Andrew and Harry…

[MyWillyBrokeTheDogBowl]

Someone has just said this to me in passing:

”So Andrew has sex with a 17 year old girl and he’s a predator, the young girl is a victim, but an older woman supposedly humiliates and takes the virginity of a 17 year old Harry and it’s all made into memes and jokes?”

I was in a rush and couldn’t carry on the conversation but it’s thrown me a bit!

Im sort of sat here thinking about it, and aside from the legality of course because these incidents took place in different countries with different laws, what’s the moral implication? Are we seeing Harry as a victim too? Or do we say well 17 year olds have free will to do what they want? There’s a lot of murkiness around whether Virginia was there by choice too, and that’s not even getting into the massive face that Epstein was essentially running a child sex trafficking ring.

I don’t know, it’s made me pause a minute and think ok wait a minute, the jokes about Harry the stallion seem really crass and we would never say those things if the words were coming from a young woman.

Anyway, would appreciate your input! I’ll no doubt bump into this person again soon and would quite like an intelligent response to hand! My brain is working at about 4% capacity after a night up with teething babies!

I can't tell whether you mean Diana or yourself not grasping the large age difference between Charles and Diana. I think Diana was 'of an age to grasp the large age difference' because her parents, Johnnie and Frances, were 12 years different in ages.
I don't agree that she was 'certainly manipulated by the Royal Family'. I think she was pushed and encouraged by a mixture of things, part of which was the ambition of her own father and family, including Lady Fermoy.

Well some of us don’t make jokes about either.

But you’re surely being incredibly naive to say ‘we wouldn’t say this if the 17 yr old was female’? This woman is disbelieved, criticised, mocked across the internet. What on earth makes you think we take inappropriate sexual conduct seriously when it involves women? What could possible have made you think that? The evidence is in front of your face every single time something like this happens.

Its nothing to do with him. He is not demonstrating support to Andrew. What could he say in any case? 'I think Andrew is a pervy old man'? What would happen then? Probably the press would automatically turn on him for getting involved and distract from the fact that the Royals are openly supportive of Andrew.

Don’t know any of the details of Prince Andrew, - but he did go through life as the ‘ handsome Prince’ relative to Charles and Edward, dating beautiful women, and I expect had a lot of women themselves at him throughout his life in the same way that girls do to pop stars and footballers, so it’s not inconceivable that he didn’t think having sex with a seventeen year old was unwelcome.

the woman was in Harrys "circle" i think she was in her 20s and everyhing was a "hoot" and concensual. Where as prince Andrew associated with a paedophile and sex trafficer and had sex witn a trafficked teenager.

Because there aren't enough threads on this, you have to resurrect a Zombie one @pilates ??

Why?

Its nothing to do with him.

TBF that's never stopped him yapping about anything he's vexed about in the past whether it's his business or not.

@WowzersSchnauzers
it was accidentally resurrected. Is that ok with you? My phone showed it as recent, ok? Jeez 🙄

Has he? Most of the things he's been accused of moaning about are about how things affect him.

Has he? Most of the things he's been accused of moaning about are about how things affect him.

I said 'anything' but as you ask I'm specifically thinking of the hypocritical finger waving about travel (private jets and multi vehicle convoys round the block clearly excepted) along with the to date rather ineffective Travalyst initiative.

Where did those Royal Foundation funds end up? 🤔

And to add:

IMO every last one of them are complicit in abetting the vile Prince Andrew's rehab attempts whether by tactical silence or shoehorning him into family and public events.

I don't draw distinctions. The whole lot are a disgrace.

I mean, they are all like that re the environment. 90% of all aviation carbon emissions are caused by 1% of the global population. Mostly, people like the Royal Family including Harry ( their carbon footprint is astronomical compared to an average British family), politicians, Leonardo Di Caprio etc al yet they don't do anything to reduce their own carbon footprint . Earthshot has spent most of the money raised on glitzy galasand flying celebs around the globe rather than prize money. Harry has not been hobnobbing publicly with Andrew. He is out in the cold and estranged from his family for doing far less. IMO they are using Andrew and Fergie to send a message to Harry to show him what he could have if he toes the line. He is a private citizen who lives in another country. He does not represent the UK anymore. I have a dodgy uncle too ( not quite the same level just a massive dickhead) It's none of my concern how the rest of the family treat him.

Reading the date on a thread too challenging lol

Jeez! Wind your neck in 😂

Well I agree with approx 90% of that but I still think Harold is maintaining radio silence for his own reasons (mainly a possibly distorted pipeline to the real action via a minor cousin IMO).

I also don't think the RF are holding Andrew and Fergie up as a carrot when they're currently touting yet another (almost certainly going nowhere thanks to watertight lease) eviction from the monstrous pile to the Frogmore cells.

I'd call them the same.

Virginia chose to be there and Harry chose to be there.

I remember back to being 17 and my friends and I were totally in control of what we thought and did. There is no way that I believe that Virginia could not have given up that job if it made her feel icky. She didn't live in. She was recruiting; she knew she was choosing to be a call girl who was paid in non conventional ways.

Harry similarly chose his interactions and then chose to publish the account. Memes that followed were fair enough and some were funny.
Both were exploited due to their stupidity in thinking what they were up to was of benefit to themselves.

Did the others involved hunt for their kind of stupididty or were they all equally as stupid in thinking that the liasons were beneficial? In Virginia's case we now accept that Epstein and Maxwell were actively searching out gullable girls and gullible financial investors. Some girls were definitly groomed and exploited as were some of the investors. Was Virginia? I don't know but she was definitely damaged.

In Harry's case there seems not to be criminals involved, though perhaps women became gullible in Harry's company.
His minders were gullible. I think Harry, too, was damaged.

Some choices result in damage.

I remember back to being 17 and my friends and I were totally in control of what we thought and did. There is no way that I believe that Virginia could not have given up that job if it made her feel icky. She didn't live in. She was recruiting; she knew she was choosing to be a call girl who was paid in non conventional ways.

@user1492757084 No it wasn’t a choice. A Virginia Guiffre quote from an article posted on the other thread:

^^
“It was a really scary time in my life… I wasn't chained to a sink, but these powerful people were my chains," she told the BBC.
— from a bbc article 12 Jan 2022

Virginia was frightened and felt powerless.

I think that poster needs to read more and educate herself on coercion, sex trafficking and how it comes about. Just because you're not chained up in a basement does not mean you were not trafficked.

The thing I don't understand is the lengths people will go to to minimise what Andrew did just on the basis that he is a member of the Royal Family. Whatever they do, its always someone else's fault. What about the girls in Rotherham? Did they choose to be there too? Girls who are groomed do not make sound decisions. They are vulnerable in the first place and have been taken advantage of by powerful people, given somewhere to live and money when they have parents who couldn't care less. It is still exploitation, and you can see what happened to you at 17 as an adult and realise later that something that was just part of your life was extremely shady. Then 40/ 50 year olds on the other hand were grown adults with life experience who knew it was wrong and did it anyway.

@Angrycat2768 so true. its very disturbing. "Virginia chose to be there "
disturbing that someone can think that.

Virginia lived at home with her Dad and went to work every day.
She had a home.
I would not be going back there with that creep and his girfriend who asked me to recruit young friends..

If Virginia was ignorant of the situation surely her father was not. Surely he asked if everything was above board often..

Ummm... do you know anything about vulnerable trafficked girls?

What's to say her father wasn't out every night and had no idea. What's to say her father didn't demand money from her. What's to say her father wasn't into drugs/alcohol and didn't care.
There are many not perfect parents out there sadly.
And vulnerable means vulnerable. VG was living on the streets at one point before Epstein was on the scene so her upbringing was not perfect was it?

Or took the cash?