Posted on 01/04/2024 8:15:49 PM PST by Morgana
Prince Andrew has been reported to the police by an anti-monarchy campaign group after allegations of sexual assault were made against him in unsealed court documents.
The Duke of York, who has always denied any wrongdoing, was reported to the Metropolitan Police by Republic after he was referenced multiple times in files relating to disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
This was matched by similar calls from a US attorney who represented some of Epstein's victims, who said police in Britain have a duty to investigate Andrew as he 'still refuses to fully account for his time' with the paedophile.
The unredacted documents, which were released on Wednesday in the United States, included allegations Andrew had an orgy with underage girls and touched a woman's breast while posting with a puppet of himself.
It is a fresh setback for the late Queen's second son who, just 10 days ago, walked to church on Christmas Day with the King and the rest of the royal family, symbolising his gradual rehabilitation within the monarchy after his public appearance at his brother's coronation in his garter robes in May.
It may see the end of his bid to reenter the royal fold, with well-placed sources telling the Mail that while the court claims were not a surprise, they will have served to 'crystallise' King Charles's determination to solve the 'Andrew problem' decisively.
Plans were already in train to evict him from Royal Lodge, his ten-bedroom Windsor home since 2003, and move him to a smaller residence in keeping with his 'downgraded' status.
The newly released court documents are believed to have strengthened the King's resolve that Andrew will never be allowed to resume royal duties.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Sooo...come get that octogenarian in the White House. We do not want him.
Charles doesn’t want him. He damaged the Firm worse than Harry.
He’s probably one of the reasons that Charles wants to reduce the Royal Family to William, Kate and heirs.
They were under age, but they were hardly sweet innocent young things being exploited against their will.
I think Harry and whats-her-name were just a diversion the firm put out to get the press of Andrew and it worked, for a while. That is the only reason Elizabeth approved of that marriage. Otherwise she would have said NO.
Could be. I don’t put it past the globalist order to use distractions.
It’s also possible that Harry used Meghan to get away from the family because he understood how messed up they were and possibly how exposed they would become and wanted to escape before the cards come crashing down.
I’m currently undecided if Harry was wanting to be moral or if he was threatened by his loss of position of being in line for the throne and was mad about that.
I don’t think the Queen has ever approved of the marriage. She just did what Elizabeth has always done...live with reality.
William, Kate, and the kids are the only reason the Monarchy will not be abolished. Diana saved the Monarchy through William. William chose VERY Well.
Giuffre was over the age of consent at 17. Prince Andrew has had women throwing themselves at him since he was a teen. How would he know Epstein was paying any of those girls for anything? IMHO, Queen Elizabeth settled the case because she knew Charles would soon succeed her, and didn’t want any more scandal with Epstein, AND Charles was on his guest list. That looks bad and could have come out at a trial. In the modern Western world, women are always the victims of some man. We no longer shame whores for being whores.
The British Monarchy is overdue for reform.
So basically France?
The French president is pretty close to an elected king.
There's a lot of history in England. But as you see, there's a lot of bad apples in the Windsor family. Don't want to take that chance.
It's a way to bring "democracy" to their aristocracy.
Our POTUS is the head of state. Sometimes that's a bad thing. We need an unifying figure who's apolitical.
That’s not how the law works. The women were underage, and thus could not give consent. Doesn’t matter what they agreed to. Legally they couldn’t agree to it and have it mean anything. I see what you’re getting at, but it’s a distinction with no legal difference.
CC
I am curious.. Wasn’t the underage girl 17yo at the time?
While it is illegal in the USA, I believe the age of consent is 16yo in the UK.
So, he would expect to be tried here in the USA for his crimes.. but the UK wouldn’t be able to charge him because it is legal there.. no?
You are right, but Andrew should have been smart enough not to step on his Johnson.
Well they did call him “randy andy”,,,
So you think it’s OK for Epstein, et al., to pimp children, and for disgusting, powerful, wealthy pervs to pay to rape kids?
“...Randy Andy but he was dealing with well paid young prostitutes who were acting voluntarily,”
We don’t know they were acting voluntarily. If they WERE acting voluntarily, it easily could be because they had been successfully groomed for months prior. Sex traffickers are very smart.
“They were under age, but they were hardly sweet innocent young things being exploited against their will.”
“Under age” = illegal. “Exploited against their will”. At that age, they don’t have “will” to legally make decisions.
“Harry was wanting to be moral or if he was threatened by his loss of position of being in line for the throne”
I don’t even know how that works in England.
After Elizabeth, there’s Charles. After Charles, there’s William. Then would it go to William’s brother Harry, or William’s son George? Did Harry ever have a realistic expectation for the throne once William and Kate had a kid?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.