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.

Royal

I agree. If he gets off on this, there will be an outcry. I feel he will, but I won't forget nor will a lot of people.

He will still live a life of privilege, but he will be hidden. No more dress up on the balcony, no more pontificating about anything, no more public appearances, and all of that will be excrutiating for him. Also, will he ever be able to swan around the world like before? Don't think so.

My only thought is... VGs lawyers knew about this, surely they thought they were in with a good chance of him being excluded from this?

But does that mean if the document works in is favour that they are admitting he is a defendant

I guess this does go against him, VG has effectively been paid off to keep schtum.

@AuntMasha

“She was in the grounds (80 acres) of Royal Lodge where she lives, dressed in costume plugging her Mills & Boon book.”

The Daily Mail put quite a bit of effort into promoting SF’s bodice ripper, ‘A Heart for a Compass’ (an ironic title, seeing as her wonderful prince appears to have neither) with endless photo shoots and SF gushing about PA’s ‘honour’.

Oh my goodness - I saw her in a couple of magazines and she was also on chat shows saying the same nonsense. That one with Christine Bleakley? Also another programme, all the same points, Andrew is the most honourable man etc etc.

Thank you @100problems.
Absolutely, I've been in and out so I was waiting for an update

The Daily Mail put quite a bit of effort into promoting SF’s bodice ripper

the newspaper that supported Hitler ?

I read an interesting piece that ABC in America were going to run the story about JE and an interview with VG back in 2015. Allegedly they were told by William's PR that if they did they would never get an interview with him and Kate. Some journalist at ABC has gone on the record saying this

I've seen that footage more than once. You're absolutely correct on it.

Talking of Mills and Boon and cringe inducing interviews - is there a link between Sarah Ferguson and Jeffrey Epstein?.

But does that mean if the document works in is favour that they are admitting he is a defendant

It’s more complicated than that, but yes that is an inference (although there is reference to whether or not the person is or could be guilty). Then again, there’s also reference to a specific carve out for royalty. How many other royals are or could be implicated?

There’s also the question of civil versus criminal; who this agreement is enforceable by (it’s between and benefits two parties, one of whom is dead); time barring (not sure about this); specific claims which are being brought versus what’s being protected; general enforceability of documents that seek to clear everyone everywhere of everything; jurisdictional matters.

It’s a lawyer’s dream come true. There’s no slam dunk answer.

@100problems sorry I didn't mean you shouldn't post it. Thanks for doing so.
I just hope it does not mean that it is a get out of jail free card and is just being misrepresented by Andrews lawyers.

Just read the agreement

I do a lot of settlement agreements for work and although I don't know how US law works as opposed to UK, in my understanding if a clause if to broad it is unenforceable. I don't think a clause preventing V bringing a suit against anyone else would stand as it's just to broad. Not in a UK court anyway.

But VG's lawyers will have known about her settlement with Epstein, so if it's likely she can't sue any of his associates because of it, why bring the civil case in the first place?

If it's thrown out for whatever reason, doubtless Andrew's lot will go with the "silly, money grubbing little girl" thing, but none of this cancels out the hideous damage that's been done to what passes for his reputation

The prince's lawyers say this previously-secret 2009 deal means she cannot sue him - because she agreed to end all legal action against anyone connected to the offender who could be described as a "potential defendant

How will the lawyers get round this ? Does anyone know what grounds they could use ?
I so so so hope they can .

---------
maybe I am thinking in circles here, but if PA's lawyers are quoting the above settlement and specifically implying that PA would (without this settlement) indeed be a "potential defendant" does that not, on the face of it, amount to an express and overt admission by PA that PA was associated with JE sex traffic racket.
Not simply that PA was associated with JE the man - but he was associated with JE's criminality. I.e. he knew about it and he colluded in it.

I am a bit tired so maybe I am not thinking straight - I guess it depends on how the laws work in that jurisdiction, but if it was the UK I am sure there would be some kind of grounds to circumvent the wording in that settlement.

Worth remembering that the trafficking laws in the UK were run past the Queen first. As indeed all legislation is. So she gets a chance to kybosh it before it ever goes before parliament.

And no - you pondlife (that's all of us by the way) aren't allowed to know what her comments are, or what laws get "tweaked" to ensure her Madge never has to worry about them.

And before too long that privilege will formally go to Prince Charles (he may have an informal gander even now, again we'd never know). Whose brother is Prince Andrew.

At least we got rid of Tony Blair. How do we get rid of these parasitical leeches ?

@givethatbabyaname

So agree with your post. This doesn't go down well with Royalists, but they really don't bring much to the table. This is a huge analysis involving a massive amount of research as far as charities. . 3 million data entries. In the past when I've linked this, I've had my arse handed to me on a plate (not pleasant). But I will show it on here.

Royal patronages do not increase a charity's revenue, basically

giving-evidence.com/2020/07/16/royal-findings/

@Roussette thanks I have read that link when you posted it before. Very interesting.

Ah just read your reply givethatbabyaname.
Should have read all the replies properly (and what was actual published - I did not read it sorry)
before i typed my knee jerk reaction!

Haha - Fergie's insistence of what an honorable man he is, is just ridiculous. You know we all have to believe it/agree, because she said so, right?

I've only had a quick glance of the settlement papers, but must admit to being very surprised at the 500k sum. That amount was just pocket money to Epstein. I bet he loved being able to just pay off the problem with such short change.

With regards to the Queen, a PP (sorry, I can't remember who) mentioned a few pages ago that she might be almost giving up. I do wonder this too? At her age, she should be slowing down, so I do wonder if she isn't as fussed about what will happen to the monarchy after she dies, whereas a few years back it was all about the institution and the legacy. Especially after Prince Philip's death, I wonder if she just feels that it's all up for the younger generations to deal with now, and so not her problem?
Or - she's just a fool, protecting her 'favourite', rapist son.

Even if PA gets puts in exile (after Queen does, and PC and PW insist on it), he will still live a life of luxury, that the rest of us could only dream of - in palaces/mansions, and servants to wait on him on demand. He just wouldn't be brought out in public again.

So that document doesn't cover VG being able to testify in court against Maxwell then? Only that she can't bring her own law suit? So if the police brought a lawsuit against PA they could and she could testify again?

Just seen the settlement document.

The bastard is going to get off Scot free isn't he?

The breadth of the SA is astounding:

"she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

As posters are saying, surely the VG team must have known about this document bad have something in the bag to undermine it.

If PA manages to slither off this hook it has to be the case that he's treated as Edward VIII was post-abdication.

Talking of Mills and Boon and cringe inducing interviews - is there a link between Sarah Ferguson and Jeffrey Epstein?

Yes - he gave her thousands to help pay off her debts!

With regards to the Queen, a PP (sorry, I can't remember who) mentioned a few pages ago that she might be almost giving up. I do wonder this too?

George V anyone ? Maybe a good thing she didn't go to Sandringham this year.

[quote RoyalFamilyFan]@Queenie6655 let's wait to see what the court says.
But if he gets off on a technicality, I and others will continue talking about it on social media and not letting anyone forget who he actually is.
And if he ever tries to do public appearances again, I will personally organise a demonstration outside.[/quote]
This x 100

Yessss

Haha - Fergie's insistence of what an honorable man he is, is just ridiculous. You know we all have to believe it/agree, because she said so, right?

But we know why she comes out with this guff don't we...

Without him, she would be peniless I imagine. As it is she can live on a 98 acre estate in a residence with 30 (or more, can't remember) rooms. She can fly to some pukka chalet in Verbier (maybe still his £18million one? He was trying to sell it).
Without him, she is nothing. She's done countless books under her Duchess name, Wedgewood, Weight Watchers, interviews, etc. What would be left for her now? Not a lot. She has no choice but to be chief member of his fan club.

Maireas apparently Epstein had more telephone numbers for Sarah than he had for Andrew, so I think we can assume they had dealings, at the very least around the debts he paid off for her.