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

Do people really not know the difference between civil and criminal court? Like the cps was ever going to prosecute him. She was never going to have her day in criminal court

Didn't say that though did I... try reading it again, slowly....

This needless harassment of a woman who experienced child abuse at the hands of her father is really gross. Just leave her alone.

@Runnerinthenight How do you know he didn't keep a diary? Presumably he had had to go back over any records he had in an attempt to generate an alibi.

Then he would have said that he checked his diary records. He did not say that. Instead he said he remembered going to a Pizza Express on that day, and he was able to recall the exact date solely because going to Pizza Express is an unusual thing for him to do.

I don't know if he was lying or not?

That's not a question.

Where's the harassment? I certainly haven't harassed anyone - I made a point, if you go back and read it!

The aim of the claim was to extract money from someone that she felt would most likely pay up to stop further revelations. That is almost always the basis of a civil claim. Of course she would have been penalised for failing to accept a reasonable offer - but don't act like the offer isn't what she was there for.

You did say it. You said ‘The image she herself provided shows her with her arms round Andrew, grinning.’

Try reading your own posts again, slowly…

No, you’re ganging up on her with @rumblegrumble for making a very valid point - that just because someone is a smiling in a picture doesn’t mean they’re not being abused.

It's really hard to discuss Andrew online because any hint at all that you're not condemning him as a vile, rapey, paedophile and you're instantly called a paedo apologist and all sorts.

I get why it's a really touchy subject. We all know how many women are subjected to sexual assault - it's sickeningly common, and we're all just about fed up with the entitlement of sleazy men.

However, I do think there's an element of judging Andrew based on modern standards for things that he did in the past.

I'm old enough to remember how he was celebrated in the press as the "playboy prince" and was known to always have a young, beautiful woman on his arm. His sexual prowess was quite the badge of honour and he was deemed to be a real catch - he was the "attractive" brother out of him, Charles, and Edward.

I think he was sleazy and absolutely enjoyed making the most of his privileged position. I think he found willing sexual partners because of who he was. Just like many rather dull unattractive men of that era.

I don't know if he's a rapist, but I haven't actually seen any proof. And disgusting though it is, it's not illegal in this country to have sex with a 17 yr old. I can't imagine for a second that Andrew stopped to consider whether the age of consent might be different in another country.

And just to underline what I'm saying - it's morally repugnant, creepy, and disgusting for him to have had sex with a 17 yr old. I have a teen DD and I'd be bloody outraged if she was targeted by a man like that.

But still, immoral is not illegal.

Also, if I recall correctly Virginia was caught out lying/fabricating a few facts - so there is a question of how accurate/honest her full story is.

I'm not saying she wasn't trafficked, and I'm not saying she wasn't a victim - but I'm not absolutely convinced that everything she has claimed is true. There are question marks. It's not a nice thing to have to mention, but if we're going to discuss the subject it's not helpful to leave out pertinent information.

Maybe he is a rapist. We don't know. Maybe he's just a really sleazy man who took full advantage of the culture back in the 70s/80s.

What we do know is that he seems bloody thick, and very arrogant. He's just thoroughly unpleasant and unlikeable. Still not sure he's an actual paedo rapist though...

It most certainly is a question, and one to which neither you nor I know the answer.

People don't always get semantics correct either.

However, you are determined that he is guilty as sin, seeing everything in black and white, while I am a realist and know that life comes in shades of grey.

The truth is NONE of us will ever know what exactly happened or didn't happen, and we could argue the toss until dawn and beyond and still be none the wiser.

I'm going to go to bed.

Correction to @Saschka fangirl assertions: The late Queen / current King have no control over criminal court prosecutions, nor extraditions, nor choosing whether the police can question you.

I suspect @Saschka's ignorance is due to her being in the USA.

I fully believe that he had sex with her. She was a teenager and he was a middle aged man. It is disgraceful. But, not illegal. There's no evidence that he was aware she was trafficked.

Bullshit! Oh fgs just use your comprehension skills and read what I said!!! A poster can't argue with herself, and I'm done with you as well.

The age of consent in UK is 16, so if he had sex with her in the UK and she consented, it was legal.

The age of consent in USA varies from state to state. In 34 states it is 16, in 6 states it is 17 and in 11 states it is 18.

According to Virginia (I say that because PA has never been found guilty) they had sex in the UK, New York and then US Virgin Islands in that order. All legal in UK and New York, not sure what age VG at the time of the last 'incident'.

PA was 41, VG was at least 17 (only 5 years older than his daughter), he should have known better. I believe that most 41 year old single men, when presented with a 'willing' 17 year old would do the same because everything I hear backs this up, just look at the Gisele Pelicot case, men have a very low moral bar. While it is grim I'm not sure that it's comparable to a father drugging and raping his daughter.

I think that most people agree that PA is a disgusting excuse of a human being.

So what did you mean by ‘The image she herself provided shows her with her arms round Andrew, grinning.‘?

I didn't say that, another poster did - stop twisting things!!! I don't fucking know, I don't even know if that image is genuine and neither do you!

@SecretSoul thanks for the commonsense - something some other posters could pay heed to!

That was my post, you can tell by looking at the name in bold at the top.

How about posting the full comment and I'll walk you though it, slowly.

He's horrible. But don't want him to take down the country with him. There isn't a better politician in England or the world.

@Runnerinthenight It most certainly is a question, and one to which neither you nor I know the answer.

How is "I don't know if he was lying or not?" a question?

Are you unsure whether or not you don't know if he was lying or not?

You must at least know whether you don't know if he was lying or not. Saying you don't know whether you don't know if he was lying or not is completely nonsensical.

People don't always get semantics correct either.

It is not a matter of semantics. If he had determined from his diary that he was at a Pizza Express, he would have volunteered that information. Instead, he said he recalled the date solely because going to Pizza Express is an unusual thing for him to do.

Unless Prince Andrew has savant-level abilities that everyone else is completely unaware of, then he is a liar. It is not possible for people to recall exact dates from decades ago solely on the basis that they did something unusual that day.

However, you are determined that he is guilty as sin, seeing everything in black and white, while I am a realist and know that life comes in shades of grey.

I also see everything in shades of grey. But here, we are dealing with an extremely dark shade of grey.

Victims? How many?

For goodness sakes, we have no evidence at all that the late Queen did anything, it's all rumour. Andrew sold the ski lodge he and Fergie owned and that was worth a bomb.

Why don't you just leave this sordid tale alone, nobody knows the true facts, it's all speculation, beloved by scandalmongers.

Sorry, I initially responded to @rumblegrumble who made that comment.

But then you and her started to gang up on @RogueFemale

All your user names begin with R, hence the confusion.

As per my post, your comment ‘The image she herself provided shows her with her arms round Andrew, grinning.’ shows a profound ignorance.

What did you mean by it?

At least get it right if you are going to throw accusations around. Nobody "hanged" (I guess you mean "ganged" up on @RogueFemale. I merely pointed out that @rumblegrumble couldn't keep arguing with herself FFS!

You were both piling on her. And no need to point out typos, we all make them.