Buckingham Palace has denied “any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors” by Prince Andrew, after he was named in US court papers.
A woman named him in documents she filed in a Florida court over how prosecutors handled a case against financier Jeffrey Epstein.
She claims that between 1999 and 2002 she was forced by Epstein to have ■■■ with the prince when she was a minor.
The palace said it would not comment in detail on the legal proceedings.
If it happened in this country then no because I believe she was 17 at the time.
If it happened in the US in a state with a higher age of consent then legally yes.
What is most interesting is the fact the palace have released a statement at all. Normally they don’t respond/issue statements about anything personal except births/deaths/marriages
This has got to be the best thread title on T.net ever 
It’s up there with the Sun’s Freddie Starr eat my hamster. 
m1cks:
If it happened in this country then no because I believe she was 17 at the time.
If it happened in the US in a state with a higher age of consent then legally yes.
The problem being that the US seems to have a tiered multiple level age of consent sometimes as state law and sometimes as federal law.Which basically means anyone under the age of 18 is off limits to anyone over the age of 18 to be on the safe side of extradition and a sentence in which the death penalty would probably be an easier way out. 
Ironically a similar situation applies in this country in the case of anyone considered to be in a ‘position of trust’.Which is probably just a trojan horse to eventually push through similar US type laws here.Ironically the result being that Charle’s sons obviously couldn’t/can’t be fixed up with a teenaged bird like he was let alone Andrew hoping for a chance. 
Harry Kiddie fiddler is so last year it’s Paedosadist Google it,warning it is a
deep and dark hole.Happy New Year
In fairness, the aristocracy has been forced to adopt these newer tactics, as the ■■■■■■ of scullery maids has been frowned upon in modern times. 
Here we go again, Carryfast is on his bandwagon about the age gap. Will be crying in his cornflakes soon about how he couldn’t get the young girl of his choice when he was younger an how it’s all a government conspiracy 
raymundo:
Here we go again, Carryfast is on his bandwagon about the age gap. Will be crying in his cornflakes soon about how he couldn’t get the young girl of his choice when he was younger an how it’s all a government conspiracy
I don’t think it is me who gives a zb about the age gap more like everyone who thinks Andrew has done something wrong based on US anti age gap laws.IE according to local laws anyone 17,or arguably possibly 22,can shag any bird at least when she is just turned 16 with no issues.However anyone who’s gone past the age of 18,or arguably possibly 23,and does the same thing when she is 17 and 11 months is classed as a pedo under US law including possibly her husband.
IE anyone with any sense knows the issue is nothing to do with her age but Andrew’s and the age gap between them in this case.Just like most of the other hysterical bs concerning older men going for younger women.
It was all a misunderstanding apparently…
He mentioned he was a helicopter pilot, and would she like to come on his chopper?
DaiDap:
It was all a misunderstanding apparently…He mentioned he was a helicopter pilot, and would she like to come on his chopper?
Apparently, although Buckingham Palace have strongly denied the allegations, they have offered the complainant a goodwill trip to Paris complete with chauffeur-driven Mercedes.
DaiDap:
It was all a misunderstanding apparently…He mentioned he was a helicopter pilot, and would she like to come on his chopper?
bums…you beat me to that one…definitely up there with the best posts ever…the permutations on this topic are enormous,though barely postable as the enevitable removal will follow…
By Royal decree…
If, and I say if he did as is alleged then at least he is a dirty ole pervert as who in their right mind would take advantage of a 17 year old girl when you are part of the pervy elite who can do no wrong? Bit like the goings on with the high flyers with the young lads where the files went missing.
Oh, The grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.
And when they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only half-way up,
He gave her half his crown
If your on twitter or Faceache checkout #OpDeathEaters
raymundo:
By Royal decree…
If, and I say if he did as is alleged then at least he is a dirty ole pervert as who in their right mind would take advantage of a 17 year old girl when you are part of the pervy elite
Maybe the younger brother,of the older one who got the bird of 15 who maybe would have been better off with and should have been fixed up with the younger one instead of the older one considering the all important age issue.Both of who’s father was trying to pull their mother when she was 13.
Seriously allegedly at worse he’s got some questions to answer in regard to getting involved with a 17 year old ■■■■■■ ( statutory ■■■■ ).Or at best for exceeding the ageist agephobic US age difference limit by around 20 years same offence but jailing him for that might make the Americans see sense regarding their ridiculous variable age of consent limits.
Harry Monk:
Apparently, although Buckingham Palace have strongly denied the allegations, they have offered the complainant a goodwill trip to Paris complete with chauffeur-driven Mercedes.
That only applies in the case of her having been knocked up and then dumped by Andrew in favour of an older woman like Camilla resulting in a possible custody battle.
raymundo:
By Royal decree…
If, and I say if he did as is alleged then at least he is a dirty ole pervert as who in their right mind would take advantage of a 17 year old girl when you are part of the pervy elite who can do no wrong? Bit like the goings on with the high flyers with the young lads where the files went missing.
first: How ols was she?
second: why did she go again and again to thems Parties?
third: to which County belongs that eiland?
Immigrant:
raymundo:
By Royal decree…
If, and I say if he did as is alleged then at least he is a dirty ole pervert as who in their right mind would take advantage of a 17 year old girl when you are part of the pervy elite who can do no wrong? Bit like the goings on with the high flyers with the young lads where the files went missing.first: How ols was she?
second: why did she go again and again to thems Parties?
third: to which County belongs that eiland?
The alleged issues seem to be about a girl of 17 at the time being involved in a possibly prostitution type relationship which would be illegal in the juristictions in question.
And/or a girl of 17 being involved in physical relations of whatever type under US juristiction subject to typically ridiculous US type variable age of consent limits which are based on the age of the older party assuming an age difference.Whereas here it is 16 and it doesn’t matter wether the older party is 17 or 70 + unless it involves an older person in a ‘position of trust’ which would just mean removing themselves from that position to make it all legal.
Therefore assuming that any allegations of physical relations with an under 18 prostitute were proven in a criminal court that would probably be an offence of statutory ■■■■ wether here or in the States.
While assuming that someone above an arbitrary set close age limit had been proven in a criminal court case to have had physical relations with an under 18 girl in the states that would result in a similar offence there but not here.The ‘Island’ in question being under US juristiction with typically US type variable age of consent laws.
I can see the point of The Queen, Prince Charles, and Charles’s two boys who earn their keep. As for Andrew, the waste of skin Edward and the rest of em I wouldn’t ■■■■ on them if they were on fire.
I hope he gets a ■■■■ storm of grief on him, although I doubt if he will, the Establishment look after their own.
robroy:
I can see the point of The Queen, Prince Charles, and Charles’s two boys who earn their keep. As for Andrew, the waste of skin Edward and the rest of em I wouldn’t ■■■■ on them if they were on fire.
I hope he gets a [zb] storm of grief on him, although I doubt if he will, the Establishment look after their own.
If it is all about the age issue in this case then why the double standards in the case of Charles.The fact is if Andrew is going to be slaughtered on the basis of US type age issues then obviously Charles and the establishment that fixed him up with Di Spencer in similar circumstances are all as bad based on their own standards.IE by US standards Charles would also have been under similar expectations of leave her alone or be branded a cradle snatcher because he was also way too old for her at the time by those same standards.Bearing in mind that history shows that the establishment were never trying to fix Charles up with Di’s older sister which was the excuse given for why they sent Charles sniffing round the Spencer household.Therefore the idea of fixing Charles up with Di,instead of at least giving Andrew first refusal based on their long term previous friendship,or if not leaving her for someone of closer age to herself,while now calling Andrew a cradle snatcher based on US age expectations,is gross hypocrisy of the worst type.
That’s assuming it is ever proved that Andrew was just breaking US age of consent rules,as opposed to knowingly shagging an under age prostitute.