Why does everyone love the queen, when she paid off Andrew’s victims?

[Lovefromjuliaxo]

Just on the back of Huw Edwards sentencing, I remember he was the one to announce the passing of the queen. Cue everyone crying, saying how wonderful she was etc. But I can’t get on board with respecting a woman who basically paid to keep her son out of prison. Why does everyone still adore her? And why did Andrew’s victim take the money instead of getting him punished, even if it was just a suspended like Edwards?

**edited for spelling

VG brought a civil case which is different to a criminal case
I just get fed up of seeing on here "but she was 17" like it matters. No it doesn't if you have been trafficked.

He made a choice to sleep with a young girl who was only a few years older than his daughter, and his Mother paid for it all to go away. That won't happen of course

Roll on Thursday for the Prime 3 partner "A Very Royal Scandal" with Michael Sheen playing him

You can throw money at something and hope it goes away but perception and opinion you cannot pay off

Yes it was. Why was JE and GM charged with federal sex trafficking crimes then!?
GM is in prison for 20 years guilty of sexually exploiting and abusing minor girls and procurement of minors

I consider anyone having sex with someone who is trafficked as a rapist.

Just like the French multiple rape case, those men having sex with a women who was unconscious and therefore didn't give consent as rapist.

A woman being made 'available' by a third party to have sex with does not mean the sex is consensual. It's really not complicated to understand. Grown men do understand this. They just choose to pretend they don't.

It was proven she was trafficked. By JE and GM. What had not been proven and what I think @Ilovetowander meant in this response was that Andrew knew she was trafficked.

I firmly believe that people should be treated as innocent unless they are found guilty or admit the crime regardless of their wealth.

Do you really believe that?

Following that logic, would you consider Jimmy Saville as innocent?
He neither was found guilty, nor admitted his crimes. Therefore, do you treat him as innocent?

I'm not having a go. I just find this black and white view of "innocent until proven guilty" is more nuanced when applying to everyday life.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal concept and one of its purposes is to ensure everyone gets a fair trial, quite rightly.
But in everyday life, we all have to make judgements and risk asses, regardless if someone has been found guilty.

A young woman was trafficked in for sex that's illegal. There is all these rich celebrities getting banged up for abusing women is Andrew and exception to the rule because he's royalty?

Anyone else wondering why we're going on so much about Andrew and not about any of the other men - like those who went repeatedly to the island and raped girls far younger than 17? Is nobody else a bit confused that the only name we have is someone who slept with a girl who was most likely legal, and who quite possibly wasn't even aware that she was unwilling? Whoever was raping 13 year olds on a private island wouldn't have either defence... Does nobody else wonder why after many years of men trafficking and raping young girls, the only person in prison is a woman? I'm personally a lot more interested in the names we don't know than the name we do...

@Runnerinthenight apologies I meant the queen’s cousin and Philip’s uncle.

He was well connected/protected. Its more than rumours. There has been court cases. Andrew Lownie has written/investigation about Mountbatten for years.

www.news18.com/news/world/survivor-alleges-lord-mountbatten-sexually-abused-him-when-he-was-11-was-part-of-a-paedophile-ring-6179395.html#

That's the question isn't it? There were a lot of rich powerful men who went to the island. If Prince Andrew had to go to court would all the other names come out as well. I would imagine there are a lot of men who wanted it all kept quiet.

I supect, disgusting as they are, they knew they would need to cover their tracks, and they are far more influential and savvy than arrogant, entitled, moronic Andrew, who thought that his ' defence' of ' Don't you know who I am?' and ' I was in the Falklands' would be enough. He thought and probably still thinks that he is amazing and everyone likes him. Whereas really he was just a useful idiot for so many dodgy characters.

Whereas really he was just a useful idiot for so many dodgy characters

I so agree with this. He was dazzled by hugely wealthy people hence his endless dodgy deals with oligarchs, arms dealers and ME 'businessmen'

I doubt Epstein even liked him but what a feather in his cap to say he has British royalty coming for dinner at his NY mansion. Shove a few girls his way, massage his huge ego (and get a young girl to massage his flab) and moron Andrew was sold. Which is why Andrew refused to say he regretted the friendship in his car crash interview. He loved it

It's not just about sexes, why the hate for The Queen? It wasn't her who slept with a 17 year old.

What about others all linked to this like Bill Clinton etc. I don't see a thread on Hilary? How do you know they aren't supplying her with hush money.

There are plenty of people in the world that do disgusting things and their parents / spouses pay the bill - it doesn't make them acceptable for the crime. I.e. Ranjit singh Boparans (billionaire in the food industry) son, crashed his car into a family car by being reckless making a little girl severely disabled his dad funded his lawyers and other expenses but he isn't vilified on mn or anywhere else and no one boycotted his businesses.

The point being it's silly to think you are accountable for someone else's problem especially when everyone is a hypocrite in some way.

Important to say it's never been proven. However she was not over the age of consent in the State it may have happened.

@Runnerinthenight - www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2017/8/13/the-priceless-racism-of-the-duke-of-edinburgh
Couldn't be bothered to type it all out. HTH

I didn't love the Queen I could never understand people who did , I would be happy for the whole Royal to not exist
However I can understand why she paid off VG ,she was a very old women whoni assume knew she waa nearing the end of her life Andrew waa said ti be her favourite child,aa a mother I think she did to draw a line underneath it all

I didn't like or respect her at all; secretly hoarding millions for your own family while the country can't keep enough food banks running was despicable

People only started to like her when she turned into a cute little old lady. It's quite an infantilising attitude towards old people that people seem to adopt.

All this 'aw the queen, what a stalwart, sacrificed everything for her family and her subjects' bullshit is vomit inducing. If she had died at 60 or 70 the reaction would have been very different.

Epstein went to prison but killed himself.

yes, other men were involved, but I mention Andrew purely as his mother was “much loved” yet organised a payoff.

It totally wasn’t on the queen that Andrew behaved the way he did.

but I and probably others are more balking at the fact she didn’t let a grown man take responsibility for what he’d done, and paid all his legal bills as well as paying his victim off. Yet people say she is a wonderful person.

there are plenty of others, this thread is about the queen

Do you know anything whatsoever about Prince Philip? Yes, he made a few remarks which he only just about got away with when he made them, but wouldn't now. Which is as it should be. Times are different now. You cannot judge the past by the standards of the present. I read a biography of Philip recently and I hadn't known the half of his achievements, not least of which was supporting HMTQ during the majority of her 70 year reign!

I don't imagine she ever thought Andrew was a "nonce" because whatever the truth of the matter, that is not what he was!

I know plenty of people who are interested in the Royals. Must be the company you keep. Maybe educate yourself before you share your ill-informed opinion.

Incorrect.

I think a lot of the commentators here are posting completely out of context. This was the era when Rolling Stone Bill Wyman had a relationship with a 13 year old, and later married her.

Yeah, there was criticism but he didn't face any consequences!

Women were considered fair game by sleazy men to feel them up, or worse - happened to me several times.

As I say, I don't believe you can judge the past by the standards of the present, even though there was so much going on that was patently wrong.

I can't agree. While I don't know what happened (and neither do you), she proved to be an unreliable witness.

Clearly because of the damage dragging all of the sleaze out into the public domain would have caused to the monarchy. It was damage limitation.

How was he to prove his innocence in any case?

Paddington FYI.

Have you ever heard of 'not speaking ill of the dead'? History will judge. I believe that history will determine that QEII was one of, if not the most, successful monarchs we've had. Too soon, when the woman had just died. Tacky and tasteless.

Luckily, not many people are interested in your opinion.

Right back at you.