Empathy for Our Queen? ( As a Mother)

Fortunately in the U.K. a person is innocent until proven guilty by a judge & jury, not by the media & internet trolls. Our queen is a lovely lady who loves her children & am sure she is distressed at this furore.

Suppose some mothers find it easy to shun their child whilst some mothers stand by their child without approving of their actions.

We are talking about HM not any mother supporting PA in public.

Thing is, if it did turn out Andrew was using Epstein's services and not just being his friend, and he was an ordinary person, that would be the end of the Queen's big family xmases unless she did shun him, cos the social services would probably make that a condition of her having her great grandchildren there. I am not alleging anything you understand, just aware that there are enquiries yet to be undergone. What the real point I am making is, many mothers are forced to choose between some of their children and others for legal reasons. But if the worst comes to the worst she might have to adjust her position or herself bow out of public life.

And you know how annie that some mothers find it easy to shun their children?

I have a sympathy for the Queen.We can't control what our adult children do.However at the present time I have more sympathy for Charles.DH has done some voluntary work with the Princes Trust and my respect for the issues Charles has campaigned for over the years has grown.Yes his interview at the time of his estrangement from Diana did him no favours but his 'crime' really was to be in love with the wrong woman as far as the firm was concerned.And I always found Diana to be rather disingenuous regarding the way she used the press when it suited her.In fairness to her the marriage was a disaster in the making,and she was far too young.
Regardless of how truly guilty Andrew is I think he should retire completely,and there should be a new slimmed down monarchy with Charles taking over before he's much older .I'd rather that than a republic with goodness knows who eg .a Tony Blair or Boris type in the palace and as our figurehead.

But ReadyMeals he hasn’t been charged with anything, so unfair to slip in ‘if’ and toddlers , more than unfair, distateful

Washerwomsn what was wrong with the interview Charles gave ? He was honest ,

Mothers can’t conttol their adult children but if the mother is HM she needs to know the company he’s keeping and not support him in public

Annie, just an illustration of the sort of ways some mothers might have to sideline a child. I doubt if he will be charged with anything.

Yes Annie.I didn't express that too well.When I said did him no favours it's because I seem to remember he was rather slated at the time for admitting to adultery.Personally I always felt like you he was being honest.

Thank you Washerwomsn yes he said he did have a relationship with Camilla after his marriage had broken down, so for me he was being honest , he didn’t lay blame on his wife , more than can be said for her. He could have avoided the question or brought up her problems, he has never done this.

Don’t bother sending him to the outer Hebrides I go there on holiday !

How do you know he was being honest? Everybody was aware he'd had a relationship with Camilla: while they were both single; while she was married and he was single and while he was still married to Diana, so he could hardly deny that.

He said his relationship with Camilla only resumed after his marriage to Diana had broken down - but as Mandy-Rice Davies once famously said "He would [say that], wouldn't he"

I believe Charles temporarily stopped having sex with Camilla for a few years when he was first married, but the emotional bond between them continued. I believe that for the average woman, it's the emotional bond with another woman that hurts more than a loveless one-night fling. The fact that Charles was still more interested in confiding in Camilla than he was with Diana. To Diana, and to most of the women readers, he was betraying her. But the average man only thinks of it as being unfaithful if he's actually having sex with a person. So in Charles' mind he was truthful when he said he was faithful to Diana "until the marriage had broken down"

I read yesterday that HM is going to retire in 18 months at the age of 95y (as Philip DoE did) and make Charles Prince Regent. She can stay in her slippers all day at Sandringham if she chooses!

The debacle with Andrew just gets worse.

Poor Queen as a mother indeed.

Urmstongran I tried looking for verification of this yesterday, and could only find it reported in an Australian newspaper from a “source close to the Palace”

It wasn’t just a bond with Camilla. She was part of a group of close friends. Anne had a relationship with Andrew Parker Bowles, before they married .

The Windsors keep their close friends because they trust them. Charles friends are ‘country’, horses, fishing, shooting,
Diana was in no way ‘country’, she said she was but it wasn’t so. They had seperate ‘circles ‘.

When they divorced he had Tiggy as a companion for his sons, Tiggy’s mother was lady in waiting to Anne. Diana was so angry, even accused Tiggy of having an affair with Charles and having an abortion.

The boys spent a lot of time in Wales with Tiggy on her parents estate. They are still very close to her.

Perhaps this explains why Harry seems to do everything to please Megan, he is country. Or was country, no way is Megan
country.

He hasn't been proven guilty yet and I have doubts about the girl in question, what are her motives? The Queens mantra of 'Never complain, never explain' has stood the monarchy in good stead for many years. All families have their issues it is just that theirs is in the public spotlight. The Queen is said to be retiring in 18 months, I am not surprised!

Shropshirelass, I usually react the same as you to these things, but there are some slightly different factors in this case that have come to light. Firstly, photographic evidence in a photo that has not shown signs of faking to any expert so far, shows that Andrew was in fact in the same location as this person when she was a young girl. Innocent enough looking photo, true, and he might not be able to remember everyone he's ever met. Secondly, photographs show that Andrew's memory has let him down over a) whether he could sweat around that time in his life, b) whether he showed affection in public (he's shown in intimate clinches with women at parties, and c) whether he was a party goer and d) that they had a rule that either he or Sarah was always with the girls at any time - in fact when the girls were 10 and 12 both parents were away from home at one time. None of these things is bad in itself but it does show that there were many inaccuracies in his account given to Maitlis.

Wrt Giuffre herself, from what I have read it seems she was approached for evidence, as a person identified as being connected with Epstein, rather than putting herself forward. The part of her evidence that was struck out was not due to being false but because naming Prince Andrew as a party was seen as not directly relevant to the case against Epstein.

I too have doubts about the woman, she was with Epstein for several years, must have met many men who were in positions of power and or wealth.

Why is she and her lawyer asking Andrew to go to America when surely there are far more powerful men involved than Andrew.

Corroborative evidence? I guess the girls who were groomed underage want to sue Epstein's estate. That's fairly normal in the USA.

I don't know that Andrew is the only person they want questioned but I expect the press in the UK are focussing more on him as it's likely to be more interested to us

Yes they do, but why is one man so needed by them, because
of one photograph?

Well Queenie managed to ignore her husbands indiscretions over the years so I can't see her son's being that much of a problem. And there is a long history of family debauchary. Of course the media isn't as cooperative as it used to be and may not help out. Still I'm sure there are back-room deals that can be done.