The Yorks 2 !

[jeffgoldblum]

Sorry missed end of thread !
had a slight hiccup.
anyway thread 2 ready for tomorrows new article. 😁

I imagine that there are hebephiles out there who’d see a young prince as a prize. And people like that get jobs in schools, scouting, sports coaching etc deliberately to be close to children. So I don’t disbelieve it.

I don’t think that it should’ve been in the book, though. He’s awful but he’s entitled to anonymity if he was indeed a victim of abuse.

Going too far? Yet you couldn’t wait to gleefully post about the abuse of a child in your usual rampant style because it involved Andrew.

Lost for words. Yes. You certainly were as nothing you’ve posted even now has contained any resemblance of heart or softness for a child who was being abused let alone any words.

Calling 🐂 on it. Why? Because it involves Andrew? Or is that your stance on all 11, 12 and 13 year old victims.

I agree with you wholeheartedly but I’d also say he’s entitled to the sympathy (and heart) other victims of abuse receive as well, that when this part of the book is being used here for dubious means people should perhaps think of the 11, 12 and 13 year olds in their life when posting.

It does seem a very strange thing to put in the book with no context at all- and a disgusting piece of clickbait. But even more disgusting is that I can’t see how a predator could have got close to a well guarded young prince without collusion from someone in his inner circle. I presume AL has gone into this? For me this has suddenly gone from entertaining gossip that’s only telling me more of what was already common knowledge to something much darker.

Well if Andrew was abused at 11 & make no mistake, imo you cannot lose your virginity at that age, but you can be abused, then it takes the Epstein stuff to another level.

He maybe won’t realise how wrong it was because of his experience.

I don’t like the man, but if that happened to him as a child and then had sex with others at such a young age, he won’t realise how wrong it is.

How on earth, if true, was this allowed to happen.

@CurlewKate i Agree suddenly it seems much darker. It’s not gossip any more, if an 11 year old is being abused.

Re Philip and Susan Barrantes well you can’t label the dead.

Yes dark and disturbing indeed

Too early for me and I didn’t proofread. You can’t libel the dead.

also he maybe won’t realise how wrong the Epstein stuff was.

It was published in both The Telegraph and The Mail, which are major publications. I hadn’t fully read or absorbed it at the time. You seem quick to judge people you don’t know, whereas I make a point of avoiding internet spats with strangers. I was simply expressing what I felt upon reflection and yes, if it’s true that he was sexually abused, then in that context, anyone with compassion would feel for him, royal or otherwise. That said, it doesn’t excuse any behaviour as an adult.

so now PA is some kind of victim? or it could be made up bollocks.

That’s a valid point. But was it with an adult, or even an older teen? If so it would be sexual abuse and needs proper acknowledgment and scrutiny. I’m not impressed by the way it’s just mentioned in the excerpt Vera kindly linked th. I assume that’s not the way Lownie puts it in the book? Similarly, I think the PP remark is weird, as I’ve tried to explain bur clearly not very well.

I know everyone has 100% faith in Lownie, and I know nothing of his reputation, so will defer. But if these excerpts are verbatim then iI’m not impressed. OK, he rattles on about A and F and their appalling behaviour, and fair play to him - it all seems plausible and well-attested.

But to drop the (irrelevant?) comment about PP as if it’s nothing (that’s the aspect I’m puzzled by) and now he seems to be teasing the reader with this stuff about young A. You don’t allege childhood sexual abuse as a tease, or a sensational titbit! That’s potentially more shocking than his later revelations. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that in the book he deals with it properly.

I'm all for Andrew's financial dealings being aired in public but latest stuff is rather distasteful. I felt the same about Harry's virginity story. Some things should remain private, or if you are talking about the surah activities of children be investigated and if necessary, prosecuted rather than used to sell papers and books.

The thing is though Andrew Lownie said he contacted 3000 and only 300 replied. We don't know the agenda of those who replied and how close they were to Andrew York. I'm sure some are financial whistle blowers but some could just be repeating third hand stories, or things Andrew said without weighing their likelihood. Just because it was told to AL doesn't make it true. Rumours surround famous people all the time and not all are accurate.

Just a follow up on my initial post about it being bull.

The author says PA said his first 'sexual experience' was at age 8, what is PA definition here? was it a school friend sneaking in his older brother's copy of Playboy magazine and going from there?
The book does not say he was abused, why not? if we are understanding it to be at its very worst, it should be referred by Lownie as what it is which is straight up' abuse' and it should be followed up with a criminal investigation because he was a minor and PA likely would not be the only victim here. Lownie doesn't call it that.

I'm not sure what the motives are for putting these supposed underage exploits into print. I have so many questions and am very sceptical about all of this info, I certainlyI won't be joining in on the whole 'well that could explain things .....' yet.

But this is the point. If this author is to be believed, and we’re told he’s watertight, then we can’t pick and choose what to believe.

My point is - this revelation of possible childhood sexual abuse trumps all the other stuff. Either it needs serious focus and investigation or it s just gossip and shouldn’t be in there.

Which is it, Andrew Lownie?

In theory this is correct, sadly in practice we have far too many current examples that prove this is not the case- Trump being the greatest one, in this country the likes of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage.

these individuals have proved beyond all doubt that it matters not if you’re a proven liar, morally and financially corrupt, racist, a convicted criminal, avaricious, a sexual predator.. if you’re a loud mouth spouting popular views and have a “celebrity” personality then that seems enough to win the tide of public opinion.

I would be horrified if our only representative on the world stage was the likes of a Trump or a BoJo - TLQ, KCIII or William is far better. If we were unlucky enough to end up with an Andrew or a Harry on the throne it would be a different matter though.

@IAmATorturedPoet

Totally!

On the basis of what pps have said I’d be a bit more sceptical about this author. I don’t disbelieve what’s been said about Andre and Fergie, and that should be exposed.

Some of the other seemingly irrelevant things, and the lack of understanding of the childhood sexual allegations makes me suspicious.

It strikes me as sensational journalism rather than rigorously researched material. As Mrs LeonFarrel says, there has clearly been selection in the use of his sources and I wonder how reliable they are and what axe-grinding was involved.

I had my doubts about the author after watching him on the Daily Mail Royals interview, in parts of it he didn’t come off as a professional author but rather gleeful and spiteful with an axe to grind, it just felt a bit off to me.

I had a gay colleague many decades ago who was very open about his sexual history and, in the pub, liked to hold court about his admittedly very chequered experiences. His first sexual encounter was as an 11-year-old in a park with an older man, and he absolutely refused to see it as abuseindeed, he said he had initiated it. This is similar to what Peter Tatchell has said as well. We did try to convince him that he had been abused, but he wouldn’t have it.

I can imagine Prince Andrew boasting to his inner circle about his experiences, and based on the scarce details that have been made public and assuming some good faith on Lownie’s part he doesn’t seem to view them as abuse, and that’s why Lownie may have chosen to include them in his narrative. But it’s all supposition on our parts about who is admittedly a very troubled man in so many respects.

This thread is wild now. I’m fairly confident that if Andrew as a boy was sexually abused by a predatory adult that this wouldn’t be a throwaway comment on day 5/6 of the serialisation of a book about him. It’s far more likely someone is quoting Andrew himself and who knows if it is true or something he said because he thinks it makes him sound precocious.

The bbc employing abusers is a reason to stop funding the bbc with the license fee not to keep paying the royal family. Likewise shit presidents in other countries don’t mean we have to have what we have here or Trump. The problem is putting people on a pedestal, rather than seeing them as human and flawed and not having a pedestal in the first place. Does a modern democracy even need a figurehead?

I have friends who went to all male boarding schools, and by all accounts, there were plenty of things going on, it doesn't have to be abuse, kids experimenting with each other in a rather austere environment, most who have gone to all boys boarding schools will tell you the same.

Whatever the truth in these revelations in their entirety, it is utterly the end of Andrew now in any public-facing role even being seen privately with the family. The usual recourse when so much damaging information is made public would be to sue the author for defamation, but there’s not a chance in hell that will happen. So everything stands as a complete condemnation of the Queen’s favourite son and the King’s brother.

And then there’s still the legal jeopardy of the Epstein revelations, not to mention the tragic and terrible suicide of Virginia Giuffre in all of this. Some commentators have said this is a worse crisis than the abdication, and Lownie has apparently said that Harry and Meghan are a bigger threat to the survival of the institution than the Andrew revelations - it’s all too much to process.

It seems there has long been an unspoken rule to keep the light away from the mysteries of Majesty, lest the whole thing collapses under scrutiny.

The only thing I can be sure of in all this is that Lownie will make a fortune from this book, and given his track record as this is his 3rd royal biography, he may well do another Royal one as a follow-up.

I agree with you as this sounds like CSA and should never have been mentioned. Also children don't lose their virginity, it's taken from them. All very disturbing if true.

see thats the thing, suddenly he becomes the victim, how does anyone know if it actually happened.
good way to shut it all down.

We don't know he lost his virginity at 8, it doesn't say that, it says he had his first sexual experience at 8. It also then goes on to say that he said he slept with at least 6 girls when was between the ages of 12 and 13. Was he taken advantage of by girls of the same age? older women? or did he take from them?

it does say he lost his virginity at 11 to a woman. There must have been other adults involved.