Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

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

352 replies

Lovefromjuliaxo · 17/09/2024 23:03

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

OP posts:
rumblegrumble · 18/09/2024 01:34

GuPuddingRamekinHoarder · 18/09/2024 01:32

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?

That's not the full post though is it? What does the full post say? What was it responding to? Presumably you know - surely you haven't taken a single sentence entirely out of context and tried to start attacking someone with it?!

Runnerinthenight · 18/09/2024 01:35

LBFseBrom · 18/09/2024 01:29

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.

Exactly!! Probably all conspiracy theorist types to boot!

@shuggles you are just talking in riddles now and I cba to respond. Think whatever you like. No odds to me.

poppyzbrite4 · 18/09/2024 01:36

The Royal Family's PR is very well managed. The Queen was chums with the Saudi royals even though they don't uphold human rights.

GuPuddingRamekinHoarder · 18/09/2024 01:36

rumblegrumble · 18/09/2024 01:34

That's not the full post though is it? What does the full post say? What was it responding to? Presumably you know - surely you haven't taken a single sentence entirely out of context and tried to start attacking someone with it?!

No, I responded to that bit because that’s the bit that @RogueFemale spoke to.

She made the point that pictures of her with her dad show her smiling and don’t show the reality that she was being abused by him.

And I agree with her that pictures don’t show the full reality.

Whereas you seem to think the picture of Giufre is evidence that she was consenting.

Runnerinthenight · 18/09/2024 01:37

GuPuddingRamekinHoarder · 18/09/2024 01:34

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

Utter bollocks. No point though in discussing anything further with someone who is so determined to twist the posts made.

Have a nice life.

GuPuddingRamekinHoarder · 18/09/2024 01:39

Runnerinthenight · 18/09/2024 01:35

Exactly!! Probably all conspiracy theorist types to boot!

@shuggles you are just talking in riddles now and I cba to respond. Think whatever you like. No odds to me.

It’s not conspiracy theories though is it. The Telegraph reported it and didn’t even caveat that it was unconfirmed.

ForGreyKoala · 18/09/2024 01:43

MindfulAndDemure · 17/09/2024 23:14

He slept with someone over the age of consent. It's utterly grim that he did that at the age that he did. But not illegal, just gross.

Virginia took the payoff. Which says a lot with regards to what she wanted from going public.

The Queen shouldn't have made the payoff imo. But I understand why she did. I'm not a royalist.

I agree.

ItsTheGAGGGGGGGG · 18/09/2024 01:43

Who gives a shit about The Queen, I certainly don’t

rumblegrumble · 18/09/2024 01:46

GuPuddingRamekinHoarder · 18/09/2024 01:36

No, I responded to that bit because that’s the bit that @RogueFemale spoke to.

She made the point that pictures of her with her dad show her smiling and don’t show the reality that she was being abused by him.

And I agree with her that pictures don’t show the full reality.

Whereas you seem to think the picture of Giufre is evidence that she was consenting.

Edited

What a ridiculous fucking response. That's not at all what my post said, my original (long) post was in agreement with someone that Andrew very possibly had no idea that Virginia was unwilling. RogueFemale's reply was totally irrelevant to the point I was making, which I explained. I have absolutely no idea why she responded at all and assumed she had misunderstood my post so tried to explain it - then for some unfathomable reason you decided to randomly start accusing people of bullying without having the slightest idea what anyone was talking about. If you can't even be bothered to read what someone says before attacking them, I can't be bothered to engage with you. Goodnight.

RogueFemale · 18/09/2024 01:48

rumblegrumble · 18/09/2024 01:46

What a ridiculous fucking response. That's not at all what my post said, my original (long) post was in agreement with someone that Andrew very possibly had no idea that Virginia was unwilling. RogueFemale's reply was totally irrelevant to the point I was making, which I explained. I have absolutely no idea why she responded at all and assumed she had misunderstood my post so tried to explain it - then for some unfathomable reason you decided to randomly start accusing people of bullying without having the slightest idea what anyone was talking about. If you can't even be bothered to read what someone says before attacking them, I can't be bothered to engage with you. Goodnight.

You sound like a man. Sorry.

Derwent01 · 18/09/2024 01:50

@Lovefromjuliaxo thats quite a presumption, and the queen would not have had a hand in it, if and a big if, there was any business to be taken care of, it would of been conducted by one of the queens many people or groups with vested intrests in protecting the royal image and name etc

RogueFemale · 18/09/2024 01:52

Derwent01 · 18/09/2024 01:50

@Lovefromjuliaxo thats quite a presumption, and the queen would not have had a hand in it, if and a big if, there was any business to be taken care of, it would of been conducted by one of the queens many people or groups with vested intrests in protecting the royal image and name etc

Guaranteed the queen would have had to approve a multi-million pound settlement.

Derwent01 · 18/09/2024 01:55

RogueFemale · 18/09/2024 01:52

Guaranteed the queen would have had to approve a multi-million pound settlement.

im very doubtful, whos to say the ££ was even the queens finances, whos to say its not from a slush fund or some other chest without any paper trails etc

RogueFemale · 18/09/2024 01:58

Derwent01 · 18/09/2024 01:55

im very doubtful, whos to say the ££ was even the queens finances, whos to say its not from a slush fund or some other chest without any paper trails etc

Ooh, yes, there must be loads of money stashed in a secret offshore bank account that even the royal family's servants don't know about. And no paper trails, as you say! Do you think we should contact our MPs?

Derwent01 · 18/09/2024 01:58

overall the royal family would be alot smarter than to leave fingerprint trails on the ££

RogueFemale · 18/09/2024 01:59

Derwent01 · 18/09/2024 01:58

overall the royal family would be alot smarter than to leave fingerprint trails on the ££

Oh, okay then.

Derwent01 · 18/09/2024 02:00

RogueFemale · 18/09/2024 01:58

Ooh, yes, there must be loads of money stashed in a secret offshore bank account that even the royal family's servants don't know about. And no paper trails, as you say! Do you think we should contact our MPs?

they have lots of investments, lots of financial friends they can use, they could ask x to loan x then repay etc, which does not give a paper trail as no direct link, etc

there are many ways to shuttle capital without paper trails being left, etc

Derwent01 · 18/09/2024 02:01

RogueFemale · 18/09/2024 01:59

Oh, okay then.

speaking of why not ask the security services and see what their files say about it ?

ObnoxiousOik · 18/09/2024 02:02

I can’t believe I’m wading into this cesspit again.

The image she herself provided shows her with her arms round Andrew, grinning.
This is an accurate statement. It is not ignorant.
What is inferred from it may or may not be ignorant.

A reminder:
Virginia* *Roberts has previously said she was happy and excited to meet Prince Andrew. She asked for the photo to be taken so she could show her mother. She later said that she was grossed out and felt sick when she realised she was expected to sleep with him.

Something to consider:
Virginia Roberts is not a reliable witness (her descriptions of events have changed and she withdrew some allegations).
That does not mean that all of what she has said is untrue.

Something else:
I am not sure if this is an argument she has advanced recently but:
Bear in mind that before she was 17 years old, she had been abused by family as a child, she had run away from home in her early teens, she had slept on the streets, and she had lived with a 60 year old man who ran a modeling agency that was actually a prostitution ring. All before she was 17.
Isn’t possibly, even highly likely, that she didn’t immediately realise that she was being trafficked? It wasn’t a term that was widely used back then.

She could have been quite happy to be seen with Prince Andrew, dance with him, massage him, have sex with him …and be photographed with him…whilst still being trafficked.

TempestTost · 18/09/2024 02:03

I think the point of civil trials like this is usually to get the financial compensation, not a legal verdict.

That's not a criticism of anyone involved, it's basically what they are for in 99% of cases. You take some guy who fucked up your house Reno, usually what you want is the money to fix it, getting him in trouble is not that relevant.

If the person is willing to pay up up-front, they are basically admitting they are responsible and need to pony up. I don't think the queen was wrong to offer to pay, and it wasn't wrong to take the money either.

It's not the same as a criminal trial and shouldn't be looked at the same way.

PyongyangKipperbang · 18/09/2024 02:03

MindfulAndDemure · 17/09/2024 23:41

I'm not blaming the victim. I'm stating that the blame ought to be directed to the appropriate parties- her parents & Epstein / Maxwell.

I have yet to see any evidence that Andrew was aware that she was trafficked.

I don't like Andrew. I think he is disgusting for having sex with a teenager. I don't think that he is responsible for sex trafficking.

Couldnt disagree more.

Men like him are the market that makes trafficking young women, girls, men and boys worthwhile. If there wasnt someone who wanted to rape them and pay for the priviledge, then there would be no market so no reason to traffic them.

Derwent01 · 18/09/2024 02:04

RogueFemale · 18/09/2024 01:59

Oh, okay then.

In a legal case concerning the Queen or the royal family potentially using millions of pounds without leaving a direct trace of authorization, there are several mechanisms through which the royal family could manage finances without personal involvement or fingerprints on specific transactions. Below are some possible avenues, framed within the broader context of legal and financial structures:

  1. Use of Financial Advisors and Trustees
The Queen and the royal family often employ trusted financial advisors and legal professionals to manage their wealth, ensuring that they are distanced from direct involvement in day-to-day financial decisions. These advisors can make investments, allocate funds, or authorise expenditures on behalf of the royal family. The involvement of these intermediaries provides a layer of separation that shields the monarch from direct accountability in authorising large sums of money.
  • Royal Household Financial Managers: The Royal Household has dedicated departments to handle the finances of the royal family, including the Sovereign Grant (public funding) and the Queen's personal wealth. These departments operate under strict legal frameworks and employ accountants and managers who ensure that the financial dealings of the royal family are conducted properly. Large payments could thus be authorised by trusted individuals without the need for the Queen’s personal involvement.
  • Trustees and Foundations: Much of the royal family's wealth is managed through trusts or foundations, such as the Duchy of Lancaster (for the sovereign’s income) or the Duchy of Cornwall (for the Prince of Wales). Trustees have the legal authority to manage and allocate funds, which can create an additional layer of insulation from the direct actions of the Queen or her family members.
  1. Powers of Attorney or Proxy Signatories
The royal family could employ powers of attorney, giving designated individuals the legal authority to act on their behalf in financial matters. This means that transactions involving millions of pounds could be executed by a proxy or attorney without the Queen herself authorising or signing off on them directly.
  • Legal Delegation: By designating a trusted representative under a power of attorney, a member of the royal family could delegate full control over financial transactions. This individual would have the ability to move money, sign contracts, and authorise large financial transfers without requiring the Queen's direct approval or signature. The use of such proxies provides legal protection while keeping the family member distanced from day-to-day financial decisions.
  1. Royal Exemptions and Privileges
The Queen enjoys certain unique legal exemptions as the sovereign. For example, she is not required to pay income tax or capital gains tax unless she chooses to do so voluntarily, and her finances are not subject to the same levels of scrutiny as other individuals. This legal insulation can make it difficult to trace the Queen’s involvement in financial matters. Additionally, public disclosure rules do not apply in the same way to royal financial dealings, meaning certain transactions may not be as transparent as those of private individuals or other public figures.
  1. Privy Purse and Private Funds
The Queen and other members of the royal family have access to private funds through the Privy Purse, which is distinct from the Sovereign Grant. The Privy Purse is a source of private income for the monarch, primarily derived from the Duchy of Lancaster. Financial dealings involving the Privy Purse or other personal assets would not necessarily require the Queen’s direct involvement in each transaction, especially if managed by trustees or financial managers.
  • Private Wealth Management: If large sums of money were transferred or invested through these private sources, it could be done without the Queen’s direct engagement. Her financial managers would be responsible for authorising transactions, making investments, or allocating funds as per pre-established financial strategies.
  1. Shell Companies or Investment Vehicles
In some cases, wealthy individuals use holding companies, shell companies, or investment vehicles to manage and transfer assets. The royal family could make use of such entities to invest or move large sums without direct involvement. These vehicles would operate under the control of legal representatives, who handle transactions without direct input from the principals.
  • Offshore Accounts and Trusts: Although hypothetical, the use of offshore accounts or trusts for asset management could provide another layer of insulation. Such entities are often established to manage wealth in a tax-efficient and confidential manner, further distancing the royal family from the direct authorization of specific transactions.

Through a combination of legal delegation (such as trustees, financial managers, or powers of attorney), the management of private wealth, and the structural separation between personal and public finances, the Queen or members of the royal family could authorise the movement of large sums of money without directly authorising each transaction themselves. These mechanisms provide legal and financial separation, insulating the royal family from the direct use of funds and the appearance of involvement in financial activities.

WeekendOutfit · 18/09/2024 02:09

Not everyone loved her.

She was married to a man who made multiple racist and rude comments, so what does that say about her? Then she supported Andrew the nonce.

I didn't love her and couldn't care less when she died.

I don't know anyone who has much interest in any of the Royals.

4andup · 18/09/2024 02:11

MindfulAndDemure · 17/09/2024 23:14

He slept with someone over the age of consent. It's utterly grim that he did that at the age that he did. But not illegal, just gross.

Virginia took the payoff. Which says a lot with regards to what she wanted from going public.

The Queen shouldn't have made the payoff imo. But I understand why she did. I'm not a royalist.

She was under age it's 18 in America. She was trafficked and raped. Her taking the payment means nothing he still raped a child according to the law in America.

TempestTost · 18/09/2024 02:12

ObnoxiousOik · 18/09/2024 02:02

I can’t believe I’m wading into this cesspit again.

The image she herself provided shows her with her arms round Andrew, grinning.
This is an accurate statement. It is not ignorant.
What is inferred from it may or may not be ignorant.

A reminder:
Virginia* *Roberts has previously said she was happy and excited to meet Prince Andrew. She asked for the photo to be taken so she could show her mother. She later said that she was grossed out and felt sick when she realised she was expected to sleep with him.

Something to consider:
Virginia Roberts is not a reliable witness (her descriptions of events have changed and she withdrew some allegations).
That does not mean that all of what she has said is untrue.

Something else:
I am not sure if this is an argument she has advanced recently but:
Bear in mind that before she was 17 years old, she had been abused by family as a child, she had run away from home in her early teens, she had slept on the streets, and she had lived with a 60 year old man who ran a modeling agency that was actually a prostitution ring. All before she was 17.
Isn’t possibly, even highly likely, that she didn’t immediately realise that she was being trafficked? It wasn’t a term that was widely used back then.

She could have been quite happy to be seen with Prince Andrew, dance with him, massage him, have sex with him …and be photographed with him…whilst still being trafficked.

I don't think this is just possible, but quite likely.

But it goes along with another issue, which is that it could be rather difficult, unless you knew the history of the girls, to know what their real situation was.

This was a period when people were still doing things like going to parties at the Playboy mansion, and a surprising (to me) number of people seemed to think it was ok. Those girls were probably not being trafficked as such (or maybe some were?), but if you didn't know, it would look like an identical kind of situation. There were a lot of people who don't have Prince ANdrews reputation that went to that kind of event.

It's a lesson about why we should be careful about what is normalized. People don't intuitively understand good boundaries or what is exploitative. You'd think they should, but a lot don't.