100 emails between Andrew and Epstein disproving dates

[Itcantbetrue]

So apparently this will make the mandleson debacle look like chicken feed.

I just do not get why Charles and the rest of them indulge him,

I think he knows where the bodies are buried but I also think the rest of them have plenty of dirt on him.

I've said on another thread I think it's a case of neither side daring to ignite the fuse for fear of the whole house of cards crashing.

Andrew and Sarah might spill some royal tea if they’re set adrift though. They’re a toxic pair. Especially if ££ is available. It would be a risky move.

And if it is true that Charles’cancer is being managed and not cured (obviously we don’t know his prognosis, rightly because it’s private health info) he’s probably struggling to find the mental headspace to deal with those oafs and the potential fallout from a tell-all book from Sarah .

Cross post Cathy!

I just do not get why Charles and the rest of them indulge him,

I think he knows where the bodies are buried but I also think the rest of them have plenty of dirt on him.

You'd hope that there were no bodies wouldn't you?

Or at least nothing coming anywhere close to Andrew.

Same. I think they're stuck with each other, and nobody who wants to further sideline him feels quite confident enough that he wouldn't torch anything on his way down. The embarrassment of having him shove his way to the front at stuff like this may feel like the lesser of the two evils to the people being shown up.

In some ways it's no bad thing to have such a constant reminder of how our system lacks safeguards against a monarch doing something like this. Andrew was one unfortunate accident away from being heir for decades, and that probably wasn't even the closest shave the Crown has had in the last century.

What does everyone think about the latest email revelations from Prince Andrew? Clearly shown to be lying through his teeth.

I can distinctly remember watching the car crash interview and whatsapping my best friend whilst it was on
When he said "no. I'm not in contact with him anymore" I can remember whatsapping her and saying "I don't believe that for one minute"

Him and his awful ex-wife are both full-blown liars on everything. She was continuing to cosy up to a paedophile to keep the cash coming in, he wanted to "play again" whatever the fuck that means

God knows what Charles is going to do with him. All I know is that will be an outcry if he is seen in public again. Attend church services if you must, but I don't want to see you or your ex wife's face again

I think it's entirely unsurprising.

I can recall seeing the trailers for the interview and commenting here that he looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights even then and the actual interview was a concoction of lies, half truths and evasions that he clearly expected an unquestioning public to swallow just because.

I'm interested though in whether this latest email is another part of the 'we'll play soon' correspondence in which case why delay its release or whether it's an entirely new leak

Well... I imagined when the 'let's play soon' came out a while back, they were talking about golf. Shows you how naive I am. Because I think this has been re-released as a way to put pressure on Andrew and Ferg to do what Charles says. Because 'let's play soon' has the most awful connotations doesn't it...

So I might be naive but I'm also a cynic, if that were possible!

He hasn't shown good judgement in any part of this so it's entirely in character that he didn't have the sense to back away from Epstein. Whilst i do believe that there is some truth in the theory that Epstein controlled people through secrets that doesn't excuse Andrew at all.

Are the media taking the piss?!

Prince Andrew could be banned from shooting on royal estates after bombshell email contradicted his claim to have cut off Jeffrey Epstein

What a punishment! How will he survive without being able to shoot at birds like the wanker he is.
Apparently it is one punishment being considered.
I do wonder if any of the royal family actually live in the real world.

Obviously not, going back to the Newsnight interview...

EM: Am I right in thinking you threw a birthday party for Epstein's girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell at Sandringham?
PA: No, it was a shooting weekend.
EM: A shooting weekend.
PA: Just a straightforward, a straightforward shooting weekend.
EM: But during these times that he was a guest at Windsor Castle, at Sandringham, the shooting weekend…
PA: Yeah, yeah.

So Virginia Guiffre's book is out and here are some initial extracts from it.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-book-b2846282.html

That doesn't really add to what we already know, does it? I presume one will have to buy the book for the full story to come out.

I think its because they all get photographed with him, and it's proof hes still very much a close part of the family. I doubt they think hes done anything wrong but the demonstration of closeness means hes still able to be involved with shady characters- or send his daughters to do it. They have no intention of doing anything really to him unless the puff pieces leaked to the press about what they might do stop working and the spotlight goes too much onto them.

Thanks for link.

Clearly dismisses the claims of those apologists who have insisted over the years that A couldn't have known VG's age.

Look forward to more extracts shortly.

It's always been obvious to me that Andrew is the sort of entitled, power adjacent, man who was mildly attractive when young and carried on believing young women would be lining up to sleep with him as he aged.

After the Lownie book I can well believe he didn't remember her among so many. It does him no credit at all just makes him look worse than he did already.

A child who is sexualised from the age of 8 and taken to a prostitute at the age of 11 to have sex with her, about which event he has in practice little agency, is always going to have a distorted understanding of sexual relationships. This was sexual abuse of a child.

Yes, I think that there are definitely questions about his own safeguarding back in the 1960s and 1970s. Although I suppose that all the adults who should’ve cared about his welfare but failed him miserably, are dead now. I think it’s likely in fairness that his late parents knew nothing of the abuse although I’m not a fan of either person so won’t rush to defend them.

His high-handedness and sense of superiority can’t be blamed on his abusers or those who stood by, though. That is all on him.

Why did the Queen apparently have a ‘blind spot’ with Andrew? Charles was given a much harder time & DofE despairing of him at times. His entitlement shocking - why were strips not torn off him in earlier times?

Similar unfortunately happened with Charles Spencer & I think led to his difficulties in marriages/with women etc.

It surely speaks volumes about the desirability of a monarchy if a scion can be this deluded.

I don't know if this might be the case, but it's possible his shooting weekends on royal estates are used by him to impress all sorts of people with money to throw at him. A 'pay to play' if you will. The source/s of his income are after all shrouded in mystery.

I don't think this is specifically a monarchy issue though. It's an entitled men treating women as objects issue. Andrew is the high profile useful idiot for others who knew Epstein to hide behind. However he is one of many if you look at the behaviour of men with power in general. Hollywood is an enormous cesspit when it comes to men with power abusing women, for example. It's not the royalty it's the power, remove the monarch and the power and the entitlement simply move elsewhere.

Snap, I just wrote something similar on the other thread. I think it's part of the perimenopause awakening to just how entitled so many men are to our time, bodies, youth, etc.

Don’t some see the monarchy as our ‘betters’ there to set an example?