Prince Andrew stripped...

[Sarahlou63]

Of all royal patronages and military titles.

Guess mummy has finally had enough.

I do wish people would stop saying she looked happy to be in the photo, or like the cat who has the cream. After everything we know about child abuse in this day and age; it is really inappropriate.

My sister used to work in safe-guarding and half the problem is that Often the victim often doesn't know that what they are experiencing is abuse. If you have been brought up in say a volatile household where you are neglected , scared and starved of love; any sort of attention seems welcome. In the Rotherham child abuse scandal, some of the victims felt lucky to be bought presents and didn't recognise that what was done to them was a crime. The fact that VG is smiling in that photograph means absolutely nothing!

Absolutely can’t believe anyone dim enough to think otherwise.

The Anne Sacoolas situation can be laid directly at the feet of the Donald Trump Administration and his Dept of Justice. With any other administration she would have been extradited, assuming there is nothing 'top secret' about her that we don't know about.

Although we now have a Joe Biden administration and it has just been announced that Anne Sacoolas will no longer be facing a hearing in a British court on Tuesday, as planned. There's a surprise:

I find it unbelievable that he is bring hauled over the coals and that Anne Secoolas woman has got off scott free and is driving round as bold as brass. Seems justice only seems to work one way.

@Viviennemary

I find it unbelievable that he is bring hauled over the coals and that Anne Secoolas woman has got off scott free and is driving round as bold as brass. Seems justice only seems to work one way.

But Andrew is also walking about Scott free and driving about bold as brass. Both are due to attend court in a different legal jurisdiction.

Andrew is being stripped of his titles as his behavuour is unbecoming of a royal and brings the institution into disrepute. He’s also being accused of something heinous in a different way to the heinous ness of what Anne did, he is being accused of knowingly and repeatedly having sex with a teenager he knew to be trafficked and unable to consent.

Anne was not the diplomat, there is nothing to strip her of. She is also facing court action here.

MrsTSwift I would defend my child until they were actually found guilty

There is a huge difference between defend and support.

You can provide emotional support, practical support for a suspected criminal in the family - that is natural enough. However using a position of power and privilege to try and protect them from the process of justice crosses the boundary of familial support to being part of the problem.

That goes for the Queen even more than the commoner sight of middle class families doing the full "not my Nigel" and rubbishing the victim routines to protect delinquent sons from justice in sexual crimes.

The royals have immense wealth and privilege. Ever last hanger on to the royal family benefits financially by using their connections. They don't live that lifestyle courtesy of cutting ribbons. There should be at least a modicum of duty and responsibility with all that privilege - at least whilst it exists.

@Viviennemary

I find it unbelievable that he is bring hauled over the coals and that Anne Secoolas woman has got off scott free and is driving round as bold as brass. Seems justice only seems to work one way.

At the moment all that has happened is a 61 year old man has finally lost a job that he should have lost years ago.

People suffer far, far worse.

@Viviennemary
A fatal collision is a very different crime to possible statutory rape and continued association with a convicted paedophile.

I would not defend my child until they were found guilty no matter what.
Some of the people on here explain why you get serial murders and rapists being tried in court while their delusional mother tells the media they are innocent.
Defending someone when it is clear they have committed awful crimes is not being a good mother, it is simply being naive and makes you look a bit stupid.

@AllThePogs

I would not defend my child until they were found guilty no matter what. Some of the people on here explain why you get serial murders and rapists being tried in court while their delusional mother tells the media they are innocent. Defending someone when it is clear they have committed awful crimes is not being a good mother, it is simply being naive and makes you look a bit stupid.

I think it’s understandable in its own way - not saying I would do it! Although of course I don’t know because I’ve never been in that situation.

I remember reading In Cold Blood for a university course and there’s a bit where the killer’s mother (after he’s found guilty of the crime and admits he’s a paedophile) says in a sort of perplexed way ‘he was such a sweet little boy. He used to dance with me.’

I think you could easily go into a sort of forced denial trying to square the child you’ve raised and loved with someone who has done something awful.

Again, not saying I think it’s right. But I can understand how it happens. Personally I think finding out your own son was a rapist or a murderer would be on a similar level of shock and grief to a bereavement.

I think it would be a tremendous shock and extremely difficult to deal with. And yes I can see in the situation that someone might go into denial in shock.
But on this thread, there are women saying they would defend their children no matter what. That isn't a reaction to the shock, that is a level of naivety and blindness that is being I suspect chosen. As if they think that makes them a good mother.

The Queen hasn’t said she thinks he is guilty. She has taken these actions because at this point she has no other choice.

Lastly, Pitch@Palace's contract demanded that all startups they helped had to give a 2% equity stake to Pitch@Palace. Why ? @DeliriaSkibbly**

This absolutely stinks - I couldn't believe it when I heard about it several years ago. He should have been torn apart over this anyway, and yet I've only ever seen is in passing comment.

I suppose it just proves that both his personal and business values are the lowest of the low.

I would think this was a contingency plan that was decided on sometime ago. Regardless of status and privilege this must still be very distressing to a very elderly woman who's recently lost her husband of 70 yrs. In terms of royal status, just like Harry, as the second son Andrew is irrelevant to the line of succession and as Williams kids get older the current senior royals will become obsolete. Charles has said that unless direct line ie Williams kids, other royals will not receive money from the crown other than for official duties. The Queen has a massive private fortune, a significant portion of which will go to Andrew on her death and that's what VG will most likely get any award from. The Queen may gift some of it prior to her death so Andrew can pay the lawyers and compensation to VG. Andrews perception of his modern world position isn't based in reality to say the least, hence the level of arrogance he displays.

Re. Pitch@Palace we shouldn't forget that the private secretary who was fired after encouraging him to do the Newsnight and walked away with a substantial payoff was rehired immediately (in the usual royal revolving door saga) in a trustee role at the charity.

The charity was subsequently found to have breached charitable law by paying her £350K. Even his 'charitable work' was a crock.

[quote Zombiemum1946]@Viviennemary
A fatal collision is a very different crime to possible statutory rape and continued association with a convicted paedophile.[/quote]
I don't think continued association with a convicted paedophile is a crime tbh

Lastly, Pitch@Palace's contract demanded that all startups they helped had to give a 2% equity stake to Pitch@Palace

I know - but you didn't really think he'd pass up an opportunity to cash in for himself did you?

I read recently that this venture still has assets Andrew will be able to use if he returns to it, which begs the question of what'll happen to the money if he doesn't
Filched to pay some of the legal costs perhaps?

@ajandjjmum

Lastly, Pitch@Palace's contract demanded that all startups they helped had to give a 2% equity stake to Pitch@Palace. Why ? @DeliriaSkibbly**

This absolutely stinks - I couldn't believe it when I heard about it several years ago. He should have been torn apart over this anyway, and yet I've only ever seen is in passing comment.

I suppose it just proves that both his personal and business values are the lowest of the low.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this in principle. If these companies go on to be successful it means they give back 2% to the charity that gave them assistance to get started. It helps the charity and future start-ups not PA personally.

I feel that we need to be careful in the assumption of guilt, Prince Andrew has not been convicted of any offence and therefore he is must be treated as innocent. If he were a "normal" citizen I would be appalled a the assumption he is guilty of a crime until it was either admitted or there was a conviction. I do not believe that we should have the press acting as a judge and jury. Some of the reporting is in my view inaccurate - the woman who is making the allegations was 17. The age of consent in this country is 16 and therefore the comment about a minor is irrelevant.

The separate issue is one of Prince Andrew's judgment and his friends - who at the time were not convicted felons. His interview was ill-advised, what he said during the interview indicates poor judgment but does not constitute guilt.

I don't think continued association with a convicted paedophile is a crime tbh

A crime? No.

But at the very least it shows extraordinarily poor judgement, especially for a man in his position.

With great privilege comes great responsibility. Not that steering clear of a convicted sex offender should be any great sacrifice. When you enjoy positions of great honour, such as being Colonel in Chief of the Grenadier Guards, it's surely not too much to ask that you conduct yourself in a decent manner. Saying 'it's not a crime' may be true, but it is setting the bar rather low for someone who enjoys immense privilege and prestige, at taxpayer expense, simply because of who he was born to.

How does Prince Edward fund himself, strange how he flies totally under the radar?

He also has a massive home how does he fund everything?

Re friendship with sex offender, it wasn't just a friendship.

Pa strongly argued that his friendship with je brought him access to important people

Important people and his role as the UK trade ambassador. Access to walll street through epstein

Sophie Wessex’s run in with the fake ‘sheik’ was considered very serious at the time...she made disparaging comments about members of the Royal family and politicians. It’s also alleged that she suggested ‘the public put her on the plinth left by Diana’.... in her dreams, she hasn’t got one iota of star quality. I’d be quite happy for her to be sidelined when in the future Prince Charles streamlines the monarchy.

How does Prince Edward fund himself, strange how he flies totally under the radar?
He also has a massive home how does he fund everything?

Same way as the other also-rans - through the Queen - though with fewer left to do the work he's probably not regarded as an also-ran any more

Good luck to them with that, considering what happened when he and Sophie were left to their own devices last time; the bankrupt film and PR companies, the ... errr ... venture of It's a Royal Knockout, Sophie's indiscretions and the rest
If you recall, the Queen had to buy them off and make them "full time royals" because they weren't fit for anything else - though it wouldn't surprise me if Edward now insists he "gave up a glittering career to do his duty"