ROYAL TROUBLE Starring Prince Andrew Part II

A link to the previous thread.

Don't be fooled by the SWC Show, Quatrieme Partie thread.

It's another Sussex bashing thread.

I haven't actually seen any allegation putting Andrew having sex with underage girls. It all seems to be guilt by association and assumption but no specific underaged act. The girl the press keeps calling the sex slave was 17 when she says she was with Andrew. Seventeen is a year OLDER than the UK's age of consent.

Here is another one from a couple days ago.

[quote] Prince Andrew was ‘given young neurosurgeon’ by Jeffery Epstein during Mexico ranch visit says former housekeeper

A neurosurgeon? Not likely jailbait.

Andrew wanted to keep Pitch so badly because he made 3% on the entrepreneurs funded through that organization. It was probably providing him with a nice income. Of course the real charities he didn't mind leaving as much. Once a grifter, always a grifter.

R2 is a Pedo Andrew sympathiser. The girls were sex slaves, trafficked and unwilling, R2. Their age is irrelevant, although all we know about Epstein points to a lot of them being 14-15.

Here's London webcam for someone wanting to know when Prince Charles gets back home.

I think it's funny how Charles was pissed that this took away from his ROYAL TOUR OF NEW ZEALAND. Does anyone remember good press from that? I vaguely recall a few articles here and there. It also seems like it went on forever.

I know it's from the rag The Sun but it has some interesting revelations about his bad behaviour.

Why are you all picking on Andrew? Is he half-black?

Klan member at R8, f and f.

R9, he was being sarcastic.

Hmmm or maybe not. I can’t tell with you all sometimes.

This could work out well for him and Fergz. No ribbon cutting and millions to waste on a jet setting retirement. No wonder she was beside herself rolling up to BK like the cat that got the cream.

BP not BK lol

Yes, I was being sarcastic.

I love Fergie mooning from the windows at Buckingham Palace. It's also funny that Charles is allegedly mad about it.

Charles returns Monday.

Is Fergie drunk 24-7-365?

Somebody went to Change.org and started a petition to arrest Prince Andrew on rape charges.

Be interesting to see if it gets any traction. I ran across it while reading news items on one of the twitter pages that gather articles from different alternative sources.

I can't link to it, but here is where I saw the item.

Sick

Meghan Markle horrified: Duchess and team shocked by Prince Andrew interview - royal claim

We know, r20.

- The World

Meghan will use Andrew as one of the reasons to cut and run. Expect to hear her lament that the family she never had wasn't morally up to her standards.

This is not about Meghan.

She's in the family and leaked her feelings. She's part of it now, for better or worse. Had she kept her mouth shut, like she should have, she wouldn't have been brought up.

You bitches blame her for everything.

The no Sussex part is going really well.

The Sussex's are no different to the Kardashians. They. Have.To. Be. In. the. News. 24/7.

Yet another family that failed to meet Meghan's lofty standards...

Will you cunts fuck off and take your deranged racist Meghan freak lunacy to your own threads? This is about Prince Andrew.

Poor Andrew

[quote]Poor Andrew

Said No One.

The TFIFY troll, at last! What kept you Prince Myshkin?

Here's the interview for those who didn't see it.

It's shocking that he did this, he comes off horribly and never once says anything about the unfortunate girls used as sex slaves. Nothing innocent about this man.

Hilarious that the Kate stans here think that her and BIll parading the reluctant third in line, glum little goblin faced George, will cheer up the nation. Neither George nor hatchet faced Charlotte inspire any kind of hope or joy. Louis already has a sybaritic look and will grow up to be another Andrew.

Well then you better get out of town soon r34, because they're the face and future of the UK monarchy whether anyone likes it or not. They'll be on the front cover of every tab and mag by the time they hit their late teens. Get ready for the deluge of the Kambs Kids.

And George and Char are actually quite popular for now. People eat up the photos of them. The American media especially love it, they love showing clips or new pics of these kids on all the breakfast morning shows.

No, R8, he's half white. His other half is white, too. We know you hate that.

[quote]No talk of universities and colleges. We don't really care how good a school St. Andrew's is.

Which would be a pointless discussion anyway, since Prince Andrew did not go to St. Andrew's (despite its name), nor did his wife nor his daughters. What was being discussed on the other thread was his attendance at Gordonstoun College and the Royal Military Academyn Sandhurst.

And no one appointed you Hall Monitor. People will talk about whatever they want to talk about, so deal.

'Well then you better get out of town soon [R34], because they're the face and future of the UK monarchy whether anyone likes it or not. They'll be on the front cover of every tab and mag by the time they hit their late teens. Get ready for the deluge of the Kambs Kids.'

I doubt they will be good looking enough to attract that kind of interest. The Brits are more interested in beautiful reality stars these days. Charlotte already has sunken, hooded eyes and Carole Middleton's lantern jaw. George has a lumpen face and small brown eyes. William and Harry at his age were adorable with their big blue eyes and happy faces. They also seemed to be romping, sociable boys. George looks like a malcontent and will probably greet the prospect of the throne with horror.

[quote]William and Harry at his age were adorable with their big blue eyes and happy faces. They also seemed to be romping, sociable boys.

lol - Harry resembled a little ferret with his tiny pinprick eyes and ski slope nose. William was a right petulant brat at times (remember Diana smacking the hell of his bottom in public?). Your memory is faulty.

And the Kambs will still be the face of the BRF. Glum goblin faces and all!

I wish this had never happened. Andrew should never have given that interview. I'm in the U.S., but I saw the news reports online last week with the voice over saying, "Watch Andrew give an exclusive interview to the BBC." I thought to myself, "Is he out of his goddamn mind?" And I have nothing to do with the royal family other than it's fun to see what they're up to and watch the next royal wedding.

Yes, Andrew is boorish and arrogant, but I prefer my royal scandals to be about marriage, divorce, who may have breached protocol or what Markle is doing to piss off the people. But I prefer not to be witnessing serious criminal stuff like this. I kind of like Sarah Ferguson; she's been relatively quiet the past few years. And I very much feel sorry for Beatrice and Eugenie. Yeah, they probably take too many vacations, but they seem like very nice girls, and there is never any scandal about either of them ever despite all the family ups and downs they have had to endure. They never put a wrong foot forward. They're pleasant and polite, and they don't deserve this.

[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.]

He just gave an interview saying he knew nothing. Now he's going to speak to the FBI and say what? So he's going to admit he was lying? How's that going to redeem him?

He deserves the worst, he's too stupid to deserve anything else.

R42. What if he says he knows nothing to the FBI? I wouldn't expect him to change his story significantly or even all that much.

[quote]Duke intends clearing his name by speaking to the FBI

I hope that's tabloid bullshit because if he speaks to the FBI he is even dumber than I thought he was, and buddy, I already thought he was DUMB.

All he can do is reiterate that he has no recollection of whatever they accuse him of.

[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.]

Is Big Ben undergoing maintenance again? It must need it regularly. It almost looks like it's being made into some high tech advert.

If Pedrew is interviewed by the FBI, they are far more skilled than a TV reporter to get to the bottom of his "unbecoming" behaviour. I'll bet they can make Pedrew cave in under 5 minutes and have him bawling like the big baby he is. Bullies like that can be taken down pretty swiftly in skilled hands. Pedrew's biggest problem right now is his own ignorance.

R48, I'd love to see spoilt Pedrew interrogated by the FBI. He'd bluster for a bit and then end up blubbering. He's too much of a coward to ever go to the US and risk it, though. No more Christmas shopping trips to NYC or winter sun in LA for Pedrew and Early Onset Alzheimers Fergie.

My favorite thing said about Andrew. I wonder if he ever has glimmerings of insight into how dense and uneducated he is for a man in his position.

[quote]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.

[quote][bold]Mr Wilson added waspishly: “Colleagues put this behaviour down to an inferiority complex about being mentally challenged.”[/bold]

There is something wrong with him. Seriously. Why the fuck would you say you don't show affection in public (in the interview)? How stupid do you have to be? What kind of mental illness is this?

An Italian wedding for Beatrice becomes more likely by the day.

The way things are going.....Bea's wedding cake could end up looking like this.

R51. For insight into Pedrew and the rest of them, google "Housekeeper's Diary". It's banned in the UK. Delicious read on Charles carrying old, falling apart, scruffy childhood teddy bear around the world for comfort, Andy's "dirty nighttime" tissues left on the bedroom floor for maids to pick up, and more. A few belly laughs that book.

I still think Edo is going to bail before the wedding.

In the interview Andrew brings up that he was a board member of an organization whose purpose was to safeguard at women at risk of being trafficked, or something of that kind.

Will his affiliation with the organization be investigated as something PA used to help Epstein?

For those of us who dont follow them at all...

Does the Queen have to give her permission for interviews like this? If so why would she have agreed?

'I still think Edo is going to bail before the wedding.'

Poor Beatroll.

Edo needs to RUN not walk away from this mess. 🏃

Here are the questions I have:

Who was benefiting from the information Epstein had on all these high profile people or was he the sole beneficiary through blackmail?

If Epstein and Maxwell were the only ones with the information on the "guests" are the US and Russian intel peeps in a battle for who will get their hands on the information first? Because whoever gets their hands on it is going to have considerable power.

Did Andrew help traffick young girls for Epstein?

This whole “interview with the FBI” is such nonsense.

1) Andrew is a British citizen, and he won’t set foot on American soil 2) He’s royalty - yep, different standards apply here 3) The interview would take place in the UK, under strict, specific conditions with lots of limitations 4) Prince Andrew would say very little himself, opting to let his legal team do all the talking

Whatever comes out of that interview, will never ever result in Andrew being extradited to America.

1) Andrew is a British citizen, and he won’t set foot on American soil 2) He’s royalty - yep, different standards apply here 3) The interview would take place in the UK, under strict, specific conditions with lots of limitations 4) Prince Andrew would say very little himself, opting to let his legal team do all the talking'

You were 100% wrong before when you said the queen would never remove him from royal duties because Virginia was 17. You seem to think he is beyond international law just because he is royal. Charles wants to be king and Pedrew might wreck his chance by bringing the monarchy into disrepute. A Labour government is also looming with the most left wing leader since the 1970s. If Charles has to hand off Pedrew to the FBI, he will in order to ensure a peaceful succession to the throne. I can see Pedrew banged up on Riker's Island.

Hey R62 - I think you're mixing me up with someone else.

Also, “international law” is not actually a thing, and the FBI’s jurisdiction is within America’s borders only. Just like MI6 will not interrogate a suspect on American soil.

"As the FBI’s domestic investigative responsibilities become increasingly intertwined with international criminal and terrorist elements in other countries, the FBI must continually enhance its ability to conduct complex investigations and acquire evidence from abroad for criminal prosecutions in the United States. To do so requires close coordination with international partners and security services. Some of the FBI’s most important and visible investigations are multi-national in scope, placing greater demands on the FBI, especially in the field, as more case agents are faced with challenges in obtaining admissible evidence for domestic prosecutions."

-- FBI website

This is much too serious with more dire consequences. I like my royal scandals more dishy, gossipy and fun.

Andrew, what the fuck were you thinking giving this interview? Even the casual observer knew this would not end well. Dumb, arrogant beyond words.

My problem with all the focus on Prince Andrew, on both sides of the pond, is that I think he being used as a scapegoat. A well-known name that can be sacrificed to protect all the other prominent people involved with Epstein. If I were him, now that I had lost basically everything in my life that mattered to me, I'd give the FBI an interview and do a live TV interview in which I named names of all the others, that you know he knows about. If I were going down, I'd take as many people as possible with me.

Yes, Dump and Bill need to go down in flames too. Every single last one.

Epstein and Maxwell (especially Ghislaine Maxwell, Andrew’s friend for decades) were both working with the intelligence services but it’s unclear which one(s). That’s why Maxwell released that fake ‘candid’ photo of her reading a book about CIA agents who died in the line of duty.

Jizzie proves that women are no better than men.

I imagine he would prefer to avoid the consequences of doing so, R67. Perhaps consequences to people he cares about. Such an act would not be consequence free.

A Pimps & Hos party with Heidi Klum? Keeping it klassy...and who knows what the younger royals get up to at Soho House? JE is not an anomoly, is Marcus running the honey pots for another generation?

R71 His family and friends have abandoned him, all he really has is the girls and Fergie. He should quietly remarry Fergie, so she can have her title back, since she has proven her loyalty by sticking by him. Then start naming names, and let the chips fall where they may. Why should he protect people, who aren't protecting him or his girls.

So everyone stays alive, R72?

He's almost 60. He should just "retire" from all employment (i.e. royal work). He's got enough money to last him another 30 years since he doesn't have to worry about paying rent. He can pursue his hobbies and spend time with his daughters (and possibly upcoming grandkids). He can still support charities by volunteering at the ground level.

If they were really killing people over this, he is a dead man anyway. But, I don't think that is happening.

They won’t murder Andy unless he starts singing like a canary which won’t happen. He will retire and together with his feckless partner in crime Fergie, will continue to live the good life under the radar.

I don't think Prince Andrew is even smart enough or humble enough - to realize he might be in danger. Does he keep Royal protection?

Who is this "they" that would kill Andrew? He's already portrayed himself as oblivious to Epstein's activities. And if he does know more, then he can't finger anyone else without incriminating himself. Did he actually see Epstein more than a few days a year?

R69 Which is why it is beyond time for a new investigation into the intelligence communities, like the Church and Pike Committees and the Rockefeller Commission, but it should be done internationally between the five eyes, with as much as possible being made public. It is time to clip the wings of the intelligence community. They have become too large and unaccountable.

One thing I find odd about the royal family is why they all seem to be allowed to go off and do their own thing. It makes no sense to me and is probably the reason why there are so many scandals. I get that each might needs an assistant but shouldn't the orders be coming down from the Queen's office?

R80 Yeah. The Queen has allowed members of her family too much freedom. There was an attempt to merge the offices of the queen, charles, william and harry into one, but that failed after about a week.

[quote]One thing I find odd about the royal family is why they all seem to be allowed to go off and do their own thing.

R80. Their "jobs," and I do believe the royal family have jobs, but they're not very taxing. They do have to be fairly knowledgeable about the charities they represent and events they attend; however, it doesn't consume all their time and brain power. It's not like they're heading to the office every morning, fighting rush hour traffic and dealing with an unreasonable boss all with two weeks vacation a year. The royals have a lot of free or idle time on their hands.

I work for an organization with a wealthy board of directors. You have no idea how much they travel or are out of town for any number of reasons. It's unbelievable how often they are off doing their own thing. I'm not saying it's wrong or illegal, but they have a lot of time on their hands to do whatever they want. My board of directors are not royal, so you can imagine how much freedom, leeway and deference is given to the British royal family just because of who they are...and that goes to both the senior and junior member of the family. They all get around and do their own thing much, much more than the average person, without the queen knowing their every move. And their calendars get filled so fast, the queen and her courtiers cannot possibly keep track especially when the royals are not on official business.

r59

[quote]Edo needs to RUN not walk away from this mess. 🏃

And to think we thought Edo was too sketchy for Bea. A louche Italian lounge lizard who was obviously taking advantage of her. A low-rent Junot.

Nope, it's Edo and his family lacing their running shoes as we speak.

I am thrilled to announce that Edo and I have just decided to be married next June at the Rothera Research Station in British Antarctica!

Yes, it will be a very chic and original venue location, and our selection of it has NOTHING to do with my father's current problems!

I am currently choosing a wedding tiara, and what makes it all the more fun is that Granny's diamonds look much like ice, so I will blend right in!

R84 I suspect you meant "June in January" as the old Dean Martin song goes.

You can't get there in June: it's Antarctic winter. October through February is their high season: there's sunshine.

And January is especially lovely as it gets up to 33F. June is more like 15 below zero F.

I'm sorry if this is the wrong thread.

PRINCE Andrew’s pal Ghislaine Maxwell will speak to the FBI about their links to paedo Jeffrey Epstein.

Sources said the sex slaver’s “madam”, 57, aims to emerge from hiding within days.

Sources say she is set to defend herself and the prince.

She has told pals she thinks the picture of them with Virginia Roberts, who claims she had sex with Andrew when she was 17, may have been doctored.

It was said to have been taken at her London home in March 2001.

A source said: “Like Andrew, she has no memory of it.

“Ghislaine thinks there are a lot of problems with the picture and it is very fishy.

“It is one of very few photos that does not bear a time and date stamp.”

A US source close to her lawyers said: “Ghislaine is preparing to speak — whether by talking to the FBI or giving a statement to the media.

“She has to defend herself. She has no option. She will have to address this guilt by association."

Tonight, Roberts’ lawyer, Josh Schiller, said: “Virginia maintains that photo of her with Prince Andrew is totally genuine. And it certainly looks genuine to me.”

R86. If Andrew is telling the truth (or more or less telling the truth) and all he did in this interview was act like an arrogant ass and not show enough sympathy for the victims, then can he go back to being a public prince and not hang his head in shame? And then we can still get to see Fergie and Bea will have a proper wedding. Come on, Ghislaine. spill it.

This is getting better by the minute, r86. Virginia Roberts spills the beans next week in her interview and now Ghislaine. The BRF PR teams must be having a full meltdown trying to play catch up with all these media eruptions. Pedrew is already volatile, this is the type of thing that could cause a major battle within the family. Hope Charles has his blood pressure pills script nearby.

Andrew will not speak to the FBi. Good God, have any of you ever met any FBI men? Mostly dolts, not savvy men by any means. So some clerk-types ask questions, then what, throw you in jail? It isn't tv, but take this to the bank. Andy is of thick-dickage, a bit stubby. But THICK. Harry's is longer, thin, bends to left.

reply 86 - the BRF called in some favors to get Ghislaine to cover for Andrew. And, intelligently, her interview comes AFTER Virginia's. This Andrew and his mother trying to rehabilitate him.

Well and good, r90 but the damage to his reputation is done. Ghislaine can gift wrap it, put a bow on it, but at the end of day, Pedrew is toast. In fact, Ghislaine is just going to further reinforce the association, and compound matters for Pedrew.

William leaked a story to the Mail that he was instrumental in forcing Andrew to step down, too! He didn't want his dad to get all the credit of being Kingly.

I saw that a slightly different way, r92. I saw Wills' comment as something Charles/Queen sanctioned to further strengthen Charles' stance. To show Pedrew and the public that Wills, Queen and Charles have closed ranks. Remember Charles is not the most confident person.

Meghan's fans are always projecting.

r93 the "palace insiders" have split into separate camps now. There's Wills team, Charles' team/Palace/Queen, the Sussex team, among others. Charles "palace insider" story leaked first, then the story about The Queen being misled (much like how "palace insiders" leaked that the Queen was misled with Boris and the Deferred Parliament) and then Wills followed separately, after.

This Town and Country article is the best take on the whole situation I've seen:

The T&C article has a subtext: this Andrew fiasco is going to make it hard for the Sussexes to be THR and go rogue. The pressure to toe the line will be massive. In the end, she leaves, unable to take it (and delighted to be rid of them) and he blames his family and the media and becomes Harry the Andrew, boozing and bitter.

If Andrew is hanging hope on corroboration from the likes of Ghislaine Maxwell, he has reached rock bottom and started to dig.

I see denial, desperation and self-destruction on the cards for Pedrew. Remember he is still likely in "shock" over this entire situation. As one emerges from shock, repressed feelings start to emerge. Watch for crazy behaviour on the coming days, weeks, months as Pedrew struggles to come to terms with his "fate." Remember he is likely still in a state of "shock", in deep denial, and he going to be going through all the stages of grief until he exhausts himself. Fergie and the girls will only feed Pedrew's self-pitying attitude. There is no one around him to offer perspective, to ground him and make him realize he has to stop fighting and accept defeat. He is finished. Done. Over. But he has weeks and maybe months to go before he gets to the stage of full acceptance. Watch for more meltdowns unless Charles can man up (for the first time in his life) and show him who's boss.

Apologies for scrambled, repetitive post at r99. I lost parts of it and re-typed. Badly.

r99

Not to worry, r100. Your post makes perfect sense, and I agree with you. The worst for Andrew is yet to come.

Since people always point it out on DL when a guy is caught with a teenager, so here goes, Andrew or Pedrew, as some are calling him, is not accused of pedophilia but ephebophilia. The young woman in the picture, for instance was 17 years old, which is of legal age in the UK and 38 out of 50 states, in the US. Most of the legal issue isn't about the age but whether or not the girls were trafficked and forced, and if Andrew knew that.

Another sombre assessment that should give the House of Sussex pause for thought.

"It is now clear that the monarchy’s adaptation to the modern world, means that participating membership is not necessarily for life, and can be terminated in order to protect public affection for the Throne. And the Palace will be ruthless to keep threats at bay....

He (the Prince of Wales) knew the damage his brother’s misjudgments were doing to the Crown: and that the only way to stop it was to remove him from Royal duties. The Queen agreed: she more than anyone knows the institution is everything, and when the moment comes for Charles to succeed he will need as sure a footing as possible. The Royal family has enjoyed a steady rise in popularity in recent years not least because of the failings of the political class. (My bold: The Queen and the next King now clearly see that if a senior member starts to behave like a politician – [bold]unsavoury friends, freebies and a public who doubts their credulity - then it threatens the stability of the institution.[/bold]

Courtiers who have watched the family from the closest of positions, say that the Prince of Wales likes his brother and respects him, but that the two have little in common. The Prince is said to have viewed the Duke’s antics with Epstein with incomprehension. Since the institution of the Crown must be above reproach if it is to survive, the Duke never stood a chance once the torrent of public opinion proved that consent, for him at least, was rapidly being withdrawn.

"unsavoury friends, freebies and a public who doubts their credulity..."

Fuck off with the Sussex stuff. This is about Andrew. If you want to whine about Meghan, make your own thread.

[quote]The Queen and the next King now clearly see that if a senior member starts to behave like a politician – unsavoury friends, freebies and a public who doubts their credulity - then it threatens the stability of the institution.

To be fair, Haz and Megs are no where near Andrew's level in terms of any of these things, and have a long way to go to reach that bottom.

When Haz is regularly yachting with mid eastern despots and Meghan cavorting with MBS in the south of France, that's a different story. At the moment, the gratuitous merching of some clothes and overpriced earrings, along with some silly sayings on bananas, doesn't quite constitute a danger to the monarchy.

It's not hard for any member if the Royal Family to stir resentment. And the country isn't even in recession. Andrew may be a 10/10 for scandal but are you so sure it takes only a 10/10 to be regarded as a threat to the Crown? The point the column makes is that the expectations internally are higher than ever and the crown always wins.

True r106. Right now though I see the Sussexes as more a threat to internal cohesion and stability, inside the family and the Firm, rather than an engulfing existential-type threat that this Andrew-Epstein saga is.

The noose around everyone will be tightened no doubt, in the short term at least. I think Charles is on a roll that wont be stopped at the moment. These kind of moments come along rarely, and allow for power shifts to manifest. Remains to be seen how he will handle - or not handle- other BRF members or staff. I actually think the latter will be coming in for some review in the immediate moment, which will mean changes in how media and press are dealt with.

Is Charles even capable of bringing the hammer down on Andrew and convincing the Queen of what needs to be done? William seems capable of decisive action, but Charles still seems a lot like his mother.

What exactly needs to be done, r108?

I don't know, r108. It might look good if somebody seems to be in control of the Titanic.

[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.]

R111 I'm guessing she was of age, so why does it matter? Just, like the housekeeper who said Andrew had sex with a young neurosurgeon.

[quote] I haven't actually seen any allegation putting Andrew having sex with underage girls. It all seems to be guilt by association and assumption but no specific underaged act. The girl the press keeps calling the sex slave was 17 when she says she was with Andrew. Seventeen is a year OLDER than the UK's age of consent.

It's against the law to sleep with any person of any age if they are being trafficked

R102 the only one who is calling him Pedrew is you. Stop trying to make Pedrew happen.

Yes, the ‘Pedrew’ thing is pretty tiresome.

‘Pedrew, hehehehe, get it? Pedrew, hehehehe, get it? Get it?’

OK, we get it. It wasn’t even funny the first time.

Shouldn't it be Paedrew?

[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.]

[QUOTE] I imagine he would prefer to avoid the consequences of doing so, [R67]. Perhaps consequences to people he cares about. Such an act would not be consequence free. A Pimps & Hos party with Heidi Klum? Keeping it klassy...and who knows what the younger royals get up to at Soho House? JE is not an anomoly, is Marcus running the honey pots for another generation

Fuck off, illiterate Klan Leader Welpy. JE is a pedophile. Marcus and Markle have nothing to do with him. You sound so fucking stupid, trying to drag Meghan and Harry into this.

[QUOTE] Pedrew, hehehehe, get it? Pedrew, hehehehe, get it? Get it? OK, we get it. It wasn’t even funny the first time.

It's payback for the Klan's use of Megain, Sparkle and Dim, Smeghan and other nicknames. Several people are using it, so fuck off, pedo sympathiser. You're constantly defending the Duke of Depravity.

R119 / R120, zzz ...

Blocked.

Ha ""Pedrew!!"

He's so dumb to give an interview. Not sure What good he thought would come of it.

Thank you, R114 and R115. Pedrew is so cringeworthy. That person writes like a CB denizen. Basic to the nines and annoying as fuck. Plus a ridiculous nickname like that actually minimizes and makes light of the heinousness of his actions. Call the man by his name and excoriate him for what he's done. Don't turn this into a cartoonish name-calling exercise that detracts from the seriousness of the situation.

Pedrew is payback for making fun of Meghan? This really has turned into a board for middle-school girls. Good grief.

[QUOTE] Call the man by his name and excoriate him for what he's done. Don't turn this into a cartoonish name-calling exercise that detracts from the seriousness of the situation.

Oh, Miss La-dee-dah! Did you get lost on your way to the Guardian comments section? You're on Datalounge. We always nickname the vile. King of Pedos Whacko Jacko. Repulveda, Whore of Whores. Pedrew, Duke of Depravity.

You were very happy to call Meghan a host of awful names.

How is calling Andrew names payback when most posters are either convinced he engaged in shady, suspect and possibly criminal activities or are on the fence about him, pending more evidence? I doubt anyone is outraged that "Pedrew" slanders Andrews "good name". It just sounds childish and minimized his conduct.

Why in the world did Andrew give that interview and why did not someone stop him?

That's the problem I have with Pedrew. It seriously makes light of pedophilia. And Andrew wasn't a pedophile. He was having sex with trafficked women who were still the age of consent. If we gloss over the nuances, we're diminishing what Andrew actually did. Sex trafficking is a horrific crime, and reducing Andrew to a juvenile nickname like Pedrew glosses over that. And since he isn't a pedophile, it also takes credibility away from the actual accusations, which have merit. Past nicknames like Randy Andy and Air Miles Andy were tied to conduct that while repugnant wasn't illegal. Same with nicknames like Waity Katy, Megain, etc. Those poke fun at foibles. What Andrew did was too serious to be reduced to that. We shouldn't poke fun at it.

At R126, it should be "Andrew's" and ""minimizes".

I have to say, I’ve really enjoyed the nicknames I’ve encountered on the DL, especially for the more loathsome people, but ever since Dump, I’ve really come to not like them. In fact, the only person for whom I enjoy seeing nicknames is Dump. Oh, and Devin Nunes.

R128, Recently, the words rape and pedophilia (or paedophilia, if you will) are increasing used by certain groups to describe actions not traditionally or legally defined as rape or pedophilia. I've seen people argue, for example, that a 17-year old girl is essentially a child, unable to fully understand the consequences of having sex with a much older man. The man, in this case Andrew, is therefore a pedophile. Virginia Roberts alleges that she was raped by Andrew because she was trafficked to him, not because he was violent.

Those are valid points, R131, made all the stronger by not resorting to cutesy nicknames. I may disagree with classifying Andrew as a pedophile, but I respect your position. I think he should be gone after to the fullest extent of the law for having sex with trafficked women. Since she was age of consent, pedophilia wouldn't work. On a side note, I'm so conscious of sex trafficking now. Yesterday I saw what I thought might be trafficking and stuck around to make sure the two young women were alright. The looked uncomfortable and were being forced to have their photos taken in an out of the way place. I hovered a bit until I realized it was an overbearing mother visiting them on a college campus.

R127 Andrew thought the BBC interview would clear his name and people would understand once they heard him explain things. His PR person tried desperately to stop it from happening and quit when Andrew refused to cancel it. Smart man.

Apparently Eugenie tried to stop it as well, but Fergie and Beatrice diasagreed, thought it was a great idea and she was overruled. Must be tough to be the only person in your immediate family with a sense of reality.

It still boggles my mind that he said he didn't regret the friendship because of the business contacts it brought him. As if that justified the association. You were friends with a sex trafficker but you made some good contacts? Well, that's okay then! It's gob smacking that's how his brain actually functions. I'll bet he was mystified that people found that attitude repugnant.

R114 I’ve only used the term once in R102 to point out it is inaccurate, in response to other posts by other people who were using it regularly in this thread. So no, I am clearly not the only one using it.

R132, I want to clarify that what I stated in my post isn't necessarily my position, simply something I've gleaned from reading online in various places about Andrew and the charges lodged against him. I find it confusing.

[quote]Pedrew is so cringeworthy

Indeed. When I first came across "Pedrew," which sounds like and actually is a real surname, I thought it was a new character to this saga and thought "Who the hell is Pedrew?" A courtier, some government or LE official? Until I realized it was a lame attempt at a nickname. At least the moniker-giver could have checked it out and realized that "Pedrew" is a legit surname.

At least the name isn't Peter File.

ephebodrew?

[quote]Apparently Eugenie tried to stop it as well, but Fergie and Beatrice diasagreed, thought it was a great idea and she was overruled. Must be tough to be the only person in your immediate family with a sense of reality.

Sarah said in an interview a few years ago that on most things she and Beatrice are of the same mind and how she can always count on her to stand with Sarah. No doubt Sarah raised Bea to believe her mother is always the victim in every situation and to be loyal to her. This must be one of those times when Beatrice thought "Mummy really does know best."

R140 whatd she say about E?

Eugenie is the only one in that family that comes out moderately okay. That's thanks to Jack "Shots!" Brooksbank, no doubt.

Have we discussed the cancellation of his 60th birthday party yet? What was planned and will a narcissist like Andrew survive the humiliation of not celebrating 60 years of his wonderful life with the world?

It's better than the humiliation of having only a smattering of the invitees show up. Lot's of people will not want to be associated with him. Granted it would be a private party, but the paps would be posted outside snapping the arrivals.

R141 Sarah said something about Eugenie being very sensitive and compassionate towards those less fortunate, etc. Then she commented about if Eugenie found a bird with a broken wing that she'd be the first one to bring it home to nurse it back to health.

If memory serves, the impression I got was the purpose of the interview was a PR move to accentuate how close her daughters are to the Queen, almost as if she had no other grandchildren.

R573 in the old thread is Poo Shoes

Yes, calling Andrew a pedophile diminishes the seriousness of engaging with trafficked women. The "Andrews" constitute the demand side of the trafficked world, why its supply exists.

Moreover, if there is no legal proof that Andrew engaged in sexual activities with a child, charges of trafficking becomes less credible. Probably Andrew won't see the inside of courthouse, making the difference between the standard of proof required by a criminal court and by the court of public opinion key. IMO, it beggars belief that girls under the age of consent were not involved.

In FL, the age of consent is 16. The girl who claims to have been trafficked to Trump was 13 at the time. This occurred in Palm Beach. Plus there have been indications of children, both girls and boys in the periphery of the Epstein parties.

[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.]

I don't see how Andrew can be stripped of his HRH. Unlike Diana, who lost hers, he was born with it. I'd imagine from the Firm's perspective, that would set a very dangerous precedent.

[quote]trafficked

Raffew

Yech, R34. You, yech, not the others. Such a bitter soul.

[quote] In FL, the age of consent is 16. The girl who claims to have been trafficked to Trump was 13 at the time. This occurred in Palm Beach.

I'm tired of hearing about that lawsuit, because it just doesn't pass the smell test to me. Do I believe that Trump has done bad things? Yes. But that lawsuit just seems strange. If the person was really serious about pressing that lawsuit, you know they could have Gloria Allred or another high profile anti-Trump lawyer. And, they would give anonymous interviews, to any number of anti-Trump media personalities. But, they keep filing lawsuits that get dismissed because of filing errors or they voluntarily withdraw it and they refuse to meet with members of the media, even friendly ones. And, at least when it comes to Trump and Epstein, he has two things in his favor, 1) he barred Epstein from Mar-a-lago, 2) the lawyer that was suing Epstein on behalf of some of the victims has stated Trump was the only prominent person willing to assist him. And, before you say they would fear for their life, nothing of the sort has happened to other women who have accused him or Epstein. There comes a point where a person has to put up or shut up. The fact is that anyone can file a lawsuit in federal court, but until a judge actually hears evidence, nothing has been proven.

R152, If you block her, you'll enjoy your DL so much better. I guarantee it.

r153 - I understand.

However, per the Miami Herald she was credible, but scared. And the super-lawyer Virginia has? I wonder if he has been given parameters (spoken or unspoken).

After Epstein "committed suicide," most the allegations against prominent men have been against Andrew, a non-American.

R155, Do you know if Virginia Roberts has dropped her allegations against the many prominent US citizens she named before Epstein committed suicide?

Who besides Dershowitz was prominent?

r156 - that's a very good question. Thing is I only hear about Andrew.

R157 former Governor Bill Richardson, the late Marvin Minsky, and financier Glenn Dubin. She has also accused "another un-named prince," and "a well known Prime Minister," among others.

George Mitchell, the former Senate Majority Leader.

R157. Some of the men either accused or mentioned in her complaint: Alan Dershowitz, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, Matt Groening, George Mitchell, some big wig from MIT (who lost his job).

To be clear, they are mentioned as being involved in different ways and to different degrees.

R157, I forgot Hyatt magnate Tom Pritzker.

The unnamed one that interests me is the "well known Prime Minister." I can't think of many prime ministers that are well-known, at least to Americans, other than Canadian or British ones. So who do you think? Tony Blair? Justin Trudeau? David Cameron? Boris Johnson wasn't yet PM when she made the allegation.

I think she meant a President, not a PM

Of the Americas but not los Estados Unidos de America

R164 No, because she actually accused both a "well known Prime Minister" and a "foreign president."

It's Tony Blair, R163. His coterie of friends overlap's with the of Prince Andrew quite a bit: Central Asian dictators, arms dealers, and an assortment of shady and scummy international characters.

Wouldn't be surprised about that one r166. Totally spot on re overlaps of associations there.

People will do anything for self-enrichment. Even if you've already been leader of one of the most powerful nations, or the son of a well known monarch.

Tony Blair and Bill Clinton overlap as well.

The well known PM is from Israel. He was seen visiting apt in a building owned by Epstein's brother on UES. He had business dealings with Epstein. People living there have seen him and his security detail many times...

R169 I think it is a different one In her allegations since Peres is the the one connected to Epstein, and by the time she was making the allegations he was President of Israel and he is now dead so there is no reason to not name him.

the PM mentioned in R169 is Ehud Barak, still alive.

I read that Sarah was dead set against an interview such as the one that aired. If she were going to get on board with any sort of interview, it would involve no more than four questions about Epstein, but that part of the interview would just a minor part of a larger interview. The context of the larger interview, according to Sarah’s wishes would be a recap of Andrew’s role in the royal family and all of his charities, business associates and good works such as Pitch@Palace, the entrepreneurial organization Andrew started, which is actually quite successful.

But then Sarah was out of the country for two weeks in China, Saudi Arabia and Venice while the horrific interview as it aired started to take shape. She was totally opposed to it, and it never would have gone forward or allowed it to happen had she been at home, which is why she issued that tweet praising Andrew the day before it aired when she returned. Her praiseworthy tweet indicates she was opposed to the interview, knew it was bad and was trying to minimize the damage ahead of the airing.

According to reports, Andrew’s assistant, Amanda Thirsk, who has been with him for many years, is the one who was pushing for the interview and made all the arrangements with the BBC. Amanda has since been removed as Andrew’s assistant and is now leading “Pitch,” now a stand-alone organization. The “@Palace” portion of the title has been removed and no longer affiliated with the palace.

If the Duchess of Pork was SOOO against it, why did she leave the country?

R173. The Duchess made her feelings known before she left the country on a trip that had been planned for some time. The interview was in the works for a few months but the interview content went sideways while the Duchess was gone and Andrew’s assistant, Amanda Thirsk, took over when the BBC pushed for more and the assistant thought it would be a good idea go for broke with an interview focused on Epstein to put this issue behind them. She never thought it would backfire; she thought it would clear the air. And since Andrew is dumb and lives in a bubble, he agree. Sarah isn’t as naive after all she’s been through.

She was dumb enough to leave the country. With so much riding on the interview...

Prince Charles to meet with Andrew face to face today.

The crassness of that interview also includes of course its timing in upstaging Charles's traditional BRF good works in NZ. Given that Andrew idiotically told himself the interview was a good idea, one has to wonder if he loved the thought of stealing Charles's media thunder. He's clearly perverse and wilful enough.

As against that, the detailed 'Mail' reports about Andrew were laced with images of Charles indeed doing his cheerful and serious good works. The contrast was radiant. Who would not pay a good amount to be a fly on the wall when the Princes meet today?

I heard sarah and bea pushed for him to do the interview.

R172, where did you read this? What’s out there is very conflicting. I think everyone was ok with the interview until it bombed. Now we’re hearing they were against it?

And that's a long ass flight from NZ. Nobody, and I mean, nobody, is really in a jolly mood [if Prince Charles did that tortuous AUK - LAX - LHR route, he'll be nattered and cranky going into the meeting] after completing it. I'm not sure I'd want to be a fly on the wall. It might be really messy.

Andrew's being Swedened as we speak. Are the Sussexes next?

I still can't believe that fucking Charles travels with his whole room, I can't remember, is it his bedroom or living room ?? It was so ridiculous when I read it.

It's his bed, R181-because heaven forbid if the royal spine should sleep on an unfamiliar mattress.

Poor Bea. Here's hoping the Italian Stallion stays put for her.

R171 everything I’ve read has speculated it was Shimon Peres who was connected to Epstein. Ehud Barak is really the least well known Israeli PM, in recent times, since he served only a short term. Not saying it isn’t him but he isn’t exactly well known, especially compared to Peres or Netanyahu.

The residents of 301 East 66th St. always knew Ehud Barak was there by the flashy cars parked outside and burly security guards in the lobby. The former Israeli prime minster’s visits were an open secret among the tenants of the Upper East Side building, which is owned by Jeffrey Epstein’s younger brother.

Several residents of 301 East 66th St. told The Daily Beast they had seen Barak in the building multiple times over the last few years, and nearly half a dozen more described running into his security detail. The building is majority-owned by Epstein’s younger brother, Mark, and has been tied to the financier’s alleged New York trafficking ring.

When asked about his stays at 301 E. 66th Street, Barak told The Daily Beast, “Despite the fact that there was no wrongdoing on my part, and that there is not even the faintest suspicion of wrongdoing on my part, I’m not going to address these questions because in the current political environment in Israel, the mere fact of my response to such a question is churned up as spin in the political game.”

“As a former prime minister I’m accompanied by bodyguards everywhere I go,” he added.

While the Israeli politician has tried to play down his ties to Jeffrey Epstein since the billionaire’s indictment on charges of child sex trafficking, Barak became a fixture of the Epstein story after Israeli outlets reported he had received more than $3 million in payments from Epstein-connected institutions since 2004.

The former prime minister was also photographed leaving Epstein’s Upper East Side mansion in 2016 and has acknowledged visiting the billionaire’s private Caribbean island, where Epstein is accused of hosting orgies with underage girls.

Barak has repeatedly denied any knowledge of Epstein’s alleged crimes and maintains he never so much as talked to the financier in the presence of underage women. In a previous interview with The Daily Beast, Barak said he was first introduced to the financier by Israeli leader Shimon Peres in 2002, and saw Epstein only “on occasion” after that.

“I've never been there at a party,” he said. “To the contrary, at his home, I met many very respected people, scientists, Nobel Prize winners, and I met him also in Boston, at MIT or the Harvard labs he supports.”

As Business Insider reported earlier this week, residents of 301 East 66th St. described Barak as a frequent presence at their 16-story building. One resident told The Daily Beast that she saw and recognized the statesman in the lobby, while another said he was identified to her by a doorman or fellow resident.

Five other current and former residents said they had not seen Barak in person, but saw his security detail around the building on multiple occasions. One recalled riding in the elevator with bodyguards speaking Hebrew, while another said she regularly saw someone posted outside an 11th-floor apartment. Another woman recalled seeing the security detail in the lobby at least a dozen times.

“When he wasn’t in his apartment, [the security guards] would hang out in the lobby as if it was their own living room,” one disgruntled resident recalled. “They would sprawl out, they’d put all their shit on the couches, and sometimes they ate on the table there.”

The majority of the units in the building are owned by Ossa Properties, a real estate company started by Mark Epstein. The younger Epstein has admitted to renting out apartments to Jeffrey for personal use, but maintains that his brother has no ownership stake in the building. When a Daily Beast reporter called for further comment, Mark Epstein hung up.

In 2010, a former bookkeeper for Mc2—the modeling agency owned by Epstein associate Jean-Luc Brunel—told the FBI that the 66th St. apartments were being used to house underage girls from South America, Europe and the former Soviet Union. In a sworn statement obtained by the Miami Herald, the bookkeeper claimed Brunel was sending the girls to Epstein’s parties or loaning them out to wealthy clients to be molested.

Brad Edwards, an attorney for several of Epstein’s victims, raised many of the same allegations in a deposition later that year.

“Those females get work visas to say that they’re models, but actually they are prostituted out by Jeffrey Epstein and Jean-Luc Brunel, correct?” Edwards asked Adriana Ross, one of Epstein’s former assistants. “And various businessmen and politicians around New York and Washington D.C. go to these apartments frequently and have sex with underage minors, is that true?”

Ross, who has been accused of helping orchestrate Epstein’s “massages,” invoked her right against self-incrimination and declined to reply.

Epstein’s pilot, Larry Visoski, said in a 2009 deposition that he was paid via a company located at 301 East 66th St., from Epstein's longtime accountant Darren Indyke. (Property records show Indyke lived in the building until at least 2000.) Visoski claimed Lesley Groff—an assistant of Epstein’s who is accused of helping him procure underage girls—also worked out of the building.

Sarah Kellen, another assistant who was accused of helping schedule Epstein’s “massages,” ran an interior design firm out of the building as recently as 2015. Nadia Marcinkova, who was accused of participating in sexual encounters with Epstein’s underage girls, registered an aviation business to the 66th St. building in 2011. Property records show Marcinkova’s apartment was also located on the 11th floor.

Last year, an Israeli investigative journalist revealed that Barak received about $2.4 million in 2004 from the Wexner Foundation, where Epstein was both a trustee and major donor. Epstein also reportedly invested $1 million in Barak’s technology start-up, Carbyne, in 2015—almost a decade after the billionaire pleaded guilty to soliciting an underage prostitute.

Barak has said he is looking into how to disentangle Epstein from Carbyne’s finances. He has refused to expand on the work he did for the Wexner Foundation, other than to say that he “did what I committed to do.”

“I perform research and geopolitical consulting for a lot of interested parties,” he previously told The Daily Beast. “It is up to them if they want to discuss it.”

Still, the controversy has followed the statesman throughout Israel’s elections, where Barak is running to replace current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Earlier this month, Netanyahu—who is facing indictment in several corruption cases himself—called for an investigation into Barak’s relationship with Epstein. In a complaint to the Israeli attorney general, a lawyer for Netanyahu’s party suggested the Wexner Foundation could constitute illegal foreign donations.

Barak responded with a joking tweet.

“It pains me to hear that people I know are in trouble with the law,” he wrote. “First Netanyahu, now Epstein. My wish for them both is that the truth will out. Period.”

How big is this this fucking building at E66th? Dozens of businesses and people attributed to having space at that address.

Let’s start a pool on the timing and location of Bea and Edo’s marriage (there is no way Edo can break off the engagement without confirming everyone’s suspicions about him being a grifter and a gold digger).

I’m betting on an October 2020 wedding in the private family chapel with a relatively small reception afterwards. The Queen and all the cousins will be there.

The nice thing about 301 E. 66 is that it's just around the corner from my Fox television station.

r188, all Edo has to do is plant a newspaper item that Bea has gotten all schizo since her father's scandal and let that be the reason he has to, oh so regretfully, step aside to let her marry someone who can handle her and the mess that is her family.

I am now betting November. As late in the year as possible to buy more time to let thing settle. If it's to be a big wedding (same size as Eugenie's, likely at the insistence of her idiot parents) then I do not think it will be at St. George's Chapel... the real Royals won't want it. It will be cast as entirely private affair, like Zara Phillips, who married in Scotland so it could be any good sized church near Royal Lodge, allowing for a reception there. If they opt for something smaller or more discreet I could see them going to Italy. It will all depend on internal family politics and the degree to which they want the media shit storm.

Like R190... I wonder if there is a chance this will now not happen. Is it for love or ambition? Because this will test both.

I feel sorry for the Queen. I hope she gets through this to a brighter spot so it doesn't end as sad last days.

People were angry at the time about the senseless Harry carriage ride, even moreso with Eugenie. I doubt they would even try for Beatrice.

Contrary to US reports, UK people did not like to pay for these trips around the block

The Queen is the asshole who supports and enables these moochers and assholes.

I’m becoming more and more convinced that the monarchy will not survive the death of Queen Elizabeth.

R178. I read it in various British press reports. Sarah was not in favor of an almost hour-long interview all about the same topic of Jeffery Epstein. She wanted limited questions about Epstein and then to move on to Andrew’s charity and business work. It was Andrew’s longtime assistant, Amanda Thirsk, who has always been pushing for this all-Epstein interview to address it and be done with it. I’m just recently reading that Bea may have have been involved. I don’t know to what extent, but clearly Amanda and Bea are not media savvy and shouldn’t have been involved even if it had gone well. Foe all of Sarah’s troubles, she knows the media much better. But in the end, Andrew should have followed the advice of his public relations/media experts, which he did not. Andrew is too isolated, dumb and arrogant to have maneuvered this land mine on his own.

The thing is, we don't want these OBVIOUS scroungers..put that with selling themselves as the Yorks and Sussies are doing. I t is obnoxious .

r196. Yes blame anyone but the people responsible. Of course the responsibility gets shifted down, because all the Yorks are dick for brains.

The Maul is now claiming both Bea and the Labraferg Retriever were opposed. But Fergie swanned off to some meeting overseas and Bea went to one meeting and opposed it but not enough to stop it. There seems to a concerted effort to make sure the only body under the bus is Amanda Thirks. Fergie probably fears for her remarriage prospects and don't know what or who Bea is afraid of unless it really is seen en famille as so omnishambolic nobody wants within ten feet of it.

[quote] The crassness of that interview also includes of course its timing in upstaging Charles's traditional BRF good works in NZ.

The interview was timed to beat the Panorama interview with Virginia Giuffree. Honestly for people who think they know so much, the commentary here is very simple.

Fergie got Backgrid to pap her at a funeral...the woman is the lowest of the low.

r200, Well miss snooty ,I think most people here are not aware .We don't all read the Radio Tmes and relay it to the US

[quote]There seems to a concerted effort to make sure the only body under the bus is Amanda Thirks

Apart from the bigger Princely body who chose to speak for himself, and now knows what the world thinks of him.

Did Diana have an affair with Tom Hoare? I cannot remember.

R198. Andrew is ultimately responsible for the interview. Not Sarah or Bea, which according to reports, they were opposed to the interview or even if they were somewhat involved. However, also blaming Andrew’s assistant, Amanda Thirsk, is not “shifting down.” Amanda is not just the pool secretary; she is Andrew’s longtime personal assistant who knows him very well. She’s been with him for years working and advising him on many projects and decisions. It had been reported that Amanda was pushing for a full-blown interview. We may never know all the details as to how the actual interview came to be and who specifically was involved with all the final details. However, if reports are true about Amanda, she clearly does not know the media and baring one’s soul for all to see no matter how well she knows Andrew.

[quote]The interview was timed to beat the Panorama interview with Virginia Giuffree. Honestly for people who think they know so much, the commentary here is very simple.

Why would they want to get his interview out in front of Guiffree's? It allows her to have the last word. Presumably, the Panorama interviewer would want to ask her questions based on the responses Andrew gave. Had it been the other way around, he may have fared better or he could have been convinced to do some heavy practice and rehearsal.

That would be using tactical logic, R206. In short, it would be smart. This is the British Royal Family we're talking about. Dolts, each and every one.

Seriously, the guy is really fucked up. Who the fuck laughs!?! (in that interview, very serious subject). He's dumb as fuck.

I mean, you have decades of experience of giving interviews...you should know what to do, how to get your message across. Dumb fuck! He looks stupid. and so does his girls.

Oliver Hoare.

Oliver Hoare, the later art dealer r204.

later = late ^^

r206, from what I've read, Andrew thought that once people heard him explain himself, that would set all doubts to rest. He thought that the interview would convince the public that he had nothing to hide and was telling the truth. I don't believe that Sarah and Beatrice are blamelesss in this. Clearly no one was pushing back against his plans to do the interview. Jason Stein, the one guy who opposed it, quit just a month on the job.

I dont think Bea will be getting married this year. Her dad cant be seen and the BRF will want andrew squirreled away not giving away his daughter on tv! She should think about eloping but then her italian gold digger may bail. Poor Bea :/

It wouldn't surprise me if this story is true.

I lean toward belief as well, r214. Piloting a helicopter takes great physical and mental skill, much more physical than flying an plane. I've not seen anything that leads me to think Andrew possesses either of those.

[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.]

People are actually commenting that Sarah isn't as dumb as Andrew? Ok...

r214, What a load of bull!

R217-that is chuckle-worthy!

Is anyone knowledgeable regarding British law and spousal privilege? I wiki’d same, and the only thing that was clear to me (so not a lawyer!) was that “No privilege extends to couples who are co-habiting but are neither married nor in a civil partnership....” This is significant because media reporting paints the picture of them basically living together since the divorce. If Sarah and Andrew were to remarry, what could the situation be? Just curious...have personally known of one marriage rumored it happened so that one partner could invoke spousal privilege and not be compelled to testify against the other (USA).

So yeah dumb as rocks family: Harry, Andrew....I guess William and Charles are the brains. Phillip seems no better than an American racist redneck.

I totally believe that account R214, no way he was put in any danger...

I remember Fergie wrote/published some children's book about a helicopter?

[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.]

R210 - Thanks! I could remember which Hoare she had a affair with.

“Fergie had stayed away from meetings with the Newsnight team and was abroad when details of the interview were being finalised.

“However, Beatrice, the couple's eldest daughter, was present along with Andrew's then-private secretary Amanda Thirsk.

“Beatrice, 31, and Andrew met Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis and the programme's deputy editor, Stewart Maclean, at Buckingham Palace three days before filming to discuss the scope of the interview...”

“It is understood that Beatrice, with the benefit of hindsight, is now mortified that she did not do more to stop the interview going ahead, not least as it casts an even greater shadow over her forthcoming wedding.”

“Beatrice has chosen to spend Christmas at Sandringham rather than with her fiance, than with her fiance...It is understood that Beatrice’s fiance will spend time with his family, including Wolfie.”

[quote] I dont think Bea will be getting married this year.

I agree. I think the guy will back out and Beatrice will save face by claiming she dumped him.

R227-It's bad she's not spending Christmas with Edo, particularly as she is reported to have bonded with the son. That is very bad indeed. I thought Edo's body language earlier this week was very telling. He was not a but happy and looked entirely put out. Not in the "I'm upset my fiancé is going through this" kind of way, but rather the "this isn't working out the way I wanted, and I don't like this negative attention." Time will tell.

R228 there have been rumors and innuendo and "hints" about Andrew since as long as I can remember. Edo only has himself to blame for getting mixed up in it.

That Bea is not spending Christmas with Edo is a very, very, very bad sign. He’s already starting to distance himself. I bet it’s over within 3-4 months.

r212--I like your summary best.

The newspaper accounts are fluid - with blame changing from day to day. Yet, the PR guy quit a month ago - so obviously this was a major issue, a contentious matter.

Let’s speculate the unnamed prince. I bet it was Crown Prince Hamdan of Dubai.

Pronounced "Jiss-Lane."

Fergie took helicopter lessons, did she ever become a pilot?

If Edo bails now, he will look like a cad.

R235, I don’t think he gives even a little shit.

I hope all the stress of this doesn’t end up killing Old Liz. Our Kween is about the only thing left in this country that’s stable and reliable. We’ll be fucked without her. Fucked! x

Fergie created Budgie, The Little Helicopter?

[quote]I’m becoming more and more convinced that the monarchy will not survive the death of Queen Elizabeth.

The Harkles are certainly putting a few nails in that coffin. But the rot runs deep, very deep to the extent that the populace is now just starting to wake up the fact that 'all is not what it seems" inside BP. There's losing control of the messaging and why is that? How can certain family members be allowed to 'hijack' the corporate (BRF) message and send out **daily** tweets, instagram posts, youtubes, press releases, legal statements, etc running counter to the firm's strategic vision. Why is that? Why couldn't Charles step in over the past year (if the Queen is 'distracted') and deal with the deluge of Sparkle gaffes? How was Pedrew allowed to gallivant all over the globe indulging himself on the taxpayer's dime in 'unbecoming' behaviour? Did the courtiers not know? Did the bodyguards register concern to BP about trying to protect a guy who was basically partying in an american townhouse aka "the railway station" for days on end? So the Queen didn't know, didn't care that Andrew might be caught in compromising positions in extremely high risk environments? How odd. How odd that the family asserts total CONSTERNATION about Andrew's past-times. Odd.

We're made to believe that no one knew. They're all just as complicit as Pedrew for the silence, made worse by the dissemination of this false innocence.

[quote] Fergie took helicopter lessons, did she ever become a pilot?

Yes and no. She passed the course. Apparently, she did well. She was accredited as a pilot, but never put it to use. Fergie doesn't work...she networks.

[quote] Fergie created Budgie, The Little Helicopter?

Yes and no. She was later accused of stealing the idea. Supposedly, the accuser received a settlement, not because there was any truth to it, but because Buckingham Palace didn't want it to become known that the proceeds for the charity that was supposed to benefit from the book sales ended up in Sarah's bank account. Sarah's favourite charity is herself.

lol, r233.

The BRF needs to follow the Dutch and Swedish model: Keep the royal “house” small (monarch+spouse, direct offspring, and in our case the former Queen, Beatrix, now Princess). That way, you keep a grip on both communications and the purse. That family is getting way too big, with too many people with nothing but idle time on their hands. Wandering minds go crazy places. Keep the group small, keep them occupied, done.

I think that's the only way the BRF will get out of this with something of its privileges and status intact, R242. They're going to have to be ruthless with the surplus royals.

The benefit to Swedening now is that Charlotte and Louis can be raised from the get-go to know that eventually they're on their own. They can start to identify a purpose early on and work toward it. Harry was left idle far too long. The BRF probably thought the military would sort Harry out, but someone with an IQ that low and that much privilege was always going to be a challenge.

[quote] Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson’s pals want to see the woman accusing Prince Andrew of sexually assaulting her crucified on TV. Virginia Roberts should be “put on the grill” by BBC’s famed Panorama current affairs program when she is interviewed, friends say, according to The Telegraph.

Jeezuz Feckin'Christ

The only problem with the Dutch and Swedish models is reach... the royal family in the Netherlands represents the nation and interacts with a population of 17.3 million people. The Swedes with a population of 10.3 million. The population of the UK is 67 million. There are simply more people to get in front of and more places to go. Now of course none of the monarchies meets all the people but you follow the scale is different. The land mass is different... the UK is 242,000 square km. The Netherlands 41,500 sq. km. Sweden 450,000 sq km (though much uninhabited.... there are 118 towns with a population in excess of 10,000 people. The UK has 75 with a population over 100,000. The monarchies aren't apples and oranges.

Few would argue Princess Anne and the Wessexes don't support the life of the nation. The problems tend to be the Yorks, through character deficiency (dad), stupidity (mom) and laziness (the ugly step sisters) and the Sussexes (needing filters). If you kicked 'em all out, the royal family would still comprise a fourteen people (eleven if you don't count the Cambridge children.) Fourteen in a country of 67 million. It's a lot of places to be and a lot of people to meet.

It isn't to say it couldn't be stripped back but it's kind of a joke because the person who lives largest is the sovereign and I can't see King Charles at Asda.

Fergie is always so helpful.

r239

[quote]How can certain family members be allowed to 'hijack' the corporate (BRF) message and send out **daily** tweets, instagram posts, youtubes, press releases, legal statements, etc running counter to the firm's strategic vision.

[bold]The Royal Family, after it is reduced to the monarch and immediate heirs, needs a centralized press office.[/bold] Instead, Charles has a press office, William has a press office. This sets unrealistic expectations and resentment to Andrew's and Harry's of this ecosystem. Moreover, we have seen how the Prince of Wales press office has worked counter to the interests of monarchy at different times. William's, too, if we are to believe the rumors of his leaking information detrimental to Harry and his father.

[quote]How odd that the family asserts total CONSTERNATION about Andrew's past-times. Odd.

It's obvious they all knew. The Queen protected Andrew, for whatever reason, so he did whatever he wanted to.

Considering the PR Expert quit b/c Andrew agreed to the BBC interview, the TV appearance was very important and no doubt well-known in the Royal Household

The problem with Swedening, as many of you are calling it, is that while many people like the idea in theory, I suspect people won't like it in practice. Right now with the larger Royal family, there are enough of them to go open a village school, fete, hospital, senior center, etc... in the UK and the other realms. Not to mention their fundraising on behalf of various charities, in the UK and around the world. If the family is drastically downsized, people will have to accept that they cannot expect royals to show up for anything but the most important events and the charities won't be able to count on them for fundraising. For instance many of the charities that they are patrons of, will send them to the USA to raise funds, because rich Americans will pay a buttload to be in the same room as a member of the BRF.

Sweden is a small country, compared to the UK and the other realms, so a smaller RF can cover Sweden but a smaller BRF will not be able to cover all of their realms. Also, the Swedish, Dutch, etc... RFs mainly deal within their own countries. The BRF is a world wide phenomenon that deals with dozens of their own realms and are major figures for dealing with other nations. Such as how it is dramatized on The Crown, that when the UK had issues with the US, they would roll out the Royals to smooth things over, in a way that politicians never could.

[QUOTE] (monarch+spouse, direct offspring, and in our case the former Queen, Beatrix, now Princess

Except for Princess Magriet’s children, who should have never had princely titles if their own father did not. At least demote them to counts or barons. Ridiculous.

[quote] There's losing control of the messaging and why is that?

The problems started when Charles forced out the Queen's private secretary Christopher Geidt in 2017. He, rather than the Queen, is probably why the British Royal Family had run a tight ship for as long as it did.

I accept that, r251. But ultimately, the 'firm' sets the strategic vision - and turns that vision over to consultants for implementation. The 'firm' should maintain internal and external accountability to various stakeholders. They know that they're just too cossetted to follow the corporate mission. Deflecting failure onto paid staff is a cop out. Doesn't wash.

- r239

R250 Princess Margaret's husband was created Lord Snowdon at the time of their marriage.

R246 & R249 - valid points, can’t argue there. I may have overlooked the logistics behind it all.

R250 - I was told Pieter never became Prince because or Queen Juliana’s disliking of him?

R253 - Margriet is the sister of Beatrix, former Queen of The Netherlands. Not Margaret :)

Oh, I thought we were discussing the British royal family. Sorry about that.

Back in the day, Prince Andrew (in the middle) won "who'd you rather" hands down over Prince Charles (on the right)...

He looks like a bookie at the races in that pic, R256 — at least Charles has something of a personality.

Speaking of Charles: I find he became a lot less pompous in recent years. Knowing his reign will be a short one, I guess he’s just trying to enjoy the ride a bit more.

[bold]JUST SO WE ARE ALL CLEAR: THE QUEEN KNEW AND GAVE HER APPROVAL[/bold]

---BBC Interviewer Emily Maitlis detailed the negotiation and planning leading up to the BBC Newsnight interview, which had been [bold]pitched to Andrew's team a year before it aired.[/bold]

---Although the interview was originally not about Epstein, Andrew's office felt that a Newsnight interview was the only way to clear the air. To put across his side of the story. "A human voice was needed" (UGH!)

---"We have finished laying out our pitch. An awkward moment of silence falls. And the duke tells us he must 'seek approval from higher up'. It dawns on us then that he means the Queen herself."

I think we can agree now that Queen, Andrew's office, senior level Royal advisers all knew about it. Only the recently hired PR professional saw the catastrophe in the making and quit. Would love to hear his story.

And Fergie, who is Andrew's cutout, is pushing the hard line against Virginia --

---"She [Virginia Roberts] should be properly cross examined on all the evidence that doesn't stack up. She should be put on the rack." By Panorama TV, they mean. ---Accused her of making money from photo with Andrew. (Virginia gave it to the FBI)

The whole thing is a car crash with Fergie flying trial balloons and Beatrice trying to deny her participation.

Elizabeth probably expected a different interview. I wouldn’t be surprised if she told Andrew to go ahead at his own peril, and that the consequences would be severe if he didn’t manage to turn things around.

I read that some people believe that picture with the girl was doctored/Photoshopped — surely we have an in-house expert here at DL who could shed some light on the authenticity of said photograph?

I mean, how stupid would you have to be to give a fake photo to the fucking FBI? Fergie would be that dumb but most people know better.

R147 Having sex with a trafficked woman wasn't illegal in the UK at the time, it wasn't made illegal until 2009 I think.

Loathesome people. Attacking a trafficking survivor who after many years is speaking the truth. And that nonsense about the photo with Ghislaine Maxwell being ‘faked’ is just embarrassing. What a joke.

Bunch of privileged narcissists with no morals.

There is no doubt the photo of Andrew with Virginia is real, but in some versions I’ve seen, Ghislaine Maxwell appears to be closer to the two of them; in others, she’s clearly further back. Maybe that’s why they claim it’s been doctored. But no doubt to me, the part with Andre and Virginia has not been doctored.

R103 mentioned that Charles is shocked, simply shocked, that there is gambling in this establishment.

Isn’t that Charles “cheated on his starter wife from the first, Mr Tampon in his mistresses’ vagina“? And now that he’s married his mistress, he’s holier than thou?

Come on. Look at the royal family as a whole. Phillip made racist remarks and cheated on the Queen for years. But I guess you can overlook it because he’s old.

Charles cheated on his wife in the most public way imaginable when they had small children at home. He did everything but rent billboards. Then he married the woman that was described by his wife as a third party in his marriage from beginning to end. And now expects the public to adore this dowdy, smug old trout.

William now cheats on his wife supposedly. Also has young children at home. His wife looks worn-out, anorexic, and ten years older than she is, and pops out a kid every so often, in a futile attempt to make him stay home. Doesn’t work. And they both look down their high class snoots at

Harry, whom has married an actress who seems unable to close her mouth in public. At least she’s not out working a stripper pole or picking up teen age boys on street corners, so that’s better than her male in-laws I guess.

Fergie. Toe-sucking and money borrowing.

Andrew.

What exactly makes these people better than anyone? Most people are better than this. Take away the money, and it’s a season of Shameless.

They are so spoiled they don’t even understand how spoiled they are. If they don’t want to be royalty because it’s just so awful, now would be a good time to quit.

r261

Dutchie,

Without the original, it is almost impossible to tell. The image we see on the internet may be a 5th or 6th generation copy of a copy.

R266, I think you're looking for The Guardian. Your shoehorning would please them.

What makes all those people better than Markle on an important level for the British public is that they have for the most part put Queen, country and protocol above all else. Yes, they've had their private fuck-ups, and Andrew rightly is being kicked to the curb. But they have never thumbed their nose at the very institution that gave them their immense wealth and privilege. They've lived up to their end of the bargain. Meghan hasn't from day one. Andrew gave his disastrous interview after having it approved by the queen. Meghan and Harry? They just did theirs. This is what's damning her.

Steve Coogan would make a great Prince Andrew if they made a comedy out of this story. Of course, Coogan is probably implicated in the mess somehow. But still he'd be great as a bumbling asshole Prince Andrew.

Both Harry and William, when they were younger, expressed reluctance to be part of the family firm. Especially Harry. He made it sound like an untenable burden. They don’t seem to understand how it comes off.

I think they get that attitude from older family members, who are irritated by being called to account when they aren’t at their best. The Queen is from the WWII generation and understands sacrifice. They don’t.

[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.]

R253 , I think R250 is referencing Princess Margriet of the Netherlands (sister of the former Queen Beatrix) who though married to an untitled commoner had four sons and they were created by their grandmother, Princes with the qualification of Highness, which ranks lower than Royal Highness.

R272, Philip is, like, 100. Of course he's going to be frail. Why does that in particular stand out to you?

R272 No, Philip's hands look much better than Charles's red ugly foul looking hands.

R265, the people who claim the photo is doctored are lying to protect Andrew.

The reason you are a little unsure about Ghislaine's position is because the photo was originally circulated in cropped format. The full photo showing more of the house and the walls has now been released and Ghislaine appears more in the background in the full version, but it's the same photo.

it seems like Pa Mountbatten isn’t a toothless gumby rotting in a Windsor farmhouse after all. The fact that Charles is deferring family matters means that Philip’s opinions on family affairs still rules, as was the agreement with The Queen early on in their reign. You rule the country, I rule the children.

[quote] Charles is deferring family matters means that Philip’s opinions on family affairs still rules

The fact that this is reported in the newspaper doesn't mean that it has any relation to reality.

....

R274... he's 98. Previously press has referred to him as retired. Press will not just assume he's frail or publish it for description. Frail, in someone that old, has meaning. I think they're hinting they're hearing he's actively circling the drain.

Exactly r280. He could have gone straight to see his father for advice, as reported. Or he could be going to see him if he's doing poorly, as has been rumored. Or it could be for both reasons.

re Bea's wedding location: they could do a complete private affair at St. George's with no tv coverage, much like Peter & Autumn did or Lady Helen Taylor in the 90s. Her reception will be private anyways, much like Eugenie's was. I would think it would be scaled back in size though.

There's also Queen's Chapel at St. James, in the City. Rose Windsor was married there, and christenings have also happened there. I believe Diana lay there in the days before her funeral. It's supposed to be on the smaller side, but still a royal chapel.

The Queen's Chapel is opposite St. James Palace. Princess Margaret's remains lay there. Diana's remains lay in the Chapel Royal, within St. James' Palace.

[quote]Steve Coogan would make a great Prince Andrew if they made a comedy out of this story.

He really would. And you know Alan Partridge would have seriously advised Andrew that the interview was a very good idea, and that it went extremely well. Despite being bitter that the job went to Emily Maitlis.

r81 the multiple PR teams model works in places like the WH. Granted, the First Lady's team is never going to intentionally trash the President's. I think they need to stop allowing these separate power centers to emerge. The rift between Harry and William should have never occurred in public. Charles and the Queen should have shuddered their respective PR teams and just placed them under BP or Charles team. It should always be an all smiles event. It's just ridiculous to give each of these people a PR team.

r266 you forgot about the Queen. She holds the purse strings and housing leases for everyone involved minus Charles. She allows this to occur because she feels it's her family's god given right to use other people to their heart's desire. She is the worst of the lot. All she needed to do is say I will cut you off and kick you out of your palace if you don't get in line. Very simple.

Andrew was "wise" (yeah, I can't believe I said that.) to have maintained his offices and an apartment in BP. I've read the offices and staff are right next to his mothers'. Charles' offices are at Clarence House, William's at Kensington, and the Sussexes' somewhere in the ether. I believe putting in so much frequent face time over the years and ingratiating himself has kept him in ma's good graces to the point that she was blinded to his deep character flaws. I'm sure he's solicitous as hell with her. I recall seeing him doting on the Queen Mother during their public appearances when she was alive, pulling her footstool out of the car and helping her out, hovering over her walking to church, etc. Andrew is an Eddie Haskel level sycophant to the few superiors in his life. (superior by title or accumulated wealth)

R285-So many of the Harkles' fuck-ups could have been avoided had there been a central PR office with real professionals controlling the narrative. Just small things like making sure the Harkles didn't try to usurp attention on days when the Cambs have duties. Whenever William or Kate has something scheduled, the people on this board always wonder how long it will take Meghan to do something public. And she always does.

I just love how people stick it to Charles for "cheating" on his wife when they had two small children at home, but forget that in every legitimate bio of Diana every written, it became clear that Diana had serious mental issues, drove her husband crazy 24/7, was already screaming at him day in and day out by the time they came back from honeymoon, and had to be sent back to London for "counseling" from their first stint at Balmoral a month after the wedding.

The woman was crazy. He went back to his mistress after the birth of Harry when it became clear that the marriage was over and had been from early on.

It takes two to tango. Diana was no slouch at manipulating the press, and simply went to war with her husband for the spotlight when she realised she was a Star.

And she didn't hesitate to break up someone else's marriage, either.

She was no innocent saint, and he wanted the marriage to work. She made it impossible.

[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 photo looks real to me. It's not fake. That's BS. FBI would have said it's a fake photo if it's not real.

Andrew would have been far better off saying that lots of people ask for photos with him. He was just posing for a photo and doesn't remember her. But no, his friends had to claim its fake, which sounds like a complete lie.

r289 still his fault as the 32 year old groom to pick a better wife. He should have spent more time with her to determine if it was a good match. For all of the Queen's power, she couldn't force a gun to his head. He had his own money and too important of a role to be kicked out of the line of succession. Charles was 32 years old, while Diana was 20. She was still growing as a woman. She gives up her early 20s to be thrown into a lie. Yes she was cray cray, but the entire situation she married into was crazy. Literally the Queen Mother would arrange meeting places for Charles and Camila, while the family would bold face lie to Diana's face about knowing anything about the relationship. Imagine be isolated by bunch of backstabbing enablers for your cheating husband.

Charles was cheating on Diana, at least emotionally, while on the honeymoon or soon after. no wonder she left the family Christmas gathering in a mental state. Charles never gave up on Camila. I need Camila to write a book on securing the bag, because she hasn't gotten to where she is through looks so she must have the bomb pussy and wonderful personality. I'd take a class on Camila's facts of life, lol.

Anyone would have gone nuts in that Royal Family. She was only 20yrs and being told what to do by everyone...

She was naive (understandable) and thought she was gonna have a "happily ever after" with Charles but he had other ideas, he was gonna have his cake and eat it too. He's the future king and she was just there to birth his heirs. He never loved her. Let's be real.

They should scale down the whole fucking thing after Queen dies. The family is too big and useless. I don't know how much the tax payers are footing everything but I always hear the NHS is in dire straits. Put the money there!

She did pass along some positive genes. William and Harry both have or had moments of pure hotness. She made some strapping young men.

With an emphasis, R295, on "Some."

Both C and D passed on some less than positive genes as well, or so experience seems to show us. Hair can vanish. The crazy stays.

I only have to compare Diana to my nieces when they were 20 years old. They were nutty! And they’re good girls... but you just don’t have the maturity to deal with adult situations at that age. Neither of them—nor their friends—were ready to be married, let alone to the future King of anything. Diana may have been troubled (no doubt from the divorce of her parents), but if she hadn’t married Charles, I think her life would have pretty much been very uneventful, and her mental situation much more normal. The marriage, stress, and attention pushed her mental issues into the stratosphere..

Can you imagine hanging out with Charle's friends at the time? I mean most of them were probably around his age or older. So a 20 year old is supposed to find joy sitting around with a bunch of dull 30 something Astros? I'd probably go crazy with boredom. In the meantime, her peers were living it up at dicso techs, living life in obscurity as free 20 year olds.

I don't buy for a minute that the Queen knew the seriousness of the situation or that she's the worst of this lot. You can't say that Philip was raising the kids and instilling them with their values while at the same time say it's the Queen who is at fault.

Philip was a party boy who has been near prostitutes and scandals more than a few times himself. If Andrew slept with a 16-year-old trafficked girl before it was illegal to do so, do you think Philip would care? And do you think anyone would flatly tell the Queen what had happened? She'd probably instruct everyone to not tell her the details because she didn't want to know, and after decades of dealing with Philip, Margaret, and the Charles-Camilla- Diana triangle, she probably really did NOT want to know.

Not that sticking your head in the sand is admirable, but I don't think we need to lay blame at her feet when Andrew, the culture of the rich 1%-ers, and probably Philip are the most to blame here.

IDK r299 the palace had been pressuring news organizations for over a decade to drop their pending stories about Andrew and Epstein. It is a bit of a stretch to believe that A) The palace would act without the Queen's approval and B) that someone that receives daily classified intelligence reports, including meetings minutes from the PM's cabinet, wouldn't know enough details to understand the gravity of the situation.

She was the boss. Like you said, even the head in the sand argument makes her look bad because she'd rather ignore her son's crimes that acknowledge the truth. People say very little goes on that the Queen isn't made aware of so it's unlikely that she was in the dark. Elizabeth is an enabler. Just one of those woman that believes the boys will be boys mantra. It was her responsibility to raise her children to be honorable leaders of their country and faith, she failed.

It was Philip's responsibility too, perhaps more his responsibility because he voluntarily took on more parental duties than the Queen.

I have to say... most of the kids I know that were troubled (alcoholism, drugs, etc) were “enabled” by their parents to some extent. By that, I mean that the parents tried to help them rather than cast them out. They paid for lawyers, rehab, etc and even forgave them when the kids stole from them to buy drugs. It’s just natural for parents, I think, to try and fix the situation rather than cast out the kids.

I'm not excusing Phillip, but she chose not to spend time with her children or raise them with better standards. Andrew is his own man and was the one to go astray, but the Queen is an enabler. She wasn't that busy that she couldn't spend quality time raising her children. If you're going to go on an international tour for months at a time, take your children with you. Especially, when they are out of school. There were plenty of ways to make time for parenting, she and Phillip simply decided to delegate it to boarding schools and nannies.

These people aren't working 8 hour shifts 5 days a week, their job is highly flexible. The Queen just didn't give a damn.

[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.]

Ms Maxwell insisted she 'barely knew' Ms Roberts despite overwhelming evidence to suggest the women had seen each other on a number of occasions.

The teenager was standing next to Ms Maxwell when she posed with Andrew on the upstairs landing at her Belgravia home in a now notorious photo taken in 2000.

And flight documents show that the two women had also flown together on Epstein's private jet – nicknamed 'The Lolita Express' – no fewer than 23 times.

Ms Maxwell denied being involved in any sex abuse, adding: 'I have never participated at any time with Virginia in a massage with Jeffrey. I have been absolutely appalled by her story.'

LOL... these experts. R303, I enjoy the palpable umbrage.

[quote]Andrew is an Eddie Haskel level sycophant to the few superiors in his life. (superior by title or accumulated wealth)

Doesn't seem to have worked with Charles and William.

In all his arrogance, I don't think Andrew believes them to be superior.

He will once Mummy dies and Charles refuses to increase or end his allowance. Bet he won't feel above it all then.

We already know how King William will react to his ancient uncle.

Before reducing the number, it's important to know exactly who are the most active of the working Royals.

Checking the list of future engagements at the link below shows the already scheduled events.

Besides the Princess Royal, both Edward and Sophie are active. The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, (he is the Queen's cousin) are almost never mentioned when this topic is discussed here, but they are quite active. As is Princess Alexandra, a DL favorite.

r310 I'm sure Charles is very aware of everyone's schedule. But the less Royals engaging in these events, the more important their presence becomes. It's a supply and demand thing. Reduce could actually mean a reduction in the size of the staff along with tightening the ropes of the children styles HRHs. Grandchildren of the Monarch might become obsolete when Charles takes the throne, just leaving it to Children of the kings and heir's direct line would do wonders to reduce the size of the firm, like the Swede's did. Honestly, are you really royal if you aren't a child of a monarch or future monarch?

This also may force future and current younger royals to step it up a notch. No more doing one engagement a month. Get out there and ear your keep. No matter what, they will still log less hours than the average working Brit whom they are supposed to lead. Time to start leading by example and clock more hours. The rest can get a job like everyone else or marry another Astro and live like their peers.

Oh spare us she was 20 years old, naive, innocent. That's rewrite. Her own grandmother said she was an "actress and a schemer" and she was determined to marry Charles at any cost. She played her cards perfectly, got exactly what she wanted, and then found out real life wasn't a Barbara Cartland novel. Her mental issues were noted, particularly the lying, when she was a child. The moment the ring was on her finger, she turned a completely different face to the BRF up at Balmoral than she had when there the year before, when she was trying to impress everyone with how sweet, demure, malleable, and perfect she was for the job.

Then, the next year, she showed up sullen, angry, was rude at the Queen's dinner table, and screamed at Charles when he went out to do things he'd been doing all his life, which she was well aware of.

She was mental, not just young. And as far as being told what to do, well, what do you think they should have done? Let her figure out protocol and walkabouts and security on her own?!

And as far that goes, one thing Diana was famous for was not - listening - to - people - who - knew - what - they - were - talking - about.

A trait, by the way, shared by her younger son's wife, who was neither 20, nor naive, nor confused - just intent on doing what she wanted no matter what.

Diana was intent on marrying Charles from the time she was about 16. She waited for her chance, and when it came, made the most of it.

Charles didn't go back to Camilla until after Harry was born.

And I notice you skipped over the part about the marriaga Diana wrecked later on, her willingness to have anything to do with that fucking moron, Dodi Fayed, when she was far from 20 and naive, and how she ghosted Hewitt when she was through with him.

Naive, my arse. She may still have been virgo intacta, but naive, she was not.

R292 Exactly! “One of the conditions of being a member of the royal family is that one is asked to take photos with many, many people over the course of a day. I’m happy to oblige whenever possible, but as a result I simply can’t remember every one of the thousands of individuals I’ve posed with over decades.”

Remember when Charles made that deathless statement at the engagement photocall about "whatever 'in love' means" and someone asked Diana in later years what she thought at the time, and she replied, "I thought, 'least said, soonest mended'."

And when her mother warned her not to confuse the Prince with the man, and Diana replied merrily, "Is there a difference"?

Even Archbiship Runcie, during the couple's "pre-marital" visits with him, found her something of a performer.

Agree with posters upthread about the photo issue. Admittedly, the "home" setting makes it less persuasive, but he could certainly have tried it.

Anything would have better than what he did do and say in that interview, including, "That wasn't me, that was my stunt double."

So apparently, everyone could spot Diana's faults but her 32 year old fiancé, the Queen, and the rest of the Firm? Seems like a convenient cover. We all know Andrew is dull as a dish towel, but this thread isn't about Charles, Diana, Meghan, Harry, William, or Kate.

r315 he is guilt by association. He should have know better than to hangout with Epstein, especially after he was charged.

R253 - More properly, Antony Armstrong-Jones was created Earl Snowdon upon his marriage, not Lord Snowdon. His son, David, took his father's subsidiary title of Viscount Lynley until his father died, upon which David Lynley, as he was called, became the 2nd Earl Snowdon. "The Rt. Honourable Lord So-and-So" however is the correct form of address to an Earl from, er, lower down.

Just as Prince Edward, Earl of Wesses, passed his subsidiary title to his son, who is called Viscount Severn.

r318 why is Edward a lonely Ear while his brothers were made Dukes? Did he kick the Queen too often while in the womb?

Below are Archbishop Runcie's comments on the match between Charles and Diana, from a series of taped interviews for a biography serialised in the Times, in which the former archbishop said he saw early cracks in the royal marriage well before they became public:

"Lord Runcie, who married the couple at St Paul's Cathedral in 1981, said he believed it was an arranged marriage about which the prince was very depressed.

Speaking about Princess Diana's grandmother, Lady Ruth Fermoy, he said "Ruth was very distressed with Diana's behaviour ... She [Ruth] was totally and wholly a Charles person ... and regarded Diana as an actress, a schemer all of which is true, of course.

"I don't know what will become of her. Sad really, and I feel a desire to support her.""

R318 I stand corrected. I was just trying to point out that Princess Margaret's husband did have a title. I didn't realize the poster was talking about a different Margaret.

R318, even more properly: [italic]The[/italic] Earl [italic]of[/italic] Snowdon

Linley

Wessex

You don't pass a subsidiary title. It is a courtesy title when an heir uses a father's most senior subsidiary title.

R319 Because, it has long been reported that HM and Phillip want Edward to be made Duke of Edinburgh, after Phillip's death.

There's no way that hot piece Beatrice is engaged to is interested in her only for her looks and charm. Foreign people always put more stock in royal titles and celebrity than locals do, which is why she had to go out of the country to get a wealthy man. At best she's a 4 looks-wise, but with the royal titles she's a warm 6. He is an 8, and if you add in the money, a 10. If she has to step back further from her royal duties or has some of HER privileges reduced, out she goes.

Locals would fall over themselves to bag a royal. Look at the Middletons. The issue is that girls like B would turn their noses up at the thousands of hotter, working class, big-dicked, men that populate their islands because they don't come form the right stock of people. It is never a real challenge for a wealthy white woman to find a man. He may not be on her social economic level, but there are plenty of men willing to give it a go.

R310. The Royal family should have been using Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie as working royals for all these engagements at least on a limited basis, not just the token appearances they make. They are HRH, young and willing. The Gloucesters, Kents and Princess Alexandra are getting along in years and can't make all these appearances.

I understand right now it's rather awkward to use Bea and Eug; however, why haven't they been used for the past several years? Same goes for Autumn and Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall. Put them to work, at least on a limited basis. The Firm doesn't have to break the budget paying them huge amounts of money, just nominal amounts. They're young and just the kind of royals the public wants to see. Why hasn't the queen used them...and why has Charles continued to block using them?

Anne's children aren't royal. They have 0 titles.

R327, I agree, Beatrice and Eugenie are charismatic, and shouldn't be blamed for their parents' misbehaviors. They've been put through the wringer, much more than MM, and manage to show up and speak confidently and professionally, when necessary. I've admitted to being one of the people who used to mock them, but I don't do that anymore. I really do think it's sad that Andrew and Sarah raised them to expect so much. But I don't enjoy watching anyone suffer.

[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.]

R330 - That was absolutely the Alpha and Omega moment of the York Girls Bad Dress Chromosome display.

Eugenie looke like a trans Peter Pan.

Bea looked like the monster the atomic rays transformed in a 1950s sci fi flick. "She was an experiment gond wrong! Now, Half Woman and Half Toilet Seat, she terrorises London!"

I would watch the shit out of that R331

^^*gone wrong.

I think the York Girls were just having a larfe (as people here do), and it became inflated. I remember reading that the Queen was quite offended by the outfits. I was appalled at the time (seriously, I couldn't believe what I was seeing) but I think they were just having fun, and foisting themselves up at the time. I have become their biggest fan on DL. Maybe anywhere. Get that Italian dick,Bea! Get that tall, hairy chest, Eugenie!

R334 Choosing one of the most public moments of your life to purposely look like a fashion reject? That's a self own.

I did think they looked very nice at the Sussex wedding and Euge made a lovely bride.

R332 - ohhhh, too clever by half!

r326 you're completely missing the point. He is wealthy - wealthier than Beatrice is. I'm sure there's plenty of local working class guys who would go for a royal, but he is not working class. He's already on her economic level. With her he's basically buying a social entrance into London society, or so he thinks.

Yes, Eugenie did pull it off at her own wedding, and it's true that the rest of Bea's outfit at the Cambridge wedding was perfect - but who could tell under that hat?

I think the York sisters are mostly whimsical. But when they get serious, they can be beautiful. Eugenie's wedding is evidence of that. Who knew she had that in her? I hope Bea also can figure out how to spin things in her favor. She'll be marrying an absolutely gorgeous, wealthy man. One of the unmentioned factors in Eugenie's wedding was Jack Brooksbank. He was so very cute, and nervous, and earnest, that is was hard not to fall in love with him. We noticed his hairy chest, but didn't want him to be so shy that he cancelled out. He didn't, but the eyes brimming with tears made (a few of us) fall in love with him.

R337 - can you provide any links that document the supposed wealth of Edo? I have read that he is a rather small-time property developer in London. If you google search his father, there is very little to be found, and certainly no stories that indicate Pappa Edo is wealthy.

From the NYT re Edo's company:

"That private client business has since been combined with a series of Banda’s own property developments, in which the 14-employee firm has specialized in converting nonresidential buildings into apartments."

14 person business? Very small time development company.

His stepfather may have wealth, but stepfathers leave their wealth to their biological heirs, so stepfather's wealth is irrelevant.

R339 Jack is 100% my type. He looks better with glasses than without.

Euge, if you want to get the focus of Dad, leak a sex tape!!

r340 first link in Google

[quote]He's definitely not in it for Beatrice's wealth—he's got plenty of his own.

[quote]Mozzi founded real estate firm Banda in 2007, and serves as its CEO to this day. The company specializes in finding and developing homes for wealthy clients. It must be doing well, as Mozzi is reportedly a multi-millionaire.

He doesn't need his stepfather to leave him anything, his stepfather already set him up in business, and he likely sold to his parents' associates network to get started, and now he's a multimillionaire.

He's basically a salesman. Like the Million Dollar listing guys who sell to their parents' associates network to start. He would have been in Bea's circle from that alone, and he's social climbing further up London society with this marriage.

At the time of Eugenie's wedding, the sisters combined only have a net worth of around $3.6 million, so they aren't exactly "wealthy", just well off.

[quote]The York sisters have always been somewhat of a mystery when it comes to their job, salaries and money – given that they do not work in an official capacity for the Queen in the same way that Catherine, William, Meghan and Harry do.

[quote]But their estimated worth is certainly nothing to sniff at. In total, it’s estimated that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie together have a net worth of £3.6 million, as reported in OK! magazine.

[quote]And it’s now been revealed that when Eugenie marries her fiance Jack Brooksbank, the pair will have a pretty impressive combined net worth themselves.

[quote]It’s thought that Jack has two sources of income. His main one comes from his job as brand ambassador for Casamigos Tequila company (founded by George Clooney, nonetheless). According to Paysa, the job is likely to pay around £45,000 a year.

[quote]Jack also has another side business, his wine merchant business Jack Brooksbank Ltd, which reportedly earns him around another £14,000 a year.

[quote]And while Eugenie’s fiance isn’t royal, he comes from a line of noblemen – the Brooksbank baronets. So there’s every chance that Jack has, or may soon, come in to some family money.

[quote]This means that Jack and Eugenie’s total shared income will be around the £2 million mark – certainly not too shabby.

A little more about Edo:

[quote]Mozzi has known from a young age that he wanted to go into property development, revealing that his mother Williams-Ellis was a commercial real estate executive. Williams-Ellis would take Mozzi along to properties and he previously told New York Times, ”I spent my childhood being dragged around to see sites.”

[quote]Although he opted to do a “masters in politics” at university, he was focused on real estate. He said, “I used my holidays to do 10 to 15 internships with developers and property banks and legal firms and agencies, so I felt I had the big picture of the property sector.”

[quote]In 2016 he was awarded the One to Watch award at the YN Property Awards. Mozzi, who also goes by “Edo”, has a 2 year old son from a previous relationship.

[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.]

r345 He very likely has more than "a few million" since his company was founded in 2007 and he's been CEO of it since then. You obviously don't know how the real estate market works for the 1% or how much money there is in it. ESPECIALLY someone who already had connections, as Edo clearly did (which are needed to be truly successful). His mother being in the business just solidifies it.

I'm sure Bea wanted to land a billionaire, but she's not anywhere near attractive enough nor wealthy enough and the number of hot billionaire playboy sons around her age is very small. Mooching from much wealthier folk does not make you equally wealthy. She's been trading on her name and titles since day 1. And poor Bea might get some free vacations, but she's not wealthy herself - "a couple million pounds" as you sniffed at.

But again, don't take just my word for it!

I'm not sure why you're so intent on defending her.

R328. Anne's children don't have titles, but they are in the succession line for the throne, granted, far down the line, but they are in it. They could be used for some appearances.

R331. Bea and Eug's outfits to Will's wedding was eight years ago. Let's move on, please. Besides, Will didn't invite the girls' mother to the wedding, Will and Kate deserved to have Bea and Eug show up wearing barrels. Will was an asshole for what he did.

The stan wars have moved over to the York sisters. How fun!

Her husband is too good looking for her, this will only end in tears, adultery, and alcohol. He would be the hottest man in the immediate family. Perhaps we should let the York Girls, and their husbands, do some work with the Firm.

'Will was an asshole for what he did.'

He's an asshole in many, many ways. Fergie was one of his mother's best friends. It's weird how even his fans portray Wills as ruthless and evil. Their biggest fantasy is Will disowning his brother right after his father dies, leaving William with no original family members at all, just poor Kate who he obviously bosses.

It's a bind. People bitch about the cost of monarchy but don't want to pay the price of too many full time royals. At the same time, you can't really let them roam the working world. Between the unscrupulous, conflicts of interest and tabloid stings the fun would never end.

Zara and Peter are related to the royal family, not working members. There is a difference.

Remember Bea used the hat notoriety for good. She auctioned it off and got $131,000 dollars for UNICEF UK and Children in Crisis.

Will didnt have to invite Fergie to his wedding if he didnt want to. And if the York Girls looked like shit to get "revenge", they just played themselves.

R351 true

r352 none of the royals "has" to do anything, but what's expected of them is an entirely different matter. He should have invited Aunt Fergie.

Edo is going to bail. It's just all too complicated now; pervy, future father-in-law who is cut off from his grifter's income and is a pariah in the royal family and virtually everywhere in the world.

Edo will make a statement that he must focus on his son right now.

[quote]Edo will make a statement that he must focus on his son right now.

Edo will make a statement that his cataract surgery was a success....

Edo will be fine. There’s plenty of wealthy women in the world who’d like to be an Italian Countess, even if the husband isn’t loaded.

I doubt Edo's gonna bail, if he's in real estate, he probably needs her network for his business. You never know, he could have all his money tied up in properties and up to his neck in mortgage loans etc. who knows?

They need each other.

Edo needs Bea's network for business, as does his ex, Dara. She's been practically salivating at the new levels of attention her royal-adjacent status will bring her firm as well. She's dropped all kinds of stories about her son receiving etiquette training in anticipation of meeting the Queen at the wedding - even though he's only 2 years old lol.

Edo will be fine. Bea is still the granddaughter of the Queen and the niece of the future King. It’s an exciting circle. Besides, even the worst scandals have a way of blowing over eventually.

[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.]

Everything passes eventually. Edo, if he is clever, will take the long view. He didn't just appear out of nowhere: he and Bea have known each other all their lives, have a large circle of friends in common, and his parents have known the Yorks for all of Bea's life. He can't just bail without sacrificing a huge amount of social capital, especially in London, where it counts.

In three-five years, people will have stopped talking about Andrew, have moved on to the Queen either dying or making Charles Regent and the "new broom" coming in, the Cambridges will possibly have become Prince and Princess of Wales, or simply look as if they are, and either way will have an 11 year old heir on the verge of puberty, and the Sussexes will either have stopped the crap or departed with their two kids in tow.

Edo's children will still be great-grandchildren of a British Sovereign and in the line of succession, however far down. And if Andrew gives up his, and Harry his place for himself and his descendants, Edo's children will suddenly be closer than anyone might have predicted.

No, unless Edo is a complete fool, he'll stay and nobly keep the side up to demonstrate his bona fides.

Wow, so Edo's ex is Asian? Now, we all know what that means on DL, one step from being gay!

[quote]Besides, even the worst scandals have a way of blowing over eventually.

But in this case the BRF seems not to believe that. Andrew's unprecedented demotion acknowledges his dubious unstable reputation.

Even if it does 'blow over' in the light of later bigger events, that interview and all it entailed will never go away. The way that people on this thread and others instantly reference past Royal scandals proves this.

In all the ways which count in his limited head, he's basically finished. Conceivably he could just about reclaim a reputation he never had in the first place by doing exceptional good works.

This I don't particularly expect, given who he thinks he is - heavy-hitting international playboy and businessman - and given his stupid greedy beaming enabling ex-wife.

Prince Andrew’s socialite ex is considering penning an explosive tell-all book — including details of a dinner party with Jeffrey Epstein attended by both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, it was claimed Thursday.

Lady Victoria Hervey, 43, has already been doing interviews discussing her brief fling with the Duke of York and how it threw her into the heart of Epstein’s depraved world.

She says she was introduced to the pedophile by his accused madam Ghislaine Maxwell — who she likened to a James Bond character — and feels she only escaped Epstein’s clutches because she was “too old.”

But Hervey kept back many of the juiciest details, which she now could put in an explosive book that could further embarrass the disgraced duke, according to The Sun.

“There is a lot that she has never revealed about the Royal family, members of high society and big-named stars,” a source close to her told the paper.

“She’s done many interviews but has always kept many things under her belt.

“She feels like now is the right time to get some things off her chest — including about Prince Andrew, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

“She’d been a part of that social scene for many years.”

Hervey’s “really explosive life” also includes “debauched drug-fueled parties, threesomes with celebrities — all sorts,” the source told The Sun of her book plans.

“She has had a lucrative offer to write a book and she’s definitely considering it,” the source said.

Hervey was 23 in 1999 when she says Epstein’s ex Maxwell — a loyal friend of Andrew’s — set her up for a date with the royal in 1999.

One of the most bizarre evenings of that period included an intimate dinner in London with Andrew and Epstein that was also attended by now-bitter rivals Trump and Clinton, she previously told The Mirror.

She believes she was filmed by secret cameras when she stayed at one of Epstein’s Manhattan properties and feels lucky to have not become one of his alleged victims.

“It’s horrifying. It could have been me – but maybe I was too old,” she told The Mirror.

I'll read the shit out of that memoir . . .

[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.]

If Brexit becomes a reality and their best option is a trade agreement with the United States any agreement will most certainly be rigged in our favor and we will wield that advantage brutally like we always do. How likely is it that we would move to destroy any significance the monarchy has?

if you can find it, I urge everyone to find the issue of Vanity Fair a few years ago when they so an expose on Andrew. It was pretty eye opening, I had no idea what a supreme douche he was. I thought he was fun loving Andy, instead it paints him as an insufferable spoiled boor.

R367 not very likely. Americans tend to like the BRF. And, our politicians like going to London and getting the royal treatment and hosting the Royals here, for prestige. And it doesn’t fall along partisan lines either, Obama liked it and Trump does, too. I think we like them because with the language and shared history, we feel connected to them, without having any responsibility for them.

Sometimes scandals only blow over because of what you do in response.

This one, r368?

Thank you 371.

It's cold and raining here in LA and I've got a few hours before I'm expected at dinner.

I'm going to snuggle up and read this.

R367 and R369 Much of that agreement (which will need to get through the US Congress) is dependent on the goodwill of the US Irish lobby which will be watching events along the Irish border and the ease of access for RoI trade with the UK. If there are issues with either (and as now envisioned it's so jerry-rigged it'll be amazing if there aren't) Boris will get nowhere. If he gets an agreement, it will be subject to regular review.

It's not going to be rigged in the UK's favor and any effort by the UK to wield the few advantages it might contain are going to be brutally shot down by the Americans.

[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] I understand right now it's rather awkward to use Bea and Eug; however, why haven't they been used for the past several years? Same goes for Autumn and Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall. Put them to work, at least on a limited basis.

These people all have well paid JOBS that they can't just leave to cut ribbons on supermarkets. You act as if petty tedious royal engagements are what everyone aspires to.

[QUOTE] This one, [R368]?

Yes, thanks. He comes off really badly in the article.

r375 oh PLEASE. They leave for vacations every fifteen minutes. "Jobs" is an overstatement.

BRF meddling in government agencies to protect Prince Andrew. Again.

r371 It's interesting to note that the Mail cover pictured in the 2011 VF story looks almost identical to the Mail's headlines today. Same photo of Andrew and Virginia with Ghislane, same message about Epstein trafficking - only the date and font are different.

So not only the BRF, but the entire UK has been aware of this entire situation since at least 2011? Why wasn't there a public ruckus kicked up back then? I mean, AND a VF expose (back in 2011 VF still had a reputation for faultlessly researched investigative stories). So the world public really has known about all of this since at least 2011? And the only change is that Epstein is dead? What else has changed?

Genuinely curious as to why now, but not then.

#MeToo, Epstein's arrest and his, um, suicide. That's why, R379

[quote] The Royal family should have been using Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie as working royals for all these engagements at least on a limited basis, not just the token appearances they make. They are HRH, young and willing. The Gloucesters, Kents and Princess Alexandra are getting along in years and can't make all these appearances

You are wrong. So stop it. You continually post this nonsense. The York girls on their own might be okay, but the fact of the matter is, that where ever they go, their drunken fool of a mother isn't far behind. The entire York family has extremely sketchy friends. The less we see of all of them the better.

Despite Andrew being a pariah, that did nothing to stop the daughters and the drunken fool of an ex-wife from parading themselves out in public the last few days, not giving two shits about the optics of the media printing pictures of them out grinning and smiling. Sarah had to make a fucking fool of herself showing up to Buckingham palace hung over as fuck, without any makeup on and waving to people

The four of these fucks don't have a single brain cell to share

[quote] I thought he was fun loving Andy, instead it paints him as an insufferable spoiled boor.

Lots of people having been saying this here for over a decade. Vanity Fair also did a story on epstein liking teenagers in 2003

This did nothing to stop the Queen from inviting them to events/parties at her palaces. The whole story about Andrew raping an underage sex slave has been public knowledge for a decade. The british press reported it, but didn't press the issue. They just put Virginia's accusation and Andrew's denial. And that was it. And they did it in exchange for interviews with royal staff or in exchange for bad stories about certain members of the royal family. It was definitely Quid Pro Quo

In 2016 the BRF threatened to block an interview with William and Kate in order to shut down an ABC news story about Epstein because it mentioned Prince Andrew.

Wonder how William feels about that.

In 2016 the BRF threatened to block an interview with William and Kate in order to shut down an ABC news story about Epstein because it mentioned Prince Andrew.

Wonder how William feels about that.

What interview did William and Kate ever do with ABC? This doesn't wash. They really do interviews, and when they do, it's with British outlets in support of their causes, like Heads Together. Why the fuck would W&K be doing an interview with ABC?

R385 More than actual interviews per se with ABC, it might have to do with ABC airing major British interviews/royal documentaries in the US. Over the years, ABC seems to be the preferred US outlet for the airing of such things, most recently they aired the Harry and Megan African one. I figure that the relationship started due to Prince Charles' friendship with Barbara Walters and has continued.

[QUOTE] Sarah had to make a fucking fool of herself showing up to Buckingham palace hung over as fuck, without any makeup on and waving to people

It was a terrible, TERRIBLE mistake. She looked like the walking dead, I can’t believe she couldn’t put some eyeliner and some blush on. She rarely gets to Buckingham Palace, it would have been nice to look like she didn’t crawl out of bed.

Eugenie has great taste in men, her Jack is fucking adorable. He clearly adores her too.

[quote]So not only the BRF, but the entire UK has been aware of this entire situation since at least 2011? Why wasn't there a public ruckus kicked up back then?

There was a slew of careful but sharp press articles about Andrew/Epstein around the time of William's wedding in 2011. The press was letting Andrew know what they knew. There's a reason he often looked like death warmed up around all the other beaming faces at William's big day; and it wasn't just because his comical ex-wife hadn't been invited.

The sense one gained from the pressure was that much was known about Andrew, but that from some sort of respect for the BRF moving forward - Queen ageing, new Queen in waiting - all that was known might just be held back. But he was on a final warning.

Since then the story has been simmering, perhaps with no good enough reason to be revived decisively. There was though as I recall the fact of a writ being sent for the first time ever to Buckingham Palace, which was ignored.

But then, yes - MeToo, Epstein suicided, and finally the big lit match to ignite the 'ruckus' - That Interview. Andrew was played, and the bonfire blazes.

Thanks r389. That explanation makes far more sense than the "it's because #metoo and Epstein's dead" explanation someone above offered. Yours makes far more sense.

I find it hard to understand why Andrew didn't temper his behaviour out of consideration for the queen and the consequences for his daughters. In the excellent VF article, it notes that he is very loyal to his friends and Epstein had been his friend for 20 years. It also notes that he doesn't like to be told what to do. Bu I would have though family considerations would trump that. And for what - to have sex with underaged prostitutes? Surely that could have been managed more discreetly.

"Eugenie has great taste in men, her Jack is fucking adorable. He clearly adores her too."

Alas, he is - relatively speaking - penniless. His father is an accountant so no major inheritance either.

I think Eugenie was betting on the continued flow of filthy lucre from her Pa's unsavory Russian/Eurasian pals and thus did not place a priority on finding a rich man. Unlike Pippa who was razor-focused on that task.

Yes but there was a relatively recent Baronetcy which means Jack's family had land, r392. In Britain, land is incredibly valuable, so there is definitely wealth in the family, just probably tied up in assets.

R34, It's not like glum jaw-clenching William or haughty fake-smiling Kate inspire any "hope or joy," either. They do not exude empathy or the common touch.

As for Andrew, his hedonistic days are over, as Charles is about to basically cut him out of the Inner Circle and off the balcony forever. Bug-eyed Bea is further scaling down her ill-fated marriage to an obvious grifter who is no doubt watching these Andrew/Epstein stories unfold with trepidation in his wallet.

Moreover, there are some other powerful men who are watching carefully, for Andrew certainly has stories to tell of them.

Trump, Clinton, Barr (and his late father, Jeffrey's first benefactor), Dershowitz,....

David Icke threw in the absurd-sounding "lizard shape-shifters" to indicate the use of drugs on the victims and to remain alive while revealing to the villains that he knew the truth about their depravity and crimes. Plausible deniability that maybe it was ALL crazy fiction.

But he told all of us. The truth has been out there for decades.

Bunga-bunga. Grab'em at Mar-a-Lago, Dubai, the Caribbean, on a plane, on a yacht, on a massage table.

Men who didn't partake. Never noticed anything amiss, not even all the displayed photos of nude females in Jeffrey's many domiciles. Never wondered why so many Epstein soirees included teen girls, other than that "he like(d) them on the young side."

Men who wanted what Jeffrey and Ghislaine provided, procured: financial help; under-age sex; illicit drugs. Sybaritic vacations from morality, fit for a modern-day Tiberius.

Oh, these men are lizard shape-shifters, all right. They return to us and speak as humans, in disguises of decency and upholders of the realm, as it were. Men we are supposed to look up to, if we would see only the disguise, a consummation they all now devoutly wish.

Andrew is their sacrificial goat being offered to us, the scapegoat they hope we will be contented with, for his worth to them and to us is as nothing.

One should open one's eyes wider and look higher.

^ ....O-K.

"It's not like glum jaw-clenching William or haughty fake-smiling Kate inspire any "hope or joy," either. They do not exude empathy or the common touch."

Odd, they are both far more popular than Meghan, Charles, Cammilla, Anne, and Philip.

And all their smiles are fake because no one really smiles all the time whilst in public, except for royals, who are taught to do it all the time unless they are at a funeral or other sombre occasion, like Remembrance Day.

Otherwise, they are taught to do just that: smile, smile, smile, smile at the crowds, smile at the photogs, smile at their hosts at the official event, the kids/elders in beds, as they congratulate staff of organisations on jobs well done . . .

Kate's smile is no less fake than the other royals: it's what they do. Diana was once overheard hissing at Sarah Ferguson as she took her around either shortly after or just before the engagement was announced, "Smile, for God's sake!"

The only person who always looked natural at it, no one can quite figure it out, was the Queen Mother.

The rest of them are always putting it on, all the time.

Does Anne ever smile?

R394, Icke believes most powerful people are literally lizards, he has said this many times. Also he is a total arse. Holocaust denier/homophobic/antisemitic/AIDs denier/anti vaxxer and overall nutjob who went on tv claiming to be the son of God. Of course he was right about Saville he worked at the BBC at the same time for years. Just bbecause he called that right doesn't mean every other word he spouts isn't bollocks.

[quote]Andrew is their sacrificial goat being offered to us, the scapegoat they hope we will be contented with, for his worth to them and to us is as nothing.

1) Andrew offered himself. 2) Nobody thinks he was Epstein's only famous friend and will suffice as a scapegoat. 3) The Queen's second son in the scheme of things is not 'as nothing.' Otherwise DL and the press wouldn't be all over this story.

[bold]Scotland Yard holds talks with FBI over sex claims[/bold] (London TIMES, 29 November)

Scotland Yard is assisting the FBI with a wide-ranging investigation into sex trafficking by the Duke of York’s paedophile friend Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. The Metropolitan Police has confirmed for the first time that its officers have had discussions with the FBI in connection with an investigation into co-conspirators who are suspected of assisting Epstein to traffic and abuse women, an inquiry that is continuing despite his prison-cell suicide in August. In a lengthy statement that will cause further discomfort for Buckingham Palace, the Met set out details yesterday of its involvement in inquiries into the billionaire paedophile and former friend of the duke, as well as his British associate Ghislaine Maxwell.

One of those who claims she was abused by Epstein is Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre), who says that she was trafficked to London in March 2001 and made to have sex with Prince Andrew. The duke, 59, who was pictured with Ms Giuffre at Ms Maxwell’s London house in 2001, has consistently denied having sex with her. The Met did not disclose details of information it might have shared with the FBI, or whether the exchanges had included any discussion of Prince Andrew, who visited Epstein’s homes across the US and invited Ms Maxwell and him to Windsor Castle and Sandringham.

As well as confirming that it was assisting the FBI, the force sought to explain why it had failed to start a full criminal investigation into Ms Giuffre’s claims in 2015. The Met said that despite receiving a criminal complaint against Epstein and Ms Maxwell, made in July that year by Ms Giuffre, it did not open a full investigation because the alleged illegal conduct mainly took place overseas. Scotland Yard said that it had spent more than a year examining the complaint by Ms Giuffre, including obtaining permission to travel to the US to interview her, before deciding in November 2016 not to proceed with a full British inquiry. It is understood that the complaint did not include any criminal allegations against the prince.

R389 It’s been speculated that Charles excluded Andrew from the balcony at the Queen’s diamond jubilee celebrations in 2012 for the same reasons.

R401 - If so, that shows Charles' good sense.

That said, I doubt it. I think that was Charles' first message about his intent to, as we are now so delightfully calling it, "Swedenising" the monarchy and making it clear where the line was.

Of course, at the time, he couldn't know that one day Harry might be off that line, as well.

[quote] Barr (and his late father, Jeffrey's first benefactor)

As much as you might dislike the Attorney General, tying him into the Epstein mess is the laziest guilt by association there is. Bill Barr has never been accused of having any sort of relationship with Epstein or his “business.” As for his father, his only known connection was hiring a young man as a teacher, at a private school he led. Even if, as some have suggested, Epstein had molested girls at the school, it would have nothing to do with the older Barr as he left shortly after hiring Epstein and before he actually started teaching.

r379 Exactly what I was thinking. While reading the Vanity Fair article I realized that story is the same one they are telling now almost verbatim. So eight years ago this same shit came out then. . . nothing.

Why now is THE question.

Do "they" (whoever that is) need a sacrificial lamb to keep the focus off of others? And if that is why, did they really need a sacrificial lamb? I think if they let the Epstein story just die no one would mention it again. Seems like "they" are creating more attention to this whole thing than they should want by dragging Andrew through the muck.

The Epstein story was hardly going to die any time soon. The jail employees have been indicted, the investigation of what was found in Epstein's NYC townhouse is ongoing, the FBI is working with Scotland Yard (who are also reopening the investigation as to why the Metropolitan Police dropped their plans for a fuller investigation into Andrew in 2016), Ms Maxwell is said to be willing to cooperate, Andrew has offered to talk to the FBI and all of this is taking place in an atmosphere totally different that that in 2011: post #metoo, post Weinstein, post #timesup, post "pussy-grabbing," post Presidents paying off strippers and PMs having screaming rows with the girlfriends that make the news (shall I go on?) Bill Clinton's in-office blow job was the exception two decades ago and it was a one-off: no enablers or conspiracy theorists needed to apply. Now it's clear that a lot of people were doing a lot of things ranging from tacky to hideous and until recently getting away with them.

The story about Andrew isn't deflecting attention from unnamed "Theys" but rather widening the scope of inquiries into who they are and what they did. Andrew shot himself with that interview. No one put him up to it except his assistant because anyone sane would know it was the worst possible thing he could do under the circumstances. But the idea that anyone could or would let the story die, let alone that no-one would mention it again beggars belief. That ship sailed long before Andrew threw himself overboard and it still has a long voyage before reaching port. Even when it does, it will go into the history books as one of the greatest scandals of this century.

Is Ms. Maxwell being charged with anything?

Guess "Lady Victoria" needs some cash?

Because BBC's 'Panorama' is known for chequebook journalism.

[QUOTE] That said, I doubt it. I think that was Charles' first message about his intent to, as we are now so delightfully calling it, "Swedenising" the monarchy and making it clear where the line was.

Hilarious that you basic fraus think that your beloved Swedenising will mean the monarch sacks his youngest child, the most popular royal (as Harry will be, when Liz kicks the bucket).

Walter Bagehot, the legendary expert on the English Constitution (which is unwritten but exists based on precedent of law), was also an expert on constitutional monarchy. His two most famous quote on the latter were:

"You must never let daylight in upon the magic"

"There are arguments for having a splendid court and arguments for having no court, but there are no arguments for having a mean court."

But in looking him up, I found two others that are instructive in the path to what may be the end of the Windsors, and which are, of course, related to the first quote above:

"The mystic reverence, the religious allegiance, which are essential to a true monarchy, are imaginative sentiments that no legislature can manufacture in any people."

And:

"The Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights - the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king of great sense and sagacity would want no others."

These are the precepts that for a very long time kept the Windsors going well past what one would have thought of as their likely Sell By Date.

It isn't as if there hasn't been in each generation a Rogues Gallery of mischief makers, louts, idiots, and spoilt twats. just as there is now.

But all four of those precepts have, in the modern era, been violated along with the Rogues Gallery. Charles violated the last one in attempting to meddle in politics (to a lesser extent, Harry and Meghan are also guilty of this).

You can sustain an imperfect royal dynasty with those precepts in mind, but not without them.

He was a canny old bastard.

The Windsors should have listened to him, but lost their way in the wilds of modernity some time in the 1990s, and I don't think they can get them back.

[QUOTE] Because BBC's 'Panorama' is known for chequebook journalism.

No it isn't, stupid Welp Troll.

[quote]No it isn't, stupid Welp Troll.

That was my point, Helen Keller. Better luck on DL next time.

r391

[quote]In the excellent VF article, it notes that he is very loyal to his friends and Epstein had been his friend for 20 years.

Sometimes I think the phrases "loyal to his friends" or "values loyalty above all" are code for "I have a financial relationship with them and I can't distance myself due to a scandal."

r392

[quote] I think Eugenie was betting on the continued flow of filthy lucre from her Pa's unsavory Russian/Eurasian pals

If more attention was paid to the Yorkies, we may find unflattering information about them. With Andrew and Fergie as parents, I do not believe the apples fell far away from the tree. Granted, Bea and Eugenie have some structural advantages in terms of scandal potential. They are more discreet than their parents, probably b/c they were not the moneymakers, and their lack of star power makes them uninteresting to the tabloids. The celebrity press has written more about Pippa than both sisters combined.

r394

[quote]It's not like glum jaw-clenching William or haughty fake-smiling Kate inspire any "hope or joy," either. They do not exude empathy or the common touch.

On the contrary, Will, Kate and the wonder children are a PR force to be reckoned with. If there was ever time for the Cambridge offspring to be trotted out, that time is now.

r404

[quote] Why now is THE question. Seems like "they" are creating more attention to this whole thing than they should want by dragging Andrew through the muck.

I think the Why Now and Why Andrew (not all the others accused by Virginia) has never been clearly explained. Granted Andrew is globally famous, unlike Dershowitz or NM Governor what's his name, and is so colossally stupid that he makes an excellent, easy target.

[QUOTE] Oh, these men are lizard shape-shifters, all right. They return to us and speak as humans,

Oh, hi Poo!!!

"Odd, they are both far more popular than.....Anne......."

Highly disagree, r395.

r414, You do get metaphors, do you not?

Oh, r403, you naive Kay. Barr Visited JE shortly before the latter's ruled suicide.

"They went home and sat in a hot bath and opened their veins, and bled to death. Sometimes they gave a little party before they did it. Don't worry about anything, Frankie Five Angels."

"Thanks, Tom. Thanks."

R404 is upset that this is being brought up. He thinks it should be swept under the carpet and Andrew shouldn't have to pay for his crimes

[quote] I think the Why Now and Why Andrew (not all the others accused by Virginia) has never been clearly explained.

You're not paying attention. Virginia Roberts Giuffre hired a lawyer (David Bois - great attorney) to sue ghislaine maxwell for defamation. Bois investigated epstein's sweet heart deal (escaping hundreds of felony charges that would have put him away for life) where he was only charged with one or two crimes and was given work release where he was allowed to do as he pleased and was even allowed to have a teenager visit him at the jail. Bois is very powerful and he went to the FBI about the corruption and how far and wide this scandal was. The FBI originally started this investigation into who arranged the plea deals and why the sheriff aided and abetted jeffrey epstein in a few dozen felony sex crimes. So now that the officials who were behind epstein getting away with hundreds of felonies are being investigated, the women have come forward and are suing him (now his estate) and ghislaine maxwell. Those are two separate issues. I think the Miami Herald has really done some groundbreaking journalism on this case. Bois and the reporter (Julie K Brown) were synergistic in this coming out. The newspaper has never given up on this

[quote] I think the Why Now and Why Andrew (not all the others accused by Virginia) has never been clearly explained.

You're not paying attention. Virginia Roberts Giuffre hired a lawyer (David Bois - great attorney) to sue ghislaine maxwell for defamation. Bois investigated epstein's sweet heart deal (escaping hundreds of felony charges that would have put him away for life) where he was only charged with one or two crimes and was given work release where he was allowed to do as he pleased and was even allowed to have a teenager visit him at the jail. Bois is very powerful and he went to the FBI about the corruption and how far and wide this scandal was. The FBI originally started this investigation into who arranged the plea deals and why the sheriff aided and abetted jeffrey epstein in a few dozen felony sex crimes. So now that the officials who were behind epstein getting away with hundreds of felonies are being investigated, the women have come forward and are suing him (now his estate) and ghislaine maxwell. Those are two separate issues. I think the Miami Herald has really done some groundbreaking journalism on this case. Bois and the reporter (Julie K Brown) were synergistic in this coming out. The newspaper has never given up on this

Here's the Herald's epstein articles

R417 I hate to say this but that is "fake news."

It's kind of interesting that since Charles returned to the UK earlier this week, the leaks have stopped.

r419 - I understand what you are saying. But why Andrew instead of the others. And how did Virginia end up with a powerhouse atty. like David Bois, someone who previously defended Weinstein and his ilk. I understand the Miami Herald did an amazing job.

If I understand you, the sequence of events went like this --

1. Trump gets elected and there's is an old sexual accusation by a minor agst him.

2. The Herald pulls at that string and Epstein's crimes tumble out and overwhelm the original accusation.

3. Within the Epstein crimes are a few of interest

a. The sweetheart deal involving Sec of Labor Acosta (who resigned almost immediately)

b. The immunity given Epstein's clients

c. Some girls who are willing to come forward.

4. Of the girls willing to come forward AND who had first hand experience with clients, Virginia & Andrew are most newsworthy.

5. Ergo, press obsession with Andrew.

All this does have a feel of look over here and not over there to it though.

R425 - What more could there be to there than here at this point?!

Isn't here bad enough as it is?

[quote] What more could there be to there than here at this point?! Isn't here bad enough as it is?

There are rumors of children in addition to teenagers. After an orgy starts, no one kicks out the 14 year-old for being underage. And, well, certain things go together. For example, if I sell cars, I probably also market pre-owned cars, trucks, parts and, perhaps, motorcycles. Same with a liquor store - it likely offers wine, beer, spirits, cigarettes, some even features specialty foods and glassware.

If some one is trafficking teenagers above the age of consent but under 18, then I assume that person is also trafficking teenagers under the age of consent: 13-15 years-old. Children come next. I find anyone who believes Epstein was a sticker for the rules incredibly naïve.

But the most important [bold]MORE[/bold] is the participants. People like Trump, Clinton, top lawyers, politicians, business men. Why - because they have real power. Andrew does not. Perhaps the investigation has focused on Andrew b/c he's a worldwide celebrity that is relatively powerless.

I think it was focused on Andrew r427 because he is the only big named Brit on that continually pops up since his laundry was aired out a decade ago. If David Beckham was one of the people with a documented history of hanging out with Epstein, he would also be drummed out of the spotlight. That teenager specifically named Andrew. The case was basically closed for the other big named attendees when Epstein was murdered.

r422, Believe what you want. Sounds like someone got to the blabbermouth, to me.

[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.]

R430 - I don't find the information shocking, what I find shocking is the idea that our, er, information services didn't report this to the BP and not point out the danger to the monarchy of it being, inevitably, uncovered.

R429 - Fair points; however, the issue is proof of Andrew's direct involvement. Bringing someone to trial depends on an prosecutor believing there is enough evidence to get a grand jury indictment in America and then a conviction that can stand up to the threshold of "reasonable doubt".

Trump and Clinton being involved I think had been mentioned very early on - but again, without proof, one has nothing but further smeared public reputations.

But legally, it all hinges on proof of direct involvement in the trafficking itself. Accused of partaking of forbidden fruit, the men can always claim that Epstein told them the girls were 17, and/or that the girls looked much older than 14.

I don't think any of the men named here will ever spend a nano-second in jail.

But as for the topic of this thread: this annis horribilus will dwarf 1992 for Her Majesty. She may not want to move aside, but she may have to save the monarchy, and to indicate that new management is going to muck out the stables. Andrew has to be permanently removed from public view.

The Sussexes, however, have probably both benefited and suffered from the gathering winds of the Andrew debacle. On the one hand, it makes their mishandling of their roles look to be of minor importance, thus, giving them the boot may in turn look petty. On the other, it will bring home, as well, how utterly irrelevant to the core monarchy they are, and how any more whingeing will make them look like four year olds having tantrums. This probably won't sit well with the Duchess and might persuade her that they'd be better off out, anyway, as long as she cann make it look as if she's leaving more in sorrow than in anger, and it was all the fault of that terrible institution - after all, look what they let Andrew get away with?

God, the Windsors have played all of this so badly that it's taking on the outlines of Greek tragedy or Homer:

Betty as Hecuba; Philip as Priam; William as Hector; Kate as Andromache; Harry as Paris (or, alternatively, Orestes); Meghan as Helen (she'll like that); Andrew as Agamemnon; Fergie as Clytemnestra, murdering Andrew in the bath for ruining their kids social lives.

Jan Moir of the DM as Cassandra.

R415 - The truth according to YouGov. Wiliam and Harry are neck and neck, with Harry just managing a second place win, slipping from first to second behind the Queen from the last poll; William and Kate come in 3rd and 4th with approval ratings well over 50%; then comes Philip and Anne - with Meghan in 7th place and approval ratings well under 50%.

You have to remember we're talking about Britain, where taxpayers help foot the bill for these people's luxurious lives. The rest of the world may not appreciate the Queen or Kate's deliberately low-key, low-drama, dutiful Mother and Wife and Future Consort persona - but Britons due.

Harry is only holding on due to the Little Ginge Behind His Mum's Coffin cachet. A few more antics by the wife he brought in like the Trojan Horse to stick spears into the throat of his hated family, and that will be gone, too.

You might want to note that Britain is not losing any sleep about not reading about Meghan and Harry every day.

Damn this auto-correct . . . "but Britons do".^*

The youtube shot at [R329] has Princess Eugenie's profile a dead ringer for her mother. I've never seen a resemblance to their parents before. This one's amazing.

[quote] What more could there be to there than here at this point?!

There are million things that could be hidden in this scandal. For one thing, Epstein's wealth has never been adequately explained. Just when questions began to be asked, the Prince Andrew story burst on the scene. For another, UK, Israeli, and US security services surely had to know what was going on. And another: a CDAN (I know, I know) blind suggested that Charles was not blameless the scandal. It's naive to think that everything that is coming out is all there is to it.

Nice try 431. Keep Sussex out of it.

[quote] It's kind of interesting that since Charles returned to the UK earlier this week, the leaks have stopped.

It's a FACT that Charles loves to leak to the press. He used to have his employees exchange bad stories about William and Harry in exchange for good stories about camilla. He did the same with Diana. She did the same thing to him. The whole royal family does it. The queen even has employees that do this

[R435], I began composing a reply and erased it. Your post says exactly what I'm beginning to think: all this has been fully known and acknowledged for years; it's comparatively old news. And it's certainly wiped recent headlines off the front pages. To me, *that's* the news.

What was dropped from the headlines when this all resurfaced? Maybe that's the answer.

r431, Andrew might be Achilles, no? That heel, you know....

Here is an article that ran today in the New York Times "Jeffrey Epstein, Blackmail and a Lucrative ‘Hot List’"

There is a thread I'll link below.

Link to the thread on the latest Epstein article in the New York Times.

[QUOTE] Andrew as Agamemnon; Fergie as Clytemnestra, murdering Andrew in the bath for ruining

Beatrice as Iphigenia.

I don't know why people worry about them not doing the grunt work. it really is a hassle if they are turning up. a) nobody gives a flying fart. b) traffic needs diverting and normal coming and going is disrupted c) ridiculous shit that costs money, eg replacing carpets adding plantpots.

We don't need too many visits...a major bridge opening or somesuch but the rest is crap to make them appear useful.

What would be Charles' involvement in the scandal? He doesn't seem like the sybaritic type.

Charles might have adopted the ostrich posture for a while regarding his brother, but I doubt any direct involvement.

For all his faults he has a good nose for trash - witness his refusal to meet Trump - and would surely have had no reason to pretend to humour Epstein at all.

Charles's wide interests are in their way admirable, and leagues away from anything his brother is capable of, despite vast privilege. Andrew simply comes across as very common.

I can't remember if I read this upthread or in another RF topic here, but Andrew was asked during his tenure as trade ambassador by someone in the trade ministry office what contracts he secured for the UK . He could not name one. However, he appeared to be working for the Greek government funded by the UK taxpayer. I guess I do find this shocking because it is so blatant.

Can you imagine if Charles ordered an audit of Andrew's expenses and finances to see how his spending the public dime correlated to personal deals and cash inflow? Even better if Andrew is asked to reimburse the expenses -- airfare, luxury hotel rooms, lavish meals and libations, his security detail, etc,-- for those trips that resulted in personal gain. Now, THAT would go a long way to restoring some faith in the monarchy. Is this even a remote possibility? Charles would have he power to do it, right?

[quote]For another, UK, Israeli, and US security services surely had to know what was going on

Of course, at least on the US end. Part of the rationale given for Epstein's sweetheart deal brokered by then US Attorney in FL Alex Acosta (and eventual Secretary of Labor for Trump) is that he was a valuable CIA asset. At least Acosta resigned in disgrace.

Well, his father was a Greek Prince so maybe he can use that as an excuse. I'm joking.

r447 if they really want to restore the faith of the monarchy, strip him of his HRH title. But by the time Charles is Regent or King, this story will be old and no one will care. Just keep Andrew away from family gatherings. He doesn't even need to join them for church. Pretend to pray at home, because their actions prove that these people don't live by the teaching of their faith.

I was reading the King Felipe thread that touched on the crooked dealings of Infanta Elena and her husband. He went to jail for tax evasion while she was acquitted of the charges. However, even before their trial began she was stripped of her ducal title. Felipe had the sense to act quickly since the Borbon's popularity was plummeting. Would Charles take it this far?

[quote]On 12 June 2015, King Felipe VI officially deprived his sister of her dukedom, privately announcing his intention beforehand.[12][13] Pursuant to their meeting in person on 12 June Infanta Cristina wrote to the king (her brother) requesting the forfeiture of her noble title, immediately following which a royal decree to that effect was issued.[14][15][16][17]

R450 - Andrew could be stripped of his ducal title, but not his HRH. He was born with that as the son of the Sovereign. The ducal titles, on the other hand, are gifts of the Queen, usually bestowed on the wedding day. His HRH, however, is his by right of birth. He can be stripped of his ducal title and pressured to resign his place in the line of succession, but he keeps the HRH even if he goes into exile.

Nothing else is going to happen to him. He will lie low and make an appearance at his parents' funerals. Beatrice will postpone her wedding and quietly cancel it in a couple of months. I do not believe for a second that that guy will go through with the marriage now.

Edward VIII kept his HRH and the entire family HATED him

I read somewhere that Andrew may be stripped of all military rank, etc.

R452 - Either your reading comprehension is truly abysmal or I haven't explained things clearly enough.

You cannot strip way an HRH someone was born with. Whether the was made Duke of Windsor or not, he would have remained HRH Prince Edward after abdication. He had already become King in name BUT had not been crowned or anointed. Upon abdication, he went back to being HRH Prince Edward. The ducal title was an additional title. Royal dukedoms also carry the rank of Prince or Princess so he was HRH either way. It was his wife they were able to deprive of the HRH. Having not been born with one, her only shot at it was as the wife of an HRH. The new King issued Letters Patent stating that whilst Edward would become HRH The Duke of Windsor, his wife would be styled Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor.

It was a cheap shot - the settled rule is that wives take their rank and status from their husbands, just the way Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon did when she married HRH Prince Albert, Duke of York.

But Elizabeth was crowned and anointed and has no good reason to abdicate. She can't be demoted after being crowned and anointed; she can only appoint a Regent to help her carry the burden in her last years and demonstrate to the public without saying so that she knows the place needs cleaning up and she's too old and tired to do it.

Actually, they didn't hate him (Edward VIII) at the time. But they had little faith in him, his father least of all and after the Abdication they cut him off, they had to. They did, however, hate Wallis.

"After I am gone, the boy will ruin himself in 12 months."

It was just 11 months before George V's prediction about his heir was vindicated.

[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 hear Charles is getting ready to strip Andrew of his HRH. Wouldn't be surprised.

More from article at R455:

[quote] In an astonishing conflict of interests, the Prince allowed the Rowlands to shoehorn meetings into his official trade tours so they could expand their bank and woo powerful and wealthy clients. He also passed them private government documents they had no right to see. It can also be revealed that, at the time, Andrew co-owned a business with the Rowlands in a secretive Caribbean tax haven.

It was to be used to lure the Prince's wealthy Royal contacts to invest in a tax-free offshore fund. One email exchange reveals that when Andrew was facing the sack from his envoy role because of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, Rowland's son and business lieutenant, Jonathan, suggested their commercial activities could continue 'under the radar'. Andrew responded: 'I like your thinking.'

^second paragraph should also been in quote.

There are more specifics in the article. I wonder who's leaking these emails.

Charles as Regent must be licking his chops or having a dithering crisis about how to deal with possible criminal behavior in the Palace, and I ain't talking about Virginia Guiffree. Unreal how feckless the preternaturally stupid Andrew allowed himself to be. Providing restricted or secret documents from the government to potential rivals of said government?

How Is this not actually called internal ESPIONAGE regardless on the contents of the documents? Certainly the act of providing them to folks who might try to undercut their own government through insider information is totally fucked even by insider RF scandals. Or am I reading this entire situation incorrectly?

Andrew is a SPY against the United Kingdom? Of course, he doesn't see if this way, but he would be long in line of the many "useful idiots" foreign agencies have "turned" and used to compromise and undermine Western democracies.

Prince Andrew is another dupe like Carter Page who keep shambling around wondering "what did I do wrong" because their faculties are terribly faulty.

[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 headlines re Andrew's business dealings are truly horrific news for the BRF. The fallout will call into questin taxpayer funding for anyone not in the direct line of succession, and strict controls and oversight on those. What this also may call into question are the allegations that the Duchess of Sussex has been "merching" - that is, using her position to advertise brands in return for free or low-cost extravagant clothes and jewellery. There have been some murmurings also about her using her IG account to push brands for her friends.

It's a much lower level of exploitation of royal status, but if true, and the BRF have turned a blind eye to it over the last two years, in the current climate, that also may force action against the Sussexes. I.e., either you stop or you leave.

It really is as bad as it can be.

If the Queen tries to ride this out without a word, without making Charles Regent, without some indication to the public that the place is being cleaned up and it's everyone back on the straight and narrow, or else pushed out completely . . . she will be making the last great mistake of her reign.

Thinking TQ may have missed her opportunity to right the ship, r462. Virginia Roberts' interview tomorrow night should be the nail in the coffin for them. The media stories are never ending and frankly the BRF can't keep up with the 'media eruptions" on Pedrew. It's pretty hard to restore your reputation when your behaviour has been to silently stand by and enable your son's "unbecoming" behaviour. I suspect the BRF is quaking waiting for Ms Roberts' interview tomorrow night.

Prince Andrew has tarnished his mother's reign. And Charles has had enough of Andrew. She may have to step down sooner than we think.

Andrew has been morally out of control his whole adult life and never really been held accountable. It's like a tragic Greek play. And Elizabeth's exit will not be as grand as the world and Britain thought it would be.

Can the Royal Family recover?

R460 Reading comprehension is your friend. Government contacts are notoriously lucrative and the competition for getting the big ones is fierce. Andrew was sharing copies of the successful contracts with his cronies, thereby giving them unfair advantage in the contact review process (don’t know about the UK but in the United States that sort of behavior from a government employee is extremely illegal).

They can't force Andrew to give up the HRH, but they can privately threaten to ruin him if he doesn't 'voluntarily' give up the HRH, his place in the succession, and go live abroad somewhere.

From the latest issue of [italic]Private Eye[/italic]

An hour after the sacking of Prince Andrew, celebration drinks started flowing at the Rubens hotel, just across the road from Buck House. And the gleefully assembled anti-Andy flunkeys, past and present, think this is just the start of the tarnishing of Teflon, the prince who believed himself inviolable.

Now the question is what effect it will have on the rest of the family. Despite subsequent efforts by officials to distance her from the decision, the Queen did give her approval for the interview - and permission for it to be filmed at Buck House, giving it the full royal imprimatur, now a matter of much regret.

But she was bounced into doing so at the last minute thanks to the manouveing of Amanda Thirsk, "Andy's Angel" who has the temperament of a rottweiler with a thorn in its paw - and who lost her position as his private secretary in last week's fallout. Charles, on the brink of departing for India, also declared the interview would be a jolly good idea, despite the disastrous fallout from his own televised admission of adultery to Jonathan Dimbeley a quarter of a century ago.

Post-interview, things were very different. Even the Queen, who always thought Andrew could do no wrong, didn't put up much of a fight. Courtiers, determined to preserve the monarchy regardless of who gets trampled under foot, sparked into action. [italic]Clarence House also moved quickly to cover Charles's back, briefing friendly royal hacks that he had orchestrated Andrew's defenestration from a distance of 12,000 miles. The fact that Charles had approved of the interview went unmentioned.[/italic]

Stuck in New Zealand, Charles relied heavily on William - never a fan of bloated Uncle Andy - to keep him in the picture and deal with the queen. After an investiture at Buck House last week, William had lunch with her, loaded the pearl-handled revolver and told her to pass it on. There was no need for whisky as Andrew genuinely doesn't drink. But those who saw him in the gilded corridors after he was given the sack can testify that he certainly sweats these days.

[bold]The Mesmerizing Disgrace of Prince Andrew[/bold]

[quote]That veneer is crumbling. It’s not exactly a secret that the royal family is punishing Andrew because of his bad press, not his bad actions, accounts of which surfaced as long ago as 2015. Prince Charles, Vanity Fair reported, “has stayed silent about the interview, but multiple reports have emerged that he was less than pleased about his trip being overshadowed in the headlines.” According to Fox News, he’s angry that his environmental-awareness tour “has been completely overshadowed by the 59-year-old’s scandal impacting the British royal family.”

R467 - Wow!

Thank you.

What images!

"After an investiture at Buck House last week, William had lunch with her, loaded the pearl-handled revolver and told her to pass it on" !!!!!

I can't help remembering that when William was at Eton, he had a weekly lunch with the Queen, supposedly when she instructed him and helped him to understand the role he would be playing.

Sounds like he was paying attention.

[bold]Prince Charles demands crisis summit with Andrew so he can come clean on 'Epstein issue'[/bold]

The hypocrisy of this article is breath-taking.

r469, "whiskey and revolver" is a metaphor, often used around Westminster and Whitehall. Much like 'throwing oneself on one's sword'. To be handed a whiskey and a revolver is to be told to End It, whatever 'It' may be.

Yes, R471. I got that.

I understand there has not yet been an HRH being stripped of someone born an HRH. And I an unfamiliar with the British Constitution. Is it possible to set a precedent in Prince Andrew's case? I mean, let's just say Charles is truly and well disgusted with his brother's actions. I don't mean Charles alone, but somehow effecting some kind of one off action, stripping Andrew of his HRH.

Remember, history is full of weird twists and turns. It doesn't' seem too far fetched that this could happen to Andrew - to whom this has never occurred, I'm sure. Anybody familiar enough with the British Constitution able to comment on this?

Well, your response of "Wow!!!! What imagery!!!!" heavily implied, r469/r472, that you didn't get it all.

I don't think anyone in the BRF wants to start setting drastic precedents like removing an HRH from a 'Prince of the Blood", r473.

Besides, what would be the legal justification, and what purpose would it actually serve?

They just want him out of sight and not representing the Firm any longer. If he refuses to do what they ask now, the next step would be physical exile to another country, not any stripping of titles. He'd just go to Switzerland and stay there, that's all.

You're right, [R475], I was sort of brainstorming (but my brain can't storm. At least that's what the voices in there tell me). There's was even that handy dandy Instrument of Abdication for Edward VIII to simply sign and read on the air. I was wondering if things got so hotted up that there was a possibility of a one off stripping Andrew of his HRH. Pour encourager les autres.

The HRH is only really of value to the charities and other organisations he was patron of. It attracts donations and attention to their cause. If this selfish, ignorant boor is no longer to have a public role, he should give it up and go and play golf permanently. Nobody will miss him.

Well, true, but even in that extreme situation of Edward VIII's, where there was an actual abdication of duty by Edward, they still didn't strip him of his HRH. Or any of his titles, except the one he relinquished himself.

If they didn't do it to Edward, I think it's fairly off limits in general. They wanted him GONE, preferably never to be heard from again. With Andrew it's less cut-and-dried: they are partly embarrassed by him, but also partly embarrassed by their own mismanagement of the situation. They won't do anything drastic because in his case they just want quiet, not more attention drawn to the whole fiasco.

Thanks, [R478]. You make it clearer. Noel Coward said a statue of Wallis Windsor ought to be have erected in every town square in England for the service she did to the country by getting rid of Edward VIII. Can you imagine what her life was life to realise she'd married someone with zero intellectual curiosity? She did try to get away before they married, but it was too late. Christ, did she find life with the Duke to be worth all endless and lonely boredom? And then to be abused in her old age. What a life...

I see a parallel between Edward marrying Wallis and John marrying Yoko. Both women served as a surrogate mother, and both men put their wives between them and the public's scorn of them, more or less subjecting their wives to the shit they had to experience. Yoko was tough as nails, having forged ahead through racism against being Japanese, and misogyny directed at her for being an artist.

This is off topic, but if the assholes can go off on those other two royals, I'm not too terribly cast down. So, getting back to Yoko. Evidently her first meeting with John was the night before her show opened at Robert Fraser's Indica gallery. So you can imagine, Yoko is fraught, pealing with stress over getting everything just perfect (Robert Fraser didn't just put any old schlub up for an exhibition at his gallery). She's seeing to this detail and that detail. In walks Robert with john Lennon. Robert could've walked in with Jesus Fucking Christ for all she cared!

I know Yoko wasn't impressed with John. I'm sure she knew who he was, but my understanding, accd'g to Peter Brown's account, was that she kind of glared at John, as if to say, "You expect me to Beatle YOU when I've got a show opening in less than 24 hours?" The rest, as the lawyers say, is history... or infamy.

Yoko was a force in her own right, Wallis was... what exactly was Wallis? Besides what Queen Mary called her, "An adventuress"?

Yet again, a distinction has to be drawn between the HRH Andrew was born with, which does not flow from the Queen and is therefore not something she can "strip" him of. He got it by being the grandson of the Sovereign in the male line as well as by being born to a reigning Sovereign.

What she can strip him of is the title Duke of York, which also carries an automatic rank of HRH with it. It's a royal, rather than an "ordinary" ducal title, like the ones his father, William, Harry, and the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester carry. (Edward is still technically an HRH by birth but not by title, as he's waiting to inherit his father's ducal title of Edinburgh).

She can do that, but Andrew will still be HRH Prince Andrew. What his life will be like is anyone's guess, but he was born and will die a Royal Highness, however disgraced. The Queen can only take back what she herself as bestowed ("the fount of all honours" as the Sovereign is called).

I'm not sure I believe everything in the Private Eye piece. How would anyone have found out that Charles thought the interview a jolly good idea? He of all people knows his brother is thick as a plank - he's despised him for decades.

But where I do agree with everyone is that the future of the institution itself is a stake. TQ has to be seen to realise that letting things blow over is no longer an option, and that means a Regency. Parliament needs to deal with an Abdication crisis right now like it needs another Guy Fawkes plot.

So either a public announcement filled with mea culpas, assurances that closer watch will be kept on the work and spending of all members of the BRF supported by public funding in any way, and that Andrew will for the rest of his life be removed from public life and duties, or, alternatively, a Regency will be announced.

William is the person who somes out of this stronger rather than weaker, and that includes his obvious anger at his brother and sister-in-law. As long as we're on the subject of Charles' anger at his work being overshadowed, Harry and Meghan thought nothing of airing their list of woes on television whilst Kate and William were off on Foreign Office ordered work in Pakistan, and whilst Charles' programmme was also being aired.

I note that Private Eye hasn't said anything about the Sussexes blotting their copybooks, too.

The moment for the Sweden Plan is, I am afraid, upon the BRF now rather some day when the TQ's remarkable constitution finally gives out and Charles is on the Throne. Everyone who is outside the direct line of succession, which ends with Prince Louis of Cambridge, is removed from public duties and public funding, have got to be told to go off and earn their own living. The hardworking Gloucester and Kent and Pss. Anne - Anne will have funds from her mother, and Charles will ensure that his cousins are decently paid off and given Grace and Favour residences for the rest of their lives. The Sussexes will, or should be, invited to take themselves off to the gloriously Woke lives they want elsewhere.

That leaves the victor in all this, William, who has come across as strong, sensible, married to right woman, one who Gets It and is raising those adorable three children whilst exhibiting nothing but dutiful respect toward Queen and country and doesn't go around bad-mouthing the British stiff upper lip whilst hubby talks about how wonderful it would be to live on Botswana.

The extra wood has to go, and fast.

[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.]

Christ, will the long-winded essayist shuts please fuck off? You people add no wit and no wisdom. It's like you can't help yourselves.

It makes sense that he maintains contact with the Maxwell woman - she could be the only person who knows everything and whom he trusts to talk over and vent about his situation. Poor pet.

I suspect they're staying in contact to ensure their stories are aligned...

[QUOTE] Christ, will the long-winded essayist shuts please fuck off? You people add no wit and no wisdom. It's like you can't help yourselves.

The Titles Troll is especially slow, patronising and irritating. Some 82 year old in a care home, methinks.

Notice these grim fish still think Charles will send his younger son, who will be the most popular royal when his grandmother dies, into exile, yet mysteriously keep funding Charlotte and Louis, the Harrys of their generation.

[QUOTE] Christ, will the long-winded essayist shuts please fuck off? You people add no wit and no wisdom. It's like you can't help yourselves.

The Titles Troll is especially slow, patronising and irritating. Some 82 year old in a care home, methinks.

Notice these grim fish still think Charles will send his younger son, who will be the most popular royal when his grandmother dies, into exile, yet mysteriously keep funding Charlotte and Louis, the Harrys of their generation.

[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'm not quarreling with basic facts, but Andrew doesn't live a "billionaire" lifestyle, he lives a "millionaire" lifestyle. He doesn't own massive properties across Europe and America, he doesn't own private jets, or yachts, etc., etc., etc. There is a bit of hyperbole there.

And the paper forgets that he on his own, with his trust fund, worth about $75 million on paper, and he holds the lease on a very good deal at Royal Lodge. He was never, ever going to have to work for a living to keep a roof over his head, clothes on his or his children's backs (each daughter also has a trust fund that started with one million), or be short of cars to drive, horses to ride, etc. He is the son of a very rich woman.

That said, his greed to enhance what he has most certainly led him into the same morass his sexual appetites have.

The BRF is in some sense lucky that all this is unfolding at the hols. It gives them time to regroup, use the New Year as leverage to announce a New Regime, and for the Queen to use her traditional Christmas to apologise and make promises and announce change.

It's 1 December - if she and Charles handle things appropriately, they dan end an annis horribilis to the nth power fairly soon and start anew.

[QUOTE] for the Queen to use her traditional Christmas to apologise and make promises and announce change

Oh dear, you nitwits still think they're going after Harry and Meghan, don't you?

HM and/or Charles needs to jettison the Yorks entirely and bring Frogmire under complete BP/CH coordination and control.

R490 - "and bring Frogmire under complete BP/CH coordination and control."

They already tried that. The Sussexes ignored them and went rogue and did what they pleased, anyway. Harry only informed the Queen about the lawsuit bomb on the last leg of the Africann tour the night before, and he didn't consult with his father or brother at ALL, and Charles is paying for half of Sara Latham's 140,000 quid p.a. salary.

It's obvious to a blind man that Meghan Markle will refuse to be controlled or advised or guided in any way, and that she is feeding into Harry's paranoia and willful urge to stick it to his family and getting him to enable her in same.

They made it clear with the Africa tour and the documentary that they do not care about the institution from whence their privileges flow and want to be themselves on their own terms. These are not reconcilable with the institution's needs.

As always, Harry and Meghan managed to get land a few punches with a momentary tactic, whilst blowing prospects of a future inside the monarchy.

Even if this was Meghan's and Harry's game plan all along, it's a bad look.

They have to go.

The question for me, R491, is how exactly did HM or Charles attempt to bring the Sussexes under control? If there was no direct threat to their funding, their independent IG account and their ability to tour and continue on as working royals, it wasn't enough of an effort. I think HM checked out on family problems long ago and Charles stuck his head in the sand where Harry and Meghan were concerned. Andrew's mess has ensured the BRF can no longer afford to ignore problems such as the self-serving SA documentary.

I think anger has been directed to Harry and Meghan - but passively. They need a plain-speaking, direct, conversation from Charles - that explains exactly what it they are doing that is so annoying and how they can fix that behavior in the future. Basically, I don't think they have a clue. Some of it may be pathological but it still it needs to be addressed. So maybe they will know what to avoid. It's like a Mom who tells her brat "stop it and be a good boy." But he hasn't a clue as to what that actually means for him. So the behavior continues. Be direct and firm Charles. It would be a gift to Harry.

I agree, Charles should sit them down and ask which they want - in or out - explaining exactly what each path entails. If he can be tough on his brother, he can be tough on his son. In reality, she will make the decision.

[quote]They won't do anything drastic because in his case they just want quiet, not more attention drawn to the whole fiasco.

They won't get quiet about this, perhaps ever. The 'Mail' story about PA's financial chicanery will be followed hard tomorrow by Victoria on 'Panorama.' She'll be PA's Monica Lewinsky x 100. Moreover he doesn't have a Hillary 'standing by her man', rather his gormless enabler who is unable to think do or say the right thing ever.

Attention will be magnified yet more. The BRF will need to make some sort of further decisive response to this crisis. Saying and doing nothing would be tantamount to consent. You can bet now the dam's burst there'll be more to come.

Unlovely bookend to Edward VIII for The Queen Andrew is indeed. One would have wished for her a less fraught time in her 90s.

Prince Andrew has kept in constant contact with accused madam Ghislaine Maxwell even as they both became increasingly embroiled in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, according to a report Sunday.

The prince had a secret meeting with Epstein’s ex at Buckingham Palace in June — and has been talking to her throughout the escalating scandal that saw him dumped of royal duties, according to The Sun.

“They have remained constantly in touch by phone and email,” a source told the UK paper.

“They talk regularly. If he wasn’t in the spotlight at the moment he would have found a way to meet up with her.”

Andrew’s downfall was in part sparked by his loyalty to Epstein, 57, remaining friends and staying in his Manhattan mansion even after he was convicted of sex with underage girls.

Now the 59-year-old prince has remained close to Maxwell, according to The Sun, even after she is reportedly at the heart of an ongoing FBI investigation over allegations that she recruited young girls for the late pedophile.

“Andrew has always been very stubborn and as far as he is concerned both he and Ghislaine have done nothing wrong and so why should anything get in the way of a friendship that has lasted more than 20 years,” the source told the paper.

“The Duke has an unswerving loyalty to Ghislaine and she is also very loyal to him.

“Ghislaine will do anything to protect the Duke and the feeling is mutual. They both share the same view they have done nothing wrong.”

The pair are said to be nervously awaiting a Monday night TV special with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who has said in court filings that she was forced to have sex with Andrew three times, including at Maxwell’s London home.

“Everyone is on tenterhooks especially after the backlash to the Duke’s ‘Newsnight’ interview – no one saw the fall-out from that coming, especially the Duke,” a source told The Sun.

“It’s fair to say everyone is nervously chewing their lips at Buckingham Palace to see what she will say.”

Buckingham Palace has repeatedly denied all the allegations against him. Andrew also denied them during his BBC interview, saying he does not even recall meeting Giuffre and suggesting the photo of them together could be fake.

I wonder what will the girl say in the interview tomorrow with BBC. I wonder if Andrew has any distinguish marks on his body that she can ID etc. That will be very telling...

Given everything that's coming out about Andrew's financial dealings, the Harkles must be pissed. They set up their dodgy foundation as a LLC so they could spend donations on themselves. The wealthy and well-heeled are going to be a lot less likely to donate to royal foundations unless they are completely unimpeachable. I doubt the Harkles' is. It's rumored a lot of what they take in just goes to their Sunshine Sachs PR expenses. Who in their right mind wants to pay for that?

The good news is if he goes quiet, and he will - his interest is in his creature comforts in the end - this will fade as quickly as anything else... as long as he goes quiet. Scandal lasts about 48 hours now as long as you don't feed the beast and even then it is less of a outraging shock and more of a what's the bad smell?/oh, this loser again disdain.

While his has some legs in term of new wrinkles... there will be huge media uproar over the woman's interview but fatigue continues to set in in terms of shock factor. But the worst is surely over and eventually and in the short term the FBI will confirm again he's not a suspect in any wrong doing (either via an official or multiple sources disclosure) but rather a witness aiding in that investigation. Eventually it all either withers and dies or a bigger fish gets snared and then he's just old if somewhat distasteful news. Disgraced and forgotten... the Maul will take a kick as often as it can but eventually he becomes an old man with a first grandchild who can be warmed up in the oven.

The smartest thing he could do would be to find a nice, stable, dignified second wife who isn't that idiot. Every time she fucks up, it involves him too, one way or another. She is bad news.

So the authorities couldn't find Maxwell but Andrew has been in communication with her the whole time r496?

Stop it with the Sussex talk you crazy motherfuckers.

Go start your own thread about that shit.

The Sussexes asked to form their own household and were refused. They wanted their own PR staff, but Sara Latham, their new communications chief, was housed in BP and told to report to the Queen's Communications Chief. Charles and the Queen are personally splitting the cost for Latham's huge annual salary. Despite this, the Sussexes went ahead with their lawsuit and documentary without consulting the Queen or Charles, never mind William, and presumably without consulting Latham, either, otherwise she would have been sacked on the spot for not reporting up as she was supposed to.

I don't know who is paying Sunshine Sachs, but I suspect the Harkles brought her on at their own expense.

So, Meghan shrugged her shoulders, did what she wanted to without playing by the rules, and then did her Woe is Me act to make herself out the victim rather than the person sticking two fingers up to the Queen, Charles, and the Foreign Office, demonstrating that she doesn't give a fine, flying fuck what they think.

She called their bluff, and in public, too. Either she doesn't plan to stay and doesn't want to stay, or, like Diana, thinks she's proved she do what she wants and still be Duchess of Sussex on the public payroll, and is daring the senior royals to kick her out and take the flak.

If the BRF lets the Sussexes do that to them in public, removing their photo from the drawing room isn't going to cut it as a reprove.

They couldn't know when the Sussexes left for Africa that Meghan and Harry were planning the We're Just Existing Thanks To Those Cold Unfeeling Windsors attack.

If they keep themm on, the BRF look toothless, silly, and afraid. Charles, I suppose, could suspend his annual "supplement" to Harry from the Duchy of Cornwall revenues, but then he'd look like a Mean Dad.

From where I'm sitting, the BRF don't have a choice if they want to recoup: Andrew disappears, and the Sussexes get pushed out with as much coverage as the BRF can muster - "slimming down the monarchy", e.g.

If they don't, they deserve their ignominous end.

About time!!!

------------- Heir to the throne Charles, 71, is said to want to cut the number of working royals down to a bare minimum in the wake of the Prince Andrew crisis.

Prince Charles has long been reported to want to reduce the monarchy to a core group - consisting of just his own family, their wives and their children - when the Queen dies and he becomes King.

His brother Andrew's crisis over his friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein has made Charles' plan more of a reality, according to the Daily Star.

They will not push out Harry. You can wish it all you want. Every bad thing that appeared about Sussex happened for a variety of reasons only some of it having to do with H&M.

Look at the scandal that is brewing and you really thing all the media sources were blind to it all until Epstein died?

Your dislike for Sussex is making you more stupid.

Apparently the Maxwell woman is ready to come forward and talk. I betcha she tries to save Andrew. Probably with lies.

Soon after the sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein died in August, a mysterious man met with two prominent lawyers.

Towering, barrel-chested and wild-bearded, he was a prodigious drinker and often wore flip-flops. He went by a pseudonym, Patrick Kessler — a necessity, he said, given the shadowy, dangerous world that he inhabited.

He told the lawyers he had something incendiary: a vast archive of Mr. Epstein’s data, stored on encrypted servers overseas. He said he had years of the financier’s communications and financial records — as well as thousands of hours of footage from hidden cameras in the bedrooms of Mr. Epstein’s properties. The videos, Kessler said, captured some of the world’s richest, most powerful men in compromising sexual situations — even in the act of rape.

Kessler said he wanted to expose these men. If he was telling the truth, his trove could answer one of the Epstein saga’s most baffling questions: How did a college dropout and high school math teacher amass a purported nine-figure fortune? One persistent but unproven theory was that he ran a sprawling blackmail operation. That would explain why moguls, scientists, political leaders and a royal stayed loyal to him, in some cases even after he first went to jail.

Kessler’s tale was enough to hook the two lawyers, the famed litigator David Boies and his friend John Stanley Pottinger. If Kessler was authentic, his videos would arm them with immense leverage over some very important people.

Mr. Boies and Mr. Pottinger discussed a plan. They could use the supposed footage in litigation or to try to reach deals with men who appeared in it, with money flowing into a charitable foundation. In encrypted chats with Kessler, Mr. Pottinger referred to a roster of potential targets as the “hot list.” He described hypothetical plans in which the lawyers would pocket up to 40 percent of the settlements and could extract money from wealthy men by flipping from representing victims to representing their alleged abusers.

The possibilities were tantalizing — and extended beyond vindicating victims. Mr. Pottinger saw a chance to supercharge his law practice. For Mr. Boies, there was a shot at redemption, after years of criticism for his work on behalf of Theranos and Harvey Weinstein.

In the end, there would be no damning videos, no funds pouring into a new foundation. Mr. Boies and Mr. Pottinger would go from toasting Kessler as their “whistle-blower” and “informant” to torching him as a “fraudster” and a “spy.”

Kessler was a liar, and he wouldn’t expose any sexual abuse. But he would reveal something else: The extraordinary, at times deceitful measures elite lawyers deployed in an effort to get evidence that could be used to win lucrative settlements — and keep misconduct hidden, allowing perpetrators to abuse again.

Mr. Boies has publicly decried such secret deals as “rich man’s justice,” a way that powerful men buy their way out of legal and reputational jeopardy. This is how it works.

The man who called himself Kessler first contacted a Florida lawyer, Bradley J. Edwards, who was in the news for representing women with claims against Mr. Epstein. It was late August, about two weeks after the financier killed himself in a jail cell while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.

Mr. Edwards, who did not respond to interview requests, had a law firm called Edwards Pottinger, and he soon referred Kessler to his New York partner. Silver-haired and 79, Mr. Pottinger had been a senior civil-rights official in the Nixon and Ford administrations, but he also dabbled in investment banking and wrote best-selling medical thrillers. He was perhaps best known for having dated Gloria Steinem and Kathie Lee Gifford.

R503 - The STAR is not exactly a first-class operation, and it sounds as if they're simply making it up based on a guess any of us could have made, as well. The problem is that his children and their wives includes in the Sussexes, who have several times in the last couple of months insulted and attaced the BRF, and the rift between Harry and Meghan and the rest of the family is so deep, I doubt they can function together as a unit.

If Charles has any brains, which I'm not at all sure of, he'll cut it to direct heirs and their children.

Mr. Pottinger recalled that Mr. Edwards warned him about Kessler, saying that he was “endearing,” “spooky” and “loves to drink like a fish.”

After an initial discussion with Kessler in Washington, Mr. Pottinger briefed Mr. Boies — whose firm was also active in representing accusers in the Epstein case — about the sensational claims. He then invited Kessler to his Manhattan apartment. Kessler admired a wall-mounted frame containing a headless stuffed parrot; on TV, the Philadelphia Eagles were mounting a comeback against the Washington Redskins. Mr. Pottinger poured Kessler a glass of WhistlePig whiskey, and the informant began to talk.

In his conversations with Mr. Pottinger and, later, Mr. Boies, Kessler said his videos featured numerous powerful men who were already linked to Mr. Epstein: Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister; Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional lawyer; Prince Andrew; three billionaires; and a prominent chief executive.

All seven men, or their representatives, told The New York Times they never engaged in sexual activity on Mr. Epstein’s properties. The Times has no reason to believe Kessler’s supposed video footage is real.

In his apartment, Mr. Pottinger presented Kessler with a signed copy of “The Boss,” his 2005 novel. “One minute you’re bending the rules,” blares the cover of the paperback version. “The next minute you’re breaking the law.” On the title page, Mr. Pottinger wrote: “Here’s to the great work you are to do. Happy to be part of it.”

Mr. Pottinger also gave Kessler a draft contract to bring him on as a client, allowing him to use a fake name. “For reasons revealed to you, I prefer to proceed with this engagement under the name Patrick Kessler,” the agreement said.

Despite the enormities of the Epstein scandal, few of his accusers have gotten a sense of justice or resolution. Mr. Pottinger thought Kessler’s files could change everything. This strange man was theatrical and liked his alcohol, but if there was even a chance his claims were true, they were worth pursuing.

“Our clients are said to be liars and prostitutes,” Mr. Pottinger later said in an interview with The Times, “and we now have someone who says, ‘I can give you secret photographic proof of abuse that will completely change the entire fabric of your practice and get justice for these girls.’ And you think that we wouldn’t try to get that?” A victim becomes a hacker

Mr. Pottinger and Mr. Boies have known each other for years, a friendship forged on bike trips in France and Italy. In legal circles, Mr. Boies was royalty: He was the one who fought for presidential candidate Al Gore before the Supreme Court, took on Microsoft in a landmark antitrust case, and helped obtain the right for gays and lesbians to get married in California.

But then Mr. Boies got involved with the blood-testing start-up Theranos. As the company was being revealed as a fraud, he tried to bully whistle-blowers into not speaking to a Wall Street Journal reporter, and he was criticized for possible conflicts of interest when he joined the company’s board in 2015.

Two years later, Mr. Boies helped his longtime client Harvey Weinstein hire private investigators who intimidated sources and trailed reporters for The Times and The New Yorker — even though Mr. Boies’s firm had worked for The Times on other matters. (The Times fired his firm.)

By 2019, Mr. Boies, 78, was representing a number of Mr. Epstein’s alleged victims. They got his services pro bono, and he got the chance to burnish his legacy. When Mr. Pottinger contacted him about Kessler, he was intrigued.

On Sept. 9, Mr. Boies greeted Kessler at the offices of his law firm, Boies Schiller Flexner, in a gleaming new skyscraper at Hudson Yards on Manhattan’s West Side. Kessler unfurled a fantastic story, one he would embroider and alter in later weeks, that began with him growing up somewhere within a three-hour radius of Washington. Kessler said he had been molested as a boy by a Bible school teacher and sought solace on the internet, where he fell in with a group of victims turned hackers, who used their skills to combat pedophilia.

Kessler claimed that a technology executive had introduced him to Mr. Epstein, who in 2012 hired Kessler to set up encrypted servers to preserve his extensive digital archives. With Mr. Epstein dead, Kessler boasted to the lawyers, he had unfettered access to the material. He said the volume of videos was overwhelming: more than a decade of round-the-clock footage from dozens of cameras.

Kessler displayed some pixelated video stills on his phone. In one, a bearded man with his mouth open appears to be having sex with a naked woman. Kessler said the man was Mr. Barak. In another, a man with black-framed glasses is seen shirtless with a woman on his lap, her breasts exposed. Kessler said it was Mr. Dershowitz. He also said that some of the supposed videos appeared to have been edited and cataloged for the purpose of blackmail.

“This was explosive information if true, for lots and lots of people,” Mr. Boies said in an interview.

Mr. Boies and Mr. Pottinger had decades of legal experience and considered themselves experts at assessing witnesses’ credibility. While they couldn’t be sure, they thought Kessler was probably legit.

Within hours of the Hudson Yards meeting, Mr. Pottinger sent Kessler a series of texts over the encrypted messaging app Signal.

According to excerpts viewed by The Times, Mr. Pottinger and Kessler discussed a plan to disseminate some of the informant’s materials — starting with the supposed footage of Mr. Barak. The Israeli election was barely a week away, and Mr. Barak was challenging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The purported images of Mr. Barak might be able to sway the election — and fetch a high price. (“Total lie with no basis in reality,” Mr. Barak said when asked about the existence of such videos.)

“Can you review your visual evidence to be sure some or all is indisputably him? If so, we can make it work,” Mr. Pottinger wrote.

Kessler said he would do so. Mr. Pottinger sent a yellow smiley-face emoji with its tongue sticking out.

“Can you share your contact that would be purchasing,” Kessler asked.

“Sheldon Adelson,” Mr. Pottinger answered.

Mr. Adelson, a billionaire casino magnate in Las Vegas, had founded one of Israel’s largest newspapers, and it was an enthusiastic booster of Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Pottinger wrote that he and Mr. Boies hoped to fly to Nevada to meet with Mr. Adelson to discuss the images.

“Do you believe that adelson has the pull to insure this will hurt his bid for election?” Kessler asked the next morning.

Mr. Pottinger reassured him. “There is no question that Adelson has the capacity to air the truth about EB if he wants to,” he said, using Mr. Barak’s initials. He said he planned to discuss the matter with Mr. Boies that evening.

Mr. Boies confirmed that they discussed sharing the photo with Mr. Adelson but said the plan was never executed. Boaz Bismuth, the editor in chief of the newspaper, Israel Hayom, said its journalists were approached by an Israeli source who pitched them supposed images of Mr. Barak, but that “we were not interested.”

The men whom Kessler claimed to have on tape were together worth many billions. Some of their public relations teams had spent months trying to tamp down media coverage of their connections to Mr. Epstein. Imagine how much they might pay to make incriminating videos vanish.

You might think that lawyers representing abuse victims would want to publicly expose such information to bolster their clients’ claims. But that is not how the legal industry always works. Often, keeping things quiet is good business.

One of the revelations of the #MeToo era has been that victims’ lawyers often brokered secret deals in which alleged abusers paid to keep their accusers quiet and the allegations out of the public sphere. Lawyers can pocket at least a third of such settlements, profiting off a system that masks misconduct and allows men to abuse again.

Mr. Boies and Mr. Pottinger said in interviews that they were looking into creating a charity to help victims of sexual abuse. It would be bankrolled by private legal settlements with the men on the videos.

Mr. Boies acknowledged that Kessler might get paid. “If we were able to use this to help our victims recover money, we would treat him generously,” he said in September. He said that his firm would not get a cut of any settlements.

Such agreements would have made it less likely that videos involving the men became public. “Generally what settlements are about is getting peace,” Mr. Boies said.

Mr. Pottinger told Kessler that the charity he was setting up would be called the Astria Foundation — a name he later said his girlfriend came up with, in a nod to Astraea, the Greek goddess of innocence and justice. “We need to get it funded by abusers,” Mr. Pottinger texted, noting in another message that “these are wealthy wrongdoers.”

Mr. Pottinger asked Kessler to start compiling incriminating materials on a specific group of men.

“I’m way ahead of you,” Kessler responded. He said he had asked his team of fellow hackers to search the files for the three billionaires, the C.E.O. and Prince Andrew.

“Yes, that’s exactly how to do this,” Mr. Pottinger said. “Videos for sure, but email traffic, too.”

“I call it our hot list,” he added.

In mid-September, Mr. Boies and Mr. Pottinger invited reporters from The Times to the Boies Schiller offices to meet Kessler. The threat of a major news organization writing about the videos — and confirming the existence of an extensive surveillance apparatus — could greatly enhance the lawyers’ leverage over the wealthy men.

Before the session, Mr. Pottinger encouraged Kessler to focus on certain men, like Mr. Barak, while avoiding others. Referring to the reporters, he added, “Let them drink from a fountain instead of a water hose. They and the readers will follow that better.”

The meeting took place on a cloudy Saturday morning. After agreeing to leave their phones and laptops outside, the reporters entered a 20th-floor conference room. Kessler was huge: more than 6 feet tall, pushing 300 pounds, balding, his temples speckled with gray. He told his story and presented images that he said were of Mr. Epstein, Mr. Barak and Mr. Dershowitz having sex with women.

Barely an hour after the session ended, the Times reporters received an email from Kessler: “Are you free?” He said he wanted to meet — alone. “Tell no one else.” That afternoon, they met at Grand Sichuan, an iconic Chinese restaurant in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood. The lunch rush was over, and the trio sat at a quiet table in the back. A small group of women huddled nearby, speaking Mandarin and snipping the ends off string beans.

Kessler complained that Mr. Boies and Mr. Pottinger were more interested in making money than in exposing wrongdoers. He pulled out his phone, warned the reporters not to touch it, and showed more of what he had. There was a color photo of a bare-chested, gray-haired man with a slight smile. Kessler said it was a billionaire. He also showed blurry, black-and-white images of a dark-haired man receiving oral sex. He said it was a prominent C.E.O.

Soup dumplings and Gui Zhou chicken arrived, and Kessler kept talking. He said he had found financial ledgers on Mr. Epstein’s servers that showed he had vast amounts of Bitcoin and cash in the Middle East and Bangkok, and hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of gold, silver and diamonds. He presented no proof. But it is common for whistle-blowers to be erratic and slow to produce their evidence, and The Times thought it was worth investigating Kessler’s claims.

The conversation continued in a conference room at a Washington hotel five days later, after a text exchange in which Kessler noted his enthusiasm for Japanese whiskey. Both parties brought bottles to the hotel, and Kessler spent nearly eight hours downing glass after glass. He veered from telling tales about the dark web to professing love for “Little House on the Prairie.” He asserted that he had evidence Mr. Epstein had derived his wealth through illicit means. At one point, he showed what he said were classified C.I.A. documents.

Kessler said he had no idea who the women in the videos were or how the lawyers might go about identifying them to act on their behalf. From his perspective, he said, it seemed like Mr. Boies and Mr. Pottinger were plotting to use his footage to demand huge sums from billionaires. He said it looked like blackmail — and that he could prove it.

Was Kessler’s story plausible? Did America’s best-connected sexual predator accumulate incriminating videos of powerful men?

Two women who spent time in Mr. Epstein’s homes said the answer was yes. In an unpublished memoir, Virginia Giuffre, who accused Mr. Epstein of making her a “sex slave,” wrote that she discovered a room in his New York mansion where monitors displayed real-time surveillance footage. And Maria Farmer, an artist who accused Mr. Epstein of sexually assaulting her when she worked for him in the 1990s, said that Mr. Epstein once walked her through the mansion, pointing out pin-sized cameras that he said were in every room.

“I said, ‘Are you recording all this?’” Ms. Farmer said in an interview. “He said, ‘Yes. We keep it. We keep everything.’”

During a 2005 search of Mr. Epstein’s Palm Beach, Fla., estate, the police found two cameras hidden in clocks — one in the garage and the other next to his desk, according to police reports. But no other cameras were found.

If such a surveillance system did exist, nothing that Kessler told or showed The Times proved that he had access to it. The photos he shared were too grainy to establish anyone’s identity. And many other elements of his story failed to hold up under scrutiny.

Kessler claimed to have been an early investor in a North Carolina coffee company, whose sticker was affixed to his laptop. But its founder said no one matching Kessler’s description had ever been affiliated with the company. Kessler insisted that he invested in 2009, but the company wasn’t founded until 2011.

The contents of Kessler’s supposed C.I.A. documents turned out to be easily findable using Google. At one point, Kessler said that one of his associates had been missing and was found dead; later, Kessler said the man was alive and in the southern United States. He said that his mother had died when he was young — and that he had recently given her a hug. A photo he sent from what he said was a Washington-area hospital featured a distinctive blanket, but when The Times called local hospitals, they didn’t recognize the pattern.

After months of effort, The Times could not learn Kessler’s identity or confirm any element of his back story.

“I am very often being purposefully inconsistent,” Kessler said, when pressed.

On the last Friday in September, Mr. Boies and Mr. Pottinger sat on a blue leather couch in the corner of a members-only dining room at the Harvard Club in Midtown Manhattan. Antlered animal heads and oil paintings hung from the dark wooden walls.

The lawyers were there to make a deal with The Times. Tired of waiting for Kessler’s motherlode, Mr. Pottinger said they planned to send a team overseas to download the material from his servers. He said he had alerted the F.B.I. and a prosecutor in the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan.

Mr. Boies told an editor for The Times that they would be willing to share everything, on one condition: They would have discretion over which men could be written about, and when. He explained that if compromising videos about particular men became public, that could torpedo litigation or attempts to negotiate settlements. The Times editor didn’t commit.

Mr. Boies and Mr. Pottinger later said those plans had hinged on verifying the videos’ authenticity and on having clients with legitimate legal claims against the men. Otherwise, legal experts said, it might have crossed the line into extortion.

The meeting was briefly interrupted when Bob Weinstein, the brother of Harvey Weinstein, bounded up to the table and plopped onto the couch next to Mr. Boies. The two men spent several minutes talking, laughing and slapping each other on the back.

While Mr. Boies and Mr. Weinstein chatted, Mr. Pottinger furtively displayed the black-and-white shot of a man in glasses having sex. Both lawyers said it looked like Mr. Dershowitz.

One day in late September, Mr. Dershowitz’s secretary relayed a message: Someone named Patrick Kessler wanted to speak to him about Mr. Boies.

The two lawyers had a long-running feud, and Mr. Dershowitz returned the call from his apartment. He also recorded it. Kessler explained his Epstein story, and that he no longer trusted Mr. Boies and Mr. Pottinger.

“The problem is that they don’t want to move forward with any of these people legally,” Kessler said. “They’re just interested in trying to settle and take a cut.”

“Who are these people that you have on videotape?” Mr. Dershowitz asked.

“There’s a lot of people,” Kessler said, naming a few powerful men. He added, “There’s a long list of people that they want me to have that I don’t have.”

“Who?” Mr. Dershowitz asked. “Did they ask about me?”

“Of course they asked about you. You know that, sir.”

“And you don’t have anything on me, right?”

“I do not, no,” Kessler said.

“Because I never, I never had sex with anybody,” Mr. Dershowitz said. Later in the call, he added, “I am completely clean. I was at Jeffrey’s house. I stayed there. But I didn’t have any sex with anybody.”

What was the purpose of Kessler’s phone call? Why did he tell Mr. Dershowitz that he wasn’t on the supposed surveillance tapes, contradicting what he had said and showed to Mr. Boies, Mr. Pottinger and The Times? Did the call sound a little rehearsed?

Mr. Dershowitz said that he didn’t know why Kessler contacted him, and that the phone call was the only time the two men ever spoke. When The Times showed him one of Kessler’s photos, in which a bespectacled man resembling Mr. Dershowitz appears to be having sex, Mr. Dershowitz laughed and said the man wasn’t him. His wife, Carolyn Cohen, peeked at the photo, too.

“You don’t keep your glasses on when you’re doing that,” she said. Data set (supposedly) to self-destruct

In early October, Kessler said he was ready to produce the Epstein files. He told The Times that he had created duplicate versions of Mr. Epstein’s servers. He laid out detailed logistical plans for them to be shipped by boat to the United States and for one of his associates — a very short Icelandic man named Steven — to deliver them to The Times headquarters at 11 a.m. on Oct. 3.

Kessler warned that he was erecting a maze of security systems. First, a Times employee would need to use a special thumb drive to access a proprietary communications system. Then Kessler’s colleague would transmit a code to decrypt the files. If his instructions weren’t followed precisely, Kessler said, the information would self-destruct.

Specialists at The Times set up a number of “air-gapped” laptops — disconnected from the internet — in a windowless, padlocked meeting room. Reporters cleared their schedules to sift through thousands of hours of surveillance footage.

On the morning of the scheduled delivery, Kessler sent a series of frantic texts. Disaster had struck. A fire was burning. The duplicate servers were destroyed. One of his team members was missing. He was fleeing to Kyiv.

Two hours later, Kessler was in touch with Mr. Pottinger and didn’t mention any emergency. Kessler said he hoped that the footage would help pry $1 billion in settlements out of their targets, and asked him to detail how the lawyers could extract the money. “Could you put together a hypothetical situation,” Kessler wrote, not something “set in stone but close to what your thinking.”

Mr. Pottinger obliged — and walked into what looked like a trap. He described two hypotheticals, both of which were consistent with what had been discussed with The Times at the Harvard Club.

In one, which he called a “standard model” for legal settlements, Mr. Pottinger said the money would be split among his clients, the Astria Foundation, Kessler and the lawyers, who would get up to 40 percent.

In the second hypothetical, Mr. Pottinger wrote, the lawyers would approach the videotaped men. The men would then hire the lawyers, ensuring that they would not get sued, and “make a contribution to a nonprofit as part of the retainer.”

“No client is actually involved in this structure,” Mr. Pottinger said, noting that the arrangement would have to be “consistent with and subject to rules of ethics.”

“Thank you very much,” Kessler responded.

Mr. Pottinger later said that the scenario would have involved him representing a victim, settling a case and then representing the victim’s alleged abuser. He said it was within legal boundaries. (He also said he had meant to type “No client lawsuit is actually involved.”)

Such legal arrangements are not unheard-of. Lawyers representing a former Fox News producer who had accused Bill O’Reilly of sexual harassment reached a settlement in which her lawyers agreed to work for Mr. O’Reilly after the dispute. But legal experts generally consider such setups to be unethical because they can create conflicts between the interests of the lawyers and their original clients.

The lawyers held out hope of getting Kessler’s materials. But weeks passed, and nothing arrived. At one point, Mr. Pottinger volunteered to meet Kessler anywhere — including Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia.

“I still believe he is what he purported to be,” Mr. Boies wrote in an email on Nov. 7. “I have to evaluate people for my day job, and he seemed too genuine to be a fake, and I very much want him to be real.” He added, “I am not unconscious of the danger of wanting to believe something too much.”

Ten days later, Mr. Boies arrived at The Times for an on-camera interview. It was a bright, chilly Sunday, and Mr. Boies had just flown in from Ecuador, where he said he was doing work for the finance ministry. Reporters wanted to ask him plainly if his and Mr. Pottinger’s conduct with Kessler crossed ethical lines.

Would they have brokered secret settlements that buried evidence of wrongdoing? Did the notion of extracting huge sums from men in exchange for keeping sex tapes hidden meet the definition of extortion?

Mr. Boies said the answer to both questions was no. He said he and Mr. Pottinger operated well within the law. They only intended to pursue legal action on behalf of their clients — in other words, that they were a long way from extortion. In any case, he said, he and Mr. Pottinger had never authenticated any of the imagery or identified any of the supposed victims, much less contacted any of the men on the “hot list.”

Then The Times showed Mr. Boies some of the text exchanges between Mr. Pottinger and Kessler. Mr. Boies showed a flash of anger and said it was the first time he was seeing them.

By the end of the nearly four-hour interview, Mr. Boies had concluded that Kessler was probably a con man: “I think that he was a fraudster who was just trying to set things up.” And he argued that Kessler had baited Mr. Pottinger into writing things that looked more nefarious than they really were. He acknowledged that Mr. Pottinger had used “loose language” in some of his messages that risked creating the impression that the lawyers were plotting to monetize evidence of abuse.

Several days later, Mr. Boies returned for another interview and was more critical of Mr. Pottinger, especially the hypothetical plans that he had described to Kessler. “Having looked at all that stuff in context, I would not have said that,” he said. How did Mr. Boies feel about Mr. Pottinger invoking his name in messages to Kessler? “I don’t like it,” he said.

But Mr. Boies stopped short of blaming Mr. Pottinger for the whole mess. “I’m being cautious not to throw him under the bus more than I believe is accurate,” he said. His longtime P.R. adviser, Dawn Schneider, who had been pushing for a more forceful denunciation, dropped her pen, threw up her arms and buried her head in her hands.

In a separate interview, The Times asked Mr. Pottinger about his correspondence with Kessler. The lawyer said that his messages shouldn’t be taken at face value because, in reality, he had been deceiving Kessler all along — “misleading him deliberately in order to get the servers.”

The draft retention agreement that Mr. Pottinger had given to Kessler in September was unsigned and never meant to be honored, Mr. Pottinger said. And he never intended to sell photos of Mr. Barak to Mr. Adelson. “I just pulled it out of my behind,” he said, describing it as an act to impress Kessler.

As for the two hypotheticals about how to get money out of the men on the list, Mr. Pottinger said, he never planned to do what he carefully articulated. “I didn’t owe Patrick honesty about this,” he said.

Mr. Pottinger said that he had only one regret — that “we did not get the information that this liar said he had.”

He added, “I’m building legal cases here. I’m trying not to engage too much in shenanigans. I wish I didn’t, but this guy was very unusual.”

----------------

NYT long article, sorry i had to break it up coz too long...behind paywall for many people.

R496 quotes 'The Sun.' Rupert Murdoch regards the BRF in much the same way as he sees the BBC: annoying dispensable British institutions. The Andrew scandal must be giving him faint memories of the erections he could nearly achieve forty years ago.

Thus of course 'The Sun' is fairground barking the interview to provoke questions. The most obvious of which is, if Andrew and his close friend Ghislaine have 'done nothing wrong', why the 'tenterhooks' about the Victoria interview? An innocent man has nothing to fear, and can always cite his busy lifetime contributions. Oh - wait.

R515 also under copyright, to be reproduced in full only with the permission of the NYT. Copying and pasting it here in full can subject DL to damages.

R445, Charles is a Scorpio. He is also 71. IOW, he sowed plenty of wild oats in years past. Now, as he nears the throne, Charles appears to desire a peaceful life of dignity and duty with the love of his life.

He is about to drop a gigantic lump of coal into his wastrel brother Andrew's bespoke stocking.

Mr. Bodies was intent on one thing: Buy and bury. The victims and the truth are not his concern.

Wasn't Boies the attorney who lost the Supreme Court hearing on the valdiity of the outcome of the 2001 American election? Or am I thinking of someone else?

[quote] The good news is if he goes quiet, and he will - his interest is in his creature comforts in the end - this will fade as quickly as anything else...

Exactly. He will go quiet and no more action will be taken. The monarchy is a conservative institution and they are not going to make changes or take actions beyond what is absolutely necessary. They've cut him off and removed him from the public eye-- there's not much else to do.

R515 - Great thanks for taking the time to bring that New York TIMES article to us.

Didn't I read that Virginia Giuffre said she wanted a picture of herself with Prince Andrew so that she could give it to her mother?

Why under those circumstances would someone want such a picture?

WTF?

R519 here. Boies, not Bodies.

For those upthread who were asking about deprivation of Andrew's HRH, there is a precedent in modern times: The Peerages Deprivation Act of 1917, whereby several German princes who were descendants of Queen Victoria, were deprived of their British peerages and royal titles during WWI by Act of Parliament. See link.

QEII (or King Charles) can strip Andrew of his ducal York title, as she gave it to him in the first place. She can also remove his Order of the Garter, also a personal gift from her, as well as other family orders. He can be deprived of funding and his public royal work taken away. But it would take the intervention of Parliament to remove an HRH.

r523 at the time she was probably going along with it and didn't realize she had been trafficked.

R526 If she didn't realize she was being trafficked then was she really trafficked? For one thing people who are trafficked are usually not free to come and go, or have relationships with their family. Since according to the various articles and interviews mentioned in this thread and elsewhere, Virginia Giuffre and the others were still in contact with their families and were not kept imprisoned but were free to come and go, and live their lives. Then there are some of the other women, such as a young neurosurgeon, that the housekeeper said was sleeping with Andrew. As a neurosurgeon, one would assume she was of age and smart and independent enough to not be trafficked against her will. I am honestly beginning to wonder if Epstein was really a trafficker/pimp, or more of a matchmaker. Between, willing younger women and powerful men. I, also, have to question if the men realized the age of the young women.

r527 I don't know, her interview tomorrow might explain that. But you also have to be careful not to fall into that trap of "why didn't she just leave if her husband was beating her / she was dressed like a slut so she wanted it!" reasoning.

Giuffre has said that she was threatened and intimidated if she tried to leave.

R527, you may want to read the court opinion ruling against Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment against Roberts/Giuffre's defamation claim. Certain individual cases don't make sense, but the big picture is clear as day. The Miami Herald also published an article called Perversion of Justice that lays it all out.

All the scenarios in R525 are possible but not probable.

They didn't even do that to Edward VIII and he, at the time, was tossing overboard a position a large constituency believed was granted by God. Which was the point of it, public opinion didn't demand it.

Andrew would have to be convicted of a sex crime for them to go that length. Shame on him is shame on the monarchy. So if dismemberment would mitigate that, dismember it is. [italic]However[/italic] it isn't at that point. People think he's a fat ass and he's exiled but the majority isn't offended enough by this to demand his head. I think he's odious and idiotic but I would point out that at this point he hasn't even been charged with anything and until he is, not much more will happen than has happened. And not much more will likely happen. Her interview will air, the election will come, Christmas will come, Brexit will come... the hurricane will weaken unless something bad and legal happens. And probably rightly so, even if he is a total asshole. I don't say I feel sorry for him but in the internet age whatever happened never takes precedence over what the internet decides has happened. Which is probably why the courts are better, if not as much fun. There is still a difference between stupid, shallow, careless and criminal.

R530 - Unless I misread the document at the link you provided, that 31-page document is Maxwell's attorney's argument FOR the defendant's position, not the court's judgement. Is there an additional doc attached with the court's opinion and ruling for the plaintiff and against the defendant?

R527 - "Between, willing younger women and powerful men. I, also, have to question if the men realized the age of the young women."

I don't doubt that if it comes to it, that is the line the men in question mean to take.

In the end, it will all come down to a matter of proof rising to the treshold required by American and specifically New York State law. Otherwise, what you have here is Roberts/Giuffre, knowing she hasn't got a case that put whatever other powerful famous men were participating in prison, taking her revenge through smearing them permanently. Where Andrew is concerned, that smear will be permanent. Where the other men are concerned, it's impossible to know. Trump can't look much worse than he already does, Clinton has already been there-done that and survived . . .

It is Maxwell who stands in the most danger, which is ironic - the woman taking the fall for the men wielding the real power upward?

The Gervey tell-all book will also simply smear Andrew further.

Where Andrew's business dealings are concerned . . . that won't get him prison, either, but it will put paid to any thought he may have of ever retrieving a persona clean enough to serve as a working senior royal again or taking a penny from the UK taxpayer, the entity he has really betrayed. His family, certainly, but they have less excuse having known him for the arrogant brainless prick he's always been.

But the British taxpayer should demand a return from the BRF on every penny that came Andrew's way through the Sovereign Grant over the last 20 years.

[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 must have linked the wrong document, R530. I'll try to backtrack and find the actual opinion/decision.

[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.]

R525 - Thanks!

R530

Not sure what to think about the NYT story about the Epstein servers? Seems loke the claim was fake? But maybe it was real?

Not sure what to think about the NYT story about the Epstein servers? Seems loke the claim was fake? But maybe it was real?

“...Who?” Mr. Dershowitz asked. “Did they ask about me?”

“Of course they asked about you. You know that, sir.”

“And you don’t have anything on me, right?”

“I do not, no,” Kessler said.

“Because I never, I never had sex with anybody,” Mr. Dershowitz said. Later in the call, he added, “I am completely clean. I was at Jeffrey’s house. I stayed there. But I didn’t have any sex with anybody.”

I, too, always check to see if there’s proof of guilt before declaring my innocence

I hate Dershowitz with the fire of a thousand suns and wish he would get dragged down with all this. What a piece of shit.

Andrew and his stupid ex wife should disappear to their house in Switzerland and never come back or be seen in public again. It's bad enough as it is, but, if it comes to light that he has in deed been lying and covering up the truth then this is the end of the BRF. Even if it takes another generation the British nation now sees the whole shabby, greedy, ugly lot for what they are. It's also laughable when you say Charles will streamline the Royal family. Yes, only to save himself. He has more staff than his mother for fuck sake. Over 190 people to maintain his lifestyle at the last count. And will some of you people finally get it into your thick heads. Andrew cannot, cannot, be stripped of his HRH. Not by Charles, not by anyone. They can strip him of everything and leave him a pauper. He will still die HRH. When the French systematically inflicted Marie Antionette with every hurt and indignity they could possibly think of including taking her children away from her, at her trial she said you may not recognise me as Queen of France anymore, but I am still an Arch Duchess of Austria. (Her mother was an Empress.) HRH to the fucking end.

R542, a lot of good it did Marie Antoinette to insist she be addressed as an arch duchess when they chopped her head off. Likewise, Andrew with no money or staff, etc..... in that situation, who cares if he’s an HRH when he won’t get to enjoy the perks?

Her interview will air NY time 4pm. it will probably make the evening news...looking forward to it.

The. BRF needs to get off taxpayer burden. Really. Unless all of their financials are transparent.

[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.]

It doesn't matter if he has no perks or that they cut her head off. She knew they were going to do that anyway. I'm tired of endless idiots here constantly saying he must be stripped of his HRH. Take everything away from him. He deserves it but unlike Dianna, he is the child of a ruling Monarch.

WTF was Epstein doing?

I feel for the poor RPOs who have to accompany Andrew everywhere and listen to him bloviate and pontificate about his victimization and "what this world has come to." You know he's doing it because the "friends" and sympathetic ears are becoming scarce and the help will be left to carry that burden even more than before.

Is the daily mail the only paper in England to link to?

I don't click on these links because I don't want to support them. It's a conservative news paper and supports the conservative party.

R551 They are one of the few that let you link and is not behind a paywall. Also, they have gone out of their way to attract US readers. They are are now one of the largest media outlets in the UK, US, and Australia.

Thanks to poster upthread for reminding people that Andrew cannot lose his HRH. His ducle title, yes; his Prince of the Blood status: no.

Meanwhile, some headlines have emerged here in the DM and Express from the interivew, and from the little I've seen of those highlights, it becomes ever clearer that there is no legal case worth a damn against Andrew. If there were, Roerts wouldn't be sitting there asking "the people of Britain to stand with me".

Because, as she knows full well, when you have a legal case worth a damn, your lawyers tell you to keep your mouth shut, not expose yourself to more avenues of cross-examination, and let the justice system do its work.

You don't give interviews like this when you have a good case, only when finishing off your enemy's public reputation is the only recourse you have left.

The business dealings are probably in similar case: Andrew's public life is finished, his family and the institution it represents seriously damaged, and an increasingly cynical public - well, increasingly cynical. But enough substantial damage has been done amongst Andrew and the whingeing Sussexes. I wouldn't be surprised if Charles won't even meet with Andrew because Charles is afraid he might knock his brother to the floor.

It will be left to Charles to see if he and his older son and daughter-in-law can resurrect the anodyne institution that has been so dear to the hearts of so many since Victoria, and, particularly, since the days of WWII and King George VI and his charming consort Queen Elizabeth, and their two Little Princesses.

I didn’t want to believe the chatter that Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Princess Mette-Marie’s marriage has been troubled over the last few years, but an Epstein association could have been part of the reason. Mette-Marit is dying a slow death and will be gone in 5-7 years as her respiratory system disintegrates, so I doubt they’ll divorce. Still, this did a stain on Haakon’s future reign, as well as his heir Ingrid.

^*ducal title

R554 - Rumours of marital trouble amongst the Norwegian branch of the Glucksburgs have been plentiful long before Mette-Marit's tragic diagnosis. King Harald and Queen Sonja nearly split over his serial infidelities years ago, and their daughter, Marthe Louise, has also a failed marriage behind her and a highly dodgy Signficant Other now.

Mette-Marit has a checquered background, as well, and what it's chequered with is recklessness, so some aren't totally surprised.

Frankly, the staining of royal copybooks across Europe aren't all that rare: Spain, we know of (King Juan Carlos' infidelities, the scandal surrounding his younger daughter's husband, the older daughter's divorce to a man anyone with eyes could tell was one of us, Queen Letizia was said to have done some yachting in her salad days and had a marriage annulled and allegedly had an abortion), King Carl Gustaf of Sweden - ditto on the infidelities; Luxembourg - the marriage of one of the sons whilst nearly still a teenage to a knocked up girlfriend, now divorced; the Danes - still relatively unscathed with just a divorce of the younger son of the Queen, which was handled with maximum discretion and minimum fanfare and if there are issues between the Crown Prince and Princess they are well-hidden and the world sees only the very attractive Crown Pincely family and a Crown Princess who clearly adores her life.

So the Brits aren't alone - it's just that they set themselves up on so much higher a pedestal and have a considerably higher profile. And a series of bad calls (Diana, Fergie, and allowing Harry to use Meghan Markle as a battering ram) are like chickens coming home to roost.

Speaking of Fergie, that visit to Buck House was undoubtedly to tell her to shut her cake-hole and disappear or they'd stop the money and whether Andrew likes it or not, boot her out of Royal Lodge.

Igf Giuffre doesn't have a legal case against PA in the form of hard evidence that he knew she was underage and knew she was trafficked, what does she hope to gain by all this exposure apart from spiteful revenge and the opportunity to sue Epstein's estate? Could PA sue her for slander and libel?

Oh, forgot to add the Belgians - the younger brother of King Philippe, Laurent, is another Andrew only never went through the Handsome Young Officer stage, and has been caught in a corruption scandal alleging pesonal use of goverment funds - he was alleged to be persona non grata at the Royal Palace. His British wife, Princess Claire, is said to be quietly long-suffering. The Belgian press have been nearly as merciless to its royal family as the British tabloids have been to ours.

Does anyone care to venture who the inside source saying Andrew maintained constant phone and e-mail contact with Ghislane Maxwell is? Would Andrew be indiscreet enough to do this openly in front of his staff? Especially if he mistreated some of them. Does Amanda Thirsk, who'd likely know, feel thrown overboard? Or were Andrew's communications being monitored by some LE agency? After all the trouble he's caused, I can see they'd keep tabs on him.

R558 you left the Dutch out.

We had major issues with Prince Bernhard, spouse of Queen Juliana, who may or may not have been a true opportunist during WW2.

Our abdicated Queen Beatrix, now Princess again, reigned with a seriousness and discipline the country’s never seen before. Much admired. Her choice for a German prince so shortly after the War wasn’t met with great joy, but he won the country over by his devotion to Beatrix, working hard and by making mental health discussable.

The late father of our current Queen Maxima (born in Argentina) was part of the Argentinian dictatorial regime. Not Maxima’s fault that her dad was a crook. She learnt our difficult language and now the people love her.

King Willem-Alexander is doing a great job modernising the monarchy, and when the House of Orange accompanies ministers and corporations on a trade mission, they actually come back with contracts and long-term partnerships.

Our little merchant nation is always watching their each and every penny, so the Orange family knows how to keep things streamlined and, in a way, even profitable.

Also, for those of you interested in what a streamlined BRF could look like: Here’s how we do it in The Netherlands:

A distinction is made in the Netherlands between the royal family and the Royal House.

The royal family includes people born into the family (and legally recognised as such) or who have married into the family. However, not every member of the royal family is a member of the Royal House.

By Act of Parliament, the members of the Royal House are:[24]

the monarch (King or Queen); the former monarch (on abdication); the members of the royal family in the line of succession to the throne who are not further removed to the monarch than the second degree of consanguinity; Princess Margriet of the Netherlands the spouses of the above. Members of the Royal House can lose their membership and designation as prince or princess of the Netherlands if they marry without the consent of the Dutch Parliament. This happened to Prince Friso when he married Mabel Wisse Smit. This is written down explicitly in the part of the constitution of the Netherlands that controls the Monarchy of the Netherlands.

[quote]Does anyone care to venture who the inside source saying Andrew maintained constant phone and e-mail contact with Ghislane Maxwell is?

[quote]Or were Andrew's communications being monitored by some LE agency? After all the trouble he's caused, I can see they'd keep tabs on him.

UK intelligence services, or rogue factions within, will leak when they believe The Royals' decadence demands a public airing. Prince Charles's tampon tape, photos of S Ferguson 'found' hidden away - these didn't hit the papers by accident. They were fed for a reason. Ditto PA and GM. Someone wants this huge boil to be lanced.

As The Queen once said to Paul Burrell: 'Be careful Paul. There are forces at work in this country about which we know little.'

R557, Roberts may be doing the BBC interview to try to bait Andrew into calling her a liar so she can sue him for defamation like she sued Maxwell. Maxwell was stupid enough to call Roberts a liar in the press, thus giving Roberts grounds for a defamation case. Roberts reportedly received a multi-million dollar settlement from Maxwell in that case. In his interview, Andrew carefully avoided calling Roberts a liar, which seems to be the only good advice he's followed in this.

No good would come of Andrew suing one of Epstein's victims. Even if Andrew wasn't aware of her situation, and even if she had sex with him willingly at the time, Roberts was an underaged girl (in FL) when she was recruited and trafficked by Epstein.

The close relationship between Maxwell (who certainly appears to have been Epstein's recruiter) and Andrew makes me wonder if Andrew was more involved with Epstein's activities than we know. The Roberts interview should be interesting.

R532 I can't find the decision on Maxwell's motion for summary judgement against Roberts. I may have confused it with the decision on the unsealing of the documents. Perhaps it hasn't been released yet.

R560 - Thanks for bringing in the House of Orange - I was running out of steam. I admire Maxima greatly for how quickly she learnt Dutch and for not being intimidated by the early criticisms. Like Mary of Denmark, she is clearly joyful about the life she has been granted, and although she isn't a beauty, her lively approach to her role life infectious.

Thanks for the information on the modern structuring of the Dutch royal family. I wonder if the Windsors will take note.

What was the problem with Mable Wisse that the Dutch Parliament refused permission? Didn't Prince Friso die from a skiing accident?

R563 - Appreciate the effort.

BP says Andrew didn't have sex with Virginia Roberts:

[quote] A statement released on Monday evening read: "It is emphatically denied that The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation."

Shouldn't it say "The Duke of York emphatically denies..."?

Well, apparently Andrew HAS come out and called Roberts a liar. BP just issued a response to the interview. From HELLO Magazine:

"In response, Buckingham Palace have responded, denying Virginia's claims. A statement released on Monday evening read: "It is emphatically denied that The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation."

Either the Windsors and especially Andrew are even thicker than originally supposed. or - they know she hasn't a legal leg to stand on in proving it. In which case, it's over, absend other allegations about his business dealings.

[quote]What was the problem with Mable Wisse that the Dutch Parliament refused permission? Didn't Prince Friso die from a skiing accident?

Mabel at one time in her past had been the gf of some kind of shady Belgian businessman who turned out to have ties to the mob and drug traffickers, iirc. She apologized for this, but Friso still have to give up his place in succession in order to marry her.

They had a cute wedding and two cute daughters, but sadly he died from injuries sustained in an off-piste skiing accident. He lingered in a coma for months before he passed.

Mabel has greatly redeemed herself by handling her widowhood gracefully, and becoming a respected human rights advocate and businesswoman. She recently made tens of millions from a tech start-up she backed.

[quote]Oh, forgot to add the Belgians - the younger brother of King Philippe, Laurent, is another Andrew only never went through the Handsome Young Officer stage, and has been caught in a corruption scandal alleging pesonal use of goverment funds - he was alleged to be persona non grata at the Royal Palace. His British wife, Princess Claire, is said to be quietly long-suffering. The Belgian press have been nearly as merciless to its royal family as the British tabloids have been to ours.

Don't forget Philippe's father, King Albert, and his treatment of his illegitimate daughter Delphine. This poor woman has gone round in circles legally for years, trying to have acknowledged what everyone in Belgium basically knows to be true, that the former King is her father.

Albert and Paola were both serially unfaithful to each other throughout their marriage. Philippe and Mathilde seem to have bucked that trend, so far.

R565: Mabel Wisse hung out with a famous kingpin, a druglord in the truest sense of the word. She was young and impressionable, they dated off and on when she was 19.

It was, honestly, a lot of bruhaha over nothing, when a decade later she and Friso started getting serious. And yes, poor Friso died after a good year in coma due to a skiing accident. He was basically braindead upon arrival.

He is buried at a tint cemetery behind the quaint Drakesteyn castle (see pic in link), where former Queen Beatrix now spends her golden years. She still makes appearances and steps in for the King when he’s required elsewhere.

The rest of the family (so not the House) have regular jobs and are no highnesses. Some of them are styled Earl or Duke after years of service. It keeps things easy.

I'll go with Andrew being an idiot, R568! (though I doubt Roberts can prove she had sex with him).

Our Dutch friend has livening up this thread with the stories about the other Royal Houses. Thank you!!!

I never bought the excuse that the British public care about the royal’s ribbon cutting ribbons and their names on charity boards. It may makes things easier but it doesn’t sound very diifculy to get a Royal Patron in the UK. The family slap their name on to so many charities that it’s almost ridiculous. Andrew had, what, 600?

I think if the family was scaled down the British would simply carry on.

She already described how he sucked her toes and licked her feet while they took a bath together...before fucking.

I hope there will be a leaked video of picture of them fucking or in bed.

r527

[quote] If she didn't realize she was being trafficked then was she really trafficked? For one thing people who are trafficked are usually not free to come and go, or have relationships with their family.

You are [bold]definitely kicking up sand into the public eyes with your statements. [/bold]

1 - She was trafficked. 2 - She was not adult, therefore unable to give consent to being trafficked. 3 - If she was unaware of her situation, it gives credence to the fact she was groomed for this purpose.

[quote] "…also, have to question if the men realized the age of the young women."

[bold]It is not credible that Andrew and the other clients did not know the age of the women.[/bold] Trump and Howard Stern discussed the youth of Epstein's women on air.

We know that Maxwell told Virginia that she'd "be given" to Andrew. Do you believe that Maxwell gave Virginia or that ANDREW PICKED VIRGINIA OUT FROM THE GIRLS AT THE PARTY? Do you know how brothels work? Of course he knew, if anything the johns' thought the girls were younger.

Take your specious arguments, lies and distractions elsewhere!

r531

[quote]There is still a difference between stupid, shallow, careless and criminal.

Andrew is all three.

r536

Amanda Thirsk looks like the leader of a swinger's club.

r546

[quote] What the hell would the Crown Princess of Norway have to discuss with Jeffrey Epstein?

Money laundering opportunities, government contract awards, etc. Isn't the Norwegian Royal Family relatively not as rich?

r563

[quote] …makes me wonder if Andrew was more involved with Epstein's activities than we know.

Spoke to Atty re the trafficking, the answer is yes. Andrew was used as a social draw to Epstein's sex parties. Maxwell would tell the girls, "Let's go to a party, Prince Andrew is going to be there!" Epstein used the same line with the john's. Andrew was compensated for his appearances - either cash or a freebie with the girls.

We already know he used Epstein for unlawful contract bidding.

➡➡➡ We already knew that MI-5 has Andrew with a trafficked women in England. That there is video. It now appears that the incident occurred in Maxwell's mansion in Belgravia. Virginia was not only girl Andrew sampled, there are others.

[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 added: 'I implore the people in the UK to stand up beside me, to help me fight this fight, to not accept this as being OK.

'This is not some sordid sex story. This is a story of being trafficked, This is a story of abuse and this is a story of your guys' royalty.'

The Panorama investigation also discovered that lawyers for five of Jeffrey Epstein's victims want Prince Andrew to provide testimony in their court cases.

The five women, who are suing Epstein's estate, say the Prince witnessed how people were given massages at the sexual predator's homes.

Pre-trial witness subpoenas have been prepared for all five cases and could be served on Prince Andrew if he returns to the United States.

The subpoenas would have to be signed off by a judge once the Prince was on US soil. He would then be able to challenge the subpoena in court if he didn't want to give evidence.

Prince Andrew says that he did not see, witness or suspect any suspicious behaviour during his visits to Mr Epstein's homes in Florida, New York and the Caribbean.

But the lawyer who represents the five women says the Duke of York could have important information about Epstein's sex trafficking operation. David Boies told Panorama: 'One of the things that we have tried is to interview Prince Andrew and to try to get what his explanation is.

'He was a frequent visitor. They ought to submit to an interview. They ought to talk about it'.

Lawyers for the victims have written twice to the prince requesting an interview, but have yet to receive a response.

The hour-long investigative programme entitled The Prince and the Epstein Scandal was first trailed last Thursday.

In clips released ahead of the screening, Miss Roberts alleged how she was brought to London by Epstein in 2001, introduced to Andrew and taken to Tramp nightclub, and asked by the duke to dance.

She told Panorama reporter Darragh Macintyre: 'He is the most hideous dancer I've ever seen in my life.

'It was horrible and this guy was sweating all over me, his sweat was like it was raining basically everywhere, I was just like grossed out from it, but I knew I had to keep him happy because that's what Jeffrey and Ghislaine would have expected from me.'

In his recent Newsnight interview, Andrew claimed he had a medical condition in 2001, after suffering an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War when he was shot at, which meant he did not sweat.

When they had left the club, Miss Roberts said the socialite Ms Maxwell gave her instructions. She added: 'In the car Ghislaine tells me that I have to do for Andrew what I do for Jeffrey and that just made me sick.'

She said that later that evening she had sex with Andrew upstairs at Maxwell's house in Belgravia.

Many thanks to the Dutch posters here who provided so much information about the Dutch royal family, and the Belgians. Especially the story abourt Mabel Wisse and Prince Friso.

Yes, Mathilde and Philippe seem a much better fit for King and Queen. And I believe she was the only one of the women in that spate of royal marriages in the late 1990s-early 2000s that actually came of aristocratic background.

It is very likely that the Windsors and Andrew are as thick as supposed, but they also have legal advisors, and what this interview put paid to, in my view, is Roberts having any case against Andrew that would stand up in court. She's getting her own back this way, for better or worse.

I do hope this means that Andrew won't be "rehabilitated' when it all dies down in five years and Charles is on the throne.

The BRF still needs to be Swedenised.

He claimed in the interview he never met her, no recollection etc...but he sent the email in 2015 to maxwell inquiring about her. LOL

R575 - It all means nothing without proof, not assumptions, that Andrew knew the women were trafficked. What does trafficked mean in the context of the case? How does one prove a state of mind?

No one doesn't believe Andrew was a dirty old man with questionable morals, low characgter, poor judgement, and poor inhibition controls.

But those aren't hanging matters. When did MI-5 or MI-6 (as this falls outside UK jurisdiction) release information that they have videos?

In New York State, you must get a grand jury indictment to bring a case of this magnitude against someone for a felony this high.

The fact remains that Roberts has no proof that Andrew participated in trafficking, that he knew girls he had sex with were under 17, and 17 is the age of consent in New York State.

If she had a strong legal case, her lawyers would have kept her off television. You don't make your star witness and plaintiff vulnerable like that.

He may deserve to be smeared, I'm not arguing that, but that is what this is on her part: an enraged smear because she can't get at him legally.

He has already said he will volunteer to speak with the authorities, including the FBI.

They have not legal case against him, nothing that would get them a grand jury indictment in New York State criminal court, or they'd have told her to shut up and keep shtum.

That's how it works in the legal system. Making inane statements about asking the "British people to stand with me against this . . ." Really? What is she expecting the "British people" to do for her as they prepare for an important general election in a totally divided country that will decide the fate of BREXIT? Show up at Royal Lodge with pitchforks and torches?

She has no case, and MI-6 don't have anything on Andrew that can tip the balance or the Palace wouldn't have dared to issue that denial. They have top-flight barristers on the payroll. No QC would advise them to do such a thing if the other side had produced proof.

Andrew may spend the rest of his life in public exile, but he will not spend a moment in prison or in the dock.

To be fair, Roberts claimed she had sex with Andrew before the date of the email. What's more troubling is that he emailed Maxwell to discuss it. It looks like they're collaborating.

r580 has brought some sense to this thread-- at long last-- it was dearly needed. r580, do you think he will go through and talk with US authorities? Whether he could be charged or not, doing so seems like a very stupid move.

Andrew isn't that ugly...surely he could get women to fuck him? Why go after teenagers?

[bold]ANDREW PLANNING TO BRAZEN IT OUT[/bold]

r567 Thanks for the link, it appears the BRF feels SUPER CONFIDENT after Virginia's interview. Maxwell's TV appearance is still coming up.

[quote] A statement released on Monday evening read: "It is emphatically denied that The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation."

Gotta love the PASSIVE TENSE!

r542

[quote]…but, if it comes to light that he has in deed been lying and covering up the truth then this is the end of the BRF.

They already issued a denial. The BRF is not worried.

r543

[quote] …who cares if he’s an HRH when he won’t get to enjoy the perks?

Andrew is still keeping Pitch@Palace outside the palace, just Pitch now. That's the insider info, govt contract bidding set up he was making bank on. He doesn't care if the corporate sponsors back out - that was for the young entrepreneur side of the "charity." He will not lose the HRH as has been commented here.

r547

[quote]Andrew is still driving around like it's just another day.

Thanks for the Pic! It is obviously business as usual. Not hiding out is a choice here, one that communicates "everything fine, the press is lying, Virginia has nothing against me, MI-5 is going to stay quiet for the good the realm, wait till Maxwell exonerates me."

➡➡➡Bea's wedding is on! The "couple decided "

[quote] … on a celebration to take their mind off things, with an engagement party set to take place at celebrity favorite Chiltern Firehouse on 18th December.

r559

[quote]Does anyone care to venture who the inside source saying Andrew maintained constant phone and e-mail contact with Ghislaine Maxwell is?

Probably Andrew's people or the palace. Most likely a condition of her exonerating him. (I think)

r550 I feel for the poor RPOs who have to accompany Andrew everywhere and listen to him bloviate

Can't wait for the trial of Andrew's butler.

[quote] A statement released on Monday evening read: "It is emphatically denied that The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation."

The palace only denies it if it's true

He's not going to jail for having sex with her, but does anyone believe it didn't happen? He should shut up now.

r580, r581 --

MI5 has him in England, at least once in Belgravia, at Maxwell's mansion.

Stop distracting by talking about the FBI or about a crime in the US. Look at home.

Re MI5, I found that out from a Brit w/those types of connections. Believe it or not -- but you seem to like kick a lot sand around re this issue.

Top comment on Daily Mail:

[quote] He was sweating because he'd ran all the way from Pizza Express in Woking...

I think Andrew is counting on Maxwell to back him up.

I think Andrew is counting on Maxwell to back him up.

r587. Why on earth would MI5 have video from Maxwell's house though? They don't investigate anything to do with possible sex crimes,and neither Maxwell or Andrew are linked to terrorism or espionage afaik. Scotland Yard didn't follow up as any alleged trafficking was happening outside the UK.

End of story. It will be impossible to prove Andrew knew that Virginia was a victim of human trafficking. For him it was probably just another night on the town.

Agreeing to an interview with the BBC shows Virginia & co have no legal standing, which makes me wonder if she’s doing this in the hopes of getting paid off to keep her mouth shut. Once you take your dispute to the court or public opinion, it’s game over.

Andrew is a baboon, an opportunist and probably a borderline psychopath, even Helen Keller can see that. Others are there to cater to his every whim.

But a thoroughly evil person? No, I don’t think so. His “let them eat cake” mentality has led to his downfall, and he is now a disgraced member of the BRF (and that says a lot!).

As a British citizen, and as a child of the monarch, he will not be extradited to the US nor will he ever set foot on American soil again. He may cooperate with intelligence forces or detective agencies like the FBI, but it will be on his terms, on British soil and with a battery of lawyers seated around him.

R592 Since, as you say, they have no case, there is no reason for him to never visit the US, again. The most he is likely to face in the US is a civil suit.

True, R593 — but if I were Andrew, I’d stay away.

I'm really grateful to have a thread about Royals which is actually informative and civilized. I've learned a great deal, and this has been a great discussion. Thanks, everyone..

r591

[quote]Why on earth would MI5 have video from Maxwell's house though?

Because of her relationship with Epstein and his clientele. Epstein was on intelligence services radar. Stupid Prince happened to be there.

r592 - I'm still suspicious of Virginia's motives, BTW

Yes, Andrew is venal, debauched and disgusting. Yet, seems a whole order of magnitude less evil than others involved in this affair.

He's going nowhere, he will brazen this out and slowly reappear with BRF, no comments made. In the estimation of the PR flaks, Virginia was not compelling. Let's see how Maxwell does on her TV appearance. If she even bothers to show up at this point.

[bold]Who is giving the emails to the Daily Mail?[/bold]

Link to Part III

5 women are claiming that Andrew witnessed their abuse by Epstein. So Andrew isn't so innocent.

All the light couldn't put out the dark

Running through pedo's heart