Andrew returning to public life

[antelopevalley]

"Prince Andrew — who recently paid a multimillion-pound settlement to Virginia Giuffre to keep her allegations of sexual abuse, which he denies, out of court — is set to make a controversial return to public life on Monday.

As a member of the Order of the Garter, this country’s oldest and most senior order of chivalry, Andrew, 62, will appear alongside senior members of the royal family at the Garter Day service at Windsor Castle."

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/palace-to-support-andrew-in-rebuilding-his-life-as-poison-prince-makes-surprise-return-to-public-duty-r6jskx9b3

The Torygraph don't judge me, the cross word is good is reporting that Andres will not take part in the public procession but will be in the Garter Chamber and at the lunch. Sigh.

After Eugenie cropped Camilla and Catherine out of her Jubilee photo , I doubt if she is very popular ! silly and childish,

I only think it will only get worse for Andrew , not better.

I am not sure that this is the case at all. Societies are generally tolerant of abuse of young girls and women whether it's by paedo gangs, politicians or royalty. This has been going on for centuries and a blind eye tends to be applied. There were other high profile people on the so-called Lolita Express and Epstein's island including Bill Gates and Bill Clinton, and absolutely nothing has been said about that. These were parties with young women and older men. Nothing to see here.

I suspect that Andrew, his daughters and even his wife will be slowly rehabilitated into public life troughing although they will never be front and centre, but, they don't need to be in order to reap the benefits of a taxpayer-funded lifestyle.

no, people are still lapping it all up with regard to h&m, me too, I want to hear what they did/didn't do and how it was interpreted but that DOES NOT MEAN that people aren't more outraged by Andrew trying in inveigle his way back in. It doesn't mean that their priorities are wrong or that they're blind. They can have an interested reaction to one thing and a horrified reaction to another.

If Andrew makes a return to public life I will declare myself a republican.

I don't think Charles and William will want him back. They aren't exactly bosom pals with him. I fear though, that he has always been the Queen's golden boy.

Much as I like and respect the Queen, she seems to have thought for far too long that the sun shone out of Andrew's arse. It doesn't.

Yes, cropping Camilla and Catherine out did seem like an odd thing to do. She had to crop Louis out too, and it's not like the photo wouldn't have 'fit' unless she cropped out Kate and Camilla. she chose to do that. If she dislikes them then I guess she's free to get on with disliking them but nobody really cares if disgraced prince Andrew's daughter (princess or not) ''hates'' on Camilla and Kate. It just looks bad for Eugenie. Not a smart move on her part. I have members of my own family that annoy me and upset me, so on a human level I get it, but in her shoes, and all so public. Not smart.

what on earth does the Palace think he can do to be useful in Scotland ?

Hide.

Out of sight out of mind will be the theory.

But this happens annually, and who has even spotted that it happened at all, other than this year?

It's a private ceremony within Windsor Castle, isn't it? Members and their guests only?

This is the first time it's taken place since 2019 (ie prior to that interview) due to Covid restrictions.

Apparently the public can apply for tickets to view the procession to the chapel but the rest of it is private.

He's pulled out after apparent intervention from Charles and William (as mentioned a number of tines upthread) So the RF have done exactly as MN said they should, but the thread telling them that still rolls on 😆

Prince Andrew — who recently paid a multimillion-pound settlement to Virginia Giuffre to keep her allegations of sexual abuse, which he denies, out of court

The Virginia Giuffre who having received a pay off (again) is now also facing charges of sexual abuse herself.

PA had not been found guilty of any abuse against VG.

There was no way that a member of the British Royal Family was going to be found guilty in a civil court, there was going to be a payoff at some point which I think was the part that VG thought up to.

I am not sure if VG saw $$$$$ signs and all consequences went out the window or her legal team did not advise her/get through to her that bringing such a case would leave her open to being in court herself on similar charges if she had touched another girl or had participated in anything else that could be construed to be trafficking or abuse

To think that she would be riding off into the sunset of obscurity with PA payout with no fall out was naive.

I think Charles will never be King. He will pass that on to William and the Royal family will continue with a new blank sheet.

I think there is a little naivety to threads like these.
Getting this thread in front of the Queen, Charles and William. To read what some people on Mumsnet think of them
🤣🤣🤣🤣

Do you honestly think that they will take any notice.

There is absolutely no way Charles will step back to allow William to be King . He has waited 70 years for this role .

His daughters don’t need rehabilitating, they haven’t done anything.

It wasn't paid with 'our' money at all

It was paid with private money.

no it wasn't.

honestly the bullshit spouted on here is unreal.

The original story also said he was desperate to get back to being head of the Grenadier Guards. I read a story some months ago saying they never wanted him in the first place and would be very unhappy to have him back in any way shape or form. But he is going to keep trying, isnt he? Because he is stupid enough to manifest the fucked up thinking that the family all has to have at some level - they are superior and this is their right.

Interesting ongoing legal proceedings, though:

metro.co.uk/2022/04/02/prince-andrews-750000-payment-from-fraudster-was-for-beatrice-16394537/

@JuneJubilee - but their private money comes from us! Under George Osbourne when they went from the civil list to the Sovereign grant their income went up exponentially and that money is money that used to go to the treasury. So it is not really private.

Whilst they haven't directly done anything, Beatrice organised the Maitlis interview so she obviously thinks her Father can do no wrong. Sarah ditto... she calls him 'the most honourable of men' and 'thoroughly good'. Eugenie who is patron of a charity for trafficking victims... I have no idea.

If he is ever allowed any role within the RF at all ever... all the tea with Paddington imaginable will not repair the damage it will do.

Given he's pulled out or been pulled out, I think C & W might guess this.

Then maybe you need to do some research!

have a look into what we would be required to do & pay instead if we no longer had the Monarchy.

A bunch of no names wouldn't bring in the tourist dollar either so it would be a further cost.

people really do not understand what the Royal Family do internationally, through charities & how much money they generate.

people need to research & understand how it works before spouting off.

That's nonsense. I mean, I didn't do anything for the Jubilee except enjoy an extra BH, but it was clear lots of people were really into it. The media didn't force the crowds into The Mall, make everyone have street parties of put out the flags.

My abiding memory of the jubilee is Rod Stewart being made to sing Sweet Caroline, poor old sod.

I would actually direct your comments back to you. I have researched extensively about the RF... do not talk about tourism, Johnson as a President, or any of that nonsense. We could do very well without them. People come here to see the pomp and ceremony, they rarely see the actual RF, it's the 'tourism myth'.
Yes, I do understand what the RF do (or don't do) and it really isn't as you portray.

I can provde many a link for you if you so wish, but just for starters, have a look at this about the RF and charities. A massive independent study involving this...
A database with 3 million entries. Every charity in England and Wales; every item in every set of financial statements it had reported in each of the last 25 years.
Many data-sheets each with several hundred thousand rows, e.g., to match every charity in the UK to its Parliamentary constituency; a list of all UK Parliamentary constituencies categorised by region; and data on the population of each constituency.
Six methods of two-way fixed-effects analyses. These are described in detail in the report.
giving-evidence.com/2020/07/16/royal-findings/

There you go. That's me spouting off. My prerogative on a discussion forum.

@JuneJubilee I think it’s possibly you that needs to do the research 😄. There is no proof whatsoever that tourism would be affected if we moved to an elected head of state. Not one shred of evidence. If you look at most visited tourist attractions they barely feature. You’ve been well and truly taken in by the RF PR machine.

Brilliant link @Roussette 👍🏼

The bottom line as far as that report is... there is no evidence that a royal patronage increases a charity's revenue. And there is plenty to explain 'why' on that statement

www.republic.org.uk/tourism

@JuneJubilee another link for you. I mean obviously you could do this research yourself but this is just for starters 😄.