Accused hebephile stripped of title, positions, patronage

**Legion** · 01-14-2022, 03:35 PM

By removing Andrew’s military affiliations and royal patronages on Thursday, Buckingham Palace effectively put a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.

Firing Andrew — or, technically, retiring him from public life — won’t stop questions about his connections to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Announcing that Andrew will face legal challenges as a private citizen doesn’t solve the real problem.

Stripping Andrew of honorifics is cosmetic — an attempt to put distance between the palace and Andrew after years of ignoring his ties to a sex offender.

Andrew, of course, has not been found guilty of anything. But the allegations against him differ markedly from the extramarital affairs, illegitimate children and other controversies the monarchy has weathered, and sometimes successfully papered over, in the past.

Seeking dismissal, lawyers had argued that a 2009 settlement his accuser signed with Epstein shielded Andrew from suit; the judge concluded that the agreement does not unequivocally free the prince from liability.

Arguably, the details that emerged recently about the $500,000 settlement are a reminder of how often scandals are swept under rugs.

It’s not just that the monarchy’s centuries-old ability to avoid responsibility for individuals’ questionable choices looks increasingly kaput.

Or that the allegations against Andrew, involving sexual abuse of a minor, make the rest of the tawdry stuff look tame.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/14/prince-andrew-legal-case-title-royal-family-scandal/

**Legion** · 01-20-2022, 07:14 PM

HELL, HE LIKES 'EM YOUNGER THAN I DO

His YouTube channel is also inaccessible.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said changes are being made to Prince Andrew’s digital presence to reflect news last week that he would no longer use the title ‘His Royal Highness’ and would continue to not undertake any public duties.

“Channels are in the process of being removed,” the spokeswoman said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/prince-andrews-twitter-profile-instagram-account-shut-down-11642703915

**Doc Dutch** · 01-20-2022, 08:14 PM

**cancel2 2022** · 01-20-2022, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Legion

You're making real progress.

You've again managed to post something without mentioning the name of the last legally-elected POTUS.

Baby steps, but you can beat TDS if you try.

I'm pulling for you.

He should fly a kite in a thunderstorm like his hero Ben Frankenstein, that ought to cure his TDS.

**Legion** · 01-21-2022, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Primavera

He should fly a kite in a thunderstorm like his hero Ben Frankenstein, that ought to cure his TDS.

The reactions of the left to the Epstein case are entirely predictable.

**anonymoose** · 01-21-2022, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Legion

Is he?

Hebephile? ?

**Legion** · 01-21-2022, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by anonymoose

Hebephile? ?

Yes.

Also ebephile.

Hebephilia is the strong, persistent sexual interest by adults in pubescent children who are in early adolescence, typically ages 11–14 and showing Tanner stages 2 to 3 of physical development. It differs from pedophilia (the primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children), and from ephebophilia (the primary sexual interest in later adolescents, typically ages 15–19).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

**Legion** · 02-15-2022, 10:41 AM

Update:

Prince Andrew settles sexual abuse lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre, court filing shows

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-settlement-1.6352294

**Walt** · 02-18-2022, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Legion

I agree. It's too bad he's unlikely to take the entire sham monarchy down with him.

He may well bring down trump's sham of a monarchy.

**Legion** · 02-18-2022, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Salty Walt

trump

**Bourbon** · 02-18-2022, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Legion

The Queen has removed a range of military affiliations and royal patronages held by Prince Andrew, Buckingham Palace has said.

The move, which includes the prince losing the use of “His Royal Highness”, comes after a US judge gave the green light for her second son to face a sexual assault civil lawsuit.

Buckingham Palace said in a statement on Thursday: “With the Queen’s approval and agreement, the Duke of York’s military affiliations and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen. The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen.”

A royal source said the prince would no longer use the style “His Royal Highness” in any official capacity.

The dramatic move comes hours after more than 150 military veterans wrote to the Queen to ask her to strip Andrew of his honorary military roles amid what they described as their “upset and anger”.

Writing to her in her capacity as head of state and commander-in-chief of the army, navy and air force, an open letter from former members of each of the services said that it was “untenable” for the Duke of York to retain his position.

“Were this any other senior military officer it is inconceivable that he would still be in post,” they say in the letter, sent the day after a Manhattan judge rejected Prince Andrew’s efforts to dismiss Virginia Giuffre’s sexual assault lawsuit against him.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/13/veterans-ask-queen-to-strip-prince-andrew-of-honorary-military-titles

NEXT UP ... The Donald

**Flash** · 02-18-2022, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by moon

We all have opinions. In the photo of them together she looks about 19 to me. The court would decide.

There must be a million guys guilty of underage sex without knowing it.

In many places that is a strict liability crime. Having sex with an underage person is illegal even if he did not know she was underage (appearance, ID, etc.). No intent was required.

**moon** · 02-18-2022, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Flash

In many places that is a strict liability crime. Having sex with an underage person is illegal even if he did not know she was underage (appearance, ID, etc.). No intent was required.

Yes, I'm not saying that he's innocent, I'm saying that he's also a victim- if he wasn't aware of her age. It won't do him any good, no.

**Walt** · 02-18-2022, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Flash

In many places that is a strict liability crime. Having sex with an underage person is illegal even if he did not know she was underage (appearance, ID, etc.). No intent was required.

Older men were always claiming that they did not know the girl was underage, so they began requiring a strong presumption of evidence. "I did not know" is not a defense anymore. Willful ignorance is not a defense.

That still involves intent. It is the intent not to know. It is like the intent of randomly shooting a gun into a crowd. You did not intend to kill anyone in particular, but did intend not to care who you killed.

**Flash** · 02-18-2022, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Walt

Older men were always claiming that they did not know the girl was underage, so they began requiring a strong presumption of evidence. "I did not know" is not a defense anymore. Willful ignorance is not a defense.

That still involves intent. It is the intent not to know. It is like the intent of randomly shooting a gun into a crowd. You did not intend to kill anyone in particular, but did intend not to care who you killed.

I meant the state does not have to prove intent to have sex with a minor.

Based on the state, that also applies to selling minors alcohol or cigarettes and even traffic offenses. They do not have to prove you intended to speed.