The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4641  
Old 01-03-2022, 09:12 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,728
okay - another thing that should be noted here - especially when it comes to Mountbatten is that during his time. Homosexuality was considered a crime, amoral and right up there if not worse then pedophilia.
I believe the homosexual aspects of his life as I befriended a man who dated him in the 1950's. That been said - it was made very clear to me that all homosexual men at that time were considered pedophiles and that they were actively after young men. It was just a common representation of gay men at the time and was used in the criminality of it. There are hundreds of repressed gay men in England whose reputation suffered the same - Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing. Gay = Pedophile before attitudes changed.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4642  
Old 01-03-2022, 09:24 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,711
I agree. I think that years ago, before the change of law, even if in private, the upper classes were relativley tolerant of promiscuity and homosexual relations, the public official attitude would be that a gay man or a woman with several lovers (Like Edwina) were people of low morals. So an intelligence report might well say that the Mountbattens were "bad people" based on their sex lives....
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4643  
Old 01-03-2022, 09:32 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
I know what you mean but in the Newsnight interview he went from saying he couldn't remember to saying it absolutely didn't happen. It can't be both and it was one of many significant contradictions from him.
Did he? I can't remembe exactly now, but I thought that he ssaid he had no recollection of meeting her.. but that he felt that because having sex is a "positive act" for a man, he coudl absolutely deny a sexual relationship.
Denville is correct. Gawin's post from the last time this claim was discussed is appropriate to post again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Do you have a source to back that up?

According to the transcript of the BBC interview, he said he didn't *remember* or had no *recollection* of meeting her.

But he denied her allegations (they didn't dance together, have drinks, or have sex).

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50449339


EM: … has made allegations against you. She says she met you in 2001, she says she dined with you, danced with you at Tramp Nightclub in London. She went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell, your friend. Your response?

PA: I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever.

EM: You don't remember meeting her?

PA: No.


EM: She says she met you in 2001, she dined with you, she danced with you, you bought her drinks, you were in Tramp Nightclub in London and she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell.

PA: It didn't happen.

EM: Do you remember her?

PA: No, I've no recollection of ever meeting her, I'm almost, in fact I'm convinced that I was never in Tramps with her. There are a number of things that are wrong with that story, one of which is that I don't know where the bar is in Tramps. I don't drink, I don't think I've ever bought a drink in Tramps whenever I was there.
Reply With Quote
  #4644  
Old 01-03-2022, 10:08 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,627
It was very odd. He was always involved in raising money for hospitals, and he did the TV programme making dreams come true for children ... he was the last person that Joe Public would have suspected of doing anything wrong, which is frightening.

But, to go back to Prince Andrew, if he's found guilty of anything then obviously steps will have to be taken. If he's not, then presumably things will just go on as they are.
Reply With Quote
  #4645  
Old 01-03-2022, 12:03 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
It was very odd. He was always involved in raising money for hospitals, and he did the TV programme making dreams come true for children ... he was the last person that Joe Public would have suspected of doing anything wrong, which is frightening.

But, to go back to Prince Andrew, if he's found guilty of anything then obviously steps will have to be taken. If he's not, then presumably things will just go on as they are.
Well Andrew's relationship with Epstein was clearly at lest in part to get girls and to make money... so it is different to being friendly with someone who seems on the face of it, to be just a rather vulgar but well meaning person who does a lot of charity work. Saville had loads of rich friends and friends in the media, some of whom seem to have suspected he was not what he seemed.
Reply With Quote
  #4646  
Old 01-03-2022, 12:20 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Denville is correct. Gawin's post from the last time this claim was discussed is appropriate to post again:
When EM returned to asking him about having sex with VR later on in the interview he said,

"I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened", not that he couldn't remember.

It's in the transcript if anyone is interested.
Reply With Quote
  #4647  
Old 01-03-2022, 12:25 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
When EM returned to asking him about having sex with VR later on in the interview he said,

"I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened", not that he couldn't remember.

It's in the transcript if anyone is interested.
He said that he could not remember MEETING her. Ie he might have met her and had a photo taken but then he meets loads of people. But he definitely felt sure that he had not had sex with her or bought her drinks.
Reply With Quote
  #4648  
Old 01-03-2022, 01:19 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
When EM returned to asking him about having sex with VR later on in the interview he said,

"I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened", not that he couldn't remember.

It's in the transcript if anyone is interested.
Yes, that's exactly the point I was making. I was responding to your post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
I know what you mean but in the Newsnight interview he went from saying he couldn't remember to saying it absolutely didn't happen. It can't be both and it was one of many significant contradictions from him.
Although his answers were frequently muddled, they were not necessarily contradictory. He may only have intended his absolute denial to apply to the alleged sexual activity, not the alleged meeting. From the linked transcript:

Quote:
EM: But you can say categorically that you don't recall meeting Virginia Roberts, dining with her?

PA: Yep.

EM: Dancing with her at Tramp?

PA: Yep.

EM: Or going on to have sex with her…

PA: Yes.

EM: …in a bedroom in a house in Belgravia?

PA: I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened.

EM: Do you recall any kind of sexual contact with Virginia Roberts then or any other time?

PA: None whatsoever.
Reply With Quote
  #4649  
Old 01-03-2022, 01:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,561
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...64713.32.1.pdf

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant", a 2009 settlement of her Florida damages claim against the sex offender shows.

The document, disclosed by a New York court, reveals the financier paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim.

Ms Giuffre is suing the Duke of York in a civil case for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.

He has consistently denied the claims.

Ms Giuffre claims that 20 years ago she was trafficked to the prince by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Reply With Quote
  #4650  
Old 01-03-2022, 01:51 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...64713.32.1.pdf

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant", a 2009 settlement of her Florida damages claim against the sex offender shows.

The document, disclosed by a New York court, reveals the financier paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim.

Ms Giuffre is suing the Duke of York in a civil case for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.

He has consistently denied the claims.

Ms Giuffre claims that 20 years ago she was trafficked to the prince by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyers apparently are arguing that the 2009 settlement only applies to potential defendants in the context of her Florida damages claim.
Reply With Quote
  #4651  
Old 01-03-2022, 02:10 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,040
Here's what I don't get. With the "sweating" being an issue and Giuffre's lawyers bringing that up, that tells me they're focusing on the time and place in London where Andrew allegedly "assaulted" Giuffre. If Giuffre was trafficked and brought to London and then ordered to "please" Andrew, wouldn't she then have come to Andrew willingly (obeying Maxwell/Epstein)? Wasn't there even a quote from Giuffre somewhere where she actually stated that Andrew was quite nice and polite to her? This incident too has looked at a few times by the Metropolitan Police in London and dismissed as "no crime here".

I can very much believe that any encounter with Virginia wouldn't have registered with Andrew as a permanent memory. Men that seek out prostitutes and call girls always see it as a business transaction and probably the next day couldn't tell you the girl's name or really anything about her. They're a commodity. It's very possible that any girl offered to Epstein's cronies were seen the same way. A perk. Like a box of cigars on the nightstand or a 100 year old bottle of scotch. A commodity.

I think the hardest part that Giuffre's lawyers are going to have to prove is not that Andrew ever had sex with Giuffre but rather that he, personally, *assaulted* her. That charge means that Andrew used force to make her comply against her will. If she was one of Epstein's "commodities", it stands to reason that it would Epstein/Maxwell doing the forcing.
__________________
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
  #4652  
Old 01-03-2022, 04:16 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I think the hardest part that Giuffre's lawyers are going to have to prove is not that Andrew ever had sex with Giuffre but rather that he, personally, *assaulted* her. That charge means that Andrew used force to make her comply against her will. If she was one of Epstein's "commodities", it stands to reason that it would Epstein/Maxwell doing the forcing.
Yes, that's very true. I don't think there's any suggestion, even from Virginia Giuffre, that Andrew used physical force. If this was in London and she was over 16 at the case, it wouldn't be classed as statutory coercion. If this did happen and neither of those conditions applied, it would still be horrible and wrong, but not illegal.

Ugh, this is all so sordid and nasty.
Reply With Quote
  #4653  
Old 01-03-2022, 05:42 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 11,007
Why is the release of the details of this secret agreement between Giuffre/ Epstein so significant?

I have been in bed since Friday afternoon recovering from Covid booster side effects and I haven't posted much.

Thanks everyone...Happy New Year.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"If your dreams don't scare you, they are not big enough" Sir Sidney Poitier
1927-2022
Reply With Quote
  #4654  
Old 01-03-2022, 05:57 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 541
The contention is that the terms of the settlement releases Andrew from liability from a civil suit.

The agreement released all potential defendants from civil liability. The question at hand is whether Andrew was a potential defendant as contemplated by that term.
Reply With Quote
  #4655  
Old 01-03-2022, 07:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,183
It just raises the possibility that the case may be thrown out, but IMO it doesn't clear his name.
Reply With Quote
  #4656  
Old 01-03-2022, 07:20 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,040
I don't think there's anything, anywhere that will ever be able to clear Andrew's name or restore his reputation. That's gone the way of the pet rock a long time ago. I don't even believe that Andrew will be deemed "guilty" in this civil suit brought on by Virginia Giuffre. It just seems to me to be too much of a dog and pony show with very little credible evidence behind it.

Like many before her, people like to get their 15 minutes of fame (for whatever reasons) and then milk them for whatever they're worth in any ways possible.
__________________
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
  #4657  
Old 01-03-2022, 08:01 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 11,007
I agree with everyone who said the DoY will never ever clear his name no matter what happens with this case

The bottom line is that he was arrogant, stubborn and stupid enough to continue friendships with some of the most unsavory people I have ever read about...despite warnings. Not because they were worthy of loyalty

But because they were rich and powerful.

Andrew's karma is not only the loss of his prestige and reputation but the knowledge that the fallout will continue to hurt the three people in this world that I believe he truly values..his mother and his daughters.

Thanks to all who responded.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"If your dreams don't scare you, they are not big enough" Sir Sidney Poitier
1927-2022
Reply With Quote
  #4658  
Old 01-04-2022, 09:47 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
To use my favourite quote, once stated by a Dutch MP during a debate:

"My ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing the royal family, not the Holy Family".



I LOVE this quote. Well said.
Reply With Quote
  #4659  
Old 01-04-2022, 09:54 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,615
The thing is, if the case does go to trial and he wins it, it does clear his name in terms of him being a participant in abuse (with Virginia at least) even if he is still despised for his friendship with Maxwell and Epstein. Having the case dismissed dosn't improve his current position at all and will actually confirm his guilt for a lot of people as it looks like he is frightened of being questioned.
Reply With Quote
  #4660  
Old 01-04-2022, 10:41 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,229
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2021

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I don't think there's anything, anywhere that will ever be able to clear Andrew's name or restore his reputation. That's gone the way of the pet rock a long time ago. I don't even believe that Andrew will be deemed "guilty" in this civil suit brought on by Virginia Giuffre. It just seems to me to be too much of a dog and pony show with very little credible evidence behind it.



Like many before her, people like to get their 15 minutes of fame (for whatever reasons) and then milk them for whatever they're worth in any ways possible.


I tend to agree with all of this

I don’t think Andrew’s name can be cleared or restored. Too late imo.

I also rather doubt there’s any way to “prove” Andrew guilty in the civil suit. Seems like rather a waste of time and money to me. But- maybe there’s something I’m missing. I know the threshold is considerably lower in a civil suit, but still.

I do find it a bit odd that Andrew seems to be the only person getting “ called out” if you will over this. Besides Maxwell, obviously. Seems like there should be much much bigger fish than him. Civilly and criminally.

Albeit- the interview was foolish on his part. And he associated with Epstein long after he should have- but so did a lot of well known people.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (1 members and 7 guests)
Moonmaiden23
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
#uae #abudhabirullingfamily america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian braganza britain britannia british british royal family cadwallader camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles castile china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house coronation de la cerda duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi guzman harry and meghan hello! henry viii highgrove history ingrid-alexandra ivrea japan japanese imperial family kensington palace king edward vii king henry iii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers maria ii monarchist movements monarchists mongolia nara period noble families orleans-braganza pedro ii politics portugal prince andrew prince charles prince harry prince of wales prince of wales in jordan royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit tokugawa united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:10 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises
×