Prince Andrew
- Thread starter Vagabond
- Start date
-
- Tags
- prince andrew
Barbara Manatee
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,478
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.
overedge
Mayor of Carrot City
- Messages
- 35,903
Epstein was really good at bringing interesting people together for networking, partly as a way to build his own perceived status/influence. From what I've read about him, and I honestly don't say this to defend him at all, he and Ghislaine Maxwell didn't hook up all of their friends with the girls they procured. And the girls weren't at every event Epstein hosted - he was pretty smart about sensing who would be receptive to what. I think that there are people who he hosted and wined and dined who genuinely had no idea about his other sleazy activities.
An interesting thing that was brought up in one of the documentaries about him is that the house in NYC, and possibly all of his properties, had audio/video security cameras everywhere, and those were on 24/7. The implication was Epstein recorded everything, so that if any of his well-connected friends took advantage of the underage girls, he could potentially blackmail that person later on. So there may be wayyyy more evidence out there about Andrew than just that one photograph.
Last edited:
canbelto
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 8,543
That palace statement was very terse and chilly.
once_upon
Better off than 2020
- Messages
- 30,329
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.
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.
We know he has a chalet in Switzerland that he's trying to sell but a significant proportion of its value is still owed to thd person he bought it from (so did he ever really own it)? I'm not sure what assets he has otherwise but could a court really require a settlement be met using Crown assets that seems a stretch?
This article reflects the general tone of yesterday's press regarding the move being about damage control. Unfortunately I've lost the page I had open with the round up and summaries of yesterday's front pages.
Prince Andrew: Ruthless royals move to limit the damage
The Royal Family has tried to distance itself from the allegations facing Prince Andrew.
www.bbc.co.uk
Last edited:
antmanb
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 12,639
They have to distance themselves from him. The Royal Family have to know that they've been trading on the "good name" of the Queen for the longest time. The support for the Royal Family is mostly support for the Queen, when she dies they are going to find themselves with far fewer supporters and I think we might start to see more traction for movements towards becoming a republic. If they had stuck by Andrew they'd lose even more supporters. Charles and William have a vested interest in slimming down the Royal Family in an attempt to keep it going, taking out the rubbish like Andrew is the least they have to do.
I'd be surprised if there is still a Royal Family in 100 years time....i'd be delighted if it was gone in my lifetime.
I'd be surprised if there is still a Royal Family in 100 years time....i'd be delighted if it was gone in my lifetime.
Lemonade20
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
- Messages
- 2,379
I often wonder about that, if the British public would still want to have the Royal Family after the Queen passes away. I know there's a lot of interest for Prince William to become King, but how about Charles? Somehow, no matter who takes the throne, they have a huge void to fill. I'm all for a slimmed down monarchy, but not quite ready for them to end completely.
once_upon
Better off than 2020
- Messages
- 30,329
Legal peril for Prince Andrew puts focus on who will pay
MacMadame
Doing all the things
- Messages
- 58,745
when I read in that article that Andrew had paid off the last $8 million he owed on that Swiss Chalet, my first thought was the that Queen gave him the money.
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.
I read in a couple of sources, which may or may not be reliable, that Giuffre was paid $15,000 by Epstein to have sex with the Prince.
tittlepress.com
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? The age of consent in NY was apparently 17, so if Giuffre accepted payment, and agreed to relations with Andrew, then Andrew would not be guilty of statutory or forcible rape. It appears Giuffre's grievances are primarily with Epstein and Maxwell. She is now going after Andrew, who has deep pockets, as she has already sued and settled with Epstein, and presumably Maxwell was covered in the financial settlement. The previous settlement was for $500K.
Andrew and his team need to settle this out of court. I would suggest offering 3-5 million, with a non-disclosure provision and half paid up front, the balance in escrow. If the settlement leaks, Giuffre loses the balance of the settlement. Giuffre would be paid a huge amount for three sexual encounters, the prince might have a hope of returning, over time, to good standing as a royal, and the royal family could move on. Everyone comes out of this messy situation better than they are today.
Who's Virginia Giuffre and what are her allegations against Britain's Prince Andrew? - TittlePress
A New York judge ruled that a sexual lawsuit brought against the British royal by America’s Virginia Giuffre…
tittlepress.com
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? The age of consent in NY was apparently 17, so if Giuffre accepted payment, and agreed to relations with Andrew, then Andrew would not be guilty of statutory or forcible rape. It appears Giuffre's grievances are primarily with Epstein and Maxwell. She is now going after Andrew, who has deep pockets, as she has already sued and settled with Epstein, and presumably Maxwell was covered in the financial settlement. The previous settlement was for $500K.
Andrew and his team need to settle this out of court. I would suggest offering 3-5 million, with a non-disclosure provision and half paid up front, the balance in escrow. If the settlement leaks, Giuffre loses the balance of the settlement. Giuffre would be paid a huge amount for three sexual encounters, the prince might have a hope of returning, over time, to good standing as a royal, and the royal family could move on. Everyone comes out of this messy situation better than they are today.
Vagabond
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 25,505
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.
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.
Her suit against Andrew, even if settled, could set her up financially for decades. Andrew needs to settle, and stop the bleeding.
MacMadame
Doing all the things
- Messages
- 58,745
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.
AxelAnnie
Like a small boat on the ocean...
- Messages
- 14,463
The law!
Vagabond
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 25,505
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.
Last edited:
smurfy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 6,090
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.
Lemonade20
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
- Messages
- 2,379
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.
taf2002
Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
- Messages
- 28,799
Trump - Pot Kettle Black
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.
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.
It is also noted that at least four women, some initially victims, then became recruiters for Epstein and brought other girls into the fold. There are unconfirmed rumors Giuffre considered being a recruiter.
Ms. Giuffre, in a deposition, recalls being given a sales pitch from Maxwell, "if a guy likes you, then, you know, it will work out for you. You'll travel, you'll make good money, you'll be educated." So Giuffre was initially a masseuse, but then says she became a sex slave. She appears to have had the opportunity to leave at some point, but she did not leave until 2002. But she was travelling, and she was making money.
Other testimony shows Sarah Kellen was Maxwell's assistant, or Lieutenant. She kept a list of the girl's names and phone numbers, would call them at the girls' homes and ask if they were ready to come to the Epstein mansion to work. If Kellen is asking, then the girl had an opportunity to work as a sex worker, or not to work. Since many voluntarily went to the mansion for money, they were acting as prostitutes, not trafficked victims held against their will.
None of the above should be construed as support for Epstein or Maxwell. Both got what they deserved, and I was pleased to hear of Epstein's demise.
How a Ring of Women Allegedly Recruited Girls for Jeffrey Epstein (Published 2019)
It’s not just Ghislaine Maxwell. A circle of Mr. Epstein’s girlfriends, employees and other associates faces scrutiny in the sex-trafficking scandal.
Interesting article on the Epstein estate, what happened to the fortune that Epstein held. Apparently, his estate was worth $600 million when he died. About 135 victims were awarded about $900,000 each, before attorney fees. Multiple attorneys representing every possible interest are getting large fees, and the Virgin Islands has filed a claim on some invented tax liability.
DNyuz - Latest Breaking U.S. News
Latest Breaking News, U.S. and World Politics, Crime, Business, Science, Technology, Autos, Entertainment, Culture, Movie, Music, Sports.
dnyuz.com
Lemonade20
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
- Messages
- 2,379
Whether they were trafficked into or paid as prostitutes, that's no lifestyle for any 17 year old.
smurfy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 6,090
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.
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.
Lemonade20
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
- Messages
- 2,379
Somehow I don't see that ever happening unless the country decides to completely abolish it.
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.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
