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.

Right, so now you’re changing the argument, Roussette. There is of course absolutely no point in responding to this as neither of us has the faintest idea of what the Queen/her office may or may not have said to Andrew in 2008, and what she herself knew at any point in time I prefer not to speculate on the basis of fiction.

I'm not changing 'the argument' at all.

If you want to see it like that, it's your prerogative.

Given I knew about JE's first conviction, I am at a loss to think security and aides wouldn't have known.

His first conviction was not 'fiction'.

Actually she awarded it BEFORE the Epstein scandal broke

And yet the birthday boy still got to dress up as a vice admiral four years after the Epstein scandal broke and some fourteen years after quitting the navy. He also 'honourably' deferred the Admiral gig he was automatically due on his 60th until his return to public duties.

We'll draw a veil over the reported hissy fit at not being allowed access to the top navy rank dressing up box at Philip's funeral.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/29/prince-andrew-kazakh-billionaire

This story is from November 2010.

The only possible explanation for Andrew’s honour is that the Royal Family have exceptionally low standards.

And yet the birthday boy still got to dress up as a vice admiral four years after the Epstein scandal broke and some fourteen years after quitting the navy

Yep.

He hated not being a full 'admiral' too. That would have been on his 65th. Public opinion stopped it. Otherwise it would've happened.

More from Nov 2010

www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-rude-prince-andrew

“Andrew's other forays into central Asia, where he is said to have a good relationship with President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, have also proved controversial. Ambassador Richard Hoagland cabled in April 2009 his view of political life in Kazakhstan: "Corruption is endemic among Kazakhstani officialdom … Most senior officials live lifestyles that require much higher incomes. In many instances, they receive profits from businesses registered in the names of their spouses or other relatives. In other cases, they're stealing directly from the public trough."

Earlier this year, it was revealed that the president's billionaire son-in-law, Timur Kulibayev, paid Andrew's representatives £15m – £3m over the asking price – via offshore companies, for the prince's Surrey mansion, Sunninghill Park, which he was apparently having difficulty selling.”

Errrr ... call me dense, but why would an Admiral's title be "automatically due" at a certain age for someone who hasn't actively served for years?
I'd ask if others are entitled to the same thing, but suspect I know what the answer will be

And just to be clear about the medals, I was of course not referring to those awarded on merit when asking why anyone would want one, but the tinpot commemorative things handed out willy nilly. Frankly I'd be surprised if servie people thought all that much of them - I always thought most had more integrity than that

Trending on Twitter... R Kelly and Prince Andrew.

www.theguardian.com/music/2021/sep/27/r-kelly-racketeering-sex-trafficking

@merrymouse

www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/29/prince-andrew-kazakh-billionaire

This story is from November 2010.

The only possible explanation for Andrew’s honour is that the Royal Family have exceptionally low standards.

I don't get what any of that has to do with the current Epstein business.

People come up against all sorts in life, some good, some bad, some you find out things about years later which is shocking and disappointing but that's life. If I was selling my house I wouldn't care who bought it and wouldn't know how they got the money, neither would most people.

@Roussette

I'm not changing 'the argument' at all.

If you want to see it like that, it's your prerogative.

Given I knew about JE's first conviction, I am at a loss to think security and aides wouldn't have known.

His first conviction was not 'fiction'.

You posted three links to three articles all pointing out the timing of the award to Andrew specifically in the context of the February 2011 revelation of his dodgy links to Epstein - the articles all highlighted the February dates - and emphasised the fact that these showed the award was “AFTER” this.

Now, however, you tell us what you apparently meant to say was that it was the news of Epstein’s first conviction several earlier in 2008 that was the key fact. We’re not psychic. If that was what you actually meant….say so? Because otherwise it looks like you completely changed your argument when your first position didn’t fit the facts.

@Roussette was clearly questing the queen handing over these awards to the accused and cheapening the whole process like this. And she is correct.

Yep, Andrew trending right now, even the beloved right wing papers in the palace pockets have their hands tied.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-has-no-good-options

People come up against all sorts in life, some good, some bad, some you find out things about years later which is shocking and disappointing but that's life. If I was selling my house I wouldn't care who bought it and wouldn't know how they got the money, neither would most people

I have no idea whatsoever how this fits in to what we've been talking about.

Epstein was a convicted sex trafficker and paedophile and PA associated with him for years after the first conviction, and until the heat got hot and he spent 4 days in NY 'breaking up' with him.

Now, however, you tell us what you apparently meant to say was that it was the news of Epstein’s first conviction several earlier in 2008 that was the key fact

No.

I am saying that I knew about JE at the time and it's naive to think PA, the courtiers, the Queen, the aides and security did not.

You can carry on defending him and the RF all you like, it's no odds to me.

I've changed no argument at all. It might be convenient for you to say that of course. I'm just looking at the bigger picture of the fact that PA associated with a paedophile for years.

This is like playing whack-a-mole.

Doesn't matter how many times some posters try to defend him, another dodgy deal is always going to pop up.

I don't think his mansion artificially inflated its own price, did it? Why is he doing that when he gets paid megabucks for living a life of luxury? And what has he done, outside of a war 40 years ago, to deserve ANY award for anything?

Doesn't matter how many times some posters try to defend him, another dodgy deal is always going to pop up

I think we're barely breaking the surface of this. Seriously.

We have much more to come.

People come up against all sorts in life, some good, some bad, some you find out things about years later which is shocking and disappointing but that's life. If I was selling my house I wouldn't care who bought it and wouldn't know how they got the money, neither would most people.

If you read the article it’s very clear that he did know about the corruption.

You might not care who or why somebody might buy your house, but if you were what is called a ‘politically exposed person’ and somebody in Kazakhstan bought your house for several million more than its value, there are plenty of people whose job it is to care.

I really don't know whether it would matter to me or not, never been in that position. I still fail to see what that has to do with the Epstein business but never mind.

.I don't get what any of that has to do with the current Epstein business.

It relates to the Queen and her desire to reward Andrew with an honour in 2011. The point is that even if she knew nothing about Epstein he should already have been in disgrace because of his dodgy financial deals.

Sorry to interject but can I ask what you're getting at Serenster? Other than disputing dates, are you saying the Epstein connection wouldn't have been known to the Queen/advisors back when she awarded Andrew the vice Admiralty (?) Sorry - am a bit sleepy so don't know if I'm giving things the correct title. But I thought it was known in royal circles. The scandal has built over the years but there were rumblings a long time ago weren't there?

I really don't know whether it would matter to me or not, never been in that position

I think you are missing the point. Andrew was very clearly taking a bribe.

Well well no surprises Andrew is now changing strategy to fight it. R Kelly has just been sentenced for trafficking girls and boys! The rich and famous are no longer untouchable.

And all those conspiracy theorists who have been saying this for decades that there the elite, rich and famous are running these trafficking rings are 100% right. Epsteing, R Kelly and God knows who else.

Such an abuse of power

@merrymouse

I really don't know whether it would matter to me or not, never been in that position

I think you are missing the point. Andrew was very clearly taking a bribe.

Oh I didn't know that. Are you sure? There are so many flipping rumours all the time I don't know what to believe.

Dreamstate, I too read than Andrew is now going to fight it, has new legal team or something. I suppose he was told to keep quiet and out of sight up until now. Anyway it's a good thing, he has to do something. I just hope it doesn't rumble on for years, it's so distressing.

@Dreamstate

And all those conspiracy theorists who have been saying this for decades that there the elite, rich and famous are running these trafficking rings are 100% right. Epsteing, R Kelly and God knows who else.

Such an abuse of power

My thoughts too.

I thought the statements after the R Kelly verdict from the victims' lawyer & the victims about the rich and powerful no longer being able to hide was very, very pointedly in the direction of men like Andrew.

It was very much a #Game'sUp moment.

But it took so many witnesses to convict R Kelly. I know the Mirror are reporting that there will be a witness to say that Andrew was with VG when he says he wasn't, but unless an actual trial can subpoena people like security personnel, and get flight plans and passenger lists, and financial records, and a little something from Maxwell, then it'll be an uphill climb.

But he'll try and settle.

I read about a woman who says she remembers Prince Andrew with the plaintiff on a night out at Tramps, on 'that' day. She must have a good memory. I have an excellent memory but not sure I could remember exactly who I saw on a precise date.

My opinion is that if he 'settles', it won't help him in the long run. He needs to fight this.

However nobody is going to take notice of my opinion so I will leave it there.