Lumutqueen
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 21,423
- City
- Middlewich
- Country
- United Kingdom
This is the cultural climate we live in now. Andrew is an idiot but so many in here are ready to call him a sex offender or an accessory to sex trafficking. There is no more innocent until proven guilty it is "I don't like you so you're guilty of something". This is especially popular against men
All interesting news if this is all true, however, I am rather skeptical on the report of Charles going immediately to Sandringham to be advised by his father. Phillip being 98 and not having been seen in public for some time has me thinking his health may have something to do with the immediate and extended visit. I am sure the Duke has a lot of wisdom on dealing with this crises, however I would think the Queen would be Charles first priority if it was advise/strategy that was needed. It is ultimately up to her Majesty, Charles and William as to Andrews fate. JMO.
Andrew is off the royal guest list for the reception of NATO leaders
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...m-palace-nato-prince-andrew-a9219296.html?amp
Harry, Meghan, Sophie and William are not attending for various reasons. The irony of Trump coming considering his ties to Epstien. The BRF better brace itself for another car crash interview because Trump will most likely be asked about Andrew.
From the way Sarah grew up as member of the landed gentry whose only claim later to being "high society" was her excellent manners and the knowledge of the do's and don'ts (even though she did as she wanted later on), it is clear that she would select only the best nanies for their wto little princesses. The kids had to be perfect little girls in order to stay close to their grandmother (and their parents) and be perfect little princesses to the public. No one knew better then Sarah how much hinged on that. So the nannies were surely told to deliver in shaping the girls accordingly.
Just like Lady Louise and Viscount Severn are shaped nowadays.
It's typical of raising minor Royals - they only have some "value" in the monarchy as long as they are invited to those events where they could be invited or not. It's clear they wouldn't be invited to state dinners at all but attending garden parties at BP eg - depends on their behaviour.
That's why I am happy to see them chosing their own husbands and not really in the upper echelons of society - 100 years ago, Beatrice would have been chosen by a foreign prince of the young Duke of Westminster...
Andrew need to drop all his royal patronage’s, instead of letting this constant drip, drip, drip of patronage’s dropping him on a daily basis.
only after several had dropped him....He dropped all 230 of them a few days ago: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/24/prince-andrew-to-withdraw-from-scores-of-charities
On the other hand there are those that want to paint Andrew as a victim of his own nativity of not knowing or understanding that all these very young women parading in and out of Epstein's homes were in fact underaged and there to provide sex for Epstein's friends.
No, its actually not a fact that Ghislaine Maxwell did this. It's an allegation. I personally believe the allegation is true but that doesn't make it a fact. It has to be proven.Ghislaine Maxwell who is a good friend of Andrew and who introduced him to Epstein, was in fact recruiting and grooming these girls to provide sex to Epstein and his friends/guests.
Yes, Ghislaine Maxwell was Andrew's friend. But I'm skeptical she would have told him she and Epstein were engaged in sex trafficking. I think she's evil but I don't think she's stupid. I suspect that's one of the reasons why Epstein and Ghislaine got away with this so long - I believe both were very clever and manipulative and knew when to keep their mouths shut and when to wear a mask, so to speak.And yet Andrew was oblivious? That just doesn't ring true. This is a 60 year old man, not a naive adolescent. Even after Epstein's conviction, Andrew stayed with him for 4 days when there is no way he can claim to be oblivious.
I've never stated Andrew was naive. Only clueless and oblivious. IMO the interview showed this very clearly. Did he really believe his pathetic answers would clear his name? He really didn't know there were pictures all over the internet proving (1) he sweats (2) he doesn't always wear a suit and tie (3) he hugs women?Finally, the interview didn't show a man that was naive and oblivious of what was going on around him during his association with Epstein. it showed a man who was deceptive, extremely nervous and caught in a trap of his own making. Hence the incredible backlash from the public.
He dropped all 230 of them a few days ago: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/24/prince-andrew-to-withdraw-from-scores-of-charities
I realize you might be referring to another poster but just to clarify...I never stated anything of this. I only pointed out that Andrew may have been unaware that the women were victims of sex trafficking, in the sense that they weren't willing participants. I also pointed out that not every powerful man surrounded by young women is a sex trafficker.
And I attributed this to Andrew's cluelessness and obliviousness not naivete.
I could be completely wrong - maybe Andrew did know - but at this point we can't state whether Andrew did or did not know as fact, which is what some posters are doing. We just don't know.
But of course being clueless or oblivious doesn't explain or excuse Andrew's continued friendship with Epstein after his conviction and I've never stated it does.
No, its actually not a fact that Ghislaine Maxwell did this. It's an allegation. I personally believe the allegation is true but that doesn't make it a fact. It has to be proven.
For example, in another post I stated I'm skeptical that Andrew visited Epstein in 2010 to end their friendship. I think it involved the loan Epstein made to Sarah. But that doesn't mean I can state that as a fact. I can say "I think/believe/suspect Andrew visited Epstein to discuss Sarah's loan" but I can't say "Andrew visited Epstein to discuss Sarah's loan." Because I don't know it to be a fact, I'm only speculating.
Yes, Ghislaine Maxwell was Andrew's friend. But I'm skeptical she would have told him she and Epstein were engaged in sex trafficking. I think she's evil but I don't think she's stupid. I suspect that's one of the reasons why Epstein and Ghislaine got away with this so long - I believe both were very clever and manipulative and knew when to keep their mouths shut and when to wear a mask, so to speak.
I agree, there's no excuse for Andrew's visit to Epstein following his conviction. I've never stated otherwise.
I've never stated Andrew was naive. Only clueless and oblivious. IMO the interview showed this very clearly. Did he really believe his pathetic answers would clear his name? He really didn't know there were pictures all over the internet proving (1) he sweats (2) he doesn't always wear a suit and tie (3) he hugs women?
To me its obvious he didn't which IMO shows exactly what I said - he's clueless and oblivious.
. I only pointed out that Andrew may have been unaware that the women were victims of sex trafficking, in the sense that they weren't willing participants. I also pointed out that not every powerful man surrounded by young women is a sex trafficker.
I could be completely wrong - maybe Andrew did know - but at this point we can't state whether Andrew did or did not know as fact, which is what some posters are doing. We just don't know.
Yes, Ghislaine Maxwell was Andrew's friend. But I'm skeptical she would have told him she and Epstein were engaged in sex trafficking. I think she's evil but I don't think she's stupid. I suspect that's one of the reasons why Epstein and Ghislaine got away with this so long - I believe both were very clever and manipulative and knew when to keep their mouths shut and when to wear a mask, so to speak.
Thanks Gawin! I was actually making certain statements in general, not towards any particular person. You make valid points and I certainly see where you are coming from. We may never know the details of what Andrew knew or didn't know, but I hold firm in that I believe he not only knew what was going on, but actively participated...sexually that is, and turned his head at the sex trafficking aspect. There is just too much over the years with Andrew that has shown me that he would make a deal with the devil if it benefitted his own agenda and Lord knows, Epstein was the devil.
I think it is absolutely the case that Epstein presented himself in different ways to different people and limited what information they had about his life.
And most people don't look for evil, even when it is there.
It's always a good idea to visit an elderly parent because no matter what kind of health they're in, you just never know........
Charles has been speaking- as I've read - with the Queen on a regular basis and I'm sure he'd do so again at Sandringham. Most observers believe that since Philip has retired, the family has gotten somewhat out of control as he was the one who kept a firm grip on everything. Of course ultimately Charles will strategize with the Queen - as Queen and mother - but aside from any wisdom Philip might share regarding how to proceed under these sad circumstances, he surely would want to add his two cents about how to deal with Andrew as his son/a brother, etc..
I like to see William involved as well. I think BRF is handling this as well as they can - ultimately, I think this damages Andrew and BRF will be fine.
I'm sorry, I didn't follow the story from the beginning and I don't feel like reading the 160 pages of this thread. How is Prince William involved in the management of this case?
William would be involved in the decision making process, as far as it concerns the monarchy, because with Andrew only being 59 and possibly has the genes of longevity that runs in the Windsor family, any decision made now would possibly affect William's reign. The Queen, Charles and William are the ones that mostly affect how the monarchy handles things.
Makes sense to me. ?
Thank you for your answer . Is his participation official? Is there any record of his involvement? Did he sign a press statement or the relinquishment of Prince Andrew's patronages?
Sorry again, I didn't follow anything at all.
Thank you for your answer . Is his participation official? Is there any record of his involvement? Did he sign a press statement or the relinquishment of Prince Andrew's patronages?
Sorry again, I didn't follow anything at all.
I'm skeptical about the stated purpose of Andrew's 2010 visit: he went to end the friendship in person because it was the honourable thing to do.
#1
In the interview Andrew said he lost touch with Epstein from 2006-2010. So why after four years was it necessary to let Epstein know the friendship had ended? Didn't he think Epstein had figured that out already?
#2
He also said he lost touch because he knew he couldn't be seen with Epstein who was under investigation. So why was it OK to be seen with Epstein after he had been convicted and released?
#3
According to an article in the Times Andrew secured a $24,500 (£15,000) loan from Epstein in 2010 to help pay Sarah's debts.
I can't help but think the 2010 visit was related to the loan and not to end the friendship.
Could not Prince Andrew have written a letter to Epstein declaring that the friendship had ended?
No he didn’t. The article says he is standing back from his patronage’s. Nothing about removing himself as their patronage. Simply because he can’t, he is asked to be someone’s royal patronage, or he has inherited them/been given them from his father but always at the agreement of the charities involved.
It is the patronage’s themselves that must remove him.
I believe the Lord Chamberlain's committee is now used more in the way the Way Ahead Group was, although not sure if the royals also attend as they did with the Way Ahead group. The Lord Chamberlain's committee meets about once a month includes the heads of the main Household departments as well, more recently as the Private Secretaries to Charles, Camilla, William and Kate, It clearly gives a forum for these to discuss issues affecting the RF and I would guess at times of crisis the same people would communicate with each other.
I know we should take media reports with a pinch of salt by Private Eye (I know!) gives a supposed account of what happened. It take it with a pinch of salt but it actually usually has pretty good inside royal news probably due to its longstanding connections and its target audience.
It says HM and Charles approved the interview but then on seeing the outcome it was agreed Andrew had to go. Apparently Charles relied on William to push the case with HM and senior aides on his behalf and William and HM met after he did an investiture ceremony for her and agreed Andrew had to go.