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

[Mbruno]

I wonder what source was relied on for the Mirror's report. There seems to be a trend recently of royal household members talking on anonymity to the press about the Duke of York.

Another such report quotes an anonymous courtier who claims that Queen Elizabeth has never questioned her son's innocence with regards to Virginia Giuffre's charges.



Carolyn Andriano, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein who testified under her first name as a witness for the prosecution at Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking trial, has given an interview to the Daily Mail. She did not receive a fee for the interview.

Part of the interview discusses Virginia Giuffre, who recruited Ms. Andriano for Jeffrey Epstein (the article quotes extensively from her courtroom testimony about those events), something for which Ms. Andriano thinks Ms. Giuffre should be prosecuted. Ms. Andriano says that in 2001, when they were teenagers, her then-friend Virginia told her she had had dinner and sex with Prince Andrew in London and showed her (Carolyn) the now-infamous photograph of Virginia, Andrew, and Ghislaine Maxwell.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...inia-Giuffre-told-slept-Duke-York-London.html

I didn't open the DM link, but, if I am not mistaken based on another report I saw in the Express, Ms. Andriano also said Virginia Roberts at the time bragged about having had sex with Prince Andrew and, according to Ms. Andriano, "she was not upset about it" and actually thought "it was pretty cool", i.e. no indication that she had been assaulted or that what she did with Andrew had been coercive in any sense.

To be fair, as a 17-year-old, Virginia Roberts might not have had a sufficiently clear understanding of how she was being used/abused by Epstein and Maxwell at the time. It is not inconceivable that she was "cool" with the life she was living as she was probably given money, gifts, luxury housing, most likely drugs, and got to hang out with famous people, even royalty. Many young girls who are in that kind of business are tricked into feeling like she did. And it is not uncommon either for girls like her to recruit other girls on behalf of their "madam" so I find Ms. Andriano's account to be credible. I just don't think it will make much difference in this civil lawsuit specifically.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

ITA with every word you posted.

And I do take VRG's youth at the time of her association with Epstein into consideration.

What I can never understand is the 20 year delay in filing charges and the decision to go after PA in particular, whom she is on record as describing as being a gentleman toward her even though he grossed her out physically.

 

[Denville]

He is well known, rich and outside the US, so she may reckon she has a better chance of getting a pay off from him, since he was SUPPOSED to be at least publcily behaving like a gentleman..

 

[Osipi]

This brings to mind something that I've heard about happening in a lot of cases of kidnapping and abductions. Stockholm syndrome. It's defined as "feelings of trust or affection felt in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor." As the victim becomes more and more adjusted to the life presented by their "captors", they may even begin to enjoy the life that they've become used to. From the looks of things that the reports what we've had, Giuffre's life within the Epstein fold had all the glitz and glamor and the perks that the majority of people can only read about. This doesn't take away from the fact that Giuffre *was* a victim of two perverse individuals whatsoever.

Andrew, on the other hand, I have a hard time believing that there is anything, anywhere. that could be construed as actually being an act or a deed that labels him criminally responsible for. Sure, the man may be totally and completely morally and ethically bankrupt when it comes to his friendship with Epstein/Maxwell. The man may be arrogant with an attitude of supreme entitlement. Sure, the man may have had a penchant for sleeping with girls young enough to be his daughter. These are the reasons actually why Andrew's credibility and his reputation have tanked. It's not because of a lawsuit brought on by Giuffre that if he wins, his "good name" will be cleared and restored.

Win or lose, there is no coming back from this for Andrew. None whatsoever.

 

[LadyRaven]

The problem would be proving that Andrew knew that human trafficking was going on. That goes into the operation of his mind. It’s hard to prove that

 

[Denville]

I dotn think he did, but I suspect that is because of his callous arrogant indifference towards ordinary people.. If he did have some idea, I supsect he'd have put it out of his mind because it wasn't his concern.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

In a civil trial, does VRG's side even need to prove that?

As for most other of the other big names that have popped up in relation to Epstein...Clinton, Trump, Dershowitz...I have no doubt that they knew these women and girls were self trafficked.

But it would not surprise me if Andrew believed Epstein's harem was simply a perk for being the rich powerful swell guy he was. And that his "lady friends" felt awed and honored to bask in the glow of a real life genuine PRINCE like himself.

Yes. I do believe he is THAT stupid, that entitled and that unaware of anything outside his Prince Andrew bubble.

 

[Osipi]

But it would not surprise me if Andrew believed Epstein's harem was simply a perk for being the rich powerful swell guy he was. And that his "lady friends" felt awed and honored to bask in the glow of a real life genuine PRINCE like himself.

Yes. I do believe he is THAT stupid, that entitled and that unaware of anything outside his Prince Andrew bubble.

I second that opinion. In a world where he doesn't carry money and has minions that "settle things" for him and makes travel arrangements and open doors for him, why would Andrew be concerned with how someone else's household operated?

 

[Alison H]

We can't know what Andrew did or didn't know, but isn't he supposed to have invited Jeffrey Epstein to Beatrice's 18th birthday party? Surely he wouldn't have let him anywhere near Beatrice, Eugenie and their friends if he'd had any idea what was going on.

 

[Osipi]

We can't know what Andrew did or didn't know, but isn't he supposed to have invited Jeffrey Epstein to Beatrice's 18th birthday party? Surely he wouldn't have let him anywhere near Beatrice, Eugenie and their friends if he'd had any idea what was going on.

Why not? An "entitled prince" could possibly be of the mindset that *his* caliber of people in his family just don't rank with the minions that surround other people's households. Andrew would possibly be of the mind that his daughters and her friends were too high of a caliber for Epstein even to begin to think of them as anything else because they're "princesses".

If there's one thing I believe Andrew has had down pat since childhood is the idea that some people are just so far above the rest that they're "untouchable" and deserve and warrant deference.

 

[Mbruno]

Why not? An "entitled prince" could possibly be of the mindset that *his* caliber of people in his family just don't rank with the minions that surround other people's households. Andrew would possibly be of the mind that his daughters and her friends were too high of a caliber for Epstein even to begin to think of them as anything else because they're "princesses".


If there's one thing I believe Andrew has had down pat since childhood is the idea that some people are just so far above the rest that they're "untouchable" and deserve and warrant deference.

If that is indeed the case, I wouldn't blame Andrew for feeling/ thinking like that and I would not equate it to arrogance or a sense of entitlement. The British monarchy is pretty much one of the last "imperial monarchies" left and was still even much more so in the early years of the Queen's reign and when her children were born. In candid terms, that is simply the mindset Andrew and his siblings would have grown into and pretty much the way the courtiers and social acquaintances would have treated them. It may be changing now for the younger generations (Prince George's generation for example), but for Andrew or Charles, or maybe even William's generation, that would be a natural attitude in my humble opinion.

That of course does not excuse Andrew's poor judgment to associate himself with shady people like Epstein or Maxwell, nor his inability to control his lust and his willingness to sleep around with young girls, if that proves to be true in th end.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

In all fairness to Andrew he did not confine himself only to very young women post divorce. He had several relationships with women in his age group from what I remember.

Other than VRG, I cannot recall him having any predictions for barely legal females.

But one is all it takes.

 

[Moran]

Or perhaps he just didn't believe Epstein was actually guilty? People have trouble believing this about people they were friendly with. My own parents knew, in theory, that a "friend" of theirs has been, for years, an informer to State Security (everyone who has lived in a socialist state knows what this is) but they couldn't quite *feel* it. And they were people who had no privileges under the regime like Andrew does. There was no doubt that "our" man has worked for State Security, that he had told on them and their circle of friends and still, it was years after the fact that the affected people could actually believe it had happened - and that's with everyone being actively afraid of State Security which had a way of ruining lives and had informers everywhere.

I can imagine it was even harder for someone who grew up in privilege like Andrew to believe the problem was real. And honestly, why would Ms Guiffre tell on Epstein when she was clearly pleased to be with Andrew? And he isn't the greatest observer. Would he really bother noticing that something was off?

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I didn't open the DM link, but, if I am not mistaken based on another report I saw in the Express, Ms. Andriano also said Virginia Roberts at the time bragged about having had sex with Prince Andrew and, according to Ms. Andriano, "she was not upset about it" and actually thought "it was pretty cool", i.e. no indication that she had been assaulted or that what she did with Andrew had been coercive in any sense.

To be fair, as a 17-year-old, Virginia Roberts might not have had a sufficiently clear understanding of how she was being used/abused by Epstein and Maxwell at the time. It is not inconceivable that she was "cool" with the life she was living as she was probably given money, gifts, luxury housing, most likely drugs, and got to hang out with famous people, even royalty. Many young girls who are in that kind of business are tricked into feeling like she did. And it is not uncommon either for girls like her to recruit other girls on behalf of their "madam" so I find Ms. Andriano's account to be credible. I just don't think it will make much difference in this civil lawsuit specifically.

I understand your point but there is no excuse for Ms. Giuffre recruiting a 14 year old child in this case. At 17, Ms. Giuffre may have been seduced into a luxurious lifestyle and now sees that it was wrong. However, in many areas of the world, including the US and UK, 16 is the age of consent. Ms. Giuffre was old enough to know that a 14 or 15 year old child should not be in a relationship with an adult.

It seems that Ms. Giuffre did it for the money, which seems to be a recurring theme. I am fast losing the sympathy I had for her.

 

[Magnolia471]

I was on Giuffree's side till she started asking for money. A victim of violence deserves justice but money will not change anything or help anyone else other than Giuffree's bank account.

 

[Denville]

I was on Giuffree's side till she started asking for money. A victim of violence deserves justice but money will not change anything or help anyone else other than Giuffree's bank account.

What other recompense can be made to her? Epstein is dead, Maxwell is in prison. I think she deserves something....

 

[Claire]

Yep - she should have gotten money and she did. I have no issue her getting money - but I would have less suspicions if she had brought this suit against Prince Andrew when she was in court with Epstein.

 

[Mbruno]

What other recompense can be made to her? Epstein is dead, Maxwell is in prison. I think she deserves something....

I agree , but it is a little bit unsettling that she seems to be in this mostly for money and not for justice per se. Maybe I am wrong, but I am convinced at this time that, if Andrew had agreed to a settlement as Giuffre’s lawyers apparently suggested repeatedly to him, this civil lawsuit would never have been brought.

 

[Denville]

but that's hwat a civil lawsuit is for, to get monetary compensation. However I suppose Andrew realises that if he made a voluntary settlment it woudl be an admission of guilt.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that a victim is not entitled to financial compensation. However, I now question whether her own actions have negated her claims of victimhood. Other Epstein victims recruited other girls for Maxwell and Epstein but my understanding is the vast majority of them didn't. If the allegation against Ms. Giuffre is true (and the litigious Ms. Giuffre is not suing the alleged victim), I would say that Ms. Giuffre's behavior was worse than Andrew's. With respect to the current law suit, how traumatized could Ms. Giuffre have been if she was helping Maxwell recruit even younger girls into the trafficking ring?

There are good reasons for statutes of limitations in civil cases. In a criminal case, the defendant starts out presumed innocent and it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt. The defendant doesn't have to affirmatively defend him or herself. All they have to do is prevent the state from proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a civil suit, Andrew doesn't have the advantage of having to force Ms. Giuffre to prove what she is saying is the truth. A civil defendant should have the ability to defend him or herself. After more than 20 years, Andrew does not have access to relevant records and witnesses. Ms. Giuffre's still technically have teh burden of proof but the allegations are so sensitive that unless he can clearly rebute her account, he is going to lose.

The more than a million dollars that she apparently received from Epstein and Maxwell, is far more than most sex trafficking victims will ever receive. According to Ms. Giuffre's victim, Ms. Giuffre enjoyed the alleged encounter with Andrew and she was 17 (above the age of consent in each of the jurisdictions where the alleged encounter took place). How much money does a victim who became an accomplice deserve?

 

[Denville]

well she may have been subjected to pressure from Maxwell to help recruit other girls. She may have been felt to be a good recruiter and trianed in it. if other girls feel that they were pressed and groomed into a life of prostitution they have the option of suing HER>

 

[Granada]

I just find it amazing that the one person that I would have figured would rein in ( pun intended ) Andrew did not. His father Prince Philip.

Back when the sordid allegations came to light, that the Family enforcer and supposed task master didn't clamp down hard on Andrew, read him the riot act and tell him ....nope. No more Epstein and Maxwell. And Maxwell's Family was a VERY well known scandalous Family in the UK too. Why didn't Philip act ? He was supposed to be a common sense "Man of the World". Who would call a spade a spade. Are we to believe that no-one was telling Philip or the Grey Men what was going on ? A public relations disaster could and did result.

And is ongoing. What happens if the case isn't thrown out ? Andrew will be forced to settle. There is no way He could risk deposition, discovery and a trial. God only know what other little gems would come to light. Especially during his years as Roving 'Trade Ambassador".

The Queen, always had this 'ostrich ability' to hide her head in the sand and ignore things She did not want to deal with. I guess I expected more from Philip. The debacles enveloping The Firm, from this Scandal to Harry and Meg actions and antics are shocking. It appears the entitlement and arrogance of two Princes that never heard the words "Stop and No" are unraveling the prestige and goodwill that the Queen built up for decades.
What a mess. With no end in sight either.

 

[Denville]

Philip wais an OLD OLD man. Honestly. I think that if he was younger, he would have read Andrew the Riot act but I dont think he was really up to dealing iwht wordly matters and problems for the past few years of his life.

 

[Osipi]

Philip wais an OLD OLD man. Honestly. I think that if he was younger, he would have read Andrew the Riot act but I dont think he was really up to dealing iwht wordly matters and problems for the past few years of his life.

I agree with this. In fact, I remember vividly one example that kind of proves that Philip 's role as the "family enforcer" had drawn to a close (either by Philip's choosing or on his doctor's advice to reduce stress).

I'm sure I'll be corrected if my memory hasn't been fed enough caffeine and donuts yet today but I can still see the picture in my head that showed Philip in car going away from the Sandringham estate right before the summit meeting between the Queen, Charles and Harry and William was to start almost 2 years ago to the date. Showed that Philip was *not* getting involved in the mess.

 

[Moran]

Philip had been an old man for years. He might have read Andrew the Riot Act some fifteen years ago but not later.

It's surprising to me that he did not. I can only assume they made the collective mistake of thinking that this, too, shall pass. For some reason, they didn't think it this important.

Should have taken a leaf out of Mete Marit's book. She did apologize for maintaining friendship with Epstein after the storm came out. But she did maintain them.

No one thought things would go this far, as incredible as it is.

 

[Granada]

Denville, agreed for the last few years but previously ? He was still the Patriarch of the Family-Firm. The Queens 'strength and stay'.
Did Mi5 and The Royal Protection Services not report that Andrew was hanging out with a notorious man with a known predilection for young girls. that Andrew was keeping company with him ? All the way back to 2001 ? Inviting this degenerate to Buckingham Place and Balmoral ? How many red flags were ignored ?
Again, this started in the very early 2000's. Philip was supposedly very involved in the Firm Business.
I don't think Philip really started stepping back till 2016. He formally retired in 2017.

I am disgusted and so disappointed in all this. I think the harm to the Royal Family is lasting and ongoing. And Charles is going to pay a steep price for the in actions of others.
I also believe that Andrew looked at 17 year old Virginia as a gift, like something out of a novel of Roman Aristocrats and debauchery. Did he care ? Why was a 41 year old Man hanging out with her ? She was a present to be used and discarded. That She was being exploited or trafficked He didn't care. I wonder what other skeletons are waiting to come out of Royal Lodges closets ?
Sexual exploitation of kids and teens makes me sick. And that Andrew is either lying about knowing her, OR pretending he didn't know a 17 year old teen was part of Epstein's working harem is unbelievable.

 

[Osipi]

On the other hand, it's possible that everyone under the sun including the voices in Fergie's head could have repeatedly and strongly cautioned, advised,, admonished, cajoled with and pleaded with Andrew about associating with Epstein (especially after his Florida conviction) and Andrew simply chose to ignore it all and do what he felt best.

Isn't that the sole reason that embarrassing and disastrous interview happened? Andrew *knew better* and chose to go against being advised keeping his trap shut.

 

[Denville]

I agree with this. In fact, I remember vividly one example that kind of proves that Philip 's role as the "family enforcer" had drawn to a close (either by Philip's choosing or on his doctor's advice to reduce stress).

I'm sure I'll be corrected if my memory hasn't been fed enough caffeine and donuts yet today but I can still see the picture in my head that showed Philip in car going away from the Sandringham estate right before the summit meeting between the Queen, Charles and Harry and William was to start almost 2 years ago to the date. Showed that Philip was *not* getting involved in the mess.

Of course he was not up to anything like that and I think while he was still compos mentis, even in the last couple of years, he was a bit slow at taking things in.. and probably the family did not want to worry him about outside things in his last years. I think that there was some mention back when the Andrew interview happened, that Phillip WHEN HE TOOK IT In, was firmly of the opinion that Andrew had to give up his duties..... but it may have taken him some time to absorb it all..... I think when the Harry and Meghan thing happened, it was clearly decided that it would be the queen and Charles who dealt iwht it and Phil was left to take things easy for his last year or so. Besides I agree that its very likely that Andrew might have been advised and warned and so on lots of times but goes his own sweet way.

 

[Leopoldine]

On the other hand, it's possible that everyone under the sun including the voices in Fergie's head could have repeatedly and strongly cautioned, advised,, admonished, cajoled with and pleaded with Andrew about associating with Epstein (especially after his Florida conviction) and Andrew simply chose to ignore it all and do what he felt best.

Isn't that the sole reason that embarrassing and disastrous interview happened? Andrew *knew better* and chose to go against being advised keeping his trap shut.

I think Andrew knew exactly what the score was. There was a Vanity Fair article titled, "The Trouble with Andrew" that tells of a friend of Andrew's warning Andrew about Epstein's sordidness. This was when Epstein was just gaining attention before his softball conviction. Andrew told his friend to leave him alone and added "you're such a Puritan."

This is easily found via google.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

well she may have been subjected to pressure from Maxwell to help recruit other girls. She may have been felt to be a good recruiter and trianed in it. if other girls feel that they were pressed and groomed into a life of prostitution they have the option of suing HER>

Apparently, Maxwell asked many of the girls to help her recruit. My understanding is most of them didn't. Ms. Giuffre was victim, but that doesn't give her the right to victimize others. She was 17 when she allegedly recruited the victim, who says she was 14 at the time. There is no excuse for that and if it is true, she is not worth my sympathy or understanding.

That doesn't mean that Andrew is an innocent victim but it does cast doubt on Ms. Giuffre's claims that she was traumatized by Epstein and Maxwell. If it was that bad for her, why did she subject at least one other child to that?

Apparently, the younger victim decided not to sue Ms. Giuffre and the staute of limitations has expired. I think it is reasonable to assume that she didn't want to go through the stress of a civil suit.