The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Tatiana Maria]

The media were told by an unnamed source that the Duke of York will not be attending Jubilee festivities.

Buckingham Palace declined to comment on whether the Duke of York will attend his father's memorial service later this year.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/d...e-b976597.html


The Daily Mail was told by an unnamed source that the Duke of York would remain a member of the Order of the Garter "for now" (the Mail's words) but is unlikely to take part in the Garter procession in June.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mit-Queen.html


A member of the York City Council and the MP for York Central want the Duke of York to relinquish the York title.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/p...t-b976711.html


Although the formal statement from Buckingham Palace implied that the Duke voluntarily relinquished his military titles and royal patronages, based on today's newspaper headlines, it seems that few if any people believe his exit was truly voluntary.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-royal-removal

[Tatiana Maria]

After more thought, I wonder whether the unofficial statement that the Duke will no longer use his HRH in any official capacity specified "official capacity" because he has already stopped using his HRH in any private capacity.

And in the official press release, the reference to "defend[ing] this case as a private citizen" might be inferred to rule out any attempt to invoke some sort of official immunity. (The consensus seems to be that any immunity argument would be questionable and have low odds of success, at any rate.)

Returning to the earlier discussion on the differences between the Buckingham Palace statements on the Duke of York's and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's respective "exits", it's also noticeable that although the Duke and Duchess of Sussex also renounced their "Royal patronages", they were given the "Queen's blessing" to keep their "private patronages". But there is no mention of private patronages in the statement on the Duke of York. I wonder if that indicates that all of his patronages have been returned. (For the sake of his remaining patronages, which have been left in limbo for years, I would hope so.)

Another difference is that, unlike both of the Sussex statements, the Prince Andrew statement does not include any language about remaining "much loved members of the family".

[Moonmaiden23]

Scotland Yard did investigate and found that since Virginia was of the age of consent at the time she is said to have had sex with Andrew, no crime was committed in the U.K.

Fwiw...I also find the response of the Royal family premature and chilling, and the public braying for the man's blood by press and public in particular also very chilling considering the fact that no trial has even started...let alone no judgment rendered.

It's as if everyday some new way to punish and humiliate the guy is floated. Strip of him of x,y and z! Kick him out of Royal Lodge. Forbid him from riding at Windsor. It's an insult to see him exercise (can he ride at night under cover of darkness?) Force him to sneak unobtrusively into his mother's funeral when the time comes. Punish his daughters. Send them all to live on some remote miserable bog perhaps in Scotland.

It is terrifying to think what they will come up if he actually loses this civil case. There is nothing left to do short of banishment, and upon his death cremating him and throwing him into the Thames without a funeral.

It's why, for many reasons, I truly no longer enjoy reading about or following most of the Royal families and in particular the British one. As asserted by the late Diana Princess of Wales and recently by Harry and Meghan, it appears more Firm than family with the members willing to do whatever is necessary to appease the angry mob when one of its members falls foul of public opinion.

Not sure why ANYONE...male or female...would want to marry into that situation.

[winifred]

But rape is a crime, regardless of the age of the accuser. Do we know exactly what Scotland Yard investigated? Google was not my friend.

[Denville]

But she had sex with him willingly, in the sense that she agreed to it at the time. She was not under age

[Moran]

Personally, I find no victim-blaming here. Rather, I find the overall mood as being inclined to gloss over Giuffre's part as a victimizer which is horrifying. Teenagers aren't incapable of being whatever.

I find the overall sentiment (not here on the forum but overall) of treating Andrew like a violent rapist just because a recruiter said he slept with her knowing that she was trafficked rather baffling. This far, it's just he said, she said but he's already guilty?

Teenagers shouldn't be expected to bear responsibility for victimizing others? For real? When a teenager tells someone younger (or much younger) that they should keep silent, that's an acknowledgment that they realize they shouldn't be doing what they are doing.

Andrew might be a horrible person. But no one denies this might be the case while every sentiment that Ms Giuffre might be less than stellar is met with "victim blaming".

Many people have been victims of teenage rapists or molesters. And it's always the same thing at court (when the case even makes it to court): they're children. They didn't realize. This leaves *their* victims (some of which are literal children) in a horrible situation. And it isn't because the perpetrators were too young to understand.

It's like this with Giuffre, IMO. She was a victim but also a victimizer. And if I remember correctly, it's by her own lawyer's admission. She regretted taking part? It still happened. It's literally "she said, she said". Why shouldn't it be taken into account?

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Scotland Yard did investigate and found that since Virginia was of the age of consent at the time she is said to have had sex with Andrew, no crime was committed in the U.K.

I don't think that's correct because the age of consent for prostitution is 18 and Virginia says that's what she was being used as. Also, if they'd found evidence that she'd been trafficked for sex, they'd have pursued it because it is a crime, regardless of her age. My understanding is that they dropped the last review into the case after looking at more documents, which didn't provide them with any new information. Lack of evidence doesn't mean no crime was committed, it just means there isn't enough to prosecute the people who allegedly pimped and/or trafficked her.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Gawin

But traditionally the second son was the spare. That's no longer the case. Charlotte will hold that position. The title should go to her, if it goes to anyone.

Sent from my moto g(7) play using The Royals Community mobile app

Originally Posted by Denville

and traditionally, daughters do not get royal dukedoms. So i dont think Charlotte will get it.

The question of re-issuing the York dukedon will only come up after Andrew's death. Depending on how the case progresses, this may not be a dukedom that could get created again for some time.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Princess Charlotte is the future "spare" but she most likely will become HRH The Princess Royal. In my opinion the most prestigious title available of all, oustide the titles held by the Heir.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by Lucy Scot

So it would just be splashed all over the papers that Andrew is not paying a court awarded judgment? All the while showing him living at Royal Lodge, riding his horses, living the same life of luxury that he always has. And then it would die down and go away? With no effect on the Queen and the rest of the royal family? The tabloids got on Harry and Meghan for years and they are just going to let it go when it comes to Andrew?

Given the current climate and the latest news regarding the situation, I don't believe that the tabloids are "just going to let it go when it comes to Andrew." There's simply far too much money to be made every time someone purchases a paper/magazine and clicks on a story. Also please recall that Prince Andrew and former wife have had decades of tabloid coverage with a fair portion of it being unflattering due to their own actions and words.



Sadly I see a similar pattern with the Sussexes who have in the past two and half years intentionally or unintentionally provided the tabloids and the more respected papers with enough material due to their own actions and words. I'm hoping for their peace of mind that they do not have a repeat of 2021.

[soapstar]

This thread isn’t about the Sussexes. Further discussion of them will be deleted.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Denville

and traditionally, daughters do not get royal dukedoms. So i dont think Charlotte will get it.

Traditionally they didn't precede their younger brothers in the line of succession.That has changed so the tradition of giving peerage titles to sons but not daughters should change accordingly, just as the BRF as abandoned other outdated traditions (arranged marriages, for example).

Sent from my moto g(7) play using The Royals Community mobile app

[BriarRose]

I think there is a misunderstanding as to what Ms. Guiffre’s legal claims are.

She is not basing her lawsuit on the age of consent and strict liability (known as statutory rape). She is basing it on being a victim of human trafficking. It doesn’t matter if she was of age or not- it’s whether she was trafficked (which means she couldn’t legally consent even if she didn’t fight off a sexual partner) and whether Andrew should have reasonably known she was trafficked.

Her age at the time of the alleged assault is important to establish that the *civil* statute of limitations had not run out, because New York (and other states) have laws that extend the civil statute of limitations for claimants who were under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged allegations. The criminal statute has run out, I believe, but New York doesn’t require a claimant to prove these allegations in criminal court anyway.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

A member of the York City Council and the MP for York Central want the Duke of York to relinquish the York title.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/p...t-b976711.html

The MP for York Central and the member of the York City Council should know that the Duke cannot legally "relinquish" his peerage. As far as I understand, people who succeed to a hereditary peerage may, under the Peerage Act 1963, disclaim the peerage within one year of succeeding thereto. I don't think the aforementioned act applies, however, to newly created peerages such as the Duke's and, in any case, Prince Andrew has been the Duke of York since 1986, so the act could not apply to him anyway.

The MP for York Central could, I guess, introduce a Private Member's bill in the House of Commons to strip Prince Andrew of his peerage if he feels so strongly about it.

Originally Posted by muriel

The question of re-issuing the York dukedon will only come up after Andrew's death. Depending on how the case progresses, this may not be a dukedom that could get created again for some time.

King James II was created Duke of York as the second son of Charles I and, as king, was later deposed in the revolution of 1688 for his alleged absolutist tendencies in addition to his Catholic faith. That did not prevent the title, however, from being recreated later for other second-born sons of British monarchs, including the future Kings George V and George VI, and now Prince Andrew. I believe the tradition will be maintained regardless of the veredict in Andrew's lawsuit, but, in any case, whether Andrew keeps the dukedom or it is forfeited, it will not be recreated as long as Andrew is still alive, and he may well be by the time Prince Louis (the natural next candidate to the title) gets married.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Princess Charlotte is the future "spare" but she most likely will become HRH The Princess Royal. In my opinion the most prestigious title available of all, oustide the titles held by the Heir.

She may well be bestowed with a dukedom of her own, and in time, become Princess Royal.

[Moonmaiden23]

I think Andrew's understanding of "trafficked" is key here. He saw a bunch of nubile young women providing "massages" and other ....perks...to a bunch of wealthy powerful men. None of them appeared fearful or reluctant to be doing so. They lived very lavishly and well.

But here is where Andrew is on very thin ice in my opinion. ..unless he has sight and/ or hearing problems he had to notice that these females were young....too young. And it is well known that he is not a deep thinker but he was educated at Gordonstoun. He must have been at least exposed to the work of Vladimir Nabokov.

He had to have known who "Lolita" was...and have been able to connect the disturbing dots between the name of his buddy's jet "Lolita Express"?

Epstein's conviction should have erased all doubt. In a less arrogant man it would have.

I think the DoY has lived his entire existence up to now in a sort of bubble, unaware of very little other than his status and what benefits he gets from it...all of it he is entitled to.

And as much as I feel for QEII I also don't have high regard for her parenting of any of her children. I realize that she became queen when she was only 25 and didn't have much hands on time with her youngsters. But she had great influence on the types of nannies that were appointed to them and the ultimate responsibility for their spiritual and moral values was hers.

To paraphrase former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy...if you bungle the raising of your children, nothing else you accomplish in this world matters.

I couldn't agree more.

[Alison H]

This does seem to be happening a lot with sexual assault cases now. A number of actors have been sacked from films or TV shows, or else episodes already filmed have been pulled from the TV schedules, after an allegation has been made, before there's been a trial, and the same with politicians being suspended by their parties. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, just that it's how it is.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Alison H

This does seem to be happening a lot with sexual assault cases now. A number of actors have been sacked from films or TV shows, or else episodes already filmed have been pulled from the TV schedules, after an allegation has been made, before there's been a trial, and the same with politicians being suspended by their parties. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, just that it's how it is.

It is wrong because possible fantasists have a field day: lawyers, police and media often behave disgracefully premature, while the innocent see their reputations trashed.


See the example of Sir Cliff Richard, of Field Marshal Lord Bramall, of the presenter/author Paul Gambaccini, of the former MP Harvey Proctor, of former EU Commissioner and MP Lord Brittan, of former PM Sir Edward Heath. Innocent, every one of them. Yet all of them are trashed for life.


The Duke of York is not prosecuted for crimes. He is slain with a civic case. Yet, without any Judge having spoken, he is already hanged high. He deserves to be punished when guilty, after Lady Justitia has spoken.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Alison H

This does seem to be happening a lot with sexual assault cases now. A number of actors have been sacked from films or TV shows, or else episodes already filmed have been pulled from the TV schedules, after an allegation has been made, before there's been a trial, and the same with politicians being suspended by their parties. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, just that it's how it is.

True; people today are tried in the court of public opinion.
They don't need to be convicted to have their careers (and their lives) ruined.

Then some women are upset when prominent men refuse to be alone with them, and find that behavior insulting.
But really it is just a matter of self-preservation.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Fwiw...I also find the response of the Royal family premature and chilling, and the public braying for the man's blood by press and public in particular also very chilling considering the fact that no trial has even started...let alone no judgment rendered.

It's as if everyday some new way to punish and humiliate the guy is floated. Strip of him of x,y and z! Kick him out of Royal Lodge. Forbid him from riding at Windsor. It's an insult to see him exercise (can he ride at night under cover of darkness?) Force him to sneak unobtrusively into his mother's funeral when the time comes. Punish his daughters. Send them all to live on some remote miserable bog perhaps in Scotland.

I don’t have a problem with the RF’s response. Patronages and military organizations don’t want to be associated with him. So- what are they supposed to do? Keep him where he isn’t wanted?

I do think some of the public responses are OTT though. Agreed there.