Prince Andrew in jep?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118853548#Comment_118853548

One can love the sinner but not the sin, to paraphrase a certain celeb cook.

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118853802#Comment_118853802

In this case I personally detest both....but to each their own

Zebra3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118853548#Comment_118853548

Him too.

Immortal Starlight

100% puke inducing. What a terrible decision to have him front and centre.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118855306#Comment_118855306

Very cunning though to have him help his frail, elderly mother into her husband's memorial. I'm sure a lot of the British press will stay quiet out of respect. The fool probably thinks he's as good as back now.

Immortal Starlight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118855324#Comment_118855324

He’d certainly win a prize for the best brass neck anyway. It was funny watching Edward straining away to the other side while sitting beside him .

Neyite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118855324#Comment_118855324

That's exactly what I thought as well. It was a bit of a power move by the queen that she won't be told to hide away her son. A not-so subtle reminder that he's still royal and still a prince and that everyone should STFU about it.

I don't think she gets how unpalatable his actions were in modern society though and I think it's done her own image a lot of damage. I'm seeing quite a bit online from people who loved the queen and were able to brush away things like her tax 'arrangement's and so on as just small things, can't get past this and can't get past her apparent condoning and support of his scandals.

Leg End Reject

According to BBC news online he accompanied her in the car from Windsor too. I'm sure she was advised against him walking in with her, but mummy knows best. 😂

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118855772#Comment_118855772

I'm going to be the voice of dissent here.

What makes you think that the Queen is condoning and supportive of his scandals by having her son at her side during a very emotional and difficult time for her?

She's a very elderly woman who is going to a service in rememberance of her husband and it's normal enough to have family around during those times. Andrew is still her son and Philip was still his father. She needed her son's support. I can understand her being required to keep him under wraps and away from Royal duties, but this was a rememberance service for his father. Dislike him all you like, he probably deserves your dislike, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't attend a service for his father or that he shouldn't be allowed to help his mother in her time of need.

We can suspect she did it to try and build up his brand..........but we can't be sure. It might just be a case of an auld wan wanting her son around during her time of need.

Neyite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118855915#Comment_118855915

That could very well be true. It was certainly portrayed as a grieving son escorting his grieving mother into a church for what was going to be a memorial for their deceased family member. That's why it's a masterstroke in terms of PR and a very diplomatic solution to the Where Do We Put Andy conundrum. By giving him the role of escorting her she's removed the potential outrage of him being in attendance at other high profile events and has probably paved the way for him being there at her Jubilee in a few months and likely whatever other summer events.

They normally arrive in a strict order of seniority, with the Queen last to arrive, and if they did that this time, Andrew would have been far less prominent. The order of arrival was deliberately switched for this event, and it could be argued that if she did need an escort due to infirmity, then Charles or William would have been more aligned with the order in which they usually do these.

The Queen has had decades and decades of PR experience. She's weathered her uncle abdicating the throne, his and Philip's sister's links with Nazis, divorces, scandals and tragic deaths. She knows that even a piece of jewellery worn to a certain occasion could cause consternation or ruffle feathers depending on it's origin. She would have absolutely known the PR impact of Andrew being by her side versus being at the back of the queue.

It's very telling that not a single senior royal looked up when they reached the top pew.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118855820#Comment_118855820

‘Mummy’ is grieving, frail and at the end of her life, and looked so sad like I’ve never seen her before. I don’t think anyone would be surprised to hear her death notice on the radio any day. She wanted her son to walk with her at her husbands and his fathers memorial ffs

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118857102#Comment_118857102

The son with a penchant for sex with trafficked girls.

She has 3 sons, so you can see why having Andrew escort her looks deliberate. Her age, frailty and emotional state don't excuse that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118857297#Comment_118857297

Her other children had their partners and children to support them. Andrew’s daughters had their husbands. Andrew had no one. As I said earlier, one can love the sinner whilst loathing the sin.

kirk.

Prince Andrew in Je*p close thread

kirk.

^^Virginia Giuffre also in picture

Zebra3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118857809#Comment_118857809

Caption competition time.

”We’ve never met!! Can I have 12 million?”

kirk.

Actually dunno who she is

Women are attracted to me but they're not as fanatical as that

Neyite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118857361#Comment_118857361

If Andrew had no one, that's nobody's fault but his own. He is a wealthy, titled prince of the realm and still does not have a significant other. That's his choice entirely. Death row inmates even have heaps of women wanting to marry them so guaranteed that if he wanted to, he could get someone who's willing to overlook his 'sins' in exchange for the title of Duchess of York and all that royal life entails.

Not everyone can continue to love the sinner despite the sin. It's clear that the Queen does. It's not unusual for a mother to blindly defend a child no matter what they did, but she's 95 and her days, frankly, are numbered. Charles and William have kept their distance from him so it's unlikely they will keep him as visible when the Queen passes away.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118859812#Comment_118859812

“Charles and William have kept their distance from him so it's unlikely they will keep him as visible when the Queen passes away.” I’d imagine that will be the case.

juno10353

Many seem to forget that Prince Charles himself is in no position to throw stones, after all one of his closest confidants was Jimmy Saville, who was even knighted.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118857361#Comment_118857361

Andy's been back with Fergie for years. Was likely to have a fancy remarriage until all this stuff came up.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118860288#Comment_118860288

I think they live in the same house for financial reasons but I don't think they're "together"

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118860397#Comment_118860397

She does all the family stuff with him - or the stuff Phil didn't refuse her access to at least - for the last decade or more. It was basically known in the UK media that a big wedding was going to be how to try rehabilitate Fergie after the cash for access scandals; until Andy himself became the one needing severe rehabilitation.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118859812#Comment_118859812

And if she was doing it to support him, and worried he was on his own, why didn't she have him sit beside her?

HildaOgdenx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118855772#Comment_118855772

It also meant that he came in with her, via the side door of the church, (which she used because of her mobility issues) so a slightly less public arrival, in terms of the cameras, which were only at the main entrance, I think. The clergy and whoever else greeted the others as they arrived, then didn't have to greet him. So it was hard to know was that part of the reason that it was done.

I think it came as quite a shock to a lot of people in the U.K. to see him essentially being given a prominent place in the whole thing.

And I agree, from what I have read on U.K. websites, it did cause people to voice disapproval of her actions, many of them saying that they had always held her in high regard before this.

I did wonder too if it was the queen's way of letting the others in the family know that she wasn't going to be told by anyone what to do.

Muahahaha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118860680#Comment_118860680

I did wonder too if it was the queen's way of letting the others in the family know that she wasn't going to be told by anyone what to do.

Id say thats exactly what it was as he has always been her favourite son. Despite the £12m payout she wont let herself actually believe that he is a paedo. No mother wants to think that they raised a paedo so its easier in her head to see Andrew as being totally innocent, that the photo with Guiffree was faked, that the Pizza Express cover story is true, him not being able to sweat is true and all the other mental gymnastics with Epstein that are required to see Andrew as innocent.

Leg End Reject

There's also the unsavoury option that Andrew's behaviour is seen as normal.

Having mistresses and liaisons with ladies of "ill repute" was once the norm for royalty.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118860974#Comment_118860974

He's not a paedo. He was never was accused of being a paedo, at least by any authority other than joe public. He was accused of having sex with someone who was above the age of consent. Roberts was 17 at the time of the alleged offence. The actual age of consent in the UK is 16 so not quite a paedo. It was the trafficking aspect of this case that might have gotten him in trouble in court.

Muahahaha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118861186#Comment_118861186

The age of consent in the US Virgin Islands where he also abused her on Epsteins island is 18. That was part of her civil court claim in New York, that he had sex with her on that island after she was trafficked there on Epsteins jet. The locals didnt nickname it 'Paedo Island' for nothing, there was a stream of underage girls flying in and out of Epsteins island.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118861186#Comment_118861186

It's a combination of the two. In England, 16 is the age of consent for, um, "ordinary" sex. But where issues of sex work, trafficking, etc arise, then the relevant age is 18, not 16; "child" is defined in the relevant legislation as "any person under the age of 18". So if all the facts alleged are true, and if Andrew were to be prosecuted, the charge would some form of complicity in the trafficking or exploitation of a child, and this would attract a heavier sentence on conviction than a similar charge involving an adult.