Prince Andrew settles

Honestly, Darcy Collins, I've said this before, I just do NOT get why our Monarchy and Royal Family bothers you so much. Your comments perplex me completely. I can understand everyone despising Andrew, with good reason. Personally I think he has been an entitled waste of space for much of his life and I would not be bothered if I never heard his name nor saw his face again. I feel sorry for his daughters who have to live in the shadow of his appalling behaviour.

I agree there are still a number of hangers on within the Royal family. Both Prince Charles and Prince William have been vocal in wanting to slim down the family and remove those who don't bring much value - but please do NOT tar the Queen and the immediately family with the work shy brush. The Queen is in her mid 90s, Charles is in his 70s and they are STILL working damn hard on behalf of the country and Commonwealth. You would understand this if you had as much knowledge as think you have.

Where is your proof the Queen has paid millions of pounds?  That is not within the public domain at the moment and, if it is true, are you telling me every mother on this board has never bailed out a family member if needed, if they could?  That not one single American mother has bailed out a family member, no matter what the crime, if they were able to?  Why should the Queen be any different?  If she HAS paid then I do not have a problem with that, unless funds have been misappropriated or come from the public.  If it means Virginia Guiffre gets her money quickly and she doesn't have to take further action to get it, what is the problem with that?  

So what if he is still in the line of succession?  The fact of him ever becoming King is so remote it's pretty much a non event so yes, it does not bother me.  There are other things Parliament needs to concentrate on at the moment, his place in succession is not important enough to give merit to at this point in time.  

"do you want to pretend to believe that ANDREW is worthy of anything"  Where have I given this impression?   And where have I said you are not entitled to your opinion?  You absolutely are entitled to your opinion but if the facts you quote are incorrect or slanted because of your opinion then yes, you are likely to be pulled up over them by more than me.  

It is in the public domain - perhaps your googling skills are rusty - google Queen pays Andrew's settlement. And it's not about mother's on this board   - it's about the QUEEN using public money to pay off her son raping a teenager. You point to a single dollar she has ever earned in her LIFE and then try and pretend there is any money that is not public money - the royal family hasn't had non public money for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. It's all public money. My facts aren't incorrect - they're just inconvenient for someone trying to justify yet again the ridiculousness - funny how yet again everyone wants to say they don't support Andrew but he is STILL in the royal family and yet again supported by the royal family.

Darcy Collins There is nothing wrong with my Googling skills. In this instance they are not required because I read the UK newspapers and watch the UK news. What has been said is that the Queen is LIKELY to pay some or all of the monies, not that she has. The devil is in the detail.

Again, no where have I said I support Andrew but I am not willing to waste as much energy on the situation as you seem willing to do.

I agree completely. It’s either money or an injunction, and there’s no injunction applicable or sought in this complaint.

Further, I never thought for a moment that Andrew would agree to sit for a deposition. The questions alone he would have to answer under oath in that would predictably be hair-raising. (One can just imagine how David Boies or Sigrid McCawley would have been merciless in their questioning. They didn’t get the reputation of being formidable for nothing.)

How would he answer questions about his claimed inability to sweat? Questions about Johanna Sjoberg’s giving evidence under oath that Andrew fondled her breast in Esptein’s mansion? Or Steve Scully’s account of seeing Andrew in a pool in USVI with Virginia whereby he was caressing her bottom and grinding himself against her? Or his claims that the infamous photo in Maxwell’s flat was Photoshopped? Or his claim he didn’t even know Virginia?

What other option was left? He could default and the judgment would be against him. He could participate in a trial, but the damage to the royal brand, already hefty now, would be even more so. The headlines would write themselves.

He also made the fatal mistake of maligning Virginia as nothing but a fortune hunter amongst other insults. (Which, btw, is risible considering that Andrew and his perpetually broke ex-wife Fergie went to Epstein for help in clearing her debt. And Andrew saw Epstein as the one who could open doors to financial opportunities.) We saw how that strategy was employed by Maxwell’s lawyers and it sunk like a lead balloon. You don’t win support by vilifying a victim of rape and sexual assault as a minor.

Also, I think some may not be aware that the standard of proof in civil trials is much lower, merely the preponderance of evidence that points to the likelihood that the harms asserted did occur. And not meaning to belabor that point—the measure of that likelihood is only 51%. Who has more to lose? Virginia or Andrew?  There's no doubt in my mind that his lawyers were honest with him that the best thing to do is settle, especially since all their gambits had failed with Judge Kaplan.  

What money do you possible think isn't public - it's hysterical - she has never worked a day of her life -her father didn't work her grandfather didnt' work - there is no "private money" you're the one making a fool of yourself - hell Andrew could pay it and it would still be public money - unless you want to claim the pubic money he invested with Epstein became private when he had returns.. You can pretend all you like - none of them have ever actually worked for a living - or do you want to pretend taxing and stealing money from your citizens is work - I mean they garned millions when they stole all the Catholic church properties - is this the private money you're talking about?

I had no idea - I've learned something new! I thought the Parliament was created by OCromwell....

I am interested in what the requirements are for the Councellor of state positions. I would think the wives of the future Kings or even Princess Anne and Prince Edward would be better options than Andrew or Harry, but maybe that's not possible. 

But wasn't Anne one before William turned 21 (the age required to be a Counselor)? I need to look this up...but I am pretty sure she was. I think its usually the first 4 eligible adults, women included. 

I would have thought it would have been Edward before Anne before William turned 21.

Is Andrew one of four eligible to be appointed CoS currently? I thought I read he is.

Given current circumstance (and birth order and fairness) it seems like a good idea to replace Andrew w/Anne.

To be fair, their workload is nothing compared to most people slogging it out out there, taking buses to work in all kinds of weather, after dropping their kids at haphazard daycares, to put in 8 grueling hours w/horrible bosses, etc.

She wakes up, has meals prepared, kids are (were) nannied, she's chauffeured or jetted to her "work" for that day. Meets w/a charity or group for 20-120 minutes, people are pleasant and kind, she is whisked to the next meeting/appt for the day (if any), gets back in the chauffeured vehicle/jet, goes back to an immaculately clean manor house, where dinner has been prepared, kids have been well looked after, she gets a in-house massage or workout, spends time w/family. Has several days "off" before she does it again.