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

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Ista

Unfortunately, this is the problem that victims of sexual assault always have, and why it is so risky to come forward at all. As women, or children, their word is very seldom enough to convince some people that they have been assaulted. A powerful man always has more credibility in some people's eyes than any number of women, and men who prey on women and children depend on that to get away with it.

I have no idea what Andrew's involvement with Epstein consisted of, but the fact that he's a member of the BRF doesn't automatically give him a pass, as far as I am concerned, and I am hoping that if he is culpable, he isn't protected from consequences just because he is a royal.

Edited to add:

Just so it is clear where I am coming from, a long time ago I volunteered at a sexual assault crisis center, and have also worked with children who have been sexually assaulted. A recurring theme is the lack of belief they encounter, the questioning of their motives, and the fact that many people seem to have a hard time accepting that the public face a predator shows is not the face that is shown to his victims. "But he seemed like such a nice guy!"

As far as I understood, Epstein was not a man who openly abused underage girls and then laughed about their claims but he was someone who "bought" the girls with all the drapings of wealth and the offer to make their dreams come true. And then checked them up if they were open for more or not. There have been back then young girls who didn't want to sleep for gifts and help and these could go away at will, without having been forced.

Yes, Epstein still commited crimes on paying for favours, as there is a reason why the state protects girl's sexuality when they are under the age of consent. It was still assault and sexual abuse, even if the girls agreed to it because they could not legally consent.


From a lot of accounts we heard that Epstein was not a sleazy and unpleasant man, but had charm and charisma.So when you, as his guest, were meeting such a girl, you'd not necessarily realise what was happening. So you might have slept with one of the (obviously willing) girls or you did not.

As I said before I have yet to see proof that Andrew has been interested in young girls at all. No friend of his daughter's eg related how he tried to get them into his bed, instead he still lives in a house with his Ex, who is older than he.


The whole affair when it comes to the prince is just tabloid fodder at this point and we know how they lie. Plus I can imagine that Ghislaine Maxwell's reputation in the tabloid scene is not good, considering where her money came from. So there is a lot of reasons to be careful with accusations. The accuser Virginia Guiffre has written a book about her time with Epstein and I know what kind of publishers are interested in such books. She mentions some high profile persons and from "mentioning" them to accusing them of sex is not a long way if your whole contract hangs on the question if you have such "headline" information or not. Not that I accuse her of having done this but there are reasons not to trust every word from her when it is not proven. Which, when it comes to Andrew, obviously couldn't be proven 10 years ago.



So I am quite curious what the investigation will bring to light. I don't wonder about what happened in Florida, when I see Brett Kavanaugh as one of the highest judges in the land right now. I can understand why some people still stayed in contact with Epstein after the case was dismissed in that way. I mean, not worse than some Kasach billionaires with maybe blood on their hands - same class of people obviously. I just wonder though if there will be justice for any victim or not.

[Tarlita]

I would have thought that Prince Andrew would have been thoroughly investigated discreetly ten years ago/ or whenever it was that he made the news with Epsteins trial last time.
Enquiries by Buckingham palace at least would have occurred back then about any involvement by the Prince. Surely.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Tarlita

I would have thought that Prince Andrew would have been thoroughly investigated discreetly ten years ago/ or whenever it was that he made the news with Epsteins trial last time.
Enquiries by Buckingham palace at least would have occurred back then about any involvement by the Prince. Surely.

He certainly was and Prince Andrew was found not guilty of being involved with Jeff Epstein's child molesting and offering payment to child of chef in Trump's home in Florida. Reason Epstein hated Trump because he called the Florida police when 14 year old child ran to parent and then Trump. It is public court records. Anyone can look it up and read actual court documents.

[sndral]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

...Which, when it comes to Andrew, obviously couldn't be proven 10 years...

Unfortunately for Andrew, we don’t know that, since Epstein’s Florida plea deal gave protection to all his potential unnamed co-defendants.

Originally Posted by Winnie

He certainly was and Prince Andrew was found not guilty of being involved with Jeff Epstein's child molesting and offering payment to child of chef in Trump's home in Florida. Reason Epstein hated Trump because he called the Florida police when 14 year old child ran to parent and then Trump. It is public court records. Anyone can look it up and read actual court documents.

To be found not guilty there must be a trial, thus Andrew was never found ‘not guilty’ of anything. Can you link or cite the case regarding Andrew & the child of the chef - or am I misunderstanding your sentence?

[irish_royalist]

Whether guilty or innocent, now may be the time for Prince Andrew, with or without Sarah, to withdraw quietly from public life. I can't see Prince Charles, and certainly not Prince William, wanting to be associated with headlines of this sort.

[Dman]

Channel 4 Report on Prince Andrew and Jeffery Epstein-

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KKJdMM...ature=youtu.be

[HereditaryPrincess]

Originally Posted by irish_royalist

Whether guilty or innocent, now may be the time for Prince Andrew, with or without Sarah, to withdraw quietly from public life. I can't see Prince Charles, and certainly not Prince William, wanting to be associated with headlines of this sort.

I agree. Yes, it's a regular event, but appearing so delighted at a church service a day after Epstein committed suicide and leaving Balmoral swiftly for Spain don't do Andrew any favours in clearing his name off this case.

[Osipi]

From watching the video that Dman posted, I've come to the conclusion that we will probably never know the extent of just how much Andrew was involved in any of this or if he's guilty or innocent of wrongdoings in any way, shape or form.

All that's really left now is for the victims to file a civil case against Epstein's estate. At least this way, these girl's stories will be heard in court. Epstein's death has really cast a veil over a lot of things.

Andrew, I believe will be left alone in this. Its kind of like when the Feds are going after a drug cartel, they're going to hunt down and get those that are supplying the drugs and the kingpins of the cartel and not the addict that buys the drug off one of their pushers.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

it is interesting how people see different things in photographs. In the photo of Andrew and The Queen at church, posted in this thread, I don't see either individual looking remotely happy or relaxed. They are smiling in the sense that their mouths are curved upwards in anticipation of being photographed, but the tension is palpable. Her Majesty appears to be bracing for a blow, and Andrew looks like he might be bouncing on his feet about to be delivering bad news if he were standing.

[rob2008]

Andrew has the traditional weaknesses of a prince. He is his mother's favourite child. She recently made him Royal Colonel-in-Chief of the Grenadier Guards, which has special meaning for her because her father gave her this role when she was 16. The role strengthened Princess Elizabeth but weakened her son. After Trooping the Colour he stood as central as possible and next to his mother on the palace balcony to reflect her glory. She gave him the extra honour of GCVO. He mixes with people of dubious character. He constantly disappoints. He ran back up to Balmoral when implicated with Jeffrey and then Jeffrey killed himself. But still the queen protects Andrew and demonstrated her favour publicly by seating him next to her in the limousine on the next day after Jeffrey's death. Andrew will continue to be a challenge and disadvantage to the monarchy. He does not add a net benefit.

[Osipi]

Y'know, rob, each and every example you've given in your post has a different explanation to it besides the one that you happen to see.

a) She recently made him Royal Colonel-in-Chief of the Grenadier Guards

This was explained up in the thread on how royals that have served in the military and are therefore, given promotions every five years. Andrew was *not* made Colonel in Chief of the Grenadier Guards. That position is still held by HM, The Queen.

b) After Trooping the Colour he stood as central as possible and next to his mother on the palace balcony

Simple explanation for this one too. As The Duke of York is the Colonel of the Grenadier Guards and it was *that* regiment that trooped the color in 2019, Andrew was in his rightful place standing alongside his mother, the Colonel in Chief of the Grenadier Guards.

c) She gave him the extra honour of GCVO

Its my understanding that the Queen awards this honor for service to the crown and the monarchy. I'm more apt to believe that the Queen endowed Andrew with the KCVO because of his work as the UK's trade envoy and many other incentives that Andrew has worked on.

Everything else is your personal opinion which, of course you're entitled to. I just wanted to point out a few facts.

[O-H Anglophile]

And to add to Osipi’s facts, Andrew goes to Balmoral every year for Beatrice’s birthday on Aug 8, which was 8 days ago. Seems like coincidence, not cause and effect.

[rob2008]

These have all been carefully orchestrated tactics to protect one of the weakest members of the royal family. Andrew is Colonel of Grenadier Guards and not C-in-C. In 2015 the Welsh Guards trooped yet their Royal Colonel Prince Charles is a few people away from the queen on the balcony scene - he is at the side whilst Andrew stuck to the queen like glue to protect himself.

[Dman]

Despite Epstein’s death, how all of this gonna go down is still up in the air. What’s going on now is just the beginning.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by irish_royalist

Whether guilty or innocent, now may be the time for Prince Andrew, with or without Sarah, to withdraw quietly from public life. I can't see Prince Charles, and certainly not Prince William, wanting to be associated with headlines of this sort.

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess

I agree. Yes, it's a regular event, but appearing so delighted at a church service a day after Epstein committed suicide and leaving Balmoral swiftly for Spain don't do Andrew any favours in clearing his name off this case.

Originally Posted by Osipi

Y'know, rob, each and every example you've given in your post has a different explanation to it besides the one that you happen to see.

a) She recently made him Royal Colonel-in-Chief of the Grenadier Guards

This was explained up in the thread on how royals that have served in the military and are therefore, given promotions every five years. Andrew was *not* made Colonel in Chief of the Grenadier Guards. That position is still held by HM, The Queen.

b) After Trooping the Colour he stood as central as possible and next to his mother on the palace balcony

Simple explanation for this one too. As The Duke of York is the Colonel of the Grenadier Guards and it was *that* regiment that trooped the color in 2019, Andrew was in his rightful place standing alongside his mother, the Colonel in Chief of the Grenadier Guards.

c) She gave him the extra honour of GCVO

Its my understanding that the Queen awards this honor for service to the crown and the monarchy. I'm more apt to believe that the Queen endowed Andrew with the KCVO because of his work as the UK's trade envoy and many other incentives that Andrew has worked on.

Everything else is your personal opinion which, of course you're entitled to. I just wanted to point out a few facts.

I was going to mention these facts but you beat me to it. Well said Osipi.

So Andrew and the Queen smiling on the way to or from Church is a sign of what, guilt, anticipation, relief, skullduggery?

In effect, you demand HM dismiss him from the family regardless of whether he may be guilty or innocent as if that doesn't matter. But you see, Queen Elizabeth II is a stalwart example to the UK and Commonwealth of the importance of integrity, of common decency...

You seem to have no idea what Prince Andrew may have done, and still does for that matter, that might have resulted in the award of the KCVO, and I suspect if you did it would not matter. But in reality, it matters a lot and I am the first to say I am grateful not to be living in a land and under a generation of autocratic despotism.

A land where the people are stripped of their rights, their names defamed, and where a person is no longer innocent until proven guilty but rather guilty until they can prove they are innocent.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by irish_royalist

Whether guilty or innocent, now may be the time for Prince Andrew, with or without Sarah, to withdraw quietly from public life. I can't see Prince Charles, and certainly not Prince William, wanting to be associated with headlines of this sort.

Withdrawing from public life would be an admission of guilt.

If he isn't guilty why withdraw from doing his duty?

Charles has already shown his support for his brother by going to church with him at Balmoral.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by rob2008

These have all been carefully orchestrated tactics to protect one of the weakest members of the royal family. Andrew is Colonel of Grenadier Guards and not C-in-C. In 2015 the Welsh Guards trooped yet their Royal Colonel Prince Charles is a few people away from the queen on the balcony scene - he is at the side whilst Andrew stuck to the queen like glue to protect himself.

In 2015 Prince Philip stood beside the Queen. In 2019 Philip wasn't there so Andrew was front and centre.

Easy to find other explanations if someone wants to do so.

Andrew hasn't been charged with a crime, let alone found guilty of one. The UK, like Australia, believes in one simply principle INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. When Andrew has been charged with an offence and faced a trial and been found guilty then, and only then, should he be regarded as guilty.

I realise that in many countries that concept is foreign and trial by media is proof of guilty but in the UK that isn't the case - especially after all the recent cases where the media were found to be wrong in their reporting of cases e.g. Cliff Richard's and many other men who were persecuted by the media only to be found not guilty in a court of law.

[Curryong]

If Andrew was given the honour of a GCVO it feeds into other controversies as well as the Epstein friendship. Andrew didn't exactly cover himself with glory in his role as trade envoy.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/...e-envoy-palace

[Osipi]

I don't think we'll ever know the specifics of just why the Queen gave Andrew the GCVO. Its the monarch's prerogative and she's not telling. Maybe she just really, really liked Andrew's Mothering Sunday gift that year and that did it. Makes as much sense as a lot of the various reasons presented as to just why Andrew received this honor.

[Madame Verseau]

Looks like the London police will not look as Andrew's conduct in London

https://www.channel4.com/news/exclus...e-andrew-photo

They are not even going to try. Talk about bad optics. It looks like the palace had a word.