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.

@justasking111

Sorry if asked before how is Victoria paying the lawyers it's expensive to have the best.

I wonder who is bank rolling Andrew too

Virginia, not Victoria.

She has plenty of money so not a problem but if she gets more after the Ghislane Maxwell trial, her legal team will deduct from that.

Prince Andrew has money too.

Danny Dyer can trace his roots back to Henry V111 - it means jack shit really.

Have never understood this thing about tracing ancestors - everyone on the planets ancestors have existed for exactly the same amount of time, whether we know their names or not.
And aristocracy just means that their ancestors were in a better position to steal land from our ancestors. Or let their daughters shag a king because their was a title in it for them.
It's hardly an achievement to be proud of.

@merrymouse

Not really. I didn't use the pretext of attacking the press portrayal and expectations of Royal wives to write nasty comments.

You could just as sensibly argue that you are using this thread as a pretext to attack Mantel. However I think it is more likely that you have got the wrong end of the stick and are just refusing to back down.

Why is it so difficult to believe that somebody who has written extensively about Ann Boleyn and Jane Seymour isn’t making a general point about the role of royal wives, but instead has a personal vendetta against the Duchess of Cambridge?

"a jointed doll, a shop-window mannequin, with no personality of her own, designed by a committee and built by craftsmen, with a perfect plastic smile and the spindles of her limbs hand-turned and gloss-varnished, designed to breed in some manners, with dead eyes, selected for her role of princess because she was irreproachable: as painfully thin as anyone could wish, without quirks, without oddities, without the risk of the emergence of character, precision-made, machine-made, capable of going from perfect bride to perfect mother, with no messy deviation." I quite often come across anti Kate and William comments on Twitter. Never as nasty as this though. Attacks on her body shape are horrible.

derxa, you're still not getting it.
Mantel is NOT making a personal attack on Kate's body shape, clothes, manner, character, or anything. Her point is that royal women must conform to this image or woe betide them.

Try reading the whole piece @derxa instead of picking out random sentences and putting them together to make it look like one long attack.

@IntermittentParps

derxa, you're still not getting it. Mantel is NOT making a personal attack on Kate's body shape, clothes, manner, character, or anything. Her point is that royal women must conform to this image or woe betide them.

You can intellectualise as much as you like but her words were said, written and remembered.

Maybe imagine you are in an English literature lesson and the subject is metaphor?

derxa, what do you mean?

About her words being 'said, written and remembered', I mean.

Derxa please read what Hilary Mantel said in defence of her speech:

beta.www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/08/hilary-mantel-defends-kate-middleton-criticism_n_2834966.html

She says that her "speech ended with a plea to the press and media in general. I said "back off and don't be brutes". Don't do to this young woman what you did to Diana"

"My whole theme was the way we maltreat royal persons, making them at once superhuman and yet less than human"

She said her words did not lack clarity but had been twisted by the press and taken out of context.

And she ends by calling Katherine an intelligent woman " who if she cares to read my essay will see that I meant nothing but good to her" .

@merrymouse

Maybe imagine you are in an English literature lesson and the subject is metaphor?

No metaphors. Just a personal attack on a living woman's body shape and life choices. She knew which words would be picked up and remembered.

I just read that and thought the author is basically saying she is a doll and not a person really because her image is so manufactured. Not really a personal attack on her body shape.

No her point was that the press often twists stories about women and stories written. As perfectly demonstrated here!

She knew which words would be picked up and remembered.
Evidently not. As pointed out above, when made to defend herself (against people who could or perhaps deliberately would not understand her point) she said her words 'had been twisted by the press and taken out of context.' In other words, she assumed and hoped people would read the whole piece and thus understand her point.

If you are determined to believe that Mantel has a personal vendetta against the Duchess if Cambridge, I can’t help you.

She is saying (to correct my previous typos) that the press twists stories written by women, and about women.

This is a perfect example!

I just just wish you'd stand up for other women derxa like you do for Kate.
Over the last couple of years you know exactly what has been written about MM here and elsewhere.
Vile disgusting stuff about her clothes, face, hair, body...along with a character assassination of the very very worst kind
Not once did you leap to her defence.

What Hilary Mantel is talking about is not Kate personally but the role of a royal wife yet you defend her to the hilt

Ironic

@Roussette

I just just wish you'd stand up for other women derxa like you do for Kate. Over the last couple of years you know exactly what has been written about MM here and elsewhere. Vile disgusting stuff about her clothes, face, hair, body...along with a character assassination of the very very worst kind Not once did you leap to her defence.

What Hilary Mantel is talking about is not Kate personally but the role of a royal wife yet you defend her to the hilt

Ironic

Not only did she not defend, she was one of the people that dished out the attacks.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

Danny Dyer can trace his roots back to Henry V111 - it means jack shit really.

Have never understood this thing about tracing ancestors - everyone on the planets ancestors have existed for exactly the same amount of time, whether we know their names or not.
And aristocracy just means that their ancestors were in a better position to steal land from our ancestors. Or let their daughters shag a king because their was a title in it for them.
It's hardly an achievement to be proud of.

Means nothing to you and I, yes.

But the idea is as stupid as the idea of aristocracy. But these things matter very much in their circles.

*…if your goal were to clear your name, (Because you think you should be entitled to dress up and wear a uniform at official events) you would also have to weigh up the advantages of not going to court against the disadvantage of creating the impression that you are avoiding justice”

@merrymouse even if if you (someone) were completely innocent of whatever allegations had been made against you, and you desperately wanted to clear your name, deciding to go to court in a foreign jusrisdiction, with a different legal system, with politicised judges and a jury trial drawn from people from an entirely different culture from you would still be a mammoth, mammoth risk. There are absolutely no 100% certainties in litigation, none at all. No reputable lawyer would ever give their client more than an 80% chance of success, no matter what. There are loads of people who got things spectacularly wrong because they wanted their day in court.

Arguing process may sound craven to you, but it is a very very sensible tactic when you are a defendant, when making the claim go away generally is what matters most.

Not only did she not defend, she was one of the people that dished out the attacks.

She really didn't. Please read the Huffington Post article linked below Don'tyouwish2

Huh?
I was referring to the poster, not Hilary M.

@dontyouwish2

Huh? I was referring to the poster, not Hilary M.

Sorry I misunderstood dontyouwish2

Arguing process may sound craven to you, but it is a very very sensible tactic when you are a defendant, when making the claim go away generally is what matters most.

Again you are missing the point and only focussing on the legal issue. This would be the only relevant concern if Prince Andrew were not a member of the Royal Family simultaneously campaigning to be reinstated in public life (see announcement Re: Queen saying he should keep his military titles).

There must be other lawyers who can argue the technicalities of the NY legal system without ensuring that all future coverage of Prince Andrew links him to the lawyer’s other clients.

Making the claim go away may be the goal of most defendants, but this claim isn’t going to go away.

Agree Serenster

The solicitors would be failing in their duty to their client if they advised to proceed, without checking points of law first & seeing if the claim could be struck out.