Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

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

866 replies

TallerSally · 04/01/2024 14:50

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
40
CathyorClaire · 17/01/2024 20:26

Does anyone else remember an incident where he crashed his Range Rover and then left it for the little people to clean up?

Was that the one where he drove it through malfunctioning gates at Windsor rather than travel a mile to the next gate?

Anyone remember him spraying paint at reporters and saying he'd enjoyed it?

Man's an oaf.

AliceOlive · 17/01/2024 21:10

Livingtothefull · 17/01/2024 19:44

So this is turning into another H&M-hating thread. Plenty of those after all.....I thought it might just be a matter of time. Anything to distract from concerns about Andrew's conduct.

Another day on the RFF:

  • Completely off topic, a poster describes how poorly H&M were treated
  • Other posters respond with evidence to the contrary
  • Posters complain, asking why H&M became the topic
  • Posters calls the discussion another H&M hating thread

Who is creating the distraction here?

Alalain · 18/01/2024 06:54

The 'paying of rent' was a whitewash by the Palace, to appease the public and get the heat off H&M and the RF, as the general public were outraged about the vast waste of taxpayer money on a property that then became unoccupied.
The strong assumption at the time was that Charles is the one who paid it on behalf of Harry. If that is correct, I am sure that too will come out in due course.

Andrew is odious, I don't think anyone has any doubt about that. He was disliked even before the Epstein scandal was exposed.

TallerSally · 18/01/2024 10:21

Hilarious article in today's Times, which shows that at least some journos are seeing the latest M&H manufactured outrage as a handy distraction from the shameful cover-up of Prince Andrew's disgraceful behaviour.

And that the attempt to use the (nonsensical) Lilibet story as a diversion is back-firing, as it's making QEII look "petty and vindictive".

"The Queen was upset with Harry and Meghan over Lilibet? I don’t believe it
Another week and Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, are in hot water again... For instance, what’s it going to take for them to leave the paparazzi alone?
They just don’t make life easy for themselves, these two. (And, as a “royal source” has confirmed, “If it’ll distract from Prince Andrew, go for it.”)
...
This is not the Queen Elizabeth I wish to believe in. This is not the Queen I know. By “know” I mean the Queen I projected onto. She was so sphinx-like she could be who you wanted her to be. This is not the Queen I ever wanted her to be, or had in my head. This is not my Queen Elizabeth. My Queen was a mensch. My Queen was not a complainer. My Queen had tea parties with Paddington — I must have watched that a hundred times by now and still cry; it’s the marmalade sandwich in her handbag “for later” — and did not throw pity parties for herself. My Queen did not send out crisp invitations saying, “Pity party, 4pm. Buckingham Palace. Dress: black tie.” My Queen is not the Queen who looks at her golden carriages and racehorses and palaces and castles and paintings and then cries, “All I have is my name!” When it’s the one thing she doesn’t, in fact, own? Meghan and Harry. They have to take her down with them? They couldn’t see what it would mean if all this leaked out? They couldn’t see what they were doing, even though they didn’t do it?
Sorry, but I won’t believe it. I won’t believe Queen Elizabeth was petty and vindictive and also: what great-grandparent wouldn’t be delighted by having a great-grandchild named after them?"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-queen-was-upset-with-harry-and-meghan-over-lilibet-i-dont-believe-it-9kcrs9735

The Queen was upset with Harry and Meghan over Lilibet? I don’t believe it

Another week and Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, are in hot water again. What a pair. What a shower. And they are their own worst enemies. For instance, what’s it going to take for

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-queen-was-upset-with-harry-and-meghan-over-lilibet-i-dont-believe-it-9kcrs9735

OP posts:
BrittleVeneers · 18/01/2024 10:32

😂😂

But Damn I can’t read the whole article.

But thanks for the excerpt OP.

2dogsandabudgie · 18/01/2024 10:50

If Deborah Ross actually used those words in her article ( can't read as behind a pay wall) then I think journalism really has gone downhill. That is just embarrassing.

If I had a pet name that only a few people used I would be a bit upset if one of my grandchildren decided to have it as a name for one of their children. Pet names are very personal. If they had used Elizabeth that would have been different. Whether or not the Queen was as outraged as the Palace wants us to believe? No I don't believe that.

KarenNotAKaren · 18/01/2024 10:53

I have to say I don’t think the Queen would ah e been outraged at the name thing either.

Though it is a little strange to go on international TV and slag a woman off, and everything she stands for, to the world and make shocking accusations, only to then a few months later name your daughter after that same person.

Lampzade · 18/01/2024 12:03

So we are supposed to believe that the Queen channeled her inner Eddie Carbone ( protagonist from the play ‘View from a Bridge’ )or Tina Turner and demanded that she wanted her ‘name’.

In an attempt to discredit Harry and Meghan, their detractors were willing to besmirch the memory of the Queen by making her look
’petty and vindictive’.
Sad

AliceOlive · 18/01/2024 13:12

If the story is true, what part of it shows the the Queen being vindictive?

TallerSally · 18/01/2024 13:38

BrittleVeneers · 18/01/2024 10:32

😂😂

But Damn I can’t read the whole article.

But thanks for the excerpt OP.

Pleasure!

Not wanting to derail this thread about Shameful Andrew and the almost as shameful Royal family's inaction and cover-up attempts... but here's another amusing bit from today's Times article:

" Sorry, but I won’t believe it. I won’t believe Queen Elizabeth was petty and vindictive and also: what great-grandparent wouldn’t be delighted by having a great-grandchild named after them? I am, alas, resigned to the fact that I won’t have a granddaughter named Deborah. I googled the popularity of my name just now and it is, I’ve discovered, on the “going extinct” list. I’m on the “going extinct” list? There’s a discussion on Mumsnet prompted by someone saying they might name their daughter Deborah and she’s quickly brought round. “Oh, the poor thing,” one commenter says, “when there are so many nice names around.” Another just says, “Don’t do it!” Hang on, it’s not Adolf! As names tend to go in and out of fashion in two to three-generational cycles — hence so many Archies and Berties and Stanleys and Violets and Maudes today — I am more hopeful on the great-granddaughter front, and I’m telling you, I wouldn’t kick off, whatever the circumstances. I’d be dead chuffed. Dead mostly, by that time, but you get my drift.
I just, I suppose, hate anything that shows Queen Elizabeth in anything less than a glorious light. And it is all Harry and Meghan’s fault. They couldn’t have called that baby Pam?"

😂

OP posts:
Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar · 18/01/2024 14:21

Funny how the Murdoch press is ok when it suits you. Just goes to show that most of the papers actually do have a variety of opinions from different commentators with different points of view.

Grandmasswag · 18/01/2024 16:03

CathyorClaire · 17/01/2024 20:26

Does anyone else remember an incident where he crashed his Range Rover and then left it for the little people to clean up?

Was that the one where he drove it through malfunctioning gates at Windsor rather than travel a mile to the next gate?

Anyone remember him spraying paint at reporters and saying he'd enjoyed it?

Man's an oaf.

I’d forgotten about that. They discussed it on the recent podcast with Norman Baker and he said it caused 80,000 worth of damage !? That the tax payer had to pick up.

CathyorClaire · 18/01/2024 16:09

I’d forgotten about that. They discussed it on the recent podcast with Norman Baker and he said it caused 80,000 worth of damage !? That the tax payer had to pick up.

😡

It just gets worse, doesn't it?

Puzzledandpissedoff · 18/01/2024 16:56

Grandmasswag · 18/01/2024 16:03

I’d forgotten about that. They discussed it on the recent podcast with Norman Baker and he said it caused 80,000 worth of damage !? That the tax payer had to pick up.

I hadn't Hmm

I don't know what kind of mentality you have to possess to ram a gate rather than taking a short detour, but unfortunately it's one the RF are clearly happy to enable

Angrycat2768 · 18/01/2024 17:32

TallerSally · 18/01/2024 13:38

Pleasure!

Not wanting to derail this thread about Shameful Andrew and the almost as shameful Royal family's inaction and cover-up attempts... but here's another amusing bit from today's Times article:

" Sorry, but I won’t believe it. I won’t believe Queen Elizabeth was petty and vindictive and also: what great-grandparent wouldn’t be delighted by having a great-grandchild named after them? I am, alas, resigned to the fact that I won’t have a granddaughter named Deborah. I googled the popularity of my name just now and it is, I’ve discovered, on the “going extinct” list. I’m on the “going extinct” list? There’s a discussion on Mumsnet prompted by someone saying they might name their daughter Deborah and she’s quickly brought round. “Oh, the poor thing,” one commenter says, “when there are so many nice names around.” Another just says, “Don’t do it!” Hang on, it’s not Adolf! As names tend to go in and out of fashion in two to three-generational cycles — hence so many Archies and Berties and Stanleys and Violets and Maudes today — I am more hopeful on the great-granddaughter front, and I’m telling you, I wouldn’t kick off, whatever the circumstances. I’d be dead chuffed. Dead mostly, by that time, but you get my drift.
I just, I suppose, hate anything that shows Queen Elizabeth in anything less than a glorious light. And it is all Harry and Meghan’s fault. They couldn’t have called that baby Pam?"

😂

Honestly. I don't know whether the aides are so out of touch and trigger happy they just thought ' This'll show how disgusted The Queen was about those two' or if they actually are working with the Royals approval. But you can just imagine them running around thinking ' This'll sound Great!' Not thinking for one minute that they have made The Queen, one of the richest women in the world sound petty and nasty about her newborn Great granddaughter.

DRS1970 · 18/01/2024 17:36

Hi, OP. So from your original post I guess we can conclude that apart from all that, he alright...

🫢

AliceOlive · 18/01/2024 17:46

It’s truly only about Lilibet to people who can’t read or are being willfully ignorant.

We have all seen these same poster go apoplectic if they feel someone is putting words in their mouth here.

AliceOlive · 18/01/2024 17:55

Wrong thread

Atethehalloweenchocs · 21/01/2024 19:22

Seems like we have moved on from Lilibet to health scares. Distract, distract, distract.......

spanieleyes · 21/01/2024 19:24

Oh absolutely, they clearly all planned to have serious health issues at the same time just to distract 😳

BrittleVeneers · 22/01/2024 10:09

Seems like we have moved on from Lilibet to health scares. Distract, distract, distract.......

I think some ‘royal experts’ got a bit of a shock that even people who don’t usually pay much attention to the British royal family took notice of the Lilibet stuff and got quite angry about the dragging of a little child into a controversy. I think it was an mis- step by the author and the British media.

Edited to say that yes, the storm in a tea cup could have been a distraction. Not from Kate or Charles being sick though, imo. From something else.

Mylovelygreendress · 22/01/2024 10:19

BrittleVeneers · 22/01/2024 10:09

Seems like we have moved on from Lilibet to health scares. Distract, distract, distract.......

I think some ‘royal experts’ got a bit of a shock that even people who don’t usually pay much attention to the British royal family took notice of the Lilibet stuff and got quite angry about the dragging of a little child into a controversy. I think it was an mis- step by the author and the British media.

Edited to say that yes, the storm in a tea cup could have been a distraction. Not from Kate or Charles being sick though, imo. From something else.

Edited

Apart from on MN i haven’t seen any articles “ dragging a little child into a controversy “. The blame for the child’s name and any comments is down to her parents .

SparklingBubbly · 22/01/2024 17:37

Mylovelygreendress · 22/01/2024 10:19

Apart from on MN i haven’t seen any articles “ dragging a little child into a controversy “. The blame for the child’s name and any comments is down to her parents .

Yeah I haven’t seen anything like that?

“Oi, Lilibet, explain yourself.”
”Googoo gaga”

BrittleVeneers · 22/01/2024 20:27

Mylovelygreendress · 22/01/2024 10:19

Apart from on MN i haven’t seen any articles “ dragging a little child into a controversy “. The blame for the child’s name and any comments is down to her parents .

Actually no -‘ the blame is not down to her parents.’

And naming a child is surely not a ‘blaming’ matter. I’d be looking to blame the bloke that wrote the book, or ‘journalists’ in the tabloid media, or the lemmings on social media who echo them. All they have done is portray the late Queen as petty and ridiculous. Which I really can’t believe she was. I think the storm in a teacup is hurtful to her memory, otherwise it’s ridiculous.

Mylovelygreendress · 22/01/2024 20:43

Of all the names in the world they chose a name very personal to the late Queen . Hmm I wonder why ?
So yes I do blame the parents .