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

[GracieGiraffe]

If it was a 17 year old boy, would it be different?

No, not at all. I have one in the house -they think they are adults, and if a 40 year old approached him for sex, it would only be for one reason, sex, and the 40 year old's dominance in the matter would be clear. You cannot have a healthy relationship with such unequal powers.

There is a reason why we criminalize sexual relationships where one party is far more dominant than the other - psychologist and patient for example, or lawyer and client in some cases. The professional is automatically in a position of power, and you can see how this is so. In the case of 40 year old prince and teenage girl - do people really see them on equal footing in terms of ability to consent? I don't. I don't care if the relationship between 40 year old and 17 year old was or was not legal - it's immoral in most cases because of the inequality between the two.

If Andrew did have sex with Virginia, legal or not, I'd like to ask him one question; if he found out that a 40 year old had a one night stand with 17 year old Beatrice of Eugenie, how would he feel about that?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In France the general adagium is: "The Republic is not the keeper of morals, it is the keeper of Law". When someone has not broken the law, then there is no case. It is typically British/American, to make such a media frenzy. Continentals are too cynical to be shocked by "sexual scandal". They have never understood what they call "puritanical reactions to sexual intrigues" in the USA or UK.

Look at the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn which was mainly hyped in international media but was met with shrugged shoulders in my country, Mr Strauss Kahn’s defence rested on the French notion of libertinage: the argument that freewheeling sex between (multiple) consensual partners behind closed doors is an acceptable exercise of one’s right to a private life.

What did this last case learn? That a lady can tell she felt abused and violated and treated like a piece of meat but that, in the end, it comes down to hard evidence: to documents, to photos, to taped conversations, to records of transaction, to bills of sale. That distaste for someone’s sexual predilections is not a solid enough grounding for a costly and lengthy court case.

Of course the USA (or the UK) are not France or other countries on the Continent. The media-frenzy around Cliff Richard's alleged "abuse" of decades ago is telling enough. But also in the USA (or the UK) it comes to evidence, to proof, to have a case beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[hernameispekka]

No, not at all. I have one in the house -they think they are adults, and if a 40 year old approached him for sex, it would only be for one reason, sex, and the 40 year old's dominance in the matter would be clear. You cannot have a healthy relationship with such unequal powers.

There is a reason why we criminalize sexual relationships where one party is far more dominant than the other - psychologist and patient for example, or lawyer and client in some cases. The professional is automatically in a position of power, and you can see how this is so. In the case of 40 year old prince and teenage girl - do people really see them on equal footing in terms of ability to consent? I don't. I don't care if the relationship between 40 year old and 17 year old was or was not legal - it's immoral in most cases because of the inequality between the two.

If Andrew did have sex with Virginia, legal or not, I'd like to ask him one question; if he found out that a 40 year old had a one night stand with 17 year old Beatrice of Eugenie, how would he feel about that?

In this situation she was taken advantage of by someone. But if they met and decided to have sex then they both were in on it. In that case none of them is in a power position. One could even argue she would be in a power position (ability to tell the story etc)

In France the general adagium is: "The Republic is not the keeper of morals, it is the keeper of Law". When someone has not broken the law, then there is no case. It is typically British/American, to make such a media frenzy. Continentals are too cynical to be shocked by "sexual scandal". They have never understood what they call "puritanical reactions to sexual intrigues" in the USA or UK.

Look at the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn which was mainly hyped in international media but was met with shrugged shoulders in my country, Mr Strauss Kahn’s defence rested on the French notion of libertinage: the argument that freewheeling sex between (multiple) consensual partners behind closed doors is an acceptable exercise of one’s right to a private life.

What did this last case learn? That a lady can tell she felt abused and violated and treated like a piece of meat but that, in the end, it comes down to hard evidence: to documents, to photos, to taped conversations, to records of transaction, to bills of sale. That distaste for someone’s sexual predilections is not a solid enough grounding for a costly and lengthy court case.

Of course the USA (or the UK) are not France or other countries on the Continent. The media-frenzy around Cliff Richard's alleged "abuse" of decades ago is telling enough. But also in the USA (or the UK) it comes to evidence, to proof, to have a case beyond reasonable doubt.

I agree. We can sit and have moral discussions all day long, non of this changes that (to our knowledge) there is no proof of legal wrongdoing.

 

[MARG]

Spoken like someone who's never had a 17 year old.

I find this personal attack somewhat confusing. Whether or not I have had a 17 year old is absolutely irrelevant to hernameispekka's post and my reply.

Yes, I am not saying IN THIS INSTANCE that no-one was abused, obviously they were. I was just sheding a little balance to the "oh horrible, 17 year old girl having sex with an old fart". I would not be surprised if other young ladies that Andrew has had sex with in a more normal surcumstance doesn't feel abused, more like "Oh la la, older man. And oh yeah, he's a prince!"

I am saying all this as a christian girl that waited, but I am neither blind nor stupid. Not everyone makes my decision, doesn't mean they are abused.

Okay, firstly . . . ouch! If 40 is an "old fart" then I must be knocking on heaven's doors.

Pointing out the realities of your life experience with peers and perhaps even friends, is a reality check. Uncomfortable but it is what it is.

 

[royal rob]

No, not at all. I have one in the house -they think they are adults, and if a 40 year old approached him for sex, it would only be for one reason, sex, and the 40 year old's dominance in the matter would be clear. You cannot have a healthy relationship with such unequal powers.



There is a reason why we criminalize sexual relationships where one party is far more dominant than the other - psychologist and patient for example, or lawyer and client in some cases. The professional is automatically in a position of power, and you can see how this is so. In the case of 40 year old prince and teenage girl - do people really see them on equal footing in terms of ability to consent? I don't. I don't care if the relationship between 40 year old and 17 year old was or was not legal - it's immoral in most cases because of the inequality between the two.



If Andrew did have sex with Virginia, legal or not, I'd like to ask him one question; if he found out that a 40 year old had a one night stand with 17 year old Beatrice of Eugenie, how would he feel about that?

I totally agree and that last paragraph says it all. I know how I would feel about my daughters or sons


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[hernameispekka]

I totally agree and that last paragraph says it all. I know how I would feel about my daughters or sons


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

But the importance is not what the parent feel in this case. Ofc the parent has right to feel things, and all they want to do is protect their kid. I get that. But this sometimes stems more from wanting to keep the kid innocent as long as possible (which is also an understandable instinct) than it does from wanting the best for your son/daughter.

But this is where I'll stop this track since it's borderline off topic. Is there any news in the legal case (or "media case" for that matter)?

 

[royal rob]

But the importance is not what the parent feel in this case. Ofc the parent has right to feel things, and all they want to do is protect their kid. I get that. But this sometimes stems more from wanting to keep the kid innocent as long as possible (which is also an understandable instinct) than it does from wanting the best for your son/daughter.

It's not about keeping your son or daughter innocent as long as possible


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

No, not at all. I have one in the house -they think they are adults, and if a 40 year old approached him for sex, it would only be for one reason, sex, and the 40 year old's dominance in the matter would be clear. You cannot have a healthy relationship with such unequal powers.

There is a reason why we criminalize sexual relationships where one party is far more dominant than the other - psychologist and patient for example, or lawyer and client in some cases. The professional is automatically in a position of power, and you can see how this is so. In the case of 40 year old prince and teenage girl - do people really see them on equal footing in terms of ability to consent? I don't. I don't care if the relationship between 40 year old and 17 year old was or was not legal - it's immoral in most cases because of the inequality between the two.

If Andrew did have sex with Virginia, legal or not, I'd like to ask him one question; if he found out that a 40 year old had a one night stand with 17 year old Beatrice of Eugenie, how would he feel about that?

THANK YOU!!! A question I should like him and his supporting x-wife to answer!!!

 

[Roslyn]

THANK YOU!!! A question I should like him and his supporting x-wife to answer!!!

Sarah might not be as outraged as you might think. We should remember that Paddy McNally was approx. 22 years older than Sarah. She was about 23 and he was about 45 when their 3 year relationship began. I realise there's a big difference between 17 and 23, but the fact remains that Sarah had a lengthy, life-in, relationship with a man 22 years older than her so she will perhaps not be as horrified at the prospect of Roberts being attracted to Andrew as a lot of other people would.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Even now that she has daughters? Actually, forget it, it wouldn't surprise me if anything went as far as these two are concerned. They should have stayed married, they are a perfect match!!

 

[Lady Nimue]

I agree with everything hernameispekka has been saying on this. This is an area of serious personal belief, almost akin to religion, to go by this thread. It seems to swing back and forth each generation.

My mother and I spoke of this when I was young. It's possible her views were colored by her own experience, but I also suspect it had something to do with our European roots. She was a great advocate of learning from an experienced lover, and counseled me accordingly. How I interpreted 'experienced' was up to me, but she had some guidelines.

All in all, it has worked out well for me, and I see no problem with my daughter seeking out experience (when the time comes) from someone gentle and adept. It makes all the difference. It also ensures that marriage doesn't take place solely in a sexual 'heat'. It's important to be able to distinguish the differences between lust, desire and love, I think.

Anyway, something of a thread-nap. Forcing and sexual enslavement are crimes and rightly so. The age at which one voluntarily seeks a partner and the age of that freely chosen partner are other matters, clearly rooted in a larger view of what one considers 'right' and 'seemly'.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I find this personal attack somewhat confusing. Whether or not I have had a 17 year old is absolutely irrelevant to hernameispekka's post and my reply.Okay, firstly . . . ouch! If 40 is an "old fart" then I must be knocking on heaven's doors.

Pointing out the realities of your life experience with peers and perhaps even friends, is a reality check. Uncomfortable but it is what it is.

Sorry Marg - I apologize for the personal attack, which I did not mean.

I do think it helps to spend a great deal of time with 17 year olds to understand their make-up. although this is not to discredit the opinions of those who have not.

 

[AdmirerUS]

And now this from the DM - the same old allegations that Charles and Andrew are like chalk and cheese. Read if you like, not much new/proven here.
What IS the problem with the Princes? Charles won't give Andrew a birthday card, a party invite - or a place on the balcony | Daily Mail Online

 

[Iluvbertie]

This has been clear for ages. Charles and Andrew are different people with different interests. I can't think of one thing, other than skiing, which Charles no longer does, that these two have in common. Andrew is the least 'countrified' of the siblings, is rarely if ever seen riding, enjoys golf (Charles doesn't), etc.


Charles would also have a degree of jealousy when there are report of 'favourites' within the royal family - Andrew is the Queen's 'favourite', Anne is Philip's and Edward is the joint favourite. You never read that Charles is the favourite of either parent. More and more it is said that The Queen and Philip dislike Charles' expensive ways such as the size of his household etc.


It isn't unusual for siblings to grow apart and given the 11+ year age difference (Charles November 1948 to Andrew in February 1960) it isn't a surprise. Charles was away at boarding school when he was born, saw both Andrew and Edward have a more relaxed upbringing than he had had such as being allowed to play in The Queen's study while she was doing the boxes in the mornings.


IF Charles really does want to have a 'smaller' royal family then it has to start with Andrew as he is the most senior royal after his own descendants and that is another reason why it would seem that Andrew feels this more closely than say Edward who is further away from the centre of things.


As for the comment, so often put about, that Charles decided to stop his siblings being on the balcony after Philip took ill at the Jubilee, the timing needs to be noted:


In March it was announced that Andrew etc wouldn't be on the balcony - whether it was at Charles' urging I don't know but it wasn't a decision that was made after Philip took ill but a decision that had been made three months earlier.

 

[Winnie]

I too remember the announcement that only smaller direct line be on balcony months prior to Philip getting sick. I am sure the Queen had quite a lot to do with this decision. It really is getting too crowded with all the queen's children, their spouses and all the young ones up on that balcony. The smaller group looks more dignified and less like a mob scene. All eyes should have be just on the queen and her husband. No one else did anything to deserve being there at that 60 year moment except to be born and that wasn't their doing. Don't even need the wives of children outdoing themselves in their clothes. It was the Queen's Jubilee. She and her husband's day. Rest of the family just a side-note on that one special day. JMHO

 

[Irish Eyes]

According to this article in the Mirror, the BBC are thinking about doing their own bit of research into the matter. I'm presume as things stand there is no way Andrew could be persuaded to take part in it.
I'm no expert but wouldn't there be a lot of constraints because of the ongoing civil cases in the US?

Sorry, here is the link -

BBC planning Panorama probe on Prince Andrew's US sex scandal - Mirror Online

 

[hernameispekka]

According to this article in the Mirror, the BBC are thinking about doing their own bit of research into the matter. I'm presume as things stand there is no way Andrew could be persuaded to take part in it.
I'm no expert but wouldn't there be a lot of constraints because of the ongoing civil cases in the US?

Since he's not involved in that civil case, there are no constraints on him. But why on gods earth would he cooperate with a tv network?

 

[Irish Eyes]

I didn't get my point across great. I was wondering legally from the BBC's point of view would they have to be very careful how they go about things?
I can't see Andrew ever giving a detailed interview about the accusations.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I didn't get my point across great. I was wondering legally from the BBC's point of view would they have to be very careful how they go about things?
I can't see Andrew ever giving a detailed interview about the accusations.

I know in Britain that there are a lot of constraints, comments sections closed etc, but I don't think there are any constraints in the U.S. God knows we have legal pundits on 24 hour news networks going on and on about every single case.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

And now this from the DM - the same old allegations that Charles and Andrew are like chalk and cheese. Read if you like, not much new/proven here.
What IS the problem with the Princes? Charles won't give Andrew a birthday card, a party invite - or a place on the balcony | Daily Mail Online

Charles' ME ME ME outlook on life is shinning bright as ever. Although, in this instance, I do not blame him.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Charles' ME ME ME outlook on life is shinning bright as ever. Although, in this instance, I do not blame him.

If this is true, Andrew had better pray nightly for the Queen's longevity.

It's not the first time I have read of the Queen's devotion to Andrew, to the point where she lacks objectivity. But what if the allegations are either proven true or more comes out making them more likely true? What then? Would the Palace spin doctors suggest age is a factor if she becomes illogical in her support of Andy?

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

If this is true, Andrew had better pray nightly for the Queen's longevity.

It's not the first time I have read of the Queen's devotion to Andrew, to the point where she lacks objectivity. But what if the allegations are either proven true or more comes out making them more likely true? What then? Would the Palace spin doctors suggest age is a factor if she becomes illogical in her support of Andy?

Mm...I think her survival mode will be stronger. I would expect her to support him privately only and all would be well where she is concerned.

 

[Queen Camilla]

And now this from the DM - the same old allegations that Charles and Andrew are like chalk and cheese. Read if you like, not much new/proven here.
What IS the problem with the Princes? Charles won't give Andrew a birthday card, a party invite - or a place on the balcony | Daily Mail Online

Behind the partly closed gilt doors of the grand dining room at Buckingham Palace, the Prince of Wales was holding court with his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall. The celebration to mark his 66th birthday was in full swing, with the couple’s closest friends charging their crystal glasses to toast the Prince.

Why would anyone believe this DM story?

According to most people, the BRF only celebrates major birthdays.

Why would Charles have a birthday party at Buckingham Palace rather than at Clarence House, St. James' Palace or Highgrove?

Was there any mention in the papers last year of Charles having a birthday party at Buckingham Palace? I do not recall any.

IMO, if the Queen wanted to have Sophie and Edward on the balcony nothing would have stopped her not even Charles.

 

[MARG]

"Why would anyone believe this DM story?" Why indeed. It is not as though it is the most reliable rag in the western world, nor even the UK, not even London. It relies on the credulity of readers when the only thing it has to recommend it is the best photos around.

As to the birthday bash, hello . . . Clarence House!

As to the BP balcony? I firmly believe that our dearly beloved Queen has a firmly established right of veto. I believe it was a special occasion related to the monarchy itself and on that occasion HM Queen Elizabeth gave them it's future.

Come her next birthday, the gang was all there.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This sort of story has appeared in many publications however for years so it isn't just the DM but The Telegraph has run similar stories as well.

 

[Jacknch]

I think most people will agree that many newspaper stories are speculative and a re-hash man of the sentiments previously published - and indeed discussed. Time to move on back to the topic, which relates directly to The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy and not the relationship between members of the British Royal Family.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

When the new King Willem-Alexander came on the balcony, he was shared with his spouse and his children.

When the new King Philippe came on the balcony, he was shared with his spouse and his children.

When the new King Felipe VI came on the balcony, he was shared with his spouse and his children.

When the new King Charles III comes on the balcony, he will be shared by his spouse and his children (and their partners).

Completely logical and understandable: a new chapter is starting, a new look on the monarchy. Only the Brits can make such a hullabaloo about something as who-is-standing-on-the-balcony-and-who-is-not-and-what-does-that-mean-and-has-Andrew-fallen-in-disgrace-because-of-Epstein-?

 

[AdmirerUS]

If this is true, Andrew had better pray nightly for the Queen's longevity.

It's not the first time I have read of the Queen's devotion to Andrew, to the point where she lacks objectivity. But what if the allegations are either proven true or more comes out making them more likely true? What then? Would the Palace spin doctors suggest age is a factor if she becomes illogical in her support of Andy?

I've always wanted to ask someone that knows both Charles and Andrew, who they prefer to be with (say stuck in a room waiting for a plane that's going to be an hour late) and why? It's off topic, but I imagine it would be a tough choice. JMO. Edward - come save me! Anne, lets talk horses!

 

[Mirabel]

IMO, if the Queen wanted to have Sophie and Edward on the balcony nothing would have stopped her not even Charles.

I'm not sure...it's been said that the Queen leaves more and more decisions to Charles. Age takes its toll on everyone; perhaps she simply doesn't wish to enter into conflict on matters that really aren't that important.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is possible that the Queen simply agrees with Charles' view on a slimmer monarchy but leaves it to him to change when he is in charge.