Sarah Ferguson says she may be ‘the most persecuted woman in the history of the royal family’ and admits she still loves Prince Andrew



“I have been in Meghan’s shoes, and I still am,” she said. “I abhor bullying and I feel desperately sorry for the pain they must be going through because I’ve been through it.”

Despite previous media scandals and their eventual divorce, Ferguson says that she and Andrew remain close — so much so that they continue to live together at the Royal Lodge in Windsor.

Full: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/sara ... ry-2021-12

Nice of Giuffre's lawyer not to call the Queen to testify 'out of respect'

Meghan may be called to testify in Prince Andrew’s sex abuse case

London: The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in a civil suit against the Duke of York brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.

David Boies, the lawyer representing Giuffre, said Meghan, the wife of Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”. Prince Andrews, the Duke of York, could himself be dragged into court, Boies suggested.



Boies said there were three reasons Meghan may be called upon. “One, she is in the US, so we have jurisdiction over her.

“Two, she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did, to have heard people talk about it. “Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”

“Three, she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes,” he told the US news site the Daily Beast.

“We would likely take one or two depositions of people close to Andrew who would have knowledge of his actions,” he said. “That might include his ex-wife [Sarah, the Duchess of York]. It could possibly be his brother.”

Boies said he was hoping to depose between 10 and 12 individuals, but said he was unlikely to request to depose the Queen “out of respect”.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/ ... 59jpr.html

MUM'S PAYING: Queen ‘would be asked to help fund Prince Andrew’s potential settlement with sex abuse accuser Virginia Giuffre’

The Duke, 61, is currently waiting on tenterhooks for a judge to decide whether Ms Giuffre's civil lawsuit will be ditched.



If it goes ahead, Andrew will face a full civil trial in New York over claims he sexually abused Ms Giuffre on three occasions in 2001 when she was 17.
Andrew has always strongly denied all allegations made against him.

Insiders have claimed Andrew could settle the lawsuit out of court if it goes to trial, with his lawyers keeping the settlement option "on the table" due to the negative impact a court case could have on other senior royals. If Andrew does opt to offer Ms Giuffre a settlement, which is said to likely exceed £5million, the Queen would be asked to contribute, The Telegraph reports.

According to the newspaper, the Queen has been paying the duke's legal fees since he first appointed a lawyer last February after his disastrous Newsnight interview.

It comes as a senior source within the Royal household said the Queen has been hurt by all the criticism of Andrew “far more deeply than anyone realises". Former royal butler Paul Burrell described the prince as the Queen’s favourite son, “who has never done anything wrong in her eyes”.

Full: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17256864/ ... a-giuffre/

Every reason right there that the UK should be a republic. Awful people perpetuating awful standards from awful ideals. Russians had the right idea.

New from the Mail.

The latest revelations come from a key witness in the recent trial, Carolyn Andriano, whose testimony helped secure four of the five guilty verdicts against Maxwell.

This weekend she gave an exclusive interview to The Mail on Sunday's sister paper, the Daily Mail, in which she threw light on Virginia Giuffre's allegations of battery and sexual assault against Prince Andrew.

She claims that not only did Giuffre text her excitedly from London in March 2001 to say she was having dinner with the Prince, she also claims that when she got back to Florida she showed Andriano that snap of her with him and gushed: 'I got to sleep with him.'

According to Andriano, Giuffre didn't seem remotely upset about the experience. On the contrary, 'she thought it was pretty cool' and 'couldn't believe that she got to sleep with Prince Andrew'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... r-too.html

armchairlawyer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:11 am New from the Mail.

The latest revelations come from a key witness in the recent trial, Carolyn Andriano, whose testimony helped secure four of the five guilty verdicts against Maxwell.

This weekend she gave an exclusive interview to The Mail on Sunday's sister paper, the Daily Mail, in which she threw light on Virginia Giuffre's allegations of battery and sexual assault against Prince Andrew.

She claims that not only did Giuffre text her excitedly from London in March 2001 to say she was having dinner with the Prince, she also claims that when she got back to Florida she showed Andriano that snap of her with him and gushed: 'I got to sleep with him.'

According to Andriano, Giuffre didn't seem remotely upset about the experience. On the contrary, 'she thought it was pretty cool' and 'couldn't believe that she got to sleep with Prince Andrew'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... r-too.html

Of course that was Virginia’s response back then. Not remotely surprised to read that.

The complexity is that, as with domestic abuse, previously (and still now) women were not aware that coercive behaviour was also abuse, so once they learn, they become upset. So Virginia later in life learns from others it was abuse so she starts to look back on things in a different way. there is the perspective that even if Virginia was willing, she was too young (allegedly) to know that she was being taken advantage of people people old enough to know they were targeting females who were easy prey.

What’s the term? There’s a term that is used when a person is willing but the position of the person doing the (alleged ) abuse means the (alleged) victim wasn’t ‘free’ and willing

violet wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:29 am

armchairlawyer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:11 am New from the Mail.

The latest revelations come from a key witness in the recent trial, Carolyn Andriano, whose testimony helped secure four of the five guilty verdicts against Maxwell.

This weekend she gave an exclusive interview to The Mail on Sunday's sister paper, the Daily Mail, in which she threw light on Virginia Giuffre's allegations of battery and sexual assault against Prince Andrew.

She claims that not only did Giuffre text her excitedly from London in March 2001 to say she was having dinner with the Prince, she also claims that when she got back to Florida she showed Andriano that snap of her with him and gushed: 'I got to sleep with him.'

According to Andriano, Giuffre didn't seem remotely upset about the experience. On the contrary, 'she thought it was pretty cool' and 'couldn't believe that she got to sleep with Prince Andrew'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... r-too.html

Of course that was Virginia’s response back then. Not remotely surprised to read that.

The complexity is that, as with domestic abuse, previously (and still now) women were not aware that coercive behaviour was also abuse, so once they learn, they become upset. So Virginia later in life learns from others it was abuse so she starts to look back on things in a different way. there is the perspective that even if Virginia was willing, she was too young (allegedly) to know that she was being taken advantage of people people old enough to know they were targeting females who were easy prey.

What’s the term? There’s a term that is used when a person is willing but the position of the person doing the (alleged ) abuse means the (alleged) victim wasn’t ‘free’ and willing

Yes, you're right. But she was 17 at the time and in most countries of the world she was regarded as able to consent.
And there is a difference between a girl like VG who gets all the perks and one who is used and abused Rotherham style for zero compensation.

armchairlawyer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:42 am

violet wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:29 am

armchairlawyer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:11 am New from the Mail.

The latest revelations come from a key witness in the recent trial, Carolyn Andriano, whose testimony helped secure four of the five guilty verdicts against Maxwell.

This weekend she gave an exclusive interview to The Mail on Sunday's sister paper, the Daily Mail, in which she threw light on Virginia Giuffre's allegations of battery and sexual assault against Prince Andrew.

She claims that not only did Giuffre text her excitedly from London in March 2001 to say she was having dinner with the Prince, she also claims that when she got back to Florida she showed Andriano that snap of her with him and gushed: 'I got to sleep with him.'

According to Andriano, Giuffre didn't seem remotely upset about the experience. On the contrary, 'she thought it was pretty cool' and 'couldn't believe that she got to sleep with Prince Andrew'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... r-too.html

Of course that was Virginia’s response back then. Not remotely surprised to read that.

The complexity is that, as with domestic abuse, previously (and still now) women were not aware that coercive behaviour was also abuse, so once they learn, they become upset. So Virginia later in life learns from others it was abuse so she starts to look back on things in a different way. there is the perspective that even if Virginia was willing, she was too young (allegedly) to know that she was being taken advantage of people people old enough to know they were targeting females who were easy prey.

What’s the term? There’s a term that is used when a person is willing but the position of the person doing the (alleged ) abuse means the (alleged) victim wasn’t ‘free’ and willing

Yes, you're right. But she was 17 at the time and in most countries of the world she was regarded as able to consent.
And there is a difference between a girl like VG who gets all the perks and one who is used and abused Rotherham style for zero compensation.

I don’t disagree with you

Let’s be fair.
Women of all ages can be coerced and persuaded to consent when plied with wealth and privilege. What else can explain the reason so many old, rich dudes with nothing going for them (except the aforementioned wealth & privilege) are able to bed, date or marry stunningly beautiful women.

IraHayes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:04 am What else can explain the reason so many old, rich dudes with nothing going for them (except the aforementioned wealth & privilege) are able to bed, date or marry stunningly shallow women.

FTFY