The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2: Sep 2022 -

[TLLK]

Many Crown properties including those on the Windsor estate are lived in by people who aren't well know. If you looked at the link I posted you'll see properties for rent in a range of price brackets - do all of those people have to meet some sort of standards set by the government, no of course not. Likewise there are some millionaires who have lived in the bigger residences - e.g. Fort Belvedere was leased for many years by Canadian billionaires Galen and Hilary Weston. I was answering the suggestion that somehow Andrew had to meet some sort of 'government ethics' to live in "government property". In fact the Crown Estate will lease to anyone who applies and can afford the rent / lease requirements.

Thank you for sharing this information as I was unaware of what requirements a prospective tenant for one of the Crown Estate properties would need to meet.

 

[Sunnystar]

Thank you for sharing this information as I was unaware of what requirements a prospective tenant for one of the Crown Estate properties would need to meet.

Why would the requirements be any different than passing a standard credit check here in the US?

Housing contracts aren't the same as sports/entertainment contracts may or may not have morality clauses - and let's be real... The only time those morality/conduct clauses get exercised are when someone gets caught and winds up all over the news.

 

[Hallo girl]

My concern for this whole matter is will all the people who have appeared in a photograph with Epstein, or on the guest list at one of his parties now come under scrutiny. Is it just certain names that the press/ media/ social media want to hang out to dry or will everybody be scrutinised. He held a great deal of parties and attracted the rich and famous. Do they all have something to hide or does it suit the agenda to highlight certain individuals.

Another concern I have with regards some of the comments on here, is with regards ages. Andrew was 20 years younger, I do not know what he did or didn't do, and I am not making assumptions. People are linking a 60 year old man with the events.
I am also uncomfortable with references being made to kids, would just like to say in Scotland you can marry at 16. in England 18.

 

[shady lady]

The phrase used to be, “Innocent until proven guilty.”

Now it appears to be, “Guilty until proven innocent.”

And in this day and age of social media and the press media who have axes to grind, and don’t tell the story as straight facts but add in emotional and political bias and sensational headlines with each word carefully chosen to put the knife in deeper, no one in the public arena – ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – stands a chance.

In the court of my own private opinion, judged from his own words on tv, PAndrew is guilty of pomposity, arrogance and utter stupidity – that phrase from that disastrous tv interview where he basically said he didn’t regret his friendship with JEpstein because of what he gained, was just utter utter utter… words fail me… Who in their right mind would think that would be the correct answer to the question posed? Once it was shown that JEpstein was linked with some very dodgy business indeed, any sensible public person should have distanced themselves from him pronto. PAndrew has brought this all down upon himself, not by what he might or might not have done with that lifestyle and those friends, but by his own words and actions.

… and yet, I can’t help but feel a shred of compassion for the guy. Apart from his common-law-wife (that’s my opinion) and daughters, and his birth family, PAndrew has lost just about everything – his job, his travelling, his lifestyle, his friends (who do we ever see him with, except his horse?) – his whole reason for being. And let’s not forget he will most likely still be mourning his parents who haven’t been gone for that long. And it’s not as if he can go on holiday or take a normal job or do anything much at all, where he would be recognised and most likely derided and jeered at.

What does he do all day? He’s got nothing except his house, his home he’s lived in for decades, all paid for by him (lease) and mucho money spent on it; his own actual home. And people think he shouldn’t be living there, and say so at great length. Should he be living in a hovel? Would people be happy then? My own opinion is if he can afford it, and has paid for it, then he should live where he wants. He has not been convicted of anything, nor charged with anything.

As far as appearing on the Christmas walk (which he is fully entitled to do, it’s not a public event) then it could be said there’s a bit of bravery in being there, or arrogance; hard to tell, could be either or both. But whatever, it can’t have been easy for him. He looks old, he looks unhappy. He doesn’t appear to have any hobbies. So all he seems to do is live through each day, doing nothing much at all, and it’s not as if he’s an old man, hasn’t even hit retirement age.

Even with my jot of compassion I do agree totally that his life as a royal is over, and should be. Same with those two overseas. Take the three of them off the main page of the royal website. Keep that information strictly to the ‘working royals’. Everyone else who is an adult royal in the extended family can be listed in a separate area with a couple of images and some text; PHarry, PAndrew, PBeatrice, PEugenie and the Michaels of Kent; perhaps even the Phillipses, Tindalls, Armstrong-Jones and Chattos as they are grandchildren of a Monarch. They are all part of the family; they should be on the website, but there should be a clear and marked difference between the ‘working royals’ and other members of the family.

I am in complete agreement with this post, thank you

 

[suztav]

The phrase used to be, “Innocent until proven guilty.”

Now it appears to be, “Guilty until proven innocent.”

And in this day and age of social media and the press media who have axes to grind, and don’t tell the story as straight facts but add in emotional and political bias and sensational headlines with each word carefully chosen to put the knife in deeper, no one in the public arena – ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – stands a chance.

In the court of my own private opinion, judged from his own words on tv, PAndrew is guilty of pomposity, arrogance and utter stupidity – that phrase from that disastrous tv interview where he basically said he didn’t regret his friendship with JEpstein because of what he gained, was just utter utter utter… words fail me… Who in their right mind would think that would be the correct answer to the question posed? Once it was shown that JEpstein was linked with some very dodgy business indeed, any sensible public person should have distanced themselves from him pronto. PAndrew has brought this all down upon himself, not by what he might or might not have done with that lifestyle and those friends, but by his own words and actions.

… and yet, I can’t help but feel a shred of compassion for the guy. Apart from his common-law-wife (that’s my opinion) and daughters, and his birth family, PAndrew has lost just about everything – his job, his travelling, his lifestyle, his friends (who do we ever see him with, except his horse?) – his whole reason for being. And let’s not forget he will most likely still be mourning his parents who haven’t been gone for that long. And it’s not as if he can go on holiday or take a normal job or do anything much at all, where he would be recognised and most likely derided and jeered at.

What does he do all day? He’s got nothing except his house, his home he’s lived in for decades, all paid for by him (lease) and mucho money spent on it; his own actual home. And people think he shouldn’t be living there, and say so at great length. Should he be living in a hovel? Would people be happy then? My own opinion is if he can afford it, and has paid for it, then he should live where he wants. He has not been convicted of anything, nor charged with anything.

As far as appearing on the Christmas walk (which he is fully entitled to do, it’s not a public event) then it could be said there’s a bit of bravery in being there, or arrogance; hard to tell, could be either or both. But whatever, it can’t have been easy for him. He looks old, he looks unhappy. He doesn’t appear to have any hobbies. So all he seems to do is live through each day, doing nothing much at all, and it’s not as if he’s an old man, hasn’t even hit retirement age.

Even with my jot of compassion I do agree totally that his life as a royal is over, and should be. Same with those two overseas. Take the three of them off the main page of the royal website. Keep that information strictly to the ‘working royals’. Everyone else who is an adult royal in the extended family can be listed in a separate area with a couple of images and some text; PHarry, PAndrew, PBeatrice, PEugenie and the Michaels of Kent; perhaps even the Phillipses, Tindalls, Armstrong-Jones and Chattos as they are grandchildren of a Monarch. They are all part of the family; they should be on the website, but there should be a clear and marked difference between the ‘working royals’ and other members of the family.

Totally agree!

 

[Maryrose]

My concern for this whole matter is will all the people who have appeared in a photograph with Epstein, or on the guest list at one of his parties now come under scrutiny. Is it just certain names that the press/ media/ social media want to hang out to dry or will everybody be scrutinised. He held a great deal of parties and attracted the rich and famous. Do they all have something to hide or does it suit the agenda to highlight certain individuals.

Another concern I have with regards some of the comments on here, is with regards ages. Andrew was 20 years younger, I do not know what he did or didn't do, and I am not making assumptions. People are linking a 60 year old man with the events.
I am also uncomfortable with references being made to kids, would just like to say in Scotland you can marry at 16. in England 18.

I think the issue is that not all the people listed in these papers have been accused of anything. They have just been at gatherings with JE and did not receive "massages" The problem is Prince Andrew has been accused by at least 2 people as being made to have sex with. I think another thing is what is trying to be found out is if some people knew what was going on and turned a blind eye. The magician David Copperfield said something along the line of "do you know other girls are being paid to find other girls?" I think people also get hung up on what the ages are but a sex trafficked person cannot consent to sex whether they are 16 or 80. They don't have the ability to say yes legally.

 

[Mirabel]

It's been said that, if Andrew can afford to live at Royal Lodge, it's his right to do so.
But, can he?
The Queen funneled money to Andrew for years; I believe the amount I read was an extra 250,000 pounds per yr. to maintain Royal LOdge.

Rumors are that Charles would prefer Andrew to downsize, but Andrew is fighting that. Charles could probably force the issue, but that may result in more bad publicity.

 

[Adda]

Oh boy, oh boy....

Court documents allege sex tapes taken of Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton and Sir Richard Branson by Jeffrey Epstein

https://twitter.com/x/status/1744411077100658723

 

[tommy100]

Interesting point...

On behalf of Sir Richard, a Virgin Group spokeswoman said: "In a New Yorker report published in 2019, Ransome admitted that she had 'invented' the tapes.

"We can confirm that Sarah Ransome's claims are baseless and unfounded."

 

[Maryrose]

I think a lot of things went "missing" after JE's arrest and before federal agents could confiscate items for the prosecution. Personally I always believed he had the goods on people for blackmail.

 

[Adda]

I think a lot of things went "missing" after JE's arrest and before federal agents could confiscate items for the prosecution. Personally I always believed he had the goods on people for blackmail.

Absolutely.

 

[Granada]

Maryrose, completely agree, also.

If it turns out that there is "fire" where there is "smoke", I believe Charles will drop the hammer on Andrew. Whatever tool he has in his arsenal to make his displeasure known and circle the wagons.

Actions like removing funding for Security, that he is allegedly providing, would be one. Which might incentivize Andrew to really think about downsizing out of Royal Lodge. When he took on the lease at Royal Lodge, Andrew NEVER imagined that he would NOT be a Senior full time 'working' member of The Family, and held in a level of respect.

Remember also....... WITH those very lucrative side lines too, thru his roles as Trade Ambassador, then later as Head of 'Pitch@ThePalace" .
Now ALL those money streams are GONE. Including Patronage and Military Roles, as well as his number one supporter. Queen Elizabeth.

Royal Lodge is a very vast and expensive Property to maintain, and if Charles removes his Security, then Andrew might be forced into re evaluating his money situation.

 

[Asteria12]

Yes, Andrew must have been very poorly advised, and put under tremendous pressure as well. Those who think that the settlement was proof of guilt might want to read up on Virginia Giuffre's attorney, David Boies. He has been described in the past as "corporate America's No. 1 hired gun." A very aggressive and successful lawyer over the course of a long career. However, he also represented Harvey Weinstein. At the time, another of Boies's clients was the New York Times. According to a 2018 story in the NYT, "The last 12 months have been an unprecedented public relations disaster for the most prominent lawyer in America. In October, his longtime client Harvey Weinstein was branded a sexual predator. Another high-profile client, Theranos, on whose board Mr. Boies served, has been exposed as a fraud. The Times publicly fired Mr. Boies’s firm, which had been representing the newspaper, after learning that he had been personally involved in an undercover operation to smear Mr. Weinstein’s victims and deceive Times reporters. The Manhattan district attorney is looking into the matter and Mr. Boies’s role." Focus for a moment on the part about Boies being part of an operation to smear Weinstein's victims -- do you think all the negative stories about Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre sprang from the earth? Has anyone had his reputation trashed as thoroughly as Prince Andrew, even though he has never even been tried in a criminal court, much less convicted of anything? The tactic of smearing the reputations of opponents is not unknown to trial lawyers in the United States, and probably elsewhere as well.

Agree, there is a bigger, murkier picture here that not many people are focusing on. Andrew was a very useful idiot indeed.

 

[Curryong]

I don’t think anyone is saying that other people of low reputation involved in this case are totally innocent of wrongdoing and are fine upstanding citizens.

However Andrew was no dupe of Epstein, Maxwell, or anybody else. He knew exactly what was going on. He stayed in several Epstein homes for weeks at a time and partook of activities there.

None of Boles’s or others’ activities or misdemeanours excuses Andrew’s behaviour nor his moving in the circles he did in the slightest. Imo it doesn’t even matter particularly that he has never been found ‘guilty’ of anything in a court of law. His actions with girls and his repulsive friendships with Epstein, Maxwell and probably others, speak to his character.