The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022

[Claire]

I'd like to think that you are not being serious by suggesting that Beatrice and Eugenie remove HRH from their personal charity work but I don't believe you are joking since you have previously suggested that they be evicted from any Royal residences.

But you never mention what on Earth they have done to deserve such treatment?

It's like suggesting that the Duke of Edinburgh should have been stripped of all honors....indeed prevented from marrying into the BRF period, because his sisters were Nazis married to high ranking SS officers.

Where does it end?

I don't think Beatrice and Eugenie will have their HRH removed, just they might make the personal decisions not to use it in public. They already do not use it in their work life. But both of them do private engagements - and it is used there.
The housing at Windsor is another issue. There is currently some debate to better and more commercially use the royal estates. One is open them to the public as tourist attractions (year round) and the other is increased farming land or return to nature. The issue is mostly security cost - currently the whole area is policed by the metro police and then the internal house are by a personal security team. There are ways to cut the estate up to make the security at the castle area better, and it will lessen security on the greater property where the cottages and houses are. it they open to tourism - it will be another issue - and will involve greater security risks and costs. In the 1980's and into 1990's - most of the family left their housing on the estate, and they then they were used by staff. I just think that the housing issue will be brought up the closer we get to King Charles. Yes - I know he has a lease - but so did the other royals that left. Arrangements can be made - say Chalres offers to pay half the cost of a house near Beatrice.

 

[Claire]

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.

I actually expected the press to pick up on this - why wasn't the Order of the Garter removed.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Beatrice and her husband have recently moved to the Cotswolds with their young children.

They are not costing the Crown a cent.

Eugenie and Jack are living on a property granted to her cousin Harry by the queen. But they take no $$ from the taxpayers to live there.

Maybe I am just not understanding what more they should be doing at this point.

 

[GraceOMalleysGhost]

...I have more sympathy for the 14 year old 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?

I have sympathy for them both. Why would she warn the younger girl? At the time she saw nothing wrong with the lifestyle she was leading because everyone in her insulated little world was doing the same thing. Being a teenager and included in such an exclusive club is heady stuff, especially for a vulnerable young woman seeking approval from the adults in her life. She wasn't going to rock the boat and lose the only thing she had going for herself at the time.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Thank you for pointing that out. It makes sense.

I am honestly struggling to muster sympathy for anyone in this sleazy nasty saga.

I LOATHE Epstein and Maxwell for being the amoral sociopaths they were.

I despise their lustful shallow spiritually bankrupt friends and associates.

Ditto Andrew for all of the above and add monumental stupidity and arrogance for good measure.

The only people I feel truly sad for here are Andrew's girls.

 

[Denville]

It is not a punishment - I think they themselves have wanted to do it for a while. And now is the time to do so. But is my opinion and not the thread

Why would they want to give up their HRH?

 

[Denville]

I'm sorry to ask such a 'newbie' question, but does HM have the ability to 'revoke' or 'take back' the title of DoY?

I understand the rules for 'regular' peerages, but I though the 'royal dukedoms' were in the sole gift of the Monarch and she could 'giveth and taketh away' without parliamentary approval.

No, the peerage can only be removed by Parliament

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

For so far any presumption of innocence as long as Lady Justitia has not spoken.

So far any possibility that the plaintiff may lose the case.



This is really an oldfashioned crucifixion. "Let us hang him high!"


It shows that anyone can step forward, spout accusations, and the person has to move heaven and earth, sell possessions, just to fight his right but even when it has not come to a trial the person is already kaltgestellt. It shows that Harry and the late Diana have a point: the Royal Firm is a ruthless monster.

 

[Denville]

For so far any presumption of innocence as long as Lady Justitia has not spoken.

So far any possibility that the plaintiff may lose the case.



This is really an oldfashioned crucifixion. "Let us hang him high!"


It shows that anyone can step forward, spout accusations, and the person has to move heaven and earth, sell possessions, just to fight his right but even when it has not come to a trial the person is already kaltgestellt. It shows that Harry and the late Diana have a point: the Royal Firm is a ruthless monster.

what on earth has the Royal firm got to do with it? Andrew is the one who behaved stupidly and let himself in for a legal case.

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ews-exile-Duke-Yorks-crisis-summit-Queen.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-dreamed-possible-Andrew-arrived-castle.html

At the end of the day, the preservation of the Monarchy will always come first. Right down through the centuries of Royalty, family members have always been expendable. Andrew, through his arrogance, has always put himself at the front of the queue.

 

[Denville]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ews-exile-Duke-Yorks-crisis-summit-Queen.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-dreamed-possible-Andrew-arrived-castle.html

At the end of the day, the preservation of the Monarchy will always come first. Right down through the centuries of Royalty, family members have always been expendable. Andrew, through his arrogance, has always put himself at the front of the queue.

Yes, its his own arrogance that landed him in this fix. What can the RF do but firmly insist to him that he has to lead a retired life and that he will never come back from this.

 

[Denville]

I One is open them to the public as tourist attractions (year round) and the other is increased farming land or return to nature. The issue is mostly security cost - currently the whole area is policed by the metro police and then the internal house are by a personal security team. There are ways to cut the estate up to make the security at the castle area better, and it will lessen security on the greater property where the cottages and houses are. it they open to tourism - it will be another issue - and will involve greater security risks and costs. In the 1980's and into 1990's - most of the family left their housing on the estate, and they then they were used by staff. I just think that the housing issue will be brought up the closer we get to King Charles. Yes - I know he has a lease - but so did the other royals that left. Arrangements can be made - say Chalres offers to pay half the cost of a house near Beatrice.

It would be ridiculous to want Andrew to move. At Royal Lodge he has a long lease and he has security and privacy. Why would they want to move him somwhere else?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Taking away the royal commissions and patronages as well the form of address Royal Highness at least gives the impression that the Duke of York is "guilty". That might very well be the case, but for so far I find it shocking that someone, in whose name "justice" is spoken, apparently approved or insisted these "sanctions".


For me this very smells of declaring someone guilty before he/she has been proved guilty according to law. If the Duke of York indeed is guilty: be my absolute guest and sanction him if you like. But any presumption of innocence, any possibility that the plaintiff actually might lose the case or the eventuality of mediation behind the screens seems totally thrown out of the windows. For so far the symbolic image of HM The Queen in whose name "justice" is spoken.

 

[Denville]

Taking away the royal commissions and patronages as well the form of address Royal Highness at least gives the impression that the Duke of York is "guilty". That might very well be the case, but for so far I find it shocking that someone, in whose name "justice" is spoken apparently approved or insisted these "acts".


For me this very smells of declaring someone guilty before he/she has been proved guilty according to law. If the Duke of York indeed is guilty: be my absolute guest and sanction him if you like. But any presumtion of innocence or any possibility that the plaintiff actually might lose the case, or the eventuality of mediation behind the screens seems totally thrown out of the windows. For so far the symbolic image of HM The Queen in whose name "justice" is spoken.

the queen gave patronages and honours. She can take them away. SInce charities and miltitary organisations do not want to work with Andrew, it is obvious that he will not be able to work as a royal again and so obviously the queen is going to take them away and give them to other people.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

the queen gave patronages and honours. She can take them away. SInce charities and miltitary organisations do not want to work with Andrew, it is obvious that he will not be able to work as a royal again and so obviously the queen is going to take them away and give them to other people.

And what happens if the Duke of York is not convicted? I am not at all against sanctioning persons proven guilty for law. My objection is that someone is publicly thrown under the train but so far the Duke just will become part of a civil procedure by someone whom made an accusation.

Will it come to a procedure indeed? Or what willl the outcome be of an eventual procedure? It is totally up to the crystal ball in Madame Zelda's little gypsy tent at the Fun Fair...

 

[Denville]

Noone wants to work with Andrew. His louche lifestyle and his association iwth Epstein and Maxwell have damned him whether he wins or loses in a lawsuit.

 

[Gawin]

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.

But traditionally the second son was the spare. That's no longer the case. Charlotte will hold that position. The title should go to her, if it goes to anyone.

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

 

[Lilyflo]

Noone wants to work with Andrew. His louche lifestyle and his association iwth Epstein and Maxwell have damned him whether he wins or loses in a lawsuit.

I agree. He's already tainted by his words and actions so no organisation will want his name linked to theirs, including the monarchy. I'm sure that Charles and William will keep Andrew on a tight leash and ensure he's out of sight and sound as much as possible.

 

[Denville]

But traditionally the second son was the spare. That's no longer the case. Charlotte will hold that position. The title should go to her, if it goes to anyone.

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

and traditionally, daughters do not get royal dukedoms. So i dont think Charlotte will get it.

 

[winifred]

My legal knowledge is limited to watching Law and Order:Special Victims Unit, so may I ask our wonderfully knowledgeable community:

1. Virginia is accusing PA of raping her 3 times. Why aren't police involved in charging a criminal case?

2. When Virginia filed the civil case, could PA have countersued her for slander and libel? If so, would she have had to come to the UK to answer such a charge, thus putting the burden of proof on her, in a very different jurisdiction?

Duc et Pair, I am glad to see someone saying what is currently true: PA is a horrible person but he hasn't been found guilty of ANYTHING. Until he is, and I have evaluated the evidence, I shall continue to give him the benefit of the "innocent until proven guilty" doubt.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The media were told by an unnamed source that the Duke of York will not be attending Jubilee festivities.

Buckingham Palace declined to comment on whether the Duke of York will attend his father's memorial service later this year.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...e-palace-queen-buckingham-palace-b976597.html


The Daily Mail was told by an unnamed source that the Duke of York would remain a member of the Order of the Garter "for now" (the Mail's words) but is unlikely to take part in the Garter procession in June.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ews-exile-Duke-Yorks-crisis-summit-Queen.html


A member of the York City Council and the MP for York Central want the Duke of York to relinquish the York title.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-andrew-york-connections-cut-b976711.html


Although the formal statement from Buckingham Palace implied that the Duke voluntarily relinquished his military titles and royal patronages, based on today's newspaper headlines, it seems that few if any people believe his exit was truly voluntary.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...papers-say-about-prince-andrews-royal-removal

 

[Tatiana Maria]

After more thought, I wonder whether the unofficial statement that the Duke will no longer use his HRH in any official capacity specified "official capacity" because he has already stopped using his HRH in any private capacity.

And in the official press release, the reference to "defend[ing] this case as a private citizen" might be inferred to rule out any attempt to invoke some sort of official immunity. (The consensus seems to be that any immunity argument would be questionable and have low odds of success, at any rate.)

Returning to the earlier discussion on the differences between the Buckingham Palace statements on the Duke of York's and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's respective "exits", it's also noticeable that although the Duke and Duchess of Sussex also renounced their "Royal patronages", they were given the "Queen's blessing" to keep their "private patronages". But there is no mention of private patronages in the statement on the Duke of York. I wonder if that indicates that all of his patronages have been returned. (For the sake of his remaining patronages, which have been left in limbo for years, I would hope so.)

Another difference is that, unlike both of the Sussex statements, the Prince Andrew statement does not include any language about remaining "much loved members of the family".

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Scotland Yard did investigate and found that since Virginia was of the age of consent at the time she is said to have had sex with Andrew, no crime was committed in the U.K.

Fwiw...I also find the response of the Royal family premature and chilling, and the public braying for the man's blood by press and public in particular also very chilling considering the fact that no trial has even started...let alone no judgment rendered.

It's as if everyday some new way to punish and humiliate the guy is floated. Strip of him of x,y and z! Kick him out of Royal Lodge. Forbid him from riding at Windsor. It's an insult to see him exercise (can he ride at night under cover of darkness?) Force him to sneak unobtrusively into his mother's funeral when the time comes. Punish his daughters. Send them all to live on some remote miserable bog perhaps in Scotland.

It is terrifying to think what they will come up if he actually loses this civil case. There is nothing left to do short of banishment, and upon his death cremating him and throwing him into the Thames without a funeral.

It's why, for many reasons, I truly no longer enjoy reading about or following most of the Royal families and in particular the British one. As asserted by the late Diana Princess of Wales and recently by Harry and Meghan, it appears more Firm than family with the members willing to do whatever is necessary to appease the angry mob when one of its members falls foul of public opinion.

Not sure why ANYONE...male or female...would want to marry into that situation.

 

[winifred]

But rape is a crime, regardless of the age of the accuser. Do we know exactly what Scotland Yard investigated? Google was not my friend.

 

[Denville]

But she had sex with him willingly, in the sense that she agreed to it at the time. She was not under age

 

[Moran]

Personally, I find no victim-blaming here. Rather, I find the overall mood as being inclined to gloss over Giuffre's part as a victimizer which is horrifying. Teenagers aren't incapable of being whatever.

I find the overall sentiment (not here on the forum but overall) of treating Andrew like a violent rapist just because a recruiter said he slept with her knowing that she was trafficked rather baffling. This far, it's just he said, she said but he's already guilty?

Teenagers shouldn't be expected to bear responsibility for victimizing others? For real? When a teenager tells someone younger (or much younger) that they should keep silent, that's an acknowledgment that they realize they shouldn't be doing what they are doing.

Andrew might be a horrible person. But no one denies this might be the case while every sentiment that Ms Giuffre might be less than stellar is met with "victim blaming".

Many people have been victims of teenage rapists or molesters. And it's always the same thing at court (when the case even makes it to court): they're children. They didn't realize. This leaves *their* victims (some of which are literal children) in a horrible situation. And it isn't because the perpetrators were too young to understand.

It's like this with Giuffre, IMO. She was a victim but also a victimizer. And if I remember correctly, it's by her own lawyer's admission. She regretted taking part? It still happened. It's literally "she said, she said". Why shouldn't it be taken into account?

 

[Lilyflo]

Scotland Yard did investigate and found that since Virginia was of the age of consent at the time she is said to have had sex with Andrew, no crime was committed in the U.K.

I don't think that's correct because the age of consent for prostitution is 18 and Virginia says that's what she was being used as. Also, if they'd found evidence that she'd been trafficked for sex, they'd have pursued it because it is a crime, regardless of her age. My understanding is that they dropped the last review into the case after looking at more documents, which didn't provide them with any new information. Lack of evidence doesn't mean no crime was committed, it just means there isn't enough to prosecute the people who allegedly pimped and/or trafficked her.

 

[muriel]

But traditionally the second son was the spare. That's no longer the case. Charlotte will hold that position. The title should go to her, if it goes to anyone.

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

and traditionally, daughters do not get royal dukedoms. So i dont think Charlotte will get it.

The question of re-issuing the York dukedon will only come up after Andrew's death. Depending on how the case progresses, this may not be a dukedom that could get created again for some time.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Princess Charlotte is the future "spare" but she most likely will become HRH The Princess Royal. In my opinion the most prestigious title available of all, oustide the titles held by the Heir.

 

[TLLK]

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?

Given the current climate and the latest news regarding the situation, I don't believe that the tabloids are "just going to let it go when it comes to Andrew." There's simply far too much money to be made every time someone purchases a paper/magazine and clicks on a story. Also please recall that Prince Andrew and former wife have had decades of tabloid coverage with a fair portion of it being unflattering due to their own actions and words.



Sadly I see a similar pattern with the Sussexes who have in the past two and half years intentionally or unintentionally provided the tabloids and the more respected papers with enough material due to their own actions and words. I'm hoping for their peace of mind that they do not have a repeat of 2021.