Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Bob Russell — Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:41:22 GMT

Pomp and ceremony as almost nobody can match. It was fitting, even Prince Philip would have considered it up to standard!

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

George Cooper — Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:34:02 GMT

The final shot of that piper was total theatrical genius - a brilliant conclusion to an unbelievably effective service. (I just wish that he'd used a different gait - or perhaps had a nerve-soothing malt too many!)

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 20 Sep 2022 09:31:33 GMT

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239218#239218"]I did find the presence of mini royals centre stage distinctly uncomfortable. [/quote]

What an amazing day it was, though. Everything spot on. I think the stand out moments for me were the first bit of Welby's sermon, which I hoped a few leaders may have paid attention to, and the lone piper at the end. Perhaps a bit schmaltzy, but it brought a lump to the throat, even though I hate bagpipes!

The children? I think they're too young to mind.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Bob Russell — Tue, 20 Sep 2022 09:05:48 GMT

I did find the presence of mini royals centre stage distinctly uncomfortable. We only went to our mothers funeral as children but we were well protected and away from the eyes of other attendees.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Bob Russell — Tue, 20 Sep 2022 09:00:58 GMT

'Dirty son' he may or may not be. The reality is we don't know and some on here would much rather believe newspapers with plenty of agenda.

As far as I can see Prince Andrew was amongst a large number of famous faces that were 'friendly' with Epstein. The visitors list to his island is a veritable who's who.

Teenagers offered a chance at a jet set life style do not always make wise decisions. The chance to grab £12 million will bring out a variety of individuals from the woodwork.

I don't know all the realities of events but find it decidedly worrying when someone gets labelled as sex pest and dirty son based on newspaper gossip.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Dinu Catilina — Sun, 18 Sep 2022 14:01:07 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239193#239193"]

How long after the alleged event did the victim/participant come forward?

[/quote]

Does it matter?

[quote userid="5012" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239193#239193"]Does accepting payment for alleged sexual activity make the victim/participant a prostitute?[/quote]

Yes, but again, does it matter?

The issues with Prince Andrew is that really this is a stain on the family. Even this tread, instead of discussing a decent monarch we discuss her dirty son

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Clive Ansell — Sat, 17 Sep 2022 08:06:26 GMT

Was she below the age of consent in the countries where the alleged events occured?

If so, despite the payoff, why is Prince Andrew not facing criminal charges for sex offences involving minors? if found guilty he can be punished, if acquitted he can be left alone.

How long after the alleged event did the victim/participant come forward?

Does accepting payment for alleged sexual activity make the victim/participant a prostitute?

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

bevs2251 — Sat, 17 Sep 2022 01:49:44 GMT

Age of conset also 16-17 in Australia (she is Australian). Plus the photo shows her leaning in with a big smile. Yes, she was exploited but who knows the truth ?

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 18:02:26 GMT

[quote userid="9239" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239169#239169"]

Michael Woodhouse said:
Whilst I absolutely agree, he still has a right to be left alone to mourn the death of his mother.

Well, not really, it isn't a right at all. For those who are largely anonymous in real life this is a good time to heckle/fight for their opinion and it is not illegal. Excellent exposure.

[/quote]

As I may have mentioned before, freedom of opinion, and therefore freedom of speech, is fundamental in a free society. From that follows a right to peaceful protest. This bloke even has a right to stand in the Royal Mile and yell something rather crude and pointless, if he wants to – but not in the middle of part of the funeral rites for our late Queen, not at someone with his brothers and sister mourning both mother and queen, and definitely not in the middle of a crowd who were mourning their Queen.

The police are there to prevent a disturbance of the peace. This little twerp's actions fitted that description precisely. I thought the police took very sensible action, as they did with the "I've got a blank piece of paper" types.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:38:25 GMT

[quote userid="9239" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239178#239178"]Well, this is why many people have an issue with Mr Andrew. He did pay to make it go away. [/quote]

I'd guess it went like this:

American lawyers: "Our client will drag you through every court we can think of, and the courts of publicity too. Whether you win or lose in the end, it will cost you millions of dollars. Your daughters, and the whole Royal family, will be exposed to all kinds of mudslinging and vile abuse. On the other hand, if you give her say twelve million pounds, she will shut up and go away."

British lawyers to Prince Andrew: "They can do it, and it will cost huge wodges of money. Moreover, once you get into the clutches of the American legal system, you are judged to be guilty anyway and the best you can hope for is plea-bargaining so you don't go to jail for so long. We recommend you pay the gold-digger off."

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

KMurphy — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:29:53 GMT

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239179#239179"]terminology such as sex pest[/quote]

Of course. Alleged sex pest.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Bob Russell — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 16:55:01 GMT

There are many reasons for wanting to make something go away. Having The Queen as your mum qualifies IMO!

I understood she was 17 which is above the age of consent in the UK and many states in the US.

Sounds as if I am trying to justify his behaviour if he did indeed behave this way. Not so but he has been not been found guilty of anything therefore using terminology such as sex pest is high risk.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Dinu Catilina — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 16:08:21 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239170#239170"]Being photographed with an arm around a younger girl is not an offence. In his position, it is however breathtakingly stupid[/quote]

Circumstances matter. It was an underaged woman on an island that came to be known as a sex trafficking den.

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239176#239176"]I have little doubt that Prince Andrew is no angel but I doubt he is any different to any of the 'guests' of Mr Epstein. Many wealthy people will pay up to make a problem go away.[/quote]

Well, this is why many people have an issue with Mr Andrew. He did pay to make it go away.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Bob Russell — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 13:42:58 GMT

Sexual assault? Sex pest?

Proof, evidence, conviction?

We used to have a legal system that involved evidence, trial, conviction. Clearly this is not the situation now if some on this site are to be believed..

I have little doubt that Prince Andrew is no angel but I doubt he is any different to any of the 'guests' of Mr Epstein. Many wealthy people will pay up to make a problem go away.

Pretty average men will head off to parts of the world and 'party' with much younger women . My wife says no so I have to behave myself! She is much younger than me but in my defence we have been together for over 20 yrs now!

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 12:21:07 GMT

[quote userid="5726" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239168#239168"]Perhaps don’t parade publicly then. I don’t know of other members of the family being heckled. The sex pest could have stayed at home.[/quote]

I wasn't thinking of the person who heckled Andrew, actually, I was thinking of the anti-monarchists.

[quote userid="9239" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239169#239169"]

Yes sure, because we all party and take photos with much younger girls than us. And being stupid is certainly not an excuse.

[/quote]

Being photographed with an arm around a younger girl is not an offence. In his position, it is however breathtakingly stupid.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Dinu Catilina — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 12:13:25 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239152#239152"]

Whilst I absolutely agree, he still has a right to be left alone to mourn the death of his mother.

[/quote]

Well, not really, it isn't a right at all. For those who are largely anonymous in real life this is a good time to heckle/fight for their opinion and it is not illegal. Excellent exposure.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239163#239163"]

But he hasn't been convicted of anything, and I think it is quite possible he is innocent, just death-defyingly stupid.

[/quote]

Yes sure, because we all party and take photos with much younger girls than us. And being stupid is certainly not an excuse.

Exactly.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

KMurphy — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:59:07 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239163#239163"], there is still the question of his brothers and sister who surely do have the right to mourn unheckled.[/quote]

Perhaps don’t parade publicly then. I don’t know of other members of the family being heckled. The sex pest could have stayed at home.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Lucy Fleming — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:03:33 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239163#239163"]

vetbl.locum said:
Seems he has been named as a stand in for his big brother.

vetbl.locum really? By who, and as a stand in under what circumstances. I understood that KC had ruled out ANY chance of a return to royal duties for Prince Andrew.

[/quote]

"Counsellor of State" - which is the next four royals in the line of succession over 21. It's not related to whether they are "working royals" or not, so currently it is William, Harry, then Andrew, and then I presume Beatrice? It's not actually anything Charles has chosen/ named, and would have been in place under the Queen as well.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 10:33:31 GMT

[quote userid="5726" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239148#239148"]I think there is something very distasteful about sexual assault.[/quote]

Ha!

Sure. Of course.

But he hasn't been convicted of anything, and I think it is quite possible he is innocent, just death-defyingly stupid.

[quote userid="11202" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239153#239153"]£12m paid out ....why? [/quote]

As I am sure you know, it's common practice to do that, even when innocent, if you want to avoid a protracted court case which brings unwanted publicity. As it is to accept a lower tariff for a guilty plea, when you know you are innocent.

And even if he IS guilty, and even if you think that denies him the right to be left in peace to mourn his mother, there is still the question of his brothers and sister who surely do have the right to mourn unheckled.

[quote userid="11202" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239153#239153"]Seems he has been named as a stand in for his big brother.[/quote]

vetbl.locum really? By who, and as a stand in under what circumstances. I understood that KC had ruled out ANY chance of a return to royal duties for Prince Andrew.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

vetbl.locum — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 21:52:44 GMT

Maybe Maybe not

Seems he has been named as a stand in for his big brother.

Although I am divided on rights of protest and doing it at a funeral.

Rgds

£12m paid out ....why?

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 21:32:57 GMT

[quote userid="5726" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239148#239148"]I think there is something very distasteful about sexual assault. [/quote]

Whilst I absolutely agree, he still has a right to be left alone to mourn the death of his mother.

(has he been actually convicted of anything? This will be the last we see of him)

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

KMurphy — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 14:06:27 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239124#239124"]I do think there is something very distasteful about someone heckling during a funeral procession [/quote]

I think there is something very distasteful about sexual assault.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Bob Russell — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:00:03 GMT

In Scotland it can be illegal if the Police believe it may have an impact on those nearby or threatening serious disturbance in a community.

Sadly the arrests appear to be followed by charging. This is only likely to bring out more of the cranks.

In England those arrested seem to have been de-arrested and sent on their way.

I cannot think of much that is likely to cause more upset and potential retribution than protesting at such a time as this. More concerning though is they should have the right to do so without fear of arrest.

Sadly too many members of the Police Force seem to have forgotten how to police with consent at the moment.

This should not be allowed to overshadow events but once over heads need to roll.

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Dinu Catilina — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 11:08:30 GMT

I agree. But is it illegal? If it is for their own safety then why arrest them? Why not just pull aside and protect them?

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30413/queen-elizabeth-ii-1926-2022/239139#239139"]It is a very important safety net for our democracy. Other countries have other systems but this seems to have worked well for this country.[/quote]

Association or causality?

RE: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Bob Russell — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 09:10:01 GMT

It is a very important safety net for our democracy. Other countries have other systems but this seems to have worked well for this country.