Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - you have blood on your hands

I don't think it was suicide. She posted before her death that she was not suicidal.

Without a doubt, yes - but then the RF have access to the kind of information and advice most could never dream off and STILL carry on enabling these wretches

Hence why I mentioned Charles's activities, including one where his own correspondence showed he was well aware of the controversy involved yet still carried on, only later trying to mew that he "hadn't understood"

I'd say the whole thing beggars belief, except where the RF are concerned it's all too believable

That doesn't really make sense to me. If they were all convinced of his innocence it would have made more sense to let it go to court rather than pay millions. That's how our justice system works unless you have a very rich mum clearly

Are you completely devoid of humanity or just trying to be goady? Either way, your comments are appalling.

She wasn't a minor she was trafficked

She was trafficked by Epstein and ‘given’ to his friends, like that abject excuse of a human being, there was no consent involved, you do understand that?

@HelenWheels

on my word.
just get over abuse eh? Forget the pain, physically and mentally. It doesn’t affect your thinking, functioning, trust.
You have no idea, do you?
I cannot for the life of me understand why you would make such a comment.

So she hasn't lied then by your reckoning?

Dramatic much.

She was a minor. So I said nothing untrue. Furthermore, Mumsnet is not legally responsible for what people post on the site. They have a vested interest in keep things civil, but if I put something illegal on the site, I would be on the hook, not Mumsnet.

Stop saying untrue things, just because you are a fan of this royal family.

Why is Andrew always portrayed as the biggest villain in this woman's story?
He certainly wasn't

But there is no age of consent for sex trafficking victims - they don't consent at any point, that's what sex trafficking is! Are you suggesting it's legal to have sex with an over 18 victim of sex trafficking? Of course not because that's ridiculous.

While yes, there are some very real issues with Andrew's status, you are muddying these waters by talking about an age of consent for people who don't give any consent full stop. In the UK the age of consent is 16, that's just how it is and you got that figure wrong.

Agree!

I'm not a fan. But until all the Epstien/Giuffre stuff he was just another rich entitled man who had a bit of an off feeling about him. Virginia's allegations made him a parahiah- rightly. I wasn't for one moment suggesting 'poor Andrew' more finding comfort in my view that he hasn't just walked away from it with no consequences.

Maybe paedophiles and sex offenders befriend the Royal family, deliberately, for the ultimate cover and protection. Sexual predators are the ultimate groomers after all.

Well Mumsnet should really pack up their bags and delete itself from the internet - bad Court of Law it isn't !

I despise all the royal family, and have no interest in their affairs generally - but this post is hysterical. There is no evidence that he was involved in trafficking. There is evidence that she met him (a photograph), but there is no evidence of anything beyond that. So this entire thread, including the OP's comments are "misinformation repeated by hundreds of people with low IQ's repeating it thinking it's true" - to quote the OP. The entire thread is made up of disinformation - on every "side", because not one person here knows what happened at all. But lets not let any facts get in the way of spreading misinformation.

He will no doubt be happy that his 'tormentor' can no longer take any sort of legal action against him. He cared little for the "little people" in his life , probably regards many of them with contempt I don't think he will have changed now. The Sun seems to think he may be coming back.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/34561526/prince-andrew-return-working-royal-easter-service-public/

I look forward to PA having his day in court for that case. Bring it on - besides it's not defamation if it's true.

He deserved to lose his 'job' purely on the grounds of his shady business practices and associates even prior to the horrific SA allegations against him.
Why do you think the Trade Envoy records have been sealed until he and we are long gone?

He's always been considered buffoonish and vile so hasn't really lost anything else other than the right to trot along with the rest on official occasions and he manages to sidestep even that unonerous requirement regularly.

Locked up for what though? In her memoirs VG said that she was paid £10,000 by Epstein for the evening with Prince Andrew. He didn't force himself on her if you read her account of that evening. He would only have committed an offence if he knew she was trafficked and there's no way to prove he was aware of that, it's her word against his.

Your post is really annoying, why Andrew.Why not Epstein and Maxwell ? What about all the other men?

Andrew has never been charged, others have, they are the ones who bear responsibility

Re 'the family' wasn't she in and out of care from and early age?

What happened with her parents that that was necessary?

I saw her father posting on SM recently after the whole "4 days to live" thing but I've not seen anything from/any reference to her mother, is she still in the picture/alive?

True, but he's still living in a very privileged and gilded cage when he should probably be locked up.

Poor Virginia.

For the sycophantic Andrew apologists insisting he did nothing wrong I will repeat this catchy dirty:

Ooh the grand old Duke of York,
he had 12 million quid,
he gave it to someone he never met
for something he never did.

Even though he escaped justice because of the power and wealth of his family, the vast majority of Brits hold him in scorn and contempt, rightly so.

.

Nothing much it would seem….