The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/)
-   -   The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy (2010-2019) (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/the-prince-andrew-and-jeffrey-epstein-controversy-2010-2019-a-30333.html)

rmay286 12-06-2010 08:42 PM

The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy (2010-2019)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1170880)
I think that the press smells blood.

I think you are right!

His Buffoon Highness strikes again: Prince Andrew parties with his sex offender pal | Mail Online

Wow, the attacks just keep coming...

HRH Princess Sonya 12-06-2010 10:51 PM

Wow PA seems to be damned by the press no matter what he does. If he ran into oncoming traffic to save a small child from being hit by a car the press would say he staged it.:bang:

fergalicious 12-15-2010 06:00 PM

@ Mermaid1962 I'm smirking at all that, too. Yellow muckraking press, dirt, mud-slinging, libellous and slanderous articles, just boring. A litter bin is worth more than that! jaja :lol:

AnnEliza 12-15-2010 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRH Princess Sonya (Post 1171451)
Wow PA seems to be damned by the press no matter what he does. If he ran into oncoming traffic to save a small child from being hit by a car the press would say he staged it.:bang:

That does seem to be the way of it -- if he'd let Sarah crash and burn, he'd be criticized for that, too. He can do no right, it seems.

NotAPretender 02-21-2011 02:32 PM

A few more details about Andrew's visit to his friend stateside in December:

Seen around town: Prince Andrew and perv billionaire Jeffrey Epstein stroll around New York City - NYPOST.com

Hot and cold running cuties for the pair, evidently.

Russophile 02-21-2011 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender (Post 1207895)
A few more details about Andrew's visit to his friend stateside in December:

Seen around town: Prince Andrew and perv billionaire Jeffrey Epstein stroll around New York City - NYPOST.com

Hot and cold running cuties for the pair, evidently.

Gee that will go a long way for HRH to polish his tarnished image.

Mermaid1962 02-21-2011 09:12 PM

Yes. There's no evidence that Andrew did anything wrong on his trip to New York, but his company is certainly questionable.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile (Post 1207970)
Gee that will go a long way for HRH to polish his tarnished image.


Irish Eyes 02-26-2011 10:00 PM

Pictured: Prince Andrew and the 17-year-old girl his sex offender friend flew to Britain to meet him | Mail Online

The Daily Mail had a go at Fergie and Beatrice during the week so I suppose it's back to Andrew now.
A few more headlines like this and I think his Trade Envoy role will really be in jeopardy. His "Friend" sounds like bad news and i hope Andrew has nothing more to do with him.

Iluvbertie 02-26-2011 10:50 PM

The DM have never reported positively about Andrew so what is new but ... I do think he needs to step down from his position and retire from public life after this.

Mermaid1962 02-27-2011 01:16 AM

This is looking quite bad for Andrew, I agree. I feel badly for his daughters. The DM is getting more and more daring as far as Andrew's connections are concerned. If there aren't out-and-out denials issued about this latest article--with proof to back up those denials--Andrew's public role is over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1210642)
The DM have never reported positively about Andrew so what is new but ... I do think he needs to step down from his position and retire from public life after this.


Iluvbertie 02-27-2011 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1210665)
This is looking quite bad for Andrew, I agree. I feel badly for his daughters. The DM is getting more and more daring as far as Andrew's connections are concerned. If there aren't out-and-out denials issued about this latest article--with proof to back up those denials--Andrew's public role is over.


The story that he meet a 17 year old 10 years ago, for a night out, with nothing else happening isn't a problem for me but...that he openly associates with pedophiles is - that should be a no no for anyone of any integrity.

Time to go Andrew - live on one of Mummy's estates and stay away from the public life for the next 40 years.

rmay286 02-27-2011 01:55 AM

Interestingly, I can't open the Daily Mail link. I can see the headline on their sidebar when I go to the Daily Mail home page, and I can open up all their other articles without any problem, but not the article about Andrew and the sex offender. I wonder if someone has blocked it?

Can someone tell me what the article is about?

Mermaid1962 02-27-2011 02:01 AM

I'm sending you a private message, rmay286.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 1210675)
Interestingly, I can't open the Daily Mail link. I can see the headline on their sidebar when I go to the Daily Mail home page, and I can open up all their other articles without any problem, but not the article about Andrew and the sex offender. I wonder if someone has blocked it?

Can someone tell me what the article is about?


Iluvbertie 02-27-2011 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 1210675)
Interestingly, I can't open the Daily Mail link. I can see the headline on their sidebar when I go to the Daily Mail home page, and I can open up all their other articles without any problem, but not the article about Andrew and the sex offender. I wonder if someone has blocked it?

Can someone tell me what the article is about?


I have just gone to the site and have had no problems opening it.

Mermaid1962 02-27-2011 02:11 AM

I didn't have any trouble either. I noticed that more pics of the young woman have been added.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1210680)
I have just gone to the site and have had no problems opening it.


Mermaid1962 02-27-2011 02:14 AM

It might be too late. The pictures of the two of them walking together have been published. What has seen cannot be unseen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Eyes (Post 1210635)

His "Friend" sounds like bad news and i hope Andrew has nothing more to do with him.


rmay286 02-27-2011 02:14 AM

You're right, I can open it now. Strange, though. For about 10 minutes I couldn't open the link, maybe because they were adding new pictures?

Having read the article, I agree with Iluvbertie...Prince Andrew may have not known who he was associating with 10 years ago, but after this man's conviction, he should have known better than to hang around with him.

I can't really see this costing him his job, though...

Mermaid1962 02-27-2011 02:29 AM

I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt; but now that Andrew's friendship with this convicted man is known, there'll be a large question mark over his head as to his judgement. Should a man who lacks the wisdom to avoid a convicted pedophile's company be a person with a high-profile, responsible position where a lot of judgement is needed? It's not just that this man is Andrew's associate; it's that Andrew didn't seem to see a problem with going for a walk with him in public. There was apparently no concern that his friendship with this pedophile would be publicly noted and recorded. Even if Andrew's person behaviour has been above-board, he doesn't seem to understand that a person is often judged by the company he keeps.


Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 1210683)
I can't really see this costing him his job, though...


rmay286 02-27-2011 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1210685)
I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt; but now that Andrew's friendship with this convicted man is known, there'll be a large question mark over his head as to his judgement. Should a man who lacks the wisdom to avoid a convicted pedophile's company be a person with a high-profile, responsible position where a lot of judgement is needed? It's not just that this man is Andrew's associate; it's that Andrew didn't seem to see a problem with going for a walk with him in public. There was apparently no concern that his friendship with this pedophile would be publicly noted and recorded. Even if Andrew's person behaviour has been above-board, he doesn't seem to understand that a person is often judged by the company he keeps.

Oh, I agree that Prince Andrew often hangs around with questionable people. I'm sure there is more that goes on behind the scenes than even the Daily Mail can uncover. I don't think Andrew has very good judgment, really. It's just that he has associated with questionable people before, and after an initial outcry, it hasn't ever forced him to resign...and frankly, a lot of people in public positions hang around with shady characters.

Spending time with a convicted pedophile is pretty sketchy; but it really depends on what UKTI decides. Public outry in the papers alone can't affect Andrew's role one way or the other.

I must say, though, that on the whole I don't think Andrew is any better a judge of people than Sarah is. She's just much more of a risk-taker and ends up doing questionable things, publicly, with the aforesaid people...but neither of them seem to have good sense when it comes to who they associate with.

Mirabel 02-27-2011 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1210674)
Time to go Andrew - live on one of Mummy's estates and stay away from the public life for the next 40 years.

Surely he doesn't need to become a recluse?
Why not devote himself to more charity work, perhaps more with injured military personnel?
(Something like that would gradually reestablish his reputation with the public).

sliver_bic 02-27-2011 09:53 AM

Will he though? I think he's enjoyed the fact that's he's "the spare" and isn't even needed unless there's a massive catastrophe. He likes riding planes and helicopters and meeting important people. Maybe he actually has small man syndrome because he's the second son. I'm not sure but I don't see him just bowing all that easily.

By the way, Epstein isn't a pedophile. A pedophile is a person who's sexually attracted to children. I'm not defending him on what he did, he got his comeuppance but there's pervert and then there's sick, he's the former.

Mermaid1962 02-27-2011 01:13 PM

In my mind, a 15-year-old is a child. Plus, the girl in the article we're discussing was a vulnerable teenager who seemed to be willing to do anything for security.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sliver_bic (Post 1210750)
By the way, Epstein isn't a pedophile. A pedophile is a person who's sexually attracted to children. I'm not defending him on what he did, he got his comeuppance but there's pervert and then there's sick, he's the former.


Lumutqueen 02-27-2011 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1210674)
Time to go Andrew - live on one of Mummy's estates and stay away from the public life for the next 40 years.

That's a ridiculous assumption to make IMO. He cannot just disappear like that.

Mermaid1962 02-27-2011 02:14 PM

Perhaps what he needs to do is spend more time in the UK focusing on where he's needed there rather than flying around the world meeting with questionable characters. It's not like he can be stripped of his HRH and his military rank, and no-one wants a member of the RF who sits around doing nothing to contribute to the nation.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1210817)
He cannot just disappear like that.


Lumutqueen 02-27-2011 02:22 PM

His job entails him to fly around the country. I know his friends are questionable, but he shouldn't hide away from everything and become a recluse.

Mermaid1962 02-27-2011 03:29 PM

I'm not suggesting that he should. So much of the criticism that's thrown at him seems to happen when he's outside the UK, though; especially when he's in places like former Soviet Republics or being entertained in regimes like Libya. I know that he likely goes to these people at the request of the government to achieve particular things through UKTI. But when he does business with a foreign government and then sells his house to someone from that nation, something doesn't look right. I've never been one to be suspicious of Andrew, but I think that things are at the point now that something has to give. I'm not sure what.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1210835)
I know his friends are questionable, but he shouldn't hide away from everything and become a recluse.


rmay286 02-27-2011 03:39 PM

I don't think Andrew's job is a good one for any member of the royal family to hold, even an otherwise "good", ethical person. His job requires him to mix politics and business to an extent, and I don't think that's something a royal should be getting mixed up in.

Mermaid1962 02-27-2011 04:58 PM

The Duke of Kent had the position before Andrew took it on, and I don't remember him ever being involved in anything questionable. I think that there are a couple of things going on here: The Duke of York has a higher profile than the Duke of Kent, and he's always been considered to be the "wild one" in the family. Also, The Daily Mail seems to really have it in for the Yorks for some reason. There's something about Andrew's personality plus his international friendships that gets him into these scrapes.

Iluvbertie 02-27-2011 05:36 PM

The DM would like Britain to become a Republic and the Yorks, Charles and Camilla are the ones they attack because they know they are the ones that people like the least.

William and Harry are sacrosanct because they are Diana's sons and she couldn't be touched and her sons can't be either but the rest of the family are fair game - particularly the unpopular and even hated Yorks. They are able to use them to show a side of the royals that the DM wish to emphasise - poor judgement, lazy etc (conveniently ignoring the fact that the girls are at uni but emphasising the fact that they don't 'do anything' - William didn't either at the same age but don't let the facts get in the way of a good story).

That being said - I do think it is time for Andrew to step down from this position - his own position is too far gone to be credible any more.

Iluvbertie 02-27-2011 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1210817)
That's a ridiculous assumption to make IMO. He cannot just disappear like that.


It is not ridiculous. The more he does the more he makes the wrong decisions and the more damage he is doing to the family.

While he has a high profile he will continue to damage the institution so teh Queen needs to step in and remove him from view so that he can't continue to pile on bad press on bad press.

When was the last time there was a 'good' story about Andrew? Even when he visits troops he gets bad press.

He can easily 'disappear' by taking on a different job for Mummy and keeping out of the public eye. How many people would even notice if he didn't attend the Trooping the Colour or some other such royal funciton - outside of boards like this - no one.

Polly 02-27-2011 08:04 PM

As I understand it, Epstein's financial brilliance has never once been questioned, despite his unspeakable behaviour in other areas. It seems, therefore, possible that Prince Andrew was consulting Epstein about financial matters last December which may have been of long standing (he certainly looks very worried). It was extremely foolish, to say the least, as it brought an old news story to the fore, years after the event. I find nothing untoward in the earlier friendship (the prince was merely one in a rather prestigious cabal) but Andrew's judgment here, post Epstein's conviction, is open to serious question.

I'd be pleased to learn that he was actually winding up his financial affairs with this man.

ladongas 02-27-2011 09:02 PM

For reasons which should be obvious...
 
I truly hope that William and Catherine reproduce early and often.

sliver_bic 02-27-2011 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 1210936)
I truly hope that William and Catherine reproduce early and often.

You say this like that would push Andrew out of the picture. Those children will be a quarter century from being able to do anything seriously and that's if they choose to. Aside from the heir the other children might not be seen as necessary because we can't assume that the monarchy would have the same role in a few decades as it does now, if it continues to exist at all.

Strange that no one's commented on this part:

Quote:

She said: ‘Ghislaine put the puppet’s hand on Virginia’s breast, then Andrew put his hand on my breast. It was a great joke. Everybody laughed.’ After this, Virginia was paid, by Epstein, around $400 (£250).’

ladongas 02-28-2011 12:32 AM

Quote:

You say this like that would push Andrew out of the picture. Those children will be a quarter century from being able to do anything seriously and that's if they choose to.
It would put Andrew further away from the throne. Right now he's 4th.
His dealings with Quadaffi are repugnant to me.

PrincessKaimi 02-28-2011 12:56 AM

I wonder what the nature of his dealings with Gaddafi were (and I do note that even major newspapers can't agree on the spelling of the man's name!) It was Qaddafi for a long time, I thought.

Anyway, Qaddafi's attempts position his son as his successor are monarchically-styled aims. For a ruling monarch's family member to meet with a person who may have dubious claims to their own rule doesn't seem quite right, but I would like to understand the reason or the precedent for it.

Qaddafi banks in London, and someone upthread mentioned that the other questionable person Prince Andrew was seen with was a financier. I wonder what PA's official business in Libya might have been (if any, was it a state visit?)

Iluvbertie 02-28-2011 01:57 AM

Andrew's role often means he goes to places for the government and meets with people that we ordinary people regard as unsavoury - such as dictators and the like. The British government has had, and continues to have, dealings with these countries and Andrew's role is to assist in business transactions for Britons and for the government.

The government has asked the Queen to meet with some unsavoury people during the course of her reign as well as it is seen as good for the country.

Thus Andrew's dealings with a Gaddafi family member may very well be with regard to business dealings with Libya on behalf of the British government. It wouldn't be a State Visit as these meetings etc wouldn't be at that level. That level would require The Queen or Charles.

Iluvbertie 02-28-2011 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 1210966)
It would put Andrew further away from the throne. Right now he's 4th.
His dealings with Quadaffi are repugnant to me.


Are they 'his' dealings or on behalf of the British government? He is an Ambassador for the government and may very well have to meet and deal with people he finds repugnant as well, like his mother has had to do over the years, but because of his role he does what is necessary for the benefit of British business.

I do think we need to remember that he is usually meeting a lot of these people on behalf of the government as opposed to just on his own behalf. He may subsequently become friends with some of them but I do think we have to be careful not to condemn him on the basis of being in the company of people without knowing why he is with them - is it because he simply wants to be there or because the government wants him to do the dirty work?

sliver_bic 02-28-2011 10:47 AM

Bertie, wouldn't it be known that he was on the clock? If the meeting had anything to do with his position it would've been announced. Especially after this latest scandal. Now there might still be an announcement to cover him but I doubt it considering Epstein's record you'd think the government might want to stay away from direct connection to the man. Maybe work through an intermediary.


Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 1210966)
It would put Andrew further away from the throne. Right now he's 4th.
His dealings with Quadaffi are repugnant to me.

You say this like the first three are deathly ill or willing to abdicate. Yes, there is the chance of him coming to the thrown, especially if it skipped Charles but it's highly doubtful (Yes I know of the extreme examples in history but those are not the norm).

Even if the throne fell to him, would a man this unpopular be accepted? Can you imagine the outcry if Fergie continued to live on his dime then or if they got remarried? If the crown got to Andrew it wouldn't surprise me to hear people call for Anne or for the republican movement to receive a surge. The chances of Andrew being king are simply too slim to consider a threat.

ladongas 02-28-2011 02:07 PM

Quote:

Even if the throne fell to him, would a man this unpopular be accepted? Can you imagine the outcry if Fergie continued to live on his dime then or if they got remarried? If the crown got to Andrew it wouldn't surprise me to hear people call for Anne or for the republican movement to receive a surge. The chances of Andrew being king are simply too slim to consider a threat.
Of course, the chances are slim. But William flies helicopters. And Harry does something in the military (sorry, not sure). I'm sure no one in the BRF or in the great British public would wish for a huge conflict if it came to succession.

The easiest way to avoid that is to bump Andrew further down the line of succession. Babies will come (royal and non royal alike), and how can that be a bad thing?

Lumutqueen 02-28-2011 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 1210966)
It would put Andrew further away from the throne. Right now he's 4th.
His dealings with Quadaffi are repugnant to me.

Being further away from the throne means nothing, if something happens to the family, something happens.
His dealings? How do you know that Andrew is doing this of his own accord? He is working on behalf of the government, they say do something he does it. People make mistakes, people change.

KittyAtlanta 02-28-2011 04:02 PM

:previous:
I'm with you on this one. Believe nothing you hear; and only half of what you see.

sliver_bic 02-28-2011 05:05 PM

Once again. IF we have confirmation that they're government dealings than he has some protection but if there isn't, well we have to wonder what the hell the man is thinking.

Mirabel 02-28-2011 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1211176)
Being further away from the throne means nothing, if something happens to the family, something happens.

This is just speculation, but suppose something did happen to William?
Charles is a decade older than Andrew, so it may happen that Andrew would outlive him.

Is it conceivable that Andrew would challenge Harry's right to the throne?
Harry's parentage remains questionable to many people; what if Andrew claimed that his place in the succession should follow William's?

sliver_bic 02-28-2011 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel (Post 1211277)
Is it conceivable that Andrew would challenge Harry's right to the throne?
Harry's parentage remains questionable to many people; what if Andrew claimed that his place in the succession should follow William's?

Have we really gone there?

You want the end of the monarchy? There it is.

Yes there are questions but seriously, do you think that Andrew would go that far even if he had proof? Would he honestly ruin his nephew, his family, in such a manner for the crown?

He'd never sit on the throne if he did it, proof or not. The people would never allow anyone willing to go that far to rule because you'd wonder what else he's willing to do to get what he wants. If he's willing to do that to a blood relative than what would he do to his kingdom?

Iluvbertie 02-28-2011 07:48 PM

As for Andrew and the present time - hopefully he will voluntarily stand down from his current position and spend some time trying to re-establish himself but doing what - who knows - he doesn't really have anything going for him and what charity would want him?

Russophile 02-28-2011 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1211299)
As for Andrew and the present time - hopefully he will voluntarily stand down from his current position and spend some time trying to re-establish himself but doing what - who knows - he doesn't really have anything going for him and what charity would want him?

A golf one? :whistling:

Irish Eyes 02-28-2011 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile (Post 1211303)
A golf one? :whistling:

Now Now Russo, someone is in a cheeky mood!!!;)

Anyway it seems the DM isn't letting this go any time soon.

Why did 'rude' Prince Andrew ever get trade role, asks ex-envoy | Mail Online

Oh well, no better woman than his Sarah to get him off the front pages, give her time.

Iluvbertie 02-28-2011 08:52 PM

This is the same sort of thing that came out months ago with Wikileaks.
The DM is determined to destroy him and his family and they will probably succeed.

Mermaid1962 02-28-2011 08:58 PM

And after that happens, I wonder who the next royal scapegoat will be? If anyone in that family has been seriously up to no good lately, they must be shaking in their shoes.:ermm:


Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1211316)
The DM is determined to destroy him and his family and they will probably succeed.


sliver_bic 02-28-2011 09:41 PM

To be fair, the girl's have kept their noses clean. If they continue to do so and get jobs or begin doing their part in the Firm I think the pressure on them will lessen as people will lose what little ammunition they believe to have on the girls. The parents? Eh, I think we might have to accept that they'll never really change..

Iluvbertie 03-01-2011 12:13 AM

I do think it is a pity that the girls weren't given the same press pass that William had while at uni.

rmay286 03-01-2011 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1211316)
This is the same sort of thing that came out months ago with Wikileaks.

The DM is determined to destroy him and his family and they will probably succeed.

Yes I agree, it's more of the same from the Daily Mail.

The story of Andrew being entertained by the Libyan who smuggled a machine gun is from a few years ago and I vaguely remember it, but it bothers me more now.

I think the Daily Mail will probably succeed as well. I know that they don't like the rich and privileged, but they really have it in for the Yorks...I'm not quite sure why. I guess they are easy targets.

Something will give with Andrew's job, eventually--I'm just not quite sure what, yet.

PrincessKaimi 03-01-2011 12:24 AM

If Prince Andrew has been acting as any kind of emissary to Libya, I can see why a populist-oriented news paper/tabloid would find him an easy target. If he was sent there (surely he must have been), it is unfair that he got such an unpopular job (whatever it was).

Mermaid1962 03-01-2011 01:06 AM

Koo Stark's take on the latest Prince Andrew news: Koo Stark defends her ¿war hero¿ ex Andrew | Mail Online

sliver_bic 03-01-2011 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi (Post 1211369)
If Prince Andrew has been acting as any kind of emissary to Libya, I can see why a populist-oriented news paper/tabloid would find him an easy target. If he was sent there (surely he must have been), it is unfair that he got such an unpopular job (whatever it was).

I continue to make the point that he'd be in the clear if someone would provide proof that he was there on the job. From the article it seems he was vacationing with the guy. That he reimbursed him doesn't make it look any better.

NotAPretender 03-01-2011 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1211316)
This is the same sort of thing that came out months ago with Wikileaks.

The DM is determined to destroy him and his family and they will probably succeed.

No, they aren't. Andrew is doing that all by himself, and a fine job he is doing, at that.

And this is far more than the Wikileaks, which was basically about his rude behavior. This, here and now, is frolicking with criminals, convicted of wretched crimes. Not alleged criminals, convicted criminals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 1211368)
.... I think the Daily Mail will probably succeed as well. I know that they don't like the rich and privileged, but they really have it in for the Yorks...I'm not quite sure why. I guess they are easy targets.

See my comment above. Sarah and Andrew, all by themselves, make themselves into targets. Look how well Sophie Wessex learned her lesson about not selling access? Poof, one major kerplop, and that was all it took; as far as I can see, she's never set a foot wrong, since. But these two ,these Yorks? Go from scandal to scandal. Easy targets, you say? Yes. Because they make themselves so.

Russophile 03-01-2011 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1211371)
Koo Stark's take on the latest Prince Andrew news: Koo Stark defends her ¿war hero¿ ex Andrew | Mail Online

Maybe she's looking for a bailout from PA. Worked for Sarah. . . . :whistling:

rmay286 03-01-2011 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1211299)
As for Andrew and the present time - hopefully he will voluntarily stand down from his current position and spend some time trying to re-establish himself but doing what - who knows - he doesn't really have anything going for him and what charity would want him?

Well, in my dream scenario, Sarah would become CEO and/or spokeswoman for her own charity for disadvantaged children/youth--something like her Children in Crisis charity, but more based in Britain. There would be drop-in centres for youth across Britain, and she'd spend a few days at each one, interacting with the children. The rest of her time would be spent speaking at schools/community organizations about childhood abandonment, the effects of divorce on children, etc. Sarah would learn a few key points about the best ways to help children cope with these issues, and she'd make sure to hammer them home in each speech. This would be her primary job--no more forays into Oprah or other reality TV shows.

Andrew would drum up financial support for the charity by visiting various businesses (much as he does now, but this wouldn't be for the UK, it would be for the charity). Just as now, most of his public duties would consist of his work for the charity, although he would still peform a few official royal duties.

The girls could get jobs there as well!

Andrew and Sarah could then remarry while somewhat avoiding the problem of Sarah's re-entry into the royal family. While they'd have to be together at major family gatherings, royal life will start to revolve around Charles' immediate family, and Andrew and Sarah wouldn't have to spend too much time with the other royals. Andrew would perform some royal duties without Sarah at his side; the rest of the time, they would work together at the charity--Andrew drumming up financial support; Sarah drumming up psychological support.

I can dream...:flowers:

Back to reality: I think Andrew will never step down from his UKTI job voluntarily unless he has done something HUGELY incriminating, and knows he has no choice. I think it is a self-esteem thing for him--as Iluvbertie says, what would his public role be without this job? He is the second son, and will get pushed further down the line as William and Harry take on more public duties.

MRSJ 03-01-2011 05:57 PM

http://www.express.co.uk/blogs/post/...tish-monarchy-

Prince Andrew not only Royal embarrased by Libya

Iluvbertie 03-01-2011 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender (Post 1211521)
No, they aren't. Andrew is doing that all by himself, and a fine job he is doing, at that.

And this is far more than the Wikileaks, which was basically about his rude behavior. This, here and now, is frolicking with criminals, convicted of wretched crimes. Not alleged criminals, convicted criminals.


Had you actually taken note of my post you would have seen that I was referring to the new claim in the DM that as diplomat had to smooth over the situation after he made a comment to a fashion person (I don't know who you are). That sort of thing was in Wikileaks ages ago.

This is the link about which I was commenting:

Why did 'rude' Prince Andrew ever get trade role, asks ex-envoy | Mail Online

I was not referring to the situation with the Epstein person in making that comment about Wikileaks.

Other papers, such as the Express, are showing that the many members of the royal family, up to and including the Queen, not just Andrew, have dealings with many of these unsavoury people - at the government's behest and some of them are going to be invited to William and Kate's wedding e.g. the Kings of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia - who have recently given orders for soldiers to fire on their own people. Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Blogs | Richard Palmer | Royal blog: Arab uprising embarrasses British monarchy | Exclusive opinion, news and views from Daily and Sunday Express's top writers-

The DM only attacks Andrew while they should be going after the entire family to be fair on this issue.

Iluvbertie 03-01-2011 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 1211552)
Well, in my dream scenario, Sarah would become CEO and/or spokeswoman for her own charity...Andrew would drum up financial support for the charity...

Would you give money to a charity with Sarah as CEO and Andrew also working for it?

Mermaid1962 03-01-2011 08:29 PM

If it were a publicly accountable charity with annual reports as to exactly how much went for overhead and what precisely was done with the funding, yes. I think that even in this case, though, Andrew would still have to rely on personal financing from HM. But I can't see a joint charity between Andrew and Sarah taking off, really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1211606)
Would you give money to a charity with Sarah as CEO and Andrew also working for it?


rmay286 03-01-2011 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1211606)
Would you give money to a charity with Sarah as CEO and Andrew also working for it?

Well, a lot of people would say "no." But those are people who know enough about Andrew and Sarah's history to feel very negatively towards them.

But there are probably other people who have a positive or neutral opinion of them. Andrew has an increasingly poor reputation, yet UKTI seems to still think he's helping UK businesses. The average reader of British newspapers might not like Sarah, but she also has fans. In fact, many people don't appear to know much about Sarah at all--I remember the lower class people in her reality TV show hardly knew who she was. But after getting to know her, the people in Manchester are still supportive of her.

I'm not saying this whole little fantasy of mine would actually work, but sometimes on the royal forums we think people are just as informed as we are. A lot of people probably would support a charity where Andrew and Sarah were involved, simply because Sarah is a good public speaker and Andrew (supposedly) is good at networking with the business community...so they would be able to convince the people they spoke to.

Mirabel 03-01-2011 09:59 PM

'The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy'
 
This is what I think would be best for Andrew (Not that he'll do it)!

1. Resign as trade envoy.
2. Live quietly for several years and devote himself to charities benefiting injured military personnel.
3. Sever all ties with Sarah.
4. Marry a mature, titled lady of dignity and discretion.

That way he'll win back public respect.

rmay286 03-01-2011 10:20 PM

I don't think 1,3, or 4 will ever happen. At least, I don't think Andrew will do #1 of his own accord...he will probably be forced to step down. You can see from the article below that the Daily Mail is trying to force UKTI to let Andrew go.

Prince Andrew given daily massages at mansion of sex case billionaire | Mail Online

So know we know that Andrew received regular massages at the mansion...:ermm:

Irish Eyes 03-01-2011 10:39 PM

1. NO, he seems to like what he does and whatever anyone
else thinks he's convinced he is very good at it.

2. NO, he might do his bit but maybe not full time.

3, NO, some of the public would love him to sever all ties with
Sarah and some of the Royal family even more so, but 25 years on he
is still there for her and I don't think that will change now.
Their friendship has somehow survived a lot and she is HIS family,
mother of HIS children. He can never server ALL ties with her.

4. NO, has the best of both worlds as he sees it, freedom and family man.

I know you don't think he will do any of it Mirabel, I'm just adding the extras for what it's worth.

Iluvbertie 03-02-2011 12:41 AM

Actually we know that it is alleged that he had regular massages. The article quotes someone saying that he spent a weeks there while the prince's people say a 'few days' - so contradictory evidence within the article itself.

As an historian I am well aware that we haven't heard Andrew's side of things and that he is being condemned by people here on one-sided stories - by the DM - which we should by now know has one agenda - destroy the royal family and especially the Yorks completely.

Until Andrew is charged and found guilty of something improper he is entitled, as is everyone else, of the presumption of innocence.

muriel 03-02-2011 06:06 AM

Duke of York fights calls to quit after questions over his friendships - Telegraph

Duke of York fights calls to quit after questions over his friendships

The Duke of York has defended himself against a series of allegations that have raised fresh questions about his suitability as a trade envoy

Mermaid1962 03-02-2011 10:33 AM

Yes, I agree. There's no evidence that he did anything unethical or immoral.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1211644)
Until Andrew is charged and found guilty of something improper he is entitled, as is everyone else, of the presumption of innocence.


NotAPretender 03-02-2011 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1211605)
I was not referring to the situation with the Epstein person in making that comment about Wikileaks.

Nor was I. I was pointing out that there are two different situations: the first Wikileaks situation where Andrew is described as rude, then this latest (which is NOT - repeat - NOT just the Daily Mail publishing on!) with Randy Andy spending time with a man who hires underage girls to scratch his itch.

Koo Stark is a total idiot for "defending" Andrew - it merely gives the opportunity for comments on the former "soft porn" star defending Andy's involvement with a sex criminal. Unless she's looking for a bit of something herself, as Russophile mentioned.

There is another round of releases today that includes Sarah as well, on this Epstein fella.

You are known by the company you keep. Sarah and Andrew keep company with each other, and each individually keeps company with other unsavories. Lilibet must have her head in her hands at this point.

NotAPretender 03-02-2011 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1211644)
....by the DM - which we should by now know has one agenda - destroy the royal family and especially the Yorks completely.

Really? You actually believe that the Daily Mail exists solely to "destroy" the Royal family? You truly think that? Or can you perhaps link me to their mission statement where that is spelled out? Corporate minutes?

Honestly, bertie, you are an excellent writer but this is completely absurd. You are aware that there are other media outlets that are carrying this, aren't you? This isn't some one-newspaper-vendetta.

Andrew - and Sarah - make themselves targets by their actions. Other Royals learn from their mistakes - Sophie Wessex is the prime example.

Don't blame a media that reports their actions.

Sarah really did the cash for access - yes, she really did, and was that the Daily Mail? No, it wasn't.

Andrew really was palling around with a convicted sex offender - there's photographs, not speculation. He really did meet with the underage girl who is at the center of that - yes, there is photographic evidence.

Denial is clearly not just a river in Egypt.

Iluvbertie 03-02-2011 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender (Post 1211762)
Nor was I. I was pointing out that there are two different situations: the first Wikileaks situation where Andrew is described as rude, then this latest (which is NOT - repeat - NOT just the Daily Mail publishing on!) with Randy Andy spending time with a man who hires underage girls to scratch his itch.


My comment about Wikileaks was referring to a specific allegations in the DM about him being rude not to any of the article in the DM about his questionable company. That I had dealt with in other posts - but you wish to read my post as relating to both - so be it.

Iluvbertie 03-02-2011 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender (Post 1211766)
Really? You actually believe that the Daily Mail exists solely to "destroy" the Royal family?...

You are aware that there are allegations about the Queen meeting with questionable characters in other papers. They also refer to Charles meeting them as well.

Other papers are pointing out that the royal family, including Andrew, are meeting these people at the insistence of the government but the DM targets only Andrew and the Yorks and never says anything good about any of them.

I do believe, that since Diana died, the DM has become a republican paper.

Of course they haven't come out and said it directly but simply read the articles - the paper criticises Charles and Camilla at every opportunity, they also run negative articles as much as possible about Anne, Edward, as well as the York and even Philip.

Far more than any other paper they write negative articles - William and Harry can't be touched being Diana's sons and the Queen is also relatively off limits but the DM simply seems to be looking for the negatives all the time.

When they write an article, for instance about Andrew visiting troops in Afghanistan they find ways to refer to something negative about Andrew as well - he never gets good press from them, even when he deserves it. They managed to write negative comments about Beatrice running in the London marathon last year, in which she raised money for charity.

Based on the constant negative press, even about what should be good press, I am convinced the DM is a republican paper and they have an increasingly republican readership.

sliver_bic 03-02-2011 08:15 PM

They play to their audience. They know people fawn of William and respect the Queen and as such do not attack. They also know their readers, for the most part, can't stand the Yorks, Charles or Camilla.

You're backed up to an extent put to claim that it wants to knock down the royal family is simply over the top

Irish Eyes 03-02-2011 09:17 PM

The Daily Mail in particular is keeping the pressure up on Andrew.
I'm beginning to think he should put his side across and release some sort of statement dealing with the recent headlines.


Prince Andrew and 'naked pool parties' at his paedophile friend's house | Mail Online

Prince Andrew's greed, addiction to shady plutocrats and reckless self-indulgence | Mail Online

Queen Penelope 03-02-2011 09:49 PM

I use to enjoy the DM, but it got old when it is so obvious that they try to get a rise out of people with the way they write their articles. They love to provoke and annoy.

Mermaid1962 03-03-2011 01:01 AM

I agree. A general denial from Buckingham Palace isn't enough. Personally, I think that the insinuations about the house in Florida have to be answered. If there's one taboo left, it's the sexual abuse of underage girls and boys. If nothing is said in response to these particular stories, people will assume that they're true. The DM is being very careful in its language, always saying that there's "no suggestion" that there was any impropriety on Andrew's part. That's for legal reasons, I assume. However, they're giving the opposite impression; and I'm sure that's quite deliberate.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Eyes (Post 1211930)
The Daily Mail in particular is keeping the pressure up on Andrew.I'm beginning to think he should put his side across and release some sort of statement dealing with the recent headlines.


Mirabel 03-03-2011 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1211966)
I agree. A general denial from Buckingham Palace isn't enough. Personally, I think that the insinuations about the house in Florida have to be answered. If there's one taboo left, it's the sexual abuse of underage girls and boys. If nothing is said in response to these particular stories, people will assume that they're true. The DM is being very careful in its language, always saying that there's "no suggestion" that there was any impropriety on Andrew's part. That's for legal reasons, I assume. However, they're giving the opposite impression; and I'm sure that's quite deliberate.


I agree; however, I don't think an outright denial will help at this point.
Andrew has a reputation for trailing through London clubs with his flavor of the month, so it's not a stretch to believe the allegations are true.

For instance, all that press about Andrew getting massages; in that company massage is a code word for sex.

It's no use hoping he can carry on as usual; he has to make a change in his lifestyle if he hopes to redeem himself somehow.

georgiea 03-03-2011 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel (Post 1212009)
I agree; however, I don't think an outright denial will help at this point.
Andrew has a reputation for trailing through London clubs with his flavor of the month, so it's not a stretch to believe the allegations are true.

For instance, all that press about Andrew getting massages; in that company massage is a code word for sex.

It's no use hoping he can carry on as usual; he has to make a change in his lifestyle if he hopes to redeem himself somehow.

Mirabel I think what you have stated above is the only way Prince Andrew can redeem himself. The Queen giving him a honor recently show that the BRF is brushing the whole situation aside.

I believe if Prince Andrew survived his ex-wife's money for access scandal he will survive this too. He does have to change his lifestyle and who he associates with.:ohmy:

NotAPretender 03-03-2011 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1211863)
Of course they haven't come out and said it ...

(that the Daily Mail is out to "destroy" the Royal family) .... so on the basis of your impressions of reading a single newspaper, you have elected to helpfully provide for them a re-casting of their corporate mission statement. Either that, or your assertation that they exist to "destroy" the Royal family is, in fact, not based in reality - mere hyperbole.

OK. To carry on.....

Of course Andrew will survive this. One can't undo the fact of his birth to a reigning Queen; he will always be her son and as such, will always hold a certain position in society at large and within the Royal family. And honestly, although there may be continued grumbling each year when the Civil List comes out as to how much he makes, the Queen isn't about to allow her son - in particular this son - to end up like Prince & Princess Michael of Kent.

I doubt an apology or an explanation are going to be forthcoming. I also doubt that Andrew feels that he has anything to apologize for. To him, all that he receives in his current position - air travel, overpayment of a broken house, friendships with dubious but well-heeled international figures, hot and cold running females - is merely his due as the son of a monarch. I feel quite certain that Andrew doesn't give a fig about what anyone says. This is, in his estimation, his due as the son of QEII. Apology? That's for the lessers of this world.

rmay286 03-03-2011 06:21 PM

Fresh questions for Prince Andrew over friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein - Telegraph

Weekly phone calls now...

Does anyone think Andrew will issue a statement at all? Does anyone think Andrew really didn't suspect what was going on?

KittyAtlanta 03-03-2011 06:29 PM

I think his ego will insist that he issue a statement and I believe he really DID know what was going on. He should have known better. On another note, I don't care what he does in his spare time, as long as he is not torturing puppies and kittens. He's a grown up and can do as he pleases, but consequences do tend to catch up.

Mermaid1962 03-03-2011 09:55 PM

Or turning a blind eye to friends who have an unhealthy interest in young girls?

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta (Post 1212139)
On another note, I don't care what he does in his spare time, as long as he is not torturing puppies and kittens.


Mermaid1962 03-03-2011 09:57 PM

I don't know how he could have avoided seeing the naked pictures of young girls in Epstein's house, assuming that the source is telling the truth about the pictures being "everywhere."



KittyAtlanta 03-04-2011 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1212185)
Or turning a blind eye to friends who have an unhealthy interest in young girls?

Exactly. Puppies and Kittens are terms I often use for little boys and girls.

Irish Eyes 03-04-2011 06:53 PM

Prince Andrew vows to end friendship with billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein | Mail Online

At last common sense prevails. I also hope Andrew has nothing more to do with Ghislaine Maxwell, I don't know why but she seems like trouble, don't like the sound of her at all.

Roslyn 03-04-2011 07:07 PM

I always love the way people behave, and the terms of the statements they make, when they have been caught doing something they really enjoy doing and don't want to stop doing but are told by their keepers that they have to stop doing it because there is no way they can be allowed to continue doing it now everyone knows they're going it, because it is affecting their reputation/their credibility/the monarchy/whatever. :lol:

Mermaid1962 03-04-2011 07:16 PM

Oh, I see. I thought you meant...errrr...puppies and kittens.:flowers:
Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta (Post 1212299)
Exactly. Puppies and Kittens are terms I often use for little boys and girls.


Russophile 03-04-2011 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Eyes (Post 1212469)
Prince Andrew vows to end friendship with billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein | Mail Online

At last common sense prevails. I also hope Andrew has nothing more to do with Ghislaine Maxwell, I don't know why but she seems like trouble, don't like the sound of her at all.

She's Epstein's pimp. Plain and simple. And that's nasty. PA would do well to put as much distance between them as possible.

Mermaid1962 03-04-2011 09:42 PM

Would have been interesting :ermm:to have been a fly on the wall in HM's office when she got this latest news!

Lumutqueen 03-05-2011 08:04 AM

Unsavoury association: How Robert Maxwell's daughter 'procured young girls' for Prince Andrew's billionaire friend | Mail Online

CatherineJ 03-05-2011 09:26 AM

I would be interested to know what his daughters' remarks and views are of their father, now that this issue has come up! They all seemed pretty tight and close.Had it been my father tossed into the mix of Epstein, I would be devastated.

Irish Eyes 03-05-2011 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CatherineJ (Post 1212591)
I would be interested to know what his daughters' remarks and views are of their father, now that this issue has come up! They all seemed pretty tight and close.Had it been my father tossed into the mix of Epstein, I would be devastated.

I'm sure it makes very unpleasant reading for Beatrice and Eugenie.
I agree they all seem close and I hope Andrew has had a talk with them and gave them any assurances they need.
As difficult as it is the girls were born into the public eye, and they have grown up with their parents getting negative attention, and maybe you do develop a think skin after a while. Maybe you have to.

Considering all Andrew has done for Sarah over the past year does anyone think Sarah should have taken this opportunity to repay him in some small way by offering him public support (I read how Koo Stark did).?
I think she'd have only been giving the story more legs (and more headlines) but some are criticising her for not standing by him when the going got tough.

Roslyn 03-05-2011 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Eyes (Post 1212701)
Considering all Andrew has done for Sarah over the past year does anyone think Sarah should have taken this opportunity to repay him in some small way by offering him public support (I read how Koo Stark did).?
I think she'd have only been giving the story more legs (and more headlines) but some are criticising her for not standing by him when the going got tough.

I think that only works favourably when the person giving the support is held in high regard themself. I think Sarah offering support would only elicit responses of the "two of a kind", "made for each other" sort, which, though perhaps true, would probably not really be helpful to Andrew right now.

Mermaid1962 03-05-2011 05:11 PM

I agree. Any sort of support from Sarah right now would have the opposite effect intended. You know, I used to pooh-pooh the idea that Andrew was good to Sarah, in part, because she had "the goods" on him. But now I honestly wonder about that. There could possibly be some truth in that.:ermm:


Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 1212704)
I think that only works favourably when the person giving the support is held in high regard themself. I think Sarah offering support would only elicit responses of the "two of a kind", "made for each other" sort, which, though perhaps true, would probably not really be helpful to Andrew right now.


CatherineJ 03-05-2011 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1212706)
I agree. Any sort of support from Sarah right now would have the opposite effect intended. You know, I used to pooh-pooh the idea that Andrew was good to Sarah, in part, because she had "the goods" on him. But now I honestly wonder about that. There could possibly be some truth in that.:ermm:

I seem to be thinking along the sames lines as yourself. To take this issue to another thought, perhaps Andrew was well aware that Sarah was selling him, after a fashion. I understand as well that Sarah has almost rid herself of the debt she had... I wonder if Mr. Epstein would have been a benefactor in helping bring down that debt!

Irish Eyes 03-05-2011 05:45 PM

No sign of it going away yet.

The Papers - National Newspaper Front Pages On Sunday, March 6, 2011 | UK News | Sky News#

Front page of tomorrow's News of the World.
I sure the girls will have lots of stories to tell.

CatherineJ 03-05-2011 05:51 PM

I think the heat is on!!

tommy1716 03-05-2011 06:31 PM

Cabinet fears over Prince Andrew's trade role - Telegraph

There are increasing worries at the most senior level of Government that the Duke's links to an American sex offender could severely damage his reputation as a flag-waver abroad for British business.

The meeting with Sir Jon Cunliffe, David Cameron's most senior adviser on Europe and business, followed initial disclosures over the Duke's links with Jeffrey Epstein, who served a prison sentence for soliciting an under-age girl for prostitution.

Details of the Whitehall talks on Tuesday came as The Sunday Telegraph learnt there is disquiet at the highest level of the Government over the Duke's role with UK Trade & Investment (UKTI).

sliver_bic 03-05-2011 06:35 PM

The knives are out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1212706)
I agree. Any sort of support from Sarah right now would have the opposite effect intended. You know, I used to pooh-pooh the idea that Andrew was good to Sarah, in part, because she had "the goods" on him. But now I honestly wonder about that. There could possibly be some truth in that.:ermm:

It would explain why the man can seem so utterly whipped. There are plenty of divorced couples that remain on excellent terms, this relationship has looked quite strange at times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CatherineJ (Post 1212711)
I seem to be thinking along the sames lines as yourself. To take this issue to another thought, perhaps Andrew was well aware that Sarah was selling him, after a fashion. I understand as well that Sarah has almost rid herself of the debt she had... I wonder if Mr. Epstein would have been a benefactor in helping bring down that debt!

Andrew paid off the majority of it himself.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises