The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4961  
Old 01-14-2022, 02:43 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 11,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
This does seem to be happening a lot with sexual assault cases now. A number of actors have been sacked from films or TV shows, or else episodes already filmed have been pulled from the TV schedules, after an allegation has been made, before there's been a trial, and the same with politicians being suspended by their parties. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, just that it's how it is.
It's CANCEL CULTURE and we are living in the thick of it. I am all for calling out malignant predators where they exist, and holding them accountable.

But careers can be ended and lives destroyed now because..." Mr X told me I looked lovely in that color, or winked his eye, or held the door open for me when I walked in.

I deem it sexist and offensive. It has caused me lasting emotional distress and suffering."

I am only slightly exaggerating.
__________________

__________________
"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
  #4962  
Old 01-14-2022, 02:53 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
It's CANCEL CULTURE and we are living in the thick of it. I am all for calling out malignant predators where they exist, and holding them accountable.

But careers can be ended and lives destroyed now because..." Mr X told me I looked lovely in that color, or winked his eye, or held the door open for me when I walked in.

I deem it sexist and offensive. It has caused me lasting emotional distress and suffering."

I am only slightly exaggerating.
Andrew, whom this pertains to, for all his other entitled behavior which might fall under "sexist and offensive, gasp", maintained a friendship with malignant predators through stupidity and excruciatingly bad judgment AT BEST, hung himself with more of the same by doing the Newsnight interview, and has dealt with the consequences ever since.

Should Beatrice and Eugenie be ostracized for it? No, of course not.

But bringing something entirely on yourself and having to pay the piper isn't cancel culture. It's "no longer being tolerated".
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4963  
Old 01-14-2022, 03:09 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
I donít have a problem with the RFís response. Patronages and military organizations donít want to be associated with him. So- what are they supposed to do? Keep him where he isnít wanted?

I do think some of the public responses are OTT though. Agreed there.
I don't have any problems either with the way that Andrew's public life has been diminished, curtailed, depleted and basically erased. This is the "Firm" that represents the monarchy of the UK doing what is needed to preserver and protect itself from unsavory persons using it for personal perks and pleasures and well... even kick backs.

When the "Firm" represents the entirety of a nation's people, there is no room within it for questionable practices, self promotion and, in Andrew's case, a character that exudes the attitude of entitlement, arrogance and even comes across as egocentric. Those attributes do not reflect well on anybody. The "Firm" had to show that they listened to organizations and patronages that stated "We don't want someone like this representing us". These organizations and patronages didn't choose to request that Andrew be removed because he is royal. They requested it because Andrew's actions and words do not reflect their own purposes and models of human behavior. I think we need to remember that repercussions against Andrew have solely and completely affected his public life as a working royal for the family "Firm".

How Andrew is perceived and treated by his family members going into the future, I hope remains totally private. Mothers don't stop loving their sons because he's in prison convicted of murder. Daughters don't stop loving their father because he's bamboozled people out of their life savings (Ghislaine Maxwell is a good example here).

I think the most important thing to remember here is that every single action that has been taken against Andrew because of this entire mess has been to put the kibosh on his *public* life. He's effectively been put away to pasture to live out his days in private and can no more be any kind of an influence on the public workings of the "Firm" and the monarchy it represents.
__________________
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
  #4964  
Old 01-14-2022, 03:10 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 238
In my opinion, the Queen (in consultation with Princes Charles and William, and some British journalists say, Andrew's siblings as well) rightfully removed his military titles and patronages. First of all, they don't want to be associated with him and have asked for this. While the Queen would have the power to decide that he should keep them, that would not be a smart decision for the Royal Family and the future of the monarchy at all.

A court of law will decide if he is guilty, that's the justice side of things. It would certainly help his reputation and that of the Royal Family if he was pronounced innocent, but that is not all there is to this. The moral standard for royals is higher than not being pronounced guilty of sexual abuse of a minor in a court of law.

I personally believe that he is guilty, but of course none of us can know 100%. Let's go with the theory that he might be innocent for a moment. Because he is a royal, he does need to defend himself in the court of public opinion. That is because the monarchy exists only as long as the people want it to. Just as in the other European monarchies, when there is an issue, when a working royal is accused of something, they need to publicly defend themselves or apologize. If you're not a working royal, on the other hand, you don't necessarily need to do so.

So Andrew did defend himself in the court of public opinion - but the way he did it made everything much worse. Back to the theory of being wrongly accused: can anyone imagine Prince Charles, Prince William or Prince Edward - if they were wrongly accused of sexual assault, going on TV and saying "I didn't do it because I can't sweat and drove my child to Pizza Express that day. Also I remained friends with a convicted pedophile because I am too honourable"?
No, I don't think anyone can imagine that.

So even IF he is innocent, he has made himself seem guilty with his ridiculous assertions. And really, the fact that he was close friends with convicted sex offenders & human traffickers Epstein and Maxwell would be a huge problem for any royal, even without accusations of having participated.

I don't think the Royal Family is cruel at all for casting him out of the monarchy side of things (which does not equal the family). The Queen - or any of the other working royals, I imagine - will not risk the monarchy going down because Andrew chose to closely associate with sex offenders & human traffickers Epstein and Maxwell. Nor should they.
Reply With Quote
  #4965  
Old 01-14-2022, 03:36 PM
Lori138's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Somewhere, Canada
Posts: 128
On a lighter note from all of this, a friend of mine posted on FB this morning a photo of Andrew with the caption "The Andrew formerly known as Prince". I thought it was great so wanted to share.
Reply With Quote
  #4966  
Old 01-14-2022, 05:21 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
Andrew, whom this pertains to, for all his other entitled behavior which might fall under "sexist and offensive, gasp", maintained a friendship with malignant predators through stupidity and excruciatingly bad judgment AT BEST, hung himself with more of the same by doing the Newsnight interview, and has dealt with the consequences ever since.

Should Beatrice and Eugenie be ostracized for it? No, of course not.

But bringing something entirely on yourself and having to pay the piper isn't cancel culture. It's "no longer being tolerated".
Agreed. Some love to scream "Cancel culture" when it is really just you being held accountable for your actions.
Reply With Quote
  #4967  
Old 01-14-2022, 05:59 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Agreed. Some love to scream "Cancel culture" when it is really just you being held accountable for your actions.
Alleged.

Alleged actions.

That is the crux here.
Reply With Quote
  #4968  
Old 01-14-2022, 06:08 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Alleged.

Alleged actions.

That is the crux here.
No, the friendship with Epstein and Maxwell and appalling lack of remorse and ongoing sordid legal issues and Newsnight idiocy and self-making into persona non grata are all facts, not allegations.
Reply With Quote
  #4969  
Old 01-14-2022, 06:13 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
No, the friendship with Epstein and Maxwell and appalling lack of remorse and ongoing sordid legal issues and Newsnight idiocy and self-making into persona non grata are all facts, not allegations.
Also him dragging Beatrice into his drama was utterly irresponsible.
Reply With Quote
  #4970  
Old 01-14-2022, 06:15 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
Personally, I find no victim-blaming here. Rather, I find the overall mood as being inclined to gloss over Giuffre's part as a victimizer which is horrifying. Teenagers aren't incapable of being whatever.

I find the overall sentiment (not here on the forum but overall) of treating Andrew like a violent rapist just because a recruiter said he slept with her knowing that she was trafficked rather baffling. This far, it's just he said, she said but he's already guilty?

Teenagers shouldn't be expected to bear responsibility for victimizing others? For real? When a teenager tells someone younger (or much younger) that they should keep silent, that's an acknowledgment that they realize they shouldn't be doing what they are doing.

Andrew might be a horrible person. But no one denies this might be the case while every sentiment that Ms Giuffre might be less than stellar is met with "victim blaming".

Many people have been victims of teenage rapists or molesters. And it's always the same thing at court (when the case even makes it to court): they're children. They didn't realize. This leaves *their* victims (some of which are literal children) in a horrible situation. And it isn't because the perpetrators were too young to understand.

It's like this with Giuffre, IMO. She was a victim but also a victimizer. And if I remember correctly, it's by her own lawyer's admission. She regretted taking part? It still happened. It's literally "she said, she said". Why shouldn't it be taken into account?
I absolutely agree. It is not "victim blaming" to point out that Giuffre involvd a 14 year old girl with Maxwell and Epstein for money. Rather, I think reprehensive is a better description of Giuffre's actions.

The prisons are full of people who were victimized and abused as children. Many of them were 17 or even younger when they landed in prison. I actually have a lot of sympathy for them but to protect society the line that cannot be crossed is when a victim victimizes someone else - Giuffre did. People cannot be excused just because they were victimized themselves at one point

One reason this is relevant is that Giuffre is suing to get money from Andrew for the suffering she says she endured due to their relationship. I find it hard to believe that her encounter with Andrew was that traumatic if she was bragging about it while enticing other girls into Maxwell and Epstein's clutches.

One question for the UK lawyers out there, didn't the investigation into Giuffre's allegations conclude that even if what Giuffre said was true, Andrew didn't commit a crime because Giuffre was above the age of consent? I don't know what the British laws are with respect to sex trafficking but in the U.S., there has to be actual knowledge of the trafficking before one can be criminally liable
Reply With Quote
  #4971  
Old 01-14-2022, 06:26 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
Andrew, whom this pertains to, for all his other entitled behavior which might fall under "sexist and offensive, gasp", maintained a friendship with malignant predators through stupidity and excruciatingly bad judgment AT BEST, hung himself with more of the same by doing the Newsnight interview, and has dealt with the consequences ever since.

Should Beatrice and Eugenie be ostracized for it? No, of course not.

But bringing something entirely on yourself and having to pay the piper isn't cancel culture. It's "no longer being tolerated".
The post(s) to which you replied pertained to politicians and actors, not Prince Andrew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Agreed. Some love to scream "Cancel culture" when it is really just you being held accountable for your actions.
I am not sure which politicians or actors you are thinking of. But for those who were innocent of their alleged actions (the scenario in the original post), I have trouble seeing how your "accountable for your actions" description could apply to them.
Reply With Quote
  #4972  
Old 01-14-2022, 06:30 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The post(s) to which you replied pertained to politicians and actors, not Prince Andrew.
No, "Andrew, to whom this thread and business pertain". Please kindly stop replying to my posts if the context is continually so difficult and confusing for you.
Reply With Quote
  #4973  
Old 01-14-2022, 06:39 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
One question for the UK lawyers out there, didn't the investigation into Giuffre's allegations conclude that even if what Giuffre said was true, Andrew didn't commit a crime because Giuffre was above the age of consent? I don't know what the British laws are with respect to sex trafficking but in the U.S., there has to be actual knowledge of the trafficking before one can be criminally
It would be statutory rape if she'd been under 16. Technically, that would apply even if a girl was 15 and the other person involved was her 16-year-old boyfriend and they were in a relationship and it had been entirely consensual, although obviously it would be highly unlikely that that would ever end up in court. As she was over 16, if anything had happened - and there's no actual proof that anything more happened between them than him putting his arm round her for a photo - then it would only be a crime if he'd forced her.

That would include, say, her being too drunk to consent, but there's no suggestion that that happened, nor that he used physical force. From what she says, she didn't refuse Andrew because she was terrified of what Epstein would do to her if she did. So I think Andrew can only have committed a crime if he knew that Epstein was pressurising her into it.
Reply With Quote
  #4974  
Old 01-14-2022, 07:02 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess_Eleanor View Post

I personally believe that he is guilty, but of course none of us can know 100%. Let's go with the theory that he might be innocent for a moment. Because he is a royal, he does need to defend himself in the court of public opinion.
What do you personally believe he is guilty of? Of sexually assaulting Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) as she claimed in her court papers? Of being an accessory or accomplice to human trafficking? Or of having consensual sex with a 17-year-old he barely knew and probably doesn't even remember?
Reply With Quote
  #4975  
Old 01-14-2022, 07:03 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
No, "Andrew, to whom this thread and business pertain". Please kindly stop replying to my posts if the context is continually so difficult and confusing for you.
Unfortunately, the other replies indicate that the earlier comments which were not about Andrew were being miscontextualized as being about Andrew, although I understand it was not your intention to be confusing.

I'm sorry to have displeased you, and as you wish, should this happen again, I will do my best to remember not to directly reply to your post (although it may be necessary to quote it to prevent further confusion). But I believe some sort of clarification was in order.
Reply With Quote
  #4976  
Old 01-14-2022, 09:05 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 541
I think it's prudent to keep in mind that those who made this decision have far more information than those of us commenting on it. They may well have reason to believe he is guilty or will be found responsible at his civil trial- or may not and still took the action, but it is something to consider.

I've also seen posts here and elsewhere saying Andrew was foolish to say Beatrice's name in the BBC interview. It wouldn't have made any difference whether he said her name then or withheld it, simply saying he had an alibi. He would have had to give that detail at some point and, indeed, it may have emerged as more of a bombshell because speculation would have built over who or what the alibi was and it would have emerged at trial if there is one.
Reply With Quote
  #4977  
Old 01-14-2022, 09:14 PM
Purrs's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
No, the friendship with Epstein and Maxwell and appalling lack of remorse and ongoing sordid legal issues and Newsnight idiocy and self-making into persona non grata are all facts, not allegations.
Exactly. Prince Andrew's friendship with Epstein and Maxwell (and persisting with this friendship even when he knew Epstein was an abuser) have shown an terrible lack of judgment. To use a specific example, when he learned Epstein was a child abuser, he did not terminate the friendship over the phone. Instead, he flew to New York, stayed with Epstein for 4 DAYS in Epstein's house and was photographed publicly with Epstein. This is only one example of his terrible judgement. There are others like the appalling interview.

His own actions in how he has dealt with this issue have been so bad that his former charities don't want him anymore as a patron or military regiments don't want him as a patron anymore either. They've made it clear and wrote to the Queen asking him to be dropped. She can't be expected to have Andrew retain these patronages when many of his charities and military regiments have written to her and directly asked for his removal.

Regardless of the claims made against Andrew and where they are true or not (which I'm not discussing here) , he brought a lot of negative attention to the Royal Family THROUGH HIS OWN ACTIONS and terrible judgement with the Queen's Jubilee coming.

He's still a family member but he will no longer be publicly representing the Royal Family because his own actions. To have him continue as a public representative of the Royal family and continue to damage the monarchy further is no longer an option for Prince Andrew.
Reply With Quote
  #4978  
Old 01-14-2022, 09:25 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 525
I mind the timing more than the acting thing. I mean, were these charities meant to stay without an acting patron indefinitely? Two years is long enough. And I do agree about Andrew's appalling judgment and the disastrous interview reflecting badly on the BRF.

The thing is, actions were taken immediately after the last court news and so it looks like the BP acted not on Andrew's actions but the court news which weren't Guilty. Guilty, Guilty, Off with His Head.

I mean, what did Andrew do in the interim between the news breaking out and the hour of the decision being announced? He conducted the behavior people object to literally years ago... and at the time, it wasn't considered bad enough to act on.

So forgive me if I see this as what we call "comrade's court". It was a thing real jurists sneered at. Basically, it was everyone saying whatever they wanted about anyone else and the accused only had the right to talk after the "comrade's court" (made up by no jurists) has already proclaimed them guilty in the presence of everyone who wanted to come and could jeer and insult all they wanted. They could talk but not to defend themselves, just do some good and sound self-critique. And yes, I know he was given the right to talk and he blundered very badly. But it wasn't considered bad enough for the BP then. Now, when he didn't do anything to make it worse, came this.

So yes, I'll keep thinking it's comrade's court and the BP bowing to public pressure, as well as being afraid to look like they were blaming a victim. And I'm saying it as someone who believes this should have been settled long ago and doesn't mind the action itself. How long were Andrew's charities supposed to be left without a patron? How long would they have been left without a patron if the court had arrived at a different decision?
Reply With Quote
  #4979  
Old 01-14-2022, 09:50 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
I think it's prudent to keep in mind that those who made this decision have far more information than those of us commenting on it. They may well have reason to believe he is guilty or will be found responsible at his civil trial- or may not and still took the action, but it is something to consider.

I've also seen posts here and elsewhere saying Andrew was foolish to say Beatrice's name in the BBC interview. It wouldn't have made any difference whether he said her name then or withheld it, simply saying he had an alibi. He would have had to give that detail at some point and, indeed, it may have emerged as more of a bombshell because speculation would have built over who or what the alibi was and it would have emerged at trial if there is one.
Hasn't he already backtracked on that though? So what was the point in dragging her into it? Now if this goes to trial, she will 100% be called to give a statement. And that is all in him for directly naming her.
Reply With Quote
  #4980  
Old 01-15-2022, 01:20 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
So I think Andrew can only have committed a crime if he knew that Epstein was pressurising her into it.
I am sure that prostitution of a girl under 18 is not allowed in GB either... - and surely not in the USA, I think. This makes me wonder, if prostitution of a minor constitutes some kind of sexual abuse too, and falls under rape... But I have not the faintest idea about the American penal code.

And we can be somewhat sure, that the Prince was not in love... So, Ms. Maxwell, already sentenced, was there and the person, which took the photo (Epstein?).

And when the pic was taken of the Prince and the minor - This does not look like a rockstar with a groupie... It looks like the Virginia girl was pimped out!
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (0 members and 9 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
#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 04:21 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises
×