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

[Jacknch]

I really don't know what to think about it all. I really don't think the interview has given any clarity to the situation, nor has it cleared up some of the inconsistencies between what he is being accused of and what his response is.

For example, I understand that when Epstein was in jail, Andrew broke off contact with him for four years. Then after no communication, they are back in touch in order for Andrew to fly out to meet Epstein to break off the friendship. Rather than a phone call or - better - continuing the non-communication.

It doesn't make sense - I've never heard of such a strange way to end a friendship or business association.

 

[Dman]

Here are Peter Hunt’s take on all of this: The Queen has been exposed. Will Prince Charles step in and advise Andrew to step away from royal duties?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1196038084795781120

I really don't know what to think about it all. I really don't think the interview has given any clarity to the situation, nor has it cleared up some of the inconsistencies between what he is being accused of and what his response is.

For example, I understand that when Epstein was in jail, Andrew broke off contact with him for four years. Then after no communication, they are back in touch in order for Andrew to fly out to meet Epstein to break off the friendship. Rather than a phone call or - better - continuing the non-communication.

It doesn't make sense - I've never heard of such a strange way to end a friendship or business association.

None of it makes sense because Andrew is LYING. Andrew wasn’t interested in breaking off his friendship with Epstein nor his relationship with Maxwell. Hell, he even admitted that he’s still in touch with Ghislaine. Andrew didn’t break off his friendship with Jeffery Epstein and he continued to accept Jeffery’s invitations to parties. He have to regrets over these friendships. He said this himself.

I believe Andrew is lying about having sex with Virginia Roberts Giuffre and I believe Andrew is lying about not seeing any explicit sexual activities that went on at these nasty residences. That man is lying.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The interview was not a very smart move indeed. The prince seemed to lack empathy, compassion and self reflection. He is guilty of being a bad judge of character, picking the wrong kind of friends. He is perhaps guilty of being self-centered, isolated from reality, stubborn, lacking empathy etc. But does all that prove that he is guilty of rape? I think it is far to early to assume that that is the case.

I find it an interesting turn of events how the Duke is now 'guilty' in the eyes of public opinion while the many, many other friends of the monster Epstein -many of whom must be in high(er) places in the United States & who must have done even worse things than the Duke has been accused of- are getting away untarnished while the man himself was conveniently found dead.

Public opinion doesn't have a law degree. Obviously Prince Andrew is immune to any advice and thinks himself about everything, other friends of Epstein may be smarter about it.
It's hard to watch Andrew squirming in his chair, destroying what is left of his reputation and badly tarnishing the image of the monarchy. What a train wreck. Disgusting.

 

[Ista]

Two additional thoughts:

1) Amanda Thirsk should probably be thinking seriously about putting her resume in order, because it would be surprising if she remains in Andrew's employ after this PR disaster.

2) I've said this before, but the idea that everything from clothing choices to interviews is run past the Queen, and that everything that ends up in public has her seal of approval, and that her instincts are always correct, should be put to rest by this interview. To my mind, it makes clear how little control she actually has over the actions of some of her family. Whether that's due to lack of interest, poor advice, or monumental misjudgment is not clear, but it is, again, an interesting data point.

 

[sophie25]

This. The moment he cited the advantages of their disgusting friendship and how he has zero regrets.... that was pretty much the end of Prince Andrew of York. I mean how does one even take that statement?

He clearly does not care about what they did to those girls. The only thing he dislikes is that it is out in the open and he has to talk about it. Other than that it is like whatever to him and that is beyond disgusting.

He is a garbage human being. And if I see him riding in the car with the Queen tomorrow I might scream.

Yes, I almost fell off the couch when he said he didn't regret it because of the advantages it gave him. Those girls were neither here nor there to him because I truly believe that to Andrew and probably others in the royal family anyone who isn't part of their world is barely human and dosn't matter at all. It's one thing to say he had daughters himself but I doubt he would compare his children in any way to yours or mine. Ordinary people are fed up being used and abused by the powers that be and he really should be finished now as a public figure. If the Queen refuses to do this then it shows that she dosn't care either.

 

[tommy100]

The interview poses more questions that it answers:

-If Epstein only attended Beatrice's birthday party because he was Ghislaine Maxwell's plus one why did Andrew feel s happy to stay at his houses? It seems Epstein is his friend when convenient, Ghislaine's plus one when its not.

-Andrew has been pictured plenty of times wearing things other than a suit in London, especially over a decade ago. He has been pictured embracing other women

-Why no contact while Epstein was in prison but in 2010 Andrew felt the need to get in touch to say he would be calling an end to the friendship? And why does telling someone you no longer want to be their friend take 4 days? By this point Andrew knew enough about Epstein and yet still happily stayed at his house for 4 days simply to break off their friendship?

-Why was Ghislaine Maxwell at Buckingham Palace this spring? Who thought is was anywhere near acceptable for her to visit the Queen's home and the official residence of the Sovereign.

-How can Andrew have no recollection of meeting Virginia Roberts yet at the same time remember the fact that on the day he was suppose to have met her he was taking Beatrice to Pizza Express. Never mind the "going toPizza Express is not something I do often" comment, how does he know for sure he was taking Beatrice to someones party (I assume not her own). It looks horrendous. Either say I didn't meet her or say you did, "I can't recall" sounds bad, it sounds as if you know you did but not on the days suggested but don't want to say that.

-He stayed at Epstein's residences "because it was convenient", did he not notice the creepy interior? the chess set based on Epstein's staff wearing suggestive clothing at the foot of the stairs? The painting of a woman cupping her breast in his study? The life size female doll hanging from the chandelier? Or did Andrew not see any of this? Or did he not choose to see any of this?

-When its convenient Epstein has good links to Andrew's trade role, thats why they were friends (even though really he was only ever Ghislaine Maxwell's boyfriend, yet Andrew says he rarely if every saw Epstein at his houses when he stayed. That usually he stayed because Epstein wasn't using them. So how can Epstein have been introducing him to all of these people?

-Shame Matlis didn't ask about Epstein paying off Sarah's debts.

-Why would someone fake the photo of him and Virginia? It was released a long time ago before any of this became so big so why would someone fake it? He says the photo is possibly him (even though all his friends say the fingers are too thin or fat) but that he never went upstairs in Ghislaine's house. Well which is it? Is it fake? Did he go upstairs for the one photo to be taken that someone else was photoshopped into.

-How can Andrew be so clear on where he was for some dates but not for others? Taking beatrice to a party at Pizza Express was a private event, just as going to Tramp or going to Ghislaine's house would be, so how is he so clear on what he was doing on some dates when it suits but not others?

-How did Andrew not know charges were being brought against Epstein? That shows pure ignorance IMO, there are plenty of newspaper reports about it.

-Why can't Andrew apologise for being friends with him? Because he doesn't think it was wrong?

Then there are the questions about the interview itself:

-Why was it allowed to go ahead?
-Why was it thought a good ideas when Andrew's own PR advisor said no to it and left over it?
-Why and when did negotiations over the interview begin?
-Did HM sign off on it, personally? if not her did her staff?
-Was it purposefully agreed to when Charles was on his way or already out of the country?
-Why does Andrew seem to listen to Amanda Thirsk so much when she has overseen nothing but a decade of ridiculous headlines and media dislike for Andrew



Edit - appears we aren't the only one with questions, the Guardian has 6 major questions from the interview as well
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/17/prince-andrew-fresh-questions-raised-by-tv-interview

Why did Prince Andrew stay at Jeffrey Epstein’s home and attend a dinner on his trip to ‘break up’ with the convicted paedophile?

What do the prince’s claims, and the ongoing legal action in the US, mean for the FBI investigation and the potential involvement of UK authorities?

Under what circumstances might he discuss the claims against him under oath?

How credible is the prince’s claim that a condition caused by his Falklands War service left him unable to perspire?

Why did he ignore a spin doctor’s advice not to do the interview?

How will he proceed with his ‘Pitch@Palace’ scheme from here?

 

[Zaira]

...
Then there are the questions about the interview itself:

-Why was it allowed to go ahead?
-Why was it thought a good ideas when Andrew's own PR advisor said no to it and left over it?
-Why and when did negotiations over the interview begin?
-Did HM sign off on it, personally? if not her did her staff?
-Was it purposefully agreed to when Charles was on his way or already out of the country?
-Why does Andrew seem to listen to Amanda Thirsk so much when she has overseen nothing but a decade of ridiculous headlines and media dislike for Andrew

Agreed all around but on the bolded point, its likely that Ms Thirsk is favored because she tells Andrew only what he wants to hear.

Regardless, there is deep rot in the BRF.

 

[Denville]

Two additional thoughts:

1) Amanda Thirsk should probably be thinking seriously about putting her resume in order, because it would be surprising if she remains in Andrew's employ after this PR disaster.

2) I've said this before, but the idea that everything from clothing choices to interviews is run past the Queen, and that everything that ends up in public has her seal of approval, and that her instincts are always correct, should be put to rest by this interview. To my mind, it makes clear how little control she actually has over the actions of some of her family. Whether that's due to lack of interest, poor advice, or monumental misjudgment is not clear, but it is, again, an interesting data point.

her being seen with him at Balmoral, seems to indicate that Andrew can do no wrong...

 

[tommy100]

I'm not so sure about the Balmoral car, HM always travels with the most senior guest. We saw Catherine, Sophie, Lady Sarah, Countess Snowdon all ride with her. I am not excusing her being pictured with Andrew but I am not sure it was a deliberate act to show off support for Andrew more a case of sticking with the usual when a change was required.


What will be most telling is what happens next. I feel quite sorry for Beatrice as I suspect this spells the end for any grand public wedding plans along the lines of Eugenies.

 

[Gawin]

OMG! OMG! Andrew not only failed to clear his name he also showed the world what a clueless self-absorbed jerk he is. OMG! This is so awful!!!!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

OK, here comes something funny:
Woking Pizza Express was flooded with witty reviews following the extraordinary Prince Andrew interview.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10362565/pizza-express-woking-flooded-fake-reviews-prince-andrew/

 

[ladongas]

Advantages and Opportunities

How dare Andrew imply that he needed additional advantages and opportunities other than those he was born with?

He, a man who lives in palaces or castles, wears bespoke suits, is driven in limousines, is invited to (and hosts) the grandest of parties and dinners, meets the interesting and great of the world, has front row seats to thrilling and amazing events, never waits on line for anything, never sits in coach class, never worries about money- how dare he excuse his friendship with a morally bankrupt and corrupt criminal because “opportunities”?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I can't help but say it...what a sad, sordid winding down of the very long and illustrious reign Queen Elizabeth II.

 

[Denville]

She should not have been seen iwht Andrew and she should have told him not to do this interview.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

She probably did. The fact that Andrew's new hired PR man resigned over this decision speaks volumes. I guess it's myth that nothing happens within the family HM is not okay with. Or Charles.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Andrew is her son, her own flesh and blood. I cannot fault her for refusing to distance herself from him because he is enmeshed in the worst scandal of his life. Especially if her bond with him is as tight as is rumored.

As for advising against the interview, considering how utterly clueless she MUST after all these years realize her beloved second son to be...perhaps HMQ did indeed advise against it?

But maybe Andrew, who undoubtedly has had an overinflated sense of self confidence his entire life, was able to persuade Mummy that he had this one in the bag.

And let's be honest. If the DoY had pulled off a brilliantly convincing PR masterstroke
instead of the cringeworthy mess he did...he would be the man of the hour in the British press as as well as the RF this morning.

"Success has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan". JFK (1917-1963)

 

[Claire]

yes - have to agree with you - The Queen must have been convinced that this was a good idea. I hope in any case.
I am becoming very concerned that the Windsors are surrounding themselves with yes men and are becoming very out of touch with public mood. I do not understand why he wasn't advised about what to say here to appear less creepy. Even in a unscripted interview he should have been prepared, regardless of the question.

 

[tommy100]

Honestly I think since the Queen allowed her previous Private Secretary Sir Christopher Geidt to be forced out by Andrew and Charles the reigns have loosened so to speak.

The Royals seem to be getting away with much more than they would have been able to in the past, all apparently with the "approval of BP" and certainly lacking any notable disapproval.

 

[Heavs]

I can't help but say it...what a sad, sordid winding down of the very long and illustrious reign Queen Elizabeth II.

Whilst a sad, sordid chapter I don't think it's going to affect the Queen's legacy very much.

We don't know if she agreed with his strategy, disagreed, wasn't consulted or just let him get on with it. It could well have been presented as a fait acompli. Considering the less than advisable interludes her children and grandchildren have often made public over the years it doesn't seem like she has or wants iron control over their lives. She herself doesn't see the need to clear things up with interviews so it's not likely her strategy suggestion and there's only so much you can do with your grown up children if they're determined to do something.

As for Beatrice I don't think they were planning on anything as grand as Eugenie's anyway considering they haven't announced any details anyway.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Can anyone tell me how exactly, legally, it would work to get Andrew to step down? What’s in place?

 

[Mirabel]

How dare Andrew imply that he needed additional advantages and opportunities other than those he was born with?

He, a man who lives in palaces or castles, wears bespoke suits, is driven in limousines, is invited to (and hosts) the grandest of parties and dinners, meets the interesting and great of the world, has front row seats to thrilling and amazing events, never waits on line for anything, never sits in coach class, never worries about money- how dare he excuse his friendship with a morally bankrupt and corrupt criminal because “opportunities”?

Remember the tale of The Fisherman's Wife?
There's no limit to the greed of certain people.

 

[wyevale]

to appear less creepy.

Aside from the nature of his answers and demeanour, the setting was ghastly - the stygian ill-lit gloom of the empty semi-state rooms created the wrong atmosphere - a well lit room, by a window would have created the impression of 'bringing daylight in'...rather than re-enforcing the idea of a cloistered and closed privilege..

These are the very basics of 'staging' and that his advisors were quite so clueless about them beggars belief...

 

[Claire]

Can anyone tell me how exactly, legally, it would work to get Andrew to step down? What’s in place?

I was thinking the same - is there any precedent ?

Beside the Duke of Windsor has anyone been cast out of the family? And the abdication was the tool of the decision. If he is asked to retire - it would be odd considering the Queen is still going on at her age. Their hand might be forced with the charities pulling out around him.

The only way I see it happening was in a completely restructuring of the family. And that can only happen if the Queen abdicated or dies or well a regency.

I imagine it somehow as the Queen passes, Charles takes over, Princess Ann askes to became a full time horse breeder and Andrew is well allowed to do what he wants outside of the public eye. I don't think anyone will care what becomes of Edward and Sophie. Kents, Gloucesters either.

The monarchy then is only Charles, William and Harry like it is wanted.

 

[Osipi]

The reactions to this fiasco of an interview are pouring in from all over and I've yet to see one positive reaction to it. Someone wondered what Anne's, Charles' and Philip's reaction to all of this would be. My guess is that if you placed one in BP, one in Sandringham and one in Clarence House, there wouldn't be any need for a heating system. The steam coming out of their ears could keep those places warm even on the coldest night. I'm not going to lay the blame for this interview at anyone else's door besides Andrew's. Instead of addressing the situation and clearing up his involvement with Epstein/Maxwell, all he's done is show the world his true character. It has backfired on him horribly and as I've stated before, with this interview, he's committed reputation suicide. And we thought the Panorama interview was the worse? This one beats that by a landslide.

However, I still do not believe that there is anything that Andrew has done that proves to be a reason for him to be criminally suspect and perhaps the only information he can add to the ongoing investigation into Epstein's alleged sex trafficking crimes and those that aided and abetted him would be the location of Ghislaine Maxwell and where she may be. If Giuffre was "forced" to have sex with Andrew, it wasn't Andrew doing the forcing but its up in the air whether or not Andrew accepted. I'm wont to side with Giuffre on this for the reason being that there were so many high profile men that Epstein "catered" to that Giuffre would have no reason to pull Andrew's name out of a hat. All this however, to me, is the *least* of Andrew's worries now. Giuffre may or may not file a civil case and remains to be seen if she does.

With this interview, Andrew was given a rope and he effectively hung himself with it as far as public opinion goes. Its not illegal to be stupid. Its not illegal to be a bumbling idiot. Its not illegal to be self centered and to see the world in the light of what the world can do for oneself. Its not illegal to be arrogant and have a sense of entitlement that the "little people" are there to serve and cater and kowtow to a "superior being". Its not illegal to have an opinion of oneself that they can do no wrong. Its not illegal to assume that their words will be taken as gospel truth even when lying through their teeth.

Andrew gave himself away actually on the lying part. Its not illegal to seem like he was sending Morse code with his rapid, uncontrolled blinking. According to the Telegraph, "The best way to spot a liar is to look them in the eyes, according to scientists who say the number of times a person blinks will show if they are speaking the truth. Liars blink less frequently than normal during the lie, and then speed up to around eight times faster than usual afterwards." Even with just seeing the clips from the interview and watching some of the interview with no closed captioning just to study Andrew's face, this is what I noticed most. There was no hint whatsoever with Andrew's demeanor that the man actually believed the words coming out of his mouth.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2589073/Liars-are-exposed-by-blinking.html

What is in store for Andrew in the future is anybody's guess and my crystal ball is in the shop but I cannot for one minute believe that this isn't going to cause some major repercussions that affect Andrew's life as he knows it. I do know that, without a doubt, whatever happens, he's brought it on himself and has only himself to blame. Not the Queen. Not Charles nor those that tried to advise Andrew with the reality that this was a bad idea.

Reminds me of the children's nursery rhyme.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

 

[rmay286]

She should not have been seen iwht Andrew and she should have told him not to do this interview.

People may forget that the Queen herself spends time with people whose public record isn't exactly unsullied. For example, she's been at Royal Ascot with Sheikh Mohammed of Dubai, whose estranged wife has gone to court to protect their daughter from a forced marriage.

I think it's pretty common for the royals to spend time with unsavory people in official contexts and turn a blind eye to whatever might be happening behind the scenes. Yes, Andrew went beyond that in that he was friends with Epstein and Ghislaine, and staying at Epstein's house and so on, but I think Andrew grew up turning a blind eye to a lot of what was going on around him.

At least, I assume that is the case. Because the interview made him seem very unaware and even naïve (to me). Maybe you could call it arrogance, maybe it's social unawareness or a certain lack of empathy, but this was not a slick interview crafted by a skilled PR person. If Andrew had any awareness of how people perceive his notions about privilege and people acting differently around him based on his status...he would not have given this interview.

I think Andrew more than any of the Queen's children has internalized his sense of status / privilege. He seemed to truly think that his answers would go over well.

But I think Andrew acquired this sense of emotional distance from his upbringing. You can say the Queen should have intervened, but she may not really think Andrew is doing anything wrong either.

 

[rmay286]

With this interview, Andrew was given a rope and he effectively hung himself with it as far as public opinion goes. Its not illegal to be stupid. Its not illegal to be a bumbling idiot. Its not illegal to be self centered and to see the world in the light of what the world can do for oneself. Its not illegal to be arrogant and have a sense of entitlement that the "little people" are there to serve and cater and kowtow to a "superior being". Its not illegal to have an opinion of oneself that they can do no wrong. Its not illegal to assume that their words will be taken as gospel truth even when lying through their teeth.

Andrew gave himself away actually on the lying part. Its not illegal to seem like he was sending Morse code with his rapid, uncontrolled blinking. According to the Telegraph, "The best way to spot a liar is to look them in the eyes, according to scientists who say the number of times a person blinks will show if they are speaking the truth. Liars blink less frequently than normal during the lie, and then speed up to around eight times faster than usual afterwards." Even with just seeing the clips from the interview and watching some of the interview with no closed captioning just to study Andrew's face, this is what I noticed most. There was no hint whatsoever with Andrew's demeanor that the man actually believed the words coming out of his mouth.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2589073/Liars-are-exposed-by-blinking.html

What is in store for Andrew in the future is anybody's guess and my crystal ball is in the shop but I cannot for one minute believe that this isn't going to cause some major repercussions that affect Andrew's life as he knows it. I do know that, without a doubt, whatever happens, he's brought it on himself and has only himself to blame. Not the Queen. Not Charles nor those that tried to advise Andrew with the reality that this was a bad idea.

Reminds me of the children's nursery rhyme.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

Well about all this though - I agree Andrew didn't help himself with this interview.

However: What major repercussions will this have for Andrew's life? I'm not saying this because I think there should be no repercussions - but what could change? He can't just get 'kicked out' out of the royal family, you know...unless Charles were to become king and decide all royal engagements should be limited to himself and his children, as Claire has suggested.

Also, blinking doesn't really prove Andrew was lying. You may have a gut feeling about it and so might others, but we have no way of knowing for sure or knowing what the lies were. It's still Virginia's word against Andrew's. He could've been lying all through the interview or merely uncomfortable at being questioned about having sex with someone. There were times I thought Andrew was lying (when he said "no" to there being any possibility that he had a massage from an underage girl or sex with any other underage girl) and other times when I thought he was probably telling the truth. But we can't know for sure, so this interview has just amplified a scandal that should have died away.

 

[tommy100]

I don't think anything official will be done, e.g. Andrew giving up or being stripped of his HRH or place in succession.

I think at most he will simply scale back his duties massively. We may see an end to Pitch @ The Palace because its backers pull out (which ironically is probably one of the few things Andrew does that helps young people and not himself) TBH most of Andrew's duties, despite him giving up his Trade role, still take place overseas in places where his behaviour may not be seen as disgusting as we (rightly IMO) think of it, and these may continue.

If we take the fact the Queen is going to strip him of his titles or awards then really t only leaves charities and organisation that have Andrew asa patron to take action. I wonder if any will drop him as patron

 

[Elenath]

However, I still do not believe that there is anything that Andrew has done that proves to be a reason for him to be criminally suspect and perhaps the only information he can add to the ongoing investigation into Epstein's alleged sex trafficking crimes and those that aided and abetted him would be the location of Ghislaine Maxwell and where she may be. If Giuffre was "forced" to have sex with Andrew, it wasn't Andrew doing the forcing but its up in the air whether or not Andrew accepted. I'm wont to side with Giuffre on this for the reason being that there were so many high profile men that Epstein "catered" to that Giuffre would have no reason to pull Andrew's name out of a hat. All this however, to me, is the *least* of Andrew's worries now. Giuffre may or may not file a civil case and remains to be seen if she does.

And what would you say if he knew she was forced? Would that change anything for you? And it doesn't matter if there were more men. If Andrew knew she was being forced, it makes what he did illegal.

 

[rmay286]

I think Andrew had to know some things that he simply turned a blind eye to. For example, there were apparently sexually suggestive paintings in Epstein's house or at least one that I read about.

But did he know Virginia was being forced to have sex with various men? There are just no ways of knowing these things. The interview cleared none of this up at all. It just made Andrew look guiltier in many people's eyes, unfortunately for him.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I always remember what Diana Princess of Wales said about her brother-in-law in the infamous Her True Story......"they all take him (Andrew) for an idiot...but he is the best of the lot"....referring, i presume to the BRF.

Even before this latest mess of his I have always wondered what Diana meant by that and why she felt that way...?