The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1981  
Old 08-18-2019, 10:02 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 610
Who knows what kind of video or photos or other kinds of material will turn up in the raids on Epstein's properties, and what is already in the hands of US authorities.

But back to our Royal here, HRH The Duke of York. I think that he will suffer more reputational damage than legal damage.

If he was "involved' with Virginia 3 times as she says, she would have had to have been underage in at least one of the locations for it to be an underage sex crime. If it was a prostitution crime only, pertaining only to Andrew now, it would have to be proved that Andrew knew she was being paid to have sex with him.

This is an opinion coming up here, not fact -- I think the thought of payment never crossed Andrew's mind. He might have seen Jeffrey as a rich guy with pretty young things all buzzing around, and, him being a Prince, might have thought he was a big draw for the girls because he was Prince Andrew. He's not a dummy, but he's used to his name and position opening doors and opening a little more than welcoming arms.



Sarah is not helping with this new business/charity partnership with Tony Robbins, another man caught up in #metoo legal matters.

Eugenie's recent charity headlines involving slave traffic is to be admired, in fact everything about that nice lady is to be admired, but the timing didn't work. These events get planned well in advance so there was no way to foresee Sex Slave headlines involving her dad.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1982  
Old 08-19-2019, 04:51 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 908
Quote:
In a statement released to The Daily Telegraph, a Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “The Duke of York has been appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes. His Royal Highness deplores the exploitation of any human being and the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent.”
I wonder why Prince Andrew wasn't "appalled" when Epstein was convicted of procuring an underage girl for prostitution, sentenced to prison & registered as a sex offender. This statement from Buckingham Palace hasn't helped the situation at all: it just raises more questions about Andrew's continued friendship with a known sex offender.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1983  
Old 08-19-2019, 07:08 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
A couple of questions about these pictures/video of Prince Andrew at Epstein's mansion post the 2008 conviction.
Was he just visiting or was he staying there?
If he was staying there, how long was his stay?
What about his RPOs? Were they with him in the mansion?
What did they see or witness?
Reply With Quote
  #1984  
Old 08-19-2019, 07:38 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,909
Does it matter? Its clear that he did not part ways with Epstein even after he knew what he had been convicted of..
Reply With Quote
  #1985  
Old 08-19-2019, 08:26 AM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,603
What bothers me is BP's statement of Epstein's crimes are alleged. Really?! Talk about tone deaf.
Reply With Quote
  #1986  
Old 08-19-2019, 08:30 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,856
You know, there is no crime in being friends with a convicted sex offender. We might choose not to retain such a friendship, but Prince Andrew is fully within his rights to do so.
That said Andrew should have realised that he as a royal has to think more than once about the consequences of his actions.
Of course partaking in sexual abuse is another matter & should be punished.
Reply With Quote
  #1987  
Old 08-19-2019, 08:47 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
What bothers me is BP's statement of Epstein's crimes are alleged. Really?! Talk about tone deaf.
Its my belief that all crimes are "alleged" until prosecuted and a guilty verdict is reached.

To play the devil's advocate here, from what I've learned, its very possible that even after the sentencing of Epstein, it was made to look like a slap on the wrist like the nuns I had in grade school used to do with a ruler. Epstein agreed to plead guilty in Florida state court to two felony prostitution charges, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution to three dozen victims identified by the FBI. The "sweetheart" deal reached effectively swept a lot of Epstein's criminal offenses under the rug and his "sentence" was pretty cushy to boot. He wasn't treated at all like the criminal he was. I think the Miami Herald got it right on the nose when they call it "perversion of justice".

The Miami Herald is credited with doing some excellent investigative journalism into Epstein's lurid and perverted lifestyle and how he used his money, his status and influence to totally con his way right back into the lifestyle he's always had.

Andrew? This article gives insight into just how much Andrew is "alleged" to have been involved and "taken care of". I still do not see anything "alleged" in relation to Andrew that could result in a criminal offense charge. Stupidity and poor judgment and arrogance that he's "above" such paltry things that ordinary people get in trouble for may be his downfall but you can't cure stupid.

This article is well worth the read and, once again, a well researched and informative piece of investigative journalism.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...219494920.html
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1988  
Old 08-19-2019, 09:02 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,909
Who on earth can think it is appropriate for someone n Andrew's positon to be so "arrogant" and "stupid" that they remain friends with a convicted criminal ? Or for him to have brought this man to Royal households?
Reply With Quote
  #1989  
Old 08-19-2019, 09:09 AM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
You know, there is no crime in being friends with a convicted sex offender. We might choose not to retain such a friendship, but Prince Andrew is fully within his rights to do so.
That said Andrew should have realised that he as a royal has to think more than once about the consequences of his actions.
Of course partaking in sexual abuse is another matter & should be punished.
You are correct. It is not a crime to be best buddies with a pedophile. That is Andrew's right. It is also mine to not think very highly of him and believe if that is the company he seeks than that says a lot about who he is a person.

The palace can say whatever they want but this statement was weak and I don't believe for a second that he didn't know what was going on with his good pal. So whatever Andrew. I hope more videos pop up that are just as "appalling" to him.
Reply With Quote
  #1990  
Old 08-19-2019, 09:13 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Who on earth can think it is appropriate for someone n Andrew's positon to be so "arrogant" and "stupid" that they remain friends with a convicted criminal ? Or for him to have brought this man to Royal households?
I didn't say it was appropriate nor did I say it was a wise move, but it's not against the law. There's also the fact that, although there's a lot to be said about the plea verdict, Epstein did live up to the termd of the deal and as such legally has paid his dues to society.
If members of the Royal family had to cut ties with everyone convicted of crimes professionally and privately they'd have to cut off thousands of people.
I suspect that we won't agree on this, but I'm sure of that we can agree on that Andrew is both stupid and arrogant thinking that this wouldn't blow up in his face and for not considering the effects it would have on his daughters, his parents and the institution they're all part of.
Reply With Quote
  #1991  
Old 08-19-2019, 09:15 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
You know, there is no crime in being friends with a convicted sex offender. We might choose not to retain such a friendship, but Prince Andrew is fully within his rights to do so.
Is he within his rights as a working member of the BRF though? The Queen & her advisers must have demanded he sever all contact with Epstein because there's an abrupt end to the friendship after it became public knowledge in 2011 when the photos of Andrew & Epstein in New York the previous December were published.
Reply With Quote
  #1992  
Old 08-19-2019, 09:20 AM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 2,396
I like (not) how the BP statement shifts the focus on abhorrent behavior over to those who would dare to question Andrew's actions. It's arrogant, and if that is the position that is going to be taken, it might have been better to have said nothing at all. Talk about tone deaf...

Regarding Andrew's choice to continue his friendship with Epstein, there's an old saying: If you lie down with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas. Feeling itchy, Andrew?
Reply With Quote
  #1993  
Old 08-19-2019, 09:26 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
One thing for sure though, given the current situation, one should not expect any Windsor/St George Chapel royal wedding for Beatrice and Eduardo if they were planning anything in the near future. Call it collateral damage. The optic of what many people would certainly qualify as extravagant would surely be disastrous
Reply With Quote
  #1994  
Old 08-19-2019, 09:33 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,187
I don't get it. The one thing has nothing to do with the other. Nor should any Ordinary, Decent, Person think so.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1995  
Old 08-19-2019, 09:41 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ista View Post
I like (not) how the BP statement shifts the focus on abhorrent behavior over to those who would dare to question Andrew's actions. It's arrogant, and if that is the position that is going to be taken, it might have been better to have said nothing at all. Talk about tone deaf...

Regarding Andrew's choice to continue his friendship with Epstein, there's an old saying: If you lie down with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas. Feeling itchy, Andrew?
Whoever wrote the statement clearly aren't used to doing so. The choice of words implies to the reader that Andrew is more upset by the media falsely implicating him than the crimes of Epstein. I have a feeling that people are panicking at the Royal Lodge at the moment and sooner or later someone will jump ship.
Reply With Quote
  #1996  
Old 08-19-2019, 09:45 AM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,769
I am sure they are panicking. The fact this video was released just told the palace that there could be potential evidence of other interactions. Someone sat on this video for 9 years. Why? I would be nervous too. Also what else outside of this incident could people have. Has Pandora's box been opened?
Reply With Quote
  #1997  
Old 08-19-2019, 10:33 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,463
I don't want to speculate without facts. We only have some information from serious media. I count the Guardian as one, the Daily Mail, Sun etc. not.
In their 2015 article about Andrew's potential involvement ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-prince-andrew ), the paper looks back at the things that have happened with Epstein.

They said that he had two methods of abusing young girls:

- employ local young and poor girls for sexual massages and probably more in Florida- and
- look for more intelligent and scrupulous girls for co-conspiration (even though they were soon too "old" for himself) and take them with him all over the world to get him younger girls, to give VIPS massages and sex and to be young, but "adult" party decor.

In the Florida trial, Epstein declared himself guilty of the first offense and got free for the second one.



If the Guardian (who is not a normally royal-friendly paper at all!) is right, and if Andrew is as lazy as he is said when it comes to deep research, then there is a good chance he simply believed his "old friend" that he made a mistake in Florida and thought a girl was already 18 when she was just 16 or so... With Sarah cashing in on confirming this opinion. I'm not saying this is what happened, but to me it sounds like it could be an explanation.



I have no doubt that Andrew thought it is normal in the houses of the rich to have hangers-on of all kinds (like potential models for this model agent friend of Epstein, Bunuel) and that whatever happened there was for free: willing girls hoping for career advancement, not being payed for prostitution. He would not encounter this in his mother's household (there the career orientated hanger ons looked different) but surely in many homes of guest-friendly millionaires. And he worked with these people for the sake of the UK, let's not forget that.



The accuseress of the prince was one of the last category, a potential "co-conspirator" who tried to sell herself off as an "innocent victim". We only have her word that she had sex with Andrew. I can imagine her trying to make her own deal with the prosecution and to claim things that need not be true and who was not believed by a judge.


If that is all they have, for me Andrew is still innocent of having sex with minors (as I said before, both he and Charles don't fit the pattern of pedophiles with their older wifes who they chose against the odds) but I can imagine Sarah having taken money to convince Andrew that "good Old Jeff" was just misinformed and used in his great friendlyness for the development of young ladies (He sponsored a state ballet for massages by the ballerinas and payed some young women their college time...) and Andrew being stupid enough to believe her.



IMHO, of course. Let's see if we get new facts, if not, we should give Andrew his well-deserved rest instead of making ugly speculations.
Reply With Quote
  #1998  
Old 08-19-2019, 11:49 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
I wonder why Prince Andrew wasn't "appalled" when Epstein was convicted of procuring an underage girl for prostitution, sentenced to prison & registered as a sex offender. This statement from Buckingham Palace hasn't helped the situation at all: it just raises more questions about Andrew's continued friendship with a known sex offender.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Andrew has denied the criminal accusations against him and I believe him. But if a friend of mine had been convicted of procuring an underage girl for prostitution I'd run from him as fast as I could. Our boy Andrew on the other hand not only continued his friendship with Epstein he was even the guest of honor at a party Epstein hosted after his release from prison.

As far as I'm concerned Andrew still has a lot of explaining to do.
Reply With Quote
  #1999  
Old 08-19-2019, 11:53 AM
Elenath's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
You took the words right out of my mouth.

Andrew has denied the criminal accusations against him and I believe him. But if a friend of mine had been convicted of procuring an underage girl for prostitution I'd run from him as fast as I could. Our boy Andrew on the other hand not only continued his friendship with Epstein he was even the guest of honor at a party Epstein hosted after his release from prison.

As far as I'm concerned Andrew still has a lot of explaining to do.
And this is what makes me question his moral compass and his values. And yes, he has a lot of explaining to do.
Reply With Quote
  #2000  
Old 08-19-2019, 12:06 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: L'angolo, Vatican City
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
You took the words right out of my mouth.

Andrew has denied the criminal accusations against him and I believe him. But if a friend of mine had been convicted of procuring an underage girl for prostitution I'd run from him as fast as I could. Our boy Andrew on the other hand not only continued his friendship with Epstein he was even the guest of honor at a party Epstein hosted after his release from prison.

As far as I'm concerned Andrew still has a lot of explaining to do.
It makes you wonder what will be the next revelation that implicates Andrew further in this sorry business. The palace is not used to going into defensive mode. Andrew is the one whos is careless enough and arrogant enough to get involved in the life of a shady, crooked person; unfortunately for the royals he is also the one most incapable of getting himself out of trouble - hence he is resorting to his mother and the household to protect him. The British monarchy is subject to considerable scrutiny and it is not unlikely that Andrew's conduct will be further questioned and perhaps eventually condemned. He might be sanctioned in some way because the crown must always win.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (4 members and 6 guests)
asm, lilacmermaid, Lilyflo, simon02
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
administrator althorp archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy bangladesh belgian royal family castles chittagong crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria crusades current events cypher denmark diana princess of wales duke of cambridge dutch dutch royal family family search foundation french royalty future future wife of prince hussein germany hamdan bin mohammed hill historical drama house of bourbon house of saxe-coburg and gotha jerusalem jumma king philippe king salman languages lithuanian castles mail memoir monaco history monaco royal monarchist monarchy netflix nobel 2019 official visit palaces potential areas prince charles prince of wales princess benedikte princess margaret qe2 queen mathilde rania of jordan royal children russian imperial family saudi arabia settings south korea spanish history spencer family state visit sweden swedish royal family swedish royalty thai royal family tracts trump united kingdom valois working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:30 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×