Should he still be driving at 97?

Sparkle yes I choose to do things my way and if you believe there is no right way or wrong way, why are you critical of Phillip’s way ?

She hadn’t got an insurance company to go to of her own but will have to go through her friends. She needs help now. If I had a wrist in plaster I would worry about wiping my bottom and when I was 45 I would have worried about inserting my tampon.

Well said maddy we actually know very little more than the facts of the accident. I am very sad about the judgmental attitude on here. I do think that most people of 97 should probably not be driving but on the other hand think that PP would have far better health care than the rest of us so we don't know what his reaction times are. We do know (according to the BBC) that the police tested his sight and it was fine.

I feel sorry for both sides, none of us chooses to be in this situation. As said previously, I don't blame her for going to the papers, she may well need the money. I do blame the tabloids for exploiting the situation but that is the fault of the people who read them.

No one is minimising what happened to the woman, but if it hadn’t been Prince Phillip, no one would have known or cared.

Very good posts Nonnie.

Annie, I agree with you, it’s better to behave with quiet dignity. If anything happened to one of my family, no way would I run to the press.

Gonegirl, quite right, we are told by our insurance companies that we should never admit liability, whoever we are. They sort it out on our behalf.

Having said all that, I’m not sure any 97 year olds should be driving on public roads.

And finally, this woman is using the fact that it was a member of the royal family who was involved to stir up the situation and get money. If the other party had been unknown, she would have been in exactly the same situation but minus the publicity and the money.

Are you assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with your judgmental posts is as 'apologist for the RF'? You would be wrong there then. There are a lot of us who don't read tabloids and who prefer to wait for facts before concluding and blaming. There are also a lot of very tolerant people on gn who do not consider themselves above making a mistake. I am one such who would not judge you without having the full facts. I most certainly would not make the accusation that 'it was not an accident' when it clearly was./

I agree with both of your last posts maryeliza. I don't understand some of the reasoning on here!

Why are the apologists for the RF so determined to minimise what’s happened to the women? Also still no criticism of the barrister and his interviews. I can think of many many jobs were a broken wrist would stop you working for at least 2 months if not longer.

He was wearing a seatbelt then ( although I know it’s an optional extra in the life of the RF). And no if he had died and she had been speeding it’s not automatically the case she would have been charged with man slaughter whether or not he’d been wearing a seat belt. There is the concept of contributory negligence eg his not wearing a seatbelt, turning onto a main road when the road wasn’t clear. When it comes to awarding damages for injuries in general, if a person is completely innocent but an action of theirs ( such as not wearing a seatbelt) made the injuries worse, or led to the death, then the damages paid would be reduced by a % the judge decided.

Nonnie She apparently said so in the interview, but it seems about right.

How do you know she will be off work for 2 months? Could it be that a tabloid newspaper has said so?

So, if the Duke had died in the accident because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt and the woman had been driving too fast she would have gone down for manslaughter, even though a seatbelt would have prevented it? Crazy as it seems I only spoke to someone this morning who never wears a seatbelt; I thought such people [outside of the Royals] no longer existed.

Spot on Sparkle. The injured woman needs money NOW to pay for the various types of help she needs - her teenage son ( or daughter for that matter) should not be expected to provide that type of help. Its unlikely she can pay now and claim later - and even if she had savings she could use, there’s no guarantee that the insurance company would eventually pay up anyway. She said in the article that the RF hadn’t been in touch - I believe her. And more to the point, they have used the weasley words of ‘well wishes being exchanged’ to try and wriggle out of that one. He could have sent a handwritten note ( vetted of course by their team of top lawyers).

The injured woman has been told she will be off work for 2 months. She had just started a new job so no doubt will not be paid. It took 6 years for my case against the driver who injured me to come to court. I was never able to return to the job I used to have.

I feel very sorry for her. If she has earned something for the article, it will at least pay for help for her and keep a roof over her head until she can get back to work.

I agree with maryeliza above - it is not a road accident like any other just because of who was behind the wheel.

And Annie - you like to do things your way, and that's fine, but it doesn't mean that your way is the right way because there is no right way! We are all different and circumstances are all different.

Sorry marye typo

amrye how do you know he hasn't?

It isn’t a road accident like any other. We have every right to expect the highest standards of civilised behaviour from the RF when there is an issue involving the law between them and one of their ‘subjects’. As for apologising, the driver involved in my husband and MILs accident rang the same evening to ask how they were - you can express concern without admitting fault - but to do that you have to have a vestige of humanity.......

Very wise Annie especially with the tabloids which would make even the most innocent event sound shocking. Worrying that so many take the headlines at face value.

And as for ‘leave it to my insurance company’. Well good luck with that depending on the insurance company. With my lorry incident my insurance company were fine but when my husbands car was written off on a roundabout and he and his mother injured, we had to fight the insurance company inch by inch and still ended up out of pocket despite it being 100% the other drivers fault, having brilliant witnesses and a police report. Apart from which , this woman doesn’t have an insurance company - her friend does. She has no one to act for her independently, there will be no legal aid and I doubt she’s got mega bucks in the bank. But hey, let’s act with restraint and dignity - it’s not as though she’s up against anyone with any clout is it?

Nonnie I agree with you , but posing for photographs!

Sparkle I am sorry you were injured in an accident , but the royal family are not responsible for the attention the press has given to the accident.

I have not been in your position or the woman’s position, I have twice been approached by the press , following the deaths of my husband and my daughter, the former was for my views on the drug dealers and the police , the latter was my views of the mental health services , I refused . No way was I going to discuss my feelings with a newspaper.

He really is a stubborn and difficult old man. I wouldn't like to deal with him and his defiance not to wear a seat belt. I'd be wrapping it round his neck hahahaha.

You have summed it all up in a very reasonable way Nonnie.

Is it usual after a road accident for one party to apologise to the other, or look to them for support? I don't think so. It's up to the insurance companies to sort out the finances involved. This was a road accident like any other. Why should it make any difference that it involves an HRH?

I really can't read the last 15 or so hours of this so have only read the last page. Hope I'm not repeating what anyone else has said.

The RF do not give out details of everything they do, just basic information. Not when Diana died or when there is a royal birth.

I do not believe JLR got a security proofed Freelander to Sandringham as a PR exercise in such a short time. Yesterday on GN people knew it had come from Balmoral.

I have been waiting to hear which tabloid paid for the story, on the BBC website it said it was the Mirror. Anyone who has ever been reported by such a paper will imagine the scenario: First a bidding war to see who will pay the most. Then the interview in which questions such as 'has the prince written to you personally and apologised?' Answer 'no' which is then turned into a huge complaint that 'he hasn't even be in touch to say sorry'. This is when we have been told that they have sent their good wishes.

Would any of us admit to fault at the time of the accident? Insurance companies tell us to never do so. I heard the interviews of both the people who claimed to have pulled him from the car and they both said he was more concerned about the people in the other car.

I don't condemn the Kia driver for talking (probably being paid) to the media, I don't know her circumstances or how she feels. I don't condemn PP for what he has done either, I wasn't in the car and I have no idea what recompense he has offered.

I don't think we should judge if we don't know. None of us can be sure we won't ever been responsible for a car accident. Yes, it was an accident.