The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2361  
Old 09-21-2019, 04:43 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,832
MI6 Russian Fears Over Prince Andrew and Jeffery Epstein-
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...box=1569087554
__________________

__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #2362  
Old 09-21-2019, 05:22 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalriada View Post
The Spanish Royal House acted responsibly before any verdict of guilt. Are you suggesting the BRF should only act reactively in the final stages of an investigation after a lot of irreparable damage is inflicted on the whole lot?
I am suggesting that Prince Andrew may not be guilty.

So why should he be treated and "retired" as if he is guilty?

If, repeat if, Prince Andrew had intercourse with a seventeen year old girl, did he know she was only seventeen?
There is a considerable difference between having intercourse with a seventeen year old and say a fourteen year old. Most seventeen year olds are physically fully developed. So you can plausible claim ignorance, even if you knew or suspected otherwise.
Was it illegal at the time and place where said intercourse took place? In many if not most countries the age of consent is lower than eighteen.
And how many ask to see a proof of age, before intercourse, when they are horny?
And was it morally wholly unacceptable at the time for an adult man to have intercourse with a seventeen year old?

- Moral norms change.
In 1960 it would have been generally unacceptable.
In 1970 they would have looked incredulous at you if you suggested that.
In 1980 it was morally acceptable.
In 2000 sixteen year old girls appeared topless regularly in major British papers and publications.
in 2019 an adult having intercourse with a person under eighteen is widely considered morally questionable. But still far from generally unacceptable.

I think we should be very careful about judging people for something they did in the past, using contemporary (and temporary) moral norms.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2363  
Old 09-21-2019, 05:28 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish_royalist View Post
He needs to be retired. Either by The Queen, or The Prince of Wales. Whoever is most appropriate. Right now. End of story.
Whether he is innocent or guilty, the negative headlines inevitably taint the entire Royal Family and the causes with which he is associated, to their detriment.
In my field of work there is a thing called 'gardening leave.' The Duke of York's gardening leave must begin now.
The way I see it, the British Royal Family has gone through scandal after scandal in their history and have remained a strong institution of monarchy. Andrew's allegations are the most prominent ones in our minds right now but I do have to remember that any misdeeds on Andrew's part occurred quite a long time ago.

His actions also, I believe, do not reflect on his public roles and his endeavors to work for the monarchy. It would be a shame, to me, to exile Andrew to places unknown because of his involvement with Epstein. Andrew is one of the hardest working members of the "Firm" and his incentives have helped so many people that it would be detrimental to scrap them all because of something that happened a long time ago and was part of his private life.

His reputation as far as "trial by public opinion" leads to scars he'll bear for the rest of his life and puts his ethics and his morals into question as a person but as a working member of the BRF and the "Firm", he's done a whole lot of good.

He is human after all.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2364  
Old 09-21-2019, 09:12 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
There is no way the "said interview" can lead to an indictment, much less an "arrest warrant". First, there is no proof (yet) that Mrs Giuffre's story is true. Second, even if it is true, the alleged victim was above the age of consent at the time and she was not physically coerced into having sex, at least not by Prince Andrew for sure. So, if true, Andrew's conduct may be morally reprehensible, but I don't think it is criminal.
Sorry, I was unclear in my post. I meant that until there was an inditement, I would continue to believe Andrew innocent, a bit gullible perhaps but, if for no other reason than he has always been seen to love, indulge and protect his daughters, IMO he would never have exposed them to a sexual predator.

I also believe that Epstein diligently groomed his VIP "friends" as a form of self-protection. The paedophile hiding in plain sight in high society.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2365  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:24 PM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 5,679
A sex trafficed person is held to different standards than the normal age of consent standard.which, since she was under 18, the four year rule holds. That means anybody between 16 and 18 can be legal as long as the other partner is no more than 4 years older which of course is not the case. I haven't read this thread in a while and the way people are bending over backwards for Andrew is really appalling

Loving and protecting your daughters has nothing to do with anything. Sexual predators come in all shapes and sizes And are very good at looking good
Reply With Quote
  #2366  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:39 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,428
One thing that is pretty clear to me is that its not Andrew that was a sexual predator. Epstein and perhaps Maxwell seem to be the ones to pin that title on.

Until Andrew is tried and convicted of a concrete and provable crime beyond a reasonable doubt, all we have is allegations and hearsay. My opinion on this is that Andrew was just a little spider in Epstein's very wide and very controlled web of perversion and sex trafficking.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2367  
Old 09-22-2019, 12:38 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
A sex trafficed person is held to different standards than the normal age of consent standard.which, since she was under 18, the four year rule holds. That means anybody between 16 and 18 can be legal as long as the other partner is no more than 4 years older which of course is not the case. I haven't read this thread in a while and the way people are bending over backwards for Andrew is really appalling
When did Andrew face a court?

Until he has been charged with a crime (which he won't be in the UK as they have already investigated and determined that there is no case to answer - in other words in the UK he is NOT GUILTY of a crime)

Until Andrew is found guilty of a crime in a court of law he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

I realise that that is a strange concept from many people - sadly many from the US which used to hold to that standard but no longer - but in the UK, like Australia there is a presumption of innocence.

The prosecution have to prove guilt. It isn't up to the media to determine guilt.

In recent years there have been many cases in the UK where the media have attempted to convince the public of a person's guilty but when the case has gone to trial they have been found 'not guilty'.

The media tends to only present part of the story - as a means of selling their product. They leave out the evidence that doesn't support their story e.g. the story that Andrew was on a place to Epstein's island when a two minute check of the Court Circular showed that he was in the UK on one of those days - immediately bringing into question all of that evidence. If AP couldn't have been Andrew on one day who was it on that day and why wouldn't it be this other person on the other days?

When Andrew has faced a court and been found guilty he should be condemned but until then there is one woman making an allegation that she had sex with him. He has denied it. Why believe her over him?

I have no idea one way or the other but I will always believe in the principal of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and that has to be in a court of law not as a result of trial by media.
Reply With Quote
  #2368  
Old 09-22-2019, 12:50 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
There’s gotta be a legal lane to take this. Cause this surely ain’t going away. Andrew can’t statement his way out of this. There’s gotta be some justice somewhere.
I think a lot of justice went with Epstein’s death. Maybe the procurers can be prosecuted eventually. I do not think Andrew was one of those people. Nor should he be held responsible for the actions of Epstein because he is alive and Epstein is dead.

I also think Andrew has been chosen to be the villain because he is actually less villainous than other men who were Epstein’s friends. He is less likely to retaliate than other men who are famous and wealthy, either by a lawsuit or more unsavory methods.
Reply With Quote
  #2369  
Old 09-22-2019, 01:02 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 304
How unfair to Andrew - maybe they can have another smiley, church ride with her Maj. That ought to make it all better! /s

I have to say the painful incompetence in the BRF is really reaching new heights these days. They can't manage a situation to save their lives. Perhaps if the staff wasn't so painfully underpaid, they could attract employees who are not only competent, but also professional. Alas, the current way of doing things is horridly out of touch and obsolete. Times change, we all have to adept - including the BRF. That is if the institution as such wishes to remain intact...

Also, people bringing up that Andrew is 'innocent' until proven otherwise - you are talking about the court of law. (which we all know is always just /s) Retiring Andrew would not be an admission of guilt or an 'unjust' decision. It would be a direct result of Andrew's decision to continuously and knowingly associate himself (and thus the Royal Family) with a convicted sex trafficker (of underage girls). While we know that Andrew, Sarah and Epstein go back many decades - any contact that they have had should have come to an abrupt end when Epstein was convicted for the first time over 10 years age. So you may believe that Andrew is innocent of all he has been accused (despite numerous testimonials, other circumstantial evidence and even pictures), but it is undeniable that he made decision to be proudly (and PUBLICLY) associated with Epstein long after he was exposed for what he really is.

Andrew should absolutely be retired - alas, he won't be until the Queen is alive. Charles ought to be happy to inherit the monarchy the state it will be left in, no?
Reply With Quote
  #2370  
Old 09-22-2019, 03:59 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloep View Post
How unfair to Andrew - maybe they can have another smiley, church ride with her Maj. That ought to make it all better! /s

I have to say the painful incompetence in the BRF is really reaching new heights these days. They can't manage a situation to save their lives. Perhaps if the staff wasn't so painfully underpaid, they could attract employees who are not only competent, but also professional. Alas, the current way of doing things is horridly out of touch and obsolete. Times change, we all have to adept - including the BRF. That is if the institution as such wishes to remain intact...

Also, people bringing up that Andrew is 'innocent' until proven otherwise - you are talking about the court of law. (which we all know is always just /s) Retiring Andrew would not be an admission of guilt or an 'unjust' decision. It would be a direct result of Andrew's decision to continuously and knowingly associate himself (and thus the Royal Family) with a convicted sex trafficker (of underage girls). While we know that Andrew, Sarah and Epstein go back many decades - any contact that they have had should have come to an abrupt end when Epstein was convicted for the first time over 10 years age. So you may believe that Andrew is innocent of all he has been accused (despite numerous testimonials, other circumstantial evidence and even pictures), but it is undeniable that he made decision to be proudly (and PUBLICLY) associated with Epstein long after he was exposed for what he really is.

Andrew should absolutely be retired - alas, he won't be until the Queen is alive. Charles ought to be happy to inherit the monarchy the state it will be left in, no?
You obviously have strong feelings about this. And rightly so, as all people ought to have in such a case.

However, are you privy to all information that the police have in this matter?
Were you personally involved?
Did you witness what Prince Andrew was or wasn't doing?

If the answer is no, you have named yourself prosecutor, jury and judge in this matter.
And that's lynching.

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial after a proper investigation, also Prince Andrew.

As for Prince Andrew should have known better. Perhaps. It is however a sad fact that the higher position of the perpetrator the less risk there is for being caught - especially in regards to such intimate matters as sex.
There was the much admired and even loved British TV-host, Savile. He ought to have been exposed many years ago - but everyone chose to ignore the warning signs and believe this "nice, likable man."
Something similar happened very recently in Sweden, after years as a prowler, a high ranking man in the cultural elitist circles was finally exposed. (He even tried to grope CP Victoria's behind - in public!) Yet he was allowed to continue, despite rumors, despite his behavior.
I guess something similar must have happened in regards to Epstein.
People in general have a frighting tendency to close their eyes - also royals.

Frelinghighness mentioned in regards to the age of consent, that in USA an age difference of up to four years is allowed between a person below and above eighteen.
However, if the British legislation is similar to the European Continental legislation, there is no such limit. A sixteen year old is free to have consensual intercourse with eighty year old.
Reply With Quote
  #2371  
Old 09-22-2019, 04:40 AM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
MI6 Russian Fears Over Prince Andrew and Jeffery Epstein-
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...box=1569087554
The Times story was picked up by the Daily Mail and to me the BRF really need to worry. MI6 worry means Andrew is perceived as a potential national security risk, that Russia has kompromat on Andrew regarding Epstein and the Kremlin can use to get information on certain UK affairs and at least do long term damage to the BRF. The monarchy would be under more threat if the Windsors are perceived as rolling the dice on the nation's safety to protect one of their own.
Reply With Quote
  #2372  
Old 09-22-2019, 05:48 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 505
If this is true and the still Prince Andrew might be with a high probability on a tape, showing him doing the big nasty with little girls... - than Epstein was a blackmailer and not a mere pimp of minors.

And the still Prince Andrew was back then not warned by the Secret Service of Her Majesty, that Epstein is really dangerous, albeit they should have really known.
Reply With Quote
  #2373  
Old 09-22-2019, 08:09 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloep View Post
How unfair to Andrew - maybe they can have another smiley, church ride with her Maj. That ought to make it all better! /s

I have to say the painful incompetence in the BRF is really reaching new heights these days. They can't manage a situation to save their lives. Perhaps if the staff wasn't so painfully underpaid, they could attract employees who are not only competent, but also professional. Alas, the current way of doing things is horridly out of touch and obsolete. Times change, we all have to adept - including the BRF. That is if the institution as such wishes to remain intact...

Also, people bringing up that Andrew is 'innocent' until proven otherwise - you are talking about the court of law. (which we all know is always just /s) Retiring Andrew would not be an admission of guilt or an 'unjust' decision. It would be a direct result of Andrew's decision to continuously and knowingly associate himself (and thus the Royal Family) with a convicted sex trafficker (of underage girls). While we know that Andrew, Sarah and Epstein go back many decades - any contact that they have had should have come to an abrupt end when Epstein was convicted for the first time over 10 years age. So you may believe that Andrew is innocent of all he has been accused (despite numerous testimonials, other circumstantial evidence and even pictures), but it is undeniable that he made decision to be proudly (and PUBLICLY) associated with Epstein long after he was exposed for what he really is.

Andrew should absolutely be retired - alas, he won't be until the Queen is alive. Charles ought to be happy to inherit the monarchy the state it will be left in, no?
Your absolutely correct.
Reply With Quote
  #2374  
Old 09-22-2019, 10:48 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,105
I agree with the idea Andrew needs to at the least, take a hiatus from representing the family. At least till this is all sorted. It may be that he needs to 'retire from public life' totally after it's all said and done.



LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #2375  
Old 09-23-2019, 08:53 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloep View Post

Also, people bringing up that Andrew is 'innocent' until proven otherwise - you are talking about the court of law. (which we all know is always just /s)
Yes, the court of law is sometimes just /s [your phrase]. But not always.

On the other hand, lynching someone because you think they are guilty, without any proof, and despite their vehement denials, is always just /s.

Quote:
Retiring Andrew would not be an admission of guilt or an 'unjust' decision. It would be a direct result of Andrew's decision to continuously and knowingly associate himself (and thus the Royal Family) with a convicted sex trafficker (of underage girls).
But Epstein was never convicted of sex trafficking. He was convicted of soliciting prostitution from underage girls. Reprehensible as that is, it's not the same as sex trafficking. And as others have stated (sometimes in response to my own posts) Epstein's sentence could be seen as a slap on the wrist for a "mistake." So he wasn't, as you state, "exposed for what he really is."

It's also been pointed out Epstein was invited to Beatrice's 18th birthday party. Granted this was before Epstein's conviction, but this could be interpreted to mean that Andrew wasn't aware of Epstein's criminal activities. Would Andrew expose his daughters to a man he knew to be a sex trafficker of young girls?


Quote:
While we know that Andrew, Sarah and Epstein go back many decades - any contact that they have had should have come to an abrupt end when Epstein was convicted for the first time over 10 years age.
I agree, Andrew should have ended the relationship once Epstein was convicted. His failure to do so baffles me. At the very least it shows extremely poor judgment on his part.

Quote:
So you may believe that Andrew is innocent of all he has been accused (despite numerous testimonials, other circumstantial evidence and even pictures)
Virginia Giuffre has accused Andrew of having sex with her when she was 17 which Andrew has vehemently denied. I'm not aware of any other accusations of criminal activity on his part. We don't know if Andrew is guilty or not. Unfortunately all we have is she said/he said.

The pictures only prove Andrew knew Epstein and visited him in his home, which Andrew has admitted. They don't prove he was guilty of having sex with underage, sex-trafficked girls.

Quote:
but it is undeniable that he made decision to be proudly (and PUBLICLY) associated with Epstein long after he was exposed for what he really is.
But Epstein wasn't exposed for what he really is (a sex trafficker of underage girls) when Andrew severed their relationship. As I pointed out earlier, he was only convicted of soliciting underage prostitutes, not the same as sex trafficking. It is only recently that we have learned the complete truth.

Quote:
I have to say the painful incompetence in the BRF is really reaching new heights these days. They can't manage a situation to save their lives.
How do you suggest they respond to the half-truths you have stated in your post?
Reply With Quote
  #2376  
Old 09-23-2019, 03:12 PM
MaryQueenofScots's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Edinburgh, United States
Posts: 4
I notice several posters on this thread have mentioned that they would like to read the documents released on Epstein etc. for themselves. If you search for Giuffre and Exhibits you will find links to the court case material, including Virginia Roberts Giuffre's version of events in a short story she submitted to the court called Billionaire's Boy's Club.
Reply With Quote
  #2377  
Old 09-23-2019, 06:18 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: L'angolo, Vatican City
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryQueenofScots View Post
I notice several posters on this thread have mentioned that they would like to read the documents released on Epstein etc. for themselves. If you search for Giuffre and Exhibits you will find links to the court case material, including Virginia Roberts Giuffre's version of events in a short story she submitted to the court called Billionaire's Boy's Club.
The material will be unpleasant.
Reply With Quote
  #2378  
Old 09-23-2019, 09:49 PM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 5,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
You obviously have strong feelings about this. And rightly so, as all people ought to have in such a case.

However, are you privy to all information that the police have in this matter?
Were you personally involved?
Did you witness what Prince Andrew was or wasn't doing?

If the answer is no, you have named yourself prosecutor, jury and judge in this matter.
And that's lynching.

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial after a proper investigation, also Prince Andrew.

As for Prince Andrew should have known better. Perhaps. It is however a sad fact that the higher position of the perpetrator the less risk there is for being caught - especially in regards to such intimate matters as sex.
There was the much admired and even loved British TV-host, Savile. He ought to have been exposed many years ago - but everyone chose to ignore the warning signs and believe this "nice, likable man."
Something similar happened very recently in Sweden, after years as a prowler, a high ranking man in the cultural elitist circles was finally exposed. (He even tried to grope CP Victoria's behind - in public!) Yet he was allowed to continue, despite rumors, despite his behavior.
I guess something similar must have happened in regards to Epstein.
People in general have a frighting tendency to close their eyes - also royals.

Frelinghighness mentioned in regards to the age of consent, that in USA an age difference of up to four years is allowed between a person below and above eighteen.
However, if the British legislation is similar to the European Continental legislation, there is no such limit. A sixteen year old is free to have consensual intercourse with eighty year old.
It for a person, male or female between 16 to 18 in the state of Florida, though other states which allow consent below 18have similar laws. Since we are only talking ny and Florida I mentioned those. Ny is 18
Reply With Quote
  #2379  
Old 09-23-2019, 10:03 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,428
There is also the allegation of Andrew and Ms. Giuffre meeting and having sex at Ghislaine Maxwell's home in London. This is what the Metropolitan Police looked into and deemed there wasn't anything that constituted a crime as Giuffre was 17 at the time and of legal age of consent.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2380  
Old 09-23-2019, 11:11 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
It for a person, male or female between 16 to 18 in the state of Florida, though other states which allow consent below 18have similar laws. Since we are only talking ny and Florida I mentioned those. Ny is 18
Age of consent in New York is 17 not 18.

https://www.ageofconsent.net/states/new-york
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baby names bangladesh baptism biography bridal gown brownbitcoinqueen canada carolin chittagong clarence house coronavirus cover-up dna dubai duke of sussex dutch royal family earl of snowdon emperor facts fantasy movie general news thread george vi heraldry hill historical drama history hochberg hypothetical monarchs introduction jumma kent languages list of rulers luxembourg mail mary: crown princess of denmark northern ireland norway history palestine pless popularity prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess of orange queen consort queen mathilde royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal spouse royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown settings startling new evidence stuart swedish queen thailand tips tracts uae customs united kingdom united states of america von hofmannsthal


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×