Eugenie and Beatrice

Riversidegirl

I think it's very cruel of the media to drag these two into the Epstein business. They would not have been aware of or understood anything and would have done what their parents told them I'm sure.

So then you create a post about it creating more drama about their lives ?
Unreal !

Good night

Well put Casdon. I’m away to bed too.

Casdon

It’s the assigning of motives, and the implication of knowledge that we don’t know they had that is the exaggeration Tuliptree. I’m not an apologist, but on this thread at least, you are an exaggerator. I’m off to bed now, just so you know I’m not ignoring any future posts.

I agree with you.
And I shall now go to my cosy bed too.

So you admit that the truth has yet to be revealed, yet you're adamant that you already know the truth!
Some people are clairvoyant!

I actually wrote ‘ more ‘ of the truth which is a significant difference. There’s enough of the truth available to make logical deductions plus £12m. Good night to you as well

MartavTaurus

Tuliptree

Casdon

It’s the assigning of motives, and the implication of knowledge that we don’t know they had that is the exaggeration Tuliptree. I’m not an apologist, but on this thread at least, you are an exaggerator. I’m off to bed now, just so you know I’m not ignoring any future posts.

Well we’ve just reached an impasse haven’t we? Neither of us will change our minds. Well - you will when more of the truth comes out 😂😂. Goodnight

So you admit that the truth has yet to be revealed, yet you're adamant that you already know the truth!

Some people are clairvoyant!

Tuliptree

Casdon

It’s the assigning of motives, and the implication of knowledge that we don’t know they had that is the exaggeration Tuliptree. I’m not an apologist, but on this thread at least, you are an exaggerator. I’m off to bed now, just so you know I’m not ignoring any future posts.

Well we’ve just reached an impasse haven’t we? Neither of us will change our minds. Well - you will when more of the truth comes out 😂😂. Goodnight

So you admit that the truth has yet to be revealed, yet you're adamant that you already know the truth!

Casdon

It’s the assigning of motives, and the implication of knowledge that we don’t know they had that is the exaggeration Tuliptree. I’m not an apologist, but on this thread at least, you are an exaggerator. I’m off to bed now, just so you know I’m not ignoring any future posts.

Well we’ve just reached an impasse haven’t we? Neither of us will change our minds. Well - you will when more of the truth comes out 😂😂. Goodnight

Casdon

But in 2022 her story was un corroborated. They knew her claims, they saw the picture of her with Andrew. We don’t know whether they knew of Andrew’s debts, his association with other women, or what lies he told them. Do we know that they knew who he invited to dinner parties? We don’t even know who them consisted of, except that the Queen paid, with a contribution from Charles, but it was a loan.
To be clear, I’m not a particular royalist, I don’t support Andrew and think justice should be served, I just dislike all the exaggeration and half truths, it’s reading like a tabloid newspaper. Let’s stick to the facts based on information that is verified.

Thankyou for your posts Casdon.

Some other posts read like something from the tabloids which are so despised by many on here.
There they remain on social media, others believe and so such half-truths and many misconceptions prevail.

The problem is that we need relevant facts before we can judge and we are not getting those either.

It’s the assigning of motives, and the implication of knowledge that we don’t know they had that is the exaggeration Tuliptree. I’m not an apologist, but on this thread at least, you are an exaggerator. I’m off to bed now, just so you know I’m not ignoring any future posts.

Smileless2012

Where if your evidence Tuliptree that they knew he'd had sex with her and that trafficking was involved?

See above and £12m .

Casdon

But in 2022 her story was un corroborated. They knew her claims, they saw the picture of her with Andrew. We don’t know whether they knew of Andrew’s debts, his association with other women, or what lies he told them. Do we know that they knew who he invited to dinner parties? We don’t even know who them consisted of, except that the Queen paid, with a contribution from Charles, but it was a loan.
To be clear, I’m not a particular royalist, I don’t support Andrew and think justice should be served, I just dislike all the exaggeration and half truths, it’s reading like a tabloid newspaper. Let’s stick to the facts based on information that is verified.

There’s nothing exaggerating in accepting that the RF would know a great deal more than we did at the time. Andrew went everywhere with his protection officers, the security services must have had some involvement especially given JE history. Plus there was the fact that A had been sacked as trade envoy years before. This is how the rich and powerful get away with things - apologists say we don’t have the facts but the rich and powerful pay to try and prevent us from getting the facts . A form of gaslighting.

Where if your evidence Tuliptree that they knew he'd had sex with her and that trafficking was involved?

But in 2022 her story was un corroborated. They knew her claims, they saw the picture of her with Andrew. We don’t know whether they knew of Andrew’s debts, his association with other women, or what lies he told them. Do we know that they knew who he invited to dinner parties? We don’t even know who them consisted of, except that the Queen paid, with a contribution from Charles, but it was a loan.
To be clear, I’m not a particular royalist, I don’t support Andrew and think justice should be served, I just dislike all the exaggeration and half truths, it’s reading like a tabloid newspaper. Let’s stick to the facts based on information that is verified.

Casdon

They knew about Virginia Guiffre. Read your post again, because that isn’t what you said.

I don’t understand your post - when I say they knew, I mean they knew that he’d carried on seeing JE, they knew that he’d had sex with her and that trafficking was involved. £12m was a cheap price to make it go away only of course it didn’t. Worse was to come wasn’t it?

They knew about Virginia Guiffre. Read your post again, because that isn’t what you said.

Casdon

They paid £12 million to Virginia Guiffre. There was nothing like what we know now in the public arena in 2022. I’m not defending anything Andrew has done, but I can do without your feverish exaggerations in the attempt to make your point.

Why did they pay £12m? Because they knew is the only logical explanation. They knew. And they paid and it didn’t work did it ?

Anniebach

Money paid March 2022

Files released 2025 Wikipedia

Yes I know

Money paid March 2022

Files released 2025 Wikipedia

They paid £12 million to Virginia Guiffre. There was nothing like what we know now in the public arena in 2022. I’m not defending anything Andrew has done, but I can do without your feverish exaggerations in the attempt to make your point.

By the time the money was paid there was a great deal of information in the public domain including the photograph. Why on earth do you think the RF paid £12m ? Really?

Tuliptree

I think it matters who was involved in getting the hush money together in so far as it tells us who was fully in the picture as to what was going on and why no concern was expressed then. W, K and KC seem to have quite recently discovered that there are some victims. It’s really tawdry and sleszey isn’t it? Senior royals scrabbling down the back of their sofas to pay off a victim of sex abuse - abused by their son, brother, uncle. And then when it becomes undeniable they start trading on caring about the victims.

No Tuliptree it does not tell us who was ‘fully in the picture’ at all. It tells us who believed the account of Virginia Guiffre that she was with Andrew. At that stage she hadn’t written her book, and the Epstein diaries had not been even partially released.
You are dominating this thread with your own views, rather than facts.

sixandahalf
Nobody knows these people, any of them. We know what we are fed.

Yes.

TheSunRisesInTheEast

What goes on with The Royal Family should stay with The Royal Family. Regardless of 'us' funding their lifestyle, it just has to be accepted that they are only human and they've got up to all sorts of shenanigans through the years. One can only imagine the high jinks and debauchery that went on when Princess Margaret hosted her parties on Mustique. It's always been an 'us' and 'them' situation, it doesn't bother me, I accept it, I wouldn't want to swap my anonymous life for theirs for all the tea in Buckingham Palace 😂.

Nope. They're a tax funded, government department and should be accountable like any other. It's this very notion that they're somehow above the law (and happily embraced by them I might add) that's led to Andrew trading trade secrets with a foreigner and criminal, and the Queen paying off a trafficked young girl. The King is the Head of State. He is very privileged in that we also fund most of his family, unlike other Heads of State. There must be transparency and accountability. If they don't like it they can resign. God knows they've got enough money and assets to last them for centuries.

Fergie was supposed to be a breath of fresh air, tremendous fun. Andrew, a dashing prince who went off to war.
Their daughters, working royals, holding down jobs.