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

[ACO]

Well this dominated all of Charles and Camilla's tour. And Virginia Robert's interview is set to air during William's in two weeks. This will be dominating the papers for a bit more it seems.

[BMC]

Originally Posted by ACO

I think people just trying to lay blame and find some excuse as to why this happened. I think it just boils down to Andrew was an idiot and thought he could control the narrative and got a harsh reality check.

This sums up this entire debacle for me. Andrew never should have done the interview. He should have kept his mouth shut and opened it only to speak to the authorities investigating Epstein's crimes if they asked for or compelled his testimony.

I feel badly for his parents and his children, this is an absolute nightmare for them. I don't feel one bit of sympathy for Andrew- he dug this hole entirely by himself with his stupidity and his arrogance. Let him suffer the consequences.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess

I am sorry but someone who clearly didn't show any remorse when asked about their relationship with a convicted sex offender doesn't deserve kindness. Makes me question the morals of the people who still defend Andrew/think he's innocent Gone are the days when royals were seen as "untouchable". It's not 1719.

I think the kindness comment is directed at Beatrice and not Andrew.

No Andrew does not deserve kindness or anything close to it. But neither of his daughters deserve the mud they are being pulled through.

The hope is that the media will back off for one day, and allow the news to be about Beatrice's happy day, and not about the man walking her down the aisle.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess

I am sorry but someone who clearly didn't show any remorse when asked about their relationship with a convicted sex offender doesn't deserve kindness. Makes me question the morals of the people who still defend Andrew/think he's innocent Gone are the days when royals were seen as "untouchable". It's not 1719.

Charles I was decapitated in 1649. His son, James II, was deposed in 1688. So royals were hardly "untouchable" back in those days, at least not in England.



As for the Queen, I don't think she is reacting like a mother who loves her son no matter what. I think she believes that Andrew is being wrongly accused of crimes he did not committ (or, at least, which have not been proven) and is sending a public message that he didn't step down from royal duties as an admission of guilt.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess

I am sorry but someone who clearly didn't show any remorse when asked about their relationship with a convicted sex offender doesn't deserve kindness. Makes me question the morals of the people who still defend Andrew/think he's innocent Gone are the days when royals were seen as "untouchable". It's not 1719.

Wow, that's quite a statement. Just because some people require a higher standard of evidence doesn't make them less moral than you.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

As for the Queen, I don't think she is reacting like a mother who loves her son no matter what. I think she believes that Andrew is being wrongly accused of crimes he did not committ (or, at least, which have not been proven) and is sending a public message that he didn't step down from royal duties as an admission of guilt.

The thing is that, at this time, Andrew is not accused or suspected of any crime that he could be prosecuted for. However, this may change as there is so much that isn't known at this time and investigations continue and there are legal cases being heard to release more sealed documents.

The repercussions against Andrew stem solely from his own demeanor, his arrogance and his lack of concern about anything to do with his involvement with Epstein and Maxwell years ago. If everything that had happened this week concerning Andrew was because he could possibly be "guilty" of a crime, all of this backlash aimed at him now would have happened when the allegations first came into the public domain back in 2011.

There's an old saying that I'm a bit fond of. If one person calls you an donkey, you can pretty much ignore it and get on with things. If everyone around you is calling you a donkey, its time to buy a saddle.

[stunking]

I think Andrew and Fergie should be given the boot out of the Royal Hunting Lodge and move to Switzerland. It would show they are serious about him stepping down from public life and other temptations. Trump just settled a case where is family were using a charity foundation for there personal gain.

[Lord_Royal]

Originally Posted by stunking

I think Andrew and Fergie should be given the boot out of the Royal Hunting Lodge and move to Switzerland.

Andrew paid for a 75 year lease on Royal Lodge and spent millions of pounds renovating and improving it. It's his and he's paid for it.

[Bosana]

Originally Posted by Durham

The Duke of York, a modern Greek fable of hubris followed by nemesis.

Well said!

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by stunking

I think Andrew and Fergie should be given the boot out of the Royal Hunting Lodge and move to Switzerland. It would show they are serious about him stepping down from public life and other temptations. Trump just settled a case where is family were using a charity foundation for there personal gain.

Getting thrown out of Royal Lodge is not going to happen. In August 2003, The Duke of York was granted a lease agreement by the Crown Estate for 75 years and that lease, I believe, can even be passed onto his daughters should Andrew pass on. Andrew put a whole lot of money into the renovations of Royal Lodge before he moved in there after the Queen Mother's death hence the agreement for 75 years with the Crown Estate. He's there to stay.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by stunking

I think Andrew and Fergie should be given the boot out of the Royal Hunting Lodge and move to Switzerland. It would show they are serious about him stepping down from public life and other temptations. Trump just settled a case where is family were using a charity foundation for there personal gain.

Andrew holds the lease to the Royal lodge until 2078. If he passes away he can leave it to an eventual widow or his daughters. The only way to get him to move out is to buy the lease from him which is most likely impossible to do against his will.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by stunking

I think Andrew and Fergie should be given the boot out of the Royal Hunting Lodge and move to Switzerland. It would show they are serious about him stepping down from public life and other temptations. Trump just settled a case where is family were using a charity foundation for there personal gain.

They would have to do what they did to Duke of Windsor, and pay him out. When Edward abdicated, he still owned Balmoral and Sandringham.

Andrew is not in a grace and favor apartment. They can't simply kick him out of Royal Lodge. He has a very expensive lease on the home. The best they could do is pressure him to accept a huge pay out on the home and leave.

Edward they managed to keep in France by threatening to cut off his allowance if he returned. Andrew has already lost his money from the sovereign's grant, so there is not that threat.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Zaira

I wonder when folks will finally admit that the Queen isn't as sharp as folks think and has frankly never been...IMO.

I find myself feeling more than a little queasy at some of the comments made about Prince Andrew and damned angry about the swipes at my Queen. Photos of HM riding with family members come curtesy of long lenses show they are sharing the privacy of their own home.

Have you no common decency? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to, if you have nothing but gossip to rely upon you should consider where it came from?

Hang about! There is no Warrant for Andrew's arrest, there is no actual evidence available that Andrew is guilty of being anything but an arrogant prat. Yes, all these superior moralists have tried and convicted him in the absence of any shred of evidence.

So this is what the 21st Century version of the Witch Trials looks like. I can only say that after reading some of the more strident demands for Andrew to lose everything, I have visions of them screaming "off with his head" while they merrily click away with their knitting.

[Zaira]

Originally Posted by MARG

I find myself feeling more than a little queasy at some of the comments made about Prince Andrew and damned angry about the swipes at my Queen. Photos of HM riding with family members come curtesy of long lenses show they are sharing the privacy of their own home.

Have you no common decency? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to, if you have nothing but gossip to rely upon you should consider where it came from?

Hang about! There is no Warrant for Andrew's arrest, there is no actual evidence available that Andrew is guilty of being anything but an arrogant prat. Yes, all these superior moralists have tried and convicted him in the absence of any shred of evidence.

So this is what the 21st Century version of the Witch Trials looks like. I can only say that after reading some of the more strident demands for Andrew to lose everything, I have visions of them screaming "off with his head" while they merrily click away with their knitting.

It says a lot that you have stronger words for the folks on this forum expressing anger over horrific behavior by a pampered, privileged prince than over the actual actions of said prince.

I am allowed to say my opinion on the Queen which has never been high in the first place. I am also allowed to express disgust at the actions of her son. If that makes me a high handed moralist so be it. I will sleep well at night.

I believe survivors of sexual violence. Period. Even if that wasn't my litmus test, Andrew's ridiculous interview would still convince me he shouldn't have a public role. So yes, rather, I do have both common decency and good sense.

How about you not attack people or our decency for being upset about the abuse of young women? Some of us are survivors ourselves and seeing folks dismiss sexual violence has been painful.

Some people will truly make all the excuses in the world for rich men. It's truly extraordinary.

I am out of this thread. I truly can't.

[tommy100]

I think its little unfair to expect the Queen never to see her son again, this wasn't a public visit or trip, this was riding on private grounds in Windsor, her home. It wasn't like the car ride to church at Balmoral where it was blindingly obvious and well known they would be photographed. For all we know the Queen may have been reading the riot act to Andrew and telling him to drop his pitch@palace work. We don't know what is being said.

There can't be massive amounts of evidence Andrew did commit a crime or it would have come out by now and the police and FBI would have had to act. That doesn't mean it won't come out at some point. However, IMO, he behaved reprehensibly in still visiting Epstein and having contact with him after his first conviction. I see this punishment as being for that. Andrew's family will no doubt believe that he hasn't committed a crime and likewise believe this punishment fits the bill or his stupidity in still being friends with Epstein and all the negativity it has brought the monarchy. Behind that negativity is a public and media who probably split into two camps - those that think Andrew did commit a crime and it is being covered up and those who believe he is just a stupid, arrogant man who made questionable judgements. I think this forum is split into those camps as well.

I think its unfair for anyone to suggest Beatrice and Eugenie should suffer because of this. If we apply that rule fairly how many people would be cast out of society or have their lives negatively impacted because of their parents.

No one on here and I suspect even in the RF condones Andrew's behaviour. whether you think its just the tip of the iceberg for something bigger or not, his actions in being friend with Epstein and visiting him has been soundly condemned by all.

[Betsypaige]

You’re allowed to hold any opinion you wish about the Queen, Zaira, but you’ll be waiting a long time for that as, quite clearly, most of us love and hold HM in high regard

[HereditaryPrincess]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Wow, that's quite a statement. Just because some people require a higher standard of evidence doesn't make them less moral than you.

I didn’t mean to be harsh; I’m just fed up of people blindly defending Andrew because we’re talking about sex trafficking which is a serious allegation. And “higher standard of evidence” - this allegation has come from one of the victims themselves. I don’t believe in victim blaming so I want to believe the victims as much as I can unless something is proved otherwise. I just don’t see how Virginia Giuffre can be making up her comments about Andrew’s involvement with Epstein; because who would lie about something so serious as this?

If Cyril’s comment was more about Beatrice and Eugenie I apologise for misjudging, but if it was about Andrew I stand by my statement. I’m not the only one on this forum who questioned their post....

Seems like I need to bow out of this thread yet again because it’s been very touchy.

[Pranter]

I'm reading on Twitter that ppl are surprised to learn that Andrew was making money off of Pitch Perfect ...I had no idea either way, but am not shocked if this is accurate.

I've seen ppl say well the woman was 17 so legally she was 'of age' but from what I have seen of the law if someone is being trafficked/prostituted then the law is different..18 and under applies because of obvious reasons.

So I remain unsure that Andrew is in the clear and nothing is coming.


LaRae

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Pranter

I'm reading on Twitter that ppl are surprised to learn that Andrew was making money off of Pitch Perfect ...I had no idea either way, but am not shocked if this is accurate.

Did he make money off all three films?

[Nice Nofret]

I saw the interview; I read and heard a lot about the Epstein-stuff.



I think Andrew is condemned on the grounds that he is The Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and his upperclass way to behave and talk. (saying unbecoming is quite a damnation in upperclass talk, not understood as that by the general public)


He is not in anyway asked by any official institution (police, fbi or whatever there is) to answer to any questions, nor is he under investigation of any sorts.


That means to me, that there is not anything yet to look into from the legal side.



Yes, his friendships, yes his morals are underwhelming; Yes he is stupid and arrogant and his softskills are laking big way in our modern world, where everything is looked at the look of things and jugdmental views and exterior image.


I don't think he did wrong in legal terms; but he failed on soft skills.



So I can see why he has to retire to a private life, but I cannot see why he should be banned from the face of the earth, or in jail or banned by his family etc.




If you would hold a very much know USA public figure to the same standards - he would never have made it into office, and wouldn't be there after his first tweeds!