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.
I think he will have to try and avoid court, but if shes not willing ot accept a settlment with some kind of gag agreement, it is difficult. Im sure he thought that she was provided for him but that she was a wiling particpant, not half reluctant....

She bragged about it afterwards to one of the younger girls (whom she recruited), so that doesn't sound reluctant at all. So, either she's had second thoughts while coming to terms with her teenage years or she figured that accusing Andrew would be an interesting path to pursue (because: why only Andrew out of all the men?!).
 
Just saw the same statement. But I don't understand if it means that he will loose his HRH permanently? Or is he just going to argue this particular case as a civilian?
 
An odd way to formulate it.
How so? HM is taking away the last of what he has that she CAN take away short of an Act of Parliament stripping him of his peerage. I suppose that she could state that he will also no longer be styled HRH but that's small potatoes given he won't be doing ANYTHING for the BRF and he is losing his military appointments, which apparently meant a tremendous amount to him.
 
Just saw the same statement. But I don't understand if it means that he will loose his HRH permanently? Or is he just going to argue this particular case as a civilian?



My impression is he can’t use it period. But I may have mis interpreted that.
 
She bragged about it afterwards to one of the younger girls (whom she recruited), so that doesn't sound reluctant at all. So, either she's had second thoughts while coming to terms with her teenage years or she figured that accusing Andrew would be an interesting path to pursue (because: why only Andrew out of all the men?!).

Why does it matter if she was reluctant or not? By the time she met Andrew she was fully indoctrinated into the immoral world of Epstein & company. I find it pitiful that she bragged about sleeping with Andrew. I can imagine a girl her age bragging to her friends about sleeping with the high school football star in the same manner, that she is bragging about Andrew this way shows just how sick she was at the time.

She was underage just like the other girls, the fact that she was older than the other girl is irrelevant. The fact is they were both victims. Just because Virginia had been recruited into the system and fully indoctrinated at a young age, by the time she met the other victim she was no longer able to think whether what she was doing was morally right.

Why Andrew? Low-hanging fruit. The political names have much more protection than Andrew. Plus she's building publicity for when/if she does decide to go after others, especially if her case against Andrew is successful.
 
yep - they are saying that Andrew voluntarily returned the positions. I was also interested in the last bit. "will be defending this case as a private citizen:
No mention of which case - the this case can be viewed as too strong. But it is not as if we saw him defending any case as the colonel general of the Grenadier Guards.
The whole wording is very concerning.
 
So basically they were shamed into finally "stripping" him though their wording makes it seem like it was more voluntary. It never should have taken this long and for military leaders penning letter demanding him cut ties. It needed to be done a while ago. Glad HM finally realized it even it it seems she needed a major push --- probably from Charles and William.
 
The statement from HM does not address the HRH at all. It is odd that it wasn't included though, so perhaps he will no longer be using that honorific.
 
The wording doesn’t really say a)that the Queen has taken them away or that b)the Duke has given them up voluntarily.

It’s sort of vague academic/ court language, designed to keep all parties somewhat happy and mollify the public.

The announcement on Harry’s military titles reverting was much more specific that the Queen wrote it to them and the titles were reverted.

This one is just vague.
 
I believe the main line of the Royal Family will distance themselves from Prince Andrew as was the case in Spain with Infanta Cristina and now even with King Emeritus Juan Carlos. That is the right thing to do, not least because Andrew is only 9th in line and not really needed for royal duties.

Infanta Cristina for example retained the HRH, but was stripped of her duchy, which was easy to do in Spain since the titles of nobility belonging to the Royal House may be granted and taken away at the King's discretion under the RD 1368/1987. Andrew on the other hand kept his ducal title, which could be removed in the UK only by an act of Parliament, but agreed voluntarily to stop using the HRH style. I wonder how he will be addressed in the court papers and proceedings in New York.
 
Last edited:
The wording doesn’t really say a)that the Queen has taken them away or that b)the Duke has given them up voluntarily.

It’s sort of vague academic/ court language, designed to keep all parties somewhat happy and mollify the public.

The announcement on Harry’s military titles reverting was much more specific that the Queen wrote it to them and the titles were reverted.

This one is just vague.

The two statements are very very different. Though to be fair, the circumstances are as well. Harry walked away. Andrew is being pushed out.
 
Wow! I did not see this coming today, although I think that it might be overdue. I do not think that Andrew voluntarily gave up his patronages and would definitely not give up his HRH. This came after some "talk" with Prince Charles and Prince William.

This does make my wonder if Andrew has decided to go through with a trial and not try and settle this case. He's been stubborn about his defense saying he is not guilty
 
Last edited:
Wow! I did not see this coming today, although I think that it might be overdue. I do not think that Andrew voluntarily gave up his patronages and would definitely not give up his HRH. This came after some "talk" with Prince Charles and Prince William.



Agree absolutely about Charles and William.
 
Wow! I did not see this coming today, although I think that it might be overdue. I do not think that Andrew voluntarily gave up his patronages and would definitely not give up his HRH. This came after some "talk" with Prince Charles and Prince William.

He agreed to stop using the HRH in the same way as Prince Harry. You could call it "voluntarily" in the sense that he was not officially stripped of the style by any legal instrument as Diana and Fergie were for example after their respective divorces.

My understanding in particular is that he won't use the prefix HRH in his court papers under the agreement. Hence, the emphasis on Andrew arguing his case as "a private citizen". That also signals the Royal Household won't underwrite any potential settlement and Andrew is on his own.
 
Last edited:
After seeing a photo of the statement from Buckingham Palace, I went in search of a credible news source to back up the photo I saw. Must not have really hit the wires too much because all that really came up for me were articles upon articles of different reports of who wanted Andrew's military titles revoked or stripped away.

I don't think this is something grabbed out of a hat to "punish" Andrew but more in line with heeding the mood of the people and the military units Andrew was affiliated with that no longer wished him to represent them.

I don't really think it matters if Andrew has his "HRH" or not at this point. There isn't really anywhere that Andrew will be going where he'll even need his title. The fact remains that no matter what kind of man Andrew is, he remains being a son of the monarch and that's what the HRH designates.
 
From the BBC News

Prince Andrew loses military titles and patronages
 
Chris Ship on Twitter:
This major decision to strip Andrew of all his honorary military titles follows discussions among senior members of the Royal Family - including Andrew’s mother, brothers and sister
and
The style “His Royal Highness” is also being taken away from Prince Andrew.
Guidance from royal sources: “The Duke of York will no longer use the style ‘His Royal Highness’ in any official capacity”.

I'm pleased to see this is happening because HMQ deserves her Platinum Jubilee to be celebrated without a public outcry at the distasteful spectacle of Andrew strutting around in uniforms.
 
My understanding in particular is that he won't use the prefix HRH in his court papers under the agreement. Hence, the emphasis on Andrew arguing his case as "a private citizen". That also signals the Royal Household won't underwrite any potential settlement and Andrew is on his own.


I wouldn’t have thought he’d be able to use HRH in United States court documents under any circumstances anyway.
 
From the BBC News

Prince Andrew loses military titles and patronages

Well, the timing is at least a bit weired: In the very moment the court proceedings in the USA start, the Prince is losing an important part of his "titles".

This does not look like Her Majesty is still supporting him.

Andrew must feel like a bit of back-stabbing is going on....
 
I wouldn’t have thought he’d be able to use HRH in United States court documents under any circumstances anyway.

As a non-US citizen, I assume he would use the name that appears on his UK passport, which is HRH Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York. BTW, HRH and Prince are still part of his legal name in the UK until further notice.

He could of course use instead the name Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten-Windsor, but VG's lawyers themselves cited him as Prince Andrew. I don't recall if they used the prefix HRH or not.

Well, the timing is at least a bit weired: In the very moment the court proceedings in the USA start, the Prince is losing an important part of his "titles".

This does not look like Her Majesty is still supporting him.

Andrew must feel like a bit of back-stabbing is going on....

That is hardly surprising to me as the interest of the Royal House outweighs family relations. As I said, it is a similar situation (albeit in a different context) to what happened to Infanta Cristina in Spain.

I guess it would be different if the implicated person were the heir to the throne or someone in direct line as he/she could not be simply disavowed short of a formal renunciation of succession rights. Given his position in the line of succession, Andrew, however, is expendable now.

It must be hurtful to the Queen personally though as Andrew was (allegedly) her favorite son after all. On the other hand, Andrew, unlike Harry, probably understands , based on his upbringing, that one has to sacrifice oneself for the good of the Crown, so I believe he accepted this outcome stoically as something that was inevitable.
 
Last edited:
The formal statement from Buckingham Palace (refer to Sunnystar's post above or the official website of the British royal family) does not mention the Duke of York's HRH.

The information about stopping the use of his HRH originates from an anonymous "royal source", who adds that the Duke's patronages will be redistributed to other members of the royal family. I believe the source to be reliable, as his or her statements are being reported as fact by reputable media. However, it is odd that the HRH decision was not included in the official announcement (as it was for the Sussexes in 2020).


Buckingham Palace said in a statement: "With the Queen's approval and agreement, the Duke of York's military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to the Queen.

"The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen."

All Prince Andrew's roles have been returned to the Queen with immediate effect, and will be redistributed to other members of the Royal Family, a Royal Source said.

He will stop using the title 'His Royal Highness' in any official capacity, they added.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence said it had no comment about the duke's military titles being handed back to the Queen, and that it was a matter for the Palace.​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59987935
 
Andrew on the other hand kept his ducal title, which could be removed in the UK only by an act of Parliament, but agreed voluntarily to stop using the HRH style. I wonder how he will be addressed in the court papers and proceedings in New York.

Practically speaking, it appears the Duke of York has not been using the HRH style for a long time. It was noticed that the palace's tweet on his birthday in 2020 (after his disastrous interview but before he was sued) omitted the HRH, which had been used in previous years. The palace did not deny that the omission was intentional.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/prince-andrew-loses-hrh-title-21528005


As for the New York court, I have not read all the court papers, but the ones I did read did not use the Duke's HRH.

Judge Lewis Kaplan's verdict filed two days ago used:

Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff,

against

PRINCE ANDREW, Duke of York, in his personal capacity,
also known as Andrew Albert Christian Edward,
Defendant.

https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf
 
Very happy to hear this. Honestly, the best and most "honourable" way to settle this as, since the Duke of York views himself as being so honorable, is to settle out of court and make a public apology to VG, Her Majesty, and the British people. Just come clean, remarry Sarah, and retire peacefully to the countryside. Out of site and out of mind. It cannot be forgotten that VG was a young girl from a troubled background that was selected and groomed by a known trafficker and Andrew willing and continuously kept a friendship with Epstein and Maxwell even after this was all public knowledge. Hes an arrogant fool and it's time to pay the price of his past actions and put Queen and Country first.
 
I'm sorry, but the tenor of this discussion feels very "victim blame-y".

Why sue Prince Andrew and not Clinton or Trump? She hasn't claimed those men assulted her. I find it weird people are assuming she chose to persue him over US political figures rather then the simpler explination that she is sueing the man she claims assulted her, and the other two men did not.

This whole age of consent debate is also, I think, missing the forrest for the trees. Virginia was a sex traffic victim. She claims she was coerced to have sex with Andrew by Epstein and Maxwell (who apparently had a history of threatening the girls). She can not consent if she has a metephorical gun to her head. The key assertion here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Virginia claims Andrew knew what was going on. If Andrew knows his friends are trafficing girls and brought one to have sex with him, then it doesn't matter if Virginia was 17 or 70 as Andrew would be knowingly having sex with someone he knew could not consent.

As to why she didn't leave, this all feels like asking a battered woman why they did not leave their abusive partner. This girl came from a rough home life and was mainpulated by people who seemed to offer things a vulnerable teenage runaway would crave: money and feeling she mattered to someone. Other victims describing Ghislaine acting at times like a sisterly figure to help groom the girls. Even vulnerable women in their twenties were victims of Maxwell and Epstein. I can understand how a young woman with no job skills, no money, and no stable family support network would feel trapped into that system.

Did something happen between Giuffre and Prince Andrew? I don't know. However I think there's a way to debate the accusations while being respectful to Giuffre.

Thank you! I hold my breath while reading what some are writing here and it's kind of flashback to medievaltimes when of course the woman was to be blamed, and by the way even if Guiffre did this for money- she has every right to.
 
The Dutch media write that he is loosing his title and I don't think that's correct. It seems that he won't use HRH for the court case (somewhat similar to H&M being forbidden to use HRH for their business endeavours) but so far neither of them has been stripped from their style.

This announcement did come quickly. It must have been in the making long before today's outcone was known.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom