Why is it all about Prince Andrew?

[Watchmuch]

He should absolutely get what's coming to him but we know (don't we?) that numerous other rich and powerful men did the same. Why are we hearing nothing of them?

You have no such obligation, and never have.

Me too. I hope all these men - including the odious Andrew - are brought to justice.

Yep. Useful idiot

why is no one asking who the prime minister who brutally raped and beat her is? Why is bill Clinton getting no heat?

Because in previous years no one would have dared question a member of the Royal Family - I think it's entirely appropriate that people are asking very serious questions now of these people. They are not and should not be considered above the law.

Andrew is a member of a wealthy family. There will have been trusts and inheritances.

He doesn’t appear to have committed a crime- certainly men like him were splashed across the front pages for a party lifestyle.
Our understanding of sex work has evolved enormously. Trafficking and grooming wouldn’t have been familiar concepts to your average bloke at the time. Hostesses were.

People like Epstein and Saville groom useful idiots in high places, as well as children.

You're absolutely right, but so is @Bruisername . Some minister beat VG and choked her.

The story is a journalist's dream. Royals sell. This story is multi-faceted: sex, greed, dodgy dealings, a fallen hero. It will run and run. The bigger story, which I hope 'serious' writers get to, is what has to happen to make the whole Royal set-up palatable for the 21st century. William's in-tray is overflowing...

My point is Andrew has probably inherited significant money/assets which will help fund him.

Agreed.

MH mentioned that Businesses within the Duchys of Cornwall and Lancaster don't pay tax, so maybe RF pay some tax but not on everything?

Charles and William pay tax on the income received from the Duchies. They are not entitled to the capital nor to capital profits.

Again the accounts probably aren't open to public scrutiny in the same way other business account are at companies house.

They aren't at Companies House as the Duchies are not companies, but you can find their accounts on their websites, so they are definitely open to public scrutiny. Their accounts are independently audited and contain the same information you would expect to see in company accounts. If you are interested, the latest accounts for the Duchy of Cornwall can be seen at https://duchyofcornwall.org/assets/media/uploads/content/report/duchy-annual-report-2025-pdf-750753.pdf and those for the Duchy of Lancaster are at DoL-2024-25-Annual-Report-and-Accounts.pdf

Because hes an entitled knob

I’m not a royalist, but there’s some total tosh talked about them. Thank you as always@prh47bridge, for actual facts.

Yes, thank you @prh47bridge

If Hodge said that she was wrong.

Royals do pay tax.

Most of them pay exactly the same taxes as the rest of us. Princess Anne and Zara Phillips pay normal taxes on their farming and horse businesses. Edward and Sophie paid taxes when they worked in the private sector and Andrew pays tax on his naval pension. Sarah Ferguson had to pay tax on all her book and sponsorship earnings.

There are a few very specific exceptions, most of which seem fair enough to me:

1. The sovereign grant which funds the royals’ official duties is exempt from tax (just as you or I would not pay tax when we are reimbursed for business expenses from our employers).

2. The duchies are corporation and capital gains tax exempt but both the King and POW pay income tax on any profits they receive from the duchies.

3. Monarchs can pass some assets to the next monarch without paying inheritance tax if those assets are used for official purposes. Eg Balmoral is used to entertain visiting foreign leaders.

This story will run and run and while it does no one is looking for Epstein's other clients.

On wider note, there are obviously some parts of the institution that need reform, after such a long reign it would be staggering if there weren't. I'm not sure the current climate is good for rational, calm analysis and debate though. There are lots of competing agendas here, maybe a time of reflection is needed before any major changes are made?

Except for removing Andrew's titles officially, happy for that to be rushed through tomorrow (his house is harder).

100% agree with this.

Because whilst being an odious creature he is also an easy target for the press!

Fwiw, in the US it's all about the rich and powerful, particularly what trump knew and/ or did.

PA doesn't get a look in.

Frankly, the constant questioning on MN about the rest of the seedy rich is starting to come across as whatabouttery.

Ignorance of the law has never been a defense.

Whatabouttery....

Because there is insufficient admissible evidence that he committed an act which would have been an offence in England or Wales at the material time. That is unlikely to change, not least because the principal witness is now deceased.

No-one is saying it is.

The principal witness against him claimed he had sex with her when she was underage. However, she refused to give evidence to law enforcement in either the UK or the US and, on her own account, she was over the age of consent in the three locations where she claimed to have had sex with Andrew. Her claim of underage sex was based on the age of consent in Florida (18) but, as none of the alleged encounters took place in Florida, that is irrelevant.

We don't apply criminal laws retrospectively in this country but, even if we did, it is not clear that Andrew committed an offence under the law as it stands today. I'm not saying he didn't, but there does not appear to be clear evidence that he did. However, the important thing is that there is no evidence at all that he committed an offence under the law as it stood at the time.

But if the relevant law requires a bad intent, then it is a defence that you didn’t have that bad intent.

Eg the difference between murder and manslaughter. Or a defence to rape being that you reasonably believed the woman had consented.

i am not sure what specific offence anyone is talking about that Andrew may or may not have committed. But I can easily see a defence to anything sexual being ‘I am a Prince, why on earth would I not assume that every young woman wanted to have sex with me?’

But the added media interest in this is because a lot of people have a vested interest in him not being put on trial, because he would be an utter disaster in the witness box to a lot of people even if he was found not guilty. And so no one really is certain whether he is not on trial because there is no realistic prospect of a conviction on any charge, or because someone is leaning on someone….

What law do you think he broke? He had sex with a young woman, over the age of consent.

A trafficked 17 year old “recruited from Trump’s Mar-a- Largo by Epstein.
FFS some people’s standards are in the toilet.

No-one saying it's not abhorrent, but my understanding is that based on the law at the time (which is the only one he could be prosecuted with) he's done nothing illegal.

So on what basis are you going to bring charges?

After a thorough investigation. She was 17. She claims that several girls involved in an orgy with he and Epstein were younger.