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.
Osipi said:
...
One thing that has crossed my mind here with the latest developments is that perhaps even back in 2010, Andrew wasn't so squeaky clean and unaware when Sarah fell for the fake Shiekh sting in her "cash for access" endeavors. She just got caught. Perhaps even then Sarah and Andrew were working in tandem back then. Sarah found the people, got the cash and Andrew would meet with them and reel them in hook, line and sinker. Perhaps the clues were always there concerning Andrew but not in blinking neon lights that we or anyone else would notice. :D
Click to expand...
Here’s a link to the transcript where Sarah rather convincingly describes Andrew’s advice about what to ask for from the fake sheikh https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...h-access-scandal-Fergie-tries-brave-face.html
Of course after she was caught she fell on her sword and said Andrew knew nothing - but I never believed that, there’s been far too much financial smoke surrounding Andrew & his lifestyle for there not to be fire. Plus, if she had betrayed him, why did she continue to live in his home, why did they buy the Verbier chalet together, etc.. Andrew behaved like he owed Sarah something & it wouldn’t surprise me if her claiming to have made up the part about him knowing is part of why Andrew behaved towards her after the sheik debacle.
Note also the News Of The World set up the fake sheikh sting because an aide had tipped them that Sarah was accepting cash for access to Andrew.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Hindsight is great isn't it? I have a gut feeling that we're going to have more hindsight with 2020 vision after the first of the year. ;)

Another thing occurred to me and I need to correct a previous statement that I stated where the financial information was from the Daily Mail. It actually was the Mail on Sunday and logic leads me to believe that with the ongoing lawsuit against the MoS from Meghan, I would think that with publishing the "facts" of Andrew's financial wheeling and dealings, they were thoroughly researched and found to be credible in reporting so as not to invite yet another lawsuit against them. Its just logical in my mind but then again, who knows? :D
 
I don't think that Andrew's 'business' activities have exactly gone unnoticed over the years. It's more that Britain's strict libel laws have prevented the Press from publishing too much. Personally I can remember reading Guardian articles for nearly twenty years now, raising questions over his dodgy friendships with oligarchs and the disparity between what his income was officially and what it really was.

And yes, I believe that Andrew and Sarah have worked in tandem and have had a good thing going for themselves for several years now.

However, wasn't any notice ever taken at BP of these articles, of the other evidence which piled up that Andrew was not really levelling with the Palace? After his Trade Envoy position was pulled that should IMO have begun a full inquiry from BP as to what was really going on.

This is a slow growing ulcer regarding Andrew, which has now burst, tainting the entire BRF. If a few questions had been asked years ago about this Prince's activities by TPTB then Andrew could have been quietly withdrawn from most Royal duties, opportunities for corrupt activities stopped and all these revelations of the last couple of days could have been avoided.
 
Last edited:
So many things keep coming back to point to not so on the up and up dealings that concern Andrew. I think most people remember that Andrew and Sarah's marital home, Sunninghill, was sold for a good sized profit. Its legal title records that the house and some of its grounds were sold for £15 million in 2007, £3 million over the asking price, to an offshore trust in the British Virgin Islands. Sunninghill remained vacant and then demolished in 2016. Once again, the offshore business in the British Virgin Islands come into play here. Doing the math, at the time of the sale of Sunninghill, Andrew was already "friends" with Epstein so there's a possible connection there as to where the "profits" went and who was advising Andrew at the time.

All of these things, I believe can be a game of connecting the dots (which isn't considered "factual but seeing previous doings in a different perspective) which means that Andrew's involvement with Epstein goes far deeper and gets shadier and points to much, much more than just the allegations that he had sex with Ms. Giuffre. Is it no wonder then that Andrew will not and cannot regret his "friendship" with Epstein? He stood too much to lose by "ghosting" Epstein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunninghill_Park
 
Last edited:
Fergie and PA reek of corruption, the whole setup of her living with him is very conveneint for plotting and planning and sharing secrets. I seriously doubt if The Queen or PC knew what Andrew was up to. PA is a grown man and has his own life to live and he choose unwisely. PA gave the interview with arrogance, ect..... He was advised not to but knew better. He is impeaching his self. I never knew PA was so thick, sad. I will pray for his victims, family and others.
 
stunking said:
Fergie and PA reek of corruption, the whole setup of her living with him is very conveneint for plotting and planning and sharing secrets. I seriously doubt if The Queen or PC knew what Andrew was up to. PA is a grown man and has his own life to live and he choose unwisely. PA gave the interview with arrogance, ect..... He was advised not to but knew better. He is impeaching his self. I never knew PA was so thick, sad. I will pray for his victims, family and others.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any coincidence that when Sarah needed money to pay off debts after her "cash for access" scheme fell through in 2010, it was Epstein that was turned to to loan funds to pay debts in 2011. Although I do feel that Andrew has brought all of this on himself with Sarah and Amanda Thirsk as co-conspirators, I can't help but wonder if Andrew and Sarah are really as thick as a brick and was led by the nose into corruption by Epstein stroking Andrew's ego and making him feel like the *huge* financial success that Andrew wanted to see himself as and that, in turn, had Sarah following in tow like a groupie.

Just musings here as I have no real clue. :D
 
I really don't understand it - surely Andrew's accountants would have flagged something - surely the Pitch at the Palace accountants would have picked something up . I also don't understand how is Sarah still in debt she appears to have been in debt forever - or am I just been naïve.
 
Andrew's personal business dealings would not have been done in association with Pitch@Palace but rather, Pitch@Palace would provide for a cover to be various places where he'd also set up meetings for his own personal business.

Pitch@Palace, I believe, is not being cited as anything but the program for which it was created for. Its even been stated that the 2% gratuity should a Pitch be profitable, goes to the funding of the events that are put on so investors and entrepreneurs come together and "pitches" happen. All those books most likely *are* on the level.
 
Curryong said:
I don't think that Andrew's 'business' activities have exactly gone unnoticed over the years. It's more that Britain's strict libel laws have prevented the Press from publishing too much. Personally I can remember reading Guardian articles for nearly twenty years now, raising questions over his dodgy friendships with oligarchs and the disparity between what his income was officially and what it really was.

And yes, I believe that Andrew and Sarah have worked in tandem and have had a good thing going for themselves for several years now.

However, wasn't any notice ever taken at BP of these articles, of the other evidence which piled up that Andrew was not really levelling with the Palace? After his Trade Envoy position was pulled that should IMO have begun a full inquiry from BP as to what was really going on.

This is a slow growing ulcer regarding Andrew, which has now burst, tainting the entire BRF. If a few questions had been asked years ago about this Prince's activities by TPTB then Andrew could have been quietly withdrawn from most Royal duties, opportunities for corrupt activities stopped and all these revelations of the last couple of days could have been avoided.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Andrew‘s shady dealings have been circulating for years and it was only a matter of time before the excrement hit the rotating device. I am assuming that BP has the resources to quietly perform an internal investigation so they can get ahead of any potential scandals that would jeopardize TRF reputation. It appears that Andrew has been running amuck for years without any oversight or restraints from BP, who now have to deal with the aftermath of one scandal after another, which is both embarrassing and concerning for TRF.
 
I'm willing to bet my last leftover cold turkey sandwich that *all* the members of the BRF have their own investment portfolios and financial advisers whose job it is to "manage" the investments made. Its all above board to do with their personal wealth as they see fit. For instance, the Queen invests, I believe in horse breeding and such and its even been reported that the Queen, herself, has money in offshore tax havens. What they do with their own wealth is their own business. No problem there. I don't believe that the Queen or anyone within the "Firm" would even think of demanding to see everything financial and that would ring true with Andrew.

When it becomes known that Andrew is alleged to be using and abusing his roles in relations to his work for the "Firm" or for his official charities and patronages, which the Queen funds out of the Sovereign Grant, that's where she can step in as the "Boss" and demand to see every penny that Andrew has spent from that funding and what he did with it. If he used his roles for squeaking in personal business for personal profit, this is where any CEO of any business would hit the roof and sack the guy. The company pays for employees to do business for the company and not for their own personal business.

In other words, Andrew could very well be funded by the Sovereign Grant to fly to and promote "Goofy Golf" with the Sultan of Pluto as part of his role in "Golf For Children With Special Needs" and that's working for a campaign sponsored and approved by the Queen. Now, if Andrew was to meet with the Sultan of Pluto and schmooze him into investing into Mr. Pahrump's new resort that will have the *best* golf course ever and Andrew stands to make a profit from bringing in investors, that's not what he's there for and would be in deep doo-doo for misusing the Queen's funding for personal gain.

So its not what Andrew is actually doing with his own money that's the problem, he can privately invest in a genesis project to make Mars habitable if he wanted to. Its how he's trying make personal deals through using his royal status and events funded by the Sovereign Grant that is the problem.

Perhaps this financial information was presented to the Queen before it hit the media. It could explain why Andrew's office was given the boot out of Buckingham Palace. The Sovereign Grant and its funding has been totally cut off from Andrew at this point. Andrew is on his own. His mother may still privately allot him an allowance out of her personal income and Andrew has his own money, I presume in investments so he's not going to be hurting. Just no more free rides as a "prince" and "senior working royal for the British monarchy".
 
but that's what Andy seems to have been doing. And there have been rumours and questions flyng around for some time about his expensive lifestyle and Fergie's and people askng how it is funded? So the queen and other royals must be aware of the talk.. and IMO they should have kept an eye on Andrew and asked a few hard questions some years ago...
 
I agree. its also probably why, until the interview happened that Andrew was actually the member of the "Firm" with the third highest number of duties and engagements listed in the court circular. Makes one wonder just what the priorities were for Andrew to do those? Was the "duty" put on the calendar to be a cover up for something else that Andrew had in mind or somewhere he wanted to go? Did he actually see his roles and duties and engagements as the means to an end which would benefit himself? All this absolutely goes against the grain of what the BRF stands for and what their "Firm" does which is service to others.

No matter how the loaf is sliced, Andrew is toast. He's not coming back from this. Ever.
 
Osipi said:
I'm willing to bet my last leftover cold turkey sandwich that *all* the members of the BRF have their own investment portfolios and financial advisers whose job it is to "manage" the investments made. Its all above board to do with their personal wealth as they see fit. For instance, the Queen invests, I believe in horse breeding and such and its even been reported that the Queen, herself, has money in offshore tax havens. What they do with their own wealth is their own business. No problem there. I don't believe that the Queen or anyone within the "Firm" would even think of demanding to see everything financial and that would ring true with Andrew.

When it becomes known that Andrew is alleged to be using and abusing his roles in relations to his work for the "Firm" or for his official charities and patronages, which the Queen funds out of the Sovereign Grant, that's where she can step in as the "Boss" and demand to see every penny that Andrew has spent from that funding and what he did with it. If he used his roles for squeaking in personal business for personal profit, this is where any CEO of any business would hit the roof and sack the guy. The company pays for employees to do business for the company and not for their own personal business.

In other words, Andrew could very well be funded by the Sovereign Grant to fly to and promote "Goofy Golf" with the Sultan of Pluto as part of his role in "Golf For Children With Special Needs" and that's working for a campaign sponsored and approved by the Queen. Now, if Andrew was to meet with the Sultan of Pluto and schmooze him into investing into Mr. Pahrump's new resort that will have the *best* golf course ever and Andrew stands to make a profit from bringing in investors, that's not what he's there for and would be in deep doo-doo for misusing the Queen's funding for personal gain.

So its not what Andrew is actually doing with his own money that's the problem, he can privately invest in a genesis project to make Mars habitable if he wanted to. Its how he's trying make personal deals through using his royal status and events funded by the Sovereign Grant that is the problem.

Perhaps this financial information was presented to the Queen before it hit the media. It could explain why Andrew's office was given the boot out of Buckingham Palace. The Sovereign Grant and its funding has been totally cut off from Andrew at this point. Andrew is on his own. His mother may still privately allot him an allowance out of her personal income and Andrew has his own money, I presume in investments so he's not going to be hurting. Just no more free rides as a "prince" and "senior working royal for the British monarchy".
Click to expand...

Excellent synopsis Osipi and good point about the Queen perhaps being made aware of Andrew’s financial dealings which prompted the decision to remove his office from BP. I thought it had to do with the Epstein scandal but it makes more sense if it was a proactive move with the forthcoming media report of his financial dealings under the guise of work for TRF. At least I hope that is the case.
 
It is to do with the Epstein scandal. Epstein was an unsuitable friend for Andrew on 2 counts, one is the sexual aspects of his life and his being convicted of a sex crime..and the other is that he clearly was involved iwht Andrew's financial life.. and Fergie's.
But this stuff isn't new. Its been round for several years.. esp the talk about how Andrew and Fergie live such an extravagant life .. and the queen IMo should have been onto it sooner...
 
The fly in the ointment here is that for the Queen to step in as far as Andrew's finances, it would only be in relation to his finances and funds provided by the "Firm". This is like an all inclusive expense account. Air travel, lodging and dining and transportation not to mention the taxpayer funding of security around the clock no matter where he goes. That adds up to a hefty sum. She would interfere as the Queen and CEO of the "Firm" and it would have to do with the Sovereign Grant.

Being Andrew's mother, she would no more interfere with her son's personal finances and affairs than I would of my children (all in their 40s). He's a grown adult and his money is his own. If he did shady and not so smart wheeling and dealing under the advice of Epstein and put Epstein on a pedestal like a Master Guru, that's Andrew's problem. Not mummy's.

First the charities and patronages started dropping Andrew because of his interview and don't want to be associated with him. Now, with the information coming out about the use and abuse of "Firm" funding for personal gain, this is where the Queen *has* to step in and do something. This is where the "Firm" aka the monarchy is affected by Andrew's misdeeds. I believe in companies with employees, it would be termed as expense account abuse.
 
Does Andrew fall under “diplomatic immunity”?

I doubt Andrew would come to the USA to be questioned. He would be afraid he would be arrested and not make it back home. In fact is it possible, if he went anywhere outside of England, thay possibly there is an international warrant for him?

Maybe the FBI would question him in GB, but with a loose tongue as his, his lawyers would say no to all questions.

He is sure in a pickle of a mess.this time. IMO too many times he has been given a pass. These two parents, A and S, don’t think before they act.

The ones hurting are his daughters.....jus5 all MOOO
 
MsJulie said:
Does Andrew fall under “diplomatic immunity”?
Click to expand...

According to the Times, "Ben Keith, an extradition law expert at Five St Andrew's Hill chambers in London, said that diplomatic immunity was attached to the Duke of York's role when he was a trade envoy but not to him as an individual. “The Queen is the only member of the royal family who has sovereign immunity,” Mr Keith said."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-no-chance-of-royal-immunity-mrw0lmw8z
 
News just coming in that Princess Mette-Marit of Norway met Epstein twice including at his home, being discussed in the appropriate thread.
 
Osipi said:
According to the Times, "Ben Keith, an extradition law expert at Five St Andrew's Hill chambers in London, said that diplomatic immunity was attached to the Duke of York's role when he was a trade envoy but not to him as an individual. “The Queen is the only member of the royal family who has sovereign immunity,” Mr Keith said."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-no-chance-of-royal-immunity-mrw0lmw8z
Click to expand...

I don't believe he officially has sovereign immunity, but some commentators said that most countries will extend immunity to a head of state's children as a courtesy.
 
WillVictoria said:
I don't believe he officially has sovereign immunity, but some commentators said that most countries will extend immunity to a head of state's children as a courtesy.
Click to expand...

VIP treatment and "courtesy" is a far cry from legal immunity. I'll stick with what Mr. Keith, an expert in extradition law says over commentators any day. ;)
 
This is from the November 24 issue of The Sunday Times:

"The FBI wants to interview Prince Andrew over his connection to Jeffrey Epstein, The Sunday Times can reveal."

"Detectives leading the investigation into the Epstein sex-trafficking scandal are understood to be examining ways to interview the prince in Britain through the US justice department, which oversees the FBI."

"US justice officials would be required to provide the duke’s lawyers with a detailed outline of what they hoped to achieve from the interview. It could be conducted only if he agreed to it."

"However, FBI detectives are hopeful Prince Andrew would grant them an interview about his friendship with Epstein after he revealed in a public statement last week that he was “willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations if required”.
 
Well that was pretty uncomfortable to watch. Will be interesting if BP responses to this interview as she revealed some pretty appalling details. This clearly not going away and I will imagine we will hear a new slew of patronages cutting ties tomorrow.

This is particularly interesting.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1201620317694779392

If this is verified then Andrew has been caught in yet another lie.
 
Last edited:
ACO said:
Well that was pretty uncomfortable to watch. Will be interesting if BP responses to this interview as she revealed some pretty appalling details. This clearly not going away and I will imagine we will hear a new slew of patronages cutting ties tomorrow.

This is particularly interesting.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1201620317694779392

If this is verified then Andrew has been caught in yet another lie.
Click to expand...

I think this was after her allegations were made public though?

Nonetheless, it is yet another nail in the coffin.
 
After watching this program, Virginia’s interviews, other victims interviews, watching other programs and reading the various reports— the only conclusion you can come to is that the sex trafficking world is deep, dark, nasty and very mysterious. It’s damn near impossible to get rid of that world.

I just hope and pray the victims get their justice by getting their voices heard and bringing those involved down whenever and however possible.
 
Zaira said:
I think this was after her allegations were made public though?

Nonetheless, it is yet another nail in the coffin.
Click to expand...

That was my thought as well. This email just confirms that by 2015 he wanted more information because he had been accused. He didn't randomly start sending an email enquiring information about a teenager he met about 10 years earlier.
 
Somebody said:
That was my thought as well. This email just confirms that by 2015 he wanted more information because he had been accused. He didn't randomly start sending an email enquiring information about a teenager he met about 10 years earlier.
Click to expand...

The issue in question appears to be timing. Andrew sent out the email at 5:50 am on 1/3/15, although we don't know for what timezone.

While I can't get an exact timeline, some cursory examination shows that while Roberts gave her affidavit on 1/2/15, her name was not known to the public until the next day. This is why the timestamp is important: if Andrew sent that message before Virginia Roberts Giuffre was confirmed as Jane Doe 3 then (unless he can prove someone in the palace was tipped off to her name before the press) his "I don't know her" alibi goes up in smoke.
 
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