Are the Royal Family losing their touch?

GillT57 Then you get the editors of the fawning magazines such as 'Majesty', usually a home counties woman sitting in her chintz sitting room, giving her breathless opinion

You've been watching the programmes then!

I'm sure I'd end up accidentally blowing off if I kept having to curtsy.

you and the rest of us MissA

I expect that Royal ladies are trained to clench before curtsying. ?

Thus the old joke. A citizen, let us say MissAdventure, exhausted by bobbing up and down, curtseying .......let's slip a noisy fart. Indignant courtier how dare you break wind before the Queen!.
sorry says MissAdventure I didn't realise it was her turn

It's their choice and doesn't bother you Anniebach but it's still a ridiculous custom. And the Queen perpetuates it. Very strange.

And having a royal family does affect us.

I'm enjoying visualising all the bowing and bobbing at Louis's forthcoming 4th birthday celebrations before he can even start opening his presents.
Everyone getting confused about who has to bow or bob to whom ?

They could do it to music - much more exciting than Musical Chairs

GagaJo

They need to be very careful.

QE may have had every right to have him there, but it wasn't a private service. And in the eyes of the world, he is a paedophile.

I do wonder just how many of us would accept our children, if they did what he's done, and had associated with the people he's associated with (Epstein, Maxwell). Not to mention taking bribes.

If he were my son, I would be on very minimal contact with him.

Well, back in the 70s when I was 15, loads of girls in my class had boyfriends in their early 20s. One was late 20s.
Were they all pedophiles?
O doubt it somehow.

Different times.

I doubt it.

Callistemon21

^He's probably not a very nice person but I don't know. Like everyone else here I only get my information filtered through the editors of the media.^
Some of us know personnel who served with him (and with Charles).
One arrogant, one not at all.

Do tell.
Who was the arrogant one?

snowberryZ

Callistemon21

He's probably not a very nice person but I don't know. Like everyone else here I only get my information filtered through the editors of the media.
Some of us know personnel who served with him (and with Charles).
One arrogant, one not at all.

Do tell.
Who was the arrogant one?

Take a guess!

(It wasn't Charles)

GillT57, the 17th Earl of Oxford got there before you in the reign of Elizabeth I. Bowing low to show his reverence for the Queen he let slip an explosive fart. So embarrassed was he, he exiled himself for seven years. On his return to court the first words Lizzie I said to him was that 'we had forgot the fart'.

And in the eyes of the world, he is a paedophile

We do need to be careful flinging this word around. I think PA is rather obnoxious and I'd be happy to never see. his smug face again, however paedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children.

And snowberryZ is spot on. When I was 16 I dated an almost 30 year old bloke. He really wasn't abusing/grooming me. If anything I ran after him. Many of my friends had older boyfriends and it was never discussed. Different times.

Petera

Aveline

Thank you Jane43. Others are obviously not aware of this.

Here we go again. The most common definition of a paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. Not to children under the age of puberty.

The legal definition of a child varies from country to country but is not connected with puberty and is definitely not the same as the age of consent.

In England, for example, a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday, likewise The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says the same thing.

I find it very patronising to use the phrase ‘here we go again’ if somebody puts forward a view that differs from their own. I can assure you that paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder and is defined in the DSM manual used by professionals to diagnose psychiatric disorders. The word prepubescent is used in the definition.

From Wikipedia:
“Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty.[4] The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) defines it as a "sustained, focused, and intense pattern of sexual arousal—as manifested by persistent sexual thoughts, fantasies, urges, or behaviours—involving pre-pubertal children."[6]”

Petera

Aveline

Thank you Jane43. Others are obviously not aware of this.

Here we go again. The most common definition of a paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. Not to children under the age of puberty.

The legal definition of a child varies from country to country but is not connected with puberty and is definitely not the same as the age of consent.

In England, for example, a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday, likewise The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says the same thing.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, you can get married from the age of 16 if you have parental consent. However, without parental consent, you can get married once you reach the age of 18. In Scotland, you can get married from the age of 16, with or without parental consent.

The current law in England and Wales means people can get married at 18 or, with parental consent, at 16 or 17. But there is no law against religious or cultural ceremonies which are not registered with local councils taking place under this age.19 Nov 2021

Petera
The most common definition of a paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. Not to children under the age of puberty.

The conclusion must be that paedophilia is lawful in the UK, Petera.

Hebephilia is still illegal in the UK anyway ffs

He was 40 she was 17, four years older than his daughter. If she had been a school student and he a teacher, she a patient and he a doctor etc etc we would rightly be demanding the adult be struck of their professional registers. What ever you name it, it was not right. He was in a position of power & the meeting was arranged not incidental.
It seems that the allegations could not be proved to be a fabrication & nonsense otherwise $12m would never had been paid to prevent a court case.

We now know she was 17, but what age did she say she was. Most 17 year olds could well claim to be 25 with make up etc. We have no way of knowing what age Andrew was told she was, perhaps he just assumed that as she was there she was of a suitable age.

who cares what she said, she was under 18

It certainly matters what she said. If she said she was over twenty and people thought that was true then how could a crime have been committed.

Because the law surrounding age and consent in America at the time, sex with someone under 18 was illegal. Plus the girls had been trafficked. There is no positive spin.

His,statement confirms that he knew his pal sex trafficked young girls.

You'd think he'd have the common sense to do some checking up.

So just assume for a moment that PA was not there,
And reflect that sadly this young lady was already caught up in the sleaze of these unsavoury & pathetic males ( I won’t call them men)

Yes.... and.....

So now we have to believe PA was a naive & innocent 40 yr old who had no idea that these pretty young girls were not close friends or relatives of Epstein & Maxwell..and believed that they found him sexually attractive & were happy for a one night stand!!! Either way you read it..he is not a person I can respect.