Prince Andrew stripped...

[Sarahlou63]

Of all royal patronages and military titles.

Guess mummy has finally had enough.

I thought that although 'normal' peerages went through parliament 'royal dukedoms' were solely in the 'gift' of the monarch and that parliamentary approval is not needed

I don't think so, because when the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 was used, several peers with HRH had their titles revoked.

It is a bit odd that the Sovereign is the only person who can grant peerages, yet he/she does not have the power to revoke them. I guess because peers have a separate status before the law, even though now their privileges are mostly theoretical, parliament has to get involved if they are to be revoked?

You can't see how a trafficking victim would need additional funds to cover those costs and disadvantages compared to if they had not been trafficked? Do you really expect us to believe you cannot see why a trafficking victim might need and benefit from funds to pay for specialist therapeutic interventions?

If you hadn’t quoted so selectively from my post, you could have saved yourself typing all that.

I'm pretty sure that if the court finds in favour of VG that at least implys guilt on Andrews part. It's not a criminal conviction no, but it could lead to one....you never know.

@DingleyDel

It’s infuriating to see that the very targeted smear campaign run by Epstein/Maxwell/Andrews lawyers against the victims of these horrific crimes has filtered down and influenced some of the publics views. This is exactly what they want and it’s disgusting to see such misogyny expressed on MN. Virginia is a very brave woman. This should have happened long ago. I also suspect Wills and Charles had a very strong hand in this.

I don’t think people really ‘get’ trafficking or grooming though, and the super-rich element and flying out to the islands is colouring people’s views- ‘can’t have been that bad out there, can it?’

I hope it does come to court. That is the only justice that I think can properly happen.

And interesting that she goes after a Prince and not one of the many other people she was probably forced to have sex with.

It is fairly obvious why she would pursue those with the highest profile and most power - it sends a strong message that no matter who you are you cannot get away with trafficking and abusing girls and women.

And if you can take down the people most responsible for a network of abuse and who wielded the most power, it is much easier to deal with the less powerful people.

Of course she would concentrate on pursuing Epstein, Maxwell and someone as powerful as Andrew. Why would she bypass the people responsible for what happened to her? A criminal prosecution wouldn't ignore the trafficker in favour of going after the men who raped the victim whilst trafficked, so why would a civil case not follow the same.

I am sure whatever she did you would find a way to blame her though.

@Aldinho57

That's such a shame, can we not do the same to Harry,

What wrong has Harry done? Andy has been accused of a heinous crime for which he must prove his innocence. Whats your beef with Harry?

@Blossomtoes

You can't see how a trafficking victim would need additional funds to cover those costs and disadvantages compared to if they had not been trafficked? Do you really expect us to believe you cannot see why a trafficking victim might need and benefit from funds to pay for specialist therapeutic interventions?

If you hadn’t quoted so selectively from my post, you could have saved yourself typing all that.

Yawn.

I thought that although 'normal' peerages went through parliament 'royal dukedoms' were solely in the 'gift' of the monarch and that parliamentary approval is not needed.

All peerages are initially granted by the monarch, but an Act of Parliament is required to remove them, including royal dukedoms. The Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 removed several peerages held by royals.

I do feel for the the queen she probably didn't realise the extent of his perversions

She bestowed a massive gong on him after his ongoing links with the convicted Epstein were revealed and she indicated support for him immediately after the Maitlis interview with a horse riding session in a known pap haunt.

She has an army of whisperers at her disposal. If she missed the extent of what he was up to, she chose to.

I think it's pretty obvious that VG was subjected to some kind of sexual abuse, otherwise why would JE have paid her half a million dollars to keep quiet?

There's a photo of Andrew with her, so she definitely met him.

Then there's the interview, where he stated he doesn't sweat (LIE - there's a fair few photos of him sweating his bollox off, if you look). Also he was apparently at Pizza Express when once of the incidents took place. (Another Lie/misleading statement, no one remembers seeing him there, there's no record of it and it doesn't mean it didn't happen later on that night).

I feel pretty confident in saying that it seems more than likely he has something to hide.

Really, honestly if it were your Son, wouldn't you want to believe him innocent? Of course you would, no parent would take the side of their offspring accuser without evidence or a confession.

You can blame HMTQ for being naive, but that is not a crime

Prince harry still trades off his name so will andrew he doesnt jut stop being a prince

And i dont think liz will cut his funds off either

I thought she already had cut him off??

The Crown would have done better to fully investigate links between Epstein and the Royal family as soon as he (JE) was convicted.

A public show of rigorous investigation would have done better for their reputation than sweeping links under the rug and pretending all was well.

And interesting that she goes after a Prince and not one of the many other people she was probably forced to have sex with

She raised a case against Alan Dershowitz.

The man the Beeb gave a platform to after the GM verdict without disclosing his history.

Interestingly GM has now given up her fight to keep the name of the eight 'John Does' named in a VG civil suit against her secret.

All eight of the 'Does' have apparently objected to the unsealing:

timcast.com/news/ghislaine-maxwell-ends-fight-to-keep-eight-high-profile-john-does-names-sealed-in-civil-lawsuit/

@whynotwhatknot

Prince harry still trades off his name so will andrew he doesnt jut stop being a prince

And i dont think liz will cut his funds off either

Why compare Harry to Andrew? Harry hasn’t allegedly committed a crime.

@amusedtodeath1

Really, honestly if it were your Son, wouldn't you want to believe him innocent? Of course you would, no parent would take the side of their offspring accuser without evidence or a confession.

You can blame HMTQ for being naive, but that is not a crime

Even if she thinks he is innocent, at this point the best you can say about both Charles and Andrew is that they allowed convicted sex offenders and corrupt regimes to exploit Royal connections in return for money and ego stroking.

As sovereign that is her problem, but she has turned a blind eye.

They did that when they moved to America. It was part of the deal.

@ManorPiggy

One of my old schools is named after him - wonder if they will change it now

My cousin had her baby on the same day as he was born and named him Andrew, weeks before HM announced the name of her baby. Cousin always said the HM copied her, or in modern MN terms 'stole her name'!

And interesting that she goes after a Prince and not one of the many other people she was probably forced to have sex with.

I suppose you think we should all feel sorry for Andrew in the same way we feel sorry for murderers convicted of their crime when so many murderers get away it. Poor Wayne Couzens. So unfortunate to be caught.

@amusedtodeath1

I think it's pretty obvious that VG was subjected to some kind of sexual abuse, otherwise why would JE have paid her half a million dollars to keep quiet?

There's a photo of Andrew with her, so she definitely met him.

Then there's the interview, where he stated he doesn't sweat (LIE - there's a fair few photos of him sweating his bollox off, if you look). Also he was apparently at Pizza Express when once of the incidents took place. (Another Lie/misleading statement, no one remembers seeing him there, there's no record of it and it doesn't mean it didn't happen later on that night).

I feel pretty confident in saying that it seems more than likely he has something to hide.

iv never disagreed that he met her or that he slept with her , iv just bever believed her narrative as she tells it , now that this carolyn woman another epstein victim has come forward ,it just muddys the waters even more really , she gave evidence in the maxwell trial , and is now saying that virginia did indeed tell her she had meet andrew slept with him and seemed pretty pleased about it and not the least bit upset she has confirmed that virginia apparently showed the now famous pic of her and andrew together , has said she doesnt believe virginia was a victim or coerced into anything and confirmed that virginia was the one who involved her into epsteins sex ring

it just gets more confusing , i mean you have a victim now blaming another woman that many on here , most id say see as a victim , yet if we say we dont believe carolyns account are we then calling her a liar ? and if shes lying about virginia then why is it ,
because shes bitter about virginia recruiting her into it and wants to get her own back , or thats just how she sees it

whatever the reason it just makes the whole thing look even more messy and full of holes than it did before

There's a photo of Andrew with her, so she definitely met him.

I have photos of me with numerous people whose name I don't recall, it happens when you go to parties, you don't necessarily know their names at the time!