The Yorks 2 !

[jeffgoldblum]

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

I’m very torn about this now. If Andrew was sexually abused as a child then of course he should be given the privacy and support he deserves as a victim. If, however, we’re talking about the sexual experimentation between peers that’s not uncommon at all boys boarding schools, then I can imagine him talking about that in the same crude boorish way he talks about other distasteful subjects. And on tge subject of the women he had sex with between 11 and 13, there would have to have been other adults involved. Do they need to be investigated? Is it likely they are still alive?

I agree. Legally he is probably fine, morally and ethically some of the things he has chosen to include are distasteful and I worry they will undercut the effect of the very serious financial accusations he is leveling.

I guess the worst-case scenario for Prince Andrew and the Royal Family is whether he has transgressed criminally enough to be charged with crimes. If he were to go to court, be tried, and found guilty, he would face prison something I believe would be unprecedented in the modern era. I’m not sure, though, whether given his status he has some sort of crown immunity. Frankly, I can’t see that happening; some folks are simply above the law.

Apparently, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands is the one in recent times who has come closest to that juncture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Bernhard_of_Lippe-Biesterfeld

In an interview published after his death, on 14 December 2004, Prince Bernhard admitted that he had accepted more than one million dollars (US) in bribes from Lockheed. He acknowledged it was a mistake and claimed that all of the money went to the WWF. He said: "I have accepted that the word Lockheed will be carved on my tombstone."[62] He also confirmed having fathered two illegitimate daughters.[63]

In February 2008, Joop den Uyl's biography claimed that the official report investigating the Lockheed bribe scandal also presented proof that the Prince had accepted money from yet another aerospace firm: Northrop. The former Prime Minister claimed he had not made the information public to protect the Dutch monarchy.[64]

Yes his trade envoy role was a public one , working on behalf of the government. Surely he should be investigated for malfeasance in a public office?

Having been through that once already, Parliament by convention established in Erskine May is forbidden from discussing matters regarding the Royal Family. As a result, in cases of malfeasance, they are effectively above scrutiny through parliamentary channels.

You'd think so, ThePoshUns, but as with so much else the RF's approach to unwelcome details is to have them sealed, as has been done here

Also who's going to instigate an inquiry when those with the immediate power have implemented a convention whereby it can't be discussed?

Edited to apologise, @vera99 - I see I cross posted with you

Lots of diplomats have apparently spoken on the record, and he has multiple witnesses who claim to have seen Andrew with Virginia Giuffre and on Epstein’s island. The material is voluminous, highly comprehensive, and supported by numerous footnotes, as others have remarked about his previous books. In this video, he also challenges Prince Harry to legally dispute his assertion that they had a fight something Harry has refuted.

and this ; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4644242/Prince-Andrew-sports-black-eye-funeral.html

Honestly it reads like a Jilly Cooper bonkathon so far.
I have no doubt there is a framework of truth behind the book, though much of this will already have been known. But there is plenty of embroidery on top which needs taking with a large pinch of salt.
AL’s position is safe as Andrew/RF can’t possibly risk suing as that would inevitably mean other distasteful stuff which IS true will get delved into and aired in court.
As pp have said - what is the agenda of the 300 out of 3000 who replied?

My guess is this is about 70% fiction and 30% fact. Albeit some of the fiction will be embroidered on a tissue of fact.

Ten girls a day in Thailand?? Come on, even in his Randy Andy youth I don’t believe A ever had that level of stamina!
In fact I recall - perhaps around the time of the divorce (possibly in defence of Fergie) that the story was he was boring and more interested in golf than attending to his wife’s (ahem) “needs” so no wonder poor Fergie had to seek solace in the arms of her Texan toe sucker. I do believe the golf bore bit!

Smashing through the Windsor gates?? Really? What sort of gates are these? What damage was done to his car? A more likely version I could believe is that they opened partially and the electric motor seized up. Maybe there was no one around or maybe he or a detective tried to push it open manually and when that failed he decided to force it open using the car. Which likely may have caused damage to the mechanism which was expensive to repair. Not clever but I can see how he might have thought that was a clever idea at the time.

Where we go on holiday in Cornwall there is a farm gate that needs opening on the lane. It’s quite a steep hill so definitely need to get out to open it going up. But coming down my husband likes to gently nudge it with the car and give it another push with his hand as he drives by and it swings shut behind us. Don’t ask me why. It just amuses him and does no harm and saves me getting out. He’d probably be more aware of electrics etc since he’s an engineer so I doubt he’d mess with electric gates but I can see how some people might.
So isn’t it more likely that Andrew unwisely forced the gates rather than the smashing through (in rage or at speed? ) version?

@ShamedBySiri I can remember seeing photos of the damaged gates in the paper at the time. He literally drove straight into wrought iron gates.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3494501/Prince-Andrew-rammed-closed-park-gates-80-000-Range-Rover-avoid-one-mile-detour-home.html

As regards Fergie - her financial incontinence has been well known since forever - perhaps AL felt a need to ramp up the shock value to seem like there was new material or maybe “source”’s memories are variable. The array of untouched roast meats left out all night and then thrown away for instance seems completely unbelievable to me. Don’t the staff clear away and get ready for breakfast in the morning after dinner? What sort of chef would allow this level of waste? Meat that could be used to make shepherds’ pies for the staff meals or the children? Soups and other leftover creations. Honestly any chef allowing this needed sacking. I just don’t believe it.

& this is why although I lean towards a constitutional monarchy - I would like to this kind of thing examined and possibly removed. I'm not a constitutional expert but if we are to have a constitutional monarch - let's get it as near to beyond reproach as we can.

Oh must dash - the unicorns are shitting gold 😂

I agree, it seems a derail from an interesting thread.

Wouldn't that have to involve the unsealing of the related documents?

I can't see that happening.

ETA Beaten to it but it would be fascinating if it were to happen.

@ThePoshUns

• “Prince Andrew rammed open the gates on his return to Royal Lodge* *
• It's not the first he has got himself in a spot of bother with his Range Rover
• In 2013, he received a parking ticket while on double yellows in Mayfair “

I’m not shilling for Andrew but it’s the sort of thing that makes a good story, much improved by choice of words. “For some reason the sensors didn’t work” - so some electrical fault then as I suggested. Has a forceful push been reinvented as rammed/smashed? Not a sensible choice of action as I said but maybe it didn’t seem that bad at the time but caused more damage to electrics and the motor than he might have expected if he’d thought it through. A silly thing to do but it does seem to have been exaggerated imo.

Then as evidence of his shocking Mr Toad driving habits we get a parking ticket! There are lots of reasons to criticise Andrew but I’ll give him a pass on that. Has he ever been done for speeding? Princess Anne has. And Zara had a six month ban for speeding.

Still, when there’s a book to be written then pages need filling.

Yes it would but if KC or PW want to put PA back in his box maybe they should pursue it?
I know it won’t happen though.

Agreed — but according to Chat, there is a way forward. We’d need the Sunday Times, Channel 4, and similar investigative outlets working alongside Lownie and others. Diplomats are apparently already on the record providing him with material, so much of the groundwork may already be in place.

The problem is that, without a public outcry too loud to ignore, the parliamentary bandwidth simply isn’t there. There are far more pressing matters to focus on, and the Cabinet would almost certainly kill it. Still, steps 1 and 2 could be achieved relatively easily.

Alright — here’s a realistic but convention-compliant step-by-step scenario for how Parliament could examine Prince Andrew’s financial dealings as Trade Envoy without technically breaking the rules.
Step-by-Step Path to Parliamentary Scrutiny
Step 1 – The Trigger

• An investigative journalist or whistle-blower publishes credible evidence of questionable financial transactions, gifts, or favours linked to deals made during Andrew’s time as Trade Envoy.
• The story focuses on government contracts, expenses, or lobbying, not Andrew personally.
• This gives MPs a public-interest reason to demand oversight.

Step 2 – Framing the Inquiry

• MPs table an Early Day Motion or request an Urgent Question in the House of Commons.
• The wording avoids accusing Andrew directly and instead targets:
• “The management, transparency, and accountability of the UK’s Special Representative for International Trade and Investment programme between 2001–2011.”
• The key here: talk about “the office” or “the role” — not “the man.”

Step 3 – Committee Investigation

• The Foreign Affairs Committee (or possibly the Public Accounts Committee if public funds are involved) opens an inquiry.
• They call civil servants, former ministers, and business executives who worked with the Trade Envoy’s office to give evidence.
• They may also request written submissions from embassies or trade bodies that dealt with Andrew.
• Prince Andrew himself is not summoned, but his actions may be described through witness testimony.

Step 4 – Document Requests

• The Committee can request:
• Travel expenses and hospitality logs
• Records of gifts received
• Ministerial briefing notes
• Emails or memos from the Department for Business and Trade
• These are provided under the Freedom of Information Act unless blocked on national security or diplomatic grounds.

Step 5 – National Audit Office (NAO) Review

• If there’s any suspicion of misuse of public money (flights, security, entertaining, etc.), the NAO can launch a value-for-money audit.
• Their report is presented to Parliament and debated in public.

Step 6 – Parliamentary Debate

• Once the Committee publishes its report, MPs can hold a debate framed around:
• “Oversight and governance of the UK’s international trade envoy system.”
• This allows discussion of findings without breaching the rule against personal criticism of a royal — even if Andrew’s conduct is the obvious subtext.

Step 7 – Outcome

• The government could respond by tightening oversight rules, imposing stricter declarations of interest, or abolishing the role altogether.
• While no prosecution would come from Parliament directly, the inquiry could refer matters to law enforcement if criminality is suspected.

Bottom line: Parliament could shine a light on Andrew’s financial dealings by making the investigation “about the role” rather than “about the royal.” That way, they respect Erskine May’s convention while still dragging the facts into public view — and from there, it’s open season for the press. If you like, I can also give you a hypothetical example of how an MP’s speech in the Commons could be carefully worded to make all the points without ever saying “Prince Andrew.” That’s where the real parliamentary craft comes in.

I’m pretty sure the writer wouldn’t be publishing something he knew to be 30% fiction!
Incidentally, I assumed that the 10 girls in Thailand thing was like some unholy pick ‘n mix for him to select from.

And he was swapping them with a Gulf Prince down the corridoor - for those with strong stomachs and I beleive it was at the 4 Seasons in Bangkok. https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-new-details-on-prince-andrews-thai-orgies-expose-his-corrupt-abuse-of-power-for-sex/

A very different question.

The irony.

He may be 100% accurate- but he’s left a nasty taste by dropping in so casually matters which merit more serious treatment. I think it cheapens the whole thing and, for me, changes my attitude to the book.

The problem is that, without a public outcry too loud to ignore, the parliamentary bandwidth simply isn’t there

Precisely, @vera99, and at least up to now the RF know perfectly well that most simply don't care and that those who only vaguely care can be bought off by some pics of Catherine in a pretty frock, or - if really pushed - a juicy story about one of their lightning conductors

I may be a republican, but hope I'm realistic enough to accept it's not a majority view and that they're unlikely to be got rid of in my lifetime
As my old mum used to say "wanting isn't getting", and especially not when it concerns a family who've had a LOT of experience in stitching things up to suit themselves with the connivance of most governments

Just read this
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-14982849/Truth-Prince-Andrew-rift-William-Harry-scandal-Andrew-Lownie-Palace-Confidential.html

A mate of mine pours scorn on my republicanism not because he cares for the pointless pageantry and traditions, but simply out of the logic that getting rid of them would be a waste of time better spent on something more useful. He cites Brexit as his cautionary example of “be careful what you wish for.” (I didn't wish for that btw - it was a HUGE mistake that has cost us dear - £150bn and counting.)

That said, they still need a rocket up their collective posteriors and to at least look like they care starting with transparency and accountability, and not putting needless expenditure on the public tab rather than dipping into their own pockets, all while the country burns but with Parliamentray convention they have that sewn up so thank god for the freedom of the Fourth Estate.

But I keep hearing, from the various cesspits I inhabit, that there are secrets out there which could destroy them and in this modern era, I wouldn’t bet on those staying buried forever. This Andrew/Sarah debacle is unprecedented in my lifetime as an exposure of the vulnerability and depravity of the inner circle and we're not yet at the end of this particular road.

I’m also intrigued by Lownie’s assertion that Harry and Meghan pose a greater threat to the continuation of the institution than the Yorkist scandals. Given the hostility towards the Montecito couple, I can’t see that rift ever healing, so the festering wound will continue year after year while Andrew and Sarah probably have decades more of life hanging around like spectres at the feast.

And the world’s press even if the more docile British media might stay silent when new scandals emerge certainly won’t. I wouldn’t fancy being in charge of the Royal Press Office and PR machine trying to spin its way through the storms ahead.

I can easily imagine a time in my lifetime when William just gets fed up with the whole damn thing the declining popularity, the endless crises and decides, on his own terms, to end the succession once and for all. And if he did, I doubt Parliament would raise a fuss to stop it.

In Ernest Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises it says ;

“How did you go bankrupt?”
“Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”