King Charles to pay for Duke of York’s private security

[tatalan]

Monarch expected to foot £3m bill for guards.

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2022.12.19-193449/www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/12/19/king-charles-pay-duke-yorks-private-security-refusing-do-prince/#selection-1193.1-1193.56" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">King Charles to pay for Duke of York’s private security

Fascinating. What do we think?

For me, it didn’t happen as I was out of it & in hospital for almost a year.
I found out about it afterwards and been trying to make sense of it.

There was a lot swirling round about him and and within a year or two I knew about his conviction for trafficking

It is just that your questions sound like you are really disbelieving of what happened

There is no sense to be made of it apart from the fact Andrew was happy to be good friends with a sex trafficker

^ This.

A Netflix of him 'wax on, wax off' will help pay the builders.

@Onnabugeisha

Andrew attended Epstein’s ‘release’ party when he was released from his prison sentence for sexually assaulting children. There’s a timeline here:
inews.co.uk/news/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-timeline-friendship-virginia-giuffre-settlement-1464023

so yeah. He knew.

at the time I had no idea who Maxwell was? How would I? Just some random woman in a photograph in an article I probably barely glanced at.

Daughter of the notorious Robert Maxwell, as was pointed out every single time her photo was in the papers.

I can see where this is coming from.

It's well known that Charles & Andrew have never got on together. Andrew will never again work as a Royal and, because he so hated generally, he is the royal must likely to be subjected to violence.
Charles doesn't want to be responsible for allowing an assassination attempt on "mummy's favourite". Nor can he allow Andrew's protection to be paid for out of taxes.

Seems a kind action towards a disliked and disreputable brother.

Assassination of his child, grandchildren and DIL is fair game though.

BadgerB · Yesterday 16:25
I can see where this is coming from.
It's well known that Charles & Andrew have never got on together. Andrew will never again work as a Royal and, because he so hated generally, he is the royal must likely to be subjected to violence.
Charles doesn't want to be responsible for allowing an assassination attempt on "mummy's favourite". Nor can he allow Andrew's protection to be paid for out of taxes.
Seems a kind action towards a disliked and disreputable brother.

FurAndFeathers · Yesterday 21:53
Assassination of his child, grandchildren and DIL is fair game though.

Not his place to interfere in the lives of a family who obviously don't trust him or his intentions towards them. Making their own living by telling the world how badly his organisation treats them. Why would they accept his "protection"? Oh yes - cash...

I thought they told their version of the story to raise cash for protection that they needed after being hounded by press when they left for Canada and then USA..

That's an inconvenient truth for some on here.

Good on them. Hope they make as much money as possible so they are protected

But fine for him to interfere in the life who prioritised a convicted sex offender over his public duty? Made his mother shell out millions to protect his arse and lied loudly and publicly about his involvement?

are you genuinely suggesting that the lives of his child and grandchildren are with less consideration because Meghan told a fib about her involvement in finding freedom (let’s face it the racism allegations are patently true!) but Andrew deserves protection because cavorting with child sex offenders for years is not that big a deal?

interesting priorities you have.

Well they certainly need cash for protection since Charlie is prioritising his nonce-friendly brother over their safety.

but then he was mates with JS for years do 🤷‍♀️

FurAndFeathers · Today 11:08
But fine for him to interfere in the life who prioritised a convicted sex offender over his public duty? Made his mother shell out millions to protect his arse and lied loudly and publicly about his involvement?

Andrew is not a convicted sex offender.

His mother shelled out millions because she thought it would all go away before her Jubilee. And he probably told her he was innocent - why wouldn't he?

There is absolutely no reason why Charles should pay H & M anything. You leave your job - your salary stops.

this may be an unpopular view, but Andrew has never been convicted of anything. Everyone assumes he’s guilty

There should be nothing wrong with stating facts, verystablegenius, though no doubt you'll be attacked for it and called an Andrew sympathiser

In fairness there's no way Andrew would ever have been held to account no matter what he'd done, far less see the inside of a court, so all we're left with is his proven support for a convicted paedophile and his known association with an allegedly trafficked teenager

But then his elder brother's known to have supported a convicted paedophile too, and nobody seems to care about that

He settled the civil case for an extremely large sum and is being uncooperative with the FBI. Most people can draw sensible conclusions.

Who was the convicted paedophile Charles supported?

Who was the convicted paedophile Charles supported?

Bishop Peter Ball

www.insider.com/prince-charles-history-with-pedophile-priest-peter-ball-2020-1

Oh yeah, him.

Gosh it's really squalid.

"Squalid" seems as good a word as any, Minou - it frankly amazes me that people are apparently quite content to call such an individual king, but there you go

Then of course there's his support for Laurens van der Post, Jimmy Savile and Mountbatten, but I was trying to stick to the facts and didn't include those since none were ever actually convicted

First of all you don't know how much he settled the case for.
Secondly, it might have worked out not that much more expensive to settle than to pay lawyers here and in the US to do a full trial.
Thirdly, I've no doubt that if a court case had gone ahead, questions would have been asked about his mother. There's no way either he or the queen would have wanted that.
Fourthly, the FBI wanted to question him in person. His lawyers wanted written questions. There's a mad belief in the UK thats its OK to talk to police or investigative bodies because they'll be fair and open. Hmph. Just no. So I think his lawyers were quite right. If the FBI were purely interested in getting info rather than getting PA, written answers would have been fine.

We don't know the truth of what happened between VG and PA. We do know that she's just dropped a case against Alan Dershowitz after he refused to pay a settlement. We could infer things from that. But we don't because we don't know what the truth is.

I couldn't think of another word, but squalid seemed to fit the bill 😀

I fully agree it strange we (as in the public) are sort of sleep walking into accepting him as our king. But then, I dont want anyone to be king or queen.

There is zero chance that I have would advised a client to submit for questions or a trial in a foreign jurisdiction. I suspect far more cost effective to settle.

MissMarpleRocks · Today 13:34
There is zero chance that I have would advised a client to submit for questions or a trial in a foreign jurisdiction. I suspect far more cost effective to settle.

This is what I had understood was the unanimous U.K. legal opinion. But it has led to an overwhelming opinion that "he must have been guilty or he'd have gone to court"
Andrew is, and always has been, a nasty piece of work regardless of his involvement with Epstein. Possibly Charles is glad of an excuse not to employ him.