Page 4 | Ghislaine Maxwell Guilty.. What does this mean for Andrew?

longwayoff · 30/12/2021 09:41

I doubt we'll ever see PA in court. Protecting him won't be for his benefit but for 'the protection of the Monarchy'. If his secrets, whatever they may be, can be discussed in court then it will be open season on the rest of the royals and they won't want that stone lifted.

Dustyblue · 30/12/2021 10:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn as it quotes a deleted post.

MerryChristmas21 · 30/12/2021 10:24

@EmmasMum12

Weren't his daughters front row at Kate's Carol service?

And?

MerryChristmas21 · 30/12/2021 10:29

@EmmasMum12

Sorry.... that seemed like such a weird comment without the quote. My apologies.

Someone up thread commented that Charles would disown Andrew when he's King. And someone else commented that they hope the same for Sarah and Andrews daughters

It seems to me that Andrews girls are well accepted by William and Kate (Carol service front row)

You know when you start a thought process on a thread and then REALLY wish you hadn't? 🤣😅

I don't see why the cousins shouldn't get along. Nor why their uncle should shun his nieces.
I think B&E are probably in shock &!don't want to believe their father is guilty.

LuluBlakey1 · 30/12/2021 11:50

@edwinbear

The minute the Queen dies, Charles will cut him off. And that should extend to his ex wife and leeches of daughters. They are all an embarrassment and disgrace.

It is really hard for Charles (when he is King) to cut him off . He can not just remove his titles. I think it has to be done by some sort of act of parliament. He can't just put him out of The Royal Lodge at Windsor - the house and estate. Although it is part of Windsor Great Park, Andrew was bequeathed it by the Queen Mother in her will and has paid millions for very long lease on it and spent millions doing it up. He could remove him from attendance at any ceremonial event (which is almost where we are with him) or refuse him entry to any of the Monarch's residences but he would be stuck with him living on a royal estate where the park is open to the public and so Andrew could use it, although he could be stopped from having access to the 'Royal' bits- the castle, stables, chapels, other Royal residences there. He can refuse him any money from the Duchy of Lancaster - which is the fund the Monarch has to maintain his/herself, properties, working royals.

I suspect Andrew and Sarah Ferguson (who is a huge part of his tarnished image) might happily be paid off (it would cost absolutely millions) to give up their titles and go and live abroad. However, he would probably keep his Prince (he was born a Prince) and she would keep her Sarah, Duchess of York, which is not actually a title, just an indication she was once the Duchess of York.

viques · 30/12/2021 11:55

It means that he was not only very good friends with a convicted paedophile but was also very good friends with a child abusing child trafficker. Add this to his other good friends the arms dealers he really isn’t someone you would want to spend time with is he. Unless you were his mother or his weird spendthrift ex wife.

thereisonlyoneofme · 30/12/2021 11:58

I think that Andrew is guilty of being over entitled and up himself enough to think that a young girl is interested in him. Im not sure that he had any idea that she was allegedly trafficked, he has always struck me as a bit thick to be honest

ArblemarzipanTFruitcake · 30/12/2021 12:09

This BBC article gives quite a comprehensive summary of the implications:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59780323

Shinychestnuts · 30/12/2021 12:23

@thereisonlyoneofme

I think that Andrew is guilty of being over entitled and up himself enough to think that a young girl is interested in him. Im not sure that he had any idea that she was allegedly trafficked, he has always struck me as a bit thick to be honest

I think he tried to give that impression. He told Emily Maitliss that he thought the young women hanging about at Epstein gatherings were "staff". That might just be believable at a catered event I suppose, but on a plane, on an island, in the New York house? To not ask questions about evidently very, very young girls - 14-17 year olds - continually present in those settings seems beyond naive to me. He must have known!

FrippEnos · 30/12/2021 12:27

@thereisonlyoneofme

I think that Andrew is guilty of being over entitled and up himself enough to think that a young girl is interested in him. Im not sure that he had any idea that she was allegedly trafficked, he has always struck me as a bit thick to be honest

This is the classic footballers defense.

MintJulia · 30/12/2021 13:29

[quote EmmasMum12]@maskless ... why on earth do you think Prince Andrew is innocent? Please help me understand. Even his mother has removed him from his job as a royal so must believe he is guilty [/quote]
By guilty, I assume you mean that he was intimate with a girl, while either knowing the girl was trafficked, or he knew the girl was under age.

I can believe PA is foolish enough not to look too closely, but I also doubt he was privy to the trafficking. Maxwell/Epstein were keen to project a 'beautiful people' image. Trafficking is hardly something they would boast about.

Removing someone from duty while they are under investigation is standard policy. It doesn't mean anyone thinks he's guilty.

something2say · 30/12/2021 15:24

Just a quick rather cynical post as in way out of door...

So the huge number of men who availed themselves of the scene arent being investigated or charged.
The woman has been.
The 'central character' has been taken out.

It's fine to leave it that the woman has been charged, nothing else can come out as the central guy is dead (but where is his little black book?).

Meanwhile none of us ever do it again. We shuffle off and turn our backs, the whipping she got and the lid being off is enough for everyone to stop it and pretend they never did it.

Happens time and time again with abuse cases, especially family ones. 'Lesson learned, phew, thank F no one knew I was involved' sort of thing.

That's my cynical view of it..

However the lack of Virginia Guiffre could be an ace up the sleeve yet? Shall we hope or is life just too disappointing?

givethatbabyaname · 30/12/2021 15:43

PA is the son of a woman who believes she has a God-given right to the lifestyle and status and position she holds. He was raised in that world.

PA is so arrogant as to believe that he and his daughters are literally superior human beings to plebeians.

He will no doubt have scoffed about how ignorant the jury members were, how terribly unqualified GM’s lawyers were, how biased the judge is, how terribly American the whole thing was.

He is totally impervious to the world everyone apart from he and the queen live in. He will be feeling victimized, put upon, and the victim of a witch hunt. He will not comprehend (except he does, 100%) how this can be happening to him. His only regret is for the consequences on his own life and the terrible injustices he’s suffering. He will decry the hypocrisy that he’s the victim of.

He has no shame. His entitlement is breathtaking.

upinaballoon · 30/12/2021 17:56

pinkypenguin, I go along with your thinking that there was more evidence to be used against GM than there is against any of 'the men or the woman', so that's why they aren't all on charges, but who knows what will happen in the future.

VladmirsPoutine · 30/12/2021 18:05

I can't believe people are doing 'poor woman' over this. Is Ghislane really where you're willing to hang up your feminist flag.

Phantom1 · 30/12/2021 18:17

What does the photograph prove in terms of sexual activity? The PA case is totally different to the GM case. One is a civil case. The other is a criminal case. VG has already been paid off by Epstein and now she's pursuing PA for more money. Why is she only suing PA? That photograph and her claims have been around for years. Why is she only suing him now? Who is paying for her legal team? Is she on some sort of no win, no fee basis?

These remarks are merely to ask more questions and query the case because there is clearly more to it than what we see or hear.

Motherdare · 30/12/2021 18:23

Didn’t VG also recruit girls to be abused in the same way? Like a pyramid scheme?

MrsTerryPratchett · 30/12/2021 19:34

@VladmirsPoutine

I can't believe people are doing 'poor woman' over this. Is Ghislane really where you're willing to hang up your feminist flag.

I'm not sure that's entirely the flavour. It's more that a crime that is about sex with girls has a woman as the only convicted offender. That's shit when we know many men were sexually abusing these poor women. I do think she's guilty but so are multiple men and they aren't being convicted.

Onlinedilema · 30/12/2021 20:02

There is a look of strange thinking about this.
Men get away with raping children all the time. Roman Polanski anyone? A man who by his own admission drugged and plied a child (not a 17 year old) but a child with copious amounts of alcohol so that he could anally rape her. Yet he is STILL defended and not in prison! And you expect a man who is seen with his arm around a smiling 17 year old, to be found guilty of rape and thrown in prison. Oh and the man denies raping her, unlike Polanski who admits his guilt.

SunshineOnKeith · 30/12/2021 20:08

@VladmirsPoutine

I can't believe people are doing 'poor woman' over this. Is Ghislane really where you're willing to hang up your feminist flag.

Surely it's a feminist issue that in a likely network of sex criminals the only conviction is against a woman ?

SunshineOnKeith · 30/12/2021 20:14

@Phantom1

What does the photograph prove in terms of sexual activity? The PA case is totally different to the GM case. One is a civil case. The other is a criminal case. VG has already been paid off by Epstein and now she's pursuing PA for more money. Why is she only suing PA? That photograph and her claims have been around for years. Why is she only suing him now? Who is paying for her legal team? Is she on some sort of no win, no fee basis?

These remarks are merely to ask more questions and query the case because there is clearly more to it than what we see or hear.

She's suing PA because she has the appropriate evidence to support her claim

Why does it matter who is paying her legal team?

You're quite right that a photo of the prince with a victim of sex trafficking taken by a sex trafficker (and long term friend) in the house of another sex trafficker (and longterm friend) doesn't prove that PA had sex with a victim of sex trafficking.

But he certainly spent YEARS hanging out with two sex traffickers and their victims.
I wonder why he chose to do that? 🤔

Phantom1 · 30/12/2021 20:29

SunshineOnKeith

Good question.

Mamamia7962 · 30/12/2021 20:43

The Daily Mail are reporting that the settlement agreement that VG made with Epstein in 2009 is to be made public on the 3rd January. It will be interesting to see if Prince Andrew was named in that agreement.

SammyScrounge · 30/12/2021 20:50

@Phantom1

What does the photograph prove in terms of sexual activity? The PA case is totally different to the GM case. One is a civil case. The other is a criminal case. VG has already been paid off by Epstein and now she's pursuing PA for more money. Why is she only suing PA? That photograph and her claims have been around for years. Why is she only suing him now? Who is paying for her legal team? Is she on some sort of no win, no fee basis?

These remarks are merely to ask more questions and query the case because there is clearly more to it than what we see or hear.

Exactly so. There are many questions to be answered before condemning sleazy Andrew. And VG had better have good reasons for only exposing PA, especially when she has all ready been paid off.

MrsTerryPratchett · 30/12/2021 20:57

And VG had better have good reasons for only exposing PA, especially when she has all ready been paid off.

Yeah, good call, let's examine HER motives.