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

[carlota]

i haven't really followed this, but i struggle to believe that such behaviour could take place by such a prominent public figure.
but then again, look at cristina and iñaki... who would have known.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen knew that Anne would have opposed the sudden rise in her position and then there is the question of how far back do you then go?


Better to have it from those yet to be born than to those already born. It may also have had even more trouble getting through all the realms - and it isn't in force yet anyway... so even if that had been The Queen's wish Andrew would still be the 5th as things currently stand and who knows when Australia will bother with it? Could be when the parliaments resume this year or it could be a few years away yet - it isn't all that important as things currently stand as the first time it will take effect is if George's first born child is a girl with a younger brother so around 30 or so year before it is necessary to be considered.


Why should the Harewood's be below the Gloucester's and Kent's (their royal progenitor was Princess Mary who was older then three of her brothers but her descendants are below theirs in the line of succession)?

 

[Tarlita]

Surely Prince Andrew has always had a protection officer/bodyguard with him. It then should be easy enough to establish his whereabouts at the times these alleged offences took place and for the protection officer to collaborate these times. If he was in the Carribean/NY /London at the same time as this woman says the offences occurred then further investigation would have to take place.

 

[Mbruno]

I always thought the Queen made a big mistake in 2012 with the Equal Primogeniture legislation. She should have made it for all her descendants retroactively.

Although the Queen was probably consulted, it is actually the government, and not the Queen, who drafts and introduces legislation in the UK.

Unlike equal primogeniture, other parts of the Succession to the Crown Act will apply retroactively though. For instance, individuals who were removed from the line of succession for marrying Roman Catholics will have their succession rights restored provided that they have not themselves converted to Roman Catholicism.

 

[Mbruno]

- it isn't all that important as things currently stand as the first time it will take effect is if George's first born child is a girl with a younger brother so around 30 or so year before it is necessary to be considered.

Actually, if the Duchess of Cambridge has a daughter and then subsequently has a younger second son, the new legislation will already produce a change in the line of succession compared to what it would be had it not been passed. The same might apply BTW to possible future children of Harry, Beatrice, Zara, etc.

 

[Curryong]

Legally he can't just become a private citizen. He is one of the most senior royals as a Counsellor of State and he will be in that position for at least the next 20 years (until George is 21 in the present reign and the new baby in Charles' reign). So unless The Queen lives for another 21 years he will remain a very senior royal until at least then - one who can sign legislation for instance.


To deprive him of those rights can only happen in one of three ways:


1. change the legislation in the UK on who is eligible to be a CoS


2. remove him from the line of succession, which could take years due to the necessity to do so in the other realms as well, and they haven't all yet past the Succession to the Crown Act


3. he converts to Roman Catholicism taking himself out of the Line of Succession.


It isn't as easy as some people seem to think.


I suspect he will continue working for The Queen and it will basically be forgotten when the next scandal hits - don't forget William and Harry also have some unsavoury friends and relations (Uncle Gary anyone???).

Uncle Gary Middleton and people like Guy Pelly aren't the monarch's children and senior royals. There could be a private unofficial agreement within the royal family that Andrew ceases royal duties including those of Counsellor of State. If it's necessary to have legislation to change the way Counsellors of State are chosen, then so be it. It will cause a fuss in the Press, but better that than having this man represent the Queen.

 

[Lady Nimue]

The power of the accusation. Damned from the first word, without reprieve. Ugly business.

 

[Curryong]

If Andrew had a squeaky clean reputation, a reputation say like the Duke of Kent, everyone would be astonished by the revelations we're discussing and many would not believe it. However, Andrew is a very different kettle of fish.

He has an enormous amount of baggage, connected with air miles, shady foreign dictators, helping Fergie out with money from his friends, and so on.

Virtually the last time Andrew shed any lustre on the dynasty to which he belongs was on his wedding day. He has been photographed with his hand around a young girl's waist, a girl young enough to be his daughter, at one of Epstein's parties.
He has been seen with Epstein and photographed with him, a man who was convicted of sexual offences and is on the sex offenders register.

I belong to a constitutional monarchy and I don't want a person like Prince Andrew representing my Queen, the Queen of Australia. I'm sorry but I think if Andrew and Fergie disappeared from public view tomorrow they'd be doing the rest of us a giant favour.

 

[tommy100]

I guess Prince Charles is going to make a public apology for he and his then wife, Diana, socialising and calling Jimmy Saville 'friend' because we all now know he was a paedophile . . . they should have known.

And, of course, HM and Prince Philip should apologise for having a 'friendly' acquaintence called Rolf, who got invited to the palace and was even allowed to do one of his unique paintings of her . . . they should have known.

When there is any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Prince Andrew then, and only then, am I interested in his doing a mea culpa.

This whole situations stinks like 5 day old fish. People demanding he go on TV baring his soul, on this forum demanding that the BRF cut him loose, that he and the girls should become outcast in their own family to appease people who know very little, have proof of nothing and couldn't give a damn about the possiblility of his innocence.

The BRF have been in this situation a couple of times before. It did not end well in either case.

The difference in the cases of Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris are that at the time they were known to the Royals mentioned they were not convicted sex offenders and it was not publicly known what they had done! Andrew continued to be friends with Epstein after he had been to prison and registered as a sex offender. No one should have to apologise for something they don't know about but Andrew DID know and carried on as if it didn't matter. To me that wrong. Imagine if the Queen attended a party to celebrate Rolf Harris getting out of prison as its claimed Andrew did for Epstein?!!?!

 

[Ridderzaal]

Not surprised at all. His philandering stated at a young age and he got away with a lot. He was good looking and a prince and as such felt entitled...
A wicked Windsor and I feel dreadfully sorry for the queen.

 

[Irish Eyes]

There is so much to consider here. It's possible the full truth may never come out. If Andrew did get involved with those girls what age did he believe they were at the time? What does she mean when she says she was forced into ....
Was she forced into a room alone with Andrew? Could she not leave it?
As people have been saying innocent until proven guilty, but Andrew must have had some idea of Epstein's lifestyle, and obviously didn't disapprove enough to at least cut ties with him. We will have to see how the story unfolds, but it will be interesting to see if Andrew leaves everything in the hands of his legal and PR people, or takes a more direct approach.

I wonder how all this will effect the Yorks relationship, both Andrew's and Sarah's, and Andrew's and his daughters? Will they put on a united, public front or lie low? If Sarah doesn't show some bit of support will it look worse for Andrew? Will their support mean alot to him?

 

[Dman]

Andrew have a very supportive family. Sarah and the girls will always be there for him. The Queen & Prince Philip will not abandon their child and the rest of the royal family will support Andrew too. The royal family simply carry on.

 

[Rudolph]

Prince Andrew told to fight sex slave allegations "with every ounce" by co-accused | Royal | News | Daily Express

PRINCE Andrew is being urged to fight back with “every ounce of energy” against allegations he used a minor as a sex slave.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who has also been accused of abusing a teenage girl, made the powerful statement as he denied the claims revealed in US court papers yesterday.

The woman claims between 1999 and 2002 she was repeatedly sexually abused by paedophile billionaire investment banker Jeffrey Epstein, who then loaned her to influential men around the globe.

 

[Ana Von Cleves]

Alan Dershowitz is not amused

The British Royals Message Board: Re: BBC: Prince Andrew named in US child sex lawsuit


The above is a link (I hope) to a very good article posted over on The British Royals Message board. I think it is worth a read. I believe these lawyers in the case may have picked on the wrong fellow lawyer.


Alan Dershowitz has also been named. According to quotes from an interview on the subject, he can prove he was not at any of the locations except one and that time he was there with his family. He is going to start disbarment proceedings against the two lawyers representing JD3 on the basis that they did not do any fact checking before naming names.


Mr Dershowitz is a VERY prominent criminal attorney and law professor in the United States.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

If these allegations aren't true then I hope Andrew counter sues, not only for himself but mostly for his daughters who haven't done anything wrong but have been ridiculed for years because of their parents.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

BBC News - Prince Andrew sex claims woman 'should not be believed'

BBC Radio 4 - Today, 03/01/2015, Alan Dershowitz: I have never been alone with any women and Prince Andrew

 

[Rudolph]

Prince Andrew 'lobbied the US government to go easy on Jeffrey Epstein' | Daily Mail Online

A Buckingham Palace spokesman has denied claims Prince Andrew lobbied the US government against the prosecution of his long-term friend Jeffrey Epstein - the US billionaire paedophile.

The allegation comes as court papers emerged which also sensationally claim the royal abused an underage girl at an orgy where she was being used as a 'sex slave'.

Epstein was one of the best-connected men in America until he was jailed for 13 months in 2008 for soliciting girls for underage prostitution.

 

[tommy100]

I suspect we are going to have a slow drip of 'new revelations' over the next few weeks which will keep adding pressure on Andrew and The Royal Family.

 

[Dman]

I suspect we are going to have a slow drip of 'new revelations' over the next few weeks which will keep adding pressure on Andrew and The Royal Family.

I'm guessing so as well. It's not the way they would've wanted to kick off 2015.

 

[Erin9]

The British Royals Message Board: Re: BBC: Prince Andrew named in US child sex lawsuit


The above is a link (I hope) to a very good article posted over on The British Royals Message board. I think it is worth a read. I believe these lawyers in the case may have picked on the wrong fellow lawyer.


Alan Dershowitz has also been named. According to quotes from an interview on the subject, he can prove he was not at any of the locations except one and that time he was there with his family. He is going to start disbarment proceedings against the two lawyers representing JD3 on the basis that they did not do any fact checking before naming names.


Mr Dershowitz is a VERY prominent criminal attorney and law professor in the United States.

ICAM with everything you said. My mouth dropped when I saw his name. His response is no surprise- come out strong and swinging. And my gut response is that he can prove exactly what he says he can.

 

[Rudolph]

I can't get my mind around the fact Andrew remained friends with this guy after he was released from prison on sex charges

 

[sophie25]

I can't get my mind around the fact Andrew remained friends with this guy after he was released from prison on sex charges

He's not fussy about the company he keeps. Epstein was at a shooting weekend at Sandringham at least once and some dodgy Kazak woman was in the Royal box with him at Ascot recently. I don't think you have to be a genius to see that he's obviously getting something back from some very rich people in exchange for them getting close access to the Royals. Fergie got caught organising this sort of thing but I noticed it about the two of them long before that. A Kazakhstani billionaire even bought the house in Sunningdale that Andrew had struggled to sell for way over the asking price and has since left the house to rot, who does that unless they are looking for something big in return? He and his ex-wife are a disgrace.

 

[Princess of Durham]

The power of the accusation. Damned from the first word, without reprieve. Ugly business.

How very true! And those making the accusations are so terribly squeaky clean.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I can't get my mind around the fact Andrew remained friends with this guy after he was released from prison on sex charges

This is the material point here, IMO.

Look - regarding the sexual allegations against Andrew himself - a he said, she said. If true they are the most damning of all, by far, but I believe it's not what will damn him in the end.

You have a senior member of the royal family, second son of the Queen, who associated with the man AFTER he was released from prison. This just defies belief to me.

Also, earlier versions of the very same DM article had buried within it what I think it the BRF's biggest problem here - allegedly there is written evidence of Andrew's appeal to federal prosecutors for more lenient treatment for a man accused of sexual abuse and sex slavery of underage girls. This just blows my mind away. What colossally bad judgment on his part! This, IMO, is what will damn him.

Look at the denial from BP - categorically denying only the allegations of Andrew's participation in sex with underage girls. As far as I can see from reading here- no denial that he continued to associate with him after he was released, or reached out to federal prosecutors - which also to me has some serious international relations issues (if true). The British get all in uproar when Charles sticks his nose in architecture review. How will they see this?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Andrew have a very supportive family. Sarah and the girls will always be there for him. The Queen & Prince Philip will not abandon their child and the rest of the royal family will support Andrew too. The royal family simply carry on.

As far as Sarah and his children go he has nothing to worry about. They will never publically turn their backs on Andrew and there is good reason to believe they won't do it privately either.

 

[Mirabel]

He's not fussy about the company he keeps. Epstein was at a shooting weekend at Sandringham at least once and some dodgy Kazak woman was in the Royal box with him at Ascot recently. I don't think you have to be a genius to see that he's obviously getting something back from some very rich people in exchange for them getting close access to the Royals. Fergie got caught organising this sort of thing but I noticed it about the two of them long before that. A Kazakhstani billionaire even bought the house in Sunningdale that Andrew had struggled to sell for way over the asking price and has since left the house to rot, who does that unless they are looking for something big in return? He and his ex-wife are a disgrace.

I can't say I'm really surprised about the allegations. Andrew doesn't seem to have good judgment about the people he admits into his inner circle.
(He even approved of Beatrice's former boyfriend and invited him along on a family vacation before he learned that the man had a criminal record).

He should be more cautious of the company he keeps.

 

[maria-olivia]

I hope not a second annus horribilis for Queen Elsabeth II

 

[PetticoatLane]

Anyone worrying about what this does to Andrew's reputation with the British public shouldn't bother - his reputation was already zero. He'll be forever associated with air miles for helicopter trips to play golf, all the craziness with Sarah, connections to several dodgy foreign businessmen/dictators etc etc. He's just not respected, despite his hundreds of engagements each year on behalf of the Queen. That ship had already long set sail, fair or otherwise.

I don't know what he got up to with this friend of his. He deserves to be presumed innocent until such times as any wrong-doing is proved against him, although we know that won't happen. As we've seen with sex scandals, particularly where those under the age of consent are involved, both in the US and the UK the mere suggestion of wrongdoing is enough to completely ruin lives. That's unfair, but it's a fact.

Andrew's decision to continue a relationship with this man after he was convicted of sex crimes, however, simply defies belief. What on earth was he thinking?

 

[nascarlucy]

The teen-age girls involved in this were probably scared and were afraid of the consequences involved to them if they didn't do what Jeff Epstein told them to do. I would have to wonder what would have happened if any of these teen-agers had said no to the men who were involved in this. At the very least, they would be upset, angered and offended. It would take a brave teen to do this and it would be at great risk.

I wonder if the teens were afraid of physical or mental harm from Jeff Epstein if they refused to do what he told them to do. Certainly they were afraid of some type of punishment or consequences from him if they said no and no doubt they would be.


A lot of what was said relating to Prince Andrew and others named are things which are hard to prove one way or another. Even if one has done nothing wrong or isn't guilty of what they are accused of, guilty by association can be very damaging.

If it turns out that these are false allegations and is proven to be so, then I would think that Prince Andrew could sue for deformation of character and slander.


It's a sad story all around.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I can't get my mind around the fact Andrew remained friends with this guy after he was released from prison on sex charges

I don't understand this. One is friends only when the going is good, when the going is easy?

I'm going to step away from this as I've seen too often people's lives destroyed in total via false accusations and endlessly repeated innuendo in the media. (It's recently happened with a very good man, well known in the business, whose having his older years shattered by some very dark pay-back). I have a work colleague whose spouse works in the Innocence Project. Very sad stories.

How easy it is to make the claims and the baying of the hounds begins. It happens too often as the scent is picked up by the pack. Luckily there have been celebrities who have defied the odds and faced such full in the face, surviving professionally and personally, when decades ago the merest hint of scandal meant total ruin (hence, the power of the movie moguls over their 'stable of actors').

I would be curious to know if there is a parallel between those who fault Sofia Helqvist her past and the response to Andrew's choices. Takes two to tango, as the saying goes.