# Royal Sex Scandal-Under Age Girls and Prince Andrew



## WhatInThe (Jan 4, 2015)

Royal sex scandal involving under age girls including one said forced to be a sex slave.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-been-secretly-filmed-4915421

Saw stories pointing to "shocking" sex scandal in British government for a couple of years now I'm wondering if this is it.

This really caught my because a just viewed a documentary on how the Duke Of Windsor wanted a peace treaty with Germany in World War II which is why Rudolph Hess flew to the big Island.  Absolutely puzzling how much power the crowned family still holds in this day and age.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 4, 2015)

Sex scandals in the British government are nothing new.

As for the Royal Family, I'm pretty sure their needs are catered to with some discretion by aides acting as intermediaries.
However, Prince Andrew had entered the murky world of business, so who knows?


----------



## Laurie (Jan 4, 2015)

Well, of course, over here having sex with a 17 year old is not particularly murky.

If, as reported, she was unwilling that's a different matter, in any civilized country.


----------



## Bee (Jan 4, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> _*Sex scandals in the British government are nothing new.*_
> 
> As for the Royal Family, I'm pretty sure their needs are catered to with some discretion by aides acting as intermediaries.
> However, Prince Andrew had entered the murky world of business, so who knows?



The on going one now is much more serious than any others you may have heard of.....but then again from what I have read the Australian government isn't without it's scandals.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 4, 2015)

> The Australian government isn't without it's scandals


You're not wrong there Bee. 
Very salacious some of them are.

What I didn't really make clear in my post is that the Royal family is separate from government and also that the potential for scandal is very carefully managed. In the case of Prince Andrew the dangers of associating with the shady man at the core of this allegation seem not to have been foreseen. Either he was let down by his palace advisors or he ignored them.

I make no comment as to whether the allegations have any substance to them but the palace denial has been very vehement.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 4, 2015)

What!!??


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 5, 2015)

*Now they are picking on Prince Andrew!*

A claim is being made that he had sex with female minors in the past.  Surely you agree with me that this is outrageous and just another attempt to embarass the royal family...


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 5, 2015)

Oops, sorry for a similar thread, but maybe as a royalist I couldn't help it...  nthego:


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 5, 2015)

He may have done. Who knows?


----------



## Geezerette (Jan 5, 2015)

Ditto. I was surprised how old & stodgy he looks now.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 5, 2015)

People should leave their betters alone.  Now, about that Polanski guy...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 5, 2015)

Nothing surprises me... after Cosby


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 5, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> People should leave their betters alone.  Now, about that Polanski guy...




OK..Ok...I'll bite.... Betters?..... Betters????? :king:


----------



## Debby (Jan 5, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> People should leave their betters alone.  Now, about that Polanski guy...




'their betters'!!!!?  Seriously, you are suggesting that j those people are 'better' than anyone else?  Royalty got there because centuries ago, they were the 'worst a&&holes in the valley', not because they are inherently kinder, more compassionate, more generous, more gentle.....that collection (in their entirety!) might possibly have made them better than the general public, but they can't even brag about being all of those things.  

They held onto their position by virtue of manipulations, scheming and having the biggest army (paid for by peasants that were forced to support them by the way or suffer the consequences) and they've become a tradition.  But better than any of us?  Please tell me you don't really believe that.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 5, 2015)

Besides that.... they're all German anyway


----------



## AprilT (Jan 5, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Nothing surprises me... after Cosby




Nothing surprised me before Cosby, people are very good at pretending to be virtuous, pious so very above board.  Just like somebodies keeping those sex traffickers in business.  It's what some do, not what they say you sometimes have to watch out for.  

Maybe :tmi:.  LOL


----------



## Bee (Jan 5, 2015)

Debby said:


> 'their betters'!!!!?  Seriously, you are suggesting that j those people are 'better' than anyone else?  Royalty got there because centuries ago, they were the 'worst a&&holes in the valley', not because they are inherently kinder, more compassionate, more generous, more gentle.....that collection (in their entirety!) might possibly have made them better than the general public, but they can't even brag about being all of those things.
> 
> They held onto their position by virtue of manipulations, scheming and having the biggest army (paid for by peasants that were forced to support them by the way or suffer the consequences) and they've become a tradition.  But better than any of us?  Please tell me you don't really believe that.




Oh! dear:blah:  someones on their high horse.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 5, 2015)

"England swings like a pendulum do..."  But leave one of your obvious betters alone!


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 5, 2015)




----------



## Debby (Jan 5, 2015)

Bee said:


> Oh! dear:blah:  someones on their high horse.




Looking in the mirror are we?

So if you don't agree, tell me, how did 'royalty' get to be royalty.   Did the 'clan' *vote them in* when it was small villages/towns dotted across the land?  Or did they take their position by force?   And can you pinpoint any aspect of their DNA that suggests they are a separate and inherently better person/species than the rest of us?


----------



## Bee (Jan 5, 2015)

What mirror would that be Debby???

The mirror that tells me not to look back because there is damn all I can do about it.

The mirror that tells me to look to the present and to the future but never look back.

The mirror that tells me not to hold it against someone for what their ancestors did hundreds of years ago.

....or maybe the mirror that tells me not to speculate on someone because of their ancestors.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 5, 2015)

The more I read about this lawsuit the more proof there seems to be including photos, multiple witnesses and known pervert hosting some of these 'get togethers'. The Prince now 54 would've been in his 30s in the 90s so even if a older looking TEENAGER one has to wonder. Alot of this happend at a Palm Beach Mansion.

Sidenote no one seem to flinch when actor Paul Walker died and they gave his bio and the story about his teenage wife. The Prince went to the wrong coast. Who says celebrity doesn't come with get of jail free cards.


----------



## Debby (Jan 5, 2015)

Bee said:


> What mirror would that be Debby???
> ..........or maybe the mirror that tells me not to speculate on someone because of their ancestors.






Hey Bee, I don't judge anyone on their ancestors but neither do I revere someone because of his 'job'.  In my book, people earn respect.  

The comment I was responding to seem to indicate that someones 'job' made them a better person than me, or you or Ina or even Ralph.  I stated my disagreement with that premise and I also pointed out that those 'royals' didn't get their 'job' because of any inherent perfection or because they were nicer than the rest of us, they(their families)  simply took what they wanted and too often at the expense of any and all who disagreed with them.  Not a judgement so much as an observation of historical 'fact'.

So I'm not sure where your 'high-horse' comment came from which is which is why I wondered if you were in front of the mirror. Besides, my horse is and was out in the pasture at the time I made my comment.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 5, 2015)

Billionaire pervert friend of Prince Andrew had 21 contacts/numbers for Bill Clinton

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-and-jeffrey-epstein-908671

Hopefully it was just about campaign finance.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 5, 2015)

Laurie said:


> Well, of course, over here having sex with a 17 year old is not particularly murky.
> 
> If, as reported, she was unwilling that's a different matter, in any civilized country.



In some states if you are not in your early 20s sex with someone 17 or younger can be a felony.

http://www.age-of-consent.info/states/Florida

I think that's the issue here because the this rich friend of the Prince had a mansion in Palm Beach County/USA/Florida. This all didn't happen out of country.


----------



## oakapple (Jan 5, 2015)

This particular 'scandal' [if that is what it actually is] has nothing to do with any sex scandals in the government [Royalty has no part in the government here.] This is solely about Prince Andrew being at a party [or several parties] where his dodgy business friend was hosting a party and supplying 'girls' [or this is what is alleged anyway.]This particular woman claims to have been 17 at the time and also claims she had no choice.We don't know if any of this is true.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 5, 2015)

It also first came out in 2011.....


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 6, 2015)

Bill Clinton is our royalty so please don't try to smear one of our betters, too...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 6, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Bill Clinton is our royalty so please don't try to smear one of our betters, too...



Not to mention... it's doubtful if "Wild Bill" ever had to depend on anyone "finding" him women... let alone unwilling ones..   Don't think he had that problem.. lol!


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 6, 2015)

Hahaha...Bill Clinton...OK...now I see at what level of the playing field you're starting at... :whome:


----------



## Ken N Tx (Jan 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Not to mention... it's doubtful if "Wild Bill" ever had to depend on anyone "finding" him women... let alone unwilling ones..   Don't think he had that problem.. lol!



Arkansas State Troopers supply some..


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 6, 2015)

Well, as we know, Slick Willy had a voracious appetite so he probably allowed others to keep him well "nourished" and with a good supply of ****** he is probably hoping for some more intern action if Hillary wins the White House...  nthego:


----------



## Ken N Tx (Jan 6, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Well, as we know, Slick Willy had a voracious appetite so he probably allowed others to keep him well "nourished" and with a good supply of ****** he is probably hoping for some more intern action if Hillary wins the White House...  nthego:



I have heard that if Hillary gets in all the interns will have braces!!!!


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 6, 2015)

:goodone:


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 6, 2015)

And wear a chastity belt!


----------



## Geezerette (Jan 6, 2015)

ABQ news reporting that wild parties went on at billionaire Epsteins ranch near Santa Fe, women claiming that they were held as slaves & the prince was there too. 
By the way, how tall does a horse have to be before it is a "high" one?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 6, 2015)

I ride a donkey...


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 6, 2015)

Now don't get me wrong I am a royalist in that I appreciate and admire everything that the Queen, and Prince philip have done for this country...hwoever Randy Andy as he's always been nicknamed since his teens and his ex wife alsways seem to have been a liability, courting bad press wherever they go ( apart from Andys's stint in during the falklands crises)..

It just made me laugh this morning to hear his ex wife ''fergie' defending him and calling him a ''good man''.

Well of course you'll defend him luv... since you cheated on him with not just one but two men and he divorced you..he's been your cash cow ever since...I mean who the hell gets to go on ski-ing holiday costing £22,000 per week paid for by their EX ....she would swear  Bill Clinton was the Pope  if  it meant she could keep her high life all paid for at the expense of Andy and the tax payers..


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 6, 2015)

Ahhh, Fergie, such a wild wench.  Maybe she hooked up with our Bill in the past, or even now...


----------



## Debby (Jan 6, 2015)

Geezerette said:


> ABQ news reporting that wild parties went on at billionaire Epsteins ranch near Santa Fe, women claiming that they were held as slaves & the prince was there too.
> By the way, how tall does a horse have to be before it is a "high" one?





I'm not sure but if you ask Bee, maybe we'll all find out.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 6, 2015)

hollydolly said:


> Now don't get me wrong I am a royalist in that I appreciate and admire everything that the Queen, and Prince philip have done for this country...hwoever Randy Andy as he's always been nicknamed since his teens and his ex wife alsways seem to have been a liability, courting bad press wherever they go ( apart from Andys's stint in during the falklands crises)..
> 
> It just made me laugh this morning to hear his ex wife ''fergie' defending him and calling him a ''good man''.
> 
> Well of course you'll defend him luv... since you cheated on him with not just one but two men and he divorced you..he's been your cash cow ever since...I mean who the hell gets to go on ski-ing holiday costing £22,000 per week paid for by their EX ....she would swear  Bill Clinton was the Pope  if  it meant she could keep her high life all paid for at the expense of Andy and the tax payers..



I rather like Fergie..   She IS after all the mother of two princesses and the granddaughters of Her Highness.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 6, 2015)

Now there are allegations of witness tampering.

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/bu...e-Accused-Of-Witness-Tampering-On-5996437.php

Apparently several witnesses took the fifth when asked about the Prince.


----------



## Elyzabeth (Jan 6, 2015)

Not to worry... Andrew might have immunity.. !!?????

Apparently some antics were caught on tape.


----------



## Elyzabeth (Jan 6, 2015)

Taking the "5th" only works in America...

the right to refuse to incriminate oneself.

Upper Class?
Betters?
Ruling class?

Just a bad as anyone else.. 

WORSE.. they have responsibilities.. and are supposed to be the role models for society.

Back to Charles , when I said that he wanted to be Camilala's tampax !

Yes, I kid you not, such statements seem to disappear from the public record, don't they?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 6, 2015)

Elyzabeth said:


> Taking the "5th" only works in America...
> 
> the right to refuse to incriminate oneself.
> 
> ...




But not peoples memories... I remember the tapes of him saying that..


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 6, 2015)

Here's the full transcript of the C&C phone conversation...easily found on the internet...



http://www.textfiles.com/phreak/camilla.txt


----------



## kcvet (Jan 6, 2015)

Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against his former friend and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who had 'regular' orgies at his Caribbean compound that the former president visited multiple times

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ent-visited-multiple-times.html#ixzz3O4PBnaTA 

The former president was friends with Jeffrey Epstein, a financier who was arrested in 2008 for soliciting underage prostitutes
A new lawsuit has revealed how Clinton took multiple trips to Epstein's private island where he 'kept young women as sex slaves'
Clinton was also apparently friends with a woman who collected naked pictures of underage girls for Epstein to choose from
He hasn't cut ties with that woman, however, and invited her to Chelsea's wedding
Comes as friends now fear that if Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, all of their family's old scandals will be brought to the forefront
Epstein has a host of famous friends including Prince Andrew who stayed at his New York mansion AFTER his arrest


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 6, 2015)

I believe Ralphy was joking.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 6, 2015)

kcvet said:


> Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against his former friend and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who had 'regular' orgies at his Caribbean compound that the former president visited multiple times
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ent-visited-multiple-times.html#ixzz3O4PBnaTA
> 
> ...



Yeah... true or not... we can count on it.. lol!!


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 9, 2015)

Nancy Grace on the case!

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2015/01/06/prince-andrew-underage-sex-scandal-royals

Noted since famed lawyer Alan Dershowhitz was named in the suit there will be lawsuits, counter suits and more testimony/information coming out.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 9, 2015)

What I wanna know is HOW President Obama is involved..  He certainly has to be.... no?


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 9, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> What I wanna know is HOW President Obama is involved..  He certainly has to be.... no?



Of course it's all his fault, like everything else . . . .


----------



## mpd (Jan 10, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Besides that.... they're all German anyway



That's just on Mammies side. Daddies is Greek/Danish!


----------



## Laurie (Jan 11, 2015)

mpd said:


> That's just on Mammies side. Daddies is Greek/Danish!



But also a good bit of German.

His family name is Mountbatten, or, before political correctness was applied, Battenberg, traditional rulers of Hesse.

The English don't have much luck with native monarchs.

Even before the French Johnnie came over in 1066 there were sundry Scandinavians like Canute, and since then they've had Tudors from Wales, Stuarts from Scotland, a dip into the House of Orange in Holland a whole slew of Hanoverians, before ending up with the Saxe-Coburgs!


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 22, 2015)

The "prince" has of course denied the rumors. Buckingham Palace rejected a Fed Ex letter delivery requesting he talk to investigators. And this sex ring club what ever apparently had orgies.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...i-had-an-orgy-with-prince-andrew-8-girls.html

Either the plaintiffs/ex slaves are digging themselves the biggest perjury hole ever or a grave for this "prince".


----------



## Cookie (Jan 22, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> A claim is being made that he had sex with female minors in the past.  Surely you agree with me that this is outrageous and just another attempt to embarass the royal family...



This was in our papers weeks ago and surely no one could be so naive as to think that it is made up. The prince has been 'named' in a court case. As far as embarrassing the royal family, well, they have managed to do that very well themselves many times  And yes they will want to to hustle to hush this up, but it's too late for that now.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 22, 2015)

As far as I know the age of consent for females is still 16 in most jurisdictions.
"Underage" must in this case refer to the girl being less than voting age but the two don't relate.
As far as being a sex slave is concerned, slavery is unlawful at any age 
but it would need to be proved that the girl was being held against her will.
It should result in criminal charges being laid against one or more persons.

This is a civil suit seeking damages? 
Naming someone with a reputation to protect in a civil suit could be a ploy to get a pay off without ever going to court.

Guilty or otherwise, Prince Andrew is caught in a cleft stick on this one.


----------



## Cookie (Jan 22, 2015)

I'm not clear on age of consent in the states, must be 18 since 17 is considered a minor.  Nevertheless, Andrew has been caught 'with his pants down' so to speak and is considered reprehensible, his reputation is already shot as who is going to believe palace's/his denials.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 22, 2015)

Age of consent in the USA varies according to which state you are in:



> Each US state has its own age of consent. State laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16.[SUP][2][/SUP]
> 
> 
> age of consent 16 (32): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia
> ...



Jeffrey Epstein has already been established to be a pimp. The question is now whether Jane Doe - 3 was a prostitute or as she claims, "a sex slave". 
If she can establish that the latter is true then Prince Andrew's involvement with Epstein becomes more sinister.

It may be scandalous to attend a sex party but not necessarily illegal or criminal. 
To have sex with a woman (or anyone for that matter) without their freely given consent is a felony, even if you have paid for the privilege.
If she is under the age of consent, even with her agreement, it is still a felony.

Accusations of felonies must be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law, based on the evidence.
This is not what's happening here.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 22, 2015)

Royal Families, they are just people, and human.  Being in those positions doesn't guarantee anyone that they are going to be perfect.  I know I watch a lot of movies, but I can't help but wonder what it would be like to be forced into the "public" eye, I mean if you are born into Royalty, you basically lose your right to live a life "you would choose", I mean if it's different then being part of the head of your country.

I think it must be a very, hard life in ways.  I don't envy them.  I also believe that when your at the top, there's always someone trying to knock you down.


----------



## Cookie (Jan 22, 2015)

I agree, it must be hard to have your every move scrutinized. And the royals are far from perfect, with all the same human qualities as everyone else and the same human flaws.  I don't envy them either. 

It's hard for me to be very sympathetic though, I see that in return for giving up some of their privacy, they get to have incredible wealth and the best of everything the world has to offer - fame, homes, food, medical care, vacations, yachts, jewels, riches,... I could go on and on. It's the price they pay for being royalty - a tradeoff.  I think they've got a pretty good deal and they should stop whining about their lack of privacy. And if they misbehave, and it gets written about it in the paper and they are exposed and humiliated, then that is what they deserve.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 22, 2015)

It's hard for me to get down on them because they have not clue what it is to be in "others" shoes.  I do understand what you are saying, but at the same time, I'm torn because I cannot put myself in their shoes.  Although there is always right from wrong, as each person sees it.  No matter our "station" in life, there is still right and wrong.


----------



## Cookie (Jan 22, 2015)

Absolutely.  Its about ethics - whether it be in business or personal life. I think our expectations of them are higher.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 22, 2015)

Why? At the time he was divorced from his wife and was an international ambassador for UK business.
I'm not naïve enough to think that ****** favours aren't offered freely at that level by dodgey entrepreneurs.

Prince Andrew may or may not have done something immoral. I don't know at all but I don't hold him to any gold standard, any more than I do a million other men.

My husband, on the other hand, had better behave himself.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 22, 2015)

But when we are in a position that I would thing it would be important to set a good example for the people, that makes sense to me.  Sort of like a pastor, you tend to set them on a pededstal, well, I should speak for myself.  You are right though Dame that we need to remember they are human like I mentioned.  I admit to still being shocked when certain people are reported to have done unspeakable things.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 22, 2015)

His first mistake was having a friend like Jeffrey Epstein. 
That association alone has cost him his job.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 22, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> His first mistake was having a friend like Jeffrey Epstein.
> That association alone has cost him his job.



Pier pressure, picking the wrong friends, yep, did that a time or two, plus, I was probably someone else's "wrong friend" at times.  I don't know that guy, high-flying, rich & spoiled, jet-setter??


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 22, 2015)

Less spoiled than you might imagine. Being a potential heir to the throne puts a lot of limitations and a lot of high expectations on your shoulders.

He could, as someone pointed out recently, still end up King of England. He would be very aware of that.

If Charles were to die tomorrow, before his mother the Queen, then Andrew would become first in line to the throne.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 23, 2015)

The "under age" is relatively minor in this case.  She insists the sex was against her will.

That's rape, and, I understand, in the States that's 20 years to Life.


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 23, 2015)

Never in a zillion years will Andrew end up in court for this... whether he's guilty or not.. we all know this don't we?


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 23, 2015)

Let wait and see what Jeffery Epstein has to say before passing judgement about rape. 
Has he already been convicted, and if so, on what charges?

Answering my own questions http://www.smh.com.au/world/jeffrey-epstein-scandal--a-timeline-20150106-12ill9.html
Interesting reading about the plea deal

This is the crux of her claim



> *January 2015* – Speaking to the _Daily Mail_, Virginia Roberts says Epstein paid her £10,000 to have sex with Prince Andrew while she was still a minor.



Good pay for a sex slave?


----------



## Pam (Jan 23, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Less spoiled than you might imagine. Being a potential heir to the throne puts a lot of limitations and a lot of high expectations on your shoulders.
> 
> He could, as someone pointed out recently, still end up King of England. He would be very aware of that.
> 
> If Charles were to die tomorrow, before his mother the Queen, then Andrew would become first in line to the throne.



Just to clarify.... Andrew would not become first in line if Charles were to die. He's currently 5th in line to the throne. soon to be 6th once Kate has her second baby.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 23, 2015)

Thanks Pam, that is what I thought but someone said that if Elizabeth outlives Charles, her second son, Andrew, would become the new first in line.


----------



## Pam (Jan 23, 2015)

No, they've definitely got that wrong. 


_If Prince Charles died before The Queen then Prince William would  become heir to the throne. This would mean he would become the next King  after The Queen died. 

_
_It is not true  that Prince Andrew would become the next King because he is currently  5th in line to the throne. Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George  and Prince Harry would have to be King or die first._

http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/6-questions-about-the-future-of-the-british-monarchy-14748

http://www.britroyals.com/succession.htm

http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 23, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Less spoiled than you might imagine. Being a potential heir to the throne puts a lot of limitations and a lot of high expectations on your shoulders.
> 
> He could, as someone pointed out recently, still end up King of England. He would be very aware of that.
> 
> If Charles were to die tomorrow, before his mother the Queen, then Andrew would become first in line to the throne.



Oh, I meant the other guy you mentioned, Jeffery?  No, I don't think being a Prince would be easy at all  He's had responsibilities practically since day one.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 23, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> His first mistake was having a friend like Jeffrey Epstein.
> That association alone has cost him his job.



Oh kerrrrrrrrrrrrrap! I just read about that guy Eptein, a registered sex offender?  How on Earth did he get next to the Prince.  I guess I think they all live in the palace with guards around them all the time.  I know I'm pretty ignorant about this but I was thinking the Prince is still pretty young, and that Epstein is my age!  And he's also been charged or caught being a pimp.  Yeah, I see why the uproar now


----------



## Cookie (Jan 23, 2015)

I don't really understand why all the sympathy for Andrew?  He's of the privileged class, lived in a palace, with an education, family and advisors to steer him through life with untold advantages.  He has had some responsibilities and expectations?  Oh boo hoo. My heart does not bleed for him. We all have responsibilities and have had to work (many for pittance) and have suffered through terrible trials and tribulations. 

Now he's in trouble because he befriended a pedophile (I'm sure he knew what was what at the time) he participated in some wild parties (as they do, the bored rich)  and he made some bad decisions, so what. I don't care about him. Nothing will happen to him anyway. What about the girls?  As Jay Leno said the other day"  Why doesn't anyone believe women?


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 23, 2015)

Well, there is a lot of truth in that imo because I have to remember what I've been saying about "children" for years.  And that is that we all, at some point need to take responsibility for our own actions.  No matter what sort of upbringing we have, we can't blame others for our troubles or unhappiness, it get's to the point where "we" make the decisions.

I've watched those kids grow up over the years, heck, I didn't even realize how old Andrew is now, I was still seeing him and his brother walking along in their teens  But because he's had all those advantages, I don't envy him, or anyone that does have a lot.  IMO that can be as hard on a person growing up, as it is for a poor person.  Like being photographed his whole life, being made/expected to act a certain way.  But again, he grew up and now has to make his own decisions, take responsibility, or not.  I also know that when your "high up" in any country, sometimes things get buried or covered up to protect the person.


----------



## Cookie (Jan 23, 2015)

I don't think because he's privileged he didn't have a hard time with some things while growing up.  Everyone does, that's life. However, I don't think he deserves any extra pity because he's a royal and had to deal with the difficulties that went along with that title. He had to work, like everyone else on this planet.  The only difference is, if we commit a crime we would have to suffer the consequences, but if someone like him does, (and I'm not saying he did at this point, yet IMO he's lying), he is protected. I don't think envy has anything to do with it. The privileged class needs to be accountable, like everyone else.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 23, 2015)

I agree with what you are saying Cookie, but I think the reality is that even if he is guilty he probably wouldn't face charges.  Same thing in the US, it's not what you do it's who you know sometimes.  As far as sympathy or pity, that's just the way I am about some things, I feel sorry for folks "sometimes".  I don't disagree that they should face/take responsibility no matter who they are though.  Also, when people get away with things they've actually done wrong, I don't think anyone is doing them any favors.  I don't think anyone really gets away with anything.  OJ Simpson is just one example of that.


----------



## Cookie (Jan 23, 2015)

Right you are, Denise, and you are a kind hearted soul.  I sometimes feel sorry for some people who have done wrong too. I didn't feel outraged at all about the Clinton/Lewinsky situation.  As a matter of fact, I was and am more sympathetic with Monica Lewinsky because she had been so vilified by that scandal. But have no pity at all in this current situation because the nature of the issue is more abhorrent to me. And I know he won't face any charges either, he won't be impeached or fired from being a royal LOL


----------



## Laurie (Jan 23, 2015)

"No, they've definitely got that wrong. "

Afraid not.  The constitution, albeit unwritten, does not allow it. Succession always goes to the eldest son of the monarch.  If Charles pops it that's Andy, and if ever it came about HM, regardless of public support for William, would make that perfectly clear.  It's the same with this nonsense about the Queen, or Charles, abdicating.  Unlike some of the other Royal Houses, we have no mechanism for it, and the last time it happened it nearly finished the monarchy, in fact, many believe that it was only the war that cemented KGVI in place.

Charles is the Heir Apparent, William the Heir Presumptive (i.e.  "presuming" nothing changes.)

The Queen was only ever Heir Presumptive,  a son could have been born, however unlikely, at any time.

The law on primogeniture has now changed, but will not take effect until the next generation.


----------



## Pam (Jan 23, 2015)

According to the official website of the Royal Family, the order of succession is as I have stated. If Charles died without issue then, I agree, succession would go to Andrew but that is not the case.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 24, 2015)

*little black book*

The contents of Epstein's address book.

http://gawker.com/here-is-pedophile-billionaire-jeffrey-epsteins-little-b-1681383992

It just got a little harder to deny any "relationship" with Epstein. Also included are some flight logs to his estate.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 24, 2015)

I get the feeling that stuff/site is full of fake information.  I just didn't buy it.  I mean, when you go on a site that has some clout, you get a sense of what you are reading to be true, but with all the sleazy ads, on the sides this site doesn't seem in any way, professional. I mean all I have to go by is how I "felt" when I opened it, and knowing how easy it is to "create" pictures etc., it just left me wondering.

The other thing is why would these people be that stupid?  I can't believe they are that stupid, or in need of hiring someone for sex?  And what's up with the "black outs"?  If it is showing famous people's names, why not all the people's names?  I don't know, as usual I'm just probably confused by these things.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 24, 2015)

nwlady said:


> I get the feeling that stuff/site is full of fake information.  I just didn't buy it.  I mean, when you go on a site that has some clout, you get a sense of what you are reading to be true, but with all the sleazy ads, on the sides this site doesn't seem in any way, professional. I mean all I have to go by is how I "felt" when I opened it, and knowing how easy it is to "create" pictures etc., it just left me wondering.
> 
> The other thing is why would these people be that stupid?  I can't believe they are that stupid, or in need of hiring someone for sex?  And what's up with the "black outs"?  If it is showing famous people's names, why not all the people's names?  I don't know, as usual I'm just probably confused by these things.


 Gawker is gossipy and biased at times but they are like TMZ always able to find proof or they link another source/story. I think one of the NY papers actually found this and posted it. There are court documents ie public proceedings per say which is bringing a lot of this information to light. I think they are blacking out a lot of personal information to prevent harassment or crime. As far as everyone in that black book if they are not a public figure it would be in the posters best interest to black them out. Public figures have to tolerate more than a private figure simply because their lives are more public and they conducted the public's business directly or indirectly.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 24, 2015)

Ok, the black-out part makes sense, but that's evidence right, or supposedly.  I'm not saying it's not, but I thought evidence was kept in a "locked box".  How does a newspaper get photos of evidence?


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 24, 2015)

Remember several years ago, Fergie was caught on camera accepting money from someone in exchange for getting that person close access to prince Andrew? What was _that_ all about


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 24, 2015)

nwlady said:


> Ok, the black-out part makes sense, but that's evidence right, or supposedly.  I'm not saying it's not, but I thought evidence was kept in a "locked box".  How does a newspaper get photos of evidence?



Apparently this was from court documents.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nton-Tony-Blair-Mick-Jagger-Donald-Trump.html


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 24, 2015)

I don't know, but she was sure backing him 100% for being a humungusly, wonderful man, on the Today Show.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 24, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> Apparently this was from court documents.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nton-Tony-Blair-Mick-Jagger-Donald-Trump.html



I don't know WIT, this site doesn't look any more reliable then the other.  It looks like it's held together by paprazzi type ads, and ads and more ads.  I'd be more willing to see a well-established source online, that doesn't need ads like these.  Plus the fact, they evidently don't have a decent proofreader because I saw a lot of typos.  I'm just suspicious, I've built websites, and they are SO easy, you can copy and paste from anywhere you want, or create your own "official" looking info.  But maybe there is truth in what you've shown us.  Like I said, I'm just suspicious about websites


----------



## Laurie (Jan 24, 2015)

Pam said:


> According to the official website of the Royal Family, the order of succession is as I have stated. If Charles died without issue then, I agree, succession would go to Andrew but that is not the case.
> 
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx



Well unless they've changed the Constitution without telling us, they're wrong.

Leaving aside historical battles and murders, the crown always passes to the senior male relative of the deceased  monarch, whether that be the eldest son or a second cousin twice removed.  That's the law.

That very fact has led to some of the murders already referred to!

If it ever came to the crunch, regardless of what the Royal website says, there are sufficient people, like me , to ensure that a Constitutional Court met.

That would consist of the Lords Judicial, who can look for precedent as far back as Magna Carta,   most of the hereditary Lords Temporal, who can look back to 1066, and the Lords Spiritual, who can look back to Moses.

None of these are known for their willingness to embrace change!


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 24, 2015)

nwlady said:


> I don't know WIT, this site doesn't look any more reliable then the other.  It looks like it's held together by paprazzi type ads, and ads and more ads.  I'd be more willing to see a well-established source online, that doesn't need ads like these.  Plus the fact, they evidently don't have a decent proofreader because I saw a lot of typos.  I'm just suspicious, I've built websites, and they are SO easy, you can copy and paste from anywhere you want, or create your own "official" looking info.  But maybe there is truth in what you've shown us.  Like I said, I'm just suspicious about websites



You should be suspicious with any news source. I think NBC had reported the Paris gunmen caught or killed 2 days before they actually got them which goes back to their sources. I don't worry about who was photographed with who but one thing many of these gossip style websites do well is go through court documents. TMZ is the one who broke the NFL abuse scandal through obtained footage. Some of their actual investigative stuff beats the old letter networks.

But here there is already trial evidence from one Epstein's earlier trials. He's a registered sex offender in Florida. And take these documents for what they are-an address book or contact list. This only shows some kind of relationship wether it be casual or business. And if you look campaign lobbying websites which cite federal election commission documents Epstein contributed to Clinton through various entities. Also where are the denials. The only person so far is Alan Dershowitz who is fighting claims of sex rather than knowing Epstein.

Should add here are related documents which could be challenged and checked just by case/docket numbers.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1508099-rodriguez-fbi-affidavit.html


----------



## WhatInThe (Mar 6, 2015)

Revolting story of how the British government help cover up ****** abuse for decades. Heard the stories for years but his shows how the government acted like the Catholic Church during the priest abuse scandals. I'm surprised a political opponent in power couldn't have turned the tables on the status quo for their gain. 

This also show what the likes of Prince Andrew might very well have been exposed to/knew of giving him a sense of entitlement and false security.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/06/britain-s-horrific-vip-pedophile-cover-up.html


----------



## Laurie (Mar 6, 2015)

I haven't read such a farrago of speculation, rumour and half truths since the manifestos were published for our last elections.


"Great Britain’s notoriously tough libel laws insured that obviously he couldn’t repeat the allegations included in the Home Office papers that about 16 MPs and members of the House of Lords, and 30 high-profile figures from the Church of England, private schools, and big business, were members of, and advocates for, the Paedophile Information Exchange."

Yes our notoriously tough libel laws do insist that if you write it you'd better be able to prove it!

Incidentally, Great Britain does not have libel laws.  England and Scotland have entirely separate legislative and judicial systems.

That's why the UK government was so incensed when the Lockerbie bomber was released.  The Scottish justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, had no option under Scottish law, or he could have been imprisoned himself.


----------

