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

[Alison H]

It's happened with a number of well-known people. In 2014, Cliff Richard, of all people, was the object of abuse allegations, which turned out to be false. The BBC later apologised for their coverage of what had happened.


I'm not saying that the allegations about Prince Andrew are false. I wasn't there: I have no idea what, if anything, took place. But, as it stands, all he's actually known to be guilty of is having bad taste in friends.


It's a difficult situation. I can quite see that the Grenadier Guards are uncomfortable about being associated with Prince Andrew under the circumstances. There are umpteen examples of actors being removed from films or TV series due to unproven allegations, and sports players being dropped by sponsors under similar circumstances. But it's quite dangerous to do that when someone has not actually been convicted of anything.

[Osipi]

Thanks everyone that posted sources about the Queen financing Andrew's legal team.

About the Grenadiers, I know it means a lot to Andrew to have that position and right now, without being deemed guilty of a criminal act, I don't think it's the right time to strip Andrew of anything at all. Being put out to pasture and out of the public spotlight is probably hard on Andrew and that's why we only see him "spotted" driving or riding a horse. Laying low is a good idea for him right now and he seems to be keeping his mouth shut also. Things are going to probably ramp up as we near the time for Maxwell's criminal trial.

Actions do beget reactions and the biggest mistake Andrew's made so far is his friendship with Epstein and then vehemently defending that friendship. That's not criminal. What will happen with Guiffre's civil suit remains to be seen. Makes for interesting times though following all this.

[Kataryn]

For me the point where I am frowning very much about the prince's acquaintance with Jeffrey Epstein is not the fact of what the prince has or hasn't done but that he obviously for quite some time enjoyed staying within Epstein's circle of friends. There was no need for that and the more we hear about the "girls of the massage parlour" that Epstein loved and Ms. Maxwell procured, no matter how innocent it was when it came to sexual intercourses, the more I feel Andrew should have recognized the unhealthy atmosphere around Epstein.

[Silverpot]

Is Andrew the only person Guiffre is accusing?

I find it odd that no one else is facing prosecution or are in any other way being outed.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Alison H

It's happened with a number of well-known people. In 2014, Cliff Richard, of all people, was the object of abuse allegations, which turned out to be false. The BBC later apologised for their coverage of what had happened.


I'm not saying that the allegations about Prince Andrew are false. I wasn't there: I have no idea what, if anything, took place. But, as it stands, all he's actually known to be guilty of is having bad taste in friends.


It's a difficult situation. I can quite see that the Grenadier Guards are uncomfortable about being associated with Prince Andrew under the circumstances. There are umpteen examples of actors being removed from films or TV series due to unproven allegations, and sports players being dropped by sponsors under similar circumstances. But it's quite dangerous to do that when someone has not actually been convicted of anything.

Criminality aside, the regiment perhaps feel that Andrew's conduct in being close to Epstein and then saying he still feels no regret about it makes him too shameful a figure to be their Colonel in Chief and who could blame them for that?

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by sophie25

Criminality aside, the regiment perhaps feel that Andrew's conduct in being close to Epstein and then saying he still feels no regret about it makes him too shameful a figure to be their Colonel in Chief and who could blame them for that?

The UK military does have its ethics as far as an officers conduct. We hear often of "conduct unbecoming an officer". A good definition of this would be "Conduct unbecoming refers to the conduct on the part of a certified professional that is contrary to the public interests, or which harms his/her standing of the profession in the eyes of the public."

[Tatiana Maria]

Weren't all of the honorary military positions held by the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duke of Sussex returned to the Crown after those princes retired or stepped back as working members of the Royal Family? Unless there was previously a long tradition of retired princes(ses) retaining their honorary military positions, it would appear the general policy is that the positions are relinquished upon a royal's withdrawal from official duties, and the Duke of York is the exception to the rule.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Alison H

It's happened with a number of well-known people. In 2014, Cliff Richard, of all people, was the object of abuse allegations, which turned out to be false. The BBC later apologised for their coverage of what had happened.


I'm not saying that the allegations about Prince Andrew are false. I wasn't there: I have no idea what, if anything, took place. But, as it stands, all he's actually known to be guilty of is having bad taste in friends.


It's a difficult situation. I can quite see that the Grenadier Guards are uncomfortable about being associated with Prince Andrew under the circumstances. There are umpteen examples of actors being removed from films or TV series due to unproven allegations, and sports players being dropped by sponsors under similar circumstances. But it's quite dangerous to do that when someone has not actually been convicted of anything.

My understanding from the press reports is that the Grenadiers' concern is not so much that Andrew might be guilty of the charges or being associated with him, but rather that, as of today, he is prevented from performing the public ceremonial duties of the colonel. As one guard put it in the press, what is the point of having a colonel who can't do his job?

[Duc_et_Pair]

I have no problem with the Duke losing his positions but only after a correct procedure. The examples of Cliff Richard and others have been named in this thread: totally burned down by media and public, in the end all based on fantasies.

If the Duke is guilty to crimes or misdemeanours and ending his military positions is a fair step: go ahead. But every person needs a fair chance, also Prince Andrew.

[camelot23ca]

Originally Posted by Osipi

The UK military does have its ethics as far as an officers conduct. We hear often of "conduct unbecoming an officer". A good definition of this would be "Conduct unbecoming refers to the conduct on the part of a certified professional that is contrary to the public interests, or which harms his/her standing of the profession in the eyes of the public."

The pertinent question for me is how an officer of similar rank would be treated under the same circumstances. I say similar, not equal, because Andrew’s ceremonial role isn’t the same as the role of a regular high ranking officer, but there are still some parallels that can be drawn.

Here in Canada two consecutive chiefs of the defence staff have been recently investigated for allegations of sexual misconduct. There was an announcement this month that the investigation of the second case was concluded, and there would be no criminal charges, however the government has decided that the man will remain on leave until further notice, even though the officer in question wants his old position back.

Another high ranking officer - I believe he was the second or third in command of the military - resigned his post after it emerged that he played a game of golf with one of the men being investigated (while the investigation was ongoing).

It’s understandable that some in the British forces are upset that Andrew continues to represent them. However they feel about Andrew’s association with Epstein, they know the standards of behaviour servicemen and women are expected to observe in all areas of their lives, and they probably also know that if a regular colonel were in the same situation, he or she would be lucky to still have a job.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by camelot23ca

The pertinent question for me is how an officer of similar rank would be treated under the same circumstances. I say similar, not equal, because Andrew’s ceremonial role isn’t the same as the role of a regular high ranking officer, but there are still some parallels that can be drawn.

Here in Canada two consecutive chiefs of the defence staff have been recently investigated for allegations of sexual misconduct. There was an announcement this month that the investigation of the second case was concluded, and there would be no criminal charges, however the government has decided that the man will remain on leave until further notice, even though the officer in question wants his old position back.

Another high ranking officer - I believe he was the second or third in command of the military - resigned his post after it emerged that he played a game of golf with one of the men being investigated (while the investigation was ongoing).

It’s understandable that some in the British forces are upset that Andrew continues to represent them. However they feel about Andrew’s association with Epstein, they know the standards of behaviour servicemen and women are expected to observe in all areas of their lives, and they probably also know that if a regular colonel were in the same situation, he or she would be lucky to still have a job.

As the situation is at present: an American lady has filed a civil case claiming "assault" by the Duke. This has been categorically denied by Prince Andrew. No more, no less. This seems not enough for dismissal from military ranks, not for a Corporal Jim Jones and also not for a Colonel Andrew of York.

[rchainho]

Prince Andrew reckons the rape allegations will "pass" so he can attend his mother's government anniversary

https://www.avisen.dk/skandale-prins...ck_660680.aspx

[Lucy Scot]

Prince Andrew is served with legal papers at his home in Britain and sued for sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts, who claims she was forced to have sex with him as a teen

Prince Andrew has been served at his home in Britain with the paperwork for the bombshell lawsuit from his accuser who sued him in a US court.

According to a document filed on Friday, an affidavit of service was served at the Duke of York's home in Windsor, England on August 27.

Service of the papers starts the clock ticking for Andrew to respond or face a default judgement.

Normally defendants have 21 days to respond but a judge may extend that given that the Duke is not in the US.

Roberts last month accused Andrew in a federal court in New York of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The lawsuit claims she was forced to have sex with Andrew three times on the orders of late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Complete article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...a-Giuffre.html

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Lucy Scot

Prince Andrew is served with legal papers at his home in Britain and sued for sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts, who claims she was forced to have sex with him as a teen

Prince Andrew has been served at his home in Britain with the paperwork for the bombshell lawsuit from his accuser who sued him in a US court.

According to a document filed on Friday, an affidavit of service was served at the Duke of York's home in Windsor, England on August 27.

Service of the papers starts the clock ticking for Andrew to respond or face a default judgement.

Normally defendants have 21 days to respond but a judge may extend that given that the Duke is not in the US.

Roberts last month accused Andrew in a federal court in New York of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The lawsuit claims she was forced to have sex with Andrew three times on the orders of late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Complete article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...a-Giuffre.html

I wonder if there was a blunder of some kind and the police officers who took the documents and passed them to Andrew did so in error. I can't see it being anything else as the staff on duty the first time around knew definitely not to accept them.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Lucy Scot

The lawsuit claims she was forced to have sex with Andrew three times on the orders of late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

I think the conundrum here is that Ms. Giuffre has the burden on her side of *proving* that Andrew knew she was being forced by Epstein and mistreated her anyways. Ms. Giuffre, to me, stands a better chance of a cash settlement suing Epstein's estate rather than Prince Andrew. As has been mentioned before, Ms. Giuffre has been on record saying that Andrew was "nice" to her. Now that's changed to abuse?

There is no way of knowing exactly how Andrew treated her at any time unless there's a video tape somewhere that can be used as evidence. I think if there actually was a tape and Andrew knew there was a tape, he'd have settled with Ms. Giuffre a long time ago.

This will be an interesting case to watch.

[Leopoldine]

I read that the next step is for a US judge to determine if the service of the legal papers to Andrew's police guard is legally recognized as Andrew being served.

[Alison H]

I don't know about the US rules. The rules here are complicated - isn't everything?! Some papers have to be served directly to the named person, whereas others can just be left at the address or with anyone who answers the door at that address. But usually they'd have to be given directly to the named person.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Lucy Scot

Prince Andrew is served with legal papers at his home in Britain and sued for sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts, who claims she was forced to have sex with him as a teen

Prince Andrew has been served at his home in Britain with the paperwork for the bombshell lawsuit from his accuser who sued him in a US court.

According to a document filed on Friday, an affidavit of service was served at the Duke of York's home in Windsor, England on August 27.

Service of the papers starts the clock ticking for Andrew to respond or face a default judgement.

Normally defendants have 21 days to respond but a judge may extend that given that the Duke is not in the US.

Roberts last month accused Andrew in a federal court in New York of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The lawsuit claims she was forced to have sex with Andrew three times on the orders of late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Complete article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...a-Giuffre.html

My understanding from the press reports is that Prince Andrew's legal team denies that their client has been legally served.

[sophie25]

I really think the time has come for him to meet this head on. The silence and the hiding away from being served the papers were/are damaging and if his team were to get into a legal wrangle as to whether they have been properly served or not I think it would just be another terribly evasive and guilty look from him. One has got to wonder if his lawyers are too frightened of what further damage he could do if he spoke out again after that catastrophic Newsnight interview but this constant ducking and diving has got to stop at some point. I've no doubt he's convinced himself that if he ignores this it will go away and perhaps even the Queen is advising him to take that route as it's served her so well over the years but it would be a major miscalculation IMO.

[Osipi]

One thing for sure is that if Andrew does decide to face this head on, any talking to the press or the public should be done by his legal team and *not* himself.

I think Andrew is finding out that this isn't going to go away anytime soon. The sooner it's resolved, the better.