|
Post by Kye on Feb 6, 2015 20:05:43 GMT
I think Andrew looks like William there. But what do I know; I'm not British.
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Feb 6, 2015 20:22:19 GMT
Well, William's grandmother is Andrew's mother, no matter who were the fathers.
Andrew has half of Queen Elizabeth's DNA - and William has one quarter. The open question is whether they share any of Prince Philip's DNA.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 6, 2015 20:57:19 GMT
I dunno .. it all sounds a bit like unfounded rumours really. I know the one about Harry has been going around for years but I'd never heard the Andrew one and I am rather sceptical. The Queen did not really strike me as the philandering type And I have two sisters, one of whom facially resembles me but the other looks nothing at all like the rest of us and is a natural blonde (though she has several traits that are exactly like my dad .. the rest of us look more like my mum)
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Feb 6, 2015 21:22:27 GMT
You're right. I suppose a DNA test would be the only way to be sure - fat chance of the results of such a test ever being made public - at least not until after they're all dead.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 6, 2015 21:34:06 GMT
He does look different to the others, even to me and I am not good with faces. But at the same time it seems slightly improbable.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 6, 2015 21:37:36 GMT
I suppose Andrew's paternity i less relevant than Harry's as he would still be 'royal' *rolls eyes*
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Feb 6, 2015 21:49:40 GMT
They all look very different, except Charles looks like the guy in the front right and the lady in the back looks like the Queen.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 6, 2015 22:08:23 GMT
That's Princess Anne
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Feb 6, 2015 22:14:52 GMT
I think Edward looks similar enough to Charles and Anne to be Prince Philip's child, but there are rumours that Edward was fathered by Baron Patrick Plunket - he was the Queen's Equerry and Deputy Master of the Royal Household.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 7, 2015 11:32:16 GMT
I suppose philandering is one way of preventing inbreeding.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Feb 8, 2015 22:25:45 GMT
Too late for that!
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 8, 2015 23:35:31 GMT
Either way Andrew is a nasty, sleazy individual and if he has done what he is alleged to have done I hope he is not allowed to get away with it
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Feb 8, 2015 23:42:56 GMT
Yes, if he has done it. People are always too quick to run in with the pitchforks and burning torches these days. I am not saying he didn't do it. I am not saying he did do it. We just need the facts and cut out this insidious speculation for the purposes of entertainment these days!
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 8, 2015 23:47:56 GMT
I remember paying a a modicum of attention to this when it first came out but then I quickly assigned the story to the compartment marked 'Boring Tittle Tattle'. I'm not surprised it's still newsworthy because people like tittle tattle.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 9, 2015 0:08:20 GMT
If you're talking about Andrew allegedly shagging an underage girl there is a good deal more to that one than just tittle tattle.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 9, 2015 7:27:40 GMT
Does anyone care that she was 17? If so, why is no one up in arms that the age of consent in the UK is 16? It would have been legal if it had taken place in the UK and I can't see what difference the location makes to the morality of this case. Does anyone really think an innocent girl was abused?
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Feb 9, 2015 10:14:40 GMT
Yes I care.
Children were abused. That is a fact, not speculation. For these acts Epstein went to prison. They were under age, that is a proven fact.
Upon Epstein's release Prince Andrew continued to spend a great deal of time at his home. That also is a fact. Prince Andrew has been photographed with under age girls at Epstein's home, that also is a fact.
There are questions to be answered about the company Andrew chooses to keep and his possible involvement in activities at that house. Not because he is a royal, not because of any witch hunt but because he chooses to associate with a known paedophile
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Feb 9, 2015 13:11:13 GMT
My point here is get the answers and stop with the gossip!
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 9, 2015 19:22:49 GMT
Yes I care. Children were abused. That is a fact, not speculation. For these acts Epstein went to prison. They were under age, that is a proven fact. Upon Epstein's release Prince Andrew continued to spend a great deal of time at his home. That also is a fact. Prince Andrew has been photographed with under age girls at Epstein's home, that also is a fact. There are questions to be answered about the company Andrew chooses to keep and his possible involvement in activities at that house. Not because he is a royal, not because of any witch hunt but because he chooses to associate with a known paedophile None of this proves Prince Andrew is a paedophile. I care desparately about children under 16 being abused and of that Epstein was guilty. But I don't care two hoots about Prince Andrew being photographed with 17-year-olds. We cannot hold Prince Andrew guilty by association either with Epstein or with a photographer's camera, that is not morally justified. There are no questions to be answered about the company Andrew chooses, as far as I am concerned, because Epstein has served his sentence. Epstein is once again not guilty until proven innocent. And Prince Andrew doubly so. Unless and until there is concrete evidence, it is all slanderous gossip.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 10, 2015 1:33:25 GMT
I did not say that he was a paedophile. I said that he is alleged to have slept with a girl who was underage in the place where the act apparently took place and yes, as Alan points out, that he was a close friend (and accepted favours from) a man who later was convicted of gross wrongdoing. That is important. There is a difference between 'slanderous gossip' and legitimate questions. And you can't surely think that Epstein is a good person for Andrew to associate with?!
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 10, 2015 1:35:13 GMT
If he is so innocent would he be prepared to go on trial to clear his name?
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Feb 10, 2015 10:23:29 GMT
But there is evidence, submitted to a court.
That evidence names Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. Dershowitz has mounted a strong defence. Prince Andrew has refused to mount any defence or to align himself with the Dershowitz defence ( as yet).
Under the terms established by the Epstein plea bargaining deal no associate of Epstein's can be prosecuted for offences committed prior to his ( Epstein's ) imprisonment. They can, however, be named in subsequent actions. This is indeed what has happened.
The evidence is before court. That does not make Prince Andrew guilty, but it means that there is a case to answer and evidence to be challenged.
|
|