Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To think that Buckingham Palace SHOULDN'T have named Prince Andrew's accuser?

218 replies

aermingers · 03/01/2015 23:39

I've just heard on the news that Buckingham Palace has named the person who has accused Prince Andrew of sex crimes against her. I can't find any confirmation online. But is it just me who thinks this is deeply wrong? Okay it may be technically legal because she's making the allegations in the US - but surely as potentially the victim of a sex crime they should have the decency not to name her? I'm really shocked, it just smacks of malice. And they can't even be certain she's not telling the truth.

OP posts:
TheWildRumpyPumpus · 05/01/2015 08:02

Oh wow, my first ever MN deletion... And here I was championing being balanced towards PA and not believing whatever he's been accused of without any evidence.

So no idea what I wrote!

firesidechat · 05/01/2015 09:21

Wow indeed. My first ever deletion and just days after I re-registered too. Sad I think I made the mistake of quoting Tests vile post.

I might stick to fluffy kittens and baking advice from now on.

9Bluedolphins · 05/01/2015 09:41

Why is it not ok to comment on a civil case being held in the US and not even suing anyone in the UK?

And why is there a photo of middle aged Andrew with his arm around a young American girl? Sleazy on its own.

And wasn't there publicity about the conviction of his friend on a plea bargain after masses of complaints 2 years before Andrew, we are told, dropped him?

EveDallasRetd · 05/01/2015 09:45

It's OK to comment 9blue, but we cannot proscribe blame or guilt without getting MNHQ into trouble.

mwalimu · 05/01/2015 10:27

For the record, I am not making any allegations. That would be Jane Does 1-5.

I am just embodying the 'I believe you' campaign, which was championed by mumsnet, and which I whole heartedly support

engeika · 05/01/2015 10:28

She is writing her memoirs is she not? She is giving interviews to the papers (for money?) is she not? The question of anonymity is a red herring as she has made it very clear in many media who she is, including posing for a photos).

The photo with Prince Andrew is quite clearly a "social" pic not a sleazy pic.

The "evidence" of any guilt seems based on gossip. Even she does not accuse him of the stuff that some of you on here are accusing him of.

This ridiculous double standard of 17 year old being a "child" when we want to attack an establishment figure we don't like when we in the UK consider 16 old enough to get married, vote in the Scot ref, join the army etc is beyond stupid.

Many of the people on here, including me, had sex before the age of 18 and do not consider ourselves victims of child abuse or our partners at the time paedophiles.

To link this with paedophilia is to truly trivialize true child abuse which is something else entirely.

9Bluedolphins · 05/01/2015 10:34

But Engeika, isn't the allegation as a whole (not just relating to Prince A) that she was being passed round among many rich men, facilitated by the millionaire American who has a conviction now, from the age of 15? Not that she had consensual sex with one man at 17?
It's also relevant that we're talking about a very young woman (technically a child), with middle aged men. My guess is that most girls who have sex early don't do so with middle aged men, let alone with many of them and with one man arranging it all.
IF that happened, wouldn't you call it abusive?

SunnyBaudelaire · 05/01/2015 10:37

yes it would be abusive.
Anyway that pic has been doing the rounds for years, with the daughter of rather a famous person (who committed suicide) in the background.

Inkanta · 05/01/2015 10:50

'The photo with Prince Andrew is quite clearly a "social" pic not a sleazy pic.'

It don't think it 'clearly' looks like a social picture to me - with a hand on the teenagers bare mid-drift. It's not within social norms for a middle aged man to do that - let alone royalty.

SunnyBaudelaire · 05/01/2015 10:52

it is a very sleazy pic, more so when not cropped

Inkanta · 05/01/2015 11:05

And I don't think anyone on here has accused PA of doing anything illegal.

But his behaviour and morals are under the spotlight. As they should be.

The public have a right to expect royalty to adhere to some ethical code of practice.

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO · 05/01/2015 11:16

I am just embodying the 'I believe you' campaign, which was championed by mumsnet, and which I whole heartedly support

Hear Hear but...your championing it against....the Royal Family Wink

EveDallasRetd · 05/01/2015 11:18

Sleezy is subjective. I don't find that photo sleezy at all, it's just a photo that Roberts herself said was taken to 'show her mum she'd met a Prince'. You cannot judge a man (or women) soley on looks or 15 year old photos.

If he had sex with her then I find that sleezy and morally reprehensible. The act of a middle aged man having sex with a young girl half his age disgusts me, coerced or not.

But is it illegal?

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO · 05/01/2015 11:19

I like the royal family but one does wonder why on earth we pay for bloated prats like andrew?

The whole family should be downsized like the royals in other european countries.

SunnyBaudelaire · 05/01/2015 11:21

probably not evedallasrtd but that would depend on where and when it took place and how and why they met.
it is kind of sleazy though - IMO

MonstrousRatbag · 05/01/2015 11:22

Vanity Fair covered this a while ago: see here and here on DoY specifically.

EveDallasRetd · 05/01/2015 11:26

Andrew has always been the 'playboy' hasn't he? The 'spare' going off the rails very much like Princess Margaret and Prince Harry (although I have a great deal of respect for Harry, militarily). I don't see what Andrew does for the country, less being a royal 'presence'. Strangely enough I have more time for Edward, who has grown into someone that simply gets on with his life, quietly, rather than being out there all the time. It's almost as if Andrew feels the need to be a someone, needs to feel important.

cupofsneeze · 05/01/2015 11:41

I didnt realise VF had already made these allegations 3 years ago and put it in print.

Allegations of naked pool parties with adolescent girls, Yuk Shock

We have a strange media in this country, its almost as though they decide what we can and cant know and if and when we can know it.

It does makes you wonder why its all being reported now with such huge headlines when this could have been 3 years ago.

Maybe the conspiracy people are right and there is always a hidden agenda, if so, I wonder whats coming our way on the back of this story Confused

TrueBlueYorkshire · 05/01/2015 11:57

A lot of people on here are bitter about the royals.

Rather than debating whether its true or not, here is a better question. What were her parents doing letter her swan off with a US billionaire to his private island. Just throwing it out there but sounds like the whole family are bunch of gold diggers.

There is a big difference between shagging girls at a party and someone like Jimmy Saville who actively chased down young vulnerable victims and abused them (hospitals etc). I wish people would reflect this in their rhetoric.

SunnyBaudelaire · 05/01/2015 11:58

" someone like Jimmy Saville who actively chased down young vulnerable victims and abused them"
now you mention it, that is a thought.

MonstrousRatbag · 05/01/2015 12:02

What were her parents doing letter her swan off with a US billionaire to his private island

Having shitty, neglectful and possibly mercenary parents (not that there is any evidence they are) does not make the woman a liar or someone unworthy of belief.

You can argue it either way. Maybe she was vulnerable and took what seemed to her to be a great offer that you and I would see through because home life was horrible. Maybe she and her parents are actually great but so poor they all gambled on a chance that more affluent people would prudently decline. Maybe they were fooled (as we were all fooled by Saville et al) by predators who are very good at this sort of thing.

You just can't draw any conclusions, even if you know her parents are 'gold diggers', which we don't.

FoxgloveFairy · 05/01/2015 12:18

AM I wrong to think that these sorts of cases are so sensitive, and the allegations so damaging, that no one should be named until guilt or innocence established? Absolutely granted, women making maliciously false allegations like this is really very rare, but it isn't unknown, especially with a "celebrity" like Prince Andrew. If he did do this, should he be exposed and punished? Yes, of course. Particularly that, if guilty, he would have seemed a very powerful figure to that young woman. Imagine the damage now though, if, in fact, he has done nothing wrong. What must this be doing to his daughters?

MonstrousRatbag · 05/01/2015 12:22

No reason why the accused in sexual offences should be subject to different rules from those accused of other offences in my view. Every reason why the victim should have anonymity, if desired. Just look at the Ched Evans case to see why.

cupofsneeze · 05/01/2015 13:59

Just out of interest, who funds Prince Andrews lifestyle?

The DM are reporting that he's been staying in a 22,000 a week ski lodge so who pays for it or does the Queen give him a bundle of cash every year?

Inkanta · 05/01/2015 14:11

Wikipedia states this, though there must be a more up to date record;-

'The Duke of York receives a £249,000 annuity from the Queen.[18] The Sunday Times reported in July 2008 that for "the Duke of York's public role,... he last year received £436,000 to cover his expenses."