Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

What about Beatrice & Eugenie?

723 replies

olderandnonthewiser · 19/10/2025 23:26

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
jeffgoldblum · 20/10/2025 23:50

Soho house needs investigation, it’s ties to Epstein are well known, about time the light is shone on all the shady individuals.

TightlyLacedCorset · 20/10/2025 23:53

Imdunfer · 20/10/2025 22:22

Well the clue is in the word "apparently". She appeared willing. It's not rape if you genuinely believe you have consent and have reason for that belief. She was trained by Epstein and Maxwell to behave as if she wanted sex with the men they told her to have sex with. I believe that he knew she was being prostituted, but not that she had not given consent.

She may have had no choice due to psychological coercion, but there's no reason to suppose that Andrew knew she had no choice. What evidence do you know that she'd given any inkling that he did not have her consent? In her book I believe she says how Maxwell praised her for giving Andrew so much fun.

He's a sleazeball and a liar, but I don't believe what happened with Virginia in the way she described it makes him a rapist.
.

In the first instance and people need to understand this:

When a woman (or man) is trafficked they cannot give consent. Never. It doesn't matter if they throw themselves on you naked and scream 'take me now!' To sleep with a trafficked person is rape by default.

Ok. So now this claim that he didn't understand she wasn't consenting. She looked happy and willing. I'm sure she may well have. Groomed victims do.

But I have to ask myself:

On what planet?

On what planet does anyone think a 17 year old is voluntarily on the game? That out of all life's choices this is the one they arrived upon? Let's remember in the UK 16 was and remains the age of sexual consent, but you have to be 18 to buy alcohol. To vote. To even choose certain career paths like Social Work.

So on what planet do you not stop and think: 'Fucking for favours is a bloody extreme career choice for a 17 year old? How on earth did she get here? Where's her family? 🤔

How is it possible that a man of 40+ with lots of experience of women under his belt, a divorcee with daughters nearly the same age no less, thinks: Oh this 17 year old is hanging around with this incredibly wealthy and well connected sophisticated businessman (Epstein) that she has zero, nada, numero uno, family connection with and is out here fucking me 100% by free choice? My 40 + year old dick is so irresistible this 17 year old just can't get enough? There's nothing else she'd rather be doing? AT 17? He's never heard of the concept of a woman faking it? Prince Andrew ex army hero had never heard of girls being forced into prostitution?

I know he's not perceived as the most intelligent of the late Queens children, he let himself be actually photographed with Virginia after all, with his arms around her no less, I mean a clown would see him coming. But could he really be that naive and sophisticated in the wars of the world?

The man served in the army and the male banter is sexually crude as F. I really, really cannot see him being so naive.

Perhaps once. Maybe. His upbringing involves perhaps a derogatory perception of commoners. I could see his arrogance letting him overlook all sense. But he never felt uneasy the (alleged) second time? Third?

The other stray girls wandering around with no family either? Giving massages with favours out of genuine desire? Riding in private jets? He didn't think they were at least recruited for a job. And whom did he think was paying?

He must of known it weren't a good look, because he appeared to never talk about it (as far as we know) and when he did it was to deny he had ever met the woman concerned.

.

Tiredofbullsit · 21/10/2025 00:07

jumpingthehighjump · 20/10/2025 11:08

Ever since this story broke I have seen it on here time and time again

But she was 17! Above the age of consent in this country!
She knew what she was doing!
She was after money!
Her father didn't seem to mind did he?!
And the worst one...
She was smiling in the picture so I'm sure she was happy with it all !

None of us were there.

Tiredofbullsit · 21/10/2025 00:12

PrincessScarlett · 20/10/2025 11:15

According to VG, Andrew knew she was 17 because he said to her that his own daughters were only a little younger than her. Absolutely disgusting man.

Technically that’s according to VG. I don’t think there’s any independent evidence to support this?

While accepting that VG was massively abused and maltreated, equally there is nothing to say that her version of events is irrefutably true?

Tiredofbullsit · 21/10/2025 00:24

Allergictoironing · 20/10/2025 11:55

I'm still going on the theory that Andrew is thick as shit and arrogant/entitled to boot. Whether he thought all these young women were flocking around the way some do with rock stars, or whether he realised they were being prostituted, I don't think he has the mental capacity to think any deeper than that to question whether they had been trafficked.

The act states that the accused person must be proven to have the intent to exploit the victim, whereas thick-as-shit probably thought she would be thrilled to have sex with a real live prince and war hero. Arrogant yes, entitled definitely, has an ego the size of the planet yes, has enough brain cells to look past that I would say not. I think he genuinely believes she was happy to service him, wouldn't any woman? Personally I'd rather swear off sex for life than sleep with him, but in HIS mind I would be the anomaly.

I agree. I think he’s so thick that he wouldn’t even have known what trafficked was! He’d have thought any woman was desperate to sleep with a prince!

Tiredofbullsit · 21/10/2025 00:33

MauriceTheMussel · 20/10/2025 12:26

He’s telling all the rest of us that, and we don’t believe him. £12m pay out when you’re innocent? Nah. Come off it.

I no longer think he could be innocent on the balance of probabilities and the most recent relevations but hang on a minute, you have no clue how a settlement works! It happens if you can’t disprove what you’re accused of. It happens if it’s going to cost more to fight than to settle. It happens if fighting the case is likely to cause more reputational damage. Educate yourself!

MauriceTheMussel · 21/10/2025 00:39

Tiredofbullsit · 21/10/2025 00:33

I no longer think he could be innocent on the balance of probabilities and the most recent relevations but hang on a minute, you have no clue how a settlement works! It happens if you can’t disprove what you’re accused of. It happens if it’s going to cost more to fight than to settle. It happens if fighting the case is likely to cause more reputational damage. Educate yourself!

I’m a solicitor. I know how they work.

Educate yourself: who has more resources to fight and prove defamation? The ROYAL FAMILY or one woman?

Did the SA halt reputational damage?

If you were innocent and yet accusations splashed on front pages, would you cower and spunk £12million?

Oh, btw, he’d be up for a criminal charge, so that’s not on a balance of probability. The test is beyond reasonable doubt. And I’d still bet my last penny he’d be guilty as hell.

Tiredofbullsit · 21/10/2025 00:41

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 20/10/2025 12:41

As soon as they put a statement out apologising for knowingly associating with a convicted pedophile and condemning the actions of their parents then I may well feel better disposed towards them.

They've only had six years though so hopefully it won't be long now...

Edited

God they are close to their parents whatever they have done - you can’t surely expect them to sell them out like that!!

Blosheen · 21/10/2025 00:59

They really don’t help themselves. Eugenie interviewed Fergie for her anti slavery YouTube channel and they both were just sat there patting each other on the back. It was embarrassing. To see a middle aged woman call her mum “mumsy” was borderline disturbing to say the least.

Tiredofbullsit · 21/10/2025 01:03

TightlyLacedCorset · 20/10/2025 13:49

No.

I used to follow her Instagram. One day she put up a picture of her dad on, if I remember correctly, his birthday with a gushing happy birthday message (or it might have been father's day). This was after the Maitless interview and he was dodging subpoenas by Giuffre's lawyers with the help of his staff.
It went down like a lead balloon. A lot of arguing in the comment section both in support of Andrew and against.

The whole thing was tone deaf. She was involved in her anti-sex slavery charity at the time (and Andrew had previously been associated with the NSPCC, so I wonder if it is even possible for people so insulated to truly understand such causes and the devastation to the victims such charities represent and perhaps there ought to be questions about the appropriateness of some of these charities having Royal patrons who are so very far removed from the smallest challenges faced by such). Clearly she didn't believe the charges and went out of her way to put up that post to signal support.

Since then other things have come out and I wonder if she feels the same way. However I will say in their defence, and to a small degree Andrews, that I was watching one of Lady Collin Campbells videos on Andrew, supposedly an apology (which was why I engaged at all) and her attitude regarding the whole debacle was quite something. To my mind it was like something from the Victorian era. It gave me a small inkling of sympathy in that, if these are representative of the general attitude among people of the aristocratic class, then Andrew's seeming sense of entitlement to young women's bodies (whom likely appeared to be gaining in his view, by association to him) may be somewhat understandable in it's etiology.

Let's not pretend class doesn't play a huge part in how worthy a person is perceived in this country and sense of entitlement of others. Even in this thread, you see the bias where Virginia, a mere year past the legal age for sex and with a history of sexual exploitation going back to when she was even younger is framed as a happy hooker and the princesses are innocent doves compliantly doing what their mother says and meeting Epstein with no understanding or agency at all.

This entire thing has shone a giant mirror into how some in the upper echelons of society think about those beneath them, how women from disadvantaged backgrounds are framed as fit for exploitation, how deeply ingrained sexism and yes (I would call it rape culture at this point) and how the Royal family has lost touch with ordinary citizens.

Edited

I hear what you are saying and I would include the lady who Harry claims he lost his virginity to but I don’t believe it is universal.

Tiredofbullsit · 21/10/2025 01:15

Rosscameasdoody · 20/10/2025 16:27

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 ?

I very much doubt she knew the extent of it, and I hope she didn’t!

Tiredofbullsit · 21/10/2025 01:17

Blosheen · 21/10/2025 00:59

They really don’t help themselves. Eugenie interviewed Fergie for her anti slavery YouTube channel and they both were just sat there patting each other on the back. It was embarrassing. To see a middle aged woman call her mum “mumsy” was borderline disturbing to say the least.

Why? What’s wrong with calling your mother ‘mummy’? I’m Irish and I called my mother ‘mammy’ all her life, still do!

Tiredofbullsit · 21/10/2025 01:25

EverybodyLTB · 20/10/2025 20:42

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.

She can visit her parents if she wants especially as they are under siege!!

coxesorangepippin · 21/10/2025 02:29

I think Beatrice, even strained, will survive

coxesorangepippin · 21/10/2025 02:30

I'm sure the Queen knew of the extent of Andrew's failings

In fact, I'm sure she knew about a lot of Andre/I pstein-esque shenanigans that we don't know about. And might never.

Glitchymn1 · 21/10/2025 02:52

They can’t help who their parents are.

IamNotBeingUnreasonable · 21/10/2025 03:31

JillyJoy · 20/10/2025 07:57

I had not heard about this. Any more information available.
Are they not both married to very rich blokes from very wealthy families?

Bea is but Eug married an alcohol salesman.

IamNotBeingUnreasonable · 21/10/2025 03:33

Lifestooshort71 · 20/10/2025 08:07

They both appear happily married with children, jobs and charity work so I don't see that anything much will change for them. Charles has a soft spot for them but only as family members, they'll never be working royals again - can't see that bothering either of them tbh, it was more A pushing for it all the time.

B & E have never been working royals, despite their father pushing for it over the years.

stillavid · 21/10/2025 05:14

If Andrew Lownie is to be believed the girls were very aware/involved in the murky business dealings of their parents and I suspect that is going to be their downfall.

PumpkinsAndCoconuts · 21/10/2025 06:51

Banjaxxedd · 20/10/2025 18:49

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.

Interesting. I saw it the other way around. Those that call him a pedophile - even though he doesn’t seem to be based on the facts available - minimise the crimes that were actually committed imo.

it really ties into the fact that we - as a society- seem to have a really difficult time supporting victims that don’t come with the added protection that is (rightly) extended to young children.

what happened was horrible. And the young women and teenagers affected deserve justice and societal protection. We shouldn’t need to add the in this case imagined offence of pedophilia to acknowledge that.

RainbowBagels · 21/10/2025 07:07

IamNotBeingUnreasonable · 21/10/2025 03:31

Bea is but Eug married an alcohol salesman.

Is she though? Hes a 'count' from a long deposed Royal Family, his business doesnt pull in that much profit and is part owned by his ex partner. Eugenies husband is now flogging houses in Portugal. Comfortable maybe but not the billionnaire lifestyle their parents exposed them to.

jumpingthehighjump · 21/10/2025 07:08

EverybodyLTB · 20/10/2025 22:36

Oh yes, all that abuse and rape made 16-17 year old Virginia so “worldly wise”

Shame that 20 year old university educated princesses couldn’t keep up and remained worldly un-wise. Come on now. B & E are making choices at this stage. Choices of privileged adults. They might not have street smarts but they know their own minds and have been educated and lived away from home at the point when they went to see Uncle Jeff home from horrid old prison.

This ⬆️⬆️
People on this thread a talking about B and E like they are a couple of girls who know nothing about the world. Of course they are completely privileged and cushioned from what ordinary People go through, but they can look up on the internet what their father has been up to. And E patron and I believe joint founder of a slavery and trafficking chartity? Surely she did her research to take this on?

Stop infantalising these two women

jumpingthehighjump · 21/10/2025 07:11

TightlyLacedCorset · 20/10/2025 23:53

In the first instance and people need to understand this:

When a woman (or man) is trafficked they cannot give consent. Never. It doesn't matter if they throw themselves on you naked and scream 'take me now!' To sleep with a trafficked person is rape by default.

Ok. So now this claim that he didn't understand she wasn't consenting. She looked happy and willing. I'm sure she may well have. Groomed victims do.

But I have to ask myself:

On what planet?

On what planet does anyone think a 17 year old is voluntarily on the game? That out of all life's choices this is the one they arrived upon? Let's remember in the UK 16 was and remains the age of sexual consent, but you have to be 18 to buy alcohol. To vote. To even choose certain career paths like Social Work.

So on what planet do you not stop and think: 'Fucking for favours is a bloody extreme career choice for a 17 year old? How on earth did she get here? Where's her family? 🤔

How is it possible that a man of 40+ with lots of experience of women under his belt, a divorcee with daughters nearly the same age no less, thinks: Oh this 17 year old is hanging around with this incredibly wealthy and well connected sophisticated businessman (Epstein) that she has zero, nada, numero uno, family connection with and is out here fucking me 100% by free choice? My 40 + year old dick is so irresistible this 17 year old just can't get enough? There's nothing else she'd rather be doing? AT 17? He's never heard of the concept of a woman faking it? Prince Andrew ex army hero had never heard of girls being forced into prostitution?

I know he's not perceived as the most intelligent of the late Queens children, he let himself be actually photographed with Virginia after all, with his arms around her no less, I mean a clown would see him coming. But could he really be that naive and sophisticated in the wars of the world?

The man served in the army and the male banter is sexually crude as F. I really, really cannot see him being so naive.

Perhaps once. Maybe. His upbringing involves perhaps a derogatory perception of commoners. I could see his arrogance letting him overlook all sense. But he never felt uneasy the (alleged) second time? Third?

The other stray girls wandering around with no family either? Giving massages with favours out of genuine desire? Riding in private jets? He didn't think they were at least recruited for a job. And whom did he think was paying?

He must of known it weren't a good look, because he appeared to never talk about it (as far as we know) and when he did it was to deny he had ever met the woman concerned.

.

This should be repeated again and again. I I'm sick to death of the victim blaming on here and the complete ignorance about sex trafficking coercion, vulnerable adults and how they end up being lent out to rich old men.

jumpingthehighjump · 21/10/2025 07:12

Tiredofbullsit · 21/10/2025 00:07

None of us were there.

What do you mean by that?

My post is talking about the victim blaming over the years on MN

jumpingthehighjump · 21/10/2025 07:14

Tiredofbullsit · 21/10/2025 00:24

I agree. I think he’s so thick that he wouldn’t even have known what trafficked was! He’d have thought any woman was desperate to sleep with a prince!

He was over there representing NSPCC at one point and in his car crash interview actually said he was patron of NSPCC and knew what to look for