Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Prince Andrew

999 replies

Tevion28 · 01/01/2022 23:58

Do you think guilty or innocent

OP posts:
JinglingHellsBells · 02/01/2022 16:29

@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.

With respect, @TatianaBis how do you know what the DofE thought and wanted? Anything you think you know is a result of media reports, unless of course you spoke to DofE yourself.

What I understand and I say that advisedly, is that both the Queen and Philip wanted Charles to settle down rather than carry on dating women and appearing to be a playboy.

Also- again if we believe it- it was Camilla herself who turned down Charles as she didnt' want a Royal life. In his absence, at sea, she married Parker Bowles. They were never really in love and he resumed his relationship with Anne, it's said.

TheReluctantPhoenix · 02/01/2022 16:32

Is being a victim a ‘get-out-of-jail’ free card for life?!

People can accept that she was a victim but judge her subsequent actions.

Astrak · 02/01/2022 16:35

Vile little man. The British Royal Family have had some immoral, arrogant,criminal wasters in it over the years. Prince Andrew is probably one of the most toe-curling ones of the last sixty-plus years.
I'm only sorry that HM Queen Elizabeth II seems unwilling to banish him from her sight/bank account/stables/land and the UK. In perpetuity.

SerendipityJane · 02/01/2022 16:36

@Redshoeblueshoe

I'm shocked at the level of victim blaming on this thread
and wilful ignorance of posters popping in/up/round to throw their detailed analysis of the matter before us.

"...having sex with a 17 year old is not a crime..."

luckily for these people, neither is being a thick fuck.

SerendipityJane · 02/01/2022 16:38

I'm only sorry that HM Queen Elizabeth II seems unwilling to banish him from her sight/bank account/stables/land and the UK. In perpetuity.

I'm not. Every day brings the end of the monarchy closer.

Roussette · 02/01/2022 16:43

Redshoes Me too. Sadly I've seen it before.

Serendipity Maybe I'm just hopeful. But if they are being called by senior figures to open up an enquiry, the Met just can't ignore it.

Tuesday is a key day. It will be determined whether the case can go ahead to trial in Autumn 2022

This is an interesting article and confirms what I thought. Andrew was a law unto himself within the RF. He blasted staff, he took no advice, he told anyone who tried to offer advice to eff off, and said the only person he had to answer to was the Queen. In a way he exploited her. Or she just turned the other cheek in the hope it would all just go away.

All this is now coming back to bite them.

Here

An extract...

In the wake of the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, the Palace is now trying to rewrite its sordid role in the cover-up. So-called ‘anonymous’ sources are pretending that there was no concealment, rather that matters got out of hand because of the arrogance of the Duke.

The Duke has enjoyed the unwavering support and protection of his devoted mother, Queen Elizabeth. Clearly, he is now being thrown to the wolves by her courtiers. It is not fanciful to speculate that the monarch is presently viewed as a lame duck by her senior courtiers as she battles ill health, fatigue and old age. If the control of Buckingham Palace is indeed passing to Prince Charles, it can be inferred that he has decided that his brother’s sexual excesses are not going to ruin his forthcoming reign as king.

MaternityNurse007 · 02/01/2022 16:45

Judging by his circle of friends and parties he attended, the interview he gave, the amount of time he looked away or down during the interview, his body language and what & how he was saying ...he sounded like a really bad liar to me. So Guilty and really really hope that EVERYTHING will come to light about him and the other ,,famous" people involved.... They should face jail time if guilty, so fed up with high profile people getting away with absolutely everything in these days....

SerendipityJane · 02/01/2022 16:47

But if they are being called by senior figures to open up an enquiry, the Met just can't ignore it.

There isn't much that could surprise me about what the Met could ignore. It's less than a month since they managed to not find any evidence of anything worth investigating at Downing St - one of the most surveilled places in the UK, if not the planet.

The bottom line is Prince Andrew simply isn't the right shade for the Met to be interested. Nor is he a vulnerable female that might also get a few officers popping round to "take a statement".

SerendipityJane · 02/01/2022 16:49

The Duke has enjoyed the unwavering support and protection of his devoted mother, Queen Elizabeth. Clearly, he is now being thrown to the wolves by her courtiers. It is not fanciful to speculate that the monarch is presently viewed as a lame duck by her senior courtiers as she battles ill health, fatigue and old age. If the control of Buckingham Palace is indeed passing to Prince Charles, it can be inferred that he has decided that his brother’s sexual excesses are not going to ruin his forthcoming reign as king.

Hopefully our last too.

MarshmallowFondant · 02/01/2022 16:53

As others have said there's a difference between moral guilt and legal guilt.

It's perfectly possible for someone to be a lecherous middle-aged an who likes sex with 17 year olds, who has dodgy friends, and not to have committed any crime.

Sex with 17 year olds is NOT a crime in the UK.

Trafficking offences were not written into UK law until 2003. The picture was taken in 2001. Again, at that point in English law, having sex with someone you believed to be trafficked was not a crime. People cannot be charged with crimes which were not crimes at the time the event happened.

Agree also with others that Andrew has always had a reputation - Randy Andy, remember? But also that he's not overly blessed in the brains department and has a hugely inflated ego. Why WOULDN'T this 17 year old American girl want to have sex with him, a PRINCE?

I really don't believe he's legally guilty. Morally is another matter.

LadyEloise1 · 02/01/2022 16:55

There's a very good article in The Sunday Times by Camilla Long on the subject.
Why are those very powerful, very rich men who travelled with Epstein, or to his paedophile playgrounds not being questioned ?

Roussette · 02/01/2022 16:57

Sex with 17 year olds is NOT a crime in the UK

As has been said countless times on this thread, it wasn't just in the UK. It was also in NY, illegal at the time, and the Caribbean island

Tania64 · 02/01/2022 16:58

Get rid of all of the the so called 'royals. They are unintelligent,in bred, scrounging, repugnant, elitist and a total waste of time and money. We need a full on revolution or at the very least a referendum. Andrew is the most vile and in my opinion as guilty as hell.

Sloth66 · 02/01/2022 16:58

Guilty.
The story about the pizza Express and supposed inability to sweat was ludicrous.
Arrogant, entitled, unelected unwanted embarrassment

Roussette · 02/01/2022 16:58

Why WOULDN'T this 17 year old American girl want to have sex with him, a PRINCE?

Whether she wanted to or not is irrelevant. It has now been proven that both JE and GM trafficked young girls of which she was one.

TatianaBis · 02/01/2022 17:01

@JinglingHellsBells

I said clearly I didn’t know what DoE’s attitude to Diana was, but the rest was via mutual friends. I don’t really read media stuff about the royals being a republican.

MarshmallowFondant · 02/01/2022 17:03

@Roussette

Sex with 17 year olds is NOT a crime in the UK

As has been said countless times on this thread, it wasn't just in the UK. It was also in NY, illegal at the time, and the Caribbean island

But is there evidence of that? All the focus is on the photograph, which was taken in London.

If it comes down to a he said, she said scenario any case is unlikely to result in a prosecution. And not victim-blaming, but there have been concerns raised about the woman's credibility as a witness.

Roussette · 02/01/2022 17:05

Marshmallow. Well... it's in VG's court papers. There is proof he had been in those places, vid evidence of NY, and flight logs for Little St.James island.

MarshmallowFondant · 02/01/2022 17:05

@Roussette

Why WOULDN'T this 17 year old American girl want to have sex with him, a PRINCE?

Whether she wanted to or not is irrelevant. It has now been proven that both JE and GM trafficked young girls of which she was one.

Yes but again, trafficking wasn't a crime in the UK in 2001 and there isn't as much evidence relating to other parts of the world. Also I don't believe Andrew is bright enough to take that into account - he is arrogant enough to think he can have anyone he wants, and they will be desperate for sex with him. It just wouldn't cross his mind that they may be coerced.
MarshmallowFondant · 02/01/2022 17:06

I'm not defending him. I think morally he''s very dubious and I'm glad he's being rapidly sidelined.

But I just don't think the evidence is there from what i've seen. Maxwell isn't goign to testify, Epstein is dead, Giuffre is partially unreliable.

Roussette · 02/01/2022 17:08

I don't totally agree Marshmallow. Saying he isn't bright enough is not a defence is it?
Countless young girls in the NY mansion, footage of him at the door, he might not be bright, but he isn't blind is he?

CurzonDax · 02/01/2022 17:10

On various social media outlets/forums (not just this one), I have seen many people argue that PA wasn't going anything illegal, as VG was 17 at the time. I don't care how old she was; she was vulnerable and being exploited. How much exploitation needs to go on, before we deem the woman unable to give consent without feeling as though she has to/is forced to?
To me, there is a very, very thin line between exploitation and rape - where is the point where exploitation leads to either rape or consent? I'd be saying the same if she was 17 or 47 (although, I would hope that the 47yo would be mature enough to realise she was being exploited, more than a 17yo would).

PA is vile - if I kept seeing young girls going in and out of one of my friend's house, I'd certainly be asking them some questions, and reporting them.
The Queen is vile for trying to 'brush this under the carpet'/defending him.

I genuinely feel sorry for Beatrice and Eugenie, who don't seem to have done anything wrong, yet are likely to be tainted by their father's reputation now.

I only wonder if VG was the only young girl whom his Royal Highness slept with? I do winder if there are other Epstein victims who were also involved with PA, but who are waiting to see the outcome of this case before stepping forward?

Roussette · 02/01/2022 17:10

Marshmallow I know you're not justifying his behaviour, you are just playing devils advocate and I understand that. I also don't hold out much hope for any sort of guilty crime... there's too much coverage for him

Roussette · 02/01/2022 17:15

Curzon I agree. I think some posters on here really don't understand exploitation, grooming and abuse.

Interesting last para... I wonder.

Beatrice and Eugenie, I have some sympathy. Not a heck of a lot to be honest, but some. There are others in this world I would rather save my sympathy for. However, I hope they get through this and enjoy their babies and families. They were dealt a rough deal with both their Ma and Pa.

DuncinToffee · 02/01/2022 17:29

@TheReluctantPhoenix

Is being a victim a ‘get-out-of-jail’ free card for life?!

People can accept that she was a victim but judge her subsequent actions.

Has she committed any crimes?