The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by muriel

Surely you are not suggesting that Andrew knowingly befriended a paedophile? You cannot always guarantee that you will know everything about your friends, can you?

Yes but once your friend has been convicted of a heinous crime like the sexual abuse of a minor - you can't really say that you don't know, now, can you?

Honestly.

[sliver_bic]

Originally Posted by NotAPretender

He served 13 months of an 18 month sentence, as part of a plea deal. Another part of that deal is that he could not be prosecuted for any other crimes that may have taken place in Florida.

I think there's also some kind of provision if he wasn't completely forthcoming within the boundaries of the plea deal, which is why a new investigation, even if it did happen at the Florida home, might burn him.

Originally Posted by NotAPretender

Yes but once your friend has been convicted of a heinous crime like the sexual abuse of a minor - you can't really say that you don't know, now, can you?

Honestly.

Some people will sit the and say. "The past is in the past. He's a good guy who made a stupid mistake but that's not all he is." And some people just don't give a *bleep*

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by sliver_bic

Some people will sit there and say. "The past is in the past. He's a good guy who made a stupid mistake but that's not all he is." And some people just don't give a *bleep*

I know - I know those people, silverbic....

I wonder if Andrew looked at those girls that Jeffrey Epstein had wandering around his Florida manse and stopped for even a moment to reflect that those girls were roughly the same age as his own.

I am guessing not.

[Jaya]

Originally Posted by MissJanet

I feel so sorry for Beatrice and Eugenie. How embarrassing it must be to have a father who befriends a convicted paedophile. What kind of father does that? And their mother takes money from that paedophile, how much greed, stupidity and bad judgement is needed from both Andrew and Fergie to sink that low?

The poor young women probably know by now that their parents are the oposite of noble, but this situation takes the cake.

I am starting to wonder if they truly are in debt and have that inability to know another's character.It makes me skeptical. I sometimes think they cannot be that silly. Beatrice and Eugenie will probably pay dearly for their the immaturity of their parents and they are not to blame for anything.I havethis inkling that Sarah and Andrew like to pull these mini scandals off now and again just to get back at the BRF. There must be a psychologcal motivation other than immaturity.

[Mermaid1962]

That's an interesting theory, Jaya. Why would they want to "get back at the BRF?" Prince Andrew's always been protected, and Sarah has been provided for lately by Andrew, who's on the Queen's private payroll.

Originally Posted by Jaya

I havethis inkling that Sarah and Andrew like to pull these mini scandals off now and again just to get back at the BRF. There must be a psychologcal motivation other than immaturity.

[sliver_bic]

It's arrogance, plain in simple. To break down childishly..... Andrew: "Do you know who my mother is?!"

[KittyAtlanta]

Originally Posted by Jaya

I am starting to wonder if they truly are in debt and have that inability to know another's character.It makes me skeptical. I sometimes think they cannot be that silly. Beatrice and Eugenie will probably pay dearly for their the immaturity of their parents and they are not to blame for anything.I havethis inkling that Sarah and Andrew like to pull these mini scandals off now and again just to get back at the BRF. There must be a psychologcal motivation other than immaturity.

I beg to differ. Those girls haven't done anything and I don't believe the tarnish of their parents will rub off on them. They will be in high cotton unless they have done something wrong.

[rmay286]

How very different it might have been had someone spanked Andrew's bottom when he was young | Mail Online

I agreed with most of this article. It isn't disrespectful of the royal family--it's honest. Most of the members of the royal family are not "bad" people, per se (as compared to Epstein, anyway!); but they are above criticism in a way others aren't, and this leads to arrogance. This quote echoes my own thoughts about Andrew:

He chooses the company of crooks and tyrants who will entertain him in palaces rather than that of honest men who might expect him to carry his own bags upstairs.

Read more: How very different it might have been had someone spanked Andrew's bottom when he was young | Mail Online

As someone on the CBC news said in an online clip I watched, Prince Andrew is being criticized not because of anything he has done, but because of the company he keeps. This is something Sarah did not seem to understand when she gave that interview about Andrew being a "first rate" man. I think Andrew's choice of friends must be a combination of arrogance and insecurity--he boosts his own sense of self-importance by hanging around with wealthy, popular people.

I am not Prince Charles' biggest fan, but he and his siblings seem to keep better company (as much as they can, given that they are royal and inevitably spend time with leaders who may be corrupt).

[Mermaid1962]

I thought that the article was unnecessarily hard on Prince Edward, but I agree with what the writer said otherwise. I feel badly for the Queen, for the York princesses, and for Prince William and Kate; because it's up to the Queen's grandchildren to clean up the legacy of Prince Andrew and Sarah and, to a lesser extent, Charles and Diana.

Originally Posted by rmay286

How very different it might have been had someone spanked Andrew's bottom when he was young | Mail Online


I am not Prince Charles' biggest fan, but he and his siblings seem to keep better company (as much as they can, given that they are royal and inevitably spend time with leaders who may be corrupt).

[EllieCat]

I thought that the article was unnecessarily hard on Prince Edward, but I agree with what the writer said otherwise. I feel badly for the Queen, for the York princesses, and for Prince William and Kate; because it's up to the Queen's grandchildren to clean up the legacy of Prince Andrew and Sarah and, to a lesser extent, Charles and Diana.

I agree about Prince Edward; a couple of minor problems in his youth, he learned from them, and now does a sterling job for the Royal Family; no scandals whatsoever.

The York princesses may have to clean up their own reputations considering the latest photos of them appearing drunk leaving a questionable nightclub.

[Polly]

I don't know what law Andrew is alleged to have broken: can anyone enlighten me?

Here are a few salient facts. First, the government cannot sack him - his is not a government or ministerial appointment. The government will have to bring considerable pressure to bear on the Queen to do so.

Second: the prince can hardly be accused of associating with 'despicable tyrants' when the governments of most Western countries have done precisely the same thing, and governments of all political persuasions, at that. Time and again, the West has overlooked, if not condoned, the excesses of tin-pot dictators and tyrants to secure financial advantage, particularly in pursuit of oil supplies, for itself.

Third: lots of people love fawning on royals and Middle Eastern royal families and other rulers alike – whose fine old collection of petro-dollars the West is desperate to get its hands on – don't feel comfortable talking trade unless there's a British royal serving the drinks. Partly, it's an historical and ex-colonial hang-up.

The UK's export strengths which it is the trade ambassador's role to foster remain thus: Big Pharma; weapons of war; the Royal Family. The two former inform the bulk of the UK's export income these days and the Royal Family is, dutifully, instrumental in promoting the sales.

Buckingham Palace has pointed out that Andrew's interactions with the Gadhafi regime – and Tunisia's ousted dictatorship, too- fell within the mandate of his job as special trade representative.

"It was part of the British government's engagement with Libya at the time," a palace spokesman said on customary condition of anonymity.
The spokesman confirmed Andrew met Moammar Gadhafi twice. Both meetings were properly conducted and of public record and should not come as news.

However, Andrew's friendship with Epstein is a problem of some moral dimension, and reflects poorly on his lack of nous, and what can only be described as stupidity. Still, in most countries, stupidity remains a personal failing, not a crime. As for Epstein, there's not space enough and time to discuss his massive influence, powerful friends, and how and why the elite so frequently escape full retribution for their crimes.

[Mermaid1962]

As far as I can see, the only law he might have broken is if he was "involved" with any of Epstein's underage masseuses in the Florida house. However, that hasn't been alleged. In fact, the papers seem to be bending over backwards to say that nothing like that has been suggested.

Personally, I don't have a problem with things Andrew might have done or people he might have seen on the request of the government. Dealing with shady characters is a fact of life in business and foreign dealings.

Originally Posted by Polly

I don't know what law Andrew is alleged to have broken: can anyone enlighten me?

[ghost_night554]

If anyone can see the flip side of this it actually shows what a wonderful person Andrew is by helping out his ex-wife still after all these years. I read the latest article on dailymail but can someone perhaps sum up what exactly has happened and why it's being deemed so wrong?

[Lenora]

Originally Posted by ghost_night554

If anyone can see the flip side of this it actually shows what a wonderful person Andrew is by helping out his ex-wife still after all these years. I read the latest article on dailymail but can someone perhaps sum up what exactly has happened and why it's being deemed so wrong?

Here is a link and David Cameron's point of view:
BBC News - Cameron backs Prince Andrew in trade envoy row

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by ghost_night554

If anyone can see the flip side of this it actually shows what a wonderful person Andrew is by helping out his ex-wife still after all these years. I read the latest article on dailymail but can someone perhaps sum up what exactly has happened and why it's being deemed so wrong?

If you can't see what is "wrong" with being under obligation to a pedophile, to arranging for that pedophile to pay for the debts of another, or to be photographed cuddling that pedophile's victims, then I really don't think that anyone on a Royal internet board can help you understand. Perhaps you might consider volunteering locally at a charity that helps sex abuse victims for a deeper look at the vicious world of child sexual exploitation.

[muriel]

Duke of York 'very worried about future as trade envoy' - Telegraph

Duke of York 'very worried about future as trade envoy'

The Duke of York is "very worried" about whether he can continue as Britain's trade envoy amid the controversy over his ties to a convicted paedophile, a friend has said

[CatherineJ]

I realize this may be a tad of subject, but looked up Jeff Epstein and by Forbes's view he is NOT a billionaire at all! Then I read the 336 people who were on the billionaire list and he is not..
The headline for this article reads something like

"Sex - offender - yes, scum bag, yes: billionaire NO!

Also since he gave "some" monies, who else gave money to get Sarah out of debt? Would it be some rich shiek from the middle east?

[dbarn67]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

I thought that the article was unnecessarily hard on Prince Edward, but I agree with what the writer said otherwise. I feel badly for the Queen, for the York princesses, and for Prince William and Kate; because it's up to the Queen's grandchildren to clean up the legacy of Prince Andrew and Sarah and, to a lesser extent, Charles and Diana.

Good article.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by CatherineJ

Also since he gave "some" monies, who else gave money to get Sarah out of debt? Would it be some rich shiek from the middle east?

This is a question I have now as well. Who else has been paying off Sarah's debts? Sarah's rich friends? Andrew's rich friends from the Middle East/one of the former Soviet states? There has obviously been some deal-making going on.

And if other people are paying off Sarah's debts for her--isn't she still indebted to those people? (And if they do it for Sarah as a favour to Andrew, Andrew is indebted to them for the favour.)

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by rmay286

This is a question I have now as well. Who else has been paying off Sarah's debts? Sarah's rich friends? Andrew's rich friends from the Middle East/one of the former Soviet states? There has obviously been some deal-making going on.

And if other people are paying off Sarah's debts for her--isn't she still indebted to those people? (And if they do it for Sarah as a favour to Andrew, Andrew is indebted to them for the favour.)

This may be akin to pulling the first loose thread on the tapestry, thinking that will tidy it up; instead, it begins the unraveling.

Good questions, indeed.