'in Defence Of Prince Andrew'

[Khandro]

In today's Telegraph the estimable Charles Moore begins an article with the above caption & starts ;

'When the whole world condemns someone, it is a journalist’s duty to look at the other side. I therefore want to make the case for the Duke of York in his Newsnight interview. If you start from the position of a juror, rather than of our judge-and-jury media, you believe that the accused is innocent until proved guilty. On that basis, Prince Andrew did all right.'

Has anyone read it?

[retrocop]

Most of the young Royal offspring were shoehorned into unsuitable marriages. The Princess Royal, Prince Charles (What does Love mean?)
and Prince Andrew. At least Koo Stark didn't milk the press and behaved with dignity. Fergie was a tramp. Just look at her father. A Major Brothel Creeper.
HMQ, I believe, can now appreciate where things have gawn tits up.
Not wise to arrange marriages is it?

[NellieMay]

I like her and don't see what is wrong with royalty marrying divorced people. I'm not making excuses for him. It's what happened. Think how Princess Margaret couldn't marry the love of her life. Times have now changed. Three of the Queens children have divorced. Two have married again. They were all in close line for the throne if the Queen had died.

[fender62]

nothing will come of it, andy will just lay low...he's not skint
friends will dry up as will contacts, but means nothing to the likes of him...respect admiration, few years down the road, the press will dig it all up again to fill pages, and again and again..edward and simpson..diana etc etc...

[andy-hughes]

I think that drawing with Jimmy Savile is a debating blind alley that should be avoided, it will not add anything to this discussion at all.

I believe that Prince Andrew is a boorish man who is not especially bright, who has lived a privileged life at the nation's expense and remains utterly unable to comprehend the level of responsibility that goes with his position as a member of the Royal Family.

I am sure there were many advisers who counselled against this interview, for good reason.

Emily Maitlis eviscerates politicians for a living - people who are able to think on their feet, and with the mental agility to avoid saying one thing and the contradicting themselves a few minutes later.

Prince Andrew is surrounded by people who, if he chose to take a dump on a Palace carpet, they'd confirm it was good for the pile, so stepping in the ring with Ms Maitlis was never going to end well for him.

Saying he was not close friends with someone, and then flying to New York to tell him their friendship was over, having not seen him for four years, and then staying with him, is an indefensible position, and of course Prince Andrew is too arrogant and too stupid to understand the gravity of his ill-considered responses.

He can think himself very lucky that Ms. Maitlis gave him such an easy time, and he was not being questioned by legends like Robin Day or Brian Walden - they'd have hung him out to dry without breaking a sweat (pun intended!)

[Peter Pedant]

// There is a case being made against Andrew. //

erm I dont think there is quite honestly
if there were - then he could take the fifth amendment on BOTH sides of the atlantic (clearly in English law it is called something else)

[andres]

Correct me if I am wrong but Andrew did serve 22 years in an active role in the Royal Navy. Not exactly a drain on the Nation then was he ?