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!

@JaniieJones

'The Royal family did not strip Andrew's titles away for no reason did they?'

No one disputes he socialised with a convicted sex offender and for that alone he deserves everything that has happened to him. However he hasn't been convicted of a crime and when a complainant in a civil case settles it sadly does bring into question how tight their case was.

I have no sympathies for him, he's been a stupid arrogant man for decades and why he wasn't advised and reined in years ago by senior royals is absolutely baffling. However. He is still allowed do escort his dm into a memorial service and sit with his family.

Settling does not reflect the strength of a case. Once VG was offered a settlement, if she had not taken it she may not have been awarded costs if she won.

I doubt they were expecting a walk-on part in Mummy Loves Noncey.

@crumpet

I don’t think the outrage is justified- as others have said, this is to mark his father and he was helping his mother.

In many ways it was quite a neat solution - helping her in and out of the side door meant that he avoided the parading out of the front door like the others

I was the same as the majority of PP, however, I now think this sums it up perfectly.

No one likes Andrew, he’s a pompous insufferable prig.
But let’s not forget other facts like Virginia recruiting other girls , or the the fact that VG slept or
was forced to sleep with other men too, why did she not take them all to court? . Her parents? Her family member who abused her.
People are very selective when it comes to this case, VG herself included .

@Vapeyvapevape

I am going through a civil court case at the moment, the defendant is 100% guilty, I would love it to go to court and have them admit it but have been advised by my counsel to settle out of court, which is what , I imagine VG was advised.

Exactly.

In addition to the settlement the statement by his legal team was a significant climb down.

It stated: he “never intended to malign Ms Giuffre’s character” and that he recognised she had ”suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks”.

He also promised to ”demonstrate his regret for his association” with Epstein and support the ”fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims”. He also acknowledged the ”bravery of Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others”.

He also pledged to make a significant contribution to her charity.

Settling does not reflect the strength of a case. Once VG was offered a settlement, if she had not taken it she may not have been awarded costs if she won.

This is also true. A complainant in a civil case settling simply doesn't in itself bring into question how tight their case was. That's plain wrong.

@queenofarles

No one likes Andrew, he’s a pompous insufferable prig. But let’s not forget other facts like Virginia recruiting other girls , or the the fact that VG slept or was forced to sleep with other men too, why did she not take them all to court? . Her parents? Her family member who abused her. People are very selective when it comes to this case, VG herself included .

Not this ignorance again. It is typical in sexual abuse rings for older girls who are no longer of sexual interest to the abusers to be put to work recruiting younger girls.

Same thing happened here in Rotherham and Oxford.

@queenofarles

No one likes Andrew, he’s a pompous insufferable prig. But let’s not forget other facts like Virginia recruiting other girls , or the the fact that VG slept or was forced to sleep with other men too, why did she not take them all to court? . Her parents? Her family member who abused her. People are very selective when it comes to this case, VG herself included .

You could do with being more selective yourself, frankly, because this is meaningless.

I actually think a lot of the blame likes at the door of Prince Charles for the Duke of York walking the Queen into the service. As the eldest and future king he should of taken charge and put himself in that position of walking her in - because she is clearly frail so she couldn't do it by herself. All the rubbish in the tabloids about "Wills and Charles were embarrassed" is ridiculous - it was in their control to prevent it.

@Swayingpalmtrees

Or maybe we are part of the Judiciary mydog and see plenty of sex offenders play the game...

Plenty is not ALL though is it? So many people utter those utterly stupid words "no smoke without fire" whenever anyone is accused of something even when they don't know all the details

I think the Queen, who is the reigning monarch and also chief mourner here, might have had the final say on arrangements.

Also, there would have been a fuss whatever they did.

And it got Andrew into the church mostly without the cameras focussed on him.

@Vapeyvapevape

I am going through a civil court case at the moment, the defendant is 100% guilty, I would love it to go to court and have them admit it but have been advised by my counsel to settle out of court, which is what , I imagine VG was advised.

That's YOUR case not all cases are the same

mydog rape and sexual assault prosecutions are at all time low - and that is not because the system is working so well. I will leave it at that.

It was said that Charles dislikes Andrew even before all this happened. I wouldn't be surprised if Andrew totally vanished from public life

As I've said so often, Charles may not be able to risk that - not when his brother could easily "leak" anything he knows to the new King's detriment

And on Andrew was "barely visible" at the service, he was on the front row, aisle seat, in a line with the other siblings, so the old thing "Should have gone to Specsavers" comes to mind

Since I have been mentioned on this thread...

It is wrong to say Andrew was sued for rape. Press reports saying this are wrong. In her complaint, Giuffre alleged that she had been raped on one occasion and sexually assaulted on two other occasions, but only sued him for sexual assault - to be precise, intentionally touching her in an offensive and sexual manner.

On her own account, she was over the age of consent in all the locations where the alleged encounters took place. It is true that she was a minor, but many who use that description appear to think she was under the age of consent. She was not.

Having consensual sex with a victim of trafficking is not an offence, nor was it an offence at the time of the alleged encounters. In the UK, it is still not an offence to have sex with a victim of trafficking provided it is consensual and you do not pay or offer to pay.

The payment agreed with Giuffre settled her suit against Andrew. It did not silence any other victims. I am only aware of one other allegation and the individual concerned does not seem to have any desire to pursue it. However, if there are any other victims, they are free to take action against Andrew.

The fact Andrew settled does not mean Giuffre's allegations were correct. Most civil cases in the USA end in a settlement. The pre-trial hearings are largely about setting the parameters for the negotiation. Unless Andrew was 100% certain he could convince a jury that Giuffre's allegations were false, the sensible thing to do was to settle regardless of the truth of her allegations. Note that I am not saying her allegations were false.

If King Charles is unable to control Andrew because of kompromat, the monarchy becomes untenable.

Queenie seemed to approve. She is not the cuddly granny we'd like to think she is at all. Maybe it was her way of giving the finger since she was forced, unwillingly I'd bet, to strip A of his titles and roles.

If A had any integrity ( forgive me while I burst out laughing), he could have tested "positive" for Covid the day before and watched it on the telly.

@prh47bridge I do get what you are saying, and I know that you know your stuff.

But Andrew's settlement statement could be seen as quite the mea culpa when taken in context.

If King Charles is unable to control Andrew because of kompromat, the monarchy becomes untenable

Quite so - but then it works for those of us who believe it's untenable anyway

It may well be that Charles has to work ever harder at keeping things from the public gaze, but then remembering his own taste for befriending paedophiles, that too would be nothing new

queenofarles

No one likes Andrew, he’s a pompous insufferable prig.
But let’s not forget other facts like Virginia recruiting other girls , or the the fact that VG slept or
was forced to sleep with other men too, why did she not take them all to court? . Her parents? Her family member who abused her.
People are very selective when it comes to this case, VG herself included
------------------------- .
HardyBuckette Wed 30-Mar-22 10:56:15

You could do with being more selective yourself, frankly, because this is meaningless
-----------------------

You can't just claim something is "meaningless" because you don't agree with it. That's not valid arguement.

Maybe Andrew came in through the side door so that the clergy etc at the front door wouldn't have to shake hands with him

People are totally derailing this thread and missing the whole original question, which was about who could have possibly thought it was a good idea for Andrew to escort the Queen into the Abbey. From a PR perspective it's massively backfired. Whilst the staunch royalists on this thread will continue to support them no matter what, the RF really need to be convincing the rest of the nation, and in particular the younger generations of the need for their existence otherwise I predict King Charles reign will be prematurely cut short. For royalists to ignore this is simply sticking their heads in the sand, and they are the ones who will be sad when it all comes to an end.

I agree with PPS who say that PA should have been stopped in his tracks way before all of this happened by the Queen. In no way should someone with his dubious associations have been allowed to roam the globe representing the UK promoting trade. PA is responsible for his own actions but equally someone in the Firm should bear some of the responsibility too.

By all accounts there is no love lost between the Queen's and Prince Charles's offices and the communication between the two individuals is not as good as it should be. And indeed the way the monarchy runs, with separate offices for the monarch, the heir and PW, with their communication issues, individual fiefdoms and petty rivalries, leads I think to a very very poor management style.

The whole institution is outdated and ready for abolition imho. The matter of the lesser royals scrabbling for money and obtaining it from dubious sources is not very edifying. And a republic would be much kinder on the individuals and children involved.

And honestly, an institution which insists on protocol such as "not speaking unless you are being spoken to" and " retreating from a room backwards after bowing" is so anachronistic in current times and yet so many are happy to support it. I happen to think those protocols demonstrate appalling bad manners. What about respect for the visitor who comes to see you? Why should they walk backwards out of the door? It's a hideous way to treat a fellow human being. In my view it would be more gracious to open the door for someone else. Who allows themselves to indulge in these absurdities?

And let's not go in to the massive contradiction of having multiple houses and huge wealth and being head of the Cof E! Have any of them read the gospels and Jesus's teachings on wealth, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth…but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven …" etc?

Sorry for the rant but I honestly think people need to wake up! PA is a particularly unpleasant individual who is responsible for his own actions, but his misdemeanours came about because of money and did not occur in a vacuum!

@BadgerB

queenofarles

No one likes Andrew, he’s a pompous insufferable prig.
But let’s not forget other facts like Virginia recruiting other girls , or the the fact that VG slept or
was forced to sleep with other men too, why did she not take them all to court? . Her parents? Her family member who abused her.
People are very selective when it comes to this case, VG herself included
------------------------- .
HardyBuckette Wed 30-Mar-22 10:56:15

You could do with being more selective yourself, frankly, because this is meaningless
-----------------------

You can't just claim something is "meaningless" because you don't agree with it. That's not valid arguement.

The mish mash of random things you wrote are not a valid argument. You haven't even told us how you think they're relevant, which is not a great surprise. What exactly are you claiming that VG not having taken legal action against her parents tells us about her case against Andrew? Let's have it spelled out clearly so we can all see exactly what claim you're making here.

@BadgerB

Maybe Andrew came in through the side door so that the clergy etc at the front door wouldn't have to shake hands with him

They did on the way out though