ROYAL TROUBLE Part III Starring HRH Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell

Why was Maxwell helping Epstein on this?

And don't forget - Donald Trump also raped teenagers supplied by Ghislane.

I'd like to say fuck you to the OP for "thanking us." What a self-important twat. .

Maxwell allegedly enjoyed the underaged ménage à trois and more.

Can someone tell me when showing appreciation became a self important act?

r5 - Sometimes persons testing out plausible yet fallacious explanations don't like their talking points questioned.

Not to start a ruckus, but I still can't stop thinking about the "egg dick".

What, R7? It's quite now anyway...

^Sigh. Quiet.

Epstein's dick was described in court documents as being egg-shaped. No one was able to figure out what that looked like. It still puzzles me. But I was really just trying to bring levity to a dreary topic.

Virginia was allegedly a victim of human trafficking.

Call me ignorant, but when I think of human trafficking, I think of people being held captive against their will; drugged out of their minds, etc.

Could it be that Virginia was enjoying the social circles, only to later realise she was nothing but ‘another blonde’ to them?

R11, she was a 17 year old runaway, as probably most women who are trafficked are. What other proof do you require? Not everyone is “drugged;” they are simply taken advantage of because they have no place to go.

Screw you, R3. OP has managed to created a British royal thread that keep going and isn't consistently paywalled or deleted. OP is being gracious. You're being a cunt.

I had the Savannah Guthrie interview with Virginia on DVR, finally watched some of it. To be honest, I was bored, not sure why. Turned it off about halfway.

R12 All I can say is: Something ain’t right. Based on nothing but my gut, truth be told - but it’s all just very conspicuous to me.

R15, I agree. But I don't like to elaborate my opinions, since I'm afraid to be chased off of DL. Too many of the terms being tossed about are DM terms, which don't really reflect the reality. They've published stories of 12 year old girls being offered as 'gifts: that's a very serious crime, which makes me sick, yet those stories seem to disappear. I think there's a serious issue here, but talking about Andrew just distracts from the real criminal activity. I've admitted here on DL, that I was having sex with older men back when I was 17, and I was very much the aggressor. Andrew is just the biggest fish caught in the fishtrap. There are far more sordid and ugly stories here that aren't being examined. A sweaty prince dancing badly and having sex with a 17 year old isn't really that horrible: I've done the same thing (no guilt) except princes don't normally visit my city.

r16 - I think more than one of the posters thinks Andrew is a distraction from other crimes. I get that feeling, too. Who's giving the Daily Mail Maxwell's emails that contradict Andrew's story or provide new details? Why is the focus on Andrew, when other clients were just as involved?

Something is off about this whole thing.

From the previous thread.

[quote]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.

[quote]But a thoroughly evil person? No, I don’t think so.

What is this supposed to mean? Because he's rich, "royal," stupid, coddled and watched? He can't possibly exercise his true psychopathy because he has too many constraints to let loose?

He might possibly only be evil because he has a clean up crew.

[quote]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.

Could well be brinkmanship by the Palace. They do dare because of Andrew's defiance. They say there was 'no relationship' with Victoria, despite That Photo. They and their QCs can't know exactly all the material MI5 and MI6 have on Andrew. Someone's leaking his emails to G Maxwell, after all. In addition the Palace has hardly always covered itself in glory when events overtake them, top QCs or not. Andrew's hopeless interview went ahead at The Queen's residence. Nobody thinks that was a smart move.

[quote]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.

It won't all die down, because it's been simmering since William's wedding at least, and will blaze on. This and more will be the light in which Andrew is seen for the rest of his days.

The credulous theories about how Virginia surely must have known she was being trafficked always forget that she was underage and, therefore, could not have legally agreed to allow herself to be trafficked.

THAT photo, sleeve as it is, isn't proof. What I find damning is the email when Andrew denies knowing who the woman was. Yet he was sending emails at 5:50 demanding to know more about her the night after they allegedly had sex. Just who the hell shared that email with the DM? That's what I'd really like to know.

The paparazzi in England hack the Royals stuff all the time.

'Charles needs to cut the fat.'

This will not include his son. Why would Charles want to preside over a royal family so small that it doesn't have enough working royals to cover the big Commonwealth tours? You think he and William will split all the tours between just the two of them? They'll never be at home.

The bond between father and son is much stronger than it is between two brothers born a decade apart. Charles will elevate Harry, not dismiss him.

R27 I have not watched the documentary so I did not know it was the night after they (allegedly) had sex. That is damning.

What’s the story about the Aussies allegedly having caught Prince Pedo on tape in Thailand?

Roberts claimed she was threatened and intimidated, so she wasn't free to leave. This is the basis for her claim that she was trafficked. But it had nothing to do with PA.

I hovered over the R27 in R24's post for a full minute before I realized it was a typo and there was no R27!

R13 - Second that.

Andrew's email to Maxwell wasn't sent right after they had sex. Accordingly to the DM story, it was sent years later, days after Roberts named him in court documents.

I do not know how many times I have to say this: the woman has no case that offers the possibility of rising to the threshold beyond reasonable doubt or getting a grand jury indictment in New York. If she had a case, she never would have appeared on television, her lawyers would have taped her mouth shut and tied her to a chair before letting her do so.

And I don't the denial was "brinkmanship". I think after the BRF and its lawyers saw the interview, they realised the same thing and issued the denial, which essentially calls Roberts a liar, baiting her to sue for defamation of character or slander. Then she'll have to prove that what she said was true in order to gain a judgement for slander, and she can't.

She was 17. It is the age of consent in New York. He wasn't, in her case at least, a paedophile (that refers to children under the age of 12) and no one has produced a single shred of prima facie evidence that Andrew was having sex with minors that he knew to be minors.

The court of public opinion and the courts of justice operate on different terms.

In the court of public opinion, Andrew's ability to function as a senior respectable member of Britain's Royal Family is over. But he has yet to appear before the courts of justice, let alone lose the case there.

And I'm tired of people talking about what MI-5 and MI-6 have. I haven't seen an announcement by either arm of the British Special Branches. It's all conjecture. That's why they're called Special Branch and Secret Service - they don't talk to Panorama or the Daily Mail, and they sure as hell don't when the royal family are involved.

DM now has a story up claiming the Regency rumours are totally false, according to the usual "royal insider" who talked to Katie Nicholl at VF. According to said royal insider "the monarchy is as strong and stable as ever", a phrase which in and of itself is provably false after the last two years, and that the Queen has no intention of stepping aside even in function if not form, by appointing Charles Regent when she turns 95.

I will say that I think it likely HM would resist any such move to the last, but no one knows whether she will still be functional at 95, as if, amongst all the world's seniors, she alone will be just as viable a Sovereign as she was at 30.

But assuming that she does successfully ride this out and refuse to make Charles Regent, dooming him to become King when he himself is on the brink of his dotage, and does survive mentis intacta and compos, this doesn't bode well for the Sussexes, with whom she is clearly angry.

It would be interesting if all that occurs over the next two years is Andrew quietly disappearing, the Queen booting the Sussexes out (or, let us say, graciously givng them the green light to exit, which would be very much the same thing), and the ship settling down somewhat to sail through Philip's funeral and, perhaps, HM's, as well.

The question must be begged: how good for the monarchy is a frail an increasingly diminishing woman of nearly 100, and a Prince of Wales of eighty?

Agree, R31. While I admire Elizabeth's adherence to duty and her oath, ironically, her stubborn refusal to step aside and allow Charles to reign may be a death knell for the very thing she's devoted her life to protecting. There's a reason kings and queens of other royal houses step aside for the younger generations.

Enough with the fanfic about Meghan and Harry getting kicked out of the royals! It's stupid and, more importantly, it's off topic.

They'll take any opportunity to sneak in Sussex talk ,they are so fucking crazy.

Meh, the Sussexes are part of the Royal family as are the Cambridges. It's going to happen. By and large, we stay pretty much on topic. It's best if we just ignore and keep plodding forward.

I don't think it's a crime for Andrew to have sex with anyone who is age 17. It's the fact that he knew about Epstein's criminal activities, saw that he had very young women massage him, fuck him (who knows?) and 5 women even say that Prince Andrew saw Epstein "rape" them...

When you come from a shitty family like most of these girls, they don't know any better, for once, an adult is paying attention to them (albeit the illegal kind), they are glad for that and do whatever the adult wants them to do. The adult is showering them with " luxuries" like trips, meals, meeting important people etc. That's all very exciting to them and much better than their shitty lives they ran away from.

It's Prince Andrew taking advantage of poor young girl(s) in their sad circumstance that is OBJECTIONABLE to me. Not that I give a shit about Prince Andrew but c'mon, he's a fucking benefit scrounger! The tax payers shouldn't have to pay for this when the NHS is falling apart and people are being treated in gurneys in the the hospital hallways.

r10 sometime after Epstein died I ran across an article that recounted the girl's testimony about Epstein's dick. There was also a hand drawn picture. Best way do describe it is his dick was thicker at the base of the shaft and got narrower as you go toward the head. The head was egg shaped instead of the normal mushroom shape.

But that's a hand drawn picture and I couldn't tell you what publication or website I saw that. Too much stuff out there.

R37, the egg shaped penis is mentioned in charging papers in FL. One of the victims was disgusted by it and refused to touch it during massage. He later offered this girl money to find other classmates to massage him, which she did.

Also, if fucking her wasn't wrong...why did he lie about it? and such absurd lies...I don't sweat, I don't show affection in public...Does he think the public is stupid like him?

why didn't he just say...yes, I fucked her, so what? it's not illegal to have sex with a 17 year old. I didn't know she was there against her will etc...there is no proof of that so he can just deny that. Bad judgement, yes. But not illegal.

He must be more involved with Epstein than we know....

I think the media is zeroing in on Andrew because Epstein is dead. If Epstein were alive all eyes would be on him and Andrew would be one of many celebrities who were implicated. But right now Andy is a surrogate for Jeffrey. I believe that girl. I think Andrew is guilty as fuck.

Unless Andrew was helping to traffic these girls going after him in no way is equal to prosecuting Epstein. Andrew is a great distraction to keep people from asking more questions about who was involved in ACTUALLY TRAFFICKING GIRLS.

Fucking under age people is a crime but in this case it is nothing compared to TRAFFICKING HUMANS so that you can use them to BLACK MAIL important wealthy individuals and politicians.

Andrew is one person. There were many girls and many important men who had sex with them.

[quote]R6 A sweaty prince dancing badly and having sex with a 17 year old isn't really that horrible: I've done the same thing (no guilt) except princes don't normally visit my city.

Except teenage girls aren’t usually in the same mindset as trashy twinks, like you were.

LONDON — President Trump said at a news conference on Tuesday that he “doesn’t know” Britain’s Prince Andrew, despite photos of the two taking a walk side by side in June, smiling at Westminster Abbey during the president’s three-day state visit to Britain and attending at least one social gathering several years ago.

“I don’t know him, no,” Trump said, shaking his head, though it was not long before photos of the two men together began resurfacing online.

Trump never knows anyone when the press turns negative. It won't be that long until he doesn't know Giuliani. And I thought the palace trotted out Andrew during the last state visit precisely because Trump knew him. As I recall they even played golf together.

[quote]R32 While I admire Elizabeth's adherence to duty and her oath, ironically, her stubborn refusal to step aside and allow Charles to reign may be a death knell for the very thing she's devoted her life to protecting.

Big Liz is going to great lengths to keep Charles from reigning over The People. She must have long known something she feels they need protecting from.

Think about it.

I thought she has stayed as long as she has in order to allow her children the freedom to live their lives free of the responsibilities of the monarchy.

Another famous but less well known Betty, Betty White, was afraid for the end of Hot In Cleveland because she thought that the end of the show would bring about her death. She loved working and felt it was what has kept her alive so long. (I worked on HIC the last season.)

Could be the royal Betty began to feel the same way at a certain point. She may have had plans to hand the monarchy over when W&H were older and on their own and Charles wouldn't need to worry about being around. But when faced with giving up her duties she found the thought distressing because her entire identity has been Queen of England for most of her life. I imagine she might find a certain comfort and pride in the thought of taking it to her grave.

[QUOTE] But assuming that she does successfully ride this out and refuse to make Charles Regent, dooming him to become King when he himself is on the brink of his dotage, and does survive mentis intacta and compos, this doesn't bode well for the Sussexes, with whom she is clearly angry.

'Clearly angry'! Give me one speck of evidence that isn't tabloid speculation. The Sussexes are going nowhere.

They press is going after Prince Andrew coz it sells papers or gets them "eyeballs" on their websites...even though there isn't anything concrete...

Well, clown Andrew is being recalled to entertain President Trump, golfing, etc. with him. Apparently this guy Trump "doesn't know" has a "special rapport" with him....which allows me to speculate: The Palace is very sly. They know Trump is unpopular and scum. Trump hanging with Andrew is great. Because it's "birds of a feather" so to speak, since Andrew will never recover from the stench of his association with Epstein. The unpopularity of Trump will screw Johnson, and help Andrew.

R46, I think it's more of a sense of duty. Elizabeth is old school. She pledged and the dear age of 16, that she would "give her life whether it be long or short" and she intends to keep her pledge. She's not going to resign. Now if this changes, then I believe it will happen after Philip dies. But I serious;y doubt it. I don't believe her decision has anything to do with Charles, but more with her sense of duty.

So chummy these three in this photo

R48 & R52 - I also think we mustn’t underestimate the religious/sacred aspect here: Unlike the other royal houses of Europe, the monarch gets crowned and anointed.

In my opinion, this adds another layer of complexity and devotion to their sense of duty. One simply doesn’t walk away from that “job”.

That said, I do think it’s wise to let the next generation take over the reigns at some point: It keeps the monarchy fresh and current. Every 25-30 years a new head of state isn’t such a bad idea, in my opinion.

R54-agree. The problem is Elizabeth is the only monarch the majority of people have ever known in the UK. Another is inconceivable. So when Charles finally does take the crown, who could blame people if they said, "On second thought, we'd rather not"?

[quote]“I don’t know him, no,” Trump said, shaking his head, though it was not long before photos of the two men together began resurfacing online.

Trump doesn't know PA in the same way he didn't know Epstein. Yet last night's 'Panorama' was able to include a clip of the younger playboys DT and JE palling around at some party event. It's unlike Trump to give such credence to speculation about his early-onset Alzheimer's.

[quote]They press is going after Prince Andrew coz it sells papers or gets them "eyeballs" on their websites...even though there isn't anything concrete…

Yes that's right. PA has undergone unprecedented demotion from his Royal duties and abandonment by all the good causes he's supposedly supported due only to press provocation. Or just perhaps the Palace and others managed finally to grasp that the world accurately perceives him to be an arrogant sleazebag.

That family’s all about money, so of course they’re licking Trump butt. (Ironically, except American Meghan.)

More conspiracy theories.

R55 - That's exactly the danger the BRF is in now: waiting until one shriveled octogenarian takes over from a recently deceased nonagenarian. If she appoints Charles Regent now, at a (let's say because we really don't know for sure otherwise) hale 71, by the time HM is raptured, the public are already used to Charles as Head of State.

That said, "the people" would have to say, "on second thought, no thanks" in huge numbers to get their MPs behind a motion to abolish the monarchy. If you think the BREXIT referendum was a shock, wait till that one rolls around.

I suspect Parliament wouldn't touch it with the proverbial barge pole unless they knew upwards of 70% of the public were firmly behind it. Personally, I gauge that day to be much farther off than many like to think.y

And that is probably what the BRF are counting on. In my view, they are making a mistake in doing so. It may not be likely, but it isn't impossible, and having an 80 year old succeed a 100 year old just isn't good optics.

However much HM may loathe the idea, the sensible thing to do now is name Charles Regent so that he can still run the monarchy while a relatively youngish old man, and bring the charming, anodyne Cambridges forward so people can fix their view on the younger generation coming up the road with their attractive brood, dutiful consort, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam ad infinitum.

They may survive, anyway, if HM refuses to do so, but if I were in her ermine robes, I wouldn't chance it.

[quote]That said, "the people" would have to say, "on second thought, no thanks" in huge numbers to get their MPs behind a motion to abolish the monarchy. If you think the BREXIT referendum was a shock, wait till that one rolls around.

Putin's on a roll. Trump, Brexit, exit monarchy for the hat-trick. Job done.

R60 - Most BREXIT supporters also support the monarchy.

It should be: Putin's on a roll. Trump, BREXIT, exit Meghan Markle for the hat-trick. Job done.

I wonder if any of the various Archbishops of Canterbury ever had an intimate chat with Her Majesty, concerning the conduct of her family? Elizabeth is, after all, head of the Church of England, and so should be setting a good example for all by seeing to, as far as it's possible to do so, how her family behaves. Many people DO look up to the royals, for good or ill, so why have your family's dirty linen aired when you could so easily, if heavy-handedly, control it?

Do you imagine there were any frantic calls from Buckingham Palace to Lambeth Palace, inquiring of His Grace The Archbishop, for some words of wisdom? I find myself in the minority who place some of the blame for said dirty linen, at the feet of Her Majesty.

Thank you, R59, for expressly that so succinctly. You should be on retainer at Buck House. That would be a sound strategy, but then again, the queen has been shown not always to do what would be the prudent thing. R62-the queen has lost quite a lot of moral authority, hasn't she? Then again, given how the Church of England started, it never really had much to begin.

It's not as if the Church and the Establishment haven't been hand in hand for lo these many centuries . . . that includes the Papacy before the Prostestant Reformation.

The Queen is deeply religious, and humour aside, I wouldn't be surpised if My Lord Archbishop hasn't been invited in for tea, comfort, and sorrowful advice. Naturally, this wouldn't be made public.

Personally, I wouldn't trust Welby's judgement, he's shown himself a perfect arse so far.

r62, i never really thought of the CofE position either. I guess the churchy people have come to terms with Charles now divorce is ok for Anglicans.

I come from a Carrie type catholic family so it was imperative that my mother had her marriage annulled .We could be little bastards as long as she could take communion.

Anglicans are way more relaxed.

The queen will never retire. Ever. But she will greatly curtail her duties, and Charles will increase his visibility, and act as Regent even if he isn't officially conferred with that title. It's happening gradually before our eyes. We are used to Charles, and we will be seeing a lot more of him and William. William is in Kuwait right now meeting and reviewing military shit. Don't worry. Edward, Sophie, Anne and Beatrice and Eugenie will definitely continue to cut ribbons at housing projects and nursery schools. They will do the small bullshit stuff in the community just llike the Kents do right now. Charles may be intending to streamline things, but he is not going to clutter his life or the lives of his sons with that community bullshit.

Prince William today has been in the shipping lanes off Iran supporting the Navy

This from the link at r53

[quote]Giuffre said she was forced to have sex with Epstein's rich and powerful friends across the world after being recruited from Mar-a-Lago as a teen.

She was recruited from Mar-a-Lago?

And the Slovenian whore is in the photo with Andrew and Trump AT Mar-A-Lago.

Oh boy.

r25

[quote]What’s the story about the Aussies allegedly having caught Prince Pedo on tape in Thailand?

Just part of the job, mate.

The Australians, along with the Brits, Kiwis, the Americans and the Canadians, have security agreement where they spy on their area of the world and share information. Thailand, due to lax prostitution laws and enforcement, is a pedo-playground. So the Aussies listen in on the sex-tourism of prominent people and share the info. Prince Do-Do was photographed out in the open on a yacht. So, the Aussie pricked up their ears.

r62

[quote]I find myself in the minority who place some of the blame for said dirty linen, at the feet of Her Majesty

You are not in the minority.

Looks like number 45 might be (or have been) in the business of trafficking young women or helping others to participate in it in some way.

So did Epstein jizz in Jizz Lanes jizz lane?

As much as a monarchist as I fancy myself to be, I too believe the BRF have looked away from Andrew’s behaviour for far too long.

QE2 is Head of State, Commander in Chief of the British forces, and God knows what more — and with that she would have been well-informed about her son’s antics.

She should have put a stop to it in the early 00’s. It would have been the expedient thing to do. So yes, I do believe the Queen is carrying some of the blame.

I don't know him

Trump is in it up to his eyeballs. Human trafficking, rape, murder....you only have to listen to the way he describes female victims as being “sliced” etc to see the sick sexual gratification he gets from it all.

Idk about any conspiracy theories, but that photo of Epstein’s body in profile being wheeled out certainly didn’t resemble him

Prince Andrew will 'die' mysteriously soon too. And spend the rest of his life with Epstein and Lord Lucan on a luxurious private island.

it’s pretty SHITTY for Me! to steal Harry away from the monarchy when his father is going to need all the help he can get running the show with a Sweden-sized cast of players. What a stupid bint. Doesn’t know how to play a long game.

Phillip, arrange passage for Andrew and Markle to Paris. And a black Mercedes. You know the drill.

Every person that uses a prostitute is as culpable though surely, granny with the fanny was 14 once, do any men ask her how she got to that place?

r76, I misread that as Mel..I thought scary spice which would be a laugh...well actually a bit better than what we have landed with.

One is old and tired. One just wants to fuckin die. But ones family are such fuckin screw ups one has to keep working.

Go start your own thread if you want to talk about sussex. 76, 77, 79

One thing I've been wondering-Andrew was associated with 600 charities. I realize his name was just slapped on the vast majority, but I'm wondering if charities ever quantify how much having a royal affiliation improves their standing. Is there, say, a pre Duchess of Cambridge vs. a post Duchess of Cambridge timeline that shows that yes, having a royal attached to your non-profit makes a real, substantive difference in standing, donations, operations, etc.? I can see where the big names can make a big difference, but does having someone like Andrew or Edward matter much one way or the other? And if that's the case, does it further support having a slimmed down monarchy?

Giving each minor royal a patronage in each town is total bollocks. Having the Queen or Charles for a large new bridge or new town opening is important.

Whether it's Edward, Andrew or Anne – having one of the sovereign's children as your organisation's patron adds a lot of cachet and it opens doors that would normally remain closed. Call it star-power, if you want.

I doubt you'll find a fair A/B comparison online, but surely people will say having Princess so-and-so on the plaque made a lot of things happen in a short amount of time.

Then you know it's bad when charities announced they wanted zero to do with Andrew. I know it's not prison, but it has to cut him to his core that HRH is persona non grata. He's the kind of ass who probably likes to have rose petals scattered in his toilet bowl.

R84-it probably depends on the royal and the cause. Subscribers to the National Theatre cancelled their subscriptions when Meghan Markle was assigned patron. (A soap actress - patron? Really!!) My guess is her affiliation with Smart Works and the animal shelter is a boon to both those organizations.

This idea that the Queen should retire or whatever and make Charles regent is ridiculous and betrays a misunderstanding of what a regent is. All that needs to happen is for Charles (and William) to take over more of the Queen's duties - which are not political (or very rarely and even then pretty much only in relation to the opening and closing of parliament). So what exactly the purpose of a Regency in the 21st century is is somewhat unclear.

Those who are saying that Virginia Giuffre was a willing participant in what happened to her and that she enjoyed the "perks" of her "job" seem to be forgetting that she's not the only woman coming forward with these allegations against Epstein.

Most charities have several patrons don't forget. A royal patronage may be cachet but not the be all and end all by any means.

And a whole host of Cluster Bs

[quote]r54 Unlike the other royal houses of Europe, the monarch gets crowned and anointed.

Yeah, just like Andrew annointed that poor girl's asshole - -

[quote]r75 it’s pretty SHITTY for Me! to steal Harry away from the monarchy

Oh, have they moved?

[quote]Most BREXIT supporters also support the monarchy.

It doesn't seem that way online. In comments sections and on social media, the people I see criticizing the BRF and asking for it to be abolished are almost always conservative Brexiteers, and that includes people livid about Prince Andrew. Though I will say there's a difference between the normal everyday apolitical, centrist or liberal folks who are appalled at what he has done, and the conservatives who basically say "this is proof they're all scum/globalists/lizard people."

The Queen just handed Kate one of TQ's oldest patronages, Family Action, a patronage the Queen has held for 65 years.

The patronages matter but in the same weight for all of them at the same time. The royal patron's job is to show up at annual fundraising events so people will pay heavily for tickets so they can be in the same room with. Between events like those, the patron's job is to highlight the work being done by carefully arranged visits. These do not raise funds immediately, like banquets, but keep the charity's name out there.

That said, there are far too many patronages being held by too many royals and most of the public don't care and don't remember which of them is attached to which charity and how much difference it makes. The public are clueless about the Duchess of X attending the anniversary of the founding of the Worshipful Company of Needlemakers.

It's the women and children/arts/hunger/environment stuff that sells the royals today and vice versa.

It was another mark of the Queen's tone-deafness to make a c-list American actress with one acting job to her name and that in a joke cable soap, now turned Duchess, patron of the National Theatre. (Not to mention a bloody bad actress - the jeers inside the NT probably reached the street when the news came out.)

The purpose of a Regency is to see that the monarchy functions properly in the event the Sovereign becomes less able to do so, without upending everything by forcing an abdication.

The Queen will be 94 in April. Even assuming she's as sharp as she was at75 is to assume a great deal given the statistics on senior memory loss and other functionality once past 80. Are we really to assume the Queen isn't just like most other seniors of 93?

And, she is clearly to blame for failing to ensure that her family behave properly not just in the interests of the monarchy but of the government's and the nation's public face. Andrew and the Sussexes should have been pulled up short, not indulged in hopes that with indulgence they'd be thankful for their good fortune and behave well.

They haven't. And, as mentioned elsewhere, the monarchy's continued public face for the next, lets' say twenty years, enhances a continued perception of a dying institution, literally as well as figuratively.

It may be true that TQ will not under any circumstances consider a Regency, citing diminishing energy or whatever, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. Charles can still look energetic and is still on the sunny side of 75. If the Queen lives, like her mother, to 101, Charles will be nearly 80 - give him 15 years to 95 and the nation will for decades have had only ancients on the throne.

Making Charles Regent will give him a chance to look like a King sooner, if not be one, the handover when it comes will be smoother, and the Cambridges will be brought forward faster and earlier so that comparative youth is nearby if not in the foreground.

The Queen knew when she had Charles at 21 or so, and then became Queen at a very youn 25, that Charles faced the potential dreaded "Edward VII Prince of Wales problem". Yet, she did absolutely nothing to avoid it.

This is her chance to make up for that mistake. I think a Regency, however unlikely, is a brilliant move for the monarchy. Not least because it marks a separation between under whose regime Andrew and the Sussexes occurred, because quite rightly, the farthing stops at the Queen's desk on this.

That separation is badly needed. I don't expect TQ to follow my advice, mind, but I still think it good advice.

[QUOTE] Phillip, arrange passage for Andrew and Markle to Paris. And a black Mercedes. You know the drill.

And an IED under Bald's car in Kuwait too, please.

[QUOTE] Not least because it marks a separation between under whose regime Andrew and the Sussexes occurred, because quite rightly

As if these two are anywhere close on the scandal scale. Your written English is atrocious, but what can we expect from a racist?

R93, can you explain why Charles has to be made "regent"? This would imply that the monarch has political power, as that was the whole point of regencies in previous centuries (and they were very rare), transferring the political power of the monarch to the heir or another figure if the monarch became mentally incapacitated. The monarch has no political power today and their only "political" role is to open and close parliament, which is a ceremonial ritual.

I know the UK doesn't have written constitution so it's hard for outsiders to understand a few things about the political system here, but some of you sound like you take your knowledge of the functions of royalty from romance novels.

The Clintons are neck deep in this scandal and getting a free pass.

R96 - No, it doesn't imply political power. That is to say, no more political power than the Sovereign has, which isn't much. A Regent still has to stay within the boundaries constitutionnally laid down, and Charles has already gotten into trouble trying to cross those, albeit to no affect.

No, the issue with a Regency right now is that it reduces the Sovereign, even if still marginally viable, to a Lame Duck Queen. That's the problem. They have a choice between stretching out the monarchy over the next two decades of nothing but ancients, or admitting that they DO have a Lame Duck Queen who can only become even less able to control her wayward family than she already seems.

It's not an enviable position, but I believe it is a real two-sided sword. All unpleasant options: making it clear without a Regency that Charles is now handling things; making it clearwith a Regenc that he is handling things; or trying to pretend that TQ is still completely in charge as she heads for 94 when it's clear she's already screwed things up by indulging Andrew and the Sussexes and ignoring the elephants in the room.

But a Regency is no more politican than the Sovereign. Even if formally dissolving Parliament and "requesting" that someone form a new government, the monarch takes advice on who that someone is based on electoral results. That is to say, if Labour got enough votes to form a minority government, rather than one with a clear majority, the Queen would have to ask Jeremy Corbyn to form that government; she couldn't and wouldn't of her own free will decide to ask, say, someone she liked better to do so. Their political limitations are quite clear.

[quote]It doesn't seem that way online. In comments sections and on social media, the people I see criticizing the BRF and asking for it to be abolished are almost always conservative Brexiteers, and that includes people livid about Prince Andrew.

I see the opposite: those most critical of the BRF and pro-abolishment (aka Republicans) are the anti-Brexit faction, the pro-Corbyn Socialist faction. The conservative, traditionalist/nationalist Brexiteers are almost as a whole notoriously pro-monarchy.

That's not to say that the latter aren't horrified by the Andrew scandal, most are.

Panorama- a noir thriller

I love how the Russian trolls in here conveniently fail to mention Donald Trump was good friends with Ghislane, Epstein, and was seen on the hunt with Brian for young girls.

'These photos have never been seen before'

Okay, who leaked them? Had to be a family member.

R101 - Er, because the thread is about the British Royal Family, not Donald Trump?

And whilst the royals are perversely fascinating, Donald Trump is merely perverse?

And, as we all know, anyone who prefers discussing the royals rather than Donald Trump is, ipso facto, a Russian troll.

Just an observation, but Andrew's interview was explosive. However, the Panorama interview with Virginia Roberts Guiffry seems to have landed with a thud. Her interview doesn't let Andrew off the hook, but it also doesn't appear to condemn him any further than he already is.

Is Andrew in anymore legal jeopardy as a result of Virginia's testimony, or is now just a case of he said/she said that will fade away, granted having Andrew without his royal duties? And why is there no heat on Ghislane Maxwell? She seems a whole more implicated in sex trafficking than Andrew who is alleged to have had sex with Virginia, but he didn't traffic her.

Excellent observations, R104. The whole thing reached its peak. It will come back every now and then, with newspapers desperately trying to revive the whole thing with new, “explosive” allegations — but the general public will have lost interest. On to the next scandal!

BRF knows this. They’ve seen these patterns over and over again. This too shall pass. They’re shrewd AF.

[quote]This too shall pass.

So Andrew's hundreds of charitable organisations will gradually come back to him - because, after all, as he told us, he's 'too honourable.' OK.

The Furst (ruling prince) of Liechtenstein had the right idea when he handed most of the executive powers to his son The Hereditary Prince while still young, while retaining the ceremonial role as sovereign of the nation. He had to wait a long time for his throne too.

The queen at 70 looked a lot more healthy than Charles. I can't see him lasting more than another ten years.

"It doesn't seem that way online. In comments sections and on social media, the people I see criticizing the BRF and asking for it to be abolished are almost always conservative Brexiteers, and that includes people livid about Prince Andrew."

Exactly how would you know what their political views are whether they voted LEAVE or REMAIN?

You have to remember that "conservative" doesn't mean in Britain what it means in America. Nearly 40% of Labour's former base in the north voted LEAVE - in fact, almost the entire post-industrial northeast, still the economic stepchild of England, voted LEAVE. The Labour Party isn't what it was 50 years ago to the working-classes, who feel betrayed by Labour. That doesn't make them "conservative" - it made them angry.

Labour, not unlike the Democrats in America, lost much of their former hold on the working classes and became the emblem of the "enlightened" middle and upper middle classes. The whole political landscape has been realigned in the last 20 years. It's not as cut and dried as it used to be.

But unless they stated they were LEAVE voters, how would you know?

In Viginia's interview, there was one point when she appealed to the British public to stand with her because "Andrew is you guys' royalty." Yes, she said "you guys'." So, is that her call to arms? Does she have any legal recourse? Or is she just asking the British public to stand with her? Because if that's it, then that may not be enough. And the British public has no loyalty to Viginia.

I'm not defending Andrew, but if he had sex with a 17-year old and didn't know she was being trafficked in 2001 (I would guess Andrew knew the score subsequently after many years of Epstein's repeated behavior), but that's it? It appears that Virginia's legal argument is with Epstein and not Andrew especially if she were the age of consent where the sex took place.

Unless you have more women coming forward accusing Andrew, I can't see this getting any worse. Things will indeed quiet down, but I think aside from events like Trooping the Colour, he's done with public life. I can't imagine any charity wanting him back.

[quote]The whole thing reached its peak.

R105. I think you might be right. But damn, if this the peak, then the whole thing is over, I guess. And if this is truly is the peak, then Andrew jeopardized the entire rest of his life and place in the BRF along with the life and well-being of his daughters as it pertains to their role in the BRF and whether others agree or not, the well-being of his former wife but still current partner, Sarah, Duchess of York. They all may not be front and center or the most popular as far as the BRF stands; however, they are a family (regardless of whether we agree with their arrangement). And for Andrew to ever agree to that stupid, asinine interview further risking his place and stature--for something that is now over in a mere two weeks after his interview and regardless of what Charles was planning anyway--is unimaginably insane.

R111 - I tend to agree. There is the remaining issue of his business dealings - but that's already receding. Comments upthread about the Roberts interview not having quite the impact she could have hoped, but instead making it clear she has little proof that would stand up in court, are correct. This is as bad as it will get, and the other women coming forward will do nothing but continue the smear operation for awhile. Not that he doesn't deserve to be smeard, but legally, this is over, in my opinon.

And he's done with public life. I'm not even sure about events like the Trooping the Colour. I would guess against him appearing on that balcony in June 2020.

R106 that is not what I said nor implied, you illiterate twat.

"I can't imagine any charity wanting him back."

They took me back. Money talks!

R104/R112 you are absolutely right — Let this be a lesson for all: Time waters down everything, including outrage. His PR team was right and that’s why they jumped ship before he went on camera.

They should have released a clear statement weeks ago, then leave it at that. All the rest is hearsay, and come January, people would’ve latched onto a new scandal.

Andrew’s move was stupid, and I can imagine that the BRF “demoted” him so that he becomes less of a gaffe-prone liability.

I wonder if we'll ever find out who killed Epstein. I still don't believe it was suicide.

r104, r116, r113 and others,

After the BRF...

---Set a date for Bea's engagement party

---Issued a denial for the Duke in the passive voice

---Allowed Andrew to continue with the moneymaking Pitch (just not @ the palace)

---Admitted to Andrew and Maxwell continuing to be touch

…they knew they were in the clear. The denial issued for the Duke not by the Duke is a clear indication the BRF consulted lawyers. Admitting ongoing communications with Maxwell (which puzzled me) merely shows the BRF reviewed the Daily Mail's revelations and saw no exposure.

I hate that the whale wiggled away.

I’m afraid you’re right, Marie

Say what you will, you can't keep a good pair'a tits down!

Are they real?

Actually, setting a date for Bea's engagement party has nothing to do with demoting or not demoting his daughter. This is a private event, the whole wedding, no television, no carriage ride, she isn't on the public payroll and never has been. They don't need to hide her wedding or pre-wedding plans to punish her father and it wouldn't have had the slightest thing to do with his legal case one way or the other. She isn't guilty of anything except heinous dressing.

For the rest, yes. As stated, if she had a legal case worth a damn, she wouldn't have done that interview, let alone said inane and pointless things like, "I'm asking the British people to stand up with me . . ."

No one who has the New York District Attorney's office working on a very public trial on her behalf does that or says those things.

Her lawyers may have tried to play some cagey vague threat type tactics, but if they did, they failed and her appearance put paid to any lingering suspicions the BRF may have had about what the other side had.

He's done for in terms of patronages and strutting about like the thick peacock he's always been, and he'll have to take a back seat in the royal parade for the rest of his life, but that's it.

[quote]But unless they stated they were LEAVE voters, how would you know?

By what they say in their comments and profiles, R109.

Type in the words "Corbyn" and "Markle" into Twitter's search engine and behold thousands of Brexiteer accounts who are grousing about the BRF. If you spent any time on the Meghan Markle threads here on Datalounge you would have seen tons of examples of pro-Brexit, rightwing accounts saying they hated Markle and the whole BRF who were "benefit scroungers" and "at least that mixed attention whore actress is taking them down."

Prince Andrew was given a “tense” telling off by his dad, Prince Philip — who told him to “take his punishment” because he had endangered “the very fabric of the royal family,” it was claimed Thursday.

Andrew’s scandalous ties to the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal had already seen him dumped from royal duties and later “read the riot act” by his older brother, heir to the throne Prince Charles.

Now it has emerged that he was ordered to drive 140 miles to the Queen’s country retreat, Sandringham, for an earlier showdown with his father, 98-year-old Duke of Edinburgh Philip, according to The Telegraph.

“It was a tense meeting and Philip told his son he had to take his punishment,” a royal insider at Sandringham told the UK paper.

“There was no screaming or shouting but Philip told him in no uncertain terms that he had to step down for the sake of the monarchy.

“Philip doesn’t like trial by the media but he is realistic enough to realize that Andrew’s actions were a danger to the very fabric of the royal family.”

Philip arranged for Charles to take over giving his brother “the riot act” because he is slowly preparing to take control of the royal family as King, another source told The Telegraph.

“The feeling is that with Prince Philip retired at 98 and the Queen now 93, Charles has to take a firm grip on the family and plan for the future,” said another source.

“The first task was to support the Queen in helping to sort out the Andrew problem.”

Prince Andrew could be banned from the Queen’s Christmas Day church service over fears that his ties to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal would spark protests and even further humiliation for the royal family, it was claimed Thursday.

Royal courtiers are discussing asking the royal to stay away from the high-profile annual event, according to The Sun, which claims sex abuse campaigners are planning to infiltrate the crowds.

There are “genuine concerns” that campaigners plan to “jeer the Duke” as the royal family unites in front of the world’s media, causing “further embarrassment” for the monarchy, a royal source told the UK paper.

The debate is causing heartbreak for Andrew’s mother, Queen Elizabeth II, who is torn between the love of her son and protecting the monarchy.

“The Queen is already deeply upset about this situation because she loves her son very much,” the source told The Sun.

“It is hard to believe she would ever be able to bring herself to tell Andrew not to come, given they attend church together all the time.

“But there is a hope that he realizes just how much worse the situation could become if he is the subject to a public protest on Christmas day so decides to stay away himself.”

Andrew’s ties to his pedophile pal Epstein ultimately led to his downfall when he tried to justify them in a disastrous BBC interview, getting dumped from royal duties.

The scandal escalated when accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre gave her own BBC interview that aired Monday, repeating her allegations that she was sex trafficked by Epstein to have sex three times with the prince.

Buckingham Palace “emphatically denied” that Andrew “had any form of sexual contact or relationship” with her, insisting, “Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation.”

Not defending Andrew, but no, I don't find Virginia all that compelling, though I can't quite articulate why. As I mentioned upthread, I tried watching the Savannah Guthrie interview and felt surprisingly bored, tuned out early.

[quote]r122 Bea isn't guilty of anything except heinous dressing.

Her choice to stand by him rather than publically codemn him is noted. That choice will color the rest of her life.

How she can do this, as a young woman herself, is unfathomable. Tho maybe he molested her, too, and she's screwed up.

I wonder what Eugenie thinks of this mess. I haven't seen her lately. Bea went to see her father. Did Eugenie do the same?

Did she offer succor?

Like, orally?

I betcha Ghislaine's life is in danger, which is why she's been sort of elusive. We all know Jeffrey did not commit suicide. All this attention on Andrew is an example of what other high profile men are facing if they are exposed. My prediction is that Andrew and Ghislaine will have "accidents." For Andrew it'll be a heart attack. Ghislaine will drown....just like Daddy.

Ghislaine's probably had an escape plan in place for years. She's hiding in some walled country house like Osama bin laden.

R31 and r32, You do not seem to appreciate fully the PTSD visited upon the BRF with Edward VIII's abdication.

HM QE II will never leave the throne until her doctor declares her dead.

R132 - Not suggesting she leave the throne, only that she acknowledge she needs help staying on it for a few years and doing everything it requires of her. A Regency isn't an Abdication.

The trauma of Edward's abdication on the brink of WWII is, unfortunately, lost beyond TQ and perhaps Charles. To the younger generations, from the Queen's three younger children down to their children and grandchildren, it is lost in the mists of time and not real. Only she is left who actually lived through it - she was ten years old when Edward left. Somewhat the way to so many today that WWII might as well have been 200 years ago.

But the abdication turned out for Britain's benefit, exchanging the wayward self-indulgent Edward for the steadfast and dutiful Yorks.

I don't entirely disagree with your assertion, but I still believe she is wrong not to consider what is best for the institution - and that doesn't seem to me to be decades of Sovereigns over 80 years old presiding over continuing scandals and member who clearly are not being properly managed.

A Regency is only required when the Monarch becomes physically and/or mentally incapacitated (think of the madness of George III). Charles can "take over" without a Regency being declared. In fact, he's doing it now behind the scenes - slowly and discreetly.

R42, Not to mention this trafficking had been (still is, because, come on) going on for decades.

Epstein was a major player, but only one of who knows how many. He had his Caribbean and NYC bailiwicks, but what of the tony hideaways, private islands, yacht basins, and private planes in the rest of the world?

Where are the young girls who were taken from their asylum-seeking parents? At the say-so of those long-time Friends of Jeffrey: Trump and Barr.

Like the victims of the Pied Piper: never to be seen again. Except by..... whom?

Virginia's interview lacked the necessary "pizzazz" to make the audience sympathetic to her rape and trafficking

Be better.

[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.]

Lots of famous and powerful men must be nervous about all this coverage, thinking of the partying they did back in the day, taking advantage of their situations when nobody was really paying attention or complaining.

I wonder how many men, R138, complain amongst themselves about the good old days before #metoo-a time when men were men and women were there for their enjoyment. I wonder, too, how many powerful men have had to seriously curtail their behavior.

When I hear stories of what women in my mother's generation and my grandmother's had to put up with, and how our culture encouraged and fostered it, I get disgusted.

Dito, R140

But I get even more disgusted when I hear about the countries that still condone this behaviour to this very day!

I'm glad all this stuff is getting exposed.

I bet it's far worse and many powerful people do similar shady things. I wouldn't put it past Bill Gates or cheating Bezos to do something like this.

If they could get away with it, I'm sure a lot dirty men would. Expose them all.

Back in about 1985, I was offered a flat in Chelsea... I declined and continued as a student, maybe I would be richer now but I know I am happier.

[quote]r140 When I hear stories of what women in my mother's generation and my grandmother's had to put up with, and how our culture encouraged and fostered it, I get disgusted.

Some places would fire a woman if she got married. It was just inconceivable that a woman might have attention left over for anything other than HER MAN.

r144, yes my mum was sacked when she got married froma famous firm ( liver birds),

Can you imagine men being fired when they married? "Gosh, Jim, it just seems obvious you'll now put your family before the company. We wanted you to wither and die here."

My mother likes to tell the story of how she was refused credit and had to have my father co-sign for her to open a charge account at Lord & Taylor. She actually had a job! This was in the mid 70's.

[quote]I wonder how many men, [R138], complain amongst themselves about the good old days before #metoo-a time when men were men and women were there for their enjoyment.

Indeed, Hugh Hefner and the culture he created was seen by many as the acme of masculine aspiration. Trump admired him, which says it all.

[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.]

R149 - I know that will just shock everyone. We all thought he only had sex with Roberts the one time after his divorce . . .

It's all about keeping the smear going, without producing proof of anything that the law can touch him for.

You don't go to jail for being a dirty old man, an insufferable twat, or having criminal friends, or having a sleazy sex life. You only go to a jail when someone can prove in a court of law that you knowingly committed a felony.

Eventually, it will all die down, the public will get used to the idea that insiders have known for years, that Andrew is a sleazy creep who should be booted off the public payroll and off the BRF's public scene.

Meghan and/or Kate will turn up pregnant, the outcome of the GE will relegate everything except more terror attackes in the UK and US, or the Queen will announce that the Harkles are leaving the family, and it will all recede.

Style of thing.

Prince Harry isn't going to leave the family. He's passionate about the Invictus Games and his other military charities, together with his African ones. He'll be the most popular royal as soon as TQ dies. You really think he'd sacrifice all that plus his civil list money to hang out doing fuck all in LA? While Meghan does what, exactly? Try not to let your hate erode your common sense.

[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.]

[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.]

What a lovely birthday party for 18 year old Bea. How lovely of Papa to invite the illustrious guests - Weinstein, Epstein and Maxwell to join in the wholesome fun!

Toxic trio!

From R154 article:

[quote]Bea has had to change the date of her engagement party at the Chiltern Firehouse because of fears there will be too many photographers outside – looking for him.

Oh, they’re not going away any time soon, dear. Are you postponing for a decade, or something?

[R133] says, "The trauma of Edward's abdication on the brink of WWII is, unfortunately, lost beyond TQ and perhaps Charles." I'll respond to that quote with another quote. 'You know a lot for being so goddamned dumb." - Joan Baez

Andrew is reportedly going to join the Queen and the family for Christmas. Yes, he will be there for their private Christmas but I think it would be a big faux pas to have him walk to church with them.. Hopefully, they all won't be booed.

[quote] I've said this before in other threads throughout the years, Andrew is a scam artist grifter who has been making tons of money off selling access to himself, his mother and the royal palaces for decades. And he keeps fergie around simply to help him. It's already been discovered that he found ways to profit off the trade deals he made while working as a trade ambassador and here's more about him

Amazing! No one else anywhere in the world has ever thought those things... ever. With skills like that, you should be working for the FBI!

Well, this story is not gong away. In fact it is morphing beyond Jeffrey Epstein's connection to Andrew, and other tawdry tales are emerging about Andy's "lifestyle, his demands, etc." Apparently he was not as well liked as he thought because a lot of his so-called rich friends are leaking to the press. Recent story about how he had the use of some rich guy's private jet because he hated the British fleet of planes. The rich gossip and their aides, assistants, and peons who labor under that canopy talk to their friends and relatives, and everything is about to blow open. No more secret deals. Andrew is fucked.

R160, many DL's said Andrew and Fergie weren't corrupt and Fergie should be allowed to perform royal duties. And just this week the press has reported on him finding ways to profit off (taking kickbacks) from the trade deals he set up as well as "borrowing" planes from other people who are part of those trade deals

You're probably one of those jackasses who thinks Fergie should perform royal duties and so should the two useless york sisters

[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.]

r154, Edoardo seems to be trying to "normalize" Bea's bug-eyedness with his own orbs.

[quote] You're probably one of those jackasses who thinks Fergie should perform royal duties and so should the two useless york sisters

There have been reports on the sketchy dealings of both Andrew and Fergie for years. I have no opinion on whether they should perform royal duties or not. Why would I? You seem deeply invested in not just gossip, but also gossipers.

[quote]r159 Andrew is reportedly going to join the Queen and the family for Christmas.

A slap in the face to the British People.

Look. There's nothing we can do about him being with his family. But I won't be surprised if William and Catherine and Harry and Meghan are not at some of these gatherings. In fact, the two Princes will probably be seen doing tons more of the official duties, so that when they absent themselves from private events where Andrew is storming around, it will avoid comment. The things Andrew is being exposed for are way to gross to allow the entire family to stand by him. In fact, the Queen will very likely see fewer in the inner circle who are willing to socialize with Andrew under any circumstances.

More like TQ is on her own "slippery slope"r166.

The BRF can't stop digging.

[quote] There have been reports on the sketchy dealings of both Andrew and Fergie for years. I have no opinion on whether they should perform royal duties or not. Why would I? You seem deeply invested in not just gossip, but also gossipers.

Look at you. You must be one of the people who thinks andrew didn't do anything wrong. Or that he's just an innocent guy who is the fall guy. You also have a problem with the victims? Shame on you. None of them have been caught lying. andrew's entire BBC interview was found to be full of lies

r169, You seem to have a severe reading comprehension problem and fill in the gaps with your own delusions. Let me put in even simpler language for you to understand: Andrew very bad man! Long time everyone know. Many scandal many years. Bad Andrew! Sleazy! No surprise.

R170,

FIFY (fixed it for you) by adding, “I fuck girls same age or younger than my daughters. Y u problem with this?”

For all those who assert 'the story will now fade away.' Front page of today's 'Daily Mail' (I know) has a picture which could become as iconic as Andrew, Victoria, and Ghislaine.

It's Weinstein, Epstein and Ghislaine dressed up for Bea's 18th. In fact, they all look as though they're on their way to the orgy in 'Eyes Wide Shut.'

For those who don't want to fight with Daily Mail's adblocker nonsense, here's a link to The Mirror showing the pic R172 mentioned.

I think a few "yikes" are in order.

True about the EWS comment. What is it with those creepy masks?

R158 - Your contribution to a civil discussion containing a civil post is deeply appreciated. Anyone suggesting that the trauma of 1936 Abdication might just have faded a bit 75 years later is, ipso facto, "dumb".

And you are so goddamned blocked.

R172 - So far, the NZ volcano tragedy, the McCann conviction, and the fracas of the campaign today have all dwarfed that "iconic" photo which is now so well down the page I could barely find it. DIdn't take long, did it?

How many DM readers do you think are thinking more about that photo of Bea's 18th, ather than the latest promises by Corbyn and Johnson as polling day approaches, and Matt Hancock's aide being slugged by a Labour supporter? "Election turns nasty" has 4,000 comments.

As George Harrison sang, "All things must pass."

Where the media are concerned these days, that passage is getting shorter than ever.

Iconic my arse.

Though there is no comparison between the questionable behavior of the Yorks and the disgusting criminal behavior of Prince Andrew, The readers and commenartiat of the Daily Mail prefer to beat up on the Sussexes and turn their eyes away from Prince Andrew and his grifting ex-wife.

For a start, readers of the physical newspaper differ completely from those of the on line version, and the comments section.. The vast majority of comments are from outside the UK and have no relevance at all to how people feel. Daily Mail is a Tory paper , has a good crossword and good book reviews and good condensed books, so it sells well. All that celeb shit, and also Meg shit rarely blots the pages of the print version

Oh, god, this is a Davida thread.

R178 - Thank you for the clarification. I only read the Mail-on-Line as I am in the USA.

r180, Voted Labour my whole life but bought the Mail every day for the crossword for years, except when there was an election campaign.... Until the day Stephen Gateley died. I could not believe the crap I was reading. I never bought it since then

oh to say 178 and 80are both me

R178 - The vast majority of comments btl on stories about Meghan and the royals are not from outside the UK. Provide me with actual figures to back that up. That said, the majority of comments btl on the DM favourable to Meghan are from outside the UK - they don't see her the way UK taxpayers do, as a petulant whinger who wants to have her cake and eat it, too, and who can barely bring herself to support the British fashion industry, and who ignores the white working-classes in the country in favour of black kids in foreign countries whilst those same taxpayers help support her luxurious lifestyle in the UK.

The vast majorithy of the UNfavourable comments about Meghan ARE from the UK. The British don't like bragging, self-promotion (an IG post about the anniversary of their ENGAGMENT day??!!! Really???!!! And the anniversary of her first visit to the Hubb Kitchen???!!!), and whingeing, all of which characterise Meghan Markle.

As for paper readers v. online readers . . . please, have you noticed the sinking figures for print these days?!

[R175], you've just proven there is a God.

What you need is to employ a good tailor/dressmaker, so approx 60k p/a.

A few good dress and coat patterns, a lot of very expensive fabrics and sorted . See Queenie and Camilla and a bit of Kate.

It isn't the "foreign" designers but more the absolute waste of money for crap that will be worn one time only.