One thing we need to keep in mind is that all (including a prince) are presumed innocent until proven guilty. He is obviously guilty of very poor judgement, and many other things that point to him being a cad, but that is not criminal.
The alleged victim was seventeen at the time she says the incident happened. The age of consent in England is sixteen. However, she says that she was trafficked and did not consent, and that, if true, would make the act illegal.
One thing we need to keep in mind is that all (including a prince) are presumed innocent until proven guilty. He is obviously guilty of very poor judgement, and many other things that point to him being a cad, but that is not criminal. Without Epstein, I doubt they will ever have enough to get anywhere near a court room.
The alleged victim was seventeen at the time she says the incident happened. The age of consent in England is sixteen. However, she says that she was trafficked and did not consent, and that, if true, would make the act illegal.
Arthur Ashe, who was roundly criticized when he was a commentator for not calling out John McEnroe's boorish behavior, wrote that, perhaps, he was envious of McEnroe's ability to act out, while Ashe was expected to be perfect at all times.
As we have been discussing, Andrew's association with Epstein went on for years and years, through several arrests and convictions as only the tips of a growing iceberg of conduct unbecoming to humanity, let alone the Royal Family.
And how long did people know about most of the #metoo victimizers, which didn't cause such collective outrage and cause at least some action until the #metoo movement?
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are combining two traditions this holiday season: their monthly highlighting of worthwhile causes on Instagram and the “12 Days of Christmas”! The royal couple shared a new post to their joint Instagram page on the first day of December, announcing the...
Isn't there some way that the Clintons could bring a civil lawsuit against Trump for Trump's criminal insinuations against them in this matter? I believe you cannot bring a law suit against a sitting President. PBS News Hour...
Isn't there some way that the Clintons could bring a civil lawsuit against Trump for Trump's criminal insinuations against them in this matter? I believe you cannot bring a law suit against a sitting President. PBS News Hour...
Can we not? It seems like Mette Marit was one of many people who met with Epstein and probably should have known better, and I resent the implication that this is equivalent to what Prince Andrew did.
What she said was, "If he did have sex with a minor who did not consent, it was criminal."
Regardless, having sex with anyone without his or her consent is criminal, and it is impossible for someone under the age of consent to give consent. In Virginia Roberts' case, however, she was above the age of consent but says that she did not consent. (I have no reason to disbelieve her.)
Can we not? It seems like Mette Marit was one of many people who met with Epstein and probably should have known better, and I resent the implication that this is equivalent to what Prince Andrew did.
I must have really upset you. Mustn't tarnish the royal fairy dust (except for certain "I should have been Harry's wife" posters throwing shade on Meghan Markle).
Ok back to royal gossip ... there's this current conspiracy run rampant on Quora and the Twitterverse that Meghan and Harry are not the legal guardians of Archie? Apparently there's some 1717 royal prerogative that the ruling monarch has legal custody over all the royal children, and has to grant express permission for any royal children to travel on an airplane?
This sounds like a lot of nonsense but the idea is that Archie is currently staying with the Queen while Harry and Meghan are in the US because HM won't let Archie out of the country?
Ok back to royal gossip ... there's this current conspiracy run rampant on Quora and the Twitterverse that Meghan and Harry are not the legal guardians of Archie? Apparently there's some 1717 royal prerogative that the ruling monarch has legal custody over all the royal children, and has to grant express permission for any royal children to travel on an airplane?
This sounds like a lot of nonsense but the idea is that Archie is currently staying with the Queen while Harry and Meghan are in the US because HM won't let Archie out of the country?
I understand that there are some strictures on too many members of the royal family flying on the same plane, but I've heard that this only applies to those in the direct line of succession -- so Archie can fly with his parents and the royal grandparents, but Charles, William and George could not fly together
I understand that there are some strictures on too many members of the royal family flying on the same plane, but I've heard that this only applies to those in the direct line of succession -- so Archie can fly with his parents and the royal grandparents, but Charles, William and George could not fly together
I’m just reporting the latest Quora/twitter theory on why Meghan is getting sent to the Tower of London: that they tried to fly without the queens permission ... or something ...
I had been given to understand that there wouldn't be a problem unless at least three generations flew together ... the concern was that a plane crash would completely eliminate the direct line of succession. Maybe, though, the information given to me is out of date ....
As I said earlier, Kathleen (Koo) Stark was well-liked by the royal family, and she was NOT a porn star. She was an American actress from a well-to-do family. Her father was a writer and a producer, working in the film industry. Her mother was a writer and television presenter. Koo Stark attended prep school in London, and then she trained to become an actor. She has also worked as a photographer and a fashion model. Prince Andrew was said to be very much in love with her. The fact that she had removed her clothes for an early film role (not a porn film, btw) well before she'd met Prince Andrew should not have prevented them from marrying. But it did.
Sure it was decidedly not good judgment on Koo's part, but she isn't the first actress to be taken advantage of at a young, impressionable age in connection with a film role. Koo appeared in the film in question in 1976. According to published accounts, Koo met Prince Andrew in 1981, and they were close for two years prior to Andrew serving in the Falklands War. They split under pressure in 1983 when nude scenes from the earlier film role surfaced and the media landed on them like hungry sharks who smell blood in the water.
It's always best to do homework and check plenty of sources before making assumptions:
"... In another libel action in 2007, Stark won an apology and substantial damages from Zoo Weekly magazine, which had described her as a porn star. She commented 'I am relieved that my name has been cleared of this false, highly damaging and serious allegation which has been proved to be completely untrue.'[50] In 2011, The Daily Telegraph called her an early Kate Middleton prototype and suggested that if she had not appeared in the film Emily early in her career she might have gone on to become the Duchess of York."
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
Meanwhile, Virginia Roberts Giuffre gave an interview to the BBC a few weeks ago (that aired yesterday). Her interview was filmed prior to Prince Andrew's recent disastrous BBC interview. A link to the Giuffre interview can be found in the Jeffrey Epstein thread in PI.
I don't know the current thinking on this. But I would agree it's doubtful that Charles, William and George would all be on the same plane together, despite William regularly flying on planes with all of his children.
Seems a little odd really because members of the Royal Family are regularly together both privately in their homes but also in very public places too. Can't see where the risk of a plane crash is any higher than anywhere else.
I had been given to understand that there wouldn't be a problem unless at least three generations flew together ... the concern was that a plane crash would completely eliminate the direct line of succession. Maybe, though, the information given to me is out of date ....
This seems to be a consensus - in my very brief search. Makes total sense, and is a hold over from when air travel was less safe. I also saw a couple of places that say the Queen has to give permission.
I keep hearing (usually when on a plane LOL) that air travel is statistically safer than driving a car. And they do ride in cars. But $hit happens.
There's an unofficial rule that says two heirs to the royal throne should never be on the same plane together so they can protect the royal lineage should anything happen to the plane. According to their family tree, Prince William is the second heir, right after his father Prince Charles. Meanwhile, George is the third heir and Charlotte is the fourth. That means that, in theory, all three of them should always be in separate planes, even if they're going to the same place.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.byelizabethholmes.com
heavy.com
www.youtube.com
