- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
- Messages
- 16,791
- Reaction score
- 164,570
I'm not sure that it brought the Duchess of Windsor much happiness.
Agree. Entitlement mentality. I feel sorry for them.
I'm not sure that it brought the Duchess of Windsor much happiness.
I know it feels that way, but IMO Andrew never had power in the Royal Family. He was a B-lister, always, never truly transcended Randy Andy and Fergie cemented his reputation as essentially frivolous/money grubbing.
I don't believe he was ever given important ceremonial/dignified positions like his siblings were. Just thrown some scraps where he could use his apparent obsession with money and business connections, which none of the other Royals share
JMO
No: I think she and David were shunned by important people, and dwelt in the margins, where they felt flattered by manipulators like the German monster.I'm not sure that it brought the Duchess of Windsor much happiness.
He was Trade Ambassador or some such title for his country. That's a decision maker.Oh, I think Andrew had lots of power in that family.
Not only was he his mothers favourite child, he was second in line to the British throne for 22 yrs until William was born.
He was considered to be a war hero in the Falklands War and had many honours bestowed upon him until recent events.
IMO, they are all obsessed with money, even King Charles.
Remember him with his grocery bags of cash? What was that about??
No heir to the throne should be waltzing around with bags of cash! How extraordinary!
Oddly however, the whole institution of the Monarchy is fancy titles with no authority to make decisions.He was Trade Ambassador or some such title for his country. That's a decision maker.
jmo
I'm pretty sure he made deals - though I also suspect they were for his own benefit. I don't recall details but I once read up on it. It gave him the excuse to travel to other countries for "trade deals." He was removed from the position, iirc.Oddly however, the whole institution of the Monarchy is fancy titles with no authority to make decisions.
JMO
Agree! More pigs at the troughI'm pretty sure he made deals - though I also suspect they were for his own benefit. I don't recall details but I once read up on it. It gave him the excuse to travel to other countries for "trade deals." He was removed from the position, iirc.
I don't care enough about the guy to look it up again, tbh....so imo. He's gross.
jmo
Waiting for the more tech inclined posters on the Epstein thread to unravelDid anyone check this out?
What do you think?
Pretty extensive if legit.
Andrew has not committed any crime.
Correction, he has not (yet) been convicted of a crime.
He has neither been found guilty, nor has he been found not guilty (yet) of any of the crimes he has been accused of, or any other crimes he has been associated with/potentially associated with/rumoured to have committed.
Therefore, it is not factually possible for anyone to state whether he has or had not committed any crimes. Only if Andrew is put on trial and exonerated, will it be possible to state that he has not [legally] committed any crimes.
Protected, that’s why no charges, yetNor has he charged after two or more investigations.
Let’s start with has he been charged? Nope.
He is essentially in internal exile now since his mother is no longer around to protect him and he has exhausted his brother's patience at long last.Protected, that’s why no charges, yet
Similar to many other names, money and influence buys silence, for now
Excellent!He is essentially in internal exile now since his mother is no longer around to protect him and he has exhausted his brother's patience at long last.
Protected, that’s why no charges, yet
Similar to many other names, money and influence buys silence, for now
Don't need proof to shun.If there was any solid proof, I believe he would have been charged by now.
If anyone is ‘buying silence’ that is also a crime.
But you need proof.