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

[Hallo girl]

Why do you keep posting Daily Mail articles that literally all contain the words “insider source” and stating them as fact? This is the same newspaper that is connected to the one currently being sued by The Duchess of Sussex.

That says it all about the reliability of this information.

I agree, I become so frustrated on this forum when I read the negativity towards the press but it is so obvious the same posters are reading the Articles then more or less promoting them even if it is to say they are rubbish.

 

[texankitcat]

I wonder when folks will finally admit that the Queen isn't as sharp as folks think and has frankly never been...IMO.

Clearly you know nothing about the Queen if you think she isn’t now nor has ever been “sharp” as you put it. Every Prime Minister since Churchill has praised her intellect, knowledge of world affairs and wisdom. They certainly would have first hand knowledge since they spend significant time with her each week during their tenure. She has met the most powerful, famous, educated people in the World in her 68 years on the throne and managed to impress those she has met with more than just the position that she holds or the jewels that she wears.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I just watched parts of the interview again as part of a german docu about the affair and this time I was able to focus a bit more on Emily Maitlis, her facial expressions tells the full story, she is clearly disgusted and it's hard for her to continue the interview.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The only person that’s really at fault here is Andrew. The women in his life shouldn’t be used as scapegoats.

I wouldn't be surprised if Fergie told Andrew many times what he wanted to hear, she took money for arranging meetings with him, we only know about it because she was caught once, I don't want to know what else has been going on for many years, when it comes to moral or ethics these 2 bring out the worst in each other.
Regarding Bea & Eugenie, yes they love their parents but blind and naive support does not excuse everything. At the end of the day, they both have always benefited from the money/lavish lifestyle their parents sported so openly, so better not ask any questions where it might be coming from.

I understood the "fault" discussed in Dman's and the preceding posts to be the fault for the Duke of York's recent interview, not his alleged business dealings (but on the latter subject, knowing that the whole of the British royal family benefits from lavish lifestyles, it's not apparent to me why the princesses would bear a larger share of the blame than the other members of the royal family for "not asking any questions" about the origins of the family fortunes).

 

[MsLeonie]

As a naval officer, Andrew had servicemen under his command in several occasions. It would be interesting to hear from them about Andrew's empathic skills. As it would be interesting to hear from people who benefitted from several charities and organizations Andrew was involved in.



As I mentioned before, in his latest assignment as honorary colonel of the Grenadier Guards, Andrew has been praised by the guardsmen for taking a personal interest in them and their families, which seems to be at odds with his depiction as someone who lacks empathy. His daughters have also praised him as a loving and caring father.

I would just like to say: A soldier can command his men/women and show empathy for them simply because they are under his command and still be a mean, arrogant SOB. Also, empathy for those "beneath" him can be easily faked. I know because I've seen it. Also, loving and caring for his daughters does not mean he did not hurt these young women who are accusing him.

Andrew is guilty and should be punished to be fullest extent of the law in either Britain or the U.S. It will never happen but it should. At best he will disappear from public life and become a footnote. He doesn't deserve better. I just feel sorry for Bea and Eugenie.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Andrew is guilty and should be punished to be fullest extent of the law in either Britain or the U.S. It will never happen but it should. At best he will disappear from public life and become a footnote. He doesn't deserve better. I just feel sorry for Bea and Eugenie.

Andrew is guilty of what exactly? Could you please provide any evidence that the Metropolitan Police or the FBI haven’t found?

If you can’t, then don’t state something as fact when it certainly isn’t.

 

[MsLeonie]

If PA were smart, he'd say that Bill Clinton and Jeff Epstein were close friends, and he (PA), like Bill, didn't do anything improper or untoward. PA needs to also say that his accusers are trying to extort money from him, and that he won't succumb to their blackmail. He needs to underscore that he's for Truth, Justice, and the UK way. Finally, if he were charged w/ a crime, then Bill should be charged too.

I don't think there are any photos of Clinton with his arm around the exposed waist of a 17 year old girl. Also, have any of the women accused Clinton of having sex with them? I seem to remember one of the women saying Clinton DID NOT ask for or receive sexual favors from any of the women. Also, it would be unwise for Andrew to try to foist off blame on anyone else until he has been cleared. I think that would be a bad move to add to all the other bad moves he has made in his life.

Andrew is guilty of what exactly? Could you please provide any evidence that the Metropolitan Police or the FBI haven’t found?

If you can’t, then don’t state something as fact when it certainly isn’t.

You have no clue what the FBI or the Met Police have found regarding Andrew. and neither do it, but the FBI want to question him so they have something to ask him. They aren't going to just listen to him talk. Also, most people who saw Andrew's interview and heard the lies he told know he is as guilty as sin to say nothing of being a laughingstock, apparently to everyone but you.

 

[tommy100]

There's certainly a lot of people happy to cast Andrew as a criminal even though at present there is no real evidence he has done anything wrong other than a horrendous misjudgment in being friends with Epstein.

That said, IMO, this suspension of any official role is about right for that misjudgment.

 

[Osipi]

There's certainly a lot of people happy to cast Andrew as a criminal even though at present there is no real evidence he has done anything wrong other than a horrendous misjudgment in being friends with Epstein.

That said, IMO, this suspension of any official role is about right for that misjudgment.

The suspension of any official role actually stems also from Hoofnmouth Syndrome. He opened his mouth and inserted his foot into it and it appeared stuck there. That is what raised questions in regards to associating with him in his roles as a senior working royal for the "Firm" and his personal incentives.

The hole Andrew has dug for himself just keeps on getting deeper as time passes and being accused or suspected of a crime seems to be a lesser worry that Andrew has at the moment. What tomorrow will bring for him is anyone's guess at this point.

 

[VictoriaB]

You have no clue what the FBI or the Met Police have found regarding Andrew. and neither do it, but the FBI want to question him so they have something to ask him. They aren't going to just listen to him talk. Also, most people who saw Andrew's interview and heard the lies he told know he is as guilty as sin to say nothing of being a laughingstock, apparently to everyone but you.

If you have no idea what the FBI or the Metropolitan Police know, you cannot know he is guilty of anything other than crassness, insensitivity and stupidity.

Do the FBI want to question him? The lawyers for some of Epstein's victims (in a civil matter) want him to make a statement and speak with the FBI but I have not read that the FBI have asked to either question Andrew themselves or have requested the Met ask questions on their behalf.

Even if the FBI have questions, those questions may be about what he knows about Epstein or Maxwell. Witnesses are questioned all the time without a suggestion that they themselves have committed a crime.

Unless you have heard all the evidence you cannot know someone is as guilty as sin. Andrew has not been convicted of or charged with any crime. He is, legally, innocent until a jury having heard all of the evidence, says he is.

 

[princess carmen]

His lies are coming back to bite him in the butt.

 

[Leopoldine]

I think that HMQ Inc. has had to tread very carefully in reining in Andrew, as republicans (British version) may see Andrew as the first Royal domino to fall. The last thing BP wants is the British public to be deciding who is expendable, now that a member of the family is officially deemed as such, and, then deciding, perhaps, who isn't expendable.

It is only Andrew's fault. He had to know about all of the sweaty nightclub pics of himself out there. He had to know that some of those lowly servile people in Jeffrey's railroad station of a house might come forth with hilarious booby stories about him. He had to know about the BRF's golden rule about keeping heads down during General Elections. And, he had to know that overshadowing the Prince of Wales's tour would do him no favors.

He should have known that declaring, twice, that going to Pizza Express in Woking was a very unusual thing to do, saying it with pursed grins and pointed looks and flexing fingers, was a real eye-opener into how repugnant he is.

The fact is, if he actually went to the Pizza Express in Woking and paid for the party and spoke kindly with his young daughter's friends and joked with the other parents and maybe went behind the counter to help customers for a few minutes.... and maybe gave one or two of the kids a ride home, it would have been his best outing in 20 years.

 

[royal-blue]

I have simply never understood the reason for royals carrying out "royal duties" or having hundreds of patronages. Of course the monarch is there to be a figurehead and an ambassador for her country, but apart from the heir (and his heir), I see absolutely no reason why any other relarive of the monarch should have any priveleges or public life whatsoever. I love the monarchy, but with the exception of HM, Charles and William (and spouses), I think the rest of them should all live entirely private lives.

 

[Leopoldine]

It is widely reported from credible sources that trust funds were set up for the Queen Mother's great-grandchildren. I believe I may have mistakenly posted that the trust funds were for her grandchildren earlier but that's my error and it was established for her great-grandchildren.

This link gives the breakdown of how the Queen Mother set things up.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/apr/03/queenmother.monarchy2

Regarding your link -- that certainly was a gamble at the age of 94!

 

[Dman]

Buckingham Palace Confirms:
The Duke of York to stand aside from all of his 230 Royal Patronage’s-
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...scores-of-charities?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Leopoldine]

I have simply never understood the reason for royals carrying out "royal duties" or having hundreds of patronages. Of course the monarch is there to be a figurehead and an ambassador for her country, but apart from the heir (and his heir), I see absolutely no reason why any other relarive of the monarch should have any priveleges or public life whatsoever. I love the monarchy, but with the exception of HM, Charles and William (and spouses), I think the rest of them should all live entirely private lives.

And a private life is what Prince Andrew will have.

I suppose the next question is:

Will he have a limit on police protection costs in future and can BP keep him home so he doesn't ring up giant police protection costs overseas?

 

[Osipi]

I would imagine that is up to the Metropolitan Police to decide if Andrew should have protection or needs protection and that it should be funded by taxpayers. Somehow I get the feeling the taxpayers would feel disgruntled about it at this time.

What we do know is that Andrew's daughters, being private citizens, have protection but it is paid for out of Andrew's pocket. Its possible that if Andrew is deemed a "private citizen" now, he'll also have to float his own security.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

It is widely reported from credible sources that trust funds were set up for the Queen Mother's great-grandchildren. I believe I may have mistakenly posted that the trust funds were for her grandchildren earlier but that's my error and it was established for her great-grandchildren.

This link gives the breakdown of how the Queen Mother set things up.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/apr/03/queenmother.monarchy2

So...this means that the great grandchildren of the late Queen Mother, including the York princesses, are financially independent owing to their trust funds? And any other income they receive from jobs, etc simply supplements their trusts?

 

[tommy100]

Without going off topic I would imagine their trust funds give them some independence, but whether that is enough for them never to have to work is anther thing. Don't forget Margaret's side of the family would be included as well. The reality is they probably each got enough for a good size house and with some good investments enough to bring in some nice extra income. I doubt any got enough to simply never have to work again but probably enough to not have to worry about living pay day to pay day. That said it depends what the Queen has also provided for them, she set up a trust fund for Beatrice and Eugenie as part of Sarah's divorce so I assume she would have done same for her other grandchildren.



Interesting to hear reports Andrew has has stepped down from all his patronages, maybe they felt it better to announce all in on go rather than the drip drip of each charity making its own decision.

 

[duchesschicana]

I would imagine that is up to the Metropolitan Police to decide if Andrew should have protection or needs protection and that it should be funded by taxpayers. Somehow I get the feeling the taxpayers would feel disgruntled about it at this time.

What we do know is that Andrew's daughters, being private citizens, have protection but it is paid for out of Andrew's pocket. Its possible that if Andrew is deemed a "private citizen" now, he'll also have to float his own security.

They dont always have protection officers, there is a video of Beatrice at an airport there were reporters around her asking questions as she was leaving and she didnt have no one at her side.
sprry off topic.

Without going off topic I would imagine their trust funds give them some independence, but whether that is enough for them never to have to work is anther thing. Don't forget Margaret's side of the family would be included as well. The reality is they probably each got enough for a good size house and with some good investments enough to bring in some nice extra income. I doubt any got enough to simply never have to work again but probably enough to not have to worry about living pay day to pay day. That said it depends what the Queen has also provided for them, she set up a trust fund for Beatrice and Eugenie as part of Sarah's divorce so I assume she would have done same for her other grandchildren.



Interesting to hear reports Andrew has has stepped down from all his patronages, maybe they felt it better to announce all in on go rather than the drip drip of each charity making its own decision.

I wouldnt be surprised if the girls have nothing for thier inhertience as there was rumors of Fergie dipping into thier trust funds.

The article states that she sat in on the meetings along with Andrew's wildly incompetent but very influential secretary Amanda Thirsk. Beatrice
wavered from the beginning, and finally reluctantly agreed. Probably giving in to the influential Amanda who was always the most gung ho.

This is probably The Fail's way of painting the entire York family as deserving of the same opprobrium as Andrew. It's a despicable rag...yesterday they had a snide and spitefully hopeful article about the girls losing their "perks" (" What Will Happen to Papa's Little Princesses"?)

Today was Beatrice's turn. Soon it will be Eugenie in the hotseat with the allegation that her husband's employer Casamigos tequila provided the TV crew with refreshments after the interview.

The idea that ANYONE other than Andrew is responsible for that mess is ridiculous. Even the comments on the article are mostly pro-Beatrice!

Agreed Andrew should be held accounttable for his actions not his daughters.


I'm surprised if the comments were of Pro Beatrice, but good to hear. I dont like clicking DM articles. I also agree that the DM, it’s not a reliable source, for the most part. I would believe it more if Beatrice name was attached to the interview more before this , but it wasn’t, in fact it was reported that it was Andrew’s doing before this, when in doubt the media likes to throw his daughters under the bus, the media is certainly on overdrive trying to sell clicks and what not.

 

[ACO]

Not surprising about Andrew's patronages. At this point it is better he just walk away instead of them all removing him one by one.

 

[Osipi]

Not surprising about Andrew's patronages. At this point it is better he just walk away instead of them all removing him one by one.

Its kind of like ripping off a bandage in one, fast, fell swoop than to inch that bandage off bit by bit and going "ouchOuchOUCH!" for an extended period of time. ?

This means that Andrew is not only "retired" from the family "Firm" but also totally from *any* kind of royal duties and engagements. He may still decide to be involved with Pitch but it won't be as a "royal" or a "patron" but may continue to be "involved" on some level. We most certainly will not see much of Andrew in the Court Circular anymore.

Whatever he does do though will have to be funded out of his own pocket or with an allowance from the Queen's private income. How much the Queen decides that she's going to float Andrew in the future, we'll never know as that's private.

 

[rob2008]

Andrew's website now out of date.

https://thedukeofyork.org/about-the-duke/

 

[tommy100]

Hopefully it will be closed down soon. The BRF website pages for Andrew has "these pages will be updated soon" under a link to his statement.

I never understood why Andrew needed his own website and now there really is no need.

 

[Lumutqueen]

You have no clue what the FBI or the Met Police have found regarding Andrew. and neither do it, but the FBI want to question him so they have something to ask him. They aren't going to just listen to him talk. Also, most people who saw Andrew's interview and heard the lies he told know he is as guilty as sin to say nothing of being a laughingstock, apparently to everyone but you.

I mean it’s quite clear they have no evidence Andrew committed any crimes else we’d know about it because Andrew would have been charged with a crime. The Met upon investigation found nothing of note. The FBI want to talk to him, grand, but he is not being questioned or arrested or any crime so ??

Please don’t generalise and day “most people” when you have no idea how many people. You’re again stating your opinion as fact, you believe Andrew lied. I don’t.

In regards to your last point, you just have to read back over this forum to discover I’m not the only one who thinks Andrew isn’t guilty. Along with the US and UK law enforcement.

 

[Osipi]

Absolutely! There's a whole world of difference when a man is tried and convicted of a crime in a court of law and being tried and convicted in the court of popular opinion.

The law says innocent until proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty. Popular opinion will have someone drawn and quartered and dismembered and poisoned because popular opinion *thinks* he's guilty without looking for evidence or even taking reasonable doubt into consideration.

As for the interview, I can't say that he lied and I can't say he told the truth. He skirted around things so badly that he appeared to be bumbling and pulling rabbits out of non existent hats. Stupidity and a bad memory isn't a crime last I heard.

 

[Claire]

I would imagine that is up to the Metropolitan Police to decide if Andrew should have protection or needs protection and that it should be funded by taxpayers. Somehow I get the feeling the taxpayers would feel disgruntled about it at this time.

What we do know is that Andrew's daughters, being private citizens, have protection but it is paid for out of Andrew's pocket. Its possible that if Andrew is deemed a "private citizen" now, he'll also have to float his own security.

I actually think that Andrew and his daughters need the security now more then ever - There are a lot of sick people out there that have access to weapons. To be honest I would increase security on Anne and Edward as well - to the palace people reading this post. Most people think Edward and Andrew are the same person.

 

[Osipi]

I actually think that Andrew and his daughters need the security now more then ever - There are a lot of sick people out there that have access to weapons. To be honest I would increase security on Anne and Edward as well - to the palace people reading this post. Most people think Edward and Andrew are the same person.

That is why I stated that it would be up to the Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard to determine if Andrew needs protecting. They know what they're doing and they know what the risk levels are and determine the level of protection necessary. The Palace or the royals themselves have no say it in whatsoever. Its a common misconception that the royal protection officers work for and are answerable to the royals themselves. They aren't. The RPOs are answerable to their superiors at Met Police/Scotland Yard and it is there their paychecks come from and paid for by the British taxpayer.

I do agree though that Andrew's need of protection now is probably higher than its ever probably has been but that's not for him or the BRF to decide.

 

[ACO]

I think Andrew is a liar especially when .5 seconds after he opened his mouth about ties and sweating there were pictures proving the opposite. I just think think he is so arrogant that he doesn't think people will fact check him. Even the description of the picture being upstairs was highly questionable.

That said, it is correct he is not charged with anything. That is not to say they don't suspect him but just that they have no solid proof one way or another. Also Andrew hasn't officially stepped down from his patronages yet according to Buckingham Palace. So we will likely continue to see this slow drip of them terminating their association.

 

[Mbruno]

They dont always have protection officers, there is a video of Beatrice at an airport there were reporters around her asking questions as she was leaving and she didnt have no one at her side.
sprry off topic.




I wouldnt be surprised if the girls have nothing for thier inhertience as there was rumors of Fergie dipping into thier trust funds.



Agreed Andrew should be held accounttable for his actions not his daughters.


I'm surprised if the comments were of Pro Beatrice, but good to hear. I dont like clicking DM articles. I also agree that the DM, it’s not a reliable source, for the most part. I would believe it more if Beatrice name was attached to the interview more before this , but it wasn’t, in fact it was reported that it was Andrew’s doing before this, when in doubt the media likes to throw his daughters under the bus, the media is certainly on overdrive trying to sell clicks and what not.

Edo is quite wealthy himself and Jack is not doing bad either. Both Beatrice and Eugenie should be fine even if they can’t rely on their trust funds.