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.

Well said.

Apparently he'll have to suffer the hell of a smaller free house.

The real victim.

At the time, in the Uk, 16 and 17 yr olds weren’t considered children. They were able to leave school, get work, live alone. They certainly had older boyfriends. I didn’t date anyone the same age as me until I went to uni.

I was asked out by men much older than me, and had boyfriends in their late twenties.

He wouldn’t have seen them as children but as sex workers or party girls.

He won’t have heard of grooming or trafficking. Slavery had been abolished. Girls wanted to sleep with the prince. It was a different world. The sun counted down til Sam Fox was 16, same with Charlotte Church later. 16 was legal that’s all anyone cared about He could easily have managed not to think about it.

Those women have been incredibly brave to bring their case against Epstein and Guiffre. Clearly there was calculated deliberate targeting of girls to build a ‘stable’.

Try as you might, this has absolutely nothing to do with Meghan and Harry. This is about sex trafficking of young vulnerable girls. And a close member of the RF involved in that (to what extent we will never know) and the King and his family showing support for that individual.

The RF aren't selling property, what does that mean? Where has that come from? They hang on to the 27 properties and Royal estates that they have... some owned by the Crown, some in personal possession. They'll hardly be selling Balmoral to pay off Andrew will they?

You talk of Agendas, to be honest... I think you are the one with one. I just want the RF to behave like they should. They hold themselves up as appointed by God and very special. They need to set an example to the rest of us if that is what they trade on.

The man is evil and should be in prison, our own Queen used the public purse to hush it up and he's still being protected now.

Fuck the royal family.

yeh, of course, not shocked at all, and Prince Andrew feels like the victim, 100% feels like the victim because at the time, he thought that these very young women were honoured to sleep with him. These loose women got to sleep with a prince and the honour was all theirs. If he doesn't remember, that's why.

He won’t have heard of grooming or trafficking

Absolute tosh! And he said himself totally differently in his carcrash interview.

Here...
there was no indication, absolutely no indication. And if there was, you have to remember that at the time I was patron of the NSPCC's Full Stop campaign so I was close up with what was going on in those time about getting rid of abuse to children so I knew what the things were to look for but I never saw them.

Now.... bear in mind, there is footage I can link of him opening the door at JE's NY mansion and a girl who looks about 13 going out and back in the door, I think we can safely assume he saw young girls there.

We aren't talking about the 70s or 80s, we are talking about just over a decade ago and more. Of course as patron of NSPCC he will have heard of grooming and trafficking. He just imagined young girls fell at his feet because he was a Prince and was entitled to what he wanted

Completely agree OP. I just find it disturbing that his daughters would’ve been the same age or similar age to these poor young woman on that “island”.

i don’t know how Buckingham Palace could ever confirm it was true and deliver a consequence that the public would be happy with.

To remind us... Andrew explaining why he kept in contact with Epstein a convicted sex offender.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1743117926633209881

... though HMTQ was incredibly rich in her own right, not all their money is tax payers money

This is true, and as you rightly say people can spend their own money however they like, though using it inappropriately often leads to consequences for the rest of us

Unfortunately though, the public/private money argument's a bit spoiled by the many recorded times the RF, even the late Queen, have tried to use what should have been public assets for their own benefit - and that's allowing for their constant attempts to make sure the rest of us have no idea what they're doing

Victoria was practically bankrupt .
She begged parliament for money and she bought Sandringham. That’s what they call private .

All the ‘royals’ have, they stole .
How the Windsor’s wealth has ballooned in recent years , particularly since their years of campaigning to stop using the Civil list bore fruit with the tories , needs looked at .
But that’s another thread .

Didn't she also use the same ruse to buy Balmoral?
How is the RF wealthy in their own right? They have never done anything to earn that wealth. They have 'gifts' given to them by the colonies ( or stolen/ taken by force, some would say) as well as lands taken from the British people over centuries and passed down to them, then exacerbated by preferential tax treatment and exemptions that they campaign for from legislation, offshore holdings etc etc.

Wow. Fully agree, @Roussette

at the time I was patron of the NSPCC's Full Stop campaign so I was close up with what was going on in those time about getting rid of abuse to children so I knew what the things were to look for but I never saw them.

Just like Rolf Harris: the child abuser hiding in plain sight, like they are so good at doing.

I don't believe for one second that Prince Andrew didn't know he was abusing trafficked girls. He simply believed as he was the God-appointed Prince second in line of succession to the British throne, he could get away with it. Again, that's on page 1 of the child abuser handbook: how many of them hold positions in society which bring them in contact with children, and which they exploit to hide in plain sight, avoid getting caught, and avoid prosecution if they do get caught?

But ultimately, I'm not that interested in his motives at the time, I'm more interested in his equally despicable conduct now that he and his acolytes have been caught, and in the conduct of the Royal Family and their apologists in the media and elsewhere, who are continuing to protect him and trying to stuff their attempts at rehabilitating him down our throats.

Lying, lying, lying and denying, while settling out of court partly using tax-payer funds and evading the FBI at all costs.

And bear in mind Eugenie is Patron of an anti slavery and trafficking charity and has been for a long time. Given how close the family are (as they like to tell us continually), I am sure she would've been talking to Daddy about Key to Freedom, an initiative she set up to end trafficking.

They must think we're stupid. Of course he knew about trafficking, it was in plain sight in front of his eyes.

I agree... how it happened is irrelevant now. It's how it's portrayed now with his family standing beside him. I was so so disappointed to see William taking a stand, and sticking his wife in the back whilst he drove with Andrew in the front. He didn't have to do that. Andrew could've gone with security personnel, but no, the RF like to send out messages to us. And I've received it loud and clear.

I expect the Royals have among the best investment advice and a diverse portfolio of safe and riskier short and longer-term investments.

Then there's rents on properties and I'm not entirely sure what use they put all their private land to.

It's easy to see how their wealth could have ballooned. I'm broke but even I could have been relatively wealthy had I the advice and financial wisdom to take advantage of the dot.com and software technology boom of the last 2 decades.

Moving on...

As a CSA survivor myself, I actually don't believe his training via the NSPCC would necessarily have equipped Andrew to notice and understand what sexual abuse in women of 'consent age' looks like. Or trafficking for that matter. The concept of trafficking being applicable to people transported domestically for the purposes of sex is relatively new, because even I was surprised to hear it applied in that way the first time I heard it which was about 15 years ago. The idea that Jenny's abusive partner John drives her to his mates house in another county or town so he can film them having sex (rape) and get some cash and that reluctant Jenny is not just being abused and exploited but sex trafficked is relatively new. People previously had this view that it was women chained and forced to work against their will in brothels abroad!

People still unbelievably have this idea that sexual abuse victims look obviously miserable and vulnerable. The amount of people online who said Giuffre was up for it and not innocent because she appeared willing (and maybe in ignorance thought she really was receiving a great opportunity at the time) and helped recruit other girls, shows that people have this concept of abuse always being associated with obvious misery in some way.

I lived in various homeless shelters - including a domestic violence shelter and at face value, you wouldn't have had much sympathy for some of the abused, ex trafficked girls I encountered. Girls with address books with men they can hook up with to get some money, girls laughing afterwards about what they did sexually. Crass jokes. Everyone of them was so groomed or had been taught so well by their abusers to handle men, they kept on doing it of their own volition even when they were safe and weren't being forced to anymore. Because it was what they knew and their self-esteem was on the floor and their understanding of affection was twisted, but if any of the Key Workers tried to stop them going out they'd receive abuse. Some left to voluntarily go back to their abusers. And yet they were still victims. In fact I stayed in a Nunnery once briefly and believe it or not they understood the best what they were dealing with. It was tough love.

It takes discernment. It takes being a responsible adult. Does anyone here really believe PA was possessed of that sort of discernment or maturity? All he would have thought of was himself and his sexual needs. If he saw any young girls he probably told himself they were being treated like family or something, given educational opportunities or Grants by Epstein. I really believe he would have thought this. None of the Royals are known for outstanding intelligence. Until recently they simply didn't select and marry for traits like resourcefulness, prudence, quick thinking, fluid intelligence. The more modern ones (Georges onwards) primarily come from genes selected for ease😄.

To a degree we're applying retrospective morality.

It often gets forgotten when we are talking about Andrew that Charles also chooses to surround himself with deeply troubling people.

We have Laurens Van Der Post, a man who, age 46, raped a 14 year old who then became pregnant. Charles made him godfather to William.

And of course the paedophile bishop Peter Ball, who was forced to step down. Here's what Charles wrote to him:

“I wish I could do more,”
“I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated. It’s appalling that the archbishop has gone back on what he told me, before Xmas, that he was hoping to restore you to some kind of ministry in the church. I suspect you are absolutely right — it is due to fear of the media.”

Then there's the friendship/unofficial guidance from Jimmy Savile.

There are plenty of families that support members who have done the wrong thing - even when that is quite egregious. That is a matter for them. But with the RF what is interesting and unconscionable is that they seem to be unwilling or unable to make PA keep a low profile. We know he is stupid and out of touch - his interview showed that. And that the people around him are also out of touch if, knowing him, they thought allowing him to be interviewed would be a good idea. It seems that they really think it is all going to blow over.

That’s the impression I get too. Is there anything actually new?

I was so so disappointed to see William taking a stand, and sticking his wife in the back whilst he drove with Andrew in the front. He didn't have to do that. Andrew could've gone with security personnel, but no, the RF like to send out messages to us. And I've received it loud and clear

Yes, Roussette, given how careful they are about W&K's image and for them to be seen doing the right thing I agree that was a real misstep

Shame really; we're already seeing that Charles isn't making the hoped for changes, and now it's starting to look as if William might continue the pattern

Shame really; we're already seeing that Charles isn't making the hoped for changes, and now it's starting to look as if William might continue the pattern

I think @Puzzledandpissedoff that they have dug down to reinforce their position.
I've said before on these threads, I honestly had hopes with Charles, but that's all gone now.

The Windsors haven’t a clue
Managed decline is the best they can hope for .

I just hope C and W feel humiliated and disgusted with themselves for allowing his presence on the Xmas day jaunt to church. Yes, the RF was telling us to "know our place" with our views.

When all rational people know where a disgusting low-life of a person like that should really be.

Place marking

I get the impression Charles is more of a reformer than William. He is a lazy bastard so there is no way he will do anything that involves him, his kids or his grandchildren having to give up their lifestyles unless their position becomes utterly untenable without change. If Charles doesn't slim fown the Monarchy, William won't.

I think ... they have dug down to reinforce their position

It looks like you're right, Roussette. Personally I never had the least hope for Charles, but did - perhaps foolishly - hope William might have more sense

And not all of us forget the horrors Charles chooses to surround himself with, @Themountainwithsnowonit, but the sad fact is that many just don't want to hear it and will often try to bat away the reference by pretending the poster's called Charles himself a paedophile - as has happened to me many times

It also seems to have got worse since the succession, almost as if some need to feel that he's beyond reproach (though never ask me why)