Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

[Ozlsn]

So he's the Andrew formerly known as Prince now then? Credit to someone on twitter, if I could find the tweet again I'd link it!

[tabitha2]

It’s the same situation as Harry. He will always be a Prince and is still the Duke of York. They just took the HRH away.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

When your child, your favorite even, screws up so badly and reveals himself to be an a foolish lecherous randy amoral alleged sexual  abuser of teenagers  it’s absolutely devastating and heartbreaking to a parent no matter how privileged. It’s okay to feel empathy and sympathy for her.  

I agree it absolutely is.  And it's okay to not care about her feelings at all.  

[SoSoNosy]

22 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I agree it absolutely is.  And it's okay to not care about her feelings at all.  

It definitely is.  That is the beauty of this place, we are all free to have our own feelings and express them without brawling about them.

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

How much do you guys think Fergie knew over the years?  About the trafficking?  I wonder if she knew who and what Epstien and Maxwell were when they were at her daughter's birthday party?  I don't know anything about her beyond old tabloid stuff.

[viii]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

It’s the same situation as Harry. He will always be a Prince and is still the Duke of York. They just took the HRH away.

I would say Andrew and Harry’s situations are completely different and it’s actually offensive to consider them to be on equal terms. 

[Bluebirdbluebell]

The queen is not only protecting her own legacy, but that of the royal family and the monarchy.  I'm not sure the monarchy will last another 70 years.

[tabitha2]

It has survived plagues, wars, civil war, regicide revolution, bloody family in fighting and insane monarchs for over a thousand years. One middle aged minor randy prince not keeping it in his pants won’t stop the show.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

It has survived plagues, wars, civil war, regicide revolution, bloody family in fighting and insane monarchs for over a thousand years. One middle aged minor randy prince not keeping it in his pants won’t stop the show.

I agree Andrew won't bring it down, but it survived for centuries because that was the way of ruling Europe.  It's obsolescence is what's going to end it, hopefully sooner than later.  I would be shocked if it lasted another 100 years.

[formergothardite]

2 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

One middle aged minor randy prince not keeping it in his pants won’t stop the show.

He is accused of sexually assaulting teen sex trafficking victim. When discussing sexual assault it is important to use language that doesn’t downplay what happened. This wasn’t the case of a randy guy who couldn’t keep it in his pants. This is the case of a prince predator who attacked and assaulted a sex trafficking victim. 

[viii]

I think we will see Charles and William become kings, but I’m not sure we will ever see George make it to the throne. 

[Petronella]

14 hours ago, viii said:

I would say Andrew and Harry’s situations are completely different and it’s actually offensive to consider them to be on equal terms. 

They weren’t comparing the reasons for no longer having the titles, just the fact of no longer having the titles and which titles are gone. Goodness, no one has said that sexual assault is the same as Harry moving on. It’s just the loss of titles that is functioning in a similar way.

[viii]

55 minutes ago, Petronella said:

They weren’t comparing the reasons for no longer having the titles, just the fact of no longer having the titles and which titles are gone. Goodness, no one has said that sexual assault is the same as Harry moving on. It’s just the loss of titles that is functioning in a similar way.

You’d be surprised at some of the comments in these threads that try to do exactly that. 

[Petronella]

1 hour ago, viii said:

You’d be surprised at some of the comments in these threads that try to do exactly that. 

I just read this whole thread and haven’t noticed any.

[viii]

1 hour ago, Petronella said:

I just read this whole thread and haven’t noticed any.

Read all 8 Harry and Meghan threads. There are some people who consider them the worse thing to happen to the RBF, even over Andrew or the Duke of Windsor. It’s gross. 

[EmCatlyn]

On 1/13/2022 at 11:53 AM, Coconut Flan said:

I think I'm shocked.  I would have expected that from Charles, but probably not the queen.  It's the right thing to do.  

It is the right thing to do, but it must have been very hard for her.  As much as I condemn Andrew, I feel very sorry for his mother.  Yeah, she is not perfect.  Yeah, the royals are all entitled and out-of-touch.  But this is a woman who sacrifices a lot to what she believes is the right thing to do.  So I applaud that.

[EmCatlyn]

On 1/14/2022 at 12:30 PM, SoSoNosy said:

If she hadn't done that, would the BRF possibly be held financially responsible for whatever damages the lady is awarded?

As far as I know (and I generally don’t follow news about Andrew) the Queen may be paying already out of her private fortune.  Andrew is, apparently, not all that wealthy in his own right.  That is, his private fortune, though much greater than most of us could imagine, is not robust compared to that of others in his social circle.  He lived expensively, Fergie lived expensively, etc.

 I have read several sources claim that although Andrew is supposedly facing all this as “a private citizen,” it is the queen who has been giving him the funds and who will probably have to provide the money for anything he has to pay if he loses the case.  (Again, I get this information mainly from sources that focus on the Queen.  Possibly the sources that focus on Andrew have different narratives about the money.)

[hoipolloi]

On 1/14/2022 at 3:34 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

How much do you guys think Fergie knew over the years?

Hard to tell. Wouldn't surprise me if she knew quite a bit. They seem to have remained close & good friends since their divorce in 1996. 

Was Fergie around on occasions where Andrew entertained Epstein & Maxwell? Someone (probably Andrew) in the BRF invited those fuckwads to Balmoral and I doubt it was the Queen's idea even if the invitation officially came from her.

[viii]

The queens “private fortune” lol. None of them ever earned that money. None of it is private. 

[nausicaa]

2 hours ago, viii said:

The queens “private fortune” lol. None of them ever earned that money. None of it is private. 

So any inheritance one receives is public? I think the laws in most countries disagree. 

"Private" does not equal "earned" or "justified." 

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, viii said:

The queens “private fortune” lol. None of them ever earned that money. None of it is private. 

It is about as “private” as any other rich family’s fortune that accumulates from income of real estate and investments. And it could be argued that the Royals do work, even if one feels they are remunerated too generously.

Be that as it may,  I am not here to defend the system, just to clarify that there is a distinction between (1) money that the government assigns to royalty for their work as royals (money from taxes), (2) income from the Duchy of Lancaster, which the Monarch gets from profits on land, investments, etc. (to fund the royal family and their activities), and (3) property and investments that the Queen holds in her own name.  

This  last is what is meant by her “private fortune.”  And the main point is that it doesn’t comes from taxes or from the income connected to her position as Queen. (To be sure, that money may be saved from the D o L income and/or other royal sources.)  

[viii]

1 hour ago, nausicaa said:

So any inheritance one receives is public? I think the laws in most countries disagree. 

"Private" does not equal "earned" or "justified." 

I think there’s a huge difference between the queen and the average Joe blow who got money from his parents 🙄

[47of74]

On 1/13/2022 at 12:46 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Aren't they all Mountbatten-Windsors when they need a surname?  Such a ubiquitous name he'll totally blend in with the commoners.  🙂

 

Yeah that's pretty much the case.  The highest ranking royals don't actually have surnames as such, but except for the Queen use Mountbatten-Windsor as required.   From what I understand the Queen's surname is still Windsor. 

An interesting thing is that British royals have only had surnames for about 100 years.  George V - the Queen's Grandfather - decided in some cases a surname was needed.  It's not a common surname but isn't reserved to only the royal family. 

[Bethella]

15 hours ago, 47of74 said:

Yeah that's pretty much the case.  The highest ranking royals don't actually have surnames as such, but except for the Queen use Mountbatten-Windsor as required.   From what I understand the Queen's surname is still Windsor. 

An interesting thing is that British royals have only had surnames for about 100 years.  George V - the Queen's Grandfather - decided in some cases a surname was needed.  It's not a common surname but isn't reserved to only the royal family. 

They don’t use Mountbatten-Windsor exclusively, both William and Harry used Wales as their surname while they were in the military and now William’s children use Cambridge at school. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Bethella said:

They don’t use Mountbatten-Windsor exclusively, both William and Harry used Wales as their surname while they were in the military and now William’s children use Cambridge at school. 

Mountbatten-Windsor is such a mouthful that I think it makes sense.