Who advised the Queen to walk into the Abbey escorted by Andrew??

[TinyTortoise]

This seems to be the most tone deaf and damaging decision. It's a public facing event with international leaders and royals. If it was a closed family gathering I could understand it - he is her son still- but why on earth would they allow him to escort her to her seat?! He should be invisible from now on and never represent the RF again. He could have attended and stood somewhere out of the way. She could have chosen anyone to escort her. It's staggeringly awful!

@twelly

There is so much that is not the public domain - we do not know the full facts and never well, that is is the same for many many issues so the facts are; anyone in the UK is who is not convicted of a crime is innocent. We have to accept this - had this been a member of the public and not a member of the royal family I would like to think people were understanding an individual is innocent. The royal family has made a decision that Andrew is withdrawing from public life - but he is a member of a family and as a member of a family I think they are doing the right thing involving him in a family event. The fact he walked his mother to her seat in my view was no big deal - it might have been different had it been the full isle - as I would have expected that to have been Prince Charles. I don't really think it matters, far more important issues in the world

I don’t think the Queen could walk the full length of Great Britain 😀

Oh and I wish posters would stop saying she was under age. In the UK she WAS NOT

There is no age of consent when you are trafficked, it is rape in UK law.

I thought it was a bad idea for Andrew to escort his mother but two things come to mind;

1. he may well have asked his mother

2. Who else would have wanted to walk in with him?

miss VG had no choice but to settle because PA would not come to the US and stand up and defend his name!!
Had he done the right and honourable thing we would all know by now that he is - or most likely not an innocent man.

The fact remains that he paid a multi million pound settlement to her, rather a lot for someone innocent wouldn't you say! Especially as he is now effectively bankrupt and unemployed living on the tax payer.

@TerribleCustomerCervix - at no stage throughout the process has she given any indication that she thinks he’s behaved even slightly badly. Her choosing to bring him shouldn’t be a shock to anyone

What should she have done? Given an interview to the papers about how she really feels about Andrew's behaviour? Of course not. She stripped him of his posiitons and his title. That's a public declaration of her views.

1) he may well have asked his mother
She should have said no, knowing what a fuss this would cause.

2) Who else would have wanted to walk in with him?
He’s a grown up who could have walked in alone. Or with anyone willing to stand next to him. Quietly and at the back.

You're disgusting. I hope you're a man as I cannot believe a woman would state what you have just written.

Unfortunately yes, they do. The worst misogynists are not exclusively male. It's amazing, self-sabotage to the utmost degree, but for some reason that's unfathomable to me, they do it.

He would still have been innocent whatever the civil case would have found, as you know, it’s a civil case so different rules apply. A criminal case would need to be prosecuted for him to be found innocent or guilty.

I will repeat Any lawyer would have advised settlement as other lawyers on here have also said.

When a modern monarch shows such contempt toward her subjects, she's no longer 'in service' to her country as she likes to pretend.

I think this is really bad; and the jubilee will only get worse, coming as it will in the middle of a crippling cost of living crisis for the UK.

I really think she's setting Charles up for a bloody difficult reign, and she doesn't care. Andrew truly is the golden child. We see it all the time on MN. 'My sibling is a massive cunt and my parents adore them and give them vast sums of money all the time.' It's a dynamic as old as time, and very damaging. For a Head of State to be playing it out so publicly, at public expense, is mind-boggling.

If Charles hasn't got some tricks up his sleeve, the monarchy will be finished.

@SpinningTheSeedsOfLove

Front page news in our scum newspapers - who cares?

The Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian?

I rather imagine Princes Charles and William care quite a lot about mummy's latest misstep.

Wednesdays front pages:

It's the Mail, the Mirror, the Express and the Sun that make it a huge story.

The Times has a photograph but no front page article - leading instead with Ukraine and partygate

FT - no mention (not even in the 'briefing' sidebar)

Guardian headline is partygate, second story is Ukraine, but memorial gets the photo and a paragraph.

Telegraph headlines partygate and Ukraine, and has photo of Queen - no mention of DofY

i leads with partygate, with equal space for Ukraine and memorial - no mention of DofY

Metro leads with Ukraine and has memorial (no mention of DofY) prominently

'He avoided the public and the media'

'He stood in the centre of the fucking abbey with the Queen in front of a ton of cameras!'

Well clearly I meant he avoided the public and the media at the entrance. Yes he stood in the Abbey in front of cameras perhaps he should have had a paper bag over his head? He was going to be visible but going in the side entrance lessened that.

'She certainly did have a choice. She could have gone to Court but no she decided to take a large sum of money.'

I wonder why has she took a payout rather than holding him to account in a civil suit and sharing publicly any evidence she may have?

He behaved unwisely and rather callously no doubt. He has faced the consequences of that.

No, he really hasn't.

Quietly and at the back

Don't be silly. He had to be with his siblings.

Or are you trying to repeat the insinuation that he's only a half sibling? No way they'd put that into the mix by seating him at away from the others

I don’t think the Queen could walk the full length of Great Britain

Nice one, @Abra1d1.

The 'isle' has been quite the feature of this thread, hasn't it?

@BadgerB

If she was underage, then technically it was rape. But I don't suppose she was dragged to bed, kicking & screaming. Epstein had apparently told her to see that Andrew "had a good time". She had worked for Epstein for some time, her father, it is said, had driven her to Epstein's home. Is she suing him for trafficking? Or did he think she was being flown around on millionaire's jets to serve the tea?

Wow! I didn't think such reactionary views still existed in this day and age!

Are you saying it's unlikely you are a victim of rape if you are not dragged kicking and screaming to bed? If so, I would think very carefully about that one and do some some serious reading in order to educate yourself.

Can you not imagine a situation where you are young and unsure and you had been groomed and the power imbalance was so great between you and your rapist that you felt too scared to move? Even confident, older, educated victims have frozen with fear when being raped.

As for awareness about what was going on, do not know that both Jerry Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell chose their victims very carefully? They were vulnerable girls who were generally poor who came from homes where the parents would not ask too many questions. The fact that VG's father drove her to the door proves nothing! It's possible she didn't tell him the full facts about what was going on (most 17 year olds hide things from their parents) or he had an idea what was going on and was a negligent parent.

And you do know that JE pleaded guilty to a felony charge of solicitation of prostitution involving a minor, for which he served 13 months in prison and was listed on the sex offenders register before PA met up with him in central park in 2010? And that GM is currently in prison for enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and sex trafficking a minor?

Do you also know that some of the victims of the taxi drivers in the Rotherham sex abuse case were so vulnerable that they felt happy and privileged that older men were paying them attention and buying them presents despite the abuse they suffered? Some didn't even realise they had been the victims of sexual abuse because they came from such unstable, chaotic and neglectful family backgrounds that they were grateful for any supposed "affection" shown to them and that they were even noticed by anyone? Does that in any way lessen the crime against them?

If someone with SEN is raped in a care home and does not "kick and scream" because they cannot comprehend the seriousness of what has been done to them, does that make it less of a crime?

Seriously, you need to ask for your post to be removed.

The andrew apologists on here are really mind boggling. The trying to make the focus just about the fact he was going to his dads memorial with his old mum. Not the focus he's paid out 12million to someone accusing him of assault. Which he denied and has been kept well out the way for as long as possible. Until now. No one cares if he's there or not. No one expects him not to be there. But the fact is he's centre stage walking in with the queen, not avoiding the press, not going in quietly. There's no more prominent position than next to her. That's why people are angry, not because he was there in the first place.

@BadgerB

If she was underage, then technically it was rape. But I don't suppose she was dragged to bed, kicking & screaming. Epstein had apparently told her to see that Andrew "had a good time". She had worked for Epstein for some time, her father, it is said, had driven her to Epstein's home. Is she suing him for trafficking? Or did he think she was being flown around on millionaire's jets to serve the tea?

A rape victim can be apparently compliant, but if they are being coerced, it is still rape.

Some rape victims freeze - they don't kick and scream even when terrified by a violent rapist - it is still rape.

As a previous poster has said - if a woman is trafficked, then she is not freely consenting, so regardless of her age at the time, the legal age of consent in that jurisdiction, or how she behaves - it is still rape.

VG was a teenager, manipulated by and surrounded by much older, mature adults. I doubt she could have said No to sleeping with Prince Andrew, when she was told to 'make sure he has a good time' by JE or any other adult connected to him.

And regarding the comments that some have made, about 'wanting their day in court' if this had happened to them - I'm not sure I agree. Rape is notoriously hard to prove, even when there is forensic evidence, and rape victims who give evidence can have their character and sex life torn apart in open court - a very traumatic experience - so I can absolutely understand why VG has chosen to take the money, rather than put herself through all that, with absolutely no guarantee of the correct verdict, and knowing every word she said would be broadcast around the world.

each Thank you for your post. Some of the posts on here are truly outrageous.

@EdithWeston

Quietly and at the back

Don't be silly. He had to be with his siblings.

Or are you trying to repeat the insinuation that he's only a half sibling? No way they'd put that into the mix by seating him at away from the others

I have no idea what the half sibling thing is about. He was seated at the back of the siblings as far as I recall where he didn’t stand out much. That was the sort of thing I meant. Put him out of the limelight.

He’s brought so much embarrassment to the royal family recently. Any decent Gibson being wouldn’t have wanted to make that worse.

Human being. No idea what a Gibson being is.

@Swayingpalmtrees

And it is absolutely worth remembering that Andrew was charged with rape of a trafficked young woman who was underage. It was not a few parking fines!

He paid her off, in most circles that is a considered an admission of guilt.

It is therefore obscene that he should pitch up centre stage for any kind of public even with the Queen. It is no wonder the country is outraged. Who the hell does he think he is?

He wasn't charged with anything. It was a civil case as has been said many times*. He is obviously a very arrogant, pompous, venal man and I, like many others would really much prefer if he fell into a deep hole never to be seen again. That being said the events of yesterday are being blown up out of all proportion, as ususal by our ludicrous media speculating on whose idea it was, who said what to whom, what various people REALLY thought and other assorted nonsense. *Accuracy matters. Getting all catbum faced about something that didn't happen (him being charged) really undermines any other more reasonable opinion you might have.

To avoid some of the public and media froth you would think they'd have done it differently. Camilla maybe enter with the Cambridges and Charles escort his mother in with Andrew a few steps behind.

They don't seem to help themselves sometimes.

@ssd

The andrew apologists on here are really mind boggling. The trying to make the focus just about the fact he was going to his dads memorial with his old mum. Not the focus he's paid out 12million to someone accusing him of assault. Which he denied and has been kept well out the way for as long as possible. Until now. No one cares if he's there or not. No one expects him not to be there. But the fact is he's centre stage walking in with the queen, not avoiding the press, not going in quietly. There's no more prominent position than next to her. That's why people are angry, not because he was there in the first place.

I agree SSD as the parent of an older teen daughter and temporary guardian of a young female adult, I am utterly disgusted by some of the views on here. Making out that PA paid out £12 million for a minor infraction! And then seeing him take a prominent role in a memorial service that was broadcast to the nation. Talk about skewed values! He could have easily been seated discreetly at the back of the royal party among his cousins and no comment would have been made at all.

If she was underage, then technically it was rape. But I don't suppose she was dragged to bed, kicking & screaming. Epstein had apparently told her to see that Andrew "had a good time".
She had worked for Epstein for some time, her father, it is said, had driven her to Epstein's home. Is she suing him for trafficking? Or did he think she was being flown around on millionaire's jets to serve the tea?

Hi Liz

“Wow! I didn't think such reactionary views still existed in this day and age!

Are you saying it's unlikely you are a victim of rape if you are not dragged kicking and screaming to bed? If so, I would think very carefully about that one and do some some serious reading in order to educate yourself.

Can you not imagine a situation where you are young and unsure and you had been groomed and the power imbalance was so great between you and your rapist that you felt too scared to move? Even confident, older, educated victims have frozen with fear when being raped.

As for awareness about what was going on, do not know that both Jerry Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell chose their victims very carefully? They were vulnerable girls who were generally poor who came from homes where the parents would not ask too many questions. The fact that VG's father drove her to the door proves nothing! It's possible she didn't tell him the full facts about what was going on (most 17 year olds hide things from their parents) or he had an idea what was going on and was a negligent parent.

And you do know that JE pleaded guilty to a felony charge of solicitation of prostitution involving a minor, for which he served 13 months in prison and was listed on the sex offenders register before PA met up with him in central park in 2010? And that GM is currently in prison for enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and sex trafficking a minor?

Do you also know that some of the victims of the taxi drivers in the Rotherham sex abuse case were so vulnerable that they felt happy and privileged that older men were paying them attention and buying them presents despite the abuse they suffered? Some didn't even realise they had been the victims of sexual abuse because they came from such unstable, chaotic and neglectful family backgrounds that they were grateful for any supposed "affection" shown to them and that they were even noticed by anyone? Does that in any way lessen the crime against them?

If someone with SEN is raped in a care home and does not "kick and scream" because they cannot comprehend the seriousness of what has been done to them, does that make it less of a crime?

Seriously, you need to ask for your post to be removed.”

Thank you, @Eachdaygoesby

The fact remains that he hasn't been convicted of a crime.

He has engaged in morally very dubious behaviour, but then so has his accuser, who has been vulnerable to incriminating herself because of her own behaviour around Epstein.

The whole thing is pretty appalling, yes. There was a pay off, yes. That doesn't however prove guilt.

Whatever the Queen decided to do, there would have been headlines around Andrew.

_ Andrew goes to big public familly service!!

_Andrew doesn't go to big family service!!

blah blah ad infinitem

it is tabloid gold either way.