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

[Archduchess Zelia]

Except there was never a chance of a mea culpa happening as both Giuffre's allegations and the picture of them together had been public knowledge for years prior to the Newsnight episode. Mea culpa would require an admission of guilt and I doubt Andrew ever gave anyone the impression that he would admit anything other than his friendship with Epstein and Maxwell.

Beatrice certainly shouldn't be blamed for this but the fact that she didn't stay as far away as possible – knowing her father better than most – so as to not in any way implicate herself is indicative of, at the very least, a complete lack of situational awareness.

As for Eugenie, I don't see how it would be hard to facilitate in any way. Her parents continue to give her rich opportunity to put out a statement or mention in during an interview. Something as simple as "I was horrified to learn that these people I have associated with – albeit peripherally – have committed these devastating crimes and I will continue my work shedding light on the very real and present issue of human trafficking."

I can, however, imagine that doing so wouldn't be a very popular choice with her parents. But then, I would argue that if we are to buy that this is an issue Eugenie is morally invested in below surface level, that shouldn't really matter to her. Especially if she truly believes her parents didn't know what Epstein and Maxwell were doing – because then, surely, they would agree with a statement like that.

 

[TLLK]

The idea of an interview for Andrew to issue a humble mea culpa was actually a very good one. And IF he had done that, it would have been a master stroke and might have averted some of the disastrous fallout.

The fact that it didn't happen that way cannot be blamed on Beatrice imo. Andrew is Andrew. She was reportedly devastated.

As for Eugenie...she is between the proverbial rock and hard place. How on earth should she go about "acknowledging that her parents have ties to a known sex trafficker"?

How would that even look? A sit down interview? A Twitter comment?

In my opinion it would make things 100x worse.

I wholeheartedly agree with your post.
I can only imagine how devastated Beatrice would have been after hearing her father's side in the interview.
IMO the York sisters need to stay out of their parents' situation.

 

[sophie25]

Andrew was given every chance under the Sun by Newsnight to say he regretted his friendship with Epstein and still said he didn't. I doubt him or Sarah have regretted anything they have ever done if it made them money.

 

[Alisa]

Re When Sarah was caught in the pay to play scandal with the Saudis, she claimed that she partially needed the $$ to pay off debts accumulated by a friend...

Do we see a pattern here? Sarah and the Saudi money, Sarah and the Epstein money? And are those friend's debts from her ex-spouse? This would explain a side of the post divorce situation involves Sarah, when needed, has to be the front person to seek money and pay debts caused by both their financial mismanagement as in "...needed the $$ to pay off debts accumulated by a friend..."

Don't you think everything is coming out into the open? She's turning to look like the problem solver for another person, like her, that can't handle money to secure a safe financial future.

It's always been her. She is that friend.
Of course it looks bad to say that *she* needed money to pay of her debts. She would come of as conniving, irresponsible, and desperate. However, when she puts her actions under the umbrella of "trying to help a friend" it makes her actions seem a bit noble. Sarah is no fool. She knows what she is doing.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

I think if Epstein did indeed threaten the Yorks, it was most likely about releasing the dirt he had on Andrew. I mean that does appear to have been the point of his human trafficking operation - to get highly compromising material on powerful men, so that he would then have power over them.

If Sarah, on the other hand, actually thought that he might harm her daughters, the obvious solution would be to contact the police, not fawn over him. Even if they didn't have police protection anymore at that point, it is not as though a threat against a member of the Royal Family wouldn't be investigated immediately.
Queen Elizabeth could have easily informed the police about threats against her granddaughters - and it would no doubt have been taken very seriously.
And what a negative effect would it have had on Epstein, probably out on probation or something like that, if the British police had contacted the American police about threats towards Queen Elizabeth's granddaughters?

All this to say, I don't buy Sarah's excuse at all and she should have left her daughters out of this.

 

[sophie25]

I think if Epstein did indeed threaten the Yorks, it was most likely about releasing the dirt he had on Andrew. I mean that does appear to have been the point of his human trafficking operation - to get highly compromising material on powerful men, so that he would then have power over them.

If Sarah, on the other hand, actually thought that he might harm her daughters, the obvious solution would be to contact the police, not fawn over him. Even if they didn't have police protection anymore at that point, it is not as though a threat against a member of the Royal Family wouldn't be investigated immediately.
Queen Elizabeth could have easily informed the police about threats against her granddaughters - and it would no doubt have been taken very seriously.
And what a negative effect would it have had on Epstein, probably out on probation or something like that, if the British police had contacted the American police about threats towards Queen Elizabeth's granddaughters?

All this to say, I don't buy Sarah's excuse at all and she should have left her daughters out of this.

I agree, she always has an excuse, always wriggles out of everything. Why was she close friends with him in the first place, why was she selling herself and Andrew to the fake shiek, why so many things she's done. She is a total liability and I do believe the reports that William doesn't like or trust Sarah or Andrew, he wouldn't even have her at his wedding.

 

[TLLK]

I agree, she always has an excuse, always wriggles out of everything. Why was she close friends with him in the first place, why was she selling herself and Andrew to the fake shiek, why so many things she's done. She is a total liability and I do believe the reports that William doesn't like or trust Sarah or Andrew, he wouldn't even have her at his wedding.

Prince William and Catherine Middleton's wedding was about eleven months after Sarah's "fake sheikh, access to Andrew" interview. Though I expect that if that sordid episode had not taken place, that there might have been objections from William regarding Sarah as a guest.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Natalie Dormer who plays Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York in the new ITV and series The Lady is now refusing to promote the series.
The actress has also donated her salary from the series to the UK NAPAC charity ( National Association for People Abused in Childhood)
Dormer said in an interview
“When I agreed to take the role in The Lady, I knew portraying the script’s Sarah Ferguson would require nuance. People are layered, their journeys are full of highs and lows, and as an actor, my job is to lean into those elements and bring them to life with honesty and empathy,”
“Since completing the project, new information has come to light that makes it impossible for me to reconcile my values with Sarah Ferguson’s behaviour, which I believe is inexcusable. For that reason, I will not be taking part in the promotion of the project.”
Natalie Dormer Won’t Promote Her Upcoming Role as Sarah Ferguson in The Lady

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think if Epstein did indeed threaten the Yorks, it was most likely about releasing the dirt he had on Andrew. I mean that does appear to have been the point of his human trafficking operation - to get highly compromising material on powerful men, so that he would then have power over them.

I don’t think it has been proven that Jeffrey Epstein engaged in blackmail, though it’s certainly conceivable that Sarah thought he might.

However, Sarah, Duchess of York’s allies later clarified the account of the threatening phone call: According to the Duchess, she was afraid because Jeffrey Epstein threatened to sue her for libel over her having publicly called him a pedophile.

(Though I'm not sure I see how a libel suit against the Duchess would have harmed her daughters, as she feared.)

“Allies of Sarah Ferguson […] have tried to explain her fawning message to the millionaire financier by detailing the grounds on which he threatened to sue her for libel.

Epstein allegedly insisted that his conviction for procuring someone under 18 for prostitution, and complaints from girls as young as 14, did not conform to medical definitions of paedophilia, which referred to an attraction to younger, pre-pubescents.

[…]

Mark Stephens, an expert in media law at the law firm Howard Kennedy, said Fergie might have worried about having to find as much as £1m for a court case that would pit her against Epstein in public, but he added that she had overdone her apology.”​

The real story behind Fergie's grovelling apology to Jeffrey Epstein

The disgraced financier threatened to ruin the Duchess of York financially by taking her to court

inews.co.uk

A balanced opinion piece from Sean O’Grady in the Independent, including some educated speculation about why Sarah, Duchess of York, would have feared being sued by Epstein in 2011.

The piece is short, so I can only quote it briefly. Reading the entire piece (it is short, as I said) will make more sense.

Why did Fergie, Mandelson and others fall for Epstein’s vile charm?

As charities cut ties with the Duchess of York over emails she sent to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, Sean O’Grady asks if the public shouldn’t actually be feeling sorry for her

www.the-independent.com

[…] she has mostly been the architect of her own misfortunes. […]

[But] Even Sarah Ferguson’s most vociferous critics, [Andrew] Lownie included, give her credit for her big heart and quixotically generous ways with those in need, to the extent of causing her personal financial damage, which she could ill afford. […]

[…] A competent lawyer would have advised her that he [Epstein] didn’t have a case and was probably bluffing. She could have fought the lawsuit.

But it is also true that, faced with an attack from a man who could afford the best lawyers, she might have lost the case on the basis of some quirk of the law. It’s at least possible that, skint as ever, she judged that it would be best to send a private grovelling message she never meant, just to stop him prosecuting – and persecuting – her, in a court case that, even if she were confident of ultimate victory, could drag on for years and would bankrupt her, yet again.

I don’t know what was going through the Duchess of York’s head some 14 years ago, but she’d just emerged from the “fake sheikh” sting in which she […] had promised an introduction to Prince Andrew for some £500,000. Epstein had, reportedly, given her £15,000 to pay off a former employee and stave off bankruptcy.

So she was probably stressed. […]

[…] As I say, she’s messed up so many times, some of it has to be her own fault – the world is just not that malign. […] but her personal links [to Epstein] seem to have been principally via Prince Andrew and rather more tenuous than most, basically just the money stuff.

That she [...] should now be bracketed forevermore with Andrew, Peter Mandelson and others with closer relationships – and that she should now be suffering equal ignominy – feels very unfair. [...]

 

[Lori138]

Thanks for the link Tatiana Maria but I still do not feel sorry for her.

 

[Leopoldine]

I see that the Royals editor for The Sun, Matt Wilkinson, is calling for Prince Andrew to be banished from the UK.

If Prince Andrew had an honourable bone in his body, he would leave Britain

ANDREW’S Jeffrey Epstein scandal will not go away so maybe it’s finally time the arrogant Duke did. The Palace has let it be known that Andy should at the very least “uninvite himself” for Christma…

www.thesun.co.uk

Why should other countries be punished? "Send him to Monaco. That'll teach him".

It would be better if he settled in a poor urban area of England and went about doing what John Profumo did. Serve the poor and indigent with no regard for his vanity or position.

Sarah on the other hand should move to Australia and keep under the radar.

 

[Mirabel]

Banish him? That seems very harsh; he hasn't been convicted of anything. It might be a good idea for him to move to a property on the Sandringham estate, or even Balmoral, and play least in sight for a while. (And NOT with Fergie, she should go).

 

[hereditarytitles]

This is an interesting article about the newest developments in the Andrew/Epstein case and this:

"There have been calls to strip Andrew of his titles, such as the Duke of York. That idea has considerable public support, with a YouGov poll over the summer showing that 67% of people backed removing his remaining titles".

What can the King do about Prince Andrew scandals?

What sanctions could King Charles apply to Prince Andrew after the latest claims about links to Epstein?

www.bbc.com

 

[Alison H]

It's not the 14th century! People don't get banished from the kingdom any more. Anyway, wherever Andrew goes, The Sun will follow him!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Have posted the leaked email from the Duke of York to Jeffrey Epstein here:

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

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...

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[Tatiana Maria]

An old email message from the Duke of York to Jeffrey Epstein was leaked to the Mail on Sunday and the Sun on Sunday.

The Mail and Sun verified that the email was sent from the Duke of York’s official email account, which had the automated signature “HRH The Duke of York KG”. It was sent to an email address which was Jeffrey Epstein’s email address according to many court documents.

Prince Andrew's email to Epstein about Virginia proves he LIED in BBC chat

PRINCE Andrew told paedo pal Jeffrey Epstein “we are in this together” in an email — three months after the date he said he’d severed contact. The Duke, 65, messaged on February 28, 2011 a day afte…

www.thesun.co.uk

Andrew told Epstein they would 'play soon' despite Mail revelations

In the message, Prince Andrew said he was 'concerned' about the impact this paper's revelations would have on him, but reassured Jeffrey Epstein the pair would 'rise above' press scrutiny.

www.dailymail.co.uk

In the Duke of York’s interview with BBC Newsnight in 2019, he stated that he “never had any contact” with Jeffrey Epstein after his visit to him in December 2010.

Prince Andrew Newsnight interview: Transcript in full

Read the full exchange between the Queen's son and BBC Newsnight's Emily Maitlis.

www.bbc.com

The Duke of York declined to comment on the leak of the email.


The leaked email:

“From: tdoy@*****.com
Sent: Mon Feb 28, 2011
To: Jeevacation@gmail.com
Subject: RE:

I’m just as concerned for you! Don’t worry about me!

It would seem we are in this together and will have to rise above it.

Otherwise keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon!!!!

A

HRH The Duke of York KG”​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Ethical issues aside, the choice to use an official royal email account with an "HRH The Duke of York KG" automated signature for the purpose of friendly personal correspondence with a well-known convicted child abuser seems to also raise questions about the level of common sense involved.

 

[hereditarytitles]

Everything I have learned about Andrew over the past few years paints a clear picture of him. Not only is he conceited and very aware of his royal status, he is also careless, unscrupulous, and may not shy away from continuing to do dubious business with foreign partners, even though this caused problems a few years ago.
I get the impression that, no matter what happens, he has learned nothing from the mistakes of the past, shows no remorse, and has no guilty conscience.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Ethical issues aside, the choice to use an official royal email account with an "HRH The Duke of York KG" automated signature for the purpose of friendly personal correspondence with a well-known convicted child abuser seems to also raise questions about the level of common sense involved.

No one has ever accused Andrew of having excess intelligence or common sense.

 

[kalnel]

I laughed at seeing his email was "tdoy."

 

[Magali]

I laughed at seeing his email was "tdoy."

What does that mean?

 

[GondorHasNoPants]

What does that mean?

The Duke of York.

 

[Somebody]

Ethical issues aside, the choice to use an official royal email account with an "HRH The Duke of York KG" automated signature for the purpose of friendly personal correspondence with a well-known convicted child abuser seems to also raise questions about the level of common sense involved.

I doubt a 'tdoy@????.com' is an official royal account; it seems much more likely that this is his private account. It could very well be a gmail, hotmail or yahoo-account.

I am on the other hand not surprised he includes his title and knighthood in his signature.

 

[An Ard Ri]

It just gets worse and worse with Andrew and Sarah!
Can the King remove Andrew Knight of the Garter and other honours?

 

[GondorHasNoPants]

Can the King remove Andrew Knight of the Garter and other honours?

Yes, he can, but only if the member has committed a serious offence such as treason, or done something that brings the honours system into disrepute.

Charles can initiate the process, but he would probably do so only on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Forfeiture Committee would also have to investigate, to ensure the request was being issued for valid and substantial reasons.

 

[Lori138]

Maybe I have forgotten but according to the BBC Andrew lost his HRH along with his military honors. I don't recall this, so is the BBC correct on the HRH title? I know he lost his military honors like Harry.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Maybe I have forgotten but according to the BBC Andrew lost his HRH along with his military honors. I don't recall this, so is the BBC correct on the HRH title? I know he lost his military honors like Harry.

The BBC's wording is indeed misleading as the Duke of York still "has" his HRH. However, he agreed not to use his HRH "in any official capacity" at the same time he relinquished his military affiliations and patronages in response to Virginia Giuffre suing him.

Prince Andrew stripped of military affiliations amid sex abuse civil case claims

Prince Andrew will no longer be able to use His Royal Highness after the Queen's decision, which comes after a judge ruled Virginia Giuffre's sex abuse civil case against the Duke of York could go ahead

www.mirror.co.uk

Yes, he can, but only if the member has committed a serious offence such as treason, or done something that brings the honours system into disrepute.

Charles can initiate the process, but he would probably do so only on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Forfeiture Committee would also have to investigate, to ensure the request was being issued for valid and substantial reasons.

Indeed, the government's explanation of forfeiture stresses the role of official findings.

Having honours taken away (forfeiture)

Honours can be taken away from people who have done something to damage the honours system’s reputation. Taking an honour away is called ‘forfeiture’.

www.gov.uk

 

[Elly C]

The problem for the King is that to initiate further sanctions gives ‘the Andrew situation’ more oxygen , but you do wonder what further revelations there has to be before the powers that be decide enough is enough.

 

[caethi]

The problem for the King is that to initiate further sanctions gives ‘the Andrew situation’ more oxygen , but you do wonder what further revelations there has to be before the powers that be decide enough is enough.

What could possibly make a difference in any substantive way? I suppose that removal of the KG would be the most appropriate, given that it is a high profile honour, but who cares if he is Duke of York or just a prince? All of Andrew's misdeeds show that he has a shocking lack of personal ethics, but to date he has not been charged with a crime. He isn't going to be banished from the kingdom (who would want him and where would he go?). He should stay in the background at family events, but he is still a family member, and if the family feel compelled to invite him to Christmas dinner, then that is their right. If he is accused of criminal misdeeds, then he should be tried in a court of law, but in the end, he is still a family member.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The problem for the King is that to initiate further sanctions gives ‘the Andrew situation’ more oxygen , but you do wonder what further revelations there has to be before the powers that be decide enough is enough.

I was thinking the same regarding what other revelations will emerge!