I agree she carries a bit more weight on top naturally.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I don’t know what Andrew knew or didn’t know, nor do we have any idea where, when and if they actually had sex and what the age of consent was and how old she was (so many conflicting statements about the age of consent in NY at that time).
Innocent until proven guilty still holds. But VG has publicly accused PA for decades. There is a photo publicly known for decades that shows both of them together, PA has not severed ties with his friends (that are convicted of those crimes) till the very end and he has conducted himself in the last years in a manner that makes him look guilty or at least not innocent. In the end, it’s just the tip of the iceberg of his disgraceful behaviours over the decades. That’s why people have such an easy time to believe VG.
The case will not determine if he is guilty or not. I don’t think VG can come up with proof of that. Just a high or low probability. That’s why I think he has a good chance to win. Her story is full on conflicting or changed narratives and loopholes. If you strictly by law, he has a good chance. If a judge or a jury, who are emotional beings, will be as neutral is up for debate.
On the other hand, his reputation will be tarnished by this forever. I don’t think I can be sorry about it, because I strongly believe that he AT BEST chose to turn a blind eye. A twilight stage between not knowing what was going on or actively ignoring all red flags. That’s my personal take away and his actions did nothing to help my impression. As I have explained before, I come from a society where “I didn’t know” doesn’t excuse your actions. You might not have to feel the full brunt of the law but you are still complicit to a certain extent. Stupidity/being naive doesn’t protect you from consequences. Just like you will get in trouble if you help a thief clearing out your neighbours house because you didn’t know it was actually a robbery. Just like you will get in trouble for having sex with a 12 year old, even if she looked like and says she is 16. So it doesn’t matter if he actually thought VG was hot as hell for cuddles with a UK Prince. If she was trafficked or coerced he is complicit. So I don’t think he is innocent, BUT there is wide a range of guiltiness and it’s hard to say where in the spectrum he falls on.
My problem is that it’s hard to prove a timeline (due to her changing stories) and events. She is not a credible witness at this point. The “vanished” protection officer reports might help her though. So, I think he will win. But it’s also ok, that this debacle has finally broken his neck inside the RF. Took long enough.
Innocent until proven guilty still holds. But VG has publicly accused PA for decades. There is a photo publicly known for decades that shows both of them together, PA has not severed ties with his friends (that are convicted of those crimes) till the very end and he has conducted himself in the last years in a manner that makes him look guilty or at least not innocent. In the end, it’s just the tip of the iceberg of his disgraceful behaviours over the decades. That’s why people have such an easy time to believe VG.
The case will not determine if he is guilty or not. I don’t think VG can come up with proof of that. Just a high or low probability. That’s why I think he has a good chance to win. Her story is full on conflicting or changed narratives and loopholes. If you strictly by law, he has a good chance. If a judge or a jury, who are emotional beings, will be as neutral is up for debate.
On the other hand, his reputation will be tarnished by this forever. I don’t think I can be sorry about it, because I strongly believe that he AT BEST chose to turn a blind eye. A twilight stage between not knowing what was going on or actively ignoring all red flags. That’s my personal take away and his actions did nothing to help my impression. As I have explained before, I come from a society where “I didn’t know” doesn’t excuse your actions. You might not have to feel the full brunt of the law but you are still complicit to a certain extent. Stupidity/being naive doesn’t protect you from consequences. Just like you will get in trouble if you help a thief clearing out your neighbours house because you didn’t know it was actually a robbery. Just like you will get in trouble for having sex with a 12 year old, even if she looked like and says she is 16. So it doesn’t matter if he actually thought VG was hot as hell for cuddles with a UK Prince. If she was trafficked or coerced he is complicit. So I don’t think he is innocent, BUT there is wide a range of guiltiness and it’s hard to say where in the spectrum he falls on.
My problem is that it’s hard to prove a timeline (due to her changing stories) and events. She is not a credible witness at this point. The “vanished” protection officer reports might help her though. So, I think he will win. But it’s also ok, that this debacle has finally broken his neck inside the RF. Took long enough.
Agree with everything you said Great_Kate
I think this is why Andrew is taking it to court - to discredit VG - he is so arrogant that he thinks if she loses her case, he will be free to do as he pleases as he will be "innocent".
He is far from innocent and he will never live the life he desires again.
I think this is why Andrew is taking it to court - to discredit VG - he is so arrogant that he thinks if she loses her case, he will be free to do as he pleases as he will be "innocent".
He is far from innocent and he will never live the life he desires again.
I don’t think age of consent is the issue? It’s whether Andrew knowingly slept with a trafficked girl.
Too many people have taken the opportunity to spill on their interactions with him as well as the terrible tone-deaf interview, added to the actual friendship with a convicted paedophile. It's been open season him as people have seized the opportunity to have their say. He's alienated people all his life from aristos, to colleagues, to servants. His siblings and nephew don't seem to be particularly fond of him either. He's completely tone deaf- look at the reports that he was demanding to be allowed to wear an admiral's uniform at his father's funeral which tipped the balance to no uniforms for all when it started as only Harry not being allowed uniform. There's now a movement to get him kicked out of Royal Lodge given that there's only him and his ex-wife there and he can't claim that he needs the space for royal duty meetings and entertainment. The Gloucesters have downsized to a small cottage at Kensington; I'd love to see Andrew and Fergie stuck into Harry's old two bedroom cottage or similar.
Kate Middleton at Twickenham in first outing as England Rugby patron
Dressed in England Rugby drill pants and an official jumper, Kate, 40, appeared in excellent spirits as she arrived at the west London stadium to meet England players, coaches and referees.
They're great pictures, she looks like she's really enjoying herself.Kate looks quite happy in these photos - I think she has a real passion for sport.Kate Middleton at Twickenham in first outing as England Rugby patron
Dressed in England Rugby drill pants and an official jumper, Kate, 40, appeared in excellent spirits as she arrived at the west London stadium to meet England players, coaches and referees.www.dailymail.co.uk
I think Princess Anne and Zara and Mike Tindell might just have something to say at the Mail describing Kate as 'one of the sportiest members of the Royal Family' though!
I loved the picture of Harry captioned "Kate Middleton".
Wouldn't Mike Tindall have been a better fit as patron of the rugby? Or is he not senior enough?
He’s not a royal
Surely he’s as royal as Kate is? Didn’t they both marry in?
And he has the huge advantage of having been an actual rugby player.
Zara has no title so he hasn’t inherited a title. Only titled people are Royals. He’s married *in* to the Royal Family but he himself isn’t Royal.
Happiest l've ever seen her to be honest!!
Zara is technically not royal either, only her mother is. As Princess Margaret said of her children, the children of an earl, "they're not royal but their aunt is the Queen" (paraphrased). As it stands at the moment, unlike other royal houses such as the Swedish, grandchildren of the monarch take their status from their father and wives from their husbands. So Kate, Sophie, Katharine, Marie-Christine and Birgitte are royal but Timothy Laurence is not, just as Mark Phillips, Angus Ogilvie, and Anthony Snowdon were not, as are their children.
You see it in the peerage too. Marry Lord Whatever and you become Lady Whatever and your joint children get whatever his rank entitles them to. A peeress in her own right (eg the late Patricia Countess Mountbatten) doesn't give any title to her husband; children's titles appear to depend on whether the husband is a peer (cf Countess Mountbatten and Lord Brabourne) or not (eg the Countess of Mar whose daughter from an untitled husband is Lady Susan [Wylie - husband's surname] Mistress of Mar - the Lady as daughter of an earldom plus the Master/Mistress title of an heir to a Scottish title where there is no subsidiary title).
Shame as he would be a very clued up patron although Kate seems very enthusiastic and seemed to really enjoy herself on the pitch. Naturally the players were "gentle " with her no one would tackle her really hard or grab her by the crotch.
As the children of the daughter of the monarch. any titles for Zara and Peter would have to have come from their father and as Anne and Mark declined him being ennobled when they married, the children technically are commoners (Anthony Armstrong-Jones was created Lord Snowdon on his marriage to Princess Margaret which is why their children are Lord and Lady at least).
I did see Princess Anne described as, HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips once and thought it neatly touched just about every base.
Gotta love male primogeniture, eh?
I know!
I just find it ludicrous that the daughter of a princess/granddaughter of the queen is seriously considered as being not as royal as the daughter of the owners of a naff party planning company.
What I find even more ludicrous is the idea that anyone would bow and scrape to any of them.
YeAh it is rather naff.I know!
I just find it ludicrous that the daughter of a princess/granddaughter of the queen is seriously considered as being not as royal as the daughter of the owners of a naff party planning company.
What I find even more ludicrous is the idea that anyone would bow and scrape to any of them.
How is Zara not a princess but Andy’s two are?
I think Princess Anne declined titles for her children.
- Status