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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was thinking the same - is there any precedent ?

Beside the Duke of Windsor has anyone been cast out of the family? And the abdication was the tool of the decision. If he is asked to retire - it would be odd considering the Queen is still going on at her age. Their hand might be forced with the charities pulling out around him.

The only way I see it happening was in a completely restructuring of the family. And that can only happen if the Queen abdicated or dies or well a regency.

I imagine it somehow as the Queen passes, Charles takes over, Princess Ann askes to became a full time horse breeder and Andrew is well allowed to do what he wants outside of the public eye. I don't think anyone will care what becomes of Edward and Sophie. Kents, Gloucesters either.

The monarchy then is only Charles, William and Harry like it is wanted.

You could possibly have Andrew de facto retire, without an official announcement. He steps down as patron and the patronages get rehomed to other members of the royal family; he resigns his role at Trooping and gets replaced (likely by Harry); and "voluntarily" decides not to show up to public royal family events (Trooping, Remembrance Sunday, state banquets, etc..). While no one can force him into exile, having him basically removed from the public aspects of royal life might help.
 
Whew I was away the weekend so I'm way late to this but man... he is lying through his teeth when he says he has no memory of meeting her. What a bunch of nonsense.

Who even thought this interview was a good idea?! I mean, christ. Anyone with a little sense of PR knows you shouldn't speak when you haven't got anything to say or even say something when you DO! And even then, agreeing to do an interview with a superior intelligent person ain't a good idea.
They are losing all sense there. If the BRF implodes in onto itself, they only got themselves to blame.

Get this man to court. He's got answering to do.
 
Jesus take the wheel. Andrew stands by doing that interview.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7695349/Prince-Andrew-stands-decision-BBC-interview.html

This is a mess. Is there a chance the government will step in an demand action or strip Andrew of rank and remove Andrew from the succession? This mess is spilling on the BRF.
That would require an Act of Parliament. It would be highly unusual and as things stand today I believe that government and parliament has more pressing issues to deal with than a prince without morals and a serious lack of judgement.
 
And what would you say if he knew she was forced? Would that change anything for you? And it doesn't matter if there were more men. If Andrew knew she was being forced, it makes what he did illegal.

Proving what Andrew knew or didn't know is hard to prove and made even more so by his own "I can't remember" statement. As far as I'm aware, the criminal investigations at this time only pertain to Epstein's sex trafficking allegations and they're digging to find his cohorts. The only way the sex with Giuffre is going to come into the picture with a criminal slant now is if Giuffre, herself, files a civil lawsuit against Andrew in the US or if Ghislaine Maxwell, herself, throws Andrew under the proverbial bus.

As far as repercussions following this interview that would ostracize or demote Andrew in his standing with the BRF, I don't see that happening. There have been plenty of members of the British Royal Family that have had less than stellar morals and have been known to really do questionable things in private but its not grounds for exile or any other drastic means of action. Most likely what is to happen is that charities and patronages that Andrew sponsors will request he no longer represent them. Reputation suicide is something that Andrew, himself, will have to live with. Let his conscience be his guide (if he even has one). Whatever Andrew's family thinks and feels about all of this will remain behind closed doors and not be aired for public consumption.
 
the interview was most awkward. i sensed that andrew shows a lack of logic that is puzzling throughout, which really doesn't help to trust him. he seemed honest enough in his body language but many times during the interview his speech seemed contradictory. not sure what to make of this.
 
Get this man to court. He's got answering to do.

I may be mistaken but I believe the complainant was 17 years old at the time of [the alleged] offence, and that is over the age of consent in all of the jurisdictions in which the 'offence' took place ?

Do 'correct me if i'm wrong' ?
 
Even if Virginia Giuffre was of legal age of consent, she was still trafficked at the time she met Andrew, so the situation is still worthy of a court case IMO and is a poor excuse to defend him. If Andrew were any "normal" person he would be one of the prime suspects (being a close friend of both Maxwell and Epstein and the photographs) in this investigation and would be questioned along with everyone else. Let's face it; it's because of his position that he hasn't been arrested or at least questioned by the police.
 
I don't believe Andrew fully realized his rich but sleazy pal was a sex trafficker . At least not before Epstein's 2010 conviction.

The Prince Andrew of the 1990's likely still saw himself as the Royal Robert Redford that Charles described him as in his teens and 20's. In his egotistical head he was still the dashing handsome war hero soldier returning from the Falklands with a rose clenched between his teeth. Girls were swooning and the press was fawning in the 80's. I remember it VERY well. I was one of those swooning girls.:cool

So when his swinging buddy Epstein opened up his personal Xanadu and handed Andrew the keys to the kingdom, Andrew no doubt figured all these young lissome women were geishas eager to indulge the Royal pleasure. Sure it was 1999 and not 1983. But by God was he not still a handsome virile man? A Prince of the Blood? A member of the British Royal family? Of course these hot young nobodies were eager to bed him, as Epstein likely assured him.

The fact that he was in reality an aging divorced father of tween daughters, and that he was losing his hair and growing paunchy was not how he himself saw things.

And in the now infamous photo of Andrew and Virginia she looked pleased as punch...not shy. Not frightened at all. Definitely not forced into anything.

There is also video of Ms Giuffre partying and living the high life in Nice in the company of Naomi Campbell as well. There is no way-before 2010-that a self absorbed clod like the DoY would have been necessarily suspicious of Epstein's harem without being filled in.

After the arrest and conviction of 2010?

All bets off.:ermm:
 
Last edited:
Age of consent means nothing when you have very powerful, very rich men telling an underage, impressionable girl, away from her parent, what to do and grooming you to be a sex slave.

Young enough to fit in the criteria, yet old enough to almost be able to excuse abominable behaviour.
 
Age of consent means nothing

Morally you may be right, but LEGALLY it is everything.. and the Courts instruct juries to make their decision on that basis, and that basis alone.
 
Even if Virginia Giuffre was of legal age of consent, she was still trafficked at the time she met Andrew, so the situation is still worthy of a court case IMO and is a poor excuse to defend him. If Andrew were any "normal" person he would be one of the prime suspects (being a close friend of both Maxwell and Epstein and the photographs) in this investigation and would be questioned along with everyone else. Let's face it; it's because of his position that he hasn't been arrested or at least questioned by the police.

In the manner of sex trafficking, the ongoing investigation is into those that trafficked and controlled these girls and not the "clients" that they were told to service. Andrew, most likely, falls into the "client" category. He wasn't the one that trafficked anyone or controlled who these girls "serviced", Andrew may be seen by public opinion of being morally bankrupt and many other things, but as the criminal investigation by the FBI and authorities at this time are pursuing the sex trafficking allegations, Andrew doesn't come into the picture. As stated before, Ms. Giuffre could file a civil lawsuit against Andrew herself but that remains to be seen if it becomes a reality.

A pimp in NYC could have a gazillion "working girls" under his control and that still wouldn't be sex trafficking. Its a local prostitution ring. Now, if this pimp in NYC had also "places of business" in Chicago, Los Angeles and Parumph, NM and "moved" his girls between these places, that's sex trafficking.
 
There's no question of anybody stripping Prince Andrew of his titles. All that he's actually known to be guilty of is having very poor judgement when it comes to choosing his friends. But the interview was a disaster. Even strongly royalist newspapers are pulling him to pieces, and he's not particularly popular anyway, because he's seen as someone who does a lot of jetting around whilst the others do the hard work. I see that his PR guy's resigned. I don't know what he was thinking of, giving a public interview like that. In the middle of a General Election campaign, and with several parts of the country affected by flooding, no-one was paying the slightest bit of attention to the Epstein affair. Now it's the headlines of the news.
 
Get this man to court. He's got answering to do.



For what does he have to answer for exactly?

The interview was the biggest train wreck I’ve ever seen and I’ve watched Unstoppable a million times. Andrew is arrogant, stupid and incredibly selfish.

But what has he done that requires him to go to court?
 
His role and participation in his relation with trafficked underage women and what the hell went on in Epsteins estates, to start with.
 
In the manner of sex trafficking, the ongoing investigation is into those that trafficked and controlled these girls and not the "clients" that they were told to service. Andrew, most likely, falls into the "client" category. He wasn't the one that trafficked anyone or controlled who these girls "serviced", Andrew may be seen by public opinion of being morally bankrupt and many other things, but as the criminal investigation by the FBI and authorities at this time are pursuing the sex trafficking allegations, Andrew doesn't come into the picture. As stated before, Ms. Giuffre could file a civil lawsuit against Andrew herself but that remains to be seen if it becomes a reality.

A pimp in NYC could have a gazillion "working girls" under his control and that still wouldn't be sex trafficking. Its a local prostitution ring. Now, if this pimp in NYC had also "places of business" in Chicago, Los Angeles and Parumph, NM and "moved" his girls between these places, that's sex trafficking.


You're exactly right, Andrew hasn't been accused of sex trafficking, only of having sex with Virginia Giuffre who states she was a victim of Epstein's sex trafficking.

But just to clarify, trafficking and smuggling aren't the same. If the pimp in your example forces or coerces the women into prostitution its considered to be sex trafficking. Moving them from one place to another isn't required.

If the victims are underage then force or coercion aren't necessary. It's still sex trafficking under federal law.

See "Myth: Human trafficking and human smuggling are the same" and "Myth: Individuals must be forced or coerced into commercial sex acts to be victims of sex trafficking" at the Dept. of Homeland Security website:
https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campaign/myths-and-misconceptions
 
You're exactly right, Andrew hasn't been accused of sex trafficking, only of having sex with Virginia Giuffre who states she was a victim of Epstein's sex trafficking.

This is what I meant when I was referring to trafficking; I guess I wasn’t clear...
 
And now the media prove how rubbish some of Andrew's claims are

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ubs-beautiful-young-women-French-Riviera.html

Newly-revealed video shows Prince Andrew enjoying raucous parties on the French Riviera in the late 2000s
The footage, along with several photos, sees the Prince enjoying the attention of a string of beautiful women
It comes after Andrew gave 'car crash' BBC interview where he defended relationship with Jeffrey Epstein
Prince Andrew claimed he didn't indulge in public affection and a medical condition left him unable to sweat
However, the photos and video shows Andrew embracing several women and looking sweaty and dishevelled


On top of that the DM says Andrew was at church today with the Queen and told her it "was mission accomplished" with the interview and had "put all criticism to rest"

Not sure what planet he is living on and hope someone informs HM otherwise.

However, the Telegraph is also reporting that the Queen did not in fact give permission for the interview and was only informed of it "after it had been set up"
 
Last edited:
This is what I meant when I was referring to trafficking; I guess I wasn’t clear...

I'm sorry, my head is still spinning from the godawful interview and subsequent fallout & I'm not paying close enough attention to who said what in this forum.
 
The Duke of York should count himself lucky that the procedure for revoking a dukedom is so arduous. It would require going through Parliament and unopening several cans of worms. Otherwise it would be a possibility, as happened to Infanta Cristina. Until now the Epstein affair has avoided clouding the wider royal family. That seems unavoidable now. The last thing Britain needs is a crisis of confidence in the royals at such a delicate time. This has been an unmitigated disaster; normally respectful, establishment outlets like the Times, the Telegraph, and BBC are calling it a "car-wreck", "excruciating", "pathetic".

The best course of action for Andrew is to now take an early retirement and hand over most of his duties to other members of the Royal Family: most naturally the Duke of Sussex and the Earl of Wessex. He should relocate somewhere abroad for some time-- supervised by the Foreign Office-- in which he might discreetly continue promoting British commercial interests while avoiding scandal. Singapore or Mauritius would appear good choices (perhaps an arrangement could be found with the Singapore Government for him to lease a nice Black and White bungalow, not unlike the Duke of Windsor). In a few years if things have quieted down he could return provided he keeps a low profile from thereon. But if his brother has assumed the throne by then it may end up permanent.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, my head is still spinning from the godawful interview and subsequent fallout & I'm not paying close enough attention to who said what in this forum.

:previous: What on earth was he thinking?

Scratch that...he clearly was not! The "interview" raises more questions than answers and now it appears it has challenged the tabloids to prove some of his truth's as untruths. We have already seen pics of him sweating, hugging, and an article that people can lose the potential to sweat but it appears that is not applicable in Andrew's case as evidenced of the pictures of him sweating.

I get that HM is going to find it hard to rein in Andrew he is her child. But Charles is going to see this for what it is. And in the Monarchy under Charles, I don't imagine we will see much of Andrew. Anne and Edward yes..Andrew no. Wherever he goes, this Epstein cloud will follow him (and rightly so). Poor Judgement! What an understatement!
 
Last edited:
The overall impression I was left with after the interview, aside from my initial thoughts posted upthread, is that Andrew, with few exceptions, does not see the people who surround him in a service or subordinate mode as real live human beings. He "didn't want to seem grand," but over and over again, he made clear that people who he didn't see as worthy of his notice only exist as an unimportant background to his life. The underage girls who came and went in Epstein's properties may truly have not been noticed by Andrew, because they weren't important enough for him to notice. They weren't real people to him. That's one of the most damning revelations in the interview, in my opinion.

I felt the same way. It struck me when he made the comment about how, as a member of the Royal Family, he was used to being surrounded by staff walking around, and how he didn't have meaningful interactions with staff. Anyone he does not consider to be his social equal, or important because of something they can do for him - like Epstein - is not worthy of his notice. Staff are invisible to him. I can't help wondering whether he is used to his minders providing women for him for sex. The girls wandering around Epstein's homes were invisible to him. Virginia was invisible to him, that's why he doesn't remember meeting her. She provided him with a service, but was not worthy of his attention and conversation. This is consistent with her comments about him being polite but otherwise not talkative.
 
I think the thing that really leaves me shaking my head in disgust is that even with the reality of the situation put before him and with everyone and their great aunt's pet cockatoo clearly seeing the interview as the train wreck it was, Andrew goes on believing that he did good and put "matters to rest" and will continue to hold a high esteem of his own self. The rest of his family may be losing sleep over Andrew's behavior but he'll go on as always exhibiting his irrational sense of "importance" and "entitlement".

I don't think even sending him to the Tower would phase him. He'd treat it all as if it was his new "castle" and he was "prince" over it all. Some people never learn from their mistakes solely because they think they can't make any in the first place. ;)
 
The overall impression I was left with after the interview, aside from my initial thoughts posted upthread, is that Andrew, with few exceptions, does not see the people who surround him in a service or subordinate mode as real live human beings. He "didn't want to seem grand," but over and over again, he made clear that people who he didn't see as worthy of his notice only exist as an unimportant background to his life. The underage girls who came and went in Epstein's properties may truly have not been noticed by Andrew, because they weren't important enough for him to notice. They weren't real people to him. That's one of the most damning revelations in the interview, in my opinion.

Do you think many royals truly see subordinates around them as real live human beings, though? In fact, I would replace “subordinates” for “regular people” and my answer would still be no, with rare exceptions. They’re born in a bubble and every experience they have growing up that involves relating to regular people is either as part of an official engagement or as part of their educational experience. They’re sent out to various places to interact with, (carefully chosen, usually quite well off), regular people in the same way they’re taught the etiquette and protocol surrounding a state visit. Its another box to tick so everyone can see how well prepared they’ve been. The smarter ones know very well they can actually do whatever they want, the more naive ones may think they actually ARE regular people who just happen to be living lives where every potential bit of trouble seems to come to nothing.

I think the situation with Andrew is repugnant, but what struck me about some of the more clueless comments in the interview was that probably a lot of his royal counterparts around the world would think the same sorts of things under similar circumstances. They’d just be smart enough to tell the public what it wanted to hear or would be “advised” to say nothing at all.
 
I think the situation with Andrew is repugnant, but what struck me about some of the more clueless comments in the interview was that probably a lot of his royal counterparts around the world would think the same sorts of things under similar circumstances. They’d just be smart enough to tell the public what it wanted to hear or would be “advised” to say nothing at all.

I agree with you. Andrew was raised to view the world the way he does. And I suspect many of the older generations of royals also think this way - they are just socially aware enough not to express it in an interview...or they don't give interviews at all (like the Queen).

If we knew how the Queen truly views her 'subordinates,' perhaps we would also be shocked.
 
I would guess right about now he must feel bewildered by the reaction from the Palace courtiers about the media response. It is not too late for this Duke to be taken out of the bubble and sent to spend at least a year in the real world. Away from the safety of the palace. Away from sycophants.
Plenty of remote outback cattle stations here where down to earth people would treat him as just another cowboy.
Or perhaps the Canadian forestry service could use him.
Somewhere where he would have to cook for himself do his own washing etc. With plenty of time to reflect as to why the public are so outraged by his demeanour.
 
Even though Andrew is the most extreme of the queen's four children, I suspect each of them have entitlement issues in varying degrees.

Prince Charles has impressive manners and is very gracious to the public. I have also read that he can be an elitist snob. He has rarefied tastes and has always insisted on an almost Edwardian standard of lavish living in his various homes.

Anne is hard working and down to earth. She is also rude and dismissive of other people.

Everyone remembers Edward's foot stomping hissy fit when reporters dissed his disastrous "It's A Royal Knockout" TV special.

These four were not raised in the new way Royal parents want their kids to be as "normal" as possible whatever that means. They were not born in hospitals. They were raised by old fashioned strict nannies and tutors, and attended elite schools with other aristocrats.

And they were raised with the knowledge that they were Royal and therefore special...all of them.

Prince Andrew, spoiled, indulged, and the most physically attractive of HMQ's children really took this to heart.

ETA: The same goes for Princess Margaret's two children. I remember a story from one of the women's magazines when David Linley(now Lord Snowden) was a little boy of about eight. A visitor arrived at Clarence House to see Princess Margaret, and after the butler had gone of to fetch her the visitor tried to make small talk with the child by referring to the princess as "your mother".

She recounted that little Viscount Linley stiffened immediately..."Do you mean Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret"? :cool::lol:
 
Last edited:
:previous: And there you have it in a nutshell.

Can anyone tell me how exactly, legally, it would work to get Andrew to step down? What’s in place?
Nothing. HM would have to work at it but why should she?

Jesus take the wheel. Andrew stands by doing that interview.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7695349/Prince-Andrew-stands-decision-BBC-interview.html

This is a mess. Is there a chance the government will step in an demand action or strip Andrew of rank and remove Andrew from the succession? This mess is spilling on the BRF.
Legality is totally irrelevant, he has been convicted in the court of public opinion for nothing less than being an entitled pratt and acting accordingly. If hanging were still a penalty I am sure they would demand it and no, he is not Jack the Ripper. Whatever they do he will still be Prince Andrew, the third child and second son of The Queen.

To those clutching their pearls, I would remind you that in the Navy fraternising between the ranks was an absolute career anding no-no and his lack of acquaintance with the enlisted personnel was not only real, but it was also encouraged. To a lesser degree, the same thing happens in royal households. The Cambridges had a rough start with their live-in staff and treading all over their jobs trying to be "helpful".

For what does he have to answer for exactly?

The interview was the biggest train wreck I’ve ever seen and I’ve watched Unstoppable a million times. Andrew is arrogant, stupid and incredibly selfish.

But what has he done that requires him to go to court?
Nothing. Acute arrogance is not a crime and crass stupidity knows no bounds.
 
Everyone remembers Edward's foot stomping hissy fit when reporters dissed his disastrous "It's A Royal Knockout" TV special.

Rather unfair considering his age at the time , but more his naivety and inexperience. But point made - they are all products of their upbringing. Examples can also be given for the current young royals. To be honest - examples can be given for any children born into money, status and fame, royal or not. However there is a leap from pride and entitlement to criminal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the interview was most awkward. i sensed that andrew shows a lack of logic that is puzzling throughout, which really doesn't help to trust him. he seemed honest enough in his body language but many times during the interview his speech seemed contradictory. not sure what to make of this.

The timing of this interview is terrible, from a BP standpoint. The General Election is in less than a month, and Charles is on an important tour on the other side of the world, currently in New Zealand.

When Andrew and Fergie separated, HM asked them to keep it private because of a General Election at the time. It got in the papers anyway, (it emerged years later that the leak was not their fault) and The Queen was very angry. So that's why I don't think HM approved of this interview. And she certainly doesn't want Charles and Camilla to be asked about Andrew's situation while they are on a major tour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom