Poor baby - run home to mummy!

Whatever my children may do I will still love them.

I would want mine to face the consequences of their actions, however much I love them.
I'd find them easier to love if they did.

He’s a disgusting old pervert, OP has a point.

AmberSpyglass

He’s a disgusting old pervert, OP has a point.

Yup, and was particularly dangerous because of the elevated social position he had.

Sadly, it seems to be more acceptable to the Queen to have sex with a trafficked woman than to point out a racist comment made by a member of the royal family. While I am not a royalist, I did have some respect for QE, but her position on things of late does show her as flawed. Of course, her age and her recent bereavement need to be taken into consideration.

He hasn't been convicted of having "sex with a trafficked woman" and as far as I'm aware, the claim that a member of the RF made a racist comment is yet to be substantiated.

With so much 'fake news' during that so called interview, it's understandable that the validity of that particular one is questioned.

All the Queens children and grandchildren visit Balmoral
in August.

What puzzles me about the posts on this subject is that since we all agree that no one is above the law and all are equal in law, the story boils down to 'man alleged to have had sex with 17-yr-old in the US'. What is so newsworthy about that?

What is so newsworthy about that?

That would be a crime.
The 17-year old may have been trafficked.
He denied it on TV
He won't voluntarily discuss it with the relevant authorities.
His mum is one of the most powerful women in the world.

PA is very fortunate that a few million paid by mummy will get him out of this mess so I doubt if it will ever go to court. We are not all so fortunate.

The republicans on this thread have as a general rule been so unpleasant in their posts, denying members of the RF even their common humanity, that they have moved me from a position of profound indifference firmly into the monarchy camp. Was that their intention, because it was specifically their posts that did it?

MOnica the RF are not human , they don’t have any emotions because they have wealth.

they bleed liquid gold not blood. They don’t experience love, fear, sadness, grief.

I'm a republican. I've tried never to make judgements about Andrew's guilt and I've never denied anybody's humanity. A couple of people have been very vocal in what they think.

So just because you disagree very strongly with what some posters say and they happen to be Republican, please don't tar us all with the same brush and don't use that as an excuse for having Royalist sympathies.

People on here call Johnson all the names under the sun, but it doesn't make me want to vote Tory.

I do not need excuses for any decisions I reach, but I can only judge Republicans and their cause by what I have read on this and other threads on GN. Previously it was not a subject that particularly exercised my mind.

I would not now want to support the Republican cause because I can only judge its supporters by what I read on GN and what they write is nasty and unpleasant. and I would not want to seek the company of those who write the that kind of post. it is quite possible to oppose an idea, or political party without being gratuitiously offensive.

It is indeed possible to support an idea without being gratuitously offensive, I agree.

Apologies for repeating myself, but I try never to be gratuitously offensive. But to decide not to support republicanism because there are a few vocal people who are nasty about the RF is missing the point.

I'm a vegetarian, I don't decide not to follow it because of the extreme views of some activists. I'm a supporter of independence for Scotland; I don't give that up because of the extremists we saw on the border at the start of the pandemic.

Surely its better to look at the actual arguments pro and con rather than base it on the views of people you think are extreme?

Um… royalists have written rather unpleasant things about some members of the family too?!

I was sad to read your post Annie. You are saying that anyone who has wealth doesn’t have emotions. That really was gratuitously offensive, to borrow MOnica’s words, and not only to the RF. Being in the public eye, the RF have been brought up not to wear their hearts on their sleeves, but I don’t doubt that for instance HM loved and grieved the loss of her husband, William’s marriage is happy and his children are much loved, and he and his brother grieved and still grieve the loss of their mother. Prince Charles clearly showed his emotion following the death of his father, and his marriage to Camilla is obviously a love match, likewise Edward and Sophie’s marriage. I could go on. The monarchy has brought stability to this country for the whole of our lifetimes and that is something I for one am grateful for.

How easily online posts can be misunderstood....

andrew was already staying out of public view and i think it was good that he has stayed by the queens side as she grieved for her husband

Alegrias1

How easily online posts can be misunderstood....

So true !

Germansheperdsmum. You misunderstood my post .

I was referring to the posts which keep bringing the wealth of
the RF into discussions.

She was being sarcastic Germansheohersmum

I must be having a particularly thick day as I really don’t know what I have misunderstood.
The RF are not human.
They don’t have any emotions because they have wealth.
They bleed liquid gold not blood.
They don’t experience love, fear, sadness, grief.
Which statement have I misunderstood?

So sorry Germansherperdsmum. I don’t think you have read
the many, many threads on the RF, I understand why you thought that posts was my views on the RF.

Lucca got it ?

GermanShepherds Mum

Annie was saying that it’s Republicans who think that the RF aren’t ‘real human beings’ with feelings etc.
Those aren’t Annies own opinions, like others have said - it’s sarcasm.
Annie is definitely a proud monarchist, I hope she doesn’t mind me saying that!

Cross post!