No-Longer-Prince Andrew

Agree, and it's puzzling in so many ways, and yet maybe not. She wouldn't be the first mother who even when confronted with undeniable facts that her child was a bad person stuck by him anyway. Why? Maybe guilt on her part, maybe she blamed his father for his bad behaviour and thought she had to be the one to love him anyway. Maybe the Queen herself had put up with so much - so many rumours over the years about Philip, plus of course Charles and Camilla's long time affair - because she thought she had to. The monarchy has a long history of open affairs, illegitimate children etc etc. And Harry's own record, while nowhere near Andrew's, is not exactly perfect either, and yet everyone stuck by him until he didn't want to stick by them any more.

It does seem clear she hoped it would blow over like every other scandal, gave him the Lodge to keep him close by, took him off public duty so he wouldn't get in more trouble, privately scolded him when he did, and kept loving him as a mother if not a queen. And hasn't a lot of it only come out since she died?

Families can be complicated, and never truly understood I believe unless you're part of it.
Or maybe Elizabeth felt, like so many other rich & powerful families feel, that her family was above the law & anything distasteful could be suppressed with that money & power or, In her case, by their status.
 
I hear Andrew still maintains his innocence. The question is innocent of what, i.e., in his mind, he may rationalize that the girls were willing, paid, knew what they were doing, etc. Somehow that seems even worse.........
 
Or maybe Elizabeth felt, like so many other rich & powerful families feel, that her family was above the law & anything distasteful could be suppressed with that money & power or, In her case, by their status.
IIRC, during lockdown, Elizabeth sat alone at her husband's funeral, not near other family -- because that was the law that others were expected to obey.
 
Andrew was stripped of his military affiliations and titles (a big deal as he had an impressive military career), his royal patronages, the ability to undertake any public duties on behalf of the queen, and his HRH title during the last years of his mother's life. He also was not present to celebrate publicly the Queen's jubilee with the rest of her family.
 
I do think the Queen tolerated Andrew's "cheeky, boyish" behavior when he was a young lad and maybe he still feels and acts like he is much younger than he really is?
 
Has anyone read the book "Nobody's Girl" yet. There may be references in that book that really shed a bad light on Andrew (along with others).
 
Try googling "Derek Dixon."
I did, & I'm still not convinced. He's one person in a long illustrious career & has been painted as someone who tried to get close to Perry in order to set up a scam. Plus I had never heard of him. He seems to be a Jesse Smollett type.
 
Am reading "Nobody's Girl." Apparently PA had sex with minors on more than one occasion. He really sounds like a creep.
 

Dude has been banished to a "modest farmhouse" once it gets fixed up a bit.

It's not  that modest, given that it has five bedrooms and room for a pony, but the ruins of Fotheringay Castle were apparently unavailable. 🤷‍♂️
 
Does the BRF actually own any modest homes?
The King owns the entire Sandringham Estate, including about seven hundred houses, many of which are inhabited by employees. There are also dozens of such houses on the Balmoral Estate. I suspect that the vast majority have no more than three bedrooms apiece and are what the press could call "modest" without prompting snarks.
 
Happy Birthday, Andrew!!🎂

I think the title in this video should be 66, not 67.

I didn't think it would ever happen.


:eek:
 
It's unfortunate that the arrest is over misconduct while in public office, specifically sharing trade information with Epstein. A crime, yes, but nothing to do with his own chronic abuse of women and girls, or his knowledge/complicity with Epstein and others in widespread sex trafficking.

On a related note, as we continue to hear about men in high places losing their jobs, that's not enough either. Most of them are old and rich, so a forced retirement and the continued ability to travel wherever they want, with whoever they want, doing whatever they want, is not justice for all those victims in the least, nor is it a deterrent for others currently engaging in similar behaviour.
 
It's unfortunate that the arrest is over misconduct while in public office, specifically sharing trade information with Epstein. A crime, yes, but nothing to do with his own chronic abuse of women and girls, or his knowledge/complicity with Epstein and others in widespread sex trafficking.
I disagree. I think that they are inseparable. He appears to have paid for Epstein's illicit services with illicit services of his own instead of cash.
 
Last edited:
It's unfortunate that the arrest is over misconduct while in public office, specifically sharing trade information with Epstein. A crime, yes, but nothing to do with his own chronic abuse of women and girls, or his knowledge/complicity with Epstein and others in widespread sex trafficking.
...
That Andrew was arrested on misconduct charges wouldn't stop other charges being added later -- at least in the US, but I doubt that the UK would be significantly different in this regard.
 
I found this coverage interesting in a quirky way (a Reuters article from my local US newspaper).

A conviction for misconduct in a public office carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and must be dealt with in a Crown Court, which only deals with the most serious criminal offences.

Were Mountbatten-Windsor to ultimately face criminal charges, he would join a very small group of senior British royals who have formally been accused of offences.

His elder sister Princess Anne was fined for speeding in 2001, and the following year became the first royal to be convicted of a criminal offence in 350 years when she appeared in court to plead guilty to failing to stop one of her dogs, named Dotty, biting two children.

King Charles I was tried for treason in 1649 towards the end of the English Civil War, found guilty and beheaded.

I suppose life in prison is a better option than beheading. ;)


 
It's unfortunate that the arrest is over misconduct while in public office, specifically sharing trade information with Epstein. A crime, yes, but nothing to do with his own chronic abuse of women and girls, or his knowledge/complicity with Epstein and others in widespread sex trafficking.

On a related note, as we continue to hear about men in high places losing their jobs, that's not enough either. Most of them are old and rich, so a forced retirement and the continued ability to travel wherever they want, with whoever they want, doing whatever they want, is not justice for all those victims in the least, nor is it a deterrent for others currently engaging in similar behaviour.
Maybe I have watched too much Law & Order but couldn’t the police use these charges to pressure Andrew to “spill the beans” on the other allegations involving crimes against women and girls or serve serious prison time?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information