What about Beatrice & Eugenie?

[olderandnonthewiser]

I’m not sure what to think tbh. On one hand they must be so so mortified; on the other they enjoy all the perks of Royalty and their position in the RF despite their revolting father.

How do you see it?

The Queen was his protector. She knew what he was and bailed him out. Why would she be turning in her grave now that the true extent of his involvement with Epstein and his ilk is coming out ?

Another Mummy’s Little Soldier Can Do No Wrong type.

Abuse of power, doing it all his life, ignorant, came from a dysfunctional family, multi generational trauma and abuse, normalised his abusive and mysogynistic behaviour.

Predatory Abuser, similar to Brigitte Macron.

You are correct he is not a paedophile - he is a three times RAPIST of a vulnerable TEENAGER who was sexually coerced, groomed, abused and trafficked.

This is the actual legal charge and consequence of having sex with a trafficked person whether they are 17 or 77.

No. Rapist.

But people can be predatory and abusive without being pedophiles. It’s important to remember that.

No. You are minimising the crime here. It’s not merely predatory or abusive behaviour - Prince Andrew by having sex with a trafficked person has committed rape - X3 of teenager.

The only thing shed be turning in her grave about is that her precious Andrew has had to stop using his titles. She created the monster by constantly bailing him out.

That is shocking. And by ' access' they mean pictures of them and the children. So the RF used 3 small children to protect their reputation. I know they do do this and use threats of loss of access to control the press but they need to stop. They need to be far more transparent. Its their ' we can do what we like and cover it up with PR and threats' that is creating the problems for them. They clearly can't behave so need to have the threat of daylight on their actions to keep them in line.

Yep

And lots of posters in this thread think William and Kate are different and will be the saviours of the monarchy. They are not.

Agree. I cant see any evidence at all that William is anything like a reformer. All he has said is that hes going to do less. He cant bear to tear himself away from his school aged children for a second to do public service but apparently spends weekends texting staff about the Duchy of Cornwall- something that personally enriches him. He hasnt published his tax returns, even though his father did for most of the time he was Duke of Cornwall. He has said nothing about reforming the RF to modernise it. He may cut his brother and Andrew off forever. So what? They will probably be irrelevant anyway in 10-20 years.

Not to side track but this sort of thing is the “relationship” the RF has had with the media for decades. It wasn’t so obvious during Diana and CharleS’s separation and divorce but it was there. It was part of what Diana’s paranoia was about. It’s also, I think, what Harry and Meghan were in about when she complained she’d been fed to the wolves: negative stories about her allowed to go ahead to preserve Kate and William’s reputations. This, I believe, is what Harry wants and apology for and part of what he wanted out for (although he quite liked the benefits so didn’t want “out” out).

The thing is, I’m pretty sure this has ALWAYS been the case with every Royal family everywhere, because it’s basic PR. And Royal families need PR not only because the individuals concerned can have it (another instance of just because you can doesn’t mean you should, necessarily) but ostensibly because positive PR is better for the monarchy which is supposedly better for the country. (The italicized bit is what Harry and Meghan can’t stand, but which Edward and Sophie and Anne embraced as their duty to the country, and I suspect what Andrew counts as his doing his duty, his “honourable” behaviour - he’ll be thinking he’s taking one for the team).

The monarchy being better for the country is where this is all becoming unstuck, because as matters stand the monarchy ain’t looking good right now. William and Charles will - I believe - have no option but to take drastic actions because the contract between the people and the family isn’t being upheld by the family. The family is making the monarchy look bad, which isn’t what the people want.

I suspect William will be wanting to slimline and professionalize the monarchy: fewer people to keep under control, professional standards, more transparency (on his terms, he’ll never accept proper transparency because he knows there’s no way the RF’s excess can be justified, and he’ll make himself feel good about it because he doesn’t want to be the one unravelling a thousand years of history - once it’s gone, it’s gone forever).

Yes William and Kate aren’t the enlightened progressives people want them to be. They just talk a bit differently and have a modern bit of seasoning about them, mental heath yar yar, children’s welfare yar yar. They have no interest in making changes that upset the status quo. They say a few things here and there, because they know us plebs are looking for change. I bet they never could have dreamed that their minimal attempts at sounding like they give a shit have actually payed off! So many people are convinced that William and Kate are going to do all this modern wonderful stuff. On what evidence and for what benefit to them I have no idea. They’re as up their own arses as the rest of them. Oh, and the late sainted QEII was no better.

100% agree with this. I don't think any members of the RF have it in them to reform the monarchy. They knew what Andrew was & have taken no action.....as ever such action as they have taken is far too little far too late.

I recall that when VG's allegations against Andrew came to light, Buckingham Palace stated that they were 'false and wholly without foundation'. That was the spokesperson for our Head of State publicly branding a sex trafficking victim as a liar. I feel personally shamed by that, but the RF evidently have no shame.

And why should we be dependent on William reforming the Monarchy anyway? Any other public body or organisation is subject to external scrutiny through audits etc. The fact that the monarchy is exempt from this kind of scrutiny is what got them into this mess in the first place.

They aren't. I think she's every bit of unwell. It's terribly sad for them as human beings.
Scrap the whole charade.

Well if William fails to keep house and rejuvenate the monarchy there are other potentials in the line of succession with solid claims to the throne. Quite a few with no scandals, solid achievements and whom are more in touch with reality.

Just going by those young enough to still make a difference but old enough to exert authority, you have Zara Tindall. Nothing majorly scandalous there. Don't particularly take to her but she's done graft to get to Olympic level and could handle leadership.

Princess Margaret's Granddaughter Lady Margarita Armstrong Jones and her grandson Samuel Chatto both accomplished designers, I haven't heard any scandal around either of them. They have used their education to good effect.

The line of the Kents seem reasonably decent people and some of them are very accomplished indeed, but many have purposefully converted to Catholicism which makes them technically untenable contenders, but shows integrity and moral fibre if nothing else since they had to give up being in the succession.

There are many more. Some are genuinely high achieving, with real jobs and no scandal. You've never even heard of some of them, you've not heard them selling stories about how they lost their virginity or whinging over their parents not ensuring their bedroom in a castle was sufficiently large and selling dirt on their family for cash. You've not heard sordid stories about them cosying up to sex traffickers and trying to corrupt police officers.

All of whom I regret to say would probably serve us better as representatives both at home and on the world stage than the current scandal ridden House of Windsor.

We could have a referendum and start afresh with any of these. Maybe that's how it ought to be.

I'm not for a republic. But there has to be some vehicle by which when things get bad there can be an intervention.

I guess that's antithetical to a monarchist system however, and a republic in essence.

Many if not all of the people you mentioned may not want to be the next monarch; and why should they be made to? As you have stated they are privately pursuing their lives and enjoying their accomplishments, why should they put all that aside?

Anyway the nature of monarchy is that whoever is next in line is the monarch, regardless of their suitability or willingness. If William were to renounce it (or have it removed) the next in line would be his eldest son. In any other context, forcing a child down a predetermined path regardless of their wishes would be considered child cruelty. Most of us would be indignant if this was done to our own children; but monarchists think all this is fine to inflict on a 'royal' child. It sounds an absolutely miserable existence to me and I am not sure all the privilege makes up for it.

Why are people talking about the monarchy being progressive? You understand the whole point is that it upholds tradition.

Progression is what the government is for, that we vote for and have accountability for. The monarchy is supposed to provide stability through its traditions.

If you want progression, go vote for Jeremy Corban.

This. 100%.

Agree. I don’t understand why some posters just don’t get this. VG was trafficked and as such not legally capable of consent no matter what age she was. I don’t see how Andrew could fail to have known that she was being offered by Epstein on any other basis, given the circumstances. And knowing or even suspecting trafficking is the legal test. If he didn’t know, or at least suspect why the email ‘were in this together’?

And "we'll play together again soon". Although no doubt someone will pop up at some point and suggest he was probably meaning a nice game of tennis.

Believe me, I m no fan of Andrew.

However a serious question : if Andrew was unaware that VG was transported for sex, if he believed she was an aid/member of the entourage who was willing and consenting. Was he guilty of rape, if he was unaware of the trafficking?

In his e mail to Epstein he speaks of "playing" again in the future. Swinger language. I think there is a possibility that Andrew may have accepted what appeared as consent, without proper consideration to power dynamics. Was Andrew aware that VG could not consent given the circumstances?

On balance I think he was or else he was reckless as to whether any consent was real or enthusiastically given. It was a sufficiently murky situation he should have not supported it. He should have been morally strong enough to object.

He was financially embedded with Epstein. At that time magazine models used to be invited to rich men sex parties (unknown to the models what was expected of them). Young girls given drink and drugs and access to a wealthy world. It's horrendous to think what vulnerable young people were subjected to. If they weren't enthusiastic, doors closed. The murkyness was familiar to Andrew and the family.

There was a history of affairs, swinging, underage sex. Andrew was warped. I think he is scum, I think they all are really.

I agree it very possibly does fall under the definition of rape. All of their judgment wasnt sufficiently developed and the level od critical thinking that was there was warped by their personal experienced.

I believe Andrew lost his virginity with a prostitute at age 11, arranged by a friends father. Also abuse.

Abuse cycle continues.

There’s a photo in the Mail just now of “Beatrice looking strained” whilst grinning in her Range Rover driving into Royal Lodge - not looking strained at all. She lives in the Cotswolds and has young kids and a job, it’s not like she’s just running about after the school run. Driving to Windsor alone is a choice. A choice that says she supports her parents wholeheartedly and gives no fucks on the optics.

I agree with most of what you say.

But I would also say actually no, it wasn't normal in the past for Royal ruling houses to continue without challenge. There were many times where another in the line or even out of the line would sense the dissatisfaction in the air and challenge the prevailing monarch with either successful or extremely fatal consequences. Monarchs had to have ears on the ground for any hints of rebellion.

We now have a situation where this is impossible and each generation knows their place can never be challenged, no matter what they do. I don't know history enough to know when this became the case, but is it any wonder that this leads to corruption?

I am suggesting we put a mechanism, a sort of breaker, in place where we can install some other Royal family member, but only in extreme situations, such as now.

You are right to say that those I suggested may not want to take on the role. So what if we sorted it by those that do? You cannot tell me some of them wouldn't want it. There are thousands in the succession.

We could winnow down the candidates and parliament chooses.

I actually think this would restore some interest in the Monarchy

Do you truly believe that the Monarchy will continue in it's present form with Gen Z and Alpha?

I sincerely doubt it.

They are so out of touch, they have been congratulating themselves as having taken a 'hard stance' by allowing Andrew to voluntarily not use his titles when he is implicated in the biggest sex scandal of all time. The media has tried to spin it as them 'forcing Andrew' to do it, in order to cover for their lame inaction.

And they genuinely think it's enough. Nothing to see here!

Nothing I say will ever happen (sadly)

But you think they can continue for much longer with this modus operandi?

Not an abuser, a rapist. If VG was trafficked she was not ‘an apparently willing 17 year old’. She was a victim of Epstein and Maxwell, and had no choice - therefore not legally capable of consent. VG was trafficked for sex at the age of 16. Legally still a child and only just at the age of consent. That it’s not paedophilia is legally correct, but is the trafficking and repeated rape of her and vulnerable young girls like her any less vile a crime for that ?

Yeah I saw those photos too and raised an eyebrow at them. Considering she will know that Royal Lodge is bound to be overran by photographers right now it seems like a strange time to risk a visit.

I'd like to say I'm surprised but I'm not. Wonder if the posters who had a go earlier at those of us who judged them for endorsing their parents behaviour because we had no way of knowing if B or E had distanced themselves are.