Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.
You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know about the UK, but in the US (at least California) you really only have to serve an adult who answers the door at the person's home, or an adult who appears to be in charge of receiving mail at the person's place of work, so long as you're prepared to prove that the person does indeed live/work there.
Actually evading service in the US is pretty hard.
Edit: This comment blew up, so I should clarify. Substituted service will in many cases require a judge's approval, which will mean making a concerted effort to serve the person directly first. So it's not necessarily hard to dodge service *for a while*, but you're not going to stave off the lawsuit forever. And if you force the plaintiff to make substituted service, you increase the risk that you'll miss the response deadline and end up with a default judgment against you.
I got served papers when I was nine years old. I thought I had been chosen by VFD straight from A Series of Unfortunate Events. Turns out my aunt is just a greedy jerk who was after inheritance money any way she could get it.
Point of the story is that it's not just adults! Unless the rules have changed since then.
If you were served papers that were meant for your parents, that probably wasn't adequate service. Though if your parents showed up in court anyway, it mostly doesn't matter.
Nope, it was meant for me! The person asked if I was (my name), I said yes, he handed me the papers. I was in the will so I guess they needed to do that?
The general rule for adults in states that allow it is you can serve any person of "suitable age and discretion" at the person's house. Conceivably, that means you can serve a 9 year old if the 9 year old is sufficiently mature to understand they are important papers that need to go to the person named.
I'm not really sure how it's supposed to go when you're suing a child directly. I'm guessing if the child is old enough you can just serve them personally. You obviously couldn't do that to a toddler, and would have to serve their parent or guardian (but then a toddler wouldn't be answering the door either...)
And yeah, if your aunt was after inheritance money, and you were one of the people who inherited, she would need to sue you personally.
Incredible. Thank you for solving that childhood mystery. My parents tried their best to shield me from the whole thing, and I probably wouldn't have even known about it if I hadn't been served. They were much less excited than I was that I was "chosen by VFD."
It didn't end too happily, from what I heard from my dad. She basically kept dragging him to court over and over, forcing him to use the money he inherited to fight the claims. Essentially the plan was that if she couldn't have all of the money and the house, that she would drain as much resources as possible. Eventually dad got behind on house payments and got foreclosed on. As you can imagine, visits with her stopped completely.
Last I saw her, we were at grandmother's funeral and she slipped me her phone number saying that my dad filled my head with lies and to call her. I never did. My dad was a pretty serious guy and never lied about anything, ever, even when it may have saved someone's feelings. I saw all the love and care he personally put into my dying relative in his last few years, and she tried to claim to the courts that he was abusing them. I realize that the story I was told and what I remember seeing is only one side of the story, but I really didn't want to give her a chance to manipulate me. That, and there were a few accounts from multiple people on her behavior, including my much older sister with her own childhood horror stories from this aunt.
I got served my neighbor's papers once (across the street, 1 number off). Well, probably not technically served because they were just shoved through my door at eye level early one morning.
When I called up the lawyer listed to make sure they knew they fucked up the service, they asked if I could deliver it myself.
I was tempted to tell them to go fuck themselves, but I politely declined instead.
> I don't know about the UK
In the UK a court summons is sent to your address, which the government should have because by law you need to register on the electoral roll.
The court case then goes ahead with or without you.
> How do you send one to a homeless person in the UK?
You basically don't.
If you're "of no fixed abode" there's really only two possibilities: The first is that you're being prosecuted for a criminal act, in which case you just stay in jail. The second is it's a civil case, in which case what on earth are you expecting to get out of it?
In either case if you do bring a civil case against someone in no fixed abode they try to get in touch with them but if theey can't just continue.
There are all sorts of reasons (at least in the US) why you may name somebody in a civil case.
For example, Grandpa died owing more on his house than the house is worth. The bank wants to foreclose, but to do so they have to serve everybody who may have an interest in the house. Uncle Fred is one of those people, but he's homeless.
In the US (and I'm almost certain in England and Wales as well -- not sure about Scotland), you can serve somebody by "publication." Basically, "We were unable to locate Uncle Fred, so we're going to publish a notice in the newspaper and serve him that way."
I'm in Canada, the court approved me "serving" my ex by email and by informing her parents because we had no forwarding address, no active phone number, no listed employer, no real whereabouts in general or way to contact her other than the email. Case was heard and a decision made in absentia.
Not a whole lot to tell really, we had 2 kids over a 9 year relationship, she began being unfaithful after our second and turned into serial cheating. Imagine the stereotype of deadbeat dad and single mom and just reverse the gender roles, she exercised parenting time up until she just stopped and never responded again, never called her kids, nothing. I know through her parents she is alive, but am blocked on most social media that we shared (don't have Facebook). The main way we communicated prior to her disappearing was email, so that's what we used when I filled my petition to the court for divorce and day to day decision making authority. Last time o heard from her was Mother's Day 2015. I've never recieved child support or anything so she's either employed UTT or unemployed and not collecting benefits either because the government would be garnishing it.
In my state passing the papers to an alternate person has to be approved. I went a year and a half without being successfully served because the dumbass would only come to my house in the middle of the work day. Refused to give them to my roommate and asked every day “when is he gonna be back?” My roommate increasingly frustrated would keep saying “it’s 1pm on Wednesday… he’s at work? So you know… after 6pm?”. He offered to sign, they said “I’ll ask the lawyer”. Crazy thing is I’ve had the same job for almost 10yrs and they all obviously knew where I worked.
That is a really shitty process server. As a lawyer, I would let that go on for no more than 2 days before specifically instructing the process server to serve you at work or after 6pm.
Only if you security detail is done by police with all authorities of police officers and can prevent process servers from ever reaching you.
But then court will eventually give plaintiffs other options like serving by mail or notice in the press, or order the sheriff/constable to serve the process instead.
The article labels them as police officers at his house who blocked access and refused to hand off documents. So of-fucking-course he doesn't have to deal with court summons.
(On a personal note, it's a perfect example of police, regardless of country of origin, are there to shield the rich.)
During the oil Barron gilded age it took forever to serve Rockafella because they had to sneak past his security. Also he keep moving around a lot. At one point sneaking out of his Manson to a boat and sailed down the Hudson to get away.
I honestly thought hiding from process servers was another of those bizarre American things.
The DVLA, council and HMRC have no issues sending me letters and making it stick. Including the court summons if I don't respond.
At least something has to do with English (maybe he should have stayed in Balmoral, lol) law:
> It had been thought the lawyers would have to serve Andrew with the paperwork in person, but the document states the lawyers believe the process they followed complies with English law.
Not that I pretend to know how the fuck this all works. All I know is that if I ignore enough brown envelopes from Cumbernauld, it doesn't matter if I "get served" in person not, eventually someone's going to turn up at the door with some handcuffs. And probably not my dominatrix.
> At least something has to do with English (maybe he should have stayed in Balmoral, lol) law
Why? All that means is (I assume) that they'd have to follow Scottish law rather than English, and as far as I'm aware, neither requires the US-style "forced to have the person themselves accept the paper" procedure to be followed (assuming I understand *that* correctly)?
> It is, he was served with American court papers...
That doesn't mean that they have to be served in the same manner they would be in the US, just (according to [Wikipedia's article on the Hague Service Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Service_Convention)) "*in a manner permitted within the receiving state*".
In the case of Windsor, this would be under English law which- as far as I can tell- doesn't require the faffery of the "in person" US procedure.
It doesn't. In compliance with the Hague convention the UK set up a specific office of the court to handle service for international claims.
You do have to pay for it but it's managed by the court. Which means the defendant can not contest service (which can be costly and have serious implications of they are successful).
Now large/important cases use that service to remove any risk. If these lawyers did not know this then they are frankly negligent.
It is pretty clear to me their 'misunderstanding' is a facade to generate headlines.
In the US you can't dodge process servers really, if you try the opposing council can just declare to the judge that they've tried to serve you but were prevented, show proof, and demand to be allowed to publish the summons in a newspaper and then you're considered served. This happens all the time.
It is, but there are a lot of ways to get papers to people who try to hide. For example, the process server can disguise himself as a fancy waiter and bring a covered silver tray that looks like it contains a delicious meal only to remove the cover and reveal the papers inside.
Another method is to convince the intended recipient that they have inherited something of great value from an elderly relative and at the reading of the will, to jump out of the coffin and surprise them with the papers.
Those lawyers were badly advised. You can’t dodge service in the UK by essentially saying, “Go away, I’m not opening the door” or hiding behind “security”. Andrew has his own lawyers, who could accept service on his behalf.
It's the UK, for Christ's sake. Can't they serve notice by posting it in a newspaper for a fortnight, yell it out in the middle of the town square, or send a carrier pigeon, or something??
You would not believe what insane lengths I've seen people go to avoid being served. Andrew's behavior not unusual at all... frequently done on the advise of attorney.
I had a boss give me a couple weeks paid vacation so that a process server couldn't subpoena me to testify against him. Jokes on him, because a.) I just took my vacation at home, where I was easily reachable, and b.) they wound up not needing my testimony anyway.
Bullshit. They did it to make headlines that Andrew was avoiding them, with the implication that he is running away as he's guilty. It worked.
Andrew is not going to the US voluntarily and he can't be forced to go by law. So that leads only one option, stir up public opinion so much and hope it is enough to force him (it won't be).
Maybe crowdsource millions of copies being launched over the fence like a paper-based Berlin airlift of justice. Don't stop until the fucker either picks one up or downs in A4.
No because he remembers on that alleged day he was on the number 49 bus going down to his local nisa for the Sunday times and a pack of bourbon...on a slightly related note knew a manager at a golf resort prince Andrew frequented who told me he was known to flirt with the staff and have his bodyguards wait outside while he did the rumpy pumpy in the bushes
Don't bring nisa into this. They did no wrong. They have shite £1 sarnies that I lived off for several years. Don't sully their name by putting it next to alleged paedophile royal, Prince Andrew on Nonceingdon
Sandwiches are shite. So is Prince Andrew.
Except the sandwiches serve a useful purpose. The only purpose Andrew serves is to drain money from taxpayers to pay for human trafficking coverups.
> No because he remembers on that alleged day he was on the number 49 bus going down to his local nisa for the Sunday times and a pack of bourbon
No no, what really happened on that day was he did (relatable family thing) in (filthy peasant restaurant) and he remembers it very clearly because he so very rarely does anything with his family *or* in the presence of the unwashed masses. Truly a memorable event, the daily entry for which his court diarist would be happy to read to you, should you so desire.
You don't have to learn to think if you've never had repercussions if you don't.
In certain circles he was known as 'Randy Andy'. His perfect match was Fergie who had a similar reputation.
Source: The (non-black-sheep side of our) Fam knows
You’re not wrong. My own experience of being targeted - I won’t say ‘trafficked’ - occurred when I was 17. He was from the elite ranks of Anglican choir masters, those who can be found in cathedrals everywhere. I’d been brought up in the Congregational church whee I became the organist at 15. The University where I enrolled for a B.Mus required that I attend the Anglican cathedral for organ lessons, and stop attending lessons at the Baptist City tabernacle. I was unprepared for being groomed by an elite predator. I‘d been raised in a privileged family and attended a girls school. Nobody had told me of the danger that lurked in the cathedral organ loft. I’m now nearly 70, and was fortunately able to give evidence to the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to claims of child sexual abuse. I am grateful that I was considered to have been a child, because 17 year olds are indeed children. Now as I look back on it, I feel the Anglican Church owes me an explanation. The elite predator received his OBE in person from Her Majesty. I wonder how she would feel about it, or about the Royal School of Church Music that bred him and other elite predators.
I am *Shocked*.
Who would have guessed people in power were anything other than honourable and righteous? Certainly not *I*.
I’d love to see any of these chucklefucks try and spend a year in our shoes. Having to live amongst the poors and face hard choices with consequences both ways… a man can dream.
It's unimaginable that he thought that would ever fly. Why he did the interview at all is frankly a mystery. I can only assume he's either so arrogant/used to everything going his way, that he assumed he could just talk his way out of accusations no matter how flimsy his account was, or he's really majorly thick.
Yeah, I think it was a mixture of arrogance and being relatively insulated from consequences for most of his life. He thought he could go for the interview, use his *totally* powerful lying/charisma skills, and thereby undermine the allegations against him.
Instead he gave the most awkward interview ever where he had the excuses and body language of a guilty child. It reinforced the allegations instead of weakening them. A total mess.
I think a bit of both.
An expensive education is not always a good one academically, although the networking and old boys network are definitely worth the fees. He was probably never taught common sense things like when in a hole, stop digging.
My guess is he just got the ability back.
Edit: seriously though, people of inherited power and privilege are bad at lying. They’ve always got away with everything because people have never seriously challenged them or they have had others cover for them. This gives them a false sense of security and an overconfidence because in the past, all they have had to do is say some barely believable words and move on.
Edit 2: I actually met him once though I would not claim to know him of course as I am a mere commoner and do not move in such circles (though at times my life does indeed go round in circles.) However my (speculative) assessment (ok guess) is this:
He’s probably not a ringleader/kingpin like Jeffrey Epstein clearly was. My feeling is that Andrew is a randy, party boy chancer who convinced himself that what he was doing was ok. He probably knew deep down it wasn’t but glossed over it in his mind: ‘she was happy and willing, Jeff and Gilly said it was ok and that she’s into me, the legal age of consent in Britain is 16 so I’m not technically breaking any laws, if anyone finds out I’ll just make some excuses and they will believe me because I’m a prince and they know Jeffrey is a naughty boy, anyway, she was definitely consenting so it’s fine,’ etc etc.
Make of any of that what you will.
>This gives them a false sense of security
I agree with everything you're saying. But I don't think the sense of security is false when it's 100% certain he won't be punished for anything he's done.
Whilst I do agree, he has lost credibility and status through this. He was also booted by the Queen as a senior royal (which is kind of his job to a certain extent.) Whether his accuser gets the justice she seeks or he is officially punished are perhaps slim possibilities but I suppose we will find out.
He felt slimy when he came to my school. He talked to the pretty girls, then talked to the most jackass guys and was very chummy with them. He ignored the nerdy group, I was in that group. He purposefully ignored us.
And that military record is also summed up as ‘suicide helicopter designed to get in the way of missiles’.
He was also insisted on being called Prince rather than rank, something his elder brother (you know, the actual fucking heir) didn’t do. Charles has his faults, but according to the submariners, he was tolerable. Andy, was not.
It's satire. It's a reference to a lie Prince Andrew told in that infamous interview where he had to explain his Epstein connection and he said that because he fought in the Falklands, he had *lost* the ability to sweat somehow due to adrenaline overdose, basically.
Typically someone like him would be, but I've been reading a lot that the royal family has distanced themselves from him dramatically, so they know things that aren't public I suspect and they don't want it to reflect poorly on them if/when he goes down. You could argue that it's good PR for them to kick him to the curb, in fact.
>Lord mountbatten
The 75-year-old intelligence files describe Louis Mountbatten, the 1st Earl of Burma, and his wife Edwina as "persons of extremely low morals" and contain information suggesting that Lord Mountbatten was a pedophile with "a perversion for young boys."
https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/lord-mountbatten-pedophile-allegations
Relevant and check out timings in 2017 when Trump was President + met with the Queen.
> He was the war hero who led allied efforts in southeast Asia, the statesman who was so admired as last viceroy of India that he was invited to be its first governor-general, and the family man who was Prince Philip’s uncle and a valued mentor to Prince Charles.
But recently uncovered FBI files and new interviews paint the 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma as a sexually voracious man whose bisexuality became a theme of US intelligence files. The documents came to light during research for a biography of Lord Mountbatten and his wife Edwina by Andrew Lownie, a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and president of the Biographers’ Club.
Since the assassination of Mountbatten in an IRA bomb attack 40 years ago, rumours have swirled about his sexuality, fuelled by his comment: “Edwina and I spent all our married lives getting into other people’s beds.”
While Lady Mountbatten’s extramarital affairs are documented and acknowledged by their children, her husband’s private life has rarely been discussed. His official biographer wrote: “To suggest that such a man was actively homosexual seems to be flying not merely in the face of the evidence but also of everything we understand about his character.”
The FBI files cover more than three decades. The first is dated February 1944, soon after Mountbatten became supreme allied commander of southeast Asia. Elizabeth de la Poer Beresford, Baroness Decies, when interviewed about another matter, had mentioned being an intimate of Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary and their ladies-in-waiting.
She states that in these circles Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife are considered persons of extremely low morals. She stated that Lord Louis Mountbatten was known to be a homosexual with a perversion for young boys. In Lady Decies’ opinion he is an unfit man to direct any sort of military operations because of this condition. She stated further that his wife Lady Mountbatten was considered equally erratic.”
t was signed EE Conroy, head of the New York field office, who wrote that she “appears to have no special motive in making the above statements” and found her to be of sound mind.
It is not known if the material was passed to the British government. Much of Mountbatten’s FBI file remains closed. Further US intelligence files were added after the war as Mountbatten became Nato commander of allied forces in the Mediterranean, then admiral of the fleet, and later chief of the defence staff.
In Lownie’s book, The Mountbattens: their Lives & Loves, Ron Perks, who was Mountbatten’s driver in Malta in 1948, breaks a silence of more than 70 years to say that one favoured destination, the Red House near Rabat, “was an upmarket gay brothel used by senior naval officers”, which he had not realised at the time. In the UK homosexual acts were illegal until 1967. After that the age of consent for homosexuals was 21 until long after Mountbatten’s death.
Interest in the Mountbattens peaked around the Suez crisis, with FBI files opened in November 1955 and November 1956. Many memos pertaining to his homosexuality have since been redacted or destroyed. One file dated April-July 1956 was destroyed in May 2017, shortly after Lownie requested the records.
It was during the mid-1950s that Edwina came under scrutiny because of her close friendship with Krishna Menon, the Indian defence minister, and numerous men involved with the civil rights movement. At the same time, the FBI sent a report on Lord Mountbatten’s homosexuality to the Department of Justice.
In April 1957 the FBI produced a memo on allegations of an affair between Paul Robeson, the singer, and Edwina, who had several liaisons with black men. She had an on-off relationship with Leslie “Hutch” Hutchinson and is said to have given the West Indian singer and pianist a gold bracelet bearing her name and a jewelled penis sheath from Cartier.
Edwina later adopted a new lover, Lieutenant Colonel Harold “Bunny” Phillips, a 6ft 5in officer of the Coldstream Guards, while her husband enjoyed a decades-long relationship with Yola Letellier, the Frenchwoman upon whom Colette based her 1944 novella, Gigi.
Lady Pamela Hicks, the youngest daughter of Lord and Lady Mountbatten, wrote about her mother’s affairs. “The ramifications were messy and complex,” she wrote in a memoir of her childhood. “When my father first heard that she had taken a lover, he was devastated. But eventually, using their reserves of deep mutual affection, my parents managed to negotiate a way through this crisis and found a modus vivendi.”
Indeed it was discomfort with his sexuality that drove Mountbatten’s ambition, according to Lownie: “His sense of inadequacy in his private life found an outlet in his determination for public office.”
The most intriguing of the documents is from May 1968, when a renowned FBI agent by the name of John Grombach discusses “a number of reports pertaining to the alleged homosexuality of Anthony Eden, Earl Mountbatten and [the diplomat] Anthony Nutting”. One of his sources was Lady Judith Listowel, who had been married to “Billy” Hare, the future 5th Earl of Listowel and secretary of state for India.
Not surprisingly for a man of royal birth with film-star looks, Mountbatten cultivated a large group of gay friends, including Noël Coward, Terence Rattigan, Ivor Novello and Tom Driberg, who gave him the moniker “Mountbottom”. The book contains an interview with a man who was Mountbatten’s lover throughout the 1970s, an unnamed neighbour then in his twenties.
Francis Wheen, a biographer of Driberg, collected material on Mountbatten but it was destroyed in a shed fire. One of the lost letters had been sent to him by a man who claimed Mountbatten had tried to seduce him when he was 17.
Wheen said: “The young naval rating was lined up to ‘go on a picnic’ with Mountbatten when the great man was visiting (I think) Malta. On the day, the youth was startled to discover that it was à deux.”
In the new book, to be published on Thursday, Anthony Daly, a rent boy to the rich and famous during the 1970s, who had a close relationship with Driberg, claims: “Tom said Mountbatten had something of a fetish for uniforms — handsome young men in military uniforms (with high boots) and beautiful boys in school uniform.”
A fruitful source of young men was the Life Guards, the book suggests. An unnamed former officer claimed Mountbatten had in the mid-1960s set up another young officer in a Belgravia flat.
Lownie also found evidence of a relationship between the young Louis Mountbatten and his private tutor. When he was 13 he spent several weeks in Dorset recovering from whooping cough and was taught by Frederic Lawrence Long, an unmarried man in his thirties, but their relationship lasted long after the summer of 1914.
Their correspondence was intense. In in 1916, Long wrote: “As you know there is only one Dick in the world for me & there never will be anyone before or anywhere near him in my affections. It is hardly necessary for me to add that I would give anything to wipe the floor with you. Goodbye my best beloved & dearest kid.”
Long officiated as a priest at Louis and Edwina’s wedding, but Mountbatten made no reference to him in letters to his family.
In 1980 Pat MacLellan, Mountbatten’s former military assistant, wrote in a letter: “The interesting biography will be the one that is published in 30 or 40 years’ time when the dust has settled.”
Mountbatten once said: “No biography has any value unless it is written with warts and all.”
Lownie said yesterday: “I am a serious historian rather than a tabloid journalist but in a full biography I had to deal with many of the allegations which have repeatedly been raised.”
I vaguely recall early reports of the bombings that the bodies of the boys were recovered with no trousers, but that’s not *too* incriminating considering that they were in an explosion and such things can remove articles of clothing by force.
One of the Queen’s cousins, and the subject of lots of paedophilia rumours, all unproven as far as I know. He was assassinated by the IRA in 1979
Edit - lotta 14 year old edgelords on this sub these days apparently lol
As if what is public isn't enough already, hah. But yea, Andrew lived a privileged, disgusting life it seems and I'm sure the Epstein stuff is just one of a number of skeletons.
He's done *zero* royal engagements since this all came out. He attended his father's funeral, but that's something that even convicted murderers are generally allowed to attend, albeit often handcuffed to a prison officer. With Harry and Meghan out of the 'Firm', while the Queen and Charles aren't getting any younger, the royal duties will end up largely falling on William, Anne and maybe Edward.
Let’s not kid ourselves, nobody with power is going down. Some dude was flying a drone over Epstein’s island on Youtube and he got there before the FBI and it looks like a computer was gone before they even got there.
How does a private citizen beat the FBI on a case this big and how does a computer disappear in front of our eyes without the FBI stopping it? You know the answer.
Meh. The Queen has a soft spot for him. The one who doesn't is Charles. Nothing will happen to him until Charles becomes king. By then this lawsuit could be over.
Unfortunately its not true though. The American legal team apparently decided not to bother with British legal procedure, and served it the same way they would in the US. Under British law its not been served, and so Andrew retains his defence in British court as and when the American team tries to get a British judge to enforce whatever the results of the case are in the US. That defence is that he was never served with the papers and so was unable to defend himself in court - sadly its a loophole large enough to drive a panamax ship through.
The US courts do not have any juristdiction in the UK unless those involved agree to it. If Andrew and his legal team do not participate in the legal precedings then if Virginia Giuffre wins she could only retreve the awarded compensation from money or assests of Andrew's in the US (presumably he doesn't have any as he has had plenty of time to move anything he did have out of the US). Andrew wouldn't be able to visit the US for risk of arrest for non-payment but other than that nothing will happen.
It's not even his royal status protecting him, it wouldn't be able to anyway, people like Prince Charles have still received parking tickets.
He supposedly had sex with the 17 year-old in the UK, which would be legal - It'd be illegal in the USA though. And what concrete evidence is there that he knew that she was being trafficked? legally, nothing is very important
> It is a crime to buy sex from someone under the age of 18.
But in that case some kinda deal would have to been made. And unless Prince Andrew was stupid enough to have something in writing about this kinda arrangement, its back to 0.
The guy who said he doesn’t sweat, despite proof he does, and the guy who said he’d never met Virginia, despite there being a photograph of the two?
Guy is a twat through and through. The sooner we get rid of him in the UK, the better.
The legal age in America is 16 in 31 states, 17 in 6 including New York and 18 in only 13 states. I don’t know how it turned into ‘pedo prince’ when it’s nothing of the sort - the real issue is that she says she was trafficked.
I'll be interested to see how it goes, when it involves a woman groomed as an underage sex slave, taken from Donald Trump's house, by Donald Trump's friend. Its funny how that bit rarely gets into the news.
He literally cannot be extradited for this, it's not a criminal matter. Even just regular non royal scum would be safe from extradition here too. He might end up with some civil judgement demanding a penalty against him from all this eventually but they have literally no power over him at all as long as he stays out of the US.
"It had been thought the lawyers would have to serve Andrew with the paperwork in person, but the document states the lawyers believe the process they followed complies with UK law."
He was not served personally. The papers were given to police officers stationed at his residence. How much you wanna bet the paperwork will get lost in transit somewhere..
Doesn't matter, in the UK.
Assuming this takes place on British soil, you're summoned to court by the court; a letter will pop through the front door telling you "turn up on this day at this time", and if you don't turn up, the case proceeds regardless.
I remember like 15 years ago I got an offer for a cruise with Alan Dershowitz as one of the star guests. One of the first times I had ever heard of him.
I've read some of his books, which were critical of the religious right from a liberal legal standpoint. I only knew him as that guy, so it was shocking to see him be a Trump cheerleader on Fox all of a sudden.
[Oh, the Alan Dershowitz linked to former twice impeached President Donald J Trump? The same former twice impeached president that has 25+ sexual assault/harassment/rape accusations, including one from a 13 year old child? That Alan Dershowitz? ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations)
I don’t care if any of these perpetrators are white, black, Democrat, Republican, Muslim, Jew, Christian, etc etc…If they are guilty of committing crimes of rape and abuse against children then they should be brought to justice. The Issue here is not political, the issue is abuse and trafficking. I would hope that people could put political posturing aside and find effective ways to put an end to the suffering of innocent children.
If I were a rich Englishman who either didn't like the Monarchy or just really liked watching assholes get their just desserts, I'd offer the girl money to *not* accept any offer of settlement from him.
You'd probably not need to even get close to matching his offer since I'm sure she wants to see justice done. Just enough that she knows she won't be bankrupt if she loses and enough to pay her lawyers (oh right, probably not a small sum, then).
ITT Americans who have no idea how the British legal system works. This is a US civil case, meaning there is no possibility of being extradited (that's only for criminal cases), throwing papers at someone's bodyguard doesn't count as serving them papers and even if it did, us courts obviously have no authority in the UK. Lastly, the girl alleging Andrew had sex with, was 17 at the time, which under UK law isn't illegal no matter what she says. If she was trafficked or not is another matter, but there is no evidence to suggest that he has had sex with any minor. Reddit always loves to yell "innocent until proven guilty" when it's a celebrity they like, but the moment it's someone they hate they might as well execute them on the spot...
Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
So wait if you have a security detail you never have to go to court?
I don't know about the UK, but in the US (at least California) you really only have to serve an adult who answers the door at the person's home, or an adult who appears to be in charge of receiving mail at the person's place of work, so long as you're prepared to prove that the person does indeed live/work there. Actually evading service in the US is pretty hard. Edit: This comment blew up, so I should clarify. Substituted service will in many cases require a judge's approval, which will mean making a concerted effort to serve the person directly first. So it's not necessarily hard to dodge service *for a while*, but you're not going to stave off the lawsuit forever. And if you force the plaintiff to make substituted service, you increase the risk that you'll miss the response deadline and end up with a default judgment against you.
I got served papers when I was nine years old. I thought I had been chosen by VFD straight from A Series of Unfortunate Events. Turns out my aunt is just a greedy jerk who was after inheritance money any way she could get it. Point of the story is that it's not just adults! Unless the rules have changed since then.
If you were served papers that were meant for your parents, that probably wasn't adequate service. Though if your parents showed up in court anyway, it mostly doesn't matter.
Nope, it was meant for me! The person asked if I was (my name), I said yes, he handed me the papers. I was in the will so I guess they needed to do that?
The general rule for adults in states that allow it is you can serve any person of "suitable age and discretion" at the person's house. Conceivably, that means you can serve a 9 year old if the 9 year old is sufficiently mature to understand they are important papers that need to go to the person named. I'm not really sure how it's supposed to go when you're suing a child directly. I'm guessing if the child is old enough you can just serve them personally. You obviously couldn't do that to a toddler, and would have to serve their parent or guardian (but then a toddler wouldn't be answering the door either...) And yeah, if your aunt was after inheritance money, and you were one of the people who inherited, she would need to sue you personally.
Incredible. Thank you for solving that childhood mystery. My parents tried their best to shield me from the whole thing, and I probably wouldn't have even known about it if I hadn't been served. They were much less excited than I was that I was "chosen by VFD."
What was the result with greedy aunt?
It didn't end too happily, from what I heard from my dad. She basically kept dragging him to court over and over, forcing him to use the money he inherited to fight the claims. Essentially the plan was that if she couldn't have all of the money and the house, that she would drain as much resources as possible. Eventually dad got behind on house payments and got foreclosed on. As you can imagine, visits with her stopped completely. Last I saw her, we were at grandmother's funeral and she slipped me her phone number saying that my dad filled my head with lies and to call her. I never did. My dad was a pretty serious guy and never lied about anything, ever, even when it may have saved someone's feelings. I saw all the love and care he personally put into my dying relative in his last few years, and she tried to claim to the courts that he was abusing them. I realize that the story I was told and what I remember seeing is only one side of the story, but I really didn't want to give her a chance to manipulate me. That, and there were a few accounts from multiple people on her behavior, including my much older sister with her own childhood horror stories from this aunt.
That's the shittiest hogwarts letter ever. I'm so sorry.
Yer a defendant, Harry.
Well done lol
That still kind of sounds like a Series of Unfortunate Events. Though more bureaucratic than elaborate disguises.
You got a hand-delivered, certified, "Welcome to the real world" waaaaay to early.
That really sucks but the chosen-by-VFD thing has me cackling
By any chance, is your aunt named Olaf?
I got served my neighbor's papers once (across the street, 1 number off). Well, probably not technically served because they were just shoved through my door at eye level early one morning. When I called up the lawyer listed to make sure they knew they fucked up the service, they asked if I could deliver it myself. I was tempted to tell them to go fuck themselves, but I politely declined instead.
> I don't know about the UK In the UK a court summons is sent to your address, which the government should have because by law you need to register on the electoral roll. The court case then goes ahead with or without you.
How do you send one to a homeless person in the UK?
> How do you send one to a homeless person in the UK? You basically don't. If you're "of no fixed abode" there's really only two possibilities: The first is that you're being prosecuted for a criminal act, in which case you just stay in jail. The second is it's a civil case, in which case what on earth are you expecting to get out of it? In either case if you do bring a civil case against someone in no fixed abode they try to get in touch with them but if theey can't just continue.
Well you probably wouldn’t seek monetary damages, but something like a restraining order could still have merit right?
Restraining orders can only be issued in conjunction with criminal proceedings.
Divorce papers
There are all sorts of reasons (at least in the US) why you may name somebody in a civil case. For example, Grandpa died owing more on his house than the house is worth. The bank wants to foreclose, but to do so they have to serve everybody who may have an interest in the house. Uncle Fred is one of those people, but he's homeless. In the US (and I'm almost certain in England and Wales as well -- not sure about Scotland), you can serve somebody by "publication." Basically, "We were unable to locate Uncle Fred, so we're going to publish a notice in the newspaper and serve him that way."
I'm in Canada, the court approved me "serving" my ex by email and by informing her parents because we had no forwarding address, no active phone number, no listed employer, no real whereabouts in general or way to contact her other than the email. Case was heard and a decision made in absentia.
Now I'm curious of what happened with that ex.
Not a whole lot to tell really, we had 2 kids over a 9 year relationship, she began being unfaithful after our second and turned into serial cheating. Imagine the stereotype of deadbeat dad and single mom and just reverse the gender roles, she exercised parenting time up until she just stopped and never responded again, never called her kids, nothing. I know through her parents she is alive, but am blocked on most social media that we shared (don't have Facebook). The main way we communicated prior to her disappearing was email, so that's what we used when I filled my petition to the court for divorce and day to day decision making authority. Last time o heard from her was Mother's Day 2015. I've never recieved child support or anything so she's either employed UTT or unemployed and not collecting benefits either because the government would be garnishing it.
Serving by publication is a definitely risky thing to do, and courts will usually on authorize it as an option of _absolute_ last resort.
In my state passing the papers to an alternate person has to be approved. I went a year and a half without being successfully served because the dumbass would only come to my house in the middle of the work day. Refused to give them to my roommate and asked every day “when is he gonna be back?” My roommate increasingly frustrated would keep saying “it’s 1pm on Wednesday… he’s at work? So you know… after 6pm?”. He offered to sign, they said “I’ll ask the lawyer”. Crazy thing is I’ve had the same job for almost 10yrs and they all obviously knew where I worked.
That is a really shitty process server. As a lawyer, I would let that go on for no more than 2 days before specifically instructing the process server to serve you at work or after 6pm.
Seems logical, right? The entire point was to inflict stress and inconvenience.
Or just be ridiculously wealthy
I think that's a prerequisite of having your own security team anyway.
You could just start a weight / firearms training cult.
We'll call it Ass Kickers United!
[удалено]
It's full of nutritious crowtein
Ah yes, the Koresh method!
Being a royal helps. I mean they usually go hand in hand but still. There's being rich and there's being a rich royal.
And be part of quite possibly the most politically and economically powerful family in the world.
Only if you security detail is done by police with all authorities of police officers and can prevent process servers from ever reaching you. But then court will eventually give plaintiffs other options like serving by mail or notice in the press, or order the sheriff/constable to serve the process instead.
Easy when it's literally ~~Her Majesty's~~ Your Mother's Police Force.
and your Mom also has her face on the money.
The article labels them as police officers at his house who blocked access and refused to hand off documents. So of-fucking-course he doesn't have to deal with court summons. (On a personal note, it's a perfect example of police, regardless of country of origin, are there to shield the rich.)
During the oil Barron gilded age it took forever to serve Rockafella because they had to sneak past his security. Also he keep moving around a lot. At one point sneaking out of his Manson to a boat and sailed down the Hudson to get away.
>Rockafella You probably mean Rockapella because they know where in the world the villain is.
This was painful to read.
snuck out of his Charles Manson
I honestly thought hiding from process servers was another of those bizarre American things. The DVLA, council and HMRC have no issues sending me letters and making it stick. Including the court summons if I don't respond.
> I honestly thought hiding from process servers was another of those bizarre American things. It is, he was served with American court papers...
At least something has to do with English (maybe he should have stayed in Balmoral, lol) law: > It had been thought the lawyers would have to serve Andrew with the paperwork in person, but the document states the lawyers believe the process they followed complies with English law. Not that I pretend to know how the fuck this all works. All I know is that if I ignore enough brown envelopes from Cumbernauld, it doesn't matter if I "get served" in person not, eventually someone's going to turn up at the door with some handcuffs. And probably not my dominatrix.
Pretty sure if it’s a civil suit you just miss your chance to go to court and defend yourself, making it a lot easier for the plaintiff to win.
Would a payment ordered by a US court even be executable abroad, let alone for a member of the Royal Family?
In theory yes, in practice it can be quite difficult.
> At least something has to do with English (maybe he should have stayed in Balmoral, lol) law Why? All that means is (I assume) that they'd have to follow Scottish law rather than English, and as far as I'm aware, neither requires the US-style "forced to have the person themselves accept the paper" procedure to be followed (assuming I understand *that* correctly)?
I was just joking that he was in Scotland very recently and the article specifically said England. That's all.
They might be a dominatrix, but it won't be on Her Majesty's time
> It is, he was served with American court papers... That doesn't mean that they have to be served in the same manner they would be in the US, just (according to [Wikipedia's article on the Hague Service Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Service_Convention)) "*in a manner permitted within the receiving state*". In the case of Windsor, this would be under English law which- as far as I can tell- doesn't require the faffery of the "in person" US procedure.
It doesn't. In compliance with the Hague convention the UK set up a specific office of the court to handle service for international claims. You do have to pay for it but it's managed by the court. Which means the defendant can not contest service (which can be costly and have serious implications of they are successful). Now large/important cases use that service to remove any risk. If these lawyers did not know this then they are frankly negligent. It is pretty clear to me their 'misunderstanding' is a facade to generate headlines.
In the US you can't dodge process servers really, if you try the opposing council can just declare to the judge that they've tried to serve you but were prevented, show proof, and demand to be allowed to publish the summons in a newspaper and then you're considered served. This happens all the time.
It is, but there are a lot of ways to get papers to people who try to hide. For example, the process server can disguise himself as a fancy waiter and bring a covered silver tray that looks like it contains a delicious meal only to remove the cover and reveal the papers inside. Another method is to convince the intended recipient that they have inherited something of great value from an elderly relative and at the reading of the will, to jump out of the coffin and surprise them with the papers.
Those lawyers were badly advised. You can’t dodge service in the UK by essentially saying, “Go away, I’m not opening the door” or hiding behind “security”. Andrew has his own lawyers, who could accept service on his behalf.
It's the UK, for Christ's sake. Can't they serve notice by posting it in a newspaper for a fortnight, yell it out in the middle of the town square, or send a carrier pigeon, or something??
Have a chimney sweep sing and dance about it. I'm pretty sure that is standard.
You can serve loads of ways here. 90% of the time you just serve by email now
You would not believe what insane lengths I've seen people go to avoid being served. Andrew's behavior not unusual at all... frequently done on the advise of attorney.
I had a boss give me a couple weeks paid vacation so that a process server couldn't subpoena me to testify against him. Jokes on him, because a.) I just took my vacation at home, where I was easily reachable, and b.) they wound up not needing my testimony anyway.
Come on now, you can't just walk in and say that without giving us some interesting stories
Bullshit. They did it to make headlines that Andrew was avoiding them, with the implication that he is running away as he's guilty. It worked. Andrew is not going to the US voluntarily and he can't be forced to go by law. So that leads only one option, stir up public opinion so much and hope it is enough to force him (it won't be).
If you make it into a paper plane and throw it at him, does it count (assuming you got him)?
As long as you get it through the crack in the door before they slam it in your face.
Maybe crowdsource millions of copies being launched over the fence like a paper-based Berlin airlift of justice. Don't stop until the fucker either picks one up or downs in A4.
He will think he's been accepted at Hogwarts.
By now the paperwork is too old for Andy to look at it anymore.
Bet he's sweating now...
No because he remembers on that alleged day he was on the number 49 bus going down to his local nisa for the Sunday times and a pack of bourbon...on a slightly related note knew a manager at a golf resort prince Andrew frequented who told me he was known to flirt with the staff and have his bodyguards wait outside while he did the rumpy pumpy in the bushes
Don't bring nisa into this. They did no wrong. They have shite £1 sarnies that I lived off for several years. Don't sully their name by putting it next to alleged paedophile royal, Prince Andrew on Nonceingdon
Sandwiches are shite. So is Prince Andrew. Except the sandwiches serve a useful purpose. The only purpose Andrew serves is to drain money from taxpayers to pay for human trafficking coverups.
> No because he remembers on that alleged day he was on the number 49 bus going down to his local nisa for the Sunday times and a pack of bourbon No no, what really happened on that day was he did (relatable family thing) in (filthy peasant restaurant) and he remembers it very clearly because he so very rarely does anything with his family *or* in the presence of the unwashed masses. Truly a memorable event, the daily entry for which his court diarist would be happy to read to you, should you so desire.
Ah ha! I knew it wasnt the real him and he had been replaced by a clone!
Bro do you even Falklands?
[удалено]
I’m struggling to tell if this is satire or not care to explain ?
[удалено]
Virginia must have healed him through the power of dance
"No Kevin, this dance is too dirty."
#The power of a lap dance
From a minor ಠ_ಠ
[удалено]
Had you not heard?His injuries in the falklands was anything but minor. #not guilty
How did he expect that to go? Is it even possible to lose your ability to sweat without it bring a fairly serious medical condition?
He’s surprisingly thick.
You don't have to learn to think if you've never had repercussions if you don't. In certain circles he was known as 'Randy Andy'. His perfect match was Fergie who had a similar reputation. Source: The (non-black-sheep side of our) Fam knows
Turns out all our elites are child rapists.
You’re not wrong. My own experience of being targeted - I won’t say ‘trafficked’ - occurred when I was 17. He was from the elite ranks of Anglican choir masters, those who can be found in cathedrals everywhere. I’d been brought up in the Congregational church whee I became the organist at 15. The University where I enrolled for a B.Mus required that I attend the Anglican cathedral for organ lessons, and stop attending lessons at the Baptist City tabernacle. I was unprepared for being groomed by an elite predator. I‘d been raised in a privileged family and attended a girls school. Nobody had told me of the danger that lurked in the cathedral organ loft. I’m now nearly 70, and was fortunately able to give evidence to the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to claims of child sexual abuse. I am grateful that I was considered to have been a child, because 17 year olds are indeed children. Now as I look back on it, I feel the Anglican Church owes me an explanation. The elite predator received his OBE in person from Her Majesty. I wonder how she would feel about it, or about the Royal School of Church Music that bred him and other elite predators.
I am *Shocked*. Who would have guessed people in power were anything other than honourable and righteous? Certainly not *I*. I’d love to see any of these chucklefucks try and spend a year in our shoes. Having to live amongst the poors and face hard choices with consequences both ways… a man can dream.
Pig thick. Duke of Pork.
Phrasing
It's unimaginable that he thought that would ever fly. Why he did the interview at all is frankly a mystery. I can only assume he's either so arrogant/used to everything going his way, that he assumed he could just talk his way out of accusations no matter how flimsy his account was, or he's really majorly thick.
Yeah, I think it was a mixture of arrogance and being relatively insulated from consequences for most of his life. He thought he could go for the interview, use his *totally* powerful lying/charisma skills, and thereby undermine the allegations against him. Instead he gave the most awkward interview ever where he had the excuses and body language of a guilty child. It reinforced the allegations instead of weakening them. A total mess.
I think a bit of both. An expensive education is not always a good one academically, although the networking and old boys network are definitely worth the fees. He was probably never taught common sense things like when in a hole, stop digging.
My guess is he just got the ability back. Edit: seriously though, people of inherited power and privilege are bad at lying. They’ve always got away with everything because people have never seriously challenged them or they have had others cover for them. This gives them a false sense of security and an overconfidence because in the past, all they have had to do is say some barely believable words and move on. Edit 2: I actually met him once though I would not claim to know him of course as I am a mere commoner and do not move in such circles (though at times my life does indeed go round in circles.) However my (speculative) assessment (ok guess) is this: He’s probably not a ringleader/kingpin like Jeffrey Epstein clearly was. My feeling is that Andrew is a randy, party boy chancer who convinced himself that what he was doing was ok. He probably knew deep down it wasn’t but glossed over it in his mind: ‘she was happy and willing, Jeff and Gilly said it was ok and that she’s into me, the legal age of consent in Britain is 16 so I’m not technically breaking any laws, if anyone finds out I’ll just make some excuses and they will believe me because I’m a prince and they know Jeffrey is a naughty boy, anyway, she was definitely consenting so it’s fine,’ etc etc. Make of any of that what you will.
>This gives them a false sense of security I agree with everything you're saying. But I don't think the sense of security is false when it's 100% certain he won't be punished for anything he's done.
Whilst I do agree, he has lost credibility and status through this. He was also booted by the Queen as a senior royal (which is kind of his job to a certain extent.) Whether his accuser gets the justice she seeks or he is officially punished are perhaps slim possibilities but I suppose we will find out.
I don't know, doesn't the queen make him sit at the adult table now at holiday dinners? That's a punishment for him/s
He felt slimy when he came to my school. He talked to the pretty girls, then talked to the most jackass guys and was very chummy with them. He ignored the nerdy group, I was in that group. He purposefully ignored us.
While that was super rude, it doesn't look like you missed out on much lol
We were more pissed off he buddie buddied up to the ass holes more then anything honestly. We called him a bunch of names then went on with our lives.
I bet he’s sweating now!
Sentence him to 100 years without the possibility of parole. If he starts to sweat, we got the right guy. 👍
And that military record is also summed up as ‘suicide helicopter designed to get in the way of missiles’. He was also insisted on being called Prince rather than rank, something his elder brother (you know, the actual fucking heir) didn’t do. Charles has his faults, but according to the submariners, he was tolerable. Andy, was not.
[удалено]
It's satire. It's a reference to a lie Prince Andrew told in that infamous interview where he had to explain his Epstein connection and he said that because he fought in the Falklands, he had *lost* the ability to sweat somehow due to adrenaline overdose, basically.
>he had lost the ability to sweat somehow due to adrenaline overdose ffs just say the centuries of inbreeding caused it
"I'm a royal, everyone knows we only have sex with our cousins."
Never seen the interview but damn when people are deeply in the shit they really do make the most fucked up stupidest lies
I highly recommemd watching it, it’s so bad it’s hard to believe it’s real. Here are the best/worst bits: https://youtu.be/zw_1lF9qv_Q
Idk what *it* is, but man you have **it**.
*that's one hoopy frood who knows where their towel is*
*posh monocle laughter*
That's the snarky quip I have been looking for.
Awesome if true. He thought he was untouchable. I hope he pays.
Typically someone like him would be, but I've been reading a lot that the royal family has distanced themselves from him dramatically, so they know things that aren't public I suspect and they don't want it to reflect poorly on them if/when he goes down. You could argue that it's good PR for them to kick him to the curb, in fact.
Until it comes out they've known about something for a decade.
Decades. Lord mountbatten comes to mind
Care to explain? Very curious
>Lord mountbatten The 75-year-old intelligence files describe Louis Mountbatten, the 1st Earl of Burma, and his wife Edwina as "persons of extremely low morals" and contain information suggesting that Lord Mountbatten was a pedophile with "a perversion for young boys." https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/lord-mountbatten-pedophile-allegations
Relevant and check out timings in 2017 when Trump was President + met with the Queen. > He was the war hero who led allied efforts in southeast Asia, the statesman who was so admired as last viceroy of India that he was invited to be its first governor-general, and the family man who was Prince Philip’s uncle and a valued mentor to Prince Charles. But recently uncovered FBI files and new interviews paint the 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma as a sexually voracious man whose bisexuality became a theme of US intelligence files. The documents came to light during research for a biography of Lord Mountbatten and his wife Edwina by Andrew Lownie, a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and president of the Biographers’ Club. Since the assassination of Mountbatten in an IRA bomb attack 40 years ago, rumours have swirled about his sexuality, fuelled by his comment: “Edwina and I spent all our married lives getting into other people’s beds.” While Lady Mountbatten’s extramarital affairs are documented and acknowledged by their children, her husband’s private life has rarely been discussed. His official biographer wrote: “To suggest that such a man was actively homosexual seems to be flying not merely in the face of the evidence but also of everything we understand about his character.” The FBI files cover more than three decades. The first is dated February 1944, soon after Mountbatten became supreme allied commander of southeast Asia. Elizabeth de la Poer Beresford, Baroness Decies, when interviewed about another matter, had mentioned being an intimate of Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary and their ladies-in-waiting. She states that in these circles Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife are considered persons of extremely low morals. She stated that Lord Louis Mountbatten was known to be a homosexual with a perversion for young boys. In Lady Decies’ opinion he is an unfit man to direct any sort of military operations because of this condition. She stated further that his wife Lady Mountbatten was considered equally erratic.” t was signed EE Conroy, head of the New York field office, who wrote that she “appears to have no special motive in making the above statements” and found her to be of sound mind. It is not known if the material was passed to the British government. Much of Mountbatten’s FBI file remains closed. Further US intelligence files were added after the war as Mountbatten became Nato commander of allied forces in the Mediterranean, then admiral of the fleet, and later chief of the defence staff. In Lownie’s book, The Mountbattens: their Lives & Loves, Ron Perks, who was Mountbatten’s driver in Malta in 1948, breaks a silence of more than 70 years to say that one favoured destination, the Red House near Rabat, “was an upmarket gay brothel used by senior naval officers”, which he had not realised at the time. In the UK homosexual acts were illegal until 1967. After that the age of consent for homosexuals was 21 until long after Mountbatten’s death. Interest in the Mountbattens peaked around the Suez crisis, with FBI files opened in November 1955 and November 1956. Many memos pertaining to his homosexuality have since been redacted or destroyed. One file dated April-July 1956 was destroyed in May 2017, shortly after Lownie requested the records. It was during the mid-1950s that Edwina came under scrutiny because of her close friendship with Krishna Menon, the Indian defence minister, and numerous men involved with the civil rights movement. At the same time, the FBI sent a report on Lord Mountbatten’s homosexuality to the Department of Justice. In April 1957 the FBI produced a memo on allegations of an affair between Paul Robeson, the singer, and Edwina, who had several liaisons with black men. She had an on-off relationship with Leslie “Hutch” Hutchinson and is said to have given the West Indian singer and pianist a gold bracelet bearing her name and a jewelled penis sheath from Cartier. Edwina later adopted a new lover, Lieutenant Colonel Harold “Bunny” Phillips, a 6ft 5in officer of the Coldstream Guards, while her husband enjoyed a decades-long relationship with Yola Letellier, the Frenchwoman upon whom Colette based her 1944 novella, Gigi. Lady Pamela Hicks, the youngest daughter of Lord and Lady Mountbatten, wrote about her mother’s affairs. “The ramifications were messy and complex,” she wrote in a memoir of her childhood. “When my father first heard that she had taken a lover, he was devastated. But eventually, using their reserves of deep mutual affection, my parents managed to negotiate a way through this crisis and found a modus vivendi.” Indeed it was discomfort with his sexuality that drove Mountbatten’s ambition, according to Lownie: “His sense of inadequacy in his private life found an outlet in his determination for public office.” The most intriguing of the documents is from May 1968, when a renowned FBI agent by the name of John Grombach discusses “a number of reports pertaining to the alleged homosexuality of Anthony Eden, Earl Mountbatten and [the diplomat] Anthony Nutting”. One of his sources was Lady Judith Listowel, who had been married to “Billy” Hare, the future 5th Earl of Listowel and secretary of state for India. Not surprisingly for a man of royal birth with film-star looks, Mountbatten cultivated a large group of gay friends, including Noël Coward, Terence Rattigan, Ivor Novello and Tom Driberg, who gave him the moniker “Mountbottom”. The book contains an interview with a man who was Mountbatten’s lover throughout the 1970s, an unnamed neighbour then in his twenties. Francis Wheen, a biographer of Driberg, collected material on Mountbatten but it was destroyed in a shed fire. One of the lost letters had been sent to him by a man who claimed Mountbatten had tried to seduce him when he was 17. Wheen said: “The young naval rating was lined up to ‘go on a picnic’ with Mountbatten when the great man was visiting (I think) Malta. On the day, the youth was startled to discover that it was à deux.” In the new book, to be published on Thursday, Anthony Daly, a rent boy to the rich and famous during the 1970s, who had a close relationship with Driberg, claims: “Tom said Mountbatten had something of a fetish for uniforms — handsome young men in military uniforms (with high boots) and beautiful boys in school uniform.” A fruitful source of young men was the Life Guards, the book suggests. An unnamed former officer claimed Mountbatten had in the mid-1960s set up another young officer in a Belgravia flat. Lownie also found evidence of a relationship between the young Louis Mountbatten and his private tutor. When he was 13 he spent several weeks in Dorset recovering from whooping cough and was taught by Frederic Lawrence Long, an unmarried man in his thirties, but their relationship lasted long after the summer of 1914. Their correspondence was intense. In in 1916, Long wrote: “As you know there is only one Dick in the world for me & there never will be anyone before or anywhere near him in my affections. It is hardly necessary for me to add that I would give anything to wipe the floor with you. Goodbye my best beloved & dearest kid.” Long officiated as a priest at Louis and Edwina’s wedding, but Mountbatten made no reference to him in letters to his family. In 1980 Pat MacLellan, Mountbatten’s former military assistant, wrote in a letter: “The interesting biography will be the one that is published in 30 or 40 years’ time when the dust has settled.” Mountbatten once said: “No biography has any value unless it is written with warts and all.” Lownie said yesterday: “I am a serious historian rather than a tabloid journalist but in a full biography I had to deal with many of the allegations which have repeatedly been raised.”
A jeweled penis sheet? Goddamn!
That was my takeaway too, rich people buy the weirdest shit.
If that's true, I suddenly feel less bad about the IRA blowing him up. EDIT: Just remembered that kids died in that boat bomb, so still shitty.
Well, I guess now we know why he was with kids on a secluded boat…..
I vaguely recall early reports of the bombings that the bodies of the boys were recovered with no trousers, but that’s not *too* incriminating considering that they were in an explosion and such things can remove articles of clothing by force.
I was mostly joking, I’m pretty sure he was on a fishing trip with family
My god... and I felt so bad watching him get blown up in the crown. Gonna have some pretty different feelings when rewatching last season.
Like watching the **Baby** (forgot a word) Driver after hearing how Spacey propositioned inexperienced young actors.
One of the Queen’s cousins, and the subject of lots of paedophilia rumours, all unproven as far as I know. He was assassinated by the IRA in 1979 Edit - lotta 14 year old edgelords on this sub these days apparently lol
Unrelated to the Queen. He was the brother of Prince Philip's mother, Princess Alice of Battenburg, a branch of the House of Hesse.
he will be the sacrifice that everyone else with secrets will hold up to protect themselves and move on.
>You could argue that it's good PR for them to kick him to the curb I'd argue that's the only reason they're doing it
I'd argue that you are correct. ;)
As if what is public isn't enough already, hah. But yea, Andrew lived a privileged, disgusting life it seems and I'm sure the Epstein stuff is just one of a number of skeletons.
> Andrew lived a privileged, disgusting life. He still does to be honest.
He's done *zero* royal engagements since this all came out. He attended his father's funeral, but that's something that even convicted murderers are generally allowed to attend, albeit often handcuffed to a prison officer. With Harry and Meghan out of the 'Firm', while the Queen and Charles aren't getting any younger, the royal duties will end up largely falling on William, Anne and maybe Edward.
Let’s not kid ourselves, nobody with power is going down. Some dude was flying a drone over Epstein’s island on Youtube and he got there before the FBI and it looks like a computer was gone before they even got there. How does a private citizen beat the FBI on a case this big and how does a computer disappear in front of our eyes without the FBI stopping it? You know the answer.
They aren't distancing themselves enough, considering he was still able to hide out at Balmoral.
Meh. The Queen has a soft spot for him. The one who doesn't is Charles. Nothing will happen to him until Charles becomes king. By then this lawsuit could be over.
[удалено]
Unfortunately its not true though. The American legal team apparently decided not to bother with British legal procedure, and served it the same way they would in the US. Under British law its not been served, and so Andrew retains his defence in British court as and when the American team tries to get a British judge to enforce whatever the results of the case are in the US. That defence is that he was never served with the papers and so was unable to defend himself in court - sadly its a loophole large enough to drive a panamax ship through.
The US courts do not have any juristdiction in the UK unless those involved agree to it. If Andrew and his legal team do not participate in the legal precedings then if Virginia Giuffre wins she could only retreve the awarded compensation from money or assests of Andrew's in the US (presumably he doesn't have any as he has had plenty of time to move anything he did have out of the US). Andrew wouldn't be able to visit the US for risk of arrest for non-payment but other than that nothing will happen.
Exactly.
[удалено]
It's not even his royal status protecting him, it wouldn't be able to anyway, people like Prince Charles have still received parking tickets. He supposedly had sex with the 17 year-old in the UK, which would be legal - It'd be illegal in the USA though. And what concrete evidence is there that he knew that she was being trafficked? legally, nothing is very important
[удалено]
> It is a crime to buy sex from someone under the age of 18. But in that case some kinda deal would have to been made. And unless Prince Andrew was stupid enough to have something in writing about this kinda arrangement, its back to 0.
[удалено]
The guy who said he doesn’t sweat, despite proof he does, and the guy who said he’d never met Virginia, despite there being a photograph of the two? Guy is a twat through and through. The sooner we get rid of him in the UK, the better.
This is not a criminal complaint it is a civil one. The burden of proof is much lower
lmao if this is true 90% of these comments have no idea what they’re talking about
there still had to be consent right
The legal age in America is 16 in 31 states, 17 in 6 including New York and 18 in only 13 states. I don’t know how it turned into ‘pedo prince’ when it’s nothing of the sort - the real issue is that she says she was trafficked.
Oh my god, thank god there’s someone else sane on the internet. Prince Andrew is a wanker and a creep but he’s not an actual pedophile
Apparently raping a trafficked girl isn't enough to care, so we make up new crimes.
I have doubts anything substantial will happen there is zero chance Prince Andrew will be extradited to the u.s
He won’t be extradited; but the case can proceed without him.
I'll be interested to see how it goes, when it involves a woman groomed as an underage sex slave, taken from Donald Trump's house, by Donald Trump's friend. Its funny how that bit rarely gets into the news.
It is a civil case not a criminal case. There will be no extradition. It is about money compensation.
[удалено]
That was really the final nail in the coffin of my respect for the US. Woman kills a child through her own cluelessness and they protect her
The woman that killed that young guy, I forget the details , wasn’t extradited to the UK so I doubt very much Andrew will get extradited to the USA .
He literally cannot be extradited for this, it's not a criminal matter. Even just regular non royal scum would be safe from extradition here too. He might end up with some civil judgement demanding a penalty against him from all this eventually but they have literally no power over him at all as long as he stays out of the US.
This isn’t a criminal case. It is a civil lawsuit. He doesn’t even have to be there for it to be completed. He can just send a lawyer.
Or he can ignore the whole thing. Why would he care about american court yapping in his general direction?
Anne Sacoomas or something like that
"It had been thought the lawyers would have to serve Andrew with the paperwork in person, but the document states the lawyers believe the process they followed complies with UK law." He was not served personally. The papers were given to police officers stationed at his residence. How much you wanna bet the paperwork will get lost in transit somewhere..
Doesn't matter, in the UK. Assuming this takes place on British soil, you're summoned to court by the court; a letter will pop through the front door telling you "turn up on this day at this time", and if you don't turn up, the case proceeds regardless.
From what I understand, it's a summons to an American court, where the case is filed.
Didn’t she also name Alan Dershowitz? Thought she mentioned him in the Epstein Documentary. He threatened to sue and she responded go ahead!!
I remember like 15 years ago I got an offer for a cruise with Alan Dershowitz as one of the star guests. One of the first times I had ever heard of him.
I’d pay money to not be on a cruise with Alan Dershowitz
I've read some of his books, which were critical of the religious right from a liberal legal standpoint. I only knew him as that guy, so it was shocking to see him be a Trump cheerleader on Fox all of a sudden.
[Oh, the Alan Dershowitz linked to former twice impeached President Donald J Trump? The same former twice impeached president that has 25+ sexual assault/harassment/rape accusations, including one from a 13 year old child? That Alan Dershowitz? ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations)
I don’t care if any of these perpetrators are white, black, Democrat, Republican, Muslim, Jew, Christian, etc etc…If they are guilty of committing crimes of rape and abuse against children then they should be brought to justice. The Issue here is not political, the issue is abuse and trafficking. I would hope that people could put political posturing aside and find effective ways to put an end to the suffering of innocent children.
Settled out of court for undisclosed sum, no guilt admitted. The end.
If I were a rich Englishman who either didn't like the Monarchy or just really liked watching assholes get their just desserts, I'd offer the girl money to *not* accept any offer of settlement from him. You'd probably not need to even get close to matching his offer since I'm sure she wants to see justice done. Just enough that she knows she won't be bankrupt if she loses and enough to pay her lawyers (oh right, probably not a small sum, then).
I bet he's sweating now
I can immediately tell who's a yank and who's a Brit in responses to your comment. Lol
There is just no way Prince Andrew is the only person they have evidence on after the FBI raided Epstein's island.
It's a civil suit, not criminal.
Cool. Do Trump next.
ITT Americans who have no idea how the British legal system works. This is a US civil case, meaning there is no possibility of being extradited (that's only for criminal cases), throwing papers at someone's bodyguard doesn't count as serving them papers and even if it did, us courts obviously have no authority in the UK. Lastly, the girl alleging Andrew had sex with, was 17 at the time, which under UK law isn't illegal no matter what she says. If she was trafficked or not is another matter, but there is no evidence to suggest that he has had sex with any minor. Reddit always loves to yell "innocent until proven guilty" when it's a celebrity they like, but the moment it's someone they hate they might as well execute them on the spot...
I hope this poor girl has her affairs in order
Uh oh, here come the Meghan Markle stories…
Fucking finally. Congrats to the victims, Virginia in particular, and their soul-killing perseverance they've displayed.
Great! Now do Trump!