• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Prince Andrew and the secret sealed document

Rab Smith

Member
Joined
7 Jul 2021
Messages
50
Location
Cardiff
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58823289
Prince Andrew has been granted access to a sealed document his lawyers believe could help end the sexual abuse case being brought by Virginia Giuffre.
A US judge gave permission for the agreement between Ms Giuffre and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to be shared with the prince's lawyers.
Ms Giuffre's lawyers had made the offer to release the document but believe it will be "irrelevant" to the civil case.
I watched a piece on the news yesterday regarding the Prince Andrew civil law suit. His lawyers are seeking access to a sealed document that contains legal rulings from Miss Giuffre's lawsuit against Epstein. They think it's a way out of his civil case but her lawyers think it won't change a thing.

Is it a realistic possibility that Andrew will face any kind of trial or will this fizzle out due to his stature?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,688
Location
Devon
I watched a piece on the news yesterday regarding the Prince Andrew civil law suit. His lawyers are seeking access to a sealed document that contains legal rulings from Miss Giuffre's lawsuit against Epstein. They think it's a way out of his civil case but her lawyers think it won't change a thing.
Is it a realistic possibility that Andrew will face any kind of trial or will this fizzle out due to his stature?

I think personally that it’ll probably fizzle out although his reputation has been tarnished forever due to this.
I do wonder though if things might have played out worse for him if his mother had ceased her reign?
 

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
1,013
I think personally that it’ll probably fizzle out although his reputation has been tarnished forever due to this.
I do wonder though if things might have played out worse for him if his mother had ceased her reign?
I dunno this defence lawyer is seeing this as his ticket to big time fame.
how many lawyers get to take on the Queen ?

He’ll huff and puff this for what its worth and who knows he could be bluffing his way to the bank.

He already said he’ll try to make this last for years, and is seeking publicity stunts (like turning up to see the palace guards, trying to serve docs at public royal engagements etc) just to win publicity and opinion.

he wants a payout and believes he can bad press them into it, sure Andrew is the target but he’ll take any royal as collateral damage If he gets that payout sooner.

Even then that lawyer will go max publicity, book, movie deal ,new law firm etc.

tbh though the UK is tarnishing its own image, even without Andrew.

Events uncovered in Canada, treatment of Aboriginees in Australia, Kenyan revolt, Indian racism… the past which was suppressed after colonialism is being brought out into the open by the next generations who have grown up without fear or loyalty to us… the image of the UK is personified overseas by the royal family and whoever follows the Queen wont get the same welcome, more likely is further break up of the Commonwealth and the UK worlds stature diminishing to one more akin to modern Italy without the Roman Empire.

With colonies its convienient to forget the perpetrators of those local events are their very own grandparents. But by dropping that connection and generically using the name of the old country to divert, it wins votes and polarises hate towards the UK.

What worries me most is China. The Chinese are extensively taught our actions in taking Hong Kong, Shanghai, Opium wars and what the UK did to Beijing, history is being encouraged there…, Ive seen the Winter Palace myself and its shocking.. what makes it worse is our TV mocks it with various antiques shows, with “any old ming” comments of chinese porcelain looted and used for pottys, growing plants in, storing pens in etc etc, being sold back for thousands of pounds. The sheer volume of damage and looting is a scale even Nazi Germany looks good for.

China wasnt a colony, nor was history wiped out like in latin america by Spain.. so China remembers. Its ok the UK sailing aircraft carriers around the South China Sea, but China could slap us very hard if they wanted. That would leave our pants exposed with very little we can do about it, without Americas help, and they only back the side with the most assets… That would be degrading to the world image.…
and Even Rome was sacked too Eventually.

Prince Andrew is just a minor point in our mostly negative post 2012 international diplomatic landscape.
 
Last edited:

Tracked

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,242
Location
53.5440°N 1.1510°W
I think personally that it’ll probably fizzle out although his reputation has been tarnished forever due to this.

I think even if he did face trial, and got found innocent, a sizeable/small-but-noisy number of people who watched his "I can't sweat" interview are still going to think he's guilty and the verdict was a fix
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,821
Location
Yorks
I dunno this defence lawyer is seeing this as his ticket to big time fame.
how many lawyers get to take on the Queen ?

He’ll huff and puff this for what its worth and who knows he could be bluffing his way to the bank.

He already said he’ll try to make this last for years, and is seeking publicity stunts (like turning up to see the palace guards, trying to serve docs at public royal engagements etc) just to win publicity and opinion.

he wants a payout and believes he can bad press them into it, sure Andrew is the target but he’ll take any royal as collateral damage If he gets that payout sooner.

Even then that lawyer will go max publicity, book, movie deal ,new law firm etc.

tbh though the UK is tarnishing its own image, even without Andrew.

Events uncovered in Canada, treatment of Aboriginees in Australia, Kenyan revolt, Indian racism… the past which was suppressed after colonialism is being brought out into the open by the next generations who have grown up without fear or loyalty to us… the image of the UK is personified overseas by the royal family and whoever follows the Queen wont get the same welcome, more likely is further break up of the Commonwealth and the UK worlds stature diminishing to one more akin to modern Italy without the Roman Empire.

With colonies its convienient to forget the perpetrators of those local events are their very own grandparents. But by dropping that connection and generically using the name of the old country to divert, it wins votes and polarises hate towards the UK.

What worries me most is China. The Chinese are extensively taught our actions in taking Hong Kong, Shanghai, Opium wars and what the UK did to Beijing, history is being encouraged there…, Ive seen the Winter Palace myself and its shocking.. what makes it worse is our TV mocks it with various antiques shows, with “any old ming” comments of chinese porcelain looted and used for pottys, growing plants in, storing pens in etc etc, being sold back for thousands of pounds. The sheer volume of damage and looting is a scale even Nazi Germany looks good for.

China wasnt a colony, nor was history wiped out like in latin america by Spain.. so China remembers. Its ok the UK sailing aircraft carriers around the South China Sea, but China could slap us very hard if they wanted. That would leave our pants exposed with very little we can do about it, without Americas help, and they only back the side with the most assets… That would be degrading to the world image.…
and Even Rome was sacked too Eventually.

Prince Andrew is just a minor point in our mostly negative post 2012 international diplomatic landscape.

This is all the more reason why as a country we need to align closely with other Western countries (with similarly tarnished) histories whilst becoming economically more self-sufficient.

As for Prince Andrew, the Royal family always has the option of cutting ties if it starts to threaten their position (as with the Duke of Windsor).
 
Last edited:

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,969
Location
Taunton or Kent
As for Prince Andrew, the Royal family always has the option of cutting ties if it starts to threaten their position (as with the Duke of Windsor).
Recently a number of tabloids, seemingly led by the Telegraph, were reporting the Queen as helping pay for Andrew's legal costs (which in theory means the taxpayer is, or at least that's the perception), so if this comes to foundation I doubt they'll be cutting ties anytime soon.
This is true, i don't feel the monarchy will last that much longer, and i doubt the UK will either.
I think the Monarchy's end will accelerate once the Queen's gone; I'd expect Charles to be coronated (assuming he doesn't go prematurely before the Queen), but he has lower approval ratings and I can see republicanism gaining more traction once an outdated tradition becomes weaker and harder to justify. Andrew's saga has already weakened this to the point other factors will make abolition easier.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,270
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
There is nothing new about royalty having "an eye for the girls". Henry VIII was always attracted to them and "Prinny" who built his Brighton extravaganza (Georgie, porgy, pudding and pie) and Edward VII in his days as the Prince of Wales (much to the despair of Queen Victoria) was well known for womanising.

As Prince Andrew is now eighth in succession in line to the throne, it will not matter a jot whether he comes or goes.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
There is nothing new about royalty having "an eye for the girls". Henry VIII was always attracted to them and "Prinny" who built his Brighton extravaganza (Georgie, porgy, pudding and pie) and Edward VII in his days as the Prince of Wales (much to the despair of Queen Victoria) was well known for womanising.

As Prince Andrew is now eighth in succession in line to the throne, it will not matter a jot whether he comes or goes.

It's one thing to be a royal with an eye on other women, it's another thing altogether to be a royal with an eye for literal girls!
 

C J Snarzell

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2019
Messages
1,506
As Prince Andrew is now eighth in succession in line to the throne, it will not matter a jot whether he comes or goes.

Prince Andrew is now nineth in succession to the throne due to Harry & Meghan's latest offspring. I think it would be fair to say that neither Andrew or Harry will ever become the King of this Country (thank heavens). I reckon Prince William will be a good Monarch, just a pity his dad is next in line.

CJ
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I reckon Prince William will be a good Monarch, just a pity his dad is next in line.
There's probably a lot of internal pressure being put on him (Charles) to either not take the throne, or to give it a go then abdicate.

For some reason, this Mitchell & Webb skit comes to mind:

 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,688
Location
Devon
Prince Andrew is now nineth in succession to the throne due to Harry & Meghan's latest offspring. I think it would be fair to say that neither Andrew or Harry will ever become the King of this Country (thank heavens). I reckon Prince William will be a good Monarch, just a pity his dad is next in line.

CJ

If common sense is allowed to prevail then it would definitely be for the best if Charles was skipped over and it went straight to William. I think Charles will absolutely want the Crown though.


There's probably a lot of internal pressure being put on him (Charles) to either not take the throne, or to give it a go then abdicate.

For some reason, this Mitchell & Webb skit comes to mind:


I literally only watched that yesterday. :lol:
 

C J Snarzell

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2019
Messages
1,506
I don't dislike Prince Charles, but I'm not overly keen on him becoming King. There is little chance of him passing the opportunity of the Crown to his eldest son - Charles has been immediately in line to the throne since his birth. The fact he is nearly 73 makes him now the longest Royal 'in wait' according to the record books.

It would be nice to see Prince William take the throne as a young man, but I doubt he will become the Monarch until he is in his 60s.

The Queen has been a rarity - getting coronated in her 20s. Given the excellent quality of life the Royals live, I doubt if we will see a younger Monarch in the future.

CJ
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,290
Location
Up the creek
I won’t deny that I am a republican (NOT in the US sense), but it always amuses me when people suggest we should skip a potential monarch and move on to one we like. There are a lot of arguments against a hereditary monarchy, but one of the strongest in its favour is that there is no argument about succession: you know who you are getting, for better or worse.

Personally, I think that Charles will hasten the end of the monarchy because he will be inclined to meddle. At some point this will probably result in a serious problem (‘crisis’ might be too strong a word, at least at first) and I can’t see our current politicians (of all parties) handling it as well as Stanley Baldwin did in 1936.
 

gg1

Established Member
Joined
2 Jun 2011
Messages
1,895
Location
Birmingham
I think even if he did face trial, and got found innocent, a sizeable/small-but-noisy number of people who watched his "I can't sweat" interview are still going to think he's guilty and the verdict was a fix

With the reverse also being true if he's found guilty.

Guilt or innocence in cases such as these can rarely be 100% proven, the best you will get is 'proven beyond reasonable doubt' which is sufficent in the eyes of the law to convict.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,037
Location
No longer here
Does anyone really believe that we are having this discussion in the 21st century? Whose turn it it next, as we have had the Dutch, then the Germans.
The monarchy is the cocktail stick in our constitution.

Taken on its own, the cocktail stick is dull, has limited function, and is totally uninteresting.

But try to glue the English constitution together without a monarchy and you have a problem.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,270
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
The monarchy is the cocktail stick in our constitution.

Taken on its own, the cocktail stick is dull, has limited function, and is totally uninteresting.

But try to glue the English constitution together without a monarchy and you have a problem.
Even if we cannot have our own people as monarchs?

What can the monarchy do to solve energy problems, brexit problems, et al?
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,045
Location
Birmingham
The monarchy is the cocktail stick in our constitution.

Taken on its own, the cocktail stick is dull, has limited function, and is totally uninteresting.

But try to glue the English constitution together without a monarchy and you have a problem.
How about we get rid of the monarchy and have a proper written constitution?

The monarchy underpins the entire class system and all the ills that brings.

I reckon Prince William will be a good Monarch, just a pity his dad is next in line.
How do you know though? How can anyone until he is in place. He could turn out to be awful, mind you there have been cases of subjects being pleasantly surprised when someone they didn't rate took the crown.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I won’t deny that I am a republican (NOT in the US sense), but it always amuses me when people suggest we should skip a potential monarch and move on to one we like. There are a lot of arguments against a hereditary monarchy, but one of the strongest in its favour is that there is no argument about succession: you know who you are getting, for better or worse.
For me the argument in favour of Charles either not taking the throne or abdicating isn't about liking or disliking him, more just due to the fact that he's already in his 70s. If he takes the throne there's no way that he'll be able to provide anything close to the continuity that his mother has. I mean, Stalin and Truman were in power when she ascended to the throne!
The monarchy underpins the entire class system and all the ills that brings.
I'm not sure that's 100% true. Monarchies exist in countries that aren't nearly as class-based as ours.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,037
Location
No longer here
How about we get rid of the monarchy and have a proper written constitution?
Sure, let's do it tomorrow and have the Tories write it with their commanding 80 seat majority, shall we? No thanks!
The monarchy underpins the entire class system and all the ills that brings.
It really doesn't; I don't think Sweden or Norway or the Netherlands have a class system like ours. If you get rid of the monarchy here you still have the problem of inherited privilege. The rancour of inherited privilege is most pungent among the upper middle class - the sort of people who inhabit the rarefied world of politics, media and academia - not the aristocracy.

Well, if that is the case, why should we bother sending them victorious, happy and glorious, long to reign over us?
You don't have to. It's a free country.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,821
Location
Yorks
I'm not sure I agree with this narrative that Charles will be an awful monarch. Certainly he'll have to reign in some of his personal beliefs, but there's nothing to say that he won't.

Well, if that is the case, why should we bother sending them victorious, happy and glorious, long to reign over us?
We don't. We ask God to.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,045
Location
Birmingham
Sure, let's do it tomorrow and have the Tories write it with their commanding 80 seat majority, shall we? No thanks!
Well its more likely to happy in some utopian future when they arn't in charge, i know that sounds like science fiction or fantasy these days.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
How about we get rid of the monarchy and have a proper written constitution?

The monarchy underpins the entire class system and all the ills that brings.
That, and it also underpins the whole political set-up and all the feudal echoes still to be found in that.

Does anyone really believe that we are having this discussion in the 21st century? Whose turn it it next, as we have had the Dutch, then the Germans.
Well, we haven't had a Habsburg, a Bourbon, or a Romanov yet .... The "Glorious" Revolution and William of Orange were pretty awful, and the Hannoverians turned out to be a mixed bunch. And then Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha. There are still plenty more German families to try out, if anyone really wants that sort of thing any more.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,821
Location
Yorks
The Windsor's are fine. Them or a republic as far as I'm concerned.

Let Andrew face due process and be rehabilitated/punished as found. Just make sure the Queen is suitably distanced.
 
Last edited:

Top