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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread isn’t about the Sussexes. Further discussion of them will be deleted.
 
and traditionally, daughters do not get royal dukedoms. So i dont think Charlotte will get it.
Traditionally they didn't precede their younger brothers in the line of succession.That has changed so the tradition of giving peerage titles to sons but not daughters should change accordingly, just as the BRF as abandoned other outdated traditions (arranged marriages, for example).

Sent from my moto g(7) play using The Royals Community mobile app
 
I think there is a misunderstanding as to what Ms. Guiffre’s legal claims are.

She is not basing her lawsuit on the age of consent and strict liability (known as statutory rape). She is basing it on being a victim of human trafficking. It doesn’t matter if she was of age or not- it’s whether she was trafficked (which means she couldn’t legally consent even if she didn’t fight off a sexual partner) and whether Andrew should have reasonably known she was trafficked.

Her age at the time of the alleged assault is important to establish that the *civil* statute of limitations had not run out, because New York (and other states) have laws that extend the civil statute of limitations for claimants who were under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged allegations. The criminal statute has run out, I believe, but New York doesn’t require a claimant to prove these allegations in criminal court anyway.
 
Last edited:
A member of the York City Council and the MP for York Central want the Duke of York to relinquish the York title.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-andrew-york-connections-cut-b976711.html

The MP for York Central and the member of the York City Council should know that the Duke cannot legally "relinquish" his peerage. As far as I understand, people who succeed to a hereditary peerage may, under the Peerage Act 1963, disclaim the peerage within one year of succeeding thereto. I don't think the aforementioned act applies, however, to newly created peerages such as the Duke's and, in any case, Prince Andrew has been the Duke of York since 1986, so the act could not apply to him anyway.

The MP for York Central could, I guess, introduce a Private Member's bill in the House of Commons to strip Prince Andrew of his peerage if he feels so strongly about it.

The question of re-issuing the York dukedon will only come up after Andrew's death. Depending on how the case progresses, this may not be a dukedom that could get created again for some time.

King James II was created Duke of York as the second son of Charles I and, as king, was later deposed in the revolution of 1688 for his alleged absolutist tendencies in addition to his Catholic faith. That did not prevent the title, however, from being recreated later for other second-born sons of British monarchs, including the future Kings George V and George VI, and now Prince Andrew. I believe the tradition will be maintained regardless of the veredict in Andrew's lawsuit, but, in any case, whether Andrew keeps the dukedom or it is forfeited, it will not be recreated as long as Andrew is still alive, and he may well be by the time Prince Louis (the natural next candidate to the title) gets married.
 
Last edited:
Princess Charlotte is the future "spare" but she most likely will become HRH The Princess Royal. In my opinion the most prestigious title available of all, oustide the titles held by the Heir.

She may well be bestowed with a dukedom of her own, and in time, become Princess Royal.
 
I think Andrew's understanding of "trafficked" is key here. He saw a bunch of nubile young women providing "massages" and other ....perks...to a bunch of wealthy powerful men. None of them appeared fearful or reluctant to be doing so. They lived very lavishly and well.

But here is where Andrew is on very thin ice in my opinion. ..unless he has sight and/ or hearing problems he had to notice that these females were young....too young. And it is well known that he is not a deep thinker but he was educated at Gordonstoun. He must have been at least exposed to the work of Vladimir Nabokov.

He had to have known who "Lolita" was...and have been able to connect the disturbing dots between the name of his buddy's jet "Lolita Express"?

Epstein's conviction should have erased all doubt. In a less arrogant man it would have.

I think the DoY has lived his entire existence up to now in a sort of bubble, unaware of very little other than his status and what benefits he gets from it...all of it he is entitled to.

And as much as I feel for QEII I also don't have high regard for her parenting of any of her children. I realize that she became queen when she was only 25 and didn't have much hands on time with her youngsters. But she had great influence on the types of nannies that were appointed to them and the ultimate responsibility for their spiritual and moral values was hers.

To paraphrase former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy...if you bungle the raising of your children, nothing else you accomplish in this world matters.

I couldn't agree more.:sad:
 
Last edited:
This does seem to be happening a lot with sexual assault cases now. A number of actors have been sacked from films or TV shows, or else episodes already filmed have been pulled from the TV schedules, after an allegation has been made, before there's been a trial, and the same with politicians being suspended by their parties. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, just that it's how it is.
 
This does seem to be happening a lot with sexual assault cases now. A number of actors have been sacked from films or TV shows, or else episodes already filmed have been pulled from the TV schedules, after an allegation has been made, before there's been a trial, and the same with politicians being suspended by their parties. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, just that it's how it is.


It is wrong because possible fantasists have a field day: lawyers, police and media often behave disgracefully premature, while the innocent see their reputations trashed.


See the example of Sir Cliff Richard, of Field Marshal Lord Bramall, of the presenter/author Paul Gambaccini, of the former MP Harvey Proctor, of former EU Commissioner and MP Lord Brittan, of former PM Sir Edward Heath. Innocent, every one of them. Yet all of them are trashed for life.


The Duke of York is not prosecuted for crimes. He is slain with a civic case. Yet, without any Judge having spoken, he is already hanged high. He deserves to be punished when guilty, after Lady Justitia has spoken.
 
Last edited:
This does seem to be happening a lot with sexual assault cases now. A number of actors have been sacked from films or TV shows, or else episodes already filmed have been pulled from the TV schedules, after an allegation has been made, before there's been a trial, and the same with politicians being suspended by their parties. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, just that it's how it is.

True; people today are tried in the court of public opinion.
They don't need to be convicted to have their careers (and their lives) ruined.

Then some women are upset when prominent men refuse to be alone with them, and find that behavior insulting.
But really it is just a matter of self-preservation.
 
Fwiw...I also find the response of the Royal family premature and chilling, and the public braying for the man's blood by press and public in particular also very chilling considering the fact that no trial has even started...let alone no judgment rendered.

It's as if everyday some new way to punish and humiliate the guy is floated. Strip of him of x,y and z! Kick him out of Royal Lodge. Forbid him from riding at Windsor. It's an insult to see him exercise (can he ride at night under cover of darkness?) Force him to sneak unobtrusively into his mother's funeral when the time comes. Punish his daughters. Send them all to live on some remote miserable bog perhaps in Scotland.


I don’t have a problem with the RF’s response. Patronages and military organizations don’t want to be associated with him. So- what are they supposed to do? Keep him where he isn’t wanted?

I do think some of the public responses are OTT though. Agreed there.
 
This does seem to be happening a lot with sexual assault cases now. A number of actors have been sacked from films or TV shows, or else episodes already filmed have been pulled from the TV schedules, after an allegation has been made, before there's been a trial, and the same with politicians being suspended by their parties. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, just that it's how it is.

It's CANCEL CULTURE and we are living in the thick of it. I am all for calling out malignant predators where they exist, and holding them accountable.

But careers can be ended and lives destroyed now because..." Mr X told me I looked lovely in that color, or winked his eye, or held the door open for me when I walked in.

I deem it sexist and offensive. It has caused me lasting emotional distress and suffering."

I am only slightly exaggerating.
 
It's CANCEL CULTURE and we are living in the thick of it. I am all for calling out malignant predators where they exist, and holding them accountable.

But careers can be ended and lives destroyed now because..." Mr X told me I looked lovely in that color, or winked his eye, or held the door open for me when I walked in.

I deem it sexist and offensive. It has caused me lasting emotional distress and suffering."

I am only slightly exaggerating.

Andrew, whom this pertains to, for all his other entitled behavior which might fall under "sexist and offensive, gasp", maintained a friendship with malignant predators through stupidity and excruciatingly bad judgment AT BEST, hung himself with more of the same by doing the Newsnight interview, and has dealt with the consequences ever since.

Should Beatrice and Eugenie be ostracized for it? No, of course not.

But bringing something entirely on yourself and having to pay the piper isn't cancel culture. It's "no longer being tolerated".
 
Last edited:
I don’t have a problem with the RF’s response. Patronages and military organizations don’t want to be associated with him. So- what are they supposed to do? Keep him where he isn’t wanted?

I do think some of the public responses are OTT though. Agreed there.

I don't have any problems either with the way that Andrew's public life has been diminished, curtailed, depleted and basically erased. This is the "Firm" that represents the monarchy of the UK doing what is needed to preserver and protect itself from unsavory persons using it for personal perks and pleasures and well... even kick backs.

When the "Firm" represents the entirety of a nation's people, there is no room within it for questionable practices, self promotion and, in Andrew's case, a character that exudes the attitude of entitlement, arrogance and even comes across as egocentric. Those attributes do not reflect well on anybody. The "Firm" had to show that they listened to organizations and patronages that stated "We don't want someone like this representing us". These organizations and patronages didn't choose to request that Andrew be removed because he is royal. They requested it because Andrew's actions and words do not reflect their own purposes and models of human behavior. I think we need to remember that repercussions against Andrew have solely and completely affected his public life as a working royal for the family "Firm".

How Andrew is perceived and treated by his family members going into the future, I hope remains totally private. Mothers don't stop loving their sons because he's in prison convicted of murder. Daughters don't stop loving their father because he's bamboozled people out of their life savings (Ghislaine Maxwell is a good example here).

I think the most important thing to remember here is that every single action that has been taken against Andrew because of this entire mess has been to put the kibosh on his *public* life. He's effectively been put away to pasture to live out his days in private and can no more be any kind of an influence on the public workings of the "Firm" and the monarchy it represents.
 
In my opinion, the Queen (in consultation with Princes Charles and William, and some British journalists say, Andrew's siblings as well) rightfully removed his military titles and patronages. First of all, they don't want to be associated with him and have asked for this. While the Queen would have the power to decide that he should keep them, that would not be a smart decision for the Royal Family and the future of the monarchy at all.

A court of law will decide if he is guilty, that's the justice side of things. It would certainly help his reputation and that of the Royal Family if he was pronounced innocent, but that is not all there is to this. The moral standard for royals is higher than not being pronounced guilty of sexual abuse of a minor in a court of law.

I personally believe that he is guilty, but of course none of us can know 100%. Let's go with the theory that he might be innocent for a moment. Because he is a royal, he does need to defend himself in the court of public opinion. That is because the monarchy exists only as long as the people want it to. Just as in the other European monarchies, when there is an issue, when a working royal is accused of something, they need to publicly defend themselves or apologize. If you're not a working royal, on the other hand, you don't necessarily need to do so.

So Andrew did defend himself in the court of public opinion - but the way he did it made everything much worse. Back to the theory of being wrongly accused: can anyone imagine Prince Charles, Prince William or Prince Edward - if they were wrongly accused of sexual assault, going on TV and saying "I didn't do it because I can't sweat and drove my child to Pizza Express that day. Also I remained friends with a convicted pedophile because I am too honourable"?
No, I don't think anyone can imagine that.

So even IF he is innocent, he has made himself seem guilty with his ridiculous assertions. And really, the fact that he was close friends with convicted sex offenders & human traffickers Epstein and Maxwell would be a huge problem for any royal, even without accusations of having participated.

I don't think the Royal Family is cruel at all for casting him out of the monarchy side of things (which does not equal the family). The Queen - or any of the other working royals, I imagine - will not risk the monarchy going down because Andrew chose to closely associate with sex offenders & human traffickers Epstein and Maxwell. Nor should they.
 
Last edited:
On a lighter note from all of this, a friend of mine posted on FB this morning a photo of Andrew with the caption "The Andrew formerly known as Prince". I thought it was great so wanted to share.
 
Andrew, whom this pertains to, for all his other entitled behavior which might fall under "sexist and offensive, gasp", maintained a friendship with malignant predators through stupidity and excruciatingly bad judgment AT BEST, hung himself with more of the same by doing the Newsnight interview, and has dealt with the consequences ever since.

Should Beatrice and Eugenie be ostracized for it? No, of course not.

But bringing something entirely on yourself and having to pay the piper isn't cancel culture. It's "no longer being tolerated".

Agreed. Some love to scream "Cancel culture" when it is really just you being held accountable for your actions.
 
Agreed. Some love to scream "Cancel culture" when it is really just you being held accountable for your actions.

Alleged.

Alleged actions.

That is the crux here.
 
No, the friendship with Epstein and Maxwell and appalling lack of remorse and ongoing sordid legal issues and Newsnight idiocy and self-making into persona non grata are all facts, not allegations.

Also him dragging Beatrice into his drama was utterly irresponsible.
 
Personally, I find no victim-blaming here. Rather, I find the overall mood as being inclined to gloss over Giuffre's part as a victimizer which is horrifying. Teenagers aren't incapable of being whatever.

I find the overall sentiment (not here on the forum but overall) of treating Andrew like a violent rapist just because a recruiter said he slept with her knowing that she was trafficked rather baffling. This far, it's just he said, she said but he's already guilty?

Teenagers shouldn't be expected to bear responsibility for victimizing others? For real? When a teenager tells someone younger (or much younger) that they should keep silent, that's an acknowledgment that they realize they shouldn't be doing what they are doing.

Andrew might be a horrible person. But no one denies this might be the case while every sentiment that Ms Giuffre might be less than stellar is met with "victim blaming".

Many people have been victims of teenage rapists or molesters. And it's always the same thing at court (when the case even makes it to court): they're children. They didn't realize. This leaves *their* victims (some of which are literal children) in a horrible situation. And it isn't because the perpetrators were too young to understand.

It's like this with Giuffre, IMO. She was a victim but also a victimizer. And if I remember correctly, it's by her own lawyer's admission. She regretted taking part? It still happened. It's literally "she said, she said". Why shouldn't it be taken into account?

I absolutely agree. It is not "victim blaming" to point out that Giuffre involvd a 14 year old girl with Maxwell and Epstein for money. Rather, I think reprehensive is a better description of Giuffre's actions.

The prisons are full of people who were victimized and abused as children. Many of them were 17 or even younger when they landed in prison. I actually have a lot of sympathy for them but to protect society the line that cannot be crossed is when a victim victimizes someone else - Giuffre did. People cannot be excused just because they were victimized themselves at one point

One reason this is relevant is that Giuffre is suing to get money from Andrew for the suffering she says she endured due to their relationship. I find it hard to believe that her encounter with Andrew was that traumatic if she was bragging about it while enticing other girls into Maxwell and Epstein's clutches.

One question for the UK lawyers out there, didn't the investigation into Giuffre's allegations conclude that even if what Giuffre said was true, Andrew didn't commit a crime because Giuffre was above the age of consent? I don't know what the British laws are with respect to sex trafficking but in the U.S., there has to be actual knowledge of the trafficking before one can be criminally liable
 
Last edited:
Andrew, whom this pertains to, for all his other entitled behavior which might fall under "sexist and offensive, gasp", maintained a friendship with malignant predators through stupidity and excruciatingly bad judgment AT BEST, hung himself with more of the same by doing the Newsnight interview, and has dealt with the consequences ever since.

Should Beatrice and Eugenie be ostracized for it? No, of course not.

But bringing something entirely on yourself and having to pay the piper isn't cancel culture. It's "no longer being tolerated".

The post(s) to which you replied pertained to politicians and actors, not Prince Andrew.

Agreed. Some love to scream "Cancel culture" when it is really just you being held accountable for your actions.

I am not sure which politicians or actors you are thinking of. But for those who were innocent of their alleged actions (the scenario in the original post), I have trouble seeing how your "accountable for your actions" description could apply to them.
 
The post(s) to which you replied pertained to politicians and actors, not Prince Andrew.

No, "Andrew, to whom this thread and business pertain". Please kindly stop replying to my posts if the context is continually so difficult and confusing for you.
 
One question for the UK lawyers out there, didn't the investigation into Giuffre's allegations conclude that even if what Giuffre said was true, Andrew didn't commit a crime because Giuffre was above the age of consent? I don't know what the British laws are with respect to sex trafficking but in the U.S., there has to be actual knowledge of the trafficking before one can be criminally

It would be statutory rape if she'd been under 16. Technically, that would apply even if a girl was 15 and the other person involved was her 16-year-old boyfriend and they were in a relationship and it had been entirely consensual, although obviously it would be highly unlikely that that would ever end up in court. As she was over 16, if anything had happened - and there's no actual proof that anything more happened between them than him putting his arm round her for a photo - then it would only be a crime if he'd forced her.

That would include, say, her being too drunk to consent, but there's no suggestion that that happened, nor that he used physical force. From what she says, she didn't refuse Andrew because she was terrified of what Epstein would do to her if she did. So I think Andrew can only have committed a crime if he knew that Epstein was pressurising her into it.
 
I personally believe that he is guilty, but of course none of us can know 100%. Let's go with the theory that he might be innocent for a moment. Because he is a royal, he does need to defend himself in the court of public opinion.

What do you personally believe he is guilty of? Of sexually assaulting Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) as she claimed in her court papers? Of being an accessory or accomplice to human trafficking? Or of having consensual sex with a 17-year-old he barely knew and probably doesn't even remember?
 
No, "Andrew, to whom this thread and business pertain". Please kindly stop replying to my posts if the context is continually so difficult and confusing for you.

Unfortunately, the other replies indicate that the earlier comments which were not about Andrew were being miscontextualized as being about Andrew, although I understand it was not your intention to be confusing.

I'm sorry to have displeased you, and as you wish, should this happen again, I will do my best to remember not to directly reply to your post (although it may be necessary to quote it to prevent further confusion). But I believe some sort of clarification was in order.
 
I think it's prudent to keep in mind that those who made this decision have far more information than those of us commenting on it. They may well have reason to believe he is guilty or will be found responsible at his civil trial- or may not and still took the action, but it is something to consider.

I've also seen posts here and elsewhere saying Andrew was foolish to say Beatrice's name in the BBC interview. It wouldn't have made any difference whether he said her name then or withheld it, simply saying he had an alibi. He would have had to give that detail at some point and, indeed, it may have emerged as more of a bombshell because speculation would have built over who or what the alibi was and it would have emerged at trial if there is one.
 
No, the friendship with Epstein and Maxwell and appalling lack of remorse and ongoing sordid legal issues and Newsnight idiocy and self-making into persona non grata are all facts, not allegations.

Exactly. Prince Andrew's friendship with Epstein and Maxwell (and persisting with this friendship even when he knew Epstein was an abuser) have shown an terrible lack of judgment. To use a specific example, when he learned Epstein was a child abuser, he did not terminate the friendship over the phone. Instead, he flew to New York, stayed with Epstein for 4 DAYS in Epstein's house and was photographed publicly with Epstein. This is only one example of his terrible judgement. There are others like the appalling interview.

His own actions in how he has dealt with this issue have been so bad that his former charities don't want him anymore as a patron or military regiments don't want him as a patron anymore either. They've made it clear and wrote to the Queen asking him to be dropped. She can't be expected to have Andrew retain these patronages when many of his charities and military regiments have written to her and directly asked for his removal.

Regardless of the claims made against Andrew and where they are true or not (which I'm not discussing here) , he brought a lot of negative attention to the Royal Family THROUGH HIS OWN ACTIONS and terrible judgement with the Queen's Jubilee coming.

He's still a family member but he will no longer be publicly representing the Royal Family because his own actions. To have him continue as a public representative of the Royal family and continue to damage the monarchy further is no longer an option for Prince Andrew.
 
I mind the timing more than the acting thing. I mean, were these charities meant to stay without an acting patron indefinitely? Two years is long enough. And I do agree about Andrew's appalling judgment and the disastrous interview reflecting badly on the BRF.

The thing is, actions were taken immediately after the last court news and so it looks like the BP acted not on Andrew's actions but the court news which weren't Guilty. Guilty, Guilty, Off with His Head.

I mean, what did Andrew do in the interim between the news breaking out and the hour of the decision being announced? He conducted the behavior people object to literally years ago... and at the time, it wasn't considered bad enough to act on.

So forgive me if I see this as what we call "comrade's court". It was a thing real jurists sneered at. Basically, it was everyone saying whatever they wanted about anyone else and the accused only had the right to talk after the "comrade's court" (made up by no jurists) has already proclaimed them guilty in the presence of everyone who wanted to come and could jeer and insult all they wanted. They could talk but not to defend themselves, just do some good and sound self-critique. And yes, I know he was given the right to talk and he blundered very badly. But it wasn't considered bad enough for the BP then. Now, when he didn't do anything to make it worse, came this.

So yes, I'll keep thinking it's comrade's court and the BP bowing to public pressure, as well as being afraid to look like they were blaming a victim. And I'm saying it as someone who believes this should have been settled long ago and doesn't mind the action itself. How long were Andrew's charities supposed to be left without a patron? How long would they have been left without a patron if the court had arrived at a different decision?
 
I think it's prudent to keep in mind that those who made this decision have far more information than those of us commenting on it. They may well have reason to believe he is guilty or will be found responsible at his civil trial- or may not and still took the action, but it is something to consider.

I've also seen posts here and elsewhere saying Andrew was foolish to say Beatrice's name in the BBC interview. It wouldn't have made any difference whether he said her name then or withheld it, simply saying he had an alibi. He would have had to give that detail at some point and, indeed, it may have emerged as more of a bombshell because speculation would have built over who or what the alibi was and it would have emerged at trial if there is one.

Hasn't he already backtracked on that though? So what was the point in dragging her into it? Now if this goes to trial, she will 100% be called to give a statement. And that is all in him for directly naming her.
 
So I think Andrew can only have committed a crime if he knew that Epstein was pressurising her into it.

I am sure that prostitution of a girl under 18 is not allowed in GB either... - and surely not in the USA, I think. This makes me wonder, if prostitution of a minor constitutes some kind of sexual abuse too, and falls under rape... But I have not the faintest idea about the American penal code.

And we can be somewhat sure, that the Prince was not in love... So, Ms. Maxwell, already sentenced, was there and the person, which took the photo (Epstein?).

And when the pic was taken of the Prince and the minor - This does not look like a rockstar with a groupie... It looks like the Virginia girl was pimped out!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom