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

[Maryrose]

I think between these pictures and that disastrous interview, plus from what I've read about his attitude as the Queen's son people are happy to see his fall from grace. Also as someone posted upthread a lot of these other people mentioned were not photographed in somewhat compromising positions. Sarah Ferguson's emails to Epstein just proves once again what a fake, lying, grifter she is who would do or say anything for a few bucks.

 

[blooms_rulers]

Well, Frederik was mentioned twice so are you suggesting he needed Epstein's money or has a hint of liking unwilling teenaged girls or trafficking unwilling victims?

And the Danish royal court came out and said Frederik had actually never met him, so my question remains valid. What evidence is there that Juan Carlos has ever been interested in unwilling, underaged girls, or needed access to Epstein's funds?

 

[Hallo girl]

Who knows, maybe that was the reason she has distanced herself from her mother, as was recently reported by some tabloids?

It was made clear that Sarah was not going to Sandringham, and was not being supported by the King.

 

[Mbruno]

It was made clear that Sarah was not going to Sandringham, and was not being supported by the King.

Just to offer an alternative point of view, maybe if Sarah had not been cut off after her divorce and were not then so desesperately in need of money, she would not have associated with people like Epstein and would have saved the BRF a great deal of future trouble.

That doesn't exempt Sarah of course from having poor moral judgment and questionable ethics; otherwise, she would never have sought Epstein's help to begin with, or at least would have ended any contact with him after his conviction. I stand by my previous opinion, however, that Sarah seemed eventually to fear Epstein or be intimated by him, which is an atenuating cirumstance that might explain his later hold on her (other than her own self-interest of course).

 

[Blog Real]

And the Danish royal court came out and said Frederik had actually never met him, so my question remains valid. What evidence is there that Juan Carlos has ever been interested in unwilling, underaged girls, or needed access to Epstein's funds?

So far, no member of the Spanish Royal Family (including the extended family of the King of Spain) appears in Epstein's files. And I doubt anyone is involved in this.

 

[blooms_rulers]

Just to offer an alternative point of view, maybe if Sarah had not been cut off after her divorce and were not then so desesperately in need of money, she would not have associated with people like Epstein and would have saved the BRF a great deal of future trouble.

To be honest, I don't think that there is any amount of money that could suffice for a woman who spends like Sarah because it seems like Sarah was shopping to fill a void in her life. She spent like she had Duchy of Cornwall money available when she never had access to that even during her marriage. One of her friends, the Marchioness of Milford Haven, gave an interview over a decade ago where she said it seemed like Sarah was trying to overcompensate for the change in her status so she had to purchase the best of everything.

 

[Maryrose]

I think she definitely got the short end of the stick when it came to her divorce settlement. Those toe sucking pics gave her absolutely no leverage. I also think since her daughters were royal princesses that she believed they were entitled to live in a certain style. I can understand her getting into debt and living beyond her means but I think it's her absolute adoration and over the top praise for Epstein that has people shaking their heads.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Sarah is the one who insisted on the divorce. The queen pleaded with her to reconsider and when that failed, persuaded her to wait for 6 months.

Andrew likely would have been willing to stay in the marriage, lousy husband that he was.

But Sarah was feeling flush and in the midst of her affair with nepo rich Steve Wyatt. She believed 1) she would get a big payout from the BRF 2) and that she would live happily ever after with her Texas millionaire.

Neither scenario worked out for her. And I am fresh out of sympathy and compassion for her.

It's not that she isn't particularly bright and has terrible judgment and makes mistakes. It's that she NEVER learns from them.

 

[Maryrose]

Thanks Moonmaiden23 for the info. I didn't realize she was the one who wanted the divorce. I remember her time with Steve Wyatt and was surprised that fizzled out but I think his mother was pretty smart.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Sarah and Diana apparently had decided to bail on their marriages at the same time.

Sarah kept her part of the deal, but Diana, infinitely more clever and ruthless than her sister in law, stepped back when she saw the flack Sarah got and let her twist in the wind by herself.

 

[Diarist]

Thanks Moonmaiden23 for the info. I didn't realize she was the one who wanted the divorce. I remember her time with Steve Wyatt and was surprised that fizzled out but I think his mother was pretty smart.

Steve Wyatt's mother, Lynn Wyatt, is one of those mega-rich American socialites who love to 'cosy up' to British Royalty. Her husband Oscar was similarly inclined. When Steve Wyatt [really his stepson as he was a product of Lynn Wyatt''s first marriage to convicted killer Robert Lipman.] began his affair with Fergie, they were far from discreet.

Once Oscar got wind of Steve Wyatt's romance with Fergie, he read the riot act to his stepson, aware that the relationship would cause great hurt to the Queen [i.e. HLM] and ordered him to drop Fergie.

Fergie had already stayed with the Wyatts apparently impressing them that she could fly and at one stage even had even taken the controls of the Wyatt helicopter.

The Wyatt family was everything that Fergie admired - stupendously rich with all the 'toys' and homes that appealed to her

 

[Alison H]

OK ... the latest is that:

From the files: Emails from 2009 suggest [Lord] Mandelson forwarded internal government information to Epstein when he was Gordon Brown's business secretary, and that he tried to change government policy on a planned tax on bankers' bonuses following a request from Epstein.

If that's true, it's considerably worse than anything Sarah allegedly did!

This is a man with a degree from Oxford, but evidently no common sense.

 

[Lord-of-the-Manor]

According to The Telegraph, the PM has called for Lord Mandelson to lose his peerage.

His official spokesman said: “The Prime Minister has asked for this to be urgently looked at and the Prime Minister believes that Peter Mandelson should not be a member of the House of Lords or use the title.

“However, the Prime Minister does not have the power to remove it. He is calling on those in the Lords to work with the Government to modernise disciplinary measures in the House to allow for the easier removal of Lords who have brought the House into disrepute.

“The PM has asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contact with Jeffrey Epstein during his periods as a government minister and report back to him.”

Archive

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

OK ... the latest is that:

From the files: Emails from 2009 suggest [Lord] Mandelson forwarded internal government information to Epstein when he was Gordon Brown's business secretary, and that he tried to change government policy on a planned tax on bankers' bonuses following a request from Epstein.

If that's true, it's considerably worse than anything Sarah allegedly did!

This is a man with a degree from Oxford, but evidently no common sense.

Perhaps Epstein was blackmailing him?

 

[Diarist]

I think she definitely got the short end of the stick when it came to her divorce settlement. Those toe sucking pics gave her absolutely no leverage. I also think since her daughters were royal princesses that she believed they were entitled to live in a certain style. I can understand her getting into debt and living beyond her means but I think it's her absolute adoration and over the top praise for Epstein that has people shaking their heads.

By English Divorce law standards, Sarah had a very generous settlement - in English Law, Andrew's income and assets were what the settlement was based on. I explained this in some detail in my post on this forum many years ago. I will see if I can find it.

Diana received more money because Charles was far wealthier than Andrew. I suspect that she also received a generous settlement because :-

1. She was responsible for looking after 'the heir and the spare' during the time
2. My own speculation is that her generous settlement reflected the fact that Charles admitted adultery. Andrew by contast was seen to have been faithful to Fergie [who had cheated with him with Wyatt and Bryan et al]

Fergie's settlement should have been more than adequate: the problem is that she soon spent it!

In addition to her monetary divorce settlement, Sarah was also allowed to write her autobiography, which she did, receiving a large advance for doing so. She was also permitted to secure commercial endorsements [Weightwatchers, Waterford Crystal etc]. I can remember the Daily Telegraph pointing out that (after a particularly lucrative year) Fergie was richer than Andrew!

Fergie's level of spending has always been phenomenal....and that is what has finally brought her down.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

It is ironic, because if Andrew Lownie is to be believed, Andrew was far, far from faithful to Sarah during their marriage.

The author alleges at least a dozen flings by Andrew in the first year of marriage alone, while he was away at sea.

IF this astonishing allegation is true, it explains quite a lot about Andrew's loyalty to his former wife and willingness to always come to her aid post divorce.

He knew that she had unfairly taken most of the abuse by press and public during the marriage, and blame when it ended.

 

[hereditarytitles]

Also, I think people need to cool down on accusing someone or some other person (and judge them) before they are judged in a court of law. Andrew, no matter how big a pig he is, paid such a price not because he did something illegal but because TBR relies on public good will.

I agree.
Tell that to the press, which is currently reacting hysterically everywhere. Just because the names of well-known personalities appear in the files does not mean that they were all involved in his sexual exploitation of minors or prostitutes. Over the years, Epstein has built up an empire with contacts to the rich and powerful, including members of royal families.
Invitations were extended, for example, to King Frederik or Countess Alexandra, or even to Sofia of Sweden, although it was already known that she was engaged to the Swedish prince.
Or Obama, who was only mentioned because someone claimed that he had ensured that Epstein was able to make a deal with the court during his first conviction.
This automatically puts everyone mentioned by name in a bad light, which some of them do not deserve at all. What can someone do about receiving an invitation from Epstein but not accepting or ignoring it?
I would really like to see the press be a little more careful with these publications, or at least explain why this or that name appears. Before these people have to justify themselves, even though they are completely innocent.

 

[Ghost]

My personal opinion: the girls and women that Epstein used more or less abusively were just a mean to his goal - to have a spiderweb of power and blackmail over people in real power. In this thread, Andrew would have been just a corridor towards the power of the government. He was trade envoy, representative of the government. And a pig and an idiot.

 

[Alison H]

We'll probably never know the full story, but you couldn't make this up. From what's being alleged, Peter Mandelson was forwarding highly confidential e-mails about government policy to Jeffrey Epstein. Who know whether he was being paid or being blackmailed, but I'm sure he wasn't doing it for nothing.

Also (from the BBC website):

“I will be having dinner at Buckingham Palace tomorrow evening, want to join?” he said, in an email to an unidentified friend in September 2010.

He seemed to be comfortable in issuing the invitations, sounding as though he owned the place.

There’s another exchange with Andrew about a dinner at the Palace.

“What time and how many?” replies Andrew to Epstein, again suggesting how much Epstein was calling the shots.

 

[Ghost]

We'll probably never know the full story, but you couldn't make this up. From what's being alleged, Peter Mandelson was forwarding highly confidential e-mails about government policy to Jeffrey Epstein. Who know whether he was being paid or being blackmailed, but I'm sure he wasn't doing it for nothing.

Also (from the BBC website):

“I will be having dinner at Buckingham Palace tomorrow evening, want to join?” he said, in an email to an unidentified friend in September 2010.

He seemed to be comfortable in issuing the invitations, sounding as though he owned the place.

There’s another exchange with Andrew about a dinner at the Palace.

“What time and how many?” replies Andrew to Epstein, again suggesting how much Epstein was calling the shots.

75000 pounds

 

[Alison H]

Even if the e-mails about the £75,000 are true, there must have been more than that going on, though. £75,000 isn't a lot of money relative to what a top level politician earns.

 

[irish_royalist]

Andrew and Fergie have been incredibly silly. I remain to be convinced that they have done much that is against the law, but their sycophancy to the evil Epstein for their own ends, and their lack of respect to the institution and country which it was their duty to serve and protect, is almost unbelievable. It's as if they thought they were untouchable, and I have zero sympathy for what they will undoubtedly have to face in the days, weeks, months and years ahead.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And the Danish royal court came out and said Frederik had actually never met him, so my question remains valid. What evidence is there that Juan Carlos has ever been interested in unwilling, underaged girls, or needed access to Epstein's funds?

@yukari didn't suggest that Juan Carlos was interested in unwilling underaged girls or Epstein's funds, only that she expected a mention.

In my opinion, merely being mentioned in Epstein's emails isn't cause for suspicion of interest in sexual abuse or tainted money, especially as those mentioned in the emails may not even have met Epstein.

So far, no member of the Spanish Royal Family (including the extended family of the King of Spain) appears in Epstein's files. And I doubt anyone is involved in this.

There are a few mentions of Juan Carlos and other Spanish royals, but nothing particularly interesting as far as I have seen.

 

[Leopoldine]

I agree.
Tell that to the press, which is currently reacting hysterically everywhere. Just because the names of well-known personalities appear in the files does not mean that they were all involved in his sexual exploitation of minors or prostitutes. Over the years, Epstein has built up an empire with contacts to the rich and powerful, including members of royal families.
Invitations were extended, for example, to King Frederik or Countess Alexandra, or even to Sofia of Sweden, although it was already known that she was engaged to the Swedish prince.
Or Obama, who was only mentioned because someone claimed that he had ensured that Epstein was able to make a deal with the court during his first conviction.
This automatically puts everyone mentioned by name in a bad light, which some of them do not deserve at all. What can someone do about receiving an invitation from Epstein but not accepting or ignoring it?
I would really like to see the press be a little more careful with these publications, or at least explain why this or that name appears. Before these people have to justify themselves, even though they are completely innocent.

I think the press pack is being very measured, considering what is being revealed. Fergie blabbing to Epstein about her young daughter's supposed sh____ng is beyond horrendous.
The photos of Lord Mandelson in his underpants and Andrew on all fours looming over a supine female depict an unhealthy environment of debauchery. These things are far beyond what I imagined what was in those files. And there is so much more to come!

I also think that people are savvy enough to figure out that just because a decent person like George Stephanopolous gets invited to an Epstein party doesn't mean he is involved. That's just the work of a publicist trying to fill seats with prominent people.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

According to The Telegraph, the PM has called for Lord Mandelson to lose his peerage.

His official spokesman said: “The Prime Minister has asked for this to be urgently looked at and the Prime Minister believes that Peter Mandelson should not be a member of the House of Lords or use the title.

“However, the Prime Minister does not have the power to remove it. He is calling on those in the Lords to work with the Government to modernise disciplinary measures in the House to allow for the easier removal of Lords who have brought the House into disrepute.

“The PM has asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contact with Jeffrey Epstein during his periods as a government minister and report back to him.”

Archive

Thanks! Have posted a response here: The British Nobility thread 2: Sep 2022 -

 

[Mbruno]

My personal opinion: the girls and women that Epstein used more or less abusively were just a mean to his goal - to have a spiderweb of power and blackmail over people in real power. In this thread, Andrew would have been just a corridor towards the power of the government. He was trade envoy, representative of the government. And a pig and an idiot.

That is a very plausible interpretation. Being privy to "indiscretions"of several powerful and influential men who are also public figures certainly gave Epstein considerable leverage on them. Not surprisingly, those indiscretions were largely engineered by Epstein himself.

The fact that Epstein had a hidden agenda does not invalidate the equally factual truth that he was personally a pervert.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Sarah Ferguson's own charity, Sarah's Trust, announced today that it is closing.

The charity's press release:

"Our chair, Sarah Ferguson, and the board of trustees have agreed that, with regret, the charity will shortly close for the foreseeable future.

"This has been under discussion and in train for some months.

"We remain extremely proud of the work of the trust over recent years. We have partnered with over 60 other charities in over 20 countries, providing education, healthcare, crisis response and environmental projects.

"We delivered over 150,000 aid parcels during the COVID pandemic, provided medical aid and training for those affected by the war in Ukraine and delivered education for over 200 children in Ghana."​

The charity's website is still live:

Sarah's Trust

Sarah’s Trust is a charitable foundation that supports global charities tackling poverty, crisis & inequality to create a brighter, inclusive future.

www.sarahstrust.com

 

[Mbruno]

[...]
The photos of Lord Mandelson in his underpants and Andrew on all fours looming over a supine female depict an unhealthy environment of debauchery. These things are far beyond what I imagined what was in those files. And there is so much more to come!

I suppose many people would look "unhealthy" as you put it if they were photographed in private moments of an erotic nature and those photos were made public.

Personally I do not think that adult men who feel the need for regular companionship of escort girls are healthy (psychologically speaking), but honestly it is none of my business if Andrew was on all fours looming over a 26-year-old adult woman who fully consented to his behavior. Unless Andrew was soliciting prostitution or enabling human trafficking, I don't see how any of that was criminal either (the US Department of Justice itself has said that it has found nothing in the Epstein tapes that warranted any fresh prosecution).

Mandelson's case is far more serious because he leaked confidential government information, tried to influence government policy to benefit private individuals, and even suggested that coercion techniques should be applied against British government ministers such as Alistair Darling. Mandelson is entitled to due process of course, but, at first sight, it seems like he is a good candidate for actual jail time.

 

[An Ard Ri]

More on the closing of Sarah's Trust and Sarah being dropped several charities over her ties to Epstein.
I personally cannot see Sarah coming back from this , in the past she has reinvented herself quite successfully too!
Sarah Ferguson's charity to close days after new Epstein revelations

 

[Leopoldine]

I suppose many people would look "unhealthy" as you put it if they were photographed in private moments of an erotic nature and those photos were made public.

Personally I do not think that adult men who feel the need for regular companionship of escort girls are healthy (psychologically speaking), but honestly it is none of my business if Andrew was on all fours looming over a 26-year-old adult woman who fully consented to his behavior. Unless Andrew was soliciting prostitution or enabling human trafficking, I don't see how any of that was criminal either (the US Department of Justice itself has said that it has found nothing in the Epstein tapes that warranted any fresh prosecution).

Mandelson's case is far more serious because he leaked confidential government information, tried to influence government policy to benefit private individuals, and even suggested that coercion techniques should be applied against British government ministers such as Alistair Darling. Mandelson is entitled to due process of course, but, at first sight, it seems like he is a good candidate for actual jail time.

UNDERPANTS.

Sure, Mandy's facing legal issues, but trotting around in Epstein's Parisian lair in uncool underpants is sort of lame. And who said Andrew's floor-bound female was 26? Imagine being that poor women, wondering if that 280 pounds of stink might land on you.

As far as the description "unhealthy": it was not about looking unhealthy, but about an untenable environment for the young women.

We all have read about the health concerns, most notably plotting to surreptitiously feed Melinda Gates some antibiotics.