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
Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/02/2024 13:21

I think she named The Queens cousin as the source for her book

Thanks for the response, Angrycat ... is this referring to Margaret Rhodes?

If so, then considering her response when Nicholas Witchell wanted her to blab about the Queen Mum's deathbed scene I'd be surprised if she was so indiscreet - but then she's dead too now, so isn't in a position to argue

Edited to add it might have been about Philip's passing, but a deathbed scene it certainly was and Witchell was rightly shut down pretty damned fast

Also yet another "The Crown" inaccuracy, since Camillla's outfit for the registry office was cream/ivory

Angrycat2768 · 05/02/2024 13:27

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/02/2024 13:21

I think she named The Queens cousin as the source for her book

Thanks for the response, Angrycat ... is this referring to Margaret Rhodes?

If so, then considering her response when Nicholas Witchell wanted her to blab about the Queen Mum's deathbed scene I'd be surprised if she was so indiscreet - but then she's dead too now, so isn't in a position to argue

Edited to add it might have been about Philip's passing, but a deathbed scene it certainly was and Witchell was rightly shut down pretty damned fast

Also yet another "The Crown" inaccuracy, since Camillla's outfit for the registry office was cream/ivory

Edited

I've just googled, and the source is named as Lady Elizabeth Anson. I have no idea who she is but according to Seward, she was just one of many confidantes who The Queen moaned about this to and presumably who have all, after her death, decided to blab.
What's the difference between white and ivory? Not that much!

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/02/2024 13:31

I've just googled, and the source is named as Lady Elizabeth Anson

Thanks once again, Angrycat - I really should have done that myself!!

I see that Lady Elizabeth Anson is now dead too, which might well be thought convenient for the author Hmm

Not sure about the difference between white and ivory as a symbol, but if The Crown were going for accuracy (yeah right Hmm) they might at least have got it correct

Angrycat2768 · 05/02/2024 13:43

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/02/2024 13:31

I've just googled, and the source is named as Lady Elizabeth Anson

Thanks once again, Angrycat - I really should have done that myself!!

I see that Lady Elizabeth Anson is now dead too, which might well be thought convenient for the author Hmm

Not sure about the difference between white and ivory as a symbol, but if The Crown were going for accuracy (yeah right Hmm) they might at least have got it correct

Edited

For me, the interesting thing is not so much who said what, but that clearly Ingrid Seward and the Daily Mail thought that revealing things like the dress and the name issues would make The Queen look like she was a woman of the people, and that slagging off wedding dresses and African American preachers would make The Queen look really great and the put upon party.
I think for many, it just makes them look like an extremely difficult family, who did a lot of bitching about someone who Harry wanted to marry. Which as almost every family in the world knows, only pushes the family member in question further into the arms of the disapproved of lover.
Maybe she should have done some reflection on the 'approved' spouses of her own children including someone who got someone else pregnant when they were married to your daughter who she then divorced, someone who lasted 8 years in a marriage to your son after she was caught sucking the toes of her financial advisor and possibly the most ill fated Royal marriage in modern history!

LaMarschallin · 05/02/2024 13:59

Angrycat2768

'Oh if I say something nasty but say it came from The Queen everyone will agree with me!' I was watching The Crown, and they had Camilla in a white dress for her civil ceremony. I only remember the blue church blessing dress, because I thought it was lovely, but a bit hypocritical. If the church agreed to marry a divorcee in church, it agreed to marry a divorcee in church. The dress is irrelevant

Of course. It's pure symbolism.
Otherwise it would look silly for a divorced woman to go up the aisle in an elaborate, embroidered veil, for example.

TallerSally · 05/02/2024 14:44

Of course. It's pure symbolism.
Otherwise it would look silly for a divorced woman to go up the aisle in an elaborate, embroidered veil, for example.

@LaMarschallin I get why people might be attached to the symbolism of various official robes, but even within the RF this isn't applied systematically.

Andrew The Disgraced Paedo-Befriender was allowed to wear his Order of the Garter outfit at the coronation (most ordinary people can't tell the difference between this and any other), Harry The Not Accused of Anything Serious, Let Alone Child Sexual Abuse was prevented from wearing his military uniform at the Queen's funeral, Camilla The Adulteress it would seem got to wear just what she wanted etc etc.

Doesn't the whole thing sound a little anachronistic?

OP posts:
LaMarschallin · 05/02/2024 16:42

Doesn't the whole thing sound a little anachronistic?

Absolutely.

I just felt a bit sorry for "Camilla the Adultereress" (cool new title - makes a change from "Queen", although I suppose that will be the actual one in the history books) if she was represented as anachronistically wearing a symbolic colour when she actually didn't. Maybe in an effort to be tactful, who knows?

That's all.

Angrycat2768 · 06/02/2024 08:31

LaMarschallin · 05/02/2024 16:42

Doesn't the whole thing sound a little anachronistic?

Absolutely.

I just felt a bit sorry for "Camilla the Adultereress" (cool new title - makes a change from "Queen", although I suppose that will be the actual one in the history books) if she was represented as anachronistically wearing a symbolic colour when she actually didn't. Maybe in an effort to be tactful, who knows?

That's all.

I mean I wouldn't take my word for it. My eyesight isn't the best...

TallerSally · 11/02/2024 09:32

Did you see this??

That the Prince of Sleaze was deluded and self-absorbed enough to think that reinserting his line about Pizza Express would get him off the hook is not the most shocking, we all know what a clueless, arrogant and morally-corrupt character he is.

What I find shocking is that the BBC’s instinct was to try to protect PA from ‘embarrassment’ by hiding his statements about pizza express from the general public.

what else have they been hiding from us? How can they justify such blatant disinformation in service of the Royal family?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-andrew-pizza-express-newsnight-b2490257.html

BBC nearly cut Andrew’s Pizza Express alibi from interview to save him from ridicule

‘It was clearly going to make him look ridiculous,’ ex-BBC ‘Newsnight’ presenter Emily Maitlis says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-andrew-pizza-express-newsnight-b2490257.html

OP posts:
upinaballoon · 11/02/2024 12:27

I thought white wedding dresses were for virgins. Call me old-fashioned if you will. Phil in the pub implied that virgins are a bit thin on the ground nowadays.

I thought Camilla's clothes for her second wedding were nice, and I liked the style of Meghan's dress for her second wedding.

Bugger 'The Crown'.

Fergie may well have sucked the toes of her financial advisor while he was lying topless in the sun, for all I know, but the photo which was plopped down on Prince Philip's breakfast table at Balmoral, while Fergie was staying there, showed Fergie lying topless in the sun, having her toes sucked by laddo. Did 'The Crown' get that bit wrong, too?

Puzzledandpissedoff · 11/02/2024 12:38

Interesting piece about Maitlis and the "Pizza Express alibi", TallerSally - as if the fallout from that interview could get any worse {hmm]

Novella4 · 11/02/2024 14:00

The entire image of the ‘royal’ family is a construct created by the media , particularly the tabloids . It’s the covert ( and in recent years overt ) propaganda that is employed to keep the ‘royals’ ensconced.

Its failing now .

We can see for ourselves when the Windsors slip up and unscripted video emerges - they are excruciatingly dull and intellectually challenged . William in particular has nothing to do but try to look ‘concerned ‘ about the poors and he can’t even pull that off .

AliceOlive · 11/02/2024 19:31

He wasn’t actually sucking her toes. He’s discussed it now. 🤣

AliceOlive · 11/02/2024 19:31

Or have I got it backward.

CathyorClaire · 11/02/2024 20:43

what else have they been hiding from us? How can they justify such blatant disinformation in service of the Royal family?

Royals say 'jump' and Auntie asks 'how high?'.

It's been the case since TLQ decided she didn't like the day in the life documentary made in the 60's and had it pulled. It continued with Willy 'demanding' the Diana interview is never shown again and the control exerted over (TBF not just the Beeb, other broadcasters too) what can now be shown of the coronation.

Disgraceful when it's the public paying for this servility.

TallerSally · 15/02/2024 07:33

CathyorClaire · 11/02/2024 20:43

what else have they been hiding from us? How can they justify such blatant disinformation in service of the Royal family?

Royals say 'jump' and Auntie asks 'how high?'.

It's been the case since TLQ decided she didn't like the day in the life documentary made in the 60's and had it pulled. It continued with Willy 'demanding' the Diana interview is never shown again and the control exerted over (TBF not just the Beeb, other broadcasters too) what can now be shown of the coronation.

Disgraceful when it's the public paying for this servility.

So true - a disgrace!

OP posts:
TallerSally · 15/02/2024 07:38

More embarrassment for King Charles and the Royal Family.

While they generate froth over baby names and titles, they are actively trying to cover up their decades-long cosying-up with paedophiles.

Something somewhere went horribly wrong, when it was an open secret that the likes of Jimmy Saville (and Epstein) were prolific paedos, yet they were welcomed with open arms by the Royal family. Might it not have been prudent, as the supposed moral leadership of the UK and head of the Church of England, to heed the rumours and not take the risk of associating with such characters?

Apologists, please take a ticket and line up here to make your excuses for the RF's conduct, and continued protection of Prince Andrew!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/14/king-charles-letter-of-thanks-to-jimmy-savile-for-auction/

King Charles’ letter of thanks to Jimmy Savile goes up for auction

His Majesty shows appreciation for a gift and seeks guidance over hospital donation in handwritten correspondence with the disgraced DJ

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/14/king-charles-letter-of-thanks-to-jimmy-savile-for-auction

OP posts:
Roussette · 15/02/2024 07:43

As it's behind a paywall, I have archived it so it can be read. The link is quite safe @TallerSally !

https://archive.ph/zFde9

Roussette · 15/02/2024 07:48

Have to say I find it quite unsavoury that someone somewhere is making money on the back of revolting Savile's name.

I would like to think that members of the royal family have stopped ingratiating themselves with such awful people

2dogsandabudgie · 15/02/2024 08:32

TallerSally - You're just going over the same old stuff.

Roussette · 15/02/2024 08:41

2dogsandabudgie · 15/02/2024 08:32

TallerSally - You're just going over the same old stuff.

To be fair to @TallerSally , the article she linked was actually published yesterday, I archived it if you want to read why it's popped up now 👍😊

Novella4 · 15/02/2024 09:33

2dogsandabudgie · 15/02/2024 08:32

TallerSally - You're just going over the same old stuff.

Hmm
Would you prefer it to be covered up as per ‘royal’ modus operandi?

None of their links to pedophiles have been disclosed / rejected / condemned by the ‘royals’
And this is why the issue won’t go away

Andrew swore on tv that he’d do all he could to help the FBI - instead he has hidden away under ‘royal’ protection . He was even paraded in their laughable ‘honourable’ regalia ( velvet curtains and best pig rosette) !
Decent people see the Windsors for what they are - they were finished when Elizabeth died - they just haven’t realised it yet

TallerSally · 15/02/2024 09:34

2dogsandabudgie · 15/02/2024 08:32

TallerSally - You're just going over the same old stuff.

And I will until perpetrators and their enablers get some form of apology, if not justice.

Perhaps spare a thought for some of the victims?

Hopefully it comes as a surprise to no-one that such trauma is lifelong? Hence many victims seeking some form of justice or at least an acknowledgment even decades after the events.

Perpetrators, enablers and look-the-other-way-ers don’t get a pass just because they are members of the Royal family!

OP posts:
Inkanta · 15/02/2024 09:54

Perpetrators, enablers and look-the-other-way-ers don’t get a pass just because they are members of the Royal family
Yes well said!

2dogsandabudgie · 15/02/2024 10:24

Novella - But we all know about the letters. They don't prove that King Charles knew Savile was a paedophile any more than Princess Diana allegedly saying that she found Savile creepy proves she did.

Why would King Charles be embarrassed now about the letters? He's got much more important things to worry about at the moment.

Swipe left for the next trending thread