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.
As I understand it, Epstein's financial brilliance has never once been questioned, despite his unspeakable behaviour in other areas. It seems, therefore, possible that Prince Andrew was consulting Epstein about financial matters last December which may have been of long standing (he certainly looks very worried). It was extremely foolish, to say the least, as it brought an old news story to the fore, years after the event. I find nothing untoward in the earlier friendship (the prince was merely one in a rather prestigious cabal) but Andrew's judgment here, post Epstein's conviction, is open to serious question.

I'd be pleased to learn that he was actually winding up his financial affairs with this man.
 
For reasons which should be obvious...

I truly hope that William and Catherine reproduce early and often.
 
I truly hope that William and Catherine reproduce early and often.

You say this like that would push Andrew out of the picture. Those children will be a quarter century from being able to do anything seriously and that's if they choose to. Aside from the heir the other children might not be seen as necessary because we can't assume that the monarchy would have the same role in a few decades as it does now, if it continues to exist at all.

Strange that no one's commented on this part:

She said: ‘Ghislaine put the puppet’s hand on Virginia’s breast, then Andrew put his hand on my breast. It was a great joke. Everybody laughed.’ After this, Virginia was paid, by Epstein, around $400 (£250).’
 
Last edited:
You say this like that would push Andrew out of the picture. Those children will be a quarter century from being able to do anything seriously and that's if they choose to.

It would put Andrew further away from the throne. Right now he's 4th.
His dealings with Quadaffi are repugnant to me.
 
I wonder what the nature of his dealings with Gaddafi were (and I do note that even major newspapers can't agree on the spelling of the man's name!) It was Qaddafi for a long time, I thought.

Anyway, Qaddafi's attempts position his son as his successor are monarchically-styled aims. For a ruling monarch's family member to meet with a person who may have dubious claims to their own rule doesn't seem quite right, but I would like to understand the reason or the precedent for it.

Qaddafi banks in London, and someone upthread mentioned that the other questionable person Prince Andrew was seen with was a financier. I wonder what PA's official business in Libya might have been (if any, was it a state visit?)
 
Andrew's role often means he goes to places for the government and meets with people that we ordinary people regard as unsavoury - such as dictators and the like. The British government has had, and continues to have, dealings with these countries and Andrew's role is to assist in business transactions for Britons and for the government.

The government has asked the Queen to meet with some unsavoury people during the course of her reign as well as it is seen as good for the country.

Thus Andrew's dealings with a Gaddafi family member may very well be with regard to business dealings with Libya on behalf of the British government. It wouldn't be a State Visit as these meetings etc wouldn't be at that level. That level would require The Queen or Charles.
 
It would put Andrew further away from the throne. Right now he's 4th.
His dealings with Quadaffi are repugnant to me.


Are they 'his' dealings or on behalf of the British government? He is an Ambassador for the government and may very well have to meet and deal with people he finds repugnant as well, like his mother has had to do over the years, but because of his role he does what is necessary for the benefit of British business.

I do think we need to remember that he is usually meeting a lot of these people on behalf of the government as opposed to just on his own behalf. He may subsequently become friends with some of them but I do think we have to be careful not to condemn him on the basis of being in the company of people without knowing why he is with them - is it because he simply wants to be there or because the government wants him to do the dirty work?
 
Bertie, wouldn't it be known that he was on the clock? If the meeting had anything to do with his position it would've been announced. Especially after this latest scandal. Now there might still be an announcement to cover him but I doubt it considering Epstein's record you'd think the government might want to stay away from direct connection to the man. Maybe work through an intermediary.


It would put Andrew further away from the throne. Right now he's 4th.
His dealings with Quadaffi are repugnant to me.

You say this like the first three are deathly ill or willing to abdicate. Yes, there is the chance of him coming to the thrown, especially if it skipped Charles but it's highly doubtful (Yes I know of the extreme examples in history but those are not the norm).

Even if the throne fell to him, would a man this unpopular be accepted? Can you imagine the outcry if Fergie continued to live on his dime then or if they got remarried? If the crown got to Andrew it wouldn't surprise me to hear people call for Anne or for the republican movement to receive a surge. The chances of Andrew being king are simply too slim to consider a threat.
 
Even if the throne fell to him, would a man this unpopular be accepted? Can you imagine the outcry if Fergie continued to live on his dime then or if they got remarried? If the crown got to Andrew it wouldn't surprise me to hear people call for Anne or for the republican movement to receive a surge. The chances of Andrew being king are simply too slim to consider a threat.

Of course, the chances are slim. But William flies helicopters. And Harry does something in the military (sorry, not sure). I'm sure no one in the BRF or in the great British public would wish for a huge conflict if it came to succession.

The easiest way to avoid that is to bump Andrew further down the line of succession. Babies will come (royal and non royal alike), and how can that be a bad thing?
 
It would put Andrew further away from the throne. Right now he's 4th.
His dealings with Quadaffi are repugnant to me.

Being further away from the throne means nothing, if something happens to the family, something happens.
His dealings? How do you know that Andrew is doing this of his own accord? He is working on behalf of the government, they say do something he does it. People make mistakes, people change.
 
:previous:
I'm with you on this one. Believe nothing you hear; and only half of what you see.
 
Once again. IF we have confirmation that they're government dealings than he has some protection but if there isn't, well we have to wonder what the hell the man is thinking.
 
Being further away from the throne means nothing, if something happens to the family, something happens.

This is just speculation, but suppose something did happen to William?
Charles is a decade older than Andrew, so it may happen that Andrew would outlive him.

Is it conceivable that Andrew would challenge Harry's right to the throne?
Harry's parentage remains questionable to many people; what if Andrew claimed that his place in the succession should follow William's?
 
Is it conceivable that Andrew would challenge Harry's right to the throne?
Harry's parentage remains questionable to many people; what if Andrew claimed that his place in the succession should follow William's?

Have we really gone there?

You want the end of the monarchy? There it is.

Yes there are questions but seriously, do you think that Andrew would go that far even if he had proof? Would he honestly ruin his nephew, his family, in such a manner for the crown?

He'd never sit on the throne if he did it, proof or not. The people would never allow anyone willing to go that far to rule because you'd wonder what else he's willing to do to get what he wants. If he's willing to do that to a blood relative than what would he do to his kingdom?
 
As for Andrew and the present time - hopefully he will voluntarily stand down from his current position and spend some time trying to re-establish himself but doing what - who knows - he doesn't really have anything going for him and what charity would want him?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for Andrew and the present time - hopefully he will voluntarily stand down from his current position and spend some time trying to re-establish himself but doing what - who knows - he doesn't really have anything going for him and what charity would want him?
A golf one? :whistling:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the same sort of thing that came out months ago with Wikileaks.
The DM is determined to destroy him and his family and they will probably succeed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And after that happens, I wonder who the next royal scapegoat will be? If anyone in that family has been seriously up to no good lately, they must be shaking in their shoes.:ermm:


The DM is determined to destroy him and his family and they will probably succeed.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, the girl's have kept their noses clean. If they continue to do so and get jobs or begin doing their part in the Firm I think the pressure on them will lessen as people will lose what little ammunition they believe to have on the girls. The parents? Eh, I think we might have to accept that they'll never really change..
 
I do think it is a pity that the girls weren't given the same press pass that William had while at uni.
 
This is the same sort of thing that came out months ago with Wikileaks.

The DM is determined to destroy him and his family and they will probably succeed.

Yes I agree, it's more of the same from the Daily Mail.

The story of Andrew being entertained by the Libyan who smuggled a machine gun is from a few years ago and I vaguely remember it, but it bothers me more now.

I think the Daily Mail will probably succeed as well. I know that they don't like the rich and privileged, but they really have it in for the Yorks...I'm not quite sure why. I guess they are easy targets.

Something will give with Andrew's job, eventually--I'm just not quite sure what, yet.
 
If Prince Andrew has been acting as any kind of emissary to Libya, I can see why a populist-oriented news paper/tabloid would find him an easy target. If he was sent there (surely he must have been), it is unfair that he got such an unpopular job (whatever it was).
 
If Prince Andrew has been acting as any kind of emissary to Libya, I can see why a populist-oriented news paper/tabloid would find him an easy target. If he was sent there (surely he must have been), it is unfair that he got such an unpopular job (whatever it was).

I continue to make the point that he'd be in the clear if someone would provide proof that he was there on the job. From the article it seems he was vacationing with the guy. That he reimbursed him doesn't make it look any better.
 
This is the same sort of thing that came out months ago with Wikileaks.

The DM is determined to destroy him and his family and they will probably succeed.

No, they aren't. Andrew is doing that all by himself, and a fine job he is doing, at that.

And this is far more than the Wikileaks, which was basically about his rude behavior. This, here and now, is frolicking with criminals, convicted of wretched crimes. Not alleged criminals, convicted criminals.

.... I think the Daily Mail will probably succeed as well. I know that they don't like the rich and privileged, but they really have it in for the Yorks...I'm not quite sure why. I guess they are easy targets.

See my comment above. Sarah and Andrew, all by themselves, make themselves into targets. Look how well Sophie Wessex learned her lesson about not selling access? Poof, one major kerplop, and that was all it took; as far as I can see, she's never set a foot wrong, since. But these two ,these Yorks? Go from scandal to scandal. Easy targets, you say? Yes. Because they make themselves so.
 
Last edited:
As for Andrew and the present time - hopefully he will voluntarily stand down from his current position and spend some time trying to re-establish himself but doing what - who knows - he doesn't really have anything going for him and what charity would want him?

Well, in my dream scenario, Sarah would become CEO and/or spokeswoman for her own charity for disadvantaged children/youth--something like her Children in Crisis charity, but more based in Britain. There would be drop-in centres for youth across Britain, and she'd spend a few days at each one, interacting with the children. The rest of her time would be spent speaking at schools/community organizations about childhood abandonment, the effects of divorce on children, etc. Sarah would learn a few key points about the best ways to help children cope with these issues, and she'd make sure to hammer them home in each speech. This would be her primary job--no more forays into Oprah or other reality TV shows.

Andrew would drum up financial support for the charity by visiting various businesses (much as he does now, but this wouldn't be for the UK, it would be for the charity). Just as now, most of his public duties would consist of his work for the charity, although he would still peform a few official royal duties.

The girls could get jobs there as well!

Andrew and Sarah could then remarry while somewhat avoiding the problem of Sarah's re-entry into the royal family. While they'd have to be together at major family gatherings, royal life will start to revolve around Charles' immediate family, and Andrew and Sarah wouldn't have to spend too much time with the other royals. Andrew would perform some royal duties without Sarah at his side; the rest of the time, they would work together at the charity--Andrew drumming up financial support; Sarah drumming up psychological support.

I can dream...:flowers:

Back to reality: I think Andrew will never step down from his UKTI job voluntarily unless he has done something HUGELY incriminating, and knows he has no choice. I think it is a self-esteem thing for him--as Iluvbertie says, what would his public role be without this job? He is the second son, and will get pushed further down the line as William and Harry take on more public duties.
 
No, they aren't. Andrew is doing that all by himself, and a fine job he is doing, at that.

And this is far more than the Wikileaks, which was basically about his rude behavior. This, here and now, is frolicking with criminals, convicted of wretched crimes. Not alleged criminals, convicted criminals.


Had you actually taken note of my post you would have seen that I was referring to the new claim in the DM that as diplomat had to smooth over the situation after he made a comment to a fashion person (I don't know who you are). That sort of thing was in Wikileaks ages ago.

This is the link about which I was commenting:

Why did 'rude' Prince Andrew ever get trade role, asks ex-envoy | Mail Online

I was not referring to the situation with the Epstein person in making that comment about Wikileaks.

Other papers, such as the Express, are showing that the many members of the royal family, up to and including the Queen, not just Andrew, have dealings with many of these unsavoury people - at the government's behest and some of them are going to be invited to William and Kate's wedding e.g. the Kings of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia - who have recently given orders for soldiers to fire on their own people. Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Blogs | Richard Palmer | Royal blog: Arab uprising embarrasses British monarchy | Exclusive opinion, news and views from Daily and Sunday Express's top writers-

The DM only attacks Andrew while they should be going after the entire family to be fair on this issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom