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.
We don't know that Charles is not supporting his brother. After all, we only have the word of Ricky and Geoffy of the Daily Fail fame on which to base this assertion. I think I'll wait and see.


I don't think you will "see" anything.
I can't see him making his support or lack of , public knowledge.
He will be keeping clear of it all
IMO


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I don't think you will "see" anything.
I can't see him making his support or lack of , public knowledge.
He will be keeping clear of it all
IMO

Actually, when you think about it, what can Charles really do?

This whole article is another attempt to create a tempest in a teapot once again. Andrew is a big boy now and whatever messes he finds himself in, its on him to clean it up and I think he's going to be finding out more and more that when it comes to his private life, being a royal won't amount to a hill of beans.
 
It's Richard Kay. It means that everything in this article is untrue. It surprises me that many of the new members here actually believe in this nonsense.
 
The family usually always supportive of each other. Also, Charles has never been in the position to pass judgement to anyone.

The media is coming up with all kinds of crap at the moment, because there isn't much royal news to report on.
 
Last edited:
Richard Kay, Geoffrey Levy and others would write anything to take a swipe at Prince Charles.

Facts and sources are immaterial when it comes to the Daily Mail and these people.
 
Richard Kay, Geoffrey Levy and others would write anything to take a swipe at Prince Charles.

Facts and sources are immaterial when it comes to the Daily Mail and these people.

The crazy part is that some people will believe what is written.
 
Richard Kay, Geoffrey Levy and others would write anything to take a swipe at Prince Charles.

Facts and sources are immaterial when it comes to the Daily Mail and these people.


I really don't think these people are out to get Charles. I don't think they sit and plot his downfall
He's always going to be written about
The daily mail writes this sort of thing that's what they do
If it upsets you don't read it




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
What is Charles supposed to do anyway? Andrew is a big boy no one knows what has gone on behind the scenes and Charles has gone through some pretty bad headlines himself. I guess it's gone quiet and this is there way of keeping Andrews name in the news.
 
Maybe, like most families, Andrew would expect the support of his siblings. The BRF of course operates differently and there has been no secret for the last decade or more - even back into the 1980s, that Charles doesn't have a great relationship with any of his siblings but especially Andrew. Charles could simply ring up his brother and say something like 'Andrew, I believe you and I love you'. Of course he may have done that but I doubt it. They have always struck me as brothers by blood but with very little if any affection between them at all.
 
[...]

Charles could simply ring up his brother and say something like 'Andrew, I believe you and I love you'.

[...]

Who says he didn't? By telephone, by letter, by e-mail, in the flesh -for an example when they walked to Church on Sunday- whatever. Many (foreign) royals have been in the same circumstances, being focus of a media frenzy, and never is know how inside the family has been reacted.
 
Maybe, like most families, Andrew would expect the support of his siblings. The BRF of course operates differently and there has been no secret for the last decade or more - even back into the 1980s, that Charles doesn't have a great relationship with any of his siblings but especially Andrew. Charles could simply ring up his brother and say something like 'Andrew, I believe you and I love you'. Of course he may have done that but I doubt it. They have always struck me as brothers by blood but with very little if any affection between them at all.


I get the same impression.
I've always thought that Charles respects Anne but has little in common with her, considers Andrew a liability and Edward a cipher. JMO.
 
I get the same impression.
I've always thought that Charles respects Anne but has little in common with her, considers Andrew a liability and Edward a cipher. JMO.


I agree I have never seen any interaction between any of them. Not like William and Harry with their jokes about red hair or being bald etc
The big age gap would make a huge difference too I suppose.



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
William and Harry are hardly a paragon of closeness either, at least according to Prince Edward and their priavte life actions. I imagine that royals are taught to trust no one, including their own family. Good advice I would say.
 
William and Harry are hardly a paragon of closeness either, at least according to Prince Edward and their priavte life actions. I imagine that royals are taught to trust no one, including their own family. Good advice I would say.

Sounds like paranoia, actually.
 
Sounds like paranoia, actually.

In reality, we only see how the family interacts when they are in public. We have to remember too that this is a family where its members quite often have very full engagement calendars so the opportunities to just get together as a family are very few and far between.

If I'm not mistaken, Charles wrote his children's book for Andrew when he was little. Basically, I think they get along as well as any family that doesn't have the opportunity to see and interact with each other a lot. But then, its just the impression I get from viewing their public lives.
 
Maybe, like most families, Andrew would expect the support of his siblings. The BRF of course operates differently and there has been no secret for the last decade or more - even back into the 1980s, that Charles doesn't have a great relationship with any of his siblings but especially Andrew. Charles could simply ring up his brother and say something like 'Andrew, I believe you and I love you'. Of course he may have done that but I doubt it. They have always struck me as brothers by blood but with very little if any affection between them at all.


He most certainly would expect support from the heir to the throne--the future of the monarchy--given Andrew is a senior royal.
 
Sounds like paranoia, actually.

If it was a normal family, I would agree.

Royals are a different breed. There are different motives at play. If William/Harry trusted their dad they would have been betrayed. If William/Harry trusted their mom they would have been betrayed. If William/Harry trusted Uncle Edward they would have been betrayed. If William/Harry trusted Uncle Earl Spencer they would have been betrayed. Once burned, twice shy. If they weren't suspicious of their family members I would question their rationality.
 
If it was a normal family, I would agree.



Royals are a different breed. There are different motives at play. If William/Harry trusted their dad they would have been betrayed. If William/Harry trusted their mom they would have been betrayed. If William/Harry trusted Uncle Edward they would have been betrayed. If William/Harry trusted Uncle Earl Spencer they would have been betrayed. Once burned, twice shy. If they weren't suspicious of their family members I would question their rationality.


We aren't living in medieval times. I'd imagine they live life in a way to ensure such thoughts and motives aren't at play.
 
If it was a normal family, I would agree.

Royals are a different breed. There are different motives at play. If William/Harry trusted their dad they would have been betrayed. If William/Harry trusted their mom they would have been betrayed. If William/Harry trusted Uncle Edward they would have been betrayed. If William/Harry trusted Uncle Earl Spencer they would have been betrayed. Once burned, twice shy. If they weren't suspicious of their family members I would question their rationality.

The royal family is more public but there is no difference between the royal family and a "normal" family. We all feel betrayed by our loved ones and we all betray them in turn. Sometimes it seems as though people tend to infantilize adult members of the royal family.

Andrew is in his 50's. I assume that Andrew didn't consult Charles before he chose to go out in public with Epstein after Epstein's conviction. I don't think Charles owes it to Andrew to help him out now. I don't think it will make a difference if he did. It may even make it worse by giving new life to the story.

The allegation that Andrew slept with Virginia Roberts when she was 17 years old is actually old news. As long as Andrew didn't commit a crime, the royal family is probably taking the long view:The story will follow Andrew but will not seriously damage the monarchy.

How supportive Charles is in private is a different matter.
 
Regardless of whether Richard Kay makes stuff up out of thin air, and whether Charles is sending texts of brotherly love to Andrew behind the scenes, or posting on his Facebook page, "like if you love your brother", the royal family usually sends messages to the public via actions, not words. Who they appear with, who they walk beside, stand next to, who rides in a carriage with who. I predict Easter services, Trooping of the Colour, Ascot, etc, etc, will be rather interesting this year. I don't think Andrew will be missing, barring a bombshell in the next few weeks - his mother won't have it. Whether or not he is right there front and center during Charles' reign remains to be seen.
 
I really don't think these people are out to get Charles. I don't think they sit and plot his downfall
He's always going to be written about
The daily mail writes this sort of thing that's what they do
If it upsets you don't read it
Unlike those that slavishly devour the trash from the DM et al, believing every word and photo, others have been around long enough to know when they are recycling stories and photos. . .

Same people, different day, different place.

Or

Different people, different day, different place.

The point is the "news" is interchangeable. I think they actually cut and paste to save the bother.

The Daily Mail doesn't "upset" me because it is a tabloid. Slavish devotees do!
 
William and Harry are hardly a paragon of closeness either, at least according to Prince Edward and their priavte life actions. I imagine that royals are taught to trust no one, including their own family. Good advice I would say.


Before William married, he and Harry often went around together to clubs and parties, etc.

Of course, the age difference between Charles and his younger siblings precludes that. Still... by now the age difference is more or less irrelevant, yet still...he doesn't have much to do with them.
 
Of course, the age difference between Charles and his younger siblings precludes that. Still... by now the age difference is more or less irrelevant, yet still...he doesn't have much to do with them.

I think this is more to do with different stages in life and not residing near each other. Edward has young children, Charles is going to be a grandfather for the 2nd time. Andrew has unmarried daughters and Charles has sons.

I do think they are closer than most people think. During Christmas' early morning walk to church Charles was walking with Edward. (I believe one year Andrew & Charles were photographed doing the early morning Christmas walk together.)

Charles and Princess Anne are close. A few years back during the Order of Garter Charles was photographed lovingly helping Anne with her hat.

The reason William is close to Zara is because Charles and Anne had children near the same ages and lived near each other.
 
Last edited:
The existence of videos was known about since December. The question is: did the men (never mind the girls) know that they were being video-taped. This is very, very seamy.

LINK: Epstein Scandal Just Got Crazier: Enter Ken Starr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6-XN5pWCs4

TEXT: "Published on Feb 7, 2015: The mainstream media has largely ignored the Jeffrey Epstein child sex scandal, even though the details of the case keep getting crazier and crazier."
 
Thank you for that link. The whole affair has been so hushed up and it gets dirtier everyday


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Scandal 01.06.15
I Tried to Warn You About Sleazy Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2003: When Vicky Ward profiled Jeffrey Epstein for Vanity Fair, allegations of his attempted seduction of two young sisters were excised from the final piece.

LINK: I Tried to Warn You About Sleazy Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 - The Daily Beast

TEXT: "At first—it was the early stages of reporting—I was amused at having been so crassly underestimated. For a man who clearly considered himself a sophisticated ladies’ man (the only book he’d left out for me to see was a paperback by the Marquis de Sade), I thought his journalist-seduction technique was a bit like his table manners—in dire need of improvement.

"If only it had all ended there. This was what it had been meant to be. A gossipy piece about a shadowy, slightly sinister but essentially harmless man who preferred track-pants to suits but somehow lived very large, had wealthy, important friends, hung out with models, and shied away from the press.

"But it didn’t."



The article is excellent. The video is extremely interesting.

Vicky Ward discusses Jeffrey Epstein 6th Jan 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1jD0BgnY5M

TEXT: "Published on Jan 8, 2015: "I Tried to Warn You About Sleazy Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2003", said Vicky Ward. This is the msnbc interview with Vicky Ward who wrote the Vanity Fair feature in 2003. 'When Vicky Ward profiled Jeffrey Epstein for Vanity Fair, allegations of his attempted seduction of two young sisters were excised from the final piece'. "


One comment is very pointed: "Society is like a stew, if you don't stir it up every once in a while a layer of scum floats to the top."
 
Last edited:
Thank you it's very interesting. The power he had over all this people is amazing. It's such an incredible story that is being hushed up


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The comment about the stew is so very true


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you it's very interesting. The power he had over all this people is amazing. It's such an incredible story that is being hushed up.

Sadly, even the fabulous Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair who did cut the damning part of the journalists's report, gets splashed with some of the muck. Though given the calibre if the man, there were legal issues that made the publishing of the allegations a problem. It was in 2005 that a girl went to the police to report Epstein, so anything before that would have been an allegation and not backed up with anything more substantial, like a police report.

NYC and Florida high society is a great swirl, everyone knows everyone. The possible people involved in this (and my mind is clicking away on some very interesting names) even innocently, may be huge. I think it's the FBI or the prosecutor's office that has possession of the video-tapes. This is either going to get jammed up in the legal system, or it's going to be broken wide open one day by the Justice Department. Time will tell, and meanwhile there have to be people out there who are sweating, not knowing how or when or with whom this will break.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom