The "Royals" Thread

[thirdcrank]

The explanation of that "window" and the nature of the proceedings are both in this link, including this

Melissa Murray, professor of law at New York University, said Prince Andrew "could be on the hook for significant money damages".

"This is not about whether or not Prince Andrew will go to jail - he has no criminal exposure from this particular case," she told the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58153711

===================================================================
Today's Daily Telegraph has this, which does the duke no favours. It's by somebody flogging a book on the subject.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-famil ... -balmoral/

[Oldjohnw]

What’s the difference between Emma Raducanu and Prince Andrew?

Emma is not afraid of a US Court.

[Mick F]

What’s the difference between Emma Raducanu and Prince Andrew?

Emma is not afraid of a US Court.

That should be in the "What has made you laugh today?" thread.

[Jdsk]

What I'm trying to say is that with regard to proceedings in the US courts, the reputational damage is done. There can't be much if anything still to be revealed, the media have published what has been alleged as if it were fact so all that's in prospect there is the same stuff being aired in court. We've had the "car crash" interview and it's hard to see things getting any worse.

I've no idea if this affects the public's attitude either way to the Royal Family as an institution but I doubt it.

If he loses in the civil case or is ever convicted I expect it to get much worse for him both in popular opinion and subsequent criminal investigations.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

That sounds like the Federal criminal investigation. The prosecutors are based in New York, but it isn't a state matter.

I don't think that they have many powers to "push it". They have issued a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) submission.

First hearing in the civil action is next week.

And the papers have been served:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ia-giuffre

Or have they?

There's a convention that says papers have to be served to the person. These were served to a policeman who passed it on to lawyers. Technically not served according to the relevant international treaty. However I doubt he'll go there legally.

The court may decide on that tomorrow.

But which treaty is that, please?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

First hearing in the civil action is next week.

And the papers have been served:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ia-giuffre

Or have they?

There's a convention that says papers have to be served to the person. These were served to a policeman who passed it on to lawyers. Technically not served according to the relevant international treaty. However I doubt he'll go there legally.

The court may decide on that tomorrow.

But Kaplan made it abundantly clear that he's likely to eventually order an alternative method of service on the prince, if he decides that what has happened so far isn't enough.

"I'll tell you right now that there is going to be ... service authorized appropriately, because I have a foreign national who has been sued in the United States court, and he's taking the position that he hasn't been served," Kaplan said in response to Brettler's arguments.

"You have a pretty high degree of certainty that he can be served sooner or later," Kaplan added. "Let's cut out all the technicalities and get to the substance."
https://abcnews.go.com/International/pr ... d=80000350

Next hearing on October 13.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

....
If he loses in the civil case or is ever convicted I expect it to get much worse for him both in popular opinion and subsequent criminal investigations.

Jonathan

If he loses the civil case, then there will presumably be an order for compo measured in $ Zillions. He's not going to be convicted before a criminal investigation. There seems to be sparse info about any US criminal investigation and I suspect that will remain the case unless some US prosecutor decides there's mileage in an extradition request. As I've mentioned, a criminal investigation by the Met is apparently under consideration again, but that would presumably depend to some extent on the co-operation of the complainant. If there were to be such an investigation, including the possibility of arrest etc., then it would be a different matter. Speaking generally, I think if someone were to be convicted of crime in the US, then that might be the basis for a civil case in England. To lose an undefended civil case in the US, wouldn't have much effect on a criminal trial here.

The namesake for Cap'n Bob's yacht, The Lady Ghislaine has been mentioned. It's hard to see her evidence carrying much weight here either way, even if she emerges from US custody soon. The only exception to that might be if she could produce physical evidence of Prince Andrew being naughtier than we've seen already. Revenge porn in the lingo.

[Jdsk]

Latest news –

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58451647

"Michael Fawcett has been accused of offering to help a wealthy Saudi businessman with an honour.
Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz received an honorary CBE in late 2016.
The Prince's Foundation said it was investigating the matter.
The organisation, of which Mr Fawcett became chief executive in 2018, is an umbrella group for a number of Prince Charles' charitable interests."

"The chairman of Prince Charles’s charitable foundation has resigned following claims that a six-figure sum from a wealthy Russian donor was accepted before being rejected by its ethics committee."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... on-resigns

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

Prince Andrew case: High Court to notify duke of US civil proceedings

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58574350

That should put the tin hat on it

[toontra]

Whatever the right or wrong , it really doesn't look good for an heir to the throne to be hiding away in a castle and hiring Hollywood lawyers to find loopholes in order to avoid answering charges of paedophilia.

It really begs the question - if he is as innocent as he claims, why is he so determined to avoid legal scrutiny? If there is no evidence of wrongdoing (i.e. he didn't do it) he'd be vindicated. A bit late now though - he's made such a prat of himself that he'll forever be a joke at best or a convicted child molester at worst.

It will be interesting to see to what lengths the "establishment" will go to to protect him, in ways that would be inconceivable for an ordinary citizen facing the same charges.

[Tangled Metal]

The reputational damage is done to both Andrew and the monarchy in general. What remains to be seen is: will Andrew be able to avoid the sort of sanction that Joe Public would have experienced? Is there one law for the monarchy and another for the rest of us?

Is Prince Andrew the monarch? You should say that it's one law for the monarch's son and one for the rest of us. Pedantic hat on.

Damage is to the Prince. The monarch has always been seen separate to and above the antics of their children. Damage is only to the son. It's a republicans wish for the damage to be to the monarch too but it's not true. Certainly not with queen bess II

[Jdsk]

The reputational damage is done to both Andrew and the monarchy in general. What remains to be seen is: will Andrew be able to avoid the sort of sanction that Joe Public would have experienced? Is there one law for the monarchy and another for the rest of us?

Is Prince Andrew the monarch? You should say that it's one law for the monarch's son and one for the rest of us. Pedantic hat on.

The monarchy doesn't only mean the monarch. It describes a system with many trappings and involving a lot more than one individual.

For example, as the OED puts it:
The office of monarch. Also: the person, family, or ancestry of a monarch; the royal family. More recently in extended use: the high-ranking members of any group of people.

Jonathan

[Mick F]

Heir to the throne?
He's a bit far down the list.

He'd have to wait for a few deaths before he could be crowned King ........... considering the accession rules.
He's ninth in line I think and will be dropping further down as the babies are born above him.

[Psamathe]

Whatever the right or wrong , it really doesn't look good for an heir to the throne to be hiding away in a castle and hiring Hollywood lawyers to find loopholes in order to avoid answering charges of paedophilia.

It really begs the question - if he is as innocent as he claims, why is he so determined to avoid legal scrutiny? If there is no evidence of wrongdoing (i.e. he didn't do it) he'd be vindicated. A bit late now though - he's made such a prat of himself that he'll forever be a joke at best or a convicted child molester at worst.

It will be interesting to see to what lengths the "establishment" will go to to protect him, in ways that would be inconceivable for an ordinary citizen facing the same charges.

I would agree. Delaying on a technicality demonstrates how all his "happy to help inquiries" was a load of rubbish and it reflects badly on the institution and the UK (in so far as they are seen to support and fund the institution).

Ian

[Oldjohnw]

The reputational damage is done to both Andrew and the monarchy in general. What remains to be seen is: will Andrew be able to avoid the sort of sanction that Joe Public would have experienced? Is there one law for the monarchy and another for the rest of us?

Is Prince Andrew the monarch? You should say that it's one law for the monarch's son and one for the rest of us. Pedantic hat on.

The monarchy doesn't only mean the monarch. It describes a system with many trappings and involving a lot more than one individual.

For example, as the OED puts it:
The office of monarch. Also: the person, family, or ancestry of a monarch; the royal family. More recently in extended use: the high-ranking members of any group of people.

Jonathan

Andrew is part of the monarchy. And I am not a republican.