A Very Royal Scandal (Amazon Prime)

[MrsLeonFarrell]

Apologies if there is a thread about this.

I haven't watched Scoop, because Netflix won't work on my old TV box so I have no idea how this compares. I watched all 3 episodes and found it bizarre. I did like that it didn't include any royals outside the York family.

What struck me the most was how sheltered Andrew's team must have been to think him doing an interview was a good idea. I'm just a member of the public and I wouldn't have advised him to speak for himself going only by what I read about him before Epstein was even heard of. Why on earth would anyone advise him to do this? Why did they think it had gone well? And why has he not just retired out of the public view and accepted there is no way back.

The arrogance of some people is astounding. I don't even think it's a royal thing but more a monied sense of entitlement, although ironically he didn't seem to have much money.

Anyone else seen it?

KnickerlessParsons
As a recent PP has said, he probably thought VG was above the U.K. age of consent, so ok to have sex with, with absolutely no thought as to how a girl the same age-ish as his daughters came to be in a position where she was socialising, and having sex with, 40 year old men.

For me, this is the most revolting aspect of Andrew's behaviour - how he could exploit a young woman of around his own daughters' age. I guess he thinks such girls are a different species - not really 'people' in the sense that he and his class are, rather in the way that people in the past sometimes 'dehumanised' the poor in order not to feel guilt about their grim lives - 'they're not like us, they don't have the same fine feelings' etc.

BustinBaoBun
Years and years before this all broke, apparently it was said the Queen had misgivings about his trade envoy role and his friendship with JE.
The trouble is she did nothing about it and whatever I think of the Queen good or bad there is no getting away from the fact she enabled her awful son.

I can only think that the Queen just could not have imagined the sort of things Epstein, Maxwell and others were involved in. She might have imagined that Andrew slept around, but not like this!

One thing to be careful of is not to confuse dramatic licence with real life.

PA behaved disgracefully but I can believe he didn’t know VG was trafficked. That doesn’t excuse what he did and it is right he stepped down/ was forced out from being a working royal.

The shocking aspect as pp have said is all the rich, powerful men who are walking around not being charged with crimes yet GM, a woman, is in prison. What GM did was appalling but some men should also be held to account.

For me, this is the most revolting aspect of Andrew's behaviour - how he could exploit a young woman of around his own daughters' age. I guess he thinks such girls are a different species - not really 'people' in the sense that he and his class are, rather in the way that people in the past sometimes 'dehumanised' the poor in order not to feel guilt about their grim lives - 'they're not like us, they don't have the same fine feelings' etc.

Not in any way excusing the repulsive Andrew, but this is not behaviour confined to aristocratic men. We have many, many examples of ordinary "family" men exploiting young teenage girls the same ages as their own daughters. From the sex abuse rings in places like Rotherham, to rock and pop stars and DJs abusing young fans. How many of of us as teens had creepy experiences with male teachers and friends' fathers? I had my ex's 14 year old niece with me on work experience in the City - ethereally pretty girl, but very clearly a child. That did not stop any number of pinstripe twats (lawyers, ffs, we were at court) openly ogling her. Men are fucking repulsive. And I think NAMALT actually refers to the minority.

As for Fergie, I’m very sorry she’s been unwell.
But I wish certain sections of the media and TV would stop pushing her on us as a ‘cuddly mum’ figure.
I do think she didn’t know what she was letting herself in for with the marriage as she was on her own a lot.
I don’t decry her for wanting to earn a living once divorced. But the constant need to grift and procure from others, it’s too much.
I am not sure how I feel about their daughters.
As for the late Queen not knowing ‘stuff’ this was a woman with access to the highest levels of intel. No doubt she knew all about the short behaviour of those who came before and those who lived in her own house.
I am not sure about her late husband - I think he was from a persuasion that there were good time girls and good girls, but he never struck me as being a sleazebag.
As I get older I realise I know less and less. I was brought up in an era when Jimmy Saville was a fun uncle, Cliff Richard was madly in love with Sue Barker, and that BBC newsreaders were the most upstanding members of the community.
If you ever want to look how bad things were in lots of ways, have a look at Terry Wogan’s interview with Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones and model Mandy Smith. She was 13 when they started dating, I think she was 18 when they got married. The whole thing is shocking now - Wogan joking with Bill about having to settle down. The girl in question is about six stone at the time, you can see she’s clearly struggling, as two middle aged men are literally applauding each other.
Anyway as that other thread suggested recently - I’m showing my age!

No sympathy with his ex or daughters either I'm afraid.

Likewise.

Worth remembering that Epstein had more private numbers listed for Fergie in his little black book than even for Andrew but this is very rarely remarked on.

Also worth remembering the daughters batted their eyes disingenuosly when funds from an alleged fraudster landed in their bank accounts. Said alleged fraudster had controversially won a Pitch @ Palace event and was at one point ensconced in a Mayfair flat owned by the Crown Estate with no evidence of rent being paid.

Whole lot are venal and corrupt 😡

Also meant to say I was utterly convinced Ghislaine Maxwell (who is precisely where she should be) would sing like a flock of canaries to secure a plea deal.

The fact she hasn't is quite intriguing.

Watched both this & scoop .. preferred scoop myself as interested in journalistic side. I'm also interested in why we have two programmes about exactly the same story in such a short space of time. That's unusual? Did Sam mcallister & Emily maitlis fall out? Sam Mcallister character is barely in a very royal scandal.

I read that they had fallen out but don't know if it's true.

not defending him in the slightest, but while NOW you would consider VG and his daughters of a similar generation/age - there's no developmental difference between a 41 year old vs 34&36 year olds, most people would consider 10 & 12 year old children and someone in their late teens (as the age gap was in 2001) as at very different life stages.

Having sex with a 17/18 year old as a man in your 40s is very different from both a moral and legal point than having sex with a 10 year old. Still grim as fuck but he wouldn't have been looking at VG and thinking of her as a similar age to his daughters at that time.

I wonder what Andrew thought of the 12 year olds that he DID see around Epstein?

Don't tell me - he had his special monkey blinkers on.

IMO the whole York family are a bunch of public-facing grade A arseholes who can stick their gushing hypocrisy and ill-fitting sense of social superiority where the sun don't shine. Preferably on a straightforward shooting weekend, just before the FBI arrive at the invitation of the sovereign.

Absolutely this. Andrew is certainly guilty of poor judgement but, as for the rest, we don't really know.
I have endless respect for the late Queen, and thought she was wonderful. But..... she was human, she wasn't perfect, and like anyone else she had an Achilles heel. In her case, the Achilles heel was Andrew. (Ditto Lady Thatcher and Mark!).
I also agree with a PP that The Queen may not have fully comprehended the particularly unpleasant details of Epstein's crimes.

Definitely - how's he supposed to remember one particular girl?
When he was hanging out with Epstein there were loads of teenage American girls wandering around seemingly willing to entertain him, Virginia Roberts didn't stand out at all. He'd never given a moment's care or consideration as to why or how they were there.

Yes he didn't care. Despite showing off to Emily Maitlis in the car crash interview that he was patron of NSPCC full stop campaign and would have spotted anything out of order.
How ironic is that? The royal patron of NSPCC cavorting with girls nearly the age of his daughters and the place awash with young vulnerable girls massaging old fat sweaty men in special rooms.
Course he didn't see anything my arse

This is a bit of a tangent but worth saying I think: it is illegal under UK law to have sex with a trafficked girl or woman, for any form of payment (this does not have to be in money; and it does not have to be given to the person who committed the sexual act. The legal terminology is "for gain".)

Ignorance of the fact a female is trafficked is not a defence under the law. Even if the male has asked the female if they have been trafficked and they say no; it makes no difference, an offence has been committed.

Just putting that out there because I know there has been a lot of debate about Virginia Roberts' age, but less about the fact she was trafficked. Also because A Royal Scandal has Andrew claiming multiple times that he "couldn't remember" or "didn't know". This is not a valid legal defence for having sex with a trafficked woman. (Although of course ARS is a work of fiction and we can't know what Andrew said behind closed doors anyway).

i was just rewatching the video that was taken of Andrew standing just inside the front door of Epstein’s house in NYC waving goodbye to a young woman. At some point before that, Epstein comes out of the house with a girl who looks about 14 to me. She walks with him to a car and then she returns to the house. Andrew stayed there 4 days it was reported. If he was unaware of what was going on he’s the stupidest man on earth.

Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal was rejected and she is now planning to challenge this in the Supreme Court. (Linked below). If she is allowed to challenge it but loses, she may very well ‘sing like a canary.’ Although I have read that she would see this as being disloyal to her ‘friends’. (I can’t find that particular article, but if I do I’ll post it).

Maxwell BBC

I believe there was a whole host of by standers enabling his horrific behaviours.

His security detail knew exactly what they were looking at day in day out and covered for it. Security higher up the establishment also would have vetted his interactions and they knew excatly what JE was involved in - especially as he was prosecuted.

But it seems all of this prolific sexual exploitation and sex trafficing of vulnerable young teenage girls was considered acceptable right across institutions and right to the very top of The Establishment.

My ire is always directed at the bystanders around eg JE/PA, Saville, Fayad - as there will always be monsters - but if we cant rely on the normal people in this world to not only protect vulnerable children from these monster in plain sight - but who actively enable their crimes by turning a blind eye and inaction - then we are all stuffed.

I would like to see more investigations and charges of the bystanders - thats the only way we can protect - make it clear that they are complicit in these crimes and should face punishment.

The Yorks are a dreadful bunch. Sarah Ferguson is a grifter who likely knew what was going on. The two sisters have their noses in the trough too.

Massive pressure on William and Catherine when the generation above them dies/steps back. There’s no one else, unless Louise and James become working royals. Thankfully for the institution W and C are a safe pair of hands and seem to be raising balanced kids.

If she is allowed to challenge it but loses, she may very well ‘sing like a canary.

How can she have known nothing for 20 years (she's innocent) and at the same time 'sing like a canary' - either she knew what was going and/or was complicit or she didn't know anything - so what info would she have now?

@Sunsetand the stupidest man on earth hmmm not too wrong

I can only think that the Queen just could not have imagined the sort of things Epstein, Maxwell and others were involved in. She might have imagined that Andrew slept around, but not like this!
It's not just about Epstein though. In his trade envoy role people complained that he was rude, stupid and boorish. Who put him.there, and on who's request? He was advised not to associate with Epstein afyer his first conviction. He continued. Her own staff would complain about his treatment of them and she would back him. Her indulgence and head in the sand attitude made him.

She knew everything that was going on because she was as bad as Epstein. She was the friendly female face that enabled hundreds of girls to be recruited. She was the Myra Hindley to Ian Brady

This article is old but very interesting. She honestly thought she was going to get off
And whilst I don't agree with others not being prosecuted, I am glad she has

www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-relentless-ego-of-ghislaine-maxwell

Totally agree. He was advised not to stay at the Epstein's mansion after the conviction but to instead stay at the consulate. He told his security detail he was only answerable to the queen and he would stay exactly where he wanted. If you are serving these people, like any of the RF, there is only so much you can do

I think there will be a lot of people out there who are just delighted he is getting some sort of comeuppance by having to hide away

Another home grown delusional, grandiose, entitled and arrogant narcissist who believed they are special, privileged and above the law.

She wasnt just doing the admin / recruiting / over seeing / enabling - she was also physically hands on sexually assauting some of these girls.

She is also a sexual predator.

Yes, I never understand why the video footage isn't played/mentioned more often. You clearly see Epstein, young girl, Windsor (I can't bear to use his 'titles') and a young girl. All emerging in the grey light of morning. It is jaw dropping.

I wonder if it is inadmissible for some reason?

However, putting her financial mis-steps aside, I do feel that the Duchess of York is actually owed an apology from the Royal Family. There was a very strong possibility that custody of her daughters would be taken from her in the divorce (her father went on camera about it, at the time), quite possibly on the grounds that she was an unfit mother due to her photographed dalliances with her financial advisor (even though she was actually separated and on a private holiday at the time). Yet it was Windsor who invited Epstein to his daughter's eighteenth birthday party!