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

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Dman

The thing is, I personally feel like a foolish royal watcher when it comes to Andrew. Everyone, who’s familiar with my commentary on this forum, knows I always come to the York’s defense on everything. I used to think people are just picking on Andrew because he’s everyone’s favorite guy people like to pick on.

Now....it’s like...I’m finally seeing things in a new light. Perhaps reality just had to hit me.

I think Andrew's friendship with Epstein was a big big mistake, but has any new information actually come out since 2011? Back then he was forced to resign from his trade ambassador role. Besides the video of him at Epstein's house...has there been any substantially new information about Andrew's involvement with Epstein?

Or are people changing their minds about Andrew just because of Epstein's death and the information being rehashed?

[Denville]

Originally Posted by sophie25

That's a shame, it's awful when you really have faith in something/someone and then realise that they don't deserve it. I'm thinking of the Queen too. If she tells Andrew that he must leave public life I think it could literally kill him as well as seem like an admission of guilt but if he continues as a working member of the family it will do untold harm to the Monarchy as an institution. I don't know what the answer is to this mess.

kill him? I hardly think so. It is the least that he deserves to be publicly stood down from royal work.. and that would send a clear message that the RF and the queen disapprove very strongly of his behaviour.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Denville

kill him? I hardly think so. It is the least that he deserves to be publicly stood down from royal work.. and that would send a clear message that the RF and the queen disapprove very strongly of his behaviour.

Being royal means everything to Andrew, I really don't think he could bear being cut off from royal life.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by sophie25

Being royal means everything to Andrew, I really don't think he could bear being cut off from royal life.

I doubt if it will literaly kill him. He will still be rich and privileged and a lot more fortunate than he deserves

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Empress Merel

but as a stauch Democrat, the concept of a Royal Family is extremely outdated and archaic and in an equal society, shouldn't exist.

Andrew's lifelong behaviour correlates from this. He has never had to face the consequences for his actions and if he gets his way, he won't start now.

This belongs perhaps more into the "Future of Royalty" thread, but what you are advocating is a Death Tax, an Inheritance Tax of 100 percent for the "commoners". They have not earned too, what past generations built with hard work and sweat. And this, sorry to say, is communist!

Prince Andrew earned his status by birth, this is true, but only because his family was very hard striving for it over hundreds of years.

The difference between a family of commoners and a royal family: Albeit both family can lose their hard earned status over incompetence and foolishness - the commoners only lose when behaving foolish in the economical sphere, but the royals can lose in the social and political sphere too.

Prince Andrew here and his dubious relationship to Epstein are threating what the Windsors built over centuries - one black sheep and they all are threatened.

[Denville]

There are plenty of black sheep in royal families.. Andrew is not the only one. But in today's world, his behaviour is not going to be covered up or tolerated as it might have been 50 or 100 years ago...

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by Denville

kill him? I hardly think so. It is the least that he deserves to be publicly stood down from royal work.. and that would send a clear message that the RF and the queen disapprove very strongly of his behaviour.

And if anything would ever come across as hypocritical (a lot more than private flights) it’s a wealthy, powerful family advocating against trafficking while letting one of their own get away with associating with a known abuser.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by rmay286

I think Andrew's friendship with Epstein was a big big mistake, but has any new information actually come out since 2011? Back then he was forced to resign from his trade ambassador role. Besides the video of him at Epstein's house...has there been any substantially new information about Andrew's involvement with Epstein?

Or are people changing their minds about Andrew just because of Epstein's death and the information being rehashed?

This has brought up the issue again. the fact that Epstein killed himself shows that he knew he had finally gone down.. that he had gotten away with a light punishment last time but now he was in desperate trouble. So that is going to mean that people who continued to associate with him may well be investigated...

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Elenath

And if anything would ever come across as hypocritical (a lot more than private flights) it’s a wealthy, powerful family advocating against trafficking while letting one of their own get away with associating with a known abuser.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutly think that he SHOULD be made to stand down from public life just as Princess Christina of Spain's behaviour made her continuing to work as a member of the royal family impossible too and I don't think he'd cope at all with that as status and position appear to mean so much to him. It would be the right punishment as it would send the message that with position comes responsibility and that if members of the family abuse their position then they will lose it.

[Mirabel]

I think the best course for the BRF would be for Andrew AND Fergie to trot off to that Swiss chalet, and stay there under the radar for two or three years.
Maybe after that Andrew could slowly resume public life in the UK.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by rmay286

I think Andrew's friendship with Epstein was a big big mistake, but has any new information actually come out since 2011? Back then he was forced to resign from his trade ambassador role. Besides the video of him at Epstein's house...has there been any substantially new information about Andrew's involvement with Epstein?

Or are people changing their minds about Andrew just because of Epstein's death and the information being rehashed?

Notice how everyone ignored this particular post and doesn't want to address this legitimate question.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by rmay286

I think Andrew's friendship with Epstein was a big big mistake, but has any new information actually come out since 2011? Back then he was forced to resign from his trade ambassador role. Besides the video of him at Epstein's house...has there been any substantially new information about Andrew's involvement with Epstein?

Or are people changing their minds about Andrew just because of Epstein's death and the information being rehashed?

The deep scope of their friendship and the things that went down is now really coming to light. Epstein and his lawyers worked overtime and threatened a lot of the media from reporting his sex trafficking activities with his rich and powerful friends and the victims struggled tremendously to get their stories and claims published and heard by the law.

A lot of Andrew’s involvement has been pretty much brushed under the rug for some time now. His privilege of being The Queen’s son and his status a senior member of the royal family and lack of interest and outrage, provided him with some cover. Things are changing within the Epstein case and with his death. Many of ladies who were the victims of these crimes are fighting back and seeking justice in anyway they can.

[Heavs]

Aren't the accusations by Virginia Roberts since 2014/5? Wasn't the stepping down from his trade duties more about the cash for access and other issues? And the situation has obviously come up again since then and has changed, so why shouldn't it be discussed?

It's also interesting that every minutiae of royalty is discussed on this forum, including very tiny issues which turn into "they're 100% not suitable" debates but some are desperate to shut down discussion over Andrew's suitability to continue his public role based on his long term close involvement with a man who clearly went to zero lengths to hide his vile lifestyle around Andrew, at the very least. None of the BP statements seem to be making things better or clarifying anything.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Notice how everyone ignored this particular post and doesn't want to address this legitimate question.

In what way has it been ignored?

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Heavs

Aren't the accusations by Virginia Roberts since 2014/5? Wasn't the stepping down from his trade duties more about the cash for access and other issues? And the situation has obviously come up again since then and has changed, so why shouldn't it be discussed?

It's also interesting that every minutiae of royalty is discussed on this forum, including very tiny issues which turn into "they're 100% not suitable" debates but some are desperate to shut down discussion over Andrew's suitability to continue his public role based on his long term close involvement with a man who clearly went to zero lengths to hide his vile lifestyle around Andrew, at the very least. None of the BP statements seem to be making things better or clarifying anything.

Epstein never hid his lifestyle from Andrew nor from anyone else that Epstein and Maxwell was close to. They all knew what the hell was going on and many participated in the criminal activity. When Epstein became a convicted paedophile, the party continued. The law steps in and the victims speak out, then folks start acting like their brains are on vacation, start pointing fingers at others and act like they’re all just ‘coo coo for coco puffs.’

[DeeT]

Originally Posted by Dman

Epstein never hid his lifestyle from Andrew nor from anyone else that Epstein and Maxwell was close to. They all knew what the hell was going on and many participated in the criminal activity. When Epstein became a convicted paedophile, the party continued. The law steps in and the victims speak out, then folks start acting like their brains are on vacation, start pointing fingers at others and act like they’re all just ‘coo coo for coco puffs.’

Agree. It’s an abomination that people so easily ignore victims of heinous crimes where people of power are involved. In that Royal Communications statement released yesterday, there were too many contradictions. It seemed Andrew was trying to downplay his friendship with Epstein, referring to an ‘association’ & didn’t see him frequently, but also admitting that he stayed at his residences. Andrew didn’t mention why his mere associate was invited to the Queen’s private & public residences.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Notice how everyone ignored this particular post and doesn't want to address this legitimate question.

The palace and Andrew have been putting out statements recently. Apparently Andrew is now appalled at Epstein's lifestyle. I think that's news isn't it?

[Gawin]

I think the MeToo movement has influenced the discussion and I believe this has already been pointed out by other forum members. There's a heightened sensitivity to the sexual abuse of women and an increased effort to hold the guilty accountable.

I don't think Andrew is guilty of any crimes and he's stated he didn't "see, witness or suspect any behaviour of the sort that subsequently led to [Epstein's] arrest and conviction."

But he still hasn't explained why the conviction itself didn't raise any red flags.

[Empress Merel]

He was caught on video answering the door of someone else's villa, whom he states he only had an ''association'' with and saw ''probably once or twice a year'' (note the word probably here), while remind you, this is a man who is high and mighty on his Prince status. You think he'd answer the door at just anyone's house? He also got foot massages and whatnot from extremely young, vulnerable women at a known pedophile's estate and saw nothing wrong with it. Truly, what makes you think he didn't do anything just because he claims it? I mean, he did get accused...

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Empress Merel

He was caught on video answering the door of someone else's villa, whom he states he only had an ''association'' with and saw ''probably once or twice a year'' (note the word probably here), while remind you, this is a man who is high and mighty on his Prince status. You think he'd answer the door at just anyone's house? He also got foot massages and whatnot from extremely young, vulnerable women at a known pedophile's estate and saw nothing wrong with it. Truly, what makes you think he didn't do anything just because he claims it? I mean, he did get accused...

That was what they describe as the “House of Horrors” that Andrew was in. He was at the door like it was his residence.