Prince Andrew Relinquishes Use of Titles & Honours, & Move to Sandringham 17 Oct 2025


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Toledo said:
Epstein visited Bill Clinton at the White House 17 times. That's how buddy/buddy they were. Here we are with Andrew ostracized in the UK for having the same affiliation to the same exact person. And yet, in the USA Bill Clinton is untouchable by the media and you don't see anyone on the nationwide news carrying this story and putting it front and center on the Epstein scandal.
Click to expand...
I don't want to get into a Clinton discussion, but he was out of office in 2001, long before Epstein was arrested, tried, and jailed. Andrew's association with Epstein was both before and after his incarceration.
 
kalnel said:
I don't want to get into a Clinton discussion, but he was out of office in 2001, long before Epstein was arrested, tried, and jailed. Andrew's association with Epstein was both before and after his incarceration.
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is that because he was savvy and stopped his association he can be removed from the discussion and any accusations, it made him smart not innocent.
Some of the names Andrew has been called on here, if in a newspaper there would have been court cases for defamation but Clinton must be totally innocent because he was wise to distance himself once it became public. He was in plenty of photographs. .
 
Hallo girl said:
So what you are saying is that because he was savvy and stopped his association he can be removed from the discussion and any accusations, it made him smart not innocent.
Some of the names Andrew has been called on here, if in a newspaper there would have been court cases for defamation but Clinton must be totally innocent because he was wise to distance himself once it became public. He was in plenty of photographs. .
Click to expand...
I would also note that Clinton has never been named by any of the victims as someone who abused them. Andrew gets so much blame because he was named and there was clear evidence he had met the victim who named him.

That is not to exonerate Clinton, just to remind that part of why both he and Donald Trump come under less fire than Andrew despite ties to Epstein is because neither have ever been accused on the record by a victim of Epstein’s.
 
HRHHermione said:
I would also note that Clinton has never been named by any of the victims as someone who abused them. Andrew gets so much blame because he was named and there was clear evidence he had met the victim who named him.

That is not to exonerate Clinton, just to remind that part of why both he and Donald Trump come under less fire than Andrew despite ties to Epstein is because neither have ever been accused on the record by a victim of Epstein’s.
Click to expand...
That is a fair point,
 
HRHHermione said:
That is not to exonerate Clinton, just to remind that part of why both he and Donald Trump come under less fire than Andrew despite ties to Epstein is because neither have ever been accused on the record by a victim of Epstein’s.
Click to expand...
Another reason why Andrew was a fool to settle that lawsuit!
If he had fought it, as Dershowitz advised, he wouldn't be pilloried now.
(I remember long ago reading about a lawsuit against Trump, where he bragged about never settling).
 
I'm not sure if it was a mistake to settle the matter out of court. I imagine that Andrew's advisors, as well as his family, recommended that he reach an agreement this way to avoid a trial.

Imagine what a trial would have meant: all the newspapers in the UK and internationally would have exploited the issue excessively. That certainly wouldn't have been good for the royal family's image, as it would have overshadowed and diminished all the positive things they do.
 
hereditarytitles said:
I'm not sure if it was a mistake to settle the matter out of court. I imagine that Andrew's advisors, as well as his family, recommended that he reach an agreement this way to avoid a trial.

Imagine what a trial would have meant: all the newspapers in the UK and internationally would have exploited the issue excessively. That certainly wouldn't have been good for the royal family's image, as it would have overshadowed and diminished all the positive things they do.
Click to expand...

Glad we were spared of the trial, @hereditarytitles , I don't think TRFs has enough HTML thread paper to cover that for the next few years! :)
 
hereditarytitles said:
Imagine what a trial would have meant: all the newspapers in the UK and internationally would have exploited the issue excessively. That certainly wouldn't have been good for the royal family's image, as it would have overshadowed and diminished all the positive things they do.
Click to expand...
But there really was no evidence against him, other than a photograph with Giuffre which really proved nothing except that he had met her.
If he had countersued for defamation, then what?
Instead he settled, which immediately led everyone to believe in his guilt.
 

Mirabel said:
But there really was no evidence against him, other than a photograph with Giuffre which really proved nothing except that he had met her.
If he had countersued for defamation, then what?
Instead he settled, which immediately led everyone to believe in his guilt.
Click to expand...
I agree. He shouldn't have given that interview with Emily Maitlin back then. He did everything wrong that you possibly could. His claim that the photo with Virginia was fake and that he'd never even seen her was simply unbelievable. That exposed him as a liar. If he'd been smart, he would have acted differently, and the whole thing wouldn't have been blown out of proportion.

He's just not a likable character—vain, arrogant, and incorrigible. That's among other things brought him down.

However, it's unfair that all the other men in Epstein's circle get away with it simply because they were smarter or had better advisors.

It's not as if Giuffre didn't name others in her book, like Ehud Barak, who did far worse to her than Andrew.

Although I don't particularly like Andrew, I feel sorry for him now, since he's the scapegoat while others, who were perhaps much worse, get away with it.
 
The problem with the other perpetrators might be, that they are either prominent political figures or political donors from both sides of the aisle so to say, the American establishment in all it's aspects, while the former Prince is from abroad and a good scapegoat, royal and all that...
 
hereditarytitles said:
Although I don't particularly like Andrew, I feel sorry for him now, since he's the scapegoat while others, who were perhaps much worse, get away with it.
Click to expand...
Interesting to feel sorry for Andrew for his actions catching up to him instead of feeling sorry for the victims that the same hasn't happened to all perpetrators.
 
Archduchess Zelia said:
Interesting to feel sorry for Andrew for his actions catching up to him instead of feeling sorry for the victims that the same hasn't happened to all perpetrators.
Click to expand...
In all my posts on this topic, I have repeatedly emphasized my sympathy for the victims. This has nothing to do with the fact that he is now being punished particularly harshly compared to everyone else. Instead of "sorry," I should have said that his punishment is unfair compared to the others.
 
Two things can be true simultaneoulsy: being sorry for the victims (I don’t think there’s anyone in their right mind who isn’t heartbroken for them) and feel sorry for Andrew for being made a scapegoat. Nuances. (Also, there’s no hint of Andrew physically forcing himself on her/them, in contrast to other abusers. That doesn’t absolve Andrew, it simply establishes a scale).
 
There's nothing nuanced in forcing a victim narrative onto a person being held accountable for his actions.

It's perfectly understandable to be frustrated that this has not happened to all perpetrators implicated in the Epstein business but to turn that frustration into sympathy for Andrew for being punished too hard compared to everyone else rather than outrage that others didn't get to face the consequences of their actions is really weird behaviour.

hereditarytitles said:
In all my posts on this topic, I have repeatedly emphasized my sympathy for the victims. This has nothing to do with the fact that he is now being punished particularly harshly compared to everyone else. Instead of "sorry," I should have said that his punishment is unfair compared to the others.
Click to expand...

Well, that doesn't change my point at all. If anything, it exacerbates it: I think it's deeply thought-provoking that you see one person out of a group of people facing the consequences of his continued ridiculous actions and rather than believing it to be unfair that these other people behaving just as bad – if not worse – than this one guy don't face the same consequences, you think that it's the guy – again, who is just having his actions catch up to him – being punished too hard.

The only thing Andrew is a victim of is his own continued absurd behaviour.
 
Epstein aside, Andrew deserves what's happened to him solely for the way he has treated people all his life. He has bullied and demeaned others since he was a child and, one must presume, his parents witnessed this and allowed it to continue, especially where staff were concerned. I'm not blaming them for him but surely if he had been taken in hand even his worst excesses might have been curbed. They weren't and he went on a path of total self destruction, seemingly indulged by his mother in particular.
 
A Question:

Does anyone here think that Sarah and Andrew are seriously considering selling Royal ephemera for personal monetary gain? I see this topic mentioned almost daily in a variety of publications. This seems like lurid clickbait to me, but in the past, Sarah's "lick of the spoon" arrangements enhance the possibility that this may happen.
 
It depends what the objects consist of, I suppose. Anything from the Royal Collection art, furniture, decorative pieces from the storehouses of BP, Windsor etc, then almost certainly not, imo. TPTB certainly wouldnt allow that to happen.

If there is anything there that was given as personal gifts by the Saudis or other royals, such as the QM, that might be valuable, I could see Sarah looking favourably at it. Andrew would remain in the background and get his cut later I suppose. However, this couple’s daughters are still close to the King and BRF, so great care would have to be taken to not have complete estrangement from them I would guess.
 
I have a book by Sasha Swire called "Diary of an MP's Wife". She is married to Hugo Swire, a (now) former MP and Northern Ireland minister.

A chapter of the book describes a lengthy conversation with Andrew and how upset he was that the then PoW Charles was taking a piano from Royal Lodge. Andrew was beside himself. And that was just removal of a piano that he didn't even play. This move must be very traumatic for him.
 
Leopoldine said:
I have a book by Sasha Swire called "Diary of an MP's Wife". She is married to Hugo Swire, a (now) former MP and Northern Ireland minister.

A chapter of the book describes a lengthy conversation with Andrew and how upset he was that the then PoW Charles was taking a piano from Royal Lodge. Andrew was beside himself. And that was just removal of a piano that he didn't even play. This move must be very traumatic for him.
Click to expand...
I’m sure it is. But, however privileged and wealthy you are, life sometimes deals out consequences for greed and former actions. And if Andrew and his wife had never sought Epstein’s friendship in the first place or broken with him and Ghislaine early then Andrew wouldn’t have ended up in the mess he did.

Plus, if Andrew’s business activities as British Trade Envoy and afterwards had always been completely above board, with no dodgy friendships with wealthy oligarchs etc, then he and Fergie could have continued to live comfily in Royal Lodge or somewhere similar for the rest of their lives, or so long as they could afford to. As it is he is a pariah. And sorry, but I have very little sympathy.
 
Leopoldine said:
I have a book by Sasha Swire called "Diary of an MP's Wife". She is married to Hugo Swire, a (now) former MP and Northern Ireland minister.

A chapter of the book describes a lengthy conversation with Andrew and how upset he was that the then PoW Charles was taking a piano from Royal Lodge. Andrew was beside himself. And that was just removal of a piano that he didn't even play. This move must be very traumatic for him.
Click to expand...
Wow. I've joked about Andrew's teddy bear collection and "hoarding" but if he had this type of outsized reaction to a piano being removed from RL, then that is a classic hoarders' response. A hoarder will have an extreme emotional attachment to any item in their home and will compromise their own safety to keep the items in their home.
 
Curryong said:
I’m sure it is. But, however privileged and wealthy you are, life sometimes deals out consequences for greed and former actions. And if Andrew and his wife had never sought Epstein’s friendship in the first place or broken with him and Ghislaine early then Andrew wouldn’t have ended up in the mess he did.

Plus, if Andrew’s business activities as British Trade Envoy and afterwards had always been completely above board, with no dodgy friendships with wealthy oligarchs etc, then he and Fergie could have continued to live comfily in Royal Lodge or somewhere similar for the rest of their lives, or so long as they could afford to. As it is he is a pariah. And sorry, but I have very little sympathy.
Click to expand...

I am not enamored of Andrew and have little sympathy for him, although I do think he was easily manipulated by others. I just wonder if he will eventually react to this huge life change in an erratic way. So far, he has been quiet and stoic.
 
Is Andrew still allowed items from the Royal Collection in his new home?

Also does he actually have any real friends remaining? He seems a very lonely figure these days.
 
TRL said:
Pretty sure it was "shooting weekend" but redacted because the DOJ lawyers didn't understand what that is.
Click to expand...

Lori138 said:
No, it was explained that Eugenie was away that weekend with her then boyfriend Jack Brooksbank. So don't think it was 'shooting'.
Click to expand...

hereditarytitles said:
:previous:But did Eugenie ever attend "shooting weekends" when she was 19 or 20 years old?
Click to expand...

The US Department of Justice did not redact the email, the Daily Mail did. The letters between “sh” and “ing” are “agg”.

www.justice.gov

Age Verification | United States Department of Justice

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov


This article has a few highlights from Sarah Ferguson and Jeffrey Epstein’s email exchanges:

www.bbc.co.uk

Epstein files: 'Marry me' and Epstein's 'baby boy' - key Sarah Ferguson revelations

The latest Epstein files will only add to embarrassment for the former Duchess of York.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Tatiana Maria said:
The US Department of Justice did not redact the email, the Daily Mail did. The letters between “sh” and “ing” are “agg”.

www.justice.gov

Age Verification | United States Department of Justice

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov


This article has a few highlights from Sarah Ferguson and Jeffrey Epstein’s email exchanges:

www.bbc.co.uk

Epstein files: 'Marry me' and Epstein's 'baby boy' - key Sarah Ferguson revelations

The latest Epstein files will only add to embarrassment for the former Duchess of York.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Ah! Thank you for the clarification. And how uncouth that Fergie actually said that about Eugenie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor News and Events 1: Oct 2025 -
3 4 5
Replies
130
Views
17K
Diarist
D
Ista
Sarah Ferguson News and Events 1: October 2025 -
Replies
27
Views
4K
Diarist
D
Marengo
Questions about British Styles and Titles 4: Feb 2026 -
Replies
16
Views
2K
Tatiana Maria
Tatiana Maria
Marengo
General Discussion about Royal Residences 3: Dec 2025 -
Replies
14
Views
2K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Marengo
Queen Mathilde Jewels 3, Oct 2025 -
Replies
12
Views
2K
iceflower
iceflower

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom