Forum menu
Surely Andrew could sell one of his cars and buy a terraced house in Burnley? Not seen that option floated in the media yet.
A cosy little end terrace in Rotherham?
Bizarrely, I think the one with the most insight is Harry.
Probably because he is from outside the same (very shallow) gene pool as the rest of them...
the brains in that outfit
There's more brains in a Tesco pork pie.
I guess its a low bar, but they are probably brighter than me and hopefully surrounded by brighter people. Either way its a good watch to see them squirm
I doubt it. Given that Charles and Diana were both as thick as they come then it’s hard to see how Billy can be anything other than stupid. His wife is clearly manipulative given the way she slept her way in.
In reality I don’t think much has changed. Andrew moves to a different mansion still living the life of Riley whilst just loosing some silly made up titles. Doolittle is scared that Andrew could bring down the family and all her efforts have fine to waste
In reality I don’t think much has changed. Andrew moves to a different mansion still living the life of Riley whilst just loosing some silly made up titles.
Heard on the car radio today that King Charles was going to give him up to £500,000 in moving costs and a yearly sum as well. On the one hand, it's kind of wise to keep Andrew close enough so that he doesn't go running off to the press or trying to get money from dodgy backers elsewhere that could come back to bite everyone.
On the other hand, it's also pretty obscene that an already wealthy guy born into total privilege should be funded with more money than most people see in half a lifetime of work.
However I think the "silly made up titles" thing is actually quite significant because once you strip those away, you lose the pedestal on which you stand. It's how the aristocracy remain aristocratic. Way back when, a bunch of folk created and gave themselves these titles and took some land and the peasants were told that they had to look up to them. And that tradition has continued through British society for centuries. It's all very class-led. And for one of the very upper class to be knocked back down to commoner status is like being exiled. You're not in the club anymore.
Surely Andrew could sell one of his cars and buy a terraced house in Burnley?
You can **** off with that idea, we've suffered enough.
I don't that Andrew will enjoy living at Sandringham permanently. I am not sure I would, however nice the accommodation. I have only visited King's Lynn once, we struggled to find somewhere for tea and cake. The nightlife is probably not his cup of tea ( or mine, for different reasons). I am fairly sure he will hate it, and that was the point of sending him there.
I don't that Andrew will enjoy living at Sandringham permanently. I am not sure I would, however nice the accommodation. I have only visited King's Lynn once, we struggled to find somewhere for tea and cake. The nightlife is probably not his cup of tea ( or mine, for different reasons). I am fairly sure he will hate it, and that was the point of sending him there.
I can recommend the Wetherspoons in King's Lynn, The Globe Hotel, it's a beautiful old building.
Not sure if the Duke of Nonce will like it though?
Kings Lynn is where Revolution, with nastassja Kinski, al pacino and eurythmics woman, about the american civil war, independence from england. My part was dancing on the table, holding a beer while shouting Kill the king!
The locals wear Tshirts saying"Keep Norfolk tidy, send a londoner home", do you think theyll get the message?
I think he should rebrand himself as "The Andrew formally known as Prince"......
We can now watch what happens if the king dies before his younger brother. I suspect the new king will ship him off to USA to answer for his misdemeanors and expect him to find his own place to live that isn't royalty adjacent.
This is on the money in today’s Times…
^^ Lol 😁
Spent too much time in the car listening to R4 this afternoon....speculation that Charlie didn't want to go to parliament to change the succession because he didn't want the deep dive into royal finances that would ensue.
That's basically it. What little we do know suggests they make millions sitting on their arses watching the interest roll in.
My question is - why should he be allowed to make that decision, surely that is a call that the govt should make, and if they're hiding something (if...as if) it should be brought into the light....
That's the beauty of having unelected rulers of any degree of influence. At some point they have powers that work without the elected leaders and these powers can be used to hush stuff up. It's why any sensible country lopped the heads off of their hereditary, unelected, undeserving overlords at some point and never looked back.
can recommend the Wetherspoons in King's Lynn, The Globe Hotel, it's a beautiful old building.
Not sure if the Duke of Nonce will like it though
I heard that he likes to have a Pizza Hut nearby so he can take the family out for a meal occasionally
I remember that the royal family changed their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in 1917 due to anti German sentiment. King George V chose Windsor as it was their home. With some luck Andrew will change his name to Wormwood Scrubs.
Grubby little shits the lot of them.
THat hardly makes him unique in the family. What has Charles done for bags of cash and various other gifts? I would be surprised if there is a member of the rf who hasn’t done this.
I heard that he likes to have a Pizza Hut nearby so he can take the family out for a meal occasionally
No wonder they are having to shut so many branches, always taking the hit for Pizza Express. 🤣
I don't think it will be Wormwood Scrubs - the Duchy of Cornwall has a large empty and secure property on Dartmoor he could move into.
Very much so. Look at how well they covered up Charles relationship with Jimmy Saville
Lots of people had a ‘relationship’ with Saville, he was all over the media, constantly appearing in hospitals and doing fund raisers, etc. it would be difficult to find someone in those sort of circumstances who didn’t have a relationship with him, of one sort or other. How long was it, exactly, before it started to become apparent what Saville had been up to? I can remember listening to him on BBC radio around 1971/2 doing broadcasts from Germany, and hearing Tangerine Dream for the first time! I caught the train down to Bristol and bought their album ‘Ziet’, which I still have.
Remember, it was after he died in 2011 that word started to spread about unsavoury things he got up to, so that’s around 40 years without anyone saying anything at all, so that’s rather disingenuous to talk about a coverup of any relationship with Charles, because Saville had connections with probably hundreds of people all over the country, so any ‘coverup’ is going to be pretty vast, by comparison with Epstein’s cozy little coven.
so that’s around 40 years without anyone saying anything at all
Not true. 40 years before people were listened to, perhaps.
Very much so. Look at how well they covered up Charles relationship with Jimmy Saville
Remember, it was after he died in 2011 that word started to spread about unsavoury things he got up to, so that’s around 40 years without anyone saying anything at all, so that’s rather disingenuous to talk about a coverup of any relationship with Charles, because Saville had connections with probably hundreds of people all over the country, so any ‘coverup’ is going to be pretty vast, by comparison with Epstein’s cozy little coven.
Irvine Welsh wrote a short story in 1996 that had a character Fred Royle, a kids TV presenter who hid his pedophillic behaviour behind a charitable personna. He had free run of hospitals as he raised money for new wings etc.
John Lydon made allegations against Saville in 1978.
The rumours about Saville have been round for years.
I'm certainly not on Andrew's side but up to now afaik he's actually not been found guilty of anything yet. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I'm certainly not on Andrew's side but up to now afaik he's actually not been found guilty of anything yet. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
As it seems impossible to bring him to justice, it's a bit of a moot point.
What did his mother pay someone he had never met £12 million?
so that’s around 40 years without anyone saying anything at all
Not true. 40 years before people were listened to, perhaps.
Yup, he had a well-established reputation for being a dirty old man who liked young girls long before he died.
Same as Mohammed al Fayed.
These people were considered too well connected or too wealthy. Hopefully that is no longer the case although I am massively disappointed that I am not hearing of any of those who procured young girls for Mohammed al Fayed being prosecuted. Unlike Mohammed al Fayed Jimmy Savile simply helped himself without really involving others apart from relying on their silence.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Peeps are either innocent or guilty, from the moment an alleged offence is committed. A fuller statement of "innocent. until proven guilty" is "the criminal law treats all defendants as if they were innocent until they are proven (by a criminal court) to be guilty". If you are not a criminal court, you are free to make your own mind up as to a person's guilt or innocence based on the evidence available to you according to whatever standard of proof you choose*.
A good example of this was in 1997 when the people of Tatton in Cheshire booted out the odious Neil Hamilton as MP on account of his slimy behaviour, although he hadn't been prosecuted or disciplined for anything. He tried the "innocent until proven guilty" argument, and it didn't help him much. The people of Tatton had a decision to make about Hamilton's character on election day and did so, returning the broadcaster Martin Bell who ran on an anti-sleaze ticket.
So in Andrew's case, his maj. clearly thought action was needed, and couldn't wait for a criminal trial that might never take place anyhow (as @gobuchul points out above).
And of course in both examples, the matter to be decided isn't exactly the same as the one facing a criminal court anyway.
*If you are a public body exercising a judicial function, you must apply principles of fairness and your decision will be judicially reviewable. Other legal frameworks, for example employment law, might also require you to adopt quasi-judicial procedures and considerations.
IAL.
so that’s around 40 years without anyone saying anything at all
Is this the moment we link to John Lydon's 1978 interview where he mention's Saville and how 'we' are not meant to talk about what he gets up to?
It's going off track a bit, but maybe part of the same problem....Saville was clearly known to be a wrongun by people in the right places who could have done something about it - If even Jonny Rotten knew it was a problem but not something you were allowed to talk about. Andrew could arguably be put in the same bracket - not that his crimes necessarily stack up quite the same horrific level but that society's ability to show excessive deference and turn a cheek let him think it was ok. In Lydon's case, him bringing up Saville on live radio got the Sex Pistols banned from the BBC. I'd imagine similar would be the fait if you publicly dissed Andrew.
There was a interesting podcast that popped up the other day about a former Royalty and Specialist Protection officer talking about Andrew.
Unsure on his credibility though. He was convicted of defrauding his colleagues to the tune of £3M. Paul Page is his name.
There was a interesting podcast that popped up the other day about a former Royalty and Specialist Protection officer talking about Andrew.
Unsure on his credibility though. He was convicted of defrauding his colleagues to the tune of £3M. Paul Page is his name.
Ah, I hadn't heard of the fraud. I have seen a YouTube interview with him where he claims he left the Met because it was too woke. Which did cause me to treat what he said with some scepticism.
Also regarding the odious Neil Hamilton (my post above), I have just remembered that his sleaze involved receiving money and benefits in kind (not that kind, he always appeared to be almost creepily uxorious) from that star of this very thread, Mohamed Al-Fayed.
Irvine Welsh wrote a short story in 1996 that had a character Fred Royle, a kids TV presenter who hid his pedophillic behaviour behind a charitable personna. He had free run of hospitals as he raised money for new wings etc.
John Lydon made allegations against Saville in 1978.
The rumours about Saville have been round for years.
There's also the supposed unaired parts of the episode of Have I Got News For You he appeared on. Even if the alleged transcript didn't actually happen, it was made up long before he died, and was very clear about the allegations and rumours about him
I'm certainly not on Andrew's side but up to now afaik he's actually not been found guilty of anything yet. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
There’s enough evidence that he’s been lying about it though. And we’re not talking about sending him to prison (yet), which does require a higher standard of proof.
Both Saville and Andy are easily disliked characters. Usefully so. They tend to distract and concentrate anger when entitled abuse of wealth, notoriety and power seem pretty much endemic amongst those with wealth, notoriety and power.
In the case of Saville the BBC management and hospital managers were playing pretty much the same role as Epstein, whilst the police had been bought off.
In the case of Andy the police officer quoted above was complicit in young women he thought to be escorts being allowed into the place without their names being recorded. The police officer denouncing Andy was complicit in an illegal traffic of prostitutes.
The people making up the institutions are IMO guiltier than either Andy or Saville, they were the ones running the sweet shop.
Andy is allegedly making demands before moving to Sandringham, like having staff, including a butler, free run of the place, etc.
I’d be hauling his bags, packed or not, out to the front of the house, chucking him in the car and waving bye bye, telling him not to let the door hit him on the ass on the way out. If he’s not careful, when William takes over he’s gonna find himself living in a bothy on a moor somewhere. Pompous asshole.
If I were Charles I'd make my offer more attractive than going to the press with 65 years of dirt on the royal family.
In the case of Andy the police officer quoted above was complicit in young women he thought to be escorts being allowed into the place without their names being recorded. The police officer denouncing Andy was complicit in an illegal traffic of prostitutes.
And this is the bit I have never, ever, understood.
If someone accused me of a crime and the police asked me where I was on, say, 3 Nov 1992, I wouldn't have a clue. But surely in the case of Andrew, there are actual police records of his movement. They must know when he travelled to Tramp nightclub, Pizza Express Woking, Epstein Island..... Why is there not a more vocal call for Police records to be released or, at the very least, submitted as evidence?
Why is there not a more vocal call for Police records to be released or, at the very least, submitted as evidence?
Perhaps because there isn't a case against Andy at the moment and even the victim he paid off is dead. The police have absolutely no interest in releasing information that shows they aided and abetted a royal to indulge in illegal activity. Officers swear an oath of allegiance to the King/Queen even if their first responsibility is to the government. Unless Keir Starmer with the support of parliament demands a release of information nothing will be released. It's more likely to get hit with a 50-year-release official secrets order. Institutions protect themselves first.
The UK is no better than the US where it would take Trump to get the Epstein files released.
But surely in the case of Andrew, there are actual police records of his movement
I doubt they keep them for that long.
The police are in an odd position here since the role of bodyguard does conflict with the normal police role. To take a more benign example of a teenager being a teenager and engaging in some underage drinking etc. If the bodyguard acted as a cop then the teenager would be incentivised to try and sneak off hence undermining the bodyguard bit at the point where they are probably most needed.
I suspect that there isn't enough evidence to convict Windsor, but at the same time there's so much dirt that would come out, and the fact that he's too thick to take advice, means that any court appearance would be an absolute car crash for the royal family, and £14m was the price that they had to pay to buy their way out of it.
The fact that he swore blind that he never met her and implies that the photo is faked, rather than saying that it looks like he met her, but unfortunately he doesn't remember as he meets an awful lot of people speaks volumes for his lack of insight and intelligence.
and the fact that he's too thick to take advice,
unfortunately he doesn't remember as he meets an awful lot of people speaks volumes for his lack of insight and intelligence.
I only know what you know but, I think I'd have gone with 'arrogant' rather than 'thick.' People like him - again, look at Savile - believe they're untouchable. And sadly they're usually right.
I suspect in reality Andrew also knows where the rest of the family dirt is hidden. Im sure, given Charles reputation, he has plenty of dubious activities that could bring down the family. I suspect her maj knew about it all and helped cover it all up. She clearly was happy with Charles affair, Im sure she knew about the bags of cash from the Middle Eastern despots she called friends because they like race horses.
I only know what you know but, I think I'd have gone with 'arrogant' rather than 'thick.'
Everything I have read about him suggests both are correct.
I only know what you know but, I think I'd have gone with 'arrogant' rather than 'thick.' People like him - again, look at Savile - believe they're untouchable. And sadly they're usually right.
I think theres a really important key difference between the likes of Saville and the likes of Prince Andrew. Saville was predatory whereas it seems Andrew let things happen to him. He believed, very simplistically his wealth and status made him irresistible to women. Anywhere someone like him would travel agencies/corporations/governments either seeking influence or compromat would put women in front of them. Unlike others in that situation Andrew was completely unsuspicious of that - he seemed to genuinely think that he was naturally attractive to the women who'd spontaneously appear anywhere he travelled.
While his relationship with Epstein is described as a 'friendship' what Epstein sought, even in friendship, was power over people. It may well be they genuinely liked each other and its a recurrent theme in any of the correspandance that comes to light with others in his orbit that they all describe him as a really good friend. (In a world of power and money where people are surrounded by entourages that serve to cut people off from personal contact apparently Epstein would always answer the phone if you called, there were no layers of PAs and management to get through). But what he also did was create situations that were compromising and document them. Whether that was just an extension of his abusive mentality - that he liked the power he held over people and the discomfort it caused them - or an insurance policy, letting powerful and influential people know they would be tainted if Epstein himself ever came under an scrutiny. Maybe it was an insecurity he had that he felt that if he didn't entrap people they'd leave him
So in a situation like the one with Guiffre - Epstein put Guiffre in front of Andrew - she was sent rather than requested. And Andrew would imagine like he always did that pretty young women would appear in his life. But it was a gift with a price attached because what Epstein also did was make sure there was a picture - and it would have been part of his instruction to Guiffre to ensure that there was.
Similarly when Andrew later met for his 'calling off their friendship' walk in the park - Theres a picture.
So theres something much more complex going on with Andy - he's a perpetrator of one thing, a victim of another and amongst it all too thick to be able to articulate any of it - and too thick to recognise that is the case too. The rod he's made for his own back is that he is 'unbelievable' so he's unable now to ever be able to explain what really happened and he's also open to any accusation anyone cares to make.
I think he loses his “victim” status the moment he was caught out lying and refused to retract/apologise.