Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

[EmCatlyn]

5 minutes ago, viii said:

Word choice matters. You can say you dislike Andrew all you please but you keep excusing his behaviour when you talk about him. 

“What he did was wrong BUT…”

”Andrew is so gross BUT…”

Enough with the buts. What he did was wrong and he is gross. End of story. Enough victim shaming. It’s such a bad look for FJ. The kind of attitude you display in these threads when you talk about this “complex situation” go against everything FJ strives to be.

Also newsflash: it’s not fucking complex. It’s a 100% straight forward situation. Andrew is wrong and should be in jail. End of story. 

(1) I am not excusing— I am explaining, analyzing.  There is a difference between examining and exonerating.

(2) I never said “Andrew is so gross, but.” Don’t put words in my mouth.  The “buts” have to do with addressing different angles. (And I haven’t used the word “gross” since I was in middle school and had a crush on a boy with that last name.😉)

(3) I have not said anything derogatory or in any way “shamed” any victim. I have purposely not talked about the victim because my focus was on the RF and the Queen’s possible assessment of the situation.

(4) I don’t think that trying to have a balanced discussion “goes against everything FJ strives for.”  I would have thought the opposite, that trying to silence people who don’t share your opinion about something goes against what “FJ strives for.”  But what do I know.🤷‍♀️

(4) This is a complex situation. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that and much more.

[viii]

You are so gross. It doesn’t matter if you are talking to Andrew’s direct victim or not. You are speaking on a public board where there are MULTIPLE victims of sexual abuse and your dismissive fuckery is so SO rude. You also refuse to realize what you’re doing and double downing on it so have the day you deserve, holy shit. 

[tabitha2]

11 minutes ago, viii said:

You are so gross. It doesn’t matter if you are talking to Andrew’s direct victim or not. You are speaking on a public board where there are MULTIPLE victims of sexual abuse and your dismissive fuckery is so SO rude. You also refuse to realize what you’re doing and double downing on it so have the day you deserve, holy shit. 

And that is what good old ignore is for. Nobody is ever forced to read posts or posters they find offensive or disturbing or triggering and if they do anyway that’s on them and should not bitch and rant.  But any rational person would see What EmCatlyn is saying is well thought out, fair  and clear as to her POV… She is not an Andrew apologist. 

 

[viii]

Nah, you can call people out for toxic and triggering comments. There’s plenty of people here who don’t have her on ignore that could see her comments and be hurt. Words matter and she needs to be more mindful of that. And now I’m done. ✌🏻

[tabitha2]

Yeah. Well. Don’t expect people to change the way they feel or post because you demand it. Anyone not breaking FJ rules should be welcome IMO.

[just_ordinary]

In my experience most families go to great lengths to rationalise the legally and/or morally wrong behaviour of their members. Especially in parents-children relationships. They want to believe someone is not as bad as they probably just are. They cling to circumstances, bad experiences in the past, basically every excuse they can find. And even if they are of the stern opinion said person was completely at fault, they use those explanations to find a way to still have a relationship with them. Cutting someone out completely is hard and the cause is mostly pretty severe (I think much more severe than everything PA has done) but many parents will always try to find a way to maintain a relationship. Doesn’t mean they won’t express disappointment or disgust, but still associated with and love them.

RE PA: Some people also have a hand to get themselves into every trouble possible. For this group thankfully, most are not in a position like PA so their damage is mostly to themselves or rather limited in the amount of victims (doesn’t make it better for the victims at all though). I find, from my very anecdotal, subjective and limited experience, that they just think very differently than most other people. They have grand ideas about how they are being honourable and just but always get cheated out of something, they have great intentions only to turn around and fail straight away, they value a strange idea of loyalty and seem to be completely oblivious to why they have to follow the rules of society and law if it seems unfair or not right (and the law is not always following what you would morally expect it to). They also talk big about hard work, blood, sweat and tears only to try to cut every corner possible. Or how much they love their family and would die for them, only to vanish for times, take their money and in general just take and don’t give back at all. 
PA will always get into trouble if they don’t retire him to some nice country estate and completely control what he does. Sadly rich people get away with so much more. Sadly men still get away with certain mindsets. Fact is- we don’t KNOW what happened. And while I am definitely giving more credit to VG, fact is PA has not been found guilty by a court. So while I have no problem condemning him privately for all I want, I am also not comfortable with treating people as if they are guilty when there is no proof/judgment. It’s a fine line. Blurry and full of unfair benefits. I cannot exclude people just because I personally believe they have done this and that- at least not when it leaves my personal sphere. There are actual laws against that. Public opinion is not always right. Even though in his case- PA has dabbled in more dubious shit to be „retired“ several decades ago, no need to even look at the Eppstein horror.

I absolutely get why HMTQ wants to hold him close (even though I personally am disgusted). And I am sure she has numerous excuses in her heart for him, even if she actually believed he made mistakes. That’s very human. But the monarchy as institution must find a way to protect itself. When public and private life are this intertwined it gets really complicated. When to include him, when not? How to make him almost invisible without singling him out (I do think he obviously realised it and I get that his mother doesn’t want to put salt into the wound all the time, while the others have less mercy and the public would rather see him tested and feathered). All important milestones are a mix of private and public for them. 
 

In the end, PA is a disgrace for all sorts of things and the RF needs to find a way to keep him out of sight as well as including him privately if that is what they want. He seems completely oblivious to the public opinion or believes if he is persistent enough it might change or ease up again. A lost cause. Let’s hope Charles and Wiliam have worked out ideas how to solve this „hangers on“ problem. Cutting out PA, Sarah, H&M and retire the Queen‘s cousins. That would solve this problem for another good hundred years at least.

[Mrs Ms]

On 1/28/2022 at 9:29 AM, wotdancer said:

The youtube algorithm led me to this channel that does nonverbal analysis, and I think FJ might appreciate this upload from a few days ago! It's the first of 3 videos where Observe/Logan analyses an interview with prince voldemort from 2019.

 

I also really liked his one on Harry and Meghan. When I watched, only one part of the three parts was available on YouTube because of copyright issues and the other two parts were on his patreon. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Mrs Ms
Grammar 😩

[rosamundi]

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Let’s hope Charles and Wiliam have worked out ideas how to solve this „hangers on“ problem. Cutting out PA, Sarah, H&M and retire the Queen‘s cousins. That would solve this problem for another good hundred years at least.

Natural causes will take care of the Queen's cousins - they're all in their seventies and 80s, and with the best will in the world their willingness and ability to take on royal duties will be declining. They appear to be gradually winding down their patronages of various causes (the Duchess of Cambridge is now Patron of the All England Lawn Tennis Association, replacing Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, for instance), and their children don't play very active roles in the monarchy.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

I think the Queen isn’t judging Andrew very harshly because she knows how much shit royal men have gotten away with in the past. 

[dawbs]

1 hour ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

I think the Queen isn’t judging Andrew very harshly because she knows how much shit royal men have gotten away with in the past. 

It does mess with your baseline when 'horray, didn't behead anyone' is a family history. (I know it's old history, but, still) 

I do rather hate that there's still a distinction between rape and "rape rape". I get it, but its a distinction without a difference. And i  think for Andrew and his ilk, it's not that they thought their behavior  was OK, it's that they thought the plausible deniability would last forever, and now it's fossilized.

[formergothardite]

12 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

How did he know?

Well, for starters he was hanging out with a long time child sex trafficker. If I regularly hung out with a person well known for stealing and then selling stolen watches and I purchased a watch from them, it is safe to assume I was aware there was an extremely strong chance the watch was stolen. Me refusing to look into the watch I bought from the watch thief means I have no moral ground to claim I couldn’t have known. There is almost zero chances Andrew didn’t know exactly what sort of a person Epstein was or where those girls he gave to men to rape came from. Maybe he tried to lie to himself, but when we look at how he behaved in the time after Epstein was convicted, Andrew hardly acted like a man shocked and disgusted by discovering his friend was a child sex trafficker. 
 

She said he was told her age and that how Epstein got her. There is no point in trying to create alternative scenarios where Andrew just didn’t know. He was friends with a child sex trafficker, he remain friends after the man was convicted, all signs point to Andrew being fully aware of what was going on when Epstein gave him a young girl. And that is where it should end. Yes the family may be trying to downplay this in their heads, but there is no sense for anyone else to do so. 

12 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Andrew isn’t being judged

Um, he invited a convicted child sex trafficker to a party and then went to visit him and then said he didn’t regret the friendship at all. Why shouldn’t we judge this man as being a predatory piece of shit who clearly gave no fucks about what Epstein was up to? 
 

Even without these particular accusations, Andrew has behaved in a way that makes it clear he is a pretty nasty, bad person who gives zero shits about children being sex trafficked. Let’s not forget that he went to stay at what Epstein’s victims called the house of horrors and during his stay a parade of girls were seen entering and this took place AFTER Epstein was convicted. These are not the actions of just a clueless prince who didn’t know what was going on. He was shown looking around trying to make sure no one saw him. He knew exactly where he was and who he with. He just thought no one would ever hold him accountable. And those are the actions of a predator. 
 

 

 

[EmCatlyn]

13 hours ago, viii said:

You are so gross. It doesn’t matter if you are talking to Andrew’s direct victim or not. You are speaking on a public board where there are MULTIPLE victims of sexual abuse and your dismissive fuckery is so SO rude. You also refuse to realize what you’re doing and double downing on it so have the day you deserve, holy shit. 

You are offensive and rude.  I am sorry you feel that any statement that doesn’t demonize Prince Andrew is somehow an attack on all victims in the world, but that does not give you a right to attack me.

I have done trying to explain my position which is fairly nuanced and not at all in support of Andrew.  

[EmCatlyn]

11 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

….

Let’s hope Charles and Wiliam have worked out ideas how to solve this „hangers on“ problem. Cutting out PA, Sarah, H&M and retire the Queen‘s cousins. That would solve this problem for another good hundred years at least.

I agree 100% with most of your message, but …   100 years?  We can’t even guess what George, Charlotte, and Louis will be up to in 15-20 years. 😉

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Well, for starters he was hanging out with a long time child sex trafficker. If I regularly hung out with a person well known for stealing and then selling stolen watches and I purchased a watch from them, it is safe to assume I was aware there was an extremely strong chance the watch was stolen. Me refusing to look into the watch I bought from the watch thief means I have no moral ground to claim I couldn’t have known. There is almost zero chances Andrew didn’t know exactly what sort of a person Epstein was or where those girls he gave to men to rape came from. Maybe he tried to lie to himself, but when we look at how he behaved in the time after Epstein was convicted, Andrew hardly acted like a man shocked and disgusted by discovering his friend was a child sex trafficker. 
 

She said he was told her age and that how Epstein got her. There is no point in trying to create alternative scenarios where Andrew just didn’t know. He was friends with a child sex trafficker, he remain friends after the man was convicted, all signs point to Andrew being fully aware of what was going on when Epstein gave him a young girl. And that is where it should end. Yes the family may be trying to downplay this in their heads, but there is no sense for anyone else to do so. 

Um, he invited a convicted child sex trafficker to a party and then went to visit him and then said he didn’t regret the friendship at all. Why shouldn’t we judge this man as being a predatory piece of shit who clearly gave no fucks about what Epstein was up to? 
 

Even without these particular accusations, Andrew has behaved in a way that makes it clear he is a pretty nasty, bad person who gives zero shits about children being sex trafficked. Let’s not forget that he went to stay at what Epstein’s victims called the house of horrors and during his stay a parade of girls were seen entering and this took place AFTER Epstein was convicted. These are not the actions of just a clueless prince who didn’t know what was going on. He was shown looking around trying to make sure no one saw him. He knew exactly where he was and who he with. He just thought no one would ever hold him accountable. And those are the actions of a predator. 

 

It’s funny how you picked and chose a couple out of some rhetorical questions that I asked.  I had to go back to my msg to figure out the context of “Andrew isn’t being judged.” 🙄

I am just about done here, but I thought I’d try to explain (once more) that I agree that Prince Andrew is a creep but that my comments have tried to explore and explain how his family may have viewed the situation.  I give myself as an example of someone who hasn’t followed Andrew’s relationship with Epstein very closely and who only has a superficial knowledge of what Virginia Guiffre (sp?) has said about their relationship.  I admit (and have said from the start) that I don’t know the details of Virginia’s accusation (and don’t know much about Epstein either).

My point is that if I (who doesn’t like Andrew) can see where ignorance and stupidity etc could account for some of his wrong actions, why should we wonder that the Queen to some extent believes him?  It is unlikely that the Queen has been inclined to read much more than I have.  

The question of what we believe and why we believe it is one that fascinates me. Facts are important, but our sources (the reliability of certain facts) and the filters (the assumptions through which we focus and interpret facts) are equally important.  In general, I am going to try to present points of view that make us delve deeper into whatever we are judging.  I am sorry if that offends, but I think the mistake is in how my message is being read rather than in my intended message.  It really baffles me to be told that I am saying or holding a position that I am not.

In literary criticism, there have been movements that insisted that only one “right” interpretation of a text was possible and movements that insist that multiple interpretations are possible, that each text will be read differently by each reader. Then there is the question of whether “authorial intent” matters or not. I can yell all I want about what I intended to say, but if enough of you insist that I said something else, there is validity in your interpretation… just not for me. 😉

This discussion has stopped being productive.  I am ready to move on.

Edited April 5, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Added a thought. Fixed parentheses.

[just_ordinary]

8 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I agree 100% with most of your message, but …   100 years?  We can’t even guess what George, Charlotte, and Louis will be up to in 15-20 years. 😉

Oh sure. I meant that the whole size of the working/representing RF, the way titles are handed out and maybe taken back and such need to be overhauled. Monarchies (and most other government structures) move slow. Which is not always a bad thing if you look at a wider perspective, let’s say 100+ years. Pure activism was seldom a good fundament for decisions. Many actions can only be judged after 50+ years to have a real idea if it was a good or bad idea. Because long term effects can’t be forseen. The RF has now reached a point were action seems to be necessary, as similar problems have been festering and pointed out over more than two generations. But they could easily just let wait the cousin generation out (age will definitely solve this problem sooner rather than later) and completely ignore PA, Sarah and H&M (which are not as big of a PR problem as they like to think of themselves). 
I think we will/should see some changes. They treat the RF as a Firm, but then refuse to put in some basic rules. 
If you don’t work for the company (fired or leaving on your own account) you don’t get to use the companies benefits anymore (titles, protection). Doesn’t mean they wouldn’t get a golden handshake goodbye (as every shitty CEO does). 
Reducing staff (as in royals)is always the ugliest but quickest way to safe money. Of course that means certain jobs either get busier or certain services are just not provided anymore (a reign of Wiliam would not see more than around 150-200 engagements for him and Kate and, 100-150 got an full time working George as heir and around 50-100 for the rest. That’s roughly the norm in Europe.) 

It will be interesting to see if Charles will be the great Reformer some make him out to be. After being laughed about for 20+ years around his Ecco Agricultural endeavours he earned quite the reputation as being actually way more forward thinking. I think if he does implement changes it won’t be with a Big Bang. That’s not his style. It will be quietly and over time. If he thinks dynastic he might come to the conclusion that his reign will be see as pretty short compared to his mother and that his age might stop him from a huge reform. He will also be criticised relentlessly because he is an easy target (through is own fault and because the public is a mean, hysterical mass sometimes). His reign is already kind of tarnished. So he could go all in and make uncomfortable decisions as his perception is bad anyway and therefore gives Will a bit of a cushion. Or he just lays the groundwork for William to ascend and bring the great reform. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by just_ordinary

[EmCatlyn]

53 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

Oh sure. I meant that the whole size of the working/representing RF, the way titles are handed out and maybe taken back and such need to be overhauled. Monarchies (and most other government structures) move slow. Which is not always a bad thing if you look at a wider perspective, let’s say 100+ years. Pure activism was seldom a good fundament for decisions. Many actions can only be judged after 50+ years to have a real idea if it was a good or bad idea. Because long term effects can’t be forseen. The RF has now reached a point were action seems to be necessary, as similar problems have been festering and pointed out over more than two generations. But they could easily just let wait the cousin generation out (age will definitely solve this problem sooner rather than later) and completely ignore PA, Sarah and H&M (which are not as big of a PR problem as they like to think of themselves). 
I think we will/should see some changes. They treat the RF as a Firm, but then refuse to put in some basic rules. 
If you don’t work for the company (fired or leaving on your own account) you don’t get to use the companies benefits anymore (titles, protection). Doesn’t mean they wouldn’t get a golden handshake goodbye (as every shitty CEO does). 
Reducing staff (as in royals)is always the ugliest but quickest way to safe money. Of course that means certain jobs either get busier or certain services are just not provided anymore (a reign of Wiliam would not see more than around 150-200 engagements for him and Kate and, 100-150 got an full time working George as heir and around 50-100 for the rest. That’s roughly the norm in Europe.) 

It will be interesting to see if Charles will be the great Reformer some make him out to be. After being laughed about for 20+ years around his Ecco Agricultural endeavours he earned quite the reputation as being actually way more forward thinking. I think if he does implement changes it won’t be with a Big Bang. That’s not his style. It will be quietly and over time. If he thinks dynastic he might come to the conclusion that his reign will be see as pretty short compared to his mother and that his age might stop him from a huge reform. He will also be criticised relentlessly because he is an easy target (through is own fault and because the public is a mean, hysterical mass sometimes). His reign is already kind of tarnished. So he could go all in and make uncomfortable decisions as his perception is bad anyway and therefore gives Will a bit of a cushion. Or he just lays the groundwork for William to ascend and bring the great reform. 

Yeah, if you are thinking of how the RF is structured, changes made by Charles could well keep going for 100 years. If, on the other hand, you are thinking of Royal Black Sheep, every generation has at least one.

It is hard to guess how Charles will do things, but my guess is that as concerns the royal family he is not going to go around taking titles away or kicking people out of “grace and favor” houses.  He is more likely to make changes that come into effect with the next generation.  

Andrew is definitely a problem now because he seems determined to make himself visible in spite of all advice to lie low.  The latest rumor is the Queen plans to have him escort her to Ascot.  One hopes someone can talk sense to her about this because it hurts how many people view her at a time when they should be celebrating her long reign.  However, most people agree that when he comes to the throne, Charles will make sure Andrew behaves.

It will be interesting to see what happens about Harry’s kids.  I think if Harry and Meghan had not left, they would have been “Princes” when Charles took the throne, but with Harry making his life in the US and raising the children American, I suspect Charles will change things so only the line of descent has the title.  It is really just a courtesy title though.

Anyway, yes, there will be changes.  It should be interesting to watch.

[nelliebelle1197]

19 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Well, for starters he was hanging out with a long time child sex trafficker. If I regularly hung out with a person well known for stealing and then selling stolen watches and I purchased a watch from them, it is safe to assume I was aware there was an extremely strong chance the watch was stolen. Me refusing to look into the watch I bought from the watch thief means I have no moral ground to claim I couldn’t have known. There is almost zero chances Andrew didn’t know exactly what sort of a person Epstein was or where those girls he gave to men to rape came from. Maybe he tried to lie to himself, but when we look at how he behaved in the time after Epstein was convicted, Andrew hardly acted like a man shocked and disgusted by discovering his friend was a child sex trafficker. 
 

She said he was told her age and that how Epstein got her. There is no point in trying to create alternative scenarios where Andrew just didn’t know. He was friends with a child sex trafficker, he remain friends after the man was convicted, all signs point to Andrew being fully aware of what was going on when Epstein gave him a young girl. And that is where it should end. Yes the family may be trying to downplay this in their heads, but there is no sense for anyone else to do so. 

Um, he invited a convicted child sex trafficker to a party and then went to visit him and then said he didn’t regret the friendship at all. Why shouldn’t we judge this man as being a predatory piece of shit who clearly gave no fucks about what Epstein was up to? 
 

Even without these particular accusations, Andrew has behaved in a way that makes it clear he is a pretty nasty, bad person who gives zero shits about children being sex trafficked. Let’s not forget that he went to stay at what Epstein’s victims called the house of horrors and during his stay a parade of girls were seen entering and this took place AFTER Epstein was convicted. These are not the actions of just a clueless prince who didn’t know what was going on. He was shown looking around trying to make sure no one saw him. He knew exactly where he was and who he with. He just thought no one would ever hold him accountable. And those are the actions of a predator. 
 

 

 

The fact is that with men like Andrew no one else matters. There is a sociopathy there that goes way beyond just being spoiled and entitled ala Harry.

[Sarcastically spinster]

@EmCatlyn it's fine to explore how his family may be viewing him and rationalizing away his behavior into something less bad than it is.  I don't have a problem with you doing that.

The problem is that you're presenting it as a valid defense of his family and not just an exploration of their thought processes.  It's only a valid defense if it's a valid line of reasoning.  Presenting it as a defense implicitly, whether you mean it to or not, involves an endorsement of the thought process as being valid, even if you disagree with it.  And there is no valid line of reasoning that in any way exonerates Andrew from moral culpability.  

Exploring their thought process is fine.  But there's a difference between "I wonder if this is how they're excusing it to themselves", and "in their defense, they might be thinking about it this way" when "this way" is a terrible way to think about it that victim blames and minimizes and explains away.  By presenting it as a defense, you show that you, subconsciously or not, think it's an acceptable way to think about the situation.

Additionally you theorized, as yourself, that Giuffre may have had false memories of Andrew knowing that she was not a consenting partner, and IMO, that's where you clearly crossed a line - that devalues her thoughts and perspective in favor of a morally bankrupt man.  The reality is, whether he was explicitly told or not, he's still morally liable for knowing that she wasn't a consenting participant.  Before you have sex with someone, it is *your* job to make *absolutely* certain they are consenting.  He did not do that.  Whatever other excuses he may make, he didn't do the most basic thing that you do before you have sex with someone.  

I wonder why a guy hanging out with someone that he had to know was involved in trafficking, having sex with young women who are barely above the age of majority, might not want to do that basic step of making sure he had real consent before having sex?

Because he knew he wouldn't get it, and he wanted plausible deniability.  

The point of view that you are expressing and presenting as a valid perspective on it (because you presented it as a defense of his family members) is one that excuses him because of his plausible deniability, rather than holding him accountable for what he should have known, and what he had a moral responsibility to make sure he knew.  

The only way his family can be seeing this that *isn't* morally bankrupt is one that says "he's a terrible person and absolutely guilty but he's still family and we love him as family even though he doesn't deserve it."  There is no line of reasoning that gives any level of exoneration here that holds any merit.  

[EmCatlyn]

7 hours ago, Sarcastically spinster said:

@EmCatlyn it's fine to explore how his family may be viewing him and rationalizing away his behavior into something less bad than it is.  I don't have a problem with you doing that.

The problem is that you're presenting it as a valid defense of his family and not just an exploration of their thought processes.  It's only a valid defense if it's a valid line of reasoning.  Presenting it as a defense implicitly, whether you mean it to or not, involves an endorsement of the thought process as being valid, even if you disagree with it.  And there is no valid line of reasoning that in any way exonerates Andrew from moral culpability.  

Exploring their thought process is fine.  But there's a difference between "I wonder if this is how they're excusing it to themselves", and "in their defense, they might be thinking about it this way" when "this way" is a terrible way to think about it that victim blames and minimizes and explains away.  By presenting it as a defense, you show that you, subconsciously or not, think it's an acceptable way to think about the situation.

Additionally you theorized, as yourself, that Giuffre may have had false memories of Andrew knowing that she was not a consenting partner, and IMO, that's where you clearly crossed a line - that devalues her thoughts and perspective in favor of a morally bankrupt man.  The reality is, whether he was explicitly told or not, he's still morally liable for knowing that she wasn't a consenting participant.  Before you have sex with someone, it is *your* job to make *absolutely* certain they are consenting.  He did not do that.  Whatever other excuses he may make, he didn't do the most basic thing that you do before you have sex with someone.  

I wonder why a guy hanging out with someone that he had to know was involved in trafficking, having sex with young women who are barely above the age of majority, might not want to do that basic step of making sure he had real consent before having sex?

Because he knew he wouldn't get it, and he wanted plausible deniability.  

The point of view that you are expressing and presenting as a valid perspective on it (because you presented it as a defense of his family members) is one that excuses him because of his plausible deniability, rather than holding him accountable for what he should have known, and what he had a moral responsibility to make sure he knew.  

The only way his family can be seeing this that *isn't* morally bankrupt is one that says "he's a terrible person and absolutely guilty but he's still family and we love him as family even though he doesn't deserve it."  There is no line of reasoning that gives any level of exoneration here that holds any merit.  

Good points.  Let me try to address the more salient ones.

Maybe the way the discussion unfolded, I got away from my main point which was that the Queen might be forgiven for giving Andrew the “benefit of the doubt” and believing that he is fundamentally a good person who has behaved stupidly and hung around with bad people.  I was not suggesting that the rest of the RF should be given the same “pass,” and indeed I think most of the rest of them (Charles and Will for sure) see Andrew’s guilt clearly  guess that Fergie and his daughters might be inclined to share a more tolerant perspective with the Queen,  so occasionally I have spoken of “his family.”.  

Regarding Guiffre’s credibility or lack thereof, the only thing I raised a question about was her claim that he knew she was being trafficked.  This is hardly blaming or dismissing the victim.  I have myself often believed that someone “had to know” something that it turned out they didn’t know.  Further, people do get confused and have false memories.  Without discounting the rest of her story, I think it possible that Andrew didn’t realize that any encounters they had were not consensual.  I repeat that this doesn’t make his behavior okay. It does not excuse him for me. I was just following the thought that “she said he knew” was not the same as “he knew.”.

I don’t disagree with you that he should have known, but I can see how the whole idea of trafficking may not have crossed his mind because Andrew belongs to a generation—mine—where “consent” was not a major part of the discourse and Andrew seems to me lacking in both empathy and good sense.

While I completely agree with you that, “Before you have sex with someone, it is *your* job to make *absolutely* certain they are consenting,”  I am afraid that this is really a rather new attitude.  In my day, if a woman didn’t stop the man and stay firm on the “No,” she was presumed to be consenting.  So unless Andrew was told explicitly, “She doesn’t want to have sex with you, but she knows she has to do what I say,” he may have been oblivious to the idea that she was being trafficked.  Again, it is not an excuse.  Whether he recognized it as trafficking or not, this was a much younger woman in an environment that cannot have been good for young women and Andrew should have known that Epstein was known for dealings with underage girls. The whole situation was wrong, even if he hadn’t had sex with Guiffre.  However, I can see why the “rape because she was trafficked” accusation may be dismissed, minimized or ignored by the Queen and other supporters.

To conclude, I think Andrew is an idiot with a rather faulty moral code and no real idea of how his action affect others.  I think he deserves more punishment than he has received and that he is being incredibly selfish in pushing himself forward (or letting Mamma push him forward) after his disgrace. (Even if he were innocent— which he isn’t—he should step back and not hurt the monarchy.)  I don’t know if he is more at fault than many other men who hung out with Epstein and haven’t been held accountable, but that is no reason to excuse him.

(Note; I didn’t want to say more on this topic, but you raised good points without attacking me, so I tried to address them.  It seems clear to me that either my writing has been confusing or some of what I’ve been trying to get at has been misunderstood — or both.  In any case I don’t think there is more I can say.)

[Sarcastically spinster]

15 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I got away from my main point which was that the Queen might be forgiven for giving Andrew the “benefit of the doubt” and believing that he is fundamentally a good person who has behaved stupidly and hung around with bad people.

And this is what I, and I think most of the others on the thread, are disagreeing with.  The Queen can only be forgiven for it if her line of reasoning has validity.  

It is understandable that she would want to explain it away into something else.  It's understandable that she (or other family members) would want to excuse or minimize it.  I can be empathetic for someone who doesn't want to accept that their family member did something that heinous.  

But something being understandable doesn't make it forgivable.  Calling it forgivable validates her hypothetical reasoning.  It's not valid.  She doesn't get a pass on enabling an abuser (which it would be, if what you're explaining is actually her thinking) just because of the emotional difficulty of accepting that her son is one.  Giving her a pass on enabling an abuser carries with it an implicit enabling by the person giving her a pass.  

Are you intending to say that it is forgivable for her to enable an abuser, or that it is understandable that she would have difficulty accepting it and try to rationalize it away?  Because the first really isn't OK, and it's what you have been saying on this thread.  It might help for you to be more explicit about which of the two you're trying to do here.  

[AmazonGrace]

MOO I think Andrew knew that Epstein was trafficking girls and that's exactly why he liked to hang out with him...

Assuming that he honestly, truly, genuinely was dumb enough not to know he'd have broken up with Epsptein, completely disgusted and horrified,  once he found out. Which he didn't.

[nelliebelle1197]

1 minute ago, AmazonGrace said:

MOO I think Andrew knew that Epstein was trafficking girls and that's exactly why he liked to hang out with him...

Assuming that he honestly, truly, genuinely was dumb enough not to know he'd have broken up with Epsptein, completely disgusted and horrified,  once he found out. Which he didn't.

Thing is all that can be true. He can be dumb enough AND know what is going on!

[viii]

Not to mention, there are a lot of assumptions being made about the Queen and what she thinks. None of us know. She's probably just as shitty as Andrew is. Literally none of us know what she is thinking regarding her son and to keep defending her is an odd choice. 

[formergothardite]

Men like Andrew rely on the system that will give them the benefit of a doubt and speculate that they might not know what they were doing and question if the victim’s memory is accurate. 
 

2 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Thing is all that can be true. He can be dumb enough AND know what is going on!

Kind of like Josh Duggar, he is clearly dumb, but he also 100 percent knew what was going on. 

[EmCatlyn]

5 hours ago, Sarcastically spinster said:

And this is what I, and I think most of the others on the thread, are disagreeing with.  The Queen can only be forgiven for it if her line of reasoning has validity.  

It is understandable that she would want to explain it away into something else.  It's understandable that she (or other family members) would want to excuse or minimize it.  I can be empathetic for someone who doesn't want to accept that their family member did something that heinous.  

But something being understandable doesn't make it forgivable.  Calling it forgivable validates her hypothetical reasoning.  It's not valid.  She doesn't get a pass on enabling an abuser (which it would be, if what you're explaining is actually her thinking) just because of the emotional difficulty of accepting that her son is one.  Giving her a pass on enabling an abuser carries with it an implicit enabling by the person giving her a pass.  

Are you intending to say that it is forgivable for her to enable an abuser, or that it is understandable that she would have difficulty accepting it and try to rationalize it away?  Because the first really isn't OK, and it's what you have been saying on this thread.  It might help for you to be more explicit about which of the two you're trying to do here.  

Briefly: I think a parent may be forgiven for interpreting information in a way that lets her look at her son without disgust.   I think the queen is making a mistake to have Andrew escort her to events, even if they are not “official” appearances.  But I can understand what may prompt her to do this.