The Heir, The Spare and the “Baby Brain” -The Prince Harry and Meghan show rumbles on…

Husky said:
It wasn't like this before he met Meghan, was it? He looks more concerned for her and the kids. Maybe with good reason. The negative "Meghan-headlines" drew attention all over the world.
Click to expand...

From SPARE it sounds like he was super-paranoid since he came back from active service in Afghanistan. It may have gotten more intense since then, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the actual threat level has changed.
 
puglover said:
Also, Prince Andrew has two daughters and their families who seem to be well liked by everybody. Princess Eugenie, especially, seems to be warm and friendly and is friends with Harry and Meghan but also William and Kate. Whatever individual family members may think privately of Prince Andrew, I would think they would not want to cause his two daughters any more hurt by how they react to him at family functions.
Click to expand...

With Andrew, also, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some justifications of "oh, those girls were just trying to get rich by telling lies" or "the media were out to get him and made it all worse than it was" going on.

I can't find the link, but there was a story by Emily Maitlis, the BBC reporter who did the (in)famous Andrew interview, where she said that before and after the interview Andrew was quite charming - before the interview he took her and some of the crew around parts of the Palace, and gave them a guided tour of the art on display. And IIRC she said that after the interview he was quite cordial and really didn't seem to realize how clueless or evasive he was going to appear in the broadcast. So given that level of denial, I would think that there are probably other family members or staff that think Andrew is not being treated fairly by the outside world.
 
Last edited:
I am still gobsmacked that Andrew was allowed to wear his royal robes at the coronation. His disgrace is lessening every year. Pretty soon anyone who brings it up will be considered out of line.
 
The issue with Andrew is deeply cultural.
Again, the victim was above the age of consent in the UK.
The concept of statutory tape does not exist here.

You cannot expect the people, much less the BRF, to view the event through a prism of concepts that do not exist here.

Again, sadly but truly, when victims of sexual exploitation here found to be 16 or 17 are identified, their exploiters face prosecution but in practice, the punters do not. Andrew is not being treated differently or better.

A high profile case similar to Andrew's is occurring right now. A TV presenter, Philip. Schofield, is found to have groomed a very young studio assistant and had a "relationship" with them.
He was given the chance to resign. People think "hmmm this is sordid".
But he's not being thrown to the gallows either.

The age of consent is arbitrary. Just like the number 18 is. But it still impacts the way people perceive situations. As do the law and traditions of each country.

People on this thread can repeat "underage" hundreds of times. But that's not the way the victim is viewed here. Trafficked? Yes. Groomed by Maxwell and Epstein? Yes.
But also above the age of consent and presenting the appearance of consent.

Andrew is a sordid man and a liar. People tolerate sordid liars in all areas of society. They are not respected but neither are they banned from everything.
 
Last edited:
becca said:
He is their family member..
Click to expand...
My alcohol addicted aunt is a member of the family. My parents and other relatives still stopped inviting and socializing with her because she was a mean drunk who got out of control whenever she was drunk. Still is, I presume.

As I said, I know that these dynamics are complex, that there are a lot of emotions involved and that it's never as simple as making the choice. But just because someone is a family member does not mean that we have to keep seeing and socializing with them. With the exception of a spouse, none of us can choose our family members but we can certainly choose if we want to keep them in our lives.

taf2002 said:
I am still gobsmacked that Andrew was allowed to wear his royal robes at the coronation. His disgrace is lessening every year. Pretty soon anyone who brings it up will be considered out of line.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that looks to be very much in line with how "high society" handles scandal. When the scandal breaks, keep the offender out of the public eye then wait as the world moves on and slowly ease them back into things.

millyskate said:
People on this thread can repeat "underage" hundreds of times. But that's not the way the victim is viewed here. Trafficked? Yes. Groomed by Maxwell and Epstein? Yes.
But also above the age of consent and presenting the appearance of consent.
Click to expand...
I don't believe there is an age of consent in Germany either and it's not the biggest issue for me. For me, the biggest issue is that a) the girl was only a few years older than his own daughter, so that's yucky, and b) the girl was trafficked. Who thinks it's okay to have sexual relations of any nature with a trafficked girl? And how much consent can a trafficked girl really give?
 
Last edited:
ballettmaus said:
My alcohol addicted aunt is a member of the family. My parents and other relatives still stopped inviting and socializing with her because she was a mean drunk who got out of control whenever she was drunk. Still is, I presume.

As I said, I know that these dynamics are complex, that there are a lot of emotions involved and that it's never as simple as making the choice. But just because someone is a family member does not mean that we have to keep seeing and socializing with them. None of us chose our blood relatives but we can certainly choose if we want to keep them in our lives.
Click to expand...
Not always. In Andrew's case, he can always write a book like Harry or give a couple of scandalous interviews. In this case, it will cost the royal family more.
 
ballettmaus said:
My alcohol addicted aunt is a member of the family. My parents and other relatives still stopped inviting and socializing with her because she was a mean drunk who got out of control whenever she was drunk. Still is, I presume.

As I said, I know that these dynamics are complex, that there are a lot of emotions involved and that it's never as simple as making the choice. But just because someone is a family member does not mean that we have to keep seeing and socializing with them. With the exception of a spouse, none of us can choose our family members but we can certainly choose if we want to keep them in our lives.


Unfortunately, that looks to be very much in line with how "high society" handles scandal. When the scandal breaks, keep the offender out of the public eye then wait as the world moves on and slowly ease them back into things.


I don't believe there is an age of consent in Germany either and it's not the biggest issue for me. For me, the biggest issue is that a) the girl was only a few years older than his own daughter, so that's yucky, and b) the girl was trafficked. Who thinks it's okay to have sexual relations of any nature with a trafficked girl? And how much consent can a trafficked girl really give?
Click to expand...

Did he know she was trafficked. Unfortunately lots of people date people young enough to be their kid. It’s gross and icky. I have a very close Familiy member who did don’t have much of a relationship with them now though
 
becca said:
Did he know she was trafficked. Unfortunately lots of people date people young enough to be their kid. It’s gross and icky. I have a very close Familiy member who did don’t have much of a relationship with them now though
Click to expand...
:wall:

Given that he had a known association with Epstein, and I've never seen it alleged that he was dating the woman that accused him, I'd be willing to bet a whole heck of a lot that he knew that she was trafficked. Epstein wasn't in the matchmaking business, he was in the provide young girls/women to wealthy powerful men for sex business.
 
made_in_canada said:
:wall:

Given that he had a known association with Epstein, and I've never seen it alleged that he was dating the woman that accused him, I'd be willing to bet a whole heck of a lot that he knew that she was trafficked. Epstein wasn't in the matchmaking business, he was in the provide young girls/women to wealthy powerful men for sex business.
Click to expand...
I can see how someone in a position of power would just assume that the young women involved were there by choice - but it was Andrew's responsibility to ensure that he was doing something consensual, which clearly was not the case.

There is actually a Prince Andrew thread to discuss all this. With respect to this thread, it's obvious that what Andrew did is far, far worse than anything Harry has done. It's also understandable that the BRF would not feel very comfortable with him given his penchant for sharing private information (in ways that seem pretty self-serving as well).
 
becca said:
Did he know she was trafficked. Unfortunately lots of people date people young enough to be their kid. It’s gross and icky. I have a very close Familiy member who did don’t have much of a relationship with them now though
Click to expand...

made_in_canada said:
:wall:

Given that he had a known association with Epstein, and I've never seen it alleged that he was dating the woman that accused him, I'd be willing to bet a whole heck of a lot that he knew that she was trafficked. Epstein wasn't in the matchmaking business, he was in the provide young girls/women to wealthy powerful men for sex business.
Click to expand...
Everything I've ever read or heard about Prince Andrew says he's so self-absorbed and privileged as to not give those sort of sordid things any thought. The young woman was there and compliant (which is not the same as willing) and that's all he bothered himself with consciously knowing. Should he have been a better person and asked those questions, even if only to himself, sure, but, nothing I've heard about the guy makes me believe he looks at the world in those terms. Far better for him to never ask those questions and have plausible deniability.
 
MsZem said:
I can see how someone in a position of power would just assume that the young women involved were there by choice - but it was Andrew's responsibility to ensure that he was doing something consensual, which clearly was not the case.

There is actually a Prince Andrew thread to discuss all this. With respect to this thread, it's obvious that what Andrew did is far, far worse than anything Harry has done. It's also understandable that the BRF would not feel very comfortable with him given his penchant for sharing private information (in ways that seem pretty self-serving as well).
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s self-serving to not want a family member trashing you in public.

Most of us would be done with a family member like that.
 
There may be cultural differences in Britain, but wasn't everybody there furious with Jimmy Savile when all that came out?
 

cygnus said:
Jimmy Saville was completely different-some of his victims were as young as 5- clearly criminal behaviour.
Click to expand...

Also victims that were not capable of giving consent, even if they were "of age".

And yes, a sensible person would have asked themselves why Epstein had a continual supply of young women for his friends to "date" - and maybe figured out that something bad was going on. It wasn't like Epstein and his pals were going to bars or clubs and picking up women there. These young women just appeared at Epstein's houses and parties, no matter where in the world they were. Unfortunately it appears that far too many men just took that for granted and didn't ask or care where the young women came from.
 
Wyliefan said:
There may be cultural differences in Britain, but wasn't everybody there furious with Jimmy Savile when all that came out?
Click to expand...

I don't think there really are cultural differences - people don't like Andrew (-77 approval rating, everyone else apart from Harry and Meghan have positive ratings & H&M are something like -30) , he gets hugely negative press coverage, the commentary on the coronation around him was just "There's the Duke of York", none of the praise or gushing that the other family members get. And quibbling over age of consent and legalities might matter to some, but most social media comments since this all came out just call him a nonce.
 
From what I have read, King Charles efforts to move Andrew out of Royal Lodge and into Frogmore Cottage are a clear sign he is trying to show his disfavour of his brother. He has lost his patronages and titles, is no longer able to represent the crown, he has lost his 250,000 pound yearly grant, and now may lose Royal Lodge. It is, apparently, not easy to get him out as he has a 75 year lease and has spent his own money renovating it. Is it enough - clearly not - but certainly him rumbling around in a 30 room mansion with his ex-wife is not a good optic.
 
cygnus said:
Jimmy Saville was completely different-some of his victims were as young as 5- clearly criminal behaviour.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the cases just cannot be compared.
The Philip Schofield comparison is valid IMO - victims of similar ages, with grooming a part of the behaviour. The public's response is if anything far harsher on Andrew than it is for Philip Schofield.
 
I read today that a 2017 interview with Prince Harry suggests he was wanting then to separate from the royal life. I can't remember dates - was this before Meghan? I think so.
 
It doesn't though. You have to Google and you have type the message. That has to take longer than just typing the message.

(Can you tell that people telling other posters they should have just googled it is a pet peeve of mine? :lol:)
 
MacMadame said:
It doesn't though. You have to Google and you have type the message. That has to take longer than just typing the message.

(Can you tell that people telling other posters they should have just googled it is a pet peeve of mine? :lol:)
Click to expand...
No, it really doesn't. This message took me longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)

Similar threads

TAHbKA
Vaytsekhovskaya's interview with Sinitsina/Katsalapov
Replies
0
Views
1K
TAHbKA
TAHbKA
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information