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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
From Republic

Prince Andrew affair: Government needs to come clean over what it knows and what it's done
January 8 2015

Campaign group Republic has called on the government to allow a full parliamentary debate on the Prince Andrew scandal and to come clean over its own involvement in the affair.

MPs are banned from criticising or debating individual royals in parliament - a rule Republic has condemned as undemocratic and an attack on freedom of speech.

Despite a cosmetic removal of Prince Andrew's trade ambassador role a few years ago he continues to receive government funding and to represent Britain around the world.

The campaign group has set out three questions the government needs to answer on the Andrew/Epstein affair:

1 - What did the government know about the allegations and when were they made aware of them?
2 - Has the government lobbied the US in an attempt to protect Andrew from legal action?
3 - Why is Andrew still representing Britain given all the revelations about his friendship with Epstein?

Republic's CEO, Graham Smith, said today:

"Andrew is denying the specific charges of under-age sex, but it has been reported he has remained friends with a convicted abuser, and there is plenty of evidence that his judgement and character fall well short of the standards of public office."

"If Andrew were a politician he would no longer be in a job - his royal status is protecting him from accountability."

"It is unlikely Prince Andrew was unaware of these allegations before they broke last week. It is hard to believe the government weren't warned. We need to know if ministers have lobbied the US authorities on this matter."

"Commons rules need to change immediately, to allow MPs to debate the matter in parliament and question ministers. It is outrageous that our elected MPs cannot challenge a prince in parliament."

"MPs need to be asking serious questions about Andrew's continuing role as a trade representative and the government's role in protecting him. If he is representing Britain, why, when he is bringing the country into disrepute? If he is representing private interests then he has to come clean on who is paying for his trips overseas and in whose interests he is acting."

"The problem is you can't sack someone from a family, whatever the government does Andrew will still be a prince. So instead they're motivated to sweep the whole thing under the carpet."

"The public has a right to know if ministers have been trying to protect Andrew from investigation and scrutiny. We have a right to expect our MPs to be able to ask those questions in parliament."



- See more at: http://www.republic.org.uk/what-we-...n-over-what-it-knows-and#sthash.97LGyUrH.dpuf


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
From Republic

Prince Andrew affair: Government needs to come clean over what it knows and what it's done
January 8 2015

Campaign group Republic has called on the government to allow a full parliamentary debate on the Prince Andrew scandal and to come clean over its own involvement in the affair.

MPs are banned from criticising or debating individual royals in parliament - a rule Republic has condemned as undemocratic and an attack on freedom of speech.

Despite a cosmetic removal of Prince Andrew's trade ambassador role a few years ago he continues to receive government funding and to represent Britain around the world.

The campaign group has set out three questions the government needs to answer on the Andrew/Epstein affair:

1 - What did the government know about the allegations and when were they made aware of them?
2 - Has the government lobbied the US in an attempt to protect Andrew from legal action?
3 - Why is Andrew still representing Britain given all the revelations about his friendship with Epstein?

Republic's CEO, Graham Smith, said today:

"Andrew is denying the specific charges of under-age sex, but it has been reported he has remained friends with a convicted abuser, and there is plenty of evidence that his judgement and character fall well short of the standards of public office."

"If Andrew were a politician he would no longer be in a job - his royal status is protecting him from accountability."

"It is unlikely Prince Andrew was unaware of these allegations before they broke last week. It is hard to believe the government weren't warned. We need to know if ministers have lobbied the US authorities on this matter."

"Commons rules need to change immediately, to allow MPs to debate the matter in parliament and question ministers. It is outrageous that our elected MPs cannot challenge a prince in parliament."

"MPs need to be asking serious questions about Andrew's continuing role as a trade representative and the government's role in protecting him. If he is representing Britain, why, when he is bringing the country into disrepute? If he is representing private interests then he has to come clean on who is paying for his trips overseas and in whose interests he is acting."

"The problem is you can't sack someone from a family, whatever the government does Andrew will still be a prince. So instead they're motivated to sweep the whole thing under the carpet."

"The public has a right to know if ministers have been trying to protect Andrew from investigation and scrutiny. We have a right to expect our MPs to be able to ask those questions in parliament."



- See more at: Prince Andrew affair: Government needs to come clean over what it knows and what it's done | Republic


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Don't make me laugh.

This was not meant to you, royal rob.
 
I didn't know this

MPs are banned from criticising or debating individual royals in parliament - a rule Republic has condemned as undemocratic and an attack on freedom of speech.

I can understand it for the Queen and direct heirs but I'm not so sure if I agree about the lesser royals


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Of course there is but can't help but agree on this
"If Andrew were a politician he would no longer be in a job - his royal status is protecting him from accountability."




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
This has been a good time for Republicans, as the telegraph put it 'They are rubbing their hands in glee.'
 
:previous:
They shouldn't the rest of family haven't done anything wrong. The Queen should have to deal with this rubbish at her age. :bang:
 
Last edited:
Well we don't know how the Queen feels about it. She might just be ..your problem Andrew don't come to me for help and goes off with her dogs for a walk.
Well that's how I like to think she handles it


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Well we don't know how the Queen feels about it. She might just be ..your problem Andrew don't come to me for help and goes off with her dogs for a walk.
Well that's how I like to think she handles it


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

This does not sound like The Queen. She will probably try to help him. There were some rumors that she was stressed, I think it was on BBC news channel or sky news that I heard it.

She has fortunately good experience with her childrens many scandals, but she is almost 90.
 
Well I will think of her walking her dogs rather than being stressed at nearly 90


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Finally found it! I subscribe to "The Times" online but it's only in the last half hour that I have learned how to search for articles. I have been under-utilising the resource!:blush:

Starts by summarising the allegations against Epstein, refers to photos of Andrew with the topless girls on the yacht, to claims evidence against Epstein has been covered up following lobbying by "political and social connections", that women have refused to answer questions about Andrew's involvement, noting names of persons listed in Epstein's contacts book, the claim prosecutors are refusing to release important evidence, refers to the plea bargain and allegation US attorney’s office promised Epstein that he would not be prosecuted for the sexual abuse of 30 under-age girls if he admitted a lesser charge, to letter from Robert's lawyer to Attorney-General in 2008 in which he said Epstein “may be the most dangerous sexual predator that the country has ever seen”, refers to the three women who refused to give self-incriminating evidence when interviewed about Prince Andrew and other matters, and sets out the terms of the questions they would not answer.

It then goes on to talk about Andrew's life since he left the navy. Then says:

"Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is clear that while Prince Andrew’s life out of uniform has not been short of entertainment, it has been short of structure. He has been content to craft for himself the portfolio existence of a freelance royal. He has depended too much on his friends to help to support a lifestyle that, even as a scion of one of Britain’s richest families, he could not fund himself. And he has chosen those friends poorly."

Then discussion about the changes over the last 2 decades with HM starting to pay tax, cost cutting and savings including the sale of the R.Y. Britannia, and proceeds to say the RF is too big and needs to be streamlined, for the sake of the family and the country.

"As elected leaders wrestle with tight budgets and taxpayers struggle to fund them, it is only right that the royal family cuts its cloth accordingly. This is not only a question of funds, but of expectations and an evolving sense of what the monarchy stands for. It has endured as a symbol of constancy and as a ceremonial focal point at times of national mourning and celebration. To go on enduring it must become more like the royal families that coexist comfortably with modernity elsewhere in Europe, and less like the retrograde clichés foisted on it by an endlessly fascinated media."

It then says that the monarchy's official duties should be performed by HM and those in direct line to succeed her, that others (Anne, Harry and Andrew) have set inspiring examples but have been most constructive when gainfully employed. "Outside such roles they represent more of a risk than a benefit to the royal family."

[Comment: Don't understand the remark about Anne, who is one of the most productive and impressive, since she has never been "gainfully employed". Maybe she's the exception that proves the rule.]

"For too long Prince Andrew has lacked a real role. He has tried and failed to find one because he has been looking in the wrong place. It is not unreasonable to suggest that his predicament is a by-product of this fruitless search; or to exhort younger members of the “firm” to learn from this urgent cautionary tale, forget their lineage and make their own ways in the world."

Concluding paragraph points out that, according to its website, Britain’s royal family has 18 official members, notes that Sweden’s and Belgium’s have nine, Denmark’s seven and Norway’s five, all keeping official numbers low by making clear distinctions between those with representative duties and those without, then says, "The House of Windsor needs more clarity along these lines. More importantly, it needs a clearer vision of itself, not as a crisis-prone family business but as a family led by the head of state. Last year Spain’s king abdicated; this year his daughter could face trial for fraud. No royal family is indispensable, or permanent."


I totally agree, the royal family should be streamlined.
 
And it will be , when they older ones are no longer with us it will only be William and his family and Harry ( and family ?) Williams cousins are all making careers for themselves away from royal duties


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Of course there is but can't help but agree on this
"If Andrew were a politician he would no longer be in a job - his royal status is protecting him from accountability."




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community


What's he got to be accountable for? He is not charged with anything, he is not in court for anything. His name has been mentioned in a case in Florida and he is not the defendant.

He had a friendship with Jeffery Epstein which at the minute is all he has to be accountable for.
 
If he was a politician he would have been made to quit by his party for being involved with a convicted sex offender who got a short jail sentence due to special deals. There is no way in hell he would get away with that. But he's not a politician he's a prince and can't get thrown out


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
What's he got to be accountable for? He is not charged with anything, he is not in court for anything. His name has been mentioned in a case in Florida and he is not the defendant.

He had a friendship with Jeffery Epstein which at the minute is all he has to be accountable for.
I think that your standard is pretty low for someone who is supposed to represent the UK. Just because it's not a crime for a 40+ year old man to have sex with a 17 year old girl doesn't mean there should be no consequences.

The story has traction because of Andrew's lifestyle. If someone were to make this allegation against William, Edward, or even Charles, most people wouldn't believe it. Regardless of the truth of these allegations, his actions have hurt his family and the UK government and he has to accept some--if not all--of the responsibility for that.

Regarding the sweetheart deal Epstein received, it is outrageous for anyone to come to the aid of a child sex trafficker. Again, if Andrew were involved then I think the people in the UK could be forgiven for not wanting him to represent them.

That said, there could have other reasons the prosecutor made the deal he did. He may have been concerned the case would collapse.

We don't have the facts yet.
 
Last edited:
Jane Doe wants some cash from an out-of-court settlement.
 
I got to hear Alan Dershowitz on a talk show this AM. He is not kidding around and has fairly clear evidence that refutes claims about his behavior/location at various times named in the suit. And he is on a mission.

Now, anyone that has heard Alan in multiple interviews knows that he is careful about what he says (and does not) and has been know to use hyperbole.

But, in my opinion Jane Doe and her legal team are toast on this part of the suit.
 
If he was a politician he would have been made to quit by his party for being involved with a convicted sex offender who got a short jail sentence due to special deals. There is no way in hell he would get away with that. But he's not a politician he's a prince and can't get thrown out


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Are you so sure about that? It will be interesting to see, if in the future, more information comes out ..... I have to wonder who the Prime Minister was who was noted in the comments by the accuser/s and her attorneys. Will the comments of outrage still be heard?
 
Are you so sure about that? It will be interesting to see, if in the future, more information comes out ..... I have to wonder who the Prime Minister was who was noted in the comments by the accuser/s and her attorneys. Will the comments of outrage still be heard?

I will be outraged if it is true. There have been mention of some prominent U.S. politicians involvement. I just don't think 40 year old men should be having sex with 17 year old girls.
 
The Commons rule bookstates that ‘unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the Royal Family’.
To me it's a sensible rule preventing MPs from effectively moaning and complaining non stop about the RF and therefore damaging the monarchy itself. If the matter was that important I'm sure enough MPs would support a substantive motion.
It's wrong to say MPs can't raise issues about the RF, it's simply that there are rules governing it.
 
Last edited:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2900787/Prince-Andrew-Heidi-Klum-Hookers-Pimps-party-New-York-socialite-accused-procuring-underage-girls-billionaire-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein.html
Standing in the dim light of New York's trendy Hudson Hotel, Prince Andrew made for an incongruous sight as he joined revelers at supermodel Heidi Klum's 'Hookers and Pimps' themed Halloween party.

The year was 2000 and Prince Andrew was having fun. By his side, with her arm draped around the Queen's son, was his close friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, dressed for the proceedings with a bleach blonde wig, midriff-baring top and gold pants.

Despite wearing a somber black suit and sipping water from a bottle, Prince Andrew soon seemed to loosen up, greeting hostess Klum - the model dressed in a body-skimming black PVC catsuit with her embonpoint on show - and posing with an attractive blonde whose face was covered up by a feathered mask.

All the while, Maxwell remained a constant, protective presence, sandwiched in between the prince and the supermodel, seemingly pleased with her illustrious fellow guest.

Months after the Halloween party, it is alleged, the Prince had sex with underage Virginia Roberts, who claims she was introduced to him by Maxwell.
 
I got to hear Alan Dershowitz on a talk show this AM. He is not kidding around and has fairly clear evidence that refutes claims about his behavior/location at various times named in the suit. And he is on a mission.

Now, anyone that has heard Alan in multiple interviews knows that he is careful about what he says (and does not) and has been know to use hyperbole.

But, in my opinion Jane Doe and her legal team are toast on this part of the suit.

I think you are right re: Dershowitz. The young lady has claimed that they were on airplanes together at various different times. Dershowitz has contacted the airline management for copies of the passenger manifestos of these flights as proof of his assertion he was never on a plane with her.:ohmy:

If she is not telling the truth, she has definitely chosen the wrong man to involve in her suit. But why would she lie about Alan Dershowitz?
 
Last edited:
I think you are right re: Dershowitz. The young lady has claimed that they were on airplanes together at various different times. Dershowitz has contacted the airline management for copies of the passenger manifestos of these flights as proof of his assertion he was never on a plane with her.:ohmy:

If she is not telling the truth, she has definitely chosen the wrong man to involve in her suit. But why would she lie about Alan Dershowitz?
Dershowitz says she is a serial liar and under the influence of some really not-smart lawyers.
The other reason to strike at Dershowitz is that he defended Epstein.
 
A very belated thankyou, thankyou, to Dman, for all your hard work in digging out that Times article. It was very interesting and I believe the royal family will move to the European model (as was mooted) after the Queen's death.
 
I believe the royal family will move to the European model (as was mooted) after the Queen's death.

Which European model are you talking about, in Norway journalists complain that the monarchy has too few members, in Denmark both the monarch, her two sons, two daughters-in -law and her sister is full time working royals. Frederik's 4 children will probably be full time royals.

Do you really mean that the british monarchy, which does much more for charity than the others, shall be as the Dutch, Spanish or the Belgian. A slimmed down monarchy means that a whole bunch of patronages most be removed, many jobs must be terminated. What do you think the media would say to that?

The British monarchy does not cost much. The Queen covers all expenses too the monarchy from The Sovereign Grant, and the Duchy of Lancaster, except the security-costs. The expenses of Charles, William, Catherine and Harry is covered from the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Monarchy will not become slimmed down when The Queen dies, I'm sure Edward, Sophie and Anne are going to continue with their duties as long as they want. I agree that the monarch's cousins doesn't need to be full-time working members of the Firm, that will not happen again, but this problem solves itself, because the so-called minor royals grow older.

The journalist who wrote in the times is republican, although he does not admit it in the comment section below. There were many factual errors in what he wrote.

I fear that the press will continue to write negatively about the monarchy throughout 2015.
Andrew must have understood when Epstein was arrested that it would not look good that he as a member of the royal family continued this friendship, is he really so stupid?
 
:previous: Andrew is that combination of stupidity and hubris, methinks. This is assuming his only guilt is continued association with Epstein, which alone is stupidity and hubris personified.

Slimming down a monarchy does not protect against such a combination - other factors play into such matters.
 
Which European model are you talking about, in Norway journalists complain that the monarchy has too few members, in Denmark both the monarch, her two sons, two daughters-in -law and her sister is full time working royals. Frederik's 4 children will probably be full time royals.

Do you really mean that the british monarchy, which does much more for charity than the others, shall be as the Dutch, Spanish or the Belgian. A slimmed down monarchy means that a whole bunch of patronages most be removed, many jobs must be terminated. What do you think the media would say to that?

The British monarchy does not cost much. The Queen covers all expenses too the monarchy from The Sovereign Grant, and the Duchy of Lancaster, except the security-costs. The expenses of Charles, William, Catherine and Harry is covered from the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Monarchy will not become slimmed down when The Queen dies, I'm sure Edward, Sophie and Anne are going to continue with their duties as long as they want. I agree that the monarch's cousins doesn't need to be full-time working members of the Firm, that will not happen again, but this problem solves itself, because the so-called minor royals grow older.

The journalist who wrote in the times is republican, although he does not admit it in the comment section below. There were many factual errors in what he wrote.

I fear that the press will continue to write negatively about the monarchy throughout 2015.
Andrew must have understood when Epstein was arrested that it would not look good that he as a member of the royal family continued this friendship, is he really so stupid?

Did Epstein give the money to Sarah before or after he went to jail ? Could explain why he was meeting him if he wanted the money


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which European model are you talking about, in Norway journalists complain that the monarchy has too few members, in Denmark both the monarch, her two sons, two daughters-in -law and her sister is full time working royals. Frederik's 4 children will probably be full time royals.

Do you really mean that the british monarchy, which does much more for charity than the others, shall be as the Dutch, Spanish or the Belgian. A slimmed down monarchy means that a whole bunch of patronages most be removed, many jobs must be terminated. What do you think the media would say to that?

The British monarchy does not cost much. The Queen covers all expenses too the monarchy from The Sovereign Grant, and the Duchy of Lancaster, except the security-costs. The expenses of Charles, William, Catherine and Harry is covered from the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Monarchy will not become slimmed down when The Queen dies, I'm sure Edward, Sophie and Anne are going to continue with their duties as long as they want. I agree that the monarch's cousins doesn't need to be full-time working members of the Firm, that will not happen again, but this problem solves itself, because the so-called minor royals grow older.

The journalist who wrote in the times is republican, although he does not admit it in the comment section below. There were many factual errors in what he wrote.

I fear that the press will continue to write negatively about the monarchy throughout 2015.
Andrew must have understood when Epstein was arrested that it would not look good that he as a member of the royal family continued this friendship, is he really so stupid?


The monarchy is going to over time slim itself down; the Queen's father was born into large family with 3 sons who all had children, causing there to be many royals of her generation. The Queen then had a large family, causing there to be many royals in her children's generation (and, if you count the Wessexes, her grandchildren's generation). However, Charles only had 2 children, which means that the monarchy's rate of growth is not going to match it's rate of decline in the near future - in the next generational time period we can expect that the 8 royals of the Queen's generation will pass on, but we can't really expect there to be 8 births/marriages - the only unmarried royals whose spouses would become royal are Andrew, Harry, and George (and possibly James), and only the children of the sons of a monarch or the eldest son of the PoW are royal. I don't think anyone expects Andrew or George to marry in the next 20 years, and Harry's future kids aren't going to be royal until his father's reign (provided he doesn't take the Edward route). Given the fact that larger families aren't really the norm these days, we can expect to see the BRF slim down during the reign of Charles without actually having to do anything to make the BRF more "European", simply because the rate of growth will be less than the rate of decline.

As for whether or not the monarch's cousins will step up to being full time royals... I wouldn't count that out yet. I doubt Eugenie will ever be a working royal as she doesn't seem to want to, nor do I expect Louise or James to do so as that's not in line with how they're being raised. But Beatrice definitely seems to want to step up, and there could end up being a need for it. Part of the reason why the Queen's cousins stepped into a full time role was because the BRF was too small to keep up with the demands of the monarchy - there was the whole Commonwealth and the Queen only had one sibling. By the time William's King we won't likely have the Kents, Gloucesters, Anne, Andrew, the Wessexes, or Camilla doing full time work (if they're alive at all), leaving the monarchy as just William, Kate, Harry, Harry's potential spouse, their children, Beatrice, and Eugenie. It's very possible that by this point William will need his cousins in order to meet the demands of the monarchy, just like his grandmother once did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom