Prince Andrew Scandal

[AGBF]

The Duke of York, also known as The Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth's second son has been disgraced by his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and his seeming abuse of at least one young woman. This forum sees a lot of threads on the jewelry worn by his daughters (the Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie) when they get engaged and married,. It seems only fair to keep abreast of what their father is doing, which is making a great deal more news in the UK. Prince Charles has taken a strong role in straightening out the scandal, asking the Queen to remove Andrew from public duties, which she has done. Royal watchers see Prince Charles as taking a stronger role in the monarchy as his the Queen ages.

Prince Andrew’s Accuser Takes Her Case to the BBC (Published 2019)

For the first time, Virginia Roberts Giuffre told a British television audience about a trip she took to London in 2001, during which, she says, she was ordered to have sex with Prince Andrew.

www.nytimes.com

 

[OoohShiny]

Prince Charles has taken a strong role in straightening out the scandal, asking the Queen to remove Andrew from public duties, which she has done.

My gut feeling is queenie had already had a word - she doesn't take any prisoners, as I understand it lol

 

[AGBF]

I first read about the role of Prince Charles in the scandal here in "The New York Times". I do not doubt the Queen's ability to handle her wayward son (Andrew), but the newspaper postulates that Charles is taking on a larger role in the Royal Family.

In Prince Andrew Scandal, Prince Charles Emerges as Monarch-in-Waiting (Published 2019)

After a public-relations debacle stirred questions about the role of Queen Elizabeth II, the Prince of Wales is asserting a newfound authority in British royal affairs.

www.nytimes.com

 

[OoohShiny]

I first read about the role of Prince Charles in the scandal here in "The New York Times". I do not doubt the Queen's ability to handle her wayward son (Andrew), but the newspaper postulates that Charles is taking on a larger role in the Royal Family.

In Prince Andrew Scandal, Prince Charles Emerges as Monarch-in-Waiting (Published 2019)

After a public-relations debacle stirred questions about the role of Queen Elizabeth II, the Prince of Wales is asserting a newfound authority in British royal affairs.

www.nytimes.com

I do think it's correct to say he's stepping forward - Queenie won't be around forever! lol

 

[lyra]

I've read that Charles wants to "reduce" the size of the royals. Can he rescind titles given by the queen, when he later becomes king? That doesn't bode well for Eugenie and Beatrice, who are suffering as innocents from what Andrew and Sarah have done in their pasts.

 

[luv2sparkle]

Does anyone really care about how many or few royals there are? I think it is appropriate to remove him. I am sure we will never know the truth about how much he is involved in. I am sure there are many more men of means and power who could be connected. I don't doubt that Epstein was murdered either. The whole thing is sordid and ugly.

 

[lyra]

I'll be happy if it's reduced to Charles, William and Harry and their familes of course. A bit on the fence about how well Harry will do, since he's had a more turbulent past. Andrew should move abroad and fade away. I mean, let's face it, I doubt he will do time. These people are all flawed, but sometimes I feel like they've definitely made poor choices even when they had all the facts.

 

[luv2sparkle]

Men in power think they will never be caught, and that their money and power will protect them. It has up until now. I really hope this changes permanently.

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

I doubt he will do time

I'm not sure at all about the legal implications here (do they have sort of a diplomatic immunity??? Statute of limitation in the UK in this specific case?), but I feel very strongly that he should absolutely go to prison if he sexually abused a minor who was forced into prostitution. This is the UK, a state with a functioning legal system. Can't wrap my head around how or why the fact who his mommy is should make anyone stand above the law.
Disgusted

 

[lyra]

Only the Queen is immune to prosecution. Everyone else is fair game. I'm just not sure that it will happen. I guess we'll see.

 

[Bron357]

Prince Andrew is a disgrace and disgusting. He thinks he is above reproach and above the law. I doubt that he consciously and knowingly engaged in prostitution with a minor because he’s empty between the ears, has no moral compass and is shite at choosing “friends”. However he is such a spineless and boneless pathetic human being that he couldn’t even admit his mistake.
i can’t sweat because my life was in danger during the Falklands War! Not only an outright lie with absolutely no science behind it it was absolutely pathetic.
And his excuse....after my “friend” was found guilty of sex crimes against young and vulnerable women I went to see him in person because I’m just too kind and thoughtful a person to say “die in hell you sleazebag” over the phone.
As for him and his daughters (and partners) living the high life at taxpayers expense at Buckingham Palace, get a real job.

 

[partgypsy]

If you believe in Royalty, then it has to do with your bloodline, NOT how nice of a person you are. So the modern monarchy is an odd beast, where it a) yes has to do with having "blue blood" (and there have been many many horrible royal people who because of being royal were above the law), combined with, they are PR for Great Britain and they can have their titles stripped due to bad behavior.

I do feel sad for his daughters. They were not involved yet they and their children will bear the brunt. I don't agree with the "him and his daughters and partners living the high life at taxpayers expense...get a real job), well you have a monarchy, that's what royal people do! If you want to not make him royal go ahead and strip him of his royal titles. But as far as his children, they didn't do anything, except be born into it. If you want to apply the "get a job" to Andrew's children apply it to all the royals, or not at all. Otherwise it's like putting a person in prison or taking away their job because their parent was convicted of a crime. We at least in the US don't do that.

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

i feel sorry for Princess Bea
i don't care who someone's mum and dad are, or how much money they do or don't have, but every girl should feel like a princess on their wedding day
and i hope that her dad still walks her down the isle
it seems like Andrew is digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself but its not fare his alleged behavour has far reaching consequences towards his daughter's happiness

i think Charles has wanted to slim down the amount of working royals for a while but it would be most unfortunate if Princess Ann and Edward and Sophie got cut back
Princess Ann has consistently topped the list of most royal engagements over many many years

its unfortunate the media and trash mags are so youth oppsessed the work of these royals doesn't get the headlines they deserves - its a real disservice to the charities and worthy organizations involved

Charles and Camilia had a really positive happy tour of NZ and Andrew really took away from that, the Dutchess choses to take on the less sexy causes like domestic violence and literacy and the concerns of the aged - all causes that deserve media attention

also a word or two in defence for some of the Queen's now lesser recognized cousins

No one remembers who the cousins are now because the press choose to ignore them because they are older, but they are grandchildren of a soverign just like Wills and Harry, Bea and Eugenie are

Princess Alexandra has carried out an awful lot of offical work and tours on behalf of her cousin the Queen, at one time there just wern't enough young Windsor princesses to go around.
Over the years her brother the Duke of Kent (Prince Edward) and her cousin the Duke of Gloucester (Prince Richard) have also done a great many engagments
just as the older generations fade from view so too one day will Harry and Megan as George, Charlotte and Louis come of age.
i mean i wouldn't have been able to pick George V's sister, Mary, Princess royal out of a line up so i guess its just the way if the world as these supoorting roles fade into the bi lines of history

....my ! excuse the ramble

anyway if Andrew did engage in underage sex - one bad apple does not spoil the tree
Plenty of families have 'that uncle'
He is an adult and his sexual practices have zero bearing on the work of his parents or his brother.
Charles is finally getting recognized for his long held environmental stance and he may just turn out to be a very good king of our times

 

[AGBF]

i think Charles has wanted to slim down the amount of working royals for a while but it would be most unfortunate if Princess Ann and Edward and Sophie got cut back
Princess Ann has consistently topped the list of most royal engagements over many many years

Obviously I do not have any inside information, but as someone who has been an avid royal watcher all my life I would bet that Anne (The Princess Royal) will be allowed to die with her boots on! As you said, Daisys and Diamonds, no one except Her Majesty and Prince Charles has worked (doing what royals do) harder than Anne! I cannot imagine she would be part of any trimming down! Unless she wanted that! She does love her horses. Maybe she would like an excuse not to have to bear the burden of the family. It was she who did all the dirty work (along with the Queen).

Camilla is, in my opinion, acting like the companion Charles always wanted and needed. She is showing up for duty.

 

[AGBF]

I've read that Charles wants to "reduce" the size of the royals. Can he rescind titles given by the queen, when he later becomes king? That doesn't bode well for Eugenie and Beatrice, who are suffering as innocents from what Andrew and Sarah have done in their pasts.

I do not believe Prince Charles has any desire to rescind their titles, which he cannot do without changing British laws. I think he only wants to keep a tighter rein on who is acting for the crown in public. I doubt that Beatrice or Eugenie will feel deprived of being able to do charitable work in the name of the Royal Family. Sorry, but they do not strike me all that interested in that part of royal life.

 

[kenny]

... I doubt that Beatrice or Eugenie will feel deprived of being able to do charitable work in the name of the Royal Family. Sorry, but they do not strike me all that interested in that part of royal life.

Oh, I don't know.
Princess Bea has demonstrated a certain flair for comedy.

 

[lyra]

I'm conflicted. I like having the Queen as a figurehead, yet I don't agree with the idea that a single bloodline should be placed above everyone else. I know that they do a lot of good. I just don't think being born into one family should give them such privilege in these modern times. I am also very sad that the next 3 monarchs in line will be kings. I don't feel any of them can ever measure up to the Queen, and all she has accomplished in her life, with her mostly impeccable decorum and actions.

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

Oh, I don't know.
Princess Bea has demonstrated a certain flair for comedy.

i kind of loved it !
at least she's an individual
have you seen the butterflies ?

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

I'm conflicted. I like having the Queen as a figurehead, yet I don't agree with the idea that a single bloodline should be placed above everyone else. I know that they do a lot of good. I just don't think being born into one family should give them such privilege in these modern times. I am also very sad that the next 3 monarchs in line will be kings. I don't feel any of them can ever measure up to the Queen, and all she has accomplished in her life, with her mostly impeccable decorum and actions.

i feel sad about the king thing too but the Queen's father was a very good king and her grandfather was quite the modernizer so Charles, William and George have much to live up to

But Europe is bursting with future soverign Queens, in Spain, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway

 

[Snowdrop13]

There are way too many minor royals now and I’d fully support reducing the numbers that are “working” members. The trouble with the likes of Andrew is that they were brought up in entitlement, not educated for any job, not expected to work for a living yet have to rely on the Queen for their income. The Sovereign can’t be expected to support generations of offspring although I believe Andrew expected this for his daughters. He has taken advantage of various dodgy people over the years to gain large sums of money for himself. Poor Bea, her wedding will be completely overshadowed by this.

 

[AGBF]

"Vanity Fair" has some additional information on how the situation has unfolded and how the royal "work" will have to be divided. Indeed The Princess Royal as well as The Earl and Countess of Wessex are not expected to be thrust out of the circle of people allowed to "work" for the royal family.


“I think Charles will realize that William and Harry and the little royal family he wants to create will leave him short of support,” said the Queen’s biographer Sally Bedell Smith. “He’s going to need to recognize that he can’t just rely on his sons and their wives to carry out the vast number of royal duties—he’s going to need his siblings Anne, Edward, and Sophie to help with the workload. Beatrice and Eugenie are not working royals, which is what Charles wanted; the Wessex children aren’t going to carry out royal duties; and it’s going to be a long time before George, Charlotte, and Louis will be old enough to do so.”

In Prince Andrew Scandal, Prince Charles Emerges as Monarch-in-Waiting (Published 2019)

After a public-relations debacle stirred questions about the role of Queen Elizabeth II, the Prince of Wales is asserting a newfound authority in British royal affairs.

www.nytimes.com

 

[OoohShiny]

A bit on the fence about how well Harry will do, since he's had a more turbulent past.

Do you mean because he had naked photos leaked from a party? lol

I like Harry - he seems very down to earth, the sort of chap you could get plastered down the pub with, lol.

I think it's good that the royals do a stint in the Forces - I'm sure they are protected somewhat more than 'Jo(e) Bloggs', but the Forces allow them to learn skills and be treated more 'normally' by their fellow personnel.

 

[dk168]

Never liked him.

Charles is not exactly squeaky clean himself.

DK

 

[lyra]

Interesting article, Deb. I don't like the rabid publicity surrounding the royals. It's hard to sort out the truth. I didn't believe for instance, that Meghan would cause any issues, and they treat her like she is horrible. Is she horrible? Who knows. The article made it seem like this "scandal" with Andrew would eventually blow over. Like I said earlier, he should stay out of the spotlight and go away. The British press will be relentless either way. I don't think anything will really change within the monarchy. They seem to have very strict rules to follow regardless.

 

[Bonfire]

Loathsome, disgusting liar. His idea of damage control doesn’t cut it. Bye Andrew.

 

[mrs-b]

Innocent until proven guilty - let's remember that. And sex workers revealing famous clients for profit - true or not true - is not exactly a new scenario.

Do I think he did it? Probably. But I agree with the poster who said Andrew was not exactly a smart man, and doubtless did not ask to see a driver's license before whisking off said Delicious Young Thing. And being much older and experienced in life, the onus was on him not to perpetuate what was legally a crime, if this is indeed what he did. Mind you, it's not like the DYT in question had no say in it. They had to bring her over from the US, as I understand it - she wasn't being held, locked in a closet and being abused at will. So there's more than one side to this story.

But of course, as a man in very high social standing in his early 40's at the time, the onus was on him to act in a moral and legal manner.

I do remember, tho, in what high regard Diana held Andrew. She said of him that he was an extremely hard working royal who was rarely recognized for the work he did. True or not, that was her opinion, and I suspect she had the inside track on that knowledge.

 

[kenny]

Innocent until proven guilty - let's remember that. And sex workers revealing famous clients for profit - true or not true - is not exactly a new scenario.

Do I think he did it? Probably. But I agree with the poster who said Andrew was not exactly a smart man, and doubtless did not ask to see a driver's license before whisking off said Delicious Young Thing. And being much older and experienced in life, the onus was on him not to perpetuate what was legally a crime, if this is indeed what he did. Mind you, it's not like the DYT in question had no say in it. They had to bring her over from the US, as I understand it - she wasn't being held, locked in a closet and being abused at will. So there's more than one side to this story.

But of course, as a man in very high social standing in his early 40's at the time, the onus was on him to act in a moral and legal manner.

I do remember, tho, in what high regard Diana held Andrew. She said of him that he was an extremely hard working royal who was rarely recognized for the work he did. True or not, that was her opinion, and I suspect she had the inside track on that knowledge.

I'm gonna take issue with this part of your post, "Mind you, it's not like the DYT in question had no say in it. They had to bring her over from the US, as I understand it - she wasn't being held, locked in a closet and being abused at will. So there's more than one side to this story."

When a minor is involved in sex trafficking & prostitution she is 100% a victim of criminals. Period.

You wrote, "she wasn't being held, locked in a closet and being abused at will. So there's more than one side to this story.""?
How can you even go there?

 

[arkieb1]

After the interview he gave making excuses and not acknowledging how bad Epstein's behaviour was the press had a field day and the queen I think forced him to step down from all Royal duties. Now some of the women are coming forwards telling their side of what happened, it's only going to get worse not better for him.

 

[Bonfire]

He continued his friendship/involvement with Epstein after he was already a convicted sex offender. For what possible purpose? Underaged sex would be a pretty easy conclusion. Would that be the actions of a dignified intelligent man, let alone a Royal? Andrew’s ridiculous interview was an embarrassment. Another man brought down by a sordid sex scandal, this time an underage sex trafficking scandal. There are plenty more dominos to fall here.
Now the House of Windsor is in the position of trying to control the damage and make it go away. He’s done.

 

[mrs-b]

I'm gonna take issue with this part of your post, "Mind you, it's not like the DYT in question had no say in it. They had to bring her over from the US, as I understand it - she wasn't being held, locked in a closet and being abused at will. So there's more than one side to this story."

When a minor is involved in sex trafficking & prostitution she is 100% a victim of criminals. Period.

You wrote, "she wasn't being held, locked in a closet and being abused at will. So there's more than one side to this story.""?
How can you even go there?

Exactly. And you're assuming guilt without a trial. How can *you* go *there*?

Kenny, I was a developmental psychologist for decades. On more than one occasion, I worked with kids who had been locked in closets and abused at will. I know the difference of impact for the victim - I know it through experience. I've also worked with teenagers - mostly transgender teenagers, as they congregated in one specific area of Sydney which is where I worked - who worked as prostitutes for pimps who kept them dependent on drugs and the men who paid them for sex to allow them to buy those drugs. Those people had NO choice and there IS a difference. By the way, I did that line of work - a hard, soul destroying, heart breaking form of work for a psychologist - on a volunteer basis for 20 years. I did it because I was genuinely committed to the well being of those people. More than one stayed at my home to 'sleep it off'. I took more than one to hospital. I called the cops on pimps and fights and beat downs more time than I can count. So don't for one second imply I'm coming at this from a 'holier than thou - blame the victim' moral high ground.

Did you think I was kidding when I said - if PA did this, then he is at fault and is to blame? Morally and legally. I said it - and it wasn't just to blow smoke up your arse so I could in fact blame the victim - so don't imply it.

But 17 year olds don't go from having no sense of responsibility to being fully aware when they turn 18. Nor do they all develop at the same rate. A number is arbitrary, development is not. I've seen utterly remorseless 14 year olds, harder than a lot of 40 year olds I've known, set up people for no reason other than it amused them. Were their circumstances tragic? OF COURSE. Did they get there through a lifetime of abuse? Generally. But NOT ALWAYS. I'm saying we don't know what happened. Nor do we know the degree of involvement of both. I'll say it again - do I think it happened? Yes, probably. Statistically, if nothing else, it's far more likely PA was at fault. But is it even possible there is more to it than is being said? Sure, I know this through experience.