Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

What should happen to Prince Andrew now?

Maxwell has been found guilty of sex trafficking. Andrew had sex with trafficked women and is therefore guilty of rape.

by Anonymousreply 489January 22, 2022 12:50 AM

He's guilty of rape now. Let's hope he's locked away for a long time.

by Anonymousreply 1December 30, 2021 4:43 AM

He's disgusting and yet so many fraus here defend him.

by Anonymousreply 2December 30, 2021 4:59 AM

I believe I heard or read that as the son of a head of state (which the Queen is) he is protected from prosecution.

by Anonymousreply 3December 30, 2021 4:59 AM

"Unlike his mother, Andrew doesn't have diplomatic immunity and could be subject to criminal prosecution in the United States, but Grange told the Daily Mail that prosecuting Andrew or seeking his extradition to a U.S. court would be “a bold move” because of the “diplomatic headache” it would cause."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4December 30, 2021 5:01 AM

[QUOTE] I believe I heard or read that as the son of a head of state (which the Queen is) he is protected from prosecution.

Not true. The Brits beheaded Charles 1 so nobody is immune to prosecution and punishment. Stop listening to Klan fuckheads.

by Anonymousreply 5December 30, 2021 5:02 AM

He seems to be quite nervous.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6December 30, 2021 5:03 AM

Reality show-- I'd like to see him do a road trip across the US and Mexico.

by Anonymousreply 7December 30, 2021 5:05 AM

Fergie will be rolled out tomorrow to sing "Keep the Home Fires Burning" at a press conference.

by Anonymousreply 8December 30, 2021 5:05 AM

Leave Andrew alone! Enough.

by Anonymousreply 9December 30, 2021 5:08 AM

Sentenced for what?

by Anonymousreply 10December 30, 2021 5:16 AM

Mummy should spank his big fat bum

by Anonymousreply 11December 30, 2021 5:22 AM

He can claim he forgets, just like the other ex-royal did.

by Anonymousreply 12December 30, 2021 5:24 AM

Off with his head!

by Anonymousreply 13December 30, 2021 5:27 AM

So, the 14 yrs old girl, "Carolyn" testified that it was Virginia Guiffre, not Maxwell, who introduced her to Epstein, and that Guiffre was 18 yrs. old at the time. WOW!! No wonder the prosecutors didn't call the "slut-gatherer Virginia" as a witness. No wonder Gloria Allred dropped her as a client, what a fucking slut.

by Anonymousreply 14December 30, 2021 5:34 AM

^ Yep, blame the victim

by Anonymousreply 15December 30, 2021 5:36 AM

If the shoe fits, Fuck the lying slutty whore. The stupid whore Virginia got her case destroyed by a girl she recruited for Epstein.

She like a "Hold my Beer Bitch" kind of girl.

by Anonymousreply 16December 30, 2021 5:46 AM

^ Go to bed, Andy

by Anonymousreply 17December 30, 2021 6:46 AM

If Ghislaine gives up damning evidence to get a conviction of HRH Prince Andrew, she would get a lot less time in prison.

However, I don't think think she would as long as the Queen is alive. Maxwell is loyal to the Crown.

by Anonymousreply 18December 30, 2021 7:02 AM

[quote] Maxwell has been found guilty of sex trafficking. Andrew had sex with trafficked women and is therefore guilty of rape.

Person A has been found guilty of trafficking unnamed persons in an unstated location at an unknown date to another unnamed person.

It is alleged Person B had sex with certain unnamed person/s in an unstated location at an unknown date.

Therefore Person B is guilty of rape?

by Anonymousreply 19December 30, 2021 7:09 AM

"However, I don't think think she would as long as the Queen is alive. Maxwell is loyal to the Crown"

Haha! Maxwell is "loyal" to herself and would do anything to save her own ass

by Anonymousreply 20December 30, 2021 9:27 AM

[QUOTE] Sentenced for what?

Raping a sex trafficked girl.

by Anonymousreply 21December 30, 2021 9:28 AM

Andrew is looking rough. Hair is pure silver at just 61-years-old and his whole face has sagged. Eyes almost invisible under Middletonesque hoods. He looks more like 80 than 60.

by Anonymousreply 22December 30, 2021 9:30 AM

[QUOTE] Person A has been found guilty of trafficking unnamed persons in an unstated location at an unknown date to another unnamed person.

Look at these repugnant Klan cunts, defending a rapist and pedophile and a convicted sex trafficker.

by Anonymousreply 23December 30, 2021 9:33 AM

1. Prosecution would require extradition.

2. Extraditing the Queen’s son: Not going to happen.

3. Case closed, thread closed.

by Anonymousreply 24December 30, 2021 9:36 AM

I would find it very satisfying to watch him crash and burn.

by Anonymousreply 25December 30, 2021 9:39 AM

I suspect Epstein was “suicided” because he planned to release video files of his protective evidence accessed from his townhouse in NY. Those files likely would have implicated a whole bunch of folks - from Andrew, to Dershowitz to Clinton, to Trump - among others. (I recall media reports of Epstein’s escalating despondency when his lawyers were unable to secure his increasingly urgent pleas for even temporary release pending trial no matter how many conditions were imposed. Said behavior understandably got worse after his first alleged “suicide attempt” - i.e. when [italic] he [/italic] claimed he was threatened and nearly killed by another inmate just prior to Barr’s visit. . . A warning?)

Maxwell’s no dummy. She probably suspects that naming names (Andrew or others) won’t get her time off.

It’ll get her offed.

by Anonymousreply 26December 30, 2021 9:48 AM

I bet she's dropping that in the case of her death, evidence is going to be released. This is how she might ensure her continued survival. Talking won't get her any time off. Silence might.

by Anonymousreply 27December 30, 2021 11:10 AM

All this because a couple of grown men couldn’t keep their zippers closed.

by Anonymousreply 28December 30, 2021 11:25 AM

Who is the hysterical “She’s a TRAMP” loon?

Bea? Eug?

by Anonymousreply 29December 30, 2021 11:30 AM

R29 Fergie

by Anonymousreply 30December 30, 2021 11:34 AM

[quote] What should happen to Prince Andrew now

Well nothings going to happen. Roberts is doing a civil suit for damages. If she wins he won't face prison or extradition. Hell I'm not even sure if he actually has to pay up so long as he never leaves the UK again. And at this point since the UK police and FBI have failed to find any evidence that would allow for a criminal case unless a recording of Andrew leaving the bedroom saying "raping that sex slave sure was great" nothing will continue to happen short of his reputation being ruined even more.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31December 30, 2021 11:42 AM

He should go live with ginger nephew as punishment.

by Anonymousreply 32December 30, 2021 11:43 AM

I think he (and Dersh) will be in big trouble civilly even if they don’t get busted criminally. Andrew will be reduced to staying close to his mother’s side (and pocketbook) for now, and when she dies, Charles will cut him off and throw him to the wolves.

by Anonymousreply 33December 30, 2021 11:43 AM

Y'all think Randy Andy liked having his ass serviced?

by Anonymousreply 34December 30, 2021 11:47 AM

[quote] Charles will cut him off and throw him to the wolves.

Yeah that aint happening either. Charles might have no love for Andrew. But the kings brother getting 10 years for rape does neither him (or William) any favours. Better to bung him some money to keep a low profile.

by Anonymousreply 35December 30, 2021 11:49 AM

Andy got fat and decrepit looking

That’s a far bigger crime in the eyes of most DLers

by Anonymousreply 36December 30, 2021 2:18 PM

'Maxwell’s no dummy. She probably suspects that naming names (Andrew or others) won’t get her time off.

It’ll get her offed.'

Which would actually be preferable to life in prison as a nonce, so let's hope she can be instrumental in getting Pedrew incarcerated.

by Anonymousreply 37December 30, 2021 10:07 PM

' Hell I'm not even sure if he actually has to pay up so long as he never leaves the UK again'

Well this in itself will seem like jail to a sun lover like Andrew. Doomed to the UK's grey skies and rainy summers when he's accustomed to spending several months of every year in the Caribbean or Med.

by Anonymousreply 38December 30, 2021 10:09 PM

Dutchie, stop flying your Klan Granny flag here. Why are you proud of being Nazi scum?

by Anonymousreply 39December 30, 2021 10:10 PM

[qoote] What should happen to Prince Andrew now?

It's your thread, OP.

What do YOU want?

by Anonymousreply 40December 30, 2021 10:11 PM

I chose the jail for ten years option.

by Anonymousreply 41December 30, 2021 10:13 PM

From the many articles on this in the DM today, my main takeaway was that Andrew can now be considered a good friend of a convicted child-trafficker. I didn't see his "train wreck" interview, but apparently he said in it that he was much better friends with Maxwell than with Epstein.

by Anonymousreply 42December 30, 2021 11:00 PM

Can you imagine being the son of one of the richest women in the world, with doors everywhere opening wide for you, waking up in a beautiful palace or mansion of your choosing..

..and you decide to hang out with sleazeballs like Epstein and Jizzlane?

by Anonymousreply 43December 30, 2021 11:04 PM

Remarriage to Fergie

by Anonymousreply 44December 30, 2021 11:05 PM

“Real estate won’t lick my taint!”

by Anonymousreply 45December 30, 2021 11:05 PM

Virginia Giuffre's confidential settlement with Epstein gets released on Jan 3rd, 2022. She did not want it released. I don't know why but Prince Andrew's attorneys really want that settlement released, plus a copy. Something in it that is damaging to the procurer Giuffre.

by Anonymousreply 46December 30, 2021 11:12 PM

r38 Let me rephrase that. So long as he leaves the UK and or is on an Arab arms dealers yacht. So essentially the entire Med, but he can't go on shore.

by Anonymousreply 47December 30, 2021 11:27 PM

Please. While he’ll most likely never set foot on American soil again, if only because of bad press and negative associations, he can go wherever he wants and he will.

A month in the south of France? Easy.

Or do you think the Gendarmerie is going to arrest & extradite him?

by Anonymousreply 48December 31, 2021 12:42 AM

He's made an "unprecedented" request to keep everything secret.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 49December 31, 2021 12:56 AM

But what is "unprecedented" about this request?

by Anonymousreply 50December 31, 2021 2:42 AM

R46 is implying not too subtlely that Guiffre, and not Andrew or Maxwell or Epstein, is at fault. A then-teenager is the real villain here, apparently, according to the quuen at R46.

by Anonymousreply 51December 31, 2021 3:20 AM

*according to the queen at [R46].

by Anonymousreply 52December 31, 2021 3:20 AM

R46=Epstein from the grave.

by Anonymousreply 53December 31, 2021 3:21 AM

R46=Dershowitz

by Anonymousreply 54December 31, 2021 3:24 AM

So Epstein and Ghislaine are both Jewish?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 55December 31, 2021 3:24 AM

That's the new narrative according to pedophile Dershowitz and pedophile supporter R46.

by Anonymousreply 56December 31, 2021 3:27 AM

[quote]A month in the south of France? Easy.

At this point I'll settle for one night in Bangkok!

by Anonymousreply 57December 31, 2021 3:30 AM

Ohh that is interesting her settlement is to be released.

The only reason I can see it damaging her case against Andrew is cause it was shockingly quite big ... like 15-25 million and she would look greedy now going after Andrew

by Anonymousreply 58December 31, 2021 4:13 AM

R58, I don't care if it was a $100 million settlement. He fucked a teenager.

by Anonymousreply 59December 31, 2021 4:43 AM

[quote] He fucked a teenager.

Anal or Vaginal?

by Anonymousreply 60December 31, 2021 4:44 AM

Ask him.

by Anonymousreply 61December 31, 2021 4:45 AM

OVER 18yrs old if he fucked her at all!!! Giuffre has stuff in her confidential agreement with Epstein that stops her from suing other men (I'm guessing) If this is true, the lawsuit over; that's why the Vampire Gloria Allred dumped the stupid whore Bitch Giuffre as a client. There might be other agreements Epstein had put in the agreement that he made her sign the grifter Virginia agree to anything to get her money.

by Anonymousreply 62December 31, 2021 4:59 AM

She was a whore? Not Andrew? Also, these are pedophiles we're talking about. And how did the whore pedophile Epstein make his money? Fuck off, pedophile excuser R62. How wonderful you think fucking teenagers is okay.

by Anonymousreply 63December 31, 2021 5:06 AM

R62 thinks adults fucking minors is the fault of minors.

by Anonymousreply 64December 31, 2021 5:08 AM

[quote] you think fucking teenagers is okay.

Anal or Vaginal?

by Anonymousreply 65December 31, 2021 5:08 AM

Doesn't make any difference with you, does it, R65?

by Anonymousreply 66December 31, 2021 5:09 AM

Why does a prince of England need to fuck a teenager? I guess if the prince is a pedo, that's a dumb question.

by Anonymousreply 67December 31, 2021 5:13 AM

Did anyone see “The Real Charlie Chaplin” documentary? This is exactly what he and his lawyers did to his child brides when they filed for divorce. Labeled them gold digging whores, taking advantage of a sensitive genius with their ruthless, teenage, conniving.

by Anonymousreply 68December 31, 2021 5:15 AM

And Prince Andrew is no Charlie Chaplin in the genius department.

by Anonymousreply 69December 31, 2021 5:16 AM

Andrew needs to be hanged , drawn and quartered immediately!

by Anonymousreply 70December 31, 2021 5:20 AM

The absolute absurdity and craven immorality of these wealthy, educated, connected sociopaths. Their willingness and belief that they can use and destroy people and walk away unscathed is boggling. Fitzgerald captured it so well in the Great Gatsby.

by Anonymousreply 71December 31, 2021 5:21 AM

R69 Chaplin was no genius. There was very little competition back in the 1910s.

by Anonymousreply 72December 31, 2021 5:22 AM

R62, she wasn't over 18. Not at all. R62: a craven monarchist-pedophophile-rapist-loving defender.

by Anonymousreply 73December 31, 2021 5:24 AM

You people keep saying teenager like the age of consent isn't 16 in the UK. Virginia Roberts was of legal age - I don't doubt Andrew is guilty of doing even worse things, but his biggest crime he's facing charges for right now is fucking a hooker and being friends with a sex trafficker.

by Anonymousreply 74December 31, 2021 5:26 AM

Wrong, R72. And he had big competition: fellow geniuses Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd.

by Anonymousreply 75December 31, 2021 5:26 AM

Except, R74, he raped her in NYC, where the age of consent is 18.

by Anonymousreply 76December 31, 2021 5:27 AM

R68 Chaplin was often smeared by the media for his open communist leanings. I don't know how much, if any of the stuff thrown about regarding him is true or if it was approved slander that just became accepted as fact. Remember that Fatty Arbuckle was dragged through the mud for a crime he didn't commit because he was causing trouble for the studios. I know he had wives as young as 15 or 16, which is gross but not uncommon for the time. He seems to have been truly in love with his last wife, Oona O'Neill, who he married when she was 18.

by Anonymousreply 77December 31, 2021 5:29 AM

R74=pedophile monarchist/rapist apologist.

by Anonymousreply 78December 31, 2021 5:32 AM

I repeat: when Andrew had sex with a minor, she was 16 when the age of consent in the country he was fucking her in was 18.

by Anonymousreply 79December 31, 2021 5:35 AM

Well Oona certainly understood how to handle volatile father figures. Charlie was probably a welcome relief from the alcoholism of Eugene.

by Anonymousreply 80December 31, 2021 5:37 AM

Still waiting to from pedophile proponent R74, who makes excuses for an adult fucking a 16-year-old and calls her a whore when she's being trafficked and fucked by an adult member of the British royal family in the house of a known pedophile, who sex-trafficked her in his own house.

by Anonymousreply 81December 31, 2021 5:40 AM

How does this affect Andrew and Sarah remarrying...because it's coming.

by Anonymousreply 82December 31, 2021 5:40 AM

You have insider knowledge, R82?

by Anonymousreply 83December 31, 2021 5:43 AM

Clinton raped more of them than Andrew. Allegedly. Sex with a minor is rape. We all know there are nuances. But if Giuffre has had the guts and/or greed to pursue this for decades - she is to be commended. Watch the four part Netflix on Epstein again. She would have had him put away in 2005 if he hadn't been given a lot of help to receive a fake sentence. Bought and paid and no doubt threatened for. She's extremely lucky to be alive imo. These are powerful and evil mofoes. Clinton and Dershowitz and Trump much more so than noodly Prince Andrew. Those men can have you murdered.

Ghislaine was a guest at Chelsea Clinton's wedding. Never forget.

[quote]In 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein after a parent complained that he had sexually abused her 14-year-old daughter. Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring a child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. He served almost 13 months in custody, but with extensive work release. He was convicted of only these two crimes as part of a controversial plea deal; federal officials had identified 36 girls, some as young as 14 years old, whom Epstein had allegedly sexually abused.

by Anonymousreply 84December 31, 2021 5:46 AM

R74, someone can't be a hooker at 16, except to you, you monarchist-pedophile lover and excuser.

by Anonymousreply 85December 31, 2021 5:50 AM

This hooker was 12

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 86December 31, 2021 5:53 AM

Who is Ghislaine Maxwell’s husband Scott Borgerson?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 87December 31, 2021 5:54 AM

Giuffre was 17, so of the age of consent in the UK and New York. I believe there was one other location, but can’t recall offhand. So, were Andrew to be prosecuted, it would be for having sex with a trafficking victim. Frankly, I can’t see how that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, unless there are pictures or tapes.

by Anonymousreply 88December 31, 2021 5:55 AM

I didn’t realize he is only 61 I figured he was about 70

by Anonymousreply 89December 31, 2021 5:57 AM

R88, the age of legal consent in NY is 18.

R86 can't recognize a movie and its meaning.

by Anonymousreply 90December 31, 2021 5:57 AM

She was 16, R88.

by Anonymousreply 91December 31, 2021 5:59 AM

Here you go r90.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 92December 31, 2021 5:59 AM

And she was 16, R92.

by Anonymousreply 93December 31, 2021 6:00 AM

After the verdict came down, I was reading old articles and according to Epstein's Paris butler, Andrew loved to stay, often, at the very posh 22 Avenue Foch apartment even in JE's absence. Butler would prepare his favorite dish of pasta au gratin but won't reveal any more. JE visited Paris often and would have his usual 3-4 daily massages. He was returning from Paris when he was arrested and a call was made immediately to the butler probably instructing him to 'sanitize' the place. Butler also claims Steve Bannon was a visitor, which he denies, where he would hold meetings with Marine Le Pen. Linking article for those who read French.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 94December 31, 2021 6:01 AM

No, she was 16, just about to turn 17 when she MET Epstein.

by Anonymousreply 95December 31, 2021 6:01 AM

And trafficked, rapist apologist R92.

by Anonymousreply 96December 31, 2021 6:02 AM

Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell is a British former socialite, born 25 December 1961.

Ghislaine Maxwell was born in Maisons-Laffitte, Yvelines, France, the ninth and youngest child of Elisabeth (née Meynard), a French-born scholar, and Robert Maxwell, a Czechoslovak-born British media proprietor. Her father was from a Jewish family, and her mother was of Huguenot (French Protestant) descent. Her mother said that all her children were brought up as Anglicans.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 97December 31, 2021 6:02 AM

R92 is fine with raping 16-year-olds.

by Anonymousreply 98December 31, 2021 6:03 AM

Thanks, R97, but for what purpose do you attach that?

by Anonymousreply 99December 31, 2021 6:04 AM

You are too stupid to argue with, r96. I merely noted that in the absence of actual independent proof, there is little chance Andrew will face criminal prosecution. And she wasn’t 16. But that’s a different and irrelevant issue.

by Anonymousreply 100December 31, 2021 6:05 AM

[R92] is fine with raping 16-year-olds and calling them whores, in defense of some British "prince."

Fixed.

by Anonymousreply 101December 31, 2021 6:05 AM

R100, she was underage in the country she was raped in. I agree that this pedophile prince will never see any retribution. And there is never any irrelevant issue in her being underage, which she was, you pedophile-apologizing liar.

by Anonymousreply 102December 31, 2021 6:10 AM

R100 likes pedophiles.

by Anonymousreply 103December 31, 2021 6:13 AM

"Guilty of rape" is a legal distinction that occurs once a jury finds someone guilty of rape. A person can plead guilty after being charged with rape too. It's important to respect our justice system and words have meaning. Someone is not "guilty" by the transitive property of tabloid thinking you are associating in. Also, if i sent a friend an escort for his birthday and didn't tell him the guy was paid to fuck him, he would not be guilty of soliciting a prostitute.

I have no idea if Prince Andrew fucked any of these women or whether he was provided women by Epstein/Maxwell (to possibly create blackmail material). I have no idea where these potential crimes occurred, what state or country they occurred in either. I'm inclined to believe the women, but I can't remember where they said it happened.

He has been disgraced. He is permanently attached to this shitshow. The royal family will spend millions defending him--sadly he has enough resources to go on forever but his quality of life is permanently damaged by this. The end game does not always have to be guilty verdicts. If he did commit crimes and a prosecutor can prove it, I'd be happy to see him put on trial.

by Anonymousreply 104December 31, 2021 6:14 AM

You’re stupid too, r102 and r103. I have never defended Andrew, and Giuffre claimed she was 17 when she met him. So she’s lying?

Unlike idiots like you, I live in reality. It’s a he said/she said. That may be enough in a civil claim, but it will go nowhere criminally.

She also was sexually mature, albeit young, so the term pedophile is inaccurate.

I find a 40 year old man having sex with a 17 year old disgusting. I would feel the same were Giuffre 22 at the time, whether she had sex with him of her own volition or not. I have also always found Andrew thick and odious.

Both of you are too stupid to understand any of the above, though. You must be fraus, as you are functioning from hysterical emotion rather than facts.

by Anonymousreply 105December 31, 2021 6:17 AM

"I find a 40 year old man having sex with a 17 year old disgusting"

And yet everything you said flies in the face of that.

"She also was sexually mature, albeit young, so the term pedophile is inaccurate."

Only a pedophile-excusing creep would say that.

R105=pedophile-excusing scumbag.

by Anonymousreply 106December 31, 2021 6:21 AM

According to R105, if you're "sexually mature" at, say, 12, any man who sniffs around you can't be a pedophile, because you're "sexually mature."

by Anonymousreply 107December 31, 2021 6:26 AM

R99. Some of the thread's comments and tone had turned to discussing Ghislaine. I thought you could use the background for information and context. You can just scroll past it if you're not interested.

by Anonymousreply 108December 31, 2021 6:33 AM

Thank you R97, R108. I needed some background information.

But all of us are in complete ignorance as to the details of oral/anal/vaginal etc.

by Anonymousreply 109December 31, 2021 6:38 AM

R109 is obsessed with the details of oral/anal/vaginal, as if in the eyes of the law, when it comes to rape, the law makes such distinctions.

by Anonymousreply 110December 31, 2021 6:43 AM

The bottom line is that R105 is fine with all of it, so long as the 2-year-old, or 6-year-old, or 12-year-old, or16-year-old, is "sexually mature." Then, they can't be raped.

by Anonymousreply 111December 31, 2021 6:49 AM

All of these people are garbage! Every single last one of them. And Bill and Hillary Clinton don't seem to be to smart. They associated with Trump, actually went to his wedding to his whore wife Melania in 2005. And was even photographed with them smiling ear to ear.

And then you have their relationship with with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and What the fuck was Ghislaine doing at Chelsea's wedding? WTF?

The Clintons have always had shady dealings with people that always ended up spilling out into the mainstream media going all the way back to when Bill was running for president in 1992. The two of them have serious moral and ethical issues.

I say all of this as someone who supported and voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and who is a staunch Trump hater. But I refuse to be blind to the true reality about who the Clinton's really are. They are just as shady and slimy as the people caught up in this child sex ring. The two of them should know better, but like so many others who should know better, too. They don't and are perpetual fuck ups!

by Anonymousreply 112December 31, 2021 7:24 AM

Yes, the Clinton's really are shady.

Spurting sperm over an employee.

Asking that transvestite Chelsea Manning name themselves after their offspring.

by Anonymousreply 113December 31, 2021 7:31 AM

[QUOTE] You people keep saying teenager like the age of consent isn't 16 in the UK.

Why are you talking about consent in a case of RAPE?

by Anonymousreply 114December 31, 2021 7:49 AM

Holy shit I blocked R102, the loon calling everyone a rapist-applogist, and half the thread disappeared.

Talk about unhinged.

by Anonymousreply 115December 31, 2021 8:33 AM

With all the willing (or buyable) adults walking around, did you really have to hurt somebody's child?

Fuck him!

They need to lock up that fat sick ugly bastard!

by Anonymousreply 116December 31, 2021 11:55 AM

Giuffre has never alleged that he raped her or that she was trafficked to him. She has also made it clear that she was over the age of consent in each of the three jurisdictions where she had sex with him.

Andrew was also not involved in any of the charges against Maxwell.

by Anonymousreply 117December 31, 2021 11:59 AM

Which alleged case of rape, r114? Giuffre has never alleged that Andrew raped her or that she did not consent and participate of her own free will on the three occasions she claims they had sex. She even asked to have that photo with him in which she's smiling, so she could show her mother and grandmother, who were clearly aware (in her words) of what she was apparently about to do with him.

by Anonymousreply 118December 31, 2021 12:02 PM

[QUOTE] Giuffre has never alleged that he raped her or that she was trafficked to him

She said she was forced to have sex with him three times, lying Klan scum.

by Anonymousreply 119December 31, 2021 12:03 PM

No, lying racist scum at r119, she didn't say she was forced to have sex with him. This is why she's only filing civil, not criminal charges against him. After her attempts to extort money from him failed, she switched to civil charges, to try to get money. Read her affidavit. If he raped/sexually abused her, then she would be filing criminal charges.

by Anonymousreply 120December 31, 2021 12:23 PM

We all arrived back at the townhome and went upstairs. Epstein took a picture of me and Andy with my own camera. The picture above is that picture, which has been widely circulated on the internet. Andy has his left arm around my waist and is smiling. The picture was developed on March 13, 2001, and was taken sometime shortly before I had it developed. I was 17 years old at the time. 37.

I wanted a picture with the prince because I was keeping in contact with my family. I had told my mom and my grandma that I was meeting Prince Andrew and that I’d take a picture for them. They told me to “be careful.” 38.

After the picture, Epstein and Maxwell kissed me and said to “have fun.” They left Andy and me alone upstairs. We went to the bathroom and bedroom, which were just steps away from where the picture was taken. We engaged in sexual activities there. Afterwards, Andy left quickly with his security. 39.

I chatted with Epstein about this the next day. I told him, “it went great.” Epstein said something to the effect of, “You did well. The Prince had fun.” I felt like I was being graded. It was horrible to have to recount all these events and have to try to meet all these needs and wants. I told Epstein about Andy’s sexual interests in feet. Epstein thought it was very funny. Epstein appeared to be collecting private information about Andy. 40. When I got back from my trip, Epstein paid me more than he had paid me to be with anyone else –approximately $15,000. That money was for what I had done and to keep my mouth shut about “working” with the Prince. 41.

The second time I had sex with Prince Andrew was in Epstein’s New York mansion in spring 2001. I was 17 at time. Epstein called me down to his office. When I got there, Epstein was there, along with Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg, and Andy. I was very surprised to see him again. Epstein and Maxwell were making lewd jokes about “Randy Andy”. 42. I had the impression that Andy had come there to see Epstein and to have sex me with. There was no other apparent purpose for Andy to be there. 43.

I was told to go upstairs with Andy and to go to the room I thought of as the “dungeon” (the massage room, but it is really scary looking). I had sex with Andy there. I was only paid $400 from Epstein for servicing Andy that time.

by Anonymousreply 121December 31, 2021 12:25 PM

She claims Epstein made her have sex, not Andrew. Her mother and grandmother obviously knew what she was doing. Giuffre could also have just left, she didn't need to do anything Epstein told her to do. Note that no one else is making similar claims against Andrew.

by Anonymousreply 122December 31, 2021 12:27 PM

Not victim blaming, but why did Giuffre keep going back? Was she desperate for money? Attracted to Epstein’s sick world of money, power and influential people? Plain bored?

by Anonymousreply 123December 31, 2021 1:21 PM

Deep financial and legal walls will keep Andrew from facing the full consequences of his actions. However as yet more damaging facts emerge his Pariah status will become yet worse.

The phenomenal drop in status and travel will impact upon him psychologically, as The Royal Family steadily subtly reconfigures. Despite healthy Windsor genes I imagine Andrew won't match his father's longevity. He's ageing fast, which is surprising given his protestations of innocence.

by Anonymousreply 124December 31, 2021 2:08 PM

She liked the money and lifestyle privileges, and she was probably a perv too.

by Anonymousreply 125December 31, 2021 2:09 PM

"Prince Andrew’s accuser has requested the Duke submit to a New York court any medical reports regarding his alleged inability to sweat, a condition he claimed he suffered from in an interview with BBC Newsnight."

I'm getting the popcorn. That claim that he medically couldn't sweat was deeply weird and I don't think anyone really believed it. Didn't people drag up some pap pics of him sweating after clubbing at around the same time too?

by Anonymousreply 126December 31, 2021 2:14 PM

"Off with his head!"

And his chins!

by Anonymousreply 127December 31, 2021 2:50 PM

For the “ he is a Pedophile” troll I have linked Wikipedia’s definition of what a Pedophile is. Just so we are all on the same page, a Pedophile is a person interested in Prepubescent children. That means they have not reached puberty. While throwing terms like “Pedophile” at Prince Andrew may seem relevant, it is absolutely incorrect.

Prince Andrew is guilty of being an idiot, arrogant and entitled, but he is also a scapegoat for this whole Epstein scandal. Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane what, 26 times? Is he getting this grief?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 128December 31, 2021 3:03 PM

Poor Prince Andrew! He's the real victim here, according to R128. LMFAO. You're really showing your political views as well.

The rapist apologists like "Dutchie" and the other ratbag who keeps banging on about Guiffre's supposed willingness and enthusiasm to take part in her own abuse are saying this minor girl chose her course and profited from it happily. The cunt who mentions the civil case brought against Andrew as proof Guiffre doesn't have a criminal case fails to understand a civil case is often brought against those who you can't successfully bring a criminal case against--like, for instance, a member of the royal family.

It figures right-wing rapist apologists would sprout up, but who knew they would be so desperate they would be willing to defend a known liar like Andrew? Defending these scumbags make you one.

by Anonymousreply 129December 31, 2021 3:12 PM

R128 Look over there!

by Anonymousreply 130December 31, 2021 3:24 PM

R128 What's weird is that as far as I know, none of Epstein's women have come forward to say that they had sex with Clinton. And yet it looks bad given that everyone knows what a horndog he is.

by Anonymousreply 131December 31, 2021 3:29 PM

Nobody in the criminal justice system really wants to go here. Pretty much anyone who's used prostitutes, including any males among them, is probably just as guilty as princey boi.

by Anonymousreply 132December 31, 2021 3:59 PM

R132 Nice try. Andrew has a taste for nubile young virgin flesh. He fucks kids.

by Anonymousreply 133December 31, 2021 4:10 PM

R131, men like Clinton and Gates have the wherewithal to settle out of court. Andrew does not have those resources, he's dependent on his family. Dershowitz, who has also been named and sued, is presumably well-off, but not so well-off that he feels comfortable writing checks for millions of dollars.

by Anonymousreply 134December 31, 2021 4:14 PM

Prince Andrew's crime would be having sex with a girl who was a victim of sex traffic. Similiar to someone who has sex with a prostitute with a pimp. She was 17 at the time which is legal age in NY. I'm not sure what other crime he committed. Even a civil suit seems iffy since Andrew may have not known her situation. He should have just admitted what happened and said that Epstein was using her to blackmail him. That seems like the truth.

by Anonymousreply 135December 31, 2021 4:24 PM

What will happen to Andrew - yes big changes for Pedo once his protector passes, and that will happen sooner as opposed to later.

Charles and William will kick Andrew to the curb, he won't get money like he got from mummy, and he and his ex wife and offspring will never be seen anywhere near any royal event for the rest of their lives.

The Yorks will be exiled and Pedo, who doesn't even have enough money to pay for his Swiss Chalet, much less top lawyers, will live a quiet and fairly simple life, far away from any working royals.

by Anonymousreply 136December 31, 2021 4:32 PM

R135 this has been discussed ad nauseam over the past year on DL. Please pay attention. Andrew committed a serious federal crime - as he had sex with a victim of sex trafficking. The victim had been trafficked across state lines, hence it being a federal crime.

Whether the victim was 17 or 70, it doesn't matter. Age of consent has NO relevance regarding laws pertaining to victims of sex trafficking.

You Europeans, with your age of consent at 13 or so, are fixated on the age of the victim. The age of the victim is irrelevant as discussed above.

Also, in the US, unlike in Europe, drugging and sodomizing a 13 yo by a 40 something male is a serious crime. Hence the reason a certain pedo director can never go near the US or other countries with extradition treaties.

by Anonymousreply 137December 31, 2021 4:39 PM

“Poor Prince Andrew! He's the real victim here, according to [R128]. “ r129

Did I say that r129? Where did I say that? If you are the person saying he is rapist and a Pedophile and I point out he can’t be a Pedophile , because the definition of that is wanting kids who have not reached puberty and your only answer to the actual loopg factual definition of that, is to say I am” a Right Wing Rape apologist”. Sorry where is your proof ? You seem to be fine throwing loaded words around, if he is not on trial for rape where is your fucking proof?

Because you feel it must be? Because it has to be ? Because the Media told you it was? I called him a fucking stuck up entitled idiot, that doesn’t exactly make me his fucking best friend.

by Anonymousreply 138December 31, 2021 4:55 PM

R75 - Don’t forget Fatty Arbuckle!

by Anonymousreply 139December 31, 2021 4:58 PM

R128 - have any women trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell come forward to say that Clinton raped them?

Didn't think so.

by Anonymousreply 140December 31, 2021 5:02 PM

So a NY john who has sex with a prostitute from Florida faces federal charges? This may happen but I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted.

The state lines thing is interesting because the Mann Act (white slavery act) was used to prosecute black men having sex with white women. It was famously used as a tool for the political persecution of Jack Johnson and others, as well as a tool for blackmail.

by Anonymousreply 141December 31, 2021 5:12 PM

R137 many European nations have mutual extradition treaties with the US — and yet they will never ever extradite the Queen’s son / the King’s brother should he set foot in any of those countries.

Believing otherwise is wishful thinking.

by Anonymousreply 142December 31, 2021 5:14 PM

R142 Oh dear, Durtchie you are bright but need to reread the post.

A 40 something director who drugged and sodomized a 13 yo is not the Pedo Prince. That would be the director of Rosemary's Baby and of course, his wife was slaughtered by Tex Watson and company.

by Anonymousreply 143December 31, 2021 5:17 PM

Ah, I thought you were referring to Randy Andy.

I am barely literate, have mercy. It’s almost NYE here.

by Anonymousreply 144December 31, 2021 5:22 PM

[quote]have any women trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell come forward to say that Clinton raped them?

Not that lived.

by Anonymousreply 145December 31, 2021 6:28 PM

[quote]He should have just admitted what happened and said that Epstein was using her to blackmail him. That seems like the truth.

Any such admittance is likely to have opened a Pandora's Box (as it were) of what else and who else he knew, and how much, and maybe encouraged others to say More. And therefore clear the way for many more guilty silences or provable lies.

One cool clear admittance surely wouldn't have been case closed for Andrew. His would-be exculpatory 'Panorama' interview was chaotic enough in the first place.

by Anonymousreply 146December 31, 2021 6:34 PM

"a civil case is often brought against those who you can't successfully bring a criminal case against--like, for instance, a member of the royal family."

Where in either British or American law is it stated that members of the British royal family are exempt from criminal charges being brought against them, r129?

Read Giuffre's affidavit. At absolutely no point does she say that Andrew forced her into anything or that he arranged for her to be trafficked. She even makes it clear that Epstein was trying to get gossipy details about Andrew from her, potentially to use against him.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 147December 31, 2021 7:57 PM

I understand why some find Giuffre to be far from a “perfect victim” (no such thing) but the clue all along was that David Boies was willing to represent her, for many years and with such involvement that he was even sued by Dersh for it. That told me there was money to be made on Giuffre‘s case or a splash, newsy win to be had. If there was no there there Boies wouldn’t have wasted his very expensive time.

by Anonymousreply 148December 31, 2021 8:05 PM

R137, absolutely nowhere in Giuffre's vague allegations against Andrew does she claim he arranged for her to be trafficked.

Moreover, absolutely nowhere in Giuffre's vague allegations against Andrew does she specifically claim she did not consent to have sex with him and only did so against her will.

Linked is her affidavit, please quote the section where she says Andrew trafficked her.

"Also, in the US, unlike in Europe, drugging and sodomizing a 13 yo by a 40 something male is a serious crime." - Oh, fuck off. The crime happened in the US - where apparently everyone in Hollywood was doing that sort of thing at the time. Polanski cannot be charged for a crime committed in the US. It was the American judge who cut a deal with Polanski whereby Polanski would be held for a few weeks for psychiatric evaluation and then released, but who then reneged on the deal because he thought he'd become more of a celebrity that way.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 149December 31, 2021 8:07 PM

"but the clue all along was that David Boies was willing to represent her, for many years and with such involvement that he was even sued by Dersh for it. That told me there was money to be made on Giuffre‘s case or a splash, newsy win to be had." - A clue for me, r148, is that Giuffre, aided by Boies, has been trying for many years to come to an out-of-court deal and big payment with Andrew, but they've always failed.

Andrew is such a tiny and vague part of Giuffre's overall claims, she's undermining her own credibility by focusing almost solely on him.

by Anonymousreply 150December 31, 2021 8:10 PM

The DM says that this afternoon, the New York court shot down Prince Andrew’s argument it doesn’t have jurisdiction over the case. Now he’s hanging with Mummy again. Unlimited visits for her little baby.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 151December 31, 2021 10:00 PM

Andy can't prove he doesn't sweat.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 152December 31, 2021 10:50 PM

Sorry, here's the link.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 153December 31, 2021 10:51 PM

There’s a difference between someone who fucked an adult-looking 17-year-old and another who is attracted to/ rapes prepubescent children. The latter is a pedophile in its true definition. I’ve had a couple of them as patients when I worked in jail psych. One was a former priest who sexually abused his preteen relatives all under age of 8. It took willpower for me to not beat the shit out of him. A pedophile isn’t someone who has sex with 17-year-old with all the physical attributes of an adult women. Is it technically illegal if it happens? Sure, but no one was trying to prosecute Jerry Seinfeld when he dated Shoshanna what’s-her-name when she was 17.

These threads are invariably overtaken by rightwing loons who label anyone who offers facts or questions, as rape or child abuse apologists. They use language similar to Pizza Gate rightwing nut jobs, who go on about Clintons and others being child abusers/ traffickers. No proof except “evidence” of Maxwell being at Chelsea’s wedding or Epstein being a friend.

Truth is, Epstein ran in a circle with many powerful and/ or wealthy individuals including popular entertainers and the super rich. He gained legitimacy through charitable donations to universities among others. It was why no one batted an eye when Gates sought to work with Epstein even after the latter’s conviction. Money talks, and that should be the cautionary tale in this tawdry case. Money trumps common sense, and money is able to buy status. Status allows one a certain level of immunity from adherence to social norms that the rest of us must adhere to.

How about those VERY young teenage groupies that Led Zeppelin and David Bowie cavorted with? Some of them as young as 14 and looked like it, if you read the groupies’ stories. It continues today in the music industry, if you think R Kelly was an anomaly you’re a moron. It’s acceptable until tawdry details come out, same as in the Epstein saga. Last I heard, Jimmie Page was still lauded as a great rocker not a groomer who fits the definition of pedophile more than sleazy Andrew who fucked 17 year-old trafficked prostitute.

by Anonymousreply 154December 31, 2021 11:07 PM

I don't care for your tone R154.

by Anonymousreply 155December 31, 2021 11:27 PM

It’s not right wing to call a pedo a pedo.

by Anonymousreply 156December 31, 2021 11:29 PM

Bill and Chelsea welcome Chelsea home after her internship on Epstein's island!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 157December 31, 2021 11:38 PM

R149 = Andrew's biggest fanboi.

by Anonymousreply 158December 31, 2021 11:40 PM

R151 One thing it, the US Court system isn't the UK's "Royal Court." That Royal shit isn't going to fly in the United States.

Elizabeth has no power over here in America. Neither does her "Grey men."

Fuck "Prince Andrew" nasty racist asshole.

by Anonymousreply 159January 1, 2022 12:00 AM

R149, Polanski didn’t have diplomatic immunity. Of course he could be charged with a crime committed in California. Not being a citizen couldn’t get him off the hook. You are liable for your actions in any jurisdiction in which you commit a crime.

by Anonymousreply 160January 1, 2022 12:02 AM

Not only does Andrew admit that he has no medical documents as evidence for that he can't sweat (from my basic research, not being able to sweat is a condition that is quite dangerous and requires monitoring), Giuffre’s lawyer says that he has up to six witnesses who place her with Andrew.

by Anonymousreply 161January 1, 2022 1:09 AM

He is a disgusting piece. Make him clean every toilet in England.

by Anonymousreply 162January 1, 2022 1:46 AM

I don't think he has any property to confiscate other than that heavily mortgaged ski chalet in Switzerland.

by Anonymousreply 163January 1, 2022 2:02 AM

It's too bad DL wasn't around when Sunninghill Park was built - that would have been quite the Tasteful Friends thread.

by Anonymousreply 164January 1, 2022 2:06 AM

What I don't understand is that I've read that the Queen is paying millions for his legal team over this - why doesn't he just settle and then this will go away? Hardly anyone believes him so why not just come clean 'yes it happened but I had no idea that she was trafficked and she wasn't underage in London, I'm sorry about it'.. something like that.

by Anonymousreply 165January 1, 2022 2:07 AM

R164 Oh that would be a good one. It is hideous. I wonder what it looked like inside. The whole story is so strange too.

by Anonymousreply 166January 1, 2022 2:08 AM

okay, I looked up what happened to Sunninghill Park. Crazy that it was demolished after just 30 years, in 2015. And it was only lived in for 10 years.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 167January 1, 2022 2:12 AM

It was so ugly - I really had to question whether the Yorks had any taste whatsoever.

by Anonymousreply 168January 1, 2022 2:14 AM

I have to believe the BRF has a “woman” problem after the queen passes. A little old lady living as unelected head of state on the public’s dime gets chalked up to tradition. A philandering man, his philandering son and “Randy Andy” are completely unpalatable in 2021.

There isn’t an ounce of charm, congeniality or charisma to stand on.

by Anonymousreply 169January 1, 2022 2:17 AM

This thread is for the royal watching freaks. Prince Andrew is not a minor player but he's being scapegoated. People are just pissed that Maxwell didn't name names. Epstein not only was going to - he had meticulous evidence. Photos, video and paparazzi on his own payroll. He had blackmail evidence on everyone. That's the story Ghislaine knows. And we'll never know. Because the bitch wants to live.

Fergie is just as sexually perverse as Andy. The Royals will never come into this. They don't kill or threaten people or have much money. Tiny brains in BIG bloated bodies. I'm sure Jeffrey and Ghislaine laughed at Randy Andy all the time. The Vanity Fair reporter who had her story cut by Graydon Carter said as much.

There are much bigger and more dangerous players in this game. And we'll never know unless at least the accusations come to light. Believe these women.

by Anonymousreply 170January 1, 2022 2:22 AM

[quote] Believe these women.

YES! Because a woman would never lie for financial gain.

by Anonymousreply 171January 1, 2022 3:04 AM

R171 Do you understand how hard it would be to co-ordinate the stories of dozens upon dozens of women? Maria Farmer reported the assault on her sister Annie to the FBI 25 years ago. I find that one hard to argue that's about money, and there wasn't publication of it. Then there was the Palm Beach investigation 11 years ago where the kids probably weren't even aware they could get money from it. They told the police very similar stories.

Why would a random 17 yr old girl be flown around to mix with celebs and royals? I find Virginia to be honest and credible in general especially when compared against Andrew's arguments. I suspect that she's most bothered by that Andrew is lying because it's disrespectful - I would be too. I would want to call him out and go after him just because of that.

by Anonymousreply 172January 1, 2022 3:30 AM

My bad, I got the dates wrong and the Palm Beach investigation was 16 years ago, not 11.

by Anonymousreply 173January 1, 2022 3:39 AM

Andrew is a buffoon. I have read that Fergie is the reason he ever became involved with Epstein. Because of her outrageous spending above her means and bc she knew all of those sleazy people. Fergie was very angry that Diana had more money. Fergie thought she should have the same. She was very bitter about that.

by Anonymousreply 174January 1, 2022 3:40 AM

[quote] I find Virginia to be honest

Ok, R172

[quote] she's most bothered by that Andrew is lying because it's disrespectful

Disrespectful to whom?

by Anonymousreply 175January 1, 2022 3:47 AM

R175 Disrespectful to Virginia, of course. Have you ever had someone lie about you and keep on gaslighting you/insisting on the lie? How did that feel? It's maddening and when it happens to me, my instinct is that I want to call it out and prove that I am not lying.

Andrew says that the photo was faked, that he can't medically sweat, that he has never met Virginia before despite up to six witnesses saying otherwise, not to mention flight logs. Those are just some things I do not find to be particularly believable.

by Anonymousreply 176January 1, 2022 3:53 AM

Andrew is an entitled idiot. He also is famous and no doubt had women throwing themselves at him. I would not find it unbelievable that Andrew doesn’t remember her.

by Anonymousreply 177January 1, 2022 6:40 AM

To R148, When I really started to doubt the Giuffre's claim was when Gloria Allred dropped her as a client. Gloria is a "Grade A #1 all about me publicity VAMPIRE" SHE NEVER DROPS CASES SHE THINKS SHE CAN WIN. But if the client lies to her or tells her "Vague half truths" that are unproveable or not true. Gloria can always get a settlement from whomever she sues. Gloria must have shoot cum dust in her panties when she thought she had a shot against HRH Prince Andrew& The British Royal Family. But she must have found information that disproved Giuffre's claim. Gloria Allred is from Philly, she's a Vampire.

by Anonymousreply 178January 1, 2022 7:09 AM

HUH? You're nutty R177. Read the Vanity Fair article from 20 years ago or watch the 4 part Netflix documentary on Epstein before you post such nonsense. This is not about famous men having women throwing themselves at them. Famous men don't often fuck such women - because the get instantly caught. Famous men with unusual sexual proclivities need trusted friends. And the challenge of less willing females.

POWERFUL men were fucking procured women trained and paid by intricate games of silence and protection. On different continents and residences - all run by a world class sadist with a taste for young women. Who happened to be a billionaire and own the single largest private residence in NYC. His little island too. Sex perverts with money and a connected companion can indulge themselves in the long game. No doubt it excites them. Epstein did, time and again. Some of his women were fast procurements, but most of them presented a challenge of pursuit and initiation. A teenage sister of a woman he was already "helping." His companion was Ghislaine. She was not remotely his slave. She too is a sadist and a woman who liked to systematically procure, degrade and pimp out young women to powerful men. Epstein loved art and music and some politics - but all his tastes ran to a certain type of YOUNG teen woman. Most all sexual psychopaths have a type. He had the money to search and recruit his. When he got them close - he liked to degrade them in petty ways. Funny thing that he had equal PROJECTED disdain for his high end kinky old male friends. Because Epstein imagined himself to be sexually irresistible and worthy of worship. He liked to handle women in robotic ways and have his feet and body massaged more than he liked to fuck. He already owned these girls before he sent them to others. Were some of them free to leave? Yes. Were they ALL his victims. YES.

Epstein's high profile friends - their tastes might have been different. Kinky or rougher or rapier. No sweat Prince. But they ALL had one thing in common. They ordered these girls up Y O U N G.

Ghislaine liked to participate - given the chance. The sexual psychology is interesting. It's doubtful that she ever got off without her own hand.

by Anonymousreply 179January 1, 2022 7:30 AM

So I think what will happen comes down to whether Biden is going to run again. If he runs again, the DOJ will make every effort to prosecute Prince Andrew one way or another to appear sufficiently woke, responsive, and responsible,

If Biden opts not to run again, then there is no need for the diplomatic headache that this would entail and Andrew will be forgotten, at least in the US.

by Anonymousreply 180January 1, 2022 7:34 AM

None of which is relevant to whether or not Andrew remembers Giuffre, r179.

by Anonymousreply 181January 1, 2022 7:46 AM

Andrew KNOWS Giuffre, r181. When you can write a post as detailed and insightful as mine - feel free to comment again.

by Anonymousreply 182January 1, 2022 8:01 AM

That’s a supposition in your part r182. By her account she met him 3 or 4 times, some twenty years ago. They weren’t friends. She wasn’t hanging out in his home. She was a nobody who couldn’t do anything for him beyond give him an orgasm, something plenty of women were willing to give him. Being a sperm receptacle, particularly for a not very bright man, isn’t rememberable. So there’s a very good chance he doesn’t remember her.

by Anonymousreply 183January 1, 2022 8:10 AM

You're a simpleton R183? I guess.

by Anonymousreply 184January 1, 2022 8:19 AM

If you believe your post was “detailed”, you’re tje simpleton. Even thicker than Andrew.

by Anonymousreply 185January 1, 2022 9:11 AM

If I’m not mistaken, the US legal system does not prosecute people “in absentia”.

The chances of Andrew ever being extradited to America, either directly from the UK or from any other (EU-) country with an extradition treaty with the US are infinitely small. Not worth the political fallout.

He shouldn’t be above the law, but he is.

by Anonymousreply 186January 1, 2022 9:41 AM

I met Prince Andrew at around the same time he is alleged to have had sex with Virginia. While he emanated a lot of inner confidence, I thought that he was physically very, very unattractive as well as short. So do find it hard to think that women were throwing themselves at him then - especially attractive and young ones like Giuffre was at that time. Not to mention I agree that privacy and secrecy was a concern - he would not want a hookup to sell a kiss and tell to a tabloid. He is also known to be very cheap and would not have paid for an escort.

by Anonymousreply 187January 1, 2022 10:21 AM

By the way, height is another thing that Andrew has lied about - I can tell you that he is definitely NOT 6ft. I would guess that he is more like 5ft8 at most, maybe even shorter.

[quote]"Prince Andrew's aides claim that the gap in height between the 6ft duke and the 5ft 3ins Virginia Roberts Giuffre proves that this picture has been doctored "

by Anonymousreply 188January 1, 2022 10:26 AM

The ex-whores are just after more money. None of them were in prison; they could have walked away at any time. He did not brutalise any of them. Let him go. He's an arsehole but he's not a criminal.

by Anonymousreply 189January 1, 2022 10:49 AM

R199 So why doesn't he just come clean?

by Anonymousreply 190January 1, 2022 10:53 AM

R154 Look over there!

by Anonymousreply 191January 1, 2022 2:46 PM

More humiliations may be on the way for Andrew (and because of his actions, his mother).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 192January 2, 2022 1:56 AM

How humiliating!

by Anonymousreply 193January 2, 2022 1:57 AM

I’m not sure what “sending him into internal exile” quite means, other than the royal family saying “we’re taking care of it privately, pay no attention and stop asking us about it.”

by Anonymousreply 194January 2, 2022 1:59 AM

R187, I don’t think it’s attraction that brought women to him. It’s the fact he’s the Queen’s son.

by Anonymousreply 195January 2, 2022 2:03 AM

Oh no, don't take away his charities! Talk about humiliation!

by Anonymousreply 196January 2, 2022 2:15 AM

R194.

by Anonymousreply 197January 2, 2022 2:35 AM

R192.

by Anonymousreply 198January 2, 2022 2:35 AM

R197.

by Anonymousreply 199January 2, 2022 2:43 AM

Charity begins in gorgeous Prince Andrew's pants!! He's beating underage women off.

by Anonymousreply 200January 2, 2022 2:44 AM

As long as prostitution is still not an actionable crime, if anything, the teenaged prostitute should face prosecution. Did she not have a responsibility to inform her clients that she was underage and therefore they could be prosecuted? And she recruited other girls even younger than herself - that is a criminal act.

by Anonymousreply 201January 2, 2022 6:39 AM

Even Fergie won't take Andy's sweaty lil dick. Not even for $$$.

by Anonymousreply 202January 2, 2022 6:44 AM

Why is vile Klan Granny Dutchie on this thread? Andrew could be kidnapped and taken to the US. He's bound to spaz about on a yacht so would be easy pickings.

by Anonymousreply 203January 2, 2022 7:50 AM

R195 I still don't buy it - what would an attractive woman get out of a one night stand? When there are hot men and generous men with money out there. Bragging creds? Not really when it's women and they get viewed as sluts.

by Anonymousreply 204January 2, 2022 9:01 AM

[quote]I’m not sure what “sending him into internal exile” quite means

No public events whatsoever, and even fewer private society events such as Royal get-togethers and shooting weekends. He'll be the pensioned-off pariah uncle no-one really wants to invite for Christmas, or anywhere.

Occasionally the press will capture a new image as he ages fast. This will be a harsh contrast to continual features about the glowing vibrant smiling Cambridge family, the assured future for Royalty.

by Anonymousreply 205January 2, 2022 9:20 AM

This is just wrong. This woman accepted payment ($15,000), she was not enslaved, it was 20 years ago, she has already been paid quite a bit from Epstein's estate. Furthermore, she has no proof apart from the photo showing that she met Andrew. I hope they throw the case out or she loses and has to pay his legal fees.

by Anonymousreply 206January 2, 2022 9:38 AM

R205 I've read that this idiot is very 'grand' and cares about that kind of stuff too. Which makes it all the funnier to watch given that I can't stand liars even as I recognise that Virginia was of age in London and that he probably didn't know that she was trafficked.

by Anonymousreply 207January 2, 2022 9:38 AM

R206 The handyman who worked on Epstein's telecoms on Little St James (the island) says that he saw Andrew grinding up against Virginia by the pool. Then there's Johanna Sjoberg who says that she and Virginia were subjected to sexual touching while with Andrew. As we've seen with Maxwell's trial, the testimony of witnesses can be accepted.

by Anonymousreply 208January 2, 2022 9:42 AM

R204, what do girls get out of being sperm receptacles for rock stars? In fact, I knew a guy who played in a local unknown band. He had girls throwing themselves at him nightly.

The female mind is a mystery.

by Anonymousreply 209January 2, 2022 10:39 AM

R209 Andrew isn't a rock star. He isn't cool at all.

by Anonymousreply 210January 2, 2022 10:49 AM

No, but he was famous. So famous, Virginia Giuffre wanted a photo of him to show her mother and grandmother.

by Anonymousreply 211January 2, 2022 11:14 AM

R211 Sure but if Virginia wasn't effectively a trafficked woman and being paid for it, would she have fucked him. I'm pretty sure not in a million years! I'm the person who met him in 2001 and I was born in 1983, same as Giuffre. So I was basically a similar age and this guy was like a troglodyte to me then. I cannot emphasise more how blech he was in person.

by Anonymousreply 212January 2, 2022 11:19 AM

The fact that they could abandon a senior family member like that in private shows you how horrid the BRF are. MM gets a lot of stick for ghosting her family, but this is worse, because Andrew is really in trouble.

by Anonymousreply 213January 2, 2022 11:20 AM

R213 They will neither abandon nor ghost him. If it happens, it's more akin to him losing his job to protect the Royal Family industry and image. He is still very well-accepted and protected within the family, especially by the Queen who supports him financially, goes riding with him and so on.

by Anonymousreply 214January 2, 2022 11:26 AM

Whether she would or not isn’t the issue r212. It’s whether he believed it possible, and I think he did.

I can see Charles abandoning Andrew, and I don’t think that reflects poorly on Charles.

by Anonymousreply 215January 2, 2022 11:34 AM

Camilla Long in London Times just called him "a terminally fat-fingered chaffering drongo". Respect!

by Anonymousreply 216January 2, 2022 11:35 AM

Drongo, that's a new one. I looked it up and it's Aussie slang for 'brain-dead' in case anyone else is wondering. Lol.

by Anonymousreply 217January 2, 2022 11:40 AM

Off with his head!

by Anonymousreply 218January 2, 2022 12:11 PM

R214, what about R205's prediction about private events?

by Anonymousreply 219January 2, 2022 12:15 PM

R219 I don't really buy the private events thing. I think it'll be mainly public events. Maybe one or two private events that get a lot of publicity or press but everything I see is about him being supported in private but them wanting to avoid bad publicity by removing him from public roles.

by Anonymousreply 220January 2, 2022 12:17 PM

[quote]The fact that they could abandon a senior family member like that in private shows you how horrid the BRF are.

It is pure speculation that is what they are going to do. Exile will simply mean less visibility and a formal acknowledgement he will have no visible presence in the working life of the royal family. They all do tons and tons of stuff the media never knows about. The speculation he may need to leave his home is just that. It would be entirely possible he still has Christmas with the family, privately. Surely it hangs on whether or not he is charged and convicted with doing anything criminal. In any event, fair to say he is now highly damaged goods, he won't be back at work in any meaningful way and the question is how much of his dignity, if any, can be salvaged (like the title)?

I'd bet money this thing will be settled with the official reasoning to spare the Queen, particularly in her jubilee year.

by Anonymousreply 221January 2, 2022 2:34 PM

Few things are more pathetic than the people in here defending this lifelong loser. He’s the premiere example of why “blue blood” is idiocy.

by Anonymousreply 222January 2, 2022 2:47 PM

Andy should be punished by showing the world his tiny willy.

by Anonymousreply 223January 2, 2022 3:15 PM

For the defenders of air miles Andy who insist he didn't do nothing wrong cuz Giuffre was 17 and, you know, a prostitute, she is suing the sweaty pig under the New York Child Victims Act which defines child as under 18 years of age. Guiffre alleges randy Andy sexually assaulted her on several occasions without her consent and knew or should have known that his good friends Epstein and Maxwell trafficked underage females.

The reason the legislation even exists is due to the recognition that victims of sexual assault and sex trafficking often are unable to process what happened to them for many years and should be able to sue beyond the age of 23, which was the previous limit.

by Anonymousreply 224January 2, 2022 3:23 PM

More sweating for Pedo. Judge rules lawsuit can go on .

"The judge ruled that Andrew's lawyers had not raised the residency issue as a defense and that they would have to provide documents to fit Giuffre's schedule - not their own "

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 225January 2, 2022 3:27 PM

R209, I don't think that it's that much of a mystery. Women are attracted to perceived status/power/talent, and like bragging about well-known men that they have fucked.

by Anonymousreply 226January 2, 2022 6:53 PM

That begs the question, then r224, as to why Giuffre left it until only 5 days before the New York’s Child Victims Act expired to lodge her complaint. Sounds like she was tossing with the idea of whether she could claim it applied to her. She also has to prove that she didn't consent - and given that she willingly and smilingly chose to have her photo taken with Andrew earlier in London, when she knew she was about to have sex with him, it can't automatically be assumed that she didn't consent.

by Anonymousreply 227January 2, 2022 7:09 PM

It’s not uncommon to wait until the statute of limitations period is about to expire to make a filing. It gives legal counsel more time to work.

by Anonymousreply 228January 2, 2022 7:29 PM

Off with his head!

by Anonymousreply 229January 2, 2022 7:43 PM

Rape him!

by Anonymousreply 230January 2, 2022 7:46 PM

R227 You need to read more about what sexual exploitation and sex trafficking involves.

It is you that is begging the question by claiming that sexual assault victims who smile are willing and consensual. Begging the question fallacy: Begging the question is a fallacy in which a claim is made and accepted to be true, but one must accept the premise to be true for the claim to be true.

The Homeland Security government website says this about sex trafficking. Pay attention to the last sentence please.

Traffickers use force, fraud, or coercion to lure their victims and force them into labor or commercial sexual exploitation. They look for people who are susceptible for a variety of reasons, including psychological or emotional vulnerability, economic hardship, lack of a social safety net, natural disasters, or political instability. The trauma caused by the traffickers can be so great that many may not identify themselves as victims or ask for help, even in highly public settings.

by Anonymousreply 231January 2, 2022 7:53 PM

Excellent post and notation R231.

It's not difficult to understand.

by Anonymousreply 232January 2, 2022 9:37 PM

That was my point r226.

by Anonymousreply 233January 2, 2022 9:48 PM

He's so awful, but of course nothing will happen to him.

by Anonymousreply 234January 2, 2022 10:03 PM

His public image is shot to hell, that has to bother him. He's not able to financially capitalize on his position that has to burn also.

by Anonymousreply 235January 2, 2022 10:08 PM

I doubt all his Arab/Kazakhian friends care about his dalliances - they do the same without consequence. They'll still support him.

by Anonymousreply 236January 2, 2022 10:18 PM

Fatty Andy is done. He knows once mommy dies his life as it is is over. Brother King will not permit him to continue to destroy the monarchy.

I think King Charles or Alfred or whatever he will call himself should drown Andy in a vat of malmsey wine - that would be a nice historical touch, as this is how Edward IV had his brother Clarence killed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 237January 2, 2022 10:30 PM

But they support him because of his connections, r236. If he can’t do things for them, such as make introductions, those “friendships” will wane.

by Anonymousreply 238January 2, 2022 11:00 PM

He'll always have Fergie.

by Anonymousreply 239January 3, 2022 12:10 AM

From The Guardian just now:

At stake is not just Prince Andrew’s future and Giuffre’s pursuit of justice, but the international reputation of the British royal family. Buckingham Palace on Sunday denied as “uninformed speculation” reports that courtiers may have to ask Prince Andrew to stop using his title if he loses the lawsuit brought by Giuffre. It said it would not comment on ongoing legal matters and also played down reports he would have to step back from his role as colonel-in-chief of nine military regiments, units and corps.

by Anonymousreply 240January 3, 2022 2:20 AM

[quote]He'll always have Fergie.

He only kept her around to act as his go between when he sold access to himself and his mother. She's the one who handled the money exchange.

jeffrey epstein had ghislaine to get kids for him

andrew had Fergie to help him out with his dodgy dealings

by Anonymousreply 241January 3, 2022 3:22 AM

So many people “in the know” without one shred of evidence to support their claims.

by Anonymousreply 242January 3, 2022 3:24 AM

^ Prove he doesn't sweat you old sow. ^

by Anonymousreply 243January 3, 2022 3:26 AM

[quote]So many people “in the know” without one shred of evidence to support their claims

convicted child trafficking, rapist ghislaine maxwell is 100% PROOF it's ALL TRUE. Every single bit. TRUE

by Anonymousreply 244January 3, 2022 3:32 AM

Andrew is already ruined publicly. I think he is just a distraction so the big fish can quietly swim away, unseen.

by Anonymousreply 245January 3, 2022 3:33 AM

Look at R227, the rape apologist who thinks men should be able to traffic and rape girls

So deluded and just so proud of their ignorance

by Anonymousreply 246January 3, 2022 3:40 AM

I feel sorry for Beatrice and Eugenie. Their dad is a pervert and their mom is fucking nuts. Poor girls.

by Anonymousreply 247January 3, 2022 5:50 AM

I agree R247. I don't much give a fuck about any of them but those two bloated pervert grifters have damaged their daughters for sure. The girls must have some idea of who they really are beyond mummy and dad. Fergie gave an interview to 60 minutes Australia just after the royal wedding. (Kate and Will) She wished she could have advised her daughters on their hats! She said it hurt to not be there "because I was the last bride up that aisle." She also said that she missed her daughters at Xmas holidays, as they were members of the royal family and she is NOT invited. Fergie is quite good natured when she isn't drunk or picking up henchman. Can't be easy for any of them. But come on. The BRF knows how to ignore shit. Andrew's case ain't going away. The Clintons or Trump would make her go away - but they're just happy that fat bucktooth 'royal' buffoon takes the heat.

by Anonymousreply 248January 3, 2022 6:51 AM

To the Tower of London for a little chop.

by Anonymousreply 249January 3, 2022 6:54 AM

Check out these gossipy newspaper clippings from 2003/4. People knew back then what was going on!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 250January 3, 2022 6:57 AM

Good work R250! Yes we knew about it then - but it's nice to be reminded in salacious print. The names of Maxwell, Clinton, Prince Andrew and whipping parties all in one sentence! I guess that was called gossip. Kinky rich people enjoying salacious appetites and sex parties is not criminal. But why shouldn't hypocrites be exposed? And maybe, just maybe it was criminal. Bring the boys down. Ghislaine had a good run of it. She'll teach a course in prison. Her type of energy can be rerouted and her type of power over women will be respected. She worked very hard for her mentor AND her own pleasures. She's no victim. She'll be in charge now. Personalities like hers will adapt.

But Andrew, the navy man - has been handled with the greatest of care his whole life. That interview he did tells us just how ill prepared he is for anything coming at him that questions his version of the real world. He's a simp.

I'm sure Ghislaine and Epstein laughed and laughed about ANDY. Remember that portrait of Bill Clinton that Jeff Epstein purchased and displayed in his NYC mansion? One has to respect his superior game. He liked to twist young girls tits in a rough robotic way while Ghislaine talked to them about the importance of giving good massages. In a very special room. "Massage" was code for many things.

Prince Andrew was a non paying customer. Now he's gonna pay.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 251January 3, 2022 7:49 AM

And the second article says, "when he (Epstein) has these dinners at one of his houses, there are all these young women that she has provided for him." Both articles blatantly saying that she was a madam providing women and sex.

by Anonymousreply 252January 3, 2022 7:53 AM

[quote]Buckingham Palace on Sunday denied as “uninformed speculation” reports that courtiers may have to ask Prince Andrew to stop using his title if he loses the lawsuit brought by Giuffre.

The speculation will have been deftly suggested by courtiers in the first place for journalists to pick up as a plausible talking point.

In this way both Andrew and the public are prepared for the actuality of significant demotion. It becomes an accepted possibility, so the deed when it comes seems inevitable.

This morning on the front page of 'The Times' a senior soldier is calling for Andrew (pictured in uniform) to be removed as Royal figurehead of his hallowed regiment. And so the momentum (and disgrace) continues.

by Anonymousreply 253January 3, 2022 8:18 AM

"The speculation will have been deftly suggested by courtiers in the first place for journalists to pick up as a plausible talking point." - Not at all, r253. It's the same as uninformed speculation that the Queen will strip Harry and Meghan of their titles. Courtiers are also not as all-powerful as is assumed on DL and pretended by the British press when it wants to publish gossipy stories.

by Anonymousreply 254January 3, 2022 10:40 AM

Not at all r246. Rape and trafficking actually have meanings, and they aren't "sex I consented to and now want to make money from by making a big deal about the least offensive person I had sex with - and even had my photo taken with him before I had sex with him for my mum and grandma, with a big smile on my face - while ignoring all the other horrific men I was actually trafficked for".

by Anonymousreply 255January 3, 2022 10:45 AM

Why wasn't Virginia Guiffre called upon as a witness in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial? Why wasn't she even one of the women who accused Maxwell?

[quote]Her absence was perplexing, as her name was introduced countless times, her photograph was shown in court and she has been one of the most prominent accusers of Epstein and Maxwell. A deposition, given by Maxwell in a 2016 civil suit brought by Giuffre, formed the basis of two perjury charges against the British socialite, who denied all charges.

[quote]Giuffre was “available” if called upon to give evidence, the court heard. “Certainly, if she had been called, it would have seen Andrew centre-stage,” said Mark Stephens of the law firm Howard Kennedy.

[quote]Prosecutors gave no reason for their decision. But they may have feared it would complicate the case, especially if inconsistencies could be shown in accounts Giuffre has previously given over the years.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 256January 3, 2022 10:52 AM

Yet only Virginia Giuffre has alleged that she had sex with Andrew, r251, on only three occasions.

by Anonymousreply 257January 3, 2022 10:55 AM

Forgot this paragraph from the article on why the prosecution did not call Giuffre as a witness against Maxwell:

[quote]Prosecutors gave no reason for their decision. But they may have feared it would complicate the case, especially if inconsistencies could be shown in accounts Giuffre has previously given over the years.

[quote]It could be, said Stephens, “that the reason the prosecution did not call Giuffre in the Ghislaine Maxwell case is that they risked an own goal if her credibility could be undermined, which would have given Maxwell a leg-up”.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 258January 3, 2022 10:56 AM

Apparently Giuffre's story through the years has been inconsistent, and she was known to have recruited girls even younger than herself for Epstein and Maxwell.

by Anonymousreply 259January 3, 2022 10:59 AM

Lawyers have said that the prosecution didn't call Giuffre because she would have made a sideshow of it. They wanted to keep the case lean and focused. They didn't want sideshows like the famous men linked to epstein, or where Epstein's money came from, or women who have had a lot of publicity which the defense would have loved to pick holes at and make a show of.

by Anonymousreply 260January 3, 2022 11:04 AM

Oh, and the defense could have called Giuffre themselves but they didn't either. The prosecution clearly thought that they had enough with the 4 women they had and I guess they were proven right.

by Anonymousreply 261January 3, 2022 11:05 AM

R259 'Carolyn' testified that she recruited girls too - the prosecution was still happy to put her up.

by Anonymousreply 262January 3, 2022 11:11 AM

R247 Yes the poor York princesses, who have spent the vast majority of their adult lives vacationing and grifting.

by Anonymousreply 263January 3, 2022 11:28 AM

Nothing! I'm a Klan Granny and I love ALL the royals - 38.8%

hahahahahaha

by Anonymousreply 264January 3, 2022 11:34 AM

[QUOTE] Nothing! I'm a Klan Granny and I love ALL the royals - 38.8% hahahahahaha

Nothing amusing about a gay men's message board being riddled with racist fraus.

by Anonymousreply 265January 3, 2022 1:39 PM

Andrew threads bring out the absolute worst people on DL. It's just endless variations of "He didn't fuck her and if he did fuck her she definitely wasn't a minor and either way she's not a sex trafficking victim because she's a dirty whore". Lots of cunts claiming to know things they couldn't possibly know.

by Anonymousreply 266January 3, 2022 1:46 PM

[quote]I feel sorry for Beatrice and Eugenie. Their dad is a pervert and their mom is fucking nuts.

Wasn't Beatrice reported to be one of the people who helped Andrew "prepare" for his Pizza Express interview? I recall reading it at the time and being surprised he allowed his daughter in on the planning.

by Anonymousreply 267January 3, 2022 2:53 PM

I have read that Andrew's daughters say that they do not recall this Pizza Express outing. Which makes me laugh. They are not going to lie for him. He's gonna be thrown under the bus by everyone. Why he doesn't just hold his hands up, own it and settle, I do not know. This way he's just dragging it out endlessly and the media is eating it up with all their negative front pages about him. What an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 268January 3, 2022 2:59 PM

[quote]Rape and trafficking actually have meanings, and they aren't "sex I consented to and now want to make money from by making a big deal about the least offensive person I had sex with - and even had my photo taken with him before I had sex with him for my mum and grandma, with a big smile on my face

Jackie Kennedy smiled the morning of Nov 22, 1963. Did she want her husband killed?

Plenty of women have smiled and taken pictures of men that raped them a few hours later. Did they want to get raped? NO. According to you if anyone has ever smiled in a picture with someone, their smile was consent to be raped, robbed or maybe even murdered. Because no one on earth has ever smiled a few hours before something bad has happened to them. NEVER, EVER

Now shut that cunting mouth of yours and get the fuck out of here.

by Anonymousreply 269January 3, 2022 3:39 PM

Beatrice and Eugenie have never made any public comment about this issue, r268.

by Anonymousreply 270January 3, 2022 6:01 PM

Virginia Giuffre is being sued for defamation by Rina Oh, one of the women she claims recruited girls for Epstein.

It's all a sideshow and celebrities with Giuffre, r260. Look at these tweets she made about Oh. And she's a blue tick, lol. She shouldn't even be posting about this on Twitter. She's quoting suspended accounts as her "evidence".

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 271January 3, 2022 6:05 PM

“Guiffre’s settlement agreement is one of the broadest I have ever seen,” Rahmani said. “As a plaintiff’s attorney, I never release unknown parties or entities, especially for a mere $500,000 for sexual abuse. The language gives Prince Andrew another strong legal defense to Guiffre’s claims, in addition to the jurisdiction and other defenses his lawyers have raised.”

But Rahmani added that just because the prince “may prevail on a legal grounds, does not mean he is exonerated or factually innocent of wrongdoing.” “It’s not your typical release, and I would never agree to language like this for a client unless it’s an offer she can’t refuse, which this was not,” he said. “At best, Guiffre will get a default judgment against Prince Andrew because the court can’t compel his attendance in the United States. Unless Maxwell cooperates with prosecutors, and they can independently verify the information she provides, I don’t think the Prince will receive criminal justice.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 272January 3, 2022 7:52 PM

Well, it looks like various military groups don't want anything to do with him now.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 273January 3, 2022 9:42 PM

That's not a new development, r273. The article itself says "The Duke of York has reportedly not been at a single military event since he stepped back from royal duties two years ago over allegations he had sex three times with one of Jeffrey Epstein's young 'slaves'."

by Anonymousreply 274January 3, 2022 9:46 PM

Grenadier Guards = Silly ninnies who have turned many a blind eye to other things before

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 275January 3, 2022 9:48 PM

Well they did yell "Make way!"

by Anonymousreply 276January 3, 2022 10:38 PM

R275 Stupid tourist

by Anonymousreply 277January 3, 2022 10:53 PM

That release was very broad. I understand why, from Epstein’s perspective. He had good legal representation.

by Anonymousreply 278January 3, 2022 11:09 PM

1 - I am really surprised that she only got $500k. In court 'Jane' testified that she got $5m and about $2.9m after legal fees.

2 - Such broad language exempting anyone else is extraordinary. Normally contracts should be more specific.

R270 I didn't say they did. I said that I'd read that they weren't going to say that they remember that Pizza Express outing, which is unhelpful for Andrew's case.

by Anonymousreply 279January 3, 2022 11:36 PM

I kissed Jeffrey Epstein and I don't care who knows it! Those lips were too sexy.

by Anonymousreply 280January 3, 2022 11:38 PM

r280 Did they taste like cherry chapstick?

by Anonymousreply 281January 3, 2022 11:41 PM

"Attorney David Boies, who represents Giuffre, said in a statement Monday that the language about protecting potential defendants in the settlement between his client and Epstein was “irrelevant” to the prince’s lawsuit in part because the paragraph did not mention the prince and he didn’t know about it.

“He could not have been a ‘potential defendant’ in the settled case against Jeffrey Epstein both because he was not subject to jurisdiction in Florida and because the Florida case involved federal claims to which he was not a part,” Boies said.

Boies said he wanted the Epstein-Giuffre agreement publicly released “to refute the claims being made about it by Prince Andrew’s” public relations campaign.

Giuffre sued the prince in August, saying he had sexually assaulted her multiple times in 2001 when she was 17.

The prince’s lawyers say Andrew never sexually abused or assaulted Giuffre and that he “unequivocally denies Giuffre’s false allegations against him.”

They also wrote that Giuffre sued Andrew “to achieve another payday at his expense and at the expense of those closest to him. Epstein’s abuse of Giuffre does not justify her public campaign against Prince Andrew.”

Arguments over the request to dismiss the lawsuit are scheduled for Tuesday.

Recently, the prince’s lawyers have said Giuffre should be disallowed from suing in the U.S. because she has lived most of the past two decades in Australia and can’t accurately claim to be a resident of Colorado, where her mother lives.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has rejected an attempt by the lawyers to halt progression of the lawsuit and to subject Giuffre to a deposition over the issue of where she is a resident.

In late 2019, Prince Andrew told BBC Newsnight that he never had sex with Giuffre, saying, “It didn’t happen.”

He said he has “no recollection” of ever meeting her.

The interview was widely panned by critics who said Andrew seemed insensitive to Epstein’s victims. Afterward, the prince stepped back from royal duties.

A message seeking comment was left with a spokesperson for Giuffre’s lawyers and with Brettler."

Related Articles

Attorneys demand proof of Prince Andrew’s sweatless claims

Prince Andrew: Accuser can’t sue because she’s not in the US.

by Anonymousreply 282January 4, 2022 12:48 AM

R266- "!Lots of cunts claiming to know things they couldn't possibly know." Yes, dear, you certainly are.

by Anonymousreply 283January 4, 2022 1:59 PM

......

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 284January 4, 2022 9:26 PM

Prince Andrew should go and see if Paula Deen would allow him to lick her pussy.

She just might let him do it.

by Anonymousreply 285January 4, 2022 9:39 PM

R285 Andrew doesn't want an old granny type!

by Anonymousreply 286January 4, 2022 9:45 PM

Is there a new Pedrew thread?

by Anonymousreply 287January 6, 2022 12:09 AM

Who are these Grenedier Guards?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 288January 6, 2022 12:16 AM

The judge still hasn't made a decision on whether to drop the case or not? I thought he was supposed to do that yesterday.

by Anonymousreply 289January 6, 2022 1:05 AM

The hearing for that was yesterday, but the decision will probably take some time because it’s a weighty issue.

by Anonymousreply 290January 6, 2022 1:08 AM

They just floated a trial balloon:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 291January 6, 2022 2:14 AM

An analysis of the Judge's questions and statements indicate he will rule against Andrew.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 292January 6, 2022 2:15 AM

So the corrupt, disgusting queen is going to pay hush money to a trafficked sex slave.

by Anonymousreply 293January 7, 2022 11:17 AM

The poll shows just how many racist Royalists there are on DL these days.

by Anonymousreply 294January 7, 2022 11:18 AM

Woah, media is reporting that Giuffre allegedly doesn't want to do a deal and settle. She wants a trial! Seems like that she wants to prove her case. I have always thought that Andrew was stupid to not just hold up his hands and own it from the beginning. The lying does him a disservice.

"Prince Andrew's accuser Virginia Giuffre is 'UNLIKELY to agree to pay-off' to settle sex assault lawsuit as Duke 'tries to sell £17m Swiss chalet to foot legal bills'

Ms Giuffre, who claims she was forced to have sex with the Duke of York three times on the orders of her paedophile abuser Jeffrey Epstein , does not want to do a deal and push for a trial, insiders have claimed. She is said to want a trial to send a message that anyone 'with power and privilege' accused of abusing young girls will face the full force of the law. And Ms Giuffre has told her lawyers that agreeing a multi-million pound settlement with Prince Andrew - who denies the allegations being made against him - would would not 'advance that message', according to the Telegraph."

by Anonymousreply 295January 7, 2022 11:42 AM

[quote]She is said to want a trial to send a message that anyone 'with power and privilege' accused of abusing young girls will face the full force of the law.

"She won't go quietly", as Princess Diana said of herself. And nor did she.

by Anonymousreply 296January 7, 2022 12:22 PM

I just don't see anything happening to him; I can see the BRF quietly settling lawsuits on the condition that once Mummy dies, he's banished forever. I'm not defending the guy, he might be able to reasonable make the argument that he's royalty - he's surrounded by people who do things for him, he does virtually nothing for himself & he really didn't know what shady character Epstein was as he moved in elite circles with many high profile men. I think missy at R295 who says she won't settle is just looking for an even *bigger* pay day - and good for her if she gets it.

by Anonymousreply 297January 7, 2022 12:33 PM

She'll have to specify dates then, r295.

Funny how given her aim is supposedly to stop the rich and powerful, the only one who interests her is Andrew.

Good grief r296, Giuffre is nothing to do with Diana. If Diana were alive now, she'd probably wish Giuffre would fuck off and stop doing things that could damage her son.

by Anonymousreply 298January 7, 2022 12:43 PM

The Maul is reporting Prince Andrew is pushing hard to sell his $17M Swiss ski chalet to pay his legal bills (and possibly settle the matter) and that the Queen is not paying out. I never know whether or not to believe anything in the rag. It could be true, it could be made up out of whole cloth to annoy the family because they're over there skiing right now, or somebody could have leaked it to confuse disapproval over the Queen using revenue that is arguably sourced from public funds to pay the bills for somebody everybody loathes.

I am certain the Telegraph story about the possibility of settlement was smoke from the Vatican. They do want this settled (the Royal they) before the Jubilee starts in earnest. The story was to get the plaintiff thinking about the idea. Interesting, too, the story in the Mail from a friend of the plaintiff claiming all this could have been avoided if he'd just apologized. Which seems rather unlikely. But maybe that was the first message of we're opening to settling. Maybe the other side planted the idea. In any event, this doesn't go to court and it does go away, though Andrew is ruined.

by Anonymousreply 299January 7, 2022 12:50 PM

There's no case to answer in British law, and never has been. The prostitution age in 2001 was 16, and sex with a trafficked woman wasn't made illegal until 2009. The alleged offences also took place in a jurisdiction where the prostitution age was 16 and sex with a trafficked woman was legal.

by Anonymousreply 300January 7, 2022 1:00 PM

Perhaps so but the case is being heard in New York and the noise is the problem for the royal family.

by Anonymousreply 301January 7, 2022 1:02 PM

R301 I'm not sure a court in Country A is going to enforce a judgment from Country B regarding offences committed in Country C which weren't actually illegal in either Country A or Country C.

by Anonymousreply 302January 7, 2022 1:12 PM

Unpopular opinion here, but -

Giuffre has Andrew by the balls because of the royal family’s reliance on public opinion and popular support to maintain a very tenuous illusion in the modern age: that one family is somehow entitled to rule. A quick criminal trial would almost have been easier for the royals than this decades-long news story being dragged through the papers every few weeks.

Giuffre is angry with Andrew, genuinely angry. That doesn’t mean she’d never take the money, but for now at least, she prefers propping him up and beating him around the head in the court of public opinion like a piñata, because every time that happens it weakens him in the eyes of the public and it hurts his status in the royal family itself. It’s a very bad sign for him that someone allowed word in the paper that the Queen would not be footing his legal bills. Finally his Mummy is cutting her ties.

Moreover, Giuffre has no time or money pressure to settle. Her counsel is famously great in court, not just a typical big firm attorney who’s an expert at negotiating settlement packages. If you have David Boies, you put him in front of a judge. And she’s likely not paying his hourly rates—either he’s donating his time or he’ll get a cut of a judgment at the end of things. He also desperately needs good press at the moment, after his Weinstein issues, and while his law firm has hit the skids.

I don’t think Andrew will be getting a deal.

by Anonymousreply 303January 7, 2022 1:16 PM

Depends on the treaties between the two countries governing liability in civil litigation. There may be none. Probably aren't. But don't be naive... if he didn't pay up an award in a case of this nature he'd have found the one remaining way to make this situation even worse.

by Anonymousreply 304January 7, 2022 1:17 PM

Focusing on whether Andrew will be at risk of jail or actually having to pay a judgment to Giuffre is missing the real issue that the longer this goes, the more he’s tarnished. Arguments like “but this wasn’t illegal in England” are hugely missing the point.

by Anonymousreply 305January 7, 2022 1:18 PM

R305, exactly. There is always some confusion between his civil risk and his criminal risk. The lawsuit is on the basis that he did know or ought to have known about her. It's civil. He does not face criminal prosecution and there's no indication he will. The royal family's concern is turning this into history. I wonder if it is all an elaborate game. Float the notion of settlement. Float the idea the Queen isn't a bottomless pit of money. Float the idea he's trying to sell his chalet and here's what it's worth. If you subscribe to the idea there's no such thing as coincidence, that's a lot of coincidences.

by Anonymousreply 306January 7, 2022 1:24 PM

^ I would not be surprised if the leaks are hamfisted negotiating tactics from Andrew’s camp, while they tell Giuffre, “look, I can only afford to give you 3 million, I’ll have to sell my house but I’ll do it! My Mummy won’t help at all! This is all I have to give you! Settle!”

I don’t think anyone would believe that about a member of the royal family, even if it’s true.

by Anonymousreply 307January 7, 2022 1:28 PM

UK's laws re age of consent are irrelevant in the US where this case was filed.

Yes, UK LAWS ARE IRRELEVANT. We don't care if the French can fuck 13 yo's - in fact, a certain director is a persona non grata in the US for fucking a drugged up 13 yo.

And BTW, the UK has a horrible record in protecting victims of sex trafficking and prosecuting the perps.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 308January 7, 2022 2:01 PM

R306 You are somewhat incorrect. The FBI is actively investigating those who may have abused victims of Epstein/Maxwell. You think the conviction of Maxwell is the end of this criminal probe? Not a chance in hell.

by Anonymousreply 309January 7, 2022 2:03 PM

And 20 years later, the UK still has a poor record re: sex trafficking. No wonder Andrew thought he could get away with anything.

"In February, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that the UK had violated articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case of 'A.N and V.C.L versus the UK’ has been hailed as a ‘landmark decision in the fight against trafficking in human beings’. The ruling could have far-reaching consequences for how law enforcement, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Home Office treat victims of trafficking."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 310January 7, 2022 2:10 PM

Giuffre's lawyers are suing under the Child Victims Act but when I read it there was a seeming contradiction in the language and I wondered why Andy's lawyers weren't underlining it. Turns out they are:

"The Times of London reports the new filing from Andrew’s legal team argues the Child Victims Act is “not a reasonable mechanism to address the injustice of child sexual abuse in New York” because it classifies under-18s as minors “even though the age of consent in New York is 17.” Andrew is arguing “the issue of consent is unsettled with regard to those—like Giuffre—who were between the ages of 17 and 18.”

Of course, Giuffre is claiming the sex was non-consensual but it's a strangely worded statute anyway. Then I read that Giuffre claims the abuse with Andrew started when she was 16, so maybe that's the argument.

by Anonymousreply 311January 7, 2022 3:10 PM

Who would've ever thought that an average American would one day grow up and have so much power over a member of the British Royal family? I find this case really fascinating, just for that fact alone.

So much so, that Virginia has put prince Andrew in such a position, that she's making a member of the British Royal family have to sell his beloved vacation home just to finance his legal bills/settlement? But Andrew put himself in thus position by having sex with trafficked minors.

I'm really enjoying this shitshow.

by Anonymousreply 312January 7, 2022 4:11 PM

A hundred years ago he would’ve been send off to spend to rest of his life in a Swiss sanatorium.

by Anonymousreply 313January 7, 2022 4:13 PM

A hundred years ago, what Epstein, Maxwell, and he did to women would have been treated as something to sniff at. Times have changed!

by Anonymousreply 314January 7, 2022 4:14 PM

A hundred years ago Andy's great-grandpapa was trying to conceal the embarrassing fact that the Royal Family was a bunch of Huns.

King George V is remembered in the history books for being the king during the First World War, marrying his dead brother’s fiancée, changing the family’s name from Saxe-Coburg Gotha to Windsor and, interestingly, his obsession with stamp collecting.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 315January 7, 2022 4:36 PM

I do not know how Giuffre can claim she was victimised and the sex was non-consensual when she was recruiting other girls to do the same thing. And Andrew was hardly her only client. Why isn't she suing the dozens of others? No one can prove that Andrew knew she was underage or trafficked.

by Anonymousreply 316January 7, 2022 5:25 PM

[quote]No one can prove that Andrew knew she was underage or trafficked.

Lol. Don't sweat it then, Andy.

by Anonymousreply 317January 7, 2022 5:35 PM

R316 I have said this from day 1: he should just hold his hands up and say that they did have sex but that he considered her of age... But he didn't. He kept throwing all of these bullshit and unconvincing claims 'can't sweat' 'was at Pizza Express even tho my own daughters won't confirm that' 'the photo was faked cuz my fingers aren't as fat and I'm 6ft even tho everyone who has met him knows he is max 5ft7'...

I may be projecting here but I think that Giuffre is persisting with this because she abhors that he's lying and I know EXACTLY how that feels. I hate it when people lie about me and I feel this incredible desire to prove that they are lying.

by Anonymousreply 318January 7, 2022 5:40 PM

I totally totally agree r318 — I think she’s ready to fall on her sword over the truth, this is a hill she is willing to die on, for sure.

by Anonymousreply 319January 7, 2022 5:58 PM

[quote] I think she’s ready to fall on her sword over the truth, this is a hill she is willing to die on, for sure.

What is this, the Battle of Hastings?

by Anonymousreply 320January 7, 2022 9:21 PM

[quote]No one can prove that Andrew knew she was underage or trafficked.

As the law reads, does that matter? And even if didn't do it, or it wasn't in violation of the law, he still is too close to deplorable people. He might be less ruined, but there's no going back. He's not nice or humble enough.

by Anonymousreply 321January 7, 2022 10:36 PM

Then give me a good replacement please r320, I’m very open to a new one?

by Anonymousreply 322January 7, 2022 10:40 PM

R302 is banned poster DEX, here to defend disgusting Andrew as he does every member of the BRF.

by Anonymousreply 323January 8, 2022 12:02 AM

'No one can prove that Andrew knew she was underage or trafficked.'

Who cares? She is pressing charges for RAPE. She said on the Netflx documentary that Prince Andrew 'forced her to have sex with him three times.'

by Anonymousreply 324January 8, 2022 12:03 AM

What middle aged man goes to someone else’s house, has sex with a barely legal girl he just met and thinks it is consensual, and legal. Justifying his actions makes him look worse than a randy Andy, he now looks sociopathically corrupt.

by Anonymousreply 325January 8, 2022 12:19 AM

Hahahaha

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 326January 8, 2022 12:43 AM

[quote] "She won't go quietly", as Princess Diana said of herself. And nor did she.

And we know what happens to girls who don't go quietly.

by Anonymousreply 327January 8, 2022 1:08 AM

It's kinda fun retribution. He has no redeeming characteristics and is a pompous bloated sea monster. Who lied. And lies. Epstein is dead, Ghislaine will never see freedom - let's get the lying ass fake Prince with his grifter ex wife. The Queen has odd favorites.

Harry and Meghan are smarter than the rest. As was Diana, in time. The monarchy is a very corrupt and often evil institution. Who the fuck is Prince Andrew anyway? Fry his flabby ass.

by Anonymousreply 328January 8, 2022 5:28 AM

A witness at Maxwell's trial said that Virginia Giuffre recruited her for Epstein and discussed meeting Andrew. Giuffre said, "I got to sleep with Prince Andrew."

by Anonymousreply 329January 8, 2022 6:07 AM

Andrew has some uses. Perhaps, given his past close ties with Kazakhstan despots, he could be sent there to help broker peace. Perhaps he could be installed there permanently as a "roving Stan ambassador" - let him run amok in the Stan countries.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 330January 8, 2022 2:00 PM

Andrew is already tarnished r305, and, quite frankly, no one gives a shit about him.

by Anonymousreply 331January 8, 2022 2:44 PM

Prince Andrew the Duke of York, has a homophobic joke, based on a famous British nursery rhyme, that most of his friends have heard more than once.

“Oh, the grand old Duke of York, he had ten thousand men,” Andrew says before pausing, and delivering the punch line, “And by God, I can tell you it hurt.”

“It wasn’t particularly funny twenty years ago,” says one source. “But the fact he still comes out with this ghastly stuff, after everything he has been accused of, really shows how arrogant and out of touch he is. The extraordinary thing about Andrew is that he is even more arrogant in person than the newspapers make him out to be.”

(The link is from yahoo news because Daily Beast is subscription)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 332January 8, 2022 4:54 PM

[R329] + your other troll accounts

Giuffre admits to trafficking other girls so you can stop the pathetic gotcha posts.

You're such a moron you don't even realize that it supports her case against Andy--all the girls were trafficked. The fact that Giuffre's former friend Carolyn now blames Giuffre for bring her in doesn't nullify Guiffre's status as a victim. Rather it adds to the pile of evidence that Epstein was trafficking and Andy should have known that. If it's true Guiffre said "I got to sleep with him" it's not surprising that a girl with her sad background of being pimped out to sleezebags would want to believe that sleeping with a Prince gave her some rare bragging rights.

Now run along and sin no more.

by Anonymousreply 333January 8, 2022 11:17 PM

I don't have any other DL accounts, R333. Too bad if you don't like my posts. I am as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.

And no one who has been raped brags that they got to sleep with their rapist.

R329

by Anonymousreply 334January 9, 2022 6:04 AM

.....And apparently I am not the only one who has drawn this conclusion.

R329

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 335January 9, 2022 7:01 AM

More military officers coming forward to protest the degenerate's honorary military titles.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 336January 9, 2022 7:30 AM

Andrew has no good options:

If he settles, he's screwed because it look like he's guilty.

Go to trial and be found liable in the civil suit, which is only preponderance of the evidence--not beyond a reasonable doubt. He's screwed.

He must be found not liable, in order to get back some semblance of his reputation. But that seems like a heavy lift at this point. And he may already be screwed even if he wins since his reputation is shot.

by Anonymousreply 337January 9, 2022 8:24 AM

The stupidest thing Andrew ever did was giving that disastrous BBC interview in November 2019. He made a fool of himself, and made himself look guilty. The case picked up steam after that interview since his credibility was so badly damaged. Dumb, dumb, dumb that he agreed to that interview. Big huge mistake.

by Anonymousreply 338January 9, 2022 8:27 AM

R337, no matter what the outcome, he is finished. Even if he goes to trial and wins, his reputation will always be sullied by the mere accusation. He can’t trade on royal access anymore.

by Anonymousreply 339January 9, 2022 8:48 AM

The term "sex trafficking" refers to criminal activity whereby one or more persons are subjected to engaging in commercial sexual activity through the use of force, fraud, or coercion, [bold]except that if the trafficked person is younger than age 18, the commercial sexual activity need not involve force, fraud, or coercion. In fact, according to the Federal Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, any child younger than age 18 who is induced to engage in commercial sexual activity is a victim of sex trafficking.[/bold]

by Anonymousreply 340January 9, 2022 4:10 PM

Thanks R340. This should be important reading for our European friends who are used to fucking/sodomizing drugged out 13 year olds.

For the Queen's sake, stop bringing up that the victim was 17 and in Europe you can fuck 13 yo's so what does 17 have anything to do with sexual abuse.

by Anonymousreply 341January 9, 2022 4:12 PM

I think Andrew is louche and ruined, but what am I missing because what Epstein was doing wasn't commercial as I would interpret it, which is sex for sale for the purpose of generating revenue directly from that sale. Am I missing something?

by Anonymousreply 342January 9, 2022 4:30 PM

We know Maxwell would pay cash to the young girls, which suggests there was some form of commercial transaction taking place. I don’t think we know enough about Epstein’s methods to know how he extracted value from the Johns.

by Anonymousreply 343January 9, 2022 4:33 PM

Commercial sexual activity means sexual activity for which anything of value is given to, promised to, or received by a person.

by Anonymousreply 344January 9, 2022 4:36 PM

Once Charles ascends he'll shunt Randy Andy off to the nether regions of the Monarchy, rarely to be heard from again. Andrew very likely knows things Charles probably wouldn't want to be made public knowledge, so I predict he'll be told to go away, keep quiet, stay out of the news, and we'll make sure you're taken care of financially.

by Anonymousreply 345January 9, 2022 4:36 PM

Trumpy has his golf course in Scotland. Golfer Andrew's at a loose end, looking for new opportunities. Surely a desk job might be found for him at the links.

Trumpy and Andy, vulgarians supreme, a match made in hell. Stranger things have happened.

by Anonymousreply 346January 9, 2022 5:02 PM

When Trump made his trip to London, it was Andrew who escorted him around London. Good old buddies. (Remember when Trump stepped front of the Queen. After being late. )

by Anonymousreply 347January 9, 2022 5:05 PM

Where will Charles exile A Windsor to?

A far away Commonwealth country? No - that is where the BRF used to send their degenerate members...but in the modern era, Commonwealth countries are not so welcoming. See Barbados, who voted to do away with the BRF.

There is a perfect place for A Windsor to remove himself to: Kazakhstan, he has close relationships with various people there and if he makes to much of a scene, he will be boiled alive in a vat of hot oil.

by Anonymousreply 348January 9, 2022 11:53 PM

One of the islands off of the coast of Wales. Difficult to get to or leave. And groceries?

by Anonymousreply 349January 10, 2022 11:13 PM

Noble Piece Prize

by Anonymousreply 350January 10, 2022 11:14 PM

He can never set foot in America ever again. I wonder how he feels about that? Seems as though he no longer has the freedom to travel freely anywhere around the world anymore the way he use to.

He ruined his own life. I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

by Anonymousreply 351January 10, 2022 11:29 PM

The DM reports today that he sold his Swiss chalet and paid off the former owner. So he should have some money now.

by Anonymousreply 352January 10, 2022 11:40 PM

Fergie can still go to America and offer full Access to Andrew for the tidy sum of $500,000! Or you can ride her for $2,500 and an order of fries.

by Anonymousreply 353January 10, 2022 11:41 PM

About groceries, Fergie could fly in and out with a helicopter. Sure, there's a chance it will go down but life is a gamble as it is.

by Anonymousreply 354January 10, 2022 11:42 PM

The DM also had some pics of Fergie's sister and her daughter today. How many siblings does she have? Does she have a brother? Never thought about it before.

by Anonymousreply 355January 10, 2022 11:50 PM

I think she has one full sibling - that sister - and some younger half-siblings, r355.

by Anonymousreply 356January 11, 2022 1:01 AM

After the sale of his chalet Andy will trade in his Bentley with a Nissan and order pizza from Woking. He will replace his daughter's bodyguards with himself and sleep with his grandchildren's nanny. The Prince will spend evenings watching Strictly Come Dancing reruns while dialing every sheik and bilingual dictator he has ever met to offer access to Harry's tailor. Another revenue stream will be sales of Fergie's next children's book "Budgie the Helicopter Won't Budge! Weight Watchers for the Preschooler". After his mother dies Charles will pretend to forgive him and later have him shot while fishing in the middle of Lake Tahoe.

by Anonymousreply 357January 11, 2022 1:02 AM

Excellent R357 except for the bodyguard business: Over a decade ago, the Queen (with push from Charles) stripped the Yorkies of their security protection.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 358January 11, 2022 1:01 PM

R358 True that, and it pissed Andy off no end so apparently he hired and paid for replacements.

by Anonymousreply 359January 11, 2022 2:28 PM

Looks like Andrew's fucked..

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 360January 12, 2022 3:45 PM

Popcorn. And yes, there's no good option for Andy here. Either he has to settle or have the court case - the discovery and publicity would be brutal. The kicker is that Giuffre may not even want to settle - it probably depends on whether Andy owns up or not.

by Anonymousreply 361January 12, 2022 3:48 PM

I bet it will now be settled. Both sides have been lobbing leaks to media at each other for the past couple weeks. Neither one of them walks away from a civil trial without taking a lot of hits, it looks like. I would guess the pressure to spare the Queen, in this of all years, will be enormous. He's ruined. Best just to accept it with dignity and go away quietly.

by Anonymousreply 362January 12, 2022 3:51 PM

Giuffre shouldn’t accept a settlement without a public admission of guilt and remorse from Andrew. Make it hurt.

by Anonymousreply 363January 12, 2022 3:55 PM

He's already said he can't remember her, R363. Is he supposed to have a sudden brainwave where he does?

by Anonymousreply 364January 12, 2022 4:00 PM

I also don't see how Andy can admit to anything now. He better pray Giuffre will settle.

by Anonymousreply 365January 12, 2022 4:12 PM

That's one thing about the US court system, the British Royal family do not have influence over court preceding outside of the UK.

by Anonymousreply 366January 12, 2022 4:19 PM

From the Daily Beast, not sure I know what it means:

The case will now proceed to discovery and depositions with a full trial likely to happen later this year.

However Andrew may now conclude he has little left to lose by simply not participating any further in the trial and allowing the court to register a default judgment against him, the terms of which would likely be very hard to enforce.

by Anonymousreply 367January 12, 2022 4:19 PM

R367 tbh, that idiot should have done that from day 1. Said, done nothing. But he really thought that hiring expensive lawyers would make this 'obviously' go away. Getting the UK/US to extradite people to each other to face justice is notoriously hard to do and rarely done.

by Anonymousreply 368January 12, 2022 6:41 PM

It's a way around him having to testify in deposition or at trial. If he doesn't show, the judge rules on the claim and awards damages if a finding of liability is determined. Basically, what's already out there is the record. Nothing worse, nothing more embarrassing, unless they produce something hiterto unknown that is worse. I don't understand why it would be hard to enforce (or any harder to enforce than an award after a normal trial.) The downside for him is Guiffre can talk about the matter for as long as she likes. Settling would theoretically provide for better outcomes outside the money involved.

by Anonymousreply 369January 12, 2022 6:46 PM

[quote]'No one can prove that Andrew knew she was underage or trafficked.'

[quote]A witness at Maxwell's trial said that Virginia Giuffre recruited her for Epstein and discussed meeting Andrew. Giuffre said, "I got to sleep with Prince Andrew."

These things don't matter. It's against our laws to sleep with children who have been trafficked for the purposes of sex. She was coerced into getting other girls for epstein. It was up to Andrew to make sure she wasn't a child before he raped her.

No matter how much you want the law to allow raping/trafficking of children, it's illegal at this time. Perhaps you should get together with alan dershowitz. Ending consent laws is his reason for being. He's turned it into his life's work

I

by Anonymousreply 370January 12, 2022 7:22 PM

Somewhat off topic, but whatever happened to the speculation that he was going to re-marry Fergie after Prince Philip died? Is that off the table now?

by Anonymousreply 371January 12, 2022 7:29 PM

signs?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 372January 12, 2022 7:32 PM

Unfortunately, he will never face justice while his mother is alive.

by Anonymousreply 373January 12, 2022 7:40 PM

R371, without any evidence to support my theory, I bet they do it at some point after Philip has been dead for a year.

by Anonymousreply 374January 12, 2022 7:51 PM

NEW YORK — A lawsuit brought against Britain’s Prince Andrew by a woman who says she was trafficked to him by Jeffrey Epstein can go forward, a judge ruled Wednesday, after concluding that a settlement agreement the woman signed in 2009 does not unequivocally free the royal from liability.

by Anonymousreply 375January 12, 2022 8:07 PM

[quote] I don't understand why it would be hard to enforce (or any harder to enforce than an award after a normal trial.)

Like you say, this would be an issue in any civil case—the difficult is enforcing a US legal order across borders if the other country is unwilling to cooperate. So if Andrew didn’t appear and had a default judgment entered in which he was ordered to pay Giuffre $10 million, there’s no real way for the court to force Andrew to pay that unless we had cooperation from the UK. And in this case it seems fair to assume we would not have cooperation. It would likely mean that Andrew couldn’t enter the US without risk, though.

by Anonymousreply 376January 12, 2022 8:15 PM

No matter what Andrew does, his goose is cooked. Broke, busted and hated by his brother and nephew for his role in making the BRF a mockery. It is bad enough that Mr. Tampon the Adulterer is going to become Head of the Anglican Church, to think that Andrew will be allowed to scuttle around without any repercussions - simply unacceptable.

Once Nana dies, the Yorks will quickly disappear from public and will never attend any royal events. That includes the useless daughters who spend all their time vacationing with despots, and anyone who will foot their bills. Charles and William will pluck the York rot out root and stem. I wonder what country Andrew will be sent to. He could join the money laundering, tax evading ex King of Spain in UAE.

by Anonymousreply 377January 12, 2022 8:50 PM

Wasn't it reported last summer or fall that Her Majesty had paid off the last 8 or 9 million owed on the Swiss chalet to make the former owner's lawsuit go away?

by Anonymousreply 378January 12, 2022 10:45 PM

>>>It was up to Andrew to make sure she wasn't a child before he raped her.

Was he supposed to ask her? What if she lied? The other witness Carolyn said she was told to never mention her age.

Should Andrew have asked for a government-issued ID?

In not revealing her age, could it be said that Giuffre entrapped Andrew?

by Anonymousreply 379January 12, 2022 10:52 PM

[quote]Was he supposed to ask her? What if she lied? The other witness Carolyn said she was told to never mention her age. Should Andrew have asked for a government-issued ID?

Yes, It's his responsibility to make sure he doesn't rape children. You are just going to have learn to accept that adults aren't allowed to rape children. It's doesn't matter that it's your biggest wish. It's still against the law

by Anonymousreply 380January 12, 2022 11:03 PM

[bold]But at the forefront of Andrew’s advisers’ minds will be the knowledge that default judgements issued by US civil courts against non-residents without assets in the US are notoriously hard to collect, even when the person in question is not a lineal heir to the British throne. Andrew’s unique diplomatic position would only make that task even harder (although even regular citizens cannot be extradited for failure to pay a default judgement in any case.)[/bold]

If I were nasty Andy I would default. He can't be touched in the UK, why would he want to engage further with the U.S. legal system? Many Brits hate the U.S. anyway, Andy could puff up his chest medals and pronounce he refuses to descend to this mendacious level of opportunism. Case closed. Guiffre insists she will not settle and Andy doesn't have the money even if she changes her mind.

by Anonymousreply 381January 12, 2022 11:22 PM

Many Brits may not love the US, but they’d likely side with the US over a deadbeat rapist who scrounges off the public’s funds.

by Anonymousreply 382January 12, 2022 11:24 PM

One issue with Andrew’s default option is the PR/diplomatic difficulty of government and/or Crown involvement. The royal family tries to stay far far away from any suggestion of influencing politics or substantive (as opposed to ceremonial) governance. If there’s some kind of open and public request from the US Government for the UK government’s assistance in enforcing a default judgment, any whiff that the UK government is giving Andrew special treatment will give the royal family image-makers a lot of heartburn.

by Anonymousreply 383January 12, 2022 11:26 PM

[quote]Wasn't it reported last summer or fall that Her Majesty had paid off the last 8 or 9 million owed on the Swiss chalet to make the former owner's lawsuit go away?

I think so and that would have cleared the way for the current sale by Andrew. I wonder whether HM expects her money back? It wouldn't be the first time she's bailed him out of a real estate disaster.

by Anonymousreply 384January 12, 2022 11:30 PM

R383 Of course, thanks for that.

by Anonymousreply 385January 12, 2022 11:30 PM

There could also be a backchannel request from the UK to the US to say, we won’t help and please don’t ask us to publicly, love, your BFF.

by Anonymousreply 386January 12, 2022 11:36 PM

Andrew’s finances have always been a rather murky matter. His mother gave him a house, Sunninghill Park, for a wedding present, which he subsequently sold in a shady deal to a Kazakh billionaire who is part of the country’s ruling elite. The arrangement in 2007 saw Timur Kulibayev, son-in-law of the former president of Kazakhstan, pay £3m ($4 million) above the £12m ($16 million) asking price. Andrew has argued the transaction was legitimate and he was just ‘fortunate’ to get such a good price for the house.

It is thought that some of the millions he received from that sale went into refurbishing his current home, Royal Lodge, which he lives in, for free, at the grace and favor of the queen, who owns it.

Some of the money from Sunninghill, it is also assumed, went into the luxury, $22 million Swiss ski chalet which the couple bought in 2014 and are now, not entirely coincidentally, selling.

A source told The Daily Beast that Andrew has found a buyer for the property, however, he and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, who bought the house together, are thought to only have around $4m of equity in the property.

So, he has some money, but, as The Sunday Times reported this week, Andrew is thought to have spent in excess of $2.7 million on lawyers so far.

Virginia Giuffre has no doubt done the math.

Although it is understood his legal bills have been guaranteed by the queen, Andrew is expected to pay them in the end (presumably when the chalet sells).

And if she is not paying his legal bills, it seems deeply unlikely his mother, who has, let us not forget, put plenty of clear blue water between the institution and Andrew, would pay out a huge cash settlement to Giuffre.

Doing so would be anathema to the family.

The Mirror recently reported that Prince Charles and Prince William are resolutely opposed to the notion of the queen funding Andrew’s legal battle and think it is up to him to “sort out his own mess.”

And were the queen, who turns 96 in April, to die suddenly, King Charles would be more likely to send his brother to the tower for the rest of his life than settle his civil suit for him.

by Anonymousreply 387January 13, 2022 12:00 AM

Construction on Sunninghill was never even finished when Andrew so suspiciously sold it for way over market price and then it sat there, unfinished, in ruins, for years. Then he got the sweetheart deal on Royal Lodge, the former home of The Queen Mum. He did have to invest a few million of his own funds, though, on refurbishing the Lodge as part of the deal.

by Anonymousreply 388January 13, 2022 12:17 AM

Ah...so satisfying to see all the pro-Andrew cunts on this thread suck it so hard now. That's a better question than OP's. Bunch of losers.

by Anonymousreply 389January 13, 2022 12:20 AM

Why do the royal residences need to be refurbished so often? It seems like every time one of them moves into one, it has to be totally remodeled.

by Anonymousreply 390January 13, 2022 1:03 AM

I don't think they need to be refurbished all that often, but there are a lot of residences and when someone moves in they do need work. Most probably haven't been renovated in 50-plus years and are in need of very expensive electrical, HVAC and plumbing updates.

by Anonymousreply 391January 13, 2022 1:07 AM

[quote]Why do the royal residences need to be refurbished so often? It seems like every time one of them moves into one, it has to be totally remodeled.

The BRF don't wear pants at home. None of them. No drawrz.

by Anonymousreply 392January 13, 2022 2:56 AM

You'd be surprised at how many old residences weren't updated for electricity until the 1920s or early 30s and have never been updated since. I live in a rent controlled apartment building in Chelsea built in 1930 and my apartment still has the original wiring. In December I can't have on the tree lights and run the vacuum cleaner at the same time without either blowing the fuses or tripping the circuit breakers.

by Anonymousreply 393January 13, 2022 3:08 AM

[quote] The BRF don't wear pants at home. None of them. No drawrz.

It’s like the Sex in the City episode where Harry is leaving teabags everywhere and teabagging the furniture.

by Anonymousreply 394January 13, 2022 3:12 AM

Enforcing a judgment is routine. Were I Andrew, I would be making myself judgment proof.

by Anonymousreply 395January 13, 2022 4:31 AM

[quote] The case will now proceed to discovery and depositions with a full trial likely to happen later this year.

[quote] However Andrew may now conclude he has little left to lose by simply not participating any further in the trial and allowing the court to register a default judgment against him, the terms of which would likely be very hard to enforce.

I know more about criminal law than civil. But there is something called contempt of court that you can get jailed for. Brendad Ickson got jailed for contempt during her divorce case.

I don't see Andrew's strategy being default judgment. I think he would settle before trial. Part of the settlement agreement could be that the $ amount be kept secret, no talking further about the case, etc.

by Anonymousreply 396January 13, 2022 4:45 AM

R358. Your story about Beatrice and Eugenie, who seem like lovely girls with never a scandal, is from 2011.

Do keep up, dear.

by Anonymousreply 397January 13, 2022 4:56 AM

It would be best if everyone settled. But I hope that Giuffre doesn't. Just maybe she can't be bought off? Or maybe she can get millions AND a public apology from flabby. Let Andrew be a warning. The Royal Family are kind of stupid. They've been protected from the world itself. And shielded from everything but gossip. They really should fucking retire the lot of them. But don't let this kill Betty Windsor. It's not right.

Clinton, Dershowitz or Trump had Epstein killed. Andy doesn't know how to dial a phone.

by Anonymousreply 398January 13, 2022 5:03 AM

R397 Those "lovely" girls are getting the heave ho once Nana dies. They will never be invited to any royal events evah! They will probably follow their pedo dad to Dubai and work their hustle and grift there.

by Anonymousreply 399January 13, 2022 5:07 AM

[QUOTE] That includes the useless daughters who spend all their time vacationing with despots, and anyone who will foot their bills.

Fugenie and Beatroll are absolutely beloved of our Klan Granny contingent, and they'd be appalled if the two of them withdrew from public life entirely. Let's hope it happens.

by Anonymousreply 400January 13, 2022 6:21 AM

[QUOTE] They will probably follow their pedo dad to Dubai and work their hustle and grift there.

Dubai would be the ideal home for a criminal like Pedrew.

by Anonymousreply 401January 13, 2022 6:22 AM

How long will it take Bea’s and Eug’s husbands to leave after their Dad is broke and the family is cut off from money and public appearances?

by Anonymousreply 402January 13, 2022 11:08 AM

The heavier one who married the son of an accountant, whose ambitions have led him to a minor marketing job for for a tequila brand, will be in bigger trouble moving forward. The husband will inherit nothing. I doubt the tequila swinger will leave his (yes tarnished) golden egg.

The one with the huge teeth and bug eyes will be abandoned by her social climbing husband without a doubt. He will no longer be able to attend any royal events after QEII departs and will find life far duller than what he imagined. He won't be able to profit off his royal connections either.

by Anonymousreply 403January 13, 2022 3:08 PM

[quote]If I were nasty Andy I would default. He can't be touched in the UK, why would he want to engage further with the U.S. legal system?

He's ruined reputationally. There's no way back unless there's some kind of shock evidence that totally discredits VG, which seems unlikely and even then there's no residual affection for him as person or his goofy daughters, who are known mostly for having no particular purpose, taking too many rich girl holidays when young and dressing badly. His goal now should be capital preservation, for himself and his daughters and his aging, hopeless, helpless, idiot ex-wife. So he may as well accept he's going to be persona non-grata and walk away and if VG gets a big cash award let her try to collect it.

by Anonymousreply 404January 13, 2022 3:27 PM

It just goes to show that in the real world there's no such thing as sex without consequences.

by Anonymousreply 405January 13, 2022 4:02 PM

[quote]His goal now should be capital preservation, for himself and his daughters and his aging, hopeless, helpless, idiot ex-wife.

What a wretched waste of a life. That quondam couple represent much of the worst that the UK has to offer. In that sense The Royals do indeed embody their nation.

At least The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were stylishly useless: amusing cafe society icons and chic clothes horses, who saw their mysterious marriage through.

Andrew and Sarah's redeeming features? The best PR companies in the world would only admit defeat.

by Anonymousreply 406January 13, 2022 4:18 PM

The correct term for Andrew's sickness is "Ephebophilia".

by Anonymousreply 407January 13, 2022 4:42 PM

From Wicked?

by Anonymousreply 408January 13, 2022 4:51 PM

The Queen has just taken away Prince Andrew's military titles and patronages!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 409January 13, 2022 5:19 PM

She moves fast for 95.

by Anonymousreply 410January 13, 2022 5:20 PM

He’s ugly

by Anonymousreply 411January 13, 2022 5:20 PM

Fuck - she took his HRH.

by Anonymousreply 412January 13, 2022 5:21 PM

From the article I linked to above (in case it's paywalled or something)...

"The Duke of York has been stripped of all military titles and patronages and will no longer use his HRH title, Buckingham Palace has said.

He will defend his sexual abuse case as a “private citizen.”

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said: “With The Queen’s approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to The Queen.

The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen.”

A royal source said all of the Duke’s roles have been handed back to the Queen with immediate effect for redistribution to other members of the Royal Family.

Prince Andrew, 61, will no longer use the style “His Royal Highness” in any official capacity.

The decision is understood to have been taken following wide discussions amongst the Royal Family.

This is a breaking story. More details to follow."

by Anonymousreply 413January 13, 2022 5:21 PM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 414January 13, 2022 5:21 PM

Sorry, Jaguar I thought you linked to the Maul

by Anonymousreply 415January 13, 2022 5:22 PM

OMG. love it. Andrew thinks he's better than everyone else so this must especially sting that he's no longer HRH.

by Anonymousreply 416January 13, 2022 5:23 PM

[quote]Fuck - she took his HRH.

Told you she was hard-core.

by Anonymousreply 417January 13, 2022 5:24 PM

No worries, R415!

by Anonymousreply 418January 13, 2022 5:25 PM

Boris Johnson says: I support Her Majesty wholeheartedly in this decision which is rightly the only thing anyone should talk about for the next ten days, at least.

by Anonymousreply 419January 13, 2022 5:27 PM

Holy crap this is huge.

by Anonymousreply 420January 13, 2022 5:31 PM

Too little, too late. Sorry, Liz but the BRF dies with you.

by Anonymousreply 421January 13, 2022 5:34 PM

Is he still a prince/duke though?

by Anonymousreply 422January 13, 2022 5:36 PM

R422 I'm not positive but I think the Prince title can't be stripped because it's more of a definition than a title. Any son of a reigning monarch is a prince.

by Anonymousreply 423January 13, 2022 5:39 PM

Whatever happens to him should happen to Bill.

by Anonymousreply 424January 13, 2022 5:41 PM

IMO, V. Giuffre is probably the tip of the iceberg. If she were the only person / only issue, this could be squashed with money. (I have nothing against victims accepting money settlements in civil suits; that's what civil suits are for.)

I do believe Andrew was QE's favorite and that she made a huge error in judgment allowing him to do the BBC interview.

There is a rift between Beatrice / Eugenie (Andrew's daughters) and William / Kate. William is close to Zara (daughter of Anne). I think the situation with Andrew makes the rift worse.

by Anonymousreply 425January 13, 2022 6:14 PM

Just heard the BBC Royal Correspondent say that Andrew's still 'His Royal Highness' - but he won't be referred to as such. Which seems like only a partial castration.

by Anonymousreply 426January 13, 2022 6:38 PM

R426 Just saw that as well. Also, I said upthread that I thought 'Prince' wasn't conferred but rather automatic but that is not true. Andy is still Prince and Duke and an HRH but can't brag about it I guess.

I'm thinking this isn't the throwing to the wolves that I thought it was.

by Anonymousreply 427January 13, 2022 6:56 PM

LONDON — Buckingham Palace announced Thursday that “with the Queen’s approval and agreement,” all of Prince Andrew’s military affiliations and remaining royal patronages have been returned — a devastating blow for Elizabeth II’s second son, who is facing a U.S. civil lawsuit that accuses him of having sex with a teenager trafficked by disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Andrew, who denies the allegations, has been mostly out of the public eye for the past year, and many organizations distanced themselves from him after he defended his relationship with Epstein in a disastrous 2019 BBC interview. But he had retained his honorary military roles with multiple British regiments. And the Buckingham Palace website had listed dozens and dozens of schools, hospitals and clubs with which he was still a royal patron — including the Army Officers’ Golfing Society, the Fly Navy Heritage Trust, the Foundation for Liver Research and the elite Westminster Academy.

by Anonymousreply 428January 13, 2022 7:00 PM

Andrew falls under the George V Letters patent so prince would be a huge thing to strip.

by Anonymousreply 429January 13, 2022 7:00 PM

Not it isn't r429. The sitting monarch can strip away the HRH form of address (that's what it is, really) and the princely status at anytime, at their leisure. It's one of the last standing powers the monarch has.

The 1917 LP lays out who received these honors at birth. But that LP (and any LP re these titles) can be overruled at anytime by a sitting monarch. And they don't necessarily need another LP to overrule it - they can simply make their wishes publicly known.

Buck Palace today referred to Andrew as "Duke of York" in their statements, and not "HRH The Duke of York". What does that tell you? It's says plenty. The HRH is mothballed, probably permanently.

by Anonymousreply 430January 13, 2022 7:04 PM

But Thursday’s move means the former Navy pilot and divorced 61-year-old father of two adult daughters is now facing his accuser alone — without the shield of honors he has carried most of adult life.

The two-sentence statement from the palace continued, “The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen.”

Where the money will come from to defend himself is a hot topic in Britain.

Royal biographers have observed that Andrew has often been seen as a favorite of his mother. But the 95-year-old queen has also been insistent during her long reign that duty, service, honor, and the preservation of the monarchy are supreme.

Andrew will also stop using the honorific title “His Royal Highness,” though he remains a duke and a prince. His many patronages will be distributed among other members of the House of Windsor.

by Anonymousreply 431January 13, 2022 7:14 PM

He was born HRH Prince Andrew in 1961& he will die The HRH Prince Andrew when he kicks the bucket. He just cannot use it in public anymore. Reading is Fundamental...try it!!

by Anonymousreply 432January 13, 2022 7:16 PM

He will not "die" HRH unless the monarch at the time says he is HRH. Sorry, that will probably be Charles or William, and I doubt they are re-instating anything for him.

He will be Andrew, Duke of York when he dies. Unless otherwise directed.

by Anonymousreply 433January 13, 2022 7:22 PM

[quote]But Thursday’s move means the former Navy pilot and divorced 61-year-old father of two adult daughters is now facing his accuser alone — without the shield of honors he has carried most of adult life.

What shield? None of it has protected him so far. Bad reporting. What's the publication?

by Anonymousreply 434January 13, 2022 7:30 PM

The Queen already stripped him of all his titles.

by Anonymousreply 435January 13, 2022 7:32 PM

No! He was born with the HRH Prince Andrew, just like HRH Prince Harry was stripped of the Duke of Suck-it. he was not stripped of his HRH Prince Harry. The Palace will use the title, Prince Andrew, Duke of York but not use the HRH. He will always be HRH Prince Andrew. It's just wordplay by the palace. Now if the Tampon king takes-over, that's a different story.

by Anonymousreply 436January 13, 2022 7:36 PM

"In 1917, the Queen's grandfather issued new letters patent that limited the number of royal family members with an HRH title.

These stated that 'the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour'. "

I can't see that Charles would issue a new letters patent to change Andrew's standing. It would only stand to stir things up again. Once the emotion fades from this and the plaintiff settles the case, much of the emotion will fade and he will remain in the background. Honestly, sometimes you wish we valued masturbation more. It would prevent a lot of problems.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 437January 13, 2022 7:42 PM

"just like HRH Prince Harry was stripped of the Duke of Suck-it."

R436 - Prince Harry was not stripped of the "title" Duke of Sussex or the "style" of Prince or the "style" of HRH.

Prince Harry agreed to not "use" the style of HRH as he was no longer a working UK Royal.

When Prince Harry dies, if nothing further changes, he will be HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex.

by Anonymousreply 438January 13, 2022 7:49 PM

Stripped was too strong of a word, I agree. Harry was "advised" by the Palace, future tampon king& "the little grey men who run the palace" not to use the HRH or the Suck-it title. My belief is the tampon Prince is going to DIE, he looks terrible-Queen really wants William& Kate to take over when she dies.

by Anonymousreply 439January 13, 2022 8:07 PM

""the little grey men who run the palace" not to use the HRH or the Suck-it title"

R439 - Harry was NEVER advised not to use the "title" Duke of Sussex or he would not be using it.

Harry can use the "title" Duke of Sussex" until the cows come home with no problems unless further changes are made.

by Anonymousreply 440January 13, 2022 8:12 PM

Harry advised NOBODY of NOTHING, and agreed to nothing. He was ORDERED by his grandmother the Queen to stop using his HRH form of address, which he did immediately.

He was, effectively, stripped of the HRH. You could say it was 'mothballed', or put in abeyance for now. Either way, its not his to use at the moment.

It can be reinstated just as quickly by the monarch if they see fit to do so.

by Anonymousreply 441January 13, 2022 9:05 PM

[quote]"In 1917, the Queen's grandfather issued new letters patent that limited the number of royal family members with an HRH title.These stated that 'the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour'. "

....until such time as the sitting monarch decides otherwise, and plainly says so.

by Anonymousreply 442January 13, 2022 9:07 PM

[quote]He will not "die" HRH unless the monarch at the time says he is HRH. Sorry, that will probably be Charles or William, and I doubt they are re-instating anything for him. He will be Andrew, Duke of York when he dies. Unless otherwise directed.

No one took his HRH away. He's choosing not to use it. The Queen didn't strip him of his military titles either. He turned them in when the military regiments went public and said they didn't want to be associated with him in any way, shape or form.

The Queen didn't do a thing.

by Anonymousreply 443January 16, 2022 10:16 PM

He probably shudders thinking of a prison sentence and the need to resort to sex with males.

by Anonymousreply 444January 16, 2022 11:25 PM

Locked-up for ten years with Miss Lindz as his cell mate.

by Anonymousreply 445January 16, 2022 11:38 PM

The BRF brought him into Buckingham Palace and the queen, under the vehement guidance of Charles and William, told Andrew he had to surrender his military titles and stop using HRH. Andrew gave up none of that willingly, though in order to save face, it's purported to be an "agreement." He is not wanted by any of the organizations, civilian or military, with which he was associated. It was very much not his choosing but the enforced demand of all those organizations and his family.

by Anonymousreply 446January 17, 2022 12:48 AM

Trump & Dershowitz get to escape from their Epstein adventures. Andrew has a price to pay.

by Anonymousreply 447January 17, 2022 1:55 AM

^ Clinton too. Woody and Soon Yi were also friends of Epstein.

by Anonymousreply 448January 17, 2022 2:00 AM

A very close source told the writer Barry Levine that if the world knew the full extent of Clinton and Trump's involvement with Epstein and his "girls" that there would be no 2016 Election.

Among much more salacious things, it is believed that Melania was one of Epstein's former girls. He is for sure the one that introduced her to Trump.

The younger, the better Epstein said. Melania was long past being part of Epstein's family. But a whore is a whore. And she was a marketed and trafficked whore. Trump had much more illegal activities going on with Epstein girls. Andrew was dumb enough to be photographed...TWICE. The rest is all on destroyed or hidden hard drive. Epstein taped everything and everyone. Though they mostly didn't know it. At the time.

There is NO doubt in my mind, that Bill Clinton enjoyed many special "massages" from Epstein girls.

I'm also quite sure that Epstein DID commit (assisted) suicide. He paid his way out of this world too.

by Anonymousreply 449January 17, 2022 2:43 AM

R449 how very dare you! Everyone knows that all Republicans are evil and all Democrats are virtuous.

You’d think that Bill Clinton would be wise to a honeypot/trap, but apparently not. Men think with their dicks most of the time.

by Anonymousreply 450January 17, 2022 3:39 AM

R447 Bill Cliton gets to escape as well.

by Anonymousreply 451January 17, 2022 6:48 AM

What happens if Prince Andrew is innocent? What happens if for instance Andrew knows he didn’t do Virginia, because he is either Gay or impotent and when he was talking about not being able to sweat , maybe what is more real is he couldn’t get it up?

It seems that Andrew is an easy fall guy. He has no political influence , he is clearly entitled and stupid. But it seems weird that there have not been many women coming out like Virginia? It seems weird that Virginia had sex with him 3 times but apparently he represents all men . So Andrew was the only famous person she had sex with?

The whole thing is weird. She is supposed to be underaged , which of course she was not in the UK . She meets him in a nightclub. A nightclub you have to be 18 to enter.

There is so much that doesn’t add up here.

by Anonymousreply 452January 17, 2022 8:01 AM

In the late 90s, Trump owned a "model agency." Melania was one of the "models" he imported from Europe. She came in on a work visa for that and never left.

by Anonymousreply 453January 17, 2022 9:12 AM

R9 and r10 must be home-schoolers.

by Anonymousreply 454January 17, 2022 9:20 AM

R452 gets it.

by Anonymousreply 455January 17, 2022 9:24 AM

Melania had indeed done some "modelling" in Europe. We've all seen the photos.

by Anonymousreply 456January 17, 2022 9:29 AM

R24, HM herself, with agreement from Charles and at least one other royal, set the legal stage for Andrew to be extradited by rescinding his royal titles and duties.

The Queen wants her wayward son nowhere around this Jubilee Year.

Virginia, TFG, Epstein, Maxwell, and Andrew---the nexus was Mar-a-Lago.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 457January 17, 2022 9:29 AM

Andrew will never be extradited, forcibly or voluntarily. Won't happen.

by Anonymousreply 458January 17, 2022 9:33 AM

R364, He would say that, wouldn't he?

by Anonymousreply 459January 17, 2022 9:34 AM

Andrew hasn’t been charged criminally, so he can’t be extradited.

by Anonymousreply 460January 17, 2022 9:36 AM

One thing I do not understand - PA is not being charged with any crime. This is a civil case. It's about a financial settlement. But his accuser, Virginia Giuffre was an associate of Maxwell and Epstein in their trafficking of underage girls, and that is a major crime. Yes, she was a juvenile, but juveniles can be tried for crimes as an adult. How can she be coming forward like this?

by Anonymousreply 461January 17, 2022 9:54 AM

R461 How can she be coming forward like this?

Because she has been told this her way not to get prison time.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 462January 17, 2022 10:38 AM

Epstein's big mistake was running his sex trafficking Ponzi scheme in the US. If he had done it in Thailand or Cuba or another known sex tourism country where law enforcement could be bribed, he'd have avoided prosecution.

Moral - don't shit where you eat.

by Anonymousreply 463January 17, 2022 10:52 AM

[quote] Virginia Giuffre was an associate of Maxwell and Epstein in their trafficking of underage girls, and that is a major crime. Yes, she was a juvenile, but juveniles can be tried for crimes as an adult.

No prosecutor would ever try her, because she was clearly coerced. The Andrew defenders here keep trying to make it about anyone but him, but a 17 year old sex trafficking victim being pimped out to a prince is never going to be viewed as anything but the victim she is.

by Anonymousreply 464January 17, 2022 2:27 PM

Meanwhile, Harry and Megyn keep sharing love and leading by example with their continued good works.❤

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 465January 18, 2022 2:47 AM

Exactly, R464. What a bunch of creeps these Andrew supporters are on this thread.

by Anonymousreply 466January 18, 2022 3:23 AM

Andrew deletes his online presence.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 467January 19, 2022 9:35 PM

[Quote] Epstein's big mistake was running his sex trafficking Ponzi scheme in the US. If he had done it in Thailand or Cuba or another known sex tourism country where law enforcement could be bribed, he'd have avoided prosecution.

Peter Nygard would disagree with you, R463.

by Anonymousreply 468January 20, 2022 3:12 AM

Epstein only liked white women though, so Asia wouldn't be any good for finding those.

by Anonymousreply 469January 20, 2022 3:32 AM

Epstein liked to be around rich, famous and powerful people. He would not have had any of that in Thailand or other Asian countries where sex trafficking is tolerated. It's one thing to zip down to Florida or US Virgin Islands for a long weekend of naked massaging, but most of Epstein's pals would not have been up for a 24 hour plane trip to a developing country.

by Anonymousreply 470January 20, 2022 5:10 AM

Peter Nygard is 80 years old and has got away with this for more than half his life R468. He's been very successful with his really ugly islands and "model recruiting parties." He drugged young girls almost every night. Well the bartenders did. He just indicated his choice. He had a child by a supermodel. She spent 20 years with him but claims to know nothing? Evil people exist. Not only the rapists. Life is cheap. For enough $$$. Prince Andrew is not exactly a scapegoat. But he should have kept his mouth shut or apologized and went to rehab. Phony as fuck - but that's how the rehabilitation game is done. He thought himself untouchable. Now, he is.

by Anonymousreply 471January 20, 2022 5:19 AM

Are Clinton and Trump negotiating settlements with Bois behind the scenes? Surely they want to avoid Andrew's mistakes.

by Anonymousreply 472January 20, 2022 5:28 AM

"How about those VERY young teenage groupies that Led Zeppelin and David Bowie cavorted with?"

How about the dodo that was hunted to extinction?

How about those atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge?

How about Henry the VIII beheading his wives?

How about people clubbing baby seals?

How about sticking to the topic at hand, asshole?

by Anonymousreply 473January 20, 2022 6:08 AM

How about he learns how to make his own bed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 474January 20, 2022 7:04 AM

"It's one thing to zip down to Florida or US Virgin Islands for a long weekend of naked massaging, but most of Epstein's pals would not have been up for a 24 hour plane trip to a developing country."

The BVi is a developing country as far as locals and laws go. If you think the Caribbean is first world, you've never been there. Many live in shacks with tin roofs.

by Anonymousreply 475January 20, 2022 7:19 AM

Oh you imbecile at R475. I did fuckin Peace Corps in Nigeria, no running water, no electricity, assisted in surgeries using fuckin ether as an anesthetic - they had no blood so they used coagulated blood. I saw patients crying in pain as incisions were made. And many died. All done in an operating theater that had flies and was about 90 degrees.

You fucking joker, you have never come near to seeing the levels of poverty that I have seen in my work in South America, Africa and Asia.

And in the US too!

by Anonymousreply 476January 20, 2022 8:21 AM

There seems to be an assumption that if you hate Giuffre's lying, scheming, trafficking and blackmailing, you are defending Andrew. It's possible to hate both you know and recognize all of these people for the scum they are.

by Anonymousreply 477January 20, 2022 8:55 AM

"You fucking joker, you have never come near to seeing the levels of poverty that I have seen in my work in South America, Africa and Asia."

And yet you think the bVI are first world?

by Anonymousreply 478January 20, 2022 7:39 PM

Teddybears?

by Anonymousreply 479January 20, 2022 8:58 PM

R449, at the time the news came out about “Katie Johnson,” the thirteen year old that was allegedly raped by Trump, there was an investigation, or investigations, and reporters tried to get some of the former Epstein girls to talk. A few said that they did see Clinton but didn’t have sex with him, he was very nice to them and seemed to be there to talk with Epstein or some other VIP. That was probably about trying to get money for The Clinton Foundation, which was very influential at the time.

As far as whether Clinton had sex with them, who knows. But it sounds like he was nice to them and they had no complaints about him, so either they were covering for him because they thought he was nice, or maybe he was careful to not give Epstein blackmail material. Obviously, nobody had a problem telling on Prince Andrew, so maybe he wasn’t that nice.

by Anonymousreply 480January 21, 2022 1:19 AM

I would believe that Clinton stopped taking any risks on having affairs post-Monica. If he continued doing it, I don’t think he would have involved third parties like Epstein.

by Anonymousreply 481January 21, 2022 1:22 AM

If one credible woman comes forward and accuses Clinton, Hillary will need to divorce Bill.

by Anonymousreply 482January 21, 2022 4:00 AM

Clinton is far more powerful than rat face pudding body Prince Andrew. The world doesn't know or remember who PA is. I don't. Was he important to the world ever? Nah. Andrew is no Princess Diana.

Clinton, Trump, Dershowitz and even the charming Kevin Spacey travelled with Epstein. On his plane - to his island. You think that Clinton or Trump don't have the power or money to silence people? Forever.

Prince Andrew is a fat ugly lying pig who had to give up some medals and honourary titles. Clinton and Trump are worth hundreds of million $$$ and still hold power and prestige in American life. Go figure.

Americans let the Evil and Weak ones Lead. Hillary is not her husband. Clinton was not a roving eye. He was a pathologically damaged degenerate liar. Trump is a rapist and fascist, a racist and the cruel face of greed.

by Anonymousreply 483January 21, 2022 5:06 AM

"Hillary is not her husband."

R483 - WTF????

by Anonymousreply 484January 21, 2022 1:05 PM

[quote]Clinton and Trump are worth hundreds of million $$$

Trump's debts far, far exceed his assets. His "wealth" is one of the great fantasies of American life.

by Anonymousreply 485January 21, 2022 1:23 PM

Would enjoy seeing Prince Andrew on the show with Tammy. It would quickly change perspectives.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 486January 21, 2022 6:25 PM

to R486...Thats fucking awesome!!

by Anonymousreply 487January 21, 2022 6:33 PM

R476, I feel your contained rage. You have done admirable work, far more than most, and "for the least of us." I wish you blessings in your life.

by Anonymousreply 488January 22, 2022 12:46 AM

R480, We have a photo of Andrew with Virginia and Ghislaine. We have multiple photos of Trump with Epstein and Ghislaine.

So far we have one photo of Ghislaine at the wedding of Chelsea Clinton.

by Anonymousreply 489January 22, 2022 12:50 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!