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
TallerSally · 23/01/2024 18:07

@AliceOlive I'm more interested (particularly on this thread) in the fact that Sarah 'Grifter' Ferguson visited Epstein's Florida property, which was allegedly adorned with sexually suggestive photos of trafficked girls, and where she must have noticed under-age girls lounging around between their thrice-daily rapes (read the latest release of Epstein files), yet left and didn't say or do anything.

Further, her beloved Andrew reportedly spent weeks on end at Epstein's estate getting 'daily massages'. Did she really not know what he was doing there?

Smell a rat?

OP posts:
2dogsandabudgie · 23/01/2024 18:26

Do any of the girls/young women say they remember seeing Sarah Ferguson?

AliceOlive · 23/01/2024 18:37

2dogsandabudgie · 23/01/2024 18:26

Do any of the girls/young women say they remember seeing Sarah Ferguson?

I wondered that also.

AliceOlive · 23/01/2024 18:39

TallerSally · 23/01/2024 18:07

@AliceOlive I'm more interested (particularly on this thread) in the fact that Sarah 'Grifter' Ferguson visited Epstein's Florida property, which was allegedly adorned with sexually suggestive photos of trafficked girls, and where she must have noticed under-age girls lounging around between their thrice-daily rapes (read the latest release of Epstein files), yet left and didn't say or do anything.

Further, her beloved Andrew reportedly spent weeks on end at Epstein's estate getting 'daily massages'. Did she really not know what he was doing there?

Smell a rat?

Ok, I got confused because of the article you posted and because of the long quote including details about that incident.

Livingtothefull · 23/01/2024 19:43

2dogsandabudgie · 23/01/2024 18:26

Do any of the girls/young women say they remember seeing Sarah Ferguson?

Would they have known who she was?

HowDoYouSolveAProblemLikeMyRear · 23/01/2024 19:59

Puzzledandpissedoff · 04/01/2024 15:28

Yes it's hideous, but doubtless the palace have worked out that, if they make one paedophile pal pay too heavily, people might move onto the next one who just happens to have the "top job"

Then there are the details Andrew may be able to release if they upset him too much, so overall it may be thought better to keep him inside the tent pissing out, rather than risk attention spreading to others

It sounds like you're implying that King Charles is a paedophile.

Do you have any evidence at all to support that? Or do you imagine it's ethical and legal to make such a serious accusation based on the fact that you think he should have disowned his brother?

HowDoYouSolveAProblemLikeMyRear · 23/01/2024 20:06

derxa · 23/01/2024 16:40

98 acres isn't very big

I'd imagine that the average UK home is on less than 1/8 acre.

So yes, I'd say 98 acres is fairly big 🙄

goodbyestranger · 23/01/2024 20:07

Charles has masses of skeletons in his cupboard.

This is a deeply flawed family.

GrouchyKiwi · 23/01/2024 20:08

derxa · 23/01/2024 16:40

98 acres isn't very big

I dunno. I grew up on 20 acres. For anything but a farm 98 acres is pretty big.

goodbyestranger · 23/01/2024 20:11

98 acres in Windsor doesn't in any way compare to 98 acres in a rural location.

derxa · 23/01/2024 20:11

GrouchyKiwi · 23/01/2024 20:08

I dunno. I grew up on 20 acres. For anything but a farm 98 acres is pretty big.

I was joking. It's the very specific acreage which cracks me up. Would 38 acres be acceptable?

goodbyestranger · 23/01/2024 20:12

38 acres wouldn't be acceptable but a cell measuring 6' by 10' might do the trick.

GrouchyKiwi · 23/01/2024 20:13

derxa · 23/01/2024 20:11

I was joking. It's the very specific acreage which cracks me up. Would 38 acres be acceptable?

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Grin

CathyorClaire · 23/01/2024 20:49

It sounds like you're implying that King Charles is a paedophile.

Sounds more like an implication that Chuck also had paedophile pals.

Which he did.

CathyorClaire · 23/01/2024 20:52

I'm more interested (particularly on this thread) in the fact that Sarah 'Grifter' Ferguson visited Epstein's Florida property

Always, always worth noting that Epstein had more contact numbers for Fergie than even Andrew in his 'little black book'.

Atethehalloweenchocs · 23/01/2024 21:04

*I'd imagine that the average UK home is on less than 1/8 acre.

So yes, I'd say 98 acres is fairly big*

Particularly when the Royal Institute of British Architects points out how many new builds in the UK are smaller than the space standards for building in the UK. So tax payers are squeezing into houses too small for their needs, while their hard earned tax money supports this freeloader.

Roussette · 23/01/2024 21:09

derxa · 23/01/2024 16:40

98 acres isn't very big

Tiny yeah! My parents had an acre and it seemed enormous.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 23/01/2024 21:53

HowDoYouSolveAProblemLikeMyRear · 23/01/2024 19:59

It sounds like you're implying that King Charles is a paedophile.

Do you have any evidence at all to support that? Or do you imagine it's ethical and legal to make such a serious accusation based on the fact that you think he should have disowned his brother?

Oh please, not AGAIN Hmm

Though this is an all too frequent gambit from his many excusers, nowhere in any post have I suggested Charles is himself a paedophile; what I've said instead is that he's a pal of paedophiles and has a record of enabling them, which is demonstrably true

Whether he's done this knowingly is debatable, but that doesn't change the fact that a curious number of such people have done rather well out their friendships with him - just like his brother's many seedy associates

TallerSally · 27/01/2024 10:57

Ah, the convenient smokescreen of national concern for ill royals (fair enough) and the usual boring BS faux outrage about H&M doing bla bla bla ZZZzzzzzz....

Prince Andrew must be delighted that his army of royal cult members have taken a break from twisting themselves into curls defending him, while slagging off his alleged child sex abuse victims and anyone daring to criticise him, to instead fill pages and pages on MN and elsewhere throwing bombs at H&M instead.

Why are people so easily manipulated? Is it that dealing with child sexual abuse within the British aristocracy is just too uncomfortable for many to deal with, and incongruent with the image of royal perfection they have so eagerly bought into, and continue to defend come what may?

OP posts:
goodbyestranger · 27/01/2024 11:23

Excellent post TallerSally 👏

LolaSmiles · 27/01/2024 13:21

Can't speak for anyone else but I think the whole thing is like Jeremy Kyle with all the trappings of wealth and power.

Whether it's Kate or anyone else, I don't think anyone should be pushed and hounded to release their medical information to nobody gossips.

Whether it's H&M or anyone else, if people have traumatic experiences with a family then all power to them for cutting ties and building a life outside the family, but clinging to things and airing laundry isn't going to go down well.

Whether it's Andrew or anyone else, nobody should be beyond the law, they should be subjected to the law, and not be able to hide behind money, power and connections. I'm cynically of the view whilst his behaviour is unacceptable, he's a useful fall guy for all the other rich and powerful men involved in those circles.

TallerSally · 27/01/2024 13:58

@LolaSmiles there is always a danger in conflating issues that are unrelated other than by the family links of those in question.

Only one of the RF members on your list stands accused of committing a crime, for which he is still wanted by the FBI, for which he refusing to cooperate with the justice system (but happy to mouth off about his innocence on the BBC, supported by BP), and as a result of which dares not step foot on US soil.

Only one paid an alleged £10m to settle out of court with Virginia Giuffre while claiming to have never met her.

The UK media is desperate to do just what your above post sounds like it’s doing: associating Andrew and Harry. Everywhere you read “Problem Princes Andrew and Harry”, as if Harry was wanted by the criminal justice system anywhere in the world, or had been very credibly accused of committing crimes as heinous as multiple child rapes.

Plus, “fall guy”?? When did Prince Andrew fall, exactly? Last I checked it was the likes of Epstein or French model agent Brunel who not only got caught but (deservedly) offed themselves while in the joint.

Meanwhile, Andrew is lolling about in a 30 bedroom Royal Lodge, organising hunting parties and, who knows, maybe even on MN joining into any number of “M&H-bashing PART 178” pile-ons which some people seem addicted to.

Admittedly KC is clearly otherwise preoccupied. But I suspect many in the UK aren’t going to let his failure to make Prince Andrew face real consequences for his despicable actions get swept under the carpet forever…

OP posts:
LolaSmiles · 27/01/2024 14:14

TallerSally
When it comes to the suggestion that people are brainwashed and love the main royals whilst hating on others, the fact that many people think the whole institution is riddled with problems is relevant though.

Andrew hasn't fallen properly yet, but he's the one people are focusing on and there's absolutely no way he's the only rich and powerful man who's implicated in this. I don't think he was the smartest or most powerful man in those circles and there's probably a lot of men also up to their neck in this sort of stuff that are sitting tight. Andrew is a useful distraction from the bigger picture.

The thing that I'm intrigued about is how someone managed to do a deal with Epstein that meant no charges could be brought against any of Epstein's co-conspirators. It raises much bigger questions about who was involved when deals were brokered ensuring influential men weren't going to be prosecuted for having sex with minors. So far there's not been many answers there but it's got to be much bigger than Andrew.

TallerSally · 27/01/2024 14:37

Lola,
Andrew hasn't fallen properly yet, but he's the one people are focusing on

… on these RF boards. Folks working in Canary Wharf or St James may be more focused on JP Morgan’s Jess Staley or ex-Apollo Leon Black, among others.

There is no doubt that hundreds of powerful and wealthy child rapists in Epstein’s orbit are still walking free.

But they are not the focus on this RF board. Here, the scandal is Andrew being allowed to escape facing any serious consequences for his actions, and the RF and British media and establishment’s determination to cover up the entire scandal of Prince Andrew (and his possibly “turn a blind eye “ ex-wife) and their beloved friends, convicted prolific paedo Epstein and child sex trafficker Maxwell.

Whats frustrating is there is a real opportunity for the King and RF to show real moral leadership here, not least for the victims sakes. Instead we get inaction, cover-up, leaks about how H&M named their baby, and performative speeches from Camilla about gender-based violence.

What do these people stand for???

OP posts:
Novella4 · 27/01/2024 17:22

Exactly @TallerSally
Moral leadership - thats the least the ‘royals’ could offer .
Yet they offer the opposite

Swipe left for the next trending thread