Oops! The Prince formerly known as Duke drops another clanger!

ferry, you say “contender for scandal involving the royal family” , yes Andrew but his sister, his brothers, his in-laws, nieces and nephews are involved ?

As far as the outside world is concerned, this is a scandal involving the Royal Family.

It involves the son of a monarch.

It involves a late monarch because it has been mooted that she paid at least some of the massive settlement to Giuffre as well as being instrumental in the "banishment" of Andrew following the Newsnight interview.

It involves our current King and the Prince of Wales as they are seen as being the drivers of any sanctions handed out to Prince Andrew.

It involves 2 royal princesses, daughters of a royal prince, who may well have to face some financial scrutiny.

It involves the ex-wife of Prince Andrew, mother to 2 royal princesses.

Sadly, by implication and association, it is a scandal involving the Royal Family.

Thank you ferry, not all families are being judged only one family ! “Sins Of The Fathers”

Many are solid evidence backed claims and allegations so not all of them then, but presumably all claims and allegations will be regarded by some as being the gospel truth .

I haven't read these books and wont be doing so, and this is in no way a defence of PA and/or the Royal family but it bothers me just what is being alleged/claimed. For example, some comment on the internet suggests Prince Andrew was sexually active from 11 years of age ....I don't know if that's remotely true. But it's 'out there isn't it' and because of everything else that's being alleged/claimed it must be/probably is true.

This then becomes it wasn't Prince Phillip it was the father of one of PA's friends who took both boys. The source of this 'information' is Lownie's book.

Is 'Entitled' the book referred too here, the one well researched and evidenced by a historian, if so where is the evidence?

I totally agree Doodledog that we shouldn't have to rely on reading books like that to learn about criminal cases and we should also differentiate between what are criminal cases and what's being alleged or claimed to be.

None of what's being discussed with regard to PA is about a criminal case. The definition being a case that comes to court, after a decision made by usually the Crown Prosecution Service, to prosecute someone for an alleged crime.

An alleged crime because even at the point where something becomes a criminal case it remains an allegation until proved otherwise in a court of law.

Will PA's actions bring down the Royal Family? Even if they're all true I hope not but before we consider whether or not they should, shouldn't we wait until these allegations and claims are verified at least beyond reasonable doubt.

I think whenever there is a high profile case, the spotlight inevitably falls on the family and friends of the person involved. Look at the Southport murderer, Axel Rudekabana - when his case was in the headlines, many questions were asked about his parents - 'how could they not have known' and so on.
Similarly with Ian Watkins - following his recent death in prison, questions resurfaced about how his family - and his bandmates - could not have known, or at least suspected, about his heinous crimes.

Apparently Andrew has agreed to vacate Royal Lodge providing he can have Frogmore cottage for himself and Adelaide Cottage for Fergie 🤔

Will they both pay market rent?

merlotgran

Apparently Andrew has agreed to vacate Royal Lodge providing he can have Frogmore cottage for himself and Adelaide Cottage for Fergie 🤔

Will they both pay market rent?

He seems to have an innate inability to read the room.

Coupled with being completely impervious to public feeling surrounding his behaviour, he is doing a good job at living up to his rather unsavoury and unflattering reputation.

He's a grown man who should be taking responsibility for his actions, and I don't really see why he should be offered any Crown property given the mess he's caused. But I see even less reason why the Crown should be responsible for his rather duplicitous ex-wife.

Smileless My main concern is that this has not (yet) become a criminal case. I understand discomfort at people discussing things that remain unproven- innocent until proven guilty etc. But (and in this case it is a HUGE ‘but’) it sometimes takes grumbles and pressure building from public opinion to force accountability.

People complained when there was ‘gossip’ about Schofield and Brand. There was a lot of talk about Savile that was squashed as he hadn’t been charged with anything. Isn’t it the case that we should be looking at why high profile people manage to avoid charges, rather than moralising about people speaking out?

It’s tricky, I realise, as for ‘ordinary people’ it can be life-ruining to have malicious gossip going round with no recourse to law. I don’t diminish that in any way. But ‘celebrities’ can sue for slander/libel if they are defamed. The fact that doing so would put their affairs under scrutiny must surely be why so few do? Brand was known to be litigious, which at least partly explains why it took so long for him to be unmasked (and he is still not in prison 🙄). Savile was dead before his crimes were acknowledged, as he was able to exert pressure on the police and others in positions of power.

It is well known that at least one ‘national treasure’ has a string of crimes that will not come to light until after his death, as expensive lawyers are preventing public discussion.

There is one law for the powerful and another for the rest of us, and that is as much of a scandal as the abuse of vulnerable women such as Virginia Giuffre.

*Doodledog” genuine question,has Russel Brand been found guilty of rape?

Phillip Schofield hadn’t committed a crime he didn’t want his homosexuality made public

Saville, seems protected by BBC, and many,many who came forward after his death and gave interviews to the press, yes the press who didn’t know a thing until his death ,

RB has not yet come to court. If not for his ‘celebrity’ status he would have been tried long before now.

I couldn’t possibly comment on Schofield’s motives for wanting to hide his relationship with a much younger man whom he first met when the man was a child at a drama school with which Schofield was involved, and who went on to replace another young man as a runner on Schofield’s show where he was given the sorts of privileges usually reserved for the stars - making the relationship very unequal. Maybe he was hiding his sexuality (fair enough - nobody’s business but his) or maybe not.

The press didn’t know a thing about Savile? Are you serious? Again, I would like to see the same level of evidence that they didn’t know what was happening as is required to show that they did.

I do remember very clearly the attempts to stop people talking about Huw Edwards and the excusing of his behaviour. Sometimes, when red flags are waving, it is useful to point them out.

Maremia

Allira, I did also wonder if Maxwell had been an abused child. She was apparently her father's favourite.
Not and never could be an excuse for her own actions, but could explain their origin.

A strange relationship, I think Maremia because she was ignored for the first few years of her life. Her older brother was killed in an accident at the time her mother was giving birth to her, a dreadful shock for them all but especially her poor mother.

Smileless2012

^Many are solid evidence backed claims and allegations^ so not all of them then, but presumably all claims and allegations will be regarded by some as being the gospel truth .

I haven't read these books and wont be doing so, and this is in no way a defence of PA and/or the Royal family but it bothers me just what is being alleged/claimed. For example, some comment on the internet suggests Prince Andrew was sexually active from 11 years of age ....I don't know if that's remotely true. But it's 'out there isn't it' and because of everything else that's being alleged/claimed it must be/probably is true.

This then becomes it wasn't Prince Phillip it was the father of one of PA's friends who took both boys. The source of this 'information' is Lownie's book.

Is 'Entitled' the book referred too here, the one well researched and evidenced by a historian, if so where is the evidence?

I totally agree Doodledog that we shouldn't have to rely on reading books like that to learn about criminal cases and we should also differentiate between what are criminal cases and what's being alleged or claimed to be.

None of what's being discussed with regard to PA is about a criminal case. The definition being a case that comes to court, after a decision made by usually the Crown Prosecution Service, to prosecute someone for an alleged crime.

An alleged crime because even at the point where something becomes a criminal case it remains an allegation until proved otherwise in a court of law.

Will PA's actions bring down the Royal Family? Even if they're all true I hope not but before we consider whether or not they should, shouldn't we wait until these allegations and claims are verified at least beyond reasonable doubt.

Entitled is the book. The evidence is 59 pages of footnotes from many sources. Obviously you have to read and evaluate them to see if you accept the provenance and accuracy of these sources.

Doodledog
1. Russell Brand is guilty in your opinion,I haven’t the foggiest

2. Schofield judged and found guilty without being tried in a court of law, I don’t know why he kept his homosexuality private you seem to believe it was he had sex with minor?

3. Press didn’t know a thing about Saville? apologies no not serious, sarcasm.

The press chooses guilt or innocence, God help the King

Allira Mon 27-Oct-25 10:42:31
Maremia
Allira, I did also wonder if Maxwell had been an abused child. She was apparently her father's favourite.
Not and never could be an excuse for her own actions, but could explain their origin.
A strange relationship, I think Maremia because she was ignored for the first few years of her life. Her older brother was killed in an accident at the time her mother was giving birth to her, a dreadful shock for them all but especially her poor mother.

Why only her mother , not both parents?

Why only her mother , not both parents?
Because her mother was in the process of giving birth to her when it happened. The shock must have been enormous, perhaps a reason to reject that baby.

Her father? Well, who knows what he felt about anything?
He had no qualms about ripping off employees by stealing their pensions for a start.

Thank you for your response Doodledog.

You referred to Philip Schofield and as Annie has correctly pointed out, he hadn't committed a crime. The young man in question defended him and the allegations that ruined his career and impacted on his life, were made by the young man's mother who he was estranged from, and it wasn't just that specific allegation that destroyed him.

The 'knives' were literally out for him with co workers, one in particular who'd claimed to be his friend, making all kinds of claims and allegations. It wasn't just that relationship that he was tried and convicted for, there was a 'pile on' and a trial by media.

Posts on this thread aren't just about PA's alleged contact with VG. There's criticism of all aspects of his life, his ex wife and even his daughters who appear to be being castigated because of the family they were born into, and the 'benefits' that have come their way.

^Ludicrously expensive gifts' were referred too by one poster. Another questioning how they managed to obtain the well paid and high profile careers they have; another even questioning how they both married rich husbands!!!

It is extremely unlikely that this will ever become a criminal case because although there are a lot of rumours, allegations and claims, that is all there is and our legal system requires that the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The onus of responsibility lies with them and not with the defence to prove innocence.

With so much speculation and condemnation, how could there ever be a fair trial?

I agree that there's one law for the powerful and one for the rest of us but surely 'the rest of us^ should strive for the law to be equally applied to everyone, regardless of our status. How would any of us feel if we, or a member of our family was being subjected to a trial by media?

VG bought a civil case against PA, a legal dispute which typically seeks compensation for damages or the enforcement of a right, rather than a criminal punishment like imprisonment.

Why are so many seemingly so desperate for criminal charges with regard to VG to be brought against PA when she never sought that for herself, accepting an out of court settlement which it would be fair to argue, was all she ever wanted?

Yes Smileless thank you.

I fear the press with their nameless ‘sources close to’ will always win regardless of the truth

They're not interested in the truth Annie and unfortunately they're not alone.

Apart from speculation and supposition we have the Newsnight interview where Andrew hung himself by his own petard. Having seen this and read Entitled there really is little room for sympathy for Andrew, in fact it's quite shocking as to how they misappropriated taxpayers and charity funds.

It may not be coincidental that Sarah sold the house she owned in Belgravia last month and now wants a Crown property provided for her, as well as another property for her ex husband. This manipulation, entitled behaviour and self interest is how this couple have always operated.

This is what I mean OldFrill. You say Sarah now wants a Crown property provided for her but according to merlot's post PA has ^agreed to vacate Royal Lodge providing he can have Frogmore cottage for himself and Adelaide cottage for Sarah, so which is it? PA's demands or her's?

I agree OldFrill about the interview but even that didn't provide any evidence to substantiate VG's claims. Being manipulative, entitled and self centred doesn't necessarily equate to having sex with someone whose been trafficked.

The obvious solution is for them both to move into Adelaide Cottage, where they can live separate parallel lives, and pay rent.
Andrew is obviously prevaricating and being as obstructive as possible but I think Charles' patience will suddenly snap and they will be offered a property with no options.
Then the book will come out.

The book should have a warning

Reading this may damage your mental health
Brain
Mind
Ability to Think

Etc

I don’t see why Fergie should have a house on the Windsor estate even if she pays rent. They’ve been divorced for years and she has daughters who are wealthy enough to see that she is not made homeless. She’s their problem, not ours.

She sold her house in Belgravia in September so probably saw this coming.

Suck it up, Fergie.

Smileless2012

This is what I mean OldFrill. You say Sarah now wants a Crown property provided for her but according to merlot's post PA has ^agreed to vacate Royal Lodge providing he can have Frogmore cottage for himself and Adelaide cottage for Sarah, so which is it? PA's demands or her's?

I agree OldFrill about the interview but even that didn't provide any evidence to substantiate VG's claims. Being manipulative, entitled and self centred doesn't necessarily equate to having sex with someone whose been trafficked.

Andrew and Sarah have always worked as a team, moreso since their divorce. So by saying one you can generally include the other