The Prince Andrew scandal

He looks pretty good in that photo.

The story is boring. Epstein is already dead. He hung out with a lot of very prominent people. Nothing is going to happen to Andrew, so why keep rehashing it? His reputation wasn't too great to begin with, and now it's every worse.

The Guardian is obsessed with #MeToo, so I am not surprised they are trying to keep this going. But what do they want to come from this? Andrew's already well tarnished, but a member of the royal family has never had their status revoked unwillingly (I don't even think that's possible), and he cannot be put in jail for this. And the Guardian is not necessarily anti-royalist (they seem to like the queen, and they love Meghan), so it doesn't seem like this is an attempt to de-legitimize the Royal Family.

The Guardian caters for millions of pathological haters of all degrees,

They have lots of hating stories and only permit comments on 5% of them

On one hand I also think these stories are unwarranted but on other I think it’s perhaps payback for Prince A being such a nasty prick in general.

Impeachment and Boris Johnson's scandals will drown out Prince Andrew stories going forward.

The FBI is now probing any “connection” Britain’s Prince Andrew may have with the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal, according to a stunning new report on Saturday.

The agency is expanding its investigation into the late financier in order to identify more of the convicted pedophile’s victims, who may provide more details about the royal’s alleged involvement, the Sunday Times of London reported.

“The US investigation is focusing on several potential victims in the hope that they can provide more details about Prince Andrew and his connection to the Epstein case,” sources from the US Department of Justice told the outlet. “They are not going to dismiss it [claims relating to Andrew] because he is a royal.”

Agents will interview trafficking victims in the coming months, according to the report, which said the FBI has briefed Scotland Yard on its expanded probe.

Dai Davies, former head of royal protection at Scotland Yard who was in charge of Prince Andrew’s protection in the late 1990s, told the Sunday Times a renewed investigation is in the “public interest.”

The royal, known as “Randy Andy,” was at one point friends with Epstein. Andrew has been accused of having sex with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, one of Epstein’s alleged underage “sex slaves.”

Giuffre, now 35, said she was 17 at the time she was allegedly offered up to Prince Andrew at Epstein pal Ghislaine Maxwell’s townhouse in London. British authorities dropped a probe into the matter prompted in 2015 by Giuffre.

Prince Andrew, 59, has repeatedly denied the accusations, saying they were “false” and “without foundation.” He also said he regrets continuing his friendship with Epstein after the convicted pedophile was released from his short prison sentence in 2010.

“I would have thought it’s in Prince Andrew’s interests to clear this matter up. Any residue of doubt or innuendo should be cleared up by a clear, unequivocal, structured investigation,” Davies said.

Giuffre’s are not the only claims the FBI is reviewing in relation to the Duke of York, the Sunday Times of London reported.

About 100 of Epstein’s victims are expected to form part of the FBI’s investigation, most of whom were between 14 and 15 years old when they were lured into Epstein’s circle. More than 80 have already been identified.

Epstein, 66, hanged himself behind bars at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan in August while awaiting sex-trafficking charges involving young women.

The news of the expanded probe comes after the FBI was accused of covering up Prince Andrew’s links to Epstein. Ex-Florida cop John Mark Dougan, who worked as a Palm Beach County sheriff’s deputy in 2005 — the year the department was investigating the depraved money man — claimed this week he had incriminating evidence on Prince Andrew, and that the feds were covering up the royal’s alleged role. Dougan now lives in Russia.

What does he have to worry about the FBI? He doesn't live in the US.

Andrew is just as gross and crass as his much-maligned ex-wife, and in fact it looks like he's let her take the rap for a lot of the shit he himself has stirred (like Epstein giving her thousands in cash about 10 years ago -- how would she have gotten money from Epstein except via Andrew? It's not like she was Epstein's type).

He's a racist boor who's been involved countless embarrassing, sketchy and downright illegal incidents, but he's gotten a free ride so far thanks to Mummy, and he's still accepted in the topmost echelons of global society, because: hypocrisy.

He deserves to be outed, and his skeevy connections should be investigated further. Yet instead of covering any of that, the British yellow press is putting stories about the "scandal" of Meghan and Harry flying private on their covers.

Prince Andrew has spoken to the BBC. He says he "let the side down" by staying at Epstein's house, but insists he has no recollection of ever having met Virginia Roberts.

He’s a gross liar. He slept with those girls. So did Alan Dershowitz. Vile scum.

oh c'mon...how many 17 year olds does he sleep with? Must be a lot if he doesn't remember this one!

Even Stevie Wonder can see he's lying.

I wonder who forced him to give that interview? No recollection is not I didn't do it. The photo speaks for itself. I'm sure Buckingham Palace hopes the interview puts it all behind him but I think it just confirms he's a sleaze bucket.

The Guardian hates monarchy so that's part of it but any public figure would face this.

"What does he have to worry about the FBI? He doesn't live in the US."

Have you never heard of criminal extraditions?

When a foreign nation is accused of a crime committed on US soil, the US DOJ can request extradition to the US to stand for trial.

Think Julian Assange. It is only a matter of time before the UK chucks him over to the US to face criminal prosecution.

Randy Andy's days of roaming the globe will become very curtailed if the US requests extradition, as many countries have extradition treaties with the US. But he would be very welcomed in Ecuador, or he could take over Assange's vacant pad in the London Ecuadorian Embassy.

meant "foreign national"

Both governments will make it go away.

[quote] I don't get why the Guardian keeps flogging this.

Because it sells newspapers and causes on line clicks.

Lots of sudden blinking by PA when he insists he has 'no recollection' of meeting V Roberts. Looks like a nervous tell.

Nervous laugh out of nowhere when PA says he kicks himself on a daily basis for staying with Epstein. Nothing's funny.

Contradiction when PA says (slightly annoyed, defensive) that 'it was a convenient place to stay' having accepted the hospitality of a convicted sex offender; but then says he, PA, has a tendency to be 'too honourable'. As though he was somehow doing Epstein a favour staying with him, above and beyond any 'convenience.'

Must have been quite the 50/50 for The Palace about PA doing this interview. It'll give what apologists there are the chance to say, he's admitted to a mistake, let's move on. For the rest of us, nothing's changed.

I know R19, I saw a small part of the interview in the news and he was fucking laughing! WTF??

It seems he was out to say sorry to the royal family and how he put them in a bad light rather than just answering questions. Guess he's trying to get back on his mama's good side.

The Queen is very powerful and rich, I would not be surprised if she had anything to do with that guy who died in prison.

Does anybody - with a brain - believe the Queen runs about paying people to kill people?

R21 the Queen herself might not , but the people around her definitely will.

R21 I do. I don’t buy the “sweet ol’ granny” PR propaganda makeover that was implemented after Diana’s death. She has ice water in her veins.

Prince Charles can't wait to get rid of Prince Andrew's lying ass once he becomes king. Prince Charles already started streamlining the Royal Family in 2011 when Andrew was caught strolling with Epstein after the latter's release from prison.

Andrew is being interviewed on Newsnight right now. He says he remembers taking Beatrice to Pizza Express in Woking on the night Virginia Roberts claims they had sex (would you really remember that eighteen years later?). The most bizarre part of the interview is his claim that he couldn't have had a "sweaty dance" with Roberts, because he suffered an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands that meant he couldn't sweat.

#PrinceAndrew is currently the top trend on British Twitter. "Pizza Express in Woking" is also trending.

It seems odd to me he can remember walking Princess Beatrice to Pizza Express in Woking (although in fairness how often did that happen?) vs. ever meeting the woman. That said, he may have been trying to be polite in saying "I don't recall ever meeting the lady". Though you'd think there'd be records from his security about where and when he went. They would surely file reports each night and those reports would surely be retained. Problem is he's opened himself up now by doing this so he either saves his ass when the press goes digging or gets proven truthful. No doubt this was discussed as much with lawyers as PR types.

"The Guardian" is a republican paper with little love for the monarchy. The paper and its editorial staff may respect the Queen's lifelong dedication to public service, but make no mistake...the paper wants to see the institution end.

Prince Andrew epitomizes everything that is wrong with having a system where you have people through accident of birth thrust onto the stage with nothing to do. His sister did the right thing when she refused the titles for her children. Anne has various public engagements that do not involve anything of great import. Her children by and large are making there own way in the world.

Andrew was a disaster when he acted as some sort of trade representative for Great Britain. Read the American ambassador's description of him...he's an idiot. He wanted the titles and all that for his daughters. They do nothing. One married a social climber. The other is set to marry a playboy. They are the present day versions of Princesses Caroline and Stephanie.

An American woman had credibly accused him of sleeping with her, when she was an underage girl and had little control over the encounter. His response in this BBC interview? He let his "side down?" No, you committed sexual assault on a minor. You continued to consort with a sexual predator of minors.

When his mother dies, parliament, if the public wishes to continue with a monarchy, should whittle the public functions of the Royal Family down to Charles, Camilla, his sons, and their families.

Andrew is a classic case of a ne'er-do-well. He has a life of privilege with little, if any, responsibilities. If he steps foot on American soil again, I hope to God they serve him with a criminal charge.

Sorry for the grammatical error. I meant "their," not "there." and I meant "has," not "had.'

I really think he is lying. I think he should come clean about his whole friendship with Epstein.

Reading the comments on Twitter about the whole of the interview - it sounds like he was a disaster! Can he hear himself? This interview did much more harm than good for the Royal Family. What an idiot!

The excuse of being with his daughter at a pizza parlor...He sounds like any other upper class creep pedophile. Comes complete with over baked expressions and inappropriate laughter. Side serving is the ex-wife declaring his innocence.

Hide behind that broken family.

The fact that he is speaking about this publicly means he KNOWS that shit is about to be made public. It will be cringe-y and humiliating. If he was well-liked this getting ahead of it interview may have helped, but he is most definitely not well-liked.

I'm assuming the owner of that pizza parlor has already been paid off and he remembers that night very clearly too.

The “too honorable” comment and the nonsense about his inability to sweat (a result of being shot at as a dashing naval officer!) could be parody. What an utterly moronic pompous douche bag. What the hell is going on, doesn’t the royal family have PR? Shouldn’t someone have coached him? And they say Harry is stupid! Good grief. Can any of them walk and chew gum at the same time? How much $ does he get from taxpayer? If it’s anything more than zero, they should be rioting in the streets.

Someone I met from London years ago told me that Prince Andrew is a GAY boy.

I doubt the Queen and Prince Charles watched it together. I would imagine that Charles is livid.

He wasn't really a 'close friend' but I flew all the way to New York to tell him I was drawing the friendship to a close and whilst I was staying with him! .

[quote]The fact that he is speaking about this publicly means he KNOWS that shit is about to be made public.

Not necessarily. It's well reported this has been under negotiation for months.

Still, it didn't help. The Royal family aren't good with apologies. (The one answer I found credible was his reply that he thought everybody around Epstein's house was help. That would very likely seem so to him. They don't pay a lot of attention to staff.)

And, yes, the gushing idiot Fergie does nothing to bolster his credibility. She's a fool.

There was no other reason to hang out with Epstein. Conclusion: he's lying.

If you're fucking sex workers, especially underage ones, chances are very good that at least some of them are not there of their own free will. Imagine what Epstein and co. had to do to those girls to make them put out for those gross old men and not even get paid for it.

Good of Prince Andrew to say goodbye to Epstein "help" by acting as doorman.

This interview was a huge mistake and yet another error in judgement. Did the Queen actually permit this or did he take a page out of Meg's book and go rogue?

Fergie defends him because they live together and without his financial support, she'd be nowhere.

He says he has "no recollection" of her because he isn't sure if there's another photo out there or not.

I do feel like there was a reason he agreed to do this interview now - something else must be about to come out. They can be negotiating but as far as the public is concerned the scandal was dying down, and this just adds more fuel to the fire.

I also think part of the reason Meghan keeps getting bad stories leaked about her is from the Palace buying off reporters with other news.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

'....a member of the royal family has never had their status revoked unwillingly (I don't even think that's possible),'

Try telling this to the lunatic fraus on the Meghan Markle threads. They genuinely think Harry is going to cut out of the line of succession for marrying Meghan and spending money on his house.

R44 those are all very minor reasons except for #6-7, which I already said.

It's important to women. Therefore it's important to all of us OP.

R3 A number of members of the British Royal Family who were descendants of Queen Victoria who were born into foreign royal families, were nonetheless under British law still members of the royal family and English citizens, had their titles revoked during WWI by special legislation by parliament, including two royal dukes (Edinburgh and Albany).

Well....I lived in Guildford as a younger person, and went to Woking fairly regularly. It’s a shithole. I’ve actually been to the Pizza Express there. About 20 years ago, had a first date there. I’d forgotten completely until this evening. So, it’s possible that he didn’t really remember until he was reminded.

What’s interesting is that he WAS reminded of it. So he probably did go there on that day. But Woking is not far from London so there’d be plenty of time to be at Tramps later that night.

What bothers me most is the nature of his denial. If someone accused me of having sex with a 17 year old 20 years ago I would more than “have no recollection”. I would know it hadn’t happened because I know it’s something I would never, ever have done.

Personally, I think he did fuck her. I remember reading her account of their “union” and it was so pedestrian and joyless, it rang true. If she was making the story up out of whole cloth, I think she’d embellish and play to the gallery, not recount the most boring 3 minutes (if that) of sex ever.

The thing is...it’s possible that he doesn’t remember. He is a deeply entitled, narcissistic man who probably forgets the “little people” the moment they are out of his sight.

I think he’ll be “retired” very soon.

And I have met a few people who have worked on a few if his endeavours...and not one has a decent word to say about him. Whatever the truth of all of this is, Prince Andrew is a cunt.

"I don't remember " is a useful ploy and common legal strategy.

I think he fucked that chick, but I also think he was lied to about her age, told she was 18 or 19 and he believed it.

Yes but 17 isn't illegal, so why would they lie about her age r51? Even if he fucked her, it's not illegal.

He should have said, “Yeah, I fucked her. But I thought she was cool with it.” It would have made him seem less stupid and creepy than his actual words did.

Details, R49? What did your friends say?

[quote] What bothers me most is the nature of his denial. If someone accused me of having sex with a 17 year old 20 years ago I would more than “have no recollection”. I would know it hadn’t happened because I know it’s something I would never, ever have done.

Don't you get it? He can't deny it. He did it. And he doesn't know if any other pictures are out there or if anyone who was there will admit he was there. He also doesn't know what Ghislaine Maxwell will say during her civil trial (she's being sued for trafficking and raping children)

If he were to deny it and another picture surfaced or Ghislaine says he was there, no one will believe a single word he ever says

I think they've heard about some incriminating evidence but they don't know if who ever has it will come forward

[quote] Don't you get it?

Oh, stop it. No need for such aggression. Yes, I get it. I said further down that I think he did it. I was simply illuminating why I found his response unconvincing.

It’s quite possible that he doesn’t know whether he did it or not, but knows that it’s not outside the bounds of possibility so is hedging.

Who knows? Not me...and not you.

Why do some people make a point of snapping at others? It’s annoying & silly.

He's SO stupid and like listening to anyone lying, it was draining to watch.

[quote]r2 Nothing is going to happen to Andrew, so why keep rehashing it?

It's important that the truth be made public, as he's 1.) a leech on the public teat for funds, and 2.) a national representative.

There are lines one can't cross in both those endeavours, and he's running low on deniability.

I detest a bad liar much more than a mooch.

His taste in women, alone, is abominable: Sarah Ferguson and Courtney Love.

An inept plea to the jury of the world. Citing parental duties and war service - each of these really shoehorned in - is saying, maybe I've been a bad boy, maybe I haven't, but look over there at the solid rest of me.

For all the pseudo-confidence on display, there has to be desperation behind such a gambit. As if to say, whatever else comes out, I'm a father and war hero, keep that in mind. Unfortunately for Andrew other matters now will always be uppermost in everyone's mind.

Andrew needs to spearhead the fight against sexual abuse and assault. It will give him some work to do for a change.

I was STUNNED by his stupidity.

R52 The age thing becomes a technicality because she was over the age of consent at 16. It’s that he had sex knowing she was sex-trafficked into the UK. Andrew the Pig can pretend all he wants, but he definitely knew she was a teenager and was being passed around by his pal.

R49. I can well believe he is a cunt. Denise Welch said he was badmouthing Diana after her death at a public dinner, what a douche.

He was so obviously lying, even Clinton's " I did not have sex with that woman" was more convincing.

Agreed, R64.

He makes Alan Partridge look smooth.

Emily Maitlis sliced,diced,skewered and roasted the guy.

Masterclass in interviewing.

R67 = Emily's Mom.

I’m wondering about the real numbers - just how many trafficked teenaged girls were provided to Prince Andrew by Jeffrey Epstein? They were friends for decades. There’s a picture of him with this person so he can’t deny it, but presumably there were many more besides her.

R68indeed

Apparently he does not sweat. 🤣

Is it true his PR person resigned right before the interview? Who thought this was a good idea?

The PR person thought Andrew was being a total idiot for doing the interview r72.

If I was in charge of Andrew’s PR (and had no morals, but that sort of goes without saying) I’d tell him to come out as gay. That would be considered “bad” enough that a significant portion of the public would figure he wouldn’t admit it if it wasn’t true . Then it becomes plausible that he didn’t have sex with teenage girls. His weird history with Fergie might make some people believe it.

It backfired on Kevin Spacey, but Spacey was already pretty obviously bi or gay and Spacey is an actor with no compelling sob story about familial pressures or the need to produce heirs. Plus, Spacey’s gayness didn’t discredit the accusations against him.

Andrew might be old enough to make being closeted (especially given his circumstances) sympathetic. He could say he’s ashamed about how he felt he had to be evasive in the interviews and while he regrets the intrusion into his family’s privacy (being very careful not to use the word “embarrassment,” because there is nothing to be embarrassed about, dammit!) it’s time for him to acknowledge this aspect of his person.

He’d have to produce a partner, though. An ex at a minimum. And several convincing stories from credible men about hook ups that would go unacknowledged. The logistics would be very challenging.

Provided he’s not gay. If he is, then there could be all kinds of other stories coming out that would suddenly seem possible. Because, gay or straight, the guy is a creep.

I’m plus one-ing his PR team big time. Goes to show how incredibly bad his PR has been.

Andrew's best move would have been to vanish from public view indefinitely. Any appearances should have been limited to things like his daughter's wedding and the like.

He’d have to acknowledge it though, wouldn’t he? Make it official? Say something like, “My poor judgement has reflected poorly not only on my, but in the family I have been privileged to represent. To continue in my charitable roles as an active royal risks compromising my precious efforts and the ongoing efforts of my philanthropic partners and family members. For this reason, I am retiring as an public figure, and will no longer receive public support. I continue to support the BRF, but in spirit only with no formal role. And from a distance. Probably Thailand.”

And of course stupid fergie came out and tweeted how admirable andrew is. They are going to have to muzzle her, tie her hands behind her back and take away her phone

She really is a clown

Interesting claim.

He’s so stupid, inarticulate, and repulsive. Nice job, British Royal genes.

This has actually made me, as a British subject. look at the Royal family very differently for the first time in my life. I mean how could they have raised such an idiotic oaf? He's had all the privileges in the world and this is how he turns out?

& OMG that awful prepared and practiced soundbite when he spoke about his "work".

Basically, Andrew lied to his mum. That's what the Windsors are dealing with or should be dealing with. Yes, it's a PR disaster but if Andrew had been honest from Day 1 (during Epstein revelations) and said something more "truthful" he might have stood a chance. As the saying goes, the cover up is always worse. So where does the BRF go now? What do they do with Randy Andy and his own "unbecoming" behaviour? Are both sides are covering up for their benefit? How do they find one story, one credible story as a collective and stick with that? Is too late? My other thought is and has been for a while now (with Sussex debacle) is that there is no one really effectively in charge int the family. We can blame their bad PR, but the root of it all is an aging monarch, a lady who refuses to relinquish hold on the throne and a meek, mild son in the form of Charles who seems MIA most of the time when it comes to strong leadership for the clan.

Is it any wonder we are seeing what we're seeing?

I wonder what Andy is feeling about it today?

He's so stupid and thick skinned he probably thinks it's OK.

I saw a poll on Tweeter after the interview and 83% want Andrew to withdraw from public life. He is being lambasted most severely.

What a cock up. If the BRF is to survive, it's only chance is with William as king. Otherwise, they're done. It will be a combination of Andy and the Sussexes. One alone is bad; both are death knells.

Andrew's media adviser QUIT because Andrew wouldn't take his advice NOT to be interviewed.

His arrogance will be his downfall.

JUST IN! Prince Andrew reassigned to new duties. Guesses which one it is.....

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I met the #dukeofyork once in a work context. It was all very weird and he made a very obvious beeline for the young girls in the office rather than doing what he supposed to be doing . And made smutty jokes to break the ice. But what was really odd was his security guard decided to confide in me just before the Prince walked in. He said ‘Do you know why his wife left him?’ I didn’t really care but he told me anyway ... that it was because he slept with under age boys in the Navy.

R88 - first, why would a security guard say that to a perfect stranger? And second, it's my recollection that Fergie had affairs while Andy was away in the Navy, her toes sucked and the photos were all over the tabloids. Her infidelity was the reason she was tossed. Does anyone think Fergie would want to divorce the man she praises so highly and who still supports her?

R88 There are underage boys in the navy?

I hope Woking Pizza Express is now serving a “Prince Andrew”: very thick crust, extra sausage.

[quote] first, why would a security guard say that to a perfect stranger?

I assumed it was because everyone who works with Andrew HATES him.

[quote]Andrew's best move would have been to vanish from public view indefinitely.

Indeed, but the person who made friends with Epstein, and who thought Sarah Ferguson a good bride, is by definition not capable of making good moves.

His idiotic ego genuinely thinks that 'putting himself out there' with his flimsy defences was/is the 'honourable' thing to do.

It's all of a part with his hopeless dated insular entitled situation. To which he's added natural stupidity. Wilfully, he's dug himself in deeper.

True, r93. But now Andy's got the whole BRF implicated trying to cover up for him as evidenced by the deafening silence today. Andy thought he was showing "leadership" in dealing with Epstein one on one. No one travels overseas to talk to someone they know is bad news. Why did Andy need to meet Epstein one on one? Strike a deal maybe? Need more money? More favours? Silence? The story gets more and more interesting..

He was visiting the Epstein whorehouse over and over (and probably others... Lindsay Lohan's?).

He's a lazy, dim-witted, spoiled party boy who does nothing but live off the family's wealth.

[quote] He's a lazy, dim-witted, spoiled party boy who does nothing but live off the family's wealth.

Seems to be the fate of the spare.

This goes to show how much of a "bubble" these useless cunts are living in...

He said Epstein's conduct was "unbecoming"....I read that in the papers... WTF.

This guy is clearly surrounded by too many "yes" people like his fat ex-wife.

The more he talks, the worse he looks. He is such a fucking idiot!!! How could he be the Queen's favorite?

[quote]No one travels overseas to talk to someone they know is bad news. Why did Andy need to meet Epstein one on one? Strike a deal maybe? Need more money? More favours? Silence? The story gets more and more interesting..

And then stay at his house for FOUR days?

How many wealthy mature men would choose this over a hotel?

He doesn't even think he did anything wrong! He hangs out with criminals on a regular basis I suppose...

Obviously for more money and "massages".

Also, I'm sure Epstein has video of him...even the FBI.

Nothing is going to happen to him. His family is too powerful and the establishment will rally around him to protect him.

God he's revolting to look at. That fat neck is bursting out of his shirt trying to escape. Can you imagine how pale and doughy he must be underneath that suit. Nauseating.

Notice how Daily Mail has burried this story? Compare to how prominent their Meghan stories are. I think the Royal Family is still putting the screws on the media.

Of course the Queen is protecting him...very natural for a mother to do so. I wonder what will happen to him when she dies.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Andrew seems very practiced at looking around corners, down shady streets in "unbecoming" people's homes. How could that possibly be?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote]But now Andy's got the whole BRF implicated trying to cover up for him as evidenced by the deafening silence today.

But when this broke there were comments from respected sources that 'people close to' The Queen and Charles were aghast at Andrew's initiative. We know what that means. They've hardly closed ranks.

"How many wealthy mature men would choose this over a hotel?"

Wealthy maybe, but a grifter at the core. Andrew was too fucking cheap to slap leather for a hotel. He took the photo-op with his bff with pride. Though we've seen no concrete proof of his disgusting sexploits as of yet, there is more than enough proof he's an imbecile; he should be shunned, or shot.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

She can't be unbothered. Her jowly ageing son is depicted on all the Sunday front pages, and not favourably.

And it's only Sunday, so it's only Twitter commentary we're hearing from journalists, bloggers, and a few public figures. Wait 'til tomorrow when more prominent and important people, government types, courtiers, etc. are asked for their opinions. And the boards of the charities he's a patron for have their emergency meetings to decide what to do about him and quietly dissociate from him.

Classic.

If The Queen wanted to signal her total support for Andrew she'd have made sure he was with her in the car for tomorrow's front page photographs. As happened quite recently. But this time, no.

Agree it's quiet now, r113. This particular headline does not portend well the Prince for the days to come and what lies ahead for him. Someone should pack Fergie off to Siberia so she can stop with her "he's a giant of a man" commentary.

[quote]Someone should pack Fergie off to Siberia so she can stop with her "he's a giant of a man" commentary.

For so many years it was she who was in the firing line. It must be a nice change for her to be the supportive one.

R105. There's no story on the US Daily Mail site which is where they post stories about how Meghan not wearing stockings will end the monarchy. Those stories have upwards of 5,000 comments in a few hours because the story is so promintently displayed. In contrast the initial story which is on the UK site only has 960 comments. That should tell you everything you need to know about how many readers found it.

By the way, just last week it was revealed that the royal family killed the investigative story on a US network. So this story very patently also deserves prominence on the US site. They are clearly suppressing the articles on their own site.

He better hope the other pervs implicated Epstein don't just decide to make him the sacrificial lamb. If blackmail material does exist, this would be the time to release Andrews and then rest as the world is consumed by the fall out of the US asking to repatriate a British prince for a sex crime. And of course Britain debating the end of the monarchy. Perfect deflection.

Not outside the realm of possibility r119 as crazy as it may sound at first. Didn't the Queen once say to Diana something about there "being powerful forces' or something like that that even the Queen can't control. Can't remember the context - maybe someone here remembers.

[quote]There's no story on the US Daily Mail site which is where they post stories about how Meghan not wearing stockings will end the monarchy. Those stories have upwards of 5,000 comments in a few hours because the story is so promintently displayed. In contrast the initial story which is on the UK site only has 960 comments. That should tell you everything you need to know about how many readers found it.

They probably think the Americans aren't too interested in this Andrew fiasco. I think they're right.

Meghan will be forever fascinating to the Americans.

How many scandals has he escaped from? He’s like Dump. Never ending shit show. At least he cannot control the UK.

It's on the US site, R118, just not at the top. Out of the stories with photos covering two columns it's the fourth one down, immediately below Trump-Kim Jong Un.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

That interview is symptomatic of his arrogance and self entitlement. I hope it results in him being shredded, jailed and pauperized. The Windsors or not the brightest sparks.

When will the Duke and Duchess of York be remarrying?

Andrew never should have given the interview. His pr aide advised against it. What was Andrew’s rationale?

Follow the queen’s rule: Never complain. Never explain.

This story was going away. Why bring it up again? Andrew has no legal liability. He’s just asking for controversy and more investigation now.

He is a prideful fool who thought he could lie like a rug and make it all go away. He thought his mother would be impressed with his clever finesse, twisting the press around his little stumpy finger. Sure, Jan. It was a stunning display of stupidity worthy of DJT. I doubt he has the Brit version of a base, though.

He wants to come clean about all the bald pussy he fucked. His conscience is working on him.

Him saying he can't remember meeting the girl indicates: "I fucked so many teenaged girls at the time, I can't remember that particular girl."

It's really interesting.

That photo of them in the park.

I saw a full length version earlier and they're clearly totally in sympathy with each other. Their body language. The way they're dressed. This is not two men breaking up their friendship.

No, I can't find it.

& you can imagine how pleased Epstein was to have a fucking British Royal as a close friend - he must have bragged to everyone he met.

Twitter. LOL

[quote]Yes my brother booked the room last night just thought I'd pop in and say hello....

Between Andrew and the Sussexes, I feel like the BRF is done. Depravity, petulance, entitlement, excess. They might have been able to survive one, but not both. Time for a republic. When the Queen goes, the whole lot should be made private citizens.

If Prince Andrew is some scummy pedophile he needs to be exposed. He'll still be a Prince but an embarrassment who should be shunned.

What a clusterfuck. The hubris and entitlement is just sickening. This idiot and the other two idiots, Harry and Markle, have done immense damage to the BRF.

I think the situation we're witnessing at BP is kind of a 'natural evolution' of a multitude of dysfunctional events going back to Charles and Diana and even before that. Somewhere, somehow. someone lost control over the "firm" and we're seeing that in full technicolour force now. Social media has fueled the decline sure, but the reality is a dysfunctional and deeply rudderless institution with no morally-driven imperative to address its internal weaknesses and humble itself to understand and truly appreciate the context in which its operates. It is too far gone and I just don't think this time around there is much public appetite left to endure more silliness specifically, assaults on common decency. Sad days for the Queen indeed.

I can't believe this cunt laughed...so fucking out of touch with reality

[quote]Social media has fueled the decline sure, but the reality is a dysfunctional and deeply rudderless institution with no morally-driven imperative to address its internal weaknesses and humble itself to understand and truly appreciate the context in which its operates.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

That interview encapsulated the corrosive effect of unearned wealth and undeserved privilege. If the RF goes down it'll be all their own fault.

Well put r141. They don't know what they don't know which makes it even scarier.

r137

For someone who claims to be a teetotaler he seem very puffy around the face,

Andrew is dumber than a sack of hammers. Whoever approved that interview is an idiot.

This has been a disaster for him and he had virtually no good will going into it. He and that idiot Retriever he divorced are the best thing that could have happened to the modern disaster that is the Sussexes. All the papers are puking all over this... even the Telegraph... which is about as pro-royal as you can get. It has one story titled:

Prince Charles urged to exile brother when he is king after 'misguided' interview. I mean, fucking ouch.

The only thing I can see him doing to survive this is leaving the country and pulling, ironically, a Kevin Spacey: disappearing (apparently it can be done.) Only he could let it be known he has gone to reflect on his life and his choices and then, once the heat has died down, come back and be low key, withdrawing to a very quiet private life. And bend over for his elder brother: you tell me what you want me to do.

The thing is he seems to really think he's special. I don't think he's capable of getting it right. I think, funnily, most people will give him an indifferent benefit of the doubt re his dubious sex life... it's his general arrogance and assholishness that people really loathe him for.

Ugh people comparing Andrews sex trafficking pedophile buddy to Meghan’s missteps need to sit down. We are talking an international pedophile Ringleader BFF vs avocados, baby showers and pantyhose. People keep saying he won’t be prosecuted fine that’s true but this case isn’t going away. There will be lawsuits against Epstein’s estate and as Andrew was named in the prior case he will be named again and I’m doubtful a judge will seal the proof as readily. We are talking years of revelations. On top of that a ton of salacious gossip whether real or not will come out. No one will be talking about Harry and Meghan except the crazies.

'Yes but 17 isn't illegal, so why would they lie about her age [R51]? Even if he fucked her, it's not illegal.'

Dumbass Sugar. She was SEX TRAFFICKED, that's the whole point.

'Ugh people comparing Andrews sex trafficking pedophile buddy to Meghan’s missteps need to sit down. We are talking an international pedophile Ringleader BFF vs avocados, baby showers and pantyhose'

Andrew has wasted plenty of the BRF's money too, for decades. Meg is harassed because she's a feisty American instead of a docile British woman like Kate Middle Class. Some people on this board hate MM beyond reason, and all of them are shut in, jealous fraus.

[quote]The only thing I can see him doing to survive this is leaving the country and pulling, ironically, a Kevin Spacey: disappearing (apparently it can be done.)

Just an FYI... Kevin Spacey hasn't disappeared. He's out of Hollywood but still has fans. He was seen out and about this summer in Europe.

The one thing Kevin Spacey (and other metoo accused) have done that Prince Andrew should've done is stay the hell away from the press. Don't give any interviews. Whether you're guilty as sin or innocent as a lamb, you can't trust the press if its a metoo story as the press has fully embraced the accusers stories.

the full BBC interview up on youtube now

R150 watching it now and it is even worse than I thought it could be WOW he is completely lacking self awareness!? He is incredibly arrogant holy shit!

This interview is a train wreck. Even if her were innocent - and I doubt for a pico second that he is - he'd have to be the most stupid man alive if things played out the way he said.

The Maxwell woman was ALWAYS trash. Her father stole the pensions of thousands and thousands of people and put it in trust funds for his piece of shit kids. Then he killed himself

The fact that the Queen hosted her at her homes is utterly disgusting. The reporter even mentioned a birthday party for ghislaine being held at Sandringham or Windsor Castle, with the Queen attending. WTF? Andrew denied it was a birthday party, so we know the store is 100% true

The entire windsor family are trash. It's time for them to live private lives

[quote]WOW he is completely lacking self awareness!? He is incredibly arrogant holy shit!

Guilty on all counts. Clueless blunderer. Look at who he married... he can't even divorce the fool properly.

Mr "I didn't used to sweat, but magically I'm able to sweat now, just in case anyone ever catches me sweating"

He is almost retarded to say he "only wears suits and ties in London", when you can find many pictures of him in London not in a suit and/or tie. Has he never heard of the internet or google?

Hello tired, fanatical Meghan zealot at R148. Don't forget that Harry grew up in the same ridiculously entitled and highly dysfunctional family as Andrew and Charles.

I'm glad you American gurls are finally getting to see it for yourselves.

Hope you all come back with you hypotheses.

"And then stay at his house for FOUR days?"

Why would he stay there at all? I don't know about Royal security, but it seems a place where dozens of questionable people were coming and going wouldn't be a safe place for a Prince to camp out.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Waiting for Fergie to knock back another bottle of free Scotch before tweeting her adoration now what Andrew's cheque cleared.

R159 Mother's mussy is writhing like an electric eel in olive oil.

What offence have the sussexes done you? Other than soiling zie Royal German blood with African genes? I swear to God if you jealous fat fraus dont get it into your heads there's a difference between marrying who you love and committing sex crimes....

R148, Megsy is that you? Where do you find the time, darling? Don’t you have some facial expressions to practice in the mirror?

R158 That's the question nobody is asking. Where was his security at this time? How is it that the most elite protection officers were not informing him or the palace of potential black mail exposure. I can't imagine that British intelligence would also be totally unaware. I have to conclude the Queen or her deputy Prince Charles was aware but didn't think it was a big issue so didn't bring the hammer down.

The fraus on this thread have an amazing nose. Any mention of MM and they come sniffing out. It’s like a junkie just honing in on his heroin.

Isn't it just? I don't know if they're sad or creepy but Jesus it's like Beetlejuice. And of all the horses to back...

Just realised how alike he and Charles look. Same face except he still has a hairline and his face is broad and fat. Charles has the squashed together crooked version. Both are dumb fucks who have been pampered into believing they're smarter than the average person. Honestly, I count Charles pushing homeopathy to be included in the NHS to be as harmful as child raping. Sociopathic family

I'm surprised no one on here has linked this yet.

^^ She says[bold] "The palace threatened us a million different ways"[/bold]

I'd like to hear more about that please, gurl. You say the story has been broken, but not in reference to that. You still have a story people would be interested to hear.

[quote]Honestly, I count Charles pushing homeopathy to be included in the NHS to be as harmful as child raping.

At least his sausage fingers, toes, and god knows what else have the full benefit of homeopathy.

Cut or uncut?

Charles would be a terrible King, and this is why QEII hangs on.

I remember seeing a pic of Andrew nude crossing a river in Canada.

Nothing to shout about.

Charles, on the other hand, is hung.

I've come to realise that gay men are an unreliable source of size information. Some of you are cursed with tiny meat syndrome so everything over 5 inches is "hung".

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R174 I found it to be just the opposite on DL. Most of you watch so much porn that anything under 10" is "tinymeat."

I bet many in the royal family are equally out of touch and probably think that was a good interview...remember the fucking Queen herself was in Scotland for days after Diana died and the whole of England and the world wanted her to come back to the Palace and fly the flag half mast etc? She didn't think it was that great of a tragedy at first.

They're the living embodiment of "I am very smart". Charles also thought it was a good idea to publicly admit to adultery in an interview that was scheduled to promote his work. People forget that interview preceeded Dianas tell all interview. I can just hear her saying in a quiet voice "oooooohhhh, I didn't know we could talk about it in interviews. Ok bitch, you forgot this ain't my house. Watch me burn it to the ground".

I never used to sweat

I don't engage in PDA

I rarely take photographs

Did he really not know the internet or media would immediately fact check him????? Is he that out of touch?

He should have just issued a statement from the comfort of his palace that he will not speak on the matter in protection of the victims. That even though she's mistaken about him, he doesn't want his denial to be used to cast aspersions on all her other claims. That he will do the "honourable" thing and take the PR heat to protect her credibility. Or something like that.

The person writing The Queen's Christmas message faces quite the challenge. There she will be, diminutive and gracious, next to a vast festive tree. Alluding to a lively year in politics. Yet the world will be thinking only of the big blundering elephant in the room, named Andrew.

I heard nothing but bad things about Andrew from people who used to work in the civil service.

[quote]Try telling this to the lunatic fraus on the Meghan Markle threads. They genuinely think Harry is going to cut out of the line of succession for marrying Meghan and spending money on his house.

The psychos who hate her need to just fucking die already. This guy has sex with teenage girls. He's fucking disgusting in every way. I'm still wondering what the loons think that Harry's wife did aside from marrying him. Her family is no where near as fucked up as his - clearly. His uncle is a disgusting perv who makes money using his position. He's slime.

Andrew is abominable. [bold]His comparison of the girls at Epstein’s house to the staff at the palaces was a clear allusion to their status as prostitutes.[/bold] I glanced at the comments on “The Daily Mail” and the best rated EQUATED Andrew with Meghan!

Yes, consorting with convicted pedophile, participating in orgies with trafficked minors is just as bad as accepting gifts from celebrities, dangling tendrils and not observing protocol.

[bold]Off-Topic: Is Andy a type of kompromat on the Queen? Boris Johnson's been on a rampage to get Brexit done, he's suppressing a reporting showing Russia manipulated the vote.[/bold]

[quote]Yes, consorting with convicted pedophile, participating in orgies with trafficked minors is just as bad as accepting gifts from celebrities, dangling tendrils and not observing protocol.

Same assholes who think Obama wearing a tan suit is equal or far worse than every fucking thing Trump has done. I can't imagine the connection...

From London AP news, "PR Disaster."

Markle is a narcissistic, showboating, lying cunt of a woman. Andrew sleeps with teenagers and then lies about it.

How stupid do you have to be to think both things can’t be true at the same time? Clearly the kind of stupid that is unable to accept that a tiny touch of melatonin in skin makes that person immune to criticism.

And to the death cult cunt: Really, who is worse...the person who simply dislikes a publicly funded figure or the type of uneducated, toothless grunt who wants anyone with a different opinion to die... like you?

Just sit your aching arses down, ladies and shut the fuck up. Trust me, aside from Granny upstairs who cooks your corn dogs and no one gives a shit about your ill-informed babblings.

Markle is a cunt and so is Andrew.

R187 You are equating Markle to a rapist like Andrew. You sound like a misogynist pig.

Don't engage the Markle hate mob. I learnt growing up in a school filled with homophobes that some people thrive on beating others down. They pick out the odd one out in the herd and they go to town. They LOOOOVE to have an effect on you because it makes them feel less like losers.

The claim I find most remarkable is that he doesn't drink. The Firm doesn't do PDAs, they may not sweat much, but they sure do drink.

R148-what's wrong with being middle class? As we're seeing from the Windsors, being upper class has links to all kinds of depravity. I'll take Kate's middle class values any day over what Harry's family has on offer. It's nothing to aspire to.

That four days nugget is unbelievable.I wanted to never speak to him again, so I travel a continent to tell him so in person, but I never saw him in person except for a dinner thrown in my honor and a long walk in the park. Oh, and all kinds of shady people were in and out of the house, but that had nothing to do with me. If the BRF keeps him on the dole, they deserve peasants at the gates.

This story is a lot smaller than it should be. Even this DL thread is barely moving. I guess people care more about whether a princess by marriage curtseys correctly. Funny.

R186-the best quote from that article: “I expected a train wreck,’’ said Charlie Proctor, editor of the Royal Central website, which covers the British monarchy. “That was a plane crashing into an oil tanker, causing a tsunami, triggering a nuclear explosion-level bad.”

Notice he never completely denies meeting this woman - just in case additional proof comes out. Interestingly, he states he couldn't have taken that picture, but he hadn't left the bottom floor of the home and the picture was taken upstairs at Ghislaine's home. He sure knew what that floor looked like, didn't he? Most people would say, I've never even seen that location. No, he knew right where it was taken in the home because he had familiarity with it.

[quote]This story is a lot smaller than it should be.

It's leading all the UK front pages this morning. He's being strongly criticised from several different angles.

He said the only reason Epstein was invited to intimate royal events was because of “the girlfriend” Ghislane Maxwell, that Epstein was just a +1 barely an acquaintance BUT Prince Andrew flies to NYC to stay at the home of just the +1 and Andrew is photographed opening the door for people like he is very very comfortable being a guest there. His pompous demeanor and his manner of answering questions with such disdain and arrogance (you commoners obVs don’t understand how royal-ness works, I was waiting for the deep sighs) was extremely off putting. He’s DONE and needs to bring “on the take” Fergie with him to a faraway place. He has soiled any chance of his girl’s working with the firm.

R177 that’s not how it really played out. They wanted to keep William and Harry out of sight in Scotland to grieve but the public wanted them all in London. Tony Blair’s suggestion was having them following the coffin on foot which thoroughly traumatised them. William particularly hates Blair.

R198 really, that was Tony Blair’s bright idea? Hmm. I always thought the Queen wasn’t wrong to keep the boys in Balmoral for a few days.

It would be interesting if Andy is extradited to the US, I suppose if he ends up in jail there he would have to be put in solitary, its not like the other inmates would treat him like a regular guy.

R198 That's not true. Tony Blairs suggestion was for the Queen to return to London, lower the Royal standard and address the nations grief. Making the boys walk behind the coffin was hatched by Prince Phillip and Prince Charles after Dianas brother said he would walk escort the coffin.

Prince Charles was especially fearful that he would be permanently cast as a villain. In fact even friendly biographers discuss that his first words on learning that Diana was dead were "they're going to blame me for this". And with Dis brother already heavily implying that the tabloids weren't the only ones who wrecked Dianas life, Charles was keen to publicly recast his relationship to her. So Phillip came up with the solution for the adult men to do the walk but Charles was afraid that he would be heckled by angry mourners. So enter the boys.

R179 - he really is that stupid not to have known there are photos of him with women and sweating. And there's video footage of him waving to a young woman leaving Epstein's apartment. He's a liar.

I've heard kids use better excuses than he does. Next he'll say: Epstein made me do it!

By the way Charles was so afraid of public reactions that after returning from Scotland, Prince Edward and Andrew were sent out of the palace gates to look over the flowers and cards first. A testing of the waters to see how they would be received by the mourners who had camped there. When that went well, Charles did the same tour hours later with William and Harry as his security blanket. You can tell how disorientated William is in that footage. He's smiling and laughing at the cards and flowers as he's been trained to do in official engagements. I remember some in the media calling out that walkabout so it was utterly shocking for anyone with an ounce of humanity that a few days later Charles had them behind that coffin. All just so he could repaint himself as the "poor single dad".

That whole family is a business. No humanity.

Well said, R141.

Andrew is an arrogant prick. There was almost an air of disdain from him in the interview for having to explain himself. And it was all about him. Bullshit to his lapse of memory. And name the condition (if it exists) of his medical condition. That was just an opportunity for him to remind the audience that he served the nation!

Of course, there is no equivalency to consorting with a convicted sexual predator of underage women and without doubt having sex with a 17 year old woman and unfair and downright hostile press coverage. But there is an equivalence to attitudes stemming from "unearned wealth and undeserved privilege" (thanks again, R141).

Despite the DLer who thinks the story is being ignored, one of the New York dailies has it on their front page. News or Post, I can’t remember. But I saw the word “prince” and thought “What has Harry done this time”?

Andy hasn’t escaped.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

The Queen is dusting off her old speech.

Nobody gives a real shit about the fat stupid pasty cunt Prince Andrew, son of another fat pasty stupid cunt, Elizabeth 2.

And the cartoons write themselves.....

R208, so you're a nobody.

Congrats, your level of self awareness is truly astounding.

.....

Maybe Andrew convinced the Queen that Epstein's girl was simply one of many. groupies who were trying to land a prince. It's possible that Andrew himself simply thought of Epstein's setup as the type of consensual pay for play situation widely available to the very rich. Andrew is clearly gross and a liar, but things may get a lot worse if it turns out that he was aware of abuse, coercion or violence against these women, or sex with under-aged girls.

R188, the sick fucks come here due to the anonymity. The people who put her in the same category with a despicable pig who has spent decades being scum, are as mental as that half-sister of hers. The people who hate her on level that is supposed tobe reserved for sexual abusers and war criminals are psychos and they find each other like flies to a pile of shit.

to be*

Andrew can tell his mom whatever story he wants but I'm sure she has her own intelligence sources. She approved of the interview ( what I read in the paper today)

[quote]She approved of the interview ( what I read in the paper today)

Yes, the journalist who conducted the interview confirmed this.

You can think Andrew is a disgusting pig and dislike Meghan and Harry's behavior at the same time. It doesn't mean their actions are in the same "category", but none of it is helpful to the BRF. The Meghan fanatic is the one screaming in every thread about all the "haters" here. There are a few, but not nearly as many as she wants everyone to believe.

The Pedo Prince! Disgusting.

R217, I'm not some Markle fanatic. Beyond these psycho threads, I read nothing about her. I just know that people who hate her are clearly losers and I'm absolutely baffled at the level of vitriol for this woman. And you people continue to lionize that family like it isn't full of completely despicable people.

WTF is wrong with you people that you think that family hasn't been dysfunctional from day one and you act like that Markle woman is the one ruining that already fucked up family? Most of the shit you read comes from rags that literally peddle racism and bigotry.

Just because you get into a circle-jerk confirming your hatred for her, doesn't automatically make it normal. Most people see how fucked up you all are and no one even has to necessarily like her, but to *hate* this woman? Jesus Christ. Get a life already.

R212, I think that is plausible. Even someone as dumb as Andrew must have had some sense of something unsavory, but he has probably been trained his whole life to see himself as sexually vulnerable (in terms of blackmail and scandal), not his partners (or victims).

I think the broadcasting of his complete idiocy is actually more damaging that his bad behavior. It is just easier to point to the bad behavior. Sex with young, questionably procured girls is very bad. But it’s the revelation that Andrew (and by association probably the rest of the BRF) is possibly literally mentally retarded and has zero respect for the public (thinking people would buy his BS and attribute it to him being to honorable!?) that may really shake up the monarchy. Otherwise this might have blown over with him being relegated to “bad uncle” status.

The Queen is a clueless jerk if she thinks this interview is acceptable. She’s way worse than a clueless jerk for raising these pigs in the first place. If they had been born into a blue collar family in Des Moines, they would be unremarkable yahoos. The whole idea of monarchy is so outdated. Their idea of themselves as guardians of honor and grand traditions is a joke. They are nothing more than guardians of their own fat wormy asses.

This interview just really moved the needle on a republic. How anyone can believe that deference and privilege is owed to any member of this family is beyond me. When the queen goes, set them all free into the wild. The Sussexes exposed the petulance, excess and hypocrisy. Andrew brought it home with the depravity.

R221-exactly. Someone was saying how sorry they feel for the queen. I don't. She raised that decadent gas bag. She created that family. It's a pity these scandals mark the final years of her time on the throne, but she should have thought of that when she and Phil were supposed to be raising them. Bring the whole lot down. The UK can make a fortune off public tours of Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle and the rest of it. They don't need the royals for tourism. More than enough celebrities will be willing to step in to do patronages and charity work.

Agree about the queen. She doesn’t get a pass anymore. She raised these fucktards, and supposedly Andrew is the favorite.

[quote]Someone was saying how sorry they feel for the queen. I don't. She raised that decadent gas bag.

Shocking, isn't it?

Fergie was always made out to be the crappy one because no one knew what he was really like, until now. Seems they were a well suited pair.

I agree r219. Anybody fixated on the Sussexes either has no grasp of royal history or does but is too bigoted to let that get in the way of their hatred. Princess Maggie wasn't just extremely extravagant at a time of British recession, she slept with anything that moved and married a man who was widely known to be a sexual degenerate. Homely Princess Anne cheated on her husband with a staff member and that public revelation triggered her divorce. Charles had a suicidal wife at home while out fucking an officers wife (an actual military crime fyi). Edward had multiple strops on camera. And God knows what William is up to with that Rose woman that Kate has banned from the social circle. And I've barely scratched the surface.

Meghans only problem in my mind is not studying on the media cycle. If she had she would remember that the media alternately attacked Fergie and Di. And that the attacks were frequently fed from the palace. Put on a naughty glint in your eye and ride the hate. There's inevitably a backlash to the backlash.

Maybe it's all just in my head and not rumor, but I remember when Fergie got caught up in the "pay-for-access" scandal around 10 years ago, along with her near-bankruptcy. There were whispers that Epstein paid off Fergie's debts through Andrew.

It's all so sleazy. These folks are long past redemption, in my book. Time. To. Go.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I thought Princes were supposed to be cute. What a joke.

Why is the British public paying for the Queen's horses, castles and protection. None of them deserve this privilege. She created and enabled Andrew.

I love the irony that they exposed themselves willingly. They epitomize hubris—though none of those illiterate nitwits would know what that means. As someone commented above, the exposure of their extreme stupidity is probably the most damaging aspect to this scandal. All the kings horses and all the kings men can’t find the pea that is Andrews brain.

Andrew publicly admitted that he shouldn't have continued his "friendship" with Epstein after the conviction. The Queen probably thought this admission would be helpful to counter the growing public sentiment against her son. It probably would have been helpful, had the rest of the interview not been such an out-of-touch, lie-riddled disaster.

They really are stupid -- not a single one of the royals is anything over stone average, and several of them are well below. The queen in particular, dumb as a rock. I think William might be the smartest, or at least the most self-aware, and he's a dumbass, too.

R227 that's not in your head. She was in shit a few years ago for "letting him pay her debts ". What he would gain from such a thing was never explained. I actually think she was covering for Andrew. She was probably the conduit for the payoff since the Queens son can't just up and start receiving piles of money inconspicuously.

It's so curious that none of the coverage is mentioning the Fergie cash angle.

William better trot out George for the Christmas walk this year. The public's going to need some shred of a reason to keep supporting this family. Hell, he might want to bring Charlotte along, too. Kate can carry Louis. If this ridiculous institution is to survive it will be only because the Cambridges project some middle-class normalcy. That might be a lie, but it's all they've got right now.

Harry is wayward and his wife a self-absorbed pain but their shenanigans are nothing compared to this criminal moron. There is no comparison between the antics of the two sets of royals. Andrew is a criminal and has to got to go NOW. Not later as has been generally thought, when his brother takes the throne. Its long been thought that Charles would banish Andrew the minute his mother is buried; at this point the BRF can't wait that long.

Out of public life, no more royal duties or appearances. Out of BP, KP, St James - no London palace digs. He retires out to Royal Lodge (his own lease) where he can spend his days playing golf and walking his dogs. He's off the public purse as well, most importantly.

He is still in the family and will make appearances at private events: funerals, weddings, christenings of his grandkids. But that's it. No balcony appearances at Trooping the Colour, no Remembrance Day showings.

I suspect that in return for his quiet banishment he will want his daughters reinstated as part time royals, which may have been in the cards anyways given the issues plaguing Charles's sons. I'm guessing that in return for total removal, Charles will allow Bea & Eug - who've never put a foot wrong themselves - to have smallish apartments at KP (Eugenie is already there with her new husband) and do part time work for the BRF after the elder royals retire (Kents, Gloucester, Princess Anne).

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R236 - can the monarch get the lease broken? How does that work? Royal Lodge is on the Windsor estate. Any British legal minds around DL?

[quote]I think William might be the smartest, or at least the most self-aware, and he's a dumbass, too.

William has shown in recent years that he is quite temperamental and not to be trifled with. He's got a decisive streak in him too, which it a complete refreshing change from the dithering befuddlement that plagues his father and grandmother.

R236-if the royals had one shred of common sense, they would follow that plan to the letter. Unfortunately, they're dumb as a box full of rocks.

r238 not it's a 99 year lease or something like that. It's done and paid for many years ago, and is inheritable by his kids. Many large UK estates are leased out like this. Someone here with more knowledge about UK real estate can detail this.

R239-If the BRF survives, it's down to William. The Queen's done, Charles is a joke. It's literally all on William now.

William is the anti-Charles in many ways: family oriented, hands on with his kids, tough and no nonsense. And willing to shaft his enemies hard and fast when it suits him. No bewilderment or disorientation there.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I think a medicated Harry and wisely advised Meghan might be better than Eugenie and Beatrice. E&B haven’t done so well at “working” in the private sector and they seem to have Windsor sub-room temp IQs. Plus Bea’s fiancée seems like a bounder.

Meghan is a hustler and not completely stupid. Ironically, the fact that she has exposed herself (with her writing) as not particularly smart has also demonstrated that she isn’t completely stupid either. Just a product of her background. And at this point, Meghan’s parents are arguably classier and more law-abiding than E&B.

Plus, re-embracing Harry and Meghan would be a way of saying. “Yeah, we realize we need to change it up. We are going to do better.” Maybe, maybe, this crisis could bring the Cambridges and Sussexes to a working friendship. They might say, “FFS, we can’t stand each other but at least none of us are as bad as Andrew. And the rest of them.” They should probably use sperm do or for any more of Meghan's kids, though.

Harry still outranks William in all the major popularity polls. YouGov puts it at the Queen then Harry and then William. Charles is at number 6.

Of course Haz and Megs aren't as bad as Andrew. No one is as bad as him. The comparisons aren't even proper. That said, there are still issues there, with the Sussexes, that will have to be worked out. "Wise advice" hasn't worked well there, so far. It should be a cake walk though, compared to this stuff.

r246 who gives a crap who outpolls who? Harry is #6 in line of succession and dropping, William is the future king. Their the Head of State in the UK, not screen idols or X Factor contestants.

Their - the

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

That DM headline is misleading as fu*k. I have no doubt his 93 year old mother took in what he told her ("successful interview" my ass). But if you think for a second that Charles, Camilla, Anne and probably Edward/Sophie and William believe in their brother/uncle, think again. Charles has been trying to scale him back or force him out for years, unsuccessfully.

When Charles gets back from overseas there will be a reckoning. If not, there will be big trouble.

Wonder how Charles is enjoying the Royal Tour in New Zealand today? Bet not much.

Correction: Wine tasting tour meant to say.

r251

Oh the popularity rankings do matter or else they wouldn't keep throwing each other under the bus. These people are in a permanent contest with their own family members.

Doesn't Andrew always travel with a security detail?

So wouldn't it be easy to verify where he was on any given night?

Why hasn't he done this? Oh, I know . . .

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R245-That would depend on Harry setting aside his blatant resentment/anger issues and Meghan willing always to being behind Kate - and eventually Charlotte - in status. I just can't see either as being team players. Harry is no Edward, and Meghan is no Sophie Wessex, and they desperately need both.

We know the only other person in public life who would dare to say of himself that he is 'too honourable'. That's the 'stable genius' himself. Great comparison. Also a friend of Epstein.

When I heard with disbelief The Prince describe himself as 'too honourable', I could only think of the classic DL request: link please.

He is the twattiest twwat since Lord Twatsalot of Twattinghamshire-twwatside.

Priceless Washington Post comment about Prince Andrew:

Meghan take advice? Never! She think she knows best and sees herself as a strong, emancipated woman. She will always do things her way,. Expecting or hoping otherwise is just foolish.

This could’ve gone the right way with heavy eyeliner and crocodile tears! “There were 3 of us in that whorehouse!”

[quote]Homely Princess Anne cheated on her husband with a staff member and that public revelation triggered her divorce.

Actually, Mark Phillips had long been straying from his marital vows and spending increasing amounts of time away from home for his business of designing horse race courses. He impregnated a school teacher in New Zealand. I can't remember if he ever eventually admitted paternity, but at the time he paid the woman £40K for "equestrian services." Anne did have an affair with her RPO and when it was found out Scotland Yard dispatched him to another duty posting. Google Princess Anne documentary and you'll find a couple that cover this.

If cardboard Kate can't shine without Meghan diminishing herself, she should grow a personality R256. There will be no participation trophies for waity kaity.

And speaking of New Zealand. How did it come about that the interview was broadcast as Charles' tour of NZ was kicking off? Shades of the Sussex "documentary" airing as the Cambridges' tour of Pakistan was winding down. I imagine Andrew had a hand in this so as to keep his brother at distance and soften the blow back. I'm not sure it's going to work. Charles is said to be quick to anger, famous for his tantrums and prone to hold onto grudges.

Andrew could do a quickie civil remarriage to Sarah as a smokescreen. I wonder if Miss Sunshine has been Tweeting about her ex husband? She’s always lavishing praise on him

Would you crazy obsessives stop posting about Meghan on threads that have nothing to do with her?

It's boring.

Emily interviewed on GMA this morning >

[quote]Andrew could do a quickie civil remarriage to Sarah as a smokescreen.

There's no smokescreen big enough to distract from the known facts about those two, not even the fallout from Vesuvius itself.

Well, Bea's future Italian "aristocratic" in laws I'm sure are quite delighted with how the weekend's events turned out for Andrew and will have much to brag about with their own extended Italian family and friends this week. Said no one.

R269 I see that she was warned to hold her purse with BOTH hands around Fergie.

Who gives a fuck about Meghan & Harry!?

Prince Andrew is a lowlife, grifter, arrogant, racist fuck up. He and Fergie were PERFECTLY SUITED and should ride off into the sundet together to scam meals /yacht outings from the rich folk that want to hobnob with them. They both should be in jail for the pay for play scams they both ran. I’m not so sure Bea and Eugenie are innocent lambs either. It’s in their genes!

[quote] He said the only reason Epstein was invited to intimate royal events was because of “the girlfriend” Ghislane Maxwell,

She was always scum. Her father raided/stole the pension fund from thousands of his employees, put it into trust funds for his piece of shit kids then killed himself.

But of course, Andrew and the Queen had no problem associating with shit like ghislaine maxwell.

The Queen hosted a birthday party for her at one of her castles and also at other events the Queen held. We know this to be true because of photos. I can bet ghislaine was a guest of the Queen, many, many, many more times than we already know about. Jesus Christ, the Queen is a real piece of shit too. She knew what Andrew was doing over two decades ago. I did too. I read all about it in Vanity Fair, back in 2003. And if it was written about back then, it had been going on for a whole lot longer

In that interview he actually said he didn't regret being friends with epstein. Unbelievable

I'd love for someone to sue this fucker and see him on the stand being cross examined by a kick ass attorney. He'd end up admitting everything and probably saying the girls were peasants and were only put on this earth to serve people like him

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

r272 TQ never hosted a party for Ghislaine Maxwell anywhere. Maxwell got herself invited to Andrew's 49th birthday bash, and to Beatrice's 18th. But no one hosted a party for Maxwell herself least of all TQ.

The situation is gross enough no need to embellish. Andrew is toast and his mother so enfeebled she can't think straight about him; but she never threw parties for these people. I'd bet she never knew who they were - 'friends' of her son.

[quite]In that interview he actually said he didn't regret being friends with epstein. Unbelievable

Right. Cos of the connections he made through him. Even if he thought it, he was a moron for saying it.

Practically everything he said was moronic.

[quote] He'd end up admitting everything and probably saying the girls were peasants and were only put on this earth to serve people like him

You can't indict people for what you think they'd "probably" say. That's childish SJW thinking.

The Queen seems to be living in her own little bubble - oblivious to even her children and grandchildren's behavior.

What's freakiest about all this, is that the woman with ALL THE ANSWERS hasn't been questioned.

"No one knows where she is."

YOU do the math.

[quote]The BRF is now in unchartered territory. I don't think they can begin to fathom how bad this could possibly get.

I bet the saner ones did (Charles, Cam, Anne) but up til now they've been overruled by TQ. I would bet that after this turning point, that will change.

Charles has been slowly taking over power, inch by inch, over the past few years. Mostly as his mother would grant him as she's aged. My take is that - with this scandal - Charles will grab hold of more power and make changes. He has to, otherwise his own legacy is threatened.

Say what you will re Andrew, there's no reason to believe that Charles, Anne or Edward and Sophie are morons who hang out with skeevy derelict pervs. This is a singular problem with Andrew, and always has been.

Wasn’t Prince Charles good friends for many years with Jimmy Savile?

[quote]The Queen seems to be living in her own little bubble

Right.

A live link interview on Good Morning America is what she needs to do. Set a few things straight. Then "The View".

r280 except for Charles' affair and divorce

Actually, the girl in the Complaint was 17, which is the age of sexual consent in New York. So he can't be extradited for having sex with underage girls unless they can produce another one, nor for statutory rape. In order to be prosecuted, he would have to be charged with forcible rape, and the Complainant hasn't produced a shred of evidence that he did forcibly rape her. And he already has spoken with the Met in Britain, and, although the statute of limitations was lengthened considerably for forcible rape, it still requires a higher level of proof than the original Complainant has, or she would have done it by now.

So at this point in time, it's really about ruining what is left of Andrew's already less than stellar public persona, and making his life as embarrassingly miserable as possible.

As for the Queen - I am beginning to wonder if her mental faculties are finally deteriorating. The "problem" members of her family seem to be ignoring her and doing whatever they place, and then allowing PR to put the blame on her by suggesting she "knew" "encouraged" "supports", etc.

No one really knows what she's thinking, she has always played her cards so close to her vest, confided in so few, that any media outlet purporting to have insider information on what she thinks or feels is, ipso facto, lying.

Charles has always resented Andrewa, the handsome younger son doted on by Mum. He also couldn't stand Sarah Ferguson, eventually, and thought her a bad influence on Diana.

Remains to be seen how this plays out.

Between Andrew and the Sussexes, should be an interesting 2020 re the BRF and DL.

A million famous people were photographed with Jimmy Saville or make appearances with him. The guy did a lot of 'charity' work and was a famous celeb in his heyday. Charles was no different. Hindsight (and knowledge of an individual's true activities, discovered post-mortem) makes everyone a genius.

^*doing whatever they please

[quote][R280] except for Charles' affair and divorce

A million people in the UK have affairs and are divorced. It doesn't make them criminal twits. What are you trying to say r283.

r287 it was a huge public scandal for years. Because you were saying that they weren't morons as if that somehow elevated them. They've all brought their own bad share of press to the BRF.

Hahahahaa. What alternate universe is this where Charles is being tauted as "sane"? Charles has been pushing Andrew out for the same reason he used to put out press hits on Diana and later his own sons. He's a deeply insecure, self entitled little rodent. The animosity at Andrew is a holdover from the days when Andrew was third in line, a big Falklands hero and considered dashing. There was a time people openly talked about skipping Charles for Andrew, not that it's possible but Charles jealousy never left. It's just a coincidence that Andrew is also a sick twisted corrupt mess. Andrew could be Mahatma Gandhi and Charles would still be gunning for him. There's nothing noble about it.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

"There will be no participation trophies for waity kaity."

Cathy Cambridge's biggest problem is her laziness plus wanting to be a full time stay-at-home mom and wife of a rich man.

In other words, Cathy Cambridge really wants her sister's life but with all the Royal perks of the BRF.

The Housekeeper's Diary (banned in the U.K.) details instances where Savile and Charles used to hole up in Charles' study for hours with doors shut, r285. Yeah, it was a strange relationship all right.

[quote]“A royalty protection source said: 'Epstein's Florida mansion appears to have resembled a five-star brothel. And Epstein behaved like a pimp. 'I would have expected protection officers to have advised the duke to leave immediately. If they did not, the big question is why...

I believe the RPOs are strictly advised not to interfere with the activities of those they guard, unless those have high potential to cause physical harm or damage. Harry's RPOs, in a famous example, didn't interfere with his naked Vegas poker games several years ago, that caused so much bad press. They didn't interfere with Charles and Diana's bed hopping in the 80s and 90s either.

Diana infamously told her RPOs explicitly not to stop her sons from doing things just because they were embarrassing. She wanted them to have as normal a life as possible. IOW, RPOs aren't there to stop the royals from breaking the law or screwing up, only to protect their lives from immediate physical harm.

[quote]Diana infamously told her RPOs explicitly not to stop her sons from doing things just because they were embarrassing. She wanted them to have as normal a life as possible.

So they could be prepared for the normal lives they live now?

Charles has no moral superiority when he used his power to silence a rape victim. His favourite aide, who many say was also his cum bucket on long trips away, raped a footman. Charles responded by firing the footman and issuing unprecedented number of media gag orders. We never even got a conclusion from Scotland Yards investigation.

R294 So they would have some semblance of a childhood before getting into the family fishbowl.

R293 This is true. Although I can't believe there wasn't some amount of office gossip about Andrews predilections. That Andrew was hanging out with a convicted pedophile surely made it back to the palace staf quarters.

I didn't realise the "too honourable" quote was legit! I saw it on Twitter and thought it was a joke. It's positively Trumpian.

I was at Tesco earlier and Prince Andrew is on the front page of every newspaper. WTF was he thinking? In what universe did he think that interview was going to rehabilitate his image? Apart from anything else, the meme potential is through the roof: "too honourable"... Pizza Express in Woking... inability to sweat...

I think Charles’s enthusiasm for homeopathic medicine and Edward’s production of A Royal Knockout are more than adequate reasons for grouping them with Andrew in the sub-normal intelligence category.

[quote]I was at Tesco earlier

Miss Fancy Pants

[quote] Prince Andrew is on the front page of every newspaper

Gee, no kidding!

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I assure you, R300, I usually go to Waitrose.

R224 The only decent people in that family are princess Anneand Diana’s boys

Gasp! And he used the N-Word!@!@#@

[quote] You can't indict people for what you think they'd "probably" say. That's childish SJW thinking.

Stop being a fucking idiot. Where did I indict someone for what they'd probably say? I'll say it again because you have a low I.Q, I'd be very happy for him to get up in a court of law and be questioned by an attorney. Because we (everyone except your stupid ass) know he wouldn't be able to hide his contempt for these sexual assault victims. He couldn't even fake being a decent person in this interview and that was in a controlled situation by a moderate broadcaster. He'd be no match what so ever with a seasoned attorney

Of course, his dumb bitch of a mother would fight tooth and nail to prevent him from ever appearing in a courtroom

"This has actually made me, as a British subject. look at the Royal family very differently for the first time in my life. I mean how could they have raised such an idiotic oaf?"

R80 is clearly too young to remember Princess Margaret.

Many if not most Americans have a different view than yours initially. Maybe it's the history, maybe it's the distance but there's an inborn skepticism for winners of what has to be the world's greatest lucky sperm club. The Queen seems to be devoted to her duties and her country and thus widely admired if, all the same, she's an anachronism. Charles, William, and George were not raised BEFORE World War Two nor will they rule as she has - the world and the monarchy has changed too much. And as a family, they can't avoid all blame for their ebbing relevence. Andrew's misadventures are just the most recent example.

The Queen will never win "Mother of the Year" given how her kids turned out. So, what's the point of a revered "royal" family, held in esteem above all others, when they're just as dysfunctional as the rest of us? Charles, should he live long enough to succeed his mother, has recognized this and has plans to minimize the family's footprint to the sovereign and his successors and in so doing, reduce their ability to gin up bad PR.

Seems like a plan. Who knows if it will work?

Funny how all this is happening just as the new season of The Crown starts. Probably good for ratings. Certainly all of it is food for thought about the royal family. I'm American but followed them my whole life, because my mother was Scottish and the same age as the Queen and always identified with her. She always used to say, "They're like family." Her sister in Glasgow would send us the British newspapers and magazines, which I'd curiously devour. I was surely the only one in my sixth-grade class who followed the doings of Anne and Charles.

It just seems to me the tumultuous issues of the day - good or bad, whatever they are, always reverberate in the royal family like any other. Right now it's wokeness and unfortunately this sort of once-secret depravity.

The Cambridges are positively glowing from glee on their outing today. The royals love nothing better than watching each others downfall. Their family moto is basically "your loss is my gain".

The Cambridges are positively glowing from glee on their outing today. The royals love nothing better than watching each others downfall. Their family moto is basically "your loss is my gain".

I'm sure Prince Charles / "palace insiders" are leaking furiously trying to make it even worse, so The Queen will have him locked in the Tower of London forever, thus removing any possibility of him usurping the throne from Charles!

R303 and the Duchess of Kent-a lovely woman and a very unroyal unstuffy royal.

I'd love to sit down and have a good gossip about everything with Our Val.

Don't you mean Princess Michael of Kent? That bitches husband was denied a duchy of his own so she has to go around using his name for title. The Queen really is a malicious cunt to deny her cousin like that after all the ribbons he cuts on her behalf. Then to add insult to injury that Prince William evicted her from her prized apartment just so he could have prime parking at Kensington Palace. A family of Nazis and mega cunts

what are you on about r313? Princess Pushy and her hubs are still ensconced at KP in the same apartment they've always been living in. Do you mean the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester? They downsized out of their place, which was taken over the Will and Kate.

Prince Michael was never in line for a dukedom either.

Princess Michael of Kent is not the Duchess of Kent, R313. Didn't you notice their different titles? Google is your friend if you can't rely on a thin knowledge base.

Marie Christine still lives at Kensington Palace

[quote]Google is your friend if you can't rely on a thin knowledge base.

LOL

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Gloria Allred is getting in on the act, representing a young women coming forward.

Princesses Margaret and Anne had been divorced by the time Charles divorced, and Andrew was right then in the process of getting his own divorce. By that time there was nothing wrong with getting divorced, except perhaps in the eyes of the most elderly churchmen.

The DM has a piece up calling this the Queen's new "annis horribilus" amongst Andrew, the Harkles, and, somewhat unfairly, Zara Tindall's earnings. The latter are a non-issue: she is not even royal, she has no title, she does not work for the monarchy, and is not on the public payroll. I doubt most of the public have paid the slighest attention to how she earns her money.

But what is interesting are the comments btl, a great many of which are in favour of "Swedenising" the monarchy, pruning off Andrew, Harry, and Meghan, and accusing all three of damaging and undermining the monarchy because they know the Queen is old and tired and unable to take a strong line. But many also blame Charles for not taking a strong line wy ith Harry and Meghan, as well.

A surprising number of posters point to William and Kate as the monarchy's only hope, and blame the Queen for not standing aside when she clearly has no ability to discipline her own family.

As usual, Harry's and Meghan's PR achieved a short-term tactical goal, but in the longer-term, simply got them more bad PR. Most of the posters blame them for substantial damage to the monarchy, along with Andrew.

It is quite interesting how many (this is the DM, remember) seem fatalistic about the monarchy, and believe that once the Queen goes, the monarchy will go with her, unless something is done quickly.

Charles and William, if they want their patrimony delivered to them in time, had better realise that they need to suffer some amputations: Andrew needs to be retired from all public service and to disappear from sight; Harry and Meghan need to be kicked out minus their Sussex titles as soon as possible.

I don't see it happening, but it wouldn't be the first time in history that a monarchy made all the wrong calls. The British monarchy has, since it moved past Diana and into a period of relative stability that culminated with William marrying so sensibly.

So it was lulled into a complacency that allowed it to take a foolish chance on the L.A. grifter.

But in the 21st century, it's been sitting on a limb that was more fragile than the monarchy admitted to itself.

If they don't take some drastic decisions, that limb will break and come crashing down.

OK, first, no one ever accused commenters in the Daily Mail of underreacting. Public opinion in the heat of a moment is usually only telling about the moment. The monarchy will survive. One of the things that serves Prince Charles is he comes across as a reasonably decent guy.

But Charles is going to have to make some decisions. How to minimize Andrew. What to do with the rest of them. William and Kate can't do everything. So can he keep Anne and the Wessexes? Can Camilla become Queen or does the Princess Consort thing have to be it? What does he do with the Harkles, who are unlikely to smarten up. He'll have to make decisions and communicate them subtly but clearly. As much as it pains me, the polling does not suggest the wretched Markle is fatal for the monarchy. She will probably do no more damage than Princess Michael and will serve admirably as the villainess of the piece. If she doesn't divorce and dash.

[quote]But Charles is going to have to make some decisions. How to minimize Andrew. What to do with the rest of them. William and Kate can't do everything. So can he keep Anne and the Wessexes? Can Camilla become Queen or does the Princess Consort thing have to be it? What does he do with the Harkles, who are unlikely to smarten up. He'll have to make decisions and communicate them subtly but clearly. As much as it pains me, the polling does not suggest the wretched Markle is fatal for the monarchy.

There is no 'minimizing' Andrew at this point. He needs to go, straight into private retirement. He's got plenty of money stashed to keep him fed and clothed.

In exchange for a quick departure, Charles can cut him a deal whereby his daughters will be allowed to remain public fixtures and monarch-adjacent, much as they are now, and perhaps even take up part time public royal work when there is more to handle as the senior royals retire.

Anne isn't going anywhere. Charles respects the hell out of her, she'll be right there with him when he takes the throne. She'll stop when she's ready, which will be years. Although not personally close to Edward, I'm sure he recognizes his value and that of his wife, who's been a regular workhorse, doing all the events and ribbon-cuttings none of the younger set wants to do. Again, she should be used until she retires many years from now.

Camilla will be Queen, full stop. Mark my words. And the Sussexes: better and tougher management might do a world of good. If not, just ride it out until Megs departs. If they make her miserable enough - and this is totally doable - she'll bolt right out. Problem solved.

I largely agree with everything you say, R324, except the fate of the York sisters. They go too. A focus of resentment. Everyone will fare better if they are seen as private figures.

[quote] Harry and Meghan need to be kicked out minus their Sussex titles as soon as possible.

There are logistical reasons why they can’t be. No one will be available for ribbon cutting until George graduates university aside from Anne, Edward and Sophie. Peter and Zara don’t have to do anything, Louise and James will follow in their footsteps. Beatrice and Eugenie are embarrassments by association and will turn to motherhood. Unfortunately for Killiam, the American go-getter is all too happy to do heaps of the boring charity work and appearances they hate.

Disagree r325. Andrew's the culprit, not the girls, who've never really put a foot wrong (a bit fluffy perhaps, but generally polite and decent both). The public doesn't have a bad opinion of them.

Charles, Camilla, and both princes are fond of them and don't mind them. The initial plan was to phase them out to full private lives anyways, but with so many elders retiring and Harry's future status on dicey ground, I would bet there have been talks to bring one or both back on stage if only part time and adjacent. That was even before all this mess broke open.

Furthermore, Andrew has always been obsessed with their future, moreso than his own. If cutting a deal to secure them some small piece of the royal work pie makes him leave easily, and calms his mother (TQ), Charles will take it. Mark my words. Its small price to pay.

Want to add to my comment above ^ at r327: Andrew is currently a Counsellor of State, as he is last of the top four in line for the throne of majority age (George is still several years away from this). If Charles dies before George is 18 (possible), Beatrice moves into this last spot. This is a key position with responsibility.

Many forget that although there are several new young heirs (William and Harry's kids), they are all small children and years away from contributing anything. This keeps Bea & Eug somewhere still near the cusp of the center of things; its a main reason they haven't been completely pushed out of royal activities - they still participate in BP Garden parties, are still prominent at Sandringham Xmas, and on the Trooping balconies.

If Charles manages to get Andrew to fully retire, Bea automatically moves into his Counsellor spot, with Eugenie to follow when TQ dies. It gives a real reason to keep them close by the BRF center and close by. Look this up.

That's only if no changes are made to the laws governing. The ranks of the Counsellors of State are prescribed by law. Acting Counsellors of State (at least two at any given time) are selected because the role was created for predictable, short term inability (usually availability) of the Sovereign to act, but in circumstances where a Regency was unnecessary. So while Andrew could retain his status it is entirely possible he could never be called upon. It is not required the Counsellors are pressed into service in any particular order. The Act governing Counsellors of State was passed in 1937. Provision was made to allow the Queen Mother to serve with the 1953 Regency Act, she having lost her right upon becoming a widow. The law could be changed to allow for the wife of the heir to the throne to be among the ranks, or a Princess Royal, at His Majesty's Pleasure. The point being, there could be discreet workarounds put forward in the activity that accompanies the start of a new reign, to marginalize Andrew and prevent any need to rely on Mrs. Mazzipozzi or whatever her name is.

I think it's hard to say there's any great love in the country for either Beatrice or Eugenie. They were both seen as rather pointless scroungers, best know for holidays, their hopeless mother and dickhead father. In the age of deference, maybe... but that's the problem... the only person left in the UK who thinks deference still exists is Prince Andrew and his judgment speaks for itself.

I am loving this trashy downfall. Ol' Sparkles thought she was marrying into some highfalutin society family and they are being exposed as the pure trash they are.

As a Canadian, all I can say that I can't wait for the day to cast my "for" vote in a referendum that would make us a republic. Dumb Aussies missed their chance when they were given one back in 1999.

His two front teeth could fit the Ten Commandments.

I hope Megan derangement syndrome is fatal so the two Megan haters here can literally die from their hate.

Sounds like he got the questions beforehand (the 'sweat' thing was right on the tip of his tongue). But it didn't seem to help. He fidgeted his way through that like a teen boy in trouble- which is when his emotional development seems to have stopped.

I didn’t see the interview—what’s up with the sweat comment?

[quote] According to Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the prince was also involved in Epstein’s crimes. Giuffre has alleged that Epstein and Maxwell forced her to have sex with Prince Andrew multiple times, beginning when she was 17.

[quote] Emily Maitlis: [Giuffre] was very specific about that night. She described dancing with you.

[quote] Prince Andrew: No.

[quote] Maitlis: And you profusely sweating, and that she went on to have a bath possibly.

[quote] Andrew: There’s a slight problem with the sweating, because I have a peculiar medical condition, which is that I don’t sweat, or I didn’t sweat at the time, and that was—was it—yes, I didn’t sweat at the time—

Thanks, r338.... that was, erm, strange!

The Telegraph is reporting that, contrary to the BBC interviewer’s claim, HM did not approve the interview.

The bitch is backtracking on her own son. That interview was filmed in Buckingham palace in the room right next to the investiture room. A BBC film crew isn't crossing those halls without an express OK from Big Bessy herself.

Kate has such an unfortunate body for a woman. Creepily long torso with no hips, ass or tits. And shoulders broader than her hips. William was telegraphing he prefers boys.

R342, Please fuck off! Start your own thread that ISN'T about Prince Andrew.

Go fuck yourself stupid Katie stan. This thread is filled with shit about the entire family. And someone literally posted pics of her (his??) weird banana body upthread. No way a straight man with a Princes options picks that unless he's not quite straight

No, r341. HM knew Andrew was going to be interviewed, but she reportedly did not approve it. She also reportedly was told by Andrew that it went swimmingly well.

How stupid are you to not recognise the PR team rallying to insulate the crown from criticism? A BBC news crew isn't setting up in the palace without the Queens EXPRESS and EXPLICIT say so. Even the interviewer pointed out that Andrew couldn't approve his own interview, he had to get it from his mum.

r346, spot on! Who is more likely to tell the truth, the BBC that had to go through appropriate channels to interview Andrew or The Telegraph the next day after Andy crashed and burned.

And the interview was so controversial that the Duke's newly spin doctor quit rather than sanction it.

All this happened and Liz heard nothing, was not notified, walked around without noticing anything amiss. Please!

Quite the dilemma for The Queen. Her favourite son tells her the interview was a triumph, while the world outside the Palace bubble watches agog and shakes its collective head.

Nowhere across all prominent media is the word triumph anywhere to be seen. She either buys into his clinical denial, or grasps that the world outside has a point.

Not a great choice for a hallowed old lady to face.

Lets just run down what the poor old woman does know. She may not believe that her son is guilty and thats fine. What she does know is that her son spent time with a pedo who killed himself. And she knows the pedos victims would like to depose Andrew as it may substantiate parts of their story. Why is she not as head of the family not instructing him to go help the victims out? Isnt that how an innocent man could make right his bad judgement.

She's as evil as her son.

Question to DL. Why didn't Andrew just say he believes in convict rehabilitation? That as a principle once a person's debt to society is paid we must work to reintegrate them because that's how we prevent re-offending. At the very least it would have turned into a debate on the merits of this philosophy rather than whether he was lying.

He's stupid.

[quote]Question to DL. Why didn't Andrew just say he believes in convict rehabilitation?

You sound as stupid as Andrew.

Glad YOU weren't his advisor.

R352 is a retarded troll with nothing to add.

The first rule of crisis communication is DEFLECT. In Andrews case there was a very straightforward deflection available to him. Turn his visit to a convicted pedophile into an ideological debate. Afterall, it's not as if there isnt already a robust discussion about ex con reintegration. And particularly around sex offenders. He should even have quietly had a few ex con charities lined up to give commentary the following day.

Kate is starting to look like Caitlyn Jenner.

She's really wrinkly in the face too. Why is she aging so badly. Is she a battered wife?

R355 Ha, that would be another scandal the RF doesn't need.

Andrew is an entitled, arrogant and deeply stupid inbred with zero compassion for or understanding of his actions. He and his entire family are leeches without the sense to behave well. Let’s see how this plays out. Lizzie has rarely faced such a crisis in The Firm.

R355, she does look miserable and haggard. A super thin face flatters nobody. Meghan still has plump, youthful cheeks and a killer jawline. William often seems impatient around Cathy. I think he is quite mean spirited and resents the freedom Harry has and probably Harry's more passionate marriage, too.

I feel bad for Kate, as William sucks her dry - she has catered to him utterly since university to the detriment of having any work life or goals, her parents parent him so he feels part of a "normal" family, she's the ultimate stay-at-home yummy mummy who greets him when he comes home in pearls and heals with a drink in hand.

She gets his money (his father's money?) and for her children and descendants to be ancestors to be monarchs some day but I doubt he gives her any where near as much emotional support in return.

Prince Andrew is but a very boring sideshow to the far more interesting main event: the deplorable narcissistic grifter Megs and her family.

This is going to make one helluva Season 7 for The Crown.

r360 Hi Fergie

[QUOTE] Prince Andrew is but a very boring sideshow to the far more interesting main event: the deplorable narcissistic grifter Megs and her family.

You're the only person on this thread who finds Andrew's arraignment 'very boring'. You won't see Meghan for six weeks; she and Harry will be in America. No photos for you to pore over and mock her figure. How will you cope?

there’s no way that the current Andrew situation is boring, the whole Meg story IS boring. The two Sussex dunces could never wrack up a scandal quite this large. Andrew is a complete buffoon, totally from a different time, and is crashing and burning in the most satisfactory way. Charles will exile Andrew as soon as he’s king, figuratively speaking. No patronages, no visible presence at banquets or balconies, no new honours, perhaps he’ll even be stripped of his existing honours, and left with just whatever he earned in the Falklands.

The thing is, Bea and Eugenie never were public figures. They're known to the public, but they have never worked for the public. They were, and still are, private citizens. So any deal with Charles would be about making them officially public figures, not allowing them to remain so.

The other issue about Bea moving in to Andrew's "spot" is that that only happens if he renounces his position in the line of succession, which would have to be approved by Parliament. He can't simply "move out" of that spot by "retiring" - it's his by right of his place in the line of succession, which right now is seventh, not sixth.

It is Harry who is sixth in line. If Harry goes, and I suspect that is being planned as we speak, THEN Andrew moves back into sixth, Bea into seventh. THEN Andrew has to renouce his place in the succession (but not his daughters' places) and THEN Bea becomes a Councillor of State.

And Harry "going" doesn't mean just spending some time in America, and enough time in Britain whilst the UK taxpayer helps with the upkeep of FrogCott. It means he, too, renounces his place in the line of succession. Otherwise, he can retire from being an active royal (that is, on the public payroll, the Sovereign Grant) and go live on Mars: as long as he is still in the line of succession, the attendant honours he holds continue.

So it's about more than simply "retiring" from public life.

In the end, this is about the Queen's failures as a mother and a matriarch, more than it is about Andrew and the Sussexes. Swedenising the monarchy is now not just an option, but a necessity. They get rid of the Sussexes, who even if they didn't plan to, would probably see the handwriting on the wall and just leave, they get rid of Andrew, they get rid of the Kents and Gloucesters - all those patronages are just "make work", they're totally unnecessary and the public don't know most of them, anyway.

They would also probably bring Edward and Sophie forward more. They have plenty of years left in them, and Sophie is good at being royal and likes the work. Philio will likely die soon and Edward take on the mantle of Duke of Edinburgh. Swedenising also probably also get rid of the York daughters, unless Harry and Meghan take off more quickly than expected, and then they can bring Eugenie forward a bit. Bea has to get married and set up housekeeping. Anne, as noted above, remains as well.

The rest can go, and after Charles, the rule comes down that henceforth the only royals on the public purse are the Sovereign, the Heir Apparent and his or her family, unless said family has only minor children, in which case a couple of cousins will do.

And they should give the FrogCott to Eugenie or Bea - who, despite being born to privilege, will probably be far more grateful to the Queen for it than Harry and Meghan have shown themselves.

I just don’t think Meghan has been as much of a disaster as others seem to think. And now, in light of Andrew’s complete exposure as every retarded heir stereotype, her reluctance to blindly follow palace instructions and customs seems much more understandable. She got there and realized The Windsors is a dead serious documentary. Even the “it’s not fair” comment can be viewed in a different light now. It’s NOT fair that Andrew was getting a pass for being an accessory to sex trafficking and she was being vilified for being basic.

I’m not a fan of hers, but I think it is absolutely possible for Harry and Meghan to have high profile roles. Perhaps even more so now.

British university panel calls for Prince Andrew to step down as chancellor

A panel at a British university voted unanimously this week for Prince Andrew to step down as the chancellor — days after the embattled duke defended his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein in a baffling BBC interview.

The student union panel at the University of Huddersfield approved a motion calling for Prince Andrew’s removal from his ceremonial post at the public university, The Guardian reported Tuesday.

“We as students at the University of Huddersfield and members of Huddersfield Students’ Union should not be represented by a man with ties to organized child sexual exploitation and assault,” said the motion obtained by the outlet. “We need to put survivors of sexual assault above royal connections and show students, alumni and prospective students that this institution cares about their wellbeing, irrespective of the status of the alleged perpetrator.”

Now, the university — which only days ago emphatically defended the Duke of York — said it will consult with its student body about its request.

“We are aware of the students’ union meeting last night and the motion it passed regarding the chancellor,” the university said in a statement obtained by the paper. “We listen to our students’ views and concerns and we will now be consulting with them over the coming weeks.”

The 59-year-old duke has faced a wave of criticism following his “car crash” of an interview with BBC journalist Emily Maitlis — during which he denied getting sweaty with and hugging Epstein’s then-17-year-old female victim, Virginia Guiffre, before having sex with her in 2001.

That interview came in the wake of explosive claims by Giuffre that Epstein — who took his own life in his Manhattan lockup over the summer — had coerced her into having sex with Prince Andrew and other powerful men when she was underage.

She claimed in court papers that she had sex with the duke three times — in London, at Epstein’s New York home and at an “orgy” on his private island in the Caribbean.

Back in August, the prince shot down any suggestion that he participated in his pedophile pal’s behavior.

R366-It's going to be really fascinating to see how this soap opera plays out. I think another possibility is that if Meghan does want out - and given this family, who could blame her - I could see her using the BRF's moral bankruptcy as a reason. Would any of us want to raise a kid in this family of degenerates? I can see her saying, "Learning what I did, I had to do what was best for my son." She'd be praised as mother of the year.

More important. Putting all this aside - where's Ghilaine? Maybe it's too dangerous to "bring her in for questioning". She's a walking volcano. Just as Epstein himself was, but he was dealt with. Or was he? Another part of the story that seems to have been buried. Surely these days they could have come up with a clearer report on how he actually died.

Andrew is being used, to some extent as a scapegoat...even the BBC interviewer didn't corner him on Ghilaine even though he kept bringing her up as though she was the pure one and kept clarifying that she was in fact his REAL friend. A big mistake or intentional?

& why isn't Gloria calling for Ghilaine? Why hasn't the blonde girl referred to her by name?

Harry has done nothing to warrant being removed from the line of succession. Charles has only two children and he won't include Harry in any streamlining he does. It would be an incredibly myopic and unpopular move. Harry has been the second most popular royal after the Queen in approval polls for years and years.

I notice the Kate stan who suggests Harry should be cut off still wants there to be 'provision for the heir and his family.' Her obsession with Charlotte and Louis means she can't contemplate seeing them cut off, even though Charlotte is the Harry of her generation, yet she thinks the monarch should cut his own SON out of the succession

If William died before Charles, leaving minor children, Harry could be acting monarch for several years. Charles will be giving H and M bigger roles, not smaller ones.

is Ghislaine just out of the public eye or is she actually missing? Do investigators know where she is?

The last I heard, she was supposedly cooperating with the feds in FL. That was reported in the papers...but who really knows?

The BRF have been degenerates, butchers,murderers, misogynists, bigots, racists and enthusiastic supporters of brutal despots since the Year Jot. That this has suddenly become "objectionable" has more to do with agenda than reality.

Weird that Andrew is getting the attention and both Trump, Clinton, and other US media figures including Deshoqitz are being ignored.

Buy of course they have not given a pathetic interview to the BBc

[QUOTE] Weird that Andrew is getting the attention and both Trump, Clinton, and other US media figures including Deshoqitz are being ignored.

We have a false flagger in our midst. None of these figures have been accused of having sex with a trafficked 17 year old.

[QUOTE] The BRF have been degenerates, butchers,murderers, misogynists, bigots, racists and enthusiastic supporters of brutal despots since the Year Jot. That this has suddenly become "objectionable" has more to do with agenda than reality.

I just found the least intelligent person on Datalounge. She thinks the BRF should be allowed to behave how they did in Tudor times! The media response to pedo Andrew's crimes isn't 'agenda' driven, you fool. It's 2019 and Andrew is answerable and subject to the law of the land.

[QUOTE] The BRF have been degenerates, butchers,murderers, misogynists, bigots, racists and enthusiastic supporters of brutal despots since the Year Jot. That this has suddenly become "objectionable" has more to do with agenda than reality.

I just found the least intelligent person on Datalounge. She thinks the BRF should be allowed to behave how they did in Tudor times! The media response to pedo Andrew's crimes isn't 'agenda' driven, you fool. It's 2019 and Andrew is answerable and subject to the law of the land.

What a clear and succinct response from a British MP....ignore Piers.

It would be suicide to torpedo Harry and Megan. They hit the younger and diverse demographics that the others just haven't. You can tell that from the comments it's the royal traditionalists, political Conservative or racists who rage against them. Which instantly makes them appealing to the other half. This is exactly like Dianas era. The rags (which are basically conservative media) railed at Diana non stop which ironically increased her popularity among people who detest that shit. While The Sun was running criticism of her leaving the house in work out clothes, Vogue UK was calling her the royal moderniser. Wanna guess who history declared the winner?

In the old days, Andrew would be "thrown from his horse" or shoved out a tower window. When will they off him?

In the old days, Charles would have dispatched his mother, brothers, first wife and more popular sons to either exile or the grave decades ago. Charles really is the most jealous insecure Prince of Wales we've had in centuries. So yes, Andrew lives solely because he was born in the right century.

[quote]She thinks the BRF should be allowed to behave how they did in Tudor times!

Speaking of ignorant morons (that's YOU R376), the BRF behaved as described last week, last month, last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, etc. That this has suddenly become "objectionable" has very much to do with empty-headed agenda (Yours R376?).

I made the Dershowitz and Trump comment. I am not a false flagger. Just pointing out that doing the interview made him more of a target.

I made the Dershowitz and Trump comment. I am not a false flagger. Just pointing out that doing the interview made him more of a target.

Agree with some elements, but not all, of the above posts.

I agree that Andrew gives the Sussexes a very good shield for their exit, although it also has to be borne in mind that they would be fools to say so aloud. The Queen and Charles do have control over purse strings and can send them off with less rather than more. As it is, William and Harry are probably no longer on speaking terms, and William doesn't want Meghan anywhere near his wife and children.

But I also think it is past time for the British monarchy to Swedenise, as the verb now has it, and that would not only get rid of Andrew, it would get rid of the Sussexes in one fell swoop. Naturally, the Queen isn't going to disinherit her own son, but Andrew is worth about $80 million by now from his trust fund. The real question is whether he will be forced to renounce his place in the line of succession.

But I disagree that Meghan and Harry haven't been a disaster for the monarchy. I think they have, and I don't think it's the family that "caused" Meghan to reject protocol, etc. That tour was for the British government, not the British monarchy, and that kind of thing is what they are actually paid to do. She's opened a fruitless and damaging war on the UK press, the last thing the BRF needs now, and she has on every occasion possible made clear that her penchant for making herself the center of High Drama is her stock in trade.

Yes, they're disappearing for a period. Why not? They've already done as much as they can to with making donkeys of themselves with their PR; they've made the Queen look foolish; and they've ignored the fact that the UK is in the throes of an incredible level of political and social unrest - none of which the Sussexes care tuppence about.

They are, all three of them, highly damaging and they need to be pruned, and quickly. The Queen needs to stand down at last, Charles has to step up for a brief time, and focus the public's eye further on his son and daughter-in-law as the future.

The idea that Britain will be bereft without Harry and Meghan not having high-profile roles is specious. Few, at bottom, give a fine flying fuck if they stay or go.

It's time for some tough love by the BRF toward its spoilt, errant members, and that includes Meghan Markle.

And she's no one to be talking about looking down her nose at a dysfunctional family.

Meghan will be a bad influence for sure. Although I'm sure Harry was already bad when they met. She is a social climber, she always looked for the richer, better connected man even when married...She did not hesitate to cut ties with those who doesn't fit into her new life like her father who paid for all her education. The least she could do is pay him back, she's an ungrateful cunt.

She will encourage Harry defy the RF and do things for their own benefit. She flew to US open to see her bestie Serena when the baby was just born. She doesn't care about anything but herself.

I think they should get rid of the whole fucking thing after the Queen dies. Who owns the all the fucking castles?

I hear constantly about how the NHS is overwhelmed etc...why don't they sell off some of those useless castles and fund the hospitals and pay the medical staff properly?

These people are fucking useless...they are benefit scroungers !

Let's be clear about Swedenized... the king withdrew royal status from five grandchildren... his own children retain royal status and place in the line of succession. So Swedenizing isn't major revolution. At this point, Archie holds an aristocratic title, no princely status, no HRH. Princess Anne's children don't even have that. Prince Edward's children have aristocratic titles but not HRH. Andrew's children are holdovers from the old view. So Swedenizing won't really have the effect of major change. Andrew will be quietly sidelined and his daughters won't be invited to step up. Most of the minor occupants of Kensington Palace now pay market rent. Not sure what happens to Harry and Meghan but they are a problem: neither is smart enough to avoid controversy and controversy is not good for business. If they play by the rules they stay. If they can't something will have to happen. Meghan needs to understand and accept she is not a public official or politician. She needs to show up, smile, take the flowers and look interested. If she can't, she should go. Dim will revert to form soon enough.

Let's be clear about Swedenized... the king withdrew royal status from five grandchildren... his own children retain royal status and place in the line of succession. So Swedenizing isn't major revolution. At this point, Archie holds an aristocratic title, no princely status, no HRH. Princess Anne's children don't even have that. Prince Edward's children have aristocratic titles but not HRH. Andrew's children are holdovers from the old view. So Swedenizing won't really have the effect of major change. Andrew will be quietly sidelined and his daughters won't be invited to step up. Most of the minor occupants of Kensington Palace now pay market rent. Not sure what happens to Harry and Meghan but they are a problem: neither is smart enough to avoid controversy and controversy is not good for business. If they play by the rules they stay. If they can't something will have to happen. Meghan needs to understand and accept she is not a public official or politician. She needs to show up, smile, take the flowers and look interested. If she can't, she should go. Dim will revert to form soon enough.

R375 is no false flagger people have very short memories. The Epstien scandal started because of Acosta a Labor Secretary had to testify in Congress about this mess. Also many of the girls have testified they were trafficked from Mirlago. They’ve also peripherally named Clinton as being a friend or sighted at parties. This is all in court papers. Andrew’s just to stupid to cover his ass and made himself an unnecessary target where everyone else named has kept their mouth zipped after bland denials.

Get a fucking grip. Every few years a woman joins the family and the world loses its mind over her. With Kate it was that her mother had sent her to St Andrews as part of a status climbing initiative. That the family were isolating William and also using their connection for fame and money. Who can forget the hysteria when her sister started taking media jobs. Or when her deadbeat brother kept failing businesses. People got over that shit and even downright forgot that they once referred to Carole Middleton as the British Kris Kardashian. You'll forget these nothing gripes with Meghan too.

[R389], the grandchildren of the King who lost their royal status are still styled as Prince/Princess and Duke/Duchess. They are still in the line of succession.

[quote]She flew to US open to see her bestie Serena when the baby was just born. She doesn't care about anything but herself.

Unlike famously-doting mother Elizabeth II! Meghan should be much more like that smother-fest of a loving mother, constantly in attendance of her children upon and after their births!

Just admit it. You're a racist who detests the idea that someone other than an inbred kraut is in your royal family.

(Pardon me, does anyone know of a thread where one can discuss topics like Kate Middleton’s gowns?)

[quote] but I doubt he gives her any where near as much emotional support in return.

This describes the state of 90% of heterosexual marriages. Kate and William are hardly unique in this respect.

You could start one. If you are unable to start threads, add another part time job so you can afford the $1.50 a month.

DataLounge is forum created by and for gays and lesbians to discuss matters of gay interest. This is not a site that is an appropriate location to discuss heterosexual relationships, heterosexual celebrities (including but not limited to the litany of Beautiful Successful Women That Fraus Hate), true crime, babies or children.

Well by that measure R397 about 90% of the threads on the go would be eliminated.

R396 Is the same bitch that would complain about duplicate threads.

R394 - there are photos of Will and Kate at the Royal Variety Performance on this thread.

Yes.

Yes.

R400, don't they look miserable?

The whole Meghan ‘controversy’ is stupid. Reasonable people can see there’s no comparison with an international sex trafficking ring which may involve two presidents. Meghan went to the US Open well poo on her. Maybe she isn’t very nice and a bit selfish but that doesn’t make her detractors any less ridiculous and racist

Unless racism isn't part of detracting. But lets not allow any reason to flow here.

Thank you kindly R400.

The Harkles clearly are no where near the level of odious fuckery that Andrew is, but it's the snowballing of optics that's doing the BRF in. You have Andrew having sex with women who were sex trafficked and the Harkles who seem intent on living the life of excess as celebrities at taxpayer expense. One alone can perhaps be seen as an anomaly in an otherwise venerated institution. Take three people concurrently lifting the curtain on what life is like inside the Firm, then the average person starts to wonder why the hell they're paying for these people who have, as someone above said, unearned wealth and underserved privilege. Margaret's debauchery was kept fairly quiet, and at least people could related to adultery when Chuck and Di came crashing down. If the Cambridges are smart, they'll parade their adorable, wholesome brood on Christmas day.

Meghan and Harry’s antics softened the ground for the current onslaught.

R403 - no, the Cambridges didn't look miserable at all.

Again, we should all be so miserable like the Cambridges.

R409 Indeed, they both look fabulous and Kate's gown does as well. The DM's description of her Alexander McQueen dress is pure delight:

[italic]The maxi dress is designed with a nude underlay that delivers a sheer illusion, whilst the black lace plays to Kate’s signature evening style and displays a hint of romanticism that we’d only expect from McQueen. To incorporate the designer’s love for traditional silhouettes, the maxi is cut with a subtle sweetheart neckline whilst the puff sleeves add volume.[/italic]

Andrew, Harry, Sparkles, the three of you OUT.

[QUOTE] She'd be praised as mother of the year.

Ugh, and she’d be on Oprah going on about how she couldn’t stay in an environment that didn’t treat women appropriately. She’d relaunch The Tig, with a new byline of her escaping sexual predators (and wearing YSL while doing it!)

R412, The Harkles have been angling for a "buyout" for quite some time. I think they would gladly take it and leave.

So, how does this Andrew situation affect Princess Beatrice's marriage plans and all the grandness of the day and actual ceremony, time, place, invitees, etc.?

And how does this affect the eventual remarriage of Andrew and Sarah?

Why in the world would he ever do such an interview particularly when it was all about one topic? There should have been some stipulation that the interview involve some of the Epstein matter along with Andrew's work for Great Britain and the monarchy, remorse for the victims and a look toward future plans, good works, etc. Why, Andrew, why? Why do something so incriminating. He has opened a hornet's nest.

He should have followed the old adage: "Never complain, never explain."

R416: "Why in the world would he ever do such an interview"

Because he's an incredibly stupid and entitled pig-headed narcissist who lives in a bubble?

415: The future Mrs. Mozzquito's wedding is essentially a private affair. Dear Papa may go to ground until it is held... sort of a debut after all this shit (assuming it doesn't get worse, big assumption.) But I'd bet money it will be held very very late in the year. Like November (when both the Queen and Princess Anne were married but they need some time between now and then... putting on even a private affair would seem terribly tone deaf in this moment.)

As to remarrying Fergie... the only thing standing in his way is his father's enmity so that's not out of way until he's boxed and buried. It won't buy him any goodwill and it won't cost him either. Two idiots getting old together. They would remarry with little ceremony I'd guess. Who'd want a big affair? Probably them and the sisters Grimm and their husband, assuming Señora Mozzquito can hold to/put up with Don Juan) in the Saloon at Royal Lodge, with whichever of his siblings can stomach it.

I'm being very sour. Andrew and Fergie are souring. He's a clueless entitled asshole and she's such an idiot... I can't even feel sorry for her... her self esteem is low it inspires contempt, not pity. I don't know if he did anything criminal but I don't care... there's nothing to like about him. Even Fergie at least gives us something to laugh at.

LOL more cover-up.

I feel badly for Sarah, Beatrice and Eugenie. They shouldn't have to endure this nonsense. Like them or not, this situation is not their fault, but they must deal with the fallout.

Beatrice and Eugenie have done nothing wrong. Fergies crime is her commitment to being associated to a Prince. I mean the man doesn't even have money. She should have found a nice wealthy aristocrat to settle with. I'm convinced that the reason she's always in debt is partly because she pays for Andrews crap when his allowance runs out.

R415 The Yorks will make sure their remarriage is as grand as possible. Expect enterprising Sarah to score some wedding sponsors to pay for it because no doubt the Queen will not be opening the purse for it.

R413 - "she’d be on Oprah going on about how she couldn’t stay in an environment that didn’t treat women appropriately"

Hopefully, someone will ask her why she jumped at the chance to get into that enviroment, which isn't famous for its feminist creds, and once she got her title, her global fame, her taxpayer funded cottage, her million-dollar wardrobe, and the jet-set pals who didn't know who she was before she married Harry, she suddenly found that she can't stay because the monarchy isn't Woke enough . . .

As if, forsooth, an inherited monarchy by its very name didn't trumpet its UnWokeness.

"I mistook Windsor for Disneyland."

I feel bad for the girls.

Don't worry about Fergie. She's too stupid to do anything but make matters worse.

Speaking of Sarah, did everyone forget that as mother to princesses and while living in one of the palaces, she went and did a reality show (sorry, a "docuseries") in the US. The Internet almost exploded and yet it didn't. The rage subsided and people literally forgot. Most people forgot her multiple pay for play scandals too.

Just bringing some perspective viz Megan. People will forget this hate frenzy and move on.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Prince Andrew is a stain on the Royal Family. MM is an annoyance. Big difference.

That whole family is an annoyance.

Oh, Jesus Fuck. Blaming the stupid, useless Fergie? Not only does the 97 year old Philip have access to a two ton Land Rover that can be used exclusively to run over women and an infant, but his twitchy phone finger is still calling the papers to blame the stupidest fucking duck in the RF? They've done gone overtly batshit stupid

[quote] If William died before Charles, leaving minor children, Harry could be acting monarch for several years. Charles will be giving H and M bigger roles, not smaller ones.

r370: Kate their mother would be REGENT, not wayward Haz. And if she’s not around, Anne or Edward would suffice. The Regency Acts are easily modified. We’ve covered this in other threads.

[quote] It's going to be really fascinating to see how this soap opera plays out. I think another possibility is that if Meghan does want out - and given this family, who could blame her - I could see her using the BRF's moral bankruptcy as a reason. Would any of us want to raise a kid in this family of degenerates? I can see her saying, "Learning what I did, I had to do what was best for my son." She'd be praised as mother of the year.

Not arguing the point that Andrew isn’t exactly child-role-model friendly, but someone whose own brother just the other day was filmed naked in the back set of a car on a meth binge would be LAMBASTED for making statements about the current unsuitability of her in-laws.

My bad, correction: it was the DoS's nephew, not her brother ^.

I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again. There is no way in the deepest of hell that MM gives up her Duchess and Royal Highness titles to become an Instagram influencer. They might have a dual home in the US (like some of the other royals in other countries) but if they’re forced to give up their titles to do so, they won’t do it.

Just cuz those whose knowledge bases are incredibly thin reject Google, doesn't mean Google ain't correct, R431. Please tell us why you think Catherine will be Regent.

The prime minister just said live on TV that the monarchy as an institution is "beyond reproach"! This week, of all weeks...

Kate would be unlikely to be made Regent, more likely a Privy Councillor. But with Harry out of the BRF, presumably, Andrew would be next in line - again, also likely to be, as they say, hors de combat by then - Edward or Anne.

But the fact is, this is very unlikely to occur, it's a useless point that's been brought up several times. It's the least likely thing to occur. In fact, it would be more likely to be seen as an opportunity to abolish the monarchy than appoint that brat as Regent.

It's more likely that the unexpected death would be Charles' before his mother, or so shortly after hers that his reign is nonexistent. The real question is, if the Harkles don't leave on their own, how would they respond when the one person implacably angry at them and not afraid to express it suddenly holds all the purse strings, all the influence, and the maximum social status?

There is no way that the Harkles are going to get any more annual "supplements" from the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster. Presumably, Charles and the Queen will have left Harry additional trust funds to make up for the loss of those supplements, but like his current one, he will only get the revenue from those trusts, not the principle. His income will still be well below his brother's.

R436 - He made it clear that he was speaking of the institution, not its occasionally badly beahved members. The institution itself is still respected by the public and supported by same.

But that won't last if the Queen and Charles don't act with speed to get rid of the rot.

R432-but that plays right into her narrative. She would be keeping pride and joy away from corrosive influences. People can say that she astutely Markled the Markles because they're white trash, and she'll Markle the BRF because they're royal trash.

[quote]The prime minister just said live on TV ....

If Boris or Donald DON'T say it on TV, well, then, fill in the blanks:

Prince Andrew succeeds Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State or that guy who heads the Foreign Office!

Melania will, post haste, bump Catherine out of her position as future mother of a King because "She identifies" with "King-making."

Ivanka will keep trying to figure out who to fuck. Andrew's a good choice, right, but he seems taken by younger gals. Maybe, HARRY? He likes them a little older and he's not too choosy about family background, his or mine!

Jared - Gimme all those Saudis at the Mayfair and I'm good! I hear they like to gun their imported sports car engines on small streets around there. It may bother the residents, but it really grinds my gears! I'd really love to lay some rubber down with prurient but "discreet" Saudi boyz who can show me a good time.

Trump - Wherez my dick? I left it around here somewhere!

[quote] But with Harry out of the BRF, presumably,

Yeah not happening

r394

I created a thread for you. Kate's worn some beautiful gowns and others that need to be dissected and studied...to prevent others from making the same mistakes.

R442 - I join R394 in thanking you for creating that thread, to which I will now retire to get away from swollen royal toes, Princes of the Blood with so little brain they might as well be cockroaches, self-regarding blindered whingeing twats with no respect for the Queen, and upsetting images of the Queen's increasingly grim visage on the way to church.

R394 Why thank you. Except the link doesn't work, at least not for me. ??

Alas, the link is not working. And I am not R394, but you're welcome.

R445 I replied to myself. Mercy! R442, can you fix it? Hoping it can encompass a variety of royal fashion, and perhaps a tiara or two. Pure aesthetics.

I think with the elections in the uk coming up the andrew/epstein story was fading a bit. I want to know WHO advised this dumb piece of poo that an interview was even necessary? His manner and petty arrogant callous personality shown in the interview possibly came off worse than the the crime of sex with trafficked 17 year olds part of the story.

Gowns of the BRF (Search by this if link does not work.)

R446 - The link is working. I have already made a contribution, but some cunt is trying to get Muriel to take it down because of one idiot frau.

R445

Brain trust at 435: look up the Regency Act of 1953, where Philip was assigned regent status in the case of his wife's death or inability to rule if his children were minors. No one wanted wayward Princess Margaret taking that role if the unthinkable happened. This established that the minor heir's remaining parent should be first choice.

Kate would be regent for a minor King George, either solo or in co-regency with Harry or Anne or Edward (I think Andrew is off the books now).

r435^^

The age of consent in the UK is 16.

[quote] It would be suicide to torpedo Harry and Megan. They hit the younger and diverse demographics that the others just haven't. You can tell that from the comments it's the royal traditionalists, political Conservative or racists who rage against them.

Two near-40 year olds are not for the “younger” and “diverse” demo lol. They will be viewed as tedious has-beens in short time, if not already.

There are younger up-and-coming royals to bring the youth factor (George, Charlotte and on).

[quote]Vogue UK was calling her the royal moderniser. Wanna guess who history declared the winner?

Well certainly not Diana, because she’s DEAD. At the hands of her own drunk driver.

[quote]The age of consent in the UK is 16.

Get it through your head, perv: No 16yo on this planet looks at anyone over 40 as a sex partner. They can have harmless crushes, but the actual act of sex is never something a 16 year old is looking for with anyone OLD. It's the old pigs who do this shit about "age of consent." Are you so damaged as an adult that someone who is two years older is a bridge too far? If it is, get castrated.

[quote]Kate would be regent for a minor King George, either solo or in co-regency with Harry or Anne or Edward (I think Andrew is off the books now).

How many post hoc qualifications or "ors" or "I thinks" must you add to the Regency Act? Is the act so imprecise that you can fill in the cracks?

R450 - Philip was the Sovereign's husband and he was born royal and had been a serving naval officer in WWII. He was a harder and more experienced adult. Kate, whom I like, is the wife of the second in line, who himself has no experience in the kinds of things the Sovereign has to do. Her only job ever has been William's wife and George's Mum. She's a marshmallow next to Prince Philip. It stood to reason that he should stand as Regent for his minor children.

I don't say that it wouldn't ever be done - I would imagine that if George were, say, 16 in the event of his father's untimely death, there wouldn't be much opposition to putting Kate in as Regent for two quick years.

But Kate as Regent for the next 12 years with no royal standing of her own outside of being William's wife? She was a sheltered girl, a sheltered wife, and a sheltered Mum. That's her CV.

I think there would be opposition for a long Regency by someone completely unqualified to head up the monarchy.

I am not, by the way, R435. Just joining in.

R453 - Spot on. Meghan hasn't modernised a damned thing, she's just done whatever she pleased and stuck two fingers up to the Queen, the government, and the taxpayers. Modernisers don't take taxpayer money so they can live in grand homes.

Youth demographic? Is that a joke? What is she, Taylor Swift?! She's pushing 40. Her first pregnancy was medically considered "geriatric".

It's the Queen who modernised the monarchy. All Meghan has done is try to make it safe to take taxpayer money AND refuse to do anything she doesn't want to do.

As for "suicide" - please, get a grip! Meghan and Harry could disappear in a cloud of smoke tomorrow, and the Youth of Britain would carry on being disaffected, anxious, carrying knives to school, and unable to complete a coherent English sentence.

[quote]Modernisers

Man, you fucking foreigners really have a hard-on for hating Markle, but then what do you expect? You people throw bananas at black players during soccer matches.

[quote]Philip was the Sovereign's husband and he was born royal and had been a serving naval officer in WWII. He was a harder and more experienced adult. Kate, whom I like, is the wife of the second in line, who himself has no experience in the kinds of things the Sovereign has to do. Her only job ever has been William's wife and George's Mum. She's a marshmallow...

I'm starting to think of William and Kate's marriage as a modern day variant of Bertie and Elizabeth's union. The former Yorks had, by all accounts, a very happy marriage with their children Elizabeth and Margaret not anticipating how things would change. A happy family unit until the abdication crisis and the war.

I'm no clairvoyant and can't see into the Cambridge marriage, but it does appear that they are replicating Wm's great-grandparent's union, albeit preserved and sheltered by QEII herself. Of course, the former Yorks couldn't have anticipated history, but at least HM gave the eventual heir a shot at replicating such "domestic bliss" she grew up around and has the sense to know its value after her issues with family and marriage.

[quote]Man, you fucking foreigners really have a hard-on for hating Markle, but then what do you expect? You people throw bananas at black players during soccer matches.

Wait a second. Are you saying the posters here are Spanish Villareal fans? Would Dani Alves eat Meghan's banana if she wrote something sweet on it if he looked like Ashley Cole?

[quote]DataLounge is forum created by and for gays and lesbians to discuss matters of gay interest. This is not a site that is an appropriate location to discuss heterosexual relationships, heterosexual celebrities (including but not limited to the litany of Beautiful Successful Women That Fraus Hate), true crime, babies or children.

We'll discuss what the fuck we want here. No one defines 'matters of gay interest' except posters here. Celebs gay or straight have been top fodder since the board started.

r456 Kate's no less qualified than Philip was to stand for her son. She's been with William longer, and married longer at this point, than Philip ( a foreigner) was to the Queen at the same point they put him in line for potential Regent.

Your point about George's potential late teen age as argument isn't invalid, but George is already nearly 8 years old now and not an infant. Kate is nearing 40 and isn't a youngster with no BRF experience. If William becomes king in the next decade, watch for him to immediately amend the Regency Act to make Kate potential Regent.

[quote]The other issue about Bea moving in to Andrew's "spot" is that that only happens if he renounces his position in the line of succession, which would have to be approved by Parliament. He can't simply "move out" of that spot by "retiring" - it's his by right of his place in the line of succession, which right now is seventh, not sixth.

[quote]It is Harry who is sixth in line. If Harry goes, and I suspect that is being planned as we speak, THEN Andrew moves back into sixth, Bea into seventh. THEN Andrew has to renouce his place in the succession (but not his daughters' places) and THEN Bea becomes a Councillor of State.

It’s not about simple line of succession; it’s about those in line of MAJORITY age. If Charles passes away before July 2031 (when George turns 18), Bea automatically becomes Counsellor of State as things currently stand.

If her father were to imminently be removed as Counsellor – which could ostensibly be accomplished via Regency Act amendment - she becomes one NOW. Eugenie would also then become one when the Queen passes, for a few years until George turns 18. It’s the first four people in line over age 21 (18 if heir apparent).

[quote]And Harry "going" doesn't mean just spending some time in America, and enough time in Britain whilst the UK taxpayer helps with the upkeep of FrogCott. It means he, too, renounces his place in the line of succession. Otherwise, he can retire from being an active royal (that is, on the public payroll, the Sovereign Grant) and go live on Mars: as long as he is still in the line of succession, the attendant honours he holds continue.

Wrong. To remain Counsellor he must RESIDE in the UK the majority of the year. It’s not enough to simply be in line for succession. There are a few separate rules involved.

[quote]…And they should give the FrogCott to Eugenie or Bea - who, despite being born to privilege, will probably be far more grateful to the Queen for it than Harry and Meghan have shown themselves.

Eug and Jack are already at KP at Ivy Cottage; Beatrice will be given similar digs post-marriage. These are the kind of perks that Andrew will want his daughters to keep, after his potential retirement and/or banishment, and will wheel and deal with Charles for.

Both girls are private citizens and have not done official public work for the Crown, but they are certainly not strangers to the general public. Moving them into part time work - part time only, and mostly low profile events - would not be jarring.

It doesn’t matter what the age of consent is in the UK. She was TRAFFICKED from an area with a higher age of consent. Felonious behavior from a blood prince

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R458 is wrong, they don't throw bananas on the pitch, that's Italy. They merely racially abuse the soccer players verbally.

R458 is wrong, they don't throw bananas on the pitch, that's Italy. They merely racially abuse the soccer players verbally.

Fergie and Andrew are two grifters in a pod which is why they were such a good match. They could put any Trump to shame. Their daughters were much the same, but as they've matured, they've grown out of it.

Andrew's Auntie Margo also relied on her royal status to be entertained lavishly at the expense of wealthy people of dubious character. This was one of many reasons for her marriage break-up with Tony Snowdon. He hated associating with people he couldn't stand just to get freebies.

[quote]But Kate as Regent for the next 12 years with no royal standing of her own outside of being William's wife? She was a sheltered girl, a sheltered wife, and a sheltered Mum. That's her CV.

Compared to the intellectual giant that is Prince Harry?

A line in a column on this mess:

Spreading faster than a forest fire, the scandal is said to be taking its toll on the 93-year-old monarch, with Prince Charles away in New Zealand and Prince Philip increasingly frail and unable to offer her support.

Sounds like Philip is failing.

[QUOTE] Kate's no less qualified than Philip was to stand for her son. She's been with William longer, and married longer at this point, than Philip ( a foreigner) was to the Queen at the same point they put him in line for potential Regent

Philip had been a high ranking military official. Kate knows nothing except having sex with William, some child raising, and waving at events. A housekeeper runs Kate's staff, a stylist chooses her clothes. She is as helpless as can be. No work experience except working as a yacht girl on the Solent aged 19.

Harry served in Afghanistan and other countries and has royal blood. Kate has none. Why would she be Regent over him?

The chief fantasy of the KKK fraus on these endless hate threads is that Harry will be forced to denounce his place in the line of succession. Note that they write as if this is actually going to happen, and happen BEFORE Andrew loses his place. Harry's crimes? Uxoriousness, suing the press, and spending money on his house. These racist haters are five fathoms deep in delusion.

I meant 'Renounce' not 'denounce'

Bye bye, R471.

[quote]Andrew's Auntie Margo also relied on her royal status to be entertained lavishly at the expense of wealthy people of dubious character. This was one of many reasons for her marriage break-up with Tony Snowdon. He hated associating with people he couldn't stand just to get freebies.

I can't even begin to describe how off-kilter erroneous this is. It was the ONLY reason Snowden married her (as his lover whelped his child a few weeks before his marriage to Margaret). Access to everyone, everywhere, anytime became his photographer's playground. He is the Lord of Freebies and undeserved patronage via marital nepotism, FFS! He was talented, as were many who happened to not fuck a Princess of the Blood.

Did Harry even go to university? At least Kate graduated University. Harry did jack shit in military, was never in any danger due to his royal blood, just had lots of beers and fucking prostitutes in foreign countries.

[quote]fucking prostitutes

Oh, Puh-fucking-lease

WTF would Prince Harry have needed prostitutes in his 20s? He overtook his brother in popularity with girls. They would've paid to fuck HIM.

He's not his fat, old uncle.

Excuse me "not to fuck a Princess of the Blood."

I've been taught not to split infinitives, but it's hard sometimes.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote]But Charles is going to have to make some decisions. How to minimize Andrew. What to do with the rest of them. William and Kate can't do everything.

Indeed, they do very little.

I agree with you except for the poor Charles sentiment. Charles was a by all accounts a weak, over sensitive and over indulged boy. Completely unsuited to being King one day. Nobody expected Big Bessy to live this long. He needed to be ready to DECISIVELY take over in a literal heartbeat. The best thing that ever happened to Charles was to attend the sparse boarding school that his own father attended. Where he could learn austerity, self control resilience and how to win over people who didn't kiss ass. Of course he picked up little and instead just grew resentful at having to bathe in cold water. Thats a complaint that shows up in all his semi authorised biographies. He struggled in the military too which is very self indulgent for a man who will one day have people die at war in his name. Its a good thing shes going to hit a hundred. He's needed 70 years to man the fuck up and even that has required Camilla to lend him some testosterone.

Harry is popular for a reason. He was incognito in a war zone for a year, piloting helicopters. People didn't have a clue that he was out there for 12 months. None of Afghanistan was 'out of harm's way', especially the skies. The Klan here dismiss what he did, but Charles and Wills couldn't hack the military at all and never entered a combat zone.

Kate should have spent her 20s gainfully employed if she wanted to be taken seriously. Her purpose is purely ornamental and reproductive. Nannies do the majority of childcare.

Big contrast to Meghan, who managed to get a seven year tenure on a long running drama series that was syndicated to the UK and Europe. Meghan knows how to survive in the most competitive industry there is. Her writing on The Tig also brought in brand endorsements. She is talented and versatile. Kate is neither.

Harry is popular for a reason. He was incognito in a war zone for a year, piloting helicopters. People didn't have a clue that he was out there for 12 months. None of Afghanistan was 'out of harm's way', especially the skies. The Klan here dismiss what he did, but Charles and Wills couldn't hack the military at all and never entered a combat zone.

Kate should have spent her 20s gainfully employed if she wanted to be taken seriously. Her purpose is purely ornamental and reproductive. Nannies do the majority of childcare.

Big contrast to Meghan, who managed to get a seven year tenure on a long running drama series that was syndicated to the UK and Europe. Meghan knows how to survive in the most competitive industry there is. Her writing on The Tig also brought in brand endorsements. She is talented and versatile. Kate is neither.

Correction. "I feel bad for HMTQ," not HRH.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I wonder if Harry and Meghan are giving any second thoughts about how they run their foundation following this exposure of Andrew's finances. Given the way they structured it, it's ripe for abuse, and whereas they might have gotten away with funneling funds toward themselves before, that might be less the case now.

R478 that daily mail article lays out decades of grift and shadiness! Worth the read.

[QUOTE]I wonder if Harry and Meghan are giving any second thoughts about how they run their foundation following this exposure of Andrew's finances. Given the way they structured it, it's ripe for abuse, and whereas they might have gotten away with funneling funds toward themselves before, that might be less the case now.

You don't seem able to tell the difference between reality and your own fantasies. They have no record of financial corruption, however hard you wish that wasn't the case. Again and again, you try to deflect from Pedrew's evil by making up BS about M and H.

R456 - Something else to remember about Prince Phillip is that not only was be a blood born Royal but he was in line of succession to the UK throne through his great-grandmother Princess Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse and second daughter of Queen Victoria.

If Phillip had not been in line of succession to the throne, he would never have been chosen to be Regent if a Regency was necessary for Prince Charles.

"Did Harry even go to university? "

R475 - Harry went to Sandhurst which is the British equivalent of West Point.

First, I stand corrected on the issues around the Regency Act, obliged for the information.

Second, Andrew has a large trust fund, something the DM and everyone else appears to forget. That isn't to say he doesn't expect and accept lavish hols., etc., from even wealthier friends, but as noted, he is far from the only Down The Line royal who has ever done so.

Re how he "afford Royal Lodge as his home base:

"In August 2003, The Duke of York was granted a lease agreement by the Crown Estate for 75 years. The property leased included the Royal Lodge, a Gardener's Cottage, the Chapel Lodge, six Lodge Cottages, and Police security accommodation in addition to 40 hectares of land. The lease agreement required Prince Andrew to carry out, at his own expense, extensive refurbishing work estimated at £7.5 million at September 2002 prices, excluding VAT (this sum was in fact exceeded). It also provided for a premium payment of £1 million. The National Audit Office (NAO) report into the lease agreement states that the Crown Estate's independent advisors had advised that the refurbishment work would cost at least £5 million and that the Prince should be given the option to buy out the notional annual rental payment (set at £260,000) for £2.5 million. Once the Prince committed to spending £7.5 million on refurbishment, it was decided that no rental would be required as he would be treated as having effectively bought out the notional annual rental payment because he exceeded the minimum £5 million required for refurbishment. As a result, only the £1 million premium was paid to the Crown Estate. There is no provision for any further rent review over the life of the 75-year lease agreement (unlike the rent reviews provided in the case of Bagshot Park, residence of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, also leased from the Crown Estate).

The lease agreement provides that the prince may not benefit financially from any increase in the value of the property as the freehold belongs to the Crown Estate. The leasehold may be assigned only to his widow or his two daughters, Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York (or a trust established solely for their benefit). This may be a significant benefit given the increase in the value of the property and the notional annual rental payment which it would command over the course of the 75-year lease."

Fucking prostitutes is pretty much a universal male activity and this is what Andrew is relying on for sympathy and understanding. The message I got from the clip I watched was "Isn't this silly? Everybody does it, and nobody stops to ask where the boys and girls come from or how they feel about it. Anyway, they weren't British girls, were they?" And I think he's right. The outrage will blow over and it'll just go to his credit as a manly man.

Not a chance, R491. The scandal will die down, sure, but his reputation is permanently ruined. He'll never recover. It's not just the sex. It's the petulance, boorishness, entitlement and rank stupidity. The sex was the coffin. The rest are the nails. RIP HRH the Duke of York.

The nail in the coffin was that he went on television and lied so blatantly.

Every single second of that interview was fucked.

Boy, those governesses did a bang up job with the queen's kids. They're all kind of a mess.

The interview was the dirt hitting the coffin lid, nailed firmly shut.

Sandhurst isn't a 4-year university like West Point, R489. Harry did 44 weeks of officer training there.

So can we agree that Prince Phillip and the Queen were crappy parents? For all we know, the Queen is also an asshole-We know Prince Phillip is an asshole.

As an American, I used to think that Royalty provided stability for the nation- -- or at least some distraction. But at this point, can't they support themselves? Why get cash from the tax payer?

We Americans pay for Trumps shit. At least it doesn’t go on forever, or hopefully not.

Kate, who graduated from St. Andrews on her own merit and is by all accounts more emotionally stable than Harry, would be the better choice for Regent if it comes to that.

[quote] The employment tribunal investigating the claims found no evidence of cheating, but it accepted the prince had received help in preparing his A-level "expressive" project, which he needed to pass to secure his place at Sandhurst.

Andrew wants to dig the hole a little deeper.

R492 - Well said. Andrew's boorishness and self-entitlement have been legendary since his salad days. Now, they're finally catching up with him.

He's on his way out to pasture, and high time, too. It will be a well-cushioned and provisioned pasture, but he's done for as a serious senior working royal. They may try quietly in a few years to bring him out again if the Queen is still with us, but by then, his brother is more likely to be King and there is no love lost between the two. Charles blames Andrew not only for his boorish personal, destructive relationship with Epstein, but his choice of a wife - Charles cannot stand Sarah Ferguson and blamed her for being a bad influence on Diana.

Andrew and the Harkles need to be eased out permanently. They will never be any different than they are now, and will be a continuing cause of bad PR for the family till the end of the chapter.

Another interview? You got to be kidding me?

“Her purpose is purely ornamental and reproductive“

What’s wrong with that?

Part of all this is, famous, privileged people have been pulling shit under the radar for decades. Suddenly the decadent lifestyle has been exposed, to a greater degree than we’ve ever seen. They’ve ALL got to be a little nervous now. Imagine the shit they did before #metoo.

Getting a teacher to write the blurb for his artwork seems like a pretty mild case of cheating. I want to see the artwork. I’m picturing Dogs Playing Poker - the paint by numbers version.

I found a photo of Harry's expressive artwork, R506. I understand it resembles one that Andrew painted.

About bloody time! Don't let the front door hit you, cunt.

Happy anniversary, Mama.

Happy anniversary, Mama.

He only regrets he got caught. His brazen behaviour was quite astonishing, actually. Being seen in public with Epstein, staying with him after he had been convicted..he must have thought he would be protected from it being exposed because of his title.

He should have added: During my recent interview with the BBC, I failed to properly express my sympathy for Epstein's victims. It was a failure on my part for which I apologize and which has humbled me and moved me to begin a long period of reflection.

Now he'll have so much more free time to get photographed going to church with Mummy.

Innocent until proven guilty - but if guilty is he not a pedo? Should he not be sent to prison?

It will be interesting to see who he walks with to church on Christmas Day... as well as who rides with the Queen... both have subtext.

Lowbrow shiftless git.

Prince Andrew just withdrew! From Wash Post -

LONDON — Britain’s Prince Andrew announced Wednesday that he is stepping back from public duties following controversy over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who committed suicide in August.

“It has become clear to me over the last few days that the circumstances relating to my former association with Jeffrey Epstein has become a major disruption to my family’s work and the valuable work going on in the many organisations and charities that I am proud to support,” he said in a statement. “Therefore, I have asked Her Majesty if I may step back from public duties for the foreseeable future, and she has given her permission.”

He added: “I continue to unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein. His suicide has left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims, and I deeply sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure.”

The statement struck a different tone than Andrew’s widely panned interview with the BBC on Saturday, when he defended his friendship with Epstein and didn’t show sympathy for the victims.

Andrew’s ties to Epstein have dominated news in Britain for days — even amid a pivotal election campaign.

KPMG, Standard Chartered, Aon, the University of Huddersfield and Outward Bound were among the organizations that suggested they were distancing themselves from the prince, or reviewing their relationship with him.

On Tuesday, the “supporters” page on the prince’s flagship initiative brought up “page not found.”

Andrew’s ties with Epstein already cost him one job years ago. Andrew quit as a trade envoy for the United Kingdom in 2011, after a photo of him strolling with Epstein in Central Park caused a media furor and raised questions about his judgment.

Prince Andrew says he let down royal family by associating with Jeffrey Epstein

Prince Andrew’s Epstein interview roundly panned: ‘nuclear explosion level b

My guess is that Charles threw a fit. And the Queen had little choice but to accept this.

Well, the Queen will not take away his title, and she will likely provide for him in her will.

No matter what he's done, he's still her son.

Unfortunately r519 is correct, to take away his title would set a rare precedent, whereby royal rank/titles could be removed for political or personal reasons. It stinks in this case but he will stay HRH.

And he will be provided for in her will. He will still participate in private family events. IOW, look for him to still do the infamous "Church walk" at Sandringham every year, until TQ dies.

r518 I bet we'll hear about what happened behind the scenes in dribs and drabs over the coming weeks. I bet anything that the phone lines between NZ and Buck Palace were burning up the past 72 hours. Charles obviously (and I bet William too) made quick and strong demands, and his mother wisely capitulated.

"It will be interesting to see who he walks with to church on Christmas Day... as well as who rides with the Queen... both have subtext."

Thank god the Sussexes were smart enough to find an excuse to "beg-off" from Sandringham and the Christmas Day Church walk this year.

I don't think they'd dare risk letting Andrew do the church walk. I could see actual booing happening. The optics of that would be damning for the BRF. He may just hang behind.

Andrew should stay away from any Sandringham walk. He would be in danger of getting boos. He should slip in the back door and go ski at his million dollar Swiss Chalet.

^ OR go ski

Heis his own worst enemy. I think this is partly the Queen's fault. She enabled Prince Andrew to some extent. His arrogance and lifestyle should have been addressed by her and Philip when Andrew was a young man. He got away with whatever he wanted.

Sure he still will have money and time to do whatever he wants. But this has to hurt. And he will be shunned in many places. I feel for his daughters, that's about it. And assuming investigations will continue - that anxiety will always be there.

It's up to TQ who does the church walk with her at Christmas. Even Charles can't control that. Hopefully though he and the others will get her ear to explain to her about the poor optics, and get her to leave Andrew behind this year at least.

Look for him to continue to be with his mother at Balmoral and Sandringham in future years though. She won't toss him away personally, still her son.

Imagine being Bug Eye Bea and having to walk down the aisle with her sleazebag father?

Andrew already has a large trust fund, a fact everyone seems to ignore. He's not just living on a naval officer's pension and the Queen's handouts.

That said, poster upthread is correct, althugh she could, because she conferred it in the first place, the Queen will not take away his title. He has been Duke of York since 1986, his two daughters are Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie of York. The title is traditional for the second son of the Sovereign. One day, it is likely Prince Louis will hold it. As for the HRH, he was born with it, it wasn't conferred on him by his mother, and she can't really deprive him of it. They couldn't even do that to Edward VIII when he abdicated.

Excellent that someone brought up Sandringham and the pap walk to and from church on Christmas Day. No Sussexes, no Andrew? Welladay, won't that put the cat amongst the pigeons!

However, I suspect that Andrew will make an appearance, perhaps by car whilst the rest walk. I think he will have to. The Queen will then make sure that the rest of the troops are marhsalled to show family strength: not just the Cambridges, but Anne and Timothy, the Wessexes, the Tindalls, the Philips, perhaps even Margaret's kids and their progeny.

They will want to keep discussion to absences focussed on the Sussexes, not Andrew. It's cutting it fine, but that's my guess.

Taking away the HRH would set an irrevocable example r529 and others. It opens the door for having rank/title revoked for personal or even political reasons, you wouldn't have a royal family anymore.

Even if he's jailed for crimes, Andrew will remain an HRH. An imprisoned HRH. That may sound strange, but that's the way it is.

Without the public royal profile and trimmings/funds, having the HRH is meaningless anyway for the most part.

R523 - I disagree, see my post above. I think it will be considered imperative for him to show up and not brand himself a coward. He may ride in with someone else by limo, but he'll show up. And the Queen will make sure there are plenty of numbers on hand.

I do hope Kate has got a smashing ensemble lined up for the walk, and that she and William are prepared for a slower than usual walk back stopping to chat with the as many of the usual assortment of locals come to see them go in and out.

R530 - "Without the public royal profile and trimmings/funds, having the HRH is meaningless anyway for the most part."

I know this isn't the thread for it, but inevitably the question will arise (don't shoot me): how does this latest development affect the current dynamics in the BRF, esp the 'Sussex situation'?

I see Charles's and actually William's power growing after this event. This retirement has both of their handprints (footprints?) all over it. Their control over BRF activities, affairs and work assignments/funding will be consolidated.

He isn't going to do any jail time. Ever.

He isn't a paedophile, the girl was at the age of consent, therefore is also not a statutory rapist, and the likelihood of extradition is slim to none, and evidence of adult rape would have been brought forward by now if there were any.

There isn't. They can threaten, smear, and posture, but what they want is for him to talk, that's all. Now he will. But other than that . . . in your dreams.

I think this helps the Sussexes. Really, their "issues" are trivial, right? And overall, their optics are "they want to help"......so I think Charles/William will find a way to work w/them. Shame that Harry is so thick.

R533 - I somewhat agree. Of course it has William's and Charles's handprints all over it, who else would the Queen have turned to? In the wake of her being reduced to a cypher by the Sussexes and Andrew, she has been made to look ridiculous and toothless.

How likely, though, is it that Andrew will talk to "appropriate law enforcement agencies"?

Because if he lies to them, prince or not...

And what, with that caveat, is an appropriate law enforcement agency? The FBI?

[QUOTE] Taking away the HRH would set an irrevocable example [R529] and others. It opens the door for having rank/title revoked for personal or even political reasons, you wouldn't have a royal family anymore.

And yet you think Harry and Meghan should have their rank removed, and he should be removed from the line of succession?

[QUOTE] Taking away the HRH would set an irrevocable example [R529] and others. It opens the door for having rank/title revoked for personal or even political reasons, you wouldn't have a royal family anymore.

And yet you think Harry and Meghan should have their rank removed, and he should be removed from the line of succession?

@KatieNicholl: Palace aides say Prince Andrew discussed his decision to step down from royal duties with the Queen Prince of Wales and other members of the Royal Family before issuing tonight’s unprecedented statement

I bet it was 'discussed' with Charles. More like 'gtfo now or else be booted when I get back to the UK'.

r536: it's not a question of how TQ turns to, Charles has amassed a lot of power the past several years and is in fact a de facto Regent at this point. His mother is 93. All this talk of how 'weak' she is, how 'toothless' - how many 93 year old women are still heading up a public firm in full CEO capacity as she's expected to still do?

Charles has been in charge for a while. William gains a lot here with this though. In terms of internal family power, internal dynamics. He's shown to be a tough cookie as heir in line.

r538/r539 - absolutely not. Where did I ever state that? Link please.

Harry will never have his rank removed, unless he himself demands it. Meghan will only lose it upon divorce. Where are you getting your ideas?

Harry will remain in line of succession until death. He'd have to join a terrorist cult to otherwise have that changed. What he can be removed as is UK Counsellor of State, if he decides to live abroad and not in the UK. He also does not necessarily have to be assigned Regent for a minor King George, if Kate is still around to do that duty and a King Charles or William deems that the best course of action (ie, amends the Regency Act, which has precedent).

Damn you, R540

Andrew should never ever written in his withdrawal statement that he is willing to talk with law enforcement of any country. Never ever. What the hell was that all about? Damn, that was another major blunder. Jesus Christ. Andrew was insane to do the interview. Now he needs to shut up about this topic forever. Follow the queen's rule: Never complain, never explain.

Stop digging. You're in the hole deep enough.

The Queen awarding a prize to Sir David Attenborough. She looks great all things considered.

[quote]Unfortunately [R519] is correct, to take away his title would set a rare precedent, whereby royal rank/titles could be removed for political or personal reasons. It stinks in this case but he will stay HRH.

Sorry, let's get a little perspective. What's he done? He's been an asshole year over year and he's had a really vile friend he should have dumped but didn't. It's unpleasant, but it isn't criminal. Even assholes with lousy judgment deserve due process. There's no basis to strip him of his identity.

Rank cannot be removed on a whim. The queen could do it since as sovereign she is the fount of all titles and honors in the UK, but she would have to have the support of Parliament to do so--she cannot do it on her own. Keep in mind the last people to have titles removed were members of the family who sided with the Germans during WWI.

I do not think anyone can remove someone from the line of succession. It used to be that if you converted to Catholicism or married a Catholic you could not succeed to the throne; but those stipulations were removed a few years back.

The monarch has no control over the line of succession. It is laid down by law.

Stripping the Dukes of Albany and Connaught of their titles during WWI was done only because they were judged guilty of treason. Andrew's crimes (if he has indeed committed crimes) are not at that level. And the ex-Dukes of Albany and Connaught and the heirs retained their position in the line of succession--George V could do nothing about that.

Say what you want about the French but they knew how to stage a revolution. There was no re-establishment of the monarchy like the English did after Cromwell died.

They wiped out their Royal Family and the majority of the aristocrats who didn’t manage to flee the country.

Well, the allies did try after the defeat of Napoleon but the French still kicked them out.

Dan Wooten of the Sun weighs in ahead of his column tomorrow. Charles "heavily involved" in this decision (I bet he was); lessons and gentle warnings to "younger royals" also re importance of listening to the royal advisors, towing the line and staying within given boundaries of royal work and life. Wonder who that is directed at?

This has been a pretty good thread with a lot of decent discussion and even debate at times. it's coming to a close (amazing! Thanks Muriel). There's already another Andrew-related thread up and going over yonder, see you all over there.

For those who want to know more about potential removal from the UK Order of Succession, and removal of titles, see link below for brief descrip of the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917, when the German royals cousins who fought against the UK in WWI had their rank/titles stripped. It gives a general overview of the setting the last time this happened.

Former BBC broadcaster Peter Hunt weighs in, re the increasing shift in power from the Queen over to Charles:

In a sense, I agree that Andrew's situation makes the Sussexes look less awful, but it also enhances the triviality of their publicising their miseries.

The Queen can rescind an honour she bestows, although it's hardly ever done. More likely, through negotiations, the party is "persuaded" to surrender it voluntarily. I can certainly imagine Harry at some point being foolish enough, if he and Meghan leave the BRF, to bawl his Woke Creds to the world by leaving his ducal title behind, as well, and even his place in the line of succession for him and his descendants.

But poster upthread is also right that Andrew's "retirement" may serve as a warning shot across the Sussex's bows that Charles and William are wielding power now, and justice will be meted out to those who fail to support the institution that gave them their status, wealth, and privileges.

If I were Harry and Meghan, I would slink back after New Year all smiles, ready to back to work, meekly keeping their mouths shut, and probably announcing that they are expecting their second child in summer 2020.

That is, if the increasing power of Charles and William don't persuade them that an early exit is their best chance at being able to shoot themselves in the foot at will without worrying about what the The Man is going to say.

I wonder if the BRF will ask Kate to have another baby to sunny up the whole royal show?

Expect to see the adorable Cambo kids trotted out to Christmas. The BRF needs all the wholesome optics they can summon right now.

The monarch can rescind Harry's royal ducal title (Sussex) by Letters Patents, since that's how it was originally created. But they can't strip them of their HRH or place in succession legally. That has to be done via act of Parliament, and would be very extreme circumstances.

Harry in this example could ostensibly request himself that his HRH and succession spot be removed, but again Parliament would have to weigh in and vote. It would probably be more easily completed if the holder of the rank and spot in line did the requesting, and not someone else.

The Queen and Philip seem to be the sort of people who are much better at being grandparents than parents.

The Sussexes are pretty annoying belly-aching publicly about how hard their life is - they really can't see past their own noses. STFU, grow up and do your jobs! And start kissing your brother's a$$ - he's in charge - get over it. You have about as nice a life as anyone walking this earth could expect with minimal expectations and while you are doing all that think about how billions of people around the world go to bed hungry at night.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

One of the poster(s) on this thread is so fucking hilarious! Trying to make us believe that Harry is smarter than Kate LOL.

Everybody knows he's dumber than dirt, he had "help" passing exams in school. And he fucked a lot of prostitutes, when you're in the military, you go to far flung places where there are always brothels close by...and in those countries, being a whore is legal.

I thought you're supposed to grow wiser as you age...not in this case it seems.

SOLVED! [Blind Gossip] It’s not uncommon for rich celebrities to give other celebrities expensive gifts.

However, why would one man give another man a house?

Actually, to call it a house would be an insult. It’s a mansion!

The two men were not lovers. And Man 1 was not in debt to Man 2. So, why give him such an enormously expensive gift?

Blackmail?

It seems that Man 1 brought Man 2 an incredible amount of business, but Man 2’s greed knew no bounds. Or boundaries.

Man 2 allegedly has video recordings, and not just of Man 1’s visits and his “encounters” with young girls.

He also allegedly has video recordings of Man 1’s employees/models who visited and were involved in some debauched activities themselves.

Allegedly.

[Man 2] secretly recorded everything. They were his insurance policy against anyone ratting him out. If those recordings ever saw the light of day, they would take down [Man 1], the company and all the models, too. Not sure if those recordings are in some safe somewhere or if they were destroyed as part of the real estate transfer.

So, it looks like there are potentially many more celebrities involved in this whole scandal… including many female celebrities!

As there are now two threads going at once, and this one is nearing capacity (and is imo ripe for paywalling soon), please see link to new related thread. See you there when this one maxes out:

[quote] Say what you want about the French but they knew how to stage a revolution. There was no re-establishment of the monarchy like the English did after Cromwell died. They wiped out their Royal Family and the majority of the aristocrats who didn’t manage to flee the country.

Well, you're about as wrong as you can be there.

The French killed King Louis XVI and his wife Marie-Antoinette during the first French Revolution, and their son the Dauphin (the heir to the throne, and then nominally Louis XVII) died miserably in captivity. But their daughter, Madame Royale, survived the Revolution, and so did Louis's two brothers.

In 1814, after Napoleon Bonaparte was captured and exiled to St. Helena, the French actually brought back the Bourbon dynasty and offered the throne to Louis XVI's oldest surviving brother, who ruled as Louis XVIII from 1814 to 1824, initiating the Second Monarchy (aka the Bourbon restoration). Then when he died, the last brother ruled 1824-1830 as Charles X. Then there was ANOTHER revolution (the "July Revolutiuon" of 1830, which is the revolution depicted in Les Miserables), and even then they brought in Charles X's cousin, Louis-Phillippe of the cadet Orleans branch of the Bourbons, as the new King of the French. And he ruled for the next 18 years until the Revolution of 1848.

And even then, the French were STILL not done with the monarchy. In 1848, they brought in the Second Republic, but within just a few years, the new elected president, the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, declared himself emperor, and ruled for the next 20 years as Emperor Napoleon III.

[quote] Say what you want about the French but they knew how to stage a revolution. There was no re-establishment of the monarchy like the English did after Cromwell died. They wiped out their Royal Family and the majority of the aristocrats who didn’t manage to flee the country.

Well, you're about as wrong as you can be there.

The French killed King Louis XVI and his wife Marie-Antoinette during the first French Revolution, and their son the Dauphin (the heir to the throne, and then nominally Louis XVII) died miserably in captivity. But their daughter, Madame Royale, survived the Revolution, and so did Louis's two brothers.

In 1814, after Napoleon Bonaparte was captured and exiled to St. Helena, the French actually brought back the Bourbon dynasty and offered the throne to Louis XVI's oldest surviving brother, who ruled as Louis XVIII from 1814 to 1824, initiating the Second Monarchy (aka the Bourbon restoration). Then when he died, the last brother ruled 1824-1830 as Charles X. Then there was ANOTHER revolution (the "July Revolutiuon" of 1830, which is the revolution depicted in Les Miserables), and even then they brought in Charles X's cousin, Louis-Phillippe of the cadet Orleans branch of the Bourbons, as the new King of the French. And he ruled for the next 18 years until the Revolution of 1848.

And even then, the French were STILL not done with the monarchy. In 1848, they brought in the Second Republic, but within just a few years, the new elected president, the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, declared himself emperor, and ruled for the next 20 years as Emperor Napoleon III.

The Klan members who come for Markle now think Harry is going to be removed from royal duties too. As if the indolent William wants to work three times as hard as he already does. Harry still tops approval polls, second only to the queen.

Oh for fuck's sake, that idiot who gives lectures in royal history on the We're Racists Who Hate Meghan Markle threads is filling up this one with her unwanted musings, trying to distract us from the disgrace of her hero Prince Andrew. She's so upset that he's been removed from royal duties while Harry and Meghan remain very much on the pay roll.

Harry and his wife are going nowhere, people. They might end up spending time in California, but there is no way they are getting kicked out of the family, nor are they giving up their titles.

I agree, R568. But how will they thrive? Will they be OK?

No one EVER asks them if they're ok r569. How are they supposed to thrive in an environment like that? Since it's not enough to merely survive. You know, in a $6 million mansion with servants and RPOs.

Now that Andrew has even more free time, Harry and Meghan can wander over to Royal Lodge to discuss the difficulties of Being Royal.

That's right r571, they will now be full time neighbors. He and Harry can trade golf tips, and Meghan can welcome him full time to the neighborhood with a warm load of homemade banana bread. (which sounds yummy actually).

r567 has been triggered.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

FAR from being Prince Charming, the Duke of York is renowned for being breathtakingly arrogant, self-serving and boorish.

It came as no surprise to royal watchers, then, that so few have leapt to Prince Andrew's defence during the worst week of his royal life — and so many have seized the opportunity to stick the knife in. Decades of unpleasantness have left the 59-year-old isolated, with only his perpetual ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, left to fight his ­corner.

A source said last night: “Prince Andrew has very few friends. And most of his older friends have dropped him as too pompous. His days are rather empty.”

It was his signature arrogance, baffled insiders say, that convinced Andrew — against advice — to go through with the BBC ­interview about his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

He must have believed he would be charming enough to see off, once and for all, the allegations that he slept with teenager Virginia Roberts — something he strenuously denies.

In reality, that plan has spectacularly backfired. Charm has never been the prince’s strong suit.

Today Prince Andrew cuts a lonely figure, with sponsors and charities rushing to disassociate themselves from the increasingly toxic prince’s projects and new allegations of racist remarks on top of everything else.

For a man who prides himself so much on his loyalty to his friends — telling the Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis in his interview his fatal flaw is that he is simply “too honourable” — Prince Andrew has found loyalty to himself in short ­supply.

Here we look at all the ways he’s driven people away . . .

PRINCE Andrew is notoriously rude to staff. One former royal aide confided: “I’ve seen him treat his staff in a shocking, appalling way.

“He’s been incredibly rude to his personal protection officers, literally throwing things on the ground and demanding that they ‘f***ing pick them up’. No social graces at all.”

Other flunkies are apparently expected to tend to his ego.

Private Eye has reported that during his Dragons’ Den-style Pitch@Palace events, his staff know to make copious notes and hold up recording devices while he holds forth — so he knows they are giving them the adoration he is confident he deserves.

IN September of this year it was reported that Andrew flew into such a rage at a top palace aide that Prince Charles had to step in to insist he apologise.

The fuming Duke of York got “very cross” in the heated exchange, said to be about a work-related issue.

It was reported that the row almost came to blows, with Andrew squaring up to the aide, although the Palace refused to confirm this.

Mortified Charles demanded his brother apologise — something a royal insider said the Duke failed to do.

Connaught

R547 - It was not the duke of Connaught who was stripped of his titled but the Duke of Albany who was also the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

DYI, The Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha daughter, Sybilla, married the Crown Prince of Sweden and is the mother the current Swedish King aka Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.

"to bawl his Woke Creds to the world by leaving his ducal title behind, as well, and even his place in the line of succession for him and his descendants."

R553 - Prince Harry cannot remove his descendants from the line of succession. Only the UK Parliament change the line of UK succession.

If anyone is interested.

R575: That article sums up the entire BRF as a whole in my opinion. The fact that the rest of them know how to mitigate their behaviour in public to some extent doesn’t take away from the fact that they’re all a bunch of over-privileged leaches who are of no use to anyone.

Moreover, It is also widely known that the Queen has not only allowed, but even protected this pompous piece of shits behaviour for decades. I also remember reading an article years ago were she ignored concerns over his behaviour, and even proceeded to have his role as trade envoy confirmed.

The only publicity the BRF are any good for is a Republic.

sad old peddy turd, he should move to Thailand and waste away.....

Well said r579. I laughed out loud when the article claimed that CHARLES made Andrew apologise to a staff member. Charles who was known to have regular strops??? The Charles who is said to have punched a staffer in the gut to "let off steam"? His stories are legendary and they stretch back to his childhood when his father was so concerned over how self entitled Charles had become that he sent him to an auster Scottish boarding school to complete his primary. And you just know the source is Prince Charles office.

A family of hyenas. One members downfall is the other members opportunity to nakedly varnish their own image. I hate Andrew but this is disgusting.

Prince Charles is leaking all kinds of stories to make himself appear to be the one who finally put his foot down, like a King would do! It's awful.

This scandal has drawn attention to what a cunt The Queen really is. Look at her sons.

Why do the British put up with them? They must have very low self esteem over there to think these Jack asses are so special and superior. Does anyone boo when they appear in public like we do to the Dumpfs?

[quote]Not into royalty

Thanks for the clarification.

[quote]Not into royalty

and yet you're here, posting away.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

She's BEAMING, in fact.

^^ sorry, you can see that, obviously.

[quote]and yet you're here, posting away.

She doesn't have to be "into royalty" to post.

He met with Maxwell in June!

Prince Andrew met with Jeffrey Epstein’s accused madam Ghislaine Maxwell this summer — after the heat had already been turned up on his pedophile pal’s depraved behavior, according to a report.

The Duke of York met close friend Maxwell in the first week of June when she was in London for the Cash & Rocket charity motor rally that ended four days later in Monaco, according to the Daily Mail.

Maxwell, 57, was not in publicity photos taken at the event and was scrubbed from the rally’s website Thursday, the report says. But she shared car number 28 with Nettie Mason, the wife of Pink Floyd rocker Nick Mason, at the event also attended by Paris Hilton and Chloe Green, the report says.

It is thought to be the last time she had been in the UK before she disappeared after Epstein’s July arrest and then his death the following month in a Manhattan lockup.

Andrew admitted during his recent disastrous BBC interview that he last saw his friend in the spring or summer, but insisted they did not talk about mutual friend Epstein “because he wasn’t in the news.”

While it was before Epstein’s arrest, the pedophile had been back in the news — with fresh accusers coming forward and also an official probe into his sweetheart deal in Florida following his earlier conviction.

Maxwell was also under renewed pressure at the time, fighting to keep sealed legal documents brought by accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who sued her for publicly denying that she lured her as an underage girl into Epstein’s harem. Maxwell always denied the allegations.

R587 her face is so Stuffed full of fillers that I’m surprised we can even see her eyes!

Eptein and Maxwell were/are monsters. I can't even wrap my head around their depravity. The BRF knew - of course it knew - the RPOs would have been logging where Andrew was and with whom he was spending his time. I don't feel sorry for Liz at all. She raised Andrew. It all goes back to her one way or the other. She deserves what she gets. If Charles is smart (doubtful), he'll follow Sweden's example. You might not have as many ribbon cuttings and patronages, but that's the least of his worries.

IN 2010, Wikileaks revealed a secret cable from a US ambassador who described how Prince Andrew, then a UK special representative on trade, had spoken “cockily” during an official engagement, leading to a discussion that “verged on rude”.

In the cable, written in 2008, Tatianna Gfoeller, Washington’s ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, wrote of “rude language à la British” and described how Andrew had railed against the Senior Fraud Office and journalists who “poke their noses everywhere” and made disparaging comments about France.

It seems that Andrew had a peculiar knack of offending the very people it was his job to court on behalf of British business during his dubious tenure as a trade envoy.

SIR Ivor Roberts, an ambassador to Rome between 2003 and 2006, described how Andrew “rubbed people up the wrong way.”

When one head of a major fashion house introduced herself, he rudely responded: “Never heard of you.”

Sir Ivor said it was down to his team to clear up the mess Andrew had made.

Britain’s former deputy head of mission in Bahrain, Simon Wilson, has also described how officials gave Andrew the nickname “His Buffoon Highness”, because of how he would childishly do the opposite of whatever had been agreed ahead of a visit with staff.

Mr Wilson added waspishly: “Colleagues put this behaviour down to an inferiority complex about being mentally challenged.”

THIS is a prince who likes to get his own way, even if it means abusing those meant to protect him and his gilded family.

Paul Page, a former royal protection officer, told how Andrew had screamed at security when they rushed to investigate an intruder lurking in the corridor near the Queen’s bedroom — only to find it was actually the prince.

Faced with officers simply doing their job, Andrew yelled: “This is my f***ing home, I can go where I want, now f*** off.”

FAMOUSLY dubbed “Air Miles Andy” for his incessant jet-setting, the Prince’s overseas visits not always ran smoothly.

He had a meltdown at Melbourne airport in Australia, in 2005, refusing to go through the normal security procedures like the rest of the riff raff.

But indignant Australian officials refused to indulge him. One later told local Press: “Who does he think he is? What a pompous prat.

“Everyone has to go through security screening. He should be happy to do so and set an example.”

MANY have given in to his outrageous demands over the years — including the Foreign Office.

During a trip to India in 2012, when Andrew refused to stay at the British High Commissioner’s luxury Delhi residence, as his brother and heir to the throne Charles had done on a previous visit, he instead stayed at the eye-wateringly expensive Maharaja Suite at the Leela Palace — at UK taxpayers’ expense.

PERHAPS it is little wonder that this petulant prince has few real friends.

A source who has known him for many years said Prince Andrew was “incompetent” when it came to his social life.

The source went on: “He surrounds himself with these incredibly dodgy people.

“He travels so much, when he comes back he is either playing golf, if he can find any friends to play with, or he is leading quite a lonely life. It’s not like he goes to parties all the time.

“He has got these so-called friends who drop by when he is in this country, and there is usually a stream of transient girls.”

ANDREW'S biggest problem, many believe, is that he is a classic spoiled younger son.

For years the Queen — who is said to view him as her “favourite” — has ignored his foibles and indulged his every whim, breeding in a stubborn streak.

An acquaintance said: “One minute you’re having your bum pinched, the next he is reminding you he is Your Royal Highness.”

Another said the prince was, “boorish”, and added that he, “interrupts you and laughs at his own jokes”.

Thanks, R593, those are solid example of the kinds of behavior we've heard about Andrew for decades. It's nice to see these kinds of things coming to light. Karma's a bitch, and she's raging hot right now.

r594 so you're insisting that Karma is female? That's very racist of you.

If we are playing “Who’s Worse for the RF?” Andrew wins, hands down. He’s gross And terrible. I’m NOT a fan of Meghan, but she’s not a criminal, and not hurting anyone. And I’d argue that she makes boring Kate look good, and she brings all the clicks. She’s like Alexis Carrington!

"And I’d argue that she makes boring Kate look good, and she brings all the clicks. She’s like Alexis Carrington!"

R596 - So very very true.

lol r595

This thread was fine, but it's time to close it out...

...much like Prince Andrew's career

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]