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 am not one to jump on the band wagon - I want to not judge people that I don't know or judge people by one event or several events. But I have always admired the way Andrew and Sarah have remained friends and have raised their daughters. And this was them - not the palace, nor Nannies or the Queen. Children are not their parents. Royals are people and people make mistakes. Sometimes big mistakes that rightly require a larger punishment. But lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
 
Question. Haven't we lost the Epstein train of thought in the roundhouse and sent the locomotive down a different track?
 
I really have difficulties reading this thread as I am astonished how many members are forgetting that in the Uk one rule is the basis of their criminal justice law: everyone is innocent until proven guilty.But what crime did Prinz Andrew commit that was proven?

Unless he's been jailed since I was out this evening, this discussion has nothing to do with the criminal justice system.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard. If he'd been jailed, I'd be right there on the barricades with you. But no-one in this forum has the ability to jail Andrew, and everyone on this forum has the right to their opinion without it being dismissed because it doesn't adhere to a standard that doesn't apply.

Andrew has faced no legal consequences whatsoever. There's nothing protecting any of us from social consequences when we act poorly or, as with Andrew, when we come across as a dishonest and insensitive boor.
 
Unless he's been jailed since I was out this evening, this discussion has nothing to do with the criminal justice system.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard. If he'd been jailed, I'd be right there on the barricades with you. But no-one in this forum has the ability to jail Andrew, and everyone on this forum has the right to their opinion without it being dismissed because it doesn't adhere to a standard that doesn't apply.

Andrew has faced no legal consequences whatsoever. There's nothing protecting any of us from social consequences when we act poorly or, as with Andrew, when we come across as a dishonest and insensitive boor.

Thank you for saying this. I've been scratching my head trying to figure out why Andrew shouldn't be judged for his friendship with a convicted sex trafficker. He's not facing any legal consequences, only moral ones, which he wouldn't even be facing, had he not given that unsympathetic, horrid interview.
 
IMO the Yorks have a very unhealthy family dynamic - they do not have proper boundaries - Sarah especially, going out to nightclubs with her daughters, for example, and from the sounds of it w/ Beatrice sitting in on the meetings her father had before the interview, she’s been thrust into the role of being the parent to her mother and father.

Beatrice and Eugenie are not children or teens-why shouldn’t they and their mother go out together to a nightclub?
And even if (big IF) Beatrice did sit in on a meeting about “the interview” so what? She is a 31 year old woman—not a child.

OK. So Scotland Yard big-shots didn't tell BP about Andrew's encounters with teens?

1) Maybe there were not “encounters.”
2) It is not an RPO’s job to report to BP, in fact it probably would be against their rules of conduct. If an RPO had a concern, they would report it to their supervisor at the Metropolitan Police.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andrew and Sarah did their most important jobs well. They raised children who are, by all accounts, very decent young women. There has never been one whiff of scandal about princesses Eugenie and Beatrice.

The fact that the Yorks kept their young children away from their personal chaos and left them unscathed is not something the Wales's managed.

It might be too long ago for many here to remember, but Andrew risked his life in uniform for his country. He didn't have to do so. It would have been easy for him to get out.

He insisted.

He and Sarah have made a botch out of their post divorce personal lives. But their many mistakes do not wipe out the good things. Not for me anyway.

It's why i flinch to hear these two now dismissed as loathsome, despicable wastes of human beings.:sad:
unfortutanlty, while they haven't been bad paretns and Andrew does have a service record, their other behaviour has been despicable.. and IMO they should be firmly moved out of Royal life.. I don't believe any charities will work with Andrew or Sarah now.. so it is inevitable..
 
Unless he's been jailed since I was out this evening, this discussion has nothing to do with the criminal justice system.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard. If he'd been jailed, I'd be right there on the barricades with you. But no-one in this forum has the ability to jail Andrew, and everyone on this forum has the right to their opinion without it being dismissed because it doesn't adhere to a standard that doesn't apply.

Andrew has faced no legal consequences whatsoever. There's nothing protecting any of us from social consequences when we act poorly or, as with Andrew, when we come across as a dishonest and insensitive boor.

Well put! Andrew’s connection to Epstein and his sordid underaged sex ring is no secret for those that have paid attention throughout the years. The only difference is now he is having to answer the hard questions he never thought he would have to due to his arrogance and entitlement. His interview confirmed just how bad of a liar he is and cemented his fate with public opinion. Being a Royal Prince may give him a certain degree of legal protection, but it gives him zero protection from public outrage which is well deserved and over due IMO.
 
In my opinion Andrew lied during the interview. Sadly , he was too dumb too not at least pretend he had sympathy for the victims. I do believe he slept with that under age girl. Simply because why not she was there and offered up to him . That is what I see him as he doesn't care about others who he considers less than himself. Which he showed during the interview. Will he be brought to trial nope never gonna happen. I think with his ego this is the best punishment for him. If he has any sense he should be humiliated and embarrassed, but with his ego probably not.
 
His interview confirmed just how bad of a liar he is and cemented his fate with public opinion.


Please clarify what exactly he lied about and provide credible evidence that he was indeed lying.
 
Please clarify what exactly he lied about and provide credible evidence that he was indeed lying.

Well for one his odd comments on never partying without a tie or jacket. Also let’s not forget his lack of sweat. I mean the internet proved that lie in like 2 seconds.

If he lying about small stuff like that...
 
Well for one his odd comments on never partying without a tie or jacket. Also let’s not forget his lack of sweat. I mean the internet proved that lie in like 2 seconds.

If he lying about small stuff like that...




Nevertheless, after more than two weeks, the internet has been unable to debunk the pizza party alibi, hasn't it ? And Mrs Giuffre has not been able to provide any factual evidence that she ever had sex with Prince Andrew. I wonder why everybody assumes that she is more credible than the Duke of York.


I sense that Andrew is the victim of a preconceived idea that he is a straight male and a womanizer (not true either BTW) and, therefore, he must be lying about not having sex with the Epstein girls. If I recall it, he did admit though to having massages, which is not equal to having sex.



The burden is not on Andrew to prove that he is innocent, but rather on those who accuse him of wrongdoings to prove that he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:
Facts of the matter is Andrew got caught in two lies. And he probably was at Pizza Express in the afternoon, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t partying that evening on the night in question. You can be in two places in the same day.

Oh another sketchy moment was him claiming to have never seen the upstairs of house yet knew that picture was the upstairs? But it’s also fake because... I don’t know. Yet to see a valid explanation.

I don’t know if Andrew is a womanizer or not. How can anyone? None of us personally know him to claim one way or the other. What I can observe is he is an arrogant entitled man man who clearly got rocked by his own ego.

Is Andrew guilty? Only he and the alleged victims know for sure. After all this time evidence likely is hard to come by but who knows how it all will play out. That’s why he should go talk to authorities especially if he had zero to hide.
 
I agree, giving RL to Andrew was as good as giving it to Sarah and I don't think that is something the Queen Mother would have wanted and definately not Princess Margaret who detested Sarah by the end of her life.

I've always thought that Fergie and Andrew bring out the worst in each other: the greed, the sense of entitlement, the cheerful disregard of any trouble they create for others.

Fergie should never have been allowed to move into RL with Andrew; the Queen could probably have intervened to prevent this and did not. I know Phillip objected to this and wanted Andrew to distance himself from his ex, but Andrew would not. The Queen could have forced the issue.
 
I should point out that uncropped versions of the Andrew-Giuffre photograph clearly show it was taken upstairs. You can see a banister and a stairwell on the left.

And if Andrew were a womanizer we would definitely know, courtesy of the media. But that doesn't mean he's celibate.
 
Oh another sketchy moment was him claiming to have never seen the upstairs of house yet knew that picture was the upstairs? But it’s also fake because... I don’t know. Yet to see a valid explanation.

The placement of the people in that photo next to the landing or hall railing clearly shows it is up a stairway. I could tell that.
 
Facts of the matter is Andrew got caught in two lies. And he probably was at Pizza Express in the afternoon, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t partying that evening on the night in question. You can be in two places in the same day.

Oh another sketchy moment was him claiming to have never seen the upstairs of house yet knew that picture was the upstairs? But it’s also fake because... I don’t know. Yet to see a valid explanation.

I don’t know if Andrew is a womanizer or not. How can anyone? None of us personally know him to claim one way or the other. What I can observe is he is an arrogant entitled man man who clearly got rocked by his own ego.

Is Andrew guilty? Only he and the alleged victims know for sure. After all this time evidence likely is hard to come by but who knows how it all will play out. That’s why he should go talk to authorities especially if he had zero to hide.

All true, but as far as I know one of his friends said that he did indeed have an active sex life...and even if he is "not guilty" of knowingly having sex with an underage girl.. he clearly turned a blind eye to the fact that his good friend was a sex trafficker and there were girls around whom he must have seen..and known what Epstein was up to. That's bad enough behaviour for a member of Britain's premier family.. and he pretty definitely lied about quite a few things in that interview.. saying that he did not sweat, that he did not dress casually, that he did not "party"...or hug and embrace people. He refused to express regret at having kept up his friendship with Epstein even after his conviction.. and he also failed to express any sympathy for the Victims until pushed to do so.....
 
The placement of the people in that photo next to the landing or hall railing clearly shows it is up a stairway. I could tell that.

Which proves, that he lied about never being upstairs. The picture was taken upstairs, so he had been upstairs.
 
I've always thought that Fergie and Andrew bring out the worst in each other: the greed, the sense of entitlement, the cheerful disregard of any trouble they create for others.

Fergie should never have been allowed to move into RL with Andrew; the Queen could probably have intervened to prevent this and did not. I know Phillip objected to this and wanted Andrew to distance himself from his ex, but Andrew would not. The Queen could have forced the issue.

I think that they Do bring out the worst in each other.. certainly. I don't think Andrew was greedy for money in his younger days.. I think that came when he was married to/divorced from Sarah and she was always over spending. He started to use his Trade envoy position to make contacts which made him money..
 
Facts of the matter is Andrew got caught in two lies. And he probably was at Pizza Express in the afternoon, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t partying that evening on the night in question. You can be in two places in the same day.

Oh another sketchy moment was him claiming to have never seen the upstairs of house yet knew that picture was the upstairs? But it’s also fake because... I don’t know. Yet to see a valid explanation.

I don’t know if Andrew is a womanizer or not. How can anyone? None of us personally know him to claim one way or the other. What I can observe is he is an arrogant entitled man man who clearly got rocked by his own ego.

Is Andrew guilty? Only he and the alleged victims know for sure. After all this time evidence likely is hard to come by but who knows how it all will play out. That’s why he should go talk to authorities especially if he had zero to hide.

Actually, he got caught in at least three lies, the two you cite, and in addition the statement he made that when one parent was out of town, the other parent always stayed with the children, and since Sarah was out of town, he would have stayed at home. One of the newspapers disproved that by a simple reading of the CC to show that there were multiple occasions when both Andrew and Sarah had out of town engagements that would have meant neither of them were able to stay at home with Beatrice and Eugenie. If you're going to lie, at least don't be sloppy about it.
 
Nevertheless, after more than two weeks, the internet has been unable to debunk the pizza party alibi, hasn't it ? And Mrs Giuffre has not been able to provide any factual evidence that she ever had sex with Prince Andrew. I wonder why everybody assumes that she is more credible than the Duke of York.


I sense that Andrew is the victim of a preconceived idea that he is a straight male and a womanizer (not true either BTW) and, therefore, he must be lying about not having sex with the Epstein girls. If I recall it, he did admit though to having massages, which is not equal to having sex.



The burden is not on Andrew to prove that he is innocent, but rather on those who accuse him of wrongdoings to prove that he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

The only way to prove that Andrew was at this pizza place is for someone that worked there or a customer who was there would forward stating they saw him and the Princesses there on that date. If this silly alibi was so notable to him because he has never visited this pizza place before, then I can assure you it would be very noticed if the Duke of York and his family stopped there for a pizza party. It's a public restaurant after all, and yet not one person has come forward stating they recall his party being there? Highly unlikely. And yet there IS a picture of him with the accuser. So who is more believable?

There are certainly victims in this mess, but Andrew isn't one of them. His excuses and ridiculous statements in the attempt to discredit the accusations are truly laughable and insulting to anyone with common sense. If any of this was believable he wouldn't be facing the backlash his interview created. These were HIS words, not the media.

Andrew's burden is that he made statements on national TV which put everything he says into question. He has been tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion due to his own words. Had he not said anything and cooperated with authorities offering to help in any way he can, he may have avoided where things stand now. For me, I am glad he did that interview.
 
he's said multiple things that are easily proved wrong. Even if he did take Bea to a Pizza Party, he said himself it was around 4 or 5 pm..so it probably did not last all night. They would have been there a few hours and then he could quite easily have travelled to London, later that night for a party at Tramps...and as has been said, he and Sarah were both away at times from the kids so that does not hold up either..
 
All true, but as far as I know one of his friends said that he did indeed have an active sex life...and even if he is "not guilty" of knowingly having sex with an underage girl.. he clearly turned a blind eye to the fact that his good friend was a sex trafficker and there were girls around whom he must have seen..and known what Epstein was up to.


I disagree with this. While watching the interview I was struck by how clueless and oblivious Andrew came across, perhaps a product of his upbringing.

Yes, the average person would be able to connect all the dots regarding Epstein but I can easily picture Andrew thinking "OMG what a life Jeffrey has" without once stopping to think it all through. If the women were clearly underage (say 14 or 15) that would be one thing but it's easy to mistake a 17 year old for 19 or 20, especially if you're somewhat oblivious to begin with. IMO marriage to the equally feckless Sarah did nothing to help steer Andrew's judgment in the right direction.

And not every man surrounded by willing young women is a sex trafficker, as any rock musician will tell you. I know someone who ran away from home at 16 and became a "groupie," following rock stars around and freely engaging in sex with them. Her ambition in life was to become a rock star's wife. Needless to say that never happened. Now, twenty years later, she's back home, a single mother trying to support herself and her daughter as a waitress.

But of course this doesn't explain the inconsistencies in Andrew's other statements.
 
He knew that Epstein was hanging around with a lot of girls.. many of whom were quite young.. and most people in today's world would start to worry "are these girls of legal age" if only for reasons of self preservation. Did he really think it was appropriate for a man in his positon, a member of a royal family.... the son of the queen of Englad... to hang out with someone who was "surrounded by young "willing" girls" whom he "Introduced?" to famous older men?
And he knew that Epstein was involved in a crime because the man had bee in prison.. so what does he do? He flies to America and stays with him for 4 days to "break up with him"...
 
He knew that Epstein was hanging around with a lot of girls.. many of whom were quite young.. and most people in today's world would start to worry "are these girls of legal age" if only for reasons of self preservation. Did he really think it was appropriate for a man in his positon, a member of a royal family.... the son of the queen of Englad... to hang out with someone who was "surrounded by young "willing" girls" whom he "Introduced?" to famous older men?
And he knew that Epstein was involved in a crime because the man had bee in prison.. so what does he do? He flies to America and stays with him for 4 days to "break up with him"...


Yes, Andrew's actions and friendships are highly questionable and he showed extremely poor judgment, to put it mildly. But that doesn't mean he knew Epstein was a sex trafficker.
 
Yes, Andrew's actions and friendships are highly questionable and he showed extremely poor judgment, to put it mildly. But that doesn't mean he knew Epstein was a sex trafficker.

He knew he was a registered and convicted sex offender and still maintained his friendship. Even states he doesn't regret it. Heck was even seen coming in and out his home where young women were also seen. So honestly I can very easily see Andrew turning a blind eye because he weighed the other benefits.
 
Yes, Andrew's actions and friendships are highly questionable and he showed extremely poor judgment, to put it mildly. But that doesn't mean he knew Epstein was a sex trafficker.

Epstein was convicted of procuring an under age girl for prostitution.. what did Andrew think he was doing with the young girls who were all about his mansion? Did he really think that hanging out with a man who had a bevy of young girls hanging around, was appropriate for someone in his positon?
 
Yes, Andrew's actions and friendships are highly questionable and he showed extremely poor judgment, to put it mildly. But that doesn't mean he knew Epstein was a sex trafficker.

I agree.
Epstein would have been very, very careful about just exactly who he would have admitted to his very inner circle, in fact I bet he had some good stories if there were questions. I'm sure a number of people figured the young women were "groupies" of a wealthy man with wealthy, powerful friends.

Before Epstein's arrest this year and the "Me too" movement, the minor charges, conviction and sentence 10 years ago didn't really paint the whole picture.

Yes, the true facts were much worse than most people realized but lots of people really didn't follow the story that closely until this year.
 
Last edited:
Surely he doesn't need to become a recluse?
Why not devote himself to more charity work, perhaps more with injured military personnel?
(Something like that would gradually reestablish his reputation with the public).

I agree. There is always a place for someone to help their fellow citizens no matter what their past was.
 
I don't think so. He has left it too late now to re establish his reputation. Charities are not going to want him to work with them...esp as its pretty obvius that any "charity work" he did now would be to try and make himself look good…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom