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?

I did think the Princesses would help future King William when the time comes, esp with Harry out of the picture now. Kind of like how the Kents helped the Queen with the less headline grabbing jumble sale ribbon cutting.

But, with sticking by their extremely dodgy at best Mother and Father that could never happen now. Their decendants will be forgotten about by the time Prince George is King.

William will be a very busy King unless Lady Louise and Vicount whatshisname take on Royal duties.

What about them?
They'll be alright, Jack! 😄

That very much depends on whether he knew the girl was being trafficked (as opposed to pimped) by Epstein. Without this case, how many people on here knew beforehand that in the USA they have a law about taking anyone under 18 across state lines for immoral purposes? Equally, in some US states the age of consent is as low as 14.

Don't get me wrong, I think P Andrew is very sleazy and shady, but how many entitled men of that age think that if a girl of legal age in this country came on to them in a bar, their first thought would be "have they been trafficked?".

There are plenty of older men, older than Andrew, with comparatively much younger wives. Examples you may have heard of include Donald Trump, Richard Gere, Bernie Ecclestone (F1 former head), Mel Gibson, Patrick Stewart and many many others.

He was a stupid, arrogant man who probably genuinely believed he was still the Falklands War hero and that his title of Prince would mean young women fell at his feet. He was even more stupid not just saying up front "What - she was trafficked? Heavens I didn't know that; just knew she was over 16 so "legal" in the UK".

You’ve told me to stop mentioning pedophilia in my posts twice now—I’ve not mentioned it once.

1. It doesn’t matter if you’re 17 or 37–all ages can be sex trafficked. Just because the victim of trafficking does what she’s told by her trafficker, doesn’t mean she is a “willing participant.”
2. Just because the age of consent is 16, doesn’t mean that it is always morally right for a man in middle-age to have sex with a teenager. The age of consent is there so that 16 year-olds can have sex with other 16 year-olds.
3. I don’t know what businessmen you know. My DH is a middle-aged man in a C-Suite role at his company and sits on the board. He knows it is an unethical imbalance of power to have sex with a teenager. He particularly understands this as we have teenage children ourselves, as did Andrew at the time of his participation of the trafficking of Virginia.

They don't get money from civil list. They both have jobs and pay their own way. They both have patronages and do work for charity. They really only attend Ascot one day and generally do a garden party each per year and attend Kate's carol service each year plus private family gatherings like Xmas. I feel sorry for them both having Andrew and Sarah as parents tbh.

There are reports that Harry got an inheritance of £10million from his great grandmother, I can imagine she left the same to her other great grandchildren too, I also think the Queen left nice trust funds for her grandkids. I do think they are independently very wealthy, hopefully less extravagant than their parents.

I don’t think either of their husbands are wealthy, Eugenies husband was a nightclub manager when she met him and Beatrice’s husband an interior designer.

They do tend to do some very vague ‘work’ in the Middle East with RF’s who are known to be ‘generous’. So that will always leave a question mark over their integrity.

Children aren't to blame for what their fathers do

Agree entirely.

Neither are squeaky clean on their own account however I think they are very well cushioned with trust funds and I hope if W really does mean he's going to do 'Royal with a small r' both are retired from the kind of jollies C3 has had them propping up.

I don't want to see any of the tainted Yorks or Yorklets being wheeled on as if nothing has happened.

What about them? Who cares?

This.

No it doesn't compensate but you said Virginia and her family have nothing. She had plenty when she was alive and her children will now. Of course they would rather have their mother but they do not 'have nothing'.

Along with many others who, at that time, believed Epstein had been wrongly convicted.

I don't believe the words of Lownie, am surprised anyone does. He's up there with Lady Colin Campbell and the Daily Mail.

Thank you. This far too much victim blaming on here and saying "but she was 17."
I suggest those posters go and read up about trafficked vulnerable individuals
I am unable to respond to them because it will make me too cross

Says every nonce everywhere.

Are we "middle aged" in our thirties now?

Absolutely but they are to blame for their own actions, which includes going with their mother to celebrate Epstein's release from prison. Both were over 18 when they chose to do it, so neither was being taken against their will.

I don't believe the words of Lownie, am surprised anyone does. He's up there with Lady Colin Campbell and the Daily Mail.

Hilarious!

A reputable historian being compared to that awful Lady Campbell. Her of celeb jungle fame who has traded off the RF for years pretending she knows them when she doesn't

Lownie's York book was meticulously resourced and the first 10 pages had about 200 quoted people who were happy to put their name to the book

Maybe read it.?

I think they've done quite well out of it.
Plus, Beatrice brokered the interview with Emily Maitlis and listened to it.
If they don't know what's going on, they need to inform themselves.

Very well said.

Andrew was foolish but Epstein fooled many. No way is Andrew a paedophile, that's ridiculous.

He was "foolish"?
Do you think that's genuinely the extent of his culpability.

But VG said she was trafficked and was unwilling.

Andrew used the sexual services of young women and had a friendship with Epstein, who exploited and trafficked such girls and women. I agree with you, I don't know why he's getting a pass here.

Does the jumble sale ribbon cutting really need to be done?

Most of the charity work done by the extended family is very low profile (Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, Sophie) so it doesn't even particularly help a charity get more views on social media or engagement from the public. What's the ROI on having them as your patron? Pretty small I imagine. Better off with a YouTuber or TikTok creator.

A slimmed down Royal family of just William and family, plus Anne and Edward + Sophie until they die, will still get the main jobs of royalty (outside the role of King) done, namely state dinners, Duke of Edinburgh Award and Buckingham Palace window waving. Anne and Edward may easily have another 20 years left in them given the age their parents went on to so by then the three children in immediate family are well old enough to be doing their bit.

The number of people that excited to meet a minor royal or so interested in what they are doing that they suddenly donate to a charity for the first time is probably pretty tiny.

No, it doesn't.
They can cut it right down.

It’s a tricky one. They shouldn’t be punished for their parents’ mistakes, but they’ve undoubtedly benefited from them. I do think they genuinely believed he was innocent (that he’d been set up or that Virginia Giuffre was a gold digger/insane) which explains why Beatrice encouraged the Emily Maitlis interview. She clearly didn’t expect it to implode so badly. You’d hope her eyes are open now, but there are none so blind as those who will not see.

They’re not working royals, so keeping a low profile isn’t much of a loss. Both are in their mid-30s, married to successful, wealthy men, and established in their own careers (careers that were helped by their royal connections and privileged upbringing). They’ve been set up nicely in life and will be fine, titles or not. Even without titles and royal perks, they’d still attend family events like weddings and funerals.

It will be interesting to see whether William includes them in future royal occasions, given his stance on Andrew.