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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
XeniaCasaraghi said:
This is the cultural climate we live in now. Andrew is an idiot but so many in here are ready to call him a sex offender or an accessory to sex trafficking. There is no more innocent until proven guilty it is "I don't like you so you're guilty of something". This is especially popular against men
Click to expand...

On the other hand there are those that want to paint Andrew as a victim of his own nativity of not knowing or understanding that all these very young women parading in and out of Epstein's homes were in fact underaged and there to provide sex for Epstein's friends. Ghislaine Maxwell who is a good friend of Andrew and who introduced him to Epstein, was in fact recruiting and grooming these girls to provide sex to Epstein and his friends/guests. And yet Andrew was oblivious? That just doesn't ring true. This is a 60 year old man, not a naive adolescent. Even after Epstein's conviction, Andrew stayed with him for 4 days when there is no way he can claim to be oblivious.

Finally, the interview didn't show a man that was naive and oblivious of what was going on around him during his association with Epstein. it showed a man who was deceptive, extremely nervous and caught in a trap of his own making. Hence the incredible backlash from the public.
 
texankitcat said:
All interesting news if this is all true, however, I am rather skeptical on the report of Charles going immediately to Sandringham to be advised by his father. Phillip being 98 and not having been seen in public for some time has me thinking his health may have something to do with the immediate and extended visit. I am sure the Duke has a lot of wisdom on dealing with this crises, however I would think the Queen would be Charles first priority if it was advise/strategy that was needed. It is ultimately up to her Majesty, Charles and William as to Andrews fate. JMO.
Click to expand...

It's always a good idea to visit an elderly parent because no matter what kind of health they're in, you just never know........

Charles has been speaking- as I've read - with the Queen on a regular basis and I'm sure he'd do so again at Sandringham. Most observers believe that since Philip has retired, the family has gotten somewhat out of control as he was the one who kept a firm grip on everything. Of course ultimately Charles will strategize with the Queen - as Queen and mother - but aside from any wisdom Philip might share regarding how to proceed under these sad circumstances, he surely would want to add his two cents about how to deal with Andrew as his son/a brother, etc..

I like to see William involved as well. I think BRF is handling this as well as they can - ultimately, I think this damages Andrew and BRF will be fine.
 
Madame Verseau said:
Andrew is off the royal guest list for the reception of NATO leaders

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...m-palace-nato-prince-andrew-a9219296.html?amp

Harry, Meghan, Sophie and William are not attending for various reasons. The irony of Trump coming considering his ties to Epstien. The BRF better brace itself for another car crash interview because Trump will most likely be asked about Andrew.
Click to expand...

Not going to happen if Trump has anything to say about it. If anything, Trump will not be wanting to get the press digging and remembering some very legal and public documents of a court case filed in SDNY against Trump years ago in regards to his association to Epstein that makes Andrew look like an altar boy on Sunday morning.

Y'know, I would never in a million years have even thought of Andrew as someone being on a list of invitees for a NATO reception. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention. :D
 
Kataryn said:
From the way Sarah grew up as member of the landed gentry whose only claim later to being "high society" was her excellent manners and the knowledge of the do's and don'ts (even though she did as she wanted later on), it is clear that she would select only the best nanies for their wto little princesses. The kids had to be perfect little girls in order to stay close to their grandmother (and their parents) and be perfect little princesses to the public. No one knew better then Sarah how much hinged on that. So the nannies were surely told to deliver in shaping the girls accordingly.

Just like Lady Louise and Viscount Severn are shaped nowadays.



It's typical of raising minor Royals - they only have some "value" in the monarchy as long as they are invited to those events where they could be invited or not. It's clear they wouldn't be invited to state dinners at all but attending garden parties at BP eg - depends on their behaviour.



That's why I am happy to see them chosing their own husbands and not really in the upper echelons of society - 100 years ago, Beatrice would have been chosen by a foreign prince of the young Duke of Westminster...
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you stated, however...both young women have indeed chosen husbands from the 'upper echelons of society" especially Beatrice.

And contrary to popular belief here in the USA, Jack Brooksbanks is not "just a bartender". He is an aristocrat in all but name.

Otherwise Andrew would not have been as thrilled as he was with Eugenie's engagement. He was practically rocking back on his heels with glee. There is no way he would have been happy with an average guy for either of his girls.:whistling:
 
Andrew need to drop all his royal patronage’s, instead of letting this constant drip, drip, drip of patronage’s dropping him on a daily basis.
 
texankitcat said:
On the other hand there are those that want to paint Andrew as a victim of his own nativity of not knowing or understanding that all these very young women parading in and out of Epstein's homes were in fact underaged and there to provide sex for Epstein's friends.
Click to expand...

I realize you might be referring to another poster but just to clarify...I never stated anything of this. I only pointed out that Andrew may have been unaware that the women were victims of sex trafficking, in the sense that they weren't willing participants. I also pointed out that not every powerful man surrounded by young women is a sex trafficker.

And I attributed this to Andrew's cluelessness and obliviousness not naivete.

I could be completely wrong - maybe Andrew did know - but at this point we can't state whether Andrew did or did not know as fact, which is what some posters are doing. We just don't know.

But of course being clueless or oblivious doesn't explain or excuse Andrew's continued friendship with Epstein after his conviction and I've never stated it does.


Ghislaine Maxwell who is a good friend of Andrew and who introduced him to Epstein, was in fact recruiting and grooming these girls to provide sex to Epstein and his friends/guests.
Click to expand...
No, its actually not a fact that Ghislaine Maxwell did this. It's an allegation. I personally believe the allegation is true but that doesn't make it a fact. It has to be proven.

For example, in another post I stated I'm skeptical that Andrew visited Epstein in 2010 to end their friendship. I think it involved the loan Epstein made to Sarah. But that doesn't mean I can state that as a fact. I can say "I think/believe/suspect Andrew visited Epstein to discuss Sarah's loan" but I can't say "Andrew visited Epstein to discuss Sarah's loan." Because I don't know it to be a fact, I'm only speculating.

And yet Andrew was oblivious? That just doesn't ring true. This is a 60 year old man, not a naive adolescent. Even after Epstein's conviction, Andrew stayed with him for 4 days when there is no way he can claim to be oblivious.
Click to expand...
Yes, Ghislaine Maxwell was Andrew's friend. But I'm skeptical she would have told him she and Epstein were engaged in sex trafficking. I think she's evil but I don't think she's stupid. I suspect that's one of the reasons why Epstein and Ghislaine got away with this so long - I believe both were very clever and manipulative and knew when to keep their mouths shut and when to wear a mask, so to speak.

I agree, there's no excuse for Andrew's visit to Epstein following his conviction. I've never stated otherwise.

Finally, the interview didn't show a man that was naive and oblivious of what was going on around him during his association with Epstein. it showed a man who was deceptive, extremely nervous and caught in a trap of his own making. Hence the incredible backlash from the public.
Click to expand...
I've never stated Andrew was naive. Only clueless and oblivious. IMO the interview showed this very clearly. Did he really believe his pathetic answers would clear his name? He really didn't know there were pictures all over the internet proving (1) he sweats (2) he doesn't always wear a suit and tie (3) he hugs women?

To me its obvious he didn't which IMO shows exactly what I said - he's clueless and oblivious.
 
Last edited:
rmay286 said:
He dropped all 230 of them a few days ago: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/24/prince-andrew-to-withdraw-from-scores-of-charities
Click to expand...



No he didn’t. The article says he is standing back from his patronage’s. Nothing about removing himself as their patronage. Simply because he can’t, he is asked to be someone’s royal patronage, or he has inherited them/been given them from his father but always at the agreement of the charities involved.

It is the patronage’s themselves that must remove him.
 
Gawin said:
I realize you might be referring to another poster but just to clarify...I never stated anything of this. I only pointed out that Andrew may have been unaware that the women were victims of sex trafficking, in the sense that they weren't willing participants. I also pointed out that not every powerful man surrounded by young women is a sex trafficker.

And I attributed this to Andrew's cluelessness and obliviousness not naivete.

I could be completely wrong - maybe Andrew did know - but at this point we can't state whether Andrew did or did not know as fact, which is what some posters are doing. We just don't know.

But of course being clueless or oblivious doesn't explain or excuse Andrew's continued friendship with Epstein after his conviction and I've never stated it does.


No, its actually not a fact that Ghislaine Maxwell did this. It's an allegation. I personally believe the allegation is true but that doesn't make it a fact. It has to be proven.

For example, in another post I stated I'm skeptical that Andrew visited Epstein in 2010 to end their friendship. I think it involved the loan Epstein made to Sarah. But that doesn't mean I can state that as a fact. I can say "I think/believe/suspect Andrew visited Epstein to discuss Sarah's loan" but I can't say "Andrew visited Epstein to discuss Sarah's loan." Because I don't know it to be a fact, I'm only speculating.

Yes, Ghislaine Maxwell was Andrew's friend. But I'm skeptical she would have told him she and Epstein were engaged in sex trafficking. I think she's evil but I don't think she's stupid. I suspect that's one of the reasons why Epstein and Ghislaine got away with this so long - I believe both were very clever and manipulative and knew when to keep their mouths shut and when to wear a mask, so to speak.

I agree, there's no excuse for Andrew's visit to Epstein following his conviction. I've never stated otherwise.

I've never stated Andrew was naive. Only clueless and oblivious. IMO the interview showed this very clearly. Did he really believe his pathetic answers would clear his name? He really didn't know there were pictures all over the internet proving (1) he sweats (2) he doesn't always wear a suit and tie (3) he hugs women?

To me its obvious he didn't which IMO shows exactly what I said - he's clueless and oblivious.
Click to expand...

Thanks Gawin! I was actually making certain statements in general, not towards any particular person. You make valid points and I certainly see where you are coming from. We may never know the details of what Andrew knew or didn't know, but I hold firm in that I believe he not only knew what was going on, but actively participated...sexually that is, and turned his head at the sex trafficking aspect. There is just too much over the years with Andrew that has shown me that he would make a deal with the devil if it benefitted his own agenda and Lord knows, Epstein was the devil.
 
Gawin said:
. I only pointed out that Andrew may have been unaware that the women were victims of sex trafficking, in the sense that they weren't willing participants. I also pointed out that not every powerful man surrounded by young women is a sex trafficker.

I could be completely wrong - maybe Andrew did know - but at this point we can't state whether Andrew did or did not know as fact, which is what some posters are doing. We just don't know.

Yes, Ghislaine Maxwell was Andrew's friend. But I'm skeptical she would have told him she and Epstein were engaged in sex trafficking. I think she's evil but I don't think she's stupid. I suspect that's one of the reasons why Epstein and Ghislaine got away with this so long - I believe both were very clever and manipulative and knew when to keep their mouths shut and when to wear a mask, so to speak.
Click to expand...

I think it is absolutely the case that Epstein presented himself in different ways to different people and limited what information they had about his life.
And most people don't look for evil, even when it is there.

How many times has there been a killer or a kidnapper in the news who goes about his two lives for years, until something happens to shatter his secret--and family, friends, co-workers and neighbors are shocked? I can think of a lot.
 
texankitcat said:
Thanks Gawin! I was actually making certain statements in general, not towards any particular person. You make valid points and I certainly see where you are coming from. We may never know the details of what Andrew knew or didn't know, but I hold firm in that I believe he not only knew what was going on, but actively participated...sexually that is, and turned his head at the sex trafficking aspect. There is just too much over the years with Andrew that has shown me that he would make a deal with the devil if it benefitted his own agenda and Lord knows, Epstein was the devil.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind response. Hopefully the Epstein investigation will continue and eventually his victims will have some closure. I definitely think Andrew should cooperate with the FBI, not only to shed light on Epstein but on Ghislaine Maxwell as well. IMO she's the key that needs to be found.
 
O-H Anglophile said:
I think it is absolutely the case that Epstein presented himself in different ways to different people and limited what information they had about his life.
And most people don't look for evil, even when it is there.
Click to expand...

Epstein was also very cunning and sly to the point that even if his "friends" did uncover and realize something was not quite right surrounding his environments and activities, Epstein had enough information stashed away to ensure that they didn't say anything. Put his "friends" between a rock and hard place without even possibly realizing it.
 
Betsypaige said:
It's always a good idea to visit an elderly parent because no matter what kind of health they're in, you just never know........

Charles has been speaking- as I've read - with the Queen on a regular basis and I'm sure he'd do so again at Sandringham. Most observers believe that since Philip has retired, the family has gotten somewhat out of control as he was the one who kept a firm grip on everything. Of course ultimately Charles will strategize with the Queen - as Queen and mother - but aside from any wisdom Philip might share regarding how to proceed under these sad circumstances, he surely would want to add his two cents about how to deal with Andrew as his son/a brother, etc..

I like to see William involved as well. I think BRF is handling this as well as they can - ultimately, I think this damages Andrew and BRF will be fine.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I didn't follow the story from the beginning and I don't feel like reading the 160 pages of this thread. How is Prince William involved in the management of this case?
 
titiromi said:
I'm sorry, I didn't follow the story from the beginning and I don't feel like reading the 160 pages of this thread. How is Prince William involved in the management of this case?
Click to expand...

William would be involved in the decision making process, as far as it concerns the monarchy, because with Andrew only being 59 and possibly has the genes of longevity that runs in the Windsor family, any decision made now would possibly affect William's reign. The Queen, Charles and William are the ones that mostly affect how the monarchy handles things.

Makes sense to me. ?
 
Osipi said:
William would be involved in the decision making process, as far as it concerns the monarchy, because with Andrew only being 59 and possibly has the genes of longevity that runs in the Windsor family, any decision made now would possibly affect William's reign. The Queen, Charles and William are the ones that mostly affect how the monarchy handles things.

Makes sense to me. ?
Click to expand...

Thank you for your answer :flowers:. Is his participation official? Is there any record of his involvement? Did he sign a press statement or the relinquishment of Prince Andrew's patronages?
Sorry again, I didn't follow the case at all nor do I follow the British royal family.
 
Last edited:
titiromi said:
Thank you for your answer :flowers:. Is his participation official? Is there any record of his involvement? Did he sign a press statement or the relinquishment of Prince Andrew's patronages?
Sorry again, I didn't follow anything at all.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, there has been nothing official other than the statement put out by Andrew which mentioned the Queen only. The involvement of Charles and William is from unnamed sources and press speculation although I do find it difficult to believe Charles was not consulted.
 
titiromi said:
Thank you for your answer :flowers:. Is his participation official? Is there any record of his involvement? Did he sign a press statement or the relinquishment of Prince Andrew's patronages?
Sorry again, I didn't follow anything at all.
Click to expand...

There's never been anything "official" released that I'm aware of but as the royal family all work for the family business (the "Firm"), decisions, a lot of times are discussed among themselves of what to do. Years ago, there used to be a group called "The Way Ahead" which would include royal family members and their advisers that would meet and discuss plans on how the "Firm" would move ahead into the future. I believe that group is now defunct as back then, it was chaired by Philip. The BRF do not leave anything to chance and put everything and anything under the microscope (where they can) and prepare for anything that may occur.

This recent crisis involving Andrew is something that no one could have really predicted without a crystal ball. It most likely wouldn't even have turned into the crisis it is if Andrew had just kept his mouth shut, kept calm and carried on.
 
Gawin said:
I'm skeptical about the stated purpose of Andrew's 2010 visit: he went to end the friendship in person because it was the honourable thing to do.


#1
In the interview Andrew said he lost touch with Epstein from 2006-2010. So why after four years was it necessary to let Epstein know the friendship had ended? Didn't he think Epstein had figured that out already?

#2
He also said he lost touch because he knew he couldn't be seen with Epstein who was under investigation. So why was it OK to be seen with Epstein after he had been convicted and released?

#3
According to an article in the Times Andrew secured a $24,500 (£15,000) loan from Epstein in 2010 to help pay Sarah's debts.

I can't help but think the 2010 visit was related to the loan and not to end the friendship.
Click to expand...

Could not Prince Andrew have written a letter to Epstein declaring that the friendship had ended?
 
I believe the Lord Chamberlain's committee is now used more in the way the Way Ahead Group was, although not sure if the royals also attend as they did with the Way Ahead group. The Lord Chamberlain's committee meets about once a month includes the heads of the main Household departments as well, more recently as the Private Secretaries to Charles, Camilla, William and Kate, It clearly gives a forum for these to discuss issues affecting the RF and I would guess at times of crisis the same people would communicate with each other.


I know we should take media reports with a pinch of salt by Private Eye (I know!) gives a supposed account of what happened. It take it with a pinch of salt but it actually usually has pretty good inside royal news probably due to its longstanding connections and its target audience.

It says HM and Charles approved the interview but then on seeing the outcome it was agreed Andrew had to go. Apparently Charles relied on William to push the case with HM and senior aides on his behalf and William and HM met after he did an investiture ceremony for her and agreed Andrew had to go.
 
Last edited:
CyrilVladisla said:
Could not Prince Andrew have written a letter to Epstein declaring that the friendship had ended?
Click to expand...

He could have, and should have... and would have, I believe, if their relationship was as straightforward as he seems to want us to believe. And he would have done it immediately, not waited all that time. The four year gap in communication and then a personal visit across the ocean seems very peculiar to me. I suspect he subscribes to the view that it is unwise to put anything at all controversial in writing as it can be produced in evidence in answer to a subpoena, or challenged by the recipient. Though, of course, so can a video recording of the interview he has just given, which is potentially even more damaging, however now Epstein is no longer alive to contradict what Andrew said about the outdoor meeting. That outdoor meeting is very suspicious to me, taking place, as it did, away from witnesses and ostensibly out of the range of recording equipment.

I am sure there is more to come in this saga.
 
Last edited:
Lumutqueen said:
No he didn’t. The article says he is standing back from his patronage’s. Nothing about removing himself as their patronage. Simply because he can’t, he is asked to be someone’s royal patronage, or he has inherited them/been given them from his father but always at the agreement of the charities involved.

It is the patronage’s themselves that must remove him.
Click to expand...

they have been dropping him..and as I recall Diana left several patronages when she was divorced. I don't believe that anyone ever said that she could not drop her patronages... but had to wait for them to drop her...
 
tommy100 said:
I believe the Lord Chamberlain's committee is now used more in the way the Way Ahead Group was, although not sure if the royals also attend as they did with the Way Ahead group. The Lord Chamberlain's committee meets about once a month includes the heads of the main Household departments as well, more recently as the Private Secretaries to Charles, Camilla, William and Kate, It clearly gives a forum for these to discuss issues affecting the RF and I would guess at times of crisis the same people would communicate with each other.


I know we should take media reports with a pinch of salt by Private Eye (I know!) gives a supposed account of what happened. It take it with a pinch of salt but it actually usually has pretty good inside royal news probably due to its longstanding connections and its target audience.

It says HM and Charles approved the interview but then on seeing the outcome it was agreed Andrew had to go. Apparently Charles relied on William to push the case with HM and senior aides on his behalf and William and HM met after he did an investiture ceremony for her and agreed Andrew had to go.
Click to expand...


If the Queen and Prince Charles approved the interview they both showed very poor judgment.
 
Perhaps they were under the illusion that Andrew would be straightforward, honest and even admit to a lack of common sense and even show remorse for those that Epstein has harmed over the years. To clear the air, most of the time, does help. Andrew, however, just made matters worse.

No one expected or predicted that Andrew's interview would go that badly. With hindsight, perhaps it would have been better that Andrew had been given the questions to be asked and he could have been advised how to answer them without opening his mouth and inserting his foot.
 
Yes, that's true, no one knew how badly it would turn out.

If the Queen and Charles did approve the interview I suspect they felt Andrew had the right to tell his side. But they should have called in a PR expert and a legal expert to go over the questions & answers with Andrew, over and over again.

Even if the BBC refused to provide the actual list of questions the RF would still have an idea of what would be covered (for example the photograph, the 2010 visit). And any decent PR person would have advised Andrew to express sympathy for the victims and show regret for his relationship with Epstein.
 
One would think Andrew had an armada of specialists working for the royal family to prepare him for the interview and that all the answers would have been the subject of considerable reflexion beforehand especially if the Queen and Prince Charles gave their go to the interview.
 
Last edited:
I can see The Queen and Charles approving the principal of an interview - Andrew putting his side across. However I wonder whether Andrew and his staff were full and frank in saying it would be so soon, that it would be Newsnight (hence much tougher and in-depth) and that nothing was off topic. They probably also thought he would take wider advice and be well prepped for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2: Sep 2022 -
6 7 8
Replies
223
Views
14K
Curryong
C
L
  • Locked
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 1: October 2002-October 2003
3 4 5
Replies
134
Views
28K
Alexandria
A
J
  • Locked
Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik, Current Events 1: May 2003 - November 2006
17 18 19
Replies
564
Views
100K
norwegianne
norwegianne

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom