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

[duke of poliganc]

Maybe I am in the minority, but I do not feel Andrew is culpable in any way for Ms. Guiffre's suicide. She seems to have made a good life for herself until something went wrong with her marriage, so wrong that there was a restraining order against her and she could not even see her children.

Mental health issues at play here, but Andrew was not the only (supposed) man to have had relations with a teenage Virginia. So why all the blame on him?

As I mentioned before he was the only one she was able to sue, the other’s were lawyered up and would drown her in lawsuits and a nasty PR campaign if she even mentioned their names!

 

[Ghost]

As I mentioned before he was the only one she was able to sue, the other’s were lawyered up and would drown her in lawsuits and a nasty PR campaign if she even mentioned their names!

I think mostly the most interesting and important people who met her at the time were too important to be exposed to the destruction of public opinion. Andrew didn’t matter. I don’t think it’s really a question of being lawyered but being connected into the intricacies of power and finances in US.

Also, if I were to lose my children, I would die instantly, no suicide needed.

She buckled under way too much for only one soul.

 

[Ista]

Posts discussing Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York have been moved here.

Further discussion should take place there.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Oh and Andrew Lownie says that Amy Robach of ABC was working on a TV program about Virginia's accusations years before they eventually came out. Buckingham Palace threatened ABC that they would never again get access to William & Catherine's events if they went ahead with this program and ABC backed down.

The Amy Robach story was reported in 2019 and Andrew Lownie was not its source.

The video clip of Amy Robach's "hot mic" comments was leaked by an anonymous ABC insider to independent news outlet Project Veritas which published it November 5, 2019. (The Duke of York's interview with BBC Panorama was aired November 17, 2019.)

Video and transcript here:

'Good Morning America' Host Reveals ABC News Spiked Bombshell Story Implicating Jeffrey Epstein, Threatened by Royal Family | Project Veritas

Newly revealed footage leaked by an ABC insider has exposed how network executives rejected allegations against Jeffrey Epstein years ago, even though there…

www.projectveritas.com

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The fact that he did not want a trial but instead took money from his mother to pay Virginia G. speaks volumes. If he had been completely innocent, he would not have done so.

I can't know the Duke of York's thinking, but just generally speaking, it is not at all uncommon for people to choose to settle with an accuser even if the accusation is unfair. Even if the defendant is truly innocent, there is a risk that the judge or jury will side with the accuser. Even if the case should ultimately resolve in the defendant's favor, the protracted publicity and legal expenses involved in fighting the case may cause more damage than a settlement.

In the Duke of York's case, it was already evident that public opinion was fiercely against him by the time Virginia Giuffre filed her case, and the prolonged news coverage appeared to be damaging the monarchy.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

The Amy Robach story was reported in 2019 and Andrew Lownie was not its source.

The video clip of Amy Robach's "hot mic" comments was leaked by an anonymous ABC insider to independent news outlet Project Veritas which published it November 5, 2019. (The Duke of York's interview with BBC Panorama was aired November 17, 2019.)

Video and transcript here:

'Good Morning America' Host Reveals ABC News Spiked Bombshell Story Implicating Jeffrey Epstein, Threatened by Royal Family | Project Veritas

Newly revealed footage leaked by an ABC insider has exposed how network executives rejected allegations against Jeffrey Epstein years ago, even though there…

www.projectveritas.com

Thank you! Andrew Lownie talked about this in one of his interviews about the book that I watched. I don't know if he only got it from the video clip or additionally talked to people involved... He didn't say that in the interview, but maybe once the book is out, there will be more information.

 

[Maryrose]

I can't know the Duke of York's thinking, but just generally speaking, it is not at all uncommon for people to choose to settle with an accuser even if the accusation is unfair. Even if the defendant is truly innocent, there is a risk that the judge or jury will side with the accuser. Even if the case should ultimately resolve in the defendant's favor, the protracted publicity and legal expenses involved in fighting the case may cause more damage than a settlement.

In the Duke of York's case, it was already evident that public opinion was fiercely against him by the time Virginia Giuffre filed her case, and the prolonged news coverage appeared to be damaging the monarchy.

After that infamous interview there was no way the RF would have let him take the stand in his own defense. He would have been a disaster. It was better to settle and have him not speak under oath.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

From the Sarah Rainey article whose main contents I posted here:

York Family News and Pictures 3: September 2022 -

Eugenie, Beatrice and Edoardo attended the Ellie Goulding x SERVED Private Party in London yesterday, April 11: ** Pic ** gettyimages gallery **

www.theroyalforums.com

"Nevertheless, when Andrew's name was linked to Epstein's in the 2015 sex trafficking case brought by Virginia Giuffre, his daughters initially sided with him.

Epstein, after all, had been in their lives since they were children. Sources say they knew him as 'Jeffrey'; the kind American who gave them thoughtful presents and occasional gifts of money.

But after Andrew's Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis in November 2019, things took a turn for the worse.

Beatrice was more involved in the ill-fated enterprise than Eugenie or their mother: the 2024 dramatisation, Scoop, depicts her attending a BBC meeting at her father's side.

To this day, a royal insider says, Beatrice is angry with her father for not apologising on air – and regrets letting him go ahead with it."​

Were these claims reported previously? And what timeframe does "since they were children" refer to?

 

[Queen Claude]

I interpret it to mean that the York sisters met and interacted with Jeffrey Epstein when they were children, likely teens / pre-teens. Beatrice was born in 1988 and Eugenie was born in 1990. Per Andrew, he met Epstein in 1999 and that date has been refuted and Andrew and Epstein's relationship may even go back to the early 1990s. (source)

I wrote my comment about teens / pre-teens prior to doing a web search, so he may have known them even prior to Beatrice being a teenager. I based my teens / pre-teens comment on a recollection that Jeffrey Epstein attended one of the York sisters birthday parties.

I know it is not conclusive that if Andrew met Epstein in the early 1990s or 1999, that Andrew introduced his daughters to Epstein soon after meeting him, but when I read the story about Andrew's interaction with the Chinese spy, I was struck by how quickly the spy, not only got access to Andrew, but how quickly the spy was invited to some key social event and may have even gotten premier seating. I felt the same about Epstein meeting Andrew in 1999 and that same year being photographed at a location on the Balmoral estate that the late Queen had also been photographed, but I guess that can be iffy because of the claim that the Andrew-Epstein relationship may go back to the early 1990s. Anyhoo that's a lot of rambling for me to assert that it is plausible to me that the York sisters knew Epstein when they were children.

 

[GondorHasNoPants]

Two tabloids have published an email allegedly sent by Sarah, Duchess of York to Jeffrey Epstein, in which she describes him as a 'supreme friend'. The email was apparently sent in 2011, mere weeks after the Duchess had publicly distanced herself from Epstein, and said her involvement with him had been 'a gigantic error of judgement'. The Duchess claims the email was sent to counter a threat Epstein had made to sue her for defamation.

One of the lines in the email is "I know you feel hellaciously let down by me. You have always been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family."

Duchess of York calls Epstein a 'supreme friend' in resurfaced email

A spokesperson for the duchess says the message was sent to counter a threat Epstein had made to sue her for defamation.

www.bbc.com

I am trying to be generous here, but all I can think is that Andrew and Sarah were absolutely made for each other, and not necessarily in a complimentary way...

 

[tommy100]

Indeed she and Andrew are made for each other - both horrendous judge of characters, happy to lie to the public and eager for money whichever seedy, unscrupulous person it comes from.
They should both be banished to a tiny cottage at Balmoral.

 

[sophie25]

Indeed she and Andrew are made for each other - both horrendous judge of characters, happy to lie to the public and eager for money whichever seedy, unscrupulous person it comes from.
They should both be banished to a tiny cottage at Balmoral.

And yet I would not be remotely surprised if she and Andrew both turn up, yet again, on Christmas Day. Charles seems Hell bent on reimposing Fergie on the British public for reasons only he can understand.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

She's a vile person and so is her ex-husband. Charles is the brother but William should stay as clear as possible of both of them.

 

[tommy100]

I think the difficulty is, how do you stop them attending what are essentially private family events? IMO it is wrong to do so as until or unless Andrew is found guilty of a crime as it stands they are both just guilty of being horrible people who'll do anything to suck up to those with money.
IMO the issue is that when they do turn up to family events they do so front and centre as if they are the main attraction.
I think a sensible way forward is that Sarah and Andrew are welcome to Sandringham for Christmas on the understanding that they stay at Wood Farm, attend the main bits of the family celebrations at Sandringham House but not the main walk to church, at a push they could attend the early morning communion service. Likewise even at the Duchess of Kent's funeral they could have still attended but just arrived before the Duke & Duchess of Gloucester (as they are working royals and Andrew isn't) and not arrive in amongst the arrivals of senior / working royals.

I think Charles has a lot of affection for Sarah, if you've read Wendy Berry's book which is mainly about the time from Charles and Diana's marriage to their divorce you see Sarah was often at Highgrove. I think Charles is not as strict as his father who was of the opinion they'd paid Sarah a divorce settlement so why was she popping up again and had no time for her. But even I don't think that kindness needs to extend to being as publicly welcoming as he has been. Better for Andrew to be treated as Sarah was for many years arriving at events with the general public or extended family etc rather than them both taking on Andrew's perceived status.

 

[Somebody]

I guess the timing is advantageous. Charles just publicly received one of Epstein’s other steadfast friends with the highest honors.

 

[royalwatcher96]

I think the late Duke of Edinburgh was on the money about Fergie. The King would do well to remember his father's verdict.

 

[hereditarytitles]

I think the difficulty is, how do you stop them attending what are essentially private family events? IMO it is wrong to do so as until or unless Andrew is found guilty of a crime as it stands they are both just guilty of being horrible people who'll do anything to suck up to those with money.
IMO the issue is that when they do turn up to family events they do so front and centre as if they are the main attraction.
I think a sensible way forward is that Sarah and Andrew are welcome to Sandringham for Christmas on the understanding that they stay at Wood Farm, attend the main bits of the family celebrations at Sandringham House but not the main walk to church, at a push they could attend the early morning communion service. Likewise even at the Duchess of Kent's funeral they could have still attended but just arrived before the Duke & Duchess of Gloucester (as they are working royals and Andrew isn't) and not arrive in amongst the arrivals of senior / working royals.

I think Charles has a lot of affection for Sarah, if you've read Wendy Berry's book which is mainly about the time from Charles and Diana's marriage to their divorce you see Sarah was often at Highgrove. I think Charles is not as strict as his father who was of the opinion they'd paid Sarah a divorce settlement so why was she popping up again and had no time for her. But even I don't think that kindness needs to extend to being as publicly welcoming as he has been. Better for Andrew to be treated as Sarah was for many years arriving at events with the general public or extended family etc rather than them both taking on Andrew's perceived status.

For some time now, we have been wondering why Andrew and Sarah, who still very vehemently seek the limelight and (allegedly) support all kinds of charities, continue to be tolerated by King Charles.

They are allowed to do as they please. We don't know what goes on behind closed doors in this family or what has happened.

Perhaps Charles doesn't want to appear in public as the “strict and intolerant” brother. It's bad enough that his relationship with his younger son is so damaged; he must be suffering because of that.
He wants to avoid another dispute with his brother and his ex-wife, who continues to push herself into the public eye. So he just lets them be.

Then we mustn't forget that Charles himself is also old and has a very responsible position, which he fulfills very well. He probably has other things to think about and judge than having to deal with his controversial brother and his ex-wife.

And given how Andrew and Sarah have behaved in the past, there's no stopping them anyway. These are experiences that the family has had, and I can understand that they have now given up on excluding them in any way. And that is just my personal opinion, which might be right or wrong.

 

[tommy100]

I certainly think there is an argument that the alternative to what we see now is for Andrew and Sarah to be left to their own devices and if they aren't attending family events why not dish on the RF to make some extra cash just as the King's youngest son has done?

The reality is, even if Charles doesn't hugely want them there (though I think he must) it costs him little to invite them to private family events - some will think he should as family is family, some will never be happy until Andrew, and now Sarah, are throw in the darkest, dingiest prison and left there and many will just think "whatever" about it all recognising that what is done in private as a family is one thing and that as Andrew and Sarah have no "official" role its not the biggest issue in the world. The advantages to having them at private family events outweigh the pitfalls not doing so might bring.

To me the issue is how Andrew and Sarah conduct themselves at such events.

 

[sophie25]

The late Queen liked Sarah but did not include her in Royal events, private or otherwise, as she was divorced, end of discussion.Charles should have stuck to this rule IMO.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Indeed she and Andrew are made for each other - both horrendous judge of characters, happy to lie to the public and eager for money whichever seedy, unscrupulous person it comes from.
They should both be banished to a tiny cottage at Balmoral.

I'm not at all surprised that her name has appeared on emails and the former duchess seems to have made a career on gigantic errors of judgement!

 

[iceflower]

As a result of the newest revelations the children’s charity "Julia's House" has dropped Sarah as their Patron:

"Following the information shared this weekend on the Duchess of York's correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein, Julia's House has taken the decision that it would be inappropriate for her to continue as a patron of the charity," said a Julia's House spokesperson.

"We have advised the Duchess of York of this decision and thank her for her past support," said the statement.

Duchess of York dropped as patron by seven charities over Jeffrey Epstein email

The charities cut ties with the duchess after it emerged she had apologised to Epstein for publicly disowning him

www.standard.co.uk

Sarah Ferguson removed from charity after Epstein email

The children's hospice charity says it would be inappropriate for her to continue as a patron of the charity.

www.bbc.com

 

[Nico]

I'm not at all surprised that her name has appeared on emails and the former duchess seems to have made a career on gigantic errors of judgement!

Not surprised at all as well. And i guess it's only the tip of the iceberg.

I don't think she's a bad person, really, quite the contrary actually. But her reccurent financial problems will be her fall.

 

[Kaye1850]

Not surprised at all as well. And i guess it's only the tip of the iceberg.

I don't think she's a bad person, really, quite the contrary actually. But her reccurent financial problems will be her fall.

Perhaps not a ‘bad person’ but certainly one with notoriously bad judgment.

 

[Viv]

I agree with Tommy100! Someone - the King, I presume - should tell A and S that they must keep a low profile during family events when the media are present! Andrew wants to be in the front line with the senior royals, and Sarah has a bad habit of joking (or pulling faces or waving enthusiastically to someone she spots in the line up/crowd).
However it will be a very difficult task to give them instructions, especially if Andrew thinks he’s done nothing wrong!

 

[Kenya]

The Express is reporting that food allergy charity The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation has also dropped Sarah as a patron. The Teenage Cancer Trust is reviewing her position and expected to do the same.

 

[carlota]

what a mess. I wonder why on earth Sarah thought it was a good idea to write that letter.

I am puzzled too as the late Queen seemed to like Sarah and i trust her judgement. Sarah doesn't seem like a bad person, but some of her choices are confusing to say the least. I also don't understand why the constant financial troubles that are reported - she lives with her ex husband, so her living expenses are for the most part covered, and she maintains her charity endeavours so one would guess that requires her to shoulder the expenses, and one would think she'd not do that if she were in financial difficulty.

 

[Durham]

Without wishing to be unkind, I don't think she's the sharpest tool in the box.

The charities have made the right decision. More will probably follow.

 

[Mirabel]

Perhaps not a ‘bad person’ but certainly one with notoriously bad judgment.

And greedy.
She is the type who will do anything for money. I've believed that ever since I heard all the rumors about her cashing in on charitable endeavors.

 

[hereditarytitles]

Without wishing to be unkind, I don't think she's the sharpest tool in the box.

The charities have made the right decision. More will probably follow.

I totally agree!
For a long time, I have been wondering why Sarah, as an ex-wife, is constantly involved in all kinds of charitable causes. I don't remember her being so involved during her marriage to Andrew.
This makes me suspect that her involvement is not only charitable but also very self-serving. If the recently published book is to be believed, she has embezzled funds in the past and used them for her own benefit. And she wants to stay in the spotlight, which can only be achieved by getting involved in charitable causes. That way, you get invited to galas and make connections with important people who could be beneficial, including financially. For me, charity, at least in her case, takes a back seat.
She may not be a bad person, compared to her ex-husband, but she's not the best either. Extreme self-importance, greed, inability to distinguish between what is moral and immoral. And that is exactly what is now being revealed after all these years of letting her get away with it. The consequence is that her reputation is so damaged that she is being rejected as a patron.
One might assume that she has learned from her experiences, but unfortunately, as with most people, this is not the case.

I think that if you want to be in the public eye and be relevant, especially through your commitment to social and health issues, then you should have a clean slate if possible.

 

[Durham]

She grew up on the fringes of the royal court. She's always been around wealthy people but has never been wealthy herself.

I think that breeds insecurity & greed. She'd have been better off, more stable & happier marrying a stock broker & living a comfortable middle class life in the country somewhere. Well away from the wealthy & temptation.

She's like Icarus.