Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

The knives are out for the royal family

999 replies

justasking111 · 19/08/2019 14:26

It may be deserved in some cases, however it would seem the gloves are off as far as the media are concerned. They have lived high on the hog for centuries so what is new?

Am scratching my head here is it shoot the royal family season or a smoke and mirrors exercise designed to distract us from something more important??

I would hate to be in the PR business with the RF just now.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
Passthecherrycoke · 20/08/2019 20:38

Where has that photo popped up from? How can anyone tell who the girl / woman around his neck is?

Original poster
justasking111 · 20/08/2019 20:39

News of the World had a safe on the premises which contained stuff they could or would not print, sometimes it was more useful as leverage it was said.

OP posts:
IcedPurple · 20/08/2019 20:40

Rupert Murdoch has said he has a ton of dirt on the royals locked away in the vaults, but won't release it as long as HM is alive.

He might be bluffing... or, he might not be.

Original poster
justasking111 · 20/08/2019 20:43

Interesting purple, perhaps the dripping tap revelations are his. Piers Morgan certainly has been banging on lately.

OP posts:
Winterlife · 20/08/2019 20:59

Re @NeelixFelicis' photo - That looks to me as a "consensual" photo.

I think Andrew can be faulted for continuing a relationship with Epstein after Epstein was convicted of soliciting sex from minors. However, if he didn't know the girl was essentially trafficked, I don't think he can be faulted for having sex with her, from a legal perspective. From a moral perspective, certainly - a 40 year old man having sex with a 17 year old girl - a girl barely older than his daughters - is gross. But it's not illegal.

Passthecherrycoke · 20/08/2019 21:03

Interestingly a poster on a previous thread pointed out it is illegal to have sex with a trafficked person whether or not you can be proven to be aware that they were trafficked. There was a link to the relevant law but sadly the thread was deleted

However, I am not sure if the law was in place when PA had sex with them in the U.K, and strongly Shelby men are rarely prosecuted under this law when you consider the number of trafficked sex workers

SheStoopsToConker · 20/08/2019 21:03

But is ignorance a defence in the eyes of the law?

IcedPurple · 20/08/2019 21:05

Interestingly a poster on a previous thread pointed out it is illegal to have sex with a trafficked person whether or not you can be proven to be aware that they were trafficked.

I'd be interested in seeing details of that supposed law. Surely it would only apply if you had reasonable grounds to believe the person might be traficked, eg, when having sex with a prostitute?

Passthecherrycoke · 20/08/2019 21:06

Let me try and google but it was obviously a small part of an extremely large document

NeelixFelicis · 20/08/2019 21:10

Interestingly a poster on a previous thread pointed out it is illegal to have sex with a trafficked person whether or not you can be proven to be aware that they were trafficked. There was a link to the relevant law but sadly the thread was deleted

This is absolutely true. The whole "ignorance isn't a crime" defence does not matter when it comes to a minor being trafficked across state lines (in VG's) case, for the purpose of sexually gratifying people beyond her state borders to benefit from arbitrary consent laws.

The same way, that despite our UK age of consent being 16, if a man went "on holiday" to Japan with a 13 year old girl because that is the Age of Consent, while legal in Japan, he would be punished more severely than he would if they'd done the same act in the UK, purely for trying to circumvent the rights to which the girl (victim) is granted by her own country.

Passthecherrycoke · 20/08/2019 21:11

“A person (A) commits an offence if:

A makes or promises payment for the sexual services of a prostitute (B);
A third person (C) has engaged in exploitative conduct of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual offences for which A has made or promised payment; and
C engaged in that conduct for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B).
It is irrelevant:

Where the sexual services are provided.
If the sexual services are, in fact, provided.
Whether A is, or ought to be, aware that C has engaged in exploitative conduct.”

So I guess PA would be person A and JE would be C

QueenofmyPrinces · 20/08/2019 21:14

Queenofmyprinces, go and have a look at the absolutely insane shit posted on Tumblr about Meghan. I’m not going to respect any of it because it’s not true, just the rantings of lunatics.

I have no idea what Tumblr is Grin

So I googled it alongside the words “Meghan Markle” and “Paternity” but didn’t get up anything except some opinionated articles about her qualities as a Duchess and other articles somehow blaming her for an affair Prince William had?!

It all seemed a bit odd.

Original poster
justasking111 · 20/08/2019 21:14

the photo is from St. Tropez 2007

www.nowtolove.com.au/royals/british-royal-family/prince-andrew-australian-lover-52348

OP posts:
Winterlife · 20/08/2019 21:17

VG was not a minor in New York, where the offense allegedly occurred.

If Andrew paid for sex, that would be a crime in New York, and was 18 years ago.

There must be mens rea for an offense in New York.

Passthecherrycoke · 20/08/2019 21:18

No VG has also said she had sex with him
In Maxwells London house

Winterlife · 20/08/2019 21:22

So the link has one encounter in the UK. At the time, the age of consent was 17. I don't think the legislation linked above is retroactive. Certainly, in North America, such legislation would be deemed unconstitutional.

Winterlife · 20/08/2019 21:23

^I mean, unconstitutional if retroactive.

Passthecherrycoke · 20/08/2019 21:26

It’s not about the age of consent, it’s about the trafficking

Winterlife · 20/08/2019 21:29

I understand that. However, there were no applicable laws trafficking at the time Andrew slept with her.

MangoFeverDream · 20/08/2019 21:34

the truth needs to be told about Andrew. And Mountbatten

Not sure they will release anything further about Mountbatten but I can’t imagine Randy Andy can slither out of trouble this time

Passthecherrycoke · 20/08/2019 21:34

Why do you think that? Is it the date VG is suggesting the London house occasion took place?

Ibiza2015 · 20/08/2019 21:57

So I googled it alongside the words “Meghan Markle” and “Paternity” but didn’t get up anything except some opinionated articles about her qualities as a Duchess and other articles somehow blaming her for an affair Prince William had?!

It all seemed a bit odd.

Some loons online think Archie was carried buy a surrogate because apparently a 37 year old woman carrying a child is so unthinkably improbable it couldn’t happen. Meghan was clearly and visibly pregnant and more than one during her pregnancy Archie visibly kicked her stomach and was clearly seen.

Even if they did need help with fertility then that’s nobody else’s business apart from theirs.

I’m not a fan of Meghan at all, but public speculation like that would be horrible regardless of women being a server at the chippie or a Duchess.

Gobbolinocat · 20/08/2019 22:04

Who took these photos why the hell is ghislane always there it's creepy and sinister.
Vile Vile new photo. Awful.
How can anyone say its consensual!

ssd · 20/08/2019 22:05

How can Andrew possibly say he didn't know epstein had been convicted as a sex offender?
The RF have staff to inform them at every turn, about the charities they support and visit, about people they are introduced to etc etc, is Andrew really expecting anyone to believe he thought epstein was just a fun guy and none of his advisors or security staff mentioned his pal was a sex offender?
I mean bloody hell.