Beatrice and Eugenie banned from Ascot

[Viviennemary]

Beatrice and Eugenie have been banned from the royal box at Ascot and from royal events in the foreseeable future. That's according to a headline in the Daily Mail. A little part of me feels a bit sorry for them as they're not their parents. I don't like them much but they do seem to symbolise all that's wrong with the royals. Money and immense wealth and priviledge for very little return.

it does sound like she has overpaid herself

You don’t need to be trafficked to be manipulated and exploited, especially when there’s a significant imbalance in experience. age, power, status and wealth, between the employer and the employee.

Some of those young women were sent on legitimate massage therapy courses and they naively thought that their employers wouldn’t invest in them unless the work was legitimate too.

Some expected their “ rich, sophisticated, elders and betters” to behave appropriately. They saw it as a chance to escape poverty and gain financial independence.

Even those who had an idea that the work was exploitative and knowingly went ahead probably wouldn’t have done so if they had had less precarious backgrounds. Maxwell Epstein deliberately recruited young women who were vulnerable.

Remember it was a thirteen year old’s step-mother who brought Epstein’s activities to the notice of the police which caused him to be imprisoned for the first time.

He also obliquely threatened VG’s siblings so you don’t know what pressure he put on others.

Yet the were all vulnerable teenagers from chaotic backgrounds who were groomed and coerced by Ghislaine Maxwell - before being sexually assaulted by her and Jeffrey Epstein.

No ‘choices’ made in coercion and grooming.

They were all victims of JE and GM industrial level sexual assault grooming and coercive system.

How so?
At what point do we expect people to be accountable for their decisions and actions?
Should women who knowingly recruited younger women for abuse ever be held responsible? If not, why is Ghislaine Maxwell in jail? She had a very abusive, controlling father and was in a weird, dependent, relationship with Epstein, another evil, powerful man. Is that an excuse? Or are we just not allowed to ask difficult questions about women who have experienced abuse in their lives?

To me most if not all Windsor ‘charity’ stinks of a pr think tank - where are they vulnerable to criticism ? Set up a charity that will shut people up.

Agree entirely.

Increasingly Windsor 'charity work' seems to be another area which would highly benefit from in-depth scrutiny.

C3's carriers of loot and denial of any knowledge of cash for access or honours Earthshot's torture perv donor and a winner boasting W as their ambassador, Euge's £1m raised translating into a £300k knees-up and stuffing the rest unspent into a bank account, the disappearance of charitable donations into Harold's private limited company, Ferg's skimming.

It's endless.

Totallyfedupnow

Interesting to read you are batting for Ghislaine Maxwell, the most awful manipulative procurer of very young girls to serve up to older men. She would trawl shopping malls, trailer parks, anywhere she could find vulnerable girls she could promise riches to, whilst coercing them into sex with JE and others.

Ghislaine Maxwell was 46 years of age when JE was arrested for procuring a 14 year old for prostitution - her abusive father had died nearly 20 years previously.

Agree - beyond the financial questions the choices have the stench of crisis team work-shopped initiatives to proactively cover up issues - Eugenie and Camilla - sent out to bat with trafficking and DA ‘initiatives’ when they had a the repeated rapist of a trafficked teenager under their own roof.

Charity begins at home.

And she sexually assaulted them too, what a hideous person. I am sure her childhood was awful and her father was an abuser but that is no excuse.

And reference to her abusive father played no part in Ghislaine Maxwell’s defence strategy.

It comprised her slagging off witnesses, accusing them of being avaricious and immoral with dodgy memories.

Sounds just like her father. He would have faced prison if he hadn’t died on that boat.

Noone knows if he sexually abused her but his other dc have said they were petrified of him. He was a repulsive bully, GM was his favourite, and you have to wonder what that entailed. Whatever happened during her childhood is zero excuse for her abhorrent behaviour to numerous teenage girls.

And @SnappyJadeJoker - this piece by the Guardian will show you how Ghislaine Maxwell threatened all of these teenage rape victims for life.

I honestly think these two have questions to answer too (at least morally, if not legally). They interacted with Epstein as adults, following his release from prison. That alone is a sufficiently serious lapse in judgment to suggest they're not suited to the role of working royals.

The only way the monarchy is going to get through this is by ruthlessly purging those members who have shown that they would drop any moral principle if it meant cashing in, and that includes Beatrice and Eugenie. They will only continue the embarrassment for years to come.

Both have wealthy husbands and stack of privilege and good connections. They can fend for themselves in absolute luxury without remaining in the bosom of the royal family. It's time to cut them off completely.

I've been on the side of cutting B and E some slack, but now feel they'd do well to more or less disappear.

Eugenie's charity needs winding up, too.

New celebrity blond suggesting one of the royal offspring was recruiting her friends to meet the billionaire….

Worth noting that repulsive thing named the boat after her but whatever his crimes (if any) against her, nothing excuses her abhorrent adult behaviour subsequently.

I think others of his dc (Ghizzie cheerleader Kev and another bro?) got off criminal accusations against their involvement in his fraud but my memory is hazy and I CBA to look.

The only way the monarchy is going to get through this is by ruthlessly purging those members who have shown that they would drop any moral principle if it meant cashing in

How far back are we going?

Members dropping moral or ethical principles to cash in are legion.

😮😬

I personally would like to see the entire lot disposed of. I'm not a monarchist, and even if I believed in monarchy generally, the family we've been saddled with are beyond the pale.

They're all rich enough in their own right to manage without the public purse. George, Charlotte and Louis are young enough to be prepared for a life of work, and they'd still have vast privilege that would see them through their lives even if we ended the monarchy tomorrow.

It's time to be done with these archaic sponges for good.

As we know from Virginia Giuffre’s tragic story, the impact of childhood abuse stays with victims for ever. It doesn’t magically go away when you hit your thirties or forties.

However, I am no apologist for Ghislaine Maxwell. My point is that if we accept the principle that it’s possible for women who’ve been abused to also be guilty of crimes and to be held accountable for them, then there are other women involved with Epstein who should be on the hook for aiding and abetting him as well. As well as, of course, all the men who did so too.

Could you provide a source for Ghislaine Maxwell being repeatedly sexually abused by her father and his associates? Yes he was a domineering authoritarian with his children but I have never heard that. Ever
That sounds like you think the Epstein victims (of which there are many) should be 'on the hook'
Some of these survivors were very young, I don't suppose that matters to you. Have you read any stories of what the victims/survivors went through. Like Maria Farmer for instance?

You should

I'm uncomfortable with some of the very black-and-white views on this thread.

Anyone who has worked with children and young people is likely to have some experience to inform them that privilege does not protect from abuse.

Because of this, I struggle with the concept that certain 19/20 year olds were clearly victims, while others could never be, simply because of their position in life.
When that position includes clearly chaotic parents, and exposure to abusers, I find it even more difficult.

I suspect it will be a long time before we know the full truth about B&E, if we ever do. Meanwhile, I hope they and their children are OK.

@simpsonthecat yes thanks I have. And yes, I think people who have committed crimes should be accountable for them, and it IS a crime to procure vulnerable underage girls for men to have sex with, whoever it is doing the recruiting.

As @bluegreygreen says, people on this thread seem to have very fixed ideas about who victims and abusers are allowed to be - which ironically is one of the reasons why so many abusers get away with their crimes.

In reality abuse takes many forms (eg coercion and control does not have to be sexual or even violent). It can happen at any age to anyone (think about the Gisèle Pelicot case) and there is no set formula for how long it affects its victims, and in what way. Some victims go on to abuse others themselves - others do not. Some find a way to cope and move on with their lives, others cannot.

Because then that would be their own money they would be giving not other folks. Its a great big con and needs to be investigated.