The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

@sndral - that was what I was meaning. Stepping down from royal duties is not enough. Andrew needs to talk to the Feds and dragging down the royal house. And he should lose his HRH.

You talk as if Andrew has committed a crime and should be hung, drawn and quartered. The actuality of it is that Andrew is just a very small sunfish in the schemes of Epstein and Maxwell. Andrew may have questionable morals, be highly arrogant and egotistic and be a buffoon to boot but as far as I've seen, the only person he's been dragging down is himself. And down he went.

With the release recently of court documents pertaining to Ghislaine Maxwell, I think the Feds have more than enough to bring her case to court and put her away for a long, long time and once again, the Feds are *not* looking into who slept with whom but are pursuing totally different charges such as sex trafficking.

The House of Windsor has not been affected by this other than seeing Andrew ostracized from public duties and put out to pasture. That, to me, is enough.

[Lori138]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

...and after he talks to the Feds and is stripped of HRH, that will still not be enough for some.

There will be demands that he leave Royal Lodge...the home that is his by his late grandmother's will.

Then the demand that HMQ give a public address disinheriting him.

If he has appeared in any film or photographs of the weddings of his daughters, he should be airbrushed out immediately.

Then...he should be stripped of all accolades earned during his military service

And then...he should be banned from attending the funerals of his parents.
Only then will the House of Windsor survive.

Exactly Moonmaiden. Goodness me some people are out for blood. Maybe he should be hung, drawn and quartered as well with his head displayed on London Bridge.

[HereditaryPrincess]

Originally Posted by Osipi

You talk as if Andrew has committed a crime and should be hung, drawn and quartered. The actuality of it is that Andrew is just a very small sunfish in the schemes of Epstein and Maxwell. Andrew may have questionable morals, be highly arrogant and egotistic and be a buffoon to boot but as far as I've seen, the only person he's been dragging down is himself. And down he went.

With the release recently of court documents pertaining to Ghislaine Maxwell, I think the Feds have more than enough to bring her case to court and put her away for a long, long time and once again, the Feds are *not* looking into who slept with whom but are pursuing totally different charges such as sex trafficking.

The House of Windsor has not been affected by this other than seeing Andrew ostracized from public duties and put out to pasture. That, to me, is enough.

A small sunfish who still may have committed rape and sexual encounters with underage girls. That IS a big crime and should have a lengthy prison sentence IMO. The others involved in Epstein's trafficking ring should also be given the same treatment.

I don't think people realise the severity of the situation if it turns out that Andrew is guilty.

[Lilyflo]

Andrew is still the Queen's son and until he's found guilty of any illegal activity (which may never happen), she's unlikely to be significantly harmed by any photos of them together in private activities eg attending church or riding.

The monarchy will survive because prior to any conviction, it has already stripped him of all official duties. He has no public role, he does not represent the crown in any capacity and if there's any doubt about how serious the BRF takes these accusations, he wasn't even included in the official photos of his eldest daughter's wedding.

I have no doubt that Charles and William will protect the monarchy and they'll do whatever it takes to ensure that its future isn't scuppered by Andrew's indiscretions (at best) or involvement in the sexual abuse of trafficked teenagers (at worst).

[sndral]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

...
There will be demands that he leave Royal Lodge...the home that is his by his late grandmother's will.
...:

Since the Queen mother’s will was never published we don’t know what she left to whom. Royal Lodge, however, is a crown estate property and thus was never the QM’s to will to anyone. She died in 2002, he wanted a place to live after the Sunninghill debacle, so he negotiated a lease for the then vacant property with the crown estate in 2003.
My point about Andrew is that his behavior reflects poorly on the family and institution that enabled it, thus it wouldn’t be surprising for that family/institution to face scrutiny. I see the issue of what the consequences to Andrew personally should be as a different issue, although how the RF deals w/ consequences to Andrew may influence the bigger issues, IMO.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess

A small sunfish who still may have committed rape and sexual encounters with underage girls. That IS a big crime and should have a lengthy prison sentence IMO. The others involved in Epstein's trafficking ring should also be given the same treatment.

I don't think people realise the severity of the situation if it turns out that Andrew is guilty.

The thing is that there is no one actively pursuing to indict Andrew on any of these things at this time. There have been allegations made by Ms. Guiffre but until she files a civil lawsuit, anything Andrew may or may not have done are exactly that. Alleged. Innocent until proven guilty kind of thing.

In the UK, the Met Police looked into Guiffre's claims and as Guiffre was of the age of consent in the UK, the Met police found no reason to pursue that case. As far as I'm aware, there have been no other allegations against Andrew other than Guiffre's.

[Moonmaiden23]

My concern is whether or not Andrew KNEW these young women were trafficked. We are not discussing little girls with pigtails and dolls.

There are photos of them living the high life on the Riviera looking to be having a very glamorous life with Naomi Campbell among others.

Virginia looks anything BUT uncertain/confused/ unhappy in her now infamous photo with her arm around Prince Andrew.

So my question is...did PA know these young women had been trafficked? Or did Epstein and Ghislaine give the impression that they were simply part of a very willing harem who were around to provide certain ...amenities...to Epstein's important friends in exchange for access to the glamorous life of mansions, private jets, and Riviera parties?

By all means. If proof can be found that Andrew KNEW these were trafficked females and that he engaged in activities with minors while KNOWING THAT THEY WERE MINORS..then yes. Throw the book at him and let it rip.

But we are not there yet. Period.

[Osipi]

To be honest, its not impossible that Andrew never even gave it a thought about just how those girls were available. He could have thought that they were just part of the Epstein "posse" that surrounded him much like the footmen, butlers and valets and such that always has surrounded him his entire life. Andrew is not the most altruistic person on this planet nor is he the brightest crayon in the box.

I think Epstein and Maxwell took great pains to keep their activities very private even to the extent of keeping dossiers on their friends that enjoyed the "perks" of Epstein's circle. These two definitely knew what they were doing and took great pains to keep just how those girls were available secret. Other men, perhaps a bit more conscientious, that caught on to what was really going on, would have blown the whole works out of the water and Epstein and Maxwell took great pains to ensure that didn't happen.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess

A small sunfish who still may have committed rape and sexual encounters with underage girls. That IS a big crime and should have a lengthy prison sentence IMO. The others involved in Epstein's trafficking ring should also be given the same treatment.

I don't think people realise the severity of the situation if it turns out that Andrew is guilty.

I am not aware of anyone having accused Prince Andrew of rape. Nor am I aware of the Prince having had sex with anyone under the age of consent in England.



I also think it is premature to make conjectures about the severity of Andrew being guilty when he has not even been charged with any crime yet.

[HereditaryPrincess]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I am not aware of anyone having accused Prince Andrew of rape. Nor am I aware of the Prince having had sex with anyone under the age of consent in England.



I also think it is premature to make conjectures about the severity of Andrew being guilty when he has not even been charged with any crime yet.

The Guardian states that an underaged girl was forced to have intercourse with Andrew - that’s a clear definition of “rape” if it is true:


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...effrey-epstein

It’s not premature to say that what Andrew might be involved with is severe either. Unless you are of the mindset of those who inflict these crimes (obviously not saying you are, but in general) any sexual interactions with minors who cannot give consent is a severe crime. I know the court may give different sentences depending on the nature of the crime but morally all sexual interactions with minors (especially if Andrew knew that they were minors) will have severe consequences for Andrew’s future - or lack of - in the BRF and associations with the life he was used to.

Note that I’ve always said *if* in my posts, as we still do not know the outcomes of the case. So I’m not saying it’s definite Andrew is involved because he has not yet been proven guilty by court. Nobody knows any confirmed cases, but several victims of Epstein’s trafficking ring have come forward.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess

The Guardian states that an underaged girl was forced to have intercourse with Andrew - that’s a clear definition of “rape” if it is true:


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...effrey-epstein
.

The girl mentioned in this article, who is supposed to be Virginia Giuffre, has said herself that Prince Andrew never raped her. And as I said, I am not aware of her ever accusing him of any such thing.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess

The Guardian states that an underaged girl was forced to have intercourse with Andrew - that’s a clear definition of “rape” if it is true:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...effrey-epstein

It’s not premature to say that what Andrew might be involved with is severe either. Unless you are of the mindset of those who inflict these crimes (obviously not saying you are, but in general) any sexual interactions with minors who cannot give consent is a severe crime. I know the court may give different sentences depending on the nature of the crime but morally all sexual interactions with minors (especially if Andrew knew that they were minors) will have severe consequences for Andrew’s future - or lack of - in the BRF and associations with the life he was used to.

Note that I’ve always said *if* in my posts, as we still do not know the outcomes of the case. So I’m not saying it’s definite Andrew is involved because he has not yet been proven guilty by court. Nobody knows any confirmed cases, but several victims of Epstein’s trafficking ring have come forward.

The girl was 17 according to herself, while the age of consent is apparently 16 and at the time she didn't indicate she wasn't willing, so please explain how that constitutes rape.

So far, there is NO CASE brought against him. So, there won't be an outcome either... Nor will he be sentenced unless a valid case is brought against him at some point (which is true for everyone who is currently not accused of a crime). What he allegedly did was morally wrong, however, it wasn't punishable by law. If it was rape, why hasn't he been charged?

In addition, I am not sure what additional consequences for Andrew you are thinking about. He has been completely removed from official royal life, many of his patronages have decided to give up on him. So, what other severe consequences do you have in mind?

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I am not aware of anyone having accused Prince Andrew of rape. Nor am I aware of the Prince having had sex with anyone under the age of consent in England.



I also think it is premature to make conjectures about the severity of Andrew being guilty when he has not even been charged with any crime yet.

Victoria accused him of rape. She was trafficked into England and she had sex with him against his will. In the US she'd be a minor but even if 17 is the age of consent in the UK it's illegal there to have sex with a woman who has been traficked.


Andrew need to keep his mouth shut and his head down.

[Osipi]

If you mean Virginia, she never accused Andrew of rape. If she did have sex with Andrew in London, it was because she assented to doing so after being told by Maxwell it was expected of her to do this. Andrew didn't force her (if the sex actually took place) so there's no rape involved here.

The manipulation was all done presumably by Ghislaine Maxwell and nobody else.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by QueenMathilde

Victoria accused him of rape. She was trafficked into England and she had sex with him against his will. In the US she'd be a minor but even if 17 is the age of consent in the UK it's illegal there to have sex with a woman who has been traficked.

Wouldn't the other party have to know that the person that was trying to engage him in said activity was trafficked? And can we be sure Andrew did know or (from a legal perspective) should have known? While he clearly shouldn't have engaged in it at all, why has he not been persecuted if it was illegal what he did? It is not that it isn't known (Andrew denying it doesn't make much of a difference imho), so apparently the prosecutors think there is no case?! What makes you think otherwise?

I do hope that in this whole mess something positive comes from it in raising awareness that there might be some background stories to young girls presenting themselves to older men... resulting in fewer future victims. And hopefully justice is served by first and foremost having an appropriate sentence for one of the two that was at the center of it all and is currently in custody.

Andrew need to keep his mouth shut and his head down.

Agreed. Which is exactly what he is doing, isn't he?

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Wouldn't the other party have to know that the person that was trying to engage him in said activity was trafficked?

Nope. How is the victim supposed to tell the abuser that she is being trafficked? Under UK and US law if he has sex with a woman who was brought there unwillingly HE is at fault. Not HER. It's rape. She doesn't have to say "Hey, I've been trafficked" before they have sex. The people who trafficked her could retaliate against her. So he has committed a crime. Look it up. Oh and the age doesn't matter in either country. Though he's a complete PIG for having sex with a girl young enough to be his daughter against her will. And it astounds me anyone would defend him for this action.

[Osipi]

Looking at all this, I don't see anything at all alluding to Guiffre being "unwilling". She wasn't dragged in chains to the UK. At any point in time, she could have somehow signaled that she was being "forced" to fly to the UK, fly to Epstein's island, forced to dance with Andrew at Tramp's among other things.
She was psychologically conditioned and the glamour of the lifestyle of the rich and famous is a powerful draw for young girls.

This is what is happening with the court case against Maxwell now. She recruited these girls, led them to believe that they'd have the "good life' and be well taken care of and coerced them into performing sex acts as part and parcel of that life.

All of this lies at Ghislaine Maxwell's door now. Without Maxwell, none of this stuff would ever have happened. She was that instrumental to Epstein.

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Looking at all this, I don't see anything at all alluding to Guiffre being "unwilling". She wasn't dragged in chains to the UK. At any point in time, she could have somehow signaled that she was being "forced" to fly to the UK, fly to Epstein's island, forced to dance with Andrew at Tramp's among other things.
She was psychologically conditioned and the glamour of the lifestyle of the rich and famous is a powerful draw for young girls.

This is what is happening with the court case against Maxwell now. She recruited these girls, led them to believe that they'd have the "good life' and be well taken care of and coerced them into performing sex acts as part and parcel of that life.

All of this lies at Ghislaine Maxwell's door now. Without Maxwell, none of this stuff would ever have happened. She was that instrumental to Epstein.

Seriously? She's unwilling because she was dragged around as a poor girl who was bullied into having sex with men with money and power. If you don't understand that YOU don't understand the law. Though it might be different for Andrew seeing as his mother is above the law. Or that might be how HE sees it.

[Pranter]

I just remember reading that someone that is trafficked cannot give consent regardless of their age. So if the victim is claiming that then her age according to U.K. law for consent is not relevant, if that charge were to be upheld.

Looking happy for a picture doesn't mean she wasn't trafficked or forced into this situation. PPL need to look up what happens with pimps and the women who don't play the role right.



LaRae

[Jacknch]

This thread has been cleaned up with the removal of several posts.

In regard to the sensitive issues surrounding the topic of the thread, members are reminded to be especially respectful of one anothers' views even when you do not agree.

We MUST limit our commentary on the case to the facts as we currently know them and avoid making speculative judgements before further facts and details are known. Thank you.