Page 13 | Why does everyone love the queen, when she paid off Andrew’s victims?

Lovefromjuliaxo · 2024-09-17T22:03:45+00:00

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

Traceysgoingtobelivid · 19/09/2024 03:29

rumblegrumble · 18/09/2024 12:02

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...

This with bells on, why is it only Andrew carrying the can for this? there must be so many rich, famous and powerful American men who are guilty of under age rape and they have got away with it in their own country, why are people on here not angry about that? Andrew has been stripped of his HRH titles, his military titles, his patronages, his “job” as a working royal, probably his home will be next, he is a public pariah and is pretty much hated, and he can never come back from this, he is finished, isn’t it about time peoples ire switched to these other men who have not faced any form of punishment?

marmaladian · 19/09/2024 03:56

Sorry, HRTFT but this is the first I have heard about trafficking with regards to Virginia. She's Australian right? Nobody gets trafficked OUT of Australia. I must have missed something. Can someone explain ? Ta

BustingBaoBun · 19/09/2024 05:38

marmaladian · 19/09/2024 03:56

Sorry, HRTFT but this is the first I have heard about trafficking with regards to Virginia. She's Australian right? Nobody gets trafficked OUT of Australia. I must have missed something. Can someone explain ? Ta

You really need to read her Wiki page, one click and it tells you everything. No, she wasn't trafficked out of Australia 🥺
Born in the US, lived in the US. Eventually married an Australian, where she now resides

IhateHPSDeaneCnt · 19/09/2024 05:46

I came across him a number of times in a work environment and he was beyond creepy - if with other women, we would be hailed in a Bertie Wooster fashion, 'Hallo [posh way to say 'hello'] Girls!' accompanied with a smirk and I assume he thought, a becoming smile. If on my own and perhaps passing by on the staircase he would make a a grand gesture and say something along the lines of 'allow me', as if he was graciously letting me go ahead in a narrow space; these were grand and wide staircases. I imagine he spent a lot of time practicing a 'rakish' grin in front of a mirror - held by the Mirror Butler. I always thought that Fergie was basically a 'Beard' for his nefarious activities - she would do anything to cling to the edges of royalty and I think, still claims to be an HRH?

Enko · 19/09/2024 06:48

DramaLlamaBangBang · 18/09/2024 23:17

have expressed my view that Andrew might not have got she was trafficked as it may simply not have occurred to him.
Sadly, I agree with you. I doubt he gave her a second thought. The girls were there to service him in the same way as someone serving him drinks. He is a disgusting, arrogant man. But part of what made him that way was his mothers indulgence, and her allowing him to treat staff as ' less than'. We have heard the stories about him demanding staff come running to close curtains when he's right next to them, and him dropping things and making staff pick them up. Staff have said he did not listen to anyone but his mother, and she always backed him up.

Completely agree

Enko · 19/09/2024 06:55

WeekendOutfit · 19/09/2024 02:29

I think it's the case too. I think he probably thought every woman was dying to get into his bed, because he was so handsome and so important. I think he was probably pretty near as gullible as the young women were, because of his arrogance and entitlement.

Another excuse. He was gullible. Bless him. 🤮

Do you believe Michael Jackson was just childlike and that's why he invited young boys to sleep in his bed too?

I really hope some posters here don't have children because I'm not sure they have the skills needed to protect them from predators.

Read the post in its entirety. It's very despairing of Andrew 100% not excusing him. Outright calls him disgusting and arrogant. Not excusing him.

WeekendOutfit · 19/09/2024 07:10

Read the post in its entirety. It's very despairing of Andrew 100% not excusing him. Outright calls him disgusting and arrogant. Not excusing him

It's an attempt to minimise his part in it by pretending he was 'gullible'. It's bullshit.

BustingBaoBun · 19/09/2024 07:19

WeekendOutfit · 19/09/2024 07:10

Read the post in its entirety. It's very despairing of Andrew 100% not excusing him. Outright calls him disgusting and arrogant. Not excusing him

It's an attempt to minimise his part in it by pretending he was 'gullible'. It's bullshit.

Exactly. He would have had access to the very best security services, he would have been warned about Epstein, but of course being the person he was, he ignored all that.
When visiting Epstein to 'break up with him', he was advised by to stay at the Consulate. He refused. And instead spent 3 days at Epstein's NY mansion supposedly telling Epstein he didn't want to be his fwend any more, whilst being a guest at a party thrown in his honour.

Gullible. No.
Greedy, amoral, entitled, boorish. Yes

Enko · 19/09/2024 07:29

WeekendOutfit · 19/09/2024 07:10

Read the post in its entirety. It's very despairing of Andrew 100% not excusing him. Outright calls him disgusting and arrogant. Not excusing him

It's an attempt to minimise his part in it by pretending he was 'gullible'. It's bullshit.

Understanding why people behaves in certain ways does not equal you are excusing it. Nowhere in this post have I seen any say he should be reinstate have all his honours back etc.

AlwaysKindaKnewYoudBeTheDeathOfMe · 19/09/2024 08:31

WeekendOutfit · 19/09/2024 02:29

I think it's the case too. I think he probably thought every woman was dying to get into his bed, because he was so handsome and so important. I think he was probably pretty near as gullible as the young women were, because of his arrogance and entitlement.

Another excuse. He was gullible. Bless him. 🤮

Do you believe Michael Jackson was just childlike and that's why he invited young boys to sleep in his bed too?

I really hope some posters here don't have children because I'm not sure they have the skills needed to protect them from predators.

That comment blew my mind too. Rich men are too entitled to know better, the poor babies. Fucking hell.

You'd think the entirety of human existence wasn't littered with male abuse of women, and even more, powerful male abuse of young vulnerable women.

But this one guy gets a pass???

Fuck that.

4andup · 19/09/2024 08:34

Traceysgoingtobelivid · 19/09/2024 03:29

This with bells on, why is it only Andrew carrying the can for this? there must be so many rich, famous and powerful American men who are guilty of under age rape and they have got away with it in their own country, why are people on here not angry about that? Andrew has been stripped of his HRH titles, his military titles, his patronages, his “job” as a working royal, probably his home will be next, he is a public pariah and is pretty much hated, and he can never come back from this, he is finished, isn’t it about time peoples ire switched to these other men who have not faced any form of punishment?

Show quote history

Normal men would have been imprisoned and rightly so for the very same crimes but not Andrew. There is no justice he still lives his life as a free man where as Ghislaine Maxwell is serving 20 years.

minou123 · 19/09/2024 08:50

I've been reading the Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery UK laws.

As a huge caveat, I am not a lawyer.
But reading through the UK laws seem pretty clear.
..having sex with a victim of sex trafficking is an offence (illegal), regardless of the age of the victim. She/he could be 7, 17, 47 or 97 years old, it doesnt matter.
...it doesn't matter if the victim of sex Trafficking was willing to have sex, it is still an offence.
....Here's the clincher - ignorance of the fact the person you had sex with is a victim of sex trafficking, is no excuse. You still commited an offence and the "I didn't. know" defence won't get you very far.

It makes sense, if yiu think about it.
An equivalent would be the law against having sex with minors.
If a man has sex with a child under the age iof 16, I.e 13/14/15 year old, he could try the defence of:
"I didn't know she/he was underage"
"She told me she/he was 16"
"She/he was willing/happy/fully consented to having sex"
But none of that would be accepted as a defence and he will have still commited an offence.

Maybe someone with knowledge on this law will correct me, but that's how I read it.

AutumnCrow · 19/09/2024 09:00

Lots of press interest in Amazon’s drama series on the Andrew-Maitlis interview.

From the Independent:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/a-very-royal-scandal-andrew-emily-maitlis-b2614252.html

This does not portray the Royal Family ‘Firm’ in a flattering light, by the looks of it.

milveycrohn · 19/09/2024 10:08

"Did he really believe that a young girl was so desperate to sleep with an ugly old man?"
Andrew was considered quite handsome when he was young. The alleged offence took place many years ago.
However, it has never legally been esablished that he actually had sex with her. The next rich person she claimed fought back, and she subsequently changed her mind.
That said, I believe he probably did have sex with her.
However, my understanding is that the late Queen only leant him the money which was paid back after the sale of his Swiss chalet.
if true, then in reality the late Queen did not pay his victims.

BustingBaoBun · 19/09/2024 10:15

Thank you @minou123

ignorance of the fact the person you had sex with is a victim of sex trafficking, is no excuse. You still commited an offence and the "I didn't. know" defence won't get you very far

There is no doubt the queen and her advisors will have known this hence the payoff

BustingBaoBun · 19/09/2024 10:21

However, my understanding is that the late Queen only leant him the money which was paid back after the sale of his Swiss chalet.
if true, then in reality the late Queen did not pay his victims.

I don't believe that to be the case. He was embroiled in a legal case to do with the Swiss chalet and owed a lot of money on it. He probably paid some.
The queen did finance his lawyers that were based both here in the UK and in the US, reportedly that ran into an astronomical amount

GuPuddingRamekinHoarder · 19/09/2024 10:22

milveycrohn · 19/09/2024 10:08

"Did he really believe that a young girl was so desperate to sleep with an ugly old man?"
Andrew was considered quite handsome when he was young. The alleged offence took place many years ago.
However, it has never legally been esablished that he actually had sex with her. The next rich person she claimed fought back, and she subsequently changed her mind.
That said, I believe he probably did have sex with her.
However, my understanding is that the late Queen only leant him the money which was paid back after the sale of his Swiss chalet.
if true, then in reality the late Queen did not pay his victims.

The compensation and lawyers fees could have cost much more than the proceeds from the chalet. See below.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/15/why-andrew-had-to-settle-with-virginia-giuffre-lawyers-say-he-had-little-choice

Also, It’s been reported by the broadsheets (The Telegraph) that the Queen did fund the payoff.

WeekendOutfit · 19/09/2024 10:31

"Did he really believe that a young girl was so desperate to sleep with an ugly old man?"
Andrew was considered quite handsome when he was young. The alleged offence took place many years ago.

Wtaf?

The victim was 17 years old and was trafficked. He would have been an ugly old man to her, old enough to be her father. He looks like a creepy, ugly, older man in the photo. She looks like an attractive fresh faced teen, obviously a lot younger than Andrew.

Being raped by a handsome man doesn't make it any better. Not that he was handsome but that is beside the point.

Has mumsnet been invaded?

BustingBaoBun · 19/09/2024 10:38

It's always bonkers regarding Andrew...
Nothing has been proven
Innocent till proved guilty
He didn't know she was trafficked
She was above the age of consent
She's smiling in the picture
She knew what she was doing
Why didn't her parents stop her
She wanted the money

Take your pick
It doesn't matter how many times crimes against trafficked vulnerable young girls are explained on Mumsnet, the excuses for Andrew roll on, variations of above

GuPuddingRamekinHoarder · 19/09/2024 10:43

WeekendOutfit · 19/09/2024 10:31

"Did he really believe that a young girl was so desperate to sleep with an ugly old man?"
Andrew was considered quite handsome when he was young. The alleged offence took place many years ago.

Wtaf?

The victim was 17 years old and was trafficked. He would have been an ugly old man to her, old enough to be her father. He looks like a creepy, ugly, older man in the photo. She looks like an attractive fresh faced teen, obviously a lot younger than Andrew.

Being raped by a handsome man doesn't make it any better. Not that he was handsome but that is beside the point.

Has mumsnet been invaded?

Exactly. She found his sweaty body disgusting.

He literally just stuck it in her in and out, it seems
obvious to me that he knew she was provided as a toy by Epstein and Maxwell.

DramaLlamaBangBang · 19/09/2024 14:32

BustingBaoBun · 19/09/2024 10:38

It's always bonkers regarding Andrew...
Nothing has been proven
Innocent till proved guilty
He didn't know she was trafficked
She was above the age of consent
She's smiling in the picture
She knew what she was doing
Why didn't her parents stop her
She wanted the money

Take your pick
It doesn't matter how many times crimes against trafficked vulnerable young girls are explained on Mumsnet, the excuses for Andrew roll on, variations of above

Edited

One ofvthe worst things in general about having a Royal Family is how it makes some people so deferential that they tie themselves in knots to at best applaud minimal efforts of any member of the RF, to the extent of denigrating any other citizen ( She's a mum of 3. She's prioritising her children/how many other people work until they are 93/ the most hardworking person ever) and at worst how they will defend some pretty appalling behaviour just on the basis of the appaling person being a member ofvthe RF. An elected head of state would not demand such unfailing deference. Andrew will always be ' innocent until proven guilty' because he is one of the few people who can permanently live on Royal land and avoid questioning.

upinaballoon · 19/09/2024 15:30

Sugarnspicenallthingsnaice · 18/09/2024 06:13

God, another one who doesn't understand civil vs criminal trials. At least read the thread, it's been explained so many times.

Virginia sued him, for damages, in a civil court. If the trial was completed the only possible outcomes were that damages were paid, or damages were not paid. If she wanted a public hearing of the evidence and some retribution, that was the only option available to her.

She had no say on whether a criminal trial would be pursued, that's out of her hands and the only way he could ever be called 'convicted', 'guilty' a 'felon' or any of the other terms people are conflating with civil liability in this thread.

Show quote history

I didn't understand the difference between a criminal case and a civil case until it was explained to us on here a few years ago.

As far as I can tell, there wasn't enough evidence to bring a criminal case, so she got the best she could hope for in the circumstances, by getting damages paid to her, in a civil case.

You might have to keep explaining it for all eternity, Sugarnspice.

Runnerinthenight · 21/09/2024 23:50

WeekendOutfit · 19/09/2024 02:25

@Runnerinthenight

I'm definitely not Sussex squad. I don't like them anymore than I like Andrew or Philip.

Harry has made racist one liners too and anyone involved in polo (or any sport involving horses) knows the horses are badly treated, as an animal lover, he isn't my cup of tea. Another awful man like his grandpa. It's not 'restrained' to only make a few racist comments, it's disgusting. You are questionable to say that. Sickening. I've never made any racist comments and neither did my lovely grandpa who was in Philips generation. There's no excuse. He was a racist, rude bastard who I'm glad is dead. It says a lot about the Queen that she was married to a racist rude bastard. The works is better without them.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy, of which there is a lot from those obsessed with the RF and those that dislike Harry and Meghan and spend a lot of time slagging then off. When it comes to Andrews victim, she is disbelieved and Andrew 'might not have known', excuse after excuse is made. When it comes to Meghan, anyone saying anything bad about her is taken at their word and used as proof.

Andrews victim was very young. She looked very young. Did he really believe that a young girl was so desperate to sleep with an ugly old man? Talk about entitlement. Where did he think these young girls were coming from to arrive in the island? He is a creep. Any man with a brain and sense of decency would have questioned what was going on and not had sex with with them. You keep defending him and his pathetic mummy covering up for him.

I have never defended Andrew, let me make that clear. I never liked him as he came across as so pompous and entitled.

Were you with your grandpa 24/7? I could say the same of both of mine, only one had died before I was born and the other when I was 4 or 5. My dad would now, had he lived, been in his 100th year. I don't remember him making any racist remarks but it wouldn't have been surprising because he'd never have met anyone who wasn't white because where we lived didn't have other races. Communication for much of his life was via the radio, and then B&W television! You show little understanding of how life was way back when!

Prince Philip was a navy man, and I imagine as such his comments were probably on the salty side. I don't think there was malice in them though. Disgusting attitude you have to the late Queen, and wholly undeserved. Did she ever make a racist comment? Wasn't she completely committed to the Commonwealth?

I don't know whether Virginia Guiffre's accusations are valid because they were never tested in a court of law. However, "recollections may vary" could have been created for her, as her testimony has borne a tenuous relationship with the truth.

With Harry and Meghan - well, they are hoist by their own petard! We don't have to believe any of the 'leakings' to see how awful their behaviour has been, because it is on the public record in their own words!

I have no idea why PA chose to have sex with Guiffre, if indeed he did. In his position, I am sure there were plenty of women who were willing to bed him.

Calling the late Queen "pathetic" is beyond the pale!

Runnerinthenight · 21/09/2024 23:53

Traceysgoingtobelivid · 19/09/2024 03:29

This with bells on, why is it only Andrew carrying the can for this? there must be so many rich, famous and powerful American men who are guilty of under age rape and they have got away with it in their own country, why are people on here not angry about that? Andrew has been stripped of his HRH titles, his military titles, his patronages, his “job” as a working royal, probably his home will be next, he is a public pariah and is pretty much hated, and he can never come back from this, he is finished, isn’t it about time peoples ire switched to these other men who have not faced any form of punishment?

Show quote history

100%!!

And if Andrew is guilty of having sex with Guiffre - surely there would have been others, and why haven't they come forward?

Runnerinthenight · 21/09/2024 23:56

AlwaysKindaKnewYoudBeTheDeathOfMe · 19/09/2024 08:31

That comment blew my mind too. Rich men are too entitled to know better, the poor babies. Fucking hell.

You'd think the entirety of human existence wasn't littered with male abuse of women, and even more, powerful male abuse of young vulnerable women.

But this one guy gets a pass???

Fuck that.

Show quote history

He doesn't get a pass - his life is in tatters and he hasn't been found guilty of anything. IMO he deserves that because of his stupid association with Epstein, but we only have Guiffre's word against his, and so nobody knows the truth of the matter!