The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Madame Verseau]

From DM - Charles to take over the family business
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-turns-95.html

I have found no other papers running this.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Nevertheless, after more than two weeks, the internet has been unable to debunk the pizza party alibi, hasn't it ? And Mrs Giuffre has not been able to provide any factual evidence that she ever had sex with Prince Andrew. I wonder why everybody assumes that she is more credible than the Duke of York.


I sense that Andrew is the victim of a preconceived idea that he is a straight male and a womanizer (not true either BTW) and, therefore, he must be lying about not having sex with the Epstein girls. If I recall it, he did admit though to having massages, which is not equal to having sex.



The burden is not on Andrew to prove that he is innocent, but rather on those who accuse him of wrongdoings to prove that he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

This is the cultural climate we live in now. Andrew is an idiot but so many in here are ready to call him a sex offender or an accessory to sex trafficking. There is no more innocent until proven guilty it is "I don't like you so you're guilty of something". This is especially popular against men

[Lumutqueen]

Charles has gone to Sandringham a; for the weekend which they often do this time of year and b; for a farming meeting.

The press will draw the slightest of parallels between Mars and the Moon if it got them a story.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

In fact, sometimes it makes me wonder how much of the York success with their children is down to their good choices- or Her Majesty's
when it came to the girls and their upbringing.

From the way Sarah grew up as member of the landed gentry whose only claim later to being "high society" was her excellent manners and the knowledge of the do's and don'ts (even though she did as she wanted later on), it is clear that she would select only the best nanies for their wto little princesses. The kids had to be perfect little girls in order to stay close to their grandmother (and their parents) and be perfect little princesses to the public. No one knew better then Sarah how much hinged on that. So the nannies were surely told to deliver in shaping the girls accordingly.

Just like Lady Louise and Viscount Severn are shaped nowadays.



It's typical of raising minor Royals - they only have some "value" in the monarchy as long as they are invited to those events where they could be invited or not. It's clear they wouldn't be invited to state dinners at all but attending garden parties at BP eg - depends on their behaviour.



That's why I am happy to see them chosing their own husbands and not really in the upper echelons of society - 100 years ago, Beatrice would have been chosen by a foreign prince of the young Duke of Westminster...

[princess carmen]

I worked for an attorney, he said that the innocent until proven guilty is false it is guilty until proven innocent. I think we are all allowed our opinions no one knows for sure but ,
simply my opinion he slept with that under age young girl. Time might tell or it may remain a mystery.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Denville

of course he knew it. He said that he knew he could not go on being friends with Esptetin after it..so he wnet to the US to tell him so (and stayed 4 days). but he knew that Epstein had been convicted of procuring an under age girl for prostitution. if he did that once, and there were lots of young girls hanging around the house of course Andrew knew that Epstein was guilty of a particularly horrible crime involving an under aged girl.. (it wasn't just a man having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, it involved prostitution). He knew perfectly well tht Epstein was not someone it was suitable for him to be seen with.

I'm skeptical about the stated purpose of Andrew's 2010 visit: he went to end the friendship in person because it was the honourable thing to do.


#1
In the interview Andrew said he lost touch with Epstein from 2006-2010. So why after four years was it necessary to let Epstein know the friendship had ended? Didn't he think Epstein had figured that out already?

#2
He also said he lost touch because he knew he couldn't be seen with Epstein who was under investigation. So why was it OK to be seen with Epstein after he had been convicted and released?

#3
According to an article in the Times Andrew secured a $24,500 (£15,000) loan from Epstein in 2010 to help pay Sarah's debts.

I can't help but think the 2010 visit was related to the loan and not to end the friendship.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by texankitcat

All interesting news if this is all true, however, I am rather skeptical on the report of Charles going immediately to Sandringham to be advised by his father. Phillip being 98 and not having been seen in public for some time has me thinking his health may have something to do with the immediate and extended visit. I am sure the Duke has a lot of wisdom on dealing with this crises, however I would think the Queen would be Charles first priority if it was advise/strategy that was needed. It is ultimately up to her Majesty, Charles and William as to Andrews fate. JMO.

After following Andrew's antics Prince Philip is probably recovering from an apoplectic fit.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by texankitcat

All interesting news if this is all true, however, I am rather skeptical on the report of Charles going immediately to Sandringham to be advised by his father. Phillip being 98 and not having been seen in public for some time has me thinking his health may have something to do with the immediate and extended visit. I am sure the Duke has a lot of wisdom on dealing with this crises, however I would think the Queen would be Charles first priority if it was advise/strategy that was needed. It is ultimately up to her Majesty, Charles and William as to Andrews fate. JMO.

I don't usually believe Daily Mail headlines. I agree it may just have to with Philip's health, Charles' farming, whatever....rather than Andrew's scandal.

That being said, Andrew could probably learn something about good PR from his father. While the Duke of Edinburgh has been known for his 'gaffes,' he's never really been engulfed in 'scandal'. Even as recently as this year, he sent a letter of apology to that lady after the car accident which traditionally is not something royals have done, but he recognized that it would smooth over the situation. So I think Philip has always had better judgment when it comes to public relations than Andrew.

[QueenMathilde]

I find the whole case creepy, horrifying and I can't look away. Like a car crash. There are many questions - Epstein went from being a private school teacher to owning islands and having all sorts of famous friends. How do you do that? I suspect he was a pimp all along. I don't believe any of his friends (not just Andrew) didn't know what was what. Why did they all go along with it? Even Bill Gates was hanging out with the guy.
As for Andrew I don't think they had a choice but to make him step down. I don't know if they'll actually supeana him but he can't represent the royals anymore. What was he doing hanging out with these people? He's guilty of bad judgement even if he is innocent of everything else. And I'm not sure he's innocent of everything else.

Originally Posted by rmay286

I don't usually believe Daily Mail headlines. I agree it may just have to with Philip's health, Charles' farming, whatever....rather than Andrew's scandal.

That being said, Andrew could probably learn something about good PR from his father. While the Duke of Edinburgh has been known for his 'gaffes,' he's never really been engulfed in 'scandal'. Even as recently as this year, he sent a letter of apology to that lady after the car accident which traditionally is not something royals have done, but he recognized that it would smooth over the situation. So I think Philip has always had better judgment when it comes to public relations than Andrew.

Yes but Phillip's "gaffes" were just him saying a series of stupid things. He was never accused of raping an underage sex slave which is what Andrew is being accused of. Whether or not it's true Andrew should have never put himself in this position.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by QueenMathilde

I find the whole case creepy, horrifying and I can't look away. Like a car crash. There are many questions - Epstein went from being a private school teacher to owning islands and having all sorts of famous friends. How do you do that? I suspect he was a pimp all along. I don't believe any of his friends (not just Andrew) didn't know what was what. Why did they all go along with it? Even Bill Gates was hanging out with the guy.
As for Andrew I don't think they had a choice but to make him step down. I don't know if they'll actually supeana him but he can't represent the royals anymore. What was he doing hanging out with these people? He's guilty of bad judgement even if he is innocent of everything else. And I'm not sure he's innocent of everything else.

As far as where he got his money: He went to work for one of the big financial houses (hedge funds/investments etc) ...he was evidently VERY successful there and after a couple years left and more or less went into private financial money handling (he handle Lex Wexner's money..the guy who owns Victoria Secret among other companies) ....he was also involved in handling money for other extremely wealthy ppl. There's some big family (Kings..not related to the Texas King Ranch ppl) out in N.M. that he was involved with....there's a big facility out there (Zorro Ranch) he bought.

If you google you can find out more detail on all this.



LaRae

[Lumutqueen]

And it continues;


https://twitter.com/bbcnewspr/status...099144705?s=21

[texankitcat]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

This is the cultural climate we live in now. Andrew is an idiot but so many in here are ready to call him a sex offender or an accessory to sex trafficking. There is no more innocent until proven guilty it is "I don't like you so you're guilty of something". This is especially popular against men

On the other hand there are those that want to paint Andrew as a victim of his own nativity of not knowing or understanding that all these very young women parading in and out of Epstein's homes were in fact underaged and there to provide sex for Epstein's friends. Ghislaine Maxwell who is a good friend of Andrew and who introduced him to Epstein, was in fact recruiting and grooming these girls to provide sex to Epstein and his friends/guests. And yet Andrew was oblivious? That just doesn't ring true. This is a 60 year old man, not a naive adolescent. Even after Epstein's conviction, Andrew stayed with him for 4 days when there is no way he can claim to be oblivious.

Finally, the interview didn't show a man that was naive and oblivious of what was going on around him during his association with Epstein. it showed a man who was deceptive, extremely nervous and caught in a trap of his own making. Hence the incredible backlash from the public.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by texankitcat

All interesting news if this is all true, however, I am rather skeptical on the report of Charles going immediately to Sandringham to be advised by his father. Phillip being 98 and not having been seen in public for some time has me thinking his health may have something to do with the immediate and extended visit. I am sure the Duke has a lot of wisdom on dealing with this crises, however I would think the Queen would be Charles first priority if it was advise/strategy that was needed. It is ultimately up to her Majesty, Charles and William as to Andrews fate. JMO.

It's always a good idea to visit an elderly parent because no matter what kind of health they're in, you just never know........

Charles has been speaking- as I've read - with the Queen on a regular basis and I'm sure he'd do so again at Sandringham. Most observers believe that since Philip has retired, the family has gotten somewhat out of control as he was the one who kept a firm grip on everything. Of course ultimately Charles will strategize with the Queen - as Queen and mother - but aside from any wisdom Philip might share regarding how to proceed under these sad circumstances, he surely would want to add his two cents about how to deal with Andrew as his son/a brother, etc..

I like to see William involved as well. I think BRF is handling this as well as they can - ultimately, I think this damages Andrew and BRF will be fine.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Andrew is off the royal guest list for the reception of NATO leaders

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ind...296.html%3famp

Harry, Meghan, Sophie and William are not attending for various reasons. The irony of Trump coming considering his ties to Epstien. The BRF better brace itself for another car crash interview because Trump will most likely be asked about Andrew.

Not going to happen if Trump has anything to say about it. If anything, Trump will not be wanting to get the press digging and remembering some very legal and public documents of a court case filed in SDNY against Trump years ago in regards to his association to Epstein that makes Andrew look like an altar boy on Sunday morning.

Y'know, I would never in a million years have even thought of Andrew as someone being on a list of invitees for a NATO reception. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

From the way Sarah grew up as member of the landed gentry whose only claim later to being "high society" was her excellent manners and the knowledge of the do's and don'ts (even though she did as she wanted later on), it is clear that she would select only the best nanies for their wto little princesses. The kids had to be perfect little girls in order to stay close to their grandmother (and their parents) and be perfect little princesses to the public. No one knew better then Sarah how much hinged on that. So the nannies were surely told to deliver in shaping the girls accordingly.

Just like Lady Louise and Viscount Severn are shaped nowadays.



It's typical of raising minor Royals - they only have some "value" in the monarchy as long as they are invited to those events where they could be invited or not. It's clear they wouldn't be invited to state dinners at all but attending garden parties at BP eg - depends on their behaviour.



That's why I am happy to see them chosing their own husbands and not really in the upper echelons of society - 100 years ago, Beatrice would have been chosen by a foreign prince of the young Duke of Westminster...

I agree with everything you stated, however...both young women have indeed chosen husbands from the 'upper echelons of society" especially Beatrice.

And contrary to popular belief here in the USA, Jack Brooksbanks is not "just a bartender". He is an aristocrat in all but name.

Otherwise Andrew would not have been as thrilled as he was with Eugenie's engagement. He was practically rocking back on his heels with glee. There is no way he would have been happy with an average guy for either of his girls.

[Dman]

Andrew need to drop all his royal patronage’s, instead of letting this constant drip, drip, drip of patronage’s dropping him on a daily basis.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Dman

Andrew need to drop all his royal patronage’s, instead of letting this constant drip, drip, drip of patronage’s dropping him on a daily basis.

He dropped all 230 of them a few days ago: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...s-of-charities

[Denville]

Originally Posted by rmay286

He dropped all 230 of them a few days ago: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...s-of-charities

only after several had dropped him....

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by texankitcat

On the other hand there are those that want to paint Andrew as a victim of his own nativity of not knowing or understanding that all these very young women parading in and out of Epstein's homes were in fact underaged and there to provide sex for Epstein's friends.

I realize you might be referring to another poster but just to clarify...I never stated anything of this. I only pointed out that Andrew may have been unaware that the women were victims of sex trafficking, in the sense that they weren't willing participants. I also pointed out that not every powerful man surrounded by young women is a sex trafficker.

And I attributed this to Andrew's cluelessness and obliviousness not naivete.

I could be completely wrong - maybe Andrew did know - but at this point we can't state whether Andrew did or did not know as fact, which is what some posters are doing. We just don't know.

But of course being clueless or oblivious doesn't explain or excuse Andrew's continued friendship with Epstein after his conviction and I've never stated it does.

Ghislaine Maxwell who is a good friend of Andrew and who introduced him to Epstein, was in fact recruiting and grooming these girls to provide sex to Epstein and his friends/guests.

No, its actually not a fact that Ghislaine Maxwell did this. It's an allegation. I personally believe the allegation is true but that doesn't make it a fact. It has to be proven.

For example, in another post I stated I'm skeptical that Andrew visited Epstein in 2010 to end their friendship. I think it involved the loan Epstein made to Sarah. But that doesn't mean I can state that as a fact. I can say "I think/believe/suspect Andrew visited Epstein to discuss Sarah's loan" but I can't say "Andrew visited Epstein to discuss Sarah's loan." Because I don't know it to be a fact, I'm only speculating.

And yet Andrew was oblivious? That just doesn't ring true. This is a 60 year old man, not a naive adolescent. Even after Epstein's conviction, Andrew stayed with him for 4 days when there is no way he can claim to be oblivious.

Yes, Ghislaine Maxwell was Andrew's friend. But I'm skeptical she would have told him she and Epstein were engaged in sex trafficking. I think she's evil but I don't think she's stupid. I suspect that's one of the reasons why Epstein and Ghislaine got away with this so long - I believe both were very clever and manipulative and knew when to keep their mouths shut and when to wear a mask, so to speak.

I agree, there's no excuse for Andrew's visit to Epstein following his conviction. I've never stated otherwise.

Finally, the interview didn't show a man that was naive and oblivious of what was going on around him during his association with Epstein. it showed a man who was deceptive, extremely nervous and caught in a trap of his own making. Hence the incredible backlash from the public.

I've never stated Andrew was naive. Only clueless and oblivious. IMO the interview showed this very clearly. Did he really believe his pathetic answers would clear his name? He really didn't know there were pictures all over the internet proving (1) he sweats (2) he doesn't always wear a suit and tie (3) he hugs women?

To me its obvious he didn't which IMO shows exactly what I said - he's clueless and oblivious.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by rmay286

He dropped all 230 of them a few days ago: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...s-of-charities

No he didn’t. The article says he is standing back from his patronage’s. Nothing about removing himself as their patronage. Simply because he can’t, he is asked to be someone’s royal patronage, or he has inherited them/been given them from his father but always at the agreement of the charities involved.

It is the patronage’s themselves that must remove him.