The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3221  
Old 11-27-2019, 02:09 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post

It's my understanding the original interview was filmed before Andrew's. I wonder if it has been updated to allow Virginia Giuffre to respond to Andrew's answers.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3222  
Old 11-27-2019, 03:48 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
I realize you might be referring to another poster but just to clarify...I never stated anything of this. I only pointed out that Andrew may have been unaware that the women were victims of sex trafficking, in the sense that they weren't willing participants. I also pointed out that not every powerful man surrounded by young women is a sex trafficker.

And I attributed this to Andrew's cluelessness and obliviousness not naivete.

I could be completely wrong - maybe Andrew did know - but at this point we can't state whether Andrew did or did not know as fact, which is what some posters are doing. We just don't know.

But of course being clueless or oblivious doesn't explain or excuse Andrew's continued friendship with Epstein after his conviction and I've never stated it does.


No, its actually not a fact that Ghislaine Maxwell did this. It's an allegation. I personally believe the allegation is true but that doesn't make it a fact. It has to be proven.

For example, in another post I stated I'm skeptical that Andrew visited Epstein in 2010 to end their friendship. I think it involved the loan Epstein made to Sarah. But that doesn't mean I can state that as a fact. I can say "I think/believe/suspect Andrew visited Epstein to discuss Sarah's loan" but I can't say "Andrew visited Epstein to discuss Sarah's loan." Because I don't know it to be a fact, I'm only speculating.

Yes, Ghislaine Maxwell was Andrew's friend. But I'm skeptical she would have told him she and Epstein were engaged in sex trafficking. I think she's evil but I don't think she's stupid. I suspect that's one of the reasons why Epstein and Ghislaine got away with this so long - I believe both were very clever and manipulative and knew when to keep their mouths shut and when to wear a mask, so to speak.

I agree, there's no excuse for Andrew's visit to Epstein following his conviction. I've never stated otherwise.

I've never stated Andrew was naive. Only clueless and oblivious. IMO the interview showed this very clearly. Did he really believe his pathetic answers would clear his name? He really didn't know there were pictures all over the internet proving (1) he sweats (2) he doesn't always wear a suit and tie (3) he hugs women?

To me its obvious he didn't which IMO shows exactly what I said - he's clueless and oblivious.
Thanks Gawin! I was actually making certain statements in general, not towards any particular person. You make valid points and I certainly see where you are coming from. We may never know the details of what Andrew knew or didn't know, but I hold firm in that I believe he not only knew what was going on, but actively participated...sexually that is, and turned his head at the sex trafficking aspect. There is just too much over the years with Andrew that has shown me that he would make a deal with the devil if it benefitted his own agenda and Lord knows, Epstein was the devil.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3223  
Old 11-27-2019, 03:56 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 25,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
An hour long now,I remember watching the Diana interview back in the mid 90's and thinking of the collateral damage this will do the monarchy.
__________________

21st of February 1575,Death of Claude de France,Duchess of Lorraine.
Reply With Quote
  #3224  
Old 11-27-2019, 04:44 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
. I only pointed out that Andrew may have been unaware that the women were victims of sex trafficking, in the sense that they weren't willing participants. I also pointed out that not every powerful man surrounded by young women is a sex trafficker.

I could be completely wrong - maybe Andrew did know - but at this point we can't state whether Andrew did or did not know as fact, which is what some posters are doing. We just don't know.

Yes, Ghislaine Maxwell was Andrew's friend. But I'm skeptical she would have told him she and Epstein were engaged in sex trafficking. I think she's evil but I don't think she's stupid. I suspect that's one of the reasons why Epstein and Ghislaine got away with this so long - I believe both were very clever and manipulative and knew when to keep their mouths shut and when to wear a mask, so to speak.
I think it is absolutely the case that Epstein presented himself in different ways to different people and limited what information they had about his life.
And most people don't look for evil, even when it is there.

How many times has there been a killer or a kidnapper in the news who goes about his two lives for years, until something happens to shatter his secret--and family, friends, co-workers and neighbors are shocked? I can think of a lot.
Reply With Quote
  #3225  
Old 11-27-2019, 04:49 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
Thanks Gawin! I was actually making certain statements in general, not towards any particular person. You make valid points and I certainly see where you are coming from. We may never know the details of what Andrew knew or didn't know, but I hold firm in that I believe he not only knew what was going on, but actively participated...sexually that is, and turned his head at the sex trafficking aspect. There is just too much over the years with Andrew that has shown me that he would make a deal with the devil if it benefitted his own agenda and Lord knows, Epstein was the devil.
Thank you for your kind response. Hopefully the Epstein investigation will continue and eventually his victims will have some closure. I definitely think Andrew should cooperate with the FBI, not only to shed light on Epstein but on Ghislaine Maxwell as well. IMO she's the key that needs to be found.
Reply With Quote
  #3226  
Old 11-27-2019, 04:53 PM
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 O-H Anglophile View Post
I think it is absolutely the case that Epstein presented himself in different ways to different people and limited what information they had about his life.
And most people don't look for evil, even when it is there.
Epstein was also very cunning and sly to the point that even if his "friends" did uncover and realize something was not quite right surrounding his environments and activities, Epstein had enough information stashed away to ensure that they didn't say anything. Put his "friends" between a rock and hard place without even possibly realizing it.
__________________
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
  #3227  
Old 11-27-2019, 05:36 PM
titiromi's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
It's always a good idea to visit an elderly parent because no matter what kind of health they're in, you just never know........

Charles has been speaking- as I've read - with the Queen on a regular basis and I'm sure he'd do so again at Sandringham. Most observers believe that since Philip has retired, the family has gotten somewhat out of control as he was the one who kept a firm grip on everything. Of course ultimately Charles will strategize with the Queen - as Queen and mother - but aside from any wisdom Philip might share regarding how to proceed under these sad circumstances, he surely would want to add his two cents about how to deal with Andrew as his son/a brother, etc..

I like to see William involved as well. I think BRF is handling this as well as they can - ultimately, I think this damages Andrew and BRF will be fine.

I'm sorry, I didn't follow the story from the beginning and I don't feel like reading the 160 pages of this thread. How is Prince William involved in the management of this case?
Reply With Quote
  #3228  
Old 11-27-2019, 05:42 PM
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 titiromi View Post
I'm sorry, I didn't follow the story from the beginning and I don't feel like reading the 160 pages of this thread. How is Prince William involved in the management of this case?
William would be involved in the decision making process, as far as it concerns the monarchy, because with Andrew only being 59 and possibly has the genes of longevity that runs in the Windsor family, any decision made now would possibly affect William's reign. The Queen, Charles and William are the ones that mostly affect how the monarchy handles things.

Makes sense to me.
__________________
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
  #3229  
Old 11-27-2019, 05:49 PM
titiromi's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
William would be involved in the decision making process, as far as it concerns the monarchy, because with Andrew only being 59 and possibly has the genes of longevity that runs in the Windsor family, any decision made now would possibly affect William's reign. The Queen, Charles and William are the ones that mostly affect how the monarchy handles things.

Makes sense to me.
Thank you for your answer . Is his participation official? Is there any record of his involvement? Did he sign a press statement or the relinquishment of Prince Andrew's patronages?
Sorry again, I didn't follow the case at all nor do I follow the British royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #3230  
Old 11-27-2019, 05:57 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by titiromi View Post
Thank you for your answer . Is his participation official? Is there any record of his involvement? Did he sign a press statement or the relinquishment of Prince Andrew's patronages?
Sorry again, I didn't follow anything at all.
As far as I am aware, there has been nothing official other than the statement put out by Andrew which mentioned the Queen only. The involvement of Charles and William is from unnamed sources and press speculation although I do find it difficult to believe Charles was not consulted.
Reply With Quote
  #3231  
Old 11-27-2019, 05:59 PM
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 titiromi View Post
Thank you for your answer . Is his participation official? Is there any record of his involvement? Did he sign a press statement or the relinquishment of Prince Andrew's patronages?
Sorry again, I didn't follow anything at all.
There's never been anything "official" released that I'm aware of but as the royal family all work for the family business (the "Firm"), decisions, a lot of times are discussed among themselves of what to do. Years ago, there used to be a group called "The Way Ahead" which would include royal family members and their advisers that would meet and discuss plans on how the "Firm" would move ahead into the future. I believe that group is now defunct as back then, it was chaired by Philip. The BRF do not leave anything to chance and put everything and anything under the microscope (where they can) and prepare for anything that may occur.

This recent crisis involving Andrew is something that no one could have really predicted without a crystal ball. It most likely wouldn't even have turned into the crisis it is if Andrew had just kept his mouth shut, kept calm and carried on.
__________________
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
  #3232  
Old 11-27-2019, 06:24 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
I'm skeptical about the stated purpose of Andrew's 2010 visit: he went to end the friendship in person because it was the honourable thing to do.


#1
In the interview Andrew said he lost touch with Epstein from 2006-2010. So why after four years was it necessary to let Epstein know the friendship had ended? Didn't he think Epstein had figured that out already?

#2
He also said he lost touch because he knew he couldn't be seen with Epstein who was under investigation. So why was it OK to be seen with Epstein after he had been convicted and released?

#3
According to an article in the Times Andrew secured a $24,500 (£15,000) loan from Epstein in 2010 to help pay Sarah's debts.

I can't help but think the 2010 visit was related to the loan and not to end the friendship.
Could not Prince Andrew have written a letter to Epstein declaring that the friendship had ended?
Reply With Quote
  #3233  
Old 11-27-2019, 06:25 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,860
I believe the Lord Chamberlain's committee is now used more in the way the Way Ahead Group was, although not sure if the royals also attend as they did with the Way Ahead group. The Lord Chamberlain's committee meets about once a month includes the heads of the main Household departments as well, more recently as the Private Secretaries to Charles, Camilla, William and Kate, It clearly gives a forum for these to discuss issues affecting the RF and I would guess at times of crisis the same people would communicate with each other.


I know we should take media reports with a pinch of salt by Private Eye (I know!) gives a supposed account of what happened. It take it with a pinch of salt but it actually usually has pretty good inside royal news probably due to its longstanding connections and its target audience.

It says HM and Charles approved the interview but then on seeing the outcome it was agreed Andrew had to go. Apparently Charles relied on William to push the case with HM and senior aides on his behalf and William and HM met after he did an investiture ceremony for her and agreed Andrew had to go.
Reply With Quote
  #3234  
Old 11-27-2019, 07:18 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
Could not Prince Andrew have written a letter to Epstein declaring that the friendship had ended?
He could have, and should have... and would have, I believe, if their relationship was as straightforward as he seems to want us to believe. And he would have done it immediately, not waited all that time. The four year gap in communication and then a personal visit across the ocean seems very peculiar to me. I suspect he subscribes to the view that it is unwise to put anything at all controversial in writing as it can be produced in evidence in answer to a subpoena, or challenged by the recipient. Though, of course, so can a video recording of the interview he has just given, which is potentially even more damaging, however now Epstein is no longer alive to contradict what Andrew said about the outdoor meeting. That outdoor meeting is very suspicious to me, taking place, as it did, away from witnesses and ostensibly out of the range of recording equipment.

I am sure there is more to come in this saga.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #3235  
Old 11-27-2019, 07:21 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
No he didn’t. The article says he is standing back from his patronage’s. Nothing about removing himself as their patronage. Simply because he can’t, he is asked to be someone’s royal patronage, or he has inherited them/been given them from his father but always at the agreement of the charities involved.

It is the patronage’s themselves that must remove him.
they have been dropping him..and as I recall Diana left several patronages when she was divorced. I don't believe that anyone ever said that she could not drop her patronages... but had to wait for them to drop her...
Reply With Quote
  #3236  
Old 11-27-2019, 07:30 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I believe the Lord Chamberlain's committee is now used more in the way the Way Ahead Group was, although not sure if the royals also attend as they did with the Way Ahead group. The Lord Chamberlain's committee meets about once a month includes the heads of the main Household departments as well, more recently as the Private Secretaries to Charles, Camilla, William and Kate, It clearly gives a forum for these to discuss issues affecting the RF and I would guess at times of crisis the same people would communicate with each other.


I know we should take media reports with a pinch of salt by Private Eye (I know!) gives a supposed account of what happened. It take it with a pinch of salt but it actually usually has pretty good inside royal news probably due to its longstanding connections and its target audience.

It says HM and Charles approved the interview but then on seeing the outcome it was agreed Andrew had to go. Apparently Charles relied on William to push the case with HM and senior aides on his behalf and William and HM met after he did an investiture ceremony for her and agreed Andrew had to go.

If the Queen and Prince Charles approved the interview they both showed very poor judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #3237  
Old 11-27-2019, 07:37 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,591
Perhaps they were under the illusion that Andrew would be straightforward, honest and even admit to a lack of common sense and even show remorse for those that Epstein has harmed over the years. To clear the air, most of the time, does help. Andrew, however, just made matters worse.

No one expected or predicted that Andrew's interview would go that badly. With hindsight, perhaps it would have been better that Andrew had been given the questions to be asked and he could have been advised how to answer them without opening his mouth and inserting his foot.
__________________
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
  #3238  
Old 11-27-2019, 07:46 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,195
Yes, that's true, no one knew how badly it would turn out.

If the Queen and Charles did approve the interview I suspect they felt Andrew had the right to tell his side. But they should have called in a PR expert and a legal expert to go over the questions & answers with Andrew, over and over again.

Even if the BBC refused to provide the actual list of questions the RF would still have an idea of what would be covered (for example the photograph, the 2010 visit). And any decent PR person would have advised Andrew to express sympathy for the victims and show regret for his relationship with Epstein.
Reply With Quote
  #3239  
Old 11-27-2019, 07:51 PM
titiromi's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 430
One would think Andrew had an armada of specialists working for the royal family to prepare him for the interview and that all the answers would have been the subject of considerable reflexion beforehand especially if the Queen and Prince Charles gave their go to the interview.
Reply With Quote
  #3240  
Old 11-27-2019, 07:58 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,860
I can see The Queen and Charles approving the principal of an interview - Andrew putting his side across. However I wonder whether Andrew and his staff were full and frank in saying it would be so soon, that it would be Newsnight (hence much tougher and in-depth) and that nothing was off topic. They probably also thought he would take wider advice and be well prepped for it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (3 members and 6 guests)
asm, lilacmermaid, Lilyflo
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 12:22 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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