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

[Mirabel]

Andrew is guilty by association. How can a father of two daughters not question why young girls are hired to travel the world to give 'massages' to friends and colleagues of Epstein? If a friend of mine had such an arrangement I would question it. Whether he slept with this or other young girls is irrelevant, he is guilty of complacency, guilty of shutting his mouth and agreeing to this type of 'massage'!!
As for the parents of these young girls, where were they! For crying out loud when grown men want to take my young daughters overseas to provide massages!! I would be concerned! At 17 years old my daughter is not qualified enough to be considered for such a job AND what would groups of men want with my 17 year old daughter?
Too much of look-the-other-way and pretend nothing is happening. Andrew should be ashamed, having sex with her or any other girl or not, he is a guilty man! How on earth can you not know?!


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Andrew is very self-indulgent, imo.
The problem is that his actions reflect badly on his family.

 

[Roslyn]

Andrew is very self-indulgent, imo.
The problem is that his actions reflect badly on his family.

I don't know why this is seen to be the case. Why should Andrew's bad decisions taint his family?

 

[Eden]

I don't know why this is seen to be the case. Why should Andrew's bad decisions taint his family?

They taint his family if they are aware of his actions and try to hide the truth.
Rather than make an effort to profess his innocence, there should be an acknowledgement of his poor judgement in being friends with Epstein.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Mbruno]

I feel so sorry for the Queen, she is almost 90 years old and must be weary with the troubles that her favourite son and his ex-wife keep bringing to her door.

What evidence do you have that Andrew is the Queen's favo(u)rite son ?

 

[Roslyn]

They taint his family if they are aware of his actions and try to hide the truth.
Rather than make an effort to profess his innocence, there should be an acknowledgement of his poor judgement in being friends with Epstein.

I am assuming that his daughters had no idea what he was up to and they are the only ones I care about in this context. They should not be tainted because of their father's indiscretions.

 

[Mbruno]

They taint his family if they are aware of his actions and try to hide the truth.
Rather than make an effort to profess his innocence, there should be an acknowledgement of his poor judgement in being friends with Epstein.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

The Palace has not denied that Andrew was friends with Mr. Epstein. They've denied he had sex with Mrs. Roberts. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that Mrs Roberts is telling the truth. If she is indeed making it up, it is right for the Palace to issue a denial.

 

[Mbruno]

I am assuming that his daughters had no idea what he was up to and they are the only ones I care about in this context. They should not be tainted because of their father's indiscretions.

I don't see why they would be.

 

[Mirabel]

What evidence do you have that Andrew is the Queen's favo(u)rite son ?

I've read the same thing, many times.
Andrew is often referred to as the Queen's favorite child in the press.
(Although I very much doubt that she has ever said so aloud!)

 

[royalistbert]

I feel sorry for The Queen. Yet again her children let her down.

 

[Molly2101]

I've read the same thing, many times.
Andrew is often referred to as the Queen's favorite child in the press.
(Although I very much doubt that she has ever said so aloud!)

I have read that in the press - they state he is her favourite child as he was a "make up" child....obviously everything you read in the press is taken with a pinch of salt. It's like how they say Anne is Philip's favourite child and Edward is his favourite son, but of course there are and never will be any reliable sources a.k.a the Queen nor Philip will ever state who their favourite child is.

I have tried to avoid reading anything about Andrew and this situation as it's pretty outrageous if it is all true. I would feel the same if it was any man or woman who has been accused of having non-consensual intercourse with anyone underage. It's not any worse just because he is the Queen's son or "celebrity". It's terrible no matter what the background is.

Of course it could all be made up completely but we will never really know, and if it has been made up then it's a particularly cruel way to essentially destroy someone's life.

 

[royalistbert]

I doubt he is her favourite child anymore. The amount of stress he has put on her.

 

[Mbruno]

I doubt he is her favourite child anymore. The amount of stress he has put on her.

It's interesting to see how people have forgotten his service to his country in the Falklands War and afterwards throughout his naval career.

 

[Molly2101]

It's interesting to see how people have forgotten his service to his country in the Falklands War and afterwards throughout his naval career.

No one is discrediting his naval career or his service, but it's understandable that people find it hard to respect a man who is accused to forcing someone, whether she was under age or not, to sleep with them.

 

[Mbruno]

No one is discrediting his naval career or his service, but it's understandable that people find it hard to respect a man who is accused to forcing someone, whether she was under age or not, to sleep with them.

The key word in your post is "accused". What happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?

As for his past association with Mr Epstein, the Duke has already apologized for it and recognized it was a mistake.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I don't believe that this taints the family at all - the Queen, Charles, William, Harry (really, they are the main players here). Of course, for some out there, it will taint the entire family, but overall, no.

The only problem would be if BP issued any denials that later prove to be false. That would taint BP's credibility for a long time.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Andrew, Andrew, Andrew...what's next? I'm feeling that this is a set-up. Don't know why, just a feeling.

Where was this underaged girl's father when she was hired as a "messenger?" They want money...and they might get a payoff as a nuisance claim.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't believe that this taints the family at all - the Queen, Charles, William, Harry (really, they are the main players here). Of course, for some out there, it will taint the entire family, but overall, no.

The only problem would be if BP issued any denials that later prove to be false. That would taint BP's credibility for a long time.

I agree. That's why they wouldn't issue such an emphatic denial if they weren't sure the accusations were false.

Of course, if Mrs Roberts' claims do turn out to be true, they can always blame it on Prince Andrew's lying to them, as Mr Clinton's aides did following the Lewinsky affair.

 

[tommy100]

I don't think the rest of the family have been tainted, this doesn't make me think less of the rest of the family.

Unless of course HM decides to give Andrew a new honour like she did last time.

But whilst its bad for the 'firm' to be in the papers for the wrong reasons its just a reflection on Andrew and his stupidity and not the rest of the family.

 

[soraya]

I don't believe that this taints the family at all - the Queen, Charles, William, Harry (really, they are the main players here). Of course, for some out there, it will taint the entire family, but overall, no.

The only problem would be if BP issued any denials that later prove to be false. That would taint BP's credibility for a long time.

I don't know if the accusations are true or false but I think that Buckingham palace shouldn't have issued any denial.The only one who should do it is the person who is accused or his lawyer no one else.
No other partie should have intervened unless he/she was present when the offense supposedly happen.
IMO,denying an offense when one wasn't present is only perjury and not good for one's credibility.I think,whoever is counselling the Windsors is doing it amateurishly.
I agree with those who think that Andrew is guilty of not distancing himself from a sex-offender .But I am surprised that no advisors in BP have seen that this was bad for the royal family's reputation.

For the moment,the only ones I feel sorry for are Beatrice and Eugenie.

 

[Jacknch]

Announcements and clarifications from Buckingham Palace have always been good enough for me, far above and beyond speculation and rumours from the media at home and abroad.

Regarding Epstein, I always had this naive idea in my head somehow that friends and associates of members of the royal family were vetted by Government agencies and advice given if anything were found to be amiss or controversial. It seems, however, that Prince Andrew is or was able to make friends and become associates with anyone.

This is an unfortunate situation for Andrew on a number of levels. He appears to have been the scapegoat for the last few years in the media anyway, and they tend to leave Anne and the Wessex's well alone these days.

 

[tommy100]

Which, to be honest, probably suites Anne and the Wessex's fine ;-)

 

[soapstar]

Okay, so Andrew is NOT a criminal, no matter what else you might think of him - UNLESS transporting her across state lines, i.e., a minor out of Florida is problematic (which it is, I think, and as it was done more than twice, it's a RICO under Federal law), but it looks like from the deal struck by Epstein, any "co-conspirator" is immune from suit in the U.S. (Taking her allegations as true, of course, and I'm not sure they are, or aren't)

I think 2015 will be a tough year for the BRF.

But how old were the girls that Andrew interacted with when he visited Epstein's Flordia mansion? I know that the palace denied the claims from from this particular witness, but I wonder about the other women.

What blows my mind is that after Epstein was released from prison, Andrew asked him to help with Fergie's debt. I just really don't understand what Andrew was thinking.

 

[Osipi]

It very well could have been that there were underage girls there under Epstein's employ that made themselves available (at the request of their boss) to service his guests. Perhaps there was booze flowing and recreational drugs to be had. Just because it was available, it doesn't necessarily mean that a guest is obliged to partake of what's offered. Andrew is pretty well known to not be a drinker so perhaps he knew there were drinks but the next day would be hard pressed to tell you what was being offered as it was something he preferred to pass on. Perhaps he passed on the girls and didn't give a thought to who they were and how old they were.

The sad thing is that no matter what Andrew did or didn't do, its been splashed all over the media and there will be precious few people that will bother to follow the story and read the small print. Right now what he needs most is his family's support and I do think that is exactly what he'll get.

One more thing. Do we know if Andrew has continued to socialize with Epstein since (I think) 2010 when this controversy first started? I don't recall reading anything within the past couple years concerning Epstein.

 

[soapstar]

He supposedly broke off contact with Epstein in early 2011.

The Duke of York has finally admitted that meeting the disgraced billionaire recently was ‘unwise’ and has ruled out further visits to the Florida mansion where Epstein sexually exploited underage girls.

Prince Andrew vows to end friendship with billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein | Daily Mail Online

Although according to a Vanity Fair article that was published in late 2011, it seems that he may have still had contact with Epstein.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman elaborated on this analysis of the prince’s personality. “The same kind of loyalty manifested itself last December, when the duke visited Epstein at his home in New York,” he told me. “Epstein was a friend of the duke’s for the best part of 20 years. It was the first time in four years that he’d seen Epstein. He now recognizes that the meeting in December was unwise.” A royal source added, “Don’t expect to see a photo of the two of them together.”

“Does that mean that Andrew has broken off all contact with Epstein?,” I asked.

“Hereinafter,” the source said, choosing his words with care, “we won’t see a photo.”

That seemed to leave open the possibility that Andrew intended to carry on his friendship with Epstein, but out of public view.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/08/prince-andrew-201108

 

[Osipi]

He supposedly broke off contact with Epstein in 2011.

With that in mind, I'm going to give Andrew the benefit of the doubt as to any kind of wrongdoings and that he's done the best that he could have possibly done which is sever all contact with the sleezebag no matter how brilliant the sleezebag is at financial matters.

It seems to be the going things these days to dredge up misdeeds from a time long, long ago for money and a few days of fame. In this respect I feel for Cosby too.

 

[VictoriaB]

IMO,denying an offense when one wasn't present is only perjury and not good for one's credibility.

Perjury is making a false statement when on oath. Press releases are not given on oath and therefore not perjury no matter how inaccurate. If Andrew were to stand in the witness box and make a deliberately false statement, that would be perjury.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[soapstar]

With that in mind, I'm going to give Andrew the benefit of the doubt as to any kind of wrongdoings and that he's done the best that he could have possibly done which is sever all contact with the sleezebag no matter how brilliant the sleezebag is at financial matters.

It seems to be the going things these days to dredge up misdeeds from a time long, long ago for money and a few days of fame. In this respect I feel for Cosby too.

Personally I can't give him too much credit. He didn't sever ties with Epstein until after being pressured. He was still friends after Epstein was convicted and even visited New York after Epstein was released from prison. Not to mention he got money for Fergie's debts.

It's quite possible that Andrew had no idea that the women he was getting massages from might be underage, but I do know that he stayed friends with this man after the fact. His continued friendship with Epstein has made me see Andrew in a whole new light.

 

[VictoriaB]

With that in mind, I'm going to give Andrew the benefit of the doubt as to any kind of wrongdoings and that he's done the best that he could have possibly done which is sever all contact with the sleezebag no matter how brilliant the sleezebag is at financial matters.



It seems to be the going things these days to dredge up misdeeds from a time long, long ago for money and a few days of fame. In this respect I feel for Cosby too.

Yes he did sever contact but Andrew still met Epstein after he was convicted which was not wise in his position.

As for historical cases of abuse, if a crime was committed then I believe the perpetrators should be punished. It's up to the sentencing judge to take into consideration any mitigating factors.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Mbruno]

But how old were the girls that Andrew interacted with when he visited Epstein's Flordia mansion? I know that the palace denied the claims from from this particular witness, but I wonder about the other women.

What blows my mind is that after Epstein was released from prison, Andrew asked him to help with Fergie's debt. I just really don't understand what Andrew was thinking.

The fact that Prince Andrew did admit to having had "massages" in the past while visiting Epstein's properties is more damaging IMHO than Mrs Roberts' allegations per se, which the Prince denies. I say so because, in context, we now know that those so-called "massages", at least in other occasions, involved underage women and some kind of sexual contact. It is difficult to imagine that Andrew's sessions would not follow the same pattern.

Having said that, no witnesses, except for Mrs Roberts, have come out with allegations specifically mentioning Prince Andrew and Mrs Roberts' claims, if I understand it correctly, do not seem to be related to the "massages" properly, but rather to separate incidents

 

[soraya]

Perjury is making a false statement when on oath. Press releases are not given on oath and therefore not perjury no matter how inaccurate. If Andrew were to stand in the witness box and make a deliberately false statement, that would be perjury.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Sorry English isn't my first language
I find no other term ,may be "false testimony" but without the judicial connotation or "lies".

At the end of the day,BP declaration makes me speechless.Whoever has written it should be fired