So, the Royal Family…what a piece of work, eh?


I listened to a bit of the interview with Prince Andrew and a couple of things leapt out at me as off. Just reekingly wrong.

After the interviewer recounts the story of Virginia Roberts, that they dined and danced together, went to a party hosted by billionaire sleaze and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, that he took her upstairs, and that he then had sex with her, and his reply is that he had “no recollection of ever meeting this lady.” You know, if someone confronted me with an accusation that I’d attended a billionaire sex party in Belgravia and took a specific woman into a bedroom to have my wicked way with her, my first reaction would be to indignantly state that I have never done any such thing, not to deny the identity of the woman I did it with. So can I take it as given that he was sexing up strange women so heedlessly that he had no idea who they were?

Also, he was hanging out in New York with a convicted pedophile because it was “convenient” and “the honourable and right thing to do” where the honourable thing to do was get foot massages from young Russian women and troop around with an assortment of youthful ladies — so many that he can’t remember them individually — for four days. This is a standard for dignified behavior of which I have not heard before. I’ve been doing everything wrong, I guess.

I’ve also missed out on the definition of “party”.

Andrew denied that there was a party at the residence or that he spent much time with Epstein away from their Central Park stroll.

He also said he was not aware of the presence of underage girls at the house, stating that Epstein’s house was like a “railway station,” so he could not comment about who was coming in and out.

Now he’s apologizing for behavior “not becoming of a member of the royal family”, which is remarkable. This is the family of Racist Prince Philip, Squidgygate, Prince Charles’s extramarital affair, Fergie’s toe-licking, and Andrew attending a party wearing a swastika armband, the family that has inherited billions scavenged from the British people, all for the onerous task of performing ribbon-cuttings and hosting parties. He must have done very bad things if he feels he let that family down.

I’ve always figured the royals were the UK’s version of The Jersey Shore.

Comments

  1. brucegee1962 says

    “I don’t recall” is such a great defense that the Orange Fuhrer has been using it himself recently. If you say it never happened, you can be proven wrong, but if you say you can’t remember, well, maybe you’re just an idiot.

    Obviously Bill Clinton should have used this defense before Congress in 1998, and it would have spared him an impeachment. “I don’t remember whether I had sexual relations with that woman or not — there were so many interns.” That would have gone over well, right?

  2. specialffrog says

    On the plus side, I suspect that if Charles tries to take the throne the whole thing will be over fairly soon. If he does the sensible thing and abdicates in favour of his son it could linger on for another generation or two.

  3. davenash says

    If we ever needed evidence that the Queen is not so “by the Grace of God” special, it is the overpraised, giftless, and unaccomplished dullards that have tumbled from her womb. A random university park bench will yield a more interesting dinner companion than any royal bloodline.

  4. Howard Brazee says

    We see so many cases where people with that kind of power behave that way. It may even be a majority of those who grow up with it to feel entitled to abuse.

    If that is human nature (looking at history, I don’t trust human nature), then we need to make sure there are limits on such power.

  5. Jazzlet says

    davenash @4
    Why limit it to university park benches? It’s not as if any of them are known for their academic achievements.

  6. says

    Wasn’t there a story that a reporter for one of the networks had alleged that their news program knew about the Prince Andrew/Epstein connection years ago, long before the Epstein scandal broke, and sat on the Epstein story deliberately because they didn’t want to anger the royal family? Pretty sure I saw somebody mention that.

    Also: not sure we in the US have any right to complain about the sex lives of other countries’ leaders. Although it’s true that Obama and — oddly, considering how rotten of a human being he is — GWB seem to have been able to keep it in their pants, Trump is notorious, Clinton was too (it’s funny how Democrats have managed to collectively edit their memories to ignore everything about that but Monica Lewinski, and then to dismiss her), and the elder Bush had some accusations too, which is 60% of presidents elected in the last 30 years, and our other politicians aren’t exactly angels either (Gingrich, Edwards, Hastert, Hart, Weiner, etc. — like military funding and protecting Wall Street, creepy sexual acts are a bipartisan effort).

  7. microraptor says

    This reminds me of a discussion I was in a few weeks ago with an idiot who thought that we should go back to hereditary monarchies for government because “people who are trained from birth will be better leaders.”

    I asked him if he thought the Nazi or the guy who regularly partied with Epstein would make the better leader.

  8. says

    #9: You’re talking about a recent flapdoodle over a leaked recording of ABC News reporter Amy Robach complaining that her 2015 interview with Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre was not aired. In that interview Roberts Giuffre said that she had seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private island, according to Robach, although not apparently that he had abused her. Clinton has acknowledged taking flights on Epstein’s private jet. In the recording she maintains that Epstein was indeed a professional blackmailer; that she is certain he was murdered; and that the story was killed because ABC wanted to retain access to the royal family. On the other hand it seems a reasonable editorial judgment not to air unsubtantiated allegations by someone who is using them as the basis for a multi-million dollar lawsuit. In any case Giuffre’s allegations have been widely reported elsewhere.

  9. PaulBC says

    He also claims that the Falklands war left him with a medical condition causing him not to sweat, supposedly refuting some elements of the accusation. I was surprised to find that anhidrosis (inability to sweat) is a real thing, but his explanation of acquiring it sounds laughable to me (note: I am not a doctor).

    “Which is that I don’t sweat, or I didn’t sweat at the time … because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War when I was shot at.

    “And I simply — it was, it was almost impossible for me to sweat.

  10. KG says

    mailliw@13

    I heard that he “marched them up to the top of the hill, then he marched them down again”, but I must admit I don’t know what particular sexual practice that’s a euphemism or slang term for!

    Quite apart from his unconvincingly denied sex crimes, Andrew is notorious for dodgy financial dealings with corrupt dictators, as well as for personal arrogance and charmlessness. He’s allegedly the Queen’s favourite among her four children.

  11. KG says

    chris61@14,

    Yeah, yeah. In fact, you have to take his ancestry back five generations to find any individual from whom more than one line of descent leads to Andrew. That’s not nearly enough inbreeding to account for anything, let alone for being a sexual exploiter and generally entitled arsehole. His upbringing, and an adult life of unearned privilege and deference, are quite sufficient.

  12. friendsofdarwin says

    I know two people who have worked (independently) with Prince Andrew in a professional capacity. One described him as ‘obnoxious’; tthe other described him as ‘thoroughly obnoxious’.

    It was Harry who wore the Nazi arm-band, by the way. This was presumably in tribute to Edward VIII, his Nazi-sympathising great-great uncle. (Assuming Prince Charles is Harry’s father, obviously.)

  13. colinday says

    @ PZ Myers
    #8

    Really, Harry has reddish hair and a beard. Andrew has white hair and no beard.

  14. says

    specialfrog@3 the general consensus of those who bother to pay attention to such things is that Charles won’t abdicate. The argument is that the Queen blames George VI’s early death on the stress of Edward VIII’s abdication, and therefore Charles won’t abdicate per her wishes. And that’s also why Harry’s stupidity with the swastika armband probably had nothing to do with Edward VIII.

  15. markr1957 says

    Why would Charles abdicate when he knows what the rest of his family’s secret sex lives involve? About the only reason they aren’t even more inbred is their penchant for sleeping with commoners.

  16. specialffrog says

    @timgueguen: I agree he seems disinclined to do so but I don’t see how him trying to take the throne doesn’t cause a constitutional crisis. At a minimum it would require a change in the relationship between the monarchy and the Church of England, which seems like a messiness parliament would want to avoid. That combined with his demonstrated unwillingness to stay in his lane suggests to me that any UK government would try to persuade him to step aside.
    And it is fairly well established that parliament decides who the monarch is at this stage.
    So I think it is likely that if Charles is the next monarch he will also be the last one.

  17. gijoel says

    @12 I laughed my guts out when I saw that section. I’d love to see him justify those claims in court, but I doubt it’ll ever get that far.

  18. Ridana says

    Apropos of nothing, but now that he’s losing his hair, Prince William looks to me like a living version of Stephen Miller.

  19. Marie the Bookwyrm says

    Ridana @26–As opposed to the undead Stephen Miller we have here in the US? (I mean, he looks undead.)

  20. PaulBC says

    @27 Stephen Miller really does look like Riff Raff from Rocky Horror (who is actually an alien rather than undead).

  21. nomdeplume says

    When I saw the heading I thought this would be an article about the Trump royal family…

  22. birgerjohansson says

    Sweden has a rather daft, but basically harmless monarch. I am not familiar with the monarchs of Denmark or Norway. Maybe it is harder to hide outrageous behaviour in smaller countries, putting a pressure on the parasites to behave.

Leave a Reply