Prince Andrew Accused of Underage Sex Acts

Funnily enough, I cant find it anywhere on Google, Id hate for people to think you are lying, any chance of a link?
You can't find that he married Lady Di? ...or that he was previously dating her elder sister, visiting Althorp a number of times, where she just happened to be living?

That hardly surprises me.
And once again, it isnt really, by "well documented" do you mean someone said something on the internet?
All I can find is that they wrote to each other at that age.
Ummm ..... yes. Maybe you think it's normal for 18 and 19 year old servicemen to write to 13 year olds, but in contemporary parlance it's called "grooming".
 
You can't find that he married Lady Di? ...or that he was previously dating her elder sister, visiting Althorp a number of times, where she just happened to be living?

That hardly surprises me.
Ummm ..... yes. Maybe you think it's normal for 18 and 19 year old servicemen to write to 13 year olds, but in contemporary parlance it's called "grooming".
So no link at all to Charles courting Diana at the age of 16 . If he was shaging her sister I would imagine that he might occasionally see Diana in the same house.
Looks like you did lie Jonny boy.
When I was in Bosnia, plenty of soldiers where writing to children, you are aware that some people have the ability to talk to kids without immediately wanting to **** them?
 
Er.

No. Lots of different models of ‘democracy’. Including the electoral college system the Americans use.

Neither our or the US system uses the ‘popular vote’ as an electoral system.
Er ... yes there are, however those such as the US Electoral College System don't actually meet any accepted definition of "democracy".which by basic definition means rule by the majority, either directly or indirectly.

If any system's to remain democratic it has to change and develop as countries do. Neither the US's nor the UK's have.
 
Last edited:
So no link at all to Charles courting Diana at the age of 16 . If he was shaging her sister I would imagine that he might occasionally see Diana in the same house.
Looks like you did lie Jonny boy.
My mistake. I hadn't realised you were quite so ignorant of quite so much.

There's not much "if" about whether he was going out with Lady Sarah McCorquodale - again well documented, but no surprise you're unaware of that too.
When I was in Bosnia, plenty of soldiers where writing to children, you are aware that some people have the ability to talk to kids without immediately wanting to **** them?
Quite aware, however I doubt their agendas were the same. His later letters, when she was 16 /17 so younger and considerably less "experienced" than Virginia Roberts when she met Andrew, are also pretty well documented although evidently you're unaware of those too.

I'm not defending Andrew, simply pointing out that he was following his elder brother's and father's example and doing nothing more heinous and nothing many others have done in a similar situation since he was already divorced. Odd that you should take exception to that given your previous posts, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
 
My mistake. I hadn't realised you were quite so ignorant of quite so much.

There's not much "if" about whether he was going out with Lady Sarah McCorquodale - again well documented, but no surprise you're unaware of that too.Quite aware, however I doubt their agendas were the same. His later letters, when she was 16 /17 so younger and considerably less "experienced" than Virginia Roberts when she met Andrew, are also pretty well documented although evidently you're unaware of those too.

I'm not defending Andrew, simply pointing out that he was following his elder brother's and father's example and doing nothing more heinous and nothing many others have done in a similar situation since he was already divorced. Odd that you should take exception to that given your previous posts, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Well documented and yet again the googlemeister doesnt provide a link.
Are you telling porkies Jonnyboy?

Except you have provided zero proof his brother or his father pumped Diana/the Queen before they were 18.
 

Endoscope

Old-Salt
I know it's difficult, but do try to at least find your brain cell even if you can't engage it.

I've never claimed they did.
You have intimated at it on many occasions in a fnar fnar, nudge nudge wink wink, school playground way for many post now
 
I know it's difficult, but do try to at least find your brain cell even if you can't engage it.

I've never claimed they did.
So not like what Andrew has been accused of in the slightest?

Any chance of that link to Charles courting Diana when she was 16 (it being well documented and everything) or are you just going to dodge answering again?
 
If true, things could be getting even more uncomfortable for the House of Windsor in the New Year.

'The world's media sleuths are trying to find Ms Maxwell, so far without success. One of them is Mark Edmonds, a regular writer for publications like Tatler, the Sunday Times and the Financial Times. He said he'd knocked on a lot of doors, but some were "completely inaccessible". "I know where she is. I don't know her address, but my contacts suggest she is with the authorities in [the United States of] America ... the FBI or some sort of law enforcement agency," he said.

'She's neither been charged nor accused of anything apart from any mention in the documents from the women who have already filed affidavits against Epstein. Mr Edmonds believed she was helping the FBI with information and would get a plea bargain in return.'


 
If true, things could be getting even more uncomfortable for the House of Windsor in the New Year.

'The world's media sleuths are trying to find Ms Maxwell, so far without success. One of them is Mark Edmonds, a regular writer for publications like Tatler, the Sunday Times and the Financial Times. He said he'd knocked on a lot of doors, but some were "completely inaccessible". "I know where she is. I don't know her address, but my contacts suggest she is with the authorities in [the United States of] America ... the FBI or some sort of law enforcement agency," he said.

'She's neither been charged nor accused of anything apart from any mention in the documents from the women who have already filed affidavits against Epstein. Mr Edmonds believed she was helping the FBI with information and would get a plea bargain in return.'


"If true" also so known as journalists making up stuff.
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
Er ... yes there are, however those such as the US Electoral College System don't actually meet any accepted definition of "democracy".which by basic definition means rule by the majority, either directly or indirectly.

If any system's to remain democratic it has to change and develop as countries do. Neither the US's nor the UK's have.
One has to win the majority of states, each one is an entity that has a say in how things are done. Regardless of population. If California and New York determine everything it ain’t much of a Democracy.
 
Actually it is, Bob, unpalatable and even distasteful though it may be. She was 14 when they first met, when he was dating her sister, although they didn't date until she was 16 and her sister had well and truly binned him. ..... and they met plenty of times, even publicly, before they married. No idea where you dreamt up "a dozen or so".
There has never been a suggestion that he didn't, either!

..... and where have you dreamt up this requirement that he haf to "marry a virgin of noble blood" from, Bob? Pure fantasy. All she has to be is CofE, nothing else.

Edit: to pre-empt any bleat about times change, etc, he could have married Camilla Shand the first time around. While she was certainly part of his "set" she didn't meet either of your criteria.
They first met at Althorp when she was 16

As for nobility and virginity, there was no law requiring. However, The Royal Marriages Act of 1772 required all descendants of George II to seek the Sovereign’s permission to marry.

The Palace made a big thing of Diana’s “virtue” at the time. Although she was technically a commoner, she was titled, the daughter of an Earl and of the right background.

I seriously doubt that the Queen would have allowed Charles to marry an air hostess’s daughter.....
 
Ghislaine Maxwell is reportedly lining up a TV interview to 'defend her friend Prince Andrew'.

What could possibly go wrong?
 
One has to win the majority of states, each one is an entity that has a say in how things are done. Regardless of population. If California and New York determine everything it ain’t much of a Democracy.
It's a democracy, as in rule by the majority of the people, if that's what the majority of the people choose.

It's not a democracy if the effect of your vote depends purely on where you live, with it having over forty times as much voting power in one location as another.

What you're advocating is the direct equivalent of a system in the UK where Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England (and arguably the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, etc,) all had the same voting power regardless of population. Somehow I can't see that going down too well with most of the population.
 
The Palace made a big thing of Diana’s “virtue” at the time. Although she was technically a commoner, she was titled, the daughter of an Earl and of the right background.
You're disappointing me, Bob.

Do you understand what "commoner" means?

If "she was titled, the daughter of an Earl", which she was (she inherited her title in June 1975, when she was 15), then by the most basic definition she was anything but a "commoner".

The level of ignorance masquerading as informed fact here is seriously mind-blowing.

Edit:
I seriously doubt that the Queen would have allowed Charles to marry an air hostess’s daughter.....
I never suggested she would.
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
It's a democracy, as in rule by the majority of the people, if that's what the majority of the people choose.

It's not a democracy if the effect of your vote depends purely on where you live, with it having over forty times as much voting power in one location as another.

What you're advocating is the direct equivalent of a system in the UK where Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England (and arguably the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, etc,) all had the same voting power regardless of population. Somehow I can't see that going down too well with most of the population.
It is a democracy that keeps a rather vast Union whole. If a popular vote decided everything, America would fragment very quickly. Hence why we are a Constitutional Republic.

My vote can’t be ignored, in favour of foreigners who live two thousand miles away.

Our way of business would never work in the UK.
 
...... Hence why we are a Constitutional Republic.
But not a democracy by any known or accepted definition.
My vote can’t be ignored, in favour of foreigners who live two thousand miles away.
No, not "ignored", but if you're living in the "wrong" place in the US someone living two thousand miles away who'd been born overseas and never been to the States in their life has a vote that's worth more than yours in both Presidential and Senate elections - up to sixty times more in the Senate.

Your "way of business" is absurd.
 
You're disappointing me, Bob.

Do you understand what "commoner" means?

If "she was titled, the daughter of an Earl", which she was (she inherited her title in June 1975, when she was 15), then by the most basic definition she was anything but a "commoner".

The level of ignorance masquerading as informed fact here is seriously mind-blowing.

Edit: I never suggested she would.
Anyone who Is not a member of the British peerage is a commoner.

As the youngest daughter of an Earl, she was not a member of the British Peerage and therefore she was technically a commoner. She was, of course, a member of the aristocracy.

Her title of Lady was an honorific courtesy title bestowed because she was the daughter of an Earl. It had no legal meaning; she was not a member of the peerage. She was therefore a commoner.
 
Last edited:
So not like what Andrew has been accused of in the slightest?
As you've said, repeatedly, what Andrew has "been accused of" here as well as in the press, amongst other things, is having sex with a girl who was 18 so well over the legal age of consent when he was in his 30's. Something you previously didn't see as wrong. Have you somehow changed your mind?

The other "accusations" - that he didn't know how old she was or if she was "trafficked" simply don't hold up. He had every reason to think she was 18 (which she was!) and none at all to imagine she'd been "trafficked".

I'm not defending Andrew or any of the other wasters in the British Royal family in any way, but the idea that he's let them down by not following their shining example simply doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny. He was divorced at the time he was playing the field - Charles certainly wasn't. It's pure hypocrisy.
 

Latest Threads

Top