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

[Princess of Durham]

I know it has to do with nothing and is OT, but after reading the DM interview I just have to ask the question ... Where was this girl' s mother when all this was going on??? I guess it was all fine then with the money coming in!


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

[Meadow]

The girl claims she slept with Andrew actually she was forced and told to do whatever he demanded and she and her lawyer also claim Andrew lobbied to get Epstein a reduced sentence. So Andrew needs to be careful if he does come out and deny it. If he did lobby then he is an even bigger idiot because that is basically supporting a man convicted of sexual slavery. There will be something in writing somewhere and if her team finds it then it's going to make Andrew look even worse and her claims will hold more weight. I think Andrew has really done it this time because he will never face any sort of court unless he brings action himself which I don't see him doing. Even if he denies it how many people will believe him? She is going through with this and he and Epstein could be next on the list for a lawsuit. I think Andrew will find it very hard to come out of this underage sex, slavery and prostitution make great headlines and mud sticks. He has no one to blame but himself I seem to remember the press making a big deal about his relationship with Epstein but Andrew ignored them and kept being friends and even got papped with him. Andrew has bad judgement that doesn't make him guilty it just makes him arrogant and stupid not that the press will care.

[Mermaid1962]

It'll be interesting to see what happens with his upcoming engagements. Will he soldier on as though nothing has happened? Will he take an opportunity to address the allegations? Will he cancel anything?...

[MARG]

Originally Posted by USAPolitics

If it isn't true, and I'd like to think we all want it not to be because if so then a horrible immoral act occurred, then all it would take for me and perhaps Prince Andrew's image is something a bit more than a statement from the Buckingham Palace.

How about a sit down interview or video message from the Duke of York himself categorically denying the allegations. Look everyone into our eyes and tell us they aren't true, show us your character and how you are against any type of sexual abuse or slavery. Use it as an opportunity to bring up the issue of sex slavery, which I dont believe too political for a member of the royal family. And lastly, a sincere apology for the lack of judgment in befriending man. He should admit wrong, apologize, learn from the situation and move on. If he gives us that much, were good. If just a word from the palace, I'm honestly not sure you take the matter of sexual abuse and slavery seriously enough.

Just as a point of interest, why is all this a civil and not a criminal case. Why are the police not interested in laying fresh charges on Epstien and Prince Andrew for that matter. Could it possibly be because this is all about money and how to screw it out of politically "vulnerable" wealthy VIP's. the Duke of York's purported social media savvy and online presence, I don't think a video message or interview should be unthinkable. Who's running the palace PR machine these days anyway.

I guess Prince Charles is going to make a public apology for he and his then wife, Diana, socialising and calling Jimmy Saville 'friend' because we all now know he was a paedophile . . . they should have known.

And, of course, HM and Prince Philip should apologise for having a 'friendly' acquaintence called Rolf, who got invited to the palace and was even allowed to do one of his unique paintings of her . . . they should have known.

When there is any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Prince Andrew then, and only then, am I interested in his doing a mea culpa.

This whole situations stinks like 5 day old fish. People demanding he go on TV baring his soul, on this forum demanding that the BRF cut him loose, that he and the girls should become outcast in their own family to appease people who know very little, have proof of nothing and couldn't give a damn about the possiblility of his innocence.

The BRF have been in this situation a couple of times before. It did not end well in either case.

[sndral]

Here is what I have gleaned from reading the articles about the case.
In 2006, the FBI began investigating allegations that Epstein was engaging in sex and or molesting underage girls - total number of victims perhaps 40. Ages of victims 13 and up. I don't know but would guess that the federal prosecutors were considering proceeding criminally against Epstein pursuant to the Mann Act which makes it a crime to transport a minor interstate or in foreign commerce for purpose of prostitution or sexual activity. For purposes of the Mann Act a minor is defined as anyone under age 18 (42 U.S.C 2423.)
Epstein's high powered lawyers negotiated a deal with federal prosecutors where Epstein pled in state court to violating a Florida State crime and served time for it and was required to register as a sex offender in Florida and the Feds agreed not to prosecute Epstein or any co-conspirators under federal law.
During the investigation of the case an Epstein employee stated that Prince Andrew had been present at an Epstein pool party with naked underage girls.
24 victims filed civil suits against Epstein, most if not all have been settled by him for undisclosed amounts.
Two of his victims aged 13 & 14 at the time of the offenses have filed suit against the federal prosecutors under the Crime Victims Rights Act to have the plea negated because they were not informed that the Feds were negotiating a plea bargain. Their goal is for the Feds to prosecute Epstein once the plea deal is thrown out. Two additional victims aged 15 and 16 at the time of the offenses are trying to join that lawsuit against the Feds seeking to negate the sweetheart deal Epstein got. It's one of the potential joining victims who made the allegations about sex with Andrew.
Part of the allegations are that Epstein used his wealth and influence to achieve the deal. The former Federal Attorney who's office negotiated the deal now says if they'd known the testimonial and physical evidence which emerged in the civil suits against Epstein the office might not have cut the deal.
It is the first suit of it's kind and I wouldn't be surprised if it reached the U.S. Supreme Court - they've issued some astounding decisions in the last couple of years about plea bargaining in criminal cases, but not anything relating to victim's and their rights in plea bargaining. Even if the victims win this case they can't force the federal prosecutors to prosecute Epstein.
Against that background what does that say about Andrew? We know Andrew was good friends with this man and that even after the conviction Andrew solicited money from him to help pay off Sarah's debts. We have the photo of Andrew posing with the 17 year old with his hand on her bare waist. We have Epsteins employee's statement about Andrew and the naked pool parties, we have 3 girls who took the 5th when asked about Andrew, and now we have Jane Doe #3 claiming she had sex with Andrew @ age 16 (or maybe 15 - I haven't read which of the new victims is making these allegations.)
My grandmother's saying was where there's smoke there's fire, it's sordid and tawdry and at a minimum Andrew's continued friendship with and soliciting money from a man who pled to molesting/sexually assaulting very young girls after the facts were public knowledge is frankly disgusting, inexcusable, and inexplicable.

[Osipi]

Its quite a conundrum for Andrew I think. If he doesn't speak out for himself, his silence will paint him guilty in a lot people's opinions adding to an already tarnished reputation with the public. If he does speak out, it'll not totally be believed and rank up there with Clinton's "I didn't sleep with that woman" kind of thing.

Unfortunately, now I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop with the ever conniving DM to start making connections between these allegations against Andrew, his closeness to his ex wife and Sarah's involvement in the global Not For Sale cause which speaks out against human slavery. Add that in with the supposition that Epstein helped out paying off Sarah's debts and we have a big, fat ol' stinky kettle of fish.

[Curryong]

Andrew had a really unsavoury reputation even before this. For the sake of the monarchy and his two daughters I really think it's time for him (and Fergie who has been prepared to accept cash for favours in the past) to slither away into private life.

An interview etc would be too little too late. Andrew should never represent his mother the Queen at any public engagement again. As a private citizen he can choose to live his life the way he obviously wants, just not as a senior royal.

[Duke of Marmalade]

updated links
Andrew and the under-age 'sex slave': Duke denies claim in court papers that teen was picked to sleep with him by Robert Maxwell's daughter* | Daily Mail Online
How Prince Andrew enjoyed sensual massages at Jeffrey Epstein's Florida mansion | Daily Mail Online
Woman who accuses Prince Andrew of abusing her says she will 'not be victimised' | Daily Mail Online

[Iluvbertie]

Legally he can't just become a private citizen. He is one of the most senior royals as a Counsellor of State and he will be in that position for at least the next 20 years (until George is 21 in the present reign and the new baby in Charles' reign). So unless The Queen lives for another 21 years he will remain a very senior royal until at least then - one who can sign legislation for instance.


To deprive him of those rights can only happen in one of three ways:


1. change the legislation in the UK on who is eligible to be a CoS


2. remove him from the line of succession, which could take years due to the necessity to do so in the other realms as well, and they haven't all yet past the Succession to the Crown Act


3. he converts to Roman Catholicism taking himself out of the Line of Succession.


It isn't as easy as some people seem to think.


I suspect he will continue working for The Queen and it will basically be forgotten when the next scandal hits - don't forget William and Harry also have some unsavoury friends and relations (Uncle Gary anyone???).

[miss whirley]

I always thought the Queen made a big mistake in 2012 with the Equal Primogeniture legislation. She should have made it for all her descendants retroactively. It wouldn't have changed the main line but it would have helped with her younger children. By then she was well aware of all Andrew's skeletons and his PR ticking time bomb. She could have easily buried him under Anne and Anne's progeny. Instead of all these headlines about the 5th in line being a pervert by proxy, it would say the 11th in line, much further away! I think the public would prefer Anne as Counsellor of the State too.

[carlota]

i haven't really followed this, but i struggle to believe that such behaviour could take place by such a prominent public figure.
but then again, look at cristina and iñaki... who would have known.

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen knew that Anne would have opposed the sudden rise in her position and then there is the question of how far back do you then go?


Better to have it from those yet to be born than to those already born. It may also have had even more trouble getting through all the realms - and it isn't in force yet anyway... so even if that had been The Queen's wish Andrew would still be the 5th as things currently stand and who knows when Australia will bother with it? Could be when the parliaments resume this year or it could be a few years away yet - it isn't all that important as things currently stand as the first time it will take effect is if George's first born child is a girl with a younger brother so around 30 or so year before it is necessary to be considered.


Why should the Harewood's be below the Gloucester's and Kent's (their royal progenitor was Princess Mary who was older then three of her brothers but her descendants are below theirs in the line of succession)?

[Tarlita]

Surely Prince Andrew has always had a protection officer/bodyguard with him. It then should be easy enough to establish his whereabouts at the times these alleged offences took place and for the protection officer to collaborate these times. If he was in the Carribean/NY /London at the same time as this woman says the offences occurred then further investigation would have to take place.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by miss whirley

I always thought the Queen made a big mistake in 2012 with the Equal Primogeniture legislation. She should have made it for all her descendants retroactively.

Although the Queen was probably consulted, it is actually the government, and not the Queen, who drafts and introduces legislation in the UK.

Unlike equal primogeniture, other parts of the Succession to the Crown Act will apply retroactively though. For instance, individuals who were removed from the line of succession for marrying Roman Catholics will have their succession rights restored provided that they have not themselves converted to Roman Catholicism.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

- it isn't all that important as things currently stand as the first time it will take effect is if George's first born child is a girl with a younger brother so around 30 or so year before it is necessary to be considered.

Actually, if the Duchess of Cambridge has a daughter and then subsequently has a younger second son, the new legislation will already produce a change in the line of succession compared to what it would be had it not been passed. The same might apply BTW to possible future children of Harry, Beatrice, Zara, etc.

[Curryong]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Legally he can't just become a private citizen. He is one of the most senior royals as a Counsellor of State and he will be in that position for at least the next 20 years (until George is 21 in the present reign and the new baby in Charles' reign). So unless The Queen lives for another 21 years he will remain a very senior royal until at least then - one who can sign legislation for instance.


To deprive him of those rights can only happen in one of three ways:


1. change the legislation in the UK on who is eligible to be a CoS


2. remove him from the line of succession, which could take years due to the necessity to do so in the other realms as well, and they haven't all yet past the Succession to the Crown Act


3. he converts to Roman Catholicism taking himself out of the Line of Succession.


It isn't as easy as some people seem to think.


I suspect he will continue working for The Queen and it will basically be forgotten when the next scandal hits - don't forget William and Harry also have some unsavoury friends and relations (Uncle Gary anyone???).

Uncle Gary Middleton and people like Guy Pelly aren't the monarch's children and senior royals. There could be a private unofficial agreement within the royal family that Andrew ceases royal duties including those of Counsellor of State. If it's necessary to have legislation to change the way Counsellors of State are chosen, then so be it. It will cause a fuss in the Press, but better that than having this man represent the Queen.

[Lady Nimue]

The power of the accusation. Damned from the first word, without reprieve. Ugly business.

[Curryong]

If Andrew had a squeaky clean reputation, a reputation say like the Duke of Kent, everyone would be astonished by the revelations we're discussing and many would not believe it. However, Andrew is a very different kettle of fish.

He has an enormous amount of baggage, connected with air miles, shady foreign dictators, helping Fergie out with money from his friends, and so on.

Virtually the last time Andrew shed any lustre on the dynasty to which he belongs was on his wedding day. He has been photographed with his hand around a young girl's waist, a girl young enough to be his daughter, at one of Epstein's parties.
He has been seen with Epstein and photographed with him, a man who was convicted of sexual offences and is on the sex offenders register.

I belong to a constitutional monarchy and I don't want a person like Prince Andrew representing my Queen, the Queen of Australia. I'm sorry but I think if Andrew and Fergie disappeared from public view tomorrow they'd be doing the rest of us a giant favour.

[tommy100]

Originally Posted by MARG

I guess Prince Charles is going to make a public apology for he and his then wife, Diana, socialising and calling Jimmy Saville 'friend' because we all now know he was a paedophile . . . they should have known.

And, of course, HM and Prince Philip should apologise for having a 'friendly' acquaintence called Rolf, who got invited to the palace and was even allowed to do one of his unique paintings of her . . . they should have known.

When there is any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Prince Andrew then, and only then, am I interested in his doing a mea culpa.

This whole situations stinks like 5 day old fish. People demanding he go on TV baring his soul, on this forum demanding that the BRF cut him loose, that he and the girls should become outcast in their own family to appease people who know very little, have proof of nothing and couldn't give a damn about the possiblility of his innocence.

The BRF have been in this situation a couple of times before. It did not end well in either case.

The difference in the cases of Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris are that at the time they were known to the Royals mentioned they were not convicted sex offenders and it was not publicly known what they had done! Andrew continued to be friends with Epstein after he had been to prison and registered as a sex offender. No one should have to apologise for something they don't know about but Andrew DID know and carried on as if it didn't matter. To me that wrong. Imagine if the Queen attended a party to celebrate Rolf Harris getting out of prison as its claimed Andrew did for Epstein?!!?!

[Ridderzaal]

Not surprised at all. His philandering stated at a young age and he got away with a lot. He was good looking and a prince and as such felt entitled...
A wicked Windsor and I feel dreadfully sorry for the queen.