I assumed so, because for the last couple of years the Queen has been seen as at least somewhat supportive of her son while Charles has reportedly been furious. Today though there have also been a bunch of those "sources close to the palace" stories that Charles and William both were quite involved in the decision.Is there a source that mentions that it was Charles?
It seems that men who actually attended his parties and could see the presence of young girls should have been able to figure out what was going on and then opt not to visit him?
I agree there is no crime in mere association but still, it does indicate a type of person who could stomach such goings on and think nothing of it.
If true that Charles and William were quite involved, that just solidifies my thought that the BRF is concerned about the liability to the BRF.Today though there have also been a bunch of those "sources close to the palace" stories that Charles and William both were quite involved in the decision.
I think the "protective" move is more reputational than financial -although it feels too late to be effective to me particularly in the context of other issues in the family. It's difficult to see how a settlement could consider anything other than his personal assets? He lives in a grace and favour home and had grace and favour titles and duties. The latter are now mostly gone.It's good that she put him in a private citizen status. But more than anything I bet it's to protect the BRF from any liability in the awarding of damages or settlement
I read/ watch all the conservative media. Epstein's jet has flight logs which include the names of passengers. Clinton apparently flew on Epstein's plane about 25 times. Epstein had a painting of Clinton dressed in a bathrobe? or maybe it was Lewinsky's blue dress, hanging in one of his houses. Epstein and Trump were both billionaires residing in Palm Beach and traveled in social circles that the wealthy do. Epstein certainly partied at Mar-a Lago. Trump alleges Epstein was banned from the club after hitting on one of the young employees.Supposedly Bill Clinton also knew Epstein. So, conservative media will harp on Clinton; liberal on Trump; and those that want to be non-partisan -- Andrew
You cannot consent to an illegal act. As it was, she wasn't a "professional prostitute" but rather the victim of sex trafficking, and she alleges that she was raped or sexually assaulted. By definition, rape and sexual assault are nonconsensual.If Giuffre was paid for the sex, and accepted payment, was she then acting as a professional prostitute rather than a 17 year old who was being trafficked?
But what makes it illegal? The lack of consent. If Giuffre is offered and accepts payment from Epstein, and consents to relations with Andrew, then it becomes consensual sex with someone of legal age in New York. I have no doubt Epstein and Maxwell earlier groomed and possibly trafficked Guiffre and are guilty of rape and sexual assault. Epstein paid off and is dead, Maxwell is in prison. Andrew is certainly guilty of being stupid, and has certainly lost in the court of public opinion. It looks to me, by 2001 Giuffre had moved on from being trafficked, to enjoying the lifestyle of the rich and famous, living in mansions and flying with the jetset, and being paid instead of being a sex slave. In the photo of Guiffre and Andrew, I don't see someone in distress, I dont see bruises from beatings, or rope burns from confinement. She is outside, and if a sex slave, could have bolted for her freedom. Instead, she has a big smile on her face. Maybe she likes Andrew, maybe she is happy with the $15,000, or possibly she is just a good actress.You cannot consent to an illegal act. As it was, she wasn't a "professional prostitute" but rather the victim of sex trafficking, and she alleges that she was raped or sexually assaulted. By definition, rape and sexual assault are nonconsensual.
Being a victim of sex trafficking. If someone kidnapped or groomed and lured your daughter, made her have sex with much older men but bought her nice clothes and occasionally gave her a bonus, would you say "hey, she's a prostitute and she consented"? I certainly hope not.The lack of consent.
The law!But what makes it illegal?
A victim of sex trafficking cannot consent to sex.But what makes it illegal? The lack of consent. If Giuffre is offered and accepts payment from Epstein, and consents to relations with Andrew, then it becomes consensual sex with someone of legal age in New York.
There's already talk about slimming the monarchy down once Charles takes over. I think it has more to do with how the royals are portrayed as a future monarchy. I can see it being reduced just to the direct heirs to the throne. It means changes in titles and security, which is why Harry & Meghan are complaining so much.I do think once the Queen passes it will be interesting to see what unfolds the following years as there will be change and dilution of the royal importance/position.
Trump - Pot Kettle BlackI read/ watch all the conservative media. Epstein's jet has flight logs which include the names of passengers. Clinton apparently flew on Epstein's plane about 25 times. Epstein had a painting of Clinton dressed in a bathrobe? or maybe it was Lewinsky's blue dress, hanging in one of his houses. Epstein and Trump were both billionaires residing in Palm Beach and traveled in social circles that the wealthy do. Epstein certainly partied at Mar-a Lago. Trump alleges Epstein was banned from the club after hitting on one of the young employees.
My impression has always been that Charles' plan for slimming down the monarchy still included Harry (and his future wife, before Meghan came into the picture) ... famously around the Queen's Diamond Jubilee there was an obvious focus on Charles and Camilla, William and Kate, and Harry (they were the only ones on the Queen's barge for the water pageant, they were the only ones who appeared on the balcony at Buckingham Palace, etc.). I think the intention was to include Harry and Meghan as part of the slimmed down monarchy. But probably not their children, who by the time they are grown will be in the same position to the throne as Beatrice and Eugenie are now, grandchildren of the monarch but not working royals. My personal theory (based on nothing concrete) is this is where the kerfuffle about titles came from. Harry would have always known that his children were not entitled to HRH titles, based on the letters patent, until their grandfather (Prince Charles) became king. So it was so weird to me that he and Meghan made Archie's title, or lack thereof, one of the biggest issues in their Oprah interview. But I think that they must have been told that even after Charles becomes king, he won't grant HRH titles to Harry's children, in line with this slimming down of the monarchy. That's the only thing that makes sense to me, because the lack of title for Archie at birth shouldn't have been a surprise. I also theorize that Meghan had trouble understanding/accepting the distinction between the family and the Firm. Her husband would always come second to his brother in the Firm. Her children would always come second to William's children. No matter how much their grandfather might love all his grandchildren equally, one set of grandchildren would get different privileges, titles, security, and treatment. To the royals, this is just the way it is. To Meghan, it probably seemed completely insane and unfair.Charles has been talking about slimming things down for ages ... it can't be a surprise to anyone, least of all Harry and Meaghan.
Interesting, the link you provided covered violence against prostitutes. If Giuffre, as a trafficking victim of Epstein/Maxwell, has opportunities to leave, but doesn't, is she still a victim after she chooses to remain. Is she still a victim if she is offered and accepts payment. At some point, when she voluntarily remains, with the passage of time, she becomes less and less a victim. It reminds me a little of the Patty Hearst case. Hearst was kidnapped and a victim. She later had multiple opportunities to leave the kidnappers, was given weapons by the gang, remained with and joined the gang. Although probably brainwashed, she was judged no longer a victim, but a criminal, and was convicted.A victim of sex trafficking cannot consent to sex.
I won't get explicit, but what starts out as consensual may turn into something conconsensual when it goes beyond that to which consent has been given.
You can find more information here, among other places.
Somehow I don't see that ever happening unless the country decides to completely abolish it.My comment was more of the royalty as part of the government, not the slimming down part that I have read about for years.
Would a plan be developed to actually phase it out? Basically a big divorce between the government and the ones that own properties, art, jewels etc (duchy of lancaster and that income etc) dividing up the assets and pensioning adult royals.
If it did go away, it would not be immediate, but decades - but the impact to their tourism would hurt.
Are they that far along in the proceedings? Anyway, I am done here, for now. Though I reserve the right to return if things get interesting.Let it go, @b-man. The prince hasn't pled consent as an affirmative defense.