The Royal Family #11

[PenelopeTitsDrop]

He wouldn't get in trouble under US law I don't believe because sleeping with her was not illegal as she was of age of consent. I don't think - LEGALLY - he broke any laws. Morally - oh yes he is a scumbag and immoral as hell and guilty as hell! According to US law because she is the claimant she has to provide all the hard evidence. I am intrigued to see how this goes - I think because she is the claimant it is why his lawyers are going for a trial believing that she won't have enough to convict. I am not a lawyer but took several law classes so I bet someone else knows more but this is what I understand if I remember my law correctly.

I never saw any videos of Andrew there personally so, I'm just saying these are my thoughts on the matter. I hope everyone involved in this is imprisoned for life- but I don't think anyone will be at all. Too many powerful disgusting evil people involved, and even Andrew will probably come out unscathed just like everyone else ... and that is the real horrific issue here, nobody is going to pay for this. I don't think anything will happen other than Andrew's already awful reputation will be reinforced and the others involved in this will get off scot-free.

re: her story - first it was New Mexico, then it was London, her ages, etc have all changed during different statements made under oath (and in her writing). She already got a payout from Andrew in the past as well.

I'm not sure that inconsistencies in her story make much difference to the way I feel about this whole thing.

It's common for victims of abuse to have difficulties remembering stuff accurately (I think I read somewhere). Also, even if this lady was telling lies about locations etc, it wouldn't change the fact that she was trafficked and PA (allegedly) shagged her when she was underage in some jurisdictions.

I feel there is lots of pressure on victims of abuse to be almost perfect people and, if they arent, then their claims can be dismissed by many. The reality is, abuse victims are just as likely to be horrible as anyone else. It doesn't mean that their abusers didn't abuse.

 

[elliebee27]

I'm not sure that inconsistencies in her story make much difference to the way I feel about this whole thing.

It's common for victims of abuse to have difficulties remembering stuff accurately (I think I read somewhere). Also, even if this lady was telling lies about locations etc, it wouldn't change the fact that she was trafficked and PA (allegedly) shagged her when she was underage in some jurisdictions.

I feel there is lots of pressure on victims of abuse to be almost perfect people and, if they arent, then their claims can be dismissed by many. The reality is, abuse victims are just as likely to be horrible as anyone else. It doesn't mean that their abusers didn't abuse.

I don't disagree here either and I don't want to dismiss claims of abuse - we all know what happened and regardless she is also a victim as are so many more women who have been brave to speak out against all of this. I was a victim of abuse myself and nobody in my family ever believed me - it is horrible.

I think the inconsistencies in her story will hurt her in a trial. I also think Andrew being Andrew - so stupid, so arrogant - thought she was willing and she was definitely over the age of consent (if they had sex in the UK or in NY). Not sure legally if a crime was committed. Morally - absolutely. I think the inconsistencies and age of consent thing are why Andrew's lawyer has chosen a trial.

 

[50sGirl]

I don't disagree here either and I don't want to dismiss claims of abuse - we all know what happened and regardless she is also a victim as are so many more women who have been brave to speak out against all of this. I was a victim of abuse myself and nobody in my family ever believed me - it is horrible.

I think the inconsistencies in her story will hurt her in a trial. I also think Andrew being Andrew - so stupid, so arrogant - thought she was willing and she was definitely over the age of consent (if they had sex in the UK or in NY). Not sure legally if a crime was committed. Morally - absolutely. I think the inconsistencies and age of consent thing are why Andrew's lawyer has chosen a trial.

Didn't she initially say he had an orgy with her and 8 others and then changed it and said it was just the 2 of them?
I can understand dates being a bit fuzzy after all this time but that seems a huge discrepancy.
At best Andrew comes out of this as a complete sleazeball, at worst…

Sorry you’ve been a victim too.

 

[Libbylulu]

The Duchess of Cambridge is now the Patron of the English rugby team in place of Harry

 

[mindlessness]

The Duchess of Cambridge is now the Patron of the English rugby team in place of Harry

A good appointment I think. W & C seem to enjoy friendly competition so will have fun watching whenever Wales and England play.

The Duchess of Cambridge officially becomes patron of the Rugby Football League and Rugby Football Union

As the Six Nations Championships begin this weekend, we can expect to see the duchess cheering on from the Royal box

www.tatler.com

 

[thegirlscout]

I feel there is lots of pressure on victims of abuse to be almost perfect people and, if they arent, then their claims can be dismissed by many.

This pretty much hits the nail on the head. I’ve read so many accounts of women who have been sexually abused and the form of questioning they go through could be compared to mental torture. Lawyers have people to go through victims social media, speak to people they know, even go through their rubbish to find one speck that can be used against them.

 

[Mairag]

Did I fall asleep and miss out a decade? A decade where the premise of “innocent until proven guilty” was abolished? Where we have resurrected the inquisition and witch trials?

VRG has accused PA and ALLEGED that he sexually abused her and that she was trafficked by JE to PA - but that’s ALL it is at the moment people! An accusation; an allegation!

It seems most everyone has already judged and condemned him and thrown away the key.

Do I think he is an arrogant entitled prat with bad taste in “friends”? Yes absolutely.
But until a proper lawful trial has been done (as opposed to these witch trials by social media), I am going to reserve judgement on whether he might be guilty of the things in her allegation because I don’t know all the facts and neither do any of you.

 

[DaisyDeluxe]

I don't disagree here either and I don't want to dismiss claims of abuse - we all know what happened and regardless she is also a victim as are so many more women who have been brave to speak out against all of this. I was a victim of abuse myself and nobody in my family ever believed me - it is horrible.

I think the inconsistencies in her story will hurt her in a trial. I also think Andrew being Andrew - so stupid, so arrogant - thought she was willing and she was definitely over the age of consent (if they had sex in the UK or in NY). Not sure legally if a crime was committed. Morally - absolutely. I think the inconsistencies and age of consent thing are why Andrew's lawyer has chosen a trial.

I think this is the key point. Regardless of whether she's a nice/good person etc doesn't matter (and the previous poster is right to point out that the personality of the alleged victim doesn't mean they can't be abused). If she is going to give evidence, she will still have to present as a credible witness if she is going to believed. If there are inconsistencies she will be treated as not being a credible witness - that's what happens in the witness box.

 

[President_Butthead]

Did I fall asleep and miss out a decade? A decade where the premise of “innocent until proven guilty” was abolished? Where we have resurrected the inquisition and witch trials?

I agree with your sentiment, however from watching QI, the inquisition was actually quite ok.

1) No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition The inquisition sent you a letter with the allegation and you had 30 days to come up with a reply.

2) If you had prior disagreement with your accuser they just went away.

3) If people had a choice between trial by the King, or the Inquisition - people chose the inquisition

4) If you were tortured you were only tortured for 15 minutes under the supervision of a doctor. That puts the stories of waterboarding by the CIA into context.

Historians say Inquisition wasn't that bad

For centuries people were burned at the stake, stretched to death or otherwise tortured for failing to be Roman Catholic. But, if research released by the Vatican is right, the Inquisition was not as bad as one might think.

www.theguardian.com

 

[Boring Monday]

I agree with your sentiment, however from watching QI, the inquisition was actually quite ok.

1) No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition The inquisition sent you a letter with the allegation and you had 30 days to come up with a reply.

2) If you had prior disagreement with your accuser they just went away.

3) If people had a choice between trial by the King, or the Inquisition - people chose the inquisition

4) If you were tortured you were only tortured for 15 minutes under the supervision of a doctor. That puts the stories of waterboarding by the CIA into context.

Historians say Inquisition wasn't that bad

For centuries people were burned at the stake, stretched to death or otherwise tortured for failing to be Roman Catholic. But, if research released by the Vatican is right, the Inquisition was not as bad as one might think.

www.theguardian.com

did they put them in a comfy chair?

 

[iknowevery1]

He wouldn't get in trouble under US law I don't believe because sleeping with her was not illegal as she was of age of consent. I don't think - LEGALLY - he broke any laws. Morally - oh yes he is a scumbag and immoral as hell and guilty as hell! According to US law because she is the claimant she has to provide all the hard evidence. I am intrigued to see how this goes - I think because she is the claimant it is why his lawyers are going for a trial believing that she won't have enough to convict. I am not a lawyer but took several law classes so I bet someone else knows more but this is what I understand if I remember my law correctly.

I never saw any videos of Andrew there personally so, I'm just saying these are my thoughts on the matter. I hope everyone involved in this is imprisoned for life- but I don't think anyone will be at all. Too many powerful disgusting evil people involved, and even Andrew will probably come out unscathed just like everyone else ... and that is the real horrific issue here, nobody is going to pay for this. I don't think anything will happen other than Andrew's already awful reputation will be reinforced and the others involved in this will get off scot-free.

re: her story - first it was New Mexico, then it was London, her ages, etc have all changed during different statements made under oath (and in her writing). She already got a payout from Andrew in the past as well.

wasn't the girl 14? that's not age of consent... so LEGALLY he did break a law

 

[Phoenix Lazarus]

She was 17 but the age of consent was 18 where he slept with her, I think.

 

[JAR21]

She was 17 but the age of consent was 18 where he slept with her, I think.

At the time, in New York the age of consent was 14 and in the UK 16.

 

[a musician]

This is quite an interesting Twitter thread. Still don’t think there’s a way back for Andrew though.

 

[JAR21]

She's changed her story so often, I wouldn't trust her to tell me the time.

 

[AllSeeingEye123]

Big oversized coat and looks a bit round around the middle. Zara expecting again do we think? Mia is growing up so fast.

 

[Dollenganger]

I don't disagree. But I do not 100% believe her either - all her stories are convoluted and very different from one another.

My opinion is this - Andrew did not know about the trafficking. She was legal. He is arrogant and dumb as a box of rocks. He believed it was consensual. Who wouldn't want him, he's a prince, and was a war hero! Let's forget he's paunchy and a total piece of rubbish. Mummy's favorite! I do not think he committed a crime (legally) but he should be shunted into oblivion and never seen or heard from again.

I also really think the focus on Andrew is to keep the focus off more important, more powerful people.

I can’t really understand where you’re coming from and I’ll explain why.

You say that Andrew is ‘not important’. But he’s the Queen’s, the head of states son and he’s also 9th in line to the bloody throne! The monarchy needs to go but they won’t be going anywhere yet, sadly.

Also you are wrong that VG was of age. She was 17 and the age of consent in NY was 18. Of course he would have known that she and (younger) others were being trafficked. He doesn’t have a shred of decency and thinks he can do anything he likes. That’s why it happened.

Such behaviour from someone in line to the throne with prior royal responsibilities is not something that can just be ignored.

Ask yourself - would your 17 year old daughter want to have sex with Prince William? I have a daughter this age so perhaps this is easier for me to see how girls this age would actually think.

I also don’t think that VG would put herself and her family in theoretical danger for no reason. We have to end this culture of not believing victims.

We also have to accept that someone doesn’t have to behave perfectly themselves to be the victim of a crime.

 

[FrostyChops]

Whenever l quote, my formatting goes off- re Zara. No l think that style of coat is popular. The colour isn't good on her at all, though.

 

[Multi-21]

Big oversized coat and looks a bit round around the middle. Zara expecting again do we think? Mia is growing up so fast.

View attachment 1028734

I think that is just her build to be honest.

 

[DaisyDeluxe]

I don't mean to be cheeky at all, but Zara hasn't looked slim since she was competing in the Olympics. I don't think she's a naturally slim woman, some of us are just heavier built and I think she is too (I am honestly not shaming, neither is she fat, overweight or anything else!).