The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022

[Leopoldine]

Who knows what kind of video or photos or other kinds of material will turn up in the raids on Epstein's properties, and what is already in the hands of US authorities.

But back to our Royal here, HRH The Duke of York. I think that he will suffer more reputational damage than legal damage.

If he was "involved' with Virginia 3 times as she says, she would have had to have been underage in at least one of the locations for it to be an underage sex crime. If it was a prostitution crime only, pertaining only to Andrew now, it would have to be proved that Andrew knew she was being paid to have sex with him.

This is an opinion coming up here, not fact -- I think the thought of payment never crossed Andrew's mind. He might have seen Jeffrey as a rich guy with pretty young things all buzzing around, and, him being a Prince, might have thought he was a big draw for the girls because he was Prince Andrew. He's not a dummy, but he's used to his name and position opening doors and opening a little more than welcoming arms.



Sarah is not helping with this new business/charity partnership with Tony Robbins, another man caught up in #metoo legal matters.

Eugenie's recent charity headlines involving slave traffic is to be admired, in fact everything about that nice lady is to be admired, but the timing didn't work. These events get planned well in advance so there was no way to foresee Sex Slave headlines involving her dad.

 

[Lilyflo]

In a statement released to The Daily Telegraph, a Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “The Duke of York has been appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes. His Royal Highness deplores the exploitation of any human being and the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent.”

I wonder why Prince Andrew wasn't "appalled" when Epstein was convicted of procuring an underage girl for prostitution, sentenced to prison & registered as a sex offender. This statement from Buckingham Palace hasn't helped the situation at all: it just raises more questions about Andrew's continued friendship with a known sex offender.

 

[alvinking]

A couple of questions about these pictures/video of Prince Andrew at Epstein's mansion post the 2008 conviction.
Was he just visiting or was he staying there?
If he was staying there, how long was his stay?
What about his RPOs? Were they with him in the mansion?
What did they see or witness?

 

[Denville]

Does it matter? Its clear that he did not part ways with Epstein even after he knew what he had been convicted of..

 

[Madame Verseau]

What bothers me is BP's statement of Epstein's crimes are alleged. Really?! Talk about tone deaf.

 

[JR76]

You know, there is no crime in being friends with a convicted sex offender. We might choose not to retain such a friendship, but Prince Andrew is fully within his rights to do so.
That said Andrew should have realised that he as a royal has to think more than once about the consequences of his actions.
Of course partaking in sexual abuse is another matter & should be punished.

 

[Osipi]

What bothers me is BP's statement of Epstein's crimes are alleged. Really?! Talk about tone deaf.

Its my belief that all crimes are "alleged" until prosecuted and a guilty verdict is reached.

To play the devil's advocate here, from what I've learned, its very possible that even after the sentencing of Epstein, it was made to look like a slap on the wrist like the nuns I had in grade school used to do with a ruler. Epstein agreed to plead guilty in Florida state court to two felony prostitution charges, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution to three dozen victims identified by the FBI. The "sweetheart" deal reached effectively swept a lot of Epstein's criminal offenses under the rug and his "sentence" was pretty cushy to boot. He wasn't treated at all like the criminal he was. I think the Miami Herald got it right on the nose when they call it "perversion of justice".

The Miami Herald is credited with doing some excellent investigative journalism into Epstein's lurid and perverted lifestyle and how he used his money, his status and influence to totally con his way right back into the lifestyle he's always had.

Andrew? This article gives insight into just how much Andrew is "alleged" to have been involved and "taken care of". I still do not see anything "alleged" in relation to Andrew that could result in a criminal offense charge. Stupidity and poor judgment and arrogance that he's "above" such paltry things that ordinary people get in trouble for may be his downfall but you can't cure stupid.

This article is well worth the read and, once again, a well researched and informative piece of investigative journalism.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article219494920.html

 

[Denville]

Who on earth can think it is appropriate for someone n Andrew's positon to be so "arrogant" and "stupid" that they remain friends with a convicted criminal ? Or for him to have brought this man to Royal households?

 

[ACO]

You know, there is no crime in being friends with a convicted sex offender. We might choose not to retain such a friendship, but Prince Andrew is fully within his rights to do so.
That said Andrew should have realised that he as a royal has to think more than once about the consequences of his actions.
Of course partaking in sexual abuse is another matter & should be punished.

You are correct. It is not a crime to be best buddies with a pedophile. That is Andrew's right. It is also mine to not think very highly of him and believe if that is the company he seeks than that says a lot about who he is a person.

The palace can say whatever they want but this statement was weak and I don't believe for a second that he didn't know what was going on with his good pal. So whatever Andrew. I hope more videos pop up that are just as "appalling" to him.

 

[JR76]

Who on earth can think it is appropriate for someone n Andrew's positon to be so "arrogant" and "stupid" that they remain friends with a convicted criminal ? Or for him to have brought this man to Royal households?

I didn't say it was appropriate nor did I say it was a wise move, but it's not against the law. There's also the fact that, although there's a lot to be said about the plea verdict, Epstein did live up to the termd of the deal and as such legally has paid his dues to society.
If members of the Royal family had to cut ties with everyone convicted of crimes professionally and privately they'd have to cut off thousands of people.
I suspect that we won't agree on this, but I'm sure of that we can agree on that Andrew is both stupid and arrogant thinking that this wouldn't blow up in his face and for not considering the effects it would have on his daughters, his parents and the institution they're all part of.

 

[Lilyflo]

You know, there is no crime in being friends with a convicted sex offender. We might choose not to retain such a friendship, but Prince Andrew is fully within his rights to do so.

Is he within his rights as a working member of the BRF though? The Queen & her advisers must have demanded he sever all contact with Epstein because there's an abrupt end to the friendship after it became public knowledge in 2011 when the photos of Andrew & Epstein in New York the previous December were published.

 

[Ista]

I like (not) how the BP statement shifts the focus on abhorrent behavior over to those who would dare to question Andrew's actions. It's arrogant, and if that is the position that is going to be taken, it might have been better to have said nothing at all. Talk about tone deaf...

Regarding Andrew's choice to continue his friendship with Epstein, there's an old saying: If you lie down with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas. Feeling itchy, Andrew?

 

[alvinking]

One thing for sure though, given the current situation, one should not expect any Windsor/St George Chapel royal wedding for Beatrice and Eduardo if they were planning anything in the near future. Call it collateral damage. The optic of what many people would certainly qualify as extravagant would surely be disastrous

 

[MARG]

I don't get it. The one thing has nothing to do with the other. Nor should any Ordinary, Decent, Person think so.

 

[JR76]

I like (not) how the BP statement shifts the focus on abhorrent behavior over to those who would dare to question Andrew's actions. It's arrogant, and if that is the position that is going to be taken, it might have been better to have said nothing at all. Talk about tone deaf...

Regarding Andrew's choice to continue his friendship with Epstein, there's an old saying: If you lie down with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas. Feeling itchy, Andrew?

Whoever wrote the statement clearly aren't used to doing so. The choice of words implies to the reader that Andrew is more upset by the media falsely implicating him than the crimes of Epstein. I have a feeling that people are panicking at the Royal Lodge at the moment and sooner or later someone will jump ship.

 

[ACO]

I am sure they are panicking. The fact this video was released just told the palace that there could be potential evidence of other interactions. Someone sat on this video for 9 years. Why? I would be nervous too. Also what else outside of this incident could people have. Has Pandora's box been opened?

 

[Kataryn]

I don't want to speculate without facts. We only have some information from serious media. I count the Guardian as one, the Daily Mail, Sun etc. not.
In their 2015 article about Andrew's potential involvement ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/jeffrey-epstein-decade-scandal-prince-andrew ), the paper looks back at the things that have happened with Epstein.

They said that he had two methods of abusing young girls:

- employ local young and poor girls for sexual massages and probably more in Florida- and
- look for more intelligent and scrupulous girls for co-conspiration (even though they were soon too "old" for himself) and take them with him all over the world to get him younger girls, to give VIPS massages and sex and to be young, but "adult" party decor.

In the Florida trial, Epstein declared himself guilty of the first offense and got free for the second one.



If the Guardian (who is not a normally royal-friendly paper at all!) is right, and if Andrew is as lazy as he is said when it comes to deep research, then there is a good chance he simply believed his "old friend" that he made a mistake in Florida and thought a girl was already 18 when she was just 16 or so... With Sarah cashing in on confirming this opinion. I'm not saying this is what happened, but to me it sounds like it could be an explanation.



I have no doubt that Andrew thought it is normal in the houses of the rich to have hangers-on of all kinds (like potential models for this model agent friend of Epstein, Bunuel) and that whatever happened there was for free: willing girls hoping for career advancement, not being payed for prostitution. He would not encounter this in his mother's household (there the career orientated hanger ons looked different) but surely in many homes of guest-friendly millionaires. And he worked with these people for the sake of the UK, let's not forget that.



The accuseress of the prince was one of the last category, a potential "co-conspirator" who tried to sell herself off as an "innocent victim". We only have her word that she had sex with Andrew. I can imagine her trying to make her own deal with the prosecution and to claim things that need not be true and who was not believed by a judge.


If that is all they have, for me Andrew is still innocent of having sex with minors (as I said before, both he and Charles don't fit the pattern of pedophiles with their older wifes who they chose against the odds) but I can imagine Sarah having taken money to convince Andrew that "good Old Jeff" was just misinformed and used in his great friendlyness for the development of young ladies (He sponsored a state ballet for massages by the ballerinas and payed some young women their college time...) and Andrew being stupid enough to believe her.



IMHO, of course. Let's see if we get new facts, if not, we should give Andrew his well-deserved rest instead of making ugly speculations.

 

[Gawin]

I wonder why Prince Andrew wasn't "appalled" when Epstein was convicted of procuring an underage girl for prostitution, sentenced to prison & registered as a sex offender. This statement from Buckingham Palace hasn't helped the situation at all: it just raises more questions about Andrew's continued friendship with a known sex offender.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Andrew has denied the criminal accusations against him and I believe him. But if a friend of mine had been convicted of procuring an underage girl for prostitution I'd run from him as fast as I could. Our boy Andrew on the other hand not only continued his friendship with Epstein he was even the guest of honor at a party Epstein hosted after his release from prison.

As far as I'm concerned Andrew still has a lot of explaining to do.

 

[Elenath]

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Andrew has denied the criminal accusations against him and I believe him. But if a friend of mine had been convicted of procuring an underage girl for prostitution I'd run from him as fast as I could. Our boy Andrew on the other hand not only continued his friendship with Epstein he was even the guest of honor at a party Epstein hosted after his release from prison.

As far as I'm concerned Andrew still has a lot of explaining to do.

And this is what makes me question his moral compass and his values. And yes, he has a lot of explaining to do.

 

[rob2008]

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Andrew has denied the criminal accusations against him and I believe him. But if a friend of mine had been convicted of procuring an underage girl for prostitution I'd run from him as fast as I could. Our boy Andrew on the other hand not only continued his friendship with Epstein he was even the guest of honor at a party Epstein hosted after his release from prison.

As far as I'm concerned Andrew still has a lot of explaining to do.

It makes you wonder what will be the next revelation that implicates Andrew further in this sorry business. The palace is not used to going into defensive mode. Andrew is the one whos is careless enough and arrogant enough to get involved in the life of a shady, crooked person; unfortunately for the royals he is also the one most incapable of getting himself out of trouble - hence he is resorting to his mother and the household to protect him. The British monarchy is subject to considerable scrutiny and it is not unlikely that Andrew's conduct will be further questioned and perhaps eventually condemned. He might be sanctioned in some way because the crown must always win.

 

[Lilyflo]

If members of the Royal family had to cut ties with everyone convicted of crimes professionally and privately they'd have to cut off thousands of people.

"Professionally" is completely different because the BRF carry out engagements at the request of the government or charities so the responsibility lies with those institutions.

"Privately" they might socialise with people convicted of crimes but it depends on the nature of the crime whether it would be acceptable to the British public. A registered sex offender would not be tolerated as a friend of the BRF. It's breathtaking that Prince Andrew assumed this was OK, that he could carry on socialising with post-conviction/prison Epstein while representing the Queen on official duties and acting as UK envoy for British business around the world.

 

[ACO]

Well more pictures are being dropped to the media. Now we have images of Esptein and Ghislaine Maxwell on the Sandringham Estate back in 2000. He was very appalled though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...pheasant-shoot-Prince-Andrew-Sandringham.html

Not a good look at all.

 

[tommy100]

"Professionally" is completely different because the BRF carry out engagements at the request of the government or charities so the responsibility lies with those institutions.

"Privately" they might socialise with people convicted of crimes but it depends on the nature of the crime whether it would be acceptable to the British public. A registered sex offender would not be tolerated as a friend of the BRF. It's breathtaking that Prince Andrew assumed this was OK, that he could carry on socialising with post-conviction/prison Epstein while representing the Queen on official duties and acting as UK envoy for British business around the world.

I think it would be acceptable for a member of the RF to be, privately, friends with someone who's committed a very minor, victimless crime/white collar crime. Epstein's crime was not victimless. The fact Andrew wanted to still be loyal to him makes me question his character.

The telegraph has a report on just that:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ssed-pleas-drop-jeffrey-epstein-saying-loyal/

The Duke of York insisted that he was “loyal to his friends” when he was told to dump Jeffrey Epstein in the wake of his conviction for sex offences, sources have claimed.

Prince Andrew accused a friend who warned him of the dangers of his association with the American financier of being a “puritan” and insisted that he would not abandon him like others had, it is said.

I would agree with this if it was a different type of crime, but for prostitution with under 18 year olds, I don't think finding that wrong is being puritan.

However the unusual decision to issue a statement led to questions over why he visited Epstein at his Manhattan mansion in 2010, two years after Epstein had admitted having sex with an underage girl and had allegedly been linked to the molestation of 36 others, some as young as 14.

A video of his stay in the New York property, dubbed the “House of Horrors” by some of Epstein’s victims, emerged over the weekend.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “The Duke has said that this was an error of judgement.”

Really what he means is he will call it was an error in judgement now as he has been caught out.

The Duke had been warned that his friendship with the convicted paedophile had to come to an end but he had insisted that he would not abandon Epstein like everyone else had, sources told the Telegraph.

He quit his role as UK trade envoy in 2011 after the fallout from the Central Park photos.

In 2011 a friend of the Duke’s told Vanity Fair: “After Jeffrey was convicted, I phoned Andrew and told him: ‘You cannot have a relationship with Jeffrey. You can’t do these things.’ And he said, ‘Stop giving me a hard time. You’re such a puritan’.

“From there, our conversation descended into a screaming match, and finally Andrew said, ‘Leave me alone. Jeffrey’s my friend. Being loyal to your friends is a virtue. And I’m going to be loyal to him’.”

 

[Erin9]

^^

Generally, I’d consider loyalty to friends an admirable trait, but not in this case.

What Epstein plead guilty to was bad enough and more than enough reason to immediately distance himself from him, but Andrew knew- or should have known- that he was also getting off with the very least of what he was actually guilty of.

 

[Ista]

In this case, one has to consider if it was loyalty to Epstein as a friend, or was it reluctance to lose access to what Epstein provided for him, with a side serving of fear over what information Epstein had on him?

Thoughts to ponder.

 

[Erin9]

^^
Those are good points/questions.

I’ve wondered when exactly Fergie borrowed the money. All I’ve found is when it became public knowledge.

 

[Madame Verseau]

Jesus take the wheel.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...steins-naked-pool-parties-massages-claims/amp

The BRF is not going to be able to control this . Get. In. Front. Of. This. Mess, Ma'am.

 

[ladongas]

Jesus take the wheel.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...steins-naked-pool-parties-massages-claims/amp

The BRF is not going to be able to control this . Get. In. Front. Of. This. Mess, Ma'am.

But...but... Epstein taught Andrew how to relax and wear sweatpants..

That picture of them walking in Central Park? They couldn’t have a real talk in Epstein’s mansion because everything that happened there was filmed and/or taped.

Time for Andrew to make a genuine and humble mea culpa speech. So sorry for his daughters, his ‘wife’, and the rest of his family.

 

[Empress Merel]

A genuine and humble speech will probably do the opposite. There's no coming back for this and he should hope that QEII lives until forever because Prince Charles is probably salivating at the thought of having a damn good reason to cut him from the working BRF.

 

[ACO]

I think it is becoming increasingly clear that all these photos and videos haven't just mysteriously popped up after all these years. They have always been locked away for safe keeping until an opportunity presented itself like this...

Or a real cynic might think whoever was, maybe, handsomely rewarded to keep said images away might feel it is no longer worth it. Either way it is clear this is just the beginning and if the BRF is not careful something might really be revealed that could cause serious damage to them.

Get ahead of it and I don't mean that like that pathetic statement.