarpacing during the abdication of
Edward VIII in 1936.
It allowed him to announce hisvoluntary choice before formally
removing his royal standing.
You remember when he chose to bewith his wife, Wallace, a
divorce from the U.S.
I believe she was fromBaltimore.
(20:04):
And they did it again afterPrincess Diana's 1995 panorama
interview, where she basicallycame out and made all of those
statements about her marriage.
Very shocking interview.
But statements were there tomanage tone.
And it's not just aboutsubstance, it's how they're
moving forward.
(20:25):
And with Princess Diana, I thinkis where the royal family really
learned about public opinion andhow little they had.
And King Charles, no doubt,remembers the time when he was
Prince Charles with PrincessDiana, how he lost the power of
public opinion compared to hisformer wife.
It feels as if he's learningthose lessons.
(20:47):
And that's why the choreographyof control is so important now.
The planning is better.
One message softens, the nextone seals.
That's what happened to Andrew.
It's that soft surrender, hardclosure.
Anything we see in the future, Ithink we're going to see it in
this type of a pattern.
They also learned their lessonwith Princess Catherine's cancer
(21:08):
diagnosis.
They got caught flat footed onthat.
They tried to hide it.
They tried to outsmart the pressand the public, and they lost
badly.
And now it seems like they'vereally figured out how to
control the messaging.
Now let's look at the part thatI didn't see a lot of content
focus on, and that's thelanguage.
Because the palace doesn't speaklike a celebrity or a family, it
(21:32):
speaks like an institution.
Every phrase in that October30th statement from Buckingham
Palace was engineered to balancecompassion with control.
In the opening, quote, HisMajesty has today initiated a
formal process.
That phrase signals hierarchy.
It positions the king not as abrother, but as the sovereign.
(21:55):
The action isn't emotional, it'smore administrative.
The subtext is this is aconstitutional necessity.
This is not a family punishment.
It also reminds the audiencethat the king acts as protector
of the institution, notprotector of his brother.
This line, quote, These censuresare deemed necessary.
(22:19):
This is bureaucratic detachment.
It doesn't say we have decided.
It says they are deemed.
Passive voice removes ownership,making the act sound inevitable,
as if duty itself required it.
And that word necessary framesit as reluctant but unavoidable.
(22:39):
It's the language of moralauthority without emotional
involvement.
This line, quote, TheirMajesty's wish to make clear
their sympathies remain withvictims and survivors of any and
all forms of abuse.
That's institutional empathy andsomething you do not often hear
coming out of Buckingham Palace.
And notice how it's phrased (22:56):
not the victims in this case, but
victims of any and all forms ofabuse.
It expands the sentiment beyondthe specific scandal.
It's a classic PR maneuver toavoid liability when signaling
compassion.
So in essence, the royal family,Buckingham Palace, are saying we
care about the issue, but we'renot admitting association.
(23:17):
They didn't focus on just thevictims of Epstein.
It's all victims.
Next, quote, will now be knownas Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
This line does more thanidentify.
It rebrands, it shifts publicframing from Prince Andrew, his
royal identity, to AndrewMountbatten Windsor, a brand new
(23:38):
private citizen.
It's the verbal equivalent ofremoving a logo from a product
line.
Same person, but way differentcategory.
So when media outlets beginadopting the new name within
hours, if you read the BBC orany article in The Guardian, it
showed the coordination.
That's not media guessing.
That's the media following thepalace guidance.
(24:00):
The Wikipedia page wasn'tupdated yet.
The royal website was notupdated.
But media accounts, they were.
This line, a consistent one,quote, he continues to deny the
allegations.
This line is important becauseit protects the palace from
appearing to confirm guilt.
By explicitly stating thatAndrew continues to deny, the
monarchy avoids making a moraljudgment.
(24:22):
It distances the act, removingtitles from underlying claims.
So they can say, we acted out ofduty, not because he's guilty.
That phrasing protects both theintegrity and the public optics.
So in all the statements since2022 involving this PR crisis,
there is a linguistic rhythm.
(24:44):
There's a formality.
His majesty is today initiated.
There's a detachment.
These censures are deemednecessary.
There's an empathy buffer.
Sympathies remain with victims.
There's a neutralization.
He continues to deny.
There's an identity reset, willnow be known as that's not
coincidence.
It's now the new royalcommunication template.
(25:06):
It's designed to soundhonorable, not emotional,
because in monarchy PR, emotionimplies instability.
Formality implies control.
So if we were to put this alltogether, the fall of Prince
Andrew was spontaneous fromAndrew's point of view, but
systematic when it comes fromthe palace.
(25:28):
It was a managed descentstructured around three
principles (25:31):
the trigger, the timing, the words, the trigger.
It was the accumulation ofscandal, the email, the
newsnight contradictions, thebooks, the memoir, the Fergie
fallout, and the pressure fromthe Epstein documents.
It creates this moral momentumthat the palace could no longer
ignore.
(25:51):
Then the timing had thattwo-step rollout.
Voluntary withdrawal on 17October, then formal removal on
30 October.
It was deliberate and it gavethe illusion of choice before
the enforcement, but it wasdefinitely the enforcement and
the words.
The final statement turnedcondemnation into formality.
(26:12):
It was controlled, it wascareful, and it was
choreographed.
So by the time the announcementhit the wires, public outrage
had already peaked.
And the palace didn't chase thenarrative.
It waited for it in the timing.
There was a lot of pressure.
There was going to be politicalpressure to move this along with
Andrew.
(26:32):
They were going to find morelegal ways to make this move,
more political ways to make thismove.
That's why the palace had tostep up and then moved in a way
that it felt inevitable and notimpulsive.
And that's now the new royal PRplaybook.
It's not about crisis response,it's about reputation
choreography.
And I think this signals the eraof Prince William, eventually
(26:56):
King William.
It's going to be morechoreographed.
So next time you hear a royalstatement that sounds oddly
gentle, incredibly formal, yetimpossibly final, remember
behind every word, there's ateam calculating tone, timing,
and impact.
Because in the monarchy,survival isn't just about
bloodline.
(27:17):
It's about brand discipline.
And if I were Harry and Megan,oh my goodness.
Now you can't even begin tocompare them with a Prince
Andrew.
You can't even begin.
But they are a PR thorn in theside of Buckingham Palace of the
royal family.
This hard drop of Prince Andrew,I bet is rattling Harry.
(27:38):
Megan and Harry showing all thisenthusiasm about the Dodgers.
Megan's from Los Angeles.
Okay, we're with you there.
You can be bandwagon.
That's fine.
We have no idea that you likesports at all, much less
baseball.
But the Dodgers are in the WorldSeries again.
I don't remember a lot of pressthe last time the Dodgers won
the World Series.
But okay, I get it.
But then you're bringing Harry.
(28:00):
And baseball is not UK.
They play NFL, plays over there,but baseball is American.
That is Apple Pie American.
That is not UK.
So to bring Harry in there andto go to the game.
And also they said that I saw aclip that said that they had 12
bodyguards or 11 bodyguardsbringing them into Dodger
Stadium.
And then I saw another postwhere Megan is cheering because
(28:22):
they're watching it and Harry'sjust in there.
Yeah, that didn't work.
And I'm not saying this as ahater for Megan and Harry at
all.
I did a live last week where Iwas explaining I don't hate on
them and I don't do press aboutMegan Markle.
I will not do press about MeghanMarkle and Harry anymore.
As a matter of fact, I agreed tomy last interview like two weeks
ago and then I canceled it.
I said, I'm not going to do it.
(28:43):
And the reporter had alreadyasked the questions, but I
already decided ahead of timebecause all the questions about
Meghan Markle, they always havea negative tone to them, which I
get because they want clicks.
And I'm not going to blame thereporter.
The editor could have told herto write that way.
But Meghan Markle and PrinceHarry, they get clicks.
So of course people are going towrite about them.
And you're going to get moreclicks if it's negative.
(29:05):
But these questions that I'vereceived wanted me to think for
Megan, like answer the questionof why Megan's doing this or
that.
And this was about Fashion Weekin Paris.
How would I have any opinionwhatsoever on what Megan is
doing?
Reputation is one thing, but tothink and assume why she's
making this moves, I don't care.
And not to mention that hasnothing to do with me.
(29:27):
But I also decided I don't wantto do press about them anymore.
I'm not going to.
They also talk about thembecause I'm fascinated watching
them and their moves becausethey react to things that happen
with the royal family.
So I bet you anything, they areshaking in their boots.
So we'll see down the road aboutthat one.
All right, everyone.
That's all for this week on thepodcast.
(29:48):
Thanks so much for listening.
Bye for now.
Let's talk about how some scandals end.
Because they don't collapseovernight.
They build slowly, deliberately.
And then one day you wake up, orit's later in the afternoon on a
Friday, and there's a palacestatement that sounds
compassionate on the surface,but underneath it's pure
(00:21):
strategy or deflection.
That's what just happened toPrince Andrew, or as he's now
officially called, AndrewMountbatten Windsor.
Late last week, BuckinghamPalace confirmed that King
Charles had stripped Andrew ofall royal titles, including
Prince Andrew.
His lease on Royal Lodge, theWindsor estate he had occupied
(00:43):
for decades, was terminated.
He was instructed to move toprivate accommodations.
Effectively, it was a royaleviction.
The palace calls it necessary,and they said it was done with
the utmost sympathy for acertain group of people.
Let's talk about that group, whyit matters, and get to the real
(01:06):
story, the one underneath thosepolished statements and about
how we got here.
And when you line up the events,you see something that always
appears in these types ofcrises: a pattern.
It's not random, it's a system.
Let's review a royal scandalthat unfolded in three phases:
the trigger, the timing, thenthe words.
(01:29):
Let's go through each piece bypiece.
Hey there, welcome to the PRBreakdown Podcast.
I'm your host, Molly McPherson,and this week it's all about
Prince Andrew.
I know if you're on socialmedia, if you're reading news
accounts, there are so manyarticles about this.
But I want to focus on one areathat I don't see much content
(01:51):
about, and that is looking atthe statements themselves,
backed up by the events thathappened.
Because scandals are rarelyabout a single moment.
They're about accumulation, aslow build of stories and
documents and outrage untilsilence becomes impossible.
And for Prince Andrew, thattrigger wasn't new.
(02:13):
It was old.
It's been lurking for a longtime.
And one of the things thatbrought him down was an email.
That email that wouldn't goaway.
In January of this year, an oldemail resurfaced in the press.
And it's the one showing thatAndrew had stayed in contact
with Jeffrey Epstein after theperiod he claimed their friend
(02:34):
up ended.
Now, in the 2019 BBC Newsnightinterview with Emily Maitless, I
watched it again on Fridayafternoon.
I took a quick lunch break.
And next thing you know, on mylunch break, I am watching the
entire program on Netflix calledScoop about the interview.
(02:54):
It sucked a major portion out ofmy day, but I got sucked into
it.
And then after work that day,throughout the night and then
into the weekend, I watched thatinterview, the actual interview
over again because it isfascinating to see what happened
and where, not necessarily whereit all started, but the sheer
(03:17):
arrogance that Prince Andrewthought that he could outrun or
outsmart this crisis from thatinterview.
I highly encourage you to watchthat interview, but I'll be sure
to add a few clips in here justin case you don't get around to
it.
But that is the interview wherehe claimed because of his time
(03:38):
with the Royal Navy he could nolonger sweat.
It was also the interview wherehe said very specifically that
he was at a Pizza Express.
Just for a second, listen toEmily Maitless.
SPEAKER_01 (03:51):
Why would you remember that so specifically?
Why would you remember a PizzaExpress birthday and being at
home?
SPEAKER_00 (03:56):
Because going to Pizza Express in Woking is an
unusual thing for me to do.
A very unusual thing for me todo.
I've only been through Woking acouple of times, um, and I
remember it weirdly distinctly.
But as soon as somebody remindedme of it, I went, Oh yes, I
remember that.
But I have no recollection ofever meeting or being in the
(04:19):
company or the presence.
SPEAKER_02 (04:20):
So all those sharp details that Angela remembered,
yet he was forgetting so manythings about Epstein.
He always had this look on hisface, like, what?
I don't know what you're talkingabout.
I don't know what you mean.
But then when he had to rememberthose specifics to get around
the lie, you've all been there,right?
You know someone who's lying toyour face.
(04:41):
That's what they do.
They always just double down onthe details.
Andrew had insisted that he hadonly seen Epstein once after his
conviction and had cut ties in2010.
But that email, dated February2011, told a different story.
Prince Andrew wrote to Epstein,thanking him for their last
meeting and saying, quote, let'splay some more soon.
(05:03):
That phrase that became tabloiddynamite.
It suggested ongoing familiaritylong after the supposed break.
And honestly, no one who haseven a surface knowledge of
Prince Andrew should besurprised.
It was included in a set offinancial conduct authority
court documents and hadtechnically been public since
(05:24):
early this year.
But in October, British paperssplashed it across their front
pages.
Why?
Because now it landed in adifferent context.
One of the most important partsof a crisis that a lot of people
forget to look for, and that isthe timing.
The timing coincided with a waveof other unflattering headlines,
(05:45):
all reinforcing the same storythat Andrew's version of events
couldn't be trusted.
Now I just mentioned thenewsnight interview.
Let's go back to that newsnightinterview because it's the
bedrock of this entire crisis.
So back in November 2019, theDuke of York sat down with BBC
journalist Emily Maitless toquote set the record straight.
(06:08):
The goal was damage control.
If you watch Scoop on Netflix,you know everything that was
happening behind the scenes.
The result, however, wasreputation collapse.
In the interview, Andrew deniedever meeting Virginia Duffre,
denied any sexual contact,saying he was home with his
children after visiting, veryspecifically, Pizza Express.
(06:32):
Claimed a medical condition,prevented him from sweating,
contradicting Jufre'sdescription, and said staying
with Epstein after hisconviction was wrong.
The interview was supposed tohumanize him.
Instead, it made him lookdelusional.
Like honestly, he thought thathe was going to convince
Maitless, the UK, the rest ofthe world, everyone paying
(06:55):
attention.
Such a delusional, egocentricthought.
But within 48 hours, his publicduties were suspended.
Within a week, sponsors andcharities had cut ties with
Prince Andrew.
And by early 2020, the monarchyhad quietly exiled him from
public life.
So when that 2011 emailreappeared showing continued
contact, it just wasn't anotherheadline.
(07:17):
It directly undercut his onlypublic defense.
Then came the literary wave.
In 2025, royal biographer AndrewLouney published entitled The
Rise and Fall of Prince Andrew,a deeply researched but scathing
portrayal.
It chronicled Prince Andrew'syears of arrogance and
questionable business deals andhis behavior that was so
(07:39):
off-kilter, planting him as aman shaped by privilege and
detached from accountability.
That along with his wife,Fergie, as well.
Shortly after, Virginia Dufrey'sposthumous memoir hit shells.
The book revisits herexperiences with Epstein and
detailed Prince Andrew's allegedinvolvement, bringing the
accusations back into themainstream conversation.
(08:03):
And a conversation, by the way,that is still swirling around
President Trump.
Both of these books were widelycovered, reviewed, dissected.
The effect wasn't newinformation necessarily, but it
was the repetition ofinformation.
They made sure his name stayedactive in the cycle of
Epstein-related coverage.
(08:23):
Even his ex-wife, SarahFerguson, Fergie got pulled back
into the storm.
Old correspondents surfacedshowing she had privately
maintained contact with Epsteinas well, even after his
conviction, thanking him forfinancial helps with debts.
When that became public again in2025, several of her charitable
affiliations distancedthemselves from Fergie.
(08:44):
And that in turn reigniteddiscussion of the couple's
shared judgment or lack of it,even though they've been
divorced since 1996.
So by October of this year, thenarrative had metastasized.
It wasn't about a single act oreven a single person.
It was about the royal brandtolerating proximity to a
(09:04):
predator.
Now, across the Atlantic, onthese shores, U.S.
lawmakers have been demandingfull disclosure of the Epstein
documents.
Thousands of pages of SEAL courtfilings.
There are so many crediblereports that Andrew's name
appeared in flight manifests andguest lists for Epstein's
private island and New Yorktownhouse.
British outlets began asking,would the monarchy survive
(09:27):
another Epstein release?
And at that point, the palacewasn't dealing with the rumor.
They were dealing with aninevitability.
This was a storm that wasn'tgoing to go away.
As one Royal Insider told TheTimes off record, quote, there
comes a point when silencebecomes complicity.
And that's when the PR machinefrom the royal family from
(09:49):
Buckingham Palace switched on.
Now let's talk about the fiveincidents that finally stacked
up to trigger this renewedcrisis.
So one, the email contradiction,that's proof that he lied.
Two, it directly conflicted withsomething that he said on the
Newsnight interview.
That's a credibility disaster.
(10:09):
Three, the books, it's thesustained narrative damage.
Four, the Fergie connection.
It's just the collateral op.
Everything those two touch orany of their dealings are
tainted.
And five, the Epstein documentpush, the political urgency on
both sides of the Atlantic.
(10:29):
Individually, one by one,survivable, but together they're
catastrophic.
That's the incident that createsthe trigger that turns private
embarrassment into aninstitutional crisis.
And once the monarchy felt thatheat, the next phase kicked in,
and that's the timing.
So often PR is about emotion,but when it comes to the royal
(10:53):
family, it's not.
It's about the sequencing.
So when the pressure hits itspeak, the palace doesn't react
instinctively.
If you think back to all theroyal crises that have happened,
Harry and Meghan, PrincessCatherine, Kate Middleton with
her cancer diagnosis, the hidingof it, the covering of it, and
then the eventual revealcalibrates the royal family,
(11:17):
Buckingham Palace.
They calibrate the moment toact.
It's precisely the moment wherethey feel that doing so seems
morally inevitable, butpolitically controlled.
And that's what happened here.
We have no idea knowing what'sgoing on behind the scenes.
People assume because it's theroyal family that everything is
proper, everything is right,everything is a board.
(11:39):
But if you watch any of theaccounts of the royal family, if
you watch The Crown on Netflix,if you watch Scoop, if you read,
if you follow news accounts, nowwe nobody really knows exactly
what goes on behind the royalwalls and behind closed doors.
But collectively, when thesethings start to accumulate, you
(11:59):
can see the patterns there andsee how they operate.
And certainly there was astructure to what happened here.
Now, the first step was the softlanding.
That happened a couple weeks agoon 17 October when Andrew
released his own statement.
I did a post on social media.
I'll include a link in the shownotes.
It happened on a Friday, earlyafternoon.
(12:22):
So that meant it was releasedlate Friday, UK time.
And I remember just hoppingonline real quick.
I started filming before I evenread the statement because I
knew even in the first read, Iwould be able to glean what was
happening there just from howthe statement was written.
And because it was from PrinceAndrew, I could assume right off
(12:42):
the bat, there wasn't going tobe accountability.
It was going to be deflection.
There was going to be egoembedded in the words of the
statement.
And the statement delivered.
This is what he wrote (12:52):
quote, in discussion with the king and my
immediate and wider family, wehave concluded the continued
accusations about me distractingfrom the work of his majesty and
the royal family.
I have decided, as I alwayshave, to put my duty to my
family and country first.
With his majesty's agreement, wefeel I must now go a step
further.
I will therefore no longer usemy title or the honors which
(13:14):
have been conferred upon me.
But he also reiterates, Ivigorously deny the accusations
against me.
It reads like a voluntaryresignation.
In those words, with hismajesty's agreement, in other
words, this is Prince Andrewdeciding on his own that he is
going to go a step further anddecide to no longer use his
(13:36):
title or honors which have beenconferred upon me.
It's more like a gesture wherehe's saying, I'm doing this for
the good of the family.
But make no mistake, that isstage one of the palace playbook
because there's no way thatPrince Andrew, we don't even
need to know him.
Hey, by the way, I actually didI meet Prince Andrew?
(13:58):
I can't remember.
Years ago.
So this would have been 1998, Ithink.
Prince Andrew, I was at a dinnerreception with Prince Andrew on
the Constitution in Boston.
So at the time, this was myformer husband, military.
There was some military event.
And he was on the boat.
No, I didn't meet him, but I sawhim because I thought if I met
(14:21):
him, then I would have beencurtsying.
And honestly, why would he meetme?
I was on a date.
I wasn't even a military spouse.
I was just on a date at thatpoint.
And I was probably had a fewcocktails of me.
But I definitely saw PrinceAndrew.
And now that we hear all thisstuff about Prince Andrew, I
wonder what he was doing inBoston.
Who knows what was going on inBoston when he was visiting?
But he's just not someone.
(14:42):
Because I remember watching himand knowing at that time, back
in the late 90s, he was stillknown as the Randy Andy.
Was he divorced from Friggy atthat point?
I believe so.
When I saw him, gosh, now cometo think of it, I'm thinking as
I'm recording this, I wonder ifDiana was alive.
Because I feel like Diana wouldhave been alive.
It was right around the time.
(15:03):
You know what?
I bet I saw him right beforePrincess Diana died, as a matter
of fact.
Because I think I would havebeen paying attention far more
to Prince Andrew, knowing thatPrincess Diana died.
I'm sorry.
Thank you for going along withme on this whole thing.
It was definitely beforePrincess Diana died when he was
on that boat in Boston.
But anyway, the point is he wasalways known as carried himself
(15:25):
in this rather arrogant way.
And I just remember the buzzaround him that time that he was
definitely that way.
Now, two weeks later, after hisstatement, comes the hard
landing.
And that came out just a fewdays ago from this recording on
30 October.
So just 13 days later, the kingissued a formal statement.
Well, technically it was throughBuckingham Palace.
(15:46):
The statement said, quote, HisMajesty has today initiated a
formal process to remove thestyled titles and honors of
Prince Andrew.
Prince Andrew will now be knownas Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
His lease and royal lodge hastoday provided him with legal
protection to continue inresidence.
Formal notice has now beenserved to surrender the lease,
and he will move to alternativeprivate accommodation.
(16:07):
These censures are deemednecessary, notwithstanding the
fact that he continues to denythe allegations against him.
Their Majesty's wish to makeclear that their thoughts and
utmost sympathies have been andwill remain with the victims and
survivors of any and all formsof abuse.
That was not a suggestion.
It was an execution order.
Cloaked in royal courtesy.
(16:30):
Within hours, the BBC, Guardian,Times, and AP all published the
full text verbatim.
So that uniformity alone tellsyou the palace had pre-cleared
distribution.
Now, if you look at all theother content out there and the
royal content on social media,so many other theories as to who
really chimed in on thestatement.
(16:50):
Was it Prince William who waspressuring the king to do this?
People magazine assumed justfrom the language, you know,
discussing the victims of abusethat Queen Camilla and Princess
Catherine, Kate Middleton, thatthey had something to do with
it.
I don't know.
I don't think it's quite asloosey-goosey.
I think this was definitelydriven by the king in support of
(17:14):
everyone else.
Now, removing the title Princeis unprecedented in modern royal
history.
It effectively erases hisidentity as a working royal,
slightly different than Harryand Megan, where they made the
choices to leave.
So that's why their situation ismuch different than what's
happening to Andrew.
(17:35):
And the change from AndrewMaubat in Windsor, that's his
legal surname, symbolizes atotal reclassification from
member of the firm to just aregular private citizen.
So evicting him from the RoyalLodge just seals that
transformation.
So that property had been underlong-term lease, which,
according to reports, Andrewdid, I think I saw that he
(17:58):
contributed$8 million towardsrenovations of that lodge, but
really wasn't paying much ofanything to live there.
But living there gave Andrewcertain legal protections,
preventing the removal from thatlocation.
But by serving formal notice,the palace signaled it was
willing to override thoseprotections under royal
prerogative.
(18:19):
So in PR terms, that'ssubstance.
It's not just optics anymore,it's action.
October 17th and October 30thannouncements form what crisis
managers like myself might calla two-step disassociation
strategy.
Step one is the voluntarywithdrawal that lets the subject
appear to act out of conscience.
(18:40):
It reduces sympathy, backlash,preserves dignity.
And then step two, it's theinstitutional enforcement.
It follows up with formal actionthat cements the decision,
framed as necessary rather thanpunitive.
Perhaps they allowed Andrew hisego in that first statement, but
(19:00):
they knew that the hammer wascoming down in the second one.
It's the strategy of emotionalsequencing.
People don't revolt against aprocess that feels inevitable.
It's just easier to accept itthat way.
And that's why those 13 daysmatter.
They weren't about hesitation.
It was about conditioning publicsentiment.
(19:22):
At least that's my impression ofit.
I don't think that we had arandom Andrew statement.
And then two weeks later, thepalace decides that they have to
go now.
I think there was a lot ofpressure there.
It could have been a monthlater, but it was a part of a
two-step strategy.
And there is some precedenthere.
(19:43):
The palace has used similarpacing during the abdication of
Edward VIII in 1936.
It allowed him to announce hisvoluntary choice before formally
removing his royal standing.
You remember when he chose to bewith his wife, Wallace, a
divorce from the U.S.
I believe she was fromBaltimore.
(20:04):
And they did it again afterPrincess Diana's 1995 panorama
interview, where she basicallycame out and made all of those
statements about her marriage.
Very shocking interview.
But statements were there tomanage tone.
And it's not just aboutsubstance, it's how they're
moving forward.
(20:25):
And with Princess Diana, I thinkis where the royal family really
learned about public opinion andhow little they had.
And King Charles, no doubt,remembers the time when he was
Prince Charles with PrincessDiana, how he lost the power of
public opinion compared to hisformer wife.
It feels as if he's learningthose lessons.
(20:47):
And that's why the choreographyof control is so important now.
The planning is better.
One message softens, the nextone seals.
That's what happened to Andrew.
It's that soft surrender, hardclosure.
Anything we see in the future, Ithink we're going to see it in
this type of a pattern.
They also learned their lessonwith Princess Catherine's cancer
(21:08):
diagnosis.
They got caught flat footed onthat.
They tried to hide it.
They tried to outsmart the pressand the public, and they lost
badly.
And now it seems like they'vereally figured out how to
control the messaging.
Now let's look at the part thatI didn't see a lot of content
focus on, and that's thelanguage.
Because the palace doesn't speaklike a celebrity or a family, it
(21:32):
speaks like an institution.
Every phrase in that October30th statement from Buckingham
Palace was engineered to balancecompassion with control.
In the opening, quote, HisMajesty has today initiated a
formal process.
That phrase signals hierarchy.
It positions the king not as abrother, but as the sovereign.
(21:55):
The action isn't emotional, it'smore administrative.
The subtext is this is aconstitutional necessity.
This is not a family punishment.
It also reminds the audiencethat the king acts as protector
of the institution, notprotector of his brother.
This line, quote, These censuresare deemed necessary.
(22:19):
This is bureaucratic detachment.
It doesn't say we have decided.
It says they are deemed.
Passive voice removes ownership,making the act sound inevitable,
as if duty itself required it.
And that word necessary framesit as reluctant but unavoidable.
(22:39):
It's the language of moralauthority without emotional
involvement.
This line, quote, TheirMajesty's wish to make clear
their sympathies remain withvictims and survivors of any and
all forms of abuse.
That's institutional empathy andsomething you do not often hear
coming out of Buckingham Palace.
And notice how it's phrased (22:56):
not the victims in this case, but
victims of any and all forms ofabuse.
It expands the sentiment beyondthe specific scandal.
It's a classic PR maneuver toavoid liability when signaling
compassion.
So in essence, the royal family,Buckingham Palace, are saying we
care about the issue, but we'renot admitting association.
(23:17):
They didn't focus on just thevictims of Epstein.
It's all victims.
Next, quote, will now be knownas Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
This line does more thanidentify.
It rebrands, it shifts publicframing from Prince Andrew, his
royal identity, to AndrewMountbatten Windsor, a brand new
(23:38):
private citizen.
It's the verbal equivalent ofremoving a logo from a product
line.
Same person, but way differentcategory.
So when media outlets beginadopting the new name within
hours, if you read the BBC orany article in The Guardian, it
showed the coordination.
That's not media guessing.
That's the media following thepalace guidance.
(24:00):
The Wikipedia page wasn'tupdated yet.
The royal website was notupdated.
But media accounts, they were.
This line, a consistent one,quote, he continues to deny the
allegations.
This line is important becauseit protects the palace from
appearing to confirm guilt.
By explicitly stating thatAndrew continues to deny, the
monarchy avoids making a moraljudgment.
(24:22):
It distances the act, removingtitles from underlying claims.
So they can say, we acted out ofduty, not because he's guilty.
That phrasing protects both theintegrity and the public optics.
So in all the statements since2022 involving this PR crisis,
there is a linguistic rhythm.
(24:44):
There's a formality.
His majesty is today initiated.
There's a detachment.
These censures are deemednecessary.
There's an empathy buffer.
Sympathies remain with victims.
There's a neutralization.
He continues to deny.
There's an identity reset, willnow be known as that's not
coincidence.
It's now the new royalcommunication template.
(25:06):
It's designed to soundhonorable, not emotional,
because in monarchy PR, emotionimplies instability.
Formality implies control.
So if we were to put this alltogether, the fall of Prince
Andrew was spontaneous fromAndrew's point of view, but
systematic when it comes fromthe palace.
(25:28):
It was a managed descentstructured around three
principles (25:31):
the trigger, the timing, the words, the trigger.
It was the accumulation ofscandal, the email, the
newsnight contradictions, thebooks, the memoir, the Fergie
fallout, and the pressure fromthe Epstein documents.
It creates this moral momentumthat the palace could no longer
ignore.
(25:51):
Then the timing had thattwo-step rollout.
Voluntary withdrawal on 17October, then formal removal on
30 October.
It was deliberate and it gavethe illusion of choice before
the enforcement, but it wasdefinitely the enforcement and
the words.
The final statement turnedcondemnation into formality.
(26:12):
It was controlled, it wascareful, and it was
choreographed.
So by the time the announcementhit the wires, public outrage
had already peaked.
And the palace didn't chase thenarrative.
It waited for it in the timing.
There was a lot of pressure.
There was going to be politicalpressure to move this along with
Andrew.
(26:32):
They were going to find morelegal ways to make this move,
more political ways to make thismove.
That's why the palace had tostep up and then moved in a way
that it felt inevitable and notimpulsive.
And that's now the new royal PRplaybook.
It's not about crisis response,it's about reputation
choreography.
And I think this signals the eraof Prince William, eventually
(26:56):
King William.
It's going to be morechoreographed.
So next time you hear a royalstatement that sounds oddly
gentle, incredibly formal, yetimpossibly final, remember
behind every word, there's ateam calculating tone, timing,
and impact.
Because in the monarchy,survival isn't just about
bloodline.
(27:17):
It's about brand discipline.
And if I were Harry and Megan,oh my goodness.
Now you can't even begin tocompare them with a Prince
Andrew.
You can't even begin.
But they are a PR thorn in theside of Buckingham Palace of the
royal family.
This hard drop of Prince Andrew,I bet is rattling Harry.
(27:38):
Megan and Harry showing all thisenthusiasm about the Dodgers.
Megan's from Los Angeles.
Okay, we're with you there.
You can be bandwagon.
That's fine.
We have no idea that you likesports at all, much less
baseball.
But the Dodgers are in the WorldSeries again.
I don't remember a lot of pressthe last time the Dodgers won
the World Series.
But okay, I get it.
But then you're bringing Harry.
(28:00):
And baseball is not UK.
They play NFL, plays over there,but baseball is American.
That is Apple Pie American.
That is not UK.
So to bring Harry in there andto go to the game.
And also they said that I saw aclip that said that they had 12
bodyguards or 11 bodyguardsbringing them into Dodger
Stadium.
And then I saw another postwhere Megan is cheering because
(28:22):
they're watching it and Harry'sjust in there.
Yeah, that didn't work.
And I'm not saying this as ahater for Megan and Harry at
all.
I did a live last week where Iwas explaining I don't hate on
them and I don't do press aboutMegan Markle.
I will not do press about MeghanMarkle and Harry anymore.
As a matter of fact, I agreed tomy last interview like two weeks
ago and then I canceled it.
I said, I'm not going to do it.
(28:43):
And the reporter had alreadyasked the questions, but I
already decided ahead of timebecause all the questions about
Meghan Markle, they always havea negative tone to them, which I
get because they want clicks.
And I'm not going to blame thereporter.
The editor could have told herto write that way.
But Meghan Markle and PrinceHarry, they get clicks.
So of course people are going towrite about them.
And you're going to get moreclicks if it's negative.
(29:05):
But these questions that I'vereceived wanted me to think for
Megan, like answer the questionof why Megan's doing this or
that.
And this was about Fashion Weekin Paris.
How would I have any opinionwhatsoever on what Megan is
doing?
Reputation is one thing, but tothink and assume why she's
making this moves, I don't care.
And not to mention that hasnothing to do with me.
(29:27):
But I also decided I don't wantto do press about them anymore.
I'm not going to.
They also talk about thembecause I'm fascinated watching
them and their moves becausethey react to things that happen
with the royal family.
So I bet you anything, they areshaking in their boots.
So we'll see down the road aboutthat one.
All right, everyone.
That's all for this week on thepodcast.
(29:48):
Thanks so much for listening.
Bye for now.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!