Royal Sex Scandal-Under Age Girls and Prince Andrew

mpd said:
That's just on Mammies side. Daddies is Greek/Danish!
Click to expand...

But also a good bit of German.

His family name is Mountbatten, or, before political correctness was applied, Battenberg, traditional rulers of Hesse.

The English don't have much luck with native monarchs.

Even before the French Johnnie came over in 1066 there were sundry Scandinavians like Canute, and since then they've had Tudors from Wales, Stuarts from Scotland, a dip into the House of Orange in Holland a whole slew of Hanoverians, before ending up with the Saxe-Coburgs!
 
Ralphy1 said:
A claim is being made that he had sex with female minors in the past. Surely you agree with me that this is outrageous and just another attempt to embarass the royal family...
Click to expand...

This was in our papers weeks ago and surely no one could be so naive as to think that it is made up. The prince has been 'named' in a court case. As far as embarrassing the royal family, well, they have managed to do that very well themselves many times And yes they will want to to hustle to hush this up, but it's too late for that now.
 
As far as I know the age of consent for females is still 16 in most jurisdictions.
"Underage" must in this case refer to the girl being less than voting age but the two don't relate.
As far as being a sex slave is concerned, slavery is unlawful at any age
but it would need to be proved that the girl was being held against her will.
It should result in criminal charges being laid against one or more persons.

This is a civil suit seeking damages?
Naming someone with a reputation to protect in a civil suit could be a ploy to get a pay off without ever going to court.

Guilty or otherwise, Prince Andrew is caught in a cleft stick on this one.
 
I'm not clear on age of consent in the states, must be 18 since 17 is considered a minor. Nevertheless, Andrew has been caught 'with his pants down' so to speak and is considered reprehensible, his reputation is already shot as who is going to believe palace's/his denials.
 
Age of consent in the USA varies according to which state you are in:

Each US state has its own age of consent. State laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16.[SUP][2][/SUP]

  • age of consent 16 (32): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia
  • age of consent 17 (9): Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana (as of april 1st 2014 http://www.age-of-consent.info/states/Louisiana)
  • age of consent 18 (10): Arizona, California, Delaware, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, Florida[SUP]1[/SUP]
1: In Pennsylvania, the age of consent is 16. If the minor is under the age of 18, the adult can be charged with "Corruption of a Minor". This is a misdemeanor.[SUP][3][/SUP] If the adult is in a position of power (teacher, clergy, or Police for example), this is a felony.[SUP][4][/SUP] Even though the age of consent is 16, it is still a crime until the age of 18. Because of this, Pennsylvania is normally listed as if it had an age of consent of 18.
Click to expand...

Jeffrey Epstein has already been established to be a pimp. The question is now whether Jane Doe - 3 was a prostitute or as she claims, "a sex slave".
If she can establish that the latter is true then Prince Andrew's involvement with Epstein becomes more sinister.

It may be scandalous to attend a sex party but not necessarily illegal or criminal.
To have sex with a woman (or anyone for that matter) without their freely given consent is a felony, even if you have paid for the privilege.
If she is under the age of consent, even with her agreement, it is still a felony.

Accusations of felonies must be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law, based on the evidence.
This is not what's happening here.
 
Royal Families, they are just people, and human. Being in those positions doesn't guarantee anyone that they are going to be perfect. I know I watch a lot of movies, but I can't help but wonder what it would be like to be forced into the "public" eye, I mean if you are born into Royalty, you basically lose your right to live a life "you would choose", I mean if it's different then being part of the head of your country.

I think it must be a very, hard life in ways. I don't envy them. I also believe that when your at the top, there's always someone trying to knock you down.
 
I agree, it must be hard to have your every move scrutinized. And the royals are far from perfect, with all the same human qualities as everyone else and the same human flaws. I don't envy them either.

It's hard for me to be very sympathetic though, I see that in return for giving up some of their privacy, they get to have incredible wealth and the best of everything the world has to offer - fame, homes, food, medical care, vacations, yachts, jewels, riches,... I could go on and on. It's the price they pay for being royalty - a tradeoff. I think they've got a pretty good deal and they should stop whining about their lack of privacy. And if they misbehave, and it gets written about it in the paper and they are exposed and humiliated, then that is what they deserve.
 
It's hard for me to get down on them because they have not clue what it is to be in "others" shoes. I do understand what you are saying, but at the same time, I'm torn because I cannot put myself in their shoes. Although there is always right from wrong, as each person sees it. No matter our "station" in life, there is still right and wrong.
 
Absolutely. Its about ethics - whether it be in business or personal life. I think our expectations of them are higher.
 
Why? At the time he was divorced from his wife and was an international ambassador for UK business.
I'm not naïve enough to think that sexual favours aren't offered freely at that level by dodgey entrepreneurs.

Prince Andrew may or may not have done something immoral. I don't know at all but I don't hold him to any gold standard, any more than I do a million other men.

My husband, on the other hand, had better behave himself.
 
But when we are in a position that I would thing it would be important to set a good example for the people, that makes sense to me. Sort of like a pastor, you tend to set them on a pededstal, well, I should speak for myself. You are right though Dame that we need to remember they are human like I mentioned. I admit to still being shocked when certain people are reported to have done unspeakable things.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
His first mistake was having a friend like Jeffrey Epstein.
That association alone has cost him his job.
Click to expand...

Pier pressure, picking the wrong friends, yep, did that a time or two, plus, I was probably someone else's "wrong friend" at times. I don't know that guy, high-flying, rich & spoiled, jet-setter??
 
Less spoiled than you might imagine. Being a potential heir to the throne puts a lot of limitations and a lot of high expectations on your shoulders.

He could, as someone pointed out recently, still end up King of England. He would be very aware of that.

If Charles were to die tomorrow, before his mother the Queen, then Andrew would become first in line to the throne.
 
The "under age" is relatively minor in this case. She insists the sex was against her will.

That's rape, and, I understand, in the States that's 20 years to Life.
 
Let wait and see what Jeffery Epstein has to say before passing judgement about rape.
Has he already been convicted, and if so, on what charges?

Answering my own questions http://www.smh.com.au/world/jeffrey-epstein-scandal--a-timeline-20150106-12ill9.html
Interesting reading about the plea deal

This is the crux of her claim

January 2015 – Speaking to the Daily Mail, Virginia Roberts says Epstein paid her £10,000 to have sex with Prince Andrew while she was still a minor.
Click to expand...

Good pay for a sex slave?
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Less spoiled than you might imagine. Being a potential heir to the throne puts a lot of limitations and a lot of high expectations on your shoulders.

He could, as someone pointed out recently, still end up King of England. He would be very aware of that.

If Charles were to die tomorrow, before his mother the Queen, then Andrew would become first in line to the throne.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify.... Andrew would not become first in line if Charles were to die. He's currently 5th in line to the throne. soon to be 6th once Kate has her second baby.
 
No, they've definitely got that wrong. ;)


If Prince Charles died before The Queen then Prince William would become heir to the throne. This would mean he would become the next King after The Queen died.


It is not true that Prince Andrew would become the next King because he is currently 5th in line to the throne. Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George and Prince Harry would have to be King or die first.

http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/6-questions-about-the-future-of-the-british-monarchy-14748

http://www.britroyals.com/succession.htm

http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx
 
Last edited:
Dame Warrigal said:
Less spoiled than you might imagine. Being a potential heir to the throne puts a lot of limitations and a lot of high expectations on your shoulders.

He could, as someone pointed out recently, still end up King of England. He would be very aware of that.

If Charles were to die tomorrow, before his mother the Queen, then Andrew would become first in line to the throne.
Click to expand...

Oh, I meant the other guy you mentioned, Jeffery? No, I don't think being a Prince would be easy at all:( He's had responsibilities practically since day one.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top