The following is a comment on my previous post by the indomitable Lord T. I thought it would be worthwhile to use it as a basis for a follow-up post incorporating my response. My follow-up comment should be received in the spirit of personal opinion and not criticism of the Lord's excellent comment.
I can understand the Queen helping with his legal fees. I would help my children and you want them to have the best. In this Mickey Mouse country, the process is the punishment. So it is not unknown for many people and companies to pay the fine, pay off the complainer, etc. to accept a compromise that makes life easier. Going to court, airing all the dirty laundry, and then facing a jury for a result. Jail has innocent people in it and injustices are made all the time.
I'm not paying that much attention tbh. But it seems to me that she is legal in the UK which is why they are prosecuting in the US despite them having some states where you have to be 21 and others where you can marry your sister at 13. I just can't make head nor tail of it and I ain't all that interested in him.
One thing I do know is that with Maxwell being convicted of 6 offenses, under appeal now, HRH is the only one I know of that is being pursued. What of the others involved? That I am interested in.
A great well-balanced comment my Lord. Yes, of course, if we are decent and loving parents, we will support our kids financially and otherwise. The problem for the Queen is that she is not your average citizen of the realm; she is the constitutional monarch. Her actions and moral direction have to be beyond reproach. Firstly, all her actions will be minutely analysed and commented upon. An unenviable position perhaps but that is the way it is. In part, this is due to the Queen's self-image fostered by herself and others. I do think she is wise to distance the royal family from beleaguered Andy. Her financial backing, I feel, is misjudged because of the perception of her impeccable moral stance, regardless of whether this has anything to do with reality. If the Queen is seen as morally impeccable then providing finances to her son in this sordid matter smacks of hypocrisy and undoubtedly the public will see the discrepancy between the projected image and actuality.
It is in certain respects advantageous for Andrew to settle and not go to court. It would cap his ongoing legal fees and prevent minute scrutiny of his life. How will he prove that 'over adrenaline' prevents sweating? From my medical knowledge adrenalin is likely to produce the opposite effect. Will he be able to prove he was in the Woking Pizza Express at the time and date he put forth in the interview? The opposing lawyers will be relentless and merciless in their pursuit of evidence. Let's be honest no one is totally squeaky clean. If my past peccadillos became thrust onto the world stage I would be mortified and perhaps vilified. O to be young and perfect! The sticking point may be miss Roberts. She has said she would require, in addition to financial 'damages' a written statement of apology- this would be tantamount to an admission of guilt by the Prince. This is something he cannot do for all the obvious reasons. Perhaps this is all subterfuge and a cunning ploy to wring out as much gelt as is possible from the Prince. She may forgo this claim if her palm is crossed/greased with an inordinate amount of silver. If she really insists then the Prince has no choice but to take the matter to a civil forum for adjudication. Of course, he could ultimately 'win' the case. In such a circumstance who pays for his legal fees?
I agree: speaking with plod is never a good idea. But in this case, he doesn't have to. All that he supposedly says is filtered and amended by his astute legal team. Any written statement submitted would be written by said team. It would be inconceivable to contemplate that he would travel to the US to give evidence. And as I understand the situation it is not a requirement in a civil case, in the US. It would be virtually impossible to incriminate himself under these circumstances. The only exception to this rule would be if he uttered an impromptu public remark (surely he is not that arrogant and dumb?). He is simply not smart enough to 'think on his feet'. This would be highly unlikely though as he is pursuing the wise course of laying low in one of mommy's many castles. As for a miscarriage of justice: Not likely considering his wealth and privilege. This sort of thing only happens to us 'little people'. If there was any miscarriage of justice, I suspect it would flow in the other direction.
You make a telling point: 'One thing I do know is that with Maxwell being convicted of 6 offenses, under appeal now, HRH is the only one I know of that is being pursued'. Very interesting. As miss Roberts has stated she was trafficked to other highly prominent men. Are they next to come under judicial scrutiny? Maxwell is facing about 60 years in the nick and her age means she will spend the rest of her natural life in the penitentiary. This sort of fate concentrates the mind, wonderfully. She has let it be known that she is willing to 'spill the beans' on other high-profile individuals. While not a 'get of gaol free card' her evidence may help to incriminate others and mayhap she will receive a certain degree of mitigation on her sentence. Could this be the beginning of a sordid sequence of scandals? Let's watch this space......
Breaking News: It has just been announced that Prince Andrew has responded to the allegations in an 11-page document. In essence, it states that Andrew: 'Wants a trial by jury'. Whether this is just bluster on Andrew's part or represents his real intention we will have to await further developments. My money is still on a settlement for reasons already outlined.