Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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
BrittleVeneers · 22/01/2024 21:16

Even Robert Hartman, looking quite frustrated and weary I must say, has said it was not Lilibet being called Lilibet that ‘upset the Queen’. He’s sort of back tracking or it seems a bit that way. I’ve neither read the book, nor the serialisation in the DM, but he’s not comfortable with how this is being portrayed.

In an interview he said that the Queen did not have a problem with her nickname, Lilibet being used. ‘It wasn’t to do with the actual naming of the child. She adores Harry, she adored Lilibet’ .

Hartman was saying the Queen was upset because they did not tell her first - or something. (So people now can give up blaming the parents for the using the name - which as Robert Hartman said, was not the problem).

It’s hard to work out exactly what the Queen was ‘upset’ about. If it wasn’t the name - as the author has said - what’s the problem? That they didn’t tell her first, but she was delighted anyway?

meercat23 · 22/01/2024 21:45

He has not backtracked, he has just made clear what exactly he was saying caused the upset. i.e. not the naming as such but the claim from H that HMQ had been asked for and been given her support rather than having been told.

The various summaries in the printed press have drawn their own conclusions and added their own spin.

BrittleVeneers · 22/01/2024 21:54

Thanks meerkat.

So the anger at H&M is not about them actually naming their daughter Lilibet. And this from the words of the author himself:

That will come as a bit of a shock to the outraged ones.

And tabloid spin is yet again to blame. As are the perpetually-angry-at-Harry and Meghan, and the ‘royal experts’.

so is it time for ‘pivot’?

AliceOlive · 22/01/2024 22:07

@BrittleVeneers
It seems like you haven't read the articles. What then are you going off of here? Because what you wrote about really has no bearing on what he said happened.

AliceOlive · 22/01/2024 22:09

@BrittleVeneers Didn't even read @meercat23 reply, either, did you? Because it's stated very plainly there.

BrittleVeneers · 22/01/2024 22:44

Did you read what I wrote? She wasn’t upset about the name being used. Which is what many people on her were upset about: that they used her ‘special name’

BrittleVeneers · 22/01/2024 22:46

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 .

from greendress.

Novella4 · 23/01/2024 09:34

There’s a lot of backtracking and ‘clarifying ‘ going on constantly from the ‘royals’ these days after almost every ‘leak’ and statement.

Its almost as if they are slowly realising the old spin and manipulation isn’t working on most people and they really don’t know how to deal….

Lampzade · 23/01/2024 10:07

BrittleVeneers · 22/01/2024 21:54

Thanks meerkat.

So the anger at H&M is not about them actually naming their daughter Lilibet. And this from the words of the author himself:

That will come as a bit of a shock to the outraged ones.

And tabloid spin is yet again to blame. As are the perpetually-angry-at-Harry and Meghan, and the ‘royal experts’.

so is it time for ‘pivot’?

The ‘outraged’ are looking for reasons to be outraged when it comes to H and M.
Always seemed like a non story to me.

LolaSmiles · 23/01/2024 10:21

There's obviously a group of people, for whatever reason, feel so strongly about the royal family, picking their "side", looking for ways to criticise the other "side", but I genuinely think most people's stance on the comings and goings of the royal family is just them having opinions on public figures based on what's out there.

I'd not say I'm outraged by the name choice, but just think it's an odd decision, whether the person doing it is royal or not. I'd equally find it unusual if someone posted on MN "I've got a strained relationship with my family. They've been awful to us as a couple for years. I feel we've been hung or to dry and they're all complicit in it. The whole situation is toxic, has ruined our mental health, and we've been low contact for years. I want to use Nanny's unusual childhood nickname for my baby though."
Nobody owns a name and there's nothing to be outraged about, but it's a bit strange.

TallerSally · 23/01/2024 11:19

Returning to the topic of this thread, Prince Daily 'Massages' Andrew.

Does anyone else suspect he is using his ex-wife's illness as an excuse to stay at Royal Lodge? There's been more than usual chatter about that in recent days.

As if dealing with grave illness necessarily requires living in a 30-bedroom multi-million pound tax-payer funded castle.

OP posts:
AliceOlive · 23/01/2024 11:40

BrittleVeneers · 22/01/2024 22:44

Did you read what I wrote? She wasn’t upset about the name being used. Which is what many people on her were upset about: that they used her ‘special name’

That’s not what the author said.

LolaSmiles · 23/01/2024 12:45

TallerSally
I think he'll probably jump from excuse to excuse to keep his ability to hide away in relative luxury.
He's worked out that if he keeps his head down overall then not much will be printed about him and he can probably avoid too much scrutiny.

Alalain · 23/01/2024 12:53

The author said the Queen was upset that H&M made a public statement saying they had ASKED the queen if they could use her nickname, which the author said was a lie, as they never ASKED the Queen if they could use her nickname.

The discussion here was posters commenting that WE (the posters on here ) thought it was totally weird to give their daughter a nickname as a given name.

Nothing will change my opinion on that, it was beyond strange and clearly was done for reasons other than a loving tribute to the Queen.

No backtracking at all.

Alalain · 23/01/2024 12:57

I thought he had an iron clad lease on Royal lodge which he is clinging on to for dear life, sounds like he won't budge an inch on that.

Don't know how his wife's illness can be interpreted as him using that to stay in Royal Lodge.

Lifestooshort71 · 23/01/2024 12:58

TallerSally · 23/01/2024 11:19

Returning to the topic of this thread, Prince Daily 'Massages' Andrew.

Does anyone else suspect he is using his ex-wife's illness as an excuse to stay at Royal Lodge? There's been more than usual chatter about that in recent days.

As if dealing with grave illness necessarily requires living in a 30-bedroom multi-million pound tax-payer funded castle.

Is it tax-payer funded? He paid £1m in 2003 to secure the lease for 75 years and his landlord is the Crown Estates. There is a repairing covenant on the property which, if he fails to fulfill, could be used to eventually evict him. The King has said he won't pay for the repairs but an inheritance from the late Queen is helping him at the moment and I've read that Sarah is chipping in to pay some bills as well. Willing to be proved wrong about the 'tax-payer funded' claim though....

TallerSally · 23/01/2024 13:23

@Lifestooshort71
He paid £1m in 2003 to secure the lease for 75 years and his landlord is the Crown Estates

Sounds like an absolute bargain for a 30-bedroom royal palace, don't you think? Even £1m per year would be a bargain at market rates. I wonder who's paying the difference?

And regardless, it is decidedly NOT a good look for King Charles to be allowing child sex-abuse accused and settled out of court Prince Andrew to be blatantly living in such excessive luxury, having faced close to no significant consequences (and certainly nothing commensurate) for his actions, or the damage he has done to the Royal family and the reputation of Britain and its army of Prince Andrew defenders.

And before folks start again with the "he hasn't been proven guilty" line, please just read upthread!

King Charles is the king, he could evict Prince Andrew tomorrow morning if he wanted to. What would Prince Andrew do? Sue him?

Come. on.

OP posts:
AliceOlive · 23/01/2024 13:38

Do you want everyone that has been accused of a crime by anyone to be evicted? Even before they are charged?

Do want Andrew to move in next to you?

Roussette · 23/01/2024 14:16

Andrew is welcome to move in next to me, I do a good line in evil stares!

Of course he's clinging on for dear life, it's a loss of status to move from a 98 acre Royal Estate to somewhere smaller. Him and his ex wife of 30.years pay tiddly squat for this privilege. And as Sarah miraculously managed to buy a £6M Mayfair town house, why isn't she living there?
(Please note, the purchase of this was well before she got poorly for which I hope she gets better)

Lifestooshort71 · 23/01/2024 15:26

TallerSally · 23/01/2024 13:23

@Lifestooshort71
He paid £1m in 2003 to secure the lease for 75 years and his landlord is the Crown Estates

Sounds like an absolute bargain for a 30-bedroom royal palace, don't you think? Even £1m per year would be a bargain at market rates. I wonder who's paying the difference?

And regardless, it is decidedly NOT a good look for King Charles to be allowing child sex-abuse accused and settled out of court Prince Andrew to be blatantly living in such excessive luxury, having faced close to no significant consequences (and certainly nothing commensurate) for his actions, or the damage he has done to the Royal family and the reputation of Britain and its army of Prince Andrew defenders.

And before folks start again with the "he hasn't been proven guilty" line, please just read upthread!

King Charles is the king, he could evict Prince Andrew tomorrow morning if he wanted to. What would Prince Andrew do? Sue him?

Come. on.

However much of a slimeball he is, his accommodation is not tax-payer funded, is it?

Novella4 · 23/01/2024 15:36

Everything they have is tax payer funded

Atethehalloweenchocs · 23/01/2024 15:44

*Novella4 · Today 15:36

Everything they have is tax payer funded*

Well said. Despite all the shenanigans to confuse the issue and obfuscate the relationship between their 'personal' money and what they are given.

TallerSally · 23/01/2024 15:49

Highlights from Andrew's life, from the Independent:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-andrew-sarah-ferguson-york-relationship-b2483033.html

"After leaving the Royal Navy after 22 years service he became the UK’s special representative for international trade and investment, but his 10 years in the role generated a great deal of controversy.
He faced questions over his connections to politicians in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tunisia, Libya and Turkmenistan.
And his judgment was further questioned after he held meetings with Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s son Saif, and when he entertained the son-in-law of Tunisia’s ousted president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali at Buckingham Palace.
His relations with Timur Kulibayev, son-in-law of the then-president of Kazakhstan, were also scrutinised after Mr Kulibayev purchased the duke’s Sunninghill Park home for £3 million more than its £12 million asking price in 2007.
Simon Wilson – Britain’s deputy head of mission in Bahrain from 2001 to 2005 – wrote in the Daily Mail that the duke was “more commonly known among the British diplomatic community in the Gulf as HBH: His Buffoon Highness”.
However it was his relationship with American financier and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein that shattered his reputation and led to his banishment from front line royal duties [Andrew has always fiercely denied any wrongdoing].
Andrew paid millions to settle a civil sexual assault lawsuit to a woman he claimed never to have met, Virginia Guiffre. He denied the claims and attempted to clear his name in an infamous Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis that heaped further humiliation on the duke."

Expert Grifter Fergie (to whom we wish the best-health-wise, of course) got off relatively lightly with:
"The duchess became embroiled in one of the most notorious royal scandals ever after being pictured having her toes sucked by multimillionaire businessman John Bryan while she sunbathed topless in the south of France"

And still, Andrew is lording it away in Royal Lodge, with the King's blessing...

He'd better hope that King Charles lives a long life - rumour has it William and Kate are keen to move into Royal Lodge... all a bit childish (and a waste of tax-payers money) but we'll see who prevails.

The extraordinary history of Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew’s relationship

The former royal couple have been divorced for 28 years but still share a lasting bond - here we look back at their relationship

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-andrew-sarah-ferguson-york-relationship-b2483033.html

OP posts:
derxa · 23/01/2024 16:40

Roussette · 23/01/2024 14:16

Andrew is welcome to move in next to me, I do a good line in evil stares!

Of course he's clinging on for dear life, it's a loss of status to move from a 98 acre Royal Estate to somewhere smaller. Him and his ex wife of 30.years pay tiddly squat for this privilege. And as Sarah miraculously managed to buy a £6M Mayfair town house, why isn't she living there?
(Please note, the purchase of this was well before she got poorly for which I hope she gets better)

98 acres isn't very big

AliceOlive · 23/01/2024 17:26

That article brings up so many interesting topics. Which publication broke the toe related photos? @TallerSally Are you glad to know about this particular entanglement or do you consider it intrusive? Where is the line here?

Do you feel any sympathy for a younger bride who says she didn’t know what she was getting into by marrying into the royal family? Were you surprised to see that Sarah only saw Andrew for 40 days a year while they were married?

Swipe left for the next trending thread