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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moonmaiden23 said:
I guess what confuses me is that the Virginia Roberts/Prince Andrew photo has been out there for several years now. If HRH knew immediately that it was a fake or doctored photo, why no outrage until now?:sad::ermm:

***edit: Just noticed that ACO posed the same question above****
Click to expand...
Because it's 99,9% likely not a fake and they're reaching for anything that might make him look slightly less like a villain.
 
Rudolph said:
The Telegraph reports the FBI is examining the photo of Prince Andrew and Virginia Roberts to verify its authenticity
Click to expand...

Good. Look forward to those results being reported. Meanwhile more pictures of this friendship is being uncovered. The Mirror’s front page has images of Andrew, Trump, and Epstein. So much for his “I only saw him a few times” excuse cause the evidence showing otherwise.
 
What is Andrew going to do if the FBI comes back says the photo is legitimate?
 
Moonmaiden23 said:
I guess what confuses me is that the Virginia Roberts/Prince Andrew photo has been out there for several years now. If HRH knew immediately that it was a fake or doctored photo, why no outrage until now?:sad::ermm:

***edit: Just noticed that ACO posed the same question above****
Click to expand...

Well, that's the thing, though. They did say that. This story that the photo was doctored, and it wasn't Prince Andrew's hands, and the girl wasn't the right height, came out in 2010 or 2011 - after Epstein's first conviction.

That's why I questioned earlier why people were more upset now. I'll see if I can find the original story.
 
Madame Verseau said:
What is Andrew going to do if the FBI comes back says the photo is legitimate?
Click to expand...

That photo is legit and Andrew and everyone around him knows it’s legit. They’re just making a desperate move cause they know Andrew is in some real doodoo. Andrew just have to do what Giuffre said, “come clean about it.”
 
Last edited:
Do you think Andrew will agree to a lie-detector test?
 
Wouldn't there have to be a legal reason to suggest to Andrew that he take a polygraph test? Of course, he could offer to take one voluntarily but I really don't believe he'd take that road.

Actually, I think its way too late to start being aghast and claim the photo is a fake because, as someone else has stated, that would have come out the very first time that picture was published.

More and more is going to be coming out even though the case against Epstein has been formally dismissed. They are still investigating the co-conspirators and many of the victims will be filing civil suits. We'll just have to watch and see what develops. I don't think it looks any good for Andrew though at this point. He hasn't been accused, indicted or going to be prosecuted for a crime at this time but the hits just keep on coming.
 
ACO said:
This photo has been around for years, right? Why wasn’t he denying it then? Why is their second hand denials now? Also he realizes there are other pictures from that night showing both of them in those clothes? So ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Really? I've not seen those - do you have a link?


Leopoldine said:
Do you think Andrew will agree to a lie-detector test?
Click to expand...
No.
 
Last edited:
Claiming the photo is false is counterproductive as this demonstrates an air of desperation. The royal household is not good at dissembling.
 
Elenath said:
It’s all fake news. Everything seems to be these days so why not this. That or women all lie about these type of things. Just for attention or a massive amount of money. And these poor men are secretly innocent.
Click to expand...


I don't subscribeto the idea that Andrew is innocent but as he is not yet even under investigation, he should be considered innocent.

As for Virginia R-G, I don't really see how she could have been traffiked and sold as a sex slave when she was free to go and got payed for it instead of having been kidnapped and forced into sex. Now that the public opinion is so firmly for the young woman and so much money at stake while the accused Epstein is already dead, it's quite easy to imagine that some women might think that the higher the socical level of former "abusers/clients/sex partners" the more money you might get as recompensation. Plus the main accusseress is now married with three kids - so there is the opinion of her family on her former life to consider.

There surely is a certain security in the knowledge that the private archives of the prince will remain closed, but that maybe a kind of private deal is forthcoming just to get the accusers to be quiet again.
And we as the interested public won't be invited to become judges in that! So the only thing we can do is exchange our opinions about what Andrew did or did not according to our view we have on him.

This all makes for a rather small actual basis for discussions when we try to stay out of Andrew's private life and consider him innocent until proven guilty.
 
Kataryn said:
As for Virginia R-G, I don't really see how she could have been traffiked and sold as a sex slave when she was free to go and got payed for it instead of having been kidnapped and forced into sex.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I see this as a proof for the idea, that 17 year old girls are not allowed to vote and what not (drinking, serving in the army... working as hookers).

They are not fully able to understand some things - this is why!

This Virgina girl was a teenage escort while being protected by the law. She was 17, when she was with Prince Andrew.

Now one could say, she looked at least like 18 - but this is, what the courts always hear... - by the perpetrators.
 
Predators know perfectly well how old their victims are. It's what makes them a predator in the first place.
 
Kataryn said:
As for Virginia R-G, I don't really see how she could have been traffiked and sold as a sex slave when she was free to go and got payed for it instead of having been kidnapped and forced into sex. Now that the public opinion is so firmly for the young woman and so much money at stake while the accused Epstein is already dead, it's quite easy to imagine that some women might think that the higher the socical level of former "abusers/clients/sex partners" the more money you might get as recompensation. Plus the main accusseress is now married with three kids - so there is the opinion of her family on her former life to consider.
e life and consider him innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...


Re: your comments about sex trafficking. Most young women who are trafficked are not forcibly kidnapped. They are usually lured with the promise of a job - modelling is a common one. I read a book several months ago that was written by woman who runs an anti trafficking organization in this country who herself was sex trafficked. In her case, she was lured as a babysitter/nanny. Yes, they may get paid but usually they owe their pimp far more money than they are ever paid and are constantly watched. They are told no one will believe them and are often threatened. I strongly suggest you read more in this area as your comments are very simplistic.


I can't imagine wanting the notoriety and publicity (and receiving the type of insinuations you've posted about her character). It would be much easier to not go public (many more of Epstein's victims were not present at the hearing for this reason.)
We heard similar insinuations about Bill Cosby's accusers (that they only accused him for money).


I personally don't know whether or not Andrew is guilty, however I agree the public relations has been badly handled and is NOT helping him at all.
 
Last edited:
victor1319 said:
Hmm, I see this as a proof for the idea, that 17 year old girls are not allowed to vote and what not (drinking, serving in the army... working as hookers).

They are not fully able to understand some things - this is why!

This Virgina girl was a teenage escort while being protected by the law. She was 17, when she was with Prince Andrew.

Now one could say, she looked at least like 18 - but this is, what the courts always hear... - by the perpetrators.
Click to expand...

Different jurisdictions has different age limits, however.

In the UK a 17 year old can serve in the military where the age is 16 as if the legal age of consent.

They can also be bought alcohol by someone over 18 once they are 16 - they can't buy it until they are 18 but they can be served if someone else buys it for them.

That is one of the problems with international situations as the age laws are different in different places.

The UK has even debated lowering the voting age to 16 even going so far as to allow thus aged 16 and over to vote in the Scottish referendum (as a one off). Some countries already have lowered the age to 16 e.g. Brazil which did so in 1988.
 
I think that Andrew is the easiest target for the tabloid press. When you look at the array of bold-faced names connected to this scandal -- presidents, prime ministers, media moguls, etc., Andrew alone is hamstrung by his position and the expected behavior of a senior member of the BRF. Not for him the ironic riposte or trash talk better suited to WrestleMania promos.

The other men are powerful and influential people used to verbal combat in front of an audience. Politicians, media titans, famed lawyers and the like got to where they are in life by being tenacious bulldogs. A senior BRF member IMHO is not equipped to personally take the lead and change the narrative of an evolving PR disaster in another country. The newspaper people know it and are circling.
 
Leopoldine said:
I think that Andrew is the easiest target for the tabloid press. When you look at the array of bold-faced names connected to this scandal -- presidents, prime ministers, media moguls, etc., Andrew alone is hamstrung by his position and the expected behavior of a senior member of the BRF. Not for him the ironic riposte or trash talk better suited to WrestleMania promos.

The other men are powerful and influential people used to verbal combat in front of an audience. Politicians, media titans, famed lawyers and the like got to where they are in life by being tenacious bulldogs. A senior BRF member IMHO is not equipped to personally take the lead and change the narrative of an evolving PR disaster in another country. The newspaper people know it and are circling.
Click to expand...


You can't get more glamour than the British monarchy. Still, he shouldnt have brought the family into disrepute by mixing with billionaires.
 
The family may be the face of the monarchy in the UK but they're by no means puppets on a string and each have their individual likes and dislikes and personal friends and hobbies and interests. Andrew is no different. He's a grown man of 59 years old and responsible for himself.

He's made mistakes. He's used poor judgement. He has his own set of friends and hobbies and interests and has pursued them like the rest of us do. This situation belongs to Andrew and Andrew alone. I don't seriously believe that Andrew's actions in this matter is going to affect how people look and see the other members of the British royal family at all. Organizations that have Andrew as a patron may dump him and charities may request he be removed from being their representative. That would reflect on Andrew. Its not going to carry over to the Queen and any other member of her family or the institution of the monarchy as a whole.

Like the rest of us on this planet, Andrew has free will.
 
Osipi said:
The family may be the face of the monarchy in the UK but they're by no means puppets on a string and each have their individual likes and dislikes and personal friends and hobbies and interests. Andrew is no different. He's a grown man of 59 years old and responsible for himself.

He's made mistakes. He's used poor judgement. He has his own set of friends and hobbies and interests and has pursued them like the rest of us do. This situation belongs to Andrew and Andrew alone. I don't seriously believe that Andrew's actions in this matter is going to affect how people look and see the other members of the British royal family at all. Organizations that have Andrew as a patron may dump him and charities may request he be removed from being their representative. That would reflect on Andrew. Its not going to carry over to the Queen and any other member of her family or the institution of the monarchy as a whole.

Like the rest of us on this planet, Andrew has free will.
Click to expand...
Andrew brought this man to Balmoral..
 
Denville said:
Andrew brought this man to Balmoral..
Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise me as Balmoral has a golf course (which the Queen recently opened to the public). Epstein may have been the epitome of what a gentleman of character is not like but he didn't pollute Balmoral by staying there with some contagious disease. At the time, I'm sure the Queen gave Andrew permission.

I'm sure the Queen has had quite a few less than reputable people stay at the castle or on the estate over the years.
 
Osipi said:
That doesn't surprise me as Balmoral has a golf course (which the Queen recently opened to the public). Epstein may have been the epitome of what a gentleman of character is not like but he didn't pollute Balmoral by staying there with some contagious disease. At the time, I'm sure the Queen gave Andrew permission.

I'm sure the Queen has had quite a few less than reputable people stay at the castle or on the estate over the years.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. Every time this sort of thing happens the RF will sink a little more in public estimation....
 
Denville said:
That's not the point. Every time this sort of thing happens the RF will sink a little more in public estimation....
Click to expand...

To be honest, having Epstein to stay at Balmoral is one of the lesser worries that concern Andrew at this time. I do believe the focus is on Andrew though and not really reflecting on the BRF at all.

Worse comes to worse, Andrew will be branded as the black sheep of the family that has disgraced himself. But that's my opinion.
 
Since Andrew's fame and public position comes from his status as a royal, then what he does reflects on the RF... his inviting Epstein to Balmoral.. is dragging the queen into his own dubious social life..
 
Osipi said:
To be honest, having Epstein to stay at Balmoral is one of the lesser worries that concern Andrew at this time. I do believe the focus is on Andrew though and not really reflecting on the BRF at all.

Worse comes to worse, Andrew will be branded as the black sheep of the family that has disgraced himself. But that's my opinion.
Click to expand...

The larger point is that unless Andrew is in the habit of inviting random, hardly known acquaintances to Balmoral, this is part of a larger picture that disproves Andrew's assertion that he only knew Epstein slightly. While I agree that Andrew has much larger problems than this, it adds to the narrative in a way that is not to Andrew's, or the royal family's, benefit.
 
Ista said:
The larger point is that unless Andrew is in the habit of inviting random, hardly known acquaintances to Balmoral, this is part of a larger picture that disproves Andrew's assertion that he only knew Epstein slightly. While I agree that Andrew has much larger problems than this, it adds to the narrative in a way that is not to Andrew's, or the royal family's, benefit.
Click to expand...
It has been *alleged* by the Daily Mail - based on an *anonymous* source - that Andrew invited Epstein to Balmoral. IMO it doesn't prove or disprove anything.
 
I agree that the majority of the fallout will be on Andrew, as it should be. The best case scenario is his terrible judgement by choosing to be seen with Epstein after Epstein's conviction.

However, I think it will affect the BRF a bit as past scandals have (ie the War of the Wales). Certainly it's the type of publicity that I'm sure no one in the BRF wants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2: Sep 2022 -
6 7 8
Replies
223
Views
14K
Curryong
C
L
  • Locked
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 1: October 2002-October 2003
3 4 5
Replies
134
Views
28K
Alexandria
A
J
  • Locked
Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik, Current Events 1: May 2003 - November 2006
17 18 19
Replies
564
Views
101K
norwegianne
norwegianne

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom