Did William really cheat on Kate?

[ttcstop]

I keep hearing this rumour and I'm just curious to know where it comes from? Where is the evidence?

No, silly names aren’t banned. Why would they be? And no one is defending the use of the silly name just because it is Andrew.

All I’m saying is that it just encourages the use of the daft names that most have come to dislike right across the RF board.

Interesting the spin you are trying to whirl on it though.

As many of us have said, no one has defended him. Justice - as Maireas said - needs to be served.

If folk took the time to read the posts instead of frothing away with extraneous pish then they might see that.

We all seem to have the same opinion on Andrew.

Cheapening his actions with a silly name seems disrespectful to those who were personally affected.

How anyone can twist these posts to be a defence of Andrew is mind boggling. Some gymnastics there. People's opinions on Andrew and his actions are very clear. The point is giving people silly nicknames has been a feature on here, and it adds nothing imo. No banning, just opinions freely shared.

I took a long break from MN and now only visit royal threads once in a blue moon, so I don't know about recently.

But when the Virginia Giuffre scandal first broke there were definitely tons and tons of threads and comments here defending him. Absolutely tons of comments calling Virginia a liar, a slut, a gold-digger, stating that she was lying for attention, that she was targeting PA for a payout, that she chose to become a prostitute (along with several "why didn't she just leave" type comments) and was "now playing the victim card". I remember one particularly awful comment saying "girls of that age know exactly what they're doing when they sleep with older rich men."

Lots of comments playing devil's advocate, saying that VG appeared to consent so how could PA possibly be expected to know that she'd been trafficked. Lots of "well technically she was above the age of consent so no crime has been committed." And of course lots and lots of the usual "innocent until proven guilty!!" and "what a disgraceful thread, this is just a witchhunt" (see the current Phillip Schofield threads, which are also full of "witchhunt" and "no proof of grooming" and "well the boy was above the age of consent when the relationship became sexual so PS hasn't done anything illegal, you're just enjoying a witchhunt against an openly gay man!"comments. Hell, if you google "Jimmy Savile Mumsnet", a thread comes up with the title "AIBU to think that describing Jimmy Saville as a pervert is wrong" with a long OP about how there's no evidence that JS did anything wrong, complete with "I'm not calling his accusers liars but....")

I remember one thread that got derailed into very weird discussions about the photo of PA with his arm around her waist, with posters getting deep into forensic analysis of the photo, comparing the exact hexadecimal colour code tone of the pixels on his hand with that of his face, to show that his hand was a different colour from his face and that proved that the photo had been photoshopped. When not even PA denied that the photo was real. That's quite an extreme level of investment into proving PA's innocence.

Even after the TV interview there were threads taking the piss out of him and saying he came across very badly, there were still comments saying "well technically he didn't do anything wrong" and comments calling VG a liar and a gold digger who'd schemed to target PA to get a big payout.

Anyone claiming that no one on Mumsnet defended Prince Andrew either hasn't been on Mumsnet very long, doesn't read many royal threads, or is simply lying for their own agenda.

(Obv not talking about the silly names. Making up silly names isn't defending someone. But sadly there has been a lot of Andrew-defending and some really nasty personal attacks on Virginia on MN in the past. Hopefully all in the past and those posters have either left, or changed their attitudes!)

^ Absolutely this! ^

I’be been on MN for quite a few years now. More than I care to remember.

I cannot read every thread or post on every subject although I don’t doubt what you say teal sadly. I know a few threads I visited were quickly deleted because some views of the women involved were shocking.

What I meant was that I haven’t seen any defence of PA on this thread.

I’m pretty sure I don’t twist things or lie for my own agenda either.

I have read enough RF threads to see that there are plenty that do.

Which is probably why I will often scroll by.

I don’t think taking exception to silly names is defending PA at all. Despite what some are trying to say.

Sorry Teal - cross posted there with you regarding the daft names.

Yes, that's absolutely fair and you're right. There's been no defence at all in this thread, and it's ludicrous to twist a nickname like Pedrew into being a defence because if anything it's the opposite.

I'm not accusing you of lying.

Unfortunately there have been threads in the past where posters have sworn blind that they've never seen anyone on MN defend Andrew, they're certain no one on MN has ever defended Andrew, ever, but it's the same usernames that were all over the threads were Virginia was being called a lying golddigger.

The royal section used to have a rep for some quite nasty behaviour in that respect, which is why I took a break for about a year. It's fine to disagree but there was a lot of gaslighting. I remember one thread where someone posted a racial comment about Meghan which was quickly deleted, then in the same thread posters were insisting they'd never seen racism against Meghan, a couple of posters went "um but so-and-so called her X on this very thread just this morning", so-and-so denied it, and it just sparked pages of the most furious comments saying "how DARE YOU accuse other MNers of lying, you liars!" Then someone posted a screencap of the racial comment from before it was deleted (proving that the poster in question had called her that and then lied about it), and still no one apologised or admitted they were in the wrong, it just turned into pages of "OMG you actually screencapped another poster's comment, what a deranged thing to do, only a stalker would do that, I am actually quite frightened by you now."

Really disturbing behaviour.

(Also I need to change my username because it's supposed to be Tea Is Risen, a pun on He Is Risen, since I changed it for Easter. But everyone reads is as Teals Risen, like the colour. 😁)

The disturbing behaviour is still there.

Not doubting the racism either. Sadly calls of ‘you are being racist/hate because you are racist’ which seem to be happen frequently, only serve to annoy and quite possibly detract from any actual racist posts. In my experience, MN have dealt with reported racist posts swiftly. Again though, I’m not on every thread.

Many apologies for getting your name wrong. I can see it now you’ve said it (very good!) but I confess I can’t tell the difference between an I or an l there. (Is there one?) Stronger readers may be needed!

Sorry 💐 🙂

Thank you for clarifying that,v@TeaIsRisen - I wasn't talking about other threads in the past, just this thread. Those of us commenting on the nickname being linked to excusing Andrew in any way. Just a separate point really.

This is absolutely not the case. The press were the ones who broke the Andrew and Epstein story, dug up the evidence and piled the pressure on.

It was February 2011 that the News of the World published a picture of Andrew and Epstein walking in Central Park together with the headline “Prince Andy & The Paedo” and the UK media have covered it deeply for the intervening decade. The press coverage was so negative that it forced the Prince to step down from his “Trade Envoy” role just 5 months after the initial NOTW, and then it was the Daily Mail that discovered and published the infamous photo of Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre a couple of years later. The Giuffre lawsuit, Andrew’s interview - all had massive negative coverage.

The only reason we know any of this is because of the tabloid press’ investigative journalism.

Oh, you and your facts!

😀

My only objection to what’s been said about Prince Andrew was treating what he did as some kind of joke. I’ve no idea what happened ages ago, I haven’t been on MN very long and I often avoid that discourse because I find it quite triggering, but while people might have taken the long road it sort of sounds like everyone has arrived at the same place.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50296742

As I said, Palace lawyers threatening American media YEARS before it blew up. So yes, super injunctions, Palace lawyers, and William claiming reporting on the affair is "against his human rights" do stop reporting.

Enjoy.

Yeah, I'm sure the British Royal Family have a lot of sway over an American news channel.

Yes, I note even that article says ABC denied that this happened.

I also noted that out said “Robach also says that the interview included allegations against former US President Bill Clinton”.

Never got screened, you say? Who has actual influence in the US…?

And, for what feels like the millionth time, if any member of the Royal Family had taken out a super-injunction to quash a damaging story in the UK, the whole rest of the world would be gleefully reporting on it. If they haven’t been, then it’s because it doesn’t exist…

"The Palace found out and threatened us a million different ways," she says.

Really? What influence would the British royal family have over a US News Network?

"I've had this story for three years," Robach said, while sitting in a New York City studio. "I've had this interview with Virginia Roberts. We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told, 'Who is Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.'

"Then the palace found out we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us in a million different ways," Robach added. She was referring to the British royal to whom Roberts alleged in a 2015 court filing Epstein trafficked her when she was 17.

In the clip, said to have been leaked by an ABC employee, Robach said that the network feared it would lose interview access to Prince William and Kate Middleton. This contributed to the story being dropped. At the time of the video's release, Buckingham Palace did not return a request for comment on Robach's claims.

"[Roberts] told me everything," Robach said in the clip. "She had pictures. She had everything. She was in hiding for 12 years. We convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us. It was unbelievable what we had.""I tried for three years to get it on [air]. And now it's all coming out. I'm so p right now. Every day I get more and more p. What we had was unreal."

And if you read on, queentim, ABC explained why it didn’t air - nothing to do with Palace pressure - and the reported herself backtracked:

In a statement after the footage leaked, ABC stood by its decision not to air the interview, saying the reporting did not meet its standards.
"But we have never stopped investigating the story," the statement continues, adding that "substantial resources" had been dedicated to investigating Epstein.
In a separate statement, Robach said she "was caught in a private moment of frustration" last summer as the Epstein story unfolded.
She said she was "upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn't air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence" to meet ABC's editorial standards.

Also, funny that a whole interview with Virginia Giuffre detailing all her allegations against Prince Andrew was actually broadcast on Panorama, on the BBC. In the UK. Where the Royal Family might be considered to have some influence…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50607705

Yeah sorry, I'm not suddenly believing that the news network, reporter, etc. "suddenly retracted" after legal threats from Buckingham. Yet, the same story hasn't changed years later.

It reminds me of the US government burning files regarding Mountbatten, and the Palace saying the "rumours" are untrue.

The Palace will tell some of you the sky is brown and you'll believe it. It's sad.

Again:
"Then the palace found out we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us in a million different ways," Robach added. She was referring to the British royal to whom Roberts alleged in a 2015 court filing Epstein trafficked her when she was 17.

In the clip, said to have been leaked by an ABC employee, Robach said that the network feared it would lose interview access to Prince William and Kate Middleton. This contributed to the story being dropped. At the time of the video's release, Buckingham Palace did not return a request for comment on Robach's claims."

No sorry for some of you, I don't care to give Pedrew the respect you believe he deserves. That's not going to change :)

Anyway, point being and proven: the media reports on what it wants to meet its own agenda, to serve its own purpose, maintain relationships, AND because they are silenced.