Prince Andrew

[Tevion28]

Do you think guilty or innocent

So do the 50 odd posters declaring his innocence here think it’s because:

A) They believe that he’s ‘innocent until proven guilty’?
B) Really innocent as in believe him when he says that he ‘never had sex with that girl’ (he was out eating at Pizza express)?
C) Or he’s innocent because she was a freely consenting 17 year old enjoying living the high life by providing sex for favours and is clearly just a gold digger out for more money?

Interesting to see how people’s biases and minds work.

@Roussette

I've read some interesting articles and listened to enlightening podcasts. Before GM got entangled with JE, she really wasn't that well off. She lived in a small apartment in NY. But over the course of their relationship he gave her about £30million, really in exchange for her little black book of the rich, famous and royalty.

But there were strings attached, she had to keep providing a steady stream of young girls. He wanted sex three times a day apparently. So she became the respectable face of trafficking young nubile girls for his pleasure and to satisfy his depravity. These young girls trusted her, she acted like their big sister, taking them shopping, advising them on clothes, asking them about boyfriends etc.

She really is quite revolting and never was I more glad than when she was found guilty.
And this was the world the son of our Queen chose to inhabit.

But where does his money come from - that’s the conundrum. Investigations into his past don’t actually point up great success in business, the source of his wealth is still a mystery.

It’s possible that it may have derived in part from money laundering and blackmail (hence the elaborate system of video cameras at his Florida taking compromising footage of his ‘friends’ with teenage girls).

DrBlackbird

I think (A) is the top but that goes hand in hand with (C). Victim blaming at its finest has been out in force on this thread.

"Why don't you ask if Prince Andrew's upbringing made him vulnerable to be being a rapist?"

I think this is a really interesting question.
I know very little about the Royal family so if the following is incorrect forgive me. But I am sure I read somewhere that the Duke of Edinburgh actively encouraged Charles to go for Diana because *she was so young".

And my impression of the Queen is that she just kept out of it/ignored it/did not see her role to step in and criticise anything like the above.

So very little wonder that Charles and Andrew turned out the way they did. Only surprising that Edward did not show similar preferences (so far as I know).

I think my point is I think Her Maj should carry the can for some of this due to the deafining silence in terms of moral guidance or integrity of her children.

Yes Tatiana and in his NY mansion. Every single room there had cameras apparently. And there was a whole room dedicated to surveillance screens

@Tevion28

What is the victims background did she have a family to turn to

Is your google broken?

@ddl1

At the time of the picture he was one tragic accident away from being next in line to the throne

I am not a particular fan of the hereditary principle, but he wasn't. In 2001, William was already next in line to Charles, and was over 18, though not by much; so there would have been no question of Andrew even being Regent.

Sorry to be unnecessarily morbid, but a tragic accident can kill more than one person.

@Roussette

DrBlackbird

I think (A) is the top but that goes hand in hand with (C). Victim blaming at its finest has been out in force on this thread.

Astoundingly. Makes all so clear as to why it took over ten years for the Rotherham scandal to even start to be acknowledged.

@bubblesbubbles11

"Why don't you ask if Prince Andrew's upbringing made him vulnerable to be being a rapist?"

I think this is a really interesting question.
I know very little about the Royal family so if the following is incorrect forgive me. But I am sure I read somewhere that the Duke of Edinburgh actively encouraged Charles to go for Diana because *she was so young".

And my impression of the Queen is that she just kept out of it/ignored it/did not see her role to step in and criticise anything like the above.

So very little wonder that Charles and Andrew turned out the way they did. Only surprising that Edward did not show similar preferences (so far as I know).

I think my point is I think Her Maj should carry the can for some of this due to the deafining silence in terms of moral guidance or integrity of her children.

It is incorrect. The D of E was not an avid fan of the marriage as he was concerned about Diana's unstable background, as was at least one close member of her family. The mythology of Diana as a poor child, predated on by Charles is inaccurate to say the least.

I believe he's guilty of having sex with Virginia Giuffre, without a doubt. He's a sleaze bag with a penchant for teenage girls. I think it's disgusting that the RF are still protecting him.

Whether it could be proved in a criminal court beyond reasonable doubt that he knew that she had been trafficked and coerced? I'm not so sure about that. (Although I find it very hard to believe he didn't know.)

@Roussette

Yes Tatiana and in his NY mansion. Every single room there had cameras apparently. And there was a whole room dedicated to surveillance screens

Yes. NY too and presumably his private island as well.

A seasoned US journalist, a foreign correspondent and editor, was suprisded to be offered a massage at Epstein’s house in NY and assumed it was a honey trap for intelligence services. Russia was notorious for this apparently, but the US was known to use it too. He said “take photos and save copies for my friends.”

It is incorrect. The D of E was not an avid fan of the marriage as he was concerned about Diana's unstable background, as was at least one close member of her family. The mythology of Diana as a poor child, predated on by Charles is inaccurate to say the least.

It is absolutely accurate. Don’t know about DoE’s early attitude to Diana but he pressurised Charles to marry and to a virgin. He was one of the key opposers of Charles marrying Camilla when he was young as he thought she was a slapper. That relationship was put a firm stop to and Charles was sent out of the country.

I do think blackmail is at the root of it.
She provided the contacts of the rich and powerful (and procured the girls) and he provided the parties, wining and dining, trips on his jet, holidays on his island etc and made sure to take plenty of photographs for the album (I believe I read somewhere that he took a lot of the photos himself and on a few occasions asked Gislane to ‘get in the shot’).

I’m not sure PA he went to New York to severe his friendship (that’s what the spin was) but to ask for money. This is an interesting article:

www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/12/how-the-only-known-photo-of-prince-andrew-and-the-pedophile-happened/amp

@TatianaBis

It is incorrect. The D of E was not an avid fan of the marriage as he was concerned about Diana's unstable background, as was at least one close member of her family. The mythology of Diana as a poor child, predated on by Charles is inaccurate to say the least.

It is absolutely accurate. Don’t know about DoE’s early attitude to Diana but he pressurised Charles to marry and to a virgin. He was one of the key opposers of Charles marrying Camilla when he was young as he thought she was a slapper. That relationship was put a firm stop to and Charles was sent out of the country.

No it is not. I got that information directly from said family member. You are correct though about the DoE's attitude to Camilla at the time.

Tatiana That is shocking but unsurprising.

It is now said that Met Police have to act, now that Maxwell has been found guilty. They have to investigate and are being called to do so by senior figures, to include Afzal former Chief Prosecutor for the Rochdale convictions, and the wonderful Maggie Oliver, former police Inspector who was the whistleblower and brought about the Rochdale enquiry.

Guilty F the lot of them

After the Queen goes off with the lot of them and they can lose their bloody tax privileges whilst they're at it. PA is a dead man walking now shunned by all in high society, abandoned by his causes and probably only mummy to cry to at the injustice of it all. I have friend's who worked in the FCO and when creepy Andrew came as a token Trade Envoy a job made up so he could fly around the world at taxpayers expense they found him not only entitled, rude and obnoxious but was ribald at the sight of any vaguely attractive women.

@DrBlackbird in my case A.

On the presumption that the same laws that protect PA protect me.

The thorny point is that, were I in the same leaky boat, I wouldn't have the wherewithal to buy the legal representation that PA has access to. I also think that there are bigger, richer fish in the GM black book that are happy for PA to spin in the wind; the rehabilitated St Bill of Arkansas for one. They are also all hiding behind the fact he's the Queen's son.

IMO PA is a vile exploiter of women in different but awful ways; GF (maybe others due to his close links to GM/JE), his wife and daughters, his mother are all his victims.

Who is GF?

@bubblesbubbles11

"Why don't you ask if Prince Andrew's upbringing made him vulnerable to be being a rapist?"

I think this is a really interesting question.
I know very little about the Royal family so if the following is incorrect forgive me. But I am sure I read somewhere that the Duke of Edinburgh actively encouraged Charles to go for Diana because *she was so young".

And my impression of the Queen is that she just kept out of it/ignored it/did not see her role to step in and criticise anything like the above.

So very little wonder that Charles and Andrew turned out the way they did. Only surprising that Edward did not show similar preferences (so far as I know).

I think my point is I think Her Maj should carry the can for some of this due to the deafining silence in terms of moral guidance or integrity of her children.

I agree. Charles in particular seems to have been guided by Mountbatten who had very dubious morals himself.

@Roussette typo VG

Guilty

And should face justice

It is now said that Met Police have to act

Why ? these things happened over a year ago and we know the police don't go back that far.

Also, it might just be worth looking at any police uniform. They all have Prince Andrews mothers coat of arms on them.

The only "shocking" thing in this case is how many dim people seriously believed there was anything in common between themselves and the royals. I wish I had a whole load of bridges for sale.

@Time40

Of knowingly having sex with a girl who had been coerced by others to have sex with him? Probably innocent, because I'm sure he's so arrogant that he would expect pretty young girls to want him.

Of having sex with a 17-year-old? Probably "guilty" - but having sex with a 17-year-old is legal in the UK, so the question there is whether or not he broke the laws of another country.

I completely agree with this.

I'm shocked at the level of victim blaming on this thread