Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Prince Andrew

999 replies

SunsetBoulevard3 · 16/11/2019 00:07

I haven’t watched the interview, but heard reports of the content. I just find it unbelievable he claims he can’t remember meeting a woman he had his arm around! Despicable. Does anyone believe him?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Puzzledandpissedoff · 16/11/2019 13:56

The BBC is part of the establishment ultimately. It is by no means impartial

This is true, but then so are the courts and police - all of whom serve in the name of the Queen, who'll clearly support whatever it takes to cover up unwelcome news

This is why my respect's limited to the time she's stuck with the job; after all the Queen's showered the kids with money, honours and nice little sinecures and could easily remove them all. Unfortunately it's clear she doesn't wish to, no doubt believing along with the rest that they're a special breed superior to the rest of us

Personally I'm coming to the view that this latest interview's a trade for the suppression of further bad news, which is all a bit futile now we have the internet, but my main and enduring view's that we should just get rid of the whole darned lot of them

Otterseatpuffinsdontthey · 16/11/2019 13:59

Haven't seen the interview because I have no T.V.. I do read a lot of Crime Fiction - would be very interested what the body-language experts would make of him during the interview?
How many criminals have went on T.V. appealing for help to catch the culprit(s) - who are actually sitting in front of the cameras. Betrayed by their body language.

RhinoskinhaveI · 16/11/2019 14:04

I suppose she can't really get rid of any members of the royal family because doing so undermines the legitimacy of The royal family
They are there by birthright and if they can be got rid of so can she?

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

The royal family
CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook · 16/11/2019 14:07

In my opinion, the thing that "gives him away" is the slight pause he gives before saying "I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady. None whatsoever." He's not actually saying "I didn't do it," just that "I don't remember doing it." Different things.

Yes this 100%

You know who else screwed up with a stupid statement like that? Kevin Spacey with his "I don't remember this event ever happening...but if it did happen then I was drunk, blah blah." I remember thinking what a stupid statement and whoever KS hired to manage his PR should have been immediately fired. Don't know whose advised Andrew to do this interview, but perhaps they ought to be fired also. After all he's just given a green light for media coverage from all angles now.

Maybe this is about protecting Beatrice? After all her beau is the son of a Count with business interests so maybe he wants the scandal removed before they marry and not overshadowing her big day.

lolaflores · 16/11/2019 14:08

The royals only continue in their position with the people and parliaments complicity. If we remove our permission for them to remain then they should pack their shit up and leave. They are there only because they always have been but it does not secure their rights infinitely

CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook · 16/11/2019 14:11

Personally I'm coming to the view that this latest interview's a trade for the suppression of further bad news,

Ah. That would make much more sense. Yes.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 16/11/2019 14:13

But he's not the only one to show bad judgement ... (Charles) & Peter Ball for example

Indeed. But apparently Charles was merely "misguided", even though Ball's crimes were already known when he went on supporting this paedophile and wrote to say he felt "so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated"

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/09/prince-charles-criticised-official-sex-abuse-inquiry-misguided/

Bluntness100 · 16/11/2019 14:16

If he'd kept his head down, eventually it would have gone away

I don't think so. I think it's the opposite, there is more to come. This interview is an attempt at damage limitation. In the calm before the storm.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 16/11/2019 14:24

I suppose she can't really get rid of any members of the royal family because doing so undermines the legitimacy of the royal family
They are there by birthright and if they can be got rid of so can she?

It's a fair point, illustrating once again that their real interest lies in protecting their own position above all else

Even as a committed republican I do try to understand the views of monarchists, but they're surely becoming untenable. The "good for tourist receipts" has already been thoroughly debunked, and as for "they're better than a president" ... well, could a (removable) Head of State really be any worse than this shower?

beanaseireann · 16/11/2019 14:55

"Sarah divorced to rid herself of the influence of the Royals and who can blame her for this."

Somebody wrote that upthread. Shock

Were they being funny ?

Sarah loves the "Royal" life and all it's privileges.
She gushes about her wonderful ex husband.
Have you seen her bow to the Queen at Ascot. It's actually comical.

All the talk of them reuniting was supposed to put the public off the Epstein news. It didn't work obviously. We're not that gullible and sycophantic.

sue51 · 16/11/2019 15:09

Sarah has dined out on the Duchess of York usp since the divorce. It's in her interest to loudly proclaim her husband's innocence and value to the UK.

NotaWagon · 16/11/2019 15:14

I cannot believe he actually said ''my biggest weakness is my tendency to be honorable'' Shock that is Donald Trump style gaslighting right there.

CathyorClaire · 16/11/2019 15:16

This ghastly, arrogant man has long shown us who he is. I can remember years back when he caused controversy by spraying members of the press with paint as a 'joke'.

Interestingly this article about the incident refers to his rep as a 'ladies man' when he was aged 24. Make of that what you will but it would surprise me if there weren't decades worth of skeletons rattling in his closet.

www.nytimes.com/1984/04/18/us/a-playful-prince-paints-the-press.html

NotaWagon · 16/11/2019 15:17

I also found the ''i don't recall'' answer suspicious. If somebody asked me if I'd kidnapped Harry Potter I wouldn't say ''I don't recall''. It's so transparent.

beanaseireann · 16/11/2019 15:38

"It was not something becoming of the Royal family.." Andrew says in the interview of his continuing friendship with Epstien.

Personally I believe it was not something becoming of any decent man** or woman.

diddl · 16/11/2019 15:50

Yes, it's not becoming behaviour at all from anyone!

It's almost like using being part of the RF as an excuse.

I know that doesn't make sense, but can't quite explain!

theDudesmummy · 16/11/2019 15:54

I have no problem in theory with believing he may not have remembered this young woman. That is perfectly possible, especially with his sort of lifestyle and attitudes. Hell, I didn't have that sort of lifestyle, and I can tell you that there are people that have had had one night stands brief relationships with, and I literally would not know who they were now. He may well not remember one young pretty girls among hundreds, all of whom he probably experienced and entirely interchangeable.

What I actually cannot get my head around is his use of the words "honourable" and "convenient" in the contexts in which he used them, and then saying that he had "let the side down". What side? The Royals? Men? Human beings?

theDudesmummy · 16/11/2019 15:55

experienced as interchangeable

lolaflores · 16/11/2019 16:09

Does the BBC have any idea if just how shady they look right now? The nearly wrong side of the law they are on y possibly jeopardising any future criminal case or proceedings?

Puzzledandpissedoff · 16/11/2019 16:22

I'm sure their lawyers will have okay'd it, lolaflores; as a PP said, Andrew may or my not have known the questions beforehand, but the lawyers certainly will have done

I'm not sure about the "risk to legal proceedings" either - not that the Queen will ever allow there to be any. I'm no lawyer, but surely so much of this having been reported already would be enough to stymie impartiality, with or without an interview?

Bluerussian · 16/11/2019 16:25

I will wait to see the interview before I comment but I do think it is possible he doesn't remember.

lolaflores · 16/11/2019 16:26

Possible risk. In that they are taking a roll on it just being inside the bounds of what is allowable. The moral shadiness if looking like they are disappearing up the RF's hole and accommodating this interview and waving by bye to impartiality

LarkDescending · 16/11/2019 16:30

Yes it’s not the case at all that going on TV means a future trial can’t go ahead. On the contrary, sometimes TV or other unguarded media interviews provide absolute gold for subsequent cross-examination.

BertrandRussell · 16/11/2019 16:31

If only someone had told him about hotels.....

beanaseireann · 16/11/2019 16:33

Are the Royal Family above the law in the UK ?

Puzzledandpissedoff writes :
"...not that the Queen will ever allow there to be any.." ( legal proceedings )