Until some of the rich and powerful who raped (including by statute) the young women that Maxwell helped arrange get charged and convicted, there will never be satisfaction that justice was done. Many want her 'black book' of names of those she arranged for the rich and connected to have sex with young women exposed to the public and those named face criminal charges, are financially, politically and socially destroyed, to face jail. One has to wonder how much money, favorable treatment as to tax, sexual crime laws and others Epstein and Maxwell got out of fear of being 'outed' as rapists.

This case also brings up another serious issue that needs to be discussed, the larger social issues that led too many of the young women to be entrapped in Epstein's sexual exploitation. We need in the USA and elsewhere far more comprehensive sexual health education, to include ways to avoid being entrapped in such sexual exploitation, not getting swayed by money, travel, glamor, attention, 'becoming a model' and psychological weaknesses they have.

ltbewr wrote:

This case also brings up another serious issue that needs to be discussed, the larger social issues that led too many of the young women to be entrapped in Epstein's sexual exploitation. We need in the USA and elsewhere far more comprehensive sexual health education, to include ways to avoid being entrapped in such sexual exploitation, not getting swayed by money, travel, glamor, attention, 'becoming a model' and psychological weaknesses they have.

It starts with "where the hell were the parent(s)?"

johns624 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

This case also brings up another serious issue that needs to be discussed, the larger social issues that led too many of the young women to be entrapped in Epstein's sexual exploitation. We need in the USA and elsewhere far more comprehensive sexual health education, to include ways to avoid being entrapped in such sexual exploitation, not getting swayed by money, travel, glamor, attention, 'becoming a model' and psychological weaknesses they have.

It starts with "where the hell were the parent(s)?"

Anyone can aske that question, but I look at it from a lens of support systems. Not everyone has it. Some have functional parents, Some have parents with their own fights and self narcissism , Some people have parents in the military, some have parents that work late shifts, some have one parent, some have parents that blow paychecks on lotto and vices. Some have parents that have chemical dependencies.

Any combination of the above can cause serious fallout and neglect. This is one of the reasons I am such a strong proponent of schooling and after school activities. It can help save many of the kids that get neglected. We can all ask "Where the hell were the parents" but by the time we ask that question it is usually too late.

scbriml wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

How many of them were cute, underage girls that you had sex with?

If Andy slept with her in the UK she was not underage at the time, 16 is the UK legal age of consent.

Consent being the disputed word.

You said she was underage, she was not, nothing about consent. I don't believe she was anywhere near as innocent as she makes herself out to be.

scbriml wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Consent being the disputed word.

You said she was underage, she was not, nothing about consent. I don't believe she was anywhere near as innocent as she makes herself out to be.

You appear confused, I never said anything about her being “underage”.

You said the following

scbriml wrote:

How many of them were cute, underage girls that you had sex with?

I said she wasn't underage.

Kiwirob wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

You said she was underage, she was not, nothing about consent. I don't believe she was anywhere near as innocent as she makes herself out to be.

You appear confused, I never said anything about her being “underage”.

You said the following

scbriml wrote:

How many of them were cute, underage girls that you had sex with?

I said she wasn't underage.

The quote must've gotten screwed up because I'm the one who originally said that.

ltbewr wrote:

Until some of the rich and powerful who raped (including by statute) the young women that Maxwell helped arrange get charged and convicted, there will never be satisfaction that justice was done. Many want her 'black book' of names of those she arranged for the rich and connected to have sex with young women exposed to the public and those named face criminal charges, are financially, politically and socially destroyed, to face jail. One has to wonder how much money, favorable treatment as to tax, sexual crime laws and others Epstein and Maxwell got out of fear of being 'outed' as rapists.

Only reason anyone wants this is they feel Trump is guilty of raping these children and the reason we will never see or hear from her is it is more likely Bill Clinton is. She went to trial which means she isn't making a deal and if either party wanted to it would have been before a trial. She is going to jail and probably is going to meet a bad fate.

ltbewr wrote:

This case also brings up another serious issue that needs to be discussed, the larger social issues that led too many of the young women to be entrapped in Epstein's sexual exploitation. We need in the USA and elsewhere far more comprehensive sexual health education, to include ways to avoid being entrapped in such sexual exploitation, not getting swayed by money, travel, glamor, attention, 'becoming a model' and psychological weaknesses they have.

Money and fame is the root of all evil how are you going to tell a 16 year old girl who is making $3000 a week, flying private jets and hanging out in the hottest places with the most famous people while their friends flip burgers for 400 a week? Youtube and tiktok also furthers this notion of being an "influencer" where all you have to do is livevid youerself trying on clothes and sitting by the pool in a bikini while millions of people fawn over you. Couple that with the grooming and you have an uphill climb. I would also assume many of these girls have Daddy issues. This isn't about sexual education it's about self worth and the family model.

I don't see the Prince Andrew case going anywhere, as 17 is an adult on NY and 16 is an adult in the UK.

NIKV69 wrote:

Money and fame is the root of all evil how are you going to tell a 16 year old girl who is making $3000 a week, flying private jets and hanging out in the hottest places with the most famous people while their friends flip burgers for 400 a week? Youtube and tiktok also furthers this notion of being an "influencer" where all you have to do is livevid youerself trying on clothes and sitting by the pool in a bikini while millions of people fawn over you. Couple that with the grooming and you have an uphill climb. I would also assume many of these girls have Daddy issues. This isn't about sexual education it's about self worth and the family model.

16 is a young woman, not girl, and is legal almost everywhere. Epstein's victims were younger.

SEAorPWM wrote:

I don't see the Prince Andrew case going anywhere, as 17 is an adult on NY and 16 is an adult in the UK.

The accusations against him aren't statutory rape they are sexual assualt it's a murky legal term but I think sexual assault and battery mean she wasn't a willing participant and that she was pressured to do this by Epstein and the Prince used it to his advantage.

Well, well, well . . . more details are emerging. In an interview with the Daily Mail, Carolyn Andriano, another of Epstein's victims, seems to contradict Giuffre's account of her "abuse":

"Andriano recalled Giuffre texting her in 2001, saying: “You’ll never guess who I’m with… ”
Andriano replied: “Who?”
Andriano told the Mail: “[Giuffre] said, ‘I’m in London with Jeffrey and Maxwell and Prince Andrew.’
In an interview with the Daily Mail “She said they were going to have dinner. I kind of didn’t believe her, but I had no reason not to. I thought it was far-fetched but, then again, she knew wealthy people and had been to fancy parties and stuff like that.” Andriano said she had asked Giuffre if she’d been to the palace. “And she said, ‘I got to sleep with him’. She didn’t seem upset about it. She thought it was pretty cool,’ Andriano recalled."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... tness-says

Braybuddy wrote:

Well, well, well . . . more details are emerging. In an interview with the Daily Mail, Carolyn Andriano, another of Epstein's victims, seems to contradict Giuffre's account of her "abuse":

"Andriano recalled Giuffre texting her in 2001, saying: “You’ll never guess who I’m with… ”
Andriano replied: “Who?”
Andriano told the Mail: “[Giuffre] said, ‘I’m in London with Jeffrey and Maxwell and Prince Andrew.’
In an interview with the Daily Mail “She said they were going to have dinner. I kind of didn’t believe her, but I had no reason not to. I thought it was far-fetched but, then again, she knew wealthy people and had been to fancy parties and stuff like that.” Andriano said she had asked Giuffre if she’d been to the palace. “And she said, ‘I got to sleep with him’. She didn’t seem upset about it. She thought it was pretty cool,’ Andriano recalled."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... tness-says

I’ve always thought from the start this was a shake down for more cash from Giuffre. Andrew screwed up when he denied sleeping with her. He should have just admitted he shagged her, instead he made himself look like a complete idiot. There’s nothing illegal about sleeping with a 17 year old, it’s distasteful at his age but not illegal.

scbriml wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

sexual assualt it's a murky legal term

In what way is "sexual assault" a murky legal term?

The legal world has grouped rape and other offenses into one which I don't like. If the prince had sex with her against her will it's rape, if a guy walking down the street touches a woman's butt that is sexual assault. Over the years it seems the term rape is being phased out. Same with statutory rape, if its consensual it should be called something along the lines of sex under the age of consent. It's legal speak that just confuses everyone.

Kiwirob wrote:

I’ve always thought from the start this was a shake down for more cash from Giuffre. Andrew screwed up when he denied sleeping with her. He should have just admitted he shagged her, instead he made himself look like a complete idiot. There’s nothing illegal about sleeping with a 17 year old, it’s distasteful at his age but not illegal.

Once I saw that infamous photograph I felt her story was off. They say to trust your instinct, and my instinct told me she was living it up and couldn't believe her luck. Understandable for a young girl from such a dysfunctional background. From being homeless to being flown around the world on private jets and meeting famous people, she probably couldn't believe her luck, and so what if she had to have sex with people in exchange? I don't blame her for that at all. Happens all the time. And I don't believe that photograph was taken when she was somehow smiling for a second after a traumatising night. She's beaming, holding him close with her arm wrapped around him.

And then she gave false testimony against Epstein . . .

The #MeToo movement seems to have conditioned (or frightened) people into thinking that women should be automatically believed when they report rape or assault, when some are clearly lying, manipulative, vengeful or simply money-grabbing.

No one says to trust your instinct about this, Braybuddy. No one, if anything research suggests the exact opposite.

Braybuddy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I’ve always thought from the start this was a shake down for more cash from Giuffre. Andrew screwed up when he denied sleeping with her. He should have just admitted he shagged her, instead he made himself look like a complete idiot. There’s nothing illegal about sleeping with a 17 year old, it’s distasteful at his age but not illegal.

:checkmark: Once I saw that infamous photograph I felt her story was off. They say to trust your instinct, and my instinct told me she was living it up and couldn't believe her luck. Understandable for a young girl from such a dysfunctional background. From being homeless to being flown around the world on private jets and meeting famous people, she probably couldn't believe her luck, and so what if she had to have sex with people in exchange? I don't blame her for that at all. Happens all the time. And I don't believe that photograph was taken when she was somehow smiling for a second after a traumatising night. She's beaming, holding him close with her arm wrapped around him. :roll:

And then she gave false testimony against Epstein . . . :liar:

The #MeToo movement seems to have conditioned (or frightened) people into thinking that women should be automatically believed when they report rape or assault, when some are clearly lying, manipulative, vengeful or simply money-grabbing.

Braybuddy wrote:

Well, well, well . . . more details are emerging. In an interview with the Daily Mail, Carolyn Andriano, another of Epstein's victims, seems to contradict Giuffre's account of her "abuse":

"Andriano recalled Giuffre texting her in 2001, saying: “You’ll never guess who I’m with… ”
Andriano replied: “Who?”
Andriano told the Mail: “[Giuffre] said, ‘I’m in London with Jeffrey and Maxwell and Prince Andrew.’
In an interview with the Daily Mail “She said they were going to have dinner. I kind of didn’t believe her, but I had no reason not to. I thought it was far-fetched but, then again, she knew wealthy people and had been to fancy parties and stuff like that.” Andriano said she had asked Giuffre if she’d been to the palace. “And she said, ‘I got to sleep with him’. She didn’t seem upset about it. She thought it was pretty cool,’ Andriano recalled."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... tness-says

Yeah, if it wasn’t rape then maybe the Prince Andrew thing is more of a Me Too thing but otherwise pretty common.

Do people really think rich men do not have sex with young women (or whomever)? It’s bizarre to believe powerful men do not have sex with young, attractive people. I actually would laugh if someone tries to say that with a straight face. Look at history, look at the present. Welcome to real life.

I think Epstein was very bad. But let’s not become tricked into silly and puritanical ways of thinking. Do women have the right to consent to sex? That’s a yes or no question. Most of what Epstein did was legal and in my view extremely common. And some of it was extremely criminal.

M564038 wrote:

No one says to trust your instinct about this, Braybuddy. No one, if anything research suggests the exact opposite.

Well, going by what her friend says, it seems to have got it bang-on.

Interesting that the words of one woman aren’t sufficient to condemn a man, but the words of a second woman are enough to condemn that first woman

Some here don't seem to know what grooming is. They don't know that it's a long process to change a person's perception of reality.

Braybuddy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I’ve always thought from the start this was a shake down for more cash from Giuffre. Andrew screwed up when he denied sleeping with her. He should have just admitted he shagged her, instead he made himself look like a complete idiot. There’s nothing illegal about sleeping with a 17 year old, it’s distasteful at his age but not illegal.

Once I saw that infamous photograph I felt her story was off. They say to trust your instinct, and my instinct told me she was living it up and couldn't believe her luck. Understandable for a young girl from such a dysfunctional background. From being homeless to being flown around the world on private jets and meeting famous people, she probably couldn't believe her luck, and so what if she had to have sex with people in exchange? I don't blame her for that at all. Happens all the time. And I don't believe that photograph was taken when she was somehow smiling for a second after a traumatising night. She's beaming, holding him close with her arm wrapped around him.

And then she gave false testimony against Epstein . . .

The #MeToo movement seems to have conditioned (or frightened) people into thinking that women should be automatically believed when they report rape or assault, when some are clearly lying, manipulative, vengeful or simply money-grabbing.

Good post, I at first thought she was underage when they had sex but found out no to be the case. Lot's of women who go from rags to riches may not be able to come back once they are sleeping with famous men. It's too complex as well as the fact you pointed out as when women falsely accuse. I don't know how this will end but I kind of think they did have sex and it was consensual. Whether she had a bone to pick with Epstein that she suppressed who knows.

scbriml wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

In what way is "sexual assault" a murky legal term?

The legal world has grouped rape and other offenses into one which I don't like. If the prince had sex with her against her will it's rape, if a guy walking down the street touches a woman's butt that is sexual assault. Over the years it seems the term rape is being phased out. Same with statutory rape, if its consensual it should be called something along the lines of sex under the age of consent. It's legal speak that just confuses everyone.

In the UK, rape is a separate offence from sexual assault.

As it should be I wish it was like that here.

johns624 wrote:

Some here don't seem to know what grooming is. They don't know that it's a long process to change a person's perception of reality.

Seconded. It's impossible to discuss topics like this without knowledge of what that process is and does.

FGITD wrote:

Interesting that the words of one woman aren’t sufficient to condemn a man, but the words of a second woman are enough to condemn that first woman

Probably because the first woman has alredy lied under oath and has a motive. I know nothing about the second woman, but she is/was a friend of the first, and doesn't appear to have a motive. She could be lying, but I'll wait to see if her statements are challenged. I don't believe any of Andrew's pathetic excuses either.
https://vote-watch.com/2021/02/16/princ ... rafficked/

johns624 wrote:

Some here don't seem to know what grooming is. They don't know that it's a long process to change a person's perception of reality.

Aaron747 wrote:

Seconded. It's impossible to discuss topics like this without knowledge of what that process is and does.

I presume -- because of the proximity of your posts -- that both of you are talking about me. What makes you think I know nothing about grooming?

NIKV69 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

sexual assualt it's a murky legal term

In what way is "sexual assault" a murky legal term?

The legal world has grouped rape and other offenses into one which I don't like. If the prince had sex with her against her will it's rape, if a guy walking down the street touches a woman's butt that is sexual assault. Over the years it seems the term rape is being phased out. Same with statutory rape, if its consensual it should be called something along the lines of sex under the age of consent. It's legal speak that just confuses everyone.

Oftentimes what happens is the prosecution will drop the rape charges and push for sexual assault depending on the evidence. Sometimes the charges get downgraded as part of a plea deal. Both rape and sexual assault are still on the books, and the prosecution should use whatever fits the case.

NIKV69 wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I’ve always thought from the start this was a shake down for more cash from Giuffre. Andrew screwed up when he denied sleeping with her. He should have just admitted he shagged her, instead he made himself look like a complete idiot. There’s nothing illegal about sleeping with a 17 year old, it’s distasteful at his age but not illegal.

Once I saw that infamous photograph I felt her story was off. They say to trust your instinct, and my instinct told me she was living it up and couldn't believe her luck. Understandable for a young girl from such a dysfunctional background. From being homeless to being flown around the world on private jets and meeting famous people, she probably couldn't believe her luck, and so what if she had to have sex with people in exchange? I don't blame her for that at all. Happens all the time. And I don't believe that photograph was taken when she was somehow smiling for a second after a traumatising night. She's beaming, holding him close with her arm wrapped around him.

And then she gave false testimony against Epstein . . .

The #MeToo movement seems to have conditioned (or frightened) people into thinking that women should be automatically believed when they report rape or assault, when some are clearly lying, manipulative, vengeful or simply money-grabbing.

Good post, I at first thought she was underage when they had sex but found out no to be the case. Lot's of women who go from rags to riches may not be able to come back once they are sleeping with famous men. It's too complex as well as the fact you pointed out as when women falsely accuse. I don't know how this will end but I kind of think they did have sex and it was consensual. Whether she had a bone to pick with Epstein that she suppressed who knows.

scbriml wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

The legal world has grouped rape and other offenses into one which I don't like. If the prince had sex with her against her will it's rape, if a guy walking down the street touches a woman's butt that is sexual assault. Over the years it seems the term rape is being phased out. Same with statutory rape, if its consensual it should be called something along the lines of sex under the age of consent. It's legal speak that just confuses everyone.

In the UK, rape is a separate offence from sexual assault.

As it should be I wish it was like that here.

Correct - she was 17 which is fine to have sex with a guy a guy in his 40's.

How old did you think she was?

SEAorPWM wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Once I saw that infamous photograph I felt her story was off. They say to trust your instinct, and my instinct told me she was living it up and couldn't believe her luck. Understandable for a young girl from such a dysfunctional background. From being homeless to being flown around the world on private jets and meeting famous people, she probably couldn't believe her luck, and so what if she had to have sex with people in exchange? I don't blame her for that at all. Happens all the time. And I don't believe that photograph was taken when she was somehow smiling for a second after a traumatising night. She's beaming, holding him close with her arm wrapped around him.

And then she gave false testimony against Epstein . . .

The #MeToo movement seems to have conditioned (or frightened) people into thinking that women should be automatically believed when they report rape or assault, when some are clearly lying, manipulative, vengeful or simply money-grabbing.

Good post, I at first thought she was underage when they had sex but found out no to be the case. Lot's of women who go from rags to riches may not be able to come back once they are sleeping with famous men. It's too complex as well as the fact you pointed out as when women falsely accuse. I don't know how this will end but I kind of think they did have sex and it was consensual. Whether she had a bone to pick with Epstein that she suppressed who knows.

scbriml wrote:

In the UK, rape is a separate offence from sexual assault.

As it should be I wish it was like that here.

Correct - she was 17 which is fine to have sex with a guy a guy in his 40's.

How old did you think she was?

Depending on the state, 17 could be above the age of consent, not that I agree with it but from a legal aspect it's not illegal.

scbriml wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

Correct - she was 17 which is fine to have sex with a guy a guy in his 40's.

How old did you think she was?

Depending on the state, 17 could be above the age of consent, not that I agree with it but from a legal aspect it's not illegal.

It's the consent part that is the issue, not her age.

Where's your proof that there wasn't consent?

ItnStln wrote:

scbriml wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Depending on the state, 17 could be above the age of consent, not that I agree with it but from a legal aspect it's not illegal.

It's the consent part that is the issue, not her age.

Where's your proof that there wasn't consent?

Well, she said there wasn't and he seems to have a memory lapse. Even if she "consented", could it just be a product of her "grooming" where she was brainwashed into accepting the advances of any rich, powerful man?

scbriml wrote:

The judge has ruled that Ms Giuffre's 2009 agreement with Epstein doesn't preclude her bringing a civil case against Prince Andrew.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59871514

During a virtual hearing they said the Duke of York was a "potential defendant" as defined by the agreement and the case "should be dismissed".

Ms Giuffre's lawyer said only the parties of the settlement agreement could benefit from it, and not a "third party".

In his decision, Judge Kaplan said the agreement "cannot be said" to benefit the Duke of York.

I wonder if he's sweating now?

whilst hiding in the kitchen of Pizza Express in Woking..

scbriml wrote:

vrbarreto wrote:

scbriml wrote:

The judge has ruled that Ms Giuffre's 2009 agreement with Epstein doesn't preclude her bringing a civil case against Prince Andrew.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59871514


I wonder if he's sweating now?

whilst hiding in the kitchen of Pizza Express in Woking..

That's doubly amusing for me because we lived in Woking for a long time and the family has eaten in that very Pizza Express on many occasions.

Only knowing it's a nice suburb, I would still hazard a guess that 'Pizza Express' is not a normal hangout for royals.

Aaron747 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

vrbarreto wrote:

whilst hiding in the kitchen of Pizza Express in Woking..

That's doubly amusing for me because we lived in Woking for a long time and the family has eaten in that very Pizza Express on many occasions.

Only knowing it's a nice suburb, I would still hazard a guess that 'Pizza Express' is not a normal hangout for royals.

Indeed, not a normal hangout for royals.

in the 15th and 16th centuries the royals preferred hanging out in Woking Palace to hanging out in the 'Pizza Express'. Henry VII and wife, Henry VIII and wife, wife, wife, wife, wife and wife never once were seen in the 'Pizza Express' as far as I know. A bit like Prince Andrew.

http://www.woking-palace.org/thehistory.html

PS I was born not a mile from the palace

Not quite heading for the tower, but pretty embarrassing for Andrew:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59987935

Braybuddy wrote:

Not quite heading for the tower, but pretty embarrassing for Andrew:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59987935

So now the media is reporting that as part of the civil case, he and potentially his ex-wife and daughters might undergo a deposition to seek out intimate details of his private life. What if he flat out refuses and simply avoids travelling to the U.S. ever again ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... parts.html

Braybuddy wrote:

Not quite heading for the tower, but pretty embarrassing for Andrew:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59987935

Andrew joins Harry and Megan on the Royal Shyte List.

I wonder how King Charles will rule over this lot, it's not like he can do the 'holier than thou' act his mother has perfected over the years.

BBC link above says:

The latest Palace announcement means he has lost military titles including Colonel of the Grenadier Guards - one of the most senior infantry regiments in the British army.

The other UK military titles he no longer has include:
Honorary air commodore of RAF Lossiemouth
Colonel-in-chief of the Royal Irish Regiment
Colonel-in-chief of the Small Arms School Corps
Colonel-in-chief of The Royal Lancers (Queen Elizabeth's Own)
Colonel-in-chief of the Yorkshire Regiment
Colonel-in-chief of the Small Arms School Corps
Commodore-in-Chief of the Fleet Air Arm
Royal colonel of the Royal Highland Fusiliers
Royal colonel of the Royal Regiment of Scotland.

The duke will also lose several overseas honorary roles including colonel-in-chief of The Royal Highland Fusiliers Of Canada, colonel-in-chief of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment, colonel-in-chief of the Princess Louise Fusiliers of Canada and colonel-in-chief of the Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment).

But he will retain his service rank of Vice-Admiral, the Palace has confirmed.

How will these organizations get by?

Looks like his brother and his nephew threw him under the bus.

Et tu, Charlie?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Queen.html

Looks like the number of ex-HRHs are neck and neck with the number of HRHs:

Prince Andrew is the fifth royal to stop using the Royal Highness title in 26 years. Diana, Princess of Wales, was stripped of her HRH title following her divorce from Prince Charles in 1996.

It was apparently proposed by Prince Philip that Diana should also be downgraded to Duchess of Cornwall – but he eventually accepted the view of courtiers that, as the mother of the future King William, Diana should retain the rank of Princess.

The Duchess of York lost her HRH title when she and Andrew divorced in 1996, by which time the couple had already been separated for four years.

The Queen ordered Harry and Meghan not to use their HRH status following the couple’s decision to ‘step back’ as senior royals in January 2020. They now style themselves Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, in their commercial dealings.

Like Harry and Meghan, Andrew retains his title but will not use it in any official capacity.

Edward VIII kept his HRH style after he abdicated in 1936 to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson. His brother George VI decreed that Edward ‘having been born in the lineal succession to the Crown’ should be ‘entitled to hold and enjoy for himself only the style title or attribute of Royal Highness’.

Mrs Simpson became the Duchess of Windsor, but was never permitted to adopt the style HRH.

alberchico wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Not quite heading for the tower, but pretty embarrassing for Andrew:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59987935

So now the media is reporting that as part of the civil case, he and potentially his ex-wife and daughters might undergo a deposition to seek out intimate details of his private life. What if he flat out refuses and simply avoids travelling to the U.S. ever again ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... parts.html

If he refuses to be deposed a summary judgment can be found against him. Difficult to get out of that, at least financially.

Revelation wrote:

How will these organizations get by?

What's also hilarious is that he's reportedly selling property to foot legal bills. All that says is Mummie Dearest has closed the spigot.

Aaron747 wrote:

If he refuses to be deposed a summary judgment can be found against him. Difficult to get out of that, at least financially.

He's now in the "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" category.

If things go on the present course it'll go to trial, which will result in $millions of legal fees and him having to submit to embarrassing interviews. In the end he'll have to hope somehow a jury sees things his way instead of hers, which is not a good bet as Ms. Maxwell just found out.

If he aims to settle, the other side knows how much money he has and can guess how much he can raise and how much he can save by not going to trial and they are gonna want it all.

His last best hope was this recent court decision which went against him. He was hoping the court would find that a payoff that Epstein made would cover him too, but the judge said he could not make that determination so Andrew lost.

It's gotta be a strange situation. His mom just cut him out of the picture with his brother and his nephew egging her on, yet he (and his ex!) still live in a house that Mom owns, and he's said to visit his mom pretty much every day. He's already disgraced, and soon to be wiped out financially too, yet still a big part of the Queen's life.

If he had the cajones and the conviction that he was/is right, he'd go ahead and fight, even though it's likely he'd lose. What does he have to lose anyway? He's already disgraced and he's going to be broke if he fights or not. It will be embarrassing, but so what at this point.

Revelation wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

If he refuses to be deposed a summary judgment can be found against him. Difficult to get out of that, at least financially.

He's now in the "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" category.

If things go on the present course it'll go to trial, which will result in $millions of legal fees and him having to submit to embarrassing interviews. In the end he'll have to hope somehow a jury sees things his way instead of hers, which is not a good bet as Ms. Maxwell just found out.

If he aims to settle, the other side knows how much money he has and can guess how much he can raise and how much he can save by not going to trial and they are gonna want it all.

His last best hope was this recent court decision which went against him. He was hoping the court would find that a payoff that Epstein made would cover him too, but the judge said he could not make that determination so Andrew lost.

It's gotta be a strange situation. His mom just cut him out of the picture with his brother and his nephew egging her on, yet he (and his ex!) still live in a house that Mom owns, and he's said to visit his mom pretty much every day. He's already disgraced, and soon to be wiped out financially too, yet still a big part of the Queen's life.

If he had the cajones and the conviction that he was/is right, he'd go ahead and fight, even though it's likely he'd lose. What does he have to lose anyway? He's already disgraced and he's going to be broke if he fights or not. It will be embarrassing, but so what at this point.

No idea how calculating he is but one thing’s pretty clear - he’s too narcissistic for the *other* way out of all this.

Aaron747 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

How will these organizations get by?

What's also hilarious is that he's reportedly selling property to foot legal bills. All that says is Mummie Dearest has closed the spigot.

Had she, that is the taxpayer, paid for Andrew's legal bills in this sordid case, that would have been unacceptable. Brenda hasn't navigated nearly 70 years of massive social change here without knowing that.
It's not that he was well liked before all this.

But Brenda and the Firm massively screwed up with Harry, they know of his deep seated loathing for the tabloids, he after all largely blames them for his Mother's death.
All he wanted from them, was backing when he warned said tabloids that any untoward intrusion and also typical of them, racism, towards Megan would not be tolerated.

Of course, equally typically, The Daily Mail not only compared her to Compton Gang Bangers but got her errant father involved, surely that was her concern, not theirs.
An audit of reporting on their relationship from the start found the great majority of tabloid reporting to be hostile to her.
They are who they are, a previous girlfriend, white, posh, more typical, also got huge levels of press harassment including illegal phone hacking.

So their inaction lost them, with the younger demographic, their most popular member.
And the same inaction with Andrew until the whole scandal there blew up but far more leeway given to him, for far longer, than Harry.
Until it's become untenable.
Of the two Princes, who's the bad guy now?
Harry never consorted with a billionaire nonce and his accomplice girlfriend, herself another from that family of wrong 'uns.
Even after he was convicted and got that pathetic slap of the wrist non punishment, in the best legal system MONEY can buy.

GDB wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

How will these organizations get by?

What's also hilarious is that he's reportedly selling property to foot legal bills. All that says is Mummie Dearest has closed the spigot.

Had she, that is the taxpayer, paid for Andrew's legal bills in this sordid case, that would have been unacceptable. Brenda hasn't navigated nearly 70 years of massive social change here without knowing that.
It's not that he was well liked before all this.

But Brenda and the Firm massively screwed up with Harry, they know of his deep seated loathing for the tabloids, he after all largely blames them for his Mother's death.
All he wanted from them, was backing when he warned said tabloids that any untoward intrusion and also typical of them, racism, towards Megan would not be tolerated.

Of course, equally typically, The Daily Mail not only compared her to Compton Gang Bangers but got her errant father involved, surely that was her concern, not theirs.
An audit of reporting on their relationship from the start found the great majority of tabloid reporting to be hostile to her.
They are who they are, a previous girlfriend, white, posh, more typical, also got huge levels of press harassment including illegal phone hacking.

So their inaction lost them, with the younger demographic, their most popular member.
And the same inaction with Andrew until the whole scandal there blew up but far more leeway given to him, for far longer, than Harry.
Until it's become untenable.
Of the two Princes, who's the bad guy now?
Harry never consorted with a billionaire nonce and his accomplice girlfriend, herself another from that family of wrong 'uns.
Even after he was convicted and got that pathetic slap of the wrist non punishment, in the best legal system MONEY can buy.

Going after a 16 or 17 year woman is completely acceptable in the UK though. Hardly "noncy".