Prince Andrew Was Lying (and Sweating) From The Start, Wasn't He?

[TallerSally]

So now we have it, the abject and in all likelihood criminal behaviour of Prince Andrew, still titled Duke of York and still eighth in the line of succession to the British throne, laid out for all to see.

Settled out of court as part of a grotesque cover-up.

Still denying knowing Virginia Giuffre, and presumably Johanna Sjoberg whose breast he allegedly fondled, who are undoubtedly the tip of the iceberg of the girls Prince Andrew and his paedo friend Jeffrey Epstein abused.

Still protected by Buckingham Palace who have gone out of their way to state the accusations as "categorically untrue", as if anyone believes them.

Still supported by the British Royal Family who seem desperate to "rehabilitate him" (and his grifter ex-wife), still living in a Royal Palace presumably at taxpayers expense (i.e. Grifter in Chief), still prancing around at official functions, still oozing a sense of arrogant entitlement, with no-one including King Charles having any sense of courage or moral rectitude to deliver to make him face the consequences of his repugnant actions.

Still being defended by the royal palaces briefing operations and the British media, and by those at ease with shameful double standards on various boards, including this one, who are happy spending their time posting 100'000+ messages a year attacking Meghan and Harry while turning a blind eye to a likely real criminal.

No amount of covering-up will ever rehabilitate Prince Andrew. All it'll do is drag the royal family further down in the esteem of folks with any sense of decency.

UK has always been a very establishment based country where the powerful are protected. Royal Famiy at the heart of it. Harry has been very brave and got a lot of abuse for it. He's the pariah not the Queens pedo son she protected.

Also the honours system used to make people untouchable. Our illustrious king and Thatcher got Savile his knighthood which made sure his crimes were never properly exposed while he was alive

No, but I would expect that something that is being widely reported as a definite fact (the 12 year old triplets) would mean that the girls themselves had come forward and testified. Not that it was merely something that VG claimed JE had once said.

Maybe they're too traumatised.

The IICSA report is important though gruelling reading @Puzzledandpissedoff . It was published in Oct 2022, and examined the extent to which our institutions failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. It made several recommendations about the way child sexual abuse is handled, including by state institutions.

One would hope that such a far reaching document might lead ultimately to wider positive cultural change. Such change is hard to achieve though when our Head of State - who has a history of friendships with high profile abusers - publicly supports his brother - who has been accused of serious offences against trafficked girls and women.

In the context of the report, the failure of the Met to investigate Andrew also looks all the worse. As does the failure of some members of the public to support the victims and stick up for Andrew. Even a few posters on here - on a site that is primarily for women and mothers! - who try to pick holes in the womens' allegations, despite the fact that we all know how hard it is for victims to be believed and get justice.

Well said @Livingtothefull

And to add.... Such change is hard to achieve though when our Head of State - who has a history of friendships with high profile abusers - publicly supports his brother - who has been accused of serious offences against trafficked girls and women
and whose daughter (Eugenie) is patron of a Charity against modern slavery and sex trafficking, and has been for a long time.

Livingtothefull - Those articles don't actually prove anything. Yes King Charles corresponded with Savile with regards to advice about speeches etc, but claiming that John Lydon knew about Savile therefore King Charles must have done is laughable. I doubt if King Charles had even heard of the Sex Pistols. He probably doesn't even know now who Lydon is.

A spokesman said when Savile went to Kensington Palace he would kiss the arms of the admin staff, young women in their 20s. He wouldn't have done any of that in front of the Royals. If you were one of those women would you have made a complaint, of course you wouldn't you would have been too scared to. Princess Diana said she didn't really like Savile and that she found him creepy. I am quite sure that if she had any idea of what he was like she would not have wanted him any where near the Palace.

Yes King Charles corresponded with Savile with regards to advice about speeches etc, but claiming that John Lydon knew about Savile therefore King Charles must have done is laughable. I doubt if King Charles had even heard of the Sex Pistols. He probably doesn't even know now who Lydon is.

So, are you saying that the King, his Advisers, his Intelligence and Security staff know nothing about anything that is going on in the world?! Do they not talk to the BBC (an organisation that is governed by a Royal Charter) and do the BBC not talk to them? Lydon was banned from the airwaves after what he said about a man that the heir to the throne was spending a lot of time with. Surely it's not hard for the people at the time on both sides to put 2 and 2 together on what Savile was like

I honestly think members of the RF quite possibly ignore advice. It is fact that Andrew did.

Rousette - Well considering that on an episode of QI Stephen Fry didn't know what Primark was, I can quite believe that King Charles would have no idea who Lydon is let alone have seen the clip of the interview that the Sex Pistols gave back in the 70s. Don't forget it was a different time back then, no internet, no mobile phones no 24 hour media. Savile would not have posed a security threat, he had a public image of being an eccentric famous person who did a lot of work for charity. It's not like now where if a celebrity posts something stupid on social media it can be used against them years later.

Lydon was banned from the airwaves after what he said about a man that the heir to the throne was spending a lot of time with

Yes and Peter Ball was finally removed from his job, following which Charles wrote that archbishop George Carey had “gone back on what he told me before Xmas that he was hoping to restore you to some form of ministry in the church. I suspect you are absolutely right – it is due to fear of the media …"

Also that he was "unable to shed any light" on who he was referring to in saying he'd "see off this horrid man" despite despite feeling "so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you"

And in all this interference talk about Ball's employment we're seriously expected to believe no mention was ever made about WHY he'd been removed and that Charles was therefore ignorant about it all?

Clearly the "wilful blindness" applies to more than just Charles ...

I can quite believe that King Charles would have no idea who Lydon is let alone have seen the clip of the interview that the Sex Pistols gave back in the 70s.

I keep saying that it is not him... it is the huge back up behind him ... Advisers, Courtiers, Special Protection Officers, the best of British Intelligence etc. Of course Charles will not have heard of John Lydon but the man isn't an island! He is and was one of the most cosseted and looked after person on the planet!

'And in all this interference talk about Ball's employment we're seriously expected to believe no mention was ever made about WHY he'd been removed and that Charles was therefore ignorant about it all?'

It is very hard to accept that anyone could be this gullible, let alone the person who (at the time) was destined to become Head of State and of the Church. One would expect and hope that, given his position and the resources available, he would make it his business to be better informed than most.

For the avoidance of doubt: although a caution is of course a woefully inadequate consequence for sexual abuse, it does require an admission of guilt. So if Charles had enquired at all into the facts he would have known that Ball was guilty of sexual offences. Either he didn't bother to find out the truth, or he knew it and didn't care. It really wasn't good enough for him to claim he was 'deceived'.

Agreed! He's a sleaze bag who hangs /hung around with other sleaze bags and got outed- he shouldn't be taking public money unless it's behind bars IMO

The Sex Pistols were in the news all the time in the late 70s and partly for the banned record 'God Save The Queen '. It is very unlikely that Charles hadn't heard of them. There is no way he would not have known about Savile.

Rousette - Yes but they wouldn't have seen Savile as a security threat. How much do the BBC really have to do with the Royal Family on a day to day basis? Not much I should think. The BBC covered it up because at the time Savile was so popular with the public and made them a lot of money.

If his advisers and aides knew of the rumours then of course they should have told Charles but this is something we will never know. We can only give our thoughts and opinions, there is no concrete proof.

Yes of course we don't know, because everything is shrouded in mystery.

All I do know is... if I were in that sort of position, I would not mix withanyone without being 100% sure they were not shrouded in sleaze.

It's happened to Charles, Sarah, Sophie and of course Andrew who has mixed with more dodgy characters than you can shake a stick at. (arms dealers, ME oligarchs etc)

Rockybooboo - I was of the era when the Sex Pistols were famous, but I bet you my parents didn't know much about them and would certainly never have watched them on TV. Now that I'm older I have no idea who half the famous young people are or what they have said and this is when you have social media, 24 hour news etc and everything seems to make the news. I have no interest in young celebrities, don't have tiktok, Instagram, twitter.

I'm not sure at the time that that part of the interview was even broadcast, I think it was only years later when all the allegations came out that it was found.

Savile wasn't a security threat to Charles. He targeted vulnerable people as did Charles other mate Peter Ball. Charles knew about Peter Ball and defended him why not Savile? You'll never get 'proof' as the Royals are secretive and are protected.

Are you're parents the same age as Charles ?

You don't have to be into a scene to have heard of people. The Sex Pistols were controversial and all over the news at the time.

'I was of the era when the Sex Pistols were famous, but I bet you my parents didn't know much about them and would certainly never have watched them on TV. Now that I'm older I have no idea who half the famous young people are or what they have said and this is when you have social media, 24 hour news etc and everything seems to make the news. I have no interest in young celebrities, don't have tiktok, Instagram, twitter.'

But neither of your parents was Prince of Wales @2dogsandabudgie . As has been pointed out, Charles has huge resources at his disposal to help him obtain essential information, and in his position he should ensure - and see it his responsibility to ensure - that anyone he associates with is an appropriate companion for the future (now current) King.

This isn't about whether or not he knows John Lydon or saw the interview. The concerns about Savile were widely known in certain quarters - there are hundreds of identified victims, police complaints and reports going back to the 1950s. I really struggle to believe that Charles' aides would not have been able to find out the truth about him at the time.

Rockybooboo - I've heard of the Kardashians but if you asked me to identify them in photos I wouldn't be able to nor could I tell you anything about them except I think they did a reality tv show America?

Well... me and my DH are Charles's era and we certainly knew of John Lydon, Sex Pistols etc.

I am also of Charles era and I did know of John Lydon but I didn't know what he had said about Savile. At the time Lydon was portrayed as strange and erratic. I see him as very different now.

I always thought Savile was odd and creepy and I remember being told by someone who had been a patient at Stoke Mandeville that Savile was not at all nice when the cameras were not there but I didn't know anything about the abuses until it all came out later.

As for whether advisers/security etc should have been aware, it depends how carefully the BBC were covering up. You would have hoped they would have been aware but after Bashir etc I can believe that the fact that it was the BBC may have given undeserved cover.

UK has always been a very establishment based country where the powerful are protected.

This isn’t unique to UK. There are many credible accusations of rape and assault made against Bill Clinton. People never cared because it’s not convenient and women are disposable. Especially inconvenient for the democrats because he was such a strong candidate and then a beloved president and later husband to their great hope. She’s implicated in the coverups, too. And she even allegedly thanked a woman he assaulted for her support. Now it turns out Clinton was an Epstein pal. He will never be convicted of anything, even if they had video. Too many people helped ignore and sweep his behavior under the rug. It’s still too inconvenient politically for the Ds.

Look up the Penn State child abuse scandals. Horrific and shocking. Joe Paterno, the beloved football coach had been told by one of his coaches that his buddy was seen raping a child and he did nothing. Even a man who later became Pennsylvania governor knew. THEY KNEW. It was not an insinuation. A man saw it happening. They all did nothing. Too inconvenient. Too awkward. And mainly because the football machine was more important.

Charles was not interested in popular culture. He pretended to be interested in the Three Degrees. The whole country was duped by Savile. As if anyone was listening to what John Lydon was saying about him.

The attempt to excuse and minimise CSA from a few posters is disturbing. The reports from the inquiry into Ball acknowledged he was treated too leniently. So they DID know. There is no doubt that Charles knew so much more. Only he could have got away with some of the 'explanations' he gave to the inquiry.

As I've said before all this on a parenting forum, primarily Mum's. 😓