Prince Andrew

[Paul]

Kristina asked for the Prince Andrew topic, which was running "off topic" in the Brexit thread, to get its own thread. So here it is. In this first post I'll copy all the posts from the Brexit thread to here, so that those who have not been reading the Brexit thread can catch up. If you have been reading the Brexit thread, skip to the next post.

Kristina
it seems we are all too shocked about the revelations coming to the surface when Prince Andrew gave this interview...
... The mind boggles and it is all too unbelievable to even think about and some people have even gone as far as questioning the judgement to allow the interview to take place in Buckingham Palace... and some others are already in the process to set up a "Save The Queen" initiative, but perhaps it has become a bit late? I don't know ...  I honestly don't know ...

Paul
It is fortunate that Prince Andrew is only eighth in line to the throne, so is unlikely in the extreme to become king. If there was any real chance of him taking the throne there would be a lot more fuss. As it is, I expect the matter will die down eventually, assuming the US does not apply for an extradition order against him.

The main reason, IMHO, that the papers are jumping on him is NOT because he may have had sex with a seventeen year old girl, but because he tends to be arrogant, aloof, and a bit unpleasant to the press, and this gives them a chance for revenge.

Kristina
... I beg to disagree...
It has been mentioned that it should be taken into consideration that he is the son of the Queen of England ... and for many years the British taxpayer has paid him alone a yearly state-funded-salary of £249.000 ... and it appears to be very frightening, that in his BBC-interview he never even bothered to mention any of the victims ... What else is there to be discovered ?

Paul
(WRT: "... I beg to disagree...
It has been mentioned that it should be taken into consideration that he is the son of the Queen of England ... and for many years the British taxpayer has paid him alone a yearly state-funded-salary of £249.000 ... and it appears to be very frightening, that in his BBC-interview he never even bothered to mention any of the victims ... What else is there to be discovered ?")

Yes, but:

1) America is keen to do a trade deal with us as soon as Brexit is finalised, do you really think they will jeopardise that by going after the eighth in line for the throne of Great Britain?

2) As to the British public, they get bored easily, give it a couple of weeks and they will give up on the story, then the press will give up as it no longer sells copy, the TV and radio will give up as it no longer gets viewers/listeners, and other things will take the place of this story in the press, such as silly season type Christmas stories.

3) We have an election coming up, no one in authority wants this type of story running to mess with that.

4) As of yesterday, he has been fired or resigned as a "royal", except for family business (he is still the Queen's son) he will take no part in royal activities whatsoever. The public have had their pound of flesh, he has been punished, they don't care about anything else.

In short, pretty much everyone is saying "Nothing to see here, move along please, move along." But they are wasting their time, the gawkers are already moving off, and are looking for the next big thing to gawk at lasciviously.

(WRT:"... and for many years the British taxpayer has paid him alone a yearly state-funded-salary of £249.000")

This is actually a popular urban myth, the Royal Family don't get paid a penny. What happens is that government has control of their properties, and whatever they earn the government takes 85%, and share out the remaining 15% between the Royals.

This is still a lot of money, but then the Royal Family have been the kings and queens of Britain for centuries, and of England for even longer, so have acquired an enormous amount of land and property. But basically, we (the tax payers) don't give them a penny, and they are effectively paying 85% tax on their earnings.

Kristina
According to the Evening Standard, Daily Mail, Mail Online etc. , the latest news on this are as follows  :
"Her Majesty summoned her 'favourite son' to deliver the bad news and told him he would lose his £250,000 taxpayer-funded salary and would only appear in public at family events".

Paul
Not sure if you are pointing out that he has lost his job or that they say "taxpayer-funded salary". If you post was about him loosing his job, then I already mentioned that. If your post was to point out that they say "taxpayer-funded salary", never trust the daily/Sunday/online Mail, it has only a loose knowledge of the truth, and the Evening Standard is not too good a paper since it went "free" (the ownership of the paper changed hands a few years back, and the entire company was sold for a penny, the general opinion in the business was that the new owners overpaid). A good hint at the questionable accuracy is the comment "favourite son", he isn't, or at least the Queen has never said so. Also, the official line is that he resigned, not that the Queen "fired" him, she may have done, but that is an assumption by the press, not a known fact. Although £250,000 could be an accurate figure for his share of the money.

However, if he is no longer getting a share of the Royal Purse, and has given up all his "jobs", one wonders how he is going to live, he must be getting some money from somewhere. I cannot imagine that the government will allow the Queen's son to live on the street, begging for food.

Kristina
P.S. In terms of "What else is there to be discovered ..." .. should it not be mentioned that, despite the fact - and I quote : "Prince Andrew is only eighth in line to the throne, so is unlikely in the extreme to become king" -  he certainly must have caused a huge security-risk to the UK not only because of the possibility of "filmed pillow-talk" etc. and resulting blackmail etc., etc., but because his mother, The Queen, is Head of State and therefore in a very confidential position and as her son who regularly sees her, dines at Buckingham Palace etc. could he not have caused to be a National Security risk  ?

Kristina
.. I so wish I could have been wrong, but perhaps my instinct might have been right with the lingering suspicion that Prince Andrew became a dangerous Security risk for the country of which his mother is Head of State  ... ?
... A book has been written by the former Mossad-handler of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in which he claims they were spies and used underage girls (and boys?) for "clients" and ran a blackmail enterprise for the purpose of entrapping powerful individuals and politicians ...
It seems that this story is only just unfolding itself and is becoming very politically involved indeed.... and perhaps it might be a good idea to start a new thread about it? 

[Paul]

... I so wish I could have been wrong, but perhaps my instinct might have been right with the lingering suspicion that Prince Andrew became a dangerous Security risk for the country

To become a "security risk", Prince Andrew would have to know stuff. But, with the occasional exception of the Queen, the Royal Family are kept out of the loop. He knows nothing of any value to any foreign power or any terrorist. He is not a security risk simply because there is no point in blackmailing him. Unless, that is, you desperately want his brother's organic paté recipe.

[kristina]

Hello ... and I don't want to make a big "thing" about it and it is not my scene at all, but I just tried to express my huge shock about the extreme juxtaposition:
One of the simplicities in one's mind is that the Royal Family works for the Nation. Therefore their position as a representing family with the Crown Jewels, Medals, Palaces, butlers, servants, etc. is extreme as they represent - as a whole family - the Nation.
And then all that is juxtaposed when one reads the media-described lurid scenes of drug-fuelled orgies and elderly statesmen with young little girls/boys and then in between that there is the image in the mind of possible espionage spying National secrets and trying to gather information of National importance "between the pillows" and then a great big elderly blubber allegedly chasing a 17 year old girl...
One would have hoped that a representing family could manage to be above such lurid & sly behaviours?
... And then you have the other image in mind of privileges and what can be possibly achieved in life with such huge privileges... ?
... And those simple images are juxtaposed in the mind and this extreme situation is hard to take when so many people try ever so hard just to get by ...
Of course, one could get into the details of it, but the facts are already very extreme and very difficult for any ordinary healthy mind to get around it ...