Prince Andrew Accused of Underage Sex Acts

Mech_Eng

ADC
Book Reviewer
I noted the title of this forum...
In 2007...the age of consent for sex was...16.

Depends where in the world it took place.
 
WTF have you been smoking!
I remember the almost universal respect and affection in which the royals were held prior to the stories about Charles' treatment of Diana (and I'm not even thinking about any conspiracy stories regarding her death). That respect was misplaced, but it was there.

Their ratings took a nosedive when the stories of Charles' dalliances came out. That might have been fair or it might not. Perhaps she was a waste of space, but if so then she was a highly popular waste of space. The rumours (however unjustified) of royal involvement in her death did some more damage, purely on the principle of "if you throw enough mud".

And I don't think many of us saw the royal family as racist until the attitude of at least some of them towards Harry's (slightly) dusky maiden began filtering into the media. Harry's resignation/sacking/whatever made folk realise that there was a fair bit of nastiness going on at the top end of the Mall.

Any stuff about "Yeah but Diana and Meghan were this or that", even if true, won't repair the reputation of the royal family in general and the Queen in particular.

Yes, there's still a generally positive public attitude towards royalty, but it's nothing like it was 40 years ago. And I'm not sure the Queen's dumping her son with quite such a bump will endear her either, even to those who agree that he's a total idiot.
 

4(T)

LE
I remember the almost universal respect and affection in which the royals were held prior to the stories about Charles' treatment of Diana (and I'm not even thinking about any conspiracy stories regarding her death). That respect was misplaced, but it was there.

Their ratings took a nosedive when the stories of Charles' dalliances came out. That might have been fair or it might not. Perhaps she was a waste of space, but if so then she was a highly popular waste of space. The rumours (however unjustified) of royal involvement in her death did some more damage, purely on the principle of "if you throw enough mud".

And I don't think many of us saw the royal family as racist until the attitude of at least some of them towards Harry's (slightly) dusky maiden began filtering into the media. Harry's resignation/sacking/whatever made folk realise that there was a fair bit of nastiness going on at the top end of the Mall.

Any stuff about "Yeah but Diana and Meghan were this or that", even if true, won't repair the reputation of the royal family in general and the Queen in particular.

Yes, there's still a generally positive public attitude towards royalty, but it's nothing like it was 40 years ago. And I'm not sure the Queen's dumping her son with quite such a bump will endear her either, even to those who agree that he's a total idiot.


I think that there are also an awful lot of people who understand that they don't personally know any of the Royal Family, but that their information necessarily comes from a media that in many cases is extraordinarily dishonest, manipulative and agenda-driven in its coverage.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Okay.

I'm not trying to change your opinion on either the Beatles or Michael Jackson. You do you. I do me.

Put on a school tie and pair of shorts and Michael Jackson would have probably have done both of you.
 
I think that there are also an awful lot of people who understand that they don't personally know any of the Royal Family, but that their information necessarily comes from a media that in many cases is extraordinarily dishonest, manipulative and agenda-driven in its coverage.
Like Part One Orders ?
 
I think that there are also an awful lot of people who understand that they don't personally know any of the Royal Family, but that their information necessarily comes from a media that in many cases is extraordinarily dishonest, manipulative and agenda-driven in its coverage.
I don't know that that is an entirely fair representation, but I won't challenge it.

More to the point, IMHO, is this: Elizabeth saw WW2 through (as did Phil The Greek), but their generation is dying off very quickly now, and - in any case - a sizeable chunk of it (the ones that voted WSC out of No. 10 in 1945) had little or no desire to see toffs prospering at their expense.

No generation since has had real cause to think of the royal family as 'going through things with us' , and it is certainly true that increasingly ubiquitous, intrusive and always-on media is no friend of roayl mystique - or even privacy. Quite the reverse.

It will be interesting to see how The House of Windsor copes when Betty's time comes.

Slow death of the Monarchy maybe? Or kept in stasis, to distract ordinary folk from the mess that our nominally democratic monarchy with its non-existent alleged - sorry: unwritten constitution has become?
 

theoriginalphantom

MIA
Book Reviewer
I think that there are also an awful lot of people who understand that they don't personally know any of the Royal Family, but that their information necessarily comes from a media that in many cases is extraordinarily dishonest, manipulative and agenda-driven in its coverage.
In both senses - fawningly over-positive and mindlessly critical.
 

ipso_facto

On ROPS
On ROPs
Remember folks. @ipso_facto is SPOTY 2021 winner!

@ipso_facto - why did you win that award?

Because arrse is seen as a mahoosive penis in the internet world (remember complaints to police, Parliament and Chief of Staff) and needs to project it onto someone to feel better about itself. It is only a handful of people on this site who behave like demented apes like you but unfortunately the whole site is tarred with the same brush.
 

Truxx

LE
Because arrse is seen as a mahoosive penis in the internet world (remember complaints to police, Parliament and Chief of Staff) and needs to project it onto someone to feel better about itself. It is only a handful of people on this site who behave like demented apes like you but unfortunately the whole site is tarred with the same brush.
A contender methinks for Now That's What I Call a Friday Night Post IV.
 
Because arrse is seen as a mahoosive penis in the internet world (remember complaints to police, Parliament and Chief of Staff) and needs to project it onto someone to feel better about itself. It is only a handful of people on this site who behave like demented apes like you but unfortunately the whole site is tarred with the same brush.

Have to say, I would have voted for @Stacker but he did a bravo-squared (can't do ALT+0178).
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top