Prince Andrew Thread 2

[Roussette]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4442126-Prince-Andrew

Here is previous thread.

I've started a new thread because today and tomorrow is crucial as far as the pending civil case.

And I also had a few comments I wanted to say to posters at the end of the last thread, but it ran out.

Thanks for the new thread.

@Vapeyvapevape

I wanted to say how brave you were and I'm sorry you didn't get the outcome you so deserved

Following

@Newyearoldyou

As far as security people, yes. Who knows, they kept their heads down perhaps, they did what PA told them to do and they availed themselves of the young girls.

I don't know the latter, but I cannot believe there aren't security records on all his trips to all those places. Even Pizza Express. (Although when one of the PPO applied for his old timesheets, he was told they had been destroyed. Convenient)

Following (read but didn't contribute to the previous thread)

@RoyalFamilyFan

So agree on the Barclays CEO. It was in the papers for just about a day. They got rid of him. He quietly went.

Fighting this like PA has done, dodging from Palace to royal estate and back to Palace has drawn attention to his murky dealings. And he, and the RF, only have themselves to blame for that.

@Roussette thank you, I took heart that he was even arrested , he wasn’t found not guilty but the judge ruled ‘an abuse of the law’ which means that as his witness was dead he wouldn’t have had a fair trial. A lady in the jury caught my eye and gave me a little smile- I knew she believed me.

I am calling him "the Queen's rapist son" now. He shouldn't be Prince anything. Andrew Mountbatten isn't it? Can we stick to that?

Let’s not forget the 90’s views on women were closer to the 60’s views than those we hold now.

The 90’s had katie price and page three girls, “spit or swallow” was a legitimate question in magazine interviews.

Prince Andrew was born a year before the profumo affair When Christine keeler was chastised as a prostitute and blamed for bringing Russia into the British government.
Carry on films and st trinians were filled with “sexy school girls”.

People’s views of women and girls then were so much closer to those than now. It’s easy to look now and go they are clearly victims. Unless you were raped in an ally by a stranger you’d struggle to be believed in the 90’s.

None of that makes it right. But today’s eyes are different to the 90’s.

@Vapeyvapevape
in very very sorry you didn’t get the conviction you deserved. You were and are incredibly brave.

I bet that little smile meant the world to you @Vapeyvapevape

I have personal experience of this but to be honest, although I have had counselling and therapy and I am OK with it now, it is still painful. No court case, nothing like that but I do know how vulnerable and easy it is to be taken advantage of when you are a young teen.

Thanks @Rousette

I typed a post before I realised thread was full.

Just following up on a couple of points carried over from previous thread:

Have you not noticed that Barclays got rid of their CEO? There were veiled references in the media to it being linked to Epstein. Barclays did the right thing and got rid of him. The Queen just continues to defend Andrew.

Melinda Gates divorce?

The billionaire philanthropists announced their decision to divorce last week after declaring their marriage “irretrievably broken” – but did not explain why.

The Wall Street Journal reported that in 2019 Melinda, 56, hired a team of lawyers from several high profile law firms to discuss a possible divorce. The Journal said several of its sources had said Melinda was concerned about her husband’s business dealings with Epstein, who killed himself in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal charges related to sex trafficking.
Melinda is said to have expressed unease at Bill’s relationship with Epstein since at least 2013. Her meeting with divorce lawyers in October 2019 is said to have taken place at roughly the same time as a New York Times article detailed Bill’s meetings with Epstein, which included an overnight stay at Epstein’s New York mansion^
The article, which detailed Epstein’s connections with the rich and powerful, said none of them “compared in prestige and power to the [then] world’s second-richest person, a brilliant and intensely private luminary: Bill Gates. And unlike many others, Mr Gates started the relationship after Mr Epstein was convicted of sex crimes.”

Thanks, Roussette

Was about to post this reply on the other thread when it closed:

She could have taken the trade envoy role from him but that wouldn’t have made any difference

It would have stopped him cosying up to dodgy businessmen and using tax payer funded jollies to pursue his own interests off the official record.

Off now to catch up on the rest!

Half the battle with the Rotherham case was because people couldn’t believe white girls from countries in the west could be trafficked.

There are several articles about the Barclays CEO and his links with Epstein on the Guardian's website, so it was more than just veiled references. Thank goodness!

[quote Roussette]@Newyearoldyou

As far as security people, yes. Who knows, they kept their heads down perhaps, they did what PA told them to do and they availed themselves of the young girls.

I don't know the latter, but I cannot believe there aren't security records on all his trips to all those places. Even Pizza Express. (Although when one of the PPO applied for his old timesheets, he was told they had been destroyed. Convenient)[/quote]
That’s really made me look at a fresh angle.

Those “security” people are actually senior officers with the Metropolitan police.

Other courtiers etc would have been put in awful positions too. It’s very hard to decide to whistle blow on a Prince. I’m not even sure that the police could exactly whistleblow. I suppose they can pass certain information up the chain of command but then what do the top brass do? This is a fiefdom.

I wonder how many reports are being written, backs are being covered and plans are being laid while the outcome of the court case are being awaited?

Also carried over from previous thread:

The only excuse I can find for the queen is for his children sake. They have endured alot with their mum already and now this. Maybe it's a final humiliation the queen wants to spare them from??

I think it likely that this is the emotional and manipulative angle PA would have taken when discussing the funding of his legal costs with the Queen.

It’s not an unusual tactic for someone of his character, he has already involved one of his daughters in his lies to try and clear his name with the Pizza Hut party debacle. He has no boundaries.

The Queen just continues to defend Andrew.

Surely her advisers have made her aware of the seriousness now? Even if she somehow shut her eyes and ears herself, it must have been impressed on her.

If he is found liable, they will have to jettison, severely sideline him, demote him and/or exile him somehow. They must have plans ready. Otherwise the monarchy is at risk, which presumably the monarchy doesn’t want.

From memory the Barclays CEO was sacked for misleading them about the closeness of his links with Epstein.

The final straw was the revelation he'd sailed his yacht to Epstein's private island which confirmed said close links.

Thoosa

You are totally right, they are Met Police Officers, lent out for these duties. There has been stuff in the press said on this, particularly in relation to the inactivity of the Met looking into anything connected with this.
I remember in the JE documentary the Met lack of anything was covered and it really didn't look good.

However... now... they are being urged to look into the whole thing by the wonderful Maggie ex CD Rotherham whistleblower and the ex Supreme Court justice who investigated it. They have gone on record saying it should be looked into.

However... now... they are being urged to look into the whole thing by the wonderful Maggie ex CD Rotherham whistleblower and the ex Supreme Court justice who investigated it. They have gone on record saying it should be looked into.

Oh good! Fabulous woman.

Thanks for the new thread Rousette, I'm very very interested in what comes next so it is great to have a thread to get other peoples opinions.

As far as Andrew and his children and ex wife... I honestly think they are totally on his side, they are also entitled and privileged and he will say it's a stitch up, and they will believe him.

After all Beatrice urged him to do the Newsnight carcrash interview and went to the Palace/Castle with him to set it all up with Maitlis. So she must be totally onboard with everything he is saying.

At this moment in time, I think they're all as bad as each other to be honest

I have mentioned at the back of the last thread, the only reason I could understand the queen's defence is for the girls sake.

They have already had a dreadful time due to their mums constant indescretions and now this.

I know of a family who supported a family member they should not have soley for the sake of the children.

I wish someone could link the two vanity fair articles because they are fantastic.

@Newyearoldyou - I linked them originally in the last thread, I’ll see if I can find them again and post.

Was watching a news report this morning on the unsealing of the 2009 JE/VG agreement.

Apparently whether Andrew gets off or not depends on whether he is specifically named in it. If he isn't it comes down to whether or not the general wording gives him a loophole in the judge's view.

Tomorrow will be an interesting day.