Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

[tabitha2]

Thing is though he has an out: his daughters. Both women have their own inheritance money plus married to multimillionaires. I don’t doubt for a split second they would bail him out even if the spouses are leery and disapproving as experienced successful businessmen should be  on throwing money away on bad risks like Andrew and his equally foolish Ex are. There were stories floating around that Sarah already got Bea to help her out a year or so ago  as is.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

Thing is though he has an out: his daughters. Both women have their own inheritance money plus married to multimillionaires. I don’t doubt for a split second they would bail him out even if the spouses are leery and disapproving as experienced successful businessmen should be  on throwing money away on bad risks like Andrew and his equally foolish Ex are. There were stories floating around that Sarah already got Bea to help her out a year or so ago  as is.

Good point.  I don't doubt it either, but it would be a real shame if they had to.  These aren't hard working parents who sacrificed everything to raise them and saved what they could but need some help in their dotage.  These are people who had and have much more than most and the only reason they'd ever need financial help from their kids is their own irresponsibility.

 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

I suppose Andrew and Sarah could move somewhere with lower running costs. Presumably his lease specifies that he can't sublet. 

[rosamundi]

5 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

I suppose Andrew and Sarah could move somewhere with lower running costs. Presumably his lease specifies that he can't sublet. 

The leasehold can only be assigned to his widow or his daughters, which implies that it can't be sublet. If he terminates the lease he would be owed some compensation for the money he spent on refurbishment as he went over the agreed amount (it's up to £7m on a sliding scale over 25 years and he took the lease in 2003, so he'd get about £1.7M back if he surrendered the lease this year).

Even if he could sublet, I think Andrew, being Andrew, would rather surrender the lease in its entirety than sublet it and see someone else living in "his" property, even if they were paying him. Furthermore, the additional considerations which meant that the property wasn't put on the open market when the Queen Mother died haven't changed. The property is in the middle of the Great Park and the Royal Chapel is within the Royal Lodge's boundary, so there are additional environmental management considerations and security considerations for the family's access to the chapel.

[rosamundi]

Prince Charles is to lend his brother several million pounds in order for the settlement to be paid before the deadline. The money will be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the ski chalet in Verbier, or deducted for his inheritance from the Queen if not repaid.

[formergothardite]

I'm trying to imagine if one of my siblings asked me for a loan to pay the settlement they owe the child sex trafficking victim they raped. I think I would say "hell no". 

What would happen if no one gave Andrew the money? 

[louisa05]

21 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

I'm trying to imagine if one of my siblings asked me for a loan to pay the settlement they owe the child sex trafficking victim they raped. I think I would say "hell no". 

What would happen if no one gave Andrew the money? 

I’d take that report with five pounds of salt. The British tabloids have reported several amounts and several different accounts of who is paying it. Bottom line is that they don’t know. 

[tabitha2]

That was also reported The Daily Fail and anything there is Usually not worth reporting. 

Edited March 8, 2022 by tabitha2

[viii]

3 hours ago, rosamundi said:

Prince Charles is to lend his brother several million pounds in order for the settlement to be paid before the deadline. The money will be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the ski chalet in Verbier, or deducted for his inheritance from the Queen if not repaid.

This has not been confirmed anywhere reputable, I don't think. 

[rosamundi]

12 minutes ago, viii said:

This has not been confirmed anywhere reputable, I don't think. 

Depends if you regard the Telegraph as reputable or not. Both of those are behind a paywall but if you right click and "view source" you get to the article, you just have to skim past all the HTML padding on the page.

[formergothardite]

What would happen if the family told Andrew they weren’t going to bail him out? Does he have enough stuff that he actually owns that he could be forced to sell everything to pay his victim? 

[rosamundi]

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

 

What would happen if no one gave Andrew the money?

According to the link I posted, the case would go to trial.

[rosamundi]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

Does he have enough stuff that he actually owns that he could be forced to sell everything to pay his victim? 

He is selling the ski chalet he owns with his ex-wife, but there is no guarantee the sale would complete for the deadline. I assume he would also have to hand over some part of the proceeds to Sarah Ferguson. Their marital home sold for £15m (£3m over the asking price) 15 years ago, if he was sensible he would have invested his share of the proceeds. I also assume that he has various other assets, but a lot depends on how liquid any of it is, hence the bridging loan from Prince Charles. It's no time to be selling shares, if you know you've got a sum of money coming from the sale of a property and you can avoid selling investments.

Edited March 8, 2022 by rosamundi
year of sale of Sunninghill Park

[EmCatlyn]

On 3/8/2022 at 8:07 AM, formergothardite said:

I'm trying to imagine if one of my siblings asked me for a loan to pay the settlement they owe the child sex trafficking victim they raped. I think I would say "hell no". 

What would happen if no one gave Andrew the money? 

I get the impression that any money Charles might lend Andrew would be to prevent a scandal that might tarnish the royal image further.  The Royals pressured Andrew to “settle” because his case was getting too much negative attention.  I could imagine it being agreed that he could borrow the money from Charles rather than have it be seen that the Queen was the one paying. (I am not saying I believe the report is true, only that it is plausible.)

[Topaz]

On 3/8/2022 at 2:07 PM, formergothardite said:

I'm trying to imagine if one of my siblings asked me for a loan to pay the settlement they owe the child sex trafficking victim they raped. I think I would say "hell no

I think I’d do it (assuming I had Charles’s kind of resources) but I’d make it crystal clear to the sibling that I wasn’t doing it for them. It would be solely to avoid putting the victim through any more.

[Coconut Flan]

I think in Charles' case, it's to get it out of the news for his mothers' and possibly his own sake (for the crown.)  

[viii]

Yeah, Charles wouldn’t be doing this out of any kindness for Andrew. He’d be doing it to keep Andrew under his thumb. 

[tabitha2]

Because he has the most horrible idiot judgement The more Andrew tries to fix things himself and solve his own problems the more embarrassment, scandals and potential legal problems he might get into.  If it was Just Andrew screwing himself thats one thing but the whole institution and family is basically on Charles now and the sooner The loser kid brother is payed for and settled quietly in his mansion the better is probably the thought. 

[Karma]

Andrew accompanied the Queen in her car to and from the DofE’s memorial service.  He walked her in, but didn’t sit next to her - Charles did, I guess as the heir. There had been speculation about whether he’d make an appearance, whether this service was considered a family thing or a state occasion. 

[tabitha2]

Real Talk It’s his dad memorial of course he was going to attend.  Realistically going forward He will probably been seen exclusively at major family events such as this. 

[viii]

I don’t like it but it’s not an indication of the future. It was his fathers funeral. Of course he was going to be there. Let’s see how the Queen handles his presence at Jubilee events. If he’s present for any of them, then it will be clear she has clearly lost all reason and gives zero shits about his victims. 

[tabitha2]

I’d say She will probably include him in behind the scenes private events if any and have him over frequently  as a consolation prize. It’s safe to assume She going to want to spend as much time with all her children and grandchildren and other close family  as she can going toward even the black sheep and the crazy makers. 

[EmCatlyn]

On 3/29/2022 at 8:14 AM, tabitha2 said:

Real Talk It’s his dad memorial of course he was going to attend.  Realistically going forward He will probably been seen exclusively at major family events such as this. 

I saw some criticism of this and even an (inaccurate) report that he sat next to her. I think people are being unreasonable.  Andrew was going to attend.  It is his father’s funeral.  The Queen couldn’t handle the long walk down the aisle and chose to enter through a side door.  Andrew is the only son who is not married and therefore the logical one to give his mother his arm in support.  He “dropped her off” at her seat next to Charles and then took his place.  It was all appropriate as a family event.

I am no fan of Andrew’s but I feel for the Queen.  Any mother would want all her children with her at their fathers’ memorial service, and any mother would want to show that her “black sheep” was nevertheless still her son.

I agree that he has no place in official royal events, but all the brouhaha about his escorting his mother to her seat is silly.

 

 

[FrumperedCat]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

I saw some criticism of this and even an (inaccurate) report that he sat next to her. I think people are being unreasonable.  Andrew was going to attend.  It is his father’s funeral.  The Queen couldn’t handle the long walk down the aisle and chose to enter through a side door.  Andrew is the only son who is not married and therefore the logical one to give his mother his arm in support.  He “dropped her off” at her seat next to Charles and then took his place.  It was all appropriate as a family event.

I am no fan of Andrew’s but I feel for the Queen.  Any mother would want all her children with her at their fathers’ memorial service, and any mother would want to show that her “black sheep” was nevertheless still her son.

I agree that he has no place in official royal events, but all the brouhaha about his escorting his mother to her seat is silly.

 

 

I also think maybe they thought there'd be less press with him coming through the side entrance. There were a lot of high profile guests coming through the main entrance so the attention might have been diverted to that.

[nokidsmom]

23 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I agree that he has no place in official royal events, but all the brouhaha about his escorting his mother to her seat is silly.

I don't understand why the kerfuffle either.   This is his father's memorial service, it's a family as well as public event.  There are going to be those in the future where Andrew's attendance as a member of the family should be expected.   Plus I didn't see Andrew escorting his mother to her seat as any sort of indicator that he was "exonerated" as some made it out to be.   Escorting his mom is a far cry from having his titles and public life restored, which is not going to happen. 

I think some people really expect Andrew to just disappear into the royal lodge like some hermit, never to be seen in public ever again.