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.
Looks like one sponsor has already declined to continue association with Andrew

.
Sky News understands accountancy firm KPMG has not renewed its sponsorship of the Duke of York's Pitch@Palace initiative with the company saying it "made the decision following adverse press scrutiny around Prince Andrew"
Another article -
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-backing-for-prince-andrews-mentorship-scheme
It has seemed very bad optics to me that Andrew focused so heavily on ‘enabling young people to connect with the rich and powerful’ in his pitch at the palace scheme following his removal as trade ambassador. If the intent following the Trade removal was for him to rebrand himself, why let him focus on the very demographic Epstein targeted? I’m not suggesting any inappropriate conduct by Andrew - it just seems so clueless, wouldn’t adult veteran causes have been a more logical and less controversial choice under the circumstances?
And another controversy: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...tre_pqylmel2bk8&utm_campaign=related_articles
This one about racist remarks.
I wonder how much more will surface. Palace sources have denied the story, saying Andrew wouldn’t speak like that, so I guess Andrew’s position is that this guy is lying just like Virginia.
 
Last edited:
Well the interview kinda proved he is very much lacking the ability to make good judgements.


LaRae
 
Looks like one sponsor has already declined to continue association with Andrew

.
Sky News understands accountancy firm KPMG has not renewed its sponsorship of the Duke of York's Pitch@Palace initiative with the company saying it "made the decision following adverse press scrutiny around Prince Andrew"

One down. How many more to follow? This is the serious kind of repercussions that harms everything that Andrew has tried to do. When his character comes under the microscope and is found wanting, association with the man becomes less and less desirable.

Another article -
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-backing-for-prince-andrews-mentorship-scheme
It has seemed very bad optics to me that Andrew focused so heavily on ‘enabling young people to connect with the rich and powerful’ in his pitch at the palace scheme following his removal as trade ambassador. If the intent following the Trade removal was for him to rebrand himself, why let him focus on the very demographic Epstein targeted? I’m not suggesting any inappropriate conduct by Andrew - it just seems so clueless, wouldn’t adult veteran causes have been a more logical and less controversial choice under the circumstances?

In a way, I believe Andrew was zeroing in on what he deemed important to himself and worthy of passing on to young entrepreneurs to get ahead in their lives. Establishing connections and networking skills and the skills to "schmooze" and make deals are good traits to have if they are done right and for the right reasons. If Andrew actually is impressed by money and power and status as he seems to be, it would be that which he felt should be passed on to the up and coming youth of today. So, in this respect, I can see where Andrew really did try and do good with his Pitch@Palace scheme.

Unfortunately, I think the scheme is going to suffer because of Andrew's poor choices. That's a shame because Pitch@Palace was really starting to take hold and make a difference.
 
He better turn them over to his girls and/or other members of the family and go lay low before the floodgates open.


LaRae
 
He better turn them over to his girls and/or other members of the family and go lay low before the floodgates open.


LaRae

Wouldn't he first have to realize just how bad he looked and sounded in that interview? By all accounts I've seen, he thinks he's aced it and everything is "taken care of". :rolleyes:
 

She has to, so has the court. - Officially.

Not backing Andrew at this stage would be sensational!

I will not put any blame on QEII for this horrible interview.
I can well imagine her advisors cautioning against this interview. And I can well imagine Andrew telling his mother: "I got this one. Piece of cake. No need to worry." - So who can blame a mother for trusting her son? And give her OK, despite warnings.

Wouldn't he first have to realize just how bad he looked and sounded in that interview? By all accounts I've seen, he thinks he's aced it and everything is "taken care of". :rolleyes:

Obviously they didn't do a trial-run, as any reasonably competent PR advisor would have insisted on before going public with such an interview.
Had this been a trial run and Andrew had watched a video of himself, I wonder if he wouldn't have dropped the whole idea on the spot!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wouldn't he first have to realize just how bad he looked and sounded in that interview? By all accounts I've seen, he thinks he's aced it and everything is "taken care of". :rolleyes:

If he were that perceptive he wouldn't of done the interview to begin with...



LaRae

She has to, so has the court. - Officially.

Not backing Andrew at this stage would be sensational!

I will not put any blame on QEII for this horrible interview.
I can well imagine her advisors cautioning against this interview. And I can well imagine Andrew telling his mother: "I got this one. Piece of cake. No need to worry." - So who can blame a mother for trusting her son? And give her OK, despite warnings.


Not at all the Queen's fault. Andrew is a almost 60 year old man. This is all on him. HIS actions started this whole mess and he just made it worse ...I think a good many people were really unsure about it all ...but he made himself look so bad they've shifted from the middle ground to the 'he's an arrogant entitled wanker' side.


LaRae
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks like one sponsor has already declined to continue association with Andrew

.
Sky News understands accountancy firm KPMG has not renewed its sponsorship of the Duke of York's Pitch@Palace initiative with the company saying it "made the decision following adverse press scrutiny around Prince Andrew"

It appears a second organization is backing away from him as well.

Per ITV News

And another sponsor of @pitchatpalace goes a bit wobbly: @AstraZeneca says “Our three year partnership with pitch@palace is due to expire at the end of this year and is currently being reviewed.”



I am sure more to come. You can't go on TV and said you have no regrets being friends with a convicted pedophile and sex trafficker and expect business to go on as usual.
 
Not at all the Queen's fault. Andrew is a almost 60 year old man. This is all on him. HIS actions started this whole mess and he just made it worse ...I think a good many people were really unsure about it all ...but he made himself look so bad they've shifted from the middle ground to the 'he's an arrogant entitled wanker' side.





LaRae


Thank you! Well said.

Looks like one sponsor has already declined to continue association with Andrew

.
Sky News understands accountancy firm KPMG has not renewed its sponsorship of the Duke of York's Pitch@Palace initiative with the company saying it "made the decision following adverse press scrutiny around Prince Andrew"



Just a note on KPMG, their contract was up for renewal in October 19, and then chose not to renew.
This is not new information.

It’s truly unfortunate Pitch@Palace will suffer, it should be given to another royal.
 
So why can't the police interview Andrews royal protection officer who should be able to corraborate his version of events.
Also Epsteins household staff should be interviewed to set the record straight.
 
Last edited:
Obviously they didn't do a trial-run, as any reasonably competent PR advisor would have insisted on before going public with such an interview.
Had this been a trial run and Andrew had watched a video of himself, I wonder if he wouldn't have dropped the whole idea on the spot!

Which is ironic because Matlis did several trial runs of her side of the interview with a producer standing in for Andrew.

This whole mess has shown that all along Andrew thought the problem was only being pictured with Epstein in 2010, in effect the issue in his eyes was getting caught. The fact he would be friends with Epstein and happily stay at his houses because it was "convenient" for Andrew is something in his opinion we shouldn't have a say or comment on or be an issue at all. That is where the big disconnect comes in here, the interview was never going to go well because Andrew didn't see the same issues and concerns as we had.

I doubt the Queen approved of it in the sense of having anything to do with it, the Guardian and Telegraph have both reported The Queen and her aides were informed just before the interview took place, suggesting they were simply expected to go along with it rather than have any say in whether it was a good idea or not. If they had been involved even a little it I suspect we would have seen a different interview (if indeed any at all), one that wasn't trailed for days before hand and which may have included a much deeper apology (even if it would have been insincere). Ironically the plan suggested by Jason Stein was probably much more to BPs liking and usual precedence - focus on charity work, keep quiet and then give two interviews for his birthday next year. Whether right or wrong it would not have brought about this much hell on Andrew and by extension the monarchy.
 
Andrew is so selfish. I find all these interviews to air dirt laundry and personal matters really undervalue the great work many royals are doing.

Andrew should resign and Queen/Charles should allow Beatrice/ Eugenie to become full time royals and take over their father's patronages.

People have had so much respect for the The Queen's reign in the past couple of years, and now it is all overshadowed by all these personal issues/ interviews.

it's disheartening.
 
So why can't the police interview Andrews royal protection officer who should be able to corraborate his version of events.
Also Epsteins household staff should be interviewed to set the record straight.

Probably because Andrew isn't suspected of committing a crime at this time. Even in Virginia Roberts Giuffre story of "sleeping" with Andrew, she more or less names Epstein/Maxwell as the culprits responsible for "forcing" her and not Andrew. She even stated that Andrew was nice and polite.

So, all in all, police investigation right now is out of the picture. What happens if a lawsuit is filed in the US and Andrew steps on US soil is a horse of a totally different color.

I think if Epstein's household staff were to be questioned (and I wouldn't bet my last mug of egg nog on that they haven't been interviewed yet) the focus would not be on Andrew at all but rather on Epstein's and Maxwell's roles in the actual sex trafficking allegations. Maxwell's part in all this is the meat and the potatoes of the ongoing investigation as far as I'm aware.
 
I doubt the Queen approved of it in the sense of having anything to do with it, the Guardian and Telegraph have both reported The Queen and her aides were informed just before the interview took place, suggesting they were simply expected to go along with it rather than have any say in whether it was a good idea or not. If they had been involved even a little it I suspect we would have seen a different interview (if indeed any at all), one that wasn't trailed for days before hand and which may have included a much deeper apology (even if it would have been insincere). Ironically the plan suggested by Jason Stein was probably much more to BPs liking and usual precedence - focus on charity work, keep quiet and then give two interviews for his birthday next year. Whether right or wrong it would not have brought about this much hell on Andrew and by extension the monarchy.

The article in The Times that I linked in the Future of the Monarchy thread has some insights into this. Specifically, it is said that according to some sources, when Sir Christopher Geidt was forced out, and the attempt to centralize the oversight of the different royals was subsequently abandoned, that the different offices essentially operate "in a silo" with little oversight or input from an office with authority. It's an interesting observation.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...ueen-is-losing-her-grip-on-the-firm-x5z2mjhhg
 
Her majesty should allow Prince Charles to take over the management of the firm and all royals who supports it. But I find Prince Charles ("too nice") if that's a word. He seems more mellow than William.

I imagine Prince William might be tougher on his reign than Charles. He seems to be strict, may be even more so than Charles.
 
Her majesty should allow Prince Charles to take over the management of the firm and all royals who supports it. But I find Prince Charles ("too nice") if that's a word. He seems more mellow than William.

I imagine Prince William might be tougher on his reign than Charles. He seems to be strict, may be even more so than Charles.

That depends on who you ask. If you ask Andrew and Sarah York about it, i doubt they will tell you that neither Charles or William is ”too nice” ?

Whatever happens, Pitch@Palace is likely doomed anyway. Which other royal would even want to take over it ? It will always be associated with Andrew and this mess. I strongly doubt that his daughter’s or any of his siblings would want to attatch themselves to this mess more than they already have been...
 
Many seem to assume that FBI seeks to interview and question Prince Andrew and that he should accept, but are we sure that FBI is actually seeking this? I wouldn't.
So far, the only request to hear from Prince Andrew has come from lawyers on behalf of Epstein's victims in the context of their private lawsuits.
Up until a few days ago, it was even uncertain if the FBI investigation on Epstein and the role of his enablers, such as Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean Luc Brunel and others was actually ongoing. Many commentators wondered if they had been traced by FBI and if there are any plans to question them.
It is unclear to me what course of action the US Authorities will pursue and against whom.
Does anyone have any info from reliable sources on this?
 
That depends on who you ask. If you ask Andrew and Sarah York about it, i doubt they will tell you that neither Charles or William is ”too nice” [emoji38]



Whatever happens, Pitch@Palace is likely doomed anyway. Which other royal would even want to take over it ? It will always be associated with Andrew and this mess. I strongly doubt that his daughter’s or any of his siblings would want to attatch themselves to this mess more than they already have been...



[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]. Good point. They both seem likely nice to Princess Royal and her family, but tolerant towards Wessex and indifferent to the York’s. I am totally speculating!
 
Andrew is so selfish. I find all these interviews to air dirt laundry and personal matters really undervalue the great work many royals are doing.

Andrew should resign and Queen/Charles should allow Beatrice/ Eugenie to become full time royals and take over their father's patronages.

People have had so much respect for the The Queen's reign in the past couple of years, and now it is all overshadowed by all these personal issues/ interviews.

it's disheartening.
While I agree Andrew should exit stage left after this disaster, why should this suddenly let Bea and Eugenie become full-time royals and essentially take up dad's workload?

Given the longtime story that Andrew has been pushing the York girls to be fulltime royals (whether or not you believe it I've seen the story floated as recently as today)that course of action might be seen as rewarding Andrew. Sure he's been pushed out, but by stepping down he's secured the life-long roles in the firm (and the associated privileges and paychecks) for his daughters that he's reportedly clamored for.

Much more likely replacements are the Sussexes and Cambridges. Many of his army patronages would fit neatly in Harry's portfolio, some dealing with young people and medicine would fit for Kate, and his patronage of the arts and ballet could go to Meghan (although the latter would work for Kate too). Others like those relating the deaf/blind, nautical matters, science, and military appointments could go to any member of the royal family, depending on interests.
 
By reading comments in papers the words "can of worms" or in French "boïte de Pandore" springs to my mind….
 
Another summation in a quote that Andrew should have heeded before doing this interview which, to me, will be impossible to come back from is:

"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." ~ Dante Alighieri

I think it will be interesting and informative to see just how many public engagements Andrew does in the coming days. Business as usual or MIA? Only Andrew knows at this point. He can't be so oblivious or hiding under a rock somewhere that he's not seeing the repercussions from all this. :D
 
Interesting new development to monitor.

It's possible, I'm told, that Ghislaine Maxwell is talking to the FBI. If she flips, she might give them #PrinceAndrew. That could explain his extraordinary performance on the #PrinceAndrew interview. He was getting in his denial first.

 
I've watched the entire interview, and the thing that is striking to me--actually, "stunning" is a better word--is that at no point did Andrew explicitly express empathy for any of the girls who were abused and exploited. He used the word "unbecoming" to describe Jeffrey Epstein's behavior. The lack of empathy, the lack of acknowledgement that Epstein's behavior was monstrous, and that he himself showed a horrendous lack of judgment in associating with Epstein, is appalling. At one point, asked if he regretted his association, Andrew said that no, the benefits he had received from his association, and the access Epstein provided to various people, caused him to not regret it.
I agree that the interview was very self-centered but there was one point in which he acknowledged some interest in the girls, which was when he said 'rightly so' when the interviewer talked about the focus now being on the girls' stories.

He seemed mainly to regret visiting Epstein in 2010; as if everything else was just fine?!

And his focus on the dates was rather obvious. For example about the April meeting, he did not deny he was with her but started talking about his schedule and how he had only visited the house a day earlier (or so). And he did not want to go as far as stating that she lied. How can both his denial and her story be truth at the same time?!

Had he never had anything to do with any of the girls, it would have been fairly easy to deny everything and to categorically state that anything else was absolutely false, I would think.

And that whole story about the photograph didn't make things better either. "I have no explanation" - I never went upstairs?! (How do you know this is upstairs?) I also wonder why being friends with Maxwell doesn't seem to be a problem given the growing evidence that she most likely had an important part in all of this.

Nonetheless, I can imagine that if Andrew is so set in his own ways, he might have come from this interview thinking that he did well and had been able to share his side of the story. I guess by now he at least knows (might not understand) that the public thinks differently - although at first the BBC seemed rather positive; not sure how they are reporting about it now.
 
Interesting new development to monitor.

It's possible, I'm told, that Ghislaine Maxwell is talking to the FBI. If she flips, she might give them #PrinceAndrew. That could explain his extraordinary performance on the #PrinceAndrew interview. He was getting in his denial first.


One would think that if this is true, that Andrew doesn't really have to worry about a train wreck any longer, he just has to watch out for the oncoming bus. I've not heard anything about Maxwell at all talking to the FBI so I'll wait until its confirmed by reliable sources.

Methinks though that Andrew probably wishes he still couldn't sweat. It may be that he's got *lots* to sweat about in the near future. :ohmy:
 
It is all over CNN again Andrew reminds me of one person who doesn't know when to stop.
 
...
I couldnt believe Andrew was so careless and reckless to put himself unnecessarily at risk. He appeared vulnerable and exposed and unprepared. This goes against all the training that royalty receives. Presumably this is the result of Fergie who will have guided him into the interview - even though she has not the slightest idea what the correct Royal response is to controversy. The no doubt have a sincere and loving relationship in private - but to the rest of us it manifests itself as incredibly dysfunctional and this interview demonstrates the lack of perspective they both possess.

The pair of them should get married and move out of White Lodge into a modest G&F property where they can live happily ever after. Then (we can pray) they can start to rebuild their reputations by getting seriously involved in charitable work and public service. I cant see Fergie doing this - so I suppose the pair of them are 'doomed'. It would be good to see a fresh start where Andrew takes a new course and becomes a pioneer in work that has nothing to do with money - eg he could devote himself to military or guards related charities, maybe animal welfare rights, music education for talented but deprived children. Come on there is a vast market of good causes desperate for a well intentioned royal with plenty of time on his/ her hands to do some good.


There may be a vast market, but do members of this vast market want him?

He's besmirched and a ludicrous figure now, but I don't think there will be legal problems unless Ghislaine Maxwell shows up in a courtroom. So … onward.

His best days as a public figure were his days in the Royal Navy. His service still strikes a chord with people.

An honorable way for him to contribute to his nation would be going back and serve the Navy in a charitable role that provides assistance and housing etc., so many of these basics for families of serving RN personnel. If he did it quietly, based himself in Portsmouth and didn't publicize anything and left the Bentley and the flunkies at home, it could really work. He's cocky enough to bust through Whitehall and/or Defense red tape and get funding and help for Navy families.

The wrong way to raise funds (and probably his first impulse) would be to call his old arms smuggler friends and scions of dictators for money, and promise them plaques at Portsmouth in exchange for his vacations on their yachts.

No.

He should deal with his mother's government, the same people who decide on the Sovereign Grant.


And his ex-wife has to keep her trap shut.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"And his ex-wife has to keep her trap shut."

I agree. She has added to the problem of giving a clear and helpful message. But I think they will re-marry - maybe sooner because of this scandal. Andrew will need her more and more for support.
 
Her majesty should allow Prince Charles to take over the management of the firm and all royals who supports it. But I find Prince Charles ("too nice") if that's a word. He seems more mellow than William.

I imagine Prince William might be tougher on his reign than Charles. He seems to be strict, may be even more so than Charles.

From everything I've heard and read over the years Prince Charles has quite the temper and Andrew is not his favorite sibling by any stretch of the imagination.

Charles is already in the middle of everything (has been for years) so when the time comes there is a somewhat seamless transition. However the Queen has the final say. She seems very much in control still.



LaRae
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom