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

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Oh yeah
Andrew: Hello how r u? You want a picture? First what's your name, how old are you, are you a prostitute, are you being held against your will? I need to know all this beforr I tale a picture with a stranger.

Talk about missing the point!!!!! I give up.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY

If Andrew had sex with my daughter when she was under age he should be prosecuted, says father of Virginia Roberts | Daily Mail Online

Well... Depending on her age for things, Virginia Roberts may not have been under the age of consent at the time.

She claims she was forced by Epstein to have sex with Andrew in London, New York, and the Caribbean. The legal age of consent in the UK is 16, in New York it's 17, and in the Caribbean it varies but is predominantly 16.

Virginia Roberts is claiming she was 17 when she met Andrew. That means that if she did have sex with him in London or New York it was after she had reached the age of consent in those places. And unless she means the Dominican Republic by the Caribbean, she was also of the age of consent when she had sex with him in the Caribbean (if she did actually have sex with him).

Now, furthering this she is claiming that Epstein forced her to have sex with Andrew, and that she was forced to have sex with Andrew at an orgy... She's not necessarily claiming that Andrew himself forced her to have sex with him. While it is undeniable that if any of the sex did actually happen then Virginia Roberts was raped, I would argue that it's not as clear cut that Andrew is himself a rapist. I would think that a person at an orgy would assume that all the participants there are willing participants. I also wouldn't be surprised if the other times Andrew (allegedly) had sex with Virgina Roberts he was unaware that she was doing so because Epstein forced her. Sure if he did actually have sex with her he can be criticized for not actually asking her if she wanted to have sex with him, but if she didn't tell him no or do anything to make him aware that she didn't want to have sex with him then he can't exactly be accused of raping her. That's not to say she wasn't raped, but to say that if Andrew did have sex with her then it wasn't actually rape on his part because he didn't know she was unwilling.

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by Ish

Well... Depending on her age for things, Virginia Roberts may not have been under the age of consent at the time.

She claims she was forced by Epstein to have sex with Andrew in London, New York, and the Caribbean. The legal age of consent in the UK is 16, in New York it's 17, and in the Caribbean it varies but is predominantly 16.

Virginia Roberts is claiming she was 17 when she met Andrew. That means that if she did have sex with him in London or New York it was after she had reached the age of consent in those places. And unless she means the Dominican Republic by the Caribbean, she was also of the age of consent when she had sex with him in the Caribbean (if she did actually have sex with him).

Now, furthering this she is claiming that Epstein forced her to have sex with Andrew, and that she was forced to have sex with Andrew at an orgy... She's not necessarily claiming that Andrew himself forced her to have sex with him. While it is undeniable that if any of the sex did actually happen then Virginia Roberts was raped, I would argue that it's not as clear cut that Andrew is himself a rapist. I would think that a person at an orgy would assume that all the participants there are willing participants. I also wouldn't be surprised if the other times Andrew (allegedly) had sex with Virgina Roberts he was unaware that she was doing so because Epstein forced her. Sure if he did actually have sex with her he can be criticized for not actually asking her if she wanted to have sex with him, but if she didn't tell him no or do anything to make him aware that she didn't want to have sex with him then he can't exactly be accused of raping her. That's not to say she wasn't raped, but to say that if Andrew did have sex with her then it wasn't actually rape on his part because he didn't know she was unwilling.

You're right - regardless of whether Virginia is telling the truth, Andrew might not have committed any crimes. However, the age of consent in the U.S.V.I. is 18 - I thought I read Epstein's island was there, but not sure.

[Skippyboo]

The girl's father is saying she met the Queen

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...the-Queen.html

This seems totally unbelievable.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

The girl's father is saying she met the Queen

Prince Andrew ‘sex abuse victim’ Virginia Roberts ‘was introduced to the Queen’ - Telegraph

This seems totally unbelievable.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I don't believe that at all. Either she or the father made that one up out of thin air.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by angela

And where did he think this fan came from? If I was there I would have asked Epstein who she was, anyone would have unless they knew already that she was there for the unsavoury purpose that she was. Epstein was addicted to sex with young girls and as a close friend of his I find it impossible to believe that PA wouldn't have known that he was at least strongly interested in them. This Babes in the Wood attitude that some people attribute to PA is absurd and doesn't reflect the fact that even if he was naive and unsuspecting at the time he stood by his depraved pal after he had served time in jail and that is something that he can't wriggle out of. I feel so sorry for the Queen, she is almost 90 years old and must be weary with the troubles that her favourite son and his ex-wife keep bringing to her door.

People who have sexual preferences outside of the norm can be very good at keeping that a secret, if they so wish. They know that their sexual desires aren't likely to be accepted by others and as such don't necessarily tell people who they think/know won't accept it.

You might have an idea of what your good friends who are openly in relationships are interested in when it comes to the opposite sex, but it's very likely that you don't actually know just what kind of sex they engage in. It's also likely that if your good friends are perpetually single then you don't actually have any idea as to what their sexual preferences are unless they've told you. I have a couple of friends who have alternative sexual preferences, but who aren't open about it with the vast majority of the people in their lives because they know that the vast majority of people wouldn't be accepting. They're not interested in being a champion of their cause, so they keep that private.

I fully believe that Andrew didn't know that Epstein was engaging in sexual behaviour with minors. I have no problem believing that Andrew may have been aware that Epstein was attracted to young women, but didn't realize that young women included girls who are not of the age of consent. I don't think Andrew should be criticized in any way for his choice to be friends with Epstein before his behaviour came into public light - even then, I think he should be given a pass for choosing to support his friend up until his conviction, because however much it might have been clear after a point that Epstein was probably guilty, the adage of innocent until proven guilty does still stand. I do think Andrew made a bad decision in choosing to get involved in Epstein's defence, and in choosing to continue to remain connected with him after Epstein's conviction. Even for a person who is not in a position comparable to Andrew's, maintaining a connection with a convicted sex offender isn't exactly advisable, regardless of whether or not you condone such behaviour.

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

You're right - regardless of whether Virginia is telling the truth, Andrew might not have committed any crimes. However, the age of consent in the U.S.V.I. is 18 - I thought I read Epstein's island was there, but not sure.

Epstein's island is in the U.S.V.I., so if that's what they mean by the Caribbean then Andrew committed a no-no (although, one could argue that a man from Britain who had had sex with a woman in London and New York, where it was legal since she was of the age of consent, didn't realize that he couldn't have sex with her in the U.S.V.I. since she wasn't of the age of consent there).

The article from the DM doesn't specify where in the Caribbean the sex is alleged to have taken place, although Epstein's island might seem like the most likely place. That said, the only place in the Caribbean islands where the Virginia Roberts wouldn't have been of the age of consent is the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and the U.S.V.I., so it is entirely possible that the alleged sex occurred in a place where Virginia Roberts was of age (especially since 8 of the states in the Caribbean Islands are Commonwealth realms and 5 are British overseas territories, giving Andrew as much reason to be in any of them as in Epstein's private Island or New York).

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Princess of Durham

Epstein could very easily have introduced her a helper of some sort in his household. I DO understand what the law says, HOWEVER, the girls apparently were not attempting to get away, flee, run away from the situation. Let's call a spade a spade here, these were most likely young girls who thought they were having a roaring great time flying on jets and going to THE Caribbean to palatial homes and even to London. Having said that DOES NOT mean I condone any of this but just because the law says that underage sexual relations is rape we all know that it can be completely consensual. Has anyone tried to bring the parents of any of these girls up for some kind of charges? It seems to me that they might be as liable on prostitution charges ..... THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I CONDONE EPSTEIN .....

Posts like this are convincing me that Andrew is probably not guilty, and that the case was designed (by accusing non-parties) to make people look bad without any substantiation: Jackleg lawyering, (im)pure and simple

I think Prince Andrew made a huge mistake in his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, which will now haunt him. However, the press is also sensationalizing this story with suggestive headlines (eg. "Andrew: I did not have sexual relations with that girl"). It's unfair to Andrew, a blow to the monarchy, and a sad example of tabloid journalism. I hope this story dies down soon and Andrew is allowed to carry on with his work for youth and entrepreneurs...but unfortunately I don't think he will be.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Friend mays not know the whole truth about their friends.I watch documentaries on serial killers and there are hundreds of cases where friends never knew their associate was a killer. It goes even deeper with spouse and even parents never figuring it out. These people are very good at lying and compartmentalizing. Andrew may not have known bacl.when this was going on. When he was charged he perhaps wanted to believe in his friends innocence. I do not know when if ever this friendship ended. I do not think it was a good idea to remain friends after he was convicted ane sent to jail, but there is a small SMALL part of me that admires him for not dropping his friend when things got rough....but the bigger part says "but it's statutory rape, and sex slavery; quite indefensible".

[ZaJa]

Originally Posted by angela

He's guilty of, at least, remaining friends with a man who raped children for that is what the law recognises sex with underage girls to be. That IS proven and that alone is enough to call the man a disgrace in most peoples opinion.

Agree. Most people hanging out with sex offenders would show poorly on them. It doesn't even have anything to do with royalty. It's just something someone with common sense would not do. I hope he is innocent of the charges but maybe he could learn to pick friends better.

[yvr girl]

The claim that this young women met the Queen gives me great doubts about her whole story. Actual girlfriends of British princes don't meet the Queen that quickly. There is no way that Prince Andrew would introduce a random sex partner to her.

This is a family where her children make appointments to visit her. Andrew did not take this girl to meet mummy.

[Eden]

Andrew is guilty by association. How can a father of two daughters not question why young girls are hired to travel the world to give 'massages' to friends and colleagues of Epstein? If a friend of mine had such an arrangement I would question it. Whether he slept with this or other young girls is irrelevant, he is guilty of complacency, guilty of shutting his mouth and agreeing to this type of 'massage'!!
As for the parents of these young girls, where were they! For crying out loud when grown men want to take my young daughters overseas to provide massages!! I would be concerned! At 17 years old my daughter is not qualified enough to be considered for such a job AND what would groups of men want with my 17 year old daughter?
Too much of look-the-other-way and pretend nothing is happening. Andrew should be ashamed, having sex with her or any other girl or not, he is a guilty man! How on earth can you not know?!


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

[USAPolitics]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

The girl's father is saying she met the Queen

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...the-Queen.html

This seems totally unbelievable.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Sounds like a happy strung fan to me, as the photo might suggest as well.

Come on guys, these are baseless claims that are so astronomically worst than befriending someone who was convicted of a crime. Yes he was a convicted sex offender, but we have no true idea of the nature of the relationship. More often than not, friends are going to believe what their friend tells them. He could have told Prince Andrew some entirely other story or reasoning behind his conviction. Or God for sake he told Prince Andrew that he was seeking help and getting better, and Andrew decided to stick behind a friend and help him in the endeavor. Regardless, these are all just ideas we are coming up with. We don't know. So we honestly shouldn't compare his foolishness in befriending a criminal to he possibly having sex with a minor. Not one in the same at all. Having a friend who gets convicted of a crime doesn't ruin your life. Nor should it make you victim or suspect to such actions. But if any man is even accused of any sexual inappropriateness will in fact, likely, ruin or cause much damage to a man's reputation and life.

Those two conversations should be kept separate.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

You're right - regardless of whether Virginia is telling the truth, Andrew might not have committed any crimes. However, the age of consent in the U.S.V.I. is 18 - I thought I read Epstein's island was there, but not sure.

Is now - but it was only raised from 16 - 17 in 2002 and then to 18 some time after that http://stcroixsource.com/content/new...w-uniform-code is reporting that the age of consent was about to be raised to 17 from 16 and this dates to 2002.

The allegations relate to 1999 - 2002 meaning it would have been legal everywhere she alleges it happens - disgusting but still legal.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Andrew back to face the music: Prince flies home from skiing holiday amid growing crisis over claims he had sex with under-age girl | Daily Mail Online

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Is now - but it was only raised from 16 - 17 in 2002 and then to 18 some time after that http://stcroixsource.com/content/new...w-uniform-code is reporting that the age of consent was about to be raised to 17 from 16 and this dates to 2002.

The allegations relate to 1999 - 2002 meaning it would have been legal everywhere she alleges it happens - disgusting but still legal.

Okay, so Andrew is NOT a criminal, no matter what else you might think of him - UNLESS transporting her across state lines, i.e., a minor out of Florida is problematic (which it is, I think, and as it was done more than twice, it's a RICO under Federal law), but it looks like from the deal struck by Epstein, any "co-conspirator" is immune from suit in the U.S. (Taking her allegations as true, of course, and I'm not sure they are, or aren't)

I think 2015 will be a tough year for the BRF.

[Elenath]

As far as I can tell the only thing PA is guilty of is bad taste in friends and being naive. I wouldn’t be surprised if he thought Epstein wasn’t really that guilty of the charges and that is why they’re still friends. I guess that’s over now.

[Ceallach]

To me Epstein's Caribbean getaway would be similar to Branson's with staff including masseuses at his paid and unpaid guests beck and call. Andrew could have thought this staffer was into him and is dumb enough to not realize she was being paid to do sleep with him. She also could be making it all up and had just posed for a picture with a prince. She took money for sex, was flown around the world, and was probably of age. For whatever reason she may be trying to rewrite her past. Or she could have been seduced into this situation by Epstein.

I don't expect it to go anywhere since Epstein was also close to many bigger power players: Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, John Kerry, Donald Trump, Henry Kissinger, bankers, CEOs, billionaires, etc. I think for the moment bigger fish including the media are using Prince Andrew as a distraction from the real power players and the Queen should be livid.

The Talented Mr. Epstein | Vanity Fair

Partying till dawn. Propping up the bar with Richard Branson. And only £280,000 a week! A new documentary reveals how the other half holiday on Necker | Daily Mail Online

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I feel so sorry for The Queen.

It was all going so well for the Royal family - Telegraph

In September, the Queen is due to overtake her great-great grandmother’s all-comers record of 63 years and 15 days on the throne. She is held in greater love, admiration and respect even than Victoria was.

And yet, barely five days into the new year, the Republican cause, after a long series of well-deserved setbacks, is celebrating its best week of the 21st century. A lot has changed, not for the Queen herself, but for the Royal family. It is back in trouble, having suffered two setbacks that do not bode well for the future.

The first of these concerns the Prince of Wales. Clarence House had been co-operating with Panorama – the BBC current affairs programme that notoriously interviewed Diana, Princess of Wales not long before she died – for a film called Reinventing the Royals.

Be that as it may, Clarence House exponentially increased the film’s impact by attempting to block it. James Harding, the BBC head of news, has cravenly given in and postponed the screening of the film. The broadcaster cites Clarence House’s failure to hand over archive footage, but surely it has plenty of its own?
This episode raises fresh questions about the Prince of Wales’s judgment. However, it has been overshadowed by the spectacular allegations, made to an American court, that the Duke of York was involved in some kind of sexual relationship with an under-age girl who, according to accounts, was being used as a “sex slave” by an American billionaire called Jeffrey Epstein.

The Queen has been through so much and served her country with such exemplary selflessness and devotion. At the age of 88, she, of all people, is entitled to take it easy. Instead, the arrogance and foolishness of her children has thrown the Royal family back into crisis.
To adapt Harold Wilson, a week is a long time in royalty, and the Republicans are rubbing their hands in glee.

[tommy100]

Originally Posted by yvr girl

The claim that this young women met the Queen gives me great doubts about her whole story. Actual girlfriends of British princes don't meet the Queen that quickly. There is no way that Prince Andrew would introduce a random sex partner to her.

This is a family where her children make appointments to visit her. Andrew did not take this girl to meet mummy.

On first reading it I felt the same but then I read in the telegraph that Epstein himself was at Windsor castle for the queens birthday. Of course IF the girl was invited it wouldn't have been as Andrew's "girlfriend" or indeed as his "sex slave" (imagine that as an introduction to HM!) but tbh I can she that she might of attended a royal event that the queen was at somewhere at some point.

[Curryong]

How do we know that Andrew felt that Epstein was correctly sentenced by the courts or that he was helping him withstand any temptation? Andrew is a man of appalling judgement who had sex with a teenage girl, according to her in three different locales. It appears to me that far from disapproving of his friend's conduct Andrew enjoyed attending his parties and the attentions of at least one girl who was supplied by him.

If Andrew was a Christian in the true sense of the word he would stay away from sleazy situations and females young enough to be his daughters.