Prince Andrew

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

All uphill

Senior Member
Parents of certain generations were wont to say that. It's a basic Conservative principle.

Life's not fair, get over it = Conservative

Life's not fair, let's do something about it, is an alternative
 

Psamathe

Guru
Also, for not very smart people who can't appreciate complexities it allows them to rate themselves using a single number (net worth) so comparing against others make "my number is bigger than yours".

Completely fails to appreciate that life is about what you achieve and that somebody on struggling on minimum wage can achieve a lot more than somebody who inherits vast wealth ...
I'm not even sure that's wholly true. For some people it's enough just to survive the shitty hand they've been dealt (though I suppose for them that might be an achievement). As my mother said frequently, "Life's not fair".
I see them as the same. "Achieve" is about doing the best you can in your situation. Thus many mega-wealthy achieve very little (when you have multiple $ billions, putting a $ few thousand to some else's startup idea is no "achievement"). Whereas on minimum pay zero hours contract working 3 jobs, building up a local kids football team is a real achievement that person should be proud of.

Or to bring it back to non-royalty, massive unearned wealth and then shooting a few innocent birds at a social "shooting weekend" is no "achievement".
 

ebikeerwidnes

Senior Member
I see them as the same. "Achieve" is about doing the best you can in your situation. Thus many mega-wealthy achieve very little (when you have multiple $ billions, putting a $ few thousand to some else's startup idea is no "achievement"). Whereas on minimum pay zero hours contract working 3 jobs, building up a local kids football team is a real achievement that person should be proud of.

Or to bring it back to non-royalty, massive unearned wealth and then shooting a few innocent birds at a social "shooting weekend" is no "achievement".

That's the bit people seem to miss

I know people who run charities pretty much single-handedly

but then some millionaire is spread all over the local paper because he has give 0.01% of his wealth to a local charity

so rich people get it
but the ones that make the most noise just seem t think they are wonderful for lobbing a tiny fraction of the wealth at a local charity
 

PurplePenguin

Well-Known Member
Based on the latest batch of emails, is there any possibility he was being truthful about Virginia? Or were the emails a deliberate ruse?
 

First Aspect

Veteran
Based on the latest batch of emails, is there any possibility he was being truthful about Virginia? Or were the emails a deliberate ruse?
What do you mean truthful? That he can't sweat, likes pizza or never met her because you can see someone's used Photoshop? It's pretty obvious that he can, he might, and he did?

I suspect he's just turned out to be a dirty birdy who didn't at the time think there was a problem with using his friend's pet women. Is there any doubt she and whoever else he was loaned as a present was effectively a sex slave? Not really.

Did he know, or somehow trick himself into thinking they were on an episode of love island? Only he has the answer to that, but the best spin you can put on him now is that he was too ignorant and unintelligent to think it through at the time, and he thinks the rest of the world is gullible enough to accept his version of events now.

It's unclear as yet the extent to which he hung on like a clagnut after the first raft of revelations about Epstein and stayed in touch because who doesn't like billionaires. He's probably not as bad as Mandleson in that regard.

Overall, my view is he was a useful idiot and did pretty much what she said he did, which was avail himself of services she didnt really have the option not to offer.
 

First Aspect

Veteran
For context, even Trump appears to have expressed misgivings (albeit he didn't do anything about them, like stop being their friend or report concerns to any authorities). But Andrew seems to have thought it was just a titillating jape.
 

secretsqirrel

Well-Known Member
For context, even Trump appears to have expressed misgivings (albeit he didn't do anything about them, like stop being their friend or report concerns to any authorities). But Andrew seems to have thought it was just a titillating jape.

No no no….

Andrew had a tendency to be “too honourable” to point out that that Epstein “has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming”.

I might have cobbled 2 separate bits together BBC stylee there.
 

First Aspect

Veteran
No no no….

Andrew had a tendency to be “too honourable” to point out that that Epstein “has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming”.
In hindsight.
 

Beebo

Guru
For context, even Trump appears to have expressed misgivings (albeit he didn't do anything about them, like stop being their friend or report concerns to any authorities). But Andrew seems to have thought it was just a titillating jape.

Trump didn’t need Epstein as much as Andrew did.
 

ebikeerwidnes

Senior Member
I reckon Andrew was just too thick
and too self-centred ad arrogant
and believed that if he judged someone to "be a good bloke"
then he would clearly be right and so such accusation must be false

and he was also too self-centred to think that these pretty young (ish) girls who were throwing themselves at him might just possible not be so totally overwhelmed by his physical magnificence and amazing wit and style
and just might be doing it due to a form of control and coercion

Whether or not Virginia had sex with him, I am not sure.
I can see that she might well have
and that he is so self-centred as to not remember - or keep some kind of record just in case of problems (pregnancy come to mind!)

but I can also see how he would be the perfect person for her to pick if she never actually had sex with him
but knew he was into it all
but possibly Epstein was careful to ensure that he never had sex with anyone too young like her
but he would be the easiest to get a "settlement" out of

and if that was the case I really would not blame her
 
but I can also see how he would be the perfect person for her to pick if she never actually had sex with him


Don’t forget that the terms of the agreement he reached with the victim, Ms Giuffre, include that Andrew can never deny that he raped her.

He’s an abusive piece of shoot, in my book.
 

ebikeerwidnes

Senior Member
Don’t forget that the terms of the agreement he reached with the victim, Ms Giuffre, include that Andrew can never deny that he raped her.

He’s an abusive piece of shoot, in my book.

I agree

I reckon there are a lot of women out there that have stories they have been paid to not tell


but I think it is possible that he is simply so arrogant that he is/was incapable of thinking that a woman didn't want to have sex with him

and then she will think afterwards that she is a lucky girl (choice of the word "girl" being deliberate)

and this also leads to him always believing that he is intelligent and therefore is always right
and so if he thinks it, then it is correct

this last bit is re-enforced by "The Interview" when it is said he thought it went wonderfully
but everyone else immediately realised it was terrible

but from his genuine viewpoint - he is clever so it MUST have been OK
 

Psamathe

Guru
No surprise but
Former prince Andrew accused of ‘hiding’ from US House’s Epstein inquiry
A congressperson investigating the Jeffrey Epstein case accused the former prince, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, of “hiding” from his committee’s request to sit for a deposition, as Congress moves closer to a key vote on forcing release of US government files related to the alleged sex trafficker.

Suhas Subramanyam is among the Democratic members of the oversight committee in the House of Representatives who earlier this month asked Mountbatten-Windsor to sit for a deposition as part of its investigation into how the government handled the case against Epstein ...
 
Top Bottom