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.
rmay286 said:
Well, in my dream scenario, Sarah would become CEO and/or spokeswoman for her own charity...Andrew would drum up financial support for the charity...
Click to expand...
Would you give money to a charity with Sarah as CEO and Andrew also working for it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If it were a publicly accountable charity with annual reports as to exactly how much went for overhead and what precisely was done with the funding, yes. I think that even in this case, though, Andrew would still have to rely on personal financing from HM. But I can't see a joint charity between Andrew and Sarah taking off, really.

Iluvbertie said:
Would you give money to a charity with Sarah as CEO and Andrew also working for it?
Click to expand...
 
Iluvbertie said:
Would you give money to a charity with Sarah as CEO and Andrew also working for it?
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of people would say "no." But those are people who know enough about Andrew and Sarah's history to feel very negatively towards them.

But there are probably other people who have a positive or neutral opinion of them. Andrew has an increasingly poor reputation, yet UKTI seems to still think he's helping UK businesses. The average reader of British newspapers might not like Sarah, but she also has fans. In fact, many people don't appear to know much about Sarah at all--I remember the lower class people in her reality TV show hardly knew who she was. But after getting to know her, the people in Manchester are still supportive of her.

I'm not saying this whole little fantasy of mine would actually work, but sometimes on the royal forums we think people are just as informed as we are. A lot of people probably would support a charity where Andrew and Sarah were involved, simply because Sarah is a good public speaker and Andrew (supposedly) is good at networking with the business community...so they would be able to convince the people they spoke to.
 
'The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy'

This is what I think would be best for Andrew (Not that he'll do it)!

1. Resign as trade envoy.
2. Live quietly for several years and devote himself to charities benefiting injured military personnel.
3. Sever all ties with Sarah.
4. Marry a mature, titled lady of dignity and discretion.

That way he'll win back public respect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. NO, he seems to like what he does and whatever anyone
else thinks he's convinced he is very good at it.

2. NO, he might do his bit but maybe not full time.

3, NO, some of the public would love him to sever all ties with
Sarah and some of the Royal family even more so, but 25 years on he
is still there for her and I don't think that will change now.
Their friendship has somehow survived a lot and she is HIS family,
mother of HIS children. He can never server ALL ties with her.

4. NO, has the best of both worlds as he sees it, freedom and family man.

I know you don't think he will do any of it Mirabel, I'm just adding the extras for what it's worth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually we know that it is alleged that he had regular massages. The article quotes someone saying that he spent a weeks there while the prince's people say a 'few days' - so contradictory evidence within the article itself.

As an historian I am well aware that we haven't heard Andrew's side of things and that he is being condemned by people here on one-sided stories - by the DM - which we should by now know has one agenda - destroy the royal family and especially the Yorks completely.

Until Andrew is charged and found guilty of something improper he is entitled, as is everyone else, of the presumption of innocence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I agree. There's no evidence that he did anything unethical or immoral.


Iluvbertie said:
Until Andrew is charged and found guilty of something improper he is entitled, as is everyone else, of the presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...
 
Iluvbertie said:
I was not referring to the situation with the Epstein person in making that comment about Wikileaks.
Click to expand...

Nor was I. I was pointing out that there are two different situations: the first Wikileaks situation where Andrew is described as rude, then this latest (which is NOT - repeat - NOT just the Daily Mail publishing on!) with Randy Andy spending time with a man who hires underage girls to scratch his itch.

Koo Stark is a total idiot for "defending" Andrew - it merely gives the opportunity for comments on the former "soft porn" star defending Andy's involvement with a sex criminal. Unless she's looking for a bit of something herself, as Russophile mentioned.

There is another round of releases today that includes Sarah as well, on this Epstein fella.

You are known by the company you keep. Sarah and Andrew keep company with each other, and each individually keeps company with other unsavories. Lilibet must have her head in her hands at this point.
 
Iluvbertie said:
....by the DM - which we should by now know has one agenda - destroy the royal family and especially the Yorks completely.
Click to expand...

Really? You actually believe that the Daily Mail exists solely to "destroy" the Royal family? You truly think that? Or can you perhaps link me to their mission statement where that is spelled out? Corporate minutes?

Honestly, bertie, you are an excellent writer but this is completely absurd. You are aware that there are other media outlets that are carrying this, aren't you? This isn't some one-newspaper-vendetta.

Andrew - and Sarah - make themselves targets by their actions. Other Royals learn from their mistakes - Sophie Wessex is the prime example.

Don't blame a media that reports their actions.

Sarah really did the cash for access - yes, she really did, and was that the Daily Mail? No, it wasn't.

Andrew really was palling around with a convicted sex offender - there's photographs, not speculation. He really did meet with the underage girl who is at the center of that - yes, there is photographic evidence.

Denial is clearly not just a river in Egypt.
 
NotAPretender said:
Nor was I. I was pointing out that there are two different situations: the first Wikileaks situation where Andrew is described as rude, then this latest (which is NOT - repeat - NOT just the Daily Mail publishing on!) with Randy Andy spending time with a man who hires underage girls to scratch his itch.
Click to expand...


My comment about Wikileaks was referring to a specific allegations in the DM about him being rude not to any of the article in the DM about his questionable company. That I had dealt with in other posts - but you wish to read my post as relating to both - so be it.
 
NotAPretender said:
Really? You actually believe that the Daily Mail exists solely to "destroy" the Royal family?...
Click to expand...
You are aware that there are allegations about the Queen meeting with questionable characters in other papers. They also refer to Charles meeting them as well.

Other papers are pointing out that the royal family, including Andrew, are meeting these people at the insistence of the government but the DM targets only Andrew and the Yorks and never says anything good about any of them.

I do believe, that since Diana died, the DM has become a republican paper.

Of course they haven't come out and said it directly but simply read the articles - the paper criticises Charles and Camilla at every opportunity, they also run negative articles as much as possible about Anne, Edward, as well as the York and even Philip.

Far more than any other paper they write negative articles - William and Harry can't be touched being Diana's sons and the Queen is also relatively off limits but the DM simply seems to be looking for the negatives all the time.

When they write an article, for instance about Andrew visiting troops in Afghanistan they find ways to refer to something negative about Andrew as well - he never gets good press from them, even when he deserves it. They managed to write negative comments about Beatrice running in the London marathon last year, in which she raised money for charity.

Based on the constant negative press, even about what should be good press, I am convinced the DM is a republican paper and they have an increasingly republican readership.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They play to their audience. They know people fawn of William and respect the Queen and as such do not attack. They also know their readers, for the most part, can't stand the Yorks, Charles or Camilla.

You're backed up to an extent put to claim that it wants to knock down the royal family is simply over the top
 
I use to enjoy the DM, but it got old when it is so obvious that they try to get a rise out of people with the way they write their articles. They love to provoke and annoy.
 
I agree. A general denial from Buckingham Palace isn't enough. Personally, I think that the insinuations about the house in Florida have to be answered. If there's one taboo left, it's the sexual abuse of underage girls and boys. If nothing is said in response to these particular stories, people will assume that they're true. The DM is being very careful in its language, always saying that there's "no suggestion" that there was any impropriety on Andrew's part. That's for legal reasons, I assume. However, they're giving the opposite impression; and I'm sure that's quite deliberate.


Irish Eyes said:
The Daily Mail in particular is keeping the pressure up on Andrew.I'm beginning to think he should put his side across and release some sort of statement dealing with the recent headlines.
Click to expand...
 
Mermaid1962 said:
I agree. A general denial from Buckingham Palace isn't enough. Personally, I think that the insinuations about the house in Florida have to be answered. If there's one taboo left, it's the sexual abuse of underage girls and boys. If nothing is said in response to these particular stories, people will assume that they're true. The DM is being very careful in its language, always saying that there's "no suggestion" that there was any impropriety on Andrew's part. That's for legal reasons, I assume. However, they're giving the opposite impression; and I'm sure that's quite deliberate.
Click to expand...


I agree; however, I don't think an outright denial will help at this point.
Andrew has a reputation for trailing through London clubs with his flavor of the month, so it's not a stretch to believe the allegations are true.

For instance, all that press about Andrew getting massages; in that company massage is a code word for sex.

It's no use hoping he can carry on as usual; he has to make a change in his lifestyle if he hopes to redeem himself somehow.
 
Mirabel said:
I agree; however, I don't think an outright denial will help at this point.
Andrew has a reputation for trailing through London clubs with his flavor of the month, so it's not a stretch to believe the allegations are true.

For instance, all that press about Andrew getting massages; in that company massage is a code word for sex.

It's no use hoping he can carry on as usual; he has to make a change in his lifestyle if he hopes to redeem himself somehow.
Click to expand...

Mirabel I think what you have stated above is the only way Prince Andrew can redeem himself. The Queen giving him a honor recently show that the BRF is brushing the whole situation aside.

I believe if Prince Andrew survived his ex-wife's money for access scandal he will survive this too. He does have to change his lifestyle and who he associates with.:ohmy:
 
Iluvbertie said:
Of course they haven't come out and said it ...
Click to expand...
(that the Daily Mail is out to "destroy" the Royal family) .... so on the basis of your impressions of reading a single newspaper, you have elected to helpfully provide for them a re-casting of their corporate mission statement. Either that, or your assertation that they exist to "destroy" the Royal family is, in fact, not based in reality - mere hyperbole.

OK. To carry on.....

Of course Andrew will survive this. One can't undo the fact of his birth to a reigning Queen; he will always be her son and as such, will always hold a certain position in society at large and within the Royal family. And honestly, although there may be continued grumbling each year when the Civil List comes out as to how much he makes, the Queen isn't about to allow her son - in particular this son - to end up like Prince & Princess Michael of Kent.

I doubt an apology or an explanation are going to be forthcoming. I also doubt that Andrew feels that he has anything to apologize for. To him, all that he receives in his current position - air travel, overpayment of a broken house, friendships with dubious but well-heeled international figures, hot and cold running females - is merely his due as the son of a monarch. I feel quite certain that Andrew doesn't give a fig about what anyone says. This is, in his estimation, his due as the son of QEII. Apology? That's for the lessers of this world.
 
I think his ego will insist that he issue a statement and I believe he really DID know what was going on. He should have known better. On another note, I don't care what he does in his spare time, as long as he is not torturing puppies and kittens. He's a grown up and can do as he pleases, but consequences do tend to catch up.
 
I always love the way people behave, and the terms of the statements they make, when they have been caught doing something they really enjoy doing and don't want to stop doing but are told by their keepers that they have to stop doing it because there is no way they can be allowed to continue doing it now everyone knows they're going it, because it is affecting their reputation/their credibility/the monarchy/whatever. :lol:
 
Would have been interesting :ermm:to have been a fly on the wall in HM's office when she got this latest news!
 
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