#patrick jephson

[houseofbrat]

They should have never let Catherine take the blame for the photo altering. Even if she did alter it herself, it only adds to everyone’s suspicion. I think she felt the need to put a photo out quickly and it backfired. Why didn’t the RP cover for her photo blunder?

Right. Literally anything would’ve been better than her of all people personally taking the fall for this! William would’ve been better, a random, unnamed intern would’ve been better, one of the kids fucking with the computer lmao idk. Just such a strange strange tweet to send out.

Someone should call KP and tell them we’re on mega thread #4 over here and we can’t have our mods getting sick from the “stress and fallout”, so just trot her out for a second or an audio message or even just a true statement sans doctored photos. And if she’s too unwell for that well gee maybe a smidge of transparency would gain them public support back . Nobody wants her medical info , just them to stop acting shady and disrespectful.  She can have her privacy and also stop the shiftiness and theatrics.  Unlike Reddit mods, the BRF gets paid. 

I think Kate is refusing to play ball. It's entirely possible she's had setbacks in her recovery or drew a line in the sand and said "I'm out until x/y/z date, so quit pushing," but this is a woman who's been in the public eye for 20 years. She knows how the media vultures and gossip mill operate. The speculation has now turned dark. We're getting everything from she's passed and they're covering it up, to she was injured in an 'incident.' Papers are running articles on William's rage issues. Kate could easily clear this up but she's choosing not to. It leads me to believe she's pissed at her husband and is enjoying watching him squirm. 

Just found out my best friend has independently fallen down the rabbit hole—which just illustrates how out of control this has gotten.

we’re both thinking it’s just a series of ‘own goals’ but are seriously hoping Catherine makes an appearance at Easter. If not, I think KP will have to make yet another announcement, and given how inept they’ve been, it’ll probably just make things even worse.

I’m just hoping she’s chilling with her kiddos, and is either not paying attention to the whole debacle or is highly amused by the shenanigans.

I would think that she is making an appearance at Easter but then wonder why KP wanted it to be known that she isn’t confirmed the attend Trooping of the Colour? Which was stupid on their part tbh

Princess Diana’s former private secretary on the matter from a CNN interview.

He’s kinda repetitious but still clear enough. He comes out critical of William for poor communications. Williams’s office created the vacuum of information which fueled the interest which fueled the out sized interest and the conspiracy theories.)

They definitely mishandled this situation. Supposedly Prince William just got a new private secretary. Hopefully they get a proper PR team again soon. While I’m not on team conspiracy theories and believe what has happened is exactly what we heard (Catherine had major surgery and is now recovering), they were way in over their heads in how they handled this.

Crazily, her secretary, Patrick Jephson, was my neighbor 8 years ago, super nice and very genuine guy. I definitely put stock in his POV.

This has been extremely poorly managed by KP. They’ve done irreparable harm to their image. The pressure they are now under for the next step/stage/messaging is immense. This is a defining moment for the royal family. Charles is not well, to what extent is not known. Kate is MIA and now three very questionable ‘proof of life’ photos have been released. The state of Will and Kate’s marriage is under a serious spotlight. It’s an information black hole. VERY rocky overall.

Charles and Kate are unwell. That is all. Kate is obsessed with her looks and image and she doesn’t want to be pictured looking anything but perfect that’s all. She will be back once she is looking like her old self. I honestly don’t believe the marriage in trouble stuff. Kate will never leave William that too so close to becoming the Queen? No chance.

Is it possible, in light of everything that has occurred so far, that Charles is letting Will have enough rope so Charles can use this PR disaster as his excuse to shutdown Kensington Palace office so everyone falls under his office at BP? Get rid of Will's staff and his vanity projects so he has to get on with the everyday drudgery that being a royal entails? It's not just film premieres and photo ops. It's hands on in the community at events with little or no fanfare. Service rather than PR grandstanding.

With no more competing offices, Charles can have his people oversee everything. That at least might get some consistency.

I kind of doubt it. William has the duchy money now. He can spend it however he wants.

I believe the most significant thing is that - at the very beginning of this whole story- the surgery wasn’t planned at all… she had the agenda full of duties, included a trip to Italy…  The narrative from the Palace was inconsistent from the first day. 

Reposting, because I think my comment got removed.

My takeaway from all the conspiracy theories floating around out there is that no matter what the truth is, look at what the main themes have become. Essentially, there are several theories about Will's behaviour and being a less than stellar husband. Also, the feeling that KP cannot be trusted. No matter what the truth is, the fact that these are the themes that have emerged is interesting.

William has based his entire reputation on being a nice protective family man. He doesn’t really have any other accomplishments or character traits that the public cares about. He put all his eggs were in the good dad/husband basket. Somehow, the Harry & Meghan crisis only bolstered that image. Now Stephen Colbert is doing bits about his alleged affairs, and all the normies know about his anger issues. Now personally, I’m the kind of person who thinks where there’s smoke, there’s fire. But even if there aren’t any flames here, Kategate has done some massive damage to Will’s reputation.

KP PR team is giving toxic boymom energy. Anything to protect their precious son.

Is anybody else getting annoyed at all the normies acting like Rose is William’s Camilla? I mean, maybe she is. Maybe they never even slept together. We don’t really know. But the assumption is getting on my nerves. Not every side chick is a Camilla!!

My mum calls my dads best friend (another straight male) his Camilla.

I was filling in my husband about this mess, and his comment was that he thinks maybe the PR team WANTS this drama unfolding because it keeps the royals in the news. Like essentially, "all press is good press." What does this community think? I was inclined to think that as the figurehead of a political state and a future king, Charles and William really can't afford this type of bad press, especially about DV. Obviously, the royal family do bring in money and tourism for the country, and part of that has always been an uneasy relationship with paparazzi and gossip rags, but given that QE II is gone and there are a lot of people who find them irrelevant and an unfair state subsidy, I think this would be a terrible PR move. Thoughts? Could their PR team be milking this?

Their PR team are likely pulling their hair out. "All press is good press" applies to celebrities who need to keep their names front and center to remain celebrities. The Palaces never want bad press. I think the issue is that William is incredibly stubborn and won't listen to their advice.

I've never been the type of girl to need closure when things come to an end, but if the season finale to this saga doesn’t answer every single question and include some bombshells I’d never even consider, I’m going to cry.

“She deserves her privacy, though!” Shut up, we’re all here for the same reason.

I just find it hilarious that the most interesting thing Kate has ever done in her life is disappear.

The whole ''she went shopping and we saw it, trust me bro'' thing is bad for them any way you look at it.

Either she wasn't really seen shopping and the story was completely fabricated with colaboration from the media, which would be pretty sinister and in line with everything else we've been getting lately, and at the least it would be a very North Korean-esque way of deceiving the public.

or

She actually did went shopping, was in ''public'' no matter how limited and controlled the public was, which means that she's physically capable + her face isn't bad or disfigured or whatever, as some people have suggested. Which portrays her as very irresponsible and weirdly uninterested in keeping up her image and popularity. Amidst all those very damaging rumors that could directly influence and traumatize even her children (forget about adults and public), she has time and will for shopping but not for a 10 second video, which is everything needed to dispell all the rumors once and for all?

All in all, terrible PR one way or another. The clusterfuck continues.

Do they actually think it’s a good look that she went shopping on St Paddy’s Day? She’s involved with the Irish guards and cancelled her appearance at their annual event… so she can’t work but she can pop out to the shops with Willy? Sure, Jan. Just fuck the Irish guards then right?! I mean, not that I remotely believe she went shopping. But another terrible PR bungle. These KP PR people are fucking idiots and I don’t understand why they still have jobs when they’re so clearly incompetent.

Even if she wasn't capable of attending a quick video message expressing her good wishes for the Irish guards etc etc would have worked wonders in terms of restoring good feeling towards them from the public and simultaneously would have quieted the conspiracy theorists. I don't buy she wasn't well enough to do a simple 1 minute video but was perfectly happy with a trip to the shops and watching sports with the kids where she would have been seen and possibly photographed. My personal view is that the trip to the shop didn't happen. There's no way that there's not a SINGLE snap taken on a mobile phone that's made it's way to social media.

I'm continually amazed at how badly the Waleses are botching all of this.

To be clear, I've been a royal watcher since they got engaged in 2010, and I'd definitely fall into more into the "fan" camp than not.

I've thought the conspiracy theories about all of this are nonsense. And even now after "Photogate", I STILL think they're nonsense and that what is happening is what they said - Catherine had serious surgery and needs time to recover.

But the artificially constructed Mother's Day photo is such a huge unforced error, made worse by Catherine then taking the fall for it.

Catherine's clearly not ready to show her actual face as it looks right now, and that's fine.

But then don't fake a picture! Post a quick video of William and the kids making breakfast in bed for Catherine for Mother's Day, or making cards or something. It'd still have the conspiracy theorists buzzing about why we're not seeing her, but it'd have been SO much better received by the general public than what they did.

She's absolutely entitled to her privacy, especially while she recovers. But the deal that the Royal Family has had with the press for decades now is that they get privacy most of the time in exchange for occasional, official, REAL pictures. It's clueless at best - and outright deceptive at worst - to do something like this and think no one will notice or care.

With the farmer’s market story, I’m even more convinced that Kate’s story is a red herring and there is something else happening they don’t want people to notice or know about.

This is still so odd. Either something is up (and I have no knowledge and make no inferences as to what or why) or a lot of people are profoundly bad at their jobs. Ok, the photoshop happens. Then they lie about it, even when they are trying to apologize for it. Why not put out a quick official and genuine photo of just her. If she isn't ready for camera's yet, put out a voice recorded statement saying, "I appreciate everyone's interest in my well being. Rest assured I am recovering well and I look forward to returning to my royal duties as soon as I am able". They could so easily kill all of this speculation and non-sense if things are as they say they are (she is taking car rides and shopping and up out and about). It would literally take 1 hour of her time at most, and instead KP's continued silence invites more speculation. You know what happens in physics why you make a vacuum? It gets filled. The same happens in the media/press. So again I say, either something is up (and I have no grounds with which to speculate what it might be) or this is the absolute worst PR advice and self-made crisis in recent memory.

Edit: Grammar

I joked about this in one of the earlier megathreads, but what if the *plot twist* in all of this is that Kate handles her own PR. I just remember when they got married how one of the little factoids that came out was that Kate did her own makeup for the wedding day. Like, royals! They're just like us!

Can someone answer why Royal Rota media are publishing these pics if there is a deal that they don't publish unauthorized photographs or was this a planned pap walk LOL? Is there a thread somewhere talking about this. I was listening to the Times (UK) Radio on YouTube today and the Assistant Editor for the paper (Kate Mansey) was unfairly criticizing listeners as strange people who are conspiracy theorists and says there isn't a pact or agreement that the family has with the media...yeah right LOL (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIKUvQB2Z_M). Have these people read about the Royal Rota and the unprecedented-in-the-modern-era pacts the royal family has made with the British media.

If the British media are posting it its because they got the ok to do so.

Their PR team needs to pick a lane. On one hand they're selling that Kate is healthy enough to be out and about twice in one weekend, walking around a farmer's market, watching her kids play sports, but on the other she's unwell to the point she had to fake a Mother's Day pic and pull out of an event in June? Which is it? Their messaging is all over the place. 

I hope that if we all take away one thing from this whole ordeal its that no matter how bad at your job you might think you are, you're still probably doing better than the KP PR team over the last couple of weeks so give yourself a pat on the back for a job well done and don't be so harsh on yourself.

what gets me and i know royal fans will call me a conspiracy theorist is that it's kinda obvious there's a story here. the impact or actual matter of it isn't what i'm questioning, but the motivation behind so many blunders. i am a writer/journalist and this entire story feels weirdly on edge of being something, anything.

like yes, let's presume kp was truthful from the beginning and she had abdominal surgery that took too long to recover from. great, but why throw her under the bus? or if all of this is a distraction, overplayed to the nines, what for? 

i am sure any tea is probably regular people tea to the max, like relationship dynamics, family stuff and whatnot. it's not like i believed she was killed and it was hidden, but usually when there's smoke there's fire and i'm curious about what fire, you know? 

i would love to be a fly on the wall and know what they disagree about, their relationship with staff and other royals. 

i find kate stylish and their wedding hype was charming, if a little gauche. i am against royals in general, not specifically them, but they could be great philanthropists if they wanted. 

the thing with Kate's personality (in public) is that it's nonexistent? i suppose that's the ideal, princess-like behavior that's expected from her. but i do wonder what happens behind the scenes with that. how curated it is x how many other blunders happened before.

The story seems to be that Will and Kate are going to find it much, much harder to be the center of the slimmed down monarchy than they realized.  Though if it turned out that they’d never really thought about how that was going to work on practice, I would believe you.  There aren’t as many working royals so the attention is on them, whether they want it to be or not.  The disappearing and the stonewalling isn’t super unusual for Will and Kate, though not previously to this extent, but we’ll see if they make any changes moving forward.  Judging from how this debacle has dragged on, I am guessing they won’t.

Well, I for one am very impressed by Kate's ability to emerge from her grueling 3 month surgical recovery looking like a radiant, bouncy 25 year old yoga instructor who doesn't have a care in the world.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Rumor #5 - Per the terms of Diana's will, William inherited her things that were being stored at Althorp when he turned 30. According to Karen Spencer (Earl Spencer's wife), all of Dians's things were taken down from the Althorp displays at William's 30th birthday and given to William. Harry didn't know that and when he approached Charles about having some of Diana's things for Meghan and the new baby, Charles told him William had them and Harry flipped out.

Can you do a deep dive into this, I don't think William inherited it all, I think he took it first because ge turned 30 first and Harry joined him 2 years later, there's a thing about Diana's gowns and both her sons having to approve their display.

What William might've inherited,according to helenaurelia (it's not the same here without her) is Diana's official gifts jewelry (The Saudi Suite, Qatari Suite, The Sapphire chocker, etc) it has been a rumor since the C&D divorce, Kate wore pieces from the personal and official collection while Meghan only wore personal pieces

Old ask from May 9th

First, there's not a whole lot publicly known or published about Diana's will and/or the boys' inheritances. 95% of what's out there is largely speculation and gossip.

So let's get into what we do know first, and then talk some rumors.

Diana wrote her last will on June 1, 1993. In that will, she:

Named her mother, Frances Kydd, and Patrick Jephson named as executors and trustees.

Named Frances Kydd and Earl Spencer as guardians for any children who were underaged at the time of her death.

Requested her husband Charles to consult with Frances on the boys’ education, upbringing, and welfare.

Left the bulk of her estate in a trust for William and Harry, with instructions that they should split it equally on their 25th birthdays. She also had instructions that if the boys predeceased Diana (or died within three months of her death) but they had children and those children survived three months past Diana’s death, they should inherit their father’s share at age 21 and it should be split equally amongst them. Grandchildren of a surviving son do not inherit anything.

Diana’s estate was estimated at $35.6 million pre-tax; $21.3 million after tax. The lion’s share of Diana’s estate (about $28 million pre-tax) came from her divorce settlement.

Diana updated her will on February 1, 1996. In her codicil, she replaced Patrick Jephson as executor and trustee with her sister, Sarah McCorquodale. Everything else remained the same.

After Diana died, Frances and Sarah challenged the will and Diana’s estate in probate court using a variance that changed William’s and Harry’s age of inheritance from 25 to 30; however, William and Harry were allowed to access the income (aka interest) generated by their inheritance beginning at age 25. The full details of Frances and Sarah’s challenge, including why they challenged, and the variance aren’t known.

Frances and Sarah later gave one memento of Diana to each of her 17 godchildren - this becomes important later - and also in accordance with Diana’s wishes, gave Paul Burrell approximately $70,000.

In her will, Diana created a trust or a fund (it’s not clear) to keep and maintain all of Diana’s clothes, including her wedding dress. The clothes, especially the wedding dress, were often lent out to exhibitions all over the world; however, upon Harry’s 30th birthday, everything returned to William and Harry as per the terms of their inheritance. The clothing fund/trust supported William, William’s family, Harry, and several special charities. The charities were also allowed to receive royalties from the commercial use of Diana’s likeness.

Here’s where it gets messy. A few years after Diana’s death and probate was completed, there were unrelated court proceedings in which a previously undisclosed  “Letter of Wishes” from Diana regarding her estate was revealed. The “Letter of Wishes” declared more of Diana’s intent on how to divide her estate:

75% of her personal belongings and all of her jewelry should go to William and Harry.

The remaining 25% of her personal belongings (including portraits, paintings, clothing, and china) should go to an additional 17 named beneficiaries - her godchildren.

The discovery of the letter and Diana’s final wishes for her estate really pissed off a lot of people, family members and godchildren, especially. It’s not clear if people were angry with how Frances and Sarah decided to distribute Diana’s estate, if they were angry at the probate court for not exhausting all efforts to uncover or find all of Diana’s last documents, or if they were angry at whomever held the letter for not coming forward years earlier.

(My theory is that the Letter of Wishes was found in the evidence discovery for the Paul Burrell trial. If you’re not familiar: after Diana died, many of her belongings went missing. There was an investigation, in which it was discovered that Paul Burrell had these items, which ended up being around 310 items, including clothing, shoes, and letters. Burrell was charged with theft, it went to trial in 2002, and The Queen intervened at the last moments by all of a sudden remembering that she had given Burrell permission to remove these items.)

Remember those 17 godchildren? The ones who received just one memento of Diana, which some of them called “tacky”? Had Diana’s Letter of Wishes been declared at the time of her death and followed, the godchildren would have been given about $100,000 each.

As for exactly how Diana’s assets, properties, and belongings were split up, we don’t know. Not a lot has been published or publicly discussed. For instance, the speculation is that William took his half when he turned 30, but it’s also possible that William waited until Harry turned 30 so it was an even split of the assets. (The former is probably most likely; William doesn’t strike me as someone who’d nickel-and-dime in his inheritance and since the brothers were on good terms back in those days, William even may have been happy for Harry to get “more” of DIana’s inheritance knowing that he’s the sole beneficiary for Charles when the time comes.)

We do know that William and Harry have the wedding dress. It’s very likely that whatever this fund is that has Diana’s clothes, they probably serve on the board of directors or are somehow closely involved in the administration of it. It’s said that this fund is the one that maintains and holds Diana clothes for display at Kensington Palace. We also know that the brothers got to take a personal item of Diana’s for their own keeping, and William took the engagement ring and Harry took the watch. 

But other than those very few specifics, we only have rumors about how the estate was split. Most of the rumors are about the jewelry:

William inherited the big official jewelry and Harry got the smaller personal jewelry. (Helenaaurellia’s theory)

The jewelry Diana received in official capacity as Princess of Wales was left to a trust benefiting only future Princesses of Wales (aka William’s wife, George’s future wife, George’s son’s future wife, etc.) and the brothers split Diana’s personal jewelry.

All of the Princess of Wales jewelry Diana received (aka the official gifts) actually belongs to The Queen and was given back to Her Majesty on Diana’s death. The Queen then loaned them, or gifted them, to Kate. 

Diana put most of her personal jewelry into a trust for future granddaughters, so Charlotte and Lili are the true beneficiaries, with William and Harry the trustees who sometimes choose to let Kate and Meghan wear the pieces.

I lean towards Rumor #2 - it just makes the most sense to me when you remember that Diana was actually a pretty hardcore monarchist and royalist. She just didn’t like Charles and much of what she did, she believed she was doing to protect the monarchy from Charles for William’s sake. So putting her official Princess of Wales jewelry in a trust specifically for The Princess of Wales makes sense to me…except doing so would have created a loophole for Camilla to take possession of the jewelry if/when she married Charles and we know Diana wouldn’t have allowed that in any capacity.

Which makes Rumor #1/Helenaaurellia’s theory the most optimal one. William gets the official pieces as his future wife would be the future Princess of Wales, Harry gets the sentimental, personal pieces.

I think Rumor #3 is plausible, but I find it unlikely. While it is true that royal protocol states any gift received by the royal during the course of official duties belongs to The Crown, any gifts given in celebration of a personal event even if official (like a wedding or a baby’s birth or a christening) remains the property of the royal. Much of Diana’s “big” jewelry was given as wedding gifts on her marriage to Charles, so they would’ve been hers to do with as she saw fit.

Rumor #4 strikes me as very tinhatty. 98% of me thinks it’s complete bunk, but there’s that final 2% niggling at me. And that 2% is Meghan’s 2019 NYC baby shower, when all the decor was pink and she was hinting to everyone that they were having a girl. We know that a girl is easier to merch than a boy and that may be why Meghan was hoping for a daughter, but I can’t let go of an extremely farfetched possibility that having a daughter meant Meghan would’ve gotten something of Diana’s.

Personally, I think we have to wait and see what happens under a King William. Does Queen Catherine continue wearing Princess of Wales's jewelry or does she use the vault? If Kate stops wearing Princess of Wales jewelry, does George's wife wear them or will Charlotte wear them? And if Charlotte wears it, does she wear them while she's Princess Charlotte of Wales or does she wear them (or continue to wear them) when she's The Princess Charlotte?

We only have about 20-30 years to wait.

[andiatas]

Opinion piece: It may appear as if she is selling something that is not really hers

The interest and the money are there because she is her father's daughter.

Photo: NTB

Modern royalty is not easy to define. This is partly because it is full of paradoxes.

On the one hand, being royal is deeply personal. It binds a Royal Family together in a way no other families [can] experience. It also means that the royals have to live with a significant interest in who they are and what they think and feel. Who they fall in love with and marry. How they raise their children.

On the other hand, being royal is something very impersonal. You have not become King, Queen, Prince, or Princess because you have achieved something. It's a role you've been assigned through a genetic lottery, and it's a win that brings disadvantages as well as advantages.

Patrick Jephson, who was Princess Diana's private secretary for many years, has written several books about royalty. In his book on Meghan Markle, he points out the importance of distinguishing between the fame you've worked for and the fame you've been born into or married into.

A princess, writes Jephson, will always be listened to. She can say obvious things from a podium, and the applause will faithfully follow. It can be challenging to accept that this goodwill is not really personal. It would be there for anyone who filled the royal role dutifully and kindly.

Jephson's point is relevant to the debate about young royals in general and [around] Princess Märtha Louise in general. There was a reaction when it became known that the Princess and Durek Verrett had sold the rights to their wedding to Netflix and the celebrity magazine Hello.

The two are far from the first famous couple to make such a trade. When movie star George Clooney and lawyer Amal Alamuddin married, they sold the rights to the wedding photos to the British Hello and the American People. The couple made it known that the money would be donated to charity. So did former spouses Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie when they sold their wedding photos to People.

By emphasizing that the money would not go to themselves, the couples also gave the impression that they were selling the rights primarily to retain control over publicity and avoid paparazzi in the bushes rather than to get even richer. Not all brides and grooms with similar deals have been equally generous.

Artist Nick Jonas and Bollywood star Priyanka Chopra also sold their wedding to People. In addition, they received so much sponsorship from commercial actors that their wedding was mockingly called "sponsored content" on social media.

But it causes a stir differently when a Princess does the same thing as movie stars. It has to do with the impersonal part of her position. Unlike the other celebrities, it can appear that the Princess is selling something that is not hers.

The interest and the money Hello is willing to pay are ultimately there because she is her father's daughter.

In the Norwegian royal context, the Märtha case is unique. But in Great Britain, there is a comparable example. When Peter Philips, Queen Elizabeth's eldest grandson, married Autumn Kelly in 2008, he also sold the image rights to Hello.

The Queen was not informed in advance. When she realized what had happened, she must have intensely disliked it. The Daily Telegraph later quoted a source at the Royal Court as saying, "It will never happen again. In retrospect, it should never have happened in the first place."

Princess Märtha Louise is far from the only European royal who creates challenges for her family. Heirs to the throne across Europe have rebellious brothers and sisters who feel they spent their entire upbringing conforming, enduring a distressing attention to many of them.

Several of them, such as British Prince Harry and Danish Prince Joachim, have reacted strongly when they feel that the institution is still trying to control them after they become adults. This is understandable. But like the Norwegian Princess, the royals learn that the gold dust from the castles cannot be completely washed off.

It is not difficult to sympathize with the young royals who experienced growing up under tremendous pressure. The celebrity press can be harsh and harsher in many countries than in Norway, and the style was more invasive in the nineties than today. However, in addition to the disadvantages, royalty brings significant advantages.

Princes and Princesses grow up in a family financed by the public. They experience doors opening for them and invitations pouring in. They regularly have personal meetings with men and women who are changing the world. And they always carry with them something extremely marketable, something many people want a piece of.

This is part of the art of being a modern royal if you don't have a throne waiting. It is a matter of discretion. It's about seeing which doors you can enter and which you should leave closed if you don't want to provoke reactions and make people wonder if this monarchy thing was really such a good idea.

Translation and editing for clarity by me of an opinion piece by Inger Merete Hobbelstad for NRK, published Aug. 30, 2024, at 13:40.

[royalpain16]

Sophie Wessex Felt 'Intimidated' by Princess Diana Who Made Her Cry during Their 1st Meeting, Book Claim

By Oyin Balogun

Sophie Wessex and Diana had a rough start at the former's introduction into the family. Sophie tried to rise above the discrimination of being a "commoner" in the royal house and make a meaningful impact.

Sophie Rhys-Jones and Princess Diana, July 14, 1994 (Lady Sarah Chatto's wedding)

Sophie Rhys-Jones, Countess of Wessex, is the wife of Prince Edward, Queen Elizabeth's youngest son and Earl of Wessex. The royal, a daughter of Christopher and Mary Rhys-Jones, grew up in Kent and trained as a secretary. She chose a career path in public relations, and while working in that capacity, she met her husband.

Sophie met her husband when he was scheduled to meet Sue Parker, a former tennis player, for a photoshoot for the "Prince Edward Challenge." The athlete could not make it, and Sophie stepped in and saved the day by taking the photoshoot with him. A relationship burgeoned.

In 1999 1993, the couple met again at a charity event, and they kickstarted their relationship, which would end in marriage. Sophie did not become wife and countess of Wessex until five years later, when their burgeoning relationship took a step further and resulted in marriage in 1999.

When interviewed and asked why it took so long to propose, the prince explained that if he had proposed earlier, chances were high that Sophie would have declined. He said:

"It's impossible for anybody else to understand why it has taken me so long. But I don't think it had been right before and I don't think Sophie would have said yes. Hopefully the fact that she has said yes means I've hit the timing right."

DIANA AND SOPHIE'S FIRST MEETING

Sophie who started her career in public relations and worked in firms such as Capital Radio, grew up in a middle-class family with her father, a businessman.

The Countess of Wessex, who blended into the royal family after her marriage and ran her duties with all diligence, did not have it easy with some people who referred to her humble background. One such person was Princess Diana.

While still the girlfriend of Prince Edward, Sophie and Diana had a chance meeting when members of the royal house had afternoon tea with the Queen.

It was reported that Diana cupped her face in her hands and stared hard at Sophie amidst the polite conversation and chit-chat. The countess felt threatened and had to take leave from her highness to exit the room and broke down in tears while Edward consoled her.

It seemed like there was a cold war between the two young wives in the royal household, and it's believed that Diana could not comprehend how Sophie, from a low background, would "rub shoulders" with bonafide members of the royal household.

After the "tea episode," Sophie became careful of the Princess of Wales and tried not to get too involved with her. On the wedding day of Lady Margaret's daughter, at the church's steps, Diana tried to strike up a conversation with Sophie.

Wary and alert, Sophie guessed Diana had an ulterior motive for this gesture; to create a moment where pictures of them together could be taken by photographers.

It seemed it was not only Sophie who was wary of the Princess of Wales and her unseemly attitude. A friend of the royal house made this statement concerning princess Diana and Sophie:

"Sophie's view was shaped by the royal one, that the princess was manipulative, cunning and conniving"

Sophie, Countess of Wessex, now Duchess of Edinburgh, February 24, 2009, London

The royal family allegedly brainwashed Diana, and Sophie felt sorry for how Diana had treated them. Princess Diana's private secretary for eight years, Patrick Jephson, also commented on how the royal house perceived her. She said:

"In their view she had put herself outside their charmed circle and was now relegated to the role of outsider."

It seemed that the members of the British royal house had a unanimous perception of Diana and thought her trifling and troublesome, and everyone steered clear of her.

Diana, Princess of Wales, February 15, 1984

Starting in the royal family had its dips and lows for Sophie. The constant comparisons between herself and Diana by the press and people were terrifying to her. The press made it a point of call to compare the courtship period of Sophie and Diana with their spouses.

Sophie was engaged to her husband for five years before they tied the knot in 1993 1999, unlike Diana, who married Prince Charles five months after courtship.

One of the presumed reasons Diana "looked down" on Sophie was that she was from an aristocratic home, unlike Sophie. The latter was a commoner with her father running an import-export tire business.

Diana, Princess of Wales, January 13 1997

Princess Diana was a fashion-forward icon with striking features, and Sophie was constantly set side by side with Diana. During her engagement, the tabloid would use similar pictures of both women and place them side by side. This did not go down well with Sophie.

Another thing these two women did not have in common was the way they handled the media. Sophie and her husband were very private, unlike Diana, who was not so tight-lipped and revealed details of her husband's affair and her infidelity. Paul Thompson, a London reporter on the royals commented that:

"She and Edward have always been very private. Unlike Diana, she doesn't have a shine to the limelight"

To her credit, Sophie, with her PR background, knew how to handle the press and create a good image. Diana was new to the media when she got married and did not know how to deal with them until much later. Thompson said, "Diana was naive when she dealt with the press; we won't be seeing that with Sophie."

On the occasion of her birthday, photographers stormed her office to get shots of the countess; Sophie's reaction was unlike what Diana would have done. Commenting on her reaction, Thompson recalled:

"She got out of the car, took the bouquets of flowers from well-wishers – Di would have never done that – looked the photographers straight in the eyes, gave them their pictures and then said, 'Thank you very much' and walked into work"

After the demise of Diana, society was ready to fill the void she left, and Sophie felt like the most suitable candidate as she was in favor of the public and royals. Jane Proctor, editor-in-chief of Tasker, a British society magazine, said concerning Sophie:

"People just want to fill a hole right now, but she is no Diana."

The Princess of Wales once compared the society's reception of herself and Sophie. It was recalled that "Diana reportedly once called her "little Miss Goody Two Shoes" and asked Fergie (Duchess of York), "Why is she getting such an easy ride? We were thrown to the wolves." {If I recall, somebody else said these words}

Queen Elizabeth II and Sophie Wessex on December 25th, 2002

Things didn't go all that smoothly for Sophie as a royal as she once experienced some unpleasantness. A tape was reportedly released about Sophie and her partner in her PR firm (R-JH), Murray Harkin, about indiscretions spewed by both.

The countess made statements about public figures in the royal house and the political scene. She revealed her political standing and confidential information in her possession under her position as a royal household member.

The content of this tape was spread across ten pages of national newspapers and was a big deal for the royal family. Once accused of using her royal connections to benefit her business, Sophie quit it after her marriage and devoted her time to her kids, the royal house, and charities.

Sophie and her family have since bonded with the Queen after the death of the Duke of Edinburgh. They became more affectionate after the monarch's demise and shared beautiful moments.

Talking about how she copes with the comparison between her and the late Diana, she said: "And I don't think I could have coped with that level of pressure or expectation. Everyone said: "Gosh, doesn't she look like Diana?" Then they thought: "This isn't going to be much good because she's not turning up every day in different outfits, opening children's hospitals," you know. I do some of that but not as much as they'd like.

This year's platinum jubilee celebrations of the Royal Windsor Horse Show will be memorable for Sophie and Edward as their daughter, Lady Louise Windsor, will be the one driving the carriage of the Duke of Edinburgh.

With many charities and organizations she runs and the daily running of the royal home and her household, Sophie has her hands full and still manages to keep her head up.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"M'CAFFREY TO MISS BIG PARADE THIS YEAR," Toronto Star. July 11, 1933. Page 2. ---- "Never Missed Twelfth," Pleads Pat's Friend-Gets Three Months ---- "He's never missed a parade, your worship," Captain Bunton of the Salvation Army pleaded for Patrick McCaffrey, charged with drinking. "I haven't been here for a long time." Pat put in for himself.

"He always has some story or other," said Magistrate Coatsworth. "He's been up three times in the last two or three months, hasn't he?" "Yes," confirmed Inspector Guthrie.

"Well, it will have to be three months. He will have to miss the parade this year."

John Reeve, another repeater, was also sent down for three months.

"First offence," said the clerk as Jas. Crane was called.

"It may be the first offence, but it's not the only offence. I got information this morning that he did a good deal of damage to his wife's house. He was out all night long, crashing things. I'm going to give him $20 or 30 days," said the bench.

"These men weren't on the tracks at all," declared Tom O'Connor, counsel for Wilfred Holmes, John Lemon, Edward Ridmon and Chas. Cameron, who were all charged by the C.P.R. officer with trespass on the Parkdale line. "They all tell me they were sitting beneath the trees on Noble St." The magistrate remanded them. Thomas Doyle, arrested by the same C.P.R. officer on a charge of trespass was sent down for five days.

"This man had a serious operation last November. Since then he's had six other operations. If this case is dismissed, he won't ever do it again," promised Austin Ross for Wm. G. Wright, charged with keeping a common betting house. "$150 fine and costs," said his worship.

Faulty Memory George Johnson, charged with breaking into a cigar-store on Carlton St., was remanded one week for mental examination. He claimed to have developed a case of loss of memory.

"I don't know anything about it. My head was all dazed," the prisoner said when he was asked to plead guilty or not guilty.

Alec Kelly, who apprehended Johnson with the help of Tom Jephson, stated he was walking down Parliament St. early yesterday morning when he heard a crash of glass. He went over and seized the man, Kelly stated.

"Did you find anything on the man?" asked Assistant Crown Attorney Fred Malone. "Just these cigarette dummies."

"He made a pretty bad choice," Mr. Malone commented.

Jephson testified that Johnson had told him that some drunk had broken the window and run around the corner.

"You don't know anything about being thrown out of a restaurant "earlier in the evening?" asked the crown. "I don't know anything about it."

Mr. Malone said the citizens should be commended to the police commision.

"They certainly should." agreed the magistrate. "I will mention it to the chief." Peter Lawsen, Ernest Twiddy, and Bob Telfer were given the option of $10 or five days for stealing a ride.

"I'm going to plead guilty for Tomlimnson. Cannell wants to plead not guilty," declared T. B. Horkins, defending Fred Cannell and Charles Tomlinson, charged with stealing two suits from a downtown store.

"I saw these two men, hanging around the exchange office," testified the store detective. "Then they got two suits from the stock room. I went up to them then, and took them to the office. When Tomlinson was searched a suit was found on him. I saw Canneil drop his on the way."

Both were remanded to July 25. Bail stands at $1,000.

McBrady Remanded Three charges of theft have been lodged against Louis V. McBrady. Only one of the charges came up to-day It was deferred to June 13, when the other charges are to be heard.

"If your worship has no objections, I would like to be tried by some other magistrate, because of what's happened in the past," the prisoner requested.

"I'm quite agreeable," his worship replied, but I can't guarantee that Mr. Jones will accept the responsibility."

"He says that he wants to get out on his own bail," Mr. Malone told the bench.

. "I've been in jail since June 30 for the theft of $5," added Mr. McBrady. "I can't accept your own bail, I'm afraid. There's too much of sort of thing." Magistrate Coatsworth refused.

Woman Driver Theresa Klein, charged with reckless driving, was given a two weeks' remand by Magistrate Jones in liquor and traffic court. Bail of $200 was continued.

Charged with Illegal possession of liquor, Walter Zabolotny drew a fine of $25 and costs with the option of a month in jail.

Wm. Wilson pleaded guilty to driving his car recklessly on Bloor St west of Keele. He collided with a milk wagon.

Wilson was sentenced to $10 and costs or 10 days and 7 days.

"He was under the influence of liquor," said P.C. Locke, testifying against Louis Dollery, charged with reckless driving on Richmond St. W.

Admitting he had a glass of beer. accused explained his groggy conduct and appearance shortly after the accident by the fact that his jaw was injured in the collision so that his teeth had to be removed later.

"Ten dollars and costs or ten days and seven days," said his worship.

"I thought I remanded you until Sept. 5." said Magistrate Jones as Louis Garland appeared in court.

"This is another charge," explained special Crown Prosecutor Marshall.

"There was also an Indian in the party," he continued, "and in a back room I found a woman so drunk she could not be aroused."

The officer declared that there had been a canned heat orgy in the house.

[updatesandnews]

Pharmacy Business Awards 2023: Honoring the Winners of Excellence

The Pharmacy Business Awards 2023, held on Wednesday, 4th October in Central London, was a resounding success, marking a night of recognition and celebration of the finest achievements in the pharmacy industry. This esteemed event, attended by pharmacy luminaries, highlighted the outstanding contributions of individuals and businesses across various categories. The awards were presented by Kalpesh Solanki, Group Managing Editor of Pharmacy, and Shailesh Solanki, Executive Editor of Pharmacy Business.

The awards ceremony was generously sponsored by some of Britain’s leading pharmaceutical companies, including Alliance Healthcare, Bristol Labs, Glenmark, Cipla, Haleon, Kenvue, Reckitt, Sigma Pharmaceuticals, Teva, and many more, underscoring the industry’s commitment to excellence and innovation.

Here’s a look at the remarkable winners who shone at this distinguished event: Pharmacy Business of the Year Award 2023

WINNER: Patrick Gompels, D&M Gompels, Melksham, Wiltshire

Pharmacy Business Inspiring Woman of the Year Award 2023

WINNER: Sobha Sharma Kandel, Neem Tree Pharmacy, Abbey Wood, London

Pharmacy Business Enterprise Award 2023

WINNER: Deborah Evans, Remedi Health, Winchester, Hampshire

Pharmacy Business Community Award

WINNER: Nemesh Patel, Davies Pharmacy in Havant, Hampshire

Local Health Initiative of the Year 2023

WINNER: Pillbox Chemists in Colnbrook, Berkshire

Sustainable Pharmacy of the Year

WINNER: Prabjaudt Singh Channa of Priory Pharmacy in Orpington, Kent

Pharmacy Team of the Year

WINNER: Edwinstowe Pharmacy, Edwinstowe, Mansfield

Aspiring Pharmacy Leader of the Year

WINNER: Davinder Virdee of Pillbox Chemists, Colnbrook, Berkshire

Pharmacy Business Development Award

WINNER: Baljit Kaur of Smarta Healthcare in Bedford

Pharmacy Assistant of the Year

WINNER: Anne Edwards of Jephson Pharmacy in Swindon

Independent Prescriber of the Year

WINNER: Atul Patel, Lincoln Pharmacy, London

Public Health Pharmacist of the Year

WINNER: Ayan Awale, Spiralstone Pharmacy, Southampton

Community Pharmacy Heroes

WINNER: Natalie Carruthers, Seaton Burn Pharmacy, Seaton Burn, Newcastle Upon Tyne

Ramniklal Solanki Lifetime Achievement Award

WINNER: Mark Lyonette, Chief Executive of the National Pharmacy Association

OTC Brand of the Year

WINNER: Buttercup, Perrigo

Innovation in Generics Award

WINNER: Apixaban, Teva

Branded Manufacturer of the Year

WINNER: Sanofi

Generic Manufacturer of the Year

WINNER: Teva

The Pharmacy Business Awards 2023 showcased the remarkable achievements and commitment of these outstanding individuals and organizations in the pharmacy profession. Their contributions continue to shape and elevate the industry, ensuring that the highest standards of care and innovation are upheld. Congratulations to all the deserving winners!

[mariacallous]

I didn’t watch The Repair Shop: a Royal Visit in October, but from several accounts it was an enjoyable and wholesome slice of palace PR – a chance to see the Prince of Wales (as he was at the time it was recorded) as the relatable, accessible and sympathetic figure he surely is. No former prime ministers or archbishops jumped into print to tell us not to watch it. Which is a pity, really, because if they had, the programme might have achieved even higher ratings. 

By contrast, a cauldron of disdain has been upended over the latest season of The Crown by these and other august personages. As a result, it’s a fair bet they have successfully pushed the award-winning Netflix series’ viewing figures even higher. 

This goes to the heart of a dilemma faced by royal press secretaries. In a perfect world, all TV shows about royal folk would show them as admirable, lovable, hard-working servants of the common good. But sadly, the world is not that tidy and nor are the lives of people born to royal status. This creates an opportunity for dramatists to fill the gap between the sanitised talking points dispensed by courtiers for public consumption, and what we might suspect is the more pungent reality.

If the creative classes decide to fill that gap, how they do it is up to them. That’s called freedom of speech and it’s a right worth defending, even against those who live and work in palaces. In fact, especially against those who live and work in palaces, given their controlling instincts. What’s more, no playwright ever did as much harm to them as they have done – and continue to do – to each other. Ultimately, if the luvvies get it wrong then the market (and the courts) will punish them accordingly. 

But if they get it right, they will have added something valuable to our understanding of how the most famous and revered national institution actually works. They will help us judge for ourselves how close their interpretation of the truth comes to the version the palace would prefer us to believe. With that understanding may even come a more informed and nuanced appreciation of how much royal people pay for what many of us see as a life of privilege. That is the challenge the writers and actors of The Crown have set themselves.  

Having already seen most of Season 5 (and having had no involvement in Season 6), I think they’ve made a remarkably good effort. Since I was witness to quite a few of the original events portrayed here, I accepted the producers’ invitation in early 2019 to contribute my first-hand perspective on what really happened. After all, it was my life too and I wanted to make sure they got the bits I knew about as authentic as possible.  

Finally, a couple of weeks ago, I sat in a screening room to see the final version. I was on maximum alert, watching for malicious twisting of words and dishonest presentation of historical facts. I was looking out for lies and cruel falsehoods that would have allowed my inner critic to throw metaphorical tomato soup all over the picture the artists were painting.  

I didn’t find any. True, dramatic artifice was sometimes used to make a point more concisely than might have been the case in real life, and some chronology has been adjusted to cram years of events into the time constraints of a TV series. That’s a challenge faced by all creators of historical drama. Surely the acid test is whether any contrivance serves the overall cause of authenticity in the picture being presented.  

For example, in Episode 1 Charles borrows a Greek billionaire’s yacht for a family cruise in the Mediterranean. The Crown portrays this, touchingly though improbably, as a “second honeymoon” and gets considerable dramatic value out of the contrast between the romantic ideal and the fractious reality. A cheap and cynical invention?   

Not at all: a second honeymoon was exactly how the media reported it in 1991, encouraged (I was told that summer) by sources in the prince’s office who calculated that such an apparent show of romance and generosity would counteract rumours of his adultery (also – coincidentally – angrily dismissed as “lies” at the time). The public, understandably, was happy to buy into the falsely optimistic illusion.  

During the same holiday, Charles is seen scathingly dismissing Diana’s suggestion that some shopping might be squeezed into the programme alongside visits to archaeological sites and cultural attractions. In reality, this conversation didn’t happen on the yacht, but it did certainly happen – in much more damaging circumstances – during an official visit to the Middle East in 1989.  

Does that make it a damnable Crown lie – or a truth justifiably transposed to meet the demands of coherent and essentially accurate storytelling? If so, it has the incidental effect of mitigating the prince’s ill-judged jibe by shifting it from a very public setting, in front of royal hosts, to the relative privacy of a family holiday.  

A further example sees one of Charles’s advisors eagerly showing his boss an opinion poll apparently indicating public support for the Queen’s abdication so that the crown can pass directly to the Prince as Regent. We later see Charles discussing the poll and possible regency with the prime minister. Again, this is not strictly accurate: the discussion was actually held with a previous prime minister. A legitimate sleight of hand – or a wicked untruth?   

What’s not in question is that the poll – one of several during this period – was published in The Sunday Times (in January 1990) and, in subsequent discussion with a journalist from the newspaper, I was told this was recognised inside the paper as one of several kites flown by elements in the prince’s office to test the public mood and encourage perception of the then beleaguered heir as a credible monarch-in-waiting. Buckingham Palace moved swiftly to close down the subsequent discussion, but the damage was done.  

As an example of legitimate dramatic invention – as opposed to transposition – it’s hard to beat the scenes depicting Diana allegedly summoning up her courage and dropping on the Queen the bombshell news that she had secretly recorded an interview with Martin Bashir for Panorama. This part of the story was made up, and therefore might reasonably earn the ire of The Crown’s scholarly-exact detractors.   

I know it was made up because I was there, and I can tell you that the princess absolutely failed to summon up the necessary courage and delegated the job to me. So, sitting beside her in her Jaguar en route to an official engagement, I used the car telephone to call the Queen’s private secretary and break the sensational news. In a comedy of confusion – the genuine mark of reality – the only person in the Queen’s office at the time was Her Majesty’s press secretary who thus got the vital information seconds before he received it first hand from the BBC.   

I suppose I could be upset that The Crown failed to spotlight my moment of glory. But it had better things in mind – a high-tension confrontation between the Queen and Diana, which spellbindingly adds authenticity and narrative value to their on-screen relationship. It didn’t happen, at least not as portrayed here. But, on balance, I think head writer Peter Morgan made the right call, as I expect you will too.  

What’s also beyond doubt is that, in working with The Crown’s researchers and writers, I certainly learned the validity of Mark Twain’s observation that truth is stranger than fiction because fiction is obliged to stick to probability. 

As has been repeated often, The Crown isn’t a documentary. If you want attempts at historical accuracy there are shelves of books and hours of film to satisfy your curiosity. Truth-seekers should bear in mind, however, that much of that material was authorised by members of the Royal family to serve their own agendas, sometimes even to settle family scores. In the royal world, truth is more than usually a matter of opinion.  

What I saw in the preview theatre created in my mind a story that chimed truthfully with the reality through which I had lived. And not just in my mind: there were scenes so real that I forgot to breathe, my heart thumped alarmingly and my palms grew clammy with cold sweat. I didn’t have time to nitpick the minutiae – I was too busy reliving the immersive, overall experience.    

That won’t suit everybody. Season 5 sometimes makes for uneasy viewing. And so it should, if it’s authentically to re-create a traumatic period in recent royal history. It brings those troubled days to life with such astonishing theatrical power that we’re left to wonder if Peter Morgan is being criticised because The Crown is all lies… or because it contains too many uncomfortable truths?   

Perhaps the critics are unsettled by the (actually rather sensitive) resurrection of a furtive stage in our new king and queen’s relationship when the joint coronation now being planned would have seemed prohibitively unwise.  

I’m tempted to call after them, “Hold on, chaps, it’s not the Gunpowder Plot – it’s just some talented actors performing a well-written and expensively staged historical play.” Viewers aren’t stupid: they know what “fictionalised” means.   

Because of my previous service as Princess Diana’s private secretary, my attention focused on how she and her story were portrayed. And, again, this all rings true. The actress Elizabeth Debicki is utterly convincing as wife, mother and global icon, struggling to cope with loneliness, divorce and betrayal, yet still with an undimmed sense of compassion – and trademark quick wit.   

Just as vividly, Morgan reminds us that Diana was far from perfect – her shortcomings accurately if fictitiously catalogued in a searing scene towards the end of Episode 8. For all her flaws, Crown Diana – very much like the real one – still attracts our sympathy for her gutsiness and grace. And before Dianaphobes cry “bias”, let me add that all the major protagonists keep our sympathy to varying degrees. That’s because the production forces us to open our eyes to the pressures, temptations and futilities of so much royal life, through which the characters persevere with a sense of duty that at least hints at the burdens carried on our behalf by the real Royal family.    

Eventually, you begin to wonder if there’s an agenda behind the orchestra of outrage. Perhaps the critics are put out that an independent (and very carefully researched) new voice is offering alternative opinions on events that palace press secretaries hoped we had forgotten.  

This is a familiar reflex among some single-minded royalists: the issue is not what we are being shown but the gall of those who are revealing it. Princess Diana herself faced a similar reaction when her secret co-operation with Andrew Morton in the writing of the explosive Diana, Her True Story became the sole focus of palace attention rather than the urgent need to do something to acknowledge the unhappiness the book had revealed.   

For some of us, Diana’s unhappiness and its many causes have never settled conveniently into the distant past. “Draw a line and move on” works with many of life’s harder experiences. But royalty is different: its whole purpose is to ingrain in us an appreciation of its relentless continuity. Monarchy can never draw a line without losing its own reason for existing.  

Yes, it’s perhaps unfortunate that Season 5 has coincided with a mood of national prickliness over all things royal, from the death of the Queen to the posturing of the Sussexes, the embarrassment of Prince Andrew or some niggling cash-for-honours questions over The Prince’s Foundation. 

Perhaps that explains the intemperate reaction to Season 5. But the world it immerses us in did actually happen. The Crown’s writers didn’t have to make up the bad stuff and actually left unused quantities of even more controversial material.  

How much easier to forget how we got here. How much more righteous to condemn those who dare try to understand and explain it through the language of drama. How much more comfortable, in truth, to settle down to an endless future of royal visits to The Repair Shop.   

After all, that’s real reality TV... isn’t it?   

[jerseydeanne]

[houseofbrat]

Any study of the Royal Family’s problems must begin with some of its members’ heedless pursuit of easy financial pickings. They seek the company of billionaires and breathe the heady air of the international Gulfstream set. They borrow yachts, planes and villas and seem quite at home among celebrities, oligarchs and greed- is-good high-rollers.

Few Royal people understand money, but they do enjoy its company and they demonstrate a familiar human failing of always being on the lookout for ways to get more of it.

That’s unfair, comes the reply. Royal financial gain is all for charity. And it’s true: from film premieres to rock concerts and Duchy Organic Original Oaten biscuits, the Royal Family are impressive fundraisers for their favourite causes. Indeed, Prince Charles’s press office hails him as a ‘philanthropic entrepreneur’ in tribute to his ability to conjure charity money from the Royal brand.

But good intentions are only part of the story. To Royal people, having inherited all the personal wealth they are ever likely to need, raising money for noble causes is a tangible way of measuring their usefulness, especially in the macho world of the ultra-rich.

~ Patrick Jephson, former equerry & private secretary to Diana (1988-1996).

[vreenak]

Charles Edwards as Patrick Jephson in DIANA (2013)

[a-recovered-sugar]

A Tale of Two Tours: The Princes walking their own paths

PATRICK JEPHSON FOR THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

Their recent trips have highlighted William and Harry's differing approaches to public emotion and Diana's legacy, says Patrick Jephson

Patrick Jephson was equerry and private secretary to Diana, Princess of Wales between 1982 and 1996. His book, The Meghan Factor, is available from Amazon

Two princes, two continents, two very different touring styles... and countless opinions on whether Team Cambridge or Team Sussex covered themselves (and us) in the greater glory. Perhaps honours are even — which would be nice. Even then, there's no concealing the growing gap in how William and Harry interpret their duty to represent the Queen on such high-level diplomatic missions.

Inevitably, there has been an unseen extra member of both squads. Diana, Princess of Wales has been brought into play not just by the media (for whom sentimental parallels and great pictures are always difficult to resist), but by the princes themselves, most directly in tomorrow's ITV special (9pm) with Tom Bradby, who accompanied Harry and Meghan on their Africa tour.

Diana's sons and their wives have literally and figuratively followed in her footsteps; even William's encounter with bad flying weather in Pakistan was foreshadowed by his mother's experience in 1991, when her Queen's Flight aircraft was grounded by a violent thunderstorm.

Family resemblance: in the Chitral district of Pakistan, Prince William wears a Chitrali hat like the one his mother wore there in 1991

Meteorology aside, perhaps the most revealing similarities and differences lie in how each prince has echoed their mother in revealing his feelings. These tours are hard work, intended to achieve tangible benefits for British interests. But the invisible rewards can be priceless, too — winning hearts and minds is a key objective, and that requires successful deployment of those most unstable royal weapons: public displays of emotion.

It would be a stony heart that doesn't go out to Prince Harry this week as he is seen, watery-eyed, telling Bradby that everything he does reminds him of his mother, or struggling, close to tears, to complete his speech at the Wellchild Awards. I attended many such events with Princess Diana, and losing control of your own emotions can be a serious occupational hazard, made no easier by office stress, new dad anxiety and the sleep deprivation that goes with both.

This is the same new father who recently shared with us the difficulty he sometimes feels getting out of bed because of the burden he carries worrying about the world's problems.

Predictably, such gloom earned a raspberry from commentators who suggested that a fit and wealthy young man, with — according, bizarrely, to Hillary Clinton — a "gutsy" woman for a wife and a bouncing new baby might lighten up a bit. It might be seen as a luxury, especially since his bed is in a house that taxpayers have just spent several million pounds to refurbish.

Better a prince who thinks too much than too little, you might argue. And many welcome our enlightened times in which a prince (a prince!) can reveal such vulnerability. What some condemn as a sign of weakness or self-indulgence, others see as proof of enlightened inner strength and sensitivity.

But, as we've recently seen, when royal thought is stoked by raw emoton, the results can veer unpredictably from endearing to mockable and finally to downright worrying. How else to describe the spasm of anger that soured the sweet success of Harry's Africa tour and now condemns him and his family to long-term legal conflict with half of Fleet Street? Hard-fought litigation could quickly put global warming in the shade as a cause of bad Frogmore mornings.

Public tears are a rarity in Windsor world. Many will remember the Queen discreetly dabbing her eye as the Royal Yacht Britannia was de-commissioned (and who can blame her?). Some may even recall the day Princess Diana visibly welled up when being addressed in fond and sympathetic words during an official engagement in Merseyside on the eve of her separation from Prince Charles. These examples show both women in a good light: the first, acknowledging the passing of a faithful servant — the second, an instinctive response to kindness at a time of great personal unhappiness.

Prince Harry's Wellchild display of emotion falls into a different category. Critics have suggested it was an overwrought attempt to steal air time, while supporters contend it was a welcome display of common humanity. Either way, it made as many headlines as what should have been William's star turn in a jewel-toned sherwani the same day.

Assuming, as we should, that the emotion was genuine and surprised the Prince as much as the rest of us, it resembles another occasion on which his mother wept. Significantly, though, that was in private. We were on tour in Africa; the last visit of the day — to a rural Aids hospice for young children — was over. The officials and media had left, leaving Diana and a small entourage to watch the toddlers being tucked in for the night.

Diana, characteristically, wanted to help. I'll never forget the image of her kneeling by each bed, accompanied only by a nun with a lantern, comforting each little occupant. As she straightened after the last bed, I saw tears shining on her cheeks. By the time she rejoined us, they had been wiped away by the professional princess already back on parade.

A son's tribute: Prince Harry, left, walks through the minefield in Angola, where his mother famously trod in 1997, right

There were no tears in Pakistan this week when Prince William agreed with a young well-wisher that he, too, was "a big fan" of his mother. But who could doubt the infinity of sadness concealed by such brief, good-natured and modest words. It seems William has adopted that most British of attitudes: that emotion makes a good servant but a poor master.

He and his brother are destined by birth for a weird public existence in which strangers can pick over their most private emotions. How they cope has been on worldwide display these past few weeks and it’s fair to say their methods are different — perhaps different enough to prevent them and their wives ever living up to Meghan's early description of the foursome's work as "unity at its best".

When Princess Diana made her own first visit to Pakistan in 1991, she was introduced to the work of the revered Pakistani poet Sir Muhammad Iqbal. Much of it struck a chord with her. She painstakingly copied a verse and gave it to me after the tour, and another might have been especially written for princes navigating a life like no other: "Destiny is the prison and chain of the ignorant."

Our system has put William, the future king, in that prison. To his infinite credit, he is turning it in to a place in which to do his duty, while still being a committed father and family man. As he said in Lahore, when told how he and Kate had "radiated joy" wherever they had been: "We are very happy people."  It shows.

Harry's prison has an open door, and no gaoler but of his own making. His undoubted gifts of empathy, compassion and charm flourish in sunlight and wide horizons. They are a far better — and happier — riposte to an unfair world than anything his lawyers can muster.

[skippyv20]

I think this is why Sarah left Balmoral.....

[updatesandnews]

Pharmacy Business Awards 2023: Celebrating Excellence in the Pharmacy Profession

On October 4th, 2023, the prestigious Pharmacy Business Awards took place in Central London. This grand event brought together luminaries from the world of pharmacy and featured the presentation of awards to outstanding individuals and businesses in various categories. The awards were presented by Kalpesh Solanki, Group Managing Editor of Pharmacy, and Shailesh Solanki, Executive Editor of Pharmacy Business.

Here are the remarkable winners in each category:

Pharmacy Business of the Year Award 2023

WINNER: Patrick Gompels, D&M Gompels, Melksham, Wiltshire

Pharmacy Business Inspiring Woman of the Year Award 2023

WINNER: Sobha Sharma Kandel, Neem Tree Pharmacy, Abbey Wood, London

Pharmacy Business Enterprise Award 2023

WINNER: Deborah Evans, Remedi Health, Winchester, Hampshire

Pharmacy Business Community Award

WINNER: Nemesh Patel, Davies Pharmacy in Havant, Hampshire

Local Health Initiative of the Year 2023

WINNER: Pillbox Chemists in Colnbrook, Berkshire

Sustainable Pharmacy of the Year

WINNER: Prabjaudt Singh Channa of Priory Pharmacy in Orpington, Kent

Pharmacy Team of the Year

WINNER: Edwinstowe Pharmacy, Edwinstowe, Mansfield

Aspiring Pharmacy Leader of the Year

WINNER: Davinder Virdee of Pillbox Chemists, Colnbrook, Berkshire

Pharmacy Business Development Award

WINNER: Baljit Kaur of Smarta Healthcare in Bedford

Pharmacy Assistant of the Year

WINNER: Anne Edwards of Jephson Pharmacy in Swindon

Independent Prescriber of the Year

WINNER: Atul Patel, Lincoln Pharmacy, London

Public Health Pharmacist of the Year

WINNER: Ayan Awale, Spiralstone Pharmacy, Southampton

Community Pharmacy Heroes

WINNER: Natalie Carruthers, Seaton Burn Pharmacy, Seaton Burn, Newcastle Upon Tyne

Ramniklal Solanki Lifetime Achievement Award

WINNER: Mark Lyonette, Chief Executive of the National Pharmacy Association

OTC Brand of the Year

WINNER: Buttercup, Perrigo

Innovation in Generics Award

WINNER: Apixaban, Teva

Branded Manufacturer of the Year

WINNER: Sanofi

Generic Manufacturer of the Year

WINNER: Teva

These awards, celebrated the dedication, innovation, and commitment that drive the pharmacy industry forward. Each of these remarkable individuals and organizations made significant contributions to the pharmacy profession, and their accomplishments were celebrated at the Pharmacy Business Awards 2023. Congratulations to all the deserving winners!

Source: https://pharmacybusinessawards.co.uk/winners/winners-2023/ https://pharmacybusinessawards.co.uk/ https://www.pharmacy.biz/