Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

They are keeping Andrew out the way, arent they?

715 replies

ssd · 10/04/2021 21:09

On the bbc news, 3 out 4 of the queen's children wished to say something in tribute to their father...

Andrew is obviously been kept on the back burner. They must know there's only so much the less fawning of us can take.

OP posts:
Plumtree391 · 14/04/2021 16:19

Savile has nothing to do with Prince Andrew. Nobody has suggested that Andrew has molested a child, Saville molested loads of them!

There's no comparison. People are getting carried away with their ideas. They will be very disappointed if the upshot is that the prince did nothing other than (along with countless others), maintain an unwise association with Epstein. That is something he has certainly lived to regret but human beings can be fooled by other humans, it happens all the time.

I'll be glad when this is all done and dusted, not that I spend much time thinking about it.

BeenAsFarAsMercyAndGrand · 14/04/2021 16:20

JanieJones was saying that we have no way of knowing how powerless Epstein's victims were. I think the comparison between Epstein and Savile is entirely fair.

VladmirsPoutine · 14/04/2021 16:27

They will be very disappointed if the upshot is that the prince did nothing other than (along with countless others), maintain an unwise association with Epstein.

I won't be disappointed as this is what I'm expecting to happen whatever the evidence says. Sort of like walking out of Sainsbury's carrying a security-tagged leg of lamb sticking out your bag, despite security footage of you putting it in your bag and walking out the store without paying - it's ruled that it was a 'misfortunate event' and all charges are dropped.

ImpatiensI · 14/04/2021 17:27

@BeenAsFarAsMercyAndGrand

JanieJones was saying that we have no way of knowing how powerless Epstein's victims were. I think the comparison between Epstein and Savile is entirely fair.
But not Andrew and Savile which is what Plumtree actually said. Hmm
BeenAsFarAsMercyAndGrand · 14/04/2021 17:32

^[janiejones] Makes statement about the lack of "proven facts" about Epstein & his victims

[me] Responds to JJ, makes comparison to Savile & his victims.

[Plumtree] You can't compare Andrew to Savile!

Plumtree was trying to refute something that no-one actually said. It is pretty obvious that I compared Epstein to Savile, not Andrew.

Babygotblueyes · 14/04/2021 17:37

@Plumtree391 - Nobody has suggested that Andrew has molested a child, Saville molested loads of them!

But that is exactly what the suggestion is - that Andrew allegedly had sex with an underage girl. Is that not what a child is? Vanity Fair had a great article about Ghislaine Maxwell which discussed all of this, and Virginia Guiffre has also given several really clear interviews.

To be honest though, Andrew has always seemed really dim, so may not have 1. realized her age, 2. realized that pretty teenage girls would not automatically be lining up to have sex with middle aged men without some kind of coercion/inducement.

Roussette · 14/04/2021 17:57

He would have to be exceptionally dim then. There is footage out there of him opening the door of Epstein's NY mansion and letting a woman out, seconds after a girl who looks incredibly young running up the road after Epstein.
Funnily enough, the english press have managed to remove most of the footage (on the direction of the RF's PR machine maybe?) but there are stills.
How he can say in the Maitlis interview that he had no idea and thought all these really young girls worked there or whatever, I don't know...

Butchyrestingface · 14/04/2021 18:15

He would have to be exceptionally dim then

Er, it's pretty well established that he IS ...isn't it?

Alsohuman · 14/04/2021 18:27

He’s definitely not the sharpest tool in the box.

Roussette · 14/04/2021 18:52

I would say it's more.... so entitled and lacking in empathy, he has no idea how it works for those beneath him, and unlike some of the other Royals, he doesn't want to know.

derxa · 14/04/2021 19:10

@Roussette

I would say it's more.... so entitled and lacking in empathy, he has no idea how it works for those beneath him, and unlike some of the other Royals, he doesn't want to know.
Yes he has no empathy whatsoever.
SueSaid · 14/04/2021 19:11

'I would say it's more.... so entitled and lacking in empathy, he has no idea how it works for those beneath him, and unlike some of the other Royals, he doesn't want to know.'

Yes I'd definitely agree with you there. Such privileged lives it must be easy to think everyone is at your beck and call. Mind, the others in the RF all seem to manage not socialising with sex offenders. I don't dispute his 'playboy Prince' label is probably appropriate, he should've been reined in decades ago but the issue I have (again, sorry I'm like a broken record) is until we have proof we can't say he was involved with 'trafficked' or underage girls.

Taketheredpill · 14/04/2021 19:17

@VladmirsPoutine

They will be very disappointed if the upshot is that the prince did nothing other than (along with countless others), maintain an unwise association with Epstein.

I won't be disappointed as this is what I'm expecting to happen whatever the evidence says. Sort of like walking out of Sainsbury's carrying a security-tagged leg of lamb sticking out your bag, despite security footage of you putting it in your bag and walking out the store without paying - it's ruled that it was a 'misfortunate event' and all charges are dropped.

This
Roussette · 14/04/2021 19:26

Janiie
But but but... we know he was mixing with them. He was there. We do know that much. Here is the footage of him at Epstein's NY mansion... Epstein leaving, young girl following, young girl running back, and at the end... Prince Andrew at the door waving someone off. All 3 years after Epstein had been convicted of sex offences.
I'm a broken record too Grin

twitter.com/RaggedTP/status/1381714814494466050

ohforarainyday · 14/04/2021 20:01

'Have you any concept of how powerless those women were?'

No I haven't as we still haven't heard the proven facts.

Virginia was sexually abused from the age of 7, ran away from home while still in middle school, and was sleeping rough on the streets by the time she was 13 years old.

What on earth makes a child like that anything other than powerless?

How could any child having sex for money under the control of a pimp be anything other than powerless?

(Braces for a wave of "but we only have her word that she was abused at age 7, that's not a fact she could be lying!!" type posts.)

CathyorClaire · 14/04/2021 20:11

Mind, the others in the RF all seem to manage not socialising with sex offenders

Well, as discussed way above that's not entirely the case.

Charles has form in the area but happily for him the gauche and pompous Andrew has done a sterling job in heat deflection.

CathyorClaire · 14/04/2021 20:23

People are getting carried away with their ideas. They will be very disappointed if the upshot is that the prince did nothing other than (along with countless others), maintain an unwise association with Epstein. That is something he has certainly lived to regret but human beings can be fooled by other humans, it happens all the time.

He wasn't fooled into an 'unwise association'. He deliberately and knowingly visited in person (including attending a private dinner party thrown in his honour) after Epstein had served a thirteen month jail sentence on sex charges.

He's also on record as saying he didn't regret said association due to the contacts it brought him.

Roussette · 14/04/2021 20:39

Bottom line.... he thought he could carry on the friendship and only when the Central Park picture came out, he realised he had to step back from Epstein, because of the furore surrounding it.
He would consider himself untouchable undoubtedly

derxa · 14/04/2021 20:47

Andrew wasn't motivated by sex. He was motivated by money. Epstein reportedly paid off Fergie's debts.

VladmirsPoutine · 14/04/2021 20:51

@derxa I know this isn't the point but even if though they're ridiculously rich the RF do strike me as though they'd be very stingy.

derxa · 14/04/2021 21:07

[quote VladmirsPoutine]@derxa I know this isn't the point but even if though they're ridiculously rich the RF do strike me as though they'd be very stingy.[/quote]
They don't have enough money to live the lifestyle they want. Well some want. I honestly think the Queen and Prince Philip couldn't care less about luxury. They're from that war time generation. My dad was wealthy enough to live very well but he had holes in his clothes. I know that sounds wanky but it's true. The fuss about the Queen making a speech with a gold piano in the background was a bit ridiculous. Although she did spend a lot on race horses and indulging her bloody family. The only one I've got time for is Anne.

Babygotblueyes · 14/04/2021 21:14

well it is well documented that they have lobbied to keep secret the extent of their wealth (the Queen), are always ready to have the tax payers pay for things if possible despite incredible wealth and income (Prince Charles) and are happy to sponge off well off friends (Andrew and Fergie). I doubt Andrews attitudes are that different from most of the RF, but he was arrogant and stupid enough to say it out loud.

Cacacoisfarraige · 14/04/2021 21:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ImpatiensI · 14/04/2021 21:23

He is stupid in the same way as eg Cameron and Johnson, they've been brought up to think
themselve superior and normal rules don't apply and they're immoral enough to still believe it.

VladmirsPoutine · 14/04/2021 21:26

It must be miserable to be so rich yet be such a miser. I'd be spending like a Kardashian if I were Royal.