Andrew 2

[viii]

1 hour ago, Gobsmacked said:

If they has used separate cars the Greens would have jumped on them for not car sharing sadly. Catherine sensibly sat in the back away from him. 

No, they could have found a different route and entrance to the church for Andrew and nobody would have even known he was there. These people are more than capable of being discreet when they want to be. They clearly don’t care, just like some posters here. 

[Loveday]

28 minutes ago, viii said:

No, they could have found a different route and entrance to the church for Andrew and nobody would have even known he was there. These people are more than capable of being discreet when they want to be. They clearly don’t care, just like some posters here. 

That's fairly uncalled for. I haven't noticed a single person here say anything pro-Andrew. We're all pretty unanimous in agreeing that he's a POS with zero redeeming qualities. I don't see that ever changing.

However, if Andrew wants to go to church with his family, for whatever reason, that is something I don't care about. I don't even care if he's photographed going in the front door of the church. Or if he's in the car with whoever. Maybe he'll hear something in the sermon that will resonate with him and he'll repent of his many sins. Or not. But seriously, going to church? I'm not going to care if he does that.

Now, if he starts showing up at official functions, wearing uniform, waving at the populace along with his siblings...now THAT I'd have a serious problem with, and I hope that's not Charles's ultimate goal. I doubt it is, but one never knows, I guess. Not that my opinion would matter--I'm an American, not British, and have zero say in how anything there is run. You might want to remember that when criticising 'some posters here.' Most of us are looking at the situation from another country. What do you expect us to do about it? Protest outside Buckingham Palace? 

I wish Andrew was in prison. It's where he belongs. But he's not, and occasionally we're going to see him out and about with his family. Hopefully it will never be any more than that. I don't care in the least if he's seen going to church, though--again, maybe it will do him some good. 

[viii]

It's not uncalled for in the least. Sure, nobody here is praising Andrew, but the way that some posters simply don't care that he's being slowly edged back into the BRF says a lot about them. Maybe you don't care that he's photographed going to church but I sure do, because the BRF aren't idiots. They are WELL aware that every photograph with Andrew indicates approval of his presence and I find that to be an issue. I could care less if he attends church, but I don't want to see him doing it. I don't want to see him doing anything, I don't want to see HIM, period. He's a vile, pathetic excuse for a human being and the BRF does themselves ZERO favours by introducing him slowly back to the public. 

[tabitha2]

No one is forcing you to pay attention to the doings of this family so maybe don’t click those Royal links and photos and articles concerning Andrew. 

[Jackie3]

3 hours ago, Gobsmacked said:

If they has used separate cars the Greens would have jumped on them for not car sharing sadly. Catherine sensibly sat in the back away from him. 

Catherine should be sitting in the front, next to her husband. It's odd they relegated her to the back, like a child or a guest.  She'd be just as far away from him in the front, so I dont' see what is "sensible" about it.

Edited August 30, 2023 by Jackie3

[viii]

9 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

No one is forcing you to pay attention to the doings of this family so maybe don’t click those Royal links and photos and articles concerning Andrew. 

See - this says a lot. Rather than condemn the BRF for supporting Andrew, you'd rather me just not look at the stories and photos of them bringing him back into the fold. Interesting. 

[tabitha2]

The whole subject of Andrew seems to upset you greatly and that’s understandable and fair. But why spend your time and mental energy being that way about things you can’t change, that none of us can change? 

 

Andrew is obviously staying in his families bosom as a brother and uncle and “private” person. That’s not inappropriate or wrong at all. It’s when he starts showing signs of being official again and slipping into roles he has been barred from and not fit for that ire and disgust and offense is called for. 

[viii]

11 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

The whole subject of Andrew seems to upset you greatly and that’s understandable and fair. But why spend your time and mental energy being that way about things you can’t change, that none of us can change? 

 

Andrew is obviously staying in his families bosom as a brother and uncle and “private” person. That’s not inappropriate or wrong at all. It’s when he starts showing signs of being official again and slipping into roles he has been barred from and not fit for that ire and disgust and offense is called for. 

Yes, the very idea of Andrew upsets me, and it should really upset everybody else as well. However, spending less than half an hour today commenting on him doesn't take up a lot of time or mental energy for me. I'm pretty capable of dividing my energy and have zero issues condemning Andrew and the BRF who are endorsing this slow re-introduction. There are plenty of topics on this board that are upsetting, but it's interesting that nobody says not to comment on them, except when it comes to Andrew. Just because I can't change anything personally, doesn't mean I won't continue to speak out against it. 

I think the BRF is making a massive mistake by allowing Andrew to be photographed with them. I would even argue that some of these photos are official. He's not in Trooping of the Colour or any official events like that, but drives/walks to church are somewhat of a formal, traditional BRF event, and by allowing him to partake in them, it's a slippery slope. That's all I'm saying. 

[tabitha2]

King Charles III  is an intelligent  man and very experienced Royal with plenty of highly placed qualified advisers and Evidently they believe keeping Andrew in fold is the wisest thing for now for whatever reason and it’s probably not deep brotherly bonds because those two have never been like that. Obviously There is some strategy here. But giving Andrew is old role back might just be a torpedo that takes them out and the PTB know that. Not gonna happen. 

[viii]

You clearly have more faith than I do in the BRF. I'll agree that keeping Andrew in the fold is the wisest move right now, because the last thing they probably want is another spare writing a tell all. However, there are ways to keep him in the fold without visibly supporting him, and that line is super blurred right now. Let's hope his visible presence dies down once we get past the first year anniversary of QEII's death. 

[apandaaries]

To me, Andrew really represents the worst excesses of the very privileged life of royalty. Last we heard, he was battling Charles to stay in an extravagant home which required extensive repairs. Failing to get the crown to pay, he eventually reached in his own pockets to pay for the restorations, effectively digging his heels into that home. 

That’s not great, but it’s still so much better than his interview, in which he explained to the unwashed masses that he did not sweat, and therefore all allegations against him were false…despite the photograph, despite the well-documented friendship with Epstein, despite the behavior which won him the title of “Randy Andy.” 
 

He’s truly vile, family or not. And in a family where their image is so important (monarchies aren’t universally adored! Their position is contingent upon the public’s acceptance!), this seems like such a stupid move. Why would they want to return him to the family fold so publicly? How could they imagine that benefits them? 
 

In (yet another) time of economic distress, why bring out this princeling who clearly disdains the public and imagines them to all be simpletons? He’s one of the most globally recognizable epitomes of nepotism in existence. Why call attention to the luxurious life which is his, yet funded by others? Poor form, poor optics.

Edited August 30, 2023 by apandaaries

[Gobsmacked]

3 hours ago, Loveday said:

That's fairly uncalled for. I haven't noticed a single person here say anything pro-Andrew. We're all pretty unanimous in agreeing that he's a POS with zero redeeming qualities. I don't see that ever changing.

However, if Andrew wants to go to church with his family, for whatever reason, that is something I don't care about. I don't even care if he's photographed going in the front door of the church. Or if he's in the car with whoever. Maybe he'll hear something in the sermon that will resonate with him and he'll repent of his many sins. Or not. But seriously, going to church? I'm not going to care if he does that.

Now, if he starts showing up at official functions, wearing uniform, waving at the populace along with his siblings...now THAT I'd have a serious problem with, and I hope that's not Charles's ultimate goal. I doubt it is, but one never knows, I guess. Not that my opinion would matter--I'm an American, not British, and have zero say in how anything there is run. You might want to remember that when criticising 'some posters here.' Most of us are looking at the situation from another country. What do you expect us to do about it? Protest outside Buckingham Palace? 

I wish Andrew was in prison. It's where he belongs. But he's not, and occasionally we're going to see him out and about with his family. Hopefully it will never be any more than that. I don't care in the least if he's seen going to church, though--again, maybe it will do him some good. 

Well said. I think most of us here and the majority of UK folk think the same. Thing is we just prefer not to think of him. Complete waste of valuable brain space. 

[Loveday]

1 hour ago, Gobsmacked said:

Well said. I think most of us here and the majority of UK folk think the same. Thing is we just prefer not to think of him. Complete waste of valuable brain space. 

I totally get that! In fact, the only time I do think of him is when I'm in this thread! LOL. But I'm sure it's hard for UK folks to ignore him when the British press feel the need to plaster his mug(shot) all over the papers. 

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, apandaaries said:

That’s not great, but it’s still so much better than his interview, in which he explained to the unwashed masses that he did not sweat, and therefore all allegations against him were false…despite the photograph, despite the well-documented friendship with Epstein, despite the behavior which won him the title of “Randy Andy.” 

Actually, he was known as Randy Andy long before Epstein.

 

3 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

King Charles III  is an intelligent  man and very experienced Royal with plenty of highly placed qualified advisers and Evidently they believe keeping Andrew in fold is the wisest thing for now for whatever reason and it’s probably not deep brotherly bonds because those two have never been like that. Obviously There is some strategy here. But giving Andrew is old role back might just be a torpedo that takes them out and the PTB know that. Not gonna happen. 

Where is the evidence that he's intelligent? He had every advantage money could buy, including the best schooling, and achieved only two A-levels. 

[prayawaythefundie]

In general I wouldn‘t condemn a family for allowing a delinquent member to hang out with the rest of them because it‘s their prerogative to feel he‘s family no matter what (if they do feel so).

However, I do agree with @viii that in this specific case, the lines can sometimes be blurred because the BRF is both a family and an institution in itself. For some events it‘s hard to say whether they are private or official.

To me this one is private as I consider them all „off duty“ during their stay in Balmoral. I therefore don‘t expect them to go to great lengths to hide Andrew but there is still quite a lot in between smuggling him into the church through a side entrance and having him in a car seat next to the heir to the throne. While it doesn‘t upset me horribly, I still think it‘s stupid. 

Edited August 30, 2023 by prayawaythefundie

[noseybutt]

8 hours ago, Gobsmacked said:

Well said. I think most of us here and the majority of UK folk think the same. Thing is we just prefer not to think of him. Complete waste of valuable brain space. 

So I agree with this…

Except I am also a member of a snark site and know waaaaay too much about all manner of odd people….

 “Ignore him” is wise life advice but also kind of silly since the press isn’t ignoring him and many of us here are inherently nosey and blow off steam by…..well, not ignoring the weird and the famous and snarking instead.

He had no criminal repercussions and precious little civil (early retirement?). I mean, of course people are going to be angry about every little thing because there has been limited transparency and less accountability. 

[viii]

7 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

So I agree with this…

Except I am also a member of a snark site and know waaaaay too much about all manner of odd people….

 “Ignore him” is wise life advice but also kind of silly since the press isn’t ignoring him and many of us here are inherently nosey and blow off steam by…..well, not ignoring the weird and the famous and snarking instead.

He had no criminal repercussions and precious little civil (early retirement?). I mean, of course people are going to be angry about every little thing because there has been limited transparency and less accountability. 

It’s like telling people to ignore Josh Duggar 😂 Snark is what we do here!!

[noseybutt]

13 minutes ago, viii said:

It’s like telling people to ignore Josh Duggar 😂 Snark is what we do here!!

It’s weird though because I do hope the world ignores the Duggars enough that they make no money off their dreadful TV show. But I want to talk about his prison life and the computer spyware that wasn’t and the over priced legal team. I mean, the whole family’s fear that “women and the gayz” would tear them down pretty much came true and few fiction stories can compare.

Andrew’s story is unlikely to have an ending as satisfying. He just….goes to church. 😂

[prayawaythefundie]

Technicality: In contrast to Josh Duggar, Andrew hasn‘t been found guilty by a court of law. For now.

[viii]

7 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Technicality: In contrast to Josh Duggar, Andrew hasn‘t been found guilty by a court of law. For now.

If Prince Andrew hadn’t been a prince, he would have been found guilty by a court of law too. 

[treehugger]

Just a reminder that Virgina was 17 and decidedly not prepubescent at that time. What Andrew is and did is gross, disgusting, and creepy, and possibly illegal, but nowhere near as despicable as the horror that Josh Duggar engaged in. 
Andrew is most likely a disgusting piece of shit but we don’t need the hyperbolic comparison to the depravity that is Josh Duggar and all actual pedophiles who act on their impulses. 

This is not an excuse for Andrew. I have no doubt the man has many skeletons in his closet and the BRF really shouldn’t been seen in public with him anywhere. 

Edited August 31, 2023 by treehugger

[viii]

The point sailed right over your head. Nobody is comparing their crimes. They're both pieces of shit. 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

4 hours ago, treehugger said:

Just a reminder that Virgina was 17 and decidedly not prepubescent at that time. What Andrew is and did is gross, disgusting, and creepy, and possibly illegal, but nowhere near as despicable as the horror that Josh Duggar engaged in. 
Andrew is most likely a disgusting piece of shit but we don’t need the hyperbolic comparison to the depravity that is Josh Duggar and all actual pedophiles who act on their impulses. 

This is not an excuse for Andrew. I have no doubt the man has many skeletons in his closet and the BRF really shouldn’t been seen in public with him anywhere. 

Virgina was not able to consent or refuse sex, anymore than Joy Duggar was. Both were overpowered by men who took what they wanted from them. 
 

If the royal family is allowing Andrew to ride in cars and hang out with them that tells me what they think of victims of CSA. Any good will they had with me is now gone. 

[treehugger]

With all due respect, Joy was 5. Virginia was 17. Virginia was no longer a child. 
She was an older teenager who was sexually assaulted by a much older man in a position of power. She was legally old enough in the UK to consent to sex. It became illegal because of the power dynamic and because she did not consent. It was sexual assault/rape, not CSA.
 

There is a difference and words matter. It is why I brought it up in the first place. Don’t take away her agency by conflating her experience with that of a 5 year old child who was incapable of consent at any time.  Women don’t need to be infantilized for us to matter. She was not a child and that should not diminish the fact that she was sexually assaulted. 

Edited August 31, 2023 by treehugger

[prayawaythefundie]

5 hours ago, viii said:

If Prince Andrew hadn’t been a prince, he would have been found guilty by a court of law too. 

Doesn’t change the fact. There‘s a difference between likeliness and certainty. 

Edited August 31, 2023 by prayawaythefundie