The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Madame Verseau]

The financial scandal is doing just as much damage to the BRF as well as the Epstein mess. But this time it's raising anti monarchy sentiment. It's bad when there are calls to open the books on every Windsor.

[Sunnystar]

If these allegations are even half true, this is VERY bad for the BRF.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

The financial scandal is doing just as much damage to the BRF as well as the Epstein mess. But this time it's raising anti monarchy sentiment. It's bad when there are calls to open the books on every Windsor.

That would be investigating into each and every member of the royal family's individual and personal wealth. It wouldn't have anything to do with the finances of the monarchy as everything and anything that is spent out of the Sovereign Grant which finances the "Firm" and official engagements, tours, office staff and such is released each year and published and accounted for as to where the monies were spent. Personal investments are a horse of a different color here.

I'm not a finance lawyer and have no idea if Andrew could face any kind of criminal proceedings with the information that's been alleged (not proven yet) of shady and covert ways he's used the "Firm" for his own gain. Its bad enough that its now reported that Andrew has used and abused his position within the "Firm" but I don't see how this could possibly have other members of the family involved (other than perhaps Sarah).

Amending my statement that pride goes before a fall and Andrew was standing at the edge of a cliff. His actions if all these allegations are proven to be true, would be Andrew skydiving back to Earth from the space shuttle while it was still in orbit.

[O-H Anglophile]

I think lack of ethics is a far greater issue than illegality in Andrew’s alleged business practices. Unfortunately, too many rich and wanna be rich people are unethical in business dealings.
Frankly, I can’t see Charles following Andrew’s business advice-I’m not sure how Andrew’s wider family circle would be involved.

[tommy100]

Andrew has always been a loose cannon and has always seemed obsessed with money and wealth and thinking he is a business man whereas Anne and Edward are more happy with their lot in life. I don't think this is a scandal which will involve the wider RF tbh. But that won't stop some on the MPs and media demanding to investigate of the whole RF.

The reality is IMO, the Epstein scandal was easy for the RF to brush off as Andrew being Andrew, what he does in his private time his issue. But this financial scandal is a bigger issue as it involves the official side of the RF, its a conflict of interest suggesting Andrew has been using his official role to line his pockets. Andrew is a silly silly man who just shows horrendous judgement and stupidity in everything he does.

[Madame Verseau]

The Epstein mess is not a private matter; otherwise the FBI would not be involved.

DM has two separate stories that Andrew and his fired private secretary have leaked government documents

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orced-out.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ss-tycoon.html

I don't know if this will lead to a criminal investigation, but if it does I wonder if Amanda Thrisk will ride or die (fierce loyalty to the bitter end) for Andrew and protect him.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

The Epstein mess is not a private matter; otherwise the FBI would not be involved.

Andrew and his relationship with Epstein/Maxwell was conducted on Andrew's private time and not connected to his roles and duties and engagement where he represented the Queen and the UK. Which would make it Andrew's private affairs and not involving the "Firm" whatsoever.

The financial allegations are different because they point to the possibility of Andrew using his "official" engagements and travels and meetings that appear in the Court Circular as "official" as the means to conduct his own financial wheeling and dealings which is not what the "Firm" represents or expects its members to engage in let alone finance it (Sovereign Grant and security by Met Police funded by taxpayers). Its pointing to using and abusing his royal roles for personal gain.

Another angle to look at is that Andrew did value his connections through Epstein, a successful financier. His private secretary, Amanda Thirsk (now CEO of Pitch), was a successful banker herself before going to work for Andrew in 2012, I believe.

Perhaps there's nothing criminal going on here but I would imagine that if its becoming known of offshore hedge funds or tax havens or whatever you would call it, its very likely that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs office (HMRC) may want to take a serious look at Andrew and his finances. Then again, it could be all above board and legit.

The uproar is Andrew is alleged to using his "official" role financed by the Sovereign Grant to conduct on the side and covert business dealings for his own personal gain. That, to me, makes his private affairs with his "friends" Epstein/Maxwell look like a kindergarten story time book.

I'm going to hold off on the other stuff such as government papers being passed on until it comes from a more reliable source than the DM. I don't click on their articles and I don't read them.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Osipi

There have always been rumblings of Andrew using official trips for his own pleasure and lavish stays and hence the moniker "Air Miles Andy" but it should be proven that he was soliciting those that he met in his official capacity for personal financial gain, we're seeing someone that has no respect or concern or devotion to the family "Firm".

There are always going to be people in this world that live, eat and breathe by the thought "what's in it for me?". If the Queen and her "Firm" have come to realize that all these allegations in the DM are, in fact, true, Andrew will never again represent the BRF in *any* capacity and will have lost the biggest faction of his "connections" along with any shred of respect and decency he may still have had.

It may not be connected but the light bulb in my head flashed on a memory of long ago of Sarah's financial dealings in the British Virgin Islands. Remember the Panama Papers thing?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...er-mills-amon/

Of course it's true!
Because Andrew, and especially Fergie, do not have the income to live as they do.
Andrew could live well, but in the same style as Edward, not Croesus.

And Fergie spends money like water. Yet she never faces any repercussions, just flies all over the world and indulges in London's finest venues.

Like I said before, the money has to come from someplace.

[Denville]

Loans from Epstein, it appears and probably connextions with rich people that Epstein has made for Andrew.. and that Andrew has made for himself durng his time as Trade Envoy...

[texankitcat]

Not a bit surprised to see yet another scandal due to his shady deals and behavior. This is not good for the Royal Family.

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by rebbevb

I do hope this controversy doesn't ruin the wedding day of HRH Princess Bea of York. I of course feel so bad for the victims I truly do but I do truly also hope that HRH Princess Bea's wedding day will be the Bridal Couple's Day To Shine and not ruined by this controversy when her father walks her down the aisle.

That's what I was thinking. I like Bea and Eugenie. I also hope if Meghan is pregnant she doesn't announce it on or around Bea's wedding day like she did Eugenie. That's the only thing she's done that I don't like and I'm not sure why she did it. They've already said no televised wedding and it has to be smaller but it can still be a perfectly nice wedding.

[Curryong]

It's not just the smell of corruption that's wafted around Andrew (and Sarah) for years. There are now allegations in some newspapers that Andrew has been keeping in close contact with Ghislaine Maxwell throughout all this, by phone and email, right up to the present time. That not only speaks if it is true of the most incredible stupidity on Andrew's part but it's deeply concerning on a lot of other levels as well.

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Andrew and his relationship with Epstein/Maxwell was conducted on Andrew's private time and not connected to his roles and duties and engagement where he represented the Queen and the UK. Which would make it Andrew's private affairs and not involving the "Firm" whatsoever.

The financial allegations are different because they point to the possibility of Andrew using his "official" engagements and travels and meetings that appear in the Court Circular as "official" as the means to conduct his own financial wheeling and dealings which is not what the "Firm" represents or expects its members to engage in let alone finance it (Sovereign Grant and security by Met Police funded by taxpayers). Its pointing to using and abusing his royal roles for personal gain.

Another angle to look at is that Andrew did value his connections through Epstein, a successful financier. His private secretary, Amanda Thirsk (now CEO of Pitch), was a successful banker herself before going to work for Andrew in 2012, I believe.

Perhaps there's nothing criminal going on here but I would imagine that if its becoming known of offshore hedge funds or tax havens or whatever you would call it, its very likely that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs office (HMRC) may want to take a serious look at Andrew and his finances. Then again, it could be all above board and legit.

The uproar is Andrew is alleged to using his "official" role financed by the Sovereign Grant to conduct on the side and covert business dealings for his own personal gain. That, to me, makes his private affairs with his "friends" Epstein/Maxwell look like a kindergarten story time book.

I'm going to hold off on the other stuff such as government papers being passed on until it comes from a more reliable source than the DM. I don't click on their articles and I don't read them.

I'm one of the few who likes Sarah, Bea and Eugenie but this isn't going to wash. The belief is that the queen should have put a stop to Andrew's relationship with Epstein and she didn't. Not even when Epstein was charged with being a pimp. So the queen is going to get blamed if she continues to let Andrew perform his public duties - so will Charles. They know it. It's just too bad Andrew chose to hang out with Epstein and Maxwell after he was charged with a crime.

[Betsypaige]

I haven’t had a chance to read the DM article, but on Twitter, Richard Palmer said that it raises “serious questions” about the judgment of both the Queen and Prince Charles. Do you think this is so? I don’t think it’s fair that they be tarnished with the same brush as Andrew, who has brought this all on himself.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

I haven’t had a chance to read the DM article, but on Twitter, Richard Palmer said that it raises “serious questions” about the judgment of both the Queen and Prince Charles. Do you think this is so? I don’t think it’s fair that they be tarnished with the same brush as Andrew, who has brought this all on himself.

I doubt if Charles was happy with Andrew's general behaviour. the queen however seems to have been blinded by her partiality for Andrew and to have over looked his behaviour...That said, yes it is mainly on Andrew

[Ista]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

I haven’t had a chance to read the DM article, but on Twitter, Richard Palmer said that it raises “serious questions” about the judgment of both the Queen and Prince Charles. Do you think this is so? I don’t think it’s fair that they be tarnished with the same brush as Andrew, who has brought this all on himself.

Of course the primary responsibility is Andrew's, but he would not have been able to abuse his position in the way that is alleged if there had been tighter oversight from the Queen. I have posted about this before, but I have noted for a long time that the Queen does not seem to exert nearly as careful control on the activities of her family as is sometimes fantasized about on this forum, and which, frankly, she should--or someone should. Sir Christopher Geidt seems to have made an attempt to bring everything under a single umbrella, and as we now know, that resulted in his ouster due to objections from both Andrew and Charles. I wonder if Charles is having second thoughts about that now?

Ultimately, Andrew wouldn't have been able to get away with as many ill-judged/unethical/questionable decisions if the Queen had not permitted him to, so in my mind, the buck stops there so far as the effect on the credibility of the monarchy goes. Eptein was the tip of the iceberg.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Denville

I doubt if Charles was happy with Andrew's general behaviour. the queen however seems to have been blinded by her partiality for Andrew and to have over looked his behaviour...That said, yes it is mainly on Andrew

I could see that since the Queen is still only human and also a mother aside from being Queen....I guess Andrew represents to her the chance to be a present mother as she couldn't be with Charles and Anne, so I understand why he's her baby in some respect. I think it's good that Charles is being so strong at this time as the Queen is 93 and it's no shame to if she needs his help...

Of course the primary responsibility is Andrew's, but he would not have been able to abuse his position in the way that is alleged if there had been tighter oversight from the Queen. I have posted about this before, but I have noted for a long time that the Queen does not seem to exert nearly as careful control on the activities of her family as is sometimes fantasized about on this forum, and which, frankly, she should--or someone should. Sir Christopher Geidt seems to have made an attempt to bring everything under a single umbrella, and as we now know, that resulted in his ouster due to objections from both Andrew and Charles. I wonder if Charles is having second thoughts about that now?

Ultimately, Andrew wouldn't have been able to get away with as many ill-judged/unethical/questionable decisions if the Queen had not permitted him to, so in my mind, the buck stops there so far as the effect on the credibility of the monarchy goes. Eptein was the tip of the iceberg.

Ista, I was wondering the same thing about Sir Christopher Geidt. From what I've read about him, it seems that he's exactly who needs to be brought back into the fold. I'm not sure what Charles' objections were, but I would imagine that indeed he is having second thoughts.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Ista

Of course the primary responsibility is Andrew's, but he would not have been able to abuse his position in the way that is alleged if there had been tighter oversight from the Queen. I have posted about this before, but I have noted for a long time that the Queen does not seem to exert nearly as careful control on the activities of her family as is sometimes fantasized about on this forum, and which, frankly, she should--or someone should. Sir Christopher Geidt seems to have made an attempt to bring everything under a single umbrella, and as we now know, that resulted in his ouster due to objections from both Andrew and Charles. I wonder if Charles is having second thoughts about that now?

Ultimately, Andrew wouldn't have been able to get away with as many ill-judged/unethical/questionable decisions if the Queen had not permitted him to, so in my mind, the buck stops there so far as the effect on the credibility of the monarchy goes. Eptein was the tip of the iceberg.

but the queen has always been prone to "ostrich" behaviour.. of tyring to ignore problems and let them go away. I thought that the disaster of th 90s had woken her up a bit and she became more pro active.. but I suspect wtiht Andrew she has still tended to ignore the problems or turn a blind eye

[texankitcat]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

I haven’t had a chance to read the DM article, but on Twitter, Richard Palmer said that it raises “serious questions” about the judgment of both the Queen and Prince Charles. Do you think this is so? I don’t think it’s fair that they be tarnished with the same brush as Andrew, who has brought this all on himself.

It absolutely calls into question why and how Andrew has been able to do all these shady deals under the nose of the Queen and Prince Charles all these years. It defies logic that they would have been kept completely ignorant of Andrew’s actions considering how the Firm works.

It’s going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out. There is no question that Andrew’s actions are doing serious damage to the Monarchy.

[Ista]

Originally Posted by Denville

but the queen has always been prone to "ostrich" behaviour.. of tyring to ignore problems and let them go away. I thought that the disaster of th 90s had woken her up a bit and she became more pro active.. but I suspect wtiht Andrew she has still tended to ignore the problems or turn a blind eye

I agree, and for a long time shared the same hope regarding the learning curve from the PR disasters in the '90's. I think, however, we've seen multiple instances over the last few years of things that could have been avoided with more careful oversight and more centralized control over messaging. What really saddens me is the negative effects for the monarchy we are seeing. Andrew has a lot to answer for, but the problem is obviously a lot deeper than just his Epstein connection.