• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

The Royals

The settlement will have been from his side when they told him he had no real prospect of winning the case. Which would have seen him known for guilt.

The fact that almost as soon as the preliminary actions to try and get her case dismissed he folded and offered a settlement, will be seen as an indication of guilt in the court of public opinion.

He won't be seen in public again.

Civil law does not exist primarily for the public to have any sense of justice it might have satisfied, but to provide a means whereby people and corporations can settle their legal disputes. They are encouraged by the courts to reach a settlement rather than going to trial and again that is not affected by the “severity” of the case.
 
on that point witchell is probably correct. rather suspect that the impact on the queen would be significant, and it is likely that were the queen not still around that charles and william would have properly excommunicated him.
he'll be far in the background, possibly only seen again at his mums funeral, and after that he will be properly ditched.
 
Guido was still calling him Randy Andy yesterday. The tabloids revelled in whatever he got up to 40 years ago, just a continuation of that other than he got older and the girls didn't. Always had everything on a plate and I'm sure didn't even consider he was doing anything wrong, that's why he looked so baffled on Newsnight
 
Last edited:
The moment he thought he was clever and agreed to be interviewed by Emily Maitliss he broke the golden rule that it is better to say nothing and let people think you’re a paedophile than open your mouth and remove all doubt. He’ll only be seen in public twice now - his mum’s funeral and his brother’s Coronation.
 
Impact on the victims of Epstein and others >>>>> impact on Queen's Platinum Jubilee.

My concern is that senior members of the Royal Family knew what was going on and kept quiet.
objectively, your 1st sentence is correct. However the royal family won't be viewing this objectively, and won't be making decisions objectively either.

2nd sentence, unlikely we will ever know.
 
Inetersting hearing Prince Charles talking about what's going on in Ukraine as 'an attack on democracy'. Which part of democracy makes you a future king Charlie?
It's a monarchy in name only though isn't it? Tourist attraction and ambassadours, they have no actual power.
Personally I'm completely ambiguous about them, they don't bother me (while lots of people love them) but wouldn't be bothered if they were got rid of.
 
I'd get rid of them after William - which will probably be after I'm gone, but respect at this stage I'm in the minority. If the lower age gap holds the same views into later life then it becomes interesting
 
They can go tomorrow for me
 
I'd get rid of them after William - which will probably be after I'm gone, but respect at this stage I'm in the minority. If the lower age gap holds the same views into later life then it becomes interesting
Any time I ever see a poll like that one, on any subject, I just want to see the same one but done ten years ago, 20, 30, 40...

So many things where, in isolation, those kinds of responses do nothing to clarify whether it's a more major shift or just an expected age breakdown within every generation.
 
It's a monarchy in name only though isn't it? Tourist attraction and ambassadours, they have no actual power.
Personally I'm completely ambiguous about them, they don't bother me (while lots of people love them) but wouldn't be bothered if they were got rid of.
This isn't true unfortunately. Read 'And what do you do'. Great book.
 
Back
Top