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

[Duke of Marmalade]

OK, here comes something funny:
Woking Pizza Express was flooded with witty reviews following the extraordinary Prince Andrew interview.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/103625...prince-andrew/

[ladongas]

How dare Andrew imply that he needed additional advantages and opportunities other than those he was born with?

He, a man who lives in palaces or castles, wears bespoke suits, is driven in limousines, is invited to (and hosts) the grandest of parties and dinners, meets the interesting and great of the world, has front row seats to thrilling and amazing events, never waits on line for anything, never sits in coach class, never worries about money- how dare he excuse his friendship with a morally bankrupt and corrupt criminal because “opportunities”?

[Moonmaiden23]

I can't help but say it...what a sad, sordid winding down of the very long and illustrious reign Queen Elizabeth II.

[Denville]

She should not have been seen iwht Andrew and she should have told him not to do this interview.

[Duke of Marmalade]

She probably did. The fact that Andrew's new hired PR man resigned over this decision speaks volumes. I guess it's myth that nothing happens within the family HM is not okay with. Or Charles.

[Moonmaiden23]

Andrew is her son, her own flesh and blood. I cannot fault her for refusing to distance herself from him because he is enmeshed in the worst scandal of his life. Especially if her bond with him is as tight as is rumored.

As for advising against the interview, considering how utterly clueless she MUST after all these years realize her beloved second son to be...perhaps HMQ did indeed advise against it?

But maybe Andrew, who undoubtedly has had an overinflated sense of self confidence his entire life, was able to persuade Mummy that he had this one in the bag.

And let's be honest. If the DoY had pulled off a brilliantly convincing PR masterstroke
instead of the cringeworthy mess he did...he would be the man of the hour in the British press as as well as the RF this morning.

"Success has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan". JFK (1917-1963)

[Claire]

yes - have to agree with you - The Queen must have been convinced that this was a good idea. I hope in any case.
I am becoming very concerned that the Windsors are surrounding themselves with yes men and are becoming very out of touch with public mood. I do not understand why he wasn't advised about what to say here to appear less creepy. Even in a unscripted interview he should have been prepared, regardless of the question.

[tommy100]

Honestly I think since the Queen allowed her previous Private Secretary Sir Christopher Geidt to be forced out by Andrew and Charles the reigns have loosened so to speak.

The Royals seem to be getting away with much more than they would have been able to in the past, all apparently with the "approval of BP" and certainly lacking any notable disapproval.

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

I can't help but say it...what a sad, sordid winding down of the very long and illustrious reign Queen Elizabeth II.

Whilst a sad, sordid chapter I don't think it's going to affect the Queen's legacy very much.

We don't know if she agreed with his strategy, disagreed, wasn't consulted or just let him get on with it. It could well have been presented as a fait acompli. Considering the less than advisable interludes her children and grandchildren have often made public over the years it doesn't seem like she has or wants iron control over their lives. She herself doesn't see the need to clear things up with interviews so it's not likely her strategy suggestion and there's only so much you can do with your grown up children if they're determined to do something.

As for Beatrice I don't think they were planning on anything as grand as Eugenie's anyway considering they haven't announced any details anyway.

[Lumutqueen]

Can anyone tell me how exactly, legally, it would work to get Andrew to step down? What’s in place?

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by ladongas

How dare Andrew imply that he needed additional advantages and opportunities other than those he was born with?

He, a man who lives in palaces or castles, wears bespoke suits, is driven in limousines, is invited to (and hosts) the grandest of parties and dinners, meets the interesting and great of the world, has front row seats to thrilling and amazing events, never waits on line for anything, never sits in coach class, never worries about money- how dare he excuse his friendship with a morally bankrupt and corrupt criminal because “opportunities”?

Remember the tale of The Fisherman's Wife?
There's no limit to the greed of certain people.

[wyevale]

to appear less creepy.

Aside from the nature of his answers and demeanour, the setting was ghastly - the stygian ill-lit gloom of the empty semi-state rooms created the wrong atmosphere - a well lit room, by a window would have created the impression of 'bringing daylight in'...rather than re-enforcing the idea of a cloistered and closed privilege..

These are the very basics of 'staging' and that his advisors were quite so clueless about them beggars belief...

[Claire]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Can anyone tell me how exactly, legally, it would work to get Andrew to step down? What’s in place?

I was thinking the same - is there any precedent ?

Beside the Duke of Windsor has anyone been cast out of the family? And the abdication was the tool of the decision. If he is asked to retire - it would be odd considering the Queen is still going on at her age. Their hand might be forced with the charities pulling out around him.

The only way I see it happening was in a completely restructuring of the family. And that can only happen if the Queen abdicated or dies or well a regency.

I imagine it somehow as the Queen passes, Charles takes over, Princess Ann askes to became a full time horse breeder and Andrew is well allowed to do what he wants outside of the public eye. I don't think anyone will care what becomes of Edward and Sophie. Kents, Gloucesters either.

The monarchy then is only Charles, William and Harry like it is wanted.

[Osipi]

The reactions to this fiasco of an interview are pouring in from all over and I've yet to see one positive reaction to it. Someone wondered what Anne's, Charles' and Philip's reaction to all of this would be. My guess is that if you placed one in BP, one in Sandringham and one in Clarence House, there wouldn't be any need for a heating system. The steam coming out of their ears could keep those places warm even on the coldest night. I'm not going to lay the blame for this interview at anyone else's door besides Andrew's. Instead of addressing the situation and clearing up his involvement with Epstein/Maxwell, all he's done is show the world his true character. It has backfired on him horribly and as I've stated before, with this interview, he's committed reputation suicide. And we thought the Panorama interview was the worse? This one beats that by a landslide.

However, I still do not believe that there is anything that Andrew has done that proves to be a reason for him to be criminally suspect and perhaps the only information he can add to the ongoing investigation into Epstein's alleged sex trafficking crimes and those that aided and abetted him would be the location of Ghislaine Maxwell and where she may be. If Giuffre was "forced" to have sex with Andrew, it wasn't Andrew doing the forcing but its up in the air whether or not Andrew accepted. I'm wont to side with Giuffre on this for the reason being that there were so many high profile men that Epstein "catered" to that Giuffre would have no reason to pull Andrew's name out of a hat. All this however, to me, is the *least* of Andrew's worries now. Giuffre may or may not file a civil case and remains to be seen if she does.

With this interview, Andrew was given a rope and he effectively hung himself with it as far as public opinion goes. Its not illegal to be stupid. Its not illegal to be a bumbling idiot. Its not illegal to be self centered and to see the world in the light of what the world can do for oneself. Its not illegal to be arrogant and have a sense of entitlement that the "little people" are there to serve and cater and kowtow to a "superior being". Its not illegal to have an opinion of oneself that they can do no wrong. Its not illegal to assume that their words will be taken as gospel truth even when lying through their teeth.

Andrew gave himself away actually on the lying part. Its not illegal to seem like he was sending Morse code with his rapid, uncontrolled blinking. According to the Telegraph, "The best way to spot a liar is to look them in the eyes, according to scientists who say the number of times a person blinks will show if they are speaking the truth. Liars blink less frequently than normal during the lie, and then speed up to around eight times faster than usual afterwards." Even with just seeing the clips from the interview and watching some of the interview with no closed captioning just to study Andrew's face, this is what I noticed most. There was no hint whatsoever with Andrew's demeanor that the man actually believed the words coming out of his mouth.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/258...-blinking.html

What is in store for Andrew in the future is anybody's guess and my crystal ball is in the shop but I cannot for one minute believe that this isn't going to cause some major repercussions that affect Andrew's life as he knows it. I do know that, without a doubt, whatever happens, he's brought it on himself and has only himself to blame. Not the Queen. Not Charles nor those that tried to advise Andrew with the reality that this was a bad idea.

Reminds me of the children's nursery rhyme.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Denville

She should not have been seen iwht Andrew and she should have told him not to do this interview.

People may forget that the Queen herself spends time with people whose public record isn't exactly unsullied. For example, she's been at Royal Ascot with Sheikh Mohammed of Dubai, whose estranged wife has gone to court to protect their daughter from a forced marriage.

I think it's pretty common for the royals to spend time with unsavory people in official contexts and turn a blind eye to whatever might be happening behind the scenes. Yes, Andrew went beyond that in that he was friends with Epstein and Ghislaine, and staying at Epstein's house and so on, but I think Andrew grew up turning a blind eye to a lot of what was going on around him.

At least, I assume that is the case. Because the interview made him seem very unaware and even naïve (to me). Maybe you could call it arrogance, maybe it's social unawareness or a certain lack of empathy, but this was not a slick interview crafted by a skilled PR person. If Andrew had any awareness of how people perceive his notions about privilege and people acting differently around him based on his status...he would not have given this interview.

I think Andrew more than any of the Queen's children has internalized his sense of status / privilege. He seemed to truly think that his answers would go over well.

But I think Andrew acquired this sense of emotional distance from his upbringing. You can say the Queen should have intervened, but she may not really think Andrew is doing anything wrong either.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Osipi

With this interview, Andrew was given a rope and he effectively hung himself with it as far as public opinion goes. Its not illegal to be stupid. Its not illegal to be a bumbling idiot. Its not illegal to be self centered and to see the world in the light of what the world can do for oneself. Its not illegal to be arrogant and have a sense of entitlement that the "little people" are there to serve and cater and kowtow to a "superior being". Its not illegal to have an opinion of oneself that they can do no wrong. Its not illegal to assume that their words will be taken as gospel truth even when lying through their teeth.

Andrew gave himself away actually on the lying part. Its not illegal to seem like he was sending Morse code with his rapid, uncontrolled blinking. According to the Telegraph, "The best way to spot a liar is to look them in the eyes, according to scientists who say the number of times a person blinks will show if they are speaking the truth. Liars blink less frequently than normal during the lie, and then speed up to around eight times faster than usual afterwards." Even with just seeing the clips from the interview and watching some of the interview with no closed captioning just to study Andrew's face, this is what I noticed most. There was no hint whatsoever with Andrew's demeanor that the man actually believed the words coming out of his mouth.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/258...-blinking.html

What is in store for Andrew in the future is anybody's guess and my crystal ball is in the shop but I cannot for one minute believe that this isn't going to cause some major repercussions that affect Andrew's life as he knows it. I do know that, without a doubt, whatever happens, he's brought it on himself and has only himself to blame. Not the Queen. Not Charles nor those that tried to advise Andrew with the reality that this was a bad idea.

Reminds me of the children's nursery rhyme.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

Well about all this though - I agree Andrew didn't help himself with this interview.

However: What major repercussions will this have for Andrew's life? I'm not saying this because I think there should be no repercussions - but what could change? He can't just get 'kicked out' out of the royal family, you know...unless Charles were to become king and decide all royal engagements should be limited to himself and his children, as Claire has suggested.

Also, blinking doesn't really prove Andrew was lying. You may have a gut feeling about it and so might others, but we have no way of knowing for sure or knowing what the lies were. It's still Virginia's word against Andrew's. He could've been lying all through the interview or merely uncomfortable at being questioned about having sex with someone. There were times I thought Andrew was lying (when he said "no" to there being any possibility that he had a massage from an underage girl or sex with any other underage girl) and other times when I thought he was probably telling the truth. But we can't know for sure, so this interview has just amplified a scandal that should have died away.

[tommy100]

I don't think anything official will be done, e.g. Andrew giving up or being stripped of his HRH or place in succession.

I think at most he will simply scale back his duties massively. We may see an end to Pitch @ The Palace because its backers pull out (which ironically is probably one of the few things Andrew does that helps young people and not himself) TBH most of Andrew's duties, despite him giving up his Trade role, still take place overseas in places where his behaviour may not be seen as disgusting as we (rightly IMO) think of it, and these may continue.

If we take the fact the Queen is going to strip him of his titles or awards then really t only leaves charities and organisation that have Andrew asa patron to take action. I wonder if any will drop him as patron

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by Osipi

However, I still do not believe that there is anything that Andrew has done that proves to be a reason for him to be criminally suspect and perhaps the only information he can add to the ongoing investigation into Epstein's alleged sex trafficking crimes and those that aided and abetted him would be the location of Ghislaine Maxwell and where she may be. If Giuffre was "forced" to have sex with Andrew, it wasn't Andrew doing the forcing but its up in the air whether or not Andrew accepted. I'm wont to side with Giuffre on this for the reason being that there were so many high profile men that Epstein "catered" to that Giuffre would have no reason to pull Andrew's name out of a hat. All this however, to me, is the *least* of Andrew's worries now. Giuffre may or may not file a civil case and remains to be seen if she does.

And what would you say if he knew she was forced? Would that change anything for you? And it doesn't matter if there were more men. If Andrew knew she was being forced, it makes what he did illegal.

[rmay286]

I think Andrew had to know some things that he simply turned a blind eye to. For example, there were apparently sexually suggestive paintings in Epstein's house or at least one that I read about.

But did he know Virginia was being forced to have sex with various men? There are just no ways of knowing these things. The interview cleared none of this up at all. It just made Andrew look guiltier in many people's eyes, unfortunately for him.

[Moonmaiden23]

I always remember what Diana Princess of Wales said about her brother-in-law in the infamous Her True Story......"they all take him (Andrew) for an idiot...but he is the best of the lot"....referring, i presume to the BRF.

Even before this latest mess of his I have always wondered what Diana meant by that and why she felt that way...?