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.
And naturally other members of the BRF will support this decision. There is nothing else they can do in the circumstances.

I thought it was noteworthy, and perhaps unintentionally revealing, that the Duke of York said in the BBC interview that while "the wider family couldn't be more supportive" of him (in 2015), his "immediate family" were "at a loss".

Here is the full transcript of the Newsnight interview:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...ght-interview-jeffrey-epstein-full-transcript
 
I think this had to be done once charity sponsors and others involved with Andrew's public life began expressing reservations about working with Andrew. I tend to think he was pushed, rather than took this decision himself for the sake of the Firm, and hope this is permanent. Don't want to see Andrew come sliding back in five or six months.

The question remains though of what Andrew will have to return to after all this. As Pitch@Palace was solely Andrew's and as his press secretary, Amanda Thirsk, was the director of Pitch@Palace Global, I expect that incentive to be dismantled as that actually, was the meat and potatoes of Andrew's public role. Its a shame.

With Andrew "slinking off" away from public duties and responsibilities, I'm wondering now if any of his "honorary" military roles are going to be pulled away from him. Or will Andrew still participate in things military?
 
more and more organizations and charities were assessing their involvement and withdrawing their support of Andrew's incentives

Frankly, I have little time for these woke businesses cutting ties with his charities. Most of them are up to their necks in mire [eg China and other despotic, human rights abusing nations].

Extraordinary hypocrisy.
 
Is he implying that his own family, daugters and ex wife.. were not able to believe he would have done this??
 
Is he implying that his own family, daugters and ex wife.. were not able to believe he would have done this??

The way he said it made it sound as though the immediate family had questions, but his extended family was supportive.
 
The way he said it made it sound as though the immediate family had questions, but his extended family was supportive.
doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I think he's trying to imply that the wider RF were all supportive because they simply would not believe he had done anything wrong.. (which of course he thinks he hasn't) and his own closer family were surprised and asking questions.. because they couldn't believe that he'd do anything wrong either..
 
Someone finally made the right decision and it’s too bad whoever wrote or edited the statement didn’t spend time prepping Andrew before the interview because the content and tone are spot on. If he’d sounded like that during the interview he may have had a chance of salvaging some sort of official career within the BRF.

I feel bad for Beatrice but she’s an adult and, if a choice needed to be made, I’m sure the most important thing would be to have her father at her wedding. If the venue or scale of the wedding needs to be changed I’m sure the family, including the Queen and DoE, will find ways to make up for it.

In terms of the BRF surviving this - I think now that Andrew is keeping a low profile it will be business as usual for the BRF and the public will move on. Even in the weeks and months following Diana’s death the institution itself was never at risk.
 
JMHO -- I think Andrew will remarry Sarah and attempt to rebuild his image as family man with a loving wife and devoted daughters. There is certainly truth on which to build -- despite this situation, he appears to have been an extremely supportive and devoted ex-husband and a wonderful father.

We all knew that Charles is trying to "shrink" the family. Frankly, he and Cams are in their 70s and there will be a lot of roles/patronages for William and Catherine to assume once the Anne, Andrew, and Edward (probably, to some extent, Harry and Meghan) are demoted. Given the shear size and scope of Great Britain, I don't see how William and Catherine manage it on their own.

JMHO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BBC’s Nicholas Witchell reporting that the Duke will still partake in ‘family events’ such as Trooping the Colour and Remembrance Sunday.
 
BBC’s Nicholas Witchell reporting that the Duke will still partake in ‘family events’ such as Trooping the Colour and Remembrance Sunday.

Question now is will Andrew participate as a "family member" on the balcony along with other members that are viewing the events or will Andrew still be in full military dress? I would think with the latest developments, the military's definition of "an officer and a gentleman" is a far cry from describing Andrew.
 
I wouldn't call Remembrance Sunday a 'family event' it's very much a national event and not something I would expect him to attend during his absence from public life.
 
the military's definition of "an officer and a gentleman" is a far cry from describing Andrew

I suspect you underestimate Regimental loyalty in the British army.. these men are 'brothers', regardless of rank, or [alleged] 'misconduct'
 
You're right of course, wyevale. I've never been military or actually know that much about the military. I was just thinking out loud. ?
 
JMHO -- I think Andrew will remarry Sarah and attempt to rebuild his image as family man with a loving wife and devoted daughters. There is certainly truth on which to build -- despite this situation, he appears to have been an extremely supportive and devoted ex-husband and a wonderful father.

We all knew that Charles is trying to "shrink" the family. Frankly, he and Cams are in their 70s and there will be a lot of roles/patronages for William and Catherine to assume once the Anne, Andrew, and Edward (probably, to some extent, Harry and Meghan) are demoted. Given the shear size and scope of Great Britain, I don't see how William and Catherine manage it on their own.

JMHO

The Fail reported yesterday that it was Sarah who persuaded Andrew to do the interview to "get ahead" of the situation by speaking "his truth".

This is after his part in this mess had quieted down a bit. Why the $%# would he listen to the one person on the PLANET whose judgment is even worse than his?:bang:

I can't with those two. And I used to be such an Andrew/Fergie shipper when they first got together.

Just as I posted yesterday, despite some reported that he had the 100% backing of HMQ and other 'senior Royals" , Andrew's feet-not to mention other parts of his anatomy-were being held to the mother of all fires behind closed doors . This dignified, elegant statement(which I am 100% sure was composed for him immediately after the debacle) is the result.

I really feel for Eugenie and Beatrice.:sad:
 
TBH this doesn't mean all that much IMO, it is a gesture (much needed) but not that massively different to now.

-Andrew will not get Sovereign grant funding

The Queen fund her younger children's staff through the Duchy of Lancaster income, so this will not be affected. The only time Andrew would get funding from the Sovereign Grant was for overseas travel. No engagements means no official travel thus no funding from Sovereign Grant. My understanding would be all his staff would continue to be paid as before as they were funded through his Privy Purse based allowance.

-Step back from Royal duties

It has become clear that a large number of his patronages are less than eager to have him on board at the moment and are facing pressure from the public/ students/ staff etc to drop him

-He'll be out the public eye for "sometime"

Basically until the fuss dies down, its nearly the Christmas break so let's see how much longer after February this goes on for




This IMO was very much the Queen's staff stepping in, they let Andrew and his staff take the lead and it led to a bigger PR disaster. They recognised that now HM Was being dragged into it and simply relying people to have goodwill towards her while Andrew went about as normal was not going to work and that his actions were going to affect the RF and the monarchy. I think a turning point in some ways will have been the questions in the leader's debate between the current PM and the leader of the Labour party, making it clear this was no longer an issue with Andrew but being seen to affect the monarchy as a whole.

For Andrew a big mistake IMO was in overshadowing Charles and Camilla's trip to NZ, there has been literally no mention of it here in the UK mainstream media because Andrew's story is still ongoing. I think in some ways the senior staff are happy for gossipy stories etc (or less opposed to them) when they don't interfere with the work of HM and Charles (maybe also now W&K too), but push them and their official duties from the public conscious and you're on your own.

This was what needed to be done, it could have been done much more quietly if the interview hadn't have taken place, tbh it appeared this was what was happening before the interview. We saw little of Andrew and any engagements he did undertake were overseas, it wasn't like he was popping up all over the UK every day working super hard and drawing attention. He has to some extent disappeared from view and had the interview not happened he could have done that for a few more months/ a year and then go back with a bang by his birthday (i.e. similar to the plan the PR advisor who left suggested). However, instead he chose to do the interview with dreadful fallout and so could no longer just get away with doing that quietly, a public statement making it seem he was loosing out on something had to be made.

I'm glad those who said HM was being too soft and not taking action will now have less ammunition. I'm glad Andrew has had his wings clipped and hopefully will learn a less in humility and humbleness.
 
...But I don't blame them cutting ties. Who would want their likeness linked to someone connected in a case involving sex crimes? Literally no one. The final paragraph of the statement Andrew put out today should have been what he said during that interview. The fact he did the opposite is what set off this avalanche.

Also via the Telegraph.

"Buckingham Palace is understood to be braced for US authorities to issue the Duke with a subpoena, requesting he gives testimony under oath over his friendship with Epstein. Sources have suggested the summons is “imminent”.

The next few weeks will definitely be interesting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think sometime should have been permanent, but nevertheless this is still a sensible decision from Andrew.

Peston on ITV tonight listed the most - least royalist towns in the UK even after the Andrew/Epstein saga; here's a tweet from a viewer as it was the only information so far I could find:


My town is the most royalist town in the UK :D
 
Per ITV's Chris Ship

Prince Andrew met the Queen today

-He'll be out of the public eye for some time
-Patronages to be mothballed
-Prince of Wales consulted in New Zealand
-Will take no money from Sovereign Grant
-Won’t return until Epstein case closed and Duke’s name cleared

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-11-20...he-ll-be-out-of-the-public-eye-for-some-time/

It seems from the article that he will remain as a figurehead patron of any charities that still wish to have him, but will not carry out any active role.


Also via the Telegraph.

"Buckingham Palace is understood to be braced for US authorities to issue the Duke with a subpoena, requesting he gives testimony under oath over his friendship with Epstein. Sources have suggested the summons is “imminent”.

The next few weeks will definitely be interesting.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...s-public-life-prepares-give-evidence-epstein/

In the same article, the Telegraph quoted an anonymous "well-placed royal source" as saying that the decision for the Duke of York to step back from public duties was made by Queen Elizabeth. If all of the sources are accurate, I wonder if the "suggestion" of an imminent subpoena (which Buckingham Palace declined to comment on) may have influenced the decision.
 
The Fail reported yesterday that it was Sarah who persuaded Andrew to do the interview to "get ahead" of the situation by speaking "his truth".

This is after his part in this mess had quieted down a bit. Why the $%# would he listen to the one person on the PLANET whose judgment is even worse than his?:bang:

I can't with those two. And I used to be such an Andrew/Fergie shipper when they first got together.

Just as I posted yesterday, despite some reported that he had the 100% backing of HMQ and other 'senior Royals" , Andrew's feet-not to mention other parts of his anatomy-were being held to the mother of all fires behind closed doors . This dignified, elegant statement(which I am 100% sure was composed for him immediately after the debacle) is the result.

I really feel for Eugenie and Beatrice.:sad:



Didn’t know that Sarah was the one who suggested he give an interview. Ugh!!!! [emoji22][emoji37][emoji848]?
 
It's the DM making assumptions. There's an alternative view here at The Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/fergie-feels-need-prince-andrews-staunchest-defender/

"Denying she was the driving force behind the disastrous sit-down, a friend told the Telegraph: “Sarah never thought it was a good idea. She was very clear that if he was to do an interview, it should only be answering four questions for 15 minutes with a journalist she knew, preferably on American TV.

"She was adamant about this. But then she went away for two weeks and it went ahead when she wasn’t there.”

Revealing that the Duchess even had a meeting with the Duke and media lawyer Paul Tweed to discuss whether he should publicly “clear the air”, the friend added: “She clearly believes that, had she been around, we wouldn’t be in this situation.”
 
I think people just trying to lay blame and find some excuse as to why this happened. I think it just boils down to Andrew was an idiot and thought he could control the narrative and got a harsh reality check.
 
I think people just trying to lay blame and find some excuse as to why this happened. I think it just boils down to Andrew was an idiot and thought he could control the narrative and got a harsh reality check.

I would even go as far as to state that Andrew's reality check bounced. It just all boils down to choices Andrew has made in life and how he's handled them. Actions beget reactions and even the most well meant course of action backfire unless thoroughly thought out and executed to avoid the pitfalls.

Andrew just didn't think. His reputation was on the line and that wasn't something he could live with peacefully so he acted impulsively and now has to live with the fallout.
 
It is honestly tiresome to see women blamed for the actions of dumb royal men. First it was Andrew's PS and now Sarah.

Andrew is his own man and has shown an utter lack of judgement his entire adult life. The fault for the infamous interview is with him and him alone IMO.

The BBC is reporting that royal officials hope this all blows over by next summer. It is clear to me that they have every intention of putting him back out for royal duties again. It all has left a rather bad taste for many though. Several are already calling this move out as a mere bandaid. Folks are not so easily led these days.

As I said, I hope his patronages continue to pull away from him. Make sure he has nothing to come back to!

And by the by, I find the concern about Beatrice's wedding to be weird...yes she is innocent in all this but please she will still have a good wedding--just not the public one her sister had (or shouldn't rather).
 
Last edited:
When it rains, it pours...

Now Britain's ex-consul general in New York challenges Andrew's claim he stayed with him during that stint in Manhattan where he denied staying with Epstein. He says nothing is on file and it usually would be with people of that level, especially royals.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...general-New-York-casts-doubt-dukes-alibi.html

Again we have Andrew potentially caught in a lie. He keeps providing the press with this stuff that easily disproven which of course just make people all the more suspicious of him.

He really is not helping himself here. It is no wonder the family want him to lay low.
 
Last edited:
How many patronages does he have altogether? It must be several hundred. Even if he was to retire from public life completely, it would be a very large effort to redistribute so many patronages to the other members of the BRF. There will be a not dissimilar reallocation of patronages when the Queen and DoE are no longer with us.
 
He (or his mother and big brother) took the only decision that was possible for him. To leave public life to 1. Protect the Royal Family and most of all the institution itself. And 2. Cooperate with the police outside of the public eye. The media will report about it anyway but now there is hopefully a way forward without dragging The Queen and The Prince of Wales down in the dirt too ...

I notice the words ”foreseeble future” but i have a hard time to see what will be left for Andrew to return to.

Unless this case is completely closed and The Duke’s name completely cleared until Trooping the Colour, i can’t see him riding behind The Queen’s Carriage fully dressed up as the Colonel of the Regiment of the Grenadier Guards (the highest ranked of the foot guard regiments).

How many patronages does he have altogether? It must be several hundred. Even if he was to retire from public life completely, it would be a very large effort to redistribute so many patronages to the other members of the BRF. There will be a not dissimilar reallocation of patronages when the Queen and DoE are no longer with us.

Not everything will get a new royal patron when their current patron dies/retires. Some that has had the monarch as their royal patron for ages will more or less be inherited by Charles from his mother but others are not guaranteed a new royal patron.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those interested in how this is reported in the foreign press. The 'Dutch BBC' had 5 different articles on prince Andrew since Saturday. Normally they have about 2-3 pieces about royalty (Dutch and foreign) a week.
 
How many patronages does he have altogether? It must be several hundred. Even if he was to retire from public life completely, it would be a very large effort to redistribute so many patronages to the other members of the BRF. There will be a not dissimilar reallocation of patronages when the Queen and DoE are no longer with us.


I've read that he has 130 patronages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom