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.
HRH is a style rather than a title, but people tend to use the word "title" anyway.

I think we will have to disagree. If being referred to as a title (as well as a style) in a legal instrument comprehensively regulating titles does not make it a title, I have trouble imagining what would.
 
Last edited:
Just throwing in a small reminder here. When King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, he became HRH The Duke of Windsor. He still was a son of a monarch.

If the British monarchy survived the abdication and adjusted to the Duke of Windsor's title and style, I think we all can live with Andrew remaining The Duke of York. We'll mostly just see him riding a horse in Windsor every now and then or maybe driving his car. His public days are finished and he's been put out to pasture.
 
I ... don't know about that.

As a U.K. citizen, I would have a severe problem with Andrew keeping his dukedom if Mrs. Guiffre actually clearly proves he committed a sex crime. I imagine many rape survivors in the U.K. would have a problem with it as well. I understand that it would take an act of Parliament to remove it.

I think sex crimes are much more serious than a man choosing to turn down his birthright to be King. One is a crime of moral turpitude. The other is equivalent to quitting your job at the family business. If Andrew knowingly engaged in human sex trafficking, and it is proven that he did (which it likely won't be), then I don't see why Edward's choices should force me to accept Andrew keeping his Dukedom. (Also, Edward abdicating was a good thing for the U.K. IMHO, and I really think the current royals have it wrong on that.)

Personally, in the 21st century, I am very much in favor of all royal Dukedoms and HRH statuses being contingent on living a life of reasonable morals and service to the monarchy. I know it seems hard, but yet, I've managed to not commit crimes of moral turpitude my whole life. I don't believe these people are appointed by God. I believe in a 21st century monarchy there should be a reasonable quid pro quo: they get privileges and titles, (and often wealth), and they lose their privacy to some extent, in exchange for not committing serious crimes, not influencing politics, and serving their country.

I understand that many on this thread believe he is completely innocent. I am not stating that he is guilty. I'm not saying he should lose his Dukedom right now. I am saying that what he is accused of is not equivalent to Edward's abdication, so if it were to be proven, I don't think any precedent was created by Edward becoming HRH The Duke of Windsor.
 
:previous: Great post. But outside of videotape how does Giuffre prove that Andrew forcibly raped her?

Especially in light of fellow Epstein victim 14 year old Carolyn Andriano's statement that not only did Giuffre recruit her, Giuffre also boasted of "getting to have sex" with Prince Andrew.

Other than he said she said...there is nothing else unless I am missing something.

For what it's worth...I do believe Andrew had sex with the young woman and does indeed remember doing so.

What I don't believe at all is that she had to be coerced in any way.
 
Andrew Windsor has unbelievably bad judgement. It's good to see him kicked out of official life.
 
I don’t think the Duke of York title will be taken away, but I think the Queen maybe regretting giving him the same title as her father and grandfather. It returning to the crown after Andrew is a small relief.
 
Will this Epstein matter be the last scandal in Andrew Windsor's life?
 
:previous: Great post. But outside of videotape how does Giuffre prove that Andrew forcibly raped her?

Especially in light of fellow Epstein victim 14 year old Carolyn Andriano's statement that not only did Giuffre recruit her, Giuffre also boasted of "getting to have sex" with Prince Andrew.

Other than he said she said...there is nothing else unless I am missing something.

For what it's worth...I do believe Andrew had sex with the young woman and does indeed remember doing so.

What I don't believe at all is that she had to be coerced in any way.


When I was 17, it would have been unheard of ... unbelievable for one of my peers, another 17 year old girl, to boast of having sex with anyone. Lots of friends dated, had relationships, had sex. But nobody was conditioned to think that having sex with a paunchy 40 year old was a boast-worthy "win."

VRG's groomed existence within Epstein's world had her living with a different set of values and mores. What 17 year old associates with a mature bossy lady pimp who sets a table with china, cutlery and sex toys?
 
Interestingly the Queen could take away Prince Andrew's knighthoods (he is currently a KG and a GCVO). There is even a specific model of Letters Patent to do that, but she didn't do it.

The knighthoods should be removed as well.

Ok, so I am struggling to understand what HRH really means for a royal. Why is it so significant to not have the HRH? What are the perks of being an HRH versus being the Duke of York? Prince Andrew will still lead a life a privilege.

Do you think that his contract for the Royal Lodge could be voided?
 
:previous: Great post. But outside of videotape how does Giuffre prove that Andrew forcibly raped her?

Especially in light of fellow Epstein victim 14 year old Carolyn Andriano's statement that not only did Giuffre recruit her, Giuffre also boasted of "getting to have sex" with Prince Andrew.

Other than he said she said...there is nothing else unless I am missing something.

For what it's worth...I do believe Andrew had sex with the young woman and does indeed remember doing so.

What I don't believe at all is that she had to be coerced in any way.

One does not have to prove that they said "no" or fought off the rape, or provide video tape of their rape to bring a lawsuit. Nor is video evidence required for trial. It's much easier with video or documented injuries. But it's not required to have such evidence.

A jury is perfectly allowed to weigh the evidence, even if the evidence is only testimonial. Ms. Guiffre will have the burden of proof, as this is a civil case.

I personally, given that I have sadly worked with victims of sex crimes, don't assume that Ms. Andriano's testimony is going to decide the case. Ms. Guiffre's lawyers will likely call experts to explain that victims of sex crimes often deny that they were raped. It will make her burden of proof more difficult, but not impossible.

Also, I think this is lost sometimes: Ms. Guiffre has not yet had her day in court. She has been under no obligation to share her evidence with the public, and the discovery process has only begun on both sides. If I were her lawyer, I would not be sharing their best evidence with the world at this point- why on Earth would they be tipping off Andrew's lawyers??. I don't know if she has enough evidence, or can get enough. Time will tell I guess.

She will have to prove that Andrew knew, or reasonably should have known, that she was being trafficked. I can only guess what her lawyer's strategy is, but I think they will cast a wide net as to what exactly Andrew witnessed during his visits with Epstein. Staff and other visitors.

(And the fact that Ms. Guiffre may have participated in recruitment doesn't mean she's not a victim. One can be both victim and perpetrator. In cases of human trafficking, it's very normal to see both. That doesn't mean rapists are excused from their actions.)
 
I don’t think the Duke of York title will be taken away, but I think the Queen maybe regretting giving him the same title as her father and grandfather. It returning to the crown after Andrew is a small relief.

It is a title that is traditionally given (when available) to the second son of a British monarch.
 
It is a title that is traditionally given (when available) to the second son of a British monarch.

My guess is that once the title reverts to the crown upon Andrew's death, it won't be recreated again until Louis reaches his majority and gets married. He does hold the spot of the second son when William becomes the monarch.
 
That's just it though. If it goes to court he doesn't HAVE to do anything.

No-depositions. No embarrassing questions. No cooperation whatsoever. Just allow it to play out with the inevitable judgment in absentia decided against him....which it will be virtually impossible for his accuser to ever collect upon.

Why would it be "virtually impossible for his accuser to ever collect upon"?
 
My guess is that once the title reverts to the crown upon Andrew's death, it won't be recreated again until Louis reaches his majority and gets married. He does hold the spot of the second son when William becomes the monarch.
I don't think William would want to recreate his disgraced uncle's title for his son. Besides, Louis's status as his second son is moot now that Charlotte precedes him in the succession (meaning she will be William's second heir).

Sent from my moto g(7) play using The Royals Community mobile app
 
:previous: Unless Andrew is even more arrogant and stupid than I think he is....what little $$ he has is probably locked up in trust for his children and grandchildren.

Unless we are to assume that HMQ pays his settlement voluntarily how is the American court system planning get its hands on his money?
 
There has been tabloid talk of the possibility of "private parts" being mentioned in court as proof that VRG was intimate with PA.

Some veterans of this board may recall that nude photos of PA have been floating around the internet for years. Long ago, when he spent that school term in Canada, he was photographed frolicking naked in some sort of babbling brook. Nothing was left to the imagination. So, anyone could describe his physical attributes.

It's amazing to think that those old naked photos may help him!
 
:previous: Unless Andrew is even more arrogant and stupid than I think he is....what little $$ he has is probably locked up in trust for his children and grandchildren.

Unless we are to assume that HMQ pays his settlement voluntarily how is the American court system planning get its hands on his money?

So it would just be splashed all over the papers that Andrew is not paying a court awarded judgment? All the while showing him living at Royal Lodge, riding his horses, living the same life of luxury that he always has. And then it would die down and go away? With no effect on the Queen and the rest of the royal family? The tabloids got on Harry and Meghan for years and they are just going to let it go when it comes to Andrew?
 
Last edited:
So it would just be splashed all over the papers that Andrew is not paying a court awarded judgment? All the while showing him living at Royal Lodge, riding his horses, living the same life of luxury that he always has. And then it would die down and go away? With no effect on the Queen and the rest of the royal family? The tabloids got on Harry and Meghan for years and they are just going to let it go when it comes to Andrew?

Why The world has seen oj Simpson do that for years
 
Why would it be "virtually impossible for his accuser to ever collect upon"?

Any judgment would only be in civil court. British citizens are not required to pay such judgments owed in another country unless they have assets there. I would assume that Andrew has no money invested in the US, so there is no way for Ms. Guiffre to collect even if she wins in court. If she gets any money it would have to come from a settlement, not imposed by a jury.
 
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2022

I don't think William would want to recreate his disgraced uncle's title for his son. Besides, Louis's status as his second son is moot now that Charlotte precedes him in the succession (meaning she will be William's second heir).

Sent from my moto g(7) play using The Royals Community mobile app



Maybe.

But he could always think of it as granting his son what is traditionally the second son’s title. Tradition is pretty important in a monarchy.

Or the title his great grandfather had before becoming king.
 
If any RForum members with knowledge of legal/ financial/ international law could help us out by explaining how Ms. Giuffre might collect in Britain, where PA was formally cleared of any criminal wrongdoing i hope you will pitch in....
 
I’m not experienced with collecting non-contractual judgments. But my limited understanding is that a U.S. judgment is viewed as a simple debt under British common law. The U.K. Courts will only honor compensatory damages, not punitive. And the debt will only be honored if the U.S. Court had jurisdiction under international law. I also think the judgment has to be final - it’s not collectible until all appeals are over.

I do wonder if Andrew has any assets in other countries that do have reciprocal judgment agreements with the U.S. (from the Panama papers, we know that the Queen appears to have some offshore trusts, which is perfectly legal.)

As far as damage to the monarchy, I personally don’t think it matters of Ms. Guiffre ever collects a dime. JMO.
 
Even if VG never collects any $$ from this lawsuit, it doesn't mean she gets no $$ from this whole saga.

Unless she was forbidden to do so under the terms of her settlement with Epstein could she not pursue book and film deals ?

Btw...when I read today that her attorney said she will only accept a settlement if it is accompanied by a written apology from PA admitting his guilt....it convinced me that Mars will be colonized before Andrew settles this case out of court.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Great post. But outside of videotape how does Giuffre prove that Andrew forcibly raped her?

Especially in light of fellow Epstein victim 14 year old Carolyn Andriano's statement that not only did Giuffre recruit her, Giuffre also boasted of "getting to have sex" with Prince Andrew.

Other than he said she said...there is nothing else unless I am missing something.

For what it's worth...I do believe Andrew had sex with the young woman and does indeed remember doing so.

What I don't believe at all is that she had to be coerced in any way.

If he had sex with her he raped her as she was underage at the time she says they had sex and legally was not able to give consent.

She couldn't have bought a house from him, either. She wasn't old enough to make those kinds of decisions. The average teenager doesn't have the understanding of the world and the consequences of their actions to be able to make sound decisions. They have to be protected from older people who would take advantage of their inexperience.

There seems to be some pseudo-victim-blaming going on, calling into question her morals, reasons for pursuing the lawsuit, etc. I thought as a society we were better than that, that we had evolved. It seems so backward to me.
 
If he had sex with her he raped her as she was underage at the time she says they had sex and legally was not able to give consent.

.

No, legally she wasn't. The age of consent in England and New York at the time was 16 - VRG was 17. That's one of the reasons there is no criminal complaint against Andrew.
 
There seems to be some pseudo-victim-blaming going on, calling into question her morals, reasons for pursuing the lawsuit, etc. I thought as a society we were better than that, that we had evolved. It seems so backward to me.

I find that being unquestioning of both sides to be a serious danger to our justice system. Accused has rights . If you want to get to a fair decision then one needs full facts . Not cherry picked stuff
 
I find that being unquestioning of both sides to be a serious danger to our justice system. Accused has rights . If you want to get to a fair decision then one needs full facts . Not cherry picked stuff

I was talking about the tone of some of the messages here, which to me (and others have said they feel the same) seems off. It has nothing to do with Andrew's rights, the US justice system or cherry picking.
 
If he had sex with her he raped her as she was underage at the time she says they had sex and legally was not able to give consent.

She couldn't have bought a house from him, either. She wasn't old enough to make those kinds of decisions. The average teenager doesn't have the understanding of the world and the consequences of their actions to be able to make sound decisions. They have to be protected from older people who would take advantage of their inexperience.

There seems to be some pseudo-victim-blaming going on, calling into question her morals, reasons for pursuing the lawsuit, etc. I thought as a society we were better than that, that we had evolved. It seems so backward to me.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But as a survivor of the crime Ms. Giuffre is accusing the DoY of, I feel fairly certain that I am neither victim blaming nor "regressing" in any way.

I have struggled and still struggle to understand VG's actions in the light of the facts.

Seventeen is young, but not so young that she was unable to sense danger and seek help for herself if she'd wanted it. She was not a prisoner. I assume she was literate and aware that there were services all over NY and the US that she could have sought out for assistance from her plight?

A person can be tried as an adult for certain crimes at the age of 17 no matter how dysfunctional or abusive their background. If Ms. Giuffre was not responsible/liable for her decisions at that age...when exactly did things change? On her 18th birthday? Her 21st? When she collected her first cash settlement?

I have more sympathy for the 14 year old that VG lured into this sordid web. Did she warn poor young Carolyn that in return for living in mansions and jetting off to party with supermodels in the Med that she would be expected to bed down with sweaty middle aged men?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom