Prince Andrew Thread 4

[Roussette]

I'm starting a new one as events seem to be moving again. Sorry I can't do a link to no. 3

Apparently Charles hasn't really had the nerve to force the issue but William pretty much detests Andrew and went directly to the Queen and kept up the pressure

This is an interesting detail.

Charles is noted both for dithering and for wanting unpleasant stuff to just go away so that might be the root cause of any inaction. Alternatively could it be that Andrew knows where a few bodies are buried and now has no reason not to share?

I've read the DM article too.

I'm not surprised Andrew is set on going his own way come hell or high water. His reputation is shot and the royals have cut his nads off. He's hardly going to be disposed to keep the soft focus charade up for them.

I understand where PC is coming from. Maybe over 60 years of experience tells him whatever he says to his mother she will always take the side of the favourite child.

I speak from bitter experience

Trial by the Daily Fail, there is no mention of JE being at the 18th party so why print that. I am surprised that the media are being allowed to report unproven "facts" and be allowed to try and influence public opinion.

What's the overall conviction rate for cases heard by a jury?

The conviction rate for cases heard by a jury (all offences) is around 62% compared with around 65% for cases heard by magistrates.

Apparently JE and Harvey Weinstein were both at Princess Eugenie's 18th birthday party. I've not taken that from The Mail

Charles is noted both for dithering and for wanting unpleasant stuff to just go away so that might be the root cause of any inaction. Alternatively could it be that Andrew knows where a few bodies are buried and now has no reason not to share?

I've been saying this from the start, but let's not forget the whole "William driving it" is coming from the Mail of all places, so even against myself I accept there's an obvious element of doubt

Well my comment about William being the driving force came from Private Eye (a serious article, not a satirical piece) and I actually do trust the reporting in Private Eye.

Interestingly, the Private Eye article also mentioned that PA did indeed go visit his mother to speak with her privately when he got the news that he was losing his roles and the usage of his HRH. As he has done over the years, he expected to talk her around. When he got there, there was a group of people (courtiers? Maybe William himself?) with her and they politely declined his request for them to leave so he speak privately to his mother. They weren't taking any chances this time!

@Rainbunny

Well my comment about William being the driving force came from Private Eye (a serious article, not a satirical piece) and I actually do trust the reporting in Private Eye.

Interestingly, the Private Eye article also mentioned that PA did indeed go visit his mother to speak with her privately when he got the news that he was losing his roles and the usage of his HRH. As he has done over the years, he expected to talk her around. When he got there, there was a group of people (courtiers? Maybe William himself?) with her and they politely declined his request for them to leave so he speak privately to his mother. They weren't taking any chances this time!

That was my understanding too although the article I read (I cannot now remember where) did mention that both PW and PC were in attendance. Which would make sense.

Clearly safety in numbers and a show of unity so no chance of being able to sweet talk mummy round.

Well, if it's true about "others refusing to leave" it calls up a wonderful mental picture of a vibrating prince ... if Andrew's had mummy's ear all those years, I can't see it being popular if he suddenly finds he hasn't any more

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60170912

He has 'relinquished' his honorary membership of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews.

I was trying to work out if he jumped or if he was pushed

@Redshoeblueshoe

Apparently JE and Harvey Weinstein were both at Princess Eugenie's 18th birthday party. I've not taken that from The Mail

Yep.

There's even a picture (grim viewing in light of what has emerged about all three of the smirking sleazebags in it):

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeffrey-epstein-harvey-weinstein-pictured-21054662.amp

@prh47bridge
And they fail to realise that, if what they say about Beatrice's 18th birthday party is correct, VG's allegation is wrong.

Could you explain what you mean by this please?. I have read the link but I genuinely am not clear. Thanks

I was trying to work out if he jumped or if he was pushed

This piece suggests the club was facing questions about his honorary life membership and given its exclusive nature ity and secretive application process it would seem quite likely there was a bit of pressure behind the scenes.

Seems quite late in the day for him to have fallen on his golf club sword by choice.

uk.news.yahoo.com/prince-andrew-no-longer-member-112328832.html

[quote PreparationPreparationPrep]@prh47bridge
And they fail to realise that, if what they say about Beatrice's 18th birthday party is correct, VG's allegation is wrong.

Could you explain what you mean by this please?. I have read the link but I genuinely am not clear. Thanks [/quote]
VG's allegation is that Andrew invited Epstein to the party despite Epstein being charged with procuring a minor for prostitution one month earlier. It isn't clear whether she means one month before the invitation or one month before the party. However, DM says Epstein was charged shortly after the party. If that is correct, her allegation is wrong.

My research suggests that VG has indeed got this one wrong. Although Beatrice's birthday is 8th August, the party was on 15th July. Epstein wasn't charged until 27th July according to the sources I've found. I suspect VG has assumed, wrongly, that Beatrice's party was on her birthday.

@WinnieTheW0rm

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60170912

He has 'relinquished' his honorary membership of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews.

I was trying to work out if he jumped or if he was pushed

With regard to his patronages PA has no input. They are given out by the Palace and for some PA has not been removed yet. I know some of his patronages are waiting to hear who the Palace will delegate to them as a new patron instead of PA.

Thank you for that @prh47bridge I'm glad I asked
My research suggests that VG has indeed got this one wrong. Although Beatrice's birthday is 8th August, the party was on 15th July. Epstein wasn't charged until 27th July according to the sources I've found. I suspect VG has assumed, wrongly, that Beatrice's party was on her birthday.

So this is still a bit grim for Andrew though l, as B was only nearing her 18 there would have been lots of children under 18 at the party including his daughters and their friends . By the time they were inviting and definitely by the date of the party Would Andrew and others not have known Epstein had at the very least been questioned by police before he invited him to his daughters party?

Are we privy to this list? It would be interesting to see which organisations are still "waiting to see".

With regard to the Patronages the Daily Mail has a list of the numerous golf clubs of which PA is/was Patron. As far as I am aware none of them have announced, or been informed of their new Patron.

Beatrice's 18th birthday party - Note very little is dared said about it...

@PreparationPreparationPrep

Thank you for that *@prh47bridge* I'm glad I asked My research suggests that VG has indeed got this one wrong. Although Beatrice's birthday is 8th August, the party was on 15th July. Epstein wasn't charged until 27th July according to the sources I've found. I suspect VG has assumed, wrongly, that Beatrice's party was on her birthday.

So this is still a bit grim for Andrew though l, as B was only nearing her 18 there would have been lots of children under 18 at the party including his daughters and their friends . By the time they were inviting and definitely by the date of the party Would Andrew and others not have known Epstein had at the very least been questioned by police before he invited him to his daughters party?

It isn't clear that Epstein was questioned before he was arrested and charged following an undercover investigation. The police filed a probable cause affidavit in May 2006 saying that Epstein should be charged. That affidavit shows he had not been questioned at that stage. The affidavit does not appear to have had much, if any, publicity at the time. It is possible the police questioned him between that affidavit and his arrest, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Epstein may have known he was under investigation as they had searched his property when he wasn't there, taken his plane records and questioned at least one member of his staff, but it is certainly possible that others wouldn't have known unless Epstein chose to tell them.

It's not the sort of thing you'd brag about to your mates is it - even if they are Princes of the Realm!

Presumably the security people had to vet the list of guests - if there was anything in the public domain at the time, wouldn't they have flagged it up?

@ajandjjmum

It's not the sort of thing you'd brag about to your mates is it - even if they are Princes of the Realm!

Presumably the security people had to vet the list of guests - if there was anything in the public domain at the time, wouldn't they have flagged it up?

Or maybe Andrew turned a blind eye as the three of them didn't see anything wrong with what he saw or knew

Presumably the security people had to vet the list of guests - if there was anything in the public domain at the time, wouldn't they have flagged it up?

Would he have taken any notice if they had given his penchant for cussing anyone with advice he didn't want to hear out of his office?

@Redshoeblueshoe

I didn't realise that William was the one doing the pushing in the RF, but it makes sense, I think it was last summer (maybe earlier) that there were several meetings with the Queen, PC and PW.

We don't know that is true. There are all sorts of rumours in various publications. I am disinclined to give any of them credit.

Where is the burden of proof in this kind of court? It does feel like VG doesn't have that much hard evidence. Based on what we know, I am not sure if I was on the jury, I would say guilty. I am no Andrew fan and am inclined to believe VG in the main but the evidence isn't that clear.