Queen to spend millions funding Prince Andrew's defence

[adrianmolesmole]

I seriously think this will damage her reputation.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-prince-andrew-epstein-millions-legal-case-b1931084.html

Whole family is a joke.

@StrychnineInTheSandwiches

Weren't there some Beckham emails leaked where he called whoever decides these things 'cunts' for not yet bestowing a knighthood on him. Don't think that will have helped his chances a whole lot! Desperate idiot

Yes.

It was hilarious. All that work hugging deprived kids and gurning 'til his teeth turned backwards wasted

It’s a shame communication between politicians and the Queen are confidential and private. I’d like to know if she’s been bringing up the issue with them to try to help her son. Shame there’s not more transparency from the head of state.

Bottom line: I've gone right off her over all this.

Anyone following the 'Pandora papers'? Oh my.

Shocking

www.bbc.com/news/world-58780465

The revelations could prove embarrassing for the UK government, as the Aliyevs appear to have made a £31m profit after selling one of their London properties to the Crown Estate - the Queen's property empire that is managed by The Treasury and raises cash for the nation

Thanks for link, Roussette. More grim but necessary reading :( Pandora would've needed a massive shipping container not a box, for that lot. Of course Bliar would be in there, with his impeccable socialist credentials.

"11yo buys office block... The Crown Estate said it carried out the checks required in law at the time of purchase but is now looking into the matter." Of course it is.

And "The UK government says it is cracking down on money laundering with tougher laws and enforcement, and that it will introduce a register of offshore companies owning UK property when parliamentary time allows." ie they'll carry on regardless.

Not for the first time, PlanDeRaccordement is being deliberately disingenuous.

PdeR knows full well that the President of France is also the head of government in France. The comparison is fallacious to say the least.

I don’t think the Queen had a choice: he is her son.

He must be an intense disappoint to her.

Hes been an absolute pain for years. Even without the sleaze. Fitting in golfing holidays round his 'Trade Ambassador' role. Every penny claimed from the taxpayer. And hob nobbing with other dodgy folk and taking freebies. I blame the Queen for not reigning him in 20 years ago.

Vivienne are you me?

This is what I''ve been saying for a long time. I so agree. If you (I mean the collective 'you', not just you!) look at his Wiki page it is disgusting and shocking for a member of the RF.
And before anyone says Wiki is not necessarily true, there is plenty to back it up with links at the bottom of his page.

I don't care he served in the Falklands, he has brought his naval career into disgrace since.

His ties with corruption, sleaze, dodgy regimes, arms dealers, dictatorships, paedophiles etc... they are all there to see.

Over ten years ago the queen was concerned ... well... whoopy dooo... that concern didn't rein him in did it?
She has enabled him. I have no sympathy for her over this latest sleaze.

So what should HM QE2 be doing in this situation?
The Royal Family is a source of considerable income into the UK.
Should she organise a hit squad?
Out of four children, this one appears to have turned into a lying, cowardly wretch. I wonder why?

What should the queen do in this situation?
What's done is done, but her turning a blind eye to his shenanigans for decades has made this happen.
She is doing what we expected. Paying his legal fees, keeping quiet about it.

He's the spoilt one of the four, isn't he? Sticks out a mile.

I think QE2 should have a clear expectation of him that he must co-operate with law enforcement, like he said he would in the Maitlis interview.

Of course he should have a solicitor present, and overall legal advocacy; but he should be required to do what he said he'd do while being interviewed by the BBC inside a royal residence as a member of the royal family, at his invitation.

The Queen should have stopped the games of hide and seek and all the wriggling in the royal palaces a long time ago.

@Astrak, I'd maybe also use that epithet for PA's elder brother:

From the Guardian: "The family of Neil Todd, who made the first allegation of abuse in 1993 and killed himself in 2012, said he had been portrayed as a liar and a “mischief-maker” by Ball’s friends in high places.

At a hearing last year, the independent inquiry heard how members of the establishment, including the heir to the throne, the then archbishop of Canterbury and a senior member of the judiciary, rallied to support Ball.

“The story of Peter Ball is the story of the establishment at work in modern times,” William Chapman, representing survivors, told the inquiry. “It is the story of how the establishment minimised the nature of Peter Ball’s misdeeds … and silenced and harassed those who tried to complain.”

Prince Charles told Ball in a letter in February 1995, two years after the bishop had accepted the police caution, which was read to the inquiry: “I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated.”

@Roussette

Anyone following the 'Pandora papers'? Oh my.

Shocking

www.bbc.com/news/world-58780465

The revelations could prove embarrassing for the UK government, as the Aliyevs appear to have made a £31m profit after selling one of their London properties to the Crown Estate - the Queen's property empire that is managed by The Treasury and raises cash for the nation

I will be watching this tonight.

@Suddenlyfamily5

I don’t think the Queen had a choice: he is her son.

He must be an intense disappoint to her.

She had a choice, just as she chose not to help out her great grandchild with paying for his security.

Where are these millions coming from anyway, since they asked for a bailout during Covid.

It’s her money. She gets to spend it as she wants/needs even if it’s from the taxpayer. You would not criticise someone on benefits on how they spend their money after all.

It’s her money

No. It isn't. That has been covered upthread.

Maybe she shouldn't have the money if she can't invest it ethically and pisses it away on creeps.

It’s money given to her by the public purse.

Would you tell someone else who receives public funding what they can spend it on? Would you allow someone on PIP or UC to buy a coffee? Or go to the pub?

Maybe she shouldn't have the money if she can't invest it ethically and pisses it away on creeps

What a wonderful idea. Let’s check the expenses of every single person who receives public funding and make sure it’s all spent the way you perceive as worthy.

Vive la république!

Yawn

@Evesgarden

I don't think it will. It's coming out of her own pocket.

Most mothers would bail their kids out.

I think Andrew is a joke but I don't think she is. She didn't do it. Neither did the rest of the family.

or is this another RF thread...

Hi Nicola [waves]

"Most mothers would bail their kids out."

What do you mean? Are you sure? Under what circumstances?

I can imagine a lot of mothers saying "son, you are a fairly wealthy man and it is your responsibility to explain away your links with a paedophile and that paedophile's accusers, not mine."

What an analogy.

Someone on UC having a coffee or £89million being given to RF, and them holding themselves up as moral leaders, a beacon of all that is good and a focus of supposedly national identity and pride.
I think we're allowed to criticise given that

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

Maybe she shouldn't have the money if she can't invest it ethically and pisses it away on creeps

What a wonderful idea. Let’s check the expenses of every single person who receives public funding and make sure it’s all spent the way you perceive as worthy.

Not only that, you have to check every person who uses public roads, or saves money on health insurance because the NHS exists, etc.