To ask why it seems quiet on here regarding Prince Andrew and underage sex slave claims?

[TestNamePleaseIgnore]

Not much discussion going on or have I missed a thread?

I can suggest a role for Andrew's girls; get a proper job you bloody parasites. Everything about Andrew is dodgy, from his dodgy tyrant connections to his ridiculous entitlement. I don't know much about these recent allegations against him, but I imagine he thinks he's untouchable.
The general forelock-tugging approach by the media, especially the BBC, would imply to me that he's right.

PA's daughters would hardly be the only example of non-working adult children though, would they RandomNPC? Distinct point from support from the civil list.

Your usual non working adult children don't enjoy the life of Riley that they have.

get a proper job you bloody parasites

Beatrice works full time in business and is in a long term relationship with a businessman. Eugenie is pursuing a career in the art world and is currently in New York.

The Royal family have form for consorting with child abusers - jimmy Savile anyone?

A lot of people have form for consorting with child abusers. Indeed, given the number of child abusers believed to be living in the UK, both convicted and unconvicted, it is quite likely that most of us consort with one without being aware of it.

For clarity, the woman who has made allegations about Prince Andrew was 17 at the time of her alleged encounters with him. In the locations where it is alleged the encounters took place (London and New York) she was over the age of consent.

Come on it took those girls ages to find proper jobs. Why did he even accept the title of princess for the pair of them? There is no place for a bloated royal family in the 21st century. Those girls are an absolute joke. Compare them to Zara Phillips.

Come on it took those girls ages to find proper jobs

Beatrice completed her degree in the summer of 2011. She started her first permanent job in mid-2012 after a series of work placements.

Eugenie completed her degree in the summer of 2012. She started work in early 2013 having previously undertaken a 3-month work placement with the same employer.

Both seem to have followed a more conventional career path than Zara Phillips who, as far as I am aware, has never had a proper job but has pursued a career as a sportswoman supported by sponsors.

Yes, the princesses have almost certainly benefitted from their status and family contacts, but hey, loads of people do. They work, aren't especially attention-seeking or annoying and in my view they come across ok especially given their odd parents. They aren't really the issue. Their father's (alleged) behaviour is the issue.

I don't know what Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice could have done differently. They're princesses, they've behaved pretty well all things considered.

I really felt for them during the Fergie scandal, that must have been bloody awful.

Why does the taxpayer have to fund royal protection officers for Andrew's family? I would understand if the IRA were still active but I don't think there is much threat to the minor royals any more.

prh47bridge Both seem to have followed a more conventional career path than Zara Phillips who, as far as I am aware, has never had a proper job but has pursued a career as a sportswoman supported by sponsors.

Although possibly Zara has more ability in what she does than the princesses, and a career as a professional sportsperson is often a far more lucrative one than a more conventional one.

I agree the PS's princess daughters have not done badly at all, but there seems to be little independent effort or real flair in what they do. But they hardly stand out since most people working in that sector will have similarly well connected parents; they are in jobs that a lot of people could do. But then you get parents at all levels of the social sphere acting so as to benefit their children and get them opportunities, whether that be an apprentice plumber job or an assistant art dealer.

Why does the taxpayer have to fund royal protection officers for Andrew's family?

The taxpayer doesn't. For the last 3 years Prince Andrew has paid for their protection himself.

I don't begrudge them at least some police protection. Let's be realistic-managing to attack one of the Queen's children or grandchildren would be a coup for any number of dodgy groups or individuals.

Alright you've convinced me

If he wants police protection he can pay for it. Otherwise, don't live such public lives. Those two girls seem nice enough but there is no need for them to live such public lives.
The Duke of Kent's children and Duke of Gloucester's children don't. They work. One of them is married to a Dr in a London hospital who just goes to work every day and gets on with a normal job. Princess Margaret's children get on and live manily private lives.
If the York girls didn't live their lives in such a privileged and publc way, people would forget about them. Pricess Anne's two are grandchildren of the Queen and hadly high profile.

I have no objection paying for Prince Charles and his family who we have expectations of leading public lives and service to the nation from.

Surely some of their notoriety is owing to Fergie. I don't think that they've necessarily courted the publicity, outside of maintaining a social circle that overlaps with their higher-profile cousins.

Lulu, did you not read prh47's post? He does pay for it... and the girls really don't live very public lives... those weddings we see them at are family dos... and, again, both girls work, just like DGs kids.

The royal's are already reducing their cost to the public purse, have been for a while. There needs to be a balance between the value of them and the cost of them... and the idea that they might ask us to give back the revenues George III gave the country in exchange for the civil purse! The Crown Estate revenue has usually exceeded the civil list, so we aren't really paying for them, we are in control of what was theirs and we are giving them pocket money for it and spending the rest on ourselves.

An easier read than most of the formal stuff:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9975944/Youve-been-worth-every-penny-of-the-Civil-List-Maam.html

Yes, I know he pays for it, but he didn't think he should have to. He made a fuss and complained that the girls should be paid for from the public purse. My point is if they didnot choose to lead the lives they do, they would not need the protection. It is a choice.

Princess Anne's children don't have protection and lead relatively privae lives. You don't see them holidaying in the med on yachts,skiing in Verbier, drinking with William and Harry at celebrity haunts , dining with Kate Moss- all places where there are paparazzi galore. If the two girls choose to live like that and arephotographedall the time doing it they will need police protection. But they are not doing anything for the country so he has rightly been asked to pay for it. And if he can pay £13,000, 000 fora chalet in Verbier with his vulgar ex- wife, he can afford to pay for their police protection without complaining, if he wants them to have it.

I have no problem paying for the Queen, Phillip, Charles and hs family butnot the rest of them.

OK, so you don't want to agree that they work and carry on much the same as their cousins or that he does pay for their protection.

You'd rather keep on seeing the situation as it was some time ago, presumably so you can continue to dislike people you have never met!

I also have no problem understanding that, technically, we don't actually pay for any of the others either!

I'm a bit scared to speculate about it online until he's been found guilty really. I know how I feel though and wish it wasn't off bounds for open discussion on here

wish it wasn't off bounds for open discussion on here

But it isn't off bounds - looks at length of thread. My objection is to the presumption of some guilt and the weird personal comments, as though any of us actually know him and can know what he is like as an individual.

The bald facts are he has acted in a way that has made him look like a total pratt. His actions have, rightly, brought his character into question.

All else is conjecture, based on shaky presumptions made by the press in turn based upon untested claims.

The prurient interest and 'monster shouting' is what I find unpalatable.

'The bald facts are he has acted in a way that has made him look like a total pratt. His actions have, rightly, brought his character into question.'

Well yes - you're right there.

That is what this thread is commenting on - quite rightly.

And who needs a 13 million pound house at his age! His kids are grown up - it would be more normal to down size. Still lording it isn't he.

Yeah

Nomamma I think they are not needed by the royal family in any public sense. They are minor members and should just get on and do a job and earn a living that funds their lifestyle. There is no need for them to do public duties of any kind or us to pay for or provide for any aspect of their lives.
If the Queen wants to finance their lives from her private wealth that is up to her. However their parents are clearly very wealthy- despite Ms Ferguson's whinging about her constant £5 million overdraft. She has just rented a house in Belgravia and bought a ski chalet in Verbiers.
I sense you are getting upset by this so I'll stop there and won't comment again.