Prince Andrew has bolted to Balmoral

[Viviennemary]

This according to guess who. The DM of course. To avoid getting papers served says the article. Maybe he's just gone for a nice break. Accompanied by Fergie.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

TBF to Kate, she made a deal and has kept her end up - she's conducted herself much better that the members of the family born into it. Which again comes back to what is do special about them

They've got the "blood royal" don't you know?

And yes, you're right about Kate; within what she's chosen she's making a ruddy good job of it, and while I might not admire her choice I admire professionalism when I see it

Totally agree. I think she looks increasingly trapped and tense as the years go on. I think she loves William and gives the whole thing her best shot, but it’s taking a toll on her. I don’t believe the rumours about Rose. She has little alternative but to accept her lot in life and make the best of it. Her family are probably a lifeline.

@Ribblechips

How is PA paying his his celebrity lawyer? I thought he was short of funds? Where is the money coming from?

Mummy, is my guess.

The use of a high profile lawyer linked to Bill Cosby to argue over a technicality seems like an astonishingly bad PR move, and likely to guarantee that the assumption of guilt will hang over his head for the rest of his life

Honestly, who’d work hard and be a successful defence lawyer with views like this around…?? You do realise that good lawyers, particularly good defence lawyers are not the same people as their clients don’t you?

Derxa That's unfair about Hilary Mantel. She is not a "thoroughly nasty" woman at all.

Her comments - two sentences - were taken out of an hour-long lecture and the meaning totally twisted about by the press. She said the Palace understood that too.

Writers should always have the intellectual freedom to highlight uncomfortable truths. Freedom of speech being a very British human right surely?

Hilary Mantel was making a wider point about women being used as chattels in Tudor England and how not much has changed over the years.

You can hardly argue against her reasoning. Both Charles and Diana were victims of circumstance to a degree and in hindsight their marriage was doomed from the start. Ultimately both were both unfaithful. But it was the wife, Diana, who was expected to put up and shut up and live a very public lie. And have her children raised in the midst of that lie and damaged by it.

Diana was only just out of her teens when she entered in to her marriage with good faith. Charles was in his thirties and in love with another woman, fully aware of the machinations of the palace and the lie he was about to perpetrate. Diana's role was to produce heirs and remain silent.

But Diana, with the confidence borne of a background and lineage older than that of the current Royal Family, would not be silenced. People forget that she had been very discreet, loyal and silent up to the point where she feared she might lose access to her children. But it what was done to her by the palace (or the patriarchy if you like) after she had broken ranks that was worthy of a Tudor plot. Charles (sorry Plumtree I dispute he is fundamentally a "good man") allowed his chums to brief against her, he allowed rumours to be spread that she was mad, another chum was briefed to undermine her work against land mines, and Charles spent thousands and thousands of pounds on a PR company whose main tactics to "rehabilitate" Camilla's credibility and image, relied to a large degree on destroying Diana's, the mother of his children. Sorry but it is the oldest story in the book. If you as a woman diverge from "compliance" and speak out, you will be punished and ostracised.

dontyouwish- VG signed a settlement agreement with JE. In that agreement there is supposed to be a clause which states that she cannot make individual claims against certain people. She took out a lawsuit against Alan Detshowitz who was part of JE's legal team saying that she was forced to have sex with him, although he always denied the claims. The case was reportedly dropped because of the clause. AD claims that the case against Prince Andrew is unlawful for the same reason, her legal team are saying he wasn't named in the settlement agreement.

Derxa That's unfair about Hilary Mantel. She is not a "thoroughly nasty" woman at all. Her comments are coloured by her own difficult health history.
During her twenties, Mantel had a debilitating and painful illness. She was initially diagnosed with a psychiatric illness, hospitalised, and treated with antipsychotic drugs, which reportedly produced psychotic symptoms. In consequence, Mantel refrained from seeking help from doctors for some years. Finally, in Botswana and desperate, she consulted a medical textbook and realised she was probably suffering from a severe form of endometriosis, a diagnosis confirmed by doctors in London. The condition and necessary surgery—a surgical menopause at the age of 27—left her unable to have children, and continued to disrupt her life. She later said "you've thought your way through questions of fertility and menopause and what it means to be without children because it all happened catastrophically". This led Mantel in her writing to see the woman's body problematised as a theme, though a shadow rather than what she wrote about constantly.[37] Continued treatment by steroids caused weight gain and radically changed her appearance.
Wikipedia

@Mamamia7962

dontyouwish- VG signed a settlement agreement with JE. In that agreement there is supposed to be a clause which states that she cannot make individual claims against certain people. She took out a lawsuit against Alan Detshowitz who was part of JE's legal team saying that she was forced to have sex with him, although he always denied the claims. The case was reportedly dropped because of the clause. AD claims that the case against Prince Andrew is unlawful for the same reason, her legal team are saying he wasn't named in the settlement agreement.

From my understanding the agreement files are confidential, and they do not yet know the exact names, so they want that released. Also, does it say the name in general or can she say, drop NY, but can pursue London and Lolita island.

They have to produce the agreement details, and they have not so far, it doesn't look like they know exactly, just guessing.

And re this agreement, I also read it didnt hold because Epstein is now deceased. I suppose thats one for the lawyers to argue over. But as for Andrew not being named. I suppose it depends on the wording of the agreement.

Reports now coming in that Andrew could be forced to give evidence by a UK court.

dailyuknews.com/uk-news/uk-court-may-force-andrew-to-give-evidence-in-us-lawsuit-if-he-continues-to-dodge-and-duck/

@Mamamia7962

dontyouwish- VG signed a settlement agreement with JE. In that agreement there is supposed to be a clause which states that she cannot make individual claims against certain people. She took out a lawsuit against Alan Detshowitz who was part of JE's legal team saying that she was forced to have sex with him, although he always denied the claims. The case was reportedly dropped because of the clause. AD claims that the case against Prince Andrew is unlawful for the same reason, her legal team are saying he wasn't named in the settlement agreement.

Has VG herself used the words 'forced to have sex with'? I hear and read those words all the time and they always make me think that it sounds as if there was someone else in the room pointing a gun at her.

She can’t drop the NY allegation. Without that the NY court has no jurisdiction in this matter.

Derxa well if her views and comments are informed by a medical health condition - it doesn't make them any less valid (women's health issues have been under-researched and invalidated for years) - surely that should make her less worthy of being called nasty, not more?

And anyway, for that matter, what does it matter whether she is "nice" or "nasty"? She has an intellectual viewpoint informed by historical research. It's what she is saying that matters. Are you saying she has to be "nice" in order to express an opinion? Does that apply to male writers too?

@Brindlepaws

Derxa well if her views and comments are informed by a medical health condition - it doesn't make them any less valid (women's health issues have been under-researched and invalidated for years) - surely that should make her less worthy of being called nasty, not more?

And anyway, for that matter, what does it matter whether she is "nice" or "nasty"? She has an intellectual viewpoint informed by historical research. It's what she is saying that matters. Are you saying she has to be "nice" in order to express an opinion? Does that apply to male writers too?

She implied that Catherine was a vacuous clothes horse. Would you like to read that about yourself? I'm wondering how these very personal comments help anyone. She is an intellectual and in the UK it's de rigeur for the intellectual and academic class to despise the royal family.

Honestly, who’d work hard and be a successful defence lawyer with views like this around…?? You do realise that good lawyers, particularly good defence lawyers are not the same people as their clients don’t you?

I think you must be misunderstanding my comment. I understand that it is an essential part of the legal system that everyone should have legal representation. However, lawyers have specialities, and if you employ a lawyer who is known for helping celebrity clients avoid sexual assault trials on technicalities, you create an impression. I am criticising their tactics, not his right to a defence lawyer.

I assume that PA would claim he is just trying to avoid the publicity of a trial, but by choosing a lawyer linked to high profile people like Bill Cosby and Armie Hammer he is just guaranteeing that their names will appear with his whenever this is reported.

If his goal is to avoid damaging the Crown he is failing. If he is innocent, at this point he would create a better impression by just co-operating with the FBI, as he promised he would.

The Queen herself looks stupid if she keeps acting as though his reputation can be redeemed by avoiding justice on technicalities. Honestly that’s probably a normal reaction for a 96 year old woman faced with the possibility that her son might have done something awful. But she is still wearing the crown.

[Mantel] implied that Catherine was a vacuous clothes horse.

She really didn't. Did you read her whole speech or just the few lines taken out of context by the tabloids?

@Brindlepaws

Derxa That's unfair about Hilary Mantel. She is not a "thoroughly nasty" woman at all.

Her comments - two sentences - were taken out of an hour-long lecture and the meaning totally twisted about by the press. She said the Palace understood that too.

Writers should always have the intellectual freedom to highlight uncomfortable truths. Freedom of speech being a very British human right surely?

Hilary Mantel was making a wider point about women being used as chattels in Tudor England and how not much has changed over the years.

You can hardly argue against her reasoning. Both Charles and Diana were victims of circumstance to a degree and in hindsight their marriage was doomed from the start. Ultimately both were both unfaithful. But it was the wife, Diana, who was expected to put up and shut up and live a very public lie. And have her children raised in the midst of that lie and damaged by it.

Diana was only just out of her teens when she entered in to her marriage with good faith. Charles was in his thirties and in love with another woman, fully aware of the machinations of the palace and the lie he was about to perpetrate. Diana's role was to produce heirs and remain silent.

But Diana, with the confidence borne of a background and lineage older than that of the current Royal Family, would not be silenced. People forget that she had been very discreet, loyal and silent up to the point where she feared she might lose access to her children. But it what was done to her by the palace (or the patriarchy if you like) after she had broken ranks that was worthy of a Tudor plot. Charles (sorry Plumtree I dispute he is fundamentally a "good man") allowed his chums to brief against her, he allowed rumours to be spread that she was mad, another chum was briefed to undermine her work against land mines, and Charles spent thousands and thousands of pounds on a PR company whose main tactics to "rehabilitate" Camilla's credibility and image, relied to a large degree on destroying Diana's, the mother of his children. Sorry but it is the oldest story in the book. If you as a woman diverge from "compliance" and speak out, you will be punished and ostracised.

Well summed up @Brindlepaws

Upinaballoon - She said that she had sex with Alan Dershowitz 6 times during her servitude with JE, although AD denies this.

She implied that Catherine was a vacuous clothes horse.

No, she said that was what Royal Princesses are supposed to be. Which is true - look good, don’t express an opinion, ensure the continuance of the line.

I think that is a fair point. It’s not a criticism of Catherine, it’s a description of the role.

To be fair, Catherine wasn’t forced into the job like many Royal Princesses, and probably had a good idea of what she was getting herself into before she got married, and that is why she seems to be good at the job.

Reports now coming in that Andrew could be forced to give evidence by a UK court

Whether or not this is more tabloid nonsense, I'll say again what I've said so often before - the chances of Andrew ever seeing the inside of a courtroom are nil. I don't usually risk stating things as facts if not sure, but on that one I'm pretty confident

On Kate, I also agree that her strong family are probably key; the Windsors might look like a case for social services but hers certainly dont, and I just hope William appreciates them.
And should W&K ever split there'd be many complications, but I doubt her lacking support would be one of them

Derxa again, these were two sentences taken out of context that Hilary Mantel gave during a two hour lecture organised by the London Review of Books.

She wasn't attacking Katherine Middleton personally. She was making a wider feminist argument about the reasons why Katherine is so popular or "professional" as others have called her here. (And I agree btw, within the context of the role, she does a splendid job, hasn't put a foot wrong, and could teach the other members of the RF a thing or two.)

But Hilary Mantel was making a feminist argument about the role that Katherine is required to play as future queen and whether a monarchy is a suitable institution for a modern "grown up" country? And it's a legitimate question.

Why do we require our future queen to be thin, forever smiling, the perfect mother, camera-ready after childbirth, dressed in beautiful clothes and silent? Is this a feminist ideal? Is this the role we want a prominent woman in our modern society to play? Is this the role model we want our daughters to follow? (Note the word "role" model. This isn't personal.)

Hilary Mantel also spoke about the words the press used to describe Katherine eg "weak" when suffering a pregnancy-related illness, and "radiant" once better. It's about how women are categorised by the press.

Can you not see that this is far from a personal attack on Katherine Middleton? In fact, if anything, it is a cry for Katherine's true character to be able to emerge a little from the constraints of the "perfection" that society imposes on all of us, especially women and mothers.

I do think PA is floundering here. He can't say he's never met VG again (picture evidence) and he's now actually challenging US jurisdiction.

I wonder if PC is grateful for the diversion from his honours for sale fiasco and dodgy Russian donors.

I wonder if PC is grateful for the diversion from his honours for sale fiasco and dodgy Russian donors

I'd say that's beyond dispute, Roussette. After all, why take responsibility for - well, anything really - when there are more smoke and mirrors to be had?

On Kate, I also agree that her strong family are probably key; the Windsors might look like a case for social services but hers certainly dont, and I just hope William appreciates them.

I think it’s ironic that apparently she used to get teased about her mother’s job as cabin crew (“doors to manual”) when in fact the job of being a working Royal is about being able to smile at 1000’s of different people and making them feel you care about their concerns, standing for long periods of time while looking smart and creating a sense of security.

Tell me about it, merrymouse But they're "trade" and therefore to be sneered at by those who (in yet another irony) aren't obliged to work for their living

I smiled at the time of the wedding when, rather than the other way round, someone said William had done well to marry into the Middletons - but they weren't far wrong

If someone sues you in a New York court, Rousette, I’m sure you might be quite pleased to know you can challenge its jurisdiction over you, as. UK citizen and resident. This is, as I have said a few times before, a perfectly usual move in this kind of situation - how you get to floundering from that I am not sure.