Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Steve H on October 30, 2025, 07:16:43 PM
-
He'll be plain Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/royals/prince-andrew-loses-title-royal-lodge-king-charles-epstein-scandal-b1255779.html
-
The nonce formerly known as Prince
-
Excellent - now we just need to get rid of the rest of them.
-
This popped up on my FB feed from Michael Rosen, excellent:
This post is not about Andrew.
This post is not even really about the Royal Family.
What I'm trying to do is get into the assumptions of what's being saId by commentators.
So here goes:
for the Royal Family (the British monarchy) to exist, there has to be a whole apparatus of commentary that ensures we accept that the British monarchy must exist. Mostly, it is massively successful. Most of the time, most people seem to think that it's a good idea. Some people are hugely enthusiastic about it. Some people like it. Some people think it's OK. Some people simply accept it.
When things are trogging along - appearances and highlights (weddings, funerals, etc) - the apparatus doesn't have to do very much other than just make sure that these events get coverage. It really is not much different from people like me or anyone else in the entertainment industry getting 'coverage'.
The interesting moments are when a crisis happens. At times like these the apparatus has to go into top gear to ensure that no matter what excrement is hurled at individuals, the brand (the 'Firm') stays. How do they do it?
One way is to ensure that whatever is going on in the crisis is portrayed as a soap opera ie that it's 'about' the personalities involved. ('He was good. She was bad.' Or vice versa 'She was good. He was bad.' etc etc, as if it's a film or novel). This way, we are shielded from seeing anything going on because of the power, the wealth and the privileged position. We're allowed to glimpse it - and outsiders, like Americans, are allowed to say it - but what can't be said is that an event like this crisis, can't be described as an inevitable, essential part of the craziness of having such an incredible piece of wealth and privilege at the heart of British society.
Another way is to have commentators on TV etc, nodding sagely about how this or that member of the Brand is behaving really well, in the midst of the chaos and scandal. So we get constructions that appear to be critical but are in fact about retrieving virtue from the wreckage. We get phrases like, 'the Royal Family may be tarnished but...' Along with words like 'damaged but...' What this does is appear to concede that something awful has happened but the institution is good and must be seen to be good. The 'but' in these sentences is all important. The 'but' is about how Royal x or Royal y has behaved really well. Or that Royal x was deeply troubled but in the end 'got it right'.
And one other way the apparatus gets to work is to normalise the abnormal. I said that I wasn't going to refer to the specifics about this latest crisis, but in one sense I will. What has happened to Andrew (and here's me using his first name as if I know him! See how I got sucked into the Brand there!) is some kind of punishment and that now 'he's one of us'. 'He's just an ordinary citizen.' Is he? He seems to have been given a house on a private estate. And this is presented as if he's out on his ear, on the streets and tomorrow he's standing outside a letting agency looking at the photos of one-bedroom flats in a run-down side of town, wondering who's going to help him out with his deposit, and who's going to write a reference for him, based on good behaviour during his previous tenancies. Lols.
So once again, the Brand is saved through descriptions of this exile into luxury as normal. We should agree and accept that's fine. I've forgotten the arrangement made for little fascist Duke of Windsor but I can remember how his complaints that he didn't have enough dosh did occasionally reach the ears of the British public. Didn't he have a rather nice flat in Paris or on the French Riviera (or both?)? Again, it's not the personal that I'm talking about here. It's the way the commentators structure our acceptance that this is how this Brand must behave.
In toto then, we are given a brilliantly managed bit of tutting. There's unease, concern, a lot of frowning, a bit of sighing, occasional condemnation but overall it's all OK, and it's the best we can have, the most desirable institution, the best way to organise the machinery of the state's ceremonial duties. In short we are blessed. Concerned but blessed.
Amen.
-
A prince can make a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, and a' that;
But an honest man's aboon his might,
Gude faith, he maunna fa' that!
For a' that, and a' that,
Their dignities and a' that;
The pith o' sense, and pride o' worth,
Are higher rank than a' that.
-
Innocent until proven guilty.
-
Innocent until proven guilty.
He's guilty about his lying about his contact with Epstein after Epstein had admitted prostituting minors.
-
Innocent until proven guilty.
[iPresumed[/i] innocent until proven guilty - not quite the same thing.
-
Marina Hyde on this
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/31/firm-prince-andrew-windsor-king-prince-william
There is someone out there thinking of a version of Kind Hearts and Coronets where they kill the 7 in line to the throne so Andy becomes king... ooh look that's me
-
He's guilty about his lying about his contact with Epstein after Epstein had admitted prostituting minors.
Is that a crime though? The only crime he's accused of is the one with Giuffrey, with no evidence produced except a faked picture. Why hasn't Harry been stripped of his titles?
-
Is that a crime though? The only crime he's accused of is the one with Giuffrey, with no evidence produced except a faked picture. Why hasn't Harry been stripped of his titles?
I didn't say it was a crime he hasn't been charged with anything , being a Royal isn't an ordinary job. As to Harry has he been lying about not supporting admitting rapists?
ETA and plenty people lose their jobs for morally dubious actions that are not illegal
-
with no evidence produced except to prove it is a faked picture
FTFY
-
I didn't say it was a crime he hasn't been charged with anything , being a Royal isn't an ordinary job. As to Harry has he been lying about not supporting admitting rapists?
ETA and plenty people lose their jobs for morally dubious actions that are not illegal
I get that, and accept that he has to move out of his house and lose his titles. But if he hasn't done anything with Giuffrey, the clamour from the public is really disproportionate.
FTFY
See the photo above. It's evidence that proves it has been tampered with. There's much more, but that's the undeniable evidence, because there is no way his fingers can line up in the way the photo shows unless the forefinger has been elongated.
-
I get that, and accept that he has to move out of his house and lose his titles. But if he hasn't done anything with Giuffrey, the clamour from the public is really disproportionate.
See the photo above. It's evidence that proves it has been tampered with. There's much more, but that's the undeniable evidence, because there is no way his fingers can line up in the way the photo shows unless the forefinger has been elongated.
What is proportionate clamour for someone lying about their contact with an admitted underage rapist?
-
See the photo above. It's evidence that proves it has been tampered with. There's much more, but that's the undeniable evidence, because there is no way his fingers can line up in the way the photo shows unless the forefinger has been elongated.
I know you've done all this before, so I don't want to prolong this part of the discussion. To put it succinctly, I don't believe the claim that it is fabricated.
-
What is proportionate clamour for someone lying about their contact with an admitted underage rapist?
The article you linked in #8 says he was asked if he had seen or spoken to Epstein after Epstein's conviction. He wasn't asked about emails, so technically he didn't lie. Maybe I've missed something?
-
The article you linked in #8 says he was asked if he had seen or spoken to Epstein after Epstein's conviction. He wasn't asked about emails, so technically he didn't lie. Maybe I've missed something?
I think you are missing that he is a smug and arrogant brat with an overactive sense of entitlement who arranged to pay twelve million pounds to someone he says he didn't know!
Mind you - I am enjoying the schadenfreude.
-
The article you linked in #8 says he was asked if he had seen or spoken to Epstein after Epstein's conviction. He wasn't asked about emails, so technically he didn't lie. Maybe I've missed something?
I didn't make any claim that that article said anything about that. The 2010 meet is what I was referring to.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-andrew-epstein-title-windsor-mountbatten-queen-virginia-giuffre-scandal-b2856615.html
-
I didn't make any claim that that article said anything about that. The 2010 meet is what I was referring to.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-andrew-epstein-title-windsor-mountbatten-queen-virginia-giuffre-scandal-b2856615.html
I watched the relevant bit in the interview, and he definitely denied 'any contact' with Epstein after 2010. Maitlis clarified by asking if he saw him or spoke to him again. Iirc the leaked emails reveal that Epstein asked him to show someone around London. But there's no evidence that he ever saw him again. So I guess technically he did lie, but only concerning emails. He said he was concerned that he shouldn't be seen with him again, so in his mind apparently that's what he was refering to by 'no contact'.
-
We asked 100 people: Would you pay 12 million pounds to someone you don't know?
They said: Piss off, you're having a laugh.
-
I watched the relevant bit in the interview, and he definitely denied 'any contact' with Epstein after 2010. Maitlis clarified by asking if he saw him or spoke to him again. Iirc the leaked emails reveal that Epstein asked him to show someone around London. But there's no evidence that he ever saw him again. So I guess technically he did lie, but only concerning emails. He said he was concerned that he shouldn't be seen with him again, so in his mind apparently that's what he was refering to by 'no contact'.
Again you are denying a claim is didn't make. He lied about the extent of his contact with Epstein throughout the period. He say Epstein after he had been convicted of sex trafficking a minor.
-
We asked 100 people: Would you pay 12 million pounds to someone you don't know?
They said: Piss off, you're having a laugh.
That she accepted the payoff could indicate that she knew she couldn't win the case.
-
Again you are denying a claim is didn't make. He lied about the extent of his contact with Epstein throughout the period. He say Epstein after he had been convicted of sex trafficking a minor.
He admitted he saw Epstein in 2010, so where is the lie?
-
Sure. That she accepted the payoff could indicate that she knew she couldn't win the case.
Or perhaps she had 12 million good reasons to draw a line under the legal stuff.
-
He admitted he saw Epstein in 2010, so where is the lie?
After it was revealed and after he lied about the extent of his contact with Epstein. And after Eostein had been jailed for sex trafficking a minor.
-
After it was revealed and after he lied about the extent of his contact with Epstein. And after Eostein had been jailed for sex trafficking a minor.
As far as I can see, he explains this in the TV interview. What were the exact statements you say were lies, and when?
-
As far as I can see, he explains this in the TV interview. What were the exact statements you say were lies, and when?
He gives an excuse. He still meets a convicted child sex trafficker. He goes out of his way to do so. People feel this is unacceptable. Why do you think it is OK?
-
As to the lies about the extent of contact see March 2021 in the timeline here as well as the email.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/863373/detailed-timeline-prince-andrew-scandal/
-
That she accepted the payoff could indicate that she knew she couldn't win the case.
Are you really trying to tell me that if she couldn't win the case, Her Majesty's lawyers and advisors wouldn't be aware of that?
And knowing that they would have wasted 12 million? The notoriously, careful tight with their money, Royal family.
I have a bridge to sell you.
-
He gives an excuse. He still meets a convicted child sex trafficker. He goes out of his way to do so. People feel this is unacceptable. Why do you think it is OK?
If you're meaning he said he was going to end the friendship, and wanted to do it in person, what is wrong with that, if Andrew saw him as a friend?
The royal family has helped me a lot: Duke of Edinburgh awards; Princess Anne was patron of my college; ABRSM passed me in piano exams; Prince Edward's secretary, who went to the same church as me, invited some of us to watch a film at the palace cinema. So I feel people should give them a break.
As to the lies about the extent of contact see March 2021 in the timeline here as well as the email.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/863373/detailed-timeline-prince-andrew-scandal/
There's nothing about March 2021 there. Re: the email from Feb 2011, well that was after Giuffrey had just released the photo, iirc.
-
If you're meaning he said he was going to end the friendship, and wanted to do it in person, what is wrong with that, if Andrew saw him as a friend?
The royal family has helped me a lot: Duke of Edinburgh awards; Princess Anne was patron of my college; ABRSM passed me in piano exams; Prince Edward's secretary, who went to the same church as me, invited some of us to watch a film at the palace cinema. So I feel people should give them a break.
There's nothing about March 2021 there. Re: the email from Feb 2011, well that was after Giuffrey had just released the photo, iirc.
that should have said March 2011 - typo.
You are defending a man who strayed with a convicted traffickers of minors. If you think that's ok then you are condoning the trafficking of minors. Your bit about the Royal family and you is both laughable and irrelevant to the actions of Andrew and what actions have been taken
-
that should have said March 2011 - typo.
You are defending a man who strayed with a convicted traffickers of minors. If you think that's ok then you are condoning the trafficking of minors. Your bit about the Royal family and you is both laughable and irrelevant to the actions of Andrew and what actions have been taken
And you're spinning the evidence as much as you can to make him look guilty.
-
And you're spinning the evidence as much as you can to make him look guilty.
Except in I am not claiming he is guilty of an offence. I am pointing out why his behaviour is morally repugnant, and that this could lead to being sacked in an ordinary job, never mind the Royal Family. The Royal Family would seem to agree.
-
..
-
Except in I am not claiming he is guilty of an offence. I am pointing out why his behaviour is morally repugnant, and that this could lead to being sacked in an ordinary job, never mind the Royal Family. The Royal Family would seem to agree.
He said that he stayed with Epstein because it was convenient and gave him the opportunity to meet with other people. He said he met him in person because he thought that was the proper way to end their association.
-
He said that he stayed with Epstein because it was convenient and gave him the opportunity to meet with other people. He said he met him in person because he thought that was the proper way to end their association.
Yes, I often worry about how to best end the relationships with child trafficking rapists and find the personal touch and staying with them is what you really want to go for. Or fuck off you fucking paedophile creep from as far a distance as possible.
-
Yes, I often worry about how to best end the relationships with child trafficking rapists and find the personal touch and staying with them is what you really want to go for. Or fuck off you fucking paedophile creep from as far a distance as possible.
The "anti" nonce brigade are always the first ti protect actual nonces. Where's those Epstein files?
-
Yes, I often worry about how to best end the relationships with child trafficking rapists and find the personal touch and staying with them is what you really want to go for. Or fuck off you fucking paedophile creep from as far a distance as possible.
The problem as I see it is that, rather than being morally repugnant, it is unwise, as it leaves him open to the suspicion that he was involved in the illegal activities. However, if it was proven that the main accusation against him is fabricated, would that suspicion be significantly reduced?
-
https://abcnews.go.com/US/ghislaine-maxwell-doj-meetings-rejected-accusers-claim-sexual/story?id=124903996#:~:text=Maxwell%20told%20Blanche%20that%20the,ridiculous%20excuses%22%20to%20claim%20otherwise.
Maxwell told Blanche that the primary purpose of the March 2001 trip was for Epstein and his decorator to visit a house in Marrakesh, Morocco, and for Maxwell to be in England for her mother's birthday weekend. According to the pilot's logs, the plane left Morocco and touched down in London on a Friday and departed for the U.S. two days later.
This party was Elizabeth Maxwell's 80th. In the July interview Ghislaine said that she could prove she was not at her house on 10th March 2001.
So we're now waiting for this to be verified, by Ghislaine's family. But it makes sense that the last thing she would be doing on that weekend was organising Prince Andrew to go clubbing with Giuffre.
-
Note, Elizabeth Maxwell's 80th birthday was on 11 March 2001, according to her DOB in Wikipedia.
-
https://abcnews.go.com/US/ghislaine-maxwell-doj-meetings-rejected-accusers-claim-sexual/story?id=124903996#:~:text=Maxwell%20told%20Blanche%20that%20the,ridiculous%20excuses%22%20to%20claim%20otherwise.
This party was Elizabeth Maxwell's 80th. In the July interview Ghislaine said that she could prove she was not at her house on 10th March 2001.
So we're now waiting for this to be verified, by Ghislaine's family. But it makes sense that the last thing she would be doing on that weekend was organising Prince Andrew to go clubbing with Giuffre.
You seem to be under the misapprehensuon that this about a legal case that other than resulting in a pay off of 12m, something that itself is problematic for Andrew having a prominent role representing the country, is not being argued here. The actions in Andrew lying about the extent of his contact with Epstein, and the 12 million pay out, are what has lead to him being out of the role of representing Britain. Just as happened to Mandelson.
-
The actions in Andrew lying about the extent of his contact with Epstein, and the 12 million pay out, are what has lead to him being out of the role of representing Britain. Just as happened to Mandelson.
The 12 million I can understand would cause anger, but what he said about his contact with Epstein is not an issue for me because he didn't see him again after the 4 day stay. And because there is no evidence that Andrew himself was ever involved in the illegal activity. I am suggesting that the suspicion caused by Giuffre's allegations are making people blow the fact of his contact with Epstein after the latter's conviction, out of proportion.
-
The 12 million I can understand would cause anger, but what he said about his contact with Epstein is not an issue for me because he didn't see him again after the 4 day stay. And because there is no evidence that Andrew himself was ever involved in the illegal activity. I am suggesting that the suspicion caused by Giuffre's allegations are making people blow the fact of his contact with Epstein after the latter's conviction, out of proportion.
And again you are ignoring the lies as listed here in the timeline in March 2011, snd the email,. And of course you think it is perfectly acceptable to accept being put up by a convicted paedophile child traffickers.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/863373/detailed-timeline-prince-andrew-scandal/
-
And again you are ignoring the lies as listed here in the timeline in March 2011, snd the email,. And of course you think it is perfectly acceptable to accept being put up by a convicted paedophile child traffickers.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/863373/detailed-timeline-prince-andrew-scandal/
Maxwell in her interview said it was around 2000-2001 that Andrew met Epstein, and that rather than her introducing him, Andrew only got on with Epstein because Maxwell was around. She was already friends with Andrew and Sarah.
So Alastair Watson would need to provide evidence.
At any rate, Andrew could have become friends with Epstein when he said he did, and met him earlier in a non-friendship context, and his claim would not be an all-out lie. It could have been a mistake. The point I'm trying to make is that he didn't lie about Giuffre. If he did lie about when he met Epstein, that's not an offense that you would strip him of his titles for.
To put it in perspective, Charles had an affair with Camilla while she was still married but was allowed to become king.
-
Maxwell in her interview said it was around 2000-2001 that Andrew met Epstein, and that rather than her introducing him, Andrew only got on with Epstein because Maxwell was around. She was already friends with Andrew and Sarah.
So Alastair Watson would need to provide evidence.
At any rate, Andrew could have become friends with Epstein when he said he did, and met him earlier in a non-friendship context, and his claim would not be an all-out lie. It could have been a mistake. The point I'm trying to make is that he didn't lie about Giuffre. If he did lie about when he met Epstein, that's not an offense that you would strip him of his titles for.
To put it in perspective, Charles had an affair with Camilla while she was still married but was allowed to become king.
It's an offense that the Royal Family stripped him of his titles for. You said you liked them but here you are condemning them.
-
It's an offense that the Royal Family stripped him of his titles for. You said you liked them but here you are condemning them.
I don't understand why they are behaving this way. Nearly all those things I mentioned happened before Charles and Diana divorced. It seems Edward and Sophie are the only ones who have stayed out of trouble, and interestingly they refused titles for their children (iirc). William should have become king, imo and I'll always think of Charles as Prince Charles.
-
Hmmm...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cglgj08erywo
-
Hmmm...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cglgj08erywo
Hmm indeed. Looks to me like Andrew may have met VG, but from his email to Epstein looks like he genuinely had no involvement in the photo of himself with her at Maxwell's house.
-
I know you've done all this before, so I don't want to prolong this part of the discussion. To put it succinctly, I don't believe the claim that it is fabricated.
Thought I'd post this so you can see all the evidence that it was a fake:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10DFEc8hq8oUw-vtiBPn38I46W39tXJLt/view?usp=drivesdk