Jump to content

The Royal Family Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

On 17/01/2022 at 20:52, Rockers rule said:

The Ripper book 'the final solution' by Stephen Knight covers the whole Walter Sickert / Albert Victor, royal family connection and is as conspiracy's go one of the better 'who was Jack the Ripper books.

 

At one stage I lived in Snettisham - just a few miles north of Sandringham- and there was a pub there called the Albert Victor !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been talks of certain 'Duke of York' public houses being re named.

 There was talks of The Duke of York stakes horse race, run since 1895 also changing its name.

Its now going to be called  'The nothing to do with the ostracised Duke of York stakes'  :rolleyes: :lol: :lol: .

 

Keep safe out there 8) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paid off to make it all go away, but aren't there more accusers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the payment coming from? Are we just paying his nonce hush money through taxation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, West 77 said:

I guess Prince Andrew's mother will be helping out with the payment.  No liability has been admitted which normally happens in this type of civil case meaning there is no justification to label him a nonce.  At the end of the day the women got what she wanted which was money.

The money isn't going to her, as I understand it. I guess one's perspective depends on the extent to which one judges a person by the company they keep. I think that a man who has kept such close company with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and convicted under age sex trafficker for the convicted paedophile, Ghislaine Maxwell, has sh*t their pot full on that score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, West 77 said:

I guess Prince Andrew's mother will be helping out with the payment.  No liability has been admitted which normally happens in this type of civil case meaning there is no justification to label him a nonce.  At the end of the day the women got what she wanted which was money.

Defending Boris Johnson and 'Prince' Andrew. 

You can't half pick 'em :hihi: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Delbow said:

The money isn't going to her, as I understand it. I guess one's perspective depends on the extent to which one judges a person by the company they keep. I think that a man who has kept such close company with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and convicted under age sex trafficker for the convicted paedophile, Ghislaine Maxwell, has sh*t their pot full on that score.

It is 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geared said:

Paid off to make it all go away, but aren't there more accusers?

Or the alternative is, she was just after the money as predicted.   So much for getting to the truth, getting her side of the story out there, getting all this so-called evidence disclosed..

 

Well done love, you've done it again, another easy target with a public reputation to damage, another easy cheque without any credible evidence tested before a court..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Or the alternative is, she was just after the money as predicted.   So much for getting to the truth, getting her side of the story out there, getting all this so-called evidence disclosed..

 

Well done love, you've done it again, another easy target with a public reputation to damage, another easy cheque without any credible evidence tested before a court..

Got to agree with you 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Or the alternative is, she was just after the money as predicted.   So much for getting to the truth, getting her side of the story out there, getting all this so-called evidence disclosed..

 

Well done love, you've done it again, another easy target with a public reputation to damage, another easy cheque without any credible evidence tested before a court..

He should've refused the money going to the charity and set out the truth in court then shouldn't he

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mister M said:

He should've refused the money going to the charity and set out the truth in court then shouldn't he

Or you could say , she should have stood her ground and had  her day in court 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.