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

[Curryong]

I don't believe it is the cost, so much, as the perception, at the moment anyway, that the monarchy is top heavy. This is beside the argument about Andrew's stupidity and the occasional Harry antics.

It is just that this crisis, and it is a crisis, has evoked some questioning about the best way for the British royal family to move forward. After all, the Queen, who has done a marvellous job, is entering the last years of her reign, and it is known, through, whatever source, that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy.

Whether it will be as austere in form as Norway or Spain, or a little cosier as with Denmark, it may well be that Charles could decree a defining of a core royal family, as in monarch and consort, heir and spouse and their eldest child. He may include Harry in this or not.

As with the Netherlands, cousins, spares etc retire into private life and also perform the occasional engagement when the core royals are unavailable. They become members of the wider royal family and are only seen on family occasions. They may or may not perform charity work. That will be their choice.

This would include the cousins, Anne, the Wessexes and perhaps Harry. Andrew should certainly never be allowed to represent the monarch again. He is a prime
example of what Glover in his article called 'the rollicking, roistering Princes' who, IMO, bring shame to the royal family.

A lot of patronages of charities would have to go, and find other patrons. The core royal family would undertake ceremonial duties and have their own charitable Foundations. They would also head some national institutions. The 'make-work' aspect of many royal engagements would cease and the core royals, though busy, may well be engaged in more worthwhile work.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is just that this crisis, and it is a crisis, has evoked some questioning about the best way for the British royal family to move forward. After all, the Queen, who has done a marvellous job, is entering the last years of her reign, and it is known, through, whatever source, that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy.

We don't know that at all.

What we do know is that there was a 'throw-away' line by a staffer in 1992 that suggested that idea - not the same idea at all and as it was 1992 - the annus horribilis - it is possible that it was an idea at the 'Way Ahead' meeting - which itself no longer meets.

Sure naturally the family will shrink:

Currently working royals:

Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, Anne, Richard, Birgitte, Edward, Alexadra

Add 10 years and probably at least 4 of those will be gone or retired leaving: Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, Anne, Richard, Birgitte

Only two of those could add any to the list - Harry and Andrew.

Add another 10 years and we would be probably down to:

William, Kate, Harry, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, Anne - and maybe a spouse for Harry

By that stage George would be 21 but still not finished with his education and so not working for the family

Add another 10 years:

William, Kate, Harry, maybe a spouse for Harry, George and the new baby and maybe their spouses.

So simply by a process of natural attrition the numbers will drop from the current 15 to 8 over the next 30 years

 

[Ish]

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 is ridiculous.

Whether or not Andrew should continue to have a role representing the monarchy or continue to represent the charities that he's involved with is a very valid discussion. It appears that right now he is being supported in both, but it's not really a decision for Parliament.

The charities chose the royal, so unless they're ending the relationship it is not Parliament's decision whether or not Andrew does engagements with them.

It is the Queen's decision whether or not this work gets noticed in the CC. It is entirely possible that at some point going in the future this may reach a point where it becomes appropriate for the Queen to cease to recognize Andrew in such a function, but that's a bit premature right now.

Andrew does have appointments in various organizations/honours that may be jeapordized by this scandal, but it's still a bit premature to strip him of things. I do think that if charges are laid then he should at least take a leave of absence from various roles or have his involvement suspended, but until then it's still a bit premature. The whole argument that "a politician would have to resign at this point" is a bit absurd because 1. many of Andrew's roles aren't political (it's not his job to be political), and 2. you're blind if you think a politician in a democratic country has to resign every time a scandal breaks out, particularly when charges aren't being laid. Look up the career and personal life of former Toronto mayor Rob Ford if you don't believe me.

Furthermore, the suggestion that keeps being tossed around that Andrew should be stripped of his titles and line in the succession (with no charges brought against him, let alone a conviction) displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system works. In order to remove Andrew from the succession 16 realms have to pass legislature. 16 separate realms. 16 realms which haven't all passed the legislature to change the succession to allow equal primogeniture yet. This would have to be done to remove a man who is not first in line, or in the direct line, or really all that likely to ever be king. The last time someone who was at one point 5th in the line of succession became monarch was Queen Victoria - and at her birth, the 4 people ahead of her, including her father, were all 50+. While Andrew might have more chances of becoming monarch than Anne, he still doesn't have much of a chance, and having 16 realms pass legislature to strip him of that minute chance is a waste of time (especially given the lack of charges and/or conviction). Continuing on that path, the only way Andrew could be stripped of his titles is for the British Parliament to do so. Which, sure, if charges are laid and a conviction happens they might want to do that. But should the British Parliament's time really be spent on legislature stripping Andrew of his titles when all that's happened so far is accusations? Not only is it a bit premature, it also sets a bad precedent.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

It is just that this crisis, and it is a crisis, has evoked some questioning about the best way for the British royal family to move forward. After all, the Queen, who has done a marvellous job, is entering the last years of her reign, and it is known, through, whatever source, that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy.

The questioning about the monarchy comes from those who want Republic.
There is no evidence that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy, It's going to happen by itself.

Whether it will be as austere in form as Norway or Spain, or a little cosier as with Denmark, it may well be that Charles could decree a defining of a core royal family, as in monarch and consort, heir and spouse and their eldest child. He may include Harry in this or not.

It's not going to happen. Williams children is going to have royals duties, but I agree that Harrys upcoming children should not have titles, or be members of the monarchy.

This would include the cousins, Anne, the Wessexes and perhaps Harry. Andrew should certainly never be allowed to represent the monarch again. He is a prime example of what Glover in his article called 'the rollicking, roistering Princes' who, IMO, bring shame to the royal family.

The cousin problem will resolve itself. Anne and the Wessex will continue with their good work as long as they want, and so will Harry. Beatrice and Eugenie should never have become princesses, and in my opinion should not represent the royal family, although I like both.
I'm not sure what's going to happen with Andrews role in the monarchy, it depends on how he behaves, but he will not be removed from the line of succession, except if what he is accused of should prove to be true.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The problem with saying that the York girls shouldn't have become princesses means that the 1917 LPs should have restricted HRH only to the children of the eldest son. That would have meant that Elizabeth and Margaret wouldn't have become Princesses until 1936 and Richard, Edward, Michael and Alexandra also wouldn't be HRHs. The BRF would then have had only 7 working members in the 1950s and 60s to do all the work - including all that massive travelling when they would have been away for months at a time.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

The problem with saying that the York girls shouldn't have become princesses means that the 1917 LPs should have restricted HRH only to the children of the eldest son. That would have meant that Elizabeth and Margaret wouldn't have become Princesses until 1936 and Richard, Edward, Michael and Alexandra also wouldn't be HRHs. The BRF would then have had only 4 working members in the 1950s and 60s to do all the work - including all that massive travelling when they would have been away for months at a time.

I know, but the times have changed.

 

[Curryong]

We don't know, Royal Norway, whether the British monarchy can afford to wait for 30 years for the natural attrition to occur in the way you suggest. I would not be surprised if one more major scandal like this one would cause serious questioning about its future.

It would be best for a monarchy to be proactive rather than reactive when facing unrest. (Example, Juan Carlos. I am NOT suggesting Queen Elizabeth follows suit. In many ways respect for her has been a bulwark against republicanism. However, Juan Carlos knew he was unpopular and the country faced unrest. He abdicated and Felipe and Felizia are now very successful new modern monarchs.)

It is not always republicans who want change. Monarchists who are worried about how the royal family are viewed can critique things and suggest change, surely? Or is everything to be set like a fly in amber for ever and ever and ever?

I know this. Every other monarchy in Europe and Scandinavia has far fewer members in their royal families and their roles are far more clearly defined than the BRF. There is a reason for it.

In the 21st century the British royal family should be prepared to look at say the way the Netherlands royal family, one of the most popular in Europe operates, rather than go trundling along, hoping that natural attrition will solve all their ills in a generation or so.

 

[Zonk]

Let's stay on topic,..all posts regarding the size and the role of the Royal Family during the reign of Charles should be posted in http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-monarchy-under-charles-16252-98.html . While I understand the context of the current discussion, the topic as it relates to this subject is derailing the thread.

Any and all additional off topic posts will be deleted without notice.

 

[Ridderzaal]

Such a pity.
That ended a fascinating evolving discussion throwing up many topics that have never been discussed.

 

[Mirabel]

JAN MOIR: What Harry must learn from useless Uncle Andrew  | Daily Mail Online


This seems a rather vicious attack on Andrew, negating anything he's ever done to represent the BRF.
Is he really such a liability?

(At one time he was very popular, moreso than Charles). Now everyone just wants him to go away.

 

[USAPolitics]

JAN MOIR: What Harry must learn from useless Uncle Andrew* | Daily Mail Online


This seems a rather vicious attack on Andrew, negating anything he's ever done to represent the BRF.
Is he really such a liability?

(At one time he was very popular, moreso than Charles). Now everyone just wants him to go away.

Here's my thought. Charles has caused much more damaged in his time to the monarchy than Andrew. Much more.

At the same time, Charles has done more good for the monarchy than Andrew.

It's a matter of Charles in general doing more for the monarchy than Andrew, and we have lots of good from Charles to focus on now. But let's not forget how ridiculous Charles (and Diana) behaved and how much damage they caused as the PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES.

No doubt they should have behaved to a much higher standard back then, a standard I'm sure Andrew doesn't think he needs to hold himself to. I don't think he needs to hold himself to such a standard either. He won't be king.

He is (or was) the spare, not the heir.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

This is ridiculous.

Whether or not Andrew should continue to have a role representing the monarchy or continue to represent the charities that he's involved with is a very valid discussion. It appears that right now he is being supported in both, but it's not really a decision for Parliament.

The charities chose the royal, so unless they're ending the relationship it is not Parliament's decision whether or not Andrew does engagements with them.

It is the Queen's decision whether or not this work gets noticed in the CC. It is entirely possible that at some point going in the future this may reach a point where it becomes appropriate for the Queen to cease to recognize Andrew in such a function, but that's a bit premature right now.

Andrew does have appointments in various organizations/honours that may be jeapordized by this scandal, but it's still a bit premature to strip him of things. I do think that if charges are laid then he should at least take a leave of absence from various roles or have his involvement suspended, but until then it's still a bit premature. The whole argument that "a politician would have to resign at this point" is a bit absurd because 1. many of Andrew's roles aren't political (it's not his job to be political), and 2. you're blind if you think a politician in a democratic country has to resign every time a scandal breaks out, particularly when charges aren't being laid. Look up the career and personal life of former Toronto mayor Rob Ford if you don't believe me.

Furthermore, the suggestion that keeps being tossed around that Andrew should be stripped of his titles and line in the succession (with no charges brought against him, let alone a conviction) displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system works. In order to remove Andrew from the succession 16 realms have to pass legislature. 16 separate realms. 16 realms which haven't all passed the legislature to change the succession to allow equal primogeniture yet. This would have to be done to remove a man who is not first in line, or in the direct line, or really all that likely to ever be king. The last time someone who was at one point 5th in the line of succession became monarch was Queen Victoria - and at her birth, the 4 people ahead of her, including her father, were all 50+. While Andrew might have more chances of becoming monarch than Anne, he still doesn't have much of a chance, and having 16 realms pass legislature to strip him of that minute chance is a waste of time (especially given the lack of charges and/or conviction). Continuing on that path, the only way Andrew could be stripped of his titles is for the British Parliament to do so. Which, sure, if charges are laid and a conviction happens they might want to do that. But should the British Parliament's time really be spent on legislature stripping Andrew of his titles when all that's happened so far is accusations? Not only is it a bit premature, it also sets a bad precedent.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that Andrew should be removed from the line of succession. Even if he did have relations with a 17-year old girl, it wasn't illegal. Neither is trying to intercede on behalf of a friend in a criminal case (at least it is legal in the U.S.).

Perhaps the way forward for Andrew is to take a break from official royal duties but continue with charity work, much as his daughters do now. His work would not be recognized by the CC but he would be working and helping others.

It's unfortunate because he has been fairly effective as a trade representative for the UK. The truth is that there is a cache about meeting a member of the royal family and other country trade reps like to brag about meeting famous people.

Right now though, his reputation has taken a huge hit and he will need time to rebuild it. Quietly doing charity work will help him do so. I am thinking he should get involved in helping former military get jobs, housing, etc...

 

[AdmirerUS]

JAN MOIR: What Harry must learn from useless Uncle Andrew* | Daily Mail Onlin This seems a rather vicious attack on Andrew, negating anything he's ever done to represent the BRF.
Is he really such a liability? (At one time he was very popular, moreso than Charles). Now everyone just wants him to go away.

You asked, so I will answer. As an outsider looking at his focus and how he presents himself, he has become my least favorite working royal. CNN or one of the channels I listen to re-aired that interview in which he says (of the air miles Andy nickname) "well that is what one does when one" travels the world. It was the worst possible reply to that question. He sounded entitled, pompous and as if he really believes he's smarter, better and more attractive than the rest of us.

It said a lot to me about how out of touch he was when he left his post as United Kingdom’s Special Representative for International Trade and Investment and well over a year later had not updated his web page about the change. It's not as if anyone reading newspapers did not know there had been a change. It looked odd, petty and defiant.

Does he do good - certainly. Does he seem to pick and choose his appearances and leave the curtain pulling to the rest of the family - to me he does.

It always looks to me like there is team Andy and then there is the rest of the family.

 

[rmay286]

Right now though, his reputation has taken a huge hit and he will need time to rebuild it. Quietly doing charity work will help him do so. I am thinking he should get involved in helping former military get jobs, housing, etc...

It said a lot to me about how out of touch he was when he left his post as United Kingdom’s Special Representative for International Trade and Investment and well over a year later had not updated his web page about the change. It's not as if anyone reading newspapers did not know there had been a change. It looked odd, petty and defiant.

Does he do good - certainly. Does he seem to pick and choose his appearances and leave the curtain pulling to the rest of the family - to me he does.

The vice-chancellor of Huddersfield University has defended Andrew against The Times' accusation that Andrew 'doesn't have a role.' He says Andrew does have a role, supporting British technical education and apprenticeship, and that he does a good job at it. Duke of York defended by Huddersfield v-c | News | Times Higher Education

I've been following the Duke of York's Facebook page since he launched it, last February, as well as his Twitter account, and my eyes have been opened to the nature of his work. Most of it is not foreign trips supporting British trade. Andrew's weekly schedule tends to look like this: visits to technical colleges and universities to encourage apprenticeships; presentations promoting the iDEA awards program for digital entrepreneurs, supported by Nominet Trust and will.i.am; and hosting the Pitch@Palace event where successful businessmen support the winning entrepreneurs.

Andrew is based mostly in London, at Buckingham Palace. He makes some foreign trips, but the bulk of his work is in Britain now, providing opportunities for young people to use and hone their technical skills.

It surprises me that journalists think Andrew 'doesn't have a role.' He does, and it seems to be very clearly defined on his website - he is basically an ambassador for technical education, networking with colleges and interested donors to open doors for young people with digital or technical skills...which are in demand in the working world, but universities haven't quite caught up with relevant programs yet.

I am sorry if this scandal, based on events from 13 or 14 years ago, overshadows what Andrew is doing today.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

JAN MOIR: What Harry must learn from useless Uncle Andrew* | Daily Mail Online


This seems a rather vicious attack on Andrew, negating anything he's ever done to represent the BRF.
Is he really such a liability?

(At one time he was very popular, moreso than Charles). Now everyone just wants him to go away.

The most important thing Andrew has done for himself and in the long term for his family is to parent his children well. Beatrice and Eugenie seem well adjusted young women despite the turbulence they were subjected to as children.

Andrew's biggest problem is that he is stuck in the 18th century when it comes to ideas about Royalty, how they should behave and how they should be treated by the plebes. He reminds me very much of George IV...self-indulgent, self-absorbed, arrogant with an over-active libido. He loves living well and is determined to do so because by God he is a PRINCE and no one should forget it. He usually means well, but is simply not bright or disciplined enough to understand or care about the long term consequences of his behavior. He got away with his boorish behavior as a young man frankly because he was really strikingly handsome. And people tend to make excuses for people with beauty. Look how the press and public handled Sarah compared to Diana. One could argue that Diana's behavior was potentially much more damaging to the monarchy than Sarah's but Diana got a pass because she was more elegant and more beautiful, imo.

Royalty has changed and adapted. Andrew either can't or won't.

 

[Dman]

JAN MOIR: What Harry must learn from useless Uncle Andrew* | Daily Mail Online


This seems a rather vicious attack on Andrew, negating anything he's ever done to represent the BRF.
Is he really such a liability?

(At one time he was very popular, moreso than Charles). Now everyone just wants him to go away.

I think members of the media make a mistake in reporting that senior members of the royal family are "useless" when they make errors of judgement. Andrew, as other members of the royal family, work pretty hard on representing The Queen and UK. I think when they make bad mistakes, it's important to separate their mistakes from the official work they do.

 

[Jacknch]

Hmm, I don't think anyone would have noticed what Jan Moir had to say had the article not referenced Prince Harry.

 

[Mermaid1962]

From what I've seen, Jan Moir is a very, very negative writer. Her articles are generally unpleasant. As others have posted, Prince Andrew does good work; it's just very sad that he lacks judgement and appears to have a huge sense of entitlement.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

It's ridiculous how people are painting this as the only thing Andrew has done. He is over 50yrs old and has accomplished some good things. I hate how people are just ignoring the good things he has done. It's sad that in 20yrs when George is 20 and Harry is 50 they will be treating him the same way because he is old, no longer good looking, and the second son. It seems the second child of the same sex is thrown under the bus as they age. Margaret, Andrew, even Edward VIII after he became the non king, I've seen some who have bad mouthed Albert Victor as well.

 

[Irish Eyes]

Well this is interesting to say the least .....

BREAKING: We Can Conclusively Prove That #PrinceAndrew Underaged Prostitute Photo is Fake - GotNews

I wonder will the media pick up on this?

 

[royal rob]

Andrew has never said he didn't have a photo with her which I'm sure he would have if it is indeed a fake photo.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[hernameispekka]

Andrew has never said he didn't have a photo with her which I'm sure he would have if it is indeed a fake photo.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Maybe he didn't know. I bet he take pictures with ALOT of people

 

[JessRulz]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ish-over-friendship-with-Jeffrey-Epstein.html
Prince Andrew admits he's been 'foolish' over friendship with paedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein | Daily Mail Online

"Prince Andrew has admitted he has been a 'fool' over his friendship with billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein…

A source close to the Duke told the Sunday Telegraph: 'It would be crass and disingenuous to suggest he has been unaffected by this.
'He is watching the news and reading the headlines and even though the friendship with Jeffrey Epstein was acknowledged as being unwise back in 2011, the Duke has clearly had a long time this week for the consequences of that friendship to further sink in. More than ever, he can see how foolish it was.'"

 

[Lenora]

It's good he has admitted his mistake, but I'm afraid it's too late for his reputation and public role.

 

[tommy100]

Is that the Royal way of saying sorry? Without acknowledge any wrong doing?
Personally I think Andrew only thinks its foolish he got caught.

 

[Lumutqueen]

A source close to the Duke, anyone close to the Duke would never talk to a newspaper.

 

[royal rob]

I think that's how they get their story out there ... Close friend etc


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[tommy100]

Or staff/aides when they don't want it to look like the staff/office are briefing about something. Its been the same way for years, sometimes its made up, other times its a way of getting the 'official' point of view over without looking like they'll comment on everything.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Prince Andrew first met Jeffrey Epstein through his friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell, in the 1990s.
By 2000, the Prince and Miss Maxwell were holidaying with Epstein at Donald Trump’s Mar a Largo Club in Palm Beach, Florida.
In return, Prince Andrew invited Epstein, a wealthy investment banker, to stay at Sandringham, Balmoral and Windsor Castle.

Video: Prince Andrew’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein in 60 seconds - Telegraph

 

[Moonmaiden23]

It's ridiculous how people are painting this as the only thing Andrew has done. He is over 50yrs old and has accomplished some good things. I hate how people are just ignoring the good things he has done. It's sad that in 20yrs when George is 20 and Harry is 50 they will be treating him the same way because he is old, no longer good looking, and the second son. It seems the second child of the same sex is thrown under the bus as they age. Margaret, Andrew, even Edward VIII after he became the non king, I've seen some who have bad mouthed Albert Victor as well.

I'm afraid you are right XC. People tend to have very short memories. Look at the way the late Queen Fabiola was thrown under the bus at the end despite having led a public life that was virtually beyond reproach for more than 40 years. Particularly when you are no longer young and glamorous, it seems to be easier for the public to turn on you.

But unfortunately Andrew is very vulnerable to this kind of criticism because of his own very foolish and stubborn choices.