|
|
Post by Oxynia on Mar 7, 2011 18:11:50 GMT -4
I recently read a book by Prince Charles's ex-valet, written before Andrew married Fergie, and apparently Andrew was a snotty, bratty bully from the time he was a small child. He was so misbehaved the occasional footman punched him in the face, and these servants didn't lose their jobs. Because he was that annoying. When you're annoying enough that the help can get away with slugging you and your mom is the Queen, that is pretty effing annoying. The mental image alone is priceless. |
|
koshergrit
Blueblood
Posts: 1,159
Apr 11, 2007 21:19:52 GMT -4
|
Post by koshergrit on Mar 7, 2011 19:16:10 GMT -4
I would like to take this moment to thank Geo. Washington and Co. for their foresight in 1776.
|
|
talkbox
Guest
Nov 30, 2024 15:47:36 GMT -4
|
Post by talkbox on Mar 7, 2011 22:24:07 GMT -4
I would like to take this moment to thank Geo. Washington and Co. for their foresight in 1776. Remind me to take a pilgrimage to their graves and personally clean them myself. |
|
gremlin45
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,136
Dec 9, 2008 19:29:13 GMT -4
|
Post by gremlin45 on Mar 7, 2011 22:37:15 GMT -4
Even though there isn't proof, he appears to have had questionable contact with underage females as well. Ugly motherfucker. Whaaa?! I thought that was the guy Fergie took money from, not Andrew! I recently read a book by Prince Charles's ex-valet, written before Andrew married Fergie, and apparently Andrew was a snotty, bratty bully from the time he was a small child. He was so misbehaved the occasional footman punched him in the face, and these servants didn't lose their jobs. Because he was that annoying. When you're annoying enough that the help can get away with slugging you and your mom is the Queen, that is pretty effing annoying. I'll say. No wonder the people running the PR didn't manage to keep the lid on Charles and Di's marriage - they were too busy cleaning up Andrew's reputation. |
|
LoveSparky
Lady in Waiting
So, So, So Very Sexy...
Posts: 490
Jul 8, 2005 1:06:10 GMT -4
|
Post by LoveSparky on Mar 7, 2011 23:50:57 GMT -4
gremlin45, according to reports, Andrew has been a guest at the Known Molester's home and is reported to have had "massages" from young women employed by the Known Molester. This Known Molester, Jeffrey Epstein, has a penchant for women under age, and has been convicted for this.
At least 40 of these women have lodged complaints and many of these complaints have been settled out of court. Accusations have been made that Epstein's on again/off again girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell (a friend of Andrew's as well) acted as a procurerer of young women for Epstein. Females as young as 13-17 have made these complaints.
One credible woman was working as a "masseuse" in Epstein's home in Florida at the age of 17, and has stated that she was pressured to have sexual relations with Epstein and various friends of his. She has stated that she didn't know the names of all these men, and iirc, she does not specifically say that she had sex with Andrew. There is a photo, however, of this same young woman with Andrew and he has his arm around her. In the photo, she appears to be wearing some type of very casual pajama-type clothing. Does the photo equal sex? No. The photo is one to cause concern, however. The occasion and circumstance of the photo are questionable to me.
Other young women close to Epstein have chosen to take the Fifth when asked if they'd had sex with Prince Andrew. Does that mean that they had sex with him and were underage at the time? No. Could it? Yes. Is it possble that they or some of the 40 females are lying? Yes. Is it probable that every last one of them is lying? Not in my opinion.
Were each and every one of them under the age of 18 when they did or didn't have sex with Epstein/Andrew? I'm not saying that, but even one is unacceptable. Andrew does not deny the "massages," but does not admit any other activity. Given the credible statements of some of these women who were underage at the time of being sex worker/masseuses, well...
Note: I only use the word masseuse because that is the word used repeatedly in the articles. I am aware that trained, licenced, professional bodyworkers in general do not care for that word, but I am just repeating what is written in the articles.
ETA: It has crossed my mind about the notion that Andrew only divorced Sarah because he was forced by The Firm to do so. They were content, apparently, with the casual, open nature of their marraige. That is fine. Whatever works for a couple. However, I think that the real reason they were happy not only with the marital arrangement but with each other is that they are the same, morally. They were happy with each other because they are two degenerates of a kind.
I had developed some respect for her in the very long and painful aftermath of the end of her foray into the world of being a royal. It had appeared that she was taking some responsibility for her life, and, gasp, paying her own goddamned way. Apparently not, at least not for a long time now. My respect is now gone.
I wonder how far the apple falls from the tree, at least in general with regard to that family. Not the Queen herself so much, but the general lot of them. I do wonder just how much more filth there is lurking uder the priceless carpets of her Majesty's great castles.
|
|
|
|
Post by tabby on Mar 8, 2011 13:05:47 GMT -4
Even a cursory glance through the history of the Royal Family will show that there's quite a lot of filth there. The present Queen seems to be a decent sort, but the characters of many of her ancestors are nothing to brag about.
You may be right with your theory that The Firm forced Andrew to divorce Sarah. Given their continued close relationship, and what we know about his behavior, it sounds extremely plausible to me.
|
|
gremlin45
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,136
Dec 9, 2008 19:29:13 GMT -4
|
Post by gremlin45 on Mar 8, 2011 13:22:50 GMT -4
Good grief! Thanks for all the info, LoveSparky. I didn't know any of that! If Andrew was involved in sleeping with underage girls, it's disgraceful that he might never be called to account for it.
|
|
LoveSparky
Lady in Waiting
So, So, So Very Sexy...
Posts: 490
Jul 8, 2005 1:06:10 GMT -4
|
Post by LoveSparky on Mar 9, 2011 3:51:45 GMT -4
And I bet he won't be. It's sickenning.
|
|
talkbox
Guest
Nov 30, 2024 15:47:36 GMT -4
|
Post by talkbox on Mar 20, 2011 14:42:49 GMT -4
Good grief! Thanks for all the info, LoveSparky. I didn't know any of that! If Andrew was involved in sleeping with underage girls, it's disgraceful that he might never be called to account for it. Maybe he has been. I bet he's done even worse that we don't know about. |
|
|
|
Post by Ninja Bunny on Apr 8, 2011 16:12:02 GMT -4
Is Edward this bad too?
Jeez, the queen should have called it quits after Charles and Anne. The world didn't need a "spare" like this!
|
|
