The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3061  
Old 11-24-2019, 09:57 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Why do you keep posting Daily Mail articles that literally all contain the words ďinsider sourceĒ and stating them as fact? This is the same newspaper that is connected to the one currently being sued by The Duchess of Sussex.

That says it all about the reliability of this information.
I agree, I become so frustrated on this forum when I read the negativity towards the press but it is so obvious the same posters are reading the Articles then more or less promoting them even if it is to say they are rubbish.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3062  
Old 11-24-2019, 02:58 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaira View Post
I wonder when folks will finally admit that the Queen isn't as sharp as folks think and has frankly never been...IMO.
Clearly you know nothing about the Queen if you think she isn’t now nor has ever been “sharp” as you put it. Every Prime Minister since Churchill has praised her intellect, knowledge of world affairs and wisdom. They certainly would have first hand knowledge since they spend significant time with her each week during their tenure. She has met the most powerful, famous, educated people in the World in her 68 years on the throne and managed to impress those she has met with more than just the position that she holds or the jewels that she wears.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3063  
Old 11-24-2019, 03:12 PM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 13,601
I just watched parts of the interview again as part of a german docu about the affair and this time I was able to focus a bit more on Emily Maitlis, her facial expressions tells the full story, she is clearly disgusted and it's hard for her to continue the interview.
Reply With Quote
  #3064  
Old 11-24-2019, 04:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
The only person thatís really at fault here is Andrew. The women in his life shouldnít be used as scapegoats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
I wouldn't be surprised if Fergie told Andrew many times what he wanted to hear, she took money for arranging meetings with him, we only know about it because she was caught once, I don't want to know what else has been going on for many years, when it comes to moral or ethics these 2 bring out the worst in each other.
Regarding Bea & Eugenie, yes they love their parents but blind and naive support does not excuse everything. At the end of the day, they both have always benefited from the money/lavish lifestyle their parents sported so openly, so better not ask any questions where it might be coming from.
I understood the "fault" discussed in Dman's and the preceding posts to be the fault for the Duke of York's recent interview, not his alleged business dealings (but on the latter subject, knowing that the whole of the British royal family benefits from lavish lifestyles, it's not apparent to me why the princesses would bear a larger share of the blame than the other members of the royal family for "not asking any questions" about the origins of the family fortunes).
Reply With Quote
  #3065  
Old 11-24-2019, 04:41 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As a naval officer, Andrew had servicemen under his command in several occasions. It would be interesting to hear from them about Andrew's empathic skills. As it would be interesting to hear from people who benefitted from several charities and organizations Andrew was involved in.



As I mentioned before, in his latest assignment as honorary colonel of the Grenadier Guards, Andrew has been praised by the guardsmen for taking a personal interest in them and their families, which seems to be at odds with his depiction as someone who lacks empathy. His daughters have also praised him as a loving and caring father.
I would just like to say: A soldier can command his men/women and show empathy for them simply because they are under his command and still be a mean, arrogant SOB. Also, empathy for those "beneath" him can be easily faked. I know because I've seen it. Also, loving and caring for his daughters does not mean he did not hurt these young women who are accusing him.

Andrew is guilty and should be punished to be fullest extent of the law in either Britain or the U.S. It will never happen but it should. At best he will disappear from public life and become a footnote. He doesn't deserve better. I just feel sorry for Bea and Eugenie.
Reply With Quote
  #3066  
Old 11-24-2019, 04:48 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 20,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsLeonie View Post

Andrew is guilty and should be punished to be fullest extent of the law in either Britain or the U.S. It will never happen but it should. At best he will disappear from public life and become a footnote. He doesn't deserve better. I just feel sorry for Bea and Eugenie.


Andrew is guilty of what exactly? Could you please provide any evidence that the Metropolitan Police or the FBI havenít found?

If you canít, then donít state something as fact when it certainly isnít.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3067  
Old 11-24-2019, 04:49 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordShiva View Post
If PA were smart, he'd say that Bill Clinton and Jeff Epstein were close friends, and he (PA), like Bill, didn't do anything improper or untoward. PA needs to also say that his accusers are trying to extort money from him, and that he won't succumb to their blackmail. He needs to underscore that he's for Truth, Justice, and the UK way. Finally, if he were charged w/ a crime, then Bill should be charged too.
I don't think there are any photos of Clinton with his arm around the exposed waist of a 17 year old girl. Also, have any of the women accused Clinton of having sex with them? I seem to remember one of the women saying Clinton DID NOT ask for or receive sexual favors from any of the women. Also, it would be unwise for Andrew to try to foist off blame on anyone else until he has been cleared. I think that would be a bad move to add to all the other bad moves he has made in his life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Andrew is guilty of what exactly? Could you please provide any evidence that the Metropolitan Police or the FBI havenít found?

If you canít, then donít state something as fact when it certainly isnít.
You have no clue what the FBI or the Met Police have found regarding Andrew. and neither do it, but the FBI want to question him so they have something to ask him. They aren't going to just listen to him talk. Also, most people who saw Andrew's interview and heard the lies he told know he is as guilty as sin to say nothing of being a laughingstock, apparently to everyone but you.
Reply With Quote
  #3068  
Old 11-24-2019, 05:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,860
There's certainly a lot of people happy to cast Andrew as a criminal even though at present there is no real evidence he has done anything wrong other than a horrendous misjudgment in being friends with Epstein.

That said, IMO, this suspension of any official role is about right for that misjudgment.
Reply With Quote
  #3069  
Old 11-24-2019, 05:50 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
There's certainly a lot of people happy to cast Andrew as a criminal even though at present there is no real evidence he has done anything wrong other than a horrendous misjudgment in being friends with Epstein.

That said, IMO, this suspension of any official role is about right for that misjudgment.
The suspension of any official role actually stems also from Hoofnmouth Syndrome. He opened his mouth and inserted his foot into it and it appeared stuck there. That is what raised questions in regards to associating with him in his roles as a senior working royal for the "Firm" and his personal incentives.

The hole Andrew has dug for himself just keeps on getting deeper as time passes and being accused or suspected of a crime seems to be a lesser worry that Andrew has at the moment. What tomorrow will bring for him is anyone's guess at this point.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #3070  
Old 11-24-2019, 06:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsLeonie View Post
You have no clue what the FBI or the Met Police have found regarding Andrew. and neither do it, but the FBI want to question him so they have something to ask him. They aren't going to just listen to him talk. Also, most people who saw Andrew's interview and heard the lies he told know he is as guilty as sin to say nothing of being a laughingstock, apparently to everyone but you.
If you have no idea what the FBI or the Metropolitan Police know, you cannot know he is guilty of anything other than crassness, insensitivity and stupidity.

Do the FBI want to question him? The lawyers for some of Epstein's victims (in a civil matter) want him to make a statement and speak with the FBI but I have not read that the FBI have asked to either question Andrew themselves or have requested the Met ask questions on their behalf.

Even if the FBI have questions, those questions may be about what he knows about Epstein or Maxwell. Witnesses are questioned all the time without a suggestion that they themselves have committed a crime.

Unless you have heard all the evidence you cannot know someone is as guilty as sin. Andrew has not been convicted of or charged with any crime. He is, legally, innocent until a jury having heard all of the evidence, says he is.
Reply With Quote
  #3071  
Old 11-24-2019, 06:16 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 1,516
His lies are coming back to bite him in the butt.
Reply With Quote
  #3072  
Old 11-24-2019, 06:41 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 610
I think that HMQ Inc. has had to tread very carefully in reining in Andrew, as republicans (British version) may see Andrew as the first Royal domino to fall. The last thing BP wants is the British public to be deciding who is expendable, now that a member of the family is officially deemed as such, and, then deciding, perhaps, who isn't expendable.

It is only Andrew's fault. He had to know about all of the sweaty nightclub pics of himself out there. He had to know that some of those lowly servile people in Jeffrey's railroad station of a house might come forth with hilarious booby stories about him. He had to know about the BRF's golden rule about keeping heads down during General Elections. And, he had to know that overshadowing the Prince of Wales's tour would do him no favors.

He should have known that declaring, twice, that going to Pizza Express in Woking was a very unusual thing to do, saying it with pursed grins and pointed looks and flexing fingers, was a real eye-opener into how repugnant he is.

The fact is, if he actually went to the Pizza Express in Woking and paid for the party and spoke kindly with his young daughter's friends and joked with the other parents and maybe went behind the counter to help customers for a few minutes.... and maybe gave one or two of the kids a ride home, it would have been his best outing in 20 years.
Reply With Quote
  #3073  
Old 11-24-2019, 06:59 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 494
I have simply never understood the reason for royals carrying out "royal duties" or having hundreds of patronages. Of course the monarch is there to be a figurehead and an ambassador for her country, but apart from the heir (and his heir), I see absolutely no reason why any other relarive of the monarch should have any priveleges or public life whatsoever. I love the monarchy, but with the exception of HM, Charles and William (and spouses), I think the rest of them should all live entirely private lives.
Reply With Quote
  #3074  
Old 11-24-2019, 06:59 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
It is widely reported from credible sources that trust funds were set up for the Queen Mother's great-grandchildren. I believe I may have mistakenly posted that the trust funds were for her grandchildren earlier but that's my error and it was established for her great-grandchildren.

This link gives the breakdown of how the Queen Mother set things up.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/...ther.monarchy2

Regarding your link -- that certainly was a gamble at the age of 94!
Reply With Quote
  #3075  
Old 11-24-2019, 07:23 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,827
Buckingham Palace Confirms:
The Duke of York to stand aside from all of his 230 Royal Patronage’s-
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/...mpression=true
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #3076  
Old 11-24-2019, 07:24 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
I have simply never understood the reason for royals carrying out "royal duties" or having hundreds of patronages. Of course the monarch is there to be a figurehead and an ambassador for her country, but apart from the heir (and his heir), I see absolutely no reason why any other relarive of the monarch should have any priveleges or public life whatsoever. I love the monarchy, but with the exception of HM, Charles and William (and spouses), I think the rest of them should all live entirely private lives.


And a private life is what Prince Andrew will have.

I suppose the next question is:

Will he have a limit on police protection costs in future and can BP keep him home so he doesn't ring up giant police protection costs overseas?
Reply With Quote
  #3077  
Old 11-24-2019, 07:28 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,591
I would imagine that is up to the Metropolitan Police to decide if Andrew should have protection or needs protection and that it should be funded by taxpayers. Somehow I get the feeling the taxpayers would feel disgruntled about it at this time.

What we do know is that Andrew's daughters, being private citizens, have protection but it is paid for out of Andrew's pocket. Its possible that if Andrew is deemed a "private citizen" now, he'll also have to float his own security.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #3078  
Old 11-24-2019, 07:28 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 9,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
It is widely reported from credible sources that trust funds were set up for the Queen Mother's great-grandchildren. I believe I may have mistakenly posted that the trust funds were for her grandchildren earlier but that's my error and it was established for her great-grandchildren.

This link gives the breakdown of how the Queen Mother set things up.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/...ther.monarchy2
So...this means that the great grandchildren of the late Queen Mother, including the York princesses, are financially independent owing to their trust funds? And any other income they receive from jobs, etc simply supplements their trusts?
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
Reply With Quote
  #3079  
Old 11-24-2019, 07:48 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,860
Without going off topic I would imagine their trust funds give them some independence, but whether that is enough for them never to have to work is anther thing. Don't forget Margaret's side of the family would be included as well. The reality is they probably each got enough for a good size house and with some good investments enough to bring in some nice extra income. I doubt any got enough to simply never have to work again but probably enough to not have to worry about living pay day to pay day. That said it depends what the Queen has also provided for them, she set up a trust fund for Beatrice and Eugenie as part of Sarah's divorce so I assume she would have done same for her other grandchildren.



Interesting to hear reports Andrew has has stepped down from all his patronages, maybe they felt it better to announce all in on go rather than the drip drip of each charity making its own decision.
Reply With Quote
  #3080  
Old 11-24-2019, 08:42 PM
duchesschicana's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, United States
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I would imagine that is up to the Metropolitan Police to decide if Andrew should have protection or needs protection and that it should be funded by taxpayers. Somehow I get the feeling the taxpayers would feel disgruntled about it at this time.

What we do know is that Andrew's daughters, being private citizens, have protection but it is paid for out of Andrew's pocket. Its possible that if Andrew is deemed a "private citizen" now, he'll also have to float his own security.
They dont always have protection officers, there is a video of Beatrice at an airport there were reporters around her asking questions as she was leaving and she didnt have no one at her side.
sprry off topic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Without going off topic I would imagine their trust funds give them some independence, but whether that is enough for them never to have to work is anther thing. Don't forget Margaret's side of the family would be included as well. The reality is they probably each got enough for a good size house and with some good investments enough to bring in some nice extra income. I doubt any got enough to simply never have to work again but probably enough to not have to worry about living pay day to pay day. That said it depends what the Queen has also provided for them, she set up a trust fund for Beatrice and Eugenie as part of Sarah's divorce so I assume she would have done same for her other grandchildren.



Interesting to hear reports Andrew has has stepped down from all his patronages, maybe they felt it better to announce all in on go rather than the drip drip of each charity making its own decision.
I wouldnt be surprised if the girls have nothing for thier inhertience as there was rumors of Fergie dipping into thier trust funds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
The article states that she sat in on the meetings along with Andrew's wildly incompetent but very influential secretary Amanda Thirsk. Beatrice
wavered from the beginning, and finally reluctantly agreed. Probably giving in to the influential Amanda who was always the most gung ho.

This is probably The Fail's way of painting the entire York family as deserving of the same opprobrium as Andrew. It's a despicable rag...yesterday they had a snide and spitefully hopeful article about the girls losing their "perks" (" What Will Happen to Papa's Little Princesses"?)

Today was Beatrice's turn. Soon it will be Eugenie in the hotseat with the allegation that her husband's employer Casamigos tequila provided the TV crew with refreshments after the interview.

The idea that ANYONE other than Andrew is responsible for that mess is ridiculous. Even the comments on the article are mostly pro-Beatrice!
Agreed Andrew should be held accounttable for his actions not his daughters.


I'm surprised if the comments were of Pro Beatrice, but good to hear. I dont like clicking DM articles. I also agree that the DM, it’s not a reliable source, for the most part. I would believe it more if Beatrice name was attached to the interview more before this , but it wasn’t, in fact it was reported that it was Andrew’s doing before this, when in doubt the media likes to throw his daughters under the bus, the media is certainly on overdrive trying to sell clicks and what not.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (4 members and 3 guests)
asm, Helen.CH, lilacmermaid, Royal_Royal
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
althorp aristocracy armenia bangladesh belgian royal belgian royal family chittagong crown crown prince hussein's future wife cyprus danish royalty denmark diana princess of wales duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex dutch royal family dutch royals french revolution future germany haakon vii hill history house of bernadotte israel jumma kiko king philippe king salman lithuania lithuanian palaces mailing meghan markle memoir monaco christening monarchist monarchy monogram mountbatten naples netflix nobel prize norway history official visit pakistan potential areas prince charles prince daniel princely family of monaco princess benedikte princess margaret pronunciation queen maud queen paola rania of jordan rown royal children russian imperial family saudi arabia south korea state visit state visit to denmark sweden thailand tracts united kingdom unsubscribe valois visit from sweden working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:01 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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