The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Pranter]

Me too...I hope they escape more negative because of one of their parents.


LaRae

[Osipi]

One thing I've realized is that any misdeeds or accusations of an alleged crime and all of Andrew's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein dates back to *before* Andrew, because of his association with Epstein, was removed as the UK's trade envoy position in 2011. I believe it is true that Andrew has not associated with or has seen Epstein since then. He has, however, seen Ghislaine Maxwell.

If Epstein had never been arrested again and the current charges of sex trafficking levied against him and then his subsequent suicide, Andrew's association with Epstein most like would never have been thought of again and it would be business as usual for the Duke of York.

However, it is apparent to me that Andrew's troubles and woes today do not stem from the allegations against him by anyone (Giuffre) is not the issue of why Andrew is removed from public duties for the "forseeable future" but due to his own demeanor and his flimsy excuses and his overall lack of humanity with having no regrets of his "friendship" with Epstein that has prompted them.

We're looking at two different situations. First is the unanswered questions and the truth behind allegations of immoral and perhaps criminal behavior with minors. The second one is Andrew's character and morals and ethics and how he's presented himself to the general public in that interview.

Basically, he's lost face and positions and respect and support *twice* over all his association with Epstein years ago. Reminds me of getting in trouble in grade school and the nuns threatening that this will go on your permanent record. In the end, what you do always comes back to bite you in the back of the front if ignored and swept under the proverbial rug.

What has happened to Andrew now is far, far worse than it being proven that he slept with Ms. Giuffre years ago. What Andrew has done to himself is to do a self portrait of a man that has been found lacking in character and regard for humanity painted with the colors of arrogance and ego and self importance. Organizations are dropping Andrew because of Andrew and not because of any allegations against him still to be proven.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by amaryllus

Look... At this point as Parents Phillip and Elizabeth will be going through a range of Emotions: Anger at him, great disappointment, rational or irrational self blame as parents as to where they went wrong.

What about dismay at seeing their son being accused of unproven crimes ?

[CyrilVladisla]

Before Prince Andrew resigns from any patronages, could Queen Elizabeth II assign Princess Eugenie to take over some of the patronages' royal duties?

[Gawin]

An article in The Guardian claims the "Is the monarchy fit for purpose" question raised during the Johnson-Corbyn debate was the tipping point:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-point-reached

[WillVictoria]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Before Prince Andrew resigns from any patronages, could Queen Elizabeth II assign Princess Eugenie to take over some of the patronages' royal duties?

She can assign anyone those duties (provided the patronage wants the chosen patron). However, as I've said before, the York girls probably weren't getting royal duties before their father nuked his reputation and they certainly aren't getting it now.

Simply put, given the perception that Andrew has been begging the Queen to give his daughters full-time royal roles and the privileges it entails (money from the Sovereign Grant, grace and favor homes, etc...) if Bea &/or Eugenie went full time to replace Andrew there would be the perception that Andrew won something out of this bargain. Sure he's out from royal duties, but now his girls are guaranteed free protection and housing for the rest of their lives.

(And before anyone says that Andrew hasn't been pushing for Bea and Eugenie to get royal roles, the public believes he has, and as Andrew should have learned perception is reality)

[HRHHermione]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

What about dismay at seeing their son being accused of unproven crimes ?

Please. It is a proven fact that Andrew was at the home of Jeffrey Epstein where very young women were present AFTER Epstein had already been convicted as a sex offender. The proven facts, which are documented in multiple photographs, are damning.

He may or may not be innocent of victimizing these young women personally, but he is absolutely guilty of continuing to associate with a convicted pedophile which is morally abhorrent by the standards of all reasonable people.

[Alison H]

I'm sorry for the Queen and Prince Philip, who don't need this at their ages, and for Beatrice who should be enjoying planning her wedding. I don't see why any of the papers are blaming the Duchess of York over the interview. Prince Andrew is 59 years old - he's not a child to be told what to do.


I bet Prince Charles has had plenty to say.


It's all very well "slimming down" the monarchy, but royal patronage is very important to charities. The Duke of Kent and the Gloucesters do a lot, for very little recognition, but none of them are getting any younger.

[tommy100]

Fergie hanging out the window of her car at BP gates in order to ensure she is seen just about sums this disaster up.

I said it yesterday and will say it again, I'm not sure the "stepping back from public duties" theory was every more than a PR exercise. I think they tried to soften the blow by saying Andrew could keep pitch@palace but this relies totally on sponsorship and business links which are disappearing fast. However, in fairness I do think it would be a shame for this charity to disappear as it does good work for budding businesses that may not get a start otherwise. That said I don't see it having a future, or certainly not the future it could have if Andrew stays at the helm. Likewise it relies at the moment on Andrew's office's funding, funding for his travels around the world to drum up business for it and the use of official residences (BP and StJames') for venues to host its events. I think pitch@palace has a future if it can set itself up independently of any official funding and maybe find a new person to front it (maybe Eugenie or Beatrice).

I have to say after the initial dramatic sounding statement it sounds like Andrew is getting more than we thought he would. To me it now sounds as if they are simply saying Andrew won't undertake duties where he formally represents the Queen but will be allowed to work for charities as an individual if he wants, for to some maybe but hardly the dramatic cut off and stepping aside we were led to believe last night.

I think senior aides need to recognise the fact that this is far from over, thinking the statement last night will be enough is naive, anything Andrew related needs the very best PR people and senior courtiers working on it and the decisions need to come down more on the tough side than the lenient, for now at least.

[Ista]

If this is true, then it is clear why Andrew has no intention of giving up Pitch@Palace:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...-can-take-cut/

With the Epstein investigation ongoing, I do wonder how Andrew continuing with this initiative, profiting from it, using his palace staff, and his access to palaces as venues is going to play.

[Marengo]

If true that seems to undo much of the message of yesterday. The technicalities of the arrangement -in private capacity, not related to his royal status- will perhaps be lost on many.

---

I am always surprised at how de-politicized the British RF is - not a good or a bad thing, just an observation.

Can we expect the government to step in at one point or is it likely they will leave an issue of this magnitude to the palace completely? I suppose it possible that there were [are?] communications ongoing between the palace and Downing Street to find a way out?

In The Netherlands and Belgium a situation like this would inevitably lead to the prime minister's office getting involved for two reasons. Firstly it is the prime minister who is responsible for the actions of members of the royal house and secondly it would be raining questions in parliament, which would force the PM to act. In situations like these it is perhaps easier for a prime minister to make the right decision than it is for a parent.

[camelot23ca]

Regarding Andrew’s patronages, on one hand, it’s a shame for the organizations that now have to unexpectedly deal with this situation.

On the other hand - well, it could be used as a test case on how to handle extricating the BRF from their patronages. I’ve seen speculation on this thread about how they’re going to parcel out Andrew’s patronages and also how they’ll do the same once the Queen is gone and my guess on that is that they’re not. Instead there will be a lot of organizations that will simply no longer have a royal patron.

In the near future royals of the Queen’s generation will no longer be with us. Anne and Edward may not want or be able to continue the work they currently do as they get older and their children, as well as Eugenie and Beatrice will not be taking their parents’ places - they may be associated with one or two organizations that especially interest them but that’s it.

So over, let’s say, the next ten years the working royal family will be made up of Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry and Meghan. And it will be at least twenty years from now before William’s children can start taking on a significant amount of royal work. So I think there are a ton of patronages that will be “orphaned” quite soon. I don’t see anything wrong with that.. the only reason so many organizations were able to get royal patronage was the Queen and DoE having four children, a situation that hasn’t been repeated in subsequent generations.

[camelot23ca]

Originally Posted by Marengo

I am always surprised at how de-politicized the British RF is - not a good or a bad thing, just an observation.

Can we expect the government to step in at one point or is it likely they will leave an issue of this magnitude to the palace completely? I suppose it possible that there were [are?] communications ongoing between the palace and Downing Street to find a way out?

In The Netherlands and Belgium a situation like this would inevitably lead to the prime minister's office getting involved for two reasons. Firstly it is the prime minister who is responsible for the actions of members of the royal house and secondly it would be raining questions in parliament, which would force the PM to act. In situations like these it is perhaps easier for a prime minister to make the right decision than it is for a parent.

I think the government was giving the BRF and its advisors the chance to make the right decision. The Queen as an individual may believe the decision for Andrew to step away from public life was the right call to make, but she’s also been doing this long enough to recognize if she didn’t act the decision would be made for her.

I also think that at this particular moment no British politician would want to be seen as pressuring or even bullying an elderly, tremendously respected monarch so they watched their step.

[tommy100]

I'm shocked at the suggestion gets a cut from any success from pitch@palace personally. I would think, and like to hope, that any cut goes back to the organisation rather than Andrew personally.

Really is starting to look like Wednesday's message was nothing but words.

[Leopoldine]

Andrew's Police Protection team can probably provide a lot of answers, but if they are like the Secret Service, they will not want to come forward voluntarily as they don't want to lose the trust of the royals, diplomats and politicians they protect.

Be that as it may, I'm sure Andrew's former police team would provide detailed records if Andrew asked them to.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

Andrew's Police Protection team can probably provide a lot of answers, but if they are like the Secret Service, they will not want to come forward voluntarily as they don't want to lose the trust of the royals, diplomats and politicians they protect.

Be that as it may, I'm sure Andrew's former police team would provide detailed records if Andrew asked them to.

The Royalty and Specialist Protection (RaSP) are a branch of London's Metropolitan Police Service and are as such not answerable to Prince Andrew personally.

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by Marengo

If true that seems to undo much of the message of yesterday. The technicalities of the arrangement -in private capacity, not related to his royal status- will perhaps be lost on many.

---

I am always surprised at how de-politicized the British RF is - not a good or a bad thing, just an observation.

Can we expect the government to step in at one point or is it likely they will leave an issue of this magnitude to the palace completely? I suppose it possible that there were [are?] communications ongoing between the palace and Downing Street to find a way out?

In The Netherlands and Belgium a situation like this would inevitably lead to the prime minister's office getting involved for two reasons. Firstly it is the prime minister who is responsible for the actions of members of the royal house and secondly it would be raining questions in parliament, which would force the PM to act. In situations like these it is perhaps easier for a prime minister to make the right decision than it is for a parent.

The Government and The Establishment etc through various forms has had its say to advise and agree with the Queen of what's already done, the vast majority of which is rarely done in public. We aren't going to see a PM calling a vote to strip Andrew of anything via parliament unless it comes up even more during the GE as a legal change.

[vkrish]

Some articles say Andrew is defying the place's decision by going ahead with pitch@palace.
Other POV is the palace hypocrisy using a mere technicality and letting him go about doing his public events..

[Osipi]

I've come to see it as Andrew is stepping away from his public duties to the "Firm" and engagements where he represents the Queen and the monarchy. The Queen is his boss as far as the "Firm" is concerned. What she says, goes.

Pitch@Palace is to be moved away from being part of Andrew's "official" royal incentives and deemed to be his own in the private, commercial sector. The "Firm" no longer will be paying for anything that Andrew does and his office and staff will also no longer be covered by the Sovereign Grant but rather from his mother's private income from the Duchy of Lancaster.

In other words, its starting to look very much like Andrew will be doing charities and patronages and such but along the same lines as his daughters do. On their own and not connected to the Queen, the monarchy or the "Firm". Andrew more or less has been relegated to being a private citizen for the time being and "forseeable future" and totally on his own. He may even find that he prefers his life this way for all we know.

[Roderick]

Prince Andrew, by way of being the Queen's son, has always had doors opened for him and by his nature, seems to have taken advantage of this perhaps more than his brothers and sister have. Even privately now, some of these doors may close in his face and friends and venues previously welcoming him may be afraid of the association. I don't think it's a matter for him to live the same life simply without royal engagements and patronages. I do think his life will be vastly different, at least for a considerable time. This is even without any further allegations or legal action against him.