The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4401  
Old 08-22-2021, 11:06 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post

The Queen welcomed Arab rulers who let women be stoned or whipped, welcomed Putin who sees no problem in poisoning opponents, welcomed Ceausescu whose Securitate terrorized the Romanians, the list is endless.

That is completely different though. The Queen met the aforementioned people as part of her duties as Head of State of the United Kingdom and under instructions of the British government. As you obviously know, she bears no responsibility for those acts; her ministers are responsible.


Prince Andrew's association with Epstein on the other hand was an entirely private affair that had nothing to do with his official role as a British prince and was entirely voluntary. He wasn't under any instructions from the government or any British official to socialize with Epstein and bears full responsibility for any consequences of that association.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
And how does Giuffre's current accusation that PA forced himself on her jibe with her past insistence that he was always nice, a perfect gentleman who even thanked her?


I would have to read the brief again, but I don't think the accusation is exactly that "he forced himself on her", but rather that she did not consent (on her free will) to having sex with him. It may sound like the same thing, but there are some nuances. There are ways of coercing someone into having sex with another person without "forcing oneself on" somebody. The latter, in my interpretation, implies the use of direct physical violence during the act whereas the former might mean for example that she was afraid she could suffer some retaliation afterwards (for example from Epstein or Maxwell) if she refused to have sex with Andrew. Either way, it is coercion of course, but the choice of language matters in cases like that.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4402  
Old 08-22-2021, 12:08 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
I'm also sure that many decent people avoided them. He also said on the BBC that he still didn't regret the friendship, that's not poor judgement that's a man who clearly didn't think that Epstein had done anything particularly wrong. If he was naive at the time (even though JE was a convicted felon during their friendship) he was certainly aware of what that pair had been doing by the time he spoke to Emily Maitlis yet he didn't seem to think it was a big deal.
In that case I guess we have to conclude that Crown princess Mette-Marit of Norway is not a descent person (among many others who spend time with Epstein). Although it must be said that she publicly stated (after Virginia Giuffre's interview) that she regretted it and had already severed ties when she noticed that he used his connection to her.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4403  
Old 08-22-2021, 12:46 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,740
The thing is that with people like Epstein, they become adept at compartmentalizing areas of their lives. I'm sure there are many, many people that have associated with Epstein on a business level and none the wiser as to what the "seedy" side of his life entailed. Epstein was quite paranoid from what I've seen of him filming and keeping videos of everything that went on in his residence. I'm sure he didn't tell everyone coming through his door "smile... you're on candid camera!". Epstein was able to get away with what he was doing for so long because he was meticulous in how things happened.

This, to me, tells me that "guilt by association" isn't going to float. Not everyone in Epstein's circle were privy to the "seedier" side of things. The part that is going to be hard to prove in a court of law is just who knew the full extent and actively participated anyways. Andrew does seem to fit into a middle category because of the accusations made by Ms. Guiffre. Proving that Andrew knew the extent of Ms. Guiffre's being trafficked and "forced" to have sex with men is going to be hard to prove.

Andrew isn't the brightest crayon in the box but his attitude of entitlement and his arrogance didn't do him any favors at 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
  #4404  
Old 08-22-2021, 04:52 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Fremont, United States
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
In the end the question is: what crime is Andrew to be held responsible for. Not his friendships or acquaintances.
That’s the question for Andrew personally. It’s not the question(s) that the monarchy has to address. At present, the Queen is using her money and power to foot her son’s legal bills and protect him from awkward questions from the press (and some would say, from the law, if only an embarrassing photo of Andrew being served with papers). The money is “her” money, but the public may not see it that way, particularly younger people.

It's hard to see a good way for this to end for the royal family, except in Andrew’s exoneration, which seems distinctly unlikely. It’s madness that he still retains his honorary military roles and if what I’m reading about the Queen wanting him to stay as colonel of the Grenadier Guards is true, the madness is multiplying. If it’s true that Andrew is her favorite son, it’s shameful for him to be hiding behind a deluded mother’s skirts, and if she’s protecting him in full understanding of the embarrassing and insensitive things he said in his own defense...….this is not good.
Reply With Quote
  #4405  
Old 08-22-2021, 04:57 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perdita View Post
That’s the question for Andrew personally. It’s not the question(s) that the monarchy has to address. At present, the Queen is using her money and power to foot her son’s legal bills and protect him from awkward questions from the press (and some would say, from the law, if only an embarrassing photo of Andrew being served with papers). The money is “her” money, but the public may not see it that way, particularly younger people.

It's hard to see a good way for this to end for the royal family, except in Andrew’s exoneration, which seems distinctly unlikely. It’s madness that he still retains his honorary military roles and if what I’m reading about the Queen wanting him to stay as colonel of the Grenadier Guards is true, the madness is multiplying. If it’s true that Andrew is her favorite son, it’s shameful for him to be hiding behind a deluded mother’s skirts, and if she’s protecting him in full understanding of the embarrassing and insensitive things he said in his own defense...….this is not good.
Do you have credible sources to back up the part that's been bolded or is that supposition? I've yet to see something come out that tells exactly what the Queen is or isn't doing in regards to Andrew's situation.
__________________
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
  #4406  
Old 08-22-2021, 06:03 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
It's been reported in several papers that Prince Andrew's income comes from the Duchy of Lancaster. That sounds likely. He probably gets a Royal Navy pension, and in fact he probably also gets a state pension because he'll have paid national insurance as a serving naval officer, and he may have inherited some money from Prince Philip and or the Queen Mother, but that wouldn't fund his lifestyle even without legal costs. So, unless he's working shifts down the local pub on the QT, it's pretty fair to assume that the Queen is giving him money.

I don't see how exactly the Queen is using her "power" to protect him from the press. The story has been widely reported in the press. OK, it's not front page news, but that's because there happens to be a major international crisis taking place in Afghanistan, not to mention a pandemic, which I think most people would agree are rather more important than Prince Andrew. He's not being protected from "questions". People involved in lawsuits don't call press conferences and take questions from the floor like a tennis player who's just finished a match or a footballer who's just signed for a new club!
Reply With Quote
  #4407  
Old 08-22-2021, 06:10 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,740
Thanks. I just read Perdita's post to mean that the Queen was financing lawyers and such above and beyond the finances Andrew would normally be bringing in and that it was known that the Queen, personally, is funding Andrew's troubles with this situation.

Personally, I think the Queen tries to stay as far away as possible from being named as being "involved" in this sordid business because that would give the optics that she's condoning Andrew's friendship with Epstein and his actions (whatever those may be).
__________________
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
  #4408  
Old 08-22-2021, 06:24 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perdita View Post
That’s the question for Andrew personally. It’s not the question(s) that the monarchy has to address. At present, the Queen is using her money and power to foot her son’s legal bills and protect him from awkward questions from the press (and some would say, from the law, if only an embarrassing photo of Andrew being served with papers). The money is “her” money, but the public may not see it that way, particularly younger people.

It's hard to see a good way for this to end for the royal family, except in Andrew’s exoneration, which seems distinctly unlikely. It’s madness that he still retains his honorary military roles and if what I’m reading about the Queen wanting him to stay as colonel of the Grenadier Guards is true, the madness is multiplying. If it’s true that Andrew is her favorite son, it’s shameful for him to be hiding behind a deluded mother’s skirts, and if she’s protecting him in full understanding of the embarrassing and insensitive things he said in his own defense...….this is not good.
But then you are already hanging him high, demanding him to be stripped from positions, while no any crime has been charged or proven?
Reply With Quote
  #4409  
Old 08-22-2021, 06:36 PM
rominet09's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LIEGE, Belgium
Posts: 4,938
Whatever the following of this he has already been very strongly punished by losing his reputation at a world level. And for a man seemingly very proud it must be terrible.
Reply With Quote
  #4410  
Old 08-22-2021, 06:58 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by rominet09 View Post
Whatever the following of this he has already been very strongly punished by losing his reputation at a world level. And for a man seemingly very proud it must be terrible.
I have a feeling that was it not for his pride Andrew would have been able to handle this affair more sensibly.
Reply With Quote
  #4411  
Old 08-22-2021, 08:08 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Fremont, United States
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Do you have credible sources to back up the part that's been bolded or is that supposition? I've yet to see something come out that tells exactly what the Queen is or isn't doing in regards to Andrew's situation.
I have read it in what I thought were reasonable sources, which I don't have time just at this moment to look up but would be happy to dig up and submit. If what I wrote doesn't pass muster I'm happy to edit it out or have it deleted, I'm new here and if I did not read the rules carefully enough that's my own fault. I certainly don't want to ruffle feathers with my first post.

It is supposition in that I assume only the Queen has the power/desire to warn the press off Balmoral at this delicate time - I understand that's most unusual - and that the reason is to protect Andrew, since no one else at the place has any reason to worry about anything more than the usual press attentions.
Reply With Quote
  #4412  
Old 08-22-2021, 08:37 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perdita View Post

It is supposition in that I assume only the Queen has the power/desire to warn the press off Balmoral at this delicate time - I understand that's most unusual - and that the reason is to protect Andrew, since no one else at the place has any reason to worry about anything more than the usual press attentions.
Has the press been warned off Balmoral? It is a huge private estate and we don't normally get much in the way of photos unless the family go to a part of the estate within the range of telephoto lenses. There are usually photos of people arriving and departing (just as there was this year with photos of Andrew and Sarah arriving and, later of Charles and Camilla). Otherwise the "clearest" photos are taken at church. That seems to be on hold this year but I would say to discourage crowds because of the pandemic rather than to protect Andrew.

BTW, welcome to the forums.
Reply With Quote
  #4413  
Old 08-22-2021, 08:57 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,385
This is an report from the Mercury newspaper. In the text it gives the original sources for the two reports mentioned here in the thread.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/...l-report-says/

For instance…


‘The U.K Sunday Times reported that Andrew’s legal bills are being underwritten by the queen, through her private estate. Royal aides worry that the case has become especially damaging to the royal family’s public image in the era of the #MeToo movement, the Sunday Times added.’ End quote.

And ….

The origin of this report about Balmoral seems to have come from The Daily Beast, a journalistic online blog which includes royal news. The Mercury has reprinted it.

‘The timing of the letter being sent the day after the lawsuit landed is likely to fuel speculation that the queen is using her enormous domestic influence to protect her favorite son,” the Daily Beast reported. The letters reportedly reminded publications that Balmoral “is a private estate” and that the royal family and their guests therefore “have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
The editor of a British newspaper told the Daily Beast: “I’ve never seen a warning like this before from the queen’s lawyers. It’s clearly to keep people away from Prince Andrew. There is no coincidence in the timing coming after Virginia Roberts filed her lawsuit against Andrew.”’

Palace sources confirmed to the Daily Beast that the letters had been sent out to media organizations, but insisted that similar letters are sent out whenever the royal family is on their annual summer vacation in Balmoral and are therefore “not remarkable,” but The Daily Beast noted that the queen has been on holiday at Balmoral since July 24, while the letters weren’t sent until Aug. 10.
A source at one newspaper speculated to the Daily Beast that the queen, and perhaps the rest of the royal family, hopes to protect Andrew from being photographed while being served with legal papers. The palace may worry that David Boies, the media-friendly American lawyer who filed the suit on behalf of accuser Guiffre, might try to stage such a spectacle to further humiliate Andrew.
While Boies told the BBC that it wasn’t necessary for the Duke of York to be physically served with the papers, he also said his client intends to send a message to rich and powerful men that abusive behavior “is not acceptable and that you cannot hide behind wealth and power and palace walls.”
Reply With Quote
  #4414  
Old 08-22-2021, 11:08 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
It's been reported in several papers that Prince Andrew's income comes from the Duchy of Lancaster. That sounds likely. He probably gets a Royal Navy pension, and in fact he probably also gets a state pension because he'll have paid national insurance as a serving naval officer, and he may have inherited some money from Prince Philip and or the Queen Mother, but that wouldn't fund his lifestyle even without legal costs. So, unless he's working shifts down the local pub on the QT, it's pretty fair to assume that the Queen is giving him money.

I don't see how exactly the Queen is using her "power" to protect him from the press. The story has been widely reported in the press. OK, it's not front page news, but that's because there happens to be a major international crisis taking place in Afghanistan, not to mention a pandemic, which I think most people would agree are rather more important than Prince Andrew. He's not being protected from "questions". People involved in lawsuits don't call press conferences and take questions from the floor like a tennis player who's just finished a match or a footballer who's just signed for a new club!
I would assume the Queen is helping Andrew with his legal fees, and see nothing nothing surprising or controversial about her doing so. She has significant private wealth, and if she wants to use some of it to ensure Andrew has access to the sort of very experienced and expensive legal advice a case like this requires, that’s her concern. I think it would be money well spent on her part, both as a mother, and as the head of the Royal Family.

And yes, surely the very first thing the expensive lawyers told Andrew is that he says nothing to anyone, about anything, until they tell him otherwise. He’s a public person involved in a very public and sordid case, one that comes with many different financial, social and political agendas. The best thing he can do for himself right now is be quiet and let the lawyers do their job.
Reply With Quote
  #4415  
Old 08-23-2021, 08:00 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
But then you are already hanging him high, demanding him to be stripped from positions, while no any crime has been charged or proven?
The top brass at the Grenadiers don't want him. The problem, at the very least, is that he can't carry out public engagements in support of the regiment since he left public life. At the other end of the scale some feel his reputational damage is tainting the regiment, whether he has committed crimes or not.
Reply With Quote
  #4416  
Old 08-23-2021, 08:12 AM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 863
The regiment does not want to be put in the position of appearing to condone sex abuse, proven or not.
Reply With Quote
  #4417  
Old 08-23-2021, 08:17 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
Welcome to the Royal Forums, Perdita!


I'm not sure how the US system works, but certainly here anyone involved in a lawsuit would avoid saying anything to the press, because that would look like trying to influence the judge, and the jury if one is involved. There've even been occasions on which cases have collapsed because one party has successfully claimed that the outcome was unfairly prejudiced by comments made in the press.
Reply With Quote
  #4418  
Old 08-23-2021, 08:25 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
This is an report from the Mercury newspaper. In the text it gives the original sources for the two reports mentioned here in the thread.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/...l-report-says/

For instance…


‘The U.K Sunday Times reported that Andrew’s legal bills are being underwritten by the queen, through her private estate. Royal aides worry that the case has become especially damaging to the royal family’s public image in the era of the #MeToo movement, the Sunday Times added.’ End quote.

And ….

The origin of this report about Balmoral seems to have come from The Daily Beast, a journalistic online blog which includes royal news. The Mercury has reprinted it.

‘The timing of the letter being sent the day after the lawsuit landed is likely to fuel speculation that the queen is using her enormous domestic influence to protect her favorite son,” the Daily Beast reported. The letters reportedly reminded publications that Balmoral “is a private estate” and that the royal family and their guests therefore “have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
The editor of a British newspaper told the Daily Beast: “I’ve never seen a warning like this before from the queen’s lawyers. It’s clearly to keep people away from Prince Andrew. There is no coincidence in the timing coming after Virginia Roberts filed her lawsuit against Andrew.”’

Palace sources confirmed to the Daily Beast that the letters had been sent out to media organizations, but insisted that similar letters are sent out whenever the royal family is on their annual summer vacation in Balmoral and are therefore “not remarkable,” but The Daily Beast noted that the queen has been on holiday at Balmoral since July 24, while the letters weren’t sent until Aug. 10.
A source at one newspaper speculated to the Daily Beast that the queen, and perhaps the rest of the royal family, hopes to protect Andrew from being photographed while being served with legal papers. The palace may worry that David Boies, the media-friendly American lawyer who filed the suit on behalf of accuser Guiffre, might try to stage such a spectacle to further humiliate Andrew.
While Boies told the BBC that it wasn’t necessary for the Duke of York to be physically served with the papers, he also said his client intends to send a message to rich and powerful men that abusive behavior “is not acceptable and that you cannot hide behind wealth and power and palace walls.”

Thank you very much. It is confusing when stories are mentioned without an accompanying link to or statement of the source to tell whether they are unreliable rumors or credible reports.

The link to the Daily Beast article: https://www.thedailybeast.com/queen-...=home?ref=home


The source for the Grenadier Guards story is a recent article by Roya Nikkah in The Times, which quotes unnamed senior military sources who claim the Queen has "let it be known" that she wants the Duke of York to retain the post even though the military leadership dissents.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/q...role-kq52jrs95

Quote:
Queen will let Prince Andrew keep senior Guards role

Military concerned that duke’s continued presence after his withdrawal from public life over Epstein accusations is an embarrassment to the armed forces

Roya Nikkhah, Royal Editor

Sunday August 22 2021, 12.01am BST, The Sunday Times

The Queen has “let it be known” that she wants the Duke of York to remain as colonel of the Grenadier Guards, despite little prospect of him returning to public duties.

In a significant intervention signalling her support for Prince Andrew, who is facing allegations of sexual assault which he denies, the monarch is understood to have conveyed her wish that her son keeps the honorary role he took over from the Duke of Edinburgh.

Military insiders say the situation is “unsatisfactory” and “very difficult”.

A senior military source said: “The Queen has let it be known to the regiment that she wants the Duke of York to remain as colonel and the feeling is that nobody wants to do anything that could [...]
Reply With Quote
  #4419  
Old 08-23-2021, 08:27 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
The top brass at the Grenadiers don't want him. [...]

Source ?


Of course the Duke's reputation is immensely damaged, rightly or wrongly. But when it does not come to a criminal case at all or there is an aquittal, then there you are with the Duke already hanging high at the highest tree.


Remember the gigantic reputational damage to Leon Brittan MP, to former Prime Minister Edward Heath MP, to Field Marshal Lord Edwin Bramall and others whom were already hanged high: in the end it was all based on pure fantasy.


Given the reputational damage to Field Marshal Lord Edwin Bramall, their own Chief of Defence Staff, the top brass of the Grenadiers better wait and see how the accusations unfold...


Reply With Quote
  #4420  
Old 08-23-2021, 08:44 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Source ?


Of course the Duke's reputation is immensely damaged, rightly or wrongly. But when it does not come to a criminal case at all or there is an aquittal, then there you are with the Duke already hanging high at the highest tree.


Remember the gigantic reputational damage to Leon Brittan MP, to former Prime Minister Edward Heath MP, to Field Marshal Lord Edwin Bramall and others whom were already hanged high: in the end it was all based on pure fantasy.


Given the reputational damage to Field Marshal Lord Edwin Bramall, their own Chief of Defence Staff, the top brass of the Grenadiers better wait and see how the accusations unfold...


The details are in Tatiana Maria's post.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 13 (4 members and 9 guests)
Curryong, King of the Jungle, Moonmaiden23, Osipi
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
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing colorblindness coronation doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs king juan carlos liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family sussex suthida unfinished portrait united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:06 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×