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.

@Dreamstate

Myabe someone with legal knowhow can explain if its legally okay to serve papers to the police officers, as it says it wasn't served to Andrew himself...

Wonder what will happen to those police officers as it states that staff were instructed not to relieve papers but the police on duty that day chnaged their kind.

I'm a bit confused

Reading the process server’s affidavit, it sounds like actually they weren’t really given the run around at all. He turned up at Royal Lodge one day, was told by the Met Police that no-one was available to talk to him then and the police couldn’t accept service, then had a conversation with various individuals who said that actually the police would accept service (and presumably let the duty police know this) so he went back and handed it to them. That is … perfectly reasonable behaviour. You always run the risk that the person is you want is not there is you just turn up somewhere unannounced!

As for whether the service is valid, the New York Court of Appeals (the State's highest court) has held that when serving process in a foreign country, what matters is whether the method of service complies with New York law – not whether that method is allowed in the country of service. The notice above claims that the service was valid under the UK’s Civil procedure Rules (through service at the individual’s usual or last known residence). I have no idea whether that will be enough for the New York rules - one for the lawyers to argue out!

Serving someone is just the start of the process in any event - it doesn’t mean a great deal in the big picture (the whole point of insisting on personal service is to be able to prove to the court that the defendant knows about the claim against them. I think Andrew definitely knew that even before he was served!).

@Serenster. Thank you for your clear explanation. It is always appreciated.

@Plumtree391

The Queen hasn't said anything about this in public, not one word. I don't know why people are making assumptions about her. She probably does talk to him about it but we are never going to hear the details of the conversations, neither should we.

That's straight out of the 14th century.

There is zero reason for RF exemption from FOI when we're paying for the useless parasites.

If your perverted jobless adult son was known and proven to be globetrotting with one of the most prolific abusers of teen girls that the world has ever seen, you'd ask no questions nor hold him to account but instead would keep schtum and let him carry on leeching and perving at taxpayers' expense, yes?

And we should also continue to fund him and his perversions while the peasants queue at food banks and wonder how to pay more rent in a month on a shitty 1-bed flat in London than that leech has ever paid in his sordid little life?

The UK deserves every fucking thing it gets, then. Keep lauding them, making excuses and bending over backwards to assuage your nostalgia for poxy British tradition. I guess the RF really do represent the values of most British people, as they have no backbone to stand up and demand change.

Beyond pathetic.

Excellent news.
So I guess the return to Balmoral was to discuss with HMQ what their next move is.
And having their meeting at a hunting lodge was probably to avoid prying eyes and ears.

Does the rules about spouses not being required to give evidence against their marital partner still stand? If so will Andrew and fergie remarry

I read that even if the court decides he is culpable the USA civil court has no jurisdiction in the UK.

That is still the law in some states of the US. It applies in a couple of ways. Firstly, a husband or wife can essentially claim privilege in relation to confidential discussions they had with their spouse. That only applies to conversations/communications that take place while people are married, though. It wouldn’t apply to discussions Andrew and Fergie had during all the years when they were divorced, for example.

The other one (that commonly comes up in tv shows etc) is that a spouse can’t be compelled to give evidence against their spouse. That is no longer the case in most States, I don’t think?

@justasking111

Does the rules about spouses not being required to give evidence against their marital partner still stand? If so will Andrew and fergie remarry

That’s funny. However it does remind me of a dinner party conversation years ago where a lady insisted Andrew only kept Fergie close because she knew too much. She thought Andrew was potentially gay.

@Viviennemary

I read that even if the court decides he is culpable the USA civil court has no jurisdiction in the UK.

No it doesn’t! International treaties and conventions (and EU agreements etc) govern matters like whether a judgment in one country is enforceable in another, and then each jurisdiction will have its own rules as well..

For those asking if a default judgment could be granted if Andrew takes no steps in this process, it’s not that common in cases where the facts might be disputed. But even if it was the case here, a judgment obtained by default often won’t be enforceable internationally.

It won’t be enforceable but will not do his reputation any good ( if he has one left )

I expect things like extradiction and other agreements between countries regarding prosecution only applies to criminal cases and not civil ones. But I'm not absolutely sure.

I think I read if he does have to pay out the US court will have to apply to the UK court for them to enforce/ recover

@PeriWrinkles
Not lauding them as I hope you realise from my many many posts on the subject.
I've worked hard at keeping PA threads alive despite distinct apathy

Good to hear papers have been served whilst realising it means little

The legal costs to us will be horrendous. And please don't say it's the queen's private income.
It's not

I would love to know what his daughters really feel about all this. Their father a sleazy low life who likes to have sex with teenage girls procured for him by a man who was a glorified pimp. Don’t know how to describe the Maxwell woman. She sounds like a monster.

This is New York, right?

codes.findlaw.com/ny/civil-practice-law-and-rules/cvp-sect-308.html

Looks to me like it won't count unless the judge previously decreed that this method of service was acceptable due to the special circumstances of the case (subparagraph 5). All the other choices require either service within New York, or the papers to be affixed to his door. Andrew's not in New York, and no process server is getting anywhere near his front door, so those are non-starters here.

@Farfalle88

I would love to know what his daughters really feel about all this. Their father a sleazy low life who likes to have sex with teenage girls procured for him by a man who was a glorified pimp. Don’t know how to describe the Maxwell woman. She sounds like a monster.

When you have parents like Andrew and Fergie, you stop caring who either of them has sex with pretty early on. It's either that or be miserable 24/7.

@Farfalle88

I would love to know what his daughters really feel about all this. Their father a sleazy low life who likes to have sex with teenage girls procured for him by a man who was a glorified pimp. Don’t know how to describe the Maxwell woman. She sounds like a monster.

Does he though. It has not been proved yet. Since he divorced there have been no rumours of Prince Andrew putting it about wth anyone, never mind teenage girls.

People seem to have made up their minds about this case. The truth could be quite different. However I think it will be difficult to actually find the truth.

I have no bias about any of it but I do feel it is wrong to jump to conclusions. We just don't know.

I agree @Plumtree391 - the photo makes it look very likely things happened but there's no proof as far as I can see.

The photo is evidence that he met the girl but there's no evidence he had sexual relations with her.

It's quite grim that people actually want to think the worst of someone and not give them the benefit of the doubt.

From what I've read and heard, the worst thing Prince Andrew appears to have done is continue his association, albeit briefly, with Jeffrey Epstein after the man was convicted of sex trafficking. However so did most of his associates, presumably they believed what JE told them.

Ghislane Maxwell is the one I can't get my head around but - I am not going to spend too much time thinking about any of them. The only time it 'crops up' is when I come on Mumsnet.

Famous people will have taken probably hundreds of photos with people they briefly met though. It doesn’t mean they have slept with them!

I only go by what I've seen and what is fact, and what shows on footage out there.

There is no getting away from the fact he was friends with a convicted felon (procurement of minors for sexual purposes and was due to go to court on many more offences) and even when PA knew this, he carried on the friendship. And only gave it up when forced.

He was deeply involved with this man, he stayed at his residences even when there were options to, for instance, stay at the Consulate/US Attache's residence. Flight logs show he flew to and from E's private island where young girls were brought in and out.. He holidayed with him on a yacht in Thailand.

He gave Epstein and Maxwell access to Sandringham, Buckingham Palace and Balmoral. He integrated him into Society and royal circles, along with Maxwell. Who can forget the picture of Kevin Spacey and Ghislaine Maxwell sat on royal thrones in BP. Some of these actions are obviously not crimes, but does it make me look at him with sympathy or understanding? Nope.
He brought this on himself.

Then he gives a pathetic interview denying all knowledge and professing innocence and when asked point blank if he regrets the friendship, he says NO. And he shows no sympathy with the victims until public opinion on the interview forces him to make a statement.

It's quite grim that people actually want to think the worst of someone and not give them the benefit of the doubt

If only H&M could be afforded the same.

What bothers me about people who say 'we just don't know' is that we DO know abusers deny it. We DO know that thousands of people have suffered abuse and they know it, and when they try to tell people about it, people sit on the fence. Here is just another example of that. Add to that what we know about him hanging out with a convicted sex offender.

Just you try being a survivor and everyone around you going 'hmm I'm not sure I believe you. We must treat the abuser fairly'.

From what I've read and heard, the worst thing Prince Andrew appears to have done is continue his association, albeit briefly, with Jeffrey Epstein after the man was convicted of sex trafficking

For TWO years, he carried on the friendship after Epstein had been convicted for the first time. And the FBI had been investigating him for a previous two years, and he was indicted 3 years before the famous NY Central Park photo. I imagine PA knew this being a member of the RF, I don't think for one minute he won't have been advised to cool it by his advisers.
Then public opinion of this friendship forced him to break up with him, and to do that he stayed with him 4 days in NY. One phone call would've sufficed.

@something2say

Absolutely.

Of course, we have the innocent until proven guilty mantra and all of that... but I look at timelines, his actions, his denials, his lies (yes, I will co operate with US justice) and I form an opinion.