The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you have credible sources to back up the part that's been bolded or is that supposition? I've yet to see something come out that tells exactly what the Queen is or isn't doing in regards to Andrew's situation.

I have read it in what I thought were reasonable sources, which I don't have time just at this moment to look up but would be happy to dig up and submit. If what I wrote doesn't pass muster I'm happy to edit it out or have it deleted, I'm new here and if I did not read the rules carefully enough that's my own fault. I certainly don't want to ruffle feathers with my first post. :flowers:

It is supposition in that I assume only the Queen has the power/desire to warn the press off Balmoral at this delicate time - I understand that's most unusual - and that the reason is to protect Andrew, since no one else at the place has any reason to worry about anything more than the usual press attentions.
 
It is supposition in that I assume only the Queen has the power/desire to warn the press off Balmoral at this delicate time - I understand that's most unusual - and that the reason is to protect Andrew, since no one else at the place has any reason to worry about anything more than the usual press attentions.

Has the press been warned off Balmoral? It is a huge private estate and we don't normally get much in the way of photos unless the family go to a part of the estate within the range of telephoto lenses. There are usually photos of people arriving and departing (just as there was this year with photos of Andrew and Sarah arriving and, later of Charles and Camilla). Otherwise the "clearest" photos are taken at church. That seems to be on hold this year but I would say to discourage crowds because of the pandemic rather than to protect Andrew.

BTW, welcome to the forums.
 
This is an report from the Mercury newspaper. In the text it gives the original sources for the two reports mentioned here in the thread.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08...ct-andrew-from-media-at-balmoral-report-says/

For instance…


[FONT=&quot]‘The U.K Sunday Times [/FONT]reported[FONT=&quot] that Andrew’s legal bills are being underwritten by the queen, through her private estate. Royal aides worry that the case has become especially damaging to the royal family’s public image in the era of the #MeToo movement, the Sunday Times added.’ End quote.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And ….[/FONT]

The origin of this report about Balmoral seems to have come from The Daily Beast, a journalistic online blog which includes royal news. The Mercury has reprinted it.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]‘The timing of the letter being sent the day after the lawsuit landed is likely to fuel speculation that the queen is using her enormous domestic influence to protect her favorite son,” the Daily Beast reported. The letters reportedly reminded publications that Balmoral “is a private estate” and that the royal family and their guests therefore “have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The editor of a British newspaper told the Daily Beast: “I’ve never seen a warning like this before from the queen’s lawyers. It’s clearly to keep people away from Prince Andrew. There is no coincidence in the timing coming after Virginia Roberts filed her lawsuit against Andrew.”’[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Palace sources confirmed to the Daily Beast that the letters had been sent out to media organizations, but insisted that similar letters are sent out whenever the royal family is on their annual summer vacation in Balmoral and are therefore “not remarkable,” but The Daily Beast noted that the queen has been on holiday at Balmoral since July 24, while the letters weren’t sent until Aug. 10.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A source at one newspaper speculated to the Daily Beast that the queen, and perhaps the rest of the royal family, hopes to protect Andrew from being photographed while being served with legal papers. The palace may worry that David Boies, the media-friendly American lawyer who filed the suit on behalf of accuser Guiffre, might try to stage such a spectacle to further humiliate Andrew.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]While Boies told the BBC that it wasn’t necessary for the Duke of York to be physically served with the papers, he also said his client intends to send a message to rich and powerful men that abusive behavior “is not acceptable and that you cannot hide behind wealth and power and palace walls.”[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
It's been reported in several papers that Prince Andrew's income comes from the Duchy of Lancaster. That sounds likely. He probably gets a Royal Navy pension, and in fact he probably also gets a state pension because he'll have paid national insurance as a serving naval officer, and he may have inherited some money from Prince Philip and or the Queen Mother, but that wouldn't fund his lifestyle even without legal costs. So, unless he's working shifts down the local pub on the QT, it's pretty fair to assume that the Queen is giving him money.

I don't see how exactly the Queen is using her "power" to protect him from the press. The story has been widely reported in the press. OK, it's not front page news, but that's because there happens to be a major international crisis taking place in Afghanistan, not to mention a pandemic, which I think most people would agree are rather more important than Prince Andrew. He's not being protected from "questions". People involved in lawsuits don't call press conferences and take questions from the floor like a tennis player who's just finished a match or a footballer who's just signed for a new club!

I would assume the Queen is helping Andrew with his legal fees, and see nothing nothing surprising or controversial about her doing so. She has significant private wealth, and if she wants to use some of it to ensure Andrew has access to the sort of very experienced and expensive legal advice a case like this requires, that’s her concern. I think it would be money well spent on her part, both as a mother, and as the head of the Royal Family.

And yes, surely the very first thing the expensive lawyers told Andrew is that he says nothing to anyone, about anything, until they tell him otherwise. He’s a public person involved in a very public and sordid case, one that comes with many different financial, social and political agendas. The best thing he can do for himself right now is be quiet and let the lawyers do their job.
 
But then you are already hanging him high, demanding him to be stripped from positions, while no any crime has been charged or proven?

The top brass at the Grenadiers don't want him. The problem, at the very least, is that he can't carry out public engagements in support of the regiment since he left public life. At the other end of the scale some feel his reputational damage is tainting the regiment, whether he has committed crimes or not.
 
The regiment does not want to be put in the position of appearing to condone sex abuse, proven or not.
 
Welcome to the Royal Forums, Perdita!


I'm not sure how the US system works, but certainly here anyone involved in a lawsuit would avoid saying anything to the press, because that would look like trying to influence the judge, and the jury if one is involved. There've even been occasions on which cases have collapsed because one party has successfully claimed that the outcome was unfairly prejudiced by comments made in the press.
 
This is an report from the Mercury newspaper. In the text it gives the original sources for the two reports mentioned here in the thread.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08...ct-andrew-from-media-at-balmoral-report-says/

For instance…


[FONT=&quot]‘The U.K Sunday Times [/FONT]reported[FONT=&quot] that Andrew’s legal bills are being underwritten by the queen, through her private estate. Royal aides worry that the case has become especially damaging to the royal family’s public image in the era of the #MeToo movement, the Sunday Times added.’ End quote.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And ….[/FONT]

The origin of this report about Balmoral seems to have come from The Daily Beast, a journalistic online blog which includes royal news. The Mercury has reprinted it.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]‘The timing of the letter being sent the day after the lawsuit landed is likely to fuel speculation that the queen is using her enormous domestic influence to protect her favorite son,” the Daily Beast reported. The letters reportedly reminded publications that Balmoral “is a private estate” and that the royal family and their guests therefore “have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The editor of a British newspaper told the Daily Beast: “I’ve never seen a warning like this before from the queen’s lawyers. It’s clearly to keep people away from Prince Andrew. There is no coincidence in the timing coming after Virginia Roberts filed her lawsuit against Andrew.”’[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Palace sources confirmed to the Daily Beast that the letters had been sent out to media organizations, but insisted that similar letters are sent out whenever the royal family is on their annual summer vacation in Balmoral and are therefore “not remarkable,” but The Daily Beast noted that the queen has been on holiday at Balmoral since July 24, while the letters weren’t sent until Aug. 10.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A source at one newspaper speculated to the Daily Beast that the queen, and perhaps the rest of the royal family, hopes to protect Andrew from being photographed while being served with legal papers. The palace may worry that David Boies, the media-friendly American lawyer who filed the suit on behalf of accuser Guiffre, might try to stage such a spectacle to further humiliate Andrew.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]While Boies told the BBC that it wasn’t necessary for the Duke of York to be physically served with the papers, he also said his client intends to send a message to rich and powerful men that abusive behavior “is not acceptable and that you cannot hide behind wealth and power and palace walls.”[/FONT]


Thank you very much. It is confusing when stories are mentioned without an accompanying link to or statement of the source to tell whether they are unreliable rumors or credible reports.

The link to the Daily Beast article: https://www.thedailybeast.com/queen...-balmoral-and-prince-andrew?ref=home?ref=home


The source for the Grenadier Guards story is a recent article by Roya Nikkah in The Times, which quotes unnamed senior military sources who claim the Queen has "let it be known" that she wants the Duke of York to retain the post even though the military leadership dissents.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/queen-will-let-prince-andrew-keep-senior-guards-role-kq52jrs95

Queen will let Prince Andrew keep senior Guards role

Military concerned that duke’s continued presence after his withdrawal from public life over Epstein accusations is an embarrassment to the armed forces

Roya Nikkhah, Royal Editor

Sunday August 22 2021, 12.01am BST, The Sunday Times

The Queen has “let it be known” that she wants the Duke of York to remain as colonel of the Grenadier Guards, despite little prospect of him returning to public duties.

In a significant intervention signalling her support for Prince Andrew, who is facing allegations of sexual assault which he denies, the monarch is understood to have conveyed her wish that her son keeps the honorary role he took over from the Duke of Edinburgh.

Military insiders say the situation is “unsatisfactory” and “very difficult”.

A senior military source said: “The Queen has let it be known to the regiment that she wants the Duke of York to remain as colonel and the feeling is that nobody wants to do anything that could [...]
 
Last edited:
The top brass at the Grenadiers don't want him. [...]


Source ?


Of course the Duke's reputation is immensely damaged, rightly or wrongly. But when it does not come to a criminal case at all or there is an aquittal, then there you are with the Duke already hanging high at the highest tree.


Remember the gigantic reputational damage to Leon Brittan MP, to former Prime Minister Edward Heath MP, to Field Marshal Lord Edwin Bramall and others whom were already hanged high: in the end it was all based on pure fantasy.


Given the reputational damage to Field Marshal Lord Edwin Bramall, their own Chief of Defence Staff, the top brass of the Grenadiers better wait and see how the accusations unfold...


:whistling:
 
Source ?


Of course the Duke's reputation is immensely damaged, rightly or wrongly. But when it does not come to a criminal case at all or there is an aquittal, then there you are with the Duke already hanging high at the highest tree.


Remember the gigantic reputational damage to Leon Brittan MP, to former Prime Minister Edward Heath MP, to Field Marshal Lord Edwin Bramall and others whom were already hanged high: in the end it was all based on pure fantasy.


Given the reputational damage to Field Marshal Lord Edwin Bramall, their own Chief of Defence Staff, the top brass of the Grenadiers better wait and see how the accusations unfold...


:whistling:

The details are in Tatiana Maria's post.
 
It's happened with a number of well-known people. In 2014, Cliff Richard, of all people, was the object of abuse allegations, which turned out to be false. The BBC later apologised for their coverage of what had happened.


I'm not saying that the allegations about Prince Andrew are false. I wasn't there: I have no idea what, if anything, took place. But, as it stands, all he's actually known to be guilty of is having bad taste in friends.


It's a difficult situation. I can quite see that the Grenadier Guards are uncomfortable about being associated with Prince Andrew under the circumstances. There are umpteen examples of actors being removed from films or TV series due to unproven allegations, and sports players being dropped by sponsors under similar circumstances. But it's quite dangerous to do that when someone has not actually been convicted of anything.
 
Thanks everyone that posted sources about the Queen financing Andrew's legal team.

About the Grenadiers, I know it means a lot to Andrew to have that position and right now, without being deemed guilty of a criminal act, I don't think it's the right time to strip Andrew of anything at all. Being put out to pasture and out of the public spotlight is probably hard on Andrew and that's why we only see him "spotted" driving or riding a horse. Laying low is a good idea for him right now and he seems to be keeping his mouth shut also. Things are going to probably ramp up as we near the time for Maxwell's criminal trial.

Actions do beget reactions and the biggest mistake Andrew's made so far is his friendship with Epstein and then vehemently defending that friendship. That's not criminal. What will happen with Guiffre's civil suit remains to be seen. Makes for interesting times though following all this. 😄
 
For me the point where I am frowning very much about the prince's acquaintance with Jeffrey Epstein is not the fact of what the prince has or hasn't done but that he obviously for quite some time enjoyed staying within Epstein's circle of friends. There was no need for that and the more we hear about the "girls of the massage parlour" that Epstein loved and Ms. Maxwell procured, no matter how innocent it was when it came to sexual intercourses, the more I feel Andrew should have recognized the unhealthy atmosphere around Epstein.
 
Is Andrew the only person [FONT=&quot]Guiffre is accusing?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I find it odd that no one else is facing prosecution or are in any other way being outed.
[/FONT]
 
It's happened with a number of well-known people. In 2014, Cliff Richard, of all people, was the object of abuse allegations, which turned out to be false. The BBC later apologised for their coverage of what had happened.


I'm not saying that the allegations about Prince Andrew are false. I wasn't there: I have no idea what, if anything, took place. But, as it stands, all he's actually known to be guilty of is having bad taste in friends.


It's a difficult situation. I can quite see that the Grenadier Guards are uncomfortable about being associated with Prince Andrew under the circumstances. There are umpteen examples of actors being removed from films or TV series due to unproven allegations, and sports players being dropped by sponsors under similar circumstances. But it's quite dangerous to do that when someone has not actually been convicted of anything.

Criminality aside, the regiment perhaps feel that Andrew's conduct in being close to Epstein and then saying he still feels no regret about it makes him too shameful a figure to be their Colonel in Chief and who could blame them for that?
 
Criminality aside, the regiment perhaps feel that Andrew's conduct in being close to Epstein and then saying he still feels no regret about it makes him too shameful a figure to be their Colonel in Chief and who could blame them for that?

The UK military does have its ethics as far as an officers conduct. We hear often of "conduct unbecoming an officer". A good definition of this would be "Conduct unbecoming refers to the conduct on the part of a certified professional that is contrary to the public interests, or which harms his/her standing of the profession in the eyes of the public."
 
Weren't all of the honorary military positions held by the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duke of Sussex returned to the Crown after those princes retired or stepped back as working members of the Royal Family? Unless there was previously a long tradition of retired princes(ses) retaining their honorary military positions, it would appear the general policy is that the positions are relinquished upon a royal's withdrawal from official duties, and the Duke of York is the exception to the rule.
 
It's happened with a number of well-known people. In 2014, Cliff Richard, of all people, was the object of abuse allegations, which turned out to be false. The BBC later apologised for their coverage of what had happened.


I'm not saying that the allegations about Prince Andrew are false. I wasn't there: I have no idea what, if anything, took place. But, as it stands, all he's actually known to be guilty of is having bad taste in friends.


It's a difficult situation. I can quite see that the Grenadier Guards are uncomfortable about being associated with Prince Andrew under the circumstances. There are umpteen examples of actors being removed from films or TV series due to unproven allegations, and sports players being dropped by sponsors under similar circumstances. But it's quite dangerous to do that when someone has not actually been convicted of anything.


My understanding from the press reports is that the Grenadiers' concern is not so much that Andrew might be guilty of the charges or being associated with him, but rather that, as of today, he is prevented from performing the public ceremonial duties of the colonel. As one guard put it in the press, what is the point of having a colonel who can't do his job?
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with the Duke losing his positions but only after a correct procedure. The examples of Cliff Richard and others have been named in this thread: totally burned down by media and public, in the end all based on fantasies.

If the Duke is guilty to crimes or misdemeanours and ending his military positions is a fair step: go ahead. But every person needs a fair chance, also Prince Andrew.
 
Last edited:
The UK military does have its ethics as far as an officers conduct. We hear often of "conduct unbecoming an officer". A good definition of this would be "Conduct unbecoming refers to the conduct on the part of a certified professional that is contrary to the public interests, or which harms his/her standing of the profession in the eyes of the public."

The pertinent question for me is how an officer of similar rank would be treated under the same circumstances. I say similar, not equal, because Andrew’s ceremonial role isn’t the same as the role of a regular high ranking officer, but there are still some parallels that can be drawn.

Here in Canada two consecutive chiefs of the defence staff have been recently investigated for allegations of sexual misconduct. There was an announcement this month that the investigation of the second case was concluded, and there would be no criminal charges, however the government has decided that the man will remain on leave until further notice, even though the officer in question wants his old position back.

Another high ranking officer - I believe he was the second or third in command of the military - resigned his post after it emerged that he played a game of golf with one of the men being investigated (while the investigation was ongoing).

It’s understandable that some in the British forces are upset that Andrew continues to represent them. However they feel about Andrew’s association with Epstein, they know the standards of behaviour servicemen and women are expected to observe in all areas of their lives, and they probably also know that if a regular colonel were in the same situation, he or she would be lucky to still have a job.
 
The pertinent question for me is how an officer of similar rank would be treated under the same circumstances. I say similar, not equal, because Andrew’s ceremonial role isn’t the same as the role of a regular high ranking officer, but there are still some parallels that can be drawn.

Here in Canada two consecutive chiefs of the defence staff have been recently investigated for allegations of sexual misconduct. There was an announcement this month that the investigation of the second case was concluded, and there would be no criminal charges, however the government has decided that the man will remain on leave until further notice, even though the officer in question wants his old position back.

Another high ranking officer - I believe he was the second or third in command of the military - resigned his post after it emerged that he played a game of golf with one of the men being investigated (while the investigation was ongoing).

It’s understandable that some in the British forces are upset that Andrew continues to represent them. However they feel about Andrew’s association with Epstein, they know the standards of behaviour servicemen and women are expected to observe in all areas of their lives, and they probably also know that if a regular colonel were in the same situation, he or she would be lucky to still have a job.


As the situation is at present: an American lady has filed a civil case claiming "assault" by the Duke. This has been categorically denied by Prince Andrew. No more, no less. This seems not enough for dismissal from military ranks, not for a Corporal Jim Jones and also not for a Colonel Andrew of York.
 
Prince Andrew is served with legal papers at his home in Britain and sued for sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts, who claims she was forced to have sex with him as a teen

Prince Andrew has been served at his home in Britain with the paperwork for the bombshell lawsuit from his accuser who sued him in a US court.

According to a document filed on Friday, an affidavit of service was served at the Duke of York's home in Windsor, England on August 27.

Service of the papers starts the clock ticking for Andrew to respond or face a default judgement.

Normally defendants have 21 days to respond but a judge may extend that given that the Duke is not in the US.

Roberts last month accused Andrew in a federal court in New York of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The lawsuit claims she was forced to have sex with Andrew three times on the orders of late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Complete article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...al-assault-suit-brought-Virginia-Giuffre.html
 
Prince Andrew is served with legal papers at his home in Britain and sued for sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts, who claims she was forced to have sex with him as a teen

Prince Andrew has been served at his home in Britain with the paperwork for the bombshell lawsuit from his accuser who sued him in a US court.

According to a document filed on Friday, an affidavit of service was served at the Duke of York's home in Windsor, England on August 27.

Service of the papers starts the clock ticking for Andrew to respond or face a default judgement.

Normally defendants have 21 days to respond but a judge may extend that given that the Duke is not in the US.

Roberts last month accused Andrew in a federal court in New York of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The lawsuit claims she was forced to have sex with Andrew three times on the orders of late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Complete article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...al-assault-suit-brought-Virginia-Giuffre.html

I wonder if there was a blunder of some kind and the police officers who took the documents and passed them to Andrew did so in error. I can't see it being anything else as the staff on duty the first time around knew definitely not to accept them.
 
The lawsuit claims she was forced to have sex with Andrew three times on the orders of late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

I think the conundrum here is that Ms. Giuffre has the burden on her side of *proving* that Andrew knew she was being forced by Epstein and mistreated her anyways. Ms. Giuffre, to me, stands a better chance of a cash settlement suing Epstein's estate rather than Prince Andrew. As has been mentioned before, Ms. Giuffre has been on record saying that Andrew was "nice" to her. Now that's changed to abuse?

There is no way of knowing exactly how Andrew treated her at any time unless there's a video tape somewhere that can be used as evidence. I think if there actually was a tape and Andrew knew there was a tape, he'd have settled with Ms. Giuffre a long time ago.

This will be an interesting case to watch.
 
I read that the next step is for a US judge to determine if the service of the legal papers to Andrew's police guard is legally recognized as Andrew being served.
 
I don't know about the US rules. The rules here are complicated - isn't everything?! Some papers have to be served directly to the named person, whereas others can just be left at the address or with anyone who answers the door at that address. But usually they'd have to be given directly to the named person.
 
Prince Andrew is served with legal papers at his home in Britain and sued for sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts, who claims she was forced to have sex with him as a teen

Prince Andrew has been served at his home in Britain with the paperwork for the bombshell lawsuit from his accuser who sued him in a US court.

According to a document filed on Friday, an affidavit of service was served at the Duke of York's home in Windsor, England on August 27.

Service of the papers starts the clock ticking for Andrew to respond or face a default judgement.

Normally defendants have 21 days to respond but a judge may extend that given that the Duke is not in the US.

Roberts last month accused Andrew in a federal court in New York of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The lawsuit claims she was forced to have sex with Andrew three times on the orders of late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Complete article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...al-assault-suit-brought-Virginia-Giuffre.html


My understanding from the press reports is that Prince Andrew's legal team denies that their client has been legally served.
 
I really think the time has come for him to meet this head on. The silence and the hiding away from being served the papers were/are damaging and if his team were to get into a legal wrangle as to whether they have been properly served or not I think it would just be another terribly evasive and guilty look from him. One has got to wonder if his lawyers are too frightened of what further damage he could do if he spoke out again after that catastrophic Newsnight interview but this constant ducking and diving has got to stop at some point. I've no doubt he's convinced himself that if he ignores this it will go away and perhaps even the Queen is advising him to take that route as it's served her so well over the years but it would be a major miscalculation IMO.
 
One thing for sure is that if Andrew does decide to face this head on, any talking to the press or the public should be done by his legal team and *not* himself.

I think Andrew is finding out that this isn't going to go away anytime soon. The sooner it's resolved, the better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom