The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta

Jane Doe wants some cash from an out-of-court settlement.

I tend to believe that there is much more to it than just that.

[tommy100]

The Commons rule bookstates that ‘unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the Royal Family’.
To me it's a sensible rule preventing MPs from effectively moaning and complaining non stop about the RF and therefore damaging the monarchy itself. If the matter was that important I'm sure enough MPs would support a substantive motion.
It's wrong to say MPs can't raise issues about the RF, it's simply that there are rules governing it.

[Rudolph]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2900787/Prince-Andrew-Heidi-Klum-Hookers-Pimps-party-New-York-socialite-accused-procuring-underage-girls-billionaire-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein.html

Standing in the dim light of New York's trendy Hudson Hotel, Prince Andrew made for an incongruous sight as he joined revelers at supermodel Heidi Klum's 'Hookers and Pimps' themed Halloween party.

The year was 2000 and Prince Andrew was having fun. By his side, with her arm draped around the Queen's son, was his close friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, dressed for the proceedings with a bleach blonde wig, midriff-baring top and gold pants.

Despite wearing a somber black suit and sipping water from a bottle, Prince Andrew soon seemed to loosen up, greeting hostess Klum - the model dressed in a body-skimming black PVC catsuit with her embonpoint on show - and posing with an attractive blonde whose face was covered up by a feathered mask.

All the while, Maxwell remained a constant, protective presence, sandwiched in between the prince and the supermodel, seemingly pleased with her illustrious fellow guest.

Months after the Halloween party, it is alleged, the Prince had sex with underage Virginia Roberts, who claims she was introduced to him by Maxwell.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS

I got to hear Alan Dershowitz on a talk show this AM. He is not kidding around and has fairly clear evidence that refutes claims about his behavior/location at various times named in the suit. And he is on a mission.

Now, anyone that has heard Alan in multiple interviews knows that he is careful about what he says (and does not) and has been know to use hyperbole.

But, in my opinion Jane Doe and her legal team are toast on this part of the suit.

I think you are right re: Dershowitz. The young lady has claimed that they were on airplanes together at various different times. Dershowitz has contacted the airline management for copies of the passenger manifestos of these flights as proof of his assertion he was never on a plane with her.

If she is not telling the truth, she has definitely chosen the wrong man to involve in her suit. But why would she lie about Alan Dershowitz?

[AdmirerUS]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

I think you are right re: Dershowitz. The young lady has claimed that they were on airplanes together at various different times. Dershowitz has contacted the airline management for copies of the passenger manifestos of these flights as proof of his assertion he was never on a plane with her.

If she is not telling the truth, she has definitely chosen the wrong man to involve in her suit. But why would she lie about Alan Dershowitz?

Dershowitz says she is a serial liar and under the influence of some really not-smart lawyers.
The other reason to strike at Dershowitz is that he defended Epstein.

[Curryong]

A very belated thankyou, thankyou, to Dman, for all your hard work in digging out that Times article. It was very interesting and I believe the royal family will move to the European model (as was mooted) after the Queen's death.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Originally Posted by Curryong

I believe the royal family will move to the European model (as was mooted) after the Queen's death.

Which European model are you talking about, in Norway journalists complain that the monarchy has too few members, in Denmark both the monarch, her two sons, two daughters-in -law and her sister is full time working royals. Frederik's 4 children will probably be full time royals.

Do you really mean that the british monarchy, which does much more for charity than the others, shall be as the Dutch, Spanish or the Belgian. A slimmed down monarchy means that a whole bunch of patronages most be removed, many jobs must be terminated. What do you think the media would say to that?

The British monarchy does not cost much. The Queen covers all expenses too the monarchy from The Sovereign Grant, and the Duchy of Lancaster, except the security-costs. The expenses of Charles, William, Catherine and Harry is covered from the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Monarchy will not become slimmed down when The Queen dies, I'm sure Edward, Sophie and Anne are going to continue with their duties as long as they want. I agree that the monarch's cousins doesn't need to be full-time working members of the Firm, that will not happen again, but this problem solves itself, because the so-called minor royals grow older.

The journalist who wrote in the times is republican, although he does not admit it in the comment section below. There were many factual errors in what he wrote.

I fear that the press will continue to write negatively about the monarchy throughout 2015.
Andrew must have understood when Epstein was arrested that it would not look good that he as a member of the royal family continued this friendship, is he really so stupid?

[GracieGiraffe]

Andrew is that combination of stupidity and hubris, methinks. This is assuming his only guilt is continued association with Epstein, which alone is stupidity and hubris personified.

Slimming down a monarchy does not protect against such a combination - other factors play into such matters.

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY

Which European model are you talking about, in Norway journalists complain that the monarchy has too few members, in Denmark both the monarch, her two sons, two daughters-in -law and her sister is full time working royals. Frederik's 4 children will probably be full time royals.

Do you really mean that the british monarchy, which does much more for charity than the others, shall be as the Dutch, Spanish or the Belgian. A slimmed down monarchy means that a whole bunch of patronages most be removed, many jobs must be terminated. What do you think the media would say to that?

The British monarchy does not cost much. The Queen covers all expenses too the monarchy from The Sovereign Grant, and the Duchy of Lancaster, except the security-costs. The expenses of Charles, William, Catherine and Harry is covered from the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Monarchy will not become slimmed down when The Queen dies, I'm sure Edward, Sophie and Anne are going to continue with their duties as long as they want. I agree that the monarch's cousins doesn't need to be full-time working members of the Firm, that will not happen again, but this problem solves itself, because the so-called minor royals grow older.

The journalist who wrote in the times is republican, although he does not admit it in the comment section below. There were many factual errors in what he wrote.

I fear that the press will continue to write negatively about the monarchy throughout 2015.
Andrew must have understood when Epstein was arrested that it would not look good that he as a member of the royal family continued this friendship, is he really so stupid?

Did Epstein give the money to Sarah before or after he went to jail ? Could explain why he was meeting him if he wanted the money


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Ish]

Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY

Which European model are you talking about, in Norway journalists complain that the monarchy has too few members, in Denmark both the monarch, her two sons, two daughters-in -law and her sister is full time working royals. Frederik's 4 children will probably be full time royals.

Do you really mean that the british monarchy, which does much more for charity than the others, shall be as the Dutch, Spanish or the Belgian. A slimmed down monarchy means that a whole bunch of patronages most be removed, many jobs must be terminated. What do you think the media would say to that?

The British monarchy does not cost much. The Queen covers all expenses too the monarchy from The Sovereign Grant, and the Duchy of Lancaster, except the security-costs. The expenses of Charles, William, Catherine and Harry is covered from the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Monarchy will not become slimmed down when The Queen dies, I'm sure Edward, Sophie and Anne are going to continue with their duties as long as they want. I agree that the monarch's cousins doesn't need to be full-time working members of the Firm, that will not happen again, but this problem solves itself, because the so-called minor royals grow older.

The journalist who wrote in the times is republican, although he does not admit it in the comment section below. There were many factual errors in what he wrote.

I fear that the press will continue to write negatively about the monarchy throughout 2015.
Andrew must have understood when Epstein was arrested that it would not look good that he as a member of the royal family continued this friendship, is he really so stupid?

The monarchy is going to over time slim itself down; the Queen's father was born into large family with 3 sons who all had children, causing there to be many royals of her generation. The Queen then had a large family, causing there to be many royals in her children's generation (and, if you count the Wessexes, her grandchildren's generation). However, Charles only had 2 children, which means that the monarchy's rate of growth is not going to match it's rate of decline in the near future - in the next generational time period we can expect that the 8 royals of the Queen's generation will pass on, but we can't really expect there to be 8 births/marriages - the only unmarried royals whose spouses would become royal are Andrew, Harry, and George (and possibly James), and only the children of the sons of a monarch or the eldest son of the PoW are royal. I don't think anyone expects Andrew or George to marry in the next 20 years, and Harry's future kids aren't going to be royal until his father's reign (provided he doesn't take the Edward route). Given the fact that larger families aren't really the norm these days, we can expect to see the BRF slim down during the reign of Charles without actually having to do anything to make the BRF more "European", simply because the rate of growth will be less than the rate of decline.

As for whether or not the monarch's cousins will step up to being full time royals... I wouldn't count that out yet. I doubt Eugenie will ever be a working royal as she doesn't seem to want to, nor do I expect Louise or James to do so as that's not in line with how they're being raised. But Beatrice definitely seems to want to step up, and there could end up being a need for it. Part of the reason why the Queen's cousins stepped into a full time role was because the BRF was too small to keep up with the demands of the monarchy - there was the whole Commonwealth and the Queen only had one sibling. By the time William's King we won't likely have the Kents, Gloucesters, Anne, Andrew, the Wessexes, or Camilla doing full time work (if they're alive at all), leaving the monarchy as just William, Kate, Harry, Harry's potential spouse, their children, Beatrice, and Eugenie. It's very possible that by this point William will need his cousins in order to meet the demands of the monarchy, just like his grandmother once did.

[Curryong]

I don't believe it is the cost, so much, as the perception, at the moment anyway, that the monarchy is top heavy. This is beside the argument about Andrew's stupidity and the occasional Harry antics.

It is just that this crisis, and it is a crisis, has evoked some questioning about the best way for the British royal family to move forward. After all, the Queen, who has done a marvellous job, is entering the last years of her reign, and it is known, through, whatever source, that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy.

Whether it will be as austere in form as Norway or Spain, or a little cosier as with Denmark, it may well be that Charles could decree a defining of a core royal family, as in monarch and consort, heir and spouse and their eldest child. He may include Harry in this or not.

As with the Netherlands, cousins, spares etc retire into private life and also perform the occasional engagement when the core royals are unavailable. They become members of the wider royal family and are only seen on family occasions. They may or may not perform charity work. That will be their choice.

This would include the cousins, Anne, the Wessexes and perhaps Harry. Andrew should certainly never be allowed to represent the monarch again. He is a prime
example of what Glover in his article called 'the rollicking, roistering Princes' who, IMO, bring shame to the royal family.

A lot of patronages of charities would have to go, and find other patrons. The core royal family would undertake ceremonial duties and have their own charitable Foundations. They would also head some national institutions. The 'make-work' aspect of many royal engagements would cease and the core royals, though busy, may well be engaged in more worthwhile work.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Curryong

It is just that this crisis, and it is a crisis, has evoked some questioning about the best way for the British royal family to move forward. After all, the Queen, who has done a marvellous job, is entering the last years of her reign, and it is known, through, whatever source, that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy.

We don't know that at all.

What we do know is that there was a 'throw-away' line by a staffer in 1992 that suggested that idea - not the same idea at all and as it was 1992 - the annus horribilis - it is possible that it was an idea at the 'Way Ahead' meeting - which itself no longer meets.

Sure naturally the family will shrink:

Currently working royals:

Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, Anne, Richard, Birgitte, Edward, Alexadra

Add 10 years and probably at least 4 of those will be gone or retired leaving: Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, Anne, Richard, Birgitte

Only two of those could add any to the list - Harry and Andrew.

Add another 10 years and we would be probably down to:

William, Kate, Harry, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, Anne - and maybe a spouse for Harry

By that stage George would be 21 but still not finished with his education and so not working for the family

Add another 10 years:

William, Kate, Harry, maybe a spouse for Harry, George and the new baby and maybe their spouses.

So simply by a process of natural attrition the numbers will drop from the current 15 to 8 over the next 30 years

[Ish]

Originally Posted by royal rob

Of course there is but can't help but agree on this
"If Andrew were a politician he would no longer be in a job - his royal status is protecting him from accountability."




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

This is ridiculous.

Whether or not Andrew should continue to have a role representing the monarchy or continue to represent the charities that he's involved with is a very valid discussion. It appears that right now he is being supported in both, but it's not really a decision for Parliament.

The charities chose the royal, so unless they're ending the relationship it is not Parliament's decision whether or not Andrew does engagements with them.

It is the Queen's decision whether or not this work gets noticed in the CC. It is entirely possible that at some point going in the future this may reach a point where it becomes appropriate for the Queen to cease to recognize Andrew in such a function, but that's a bit premature right now.

Andrew does have appointments in various organizations/honours that may be jeapordized by this scandal, but it's still a bit premature to strip him of things. I do think that if charges are laid then he should at least take a leave of absence from various roles or have his involvement suspended, but until then it's still a bit premature. The whole argument that "a politician would have to resign at this point" is a bit absurd because 1. many of Andrew's roles aren't political (it's not his job to be political), and 2. you're blind if you think a politician in a democratic country has to resign every time a scandal breaks out, particularly when charges aren't being laid. Look up the career and personal life of former Toronto mayor Rob Ford if you don't believe me.

Furthermore, the suggestion that keeps being tossed around that Andrew should be stripped of his titles and line in the succession (with no charges brought against him, let alone a conviction) displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system works. In order to remove Andrew from the succession 16 realms have to pass legislature. 16 separate realms. 16 realms which haven't all passed the legislature to change the succession to allow equal primogeniture yet. This would have to be done to remove a man who is not first in line, or in the direct line, or really all that likely to ever be king. The last time someone who was at one point 5th in the line of succession became monarch was Queen Victoria - and at her birth, the 4 people ahead of her, including her father, were all 50+. While Andrew might have more chances of becoming monarch than Anne, he still doesn't have much of a chance, and having 16 realms pass legislature to strip him of that minute chance is a waste of time (especially given the lack of charges and/or conviction). Continuing on that path, the only way Andrew could be stripped of his titles is for the British Parliament to do so. Which, sure, if charges are laid and a conviction happens they might want to do that. But should the British Parliament's time really be spent on legislature stripping Andrew of his titles when all that's happened so far is accusations? Not only is it a bit premature, it also sets a bad precedent.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Originally Posted by Curryong

It is just that this crisis, and it is a crisis, has evoked some questioning about the best way for the British royal family to move forward. After all, the Queen, who has done a marvellous job, is entering the last years of her reign, and it is known, through, whatever source, that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy.

The questioning about the monarchy comes from those who want Republic.
There is no evidence that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy, It's going to happen by itself.

Originally Posted by Curryong

Whether it will be as austere in form as Norway or Spain, or a little cosier as with Denmark, it may well be that Charles could decree a defining of a core royal family, as in monarch and consort, heir and spouse and their eldest child. He may include Harry in this or not.

It's not going to happen. Williams children is going to have royals duties, but I agree that Harrys upcoming children should not have titles, or be members of the monarchy.

Originally Posted by Curryong

This would include the cousins, Anne, the Wessexes and perhaps Harry. Andrew should certainly never be allowed to represent the monarch again. He is a prime example of what Glover in his article called 'the rollicking, roistering Princes' who, IMO, bring shame to the royal family.

The cousin problem will resolve itself. Anne and the Wessex will continue with their good work as long as they want, and so will Harry. Beatrice and Eugenie should never have become princesses, and in my opinion should not represent the royal family, although I like both.
I'm not sure what's going to happen with Andrews role in the monarchy, it depends on how he behaves, but he will not be removed from the line of succession, except if what he is accused of should prove to be true.

[Iluvbertie]

The problem with saying that the York girls shouldn't have become princesses means that the 1917 LPs should have restricted HRH only to the children of the eldest son. That would have meant that Elizabeth and Margaret wouldn't have become Princesses until 1936 and Richard, Edward, Michael and Alexandra also wouldn't be HRHs. The BRF would then have had only 7 working members in the 1950s and 60s to do all the work - including all that massive travelling when they would have been away for months at a time.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The problem with saying that the York girls shouldn't have become princesses means that the 1917 LPs should have restricted HRH only to the children of the eldest son. That would have meant that Elizabeth and Margaret wouldn't have become Princesses until 1936 and Richard, Edward, Michael and Alexandra also wouldn't be HRHs. The BRF would then have had only 4 working members in the 1950s and 60s to do all the work - including all that massive travelling when they would have been away for months at a time.

I know, but the times have changed.

[Curryong]

We don't know, Royal Norway, whether the British monarchy can afford to wait for 30 years for the natural attrition to occur in the way you suggest. I would not be surprised if one more major scandal like this one would cause serious questioning about its future.

It would be best for a monarchy to be proactive rather than reactive when facing unrest. (Example, Juan Carlos. I am NOT suggesting Queen Elizabeth follows suit. In many ways respect for her has been a bulwark against republicanism. However, Juan Carlos knew he was unpopular and the country faced unrest. He abdicated and Felipe and Felizia are now very successful new modern monarchs.)

It is not always republicans who want change. Monarchists who are worried about how the royal family are viewed can critique things and suggest change, surely? Or is everything to be set like a fly in amber for ever and ever and ever?

I know this. Every other monarchy in Europe and Scandinavia has far fewer members in their royal families and their roles are far more clearly defined than the BRF. There is a reason for it.

In the 21st century the British royal family should be prepared to look at say the way the Netherlands royal family, one of the most popular in Europe operates, rather than go trundling along, hoping that natural attrition will solve all their ills in a generation or so.

[Zonk]

Let's stay on topic,..all posts regarding the size and the role of the Royal Family during the reign of Charles should be posted in http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...-16252-98.html . While I understand the context of the current discussion, the topic as it relates to this subject is derailing the thread.

Any and all additional off topic posts will be deleted without notice.

[Ridderzaal]

Such a pity.
That ended a fascinating evolving discussion throwing up many topics that have never been discussed.

[Mirabel]

JAN MOIR: What Harry must learn from useless Uncle Andrew* | Daily Mail Online


This seems a rather vicious attack on Andrew, negating anything he's ever done to represent the BRF.
Is he really such a liability?

(At one time he was very popular, moreso than Charles). Now everyone just wants him to go away.