The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Marengo]

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.

[Moonmaiden23]

For the record, i agree that Andrew is greedy, arrogant, not very bright, and almost completely lacking in empathy or self-awareness.

But I do not believe what happened between himself and Ms. Giuffre fits the legal or moral definition of "rape"..not if it went down exactly as she described it.

Unlike a couple of other very high profile playmates of Epstein, the Duke of York is not a rapist imho.

[Lumutqueen]

Andrews PR man who was hired to help The Duke after his disastrous year, quit 2 weeks ago after telling The Duke not to do the interview.


https://twitter.com/royanikkhah/stat...604293632?s=21

I’m amazed at the stupidity of this interview, I’m also astounded the palace allowed it to go ahead. Why wouldn’t they distance themselves from this train wreck?

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

For the record, i think Andrew is greedy, arrogant, not very bright, and almost completely lacking in empathy.

But I do not believe what happened between himself and Ms. Giuffre fits the legal or moral definition of "rape"..not if it went down exactly as she described it.

Unlike a couple of other very high profile playmates of Epstein, the Duke of York is not a rapist imho.

That depends, one of those occasions took place in London and, while I'm not a legal expert, in a lot of jurisdictions there is a distinction made when the "prostitute" involved is underaged. Meaning that if she had not been a prostitute, sex between her and Andrew would have been legal. But often sex with an underaged prostitute is. Force is hard to proof after all these years. Even the sex trafficking is hard to proof. A lot of it boils down what Andrew knew at the time. Which is why he keeps saying he can't remember.

[tommy100]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Andrews PR man who was hired to help The Duke after his disastrous year, quit 2 weeks ago after telling The Duke not to do the interview.


https://twitter.com/royanikkhah/stat...604293632?s=21

I’m amazed at the stupidity of this interview, I’m also astounded the palace allowed it to go ahead. Why wouldn’t they distance themselves from this train wreck?

In the Times article I linked further up the thread it was stated that while the PR man advised not to do the interview, Andrew's Private Secretary Amanda Thirsk advised him to. Given she has been his private secretary for over a decade during which he has had PR disaster after PR disaster I'm not sure why anyone would value her opinion on anything PR related. Another example of poor judgement from Andrew IMO.

[Muhler]

PR-wise this interview sure didn't help Prince Andrew IMO!

Nor in the foreign press.
The serious DK press has followed this with some interest and the front-page headline leading to this article pretty much sums up the DK view:
It reads: Pale Prince humiliated on TV.

https://www.bt.dk/royale/prins-andre...kan-ikke-svede

[Pranter]

Dickie Arbiter on Twitter rewtweeted pics posted by another person ...the pics show Andrew (two pics) in very close quarters with two women ...I guess this was to refute a claim or statement made by Andrew last night in the interview. I've seen enough quotes and short clips I'm not sure I can stomach watching the actual interview!

Feel badly for his girls. If he has any sense he will issue a public apology and announce he is retiring from public life. His charities can go to his girls (if they want to take them on) or other members of the BRF. Poor Beatrice, this will likely tamp down excitement for her wedding.


I can only imagine Charles must be fuming about this. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Anne's house to hear her reaction!



LaRae

[Debbies]

I have noticed Prince Andrew's face and eyes when the interviewer mentioned literary agent John Brockman as a witness to a foot massage that he allegedly took. That was an interesting reaction and a stand-out for me. Anyone one else noticed that specific moment?
I have to say that the interviewer put John Brockman's witnessing in a deceptive way, as if he had voluntarily come forward to share it. That did not happen, as such account came from an year-old email correspondence shared by a Russian writer. John Brockman has not publicly confirmed or commented this as far as I know.

[Dman]

Confirmation:
The Duke of York’s PR advisor, Jason Stein, did resign over Prince Andrew’s decision to do this interview.
https://mobile.twitter.com/skynewsbr...38084795781120

[Ista]

The overall impression I was left with after the interview, aside from my initial thoughts posted upthread, is that Andrew, with few exceptions, does not see the people who surround him in a service or subordinate mode as real live human beings. He "didn't want to seem grand," but over and over again, he made clear that people who he didn't see as worthy of his notice only exist as an unimportant background to his life. The underage girls who came and went in Epstein's properties may truly have not been noticed by Andrew, because they weren't important enough for him to notice. They weren't real people to him. That's one of the most damning revelations in the interview, in my opinion.

[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://mobile.twitter.com/skynewsbr...38084795781120

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Marengo

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]

Originally Posted by ACO

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/...y-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]

Originally Posted by tommy100

...
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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!!!!