Prince Andrew

It was interesting to read that the Queen allegedly told him to withdraw from public duties yet allowed him to compose his own letter in which he said HE had decided to stand down thereby saving face
As you say, “face saving” allowing him to fall on his sword.
He was described as having been effectively “de-Royalled” on today’s Radio 4World at One where the opinion was given that “the foreseeable future” means for ever.

craftyone I already asked that question and some of the alleged answers have been mooted in the media.

Being UK Trade Envoy opened up possibilities.
Selling a house gifted to him and Sarah for £3m more than its then value could have helped.
Epstein was extremely wealthy and was known to help out his friends

All questions which could be answered.

Can it not be sycophants told him his interview was a success ?

It was interesting to read that the Queen allegedly told him to withdraw from public duties yet allowed him to compose his own letter in which he said HE had decided to stand down thereby saving face.

Apparently at least twenty charities have withdrawn their association with him.

It seems extraordinary to me that his initial thought was that the interview went well.

HOW can he have so little self awareness?

Yesterday, in the American press:

The two correctional officers assigned to guard Jeffery Epstein at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan have been charged with multiple counts of falsifying records and conspiracy.

Michael Thomas and Tova Noel were supposed to be checking on the wealthy 66-year-old financier every 30 minutes throughout the night.

Instead they sat at their desks, browsed the internet and took naps for eight hours, during which time Epstein hung himself in his jail cell.

After their prisoner was found dead the next morning, the two jailers falsified more than 75 separate round entries, erroneously indicating they had checked on the prisoner as required.

Epstein was awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges and faced a long prison sentence if convicted; he was known to be a high-risk inmate.

At a court appearance Tuesday Thomas and Noel pleaded not guilty and were each released on $100,000 bond. (NPR)

It's always good to read someone who is bold enough to voice the less popular opinion as Gabriella did.

Me, I think the Grand |Old Duke of York story is the visible top of the iceberg of privileged entitlement.

Many are beginning to ask that very question craftyone. Apparently his navy pension is £20,000 p.a. (similar to that of my husband - what are we doing wrong here haha) and on top of that the Queen gives him £300,000 p.a.

Not a fortune, considering his lifestyle.

He is will known for enabling business deals with oligarchs for a 1% fee. I read about it in the Guardian a couple of days ago where some shady characters was commented upon. They had obtained access to dealings via the FOI Act.

Henry Jones
@hthjones

BBC News at 10 reporting that Buckingham Palace hope the #PrinceAndrewEpstein scandal will have “all blown over” by next year.

There’s absolutely no chance of that happening.

Anniebach The royal family is smaller now than it was . At one time the Duke and Duchess of Kent, Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alexandra and Ogilvy, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, Princess Margaret and Snowdon all carried out official duties

But isn’t that because some of these people are too old now to carry out public duties (retired as such) or have died and their places have been filled by the younger up and coming cohort?

I wish Charles would prune the RF right back when he comes to be King. I’m sure he read somewhere that he intends to.

Regards Andrew, he needed to step down from public duty. He is unpopular, lazy unless he’s getting a freebie, entitled and now, toxic. We, the public, won’t miss seeing his face for a while.

just wondering. Where does his wealth come from? 13 million for a holiday home

Gabriella It appears he is unwilling to go to the US to help with the investigation. Instead , he decided to give a TV interview, in the opinion of most commentators, as an exercise in damage limitation.

It is hardly surprising, given the last few years' revelations and the more recent arrest of Epstein on charges of sex trafficking, that people will speculate as to why he is unwilling to aid the investigation.

He thought he could convince the public that Epstein wasn't really a "friend" and that he, Andrew, only visited Epstein's various residents because he happened to be in the area and it was more convenient than staying elsewhere.

He presented himself for public examination and can't really complain if many people came to the conclusion that his answers were unconvincing.

I suppose now that now public duties have been taken away from him the hope is that the whole matter will fade quietly away. I hope it does not, but I fear it will.

Gabriella I did not suppose that you commented from a position of ignorance, so please do not patronise me. I consider the undisputed facts I listed ( not hearsay or unverified by the press) as enough for me to decide that he is someone unworthy of the position and privilege that he has enjoyed, and whom I condemn. Whether or not he is ever charged with any offence is immaterial to me, I wouldn't want him to even empty my dustbin. If you still think he is someone of worth, that is entirely your decision but to speak as you did to posters who disagree is entirely unwarranted. I haven't seen evidence of kangaroo courts.

I agree we only know half the story.......because Andrew seems to have forgotten the other half!

janipat
I've read the papers and seen the interview.
Why suppose that I comment from a position of ignorance by repeating to me things I already know as they are in the public arena.
We know half a story, some of which is factual and some is unverified.

But Gabriella facts that are indisputable are that Andrew maintained a friendship with a convicted sex offender, and then took 4 days in residence with the man when he finally decided to end the friendship ( because he's "too honourable" for his own good!) He declares he does not regret the friendship, and that's from his own mouth on public TV. Not one word of sympathy for his friend's victims. I think that entitles anyone to judge him on these points and draw their own conclusions. The interview was a self-serving attempt to get the public onside. He totally misjudged the reaction and now has to live with the consequences, just as he hoped to live with the absolution he thought he'd get.

Facts?
When we get all sides of the story then conclusions can be drawn.

suziewoozie
You have overstepped the mark.
You have a choice of asking GN to remove that comment or I will report you.
I neither typed nor intimated anything of the sort in the post to which you refer.

No need to be tetchy with me, Gabriella
You had accused posters of being biased, disembowelling and holding a kangaroo court whereas most posters have stuck to known facts to make an assessment.

Stop being so patronising GG54 plenty of us on here are basing our opinions on facts - it’s not a kangaroo court to judge that mixing with a child sex offender is not acceptable behaviour

Callistemon
I know full well that comments are based on what has emerged so far, I have all my marbles, however, many posters have, in the recent and distant past, derided articles printed in certain newspapers as being hype and supposition.
I cannot square that with them now believing all that is printed.
Charities too only know what the media put out.

As it is many months since I corrected anyone's spelling on GN, I am not sure why you insist on dragging it up when you are not without making the odd uncorrected mistake yourself which I never refer to.
You have, many times, made the comment that to do so is rude and not in the spirit of GN.
Why you target me, only you know but it says a whole lot more about you as I have never posted anything snitty about you or any of your posts.
If I don't meet with your approval then I politely suggest that, as you seem to have agreed with others that I am a liar and fantasist, you pass over my comments without resorting to reading anything I type.
I'm not going to answer any more of your posts to me so it's best that we agree to differ and ignore each other.

Gabriella we are looking at the facts as known at the present moment; we have not judged on hearsay and speculation.

He may never have a case to answer and therefore may never be on trial; his presence is required as a witness, not as the accused.

Posters on here have speculated no more than many charities and institutions who wish to distance themselves from the possibility of unsavoury behaviour, or worse, by PA.

I thought correcting the spelling of others was your stock in trade GabriellaG
I apologise if it is only others’ mistakes which qualify.

However, as I am here
Writers are often unsure whether to use jewelry or jewellery to denote decorative, usually valuable, personal ornaments. Jewelry is the preferred spelling in American English, while jewellery is the preferred spelling in British English

#justsaying.
I trust the rest of my post did not merit the epithet “snitty” ? .

So GG54 you think it’s perfectly fine for PA to spend time with a convicted paedophile? And that’s just for starters.

Disemboweling can have either 1 or 2 'l's likewise jewellery/ jewellery. Neither version is improper.