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.
The York Press's online reader survey was not a scientific poll representative of the York population (and it did not attempt to be).

The calls from the MP of York Central and certain members of the York City Council for the Duke of York to lose his dukedom are not new. Their comments in January were widely reported.

The MP for York Central already did put the question to the government in a parliamentary session in January, and she did request the government to introduce a bill.

The information and links can be read in these posts:


https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...oversy-2010-2022-a-30333-261.html#post2452721

It is necessary to clarify that the poll participants were not a representative sample of York residents.

It was simply a poll on the website of the York Press (which has been reporting on calls from several York politicians to remove the dukedom), in which any reader of the website could choose to vote (or not).

https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/19848625.vote-majority-press-readers-want-duke-york-lose-title/

My guess is that those inside or outside York who strongly favor removing the dukedom are overrepresented in the poll. They would be more likely to click on the articles about the dukedom issue and to vote in the poll than those who are indifferent.


The MP for York Central and the York City Councillor who previously called for the dukedom to be removed have repeated their call.

https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/19926920.calls-grow-andrew-lose-duke-york-title/



https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...s-7-february-2015-a-38188-56.html#post2448570

The Duke of York title was mentioned in the Business Question in the House of Commons. Rachael Maskell, Labour MP for York Central has asked a debate on how aristocratic titles using geographic locations are assigned. Maskell also mentioned about the 1917 Titles Deprivation Act and the possibility of removing Duke of York title. The Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP responded that The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 was an unusual classification process instead of "attainting the dukes who were on the wrong side of the first world war". He also added that "territorial designations" are up to the sovereign.

Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My city of York has developed an interest in how titles are assigned and in how they can be removed from people whose title takes the name of a geographical location. In 1917, Parliament enacted the Titles Deprivation Act to remove a title for the act of treason. Will the Leader of the House make time to debate new legislation that empowers local people to determine the circumstances in which titles are awarded and removed, and reflect on the geographical location from which titles are taken? York has a global reputation not just for its rich cultural heritage, but for the social values it espouses.

Mr Rees-Mogg
The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 is an extremely interesting Act of Parliament. An unusual process was adopted: rather than simply attainting the dukes who were on the wrong side of the first world war, it was decided to use classification. That was a successful means of legislating, although I understand that the successors to the dukes who were deprived could petition to have their titles restored if they so wished. As regards the award of territorial designations, that is a matter for the sovereign.

Business of the House
Volume 707: debated on Thursday 20 January 2022
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ribution-751A0181-8ECD-4532-8003-2C4679E5D987

The BBC articles also mentioned about the renaming of The Duke of York Stakes (at York Racecourse) to The 1895 Duke of York Stakes.

York MP's Commons debate call over aristocratic titles
People in the UK should have a say in whether dukes and duchesses can take on the names of places in their area, an MP has said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-60071183
 
No, I mean, he should have settled in the first place, with less lawyers - the outcome would have been the same or even better - "never explain, never complain", settle!
I dont think he really had that option. Guiffre made a public accusation..because that raised her price.. and it was probalby true in that she did have sex with him. If she had just approached him privately, and asked for money, she would have looked like money was the only thing on her mind. I think Andrew had to make some kind of gesture of disputing with her... though he would have been better NOT ot have done that interview and made public statements
 
Last edited:
I doubt it. if the good people of York really are so bohtered by Andrew having the title, they need to put it through parliament.

I live in York and literally no one has mentioned in all the time its been going on. Its not something the city awards itself. Its unlikely Andrew will be doing any public stuff in the future so won’t be using the title. Happy for him to play golf for the rest of his days. My local Library/community centre was opened by him and its going to be redeveloped soon. I am guessing the plaque might go “missing” during the building work.
 
Yougov has an ongoing poll about Andrew:

82% say it would not be appropriate for Prince Andrew to resume public duties/ 5% say it would / 13% say don't know

62% say he should have his title Duke of York removed / 17% say not/21% say don't know

If I get chance I'll post the final results (which are usually weighted to give a more proportional representation of the UK)
 
Last edited:
Andrew has lesser titles. Would a motion be stripping him of everything for practicality, or are people just concerned with the dukedom?
 
I doubt if people really care.. except for a few of them. Proobalby most of them only know of the D of York title.
 
I guess an option would be to have a Camilla type situation - hold a title but use a lesser one. He is Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh as well so could use one of those but I doubt either of those places would necessarily be happy to suddenly have him use their title all the time. He could announce he will no longer use the DoY title but still keep it I guess. The reality is if he keeps not doing any duties does it really make a huge difference.
 
For me, Andrew's titles are something he's always going to hold regardless of public opinion or whatever. It'd take an act of Parliament to actually strip him of the peerage title and his bad behavior and attitudes don't come anywhere close to being treasonous which was the reason the last peerage was removed.

Andrew isn't the first royal to behave badly over the centuries and by far, probably won't be the last either. Where he goes from here on in is his own choice as a private citizen of the UK. I just hope he can find peace with himself and those around him. A large fall from grace like he's had probably has hit him deeply and hard.
 
I've just seen a picture of Andrew showing Maxwell, Spacey and Clinton around BP. There also seems to be a very young looking girl with them. Has anybody else seen it?
 
So the day before Virginia was bagging for justice and contacting all the mass media to tell about her 'dramatic' experience but after receiving a substantial sum of money she agreed on stopping the investigation/trial and went completely silent...Basically she started all this just to earn something. She should get that coin for trauma I guess but that woman ain't no victim but a grifter. And she did the same with Dershowitz, took the money and left him in peace. Lost all of my respect for her!
 
So the day before Virginia was bagging for justice and contacting all the mass media to tell about her 'dramatic' experience but after receiving a substantial sum of money she agreed on stopping the investigation/trial and went completely silent...Basically she started all this just to earn something. She should get that coin for trauma I guess but that woman ain't no victim but a grifter. And she did the same with Dershowitz, took the money and left him in peace. Lost all of my respect for her!

I do think Giuffre was very much a victim and it is because of being lured in by Maxwell and then groomed and provided for in exchange for the "jobs" she would do that shaped and molded her into the person she is today. I do believe that her goal was partially to rake in the green dollars but that doesn't discount her from trying to get justice for the wrongs that were done against her person in the very beginning. After one is indoctrinated into a certain way of life and adheres to that life, it's hard to erase all traces of it.

Both Andrew and Giuffre would have never had this problem if it wasn't for Epstein and Maxwell. Those are the two people I really hold responsible. One is dead though and the other one is behind bars. ?
 
I think the settlement was a mistake, but the RF probably wanted things settled before the Jubilee celebrations.
 

Now further details of the deal have emerged, including claims it has been agreed that Miss Giuffre will continue to tell her story publicly - but not until later in the year, so as not to add further damage to the Royal Family during events to commemorate the monarch's 70 years on the throne, the Times reports.

[...]

Sources told the newspaper there would be a 'period of silence' when both parties would have to stick to the terms of a carefully worded statement.

Beyond the Jubilee celebrations however, Miss Giuffre is expected to be allowed to public a book telling her story at the end of the year.

The original story in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...uiet-during-queens-platinum-jubilee-06vkfrfrt


The Telegraph's reporting concurs with what appeared in the Times, stating that there is a gag order on both parties but that it only remains in force until after the Platinum Jubilee. Once again, the source is not apparent, although the Telegraph mentions a "friend of the Duke".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...ew-agrees-never-repeat-denial-raped-virginia/

The Duke of York can no longer repeat his denial that he raped Virginia Roberts Giuffre, due to the terms of their out-of-court settlement.

A gagging clause means neither side can discuss the case or the financial deal, which was signed off at the weekend.

It prevents the Duke from even repeating his claim that he had no recollection of meeting Ms Giuffre.

The £12 million pay-off is understood to include a £10 million payment for Ms Giuffre and a £2 million payment for her sex trafficking charity.

Ms Giuffre’s lawyers, who have been working pro bono, are not thought to be taking any payment from the settlement.

[...]

The Duke’s main concern during the settlement negotiations was to ensure that nothing overshadowed the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, it is understood.

As a result, they are said to be bound only until the royal celebrations are over.

A friend of the Duke said: “If you’re going to go for legal resolution at those sorts of prices then you want silence - but what we’ve got is silence for the Platinum Jubilee.”

Ms Giuffre is expected to give a victim impact statement to a New York court in June, when Ghislaine Maxwell is sentenced for sex trafficking. However, the deal struck with the Duke makes it unlikely she will be able discuss the allegations made against him.

The Duke is not expected to give any public statements or interviews until at least the end of the year.





Honestly, if all the media is saying 10-12 million.... I think it is actually more. They leaked that sum on purpose. It is a massive figure but likely still lesser than the reality.

That would depend on which side is doing the leaking. As Joshua Rozenberg QC told Sky News: "[O]bviously it is in Virginia Giuffre’s interests to imply that it is a large as possible, and in Prince Andrew’s interest to imply it is as small as possible, and that is why it has not been disclosed."


I've just seen a picture of Andrew showing Maxwell, Spacey and Clinton around BP. There also seems to be a very young looking girl with them. Has anybody else seen it?

Is this the photograph you refer to? It was published by the Telegraph and context can be found in the article.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...-pictured-ghislaine-maxwell-2002-palace-tour/
 
Last edited:
So the day before Virginia was bagging for justice and contacting all the mass media to tell about her 'dramatic' experience but after receiving a substantial sum of money she agreed on stopping the investigation/trial and went completely silent...Basically she started all this just to earn something. She should get that coin for trauma I guess but that woman ain't no victim but a grifter. And she did the same with Dershowitz, took the money and left him in peace. Lost all of my respect for her!

We can criticise Virginia for accepting money, but this is an inevitable outcome given the legal system.

We constantly hear how much Andrew's lawyers are costing him. How does Virginia pay for her lawyers? The answer is that Virginia's lawyers agree to work for her for free upfront, while expecting to get paid via settlement later on. Virginia is not rich and does not have the luxury of pursuing justice regardless of cost. Her lawyers want her to settlement since this is the best deal they can get.

When Virginia first went public with her story more than 10 years ago, she was probably not expecting a 10million dollar payday. Virginia is a nobody compared to Andrew who was born into royalty and privilege. She had no money or power or connections. She has prevailed in this David vs Goliath saga, which is impressive.

I want to use an example to illustrate a point: Last year, Sienna Miller, a pretty famous actress accepted a large settlement from the Sun newspaper over phone hacking allegations. In the press conference she stated that she was not settling by choice. She wanted to go to trial and expose shady practices of the tabloid newspapers. However, she does not have the money to pursuit a lengthy trial.

Sienna Miller is pretty famous and certainly richer than me or Virginia. But even she does not have the money or time to get the justice she wants and have to settle for money instead.

I feel very frustrated with the settlement. Money was used to cover up ugly truth. As part of the trial, the judge unsealed a previous settlement between Virginia and Epstein. That contract contained highly unusual language and only paid Virginia $500K. There are many secretive documents/emails that could only be uncovered through a lawsuit and trial. Now, we will never know.

Meanwhile I'm sure Andrew was probably kicking himself knowing that he could have buried this sordid story for only $500K, if he only had the foresight to settle years ago. However, he dug his own grave with his arrogance and hubris.
 
If reports that both parties can talk after the jubilee is over is true...Andrew's lawyers are terrible or Andrew has delusions of a way back The whole purpose of a settlement is to make it go away.
 
If reports that both parties can talk after the jubilee is over is true...Andrew's lawyers are terrible or Andrew has delusions of a way back The whole purpose of a settlement is to make it go away.



Exactly. ND should have been included for 12£. How much more for the ND inclusion?
 
I find it hard to believe that there isn't an NDA. but possibly Andrew feels once he has made the court case go away, he will just ignore anything that she writes. That's what royals usually do
 
I guess an option would be to have a Camilla type situation - hold a title but use a lesser one. He is Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh as well so could use one of those but I doubt either of those places would necessarily be happy to suddenly have him use their title all the time. He could announce he will no longer use the DoY title but still keep it I guess. The reality is if he keeps not doing any duties does it really make a huge difference.

what good would that do? YOU would probalby get some people complaining about the other titles. and even if he did not use D of York, or his lesser titles, he would still be HRH prince Andrew
 
Last edited:
It does seem possible that Virginia Giuffre and her legal team were unwilling to accept a permanent non-disclosure agreement or that a permanent NDA would have been costlier. By all accounts, the Duke of York was under enormous pressure from his family to settle the case before the Jubilee festivities.

i news has more commentary from Ms. Giuffre's attorney on the lack of a non-disclosure agreement:

https://inews.co.uk/news/virginia-g...w-still-heard-court-settlement-lawyer-1467827

Ms Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies has told i that there is nothing preventing the allegations against the Duke of York forming part of the evidence when she goes to court in her separate defamation case against Jeffrey Epstein’s former defence attorney Alan Dershowitz.

He told i: “There is no NDA or gag order that would in any way limit Prince Andrew being mentioned in the trial.”​


If the Telegraph's anonymous source can be trusted, the Duke himself may not want to remain silent forever:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...ew-agrees-never-repeat-denial-raped-virginia/

The Duke is not expected to give any public statements or interviews until at least the end of the year.

Beyond that, his team will make their decisions based on careful analysis of the public mood and how the family feels the House of York fits in with the wider plans of the monarchy.​


(I am not sure why the anonymous source mentions feelings about "the House of York", as the Duke's personal situation cannot be compared to the position of the other members of the house of York.)
 
Yougov has an ongoing poll about Andrew:

82% say it would not be appropriate for Prince Andrew to resume public duties/ 5% say it would / 13% say don't know

62% say he should have his title Duke of York removed / 17% say not/21% say don't know

If I get chance I'll post the final results (which are usually weighted to give a more proportional representation of the UK)

Thank you for posting figures from representative polls! They were conducted on February 16 and the figures appear to be the final results. The poll results are broken down by demographic on YouGov's website.


https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/02/16/9f7d7/2

Do you think Prince Andrew should or should not have his title of Duke of York removed?

Should have his title removed 62%
Should not have his title removed 17%
Don’t know 21%


https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/02/16/9f7d7/1

At this time, do you think it would or would not be appropriate for Prince Andrew to resume public duties as a member of the Royal Family?

It would 5%
It would not 82%
Don’t know 13%​


As with most poll questions relating to the Duke of York, attitudes are very similar across demographics.

However, 18-24 year olds oppose Prince Andrew resuming public duties less than any other age cohort: Only 65% of 18-24 year olds say it would be inappropriate for him to resume royal duties and 9% say it would be appropriate. In all other (older) age cohorts, 83-89% say it would be inappropriate and only 3-5% say it would be appropriate. And Conservatives (23%) are twice as likely as Labour (11%) to say Prince Andrew should not have his dukedom removed.



I guess an option would be to have a Camilla type situation - hold a title but use a lesser one. He is Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh as well so could use one of those but I doubt either of those places would necessarily be happy to suddenly have him use their title all the time. He could announce he will no longer use the DoY title but still keep it I guess. The reality is if he keeps not doing any duties does it really make a huge difference.

It seems you have the gift of prediction as a councillor from Inverness and a councillor from Killyleagh are now objecting to the prince carrying their territorial designations.

what good would that do? YOU d probalby get some people complaining about the other titles. and even if he did not use D of York, he would still be HRH prince Andrew

None of the councillors or the MP who have complained about his peerages has so far complained about Andrew remaining HRH Prince.
 
Epstein's pimp, Jean-Luc Brunel,has been found dead in his prison cell in Paris today. Suicide by hanging apparently when the security cameras were off, just like his old pal. Epstein said he slept with over a thousand girls procured by Brunel and VG said she was being abused by him and Andrew at the same time. At this rate Andrew should be grateful he's still around never mind about having titles taken off him.
 
Last edited:
what good would that do? YOU would probalby get some people complaining about the other titles. and even if he did not use D of York, or his lesser titles, he would still be HRH prince Andrew

Why am I hearing Andrew's voice insisting that he's "HRH, THE Prince Andrew"? :D
 
It does seem possible that Virginia Giuffre and her legal team were unwilling to accept a permanent non-disclosure agreement or that a permanent NDA would have been costlier. By all accounts, the Duke of York was under enormous pressure from his family to settle the case before the Jubilee festivities.



i news has more commentary from Ms. Giuffre's attorney on the lack of a non-disclosure agreement:



https://inews.co.uk/news/virginia-g...w-still-heard-court-settlement-lawyer-1467827



Ms Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies has told i that there is nothing preventing the allegations against the Duke of York forming part of the evidence when she goes to court in her separate defamation case against Jeffrey Epstein’s former defence attorney Alan Dershowitz.



He told i: “There is no NDA or gag order that would in any way limit Prince Andrew being mentioned in the trial.”​





If the Telegraph's anonymous source can be trusted, the Duke himself may not want to remain silent forever:



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...ew-agrees-never-repeat-denial-raped-virginia/



The Duke is not expected to give any public statements or interviews until at least the end of the year.



Beyond that, his team will make their decisions based on careful analysis of the public mood and how the family feels the House of York fits in with the wider plans of the monarchy.​





(I am not sure why the anonymous source mentions feelings about "the House of York", as the Duke's personal situation cannot be compared to the position of the other members of the house of York.)



If it’s the same team he has been using, I suggest several trades be made, or Andrew does not listen anyway.
 
what good would that do? YOU would probalby get some people complaining about the other titles. and even if he did not use D of York, or his lesser titles, he would still be HRH prince Andrew

Well as I said, the lesser titles would be a way to keep the place of York happy but not the places of the lesser titles. I pointed out that there was a precedent for royals choosing to use lesser titles as an example this had been done before. Yes he would still be Prince Andrew and I suspect the people of York, Inverness and Killyleagh would prefer the title Prince over a title that links Andrew to them. So it would do the people of those places a lot of good in their minds.
 
For me, Andrew's titles are something he's always going to hold regardless of public opinion or whatever. It'd take an act of Parliament to actually strip him of the peerage title and his bad behavior and attitudes don't come anywhere close to being treasonous which was the reason the last peerage was removed.

Andrew isn't the first royal to behave badly over the centuries and by far, probably won't be the last either. Where he goes from here on in is his own choice as a private citizen of the UK. I just hope he can find peace with himself and those around him. A large fall from grace like he's had probably has hit him deeply and hard.

If stripping a peer rank was feasible, Jamie Blankford would not be the Duke of Marlborough.
 
Epstein's pimp, Jean-Luc Brunel,has been found dead in his prison cell in Paris today. Suicide by hanging apparently when the security cameras were off....

And now, that Prince Andrew's trial is off the schedule, is Ms. Maxwell next?

I mean, if this would happen in Putin's Russia... My, sanctions and all this!

For the House of Windsor this should be bad news: all the conspiracy theories! But I think, folks who have ideas in this direction are not necessarily pro monarchy - and those, who are pro monarchy, are too apologetic, to see a problem here.
 
I have a feeling this question of removing peerages will gain wider attention as a result of the recent conviction and imprisonment of Baron Ahmed of Rotherham for historic sex offences, committed whilst he himself was a minor, being the attempted rape of a child under 13 years of age and sexual assault of another. He has been sentenced to five and a half years in prison and although removed from the House of Lords he is still a peer. It will take an Act of Parliament to remove that peerage and one of his victims has demanded the government do just that. In light of the conviction and prison sentence, there is a stronger case for removing his peerage than for removing Andrew's, but I think Andrew's situation is bound to be discussed at the same time. So maybe all will not be quiet on this front during the Jubilee year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom