Prince Andrew served with legal papers over sexual assault lawsuit (Telegraph)

I agree Jackiest if it was about justice why is she not suing the
Americans allegedly involved as well.

Jackiest

The more I read about this the more I get the impression that it is mainly about money not justice.

It cant be about justice as this is a civil case.
Civil cases are always about money.

Guiffre's civil claim against Alan Dershowitz, one of six other men she named along with Prince Andrew, was dropped by consent last month. She is said to have dropped the claim because the confidential settlement she reached with Epstein released him and others from certain liability. (source: Daily Telegraph).
Dershowitz is attempting to get this document unsealed.

I can’t stand him and in my opinion he is as guilty as hell.
I wish Maxwell would crack and spill the beans on all of the perverts.
I also think if he doesn’t get tried for this and keeps hiding like the horrible weasel he is, I think the royal family will loose a lot of popularity for protecting him.
He has always thought he was superior and his mother is letting him carry on believing it.

If it were Jo Public we couldn’t hide behind iron gates and security we would be served, I can’t understand how the Queen is letting this happen it’s making a mockery of the monarchy and I’m not even a royalist

And what facts is your opinion based on, Lesley?

Just because we don’t like someone it doesn’t make someone guilty. That’s for the courts to decide.

Spinnaker

For it to stand legally doesn't the document have to be served to the person, rather than their representative ? It'll never happen then if that's the case but willing to stand corrected if anyone out there knows ?

It's complicated, but Google 'substituted service'. Essentially you have to be able to show that you tried all the direct methods first but adverts in newspapers, and even social media can be used with the agreement of a judge.

Lesley60 how would you suggest that his mother (who is approaching 100) makes it happen that her son (who is 61) stands still long enough for someone to hand him a letter that he doesn't want to receive?

He isn't a child that she can pick up and physically hold until the papers have been forced into his hand. She cannot tell any of her staff to lay hands on him and frog-march him to meet the messengers. They would be arrested for assault, as would a police officer who was rash enough to agree to do it. He has been independent for forty years or more. He is responsible for his own actions.

maddyone

I think she can tell him that he is bringing both the family and the country into disrepute. She can tell him to stop hiding on her estates and face up to what has happened. She could tell him he’s not to come to Balmoral unless he accepts the papers that are being legally served to him.

This. Apparently there’s still some dispute going on as to whether the papers have been served correctly - as well as being handed to a member of his team, they were also sent to him personally by Royal Mail special delivery. There’s also what’s being referred to as a ‘secret settlement agreement’ from a previous case, which his lawyers are claiming absolves him from any liability - that’s being investigated now. I don’t see how he can hide from this for much longer - it’s obviously not going to go away and he’ll have to face the music sooner or later. If he’s done nothing wrong, I don’t see what his problem is.

I can’t agree the Queen , the family and the country is being
brought into distribute

maddyone Perhaps she has already done all or some of that - we don't have a minute-by-minute newsflash of everything that passes in private between him and his mother.

I have lost track of what is happening in this case.

What happens if the papers are served on him?

Does he simply have to answer questions and if so, put by whom and in what setting?

Does he have to attend court, in this county or in America?

Very true Elegran, but she could have refused to have him at Balmoral until he stopped avoiding the legally drawn up papers being served to him. By not insisting on this, she is opening herself up to criticism.

Nonetheless the less I wouldn’t want Lesley60 on the jury if I was on trial. She’s made up her mind that Andrew is guilty before any hearing or evidence is presented. I don’t know if Andrew is guilty or not, but his behaviour is disgraceful. He should accept the papers and cooperate with the proceedings and stop hiding on vast estates.

All the family visit Balmoral in the summer. Regardless of family problems the Queen always keep to routine and traditions.

Is it not possible she is concerned for her two granddaughters

It's a good thing that he's not been charged and having to go to trial in this county isn't it as he appears to have been found guilty already.

And how would she have kept him away? Locked the gates, barred the doors, and sent all the gardeners and gamekeepers and kitchen staff to repel him with pitchforks and carving knives and double barrelled shotguns? By ignoring the law against violence would she have upheld the law that Andrew is trying avoid?

He is said to have spent 90 minutes lunching with her at a fishing lodge (The Sun) We have no idea what was said at that lunch, probably much the same things as anybody would have said to their son in a similar situation, though I am sure that if the Sun had had a powerful enough long-distance microphone we would know every word by now.

I think Andrew is probably guilty, but that is opinion and I would prefer he was found guilty in the proper manner and not in the court of human opinion. In any case, this is a civil hearing and not a trial. I think he should cooperate with the appropriate authorities because at the moment, he is avoiding doing so.

I’m sure you are correct Annie. Any grandparent would be concerned for their grandchildren in these circumstances. I think that Andrew’s two daughters have had much to put up with from both their parents, and yet their behaviour has been impeccable as far as I can see. I feel for them both.

Elegran

And how would she have kept him away? Locked the gates, barred the doors, and sent all the gardeners and gamekeepers and kitchen staff to repel him with pitchforks and carving knives and double barrelled shotguns? By ignoring the law against violence would she have upheld the law that Andrew is trying avoid?

He is said to have spent 90 minutes lunching with her at a fishing lodge (The Sun) We have no idea what was said at that lunch, probably much the same things as anybody would have said to their son in a similar situation, though I am sure that if the Sun had had a powerful enough long-distance microphone we would know every word by now.

Or, she could have told him, "I'm the Queen and you're a liability. Naff off"

Elegran are you really suggesting that this almost 100 year old mother has no influence or power whatsoever? She is surrounded by lackeys who would comply with her every request. She could for example have said all security staff on his (or her) property should let anyone servng legal notices have access to him. And they would have done it.

Or, she could have told him, ‘I’m the Queen and you’re a liability. Naff off

I agree with you trisher. This getting to be a habit.

'.........'She could for example have said all security staff on his (or her) property should let anyone serving legal notices have access to him. And they would have done it.'

Of course they would not! The Queen cannot do anything without advise which she has to follow!

In a way it's a pity he's been stopped from performing public duties - that might have have enabled someone to serve the legal papers directly to him in public.

I’m not at all sure that the Queen would have been advised to tell staff/security to prevent all access to those wishing to serve legal papers to Prince Andrew. That would be very bad form and poor advice in my opinion.