To think Prince Andrew needs to stop being bewildered and...

[chaoticisatroll55]

get himself over to the States to account for his actions and to give evidence for those poor victims of abuse. He's a bloody disgrace.

Uncle Dickie was a 'kingmaker' who had no idea what century he lived in, he was the one who sentenced Diana to her fate.

Thanks -I agree I do not have a detailed knowledge of the royal family 😀 uncle dickie just makes me annoyed we are still stuck with the shower they are

Interesting to see Mountbattens name pop up ...

www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/lord-mountbatten-pedophile-allegations

There was a "reliable" rumour back in the 70s that LLM was not just an unlucky royal to have been selected for assassination. It might have found print in Private Eye at the time.

So many people on here have decided that PA is a "rapist", "nonce" and a "paedophile" based on newspaper reports, interviews with unreliable witnesses and Netflix programmes.

I hope none of you are on my jury panel!

I don't know if PA is any of those things and neither does anyone on here. And as for those slagging off the Queen.. FGS, it's her son, of course she will support him as literally everyone on here would support their own DC if accused of a crime.

On MN people generally believe the victim as the number of people who lie about rape is tiny compared to the number who lie about being rapists. Plus it's a crime where many people go unpunished as victims feel that they won't be believed or the system judges the case as unprovable so it's not pursued in court.

Prince Andrew has agreed to be interviewed several times but has asked for the normal confidentiality around those interviews, the same as anyone else would be entitled to under US law.

What do you mean confidentiality? The contents of the interview to be confidential? The date and location of his questioning made public?

I don't know if PA is any of those things and neither does anyone on here.

What we do know is that he was friends with a convicted sex offender, continued that relationship, explicitly stated he never regretted it and at that time did not think to express any condolences to the victims.

We also know that he spent reasonable time in Epstein’s company and must have been aware of the teenage girls that were always around.

As for the queen, she’s not a regular mother. She claims to believe she’s been divinely appointed to live in splendour and to rule over the people of the U.K. How can her subjects look up to her if she condones such morally bankrupt behaviour?

Prince Andrew has agreed to be interviewed several times but has asked for the normal confidentiality around those interviews, the same as anyone else would be entitled to under US law.

So he says.

I have no idea exactly how the FBI work, not what their exact request has been. But assuming it's a regular request made in accordance with their regular procedures, then what excuse has PA for not complying ?

One of the annoyances about the idiots that tried to support Assange was their repeated insistence that he had offered to speak to Swedish detectives if they came to the UK.

In both cases, since when did a witness and or possible accused ever get to dictate to law enforcement agencies any terms about what they will and will not do or say ?

As for the queen, she’s not a regular mother. She claims to believe she’s been divinely appointed to live in splendour and to rule over the people of the U.K. How can her subjects look up to her if she condones such morally bankrupt behaviour?

The conduct of the monarch is no concern or business of their subjects. That's almost the definition of monarchy.

The Queens ancestor wrote a long and detailed treatise where they decided that a subjects role was to obey the monarch - even if the monarch were a tyrant - as that was God will. As a subject, the Queen doesn't give a shiny shit what you believe, since it has absolutely (a word I use very carefully) nothing to do with her belief that she was put on earth by God himself to rule us. You can't be a monarch otherwise.

The conduct of the monarch is no concern or business of their subjects. That's almost the definition of monarchy.

The subjects need to buy into it. That’s the basis of monarchy continuing. Andrew’s morally suspect behaviour can only undermine the institution.

Exactly, Laurie. As I've said before, HM's attitude to her ghastly son behind closed doors is one thing and wilful public displays of support quite another

Clearly Andrew has no intention of being questioned about what may or may not have happened around Epstein and Maxwell, but for anyone with normal judgement I'd have thought just what is known reason enough to be a little more circumspect about such displays

HM's attitude to her ghastly son behind closed doors is one thing and wilful public displays of support quite another

Absolutely. I’m sure as a ‘mother’ she’s on his side, but to make that public was a big mistake.

@LaurieMarlow

The conduct of the monarch is no concern or business of their subjects. That's almost the definition of monarchy.

The subjects need to buy into it. That’s the basis of monarchy continuing. Andrew’s morally suspect behaviour can only undermine the institution.

People really aren't getting it. All us subjects need to do as as we are told. Endof.

And if you don't buy into that, how are you going to get rid of them ? Have an election ?

I feel sorry for alll the victims in this horrendous affair. PA's two daughters as well as the abused girls. He will never co operate and neither will GM. I fear the profiles of the rich will far outweigh the justice deserved,and its so sad it has to be that way.We dont live in a world where truth is more important than money sadly. I believe the victims totally for what its worth.

He's an absolute lying slime ball, no doubt. ... but I dont see why they cant just sent their agents here or have Scotland yard interview him.

And slightly double standards to demand we send him over whilst making it clear we've got no chance of getting anne sacoolas back to answer for herself

And if you don't buy into that, how are you going to get rid of them ? Have an election ?

Who knows? History has given us some examples of what happens when public opinion turns against monarchies though.

I doubt we’re in revolution territory here, but I think what we’ll see is a decline in support for the monarchy, which ramps up when Charles takes over. As the approval ratings fall, it’s anyone’s guess how it will play out eventually.

@ProfessorSlocombe

If, and it is if, he had sex with the girl - and I'm not convinced he did - she was over the age of consent.

Which is meaningless if she was trafficked.

Again.

The tone of some posters - whether intentional or not - is worryingly reminiscent of the apologists for abusers and rapists.

^ This completely agree with @ProfessorSlocombe

The Queens ancestor wrote a long and detailed treatise where they decided that a subjects role was to obey the monarch - even if the monarch were a tyrant - as that was God will

Yes I'm aware of this, but perhaps the most worrying thing of all is that they still appear to believe it

As for "how would we get rid of them?" , while as a Republican I'd be happy for them to go tomorrow, I'm realistic enough to accept it may not happen for a while (though Charles's reign could well help). In the end, though, I believe it won't be some "revolution" which does for them, but an increasing lack of interest and a greater understanding of their sheer unsuitability in a modern society

@Lambinikins

Rolf Harris and the Queen seemed to be on very friendly, chatty terms when he painted her portrait.

And? The portrait was painted in 2005 and he was convicted in 2014.

Yes I'm aware of this, but perhaps the most worrying thing of all is that they still appear to believe it

They appear to believe it, because they do believe it. You don't use phrases like "sacred duty" about a job in IT.

increasing lack of interest and a greater understanding of their sheer unsuitability in a modern society

Agree. Am not saying we should have tumbrels and guillotines but their irrelevance is stark. What is the point of them? Andrew, Fergie, their ugly sister daughters, Harry and his petulant plus one, the whole lot should be toppled like the statues.

Am not saying we should have tumbrels and guillotines but their irrelevance is stark

It is indeed, though it's also true that our establishment's formed of interwoven parliament, church and monarchy and removing the last wouldn't be done in a day

Right now it's protected - though never ask me why - by an overwhelming respect for the Queen, but even she's not immortal and it'll be interesting to see if and how attitudes shift in the years ahead

Right now it's protected - though never ask me why - by an overwhelming respect for the Queen

Actually it's protected by a legal system the Monarch owns ...

Placemarking to read later

I don’t have much sympathy for HRH, he is at best, stupid and selfish, and the Maitlis interview was cringeworthy, but I can understand his legal team rejecting the current situation, until US law enforcement can stop leaking like a sieve.

I think the problem is not leaks but that PA wants to give any statement as a witness.