The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

ETA: The same goes for Princess Margaret's two children. I remember a story from one of the women's magazines when David Linley(now Lord Snowden) was a little boy of about eight. A visitor arrived at Clarence House to see Princess Margaret, and after the butler had gone of to fetch her the visitor tried to make small talk with the child by referring to the princess as "your mother".

She recounted that little Viscount Linley stiffened immediately..."Do you mean Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret"?

I've heard this story before, but it was attributed to Princess Margaret.
When asked about her sister,she responded, "Do you mean Her Majesty, the Queen?"

[sophie25]

I'm not sure that a very public televised wedding will be at all possible for Beatrice now.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen[2268516

Whilst I agree that all 4 children were raised in the knowledge that they were royal (well duh?), they were brought up in a different era and sent to schools deemed appropriate for them. I really see no proof of anything you’ve said about anyone except Andrew.

The fact that Charles has rarified tastes (what are they btw?) doesn’t stretch to him thinking he’s above everyone which is frankly what I believe is being suggested here. Anne being rude and dismissive, your point being? That’s a demeanour, it’s quite obviously Anne’s nature to be that way as it is millions of other people in the world who aren’t royal. As for Edwards “foot stomping”, wouldn’t you be a bit annoyed if you’d worked on something and thought it would do good for it to be dismissed publicly?

Andrew is the most entitled and the interview showed, but don’t tar the royal family with the same brush for no reason.

Charles's valet(the late Stephen Berry) journalists Ingrid Seward and Jonathan Dimbleby have all extensive documented some of Charles unique Royal foibles such as insisting that a valet put his toothpaste on for him, carrying a specialized toilet seat around the world with him, and expecting his very young bride to spend their honeymoon discussing metaphysics . That's just an example of the type of out of touch behavior I was referring to, it's just the tip of the iceberg and off topic for this thread to list examples of his exquisite but extravagant taste. It's quite a long list.

If you believe Prince Edwards sulky tantrum because everyone did not like that horribly embarrassing and universally panned "Knockout" show was justified, well okay. But I watched it. It sucked. And I don't care how long he worked on it, my then 10 year old nephew had better self control.

I learned the vulgarity NAFF OFF from Princess Anne. She is simply unnecessarily abrasive and rude-much like your "well duh" response to my post to use an excellent example.

It stands to reason that Royal and aristocratic children are taught to view themselves as a breed apart. They are. But they are not necessarily all spoiled, rude and entitled.

I cannot find examples of any other Royals from Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew's generation act like this despite the same upbringing. Not even rumors. Naruhito of Japan, Carl-Gustaf of Sweden, Haakon of Norway, Philippe of Belgium, Felipe of Spain, Henri of Luxembourg...none of them.

Andrew is the Frankenstein monster of this group of them... the most extreme example of Royal arrogance run amok.

[Ista]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Charles's valet(the late Stephen Berry) journalists Ingrid Seward and Jonathan Dimbleby have all extensive documented some of Charles unique Royal foibles such as insisting that a valet put his toothpaste on for him, carrying a specialized toilet seat around the world with him, and expecting his very young bride to spend their honeymoon discussing metaphysics . That's just an example of the type of out of touch behavior I was referring to, it's just the tip of the iceberg and off topic for this thread btw.

If you believe Prince Edwards sulky tantrum because everyone did not like that horribly embarrassing and universally panned "Knockout" show, well okay. But I watched it. It sucked. And I don't care how long he worked on it, my then 10 year old nephew had better manners.

I learned the vulgarity NAFF OFF from Princess Anne. She is simply unnecessarily abrasive and rude-much like your "well duh" response to my post to use an excellent example.

It stands to reason that Royal and aristocratic children are taught to view themselves as a breed apart. They are. But they are not necessarily all spoiled, rude and entitled.

I cannot find examples of any other Royals from Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew's generation act like this despite the same upbringing. Not even rumors. Naruhito of Japan, Carl-Gustaf of Sweden, Haakon of Norway, Philippe of Belgium, Felipe of Spain, Henri of Luxembourg...none of them.

Andrew is the Frankenstein monster of this group of them... the most extreme example of Royal arrogance run amok.

The examples you cite are all excellent examples of privileged/rude/spoiled behavior, but I think there is huge difference between those, and what I was referencing with Andrew, which is a complete failure to see subordinates or those who serve him as actual human beings. It's possible for the Queen, for example, to discourage familiarity from her servants or staff, but still recognize them as individuals who have lives and value separate from what they do for her. Wendy Barry, in her Housekeeper's Diary, references Andrew's arrogance and lack of consideration for staff, which she saw as much more insulting and dehumanizing than Charles losing his temper, and this seems to be a repeating theme in coverage of Andrew in a way that Anne's occasional rudeness or Charles's temper and pickiness do not.

Edited to add: To be clear, I'm not defending Charles or Anne and the other Windsor family, just pointing out that there are degrees, and Andrew's behavior is, as you said, on a whole different scale.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Ista

The examples you cite are all excellent examples of privileged/rude/spoiled behavior, but I think there is huge difference between those, and what I was referencing with Andrew, which is a complete failure to see subordinates or those who serve him as actual human beings. It's possible for the Queen, for example, to discourage familiarity from her servants or staff, but still recognize them as individuals who have lives and value separate from what they do for her. Wendy Barry, in her Housekeeper's Diary, references Andrew's arrogance and lack of consideration for staff, which she saw as much more insulting and dehumanizing than Charles losing his temper, and this seems to be a repeating theme in coverage of Andrew in a way that Anne's occasional rudeness or Charles's temper and pickiness do not.

Edited to add: To be clear, I'm not defending Charles or Anne and the other Windsor family, just pointing out that there are degrees, and Andrew's behavior is, as you said, on a whole different scale.

I don’t think we have any idea about how Andrew treats or mistreats his staff. The only thing I heard myself is how the Grenadier guards were impressed by the personal interest he took in the guardsmen and their famílias after he became their colonel, which seems to be at odds with the “ de-humanizing” narrative that is being built on this forum.

So far what I have seen is a Prince who has devoted his life to the service of Queen and country, even putting his life on the line in the process, and who is being convicted in the court of public opinion based on unsubstantiated claims against him, for which BTW he has a credible alibi until proven otherwise.

[Moonmaiden23]

Andrew's courage/service in the Falklands is not in question. I agree that the fact that he put his life on the line is nothing to sneeze at.

But his heroics in the Falklands was over 35 years ago. And as much as I really want to defend him and give him the benefit of the doubt he doesn't make it easy. I was willing to overlook all the snide jibes at Andrew up until now as mostly nitpicking and unfair.

It is his handling of this Epstein affair that really threatens to darken his image-war heroics included- beyond repair-and it can't be blamed on anyone except himself. Not public opinion.

[Zaira]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I don’t think we have any idea about how Andrew treats or mistreats his staff. The only thing I heard myself is how the Grenadier guards were impressed by the personal interest he took in the guardsmen and their famílias after he became their colonel, which seems to be at odds with the “ de-humanizing” narrative that is being built on this forum.

So far what I have seen is a Prince who has devoted his life to the service of Queen and country, even putting his life on the line in the process, and who is being convicted in the court of public opinion based on unsubstantiated claims against him, for which BTW he has a credible alibi until proven otherwise.

What makes his alibi credible, pray tell? That he said it happened? Because there has been no outside substantiation of it. Even if we take at face value that he did indeed go to Pizza Express in Woking with his daughter, was he there all day and ALL night? Because the claims of him meeting teenage girls at Ghislaine's were of a late night party.

As it as, several of his other claims have already been proven false multiple times, so why should the public take what he says at face value when what he says has logic holes enough to drive a truck through?

Moreover, there has been reporting going back years of how much he was despised by his peers in the military. I have heard personal stories to this effect from someone who served with him. Hearsay at the end of the day of course. But while he did serve on the frontlines and credit due I suppose, that doesn;t absolve him of any subsequent wrong-doing since. He served in the Falklands 35 years ago. What does that have anything to do with his actions in the last 20? Nothing.

And no one is 100% terrible 100% of the time. Andrew could have taken a kind interest in the guards when he became a colonel and STILL be a pompous, rude, cruel and small man who sees most people as beneath his attention.

It honestly sickens me to see people defend this man. If nothing else, he has shown a startling lack of human empathy for the survivors of Epstein's abuse and shows NO regret for becoming friends with such a predator because of what it did for HIM--no matter that he is a literal prince with the whole world at his finger tips and dear mummy's highest regard.

[victor1319]

What shocks me most: I have been reading in several sources, that the Queen was well aware about Andrew giving an interview and she gave her "go ahead"...

And none of these questions given to the Prince was somehow surprising...

So, what is going on there?

[wyevale]

It honestly sickens me to see people defend this man.

On Internet Fora and discussion pages there must surely be 'diversity of opinion' ?

[Osipi]

I still stand behind my opinion that until Andrew is proven guilty of a criminal act beyond a reasonable doubt, he's not committed a crime. Public opinion cannot and should not "convict" him of wrongdoings or misdeeds until there is absolute proof that his actions warrant it.

The interview, however, is a totally different thing. If ever there was an interview that exposed a person's true self, this is the granddaddy of them all. He should have kept his mouth shut, gotten on with things he should have been doing and not worrying so much about how he was perceived to be. I think his ego got the better of him.

"Better to be silent and thought the fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." (Abraham Lincoln)

[Empress Merel]

Originally Posted by victor1319

What shocks me most: I have been reading in several sources, that the Queen was well aware about Andrew giving an interview and she gave her "go ahead"...

And none of these questions given to the Prince was somehow surprising...

So, what is going on there?

Extremely poor management and advisors who give ill fated, horrible advice. This is not even the first time they make mistakes. But this is the worst of them all.

[camelot23ca]

...

Back on topic - if one American reporter is to be believed, she basically had the whole story around the time William and Kate were getting married, but the info she had didn’t meet the standards for publication of the network she worked for. And apparently Buckingham Palace fought HARD at the time to to make it go away and they might have succeeded had things turned out differently with regard to Epstein. Andrew would have been home free.

[dbarn67]

The Daily Fails says the Queen back's Andrew.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...interview.html

[Madame Verseau]

Originally Posted by dbarn67

The Daily Fails says the Queen back's Andrew.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...interview.html

And other senior royals too. The outrage is too great for this mess to sustain. Christmas at Sandringham is going to be horrible this year with the church walk.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Charles's valet(the late Stephen Berry) journalists Ingrid Seward and Jonathan Dimbleby have all extensive documented some of Charles unique Royal foibles such as insisting that a valet put his toothpaste on for him, carrying a specialized toilet seat around the world with him, and expecting his very young bride to spend their honeymoon discussing metaphysics . That's just an example of the type of out of touch behavior I was referring to, it's just the tip of the iceberg and off topic for this thread to list examples of his exquisite but extravagant taste. It's quite a long list.

It's quite a long list of examples, by people who quite happily betrayed their employers or reported on rumours.

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

I learned the vulgarity NAFF OFF from Princess Anne. She is simply unnecessarily abrasive and rude-much like your "well duh" response to my post to use an excellent example.

I mean, I might be on the younger end of the spectrum for this forum but Naff Off isn't vulgar to me. It's actually quite humorous. Perhaps it's because working in retail I encounter everyday people who have exactly the same attitude and nature as Princess Anne, and have not had a silver spoon upbringing.

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

I cannot find examples of any other Royals from Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew's generation act like this despite the same upbringing. Not even rumors. Naruhito of Japan, Carl-Gustaf of Sweden, Haakon of Norway, Philippe of Belgium, Felipe of Spain, Henri of Luxembourg...none of them.

None of those royals you list had the same upbringing as the four british siblings, it's impossible to say something like that. You'll find lots of rumours about all those royals if you look hard enough, except Naruhito for obvious reasons.

At least we agree on one thing, Andrew being the worst among them.

[sophie25]

I've thought about this and if I had a great friend who then turned out to have been involved in the stuff that Epstein was I would know exactly what to do. Firstly I would terminate the friendship straight away (which would not involve a 4 day stay at said friend's house) and I would then contact the police to help in any way I possibly could.

[rmay286]

People have mentioned elsewhere that, after that Central Park photo was taken, it was reported that Andrew visited Epstein to request money to pay off Sarah's debts.

Sarah did admit later that she took money from Epstein.

So it is possible that the real reason for visiting New York wasn't 'to break off a friendship.'

Not sure of course...who really knows, but it is another possible explanation.

[rob2008]

[QUOTE=sndral;2268514]Well, that didn’t happen, it simply added fuel to the fire.

I couldnt believe Andrew was so careless and reckless to put himself unnecessarily at risk. He appeared vulnerable and exposed and unprepared. This goes against all the training that royalty receives. Presumably this is the result of Fergie who will have guided him into the interview - even though she has not the slightest idea what the correct Royal response is to controversy. The no doubt have a sincere and loving relationship in private - but to the rest of us it manifests itself as incredibly dysfunctional and this interview demonstrates the lack of perspective they both possess.

The pair of them should get married and move out of White Lodge into a modest G&F property where they can live happily ever after. Then (we can pray) they can start to rebuild their reputations by getting seriously involved in charitable work and public service. I cant see Fergie doing this - so I suppose the pair of them are 'doomed'. It would be good to see a fresh start where Andrew takes a new course and becomes a pioneer in work that has nothing to do with money - eg he could devote himself to military or guards related charities, maybe animal welfare rights, music education for talented but deprived children. Come on there is a vast market of good causes desperate for a well intentioned royal with plenty of time on his/ her hands to do some good.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

It's quite a long list of examples, by people who quite happily betrayed their employers or reported on rumours.









None of those royals you list had the same upbringing as the four british siblings, it's impossible to say something like that. You'll find lots of rumours about all those royals if you look hard enough, except Naruhito for obvious reasons.

At least we agree on one thing, Andrew being the worst among them.

You don't believe that Naruhito, Felipe, Philippe, Carl-Philip, Henri etc had the same closeted, privileged elite ROYAL upbringing as the Windsor four?? Seriously?

As for rumours about them, of course there is and was. Public rudeness, vulgarity, entitlement and other decidedly non Royal behavior?I don't think so. And not only do I have copies of Paris Match and Point de Vue going back almost to 2010, I am on really good terms with Google.

I know that we are veering off topic here. So I'll will just acknowledge that we don't agree on this issue(except for Andrew) and peace out of this conversation.

[Pranter]

Looks like one sponsor has already declined to continue association with Andrew

.https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/sta...XS5LZeZGhiSINc

Sky News understands accountancy firm KPMG has not renewed its sponsorship of the Duke of York's Pitch@Palace initiative with the company saying it "made the decision following adverse press scrutiny around Prince Andrew"