The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[royal rob]

For the life of me I can't see anything odd with his arm or hand


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[wbenson]

Her arm, not his. There's a gap between her hand and her body, even though she's holding her arm like she has her hand on her hip. It's definitely odd-looking, although I suppose it's possible it was caught in motion.

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I don't think the photo is fake. Too much of her hair detail (onto his shirt) is present. It is just a hand/arm caught in motion. Common.

Whether he is guilty or innocent, of sex with the girl, what was he doing with that mob? There are degrees of guilt I guess. No way this is ever going to look good. And then there is that saying; "you live by the sword, you die by the sword". He is paying the price of being friends or doing business, or whatever with those people... And so is his family.

[royal rob]

Don't know if anyone has posted this. Think there are lots of questions to be answered
http://www.theguardian.com/media/gre...-prince-andrew


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Lumutqueen]

It's not even confirmed he's going to speak, hilarious!

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

It's not even confirmed he's going to speak, hilarious!

I was more interested in the places he's been and amount of travel he has done.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Lumutqueen]

Is his travel to the Falklands war on the list?

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Is his travel to the Falklands war on the list?

And you mean what ? ?? He gets a pass for anything he does for the rest of his life because he went to the Falklands , he wasn't the only one on the boat


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by royal rob

And you mean what ? ?? He gets a pass for anything he does for the rest of his life because he went to the Falklands , he wasn't the only one on the boat


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Did I say that?! I don't think so.

Andrew is a member of the royal family and therefore travels for royal duties as does every other member of the royal family. His role means he travels more than other royals, I don't see the problem.

The man has had accusations levelled against him. He is not named in a court case, he has not been charged with a crime, he is not in the dock answering questions about a criminal act. So why should everything he's done for this country be called in to question?

Two sides to every story but it appears only one is being portrayed.

January is a slow news month and Andrew is being pushed further and further inside the "rags" people call papers and further and further down the internet versions. Currently the top story for the DailyMail is how a five year old boy was invoiced £16 for not showing up to a skiing party. How times change.

[Rudolph]

What I find interesting is he's hired a criminal defence barrister. Not someone who specialises in libel or defamation but criminal defence.

Andrew seems like a man with a lot on his mind at the moment

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Did I say that?! I don't think so.

Andrew is a member of the royal family and therefore travels for royal duties as does every other member of the royal family. His role means he travels more than other royals, I don't see the problem.

The man has had accusations levelled against him. He is not named in a court case, he has not been charged with a crime, he is not in the dock answering questions about a criminal act. So why should everything he's done for this country be called in to question?

Two sides to every story but it appears only one is being portrayed.

January is a slow news month and Andrew is being pushed further and further inside the "rags" people call papers and further and further down the internet versions. Currently the top story for the DailyMail is how a five year old boy was invoiced £16 for not showing up to a skiing party. How times change.

I simply asked what you meant ? So can I ask again why you mention Falklands war just didn't get what that had to do with the article


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

What I find interesting is he's hired a criminal defence barrister. Not someone who specialises in libel or defamation but criminal defence.

Andrew seems like a man with a lot on his mind at the moment

This according to the MailOnline, same paper that was positively adamant Andrew was going to make a speech in Davos next week which is now a "maybe/possible" at best.

The article from said paper says the MailOnline has learned that Clegg was handed papers apparently from DOYs team 11 days ago, however the mail did not manage to learn why the papers were handed to him, what he is doing with said papers or what the outcome has been. I can't imagine it takes the grandfather of the Barr 11 days to come up with an answer.

Originally Posted by royal rob

I simply asked what you meant ? So can I ask again why you mention Falklands war just didn't get what that had to do with the article


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

And I responded to your question in my post. I mentioned the Falklands war because the constant drivel from papers about Andrew seem to be forgetting that he serves his country and The Queen and has done so on thousands of occasions like during the Falklands war.

[Meadow]

There have been questions for years over Andrews travel he didn't get the nickname Airmiles Andy for nothing. Hiring out private planes when he could off gone commercial, hanging out with the rich and infamous and of course doing Royal duties around his golfing holidays. Sarah was even outed in one of the many books that she would make sure she had a royal duty somewhere she wanted to holiday Andrew has done the same thing for years. No one here has said Andrew is guilty of the claims just that he is very, very stupid for hanging around a convicted sex offender. He may off done it he may not off we may never really know he will never admit to it even if he did. The girl in question has already refused a great deal of money from Epstein so that does make people wonder if she was just doing it for the cash then why not take the millions offered then? There has always been questions on what Andrew really brings to the table at these things he is not a smart business man in fact I seem to remember people calling him a baffoon and very arrogant at a lot of these events. People are just impressed with meeting a Prince. The "interview" with Andrew hasn't been confirmed it could be someone trying to gauge if it would be well received if he did it in that forum and I don't think it would be. Business is business sex claims by an underage girl shouldn't be bought up in such a forum. I would be very uncomfortable if I was there and the speaker starts refuting underage sex claims it is unprofessional and needs to be done in a more casual setting not in front of a business conference.

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

This according to the MailOnline, same paper that was positively adamant Andrew was going to make a speech in Davos next week which is now a "maybe/possible" at best.

The article from said paper says the MailOnline has learned that Clegg was handed papers apparently from DOYs team 11 days ago, however the mail did not manage to learn why the papers were handed to him, what he is doing with said papers or what the outcome has been. I can't imagine it takes the grandfather of the Barr 11 days to come up with an answer.





And I responded to your question in my post. I mentioned the Falklands war because the constant drivel from papers about Andrew seem to be forgetting that he serves his country and The Queen and has done so on thousands of occasions like during the Falklands war.

And that doesn't give him a free pass for bad behavior and doesn't mean he is more entitled than anyone else


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Rudolph]

Most of the 'drivel' Andrew has brought on himself. He consorted with some shady characters and continued his friendship with a convicted paedophile. So whether its fair or not, his name is now being brought up again in relation to having sex with minors.

Can't blame this one on the tabloids

[GracieGiraffe]

Even the innocent lawyer up.

I'm dying to see what's in the U.S. attorney's files.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by royal rob

Don't know if anyone has posted this. Think there are lots of questions to be answered
http://www.theguardian.com/media/gre...-prince-andrew

Never let it be said that the private sector was as short sighted as the government. Having resigned his position as a UK Special Representative for International Trade and Investment due to;

Originally Posted by Wiki

"His suitability for the role was challenged in the House of Commons by Shadow Justice Minister Chris Bryant in February 2011, at the time of the 2011 Libyan civil war, on the grounds that he was "not only a very close friend of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, but also ... a close friend of the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kaituni".

It surprised the hell out of me considering that posters on this thread have been banging on about him having to resign because of the Jeffrey Epstein affair in 2011.

That these people move around with the international movers and shakers is hardly a surprise. That Andrew should have met them and even struck up some sort of friendship with them is hardly surprising given the nature of the job he was doing. But, with the government wanting the "appearance" of clean hands, Andrew resigned.

But it seems that there are those who don't care about "air miles and golf clubs" if the returns are worth it. And the UK is still benefitting, as;

Originally Posted by Boris Johnson

Mr Johnson told listeners to LBC Radio: "Prince Andrew, let's be very clear, is a guy who does a huge amount of unsung, unheralded work for this country.
"People, they go on and and about the air miles and so on, actually I have seen that guy get out there and sell this country, try and help British firms to get business around the world.
"He does a huge amount of good and a huge amount of hard work. So if you are asking me whether I have sympathy for him, of course I do."

Mr Johnson added: "We may think it's bizarre, but somebody who is the second son of the Queen is felt in many parts of the world to be an interesting and significant figure and they will receive him cordially and people who come with him they want to hear what business suggestions they have.
"So I think that people should respect that side of his work."

As to Andrew retaining William Clegg, QC, I see a very logical progression here, because unlike Alan Dershowitz, he is not a top legal mind because, let's be honest here, both men's reputations have been shredded and Mr Dershowitz has responded with a civil suit and encouraged Andrew to do the same.

Originally Posted by Rudolph

What I find interesting is he's hired a criminal defence barrister. Not someone who specialises in libel or defamation but criminal defence.

Andrew seems like a man with a lot on his mind at the moment

Any court action over this affair is a lot more legally convoluted than Mike's libel case and the engaging of a leading QC seems only prudent.

[Camsterlaird]

I read somewhere that the alleged "under-age" sex happened in a London house in 2001. The girl was 17 at the time. At the time the age of consent in England was (and is) 16 - so it was not "under-age" if it happened at all.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Camsterlaird

I read somewhere that the alleged "under-age" sex happened in a London house in 2001. The girl was 17 at the time. At the time the age of consent in England was (and is) 16 - so it was not "under-age" if it happened at all.

Some terms have been used a bit loosely in discussions about this Epstein stuff.

A person can be "under age" in the sense of being under the age of majority and thus not of full legal responsibility for all purposes (except, curiously, purchasing/publicly possessing alcohol for which you have to be 21 in the USA). But a person who is 17 years old and under the age of majority and thus a "minor", is still over the age of consent and therefore not "under age" for the purposes of consenting to sex in all the places where Roberts alleges she had sex with Prince Andrew at the relevant times. However a person under 18 is not deemed capable of consenting to prostitution and that's why Epstein faced Federal charges relating to sex trafficking. In that context a 17 year old girl is "under age".

[Curryong]

So (in 2001) Andrew was 41 years of age and this girl was 17. No, it wasn't illegal, just completely disgusting.