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

[Ghost]

Many who had dealings with Epstein, as a random person or with more intensive contacts, and who are public figures, have recently made an effort to emphasize the victims, even those who never met him but feel obliged to express their pity for the victims, because a family member is involved.
I believe this is because anyone who did not mention the victims was criticized in public. I hope that the day will come when the victims are being heard and get some kind of justice and compensation.

Exactly! The Duke of Edinburgh was specifically asked how they are coping, he deflected into thinking about the victims. Same for the Waleses’ spokeperson. And The King is speaking for the monarchy and it’s The Stance To Take By All Members.

About the victims: name the names, describe the crimes! If you are able to buy an add slot during the superbowl, you are able to name the names and describe the crimes.

 

[Durham]

I want to know who in "the palace" knew what when. How, if at all, AMW was challenged about his association with Epstein.

I say this as a supporter of the monarchy. If it means the reputations of anyone now living or deceased is damaged then so be it.

 

[hereditarytitles]

I want to know who in "the palace" knew what when. How, if at all, AMW was challenged about his association with Epstein.

I say this as a supporter of the monarchy. If it means the reputations of anyone now living or deceased is damaged then so be it.

I am afraid we will never know. If I remember correctly, Andrew's involvement became known when a victim, Virginia Giuffre, brought the photo to the public's attention, accused him, and wanted to take him to court. Then the story took its course, as we all know.
I cannot imagine that any member of the royal family knew what Andrew was doing behind the scenes.

 

[Marengo]

Posts about other people in the Epstein files have been moved HERE.

 

[Leopoldine]

I'm curious about the widely discussed emails that indicate Andrew sent confidential British trade information to Epstein. If it is all true, that's quite a serious matter.

I've always been under the impression that BRF communications were monitored by one or more of the British security services. It has been my understanding that while security people don't listen to every phone call or read every email from BRF members and prominent staff, they have a program in place that alerts them if certain words, combinations of words, names or phrases are used. If they are, THEN they take a look. I read this in one of my royal books, I forget which one.

Even Meghan, in the "Harry & Meghan" series on Netflix indicated that communication and social media activity were strictly regulated. Wouldn't you think that MI5 or MI6 would have been aware of the Andrew/Epstein connection and kept track of it, given all of the dubious international players in Epstein's and Andrew's respective webs?

And what about Andrew's Police detail? If Andrew was a honeypot target, wouldn't it be MI6's and/or the PPO's responsibility to keep him out of trouble?

It just seems crazy that Meghan was so constrained by BP communications edicts. I can see why she was so frustrated given the Yorks' shameless money-making schemes. And that's just the public ones! Meghan can't post a picture of a pretty dessert or model a new hat on Insta without a knock on the door while Andrew is sending confidential government information via email to a foreign convicted felon and wheeling and dealing to install Fergie as some sort of energy maven selling Nigerian fossil fuels to China. (Andrew calculated that she would make 6 million quid a year.)

 

[blooms_rulers]

Even Meghan, in the "Harry & Meghan" series on Netflix indicated that communication and social media activity were strictly regulated. Wouldn't you think that MI5 or MI6 would have been aware of the Andrew/Epstein connection and kept track of it, given all of the dubious international players in Epstein's and Andrew's respective webs?

...

It just seems crazy that Meghan was so constrained by BP communications edicts. I can see why she was so frustrated given the Yorks' shameless money-making schemes. And that's just the public ones! Meghan can't post a picture of a pretty dessert or model a new hat on Insta without a knock on the door ...

You're believing the words of someone who had to sell access and grievances to make money. Meanwhile the apparent lack of tracking Andrew's communications seems to indicate something else entirely was going on with regards to Palace control of royal private/personal communications.

Who do you choose to believe? Meghan, who has been caught in lies multiple times? Or the evidence that the BRF's courtiers had so little control that Andrew was able to send private documents to his friends, even possibly in contravention of the Official Secrets Act, and used official visits on behalf of the government to lobby on behalf of his unsavoury friend's private business? Andrew's actions don't scream to me that the royals were constrained. If they were, then whomever was assigned to constrain Andrew needs to be pilloried for ineffectiveness.

 

[Curryong]

Many of Andrew’s leaks and messages to his mate Epstein were sent through his ‘special assistant’ Amit Patel. Did BP not investigate this man’s background and employment, or ask MI5 or 6 to do so while Andrew was employed as Special Envoy?

Did they themselves never bother to question these assistants/friends about what communications were being passed on and to whom ? Or did it all just sail past them all?

Andrew shared confidential information with Epstein as trade envoy, files suggest

Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over sensitive, commercial, or political information.

www.bbc.com

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Apologies in advance if I missed the link being posted somewhere in this thread, but what are the messages that police are apparently investigating for potential leaks of information?

 

[Curryong]

While Andrew was Trade Envoy? I just found this. Dont know whether this is helpful to you, though.

Police assessing claims about Andrew sharing confidential trade details

It comes after files suggest the former prince shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy.

www.bbc.com

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you, @Curryong. (I think I wrote my question before seeing your post (#487), which included a BBC link which helps to clarify what was being discussed in previous posts.)

 

[Leopoldine]

You're believing the words of someone who had to sell access and grievances to make money. Meanwhile the apparent lack of tracking Andrew's communications seems to indicate something else entirely was going on with regards to Palace control of royal private/personal communications.

Who do you choose to believe? Meghan, who has been caught in lies multiple times? Or the evidence that the BRF's courtiers had so little control that Andrew was able to send private documents to his friends, even possibly in contravention of the Official Secrets Act, and used official visits on behalf of the government to lobby on behalf of his unsavoury friend's private business? Andrew's actions don't scream to me that the royals were constrained. If they were, then whomever was assigned to constrain Andrew needs to be pilloried for ineffectiveness.

I guess it comes down to who lied more.

 

[Somebody]

I am not sure I understand what the "thinking first of Epstein's victims" line is supposed to mean when it is said by a person who did not associate with Jeffrey Epstein themselves (like the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales, or Prime Minister).

When that line is said by a person who associated with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction, I suppose that person means they sincerely regret how their association may have affected Epstein's victims and aren't merely thinking of preserving their own reputation.

But when a non-associate of Jeffrey Epstein says they must think of the victims first, what do they mean? I ask because most of the public discussion these days seems to to be focused on Jeffrey Epstein's former associates, not on his victims.

I'd say it mainly expresses that they are primarily thinking of (i.e., they are mainly concerned about) how the victims were affected instead of focusing on how their own family member is affected by the public outcry about his own actions. This has been a rather consistent message by the BRF and a good one imho. Much better than another royal family who keeps repeating how hard things are for (the family members of) the accused - or completely ignoring that a family member contributed in some (direct or indirect) way to the suffering of the victims.

 

[Leopoldine]

You're believing the words of someone who had to sell access and grievances to make money. Meanwhile the apparent lack of tracking Andrew's communications seems to indicate something else entirely was going on with regards to Palace control of royal private/personal communications.

Who do you choose to believe? Meghan, who has been caught in lies multiple times? Or the evidence that the BRF's courtiers had so little control that Andrew was able to send private documents to his friends, even possibly in contravention of the Official Secrets Act, and used official visits on behalf of the government to lobby on behalf of his unsavoury friend's private business? Andrew's actions don't scream to me that the royals were constrained. If they were, then whomever was assigned to constrain Andrew needs to be pilloried for ineffectiveness.

I'm just amazed we are discussing the British Royal Family.

Sorry, I have to go with Meghan.
Here are the reasons:

1. There is no indication or hint or the scintilla of a suggestion that she molested people. Accepting a handbag from a vendor is not comparable.

2. If you want to bring up lies, how about Andrew's litany of untruths he gave us on that interview with Emily Maitlis?

3. Andrew was a seasoned member of the BRF, knowledgeable of traditions and protocol. He knew the lay of the land. Meghan was new.

4. If BP personnel and the security services hemmed and hawed and stuck their heads in the sand because HLM's best boy was stuck in the muck, well I guess the Monarchy has to work that out to make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

[blooms_rulers]

I'm just amazed we are discussing the British Royal Family.

Sorry, I have to go with Meghan.
Here are the reasons:

1. There is no indication or hint or the scintilla of a suggestion that she molested people. Accepting a handbag from a vendor is not comparable.

2. If you want to bring up lies, how about Andrew's litany of untruths he gave us on that interview with Emily Maitlis?

3. Andrew was a seasoned member of the BRF, knowledgeable of traditions and protocol. He knew the lay of the land. Meghan was new.

4. If BP personnel and the security services hemmed and hawed and stuck their heads in the sand because HLM's best boy was stuck in the muck, well I guess the Monarchy has to work that out to make sure it doesn't happen again.

What do Andrew's lies to Maitlis or the fact that he's a creep have to do with anything? We know he sent sensitive documents to Epstein. The evidence is in the files. So Andrew's comments have nothing to do with any of this. He is untrustworthy. We know this.

The fact that Andrew was able to send sensitive documents from government entities to Epstein flies in the face of any claims by a known liar (i.e., Meghan) that all communications were controlled by the BRF courtiers, because if the courtiers had that level of control, Andrew couldn't have been sending those documents to Epstein.

We also know Meghan has lied, repeatedly, and been called out for her lies, even in a court of law. Meghan being new to the family doesn't absolve her of lying during her exit while she was trying to drum up interest and attract funding from selling stories about the BRF.

 

[Leopoldine]

What do Andrew's lies to Maitlis or the fact that he's a creep have to do with anything?

It is the basis of this thread.

We know he sent sensitive documents to Epstein. The evidence is in the files. So Andrew's comments have nothing to do with any of this. He is untrustworthy. We know this.

The fact that Andrew was able to send sensitive documents from government entities to Epstein flies in the face of any claims by a known liar (i.e., Meghan) that all communications were controlled by the BRF courtiers, because if the courtiers had that level of control, Andrew couldn't have been sending those documents to Epstein.

You are making my point. What Andrew did was tantamount to treason.

We also know Meghan has lied, repeatedly, and been called out for her lies, even in a court of law. Meghan being new to the family doesn't absolve her of lying during her exit while she was trying to drum up interest and attract funding from selling stories about the BRF.

Andrew lied to his country on television. Multiple times. He seems to be getting payback now, with the emails in the Epstein files.

The thing that I don't like ... some people are calling for him to be banished from the UK. Why stick other countries with him? King Charles is right to ring-fence him in at Wolferton.

 

[Leopoldine]

What do Andrew's lies to Maitlis or the fact that he's a creep have to do with anything? We know he sent sensitive documents to Epstein. The evidence is in the files. So Andrew's comments have nothing to do with any of this. He is untrustworthy. We know this.

The fact that Andrew was able to send sensitive documents from government entities to Epstein flies in the face of any claims by a known liar (i.e., Meghan) that all communications were controlled by the BRF courtiers, because if the courtiers had that level of control, Andrew couldn't have been sending those documents to Epstein.

We also know Meghan has lied, repeatedly, and been called out for her lies, even in a court of law. Meghan being new to the family doesn't absolve her of lying during her exit while she was trying to drum up interest and attract funding from selling stories about the BRF.

It's not about Meghan. Her comments on their reality series are small beer compared to Andrew's possible treason. But, you knew that.

 

[Marengo]

Indeed this thread is not about Meghan. Let's move on.

Further posts about the Duchess of Sussex will be removed from this thread.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Thames Valley Police have revealed that they have held discussions with the CPS over investigation into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
Police issue 'progress' update on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor investigation

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

I'm curious about the widely discussed emails that indicate Andrew sent confidential British trade information to Epstein. If it is all true, that's quite a serious matter.

I've always been under the impression that BRF communications were monitored by one or more of the British security services. It has been my understanding that while security people don't listen to every phone call or read every email from BRF members and prominent staff, they have a program in place that alerts them if certain words, combinations of words, names or phrases are used. If they are, THEN they take a look. I read this in one of my royal books, I forget which one.

Even Meghan, in the "Harry & Meghan" series on Netflix indicated that communication and social media activity were strictly regulated. Wouldn't you think that MI5 or MI6 would have been aware of the Andrew/Epstein connection and kept track of it, given all of the dubious international players in Epstein's and Andrew's respective webs?

And what about Andrew's Police detail? If Andrew was a honeypot target, wouldn't it be MI6's and/or the PPO's responsibility to keep him out of trouble?

It just seems crazy that Meghan was so constrained by BP communications edicts. I can see why she was so frustrated given the Yorks' shameless money-making schemes. And that's just the public ones! Meghan can't post a picture of a pretty dessert or model a new hat on Insta without a knock on the door while Andrew is sending confidential government information via email to a foreign convicted felon and wheeling and dealing to install Fergie as some sort of energy maven selling Nigerian fossil fuels to China. (Andrew calculated that she would make 6 million quid a year.)

According to Andrew Lownie, MI6 did know about it and informed Buckingham Palace, who did not wish to act on it.

 

[Ghost]

I find it funny to imagine that Andrew had access to sensitive documents. While trade envoy alright, to me it seems that he was only a sort of representative figure, not an executive one. At least I hope. He never gave the impresion to be some sort of wise, not when young and not now.

 

[Mbruno]

I find it funny to imagine that Andrew had access to sensitive documents. While trade envoy alright, to me it seems that he was only a sort of representative figure, not an executive one. At least I hope. He never gave the impresion to be some sort of wise, not when young and not now.

The Police is ( or , in British English, are) investigating the matter. It is uncllear how confidential the information that Andrew allegedly leaked really was, or if he technically did anything illegal. The Police in the UK is very professional and impartial and we should wait for the investigation to take its course.

It may be the case that Andrew will be charged with something in the end, but, right now, there is clearly a sort of witch hunt by some groups to find something, anything actually, that could implicate Andrew in criminal behavior. Obviously, although Andrew is the primary target, the goal of these groups is ultimately to attack and embarass the monarchy, rather than Andrew personally.

Mutatis mutandis, we are seeing something similar in the political world. Some groups or persons have political disagreements with certain political leaders and are using the Epstein files as a pretext to attack or weaken them. It is a fair game , I guess, in an adversarial political system ( as we have in the US or the UK), but it now has very little to do with respect or compassion for the victims. This selective hypocrisy actually bothers me somewhat.

 

[Hallo girl]

The Police is ( or , in British English, are) investigating the matter. It is uncllear how confidential the information that Andrew allegedly leaked really was, or if he technically did anything illegal. The Police in the UK is very professional and impartial and we should wait for the investigation to take its course.

It may be the case that Andrew will be charged with something in the end, but, right now, there is clearly a sort of witch hunt by some groups to find something, anything actually, that could implicate Andrew in criminal behavior. Obviously, although Andrew is the primary target, the goal of these groups is ultimately to attack and embarass the monarchy, rather than Andrew personally.

Mutatis mutandis, we are seeing something similar in the political world. Some groups or persons have political disagreements with certain political leaders and are using the Epstein files as a pretext to attack or weaken them. It is a fair game , I guess, in an adversarial political system ( as we have in the US or the UK), but it now has very little to do with respect or compassion for the victims. This selective hypocrisy actually bothers me somewhat.

A very interesting post, food for thought.

 

[TRL]

Many of Andrew’s leaks and messages to his mate Epstein were sent through his ‘special assistant’ Amit Patel. Did BP not investigate this man’s background and employment, or ask MI5 or 6 to do so while Andrew was employed as Special Envoy?

Did they themselves never bother to question these assistants/friends about what communications were being passed on and to whom ? Or did it all just sail past them all?

Andrew shared confidential information with Epstein as trade envoy, files suggest

Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over sensitive, commercial, or political information.

www.bbc.com

The messages weren't sent "through" the special assistant to Epstein. The Special Assistant (Amit Patel) emailed copies of the final reports to Andrew, and Andrew forwarded the email (with attachments) to Epstein 5 minutes later.

Age Verification | United States Department of Justice

www.justice.gov

 

[Curryong]

From the BBC report I earlier posted.

‘The emails indicate that on 7 October 2010, Andrew sent Epstein details of his official upcoming trips as trade envoy to Singapore, Vietnam, Shenzhen in China and Hong Kong, where he was accompanied by business associates of Epstein.

After the trip, on 30 November, he appears to have forwarded official reports of those visits sent by his then-special assistant, Amit Patel, to Epstein, five minutes after receiving them.’

In what way is this not disgusting and disgraceful behaviour by Andrew? If that is not corrupt activity I dont know what is!

And why didn’t BP investigate these ‘business associates of Epstein’ and exactly why they were accompanying trade envoy Andrew to South East Asia, at the time?

 

[Marengo]

It seems the poisoned chalice is not yet empty. If they start digging more in his finances I am sure more will be found, not only related to Epstein.

Is BP allowed to lead investigations into friends of friends of a member of the royal family? I imagine they may not have any legal right to do so. In The Netherlands f.e. there were problems when it became clear that the chef of the cabinet of the Queen asked the secret service [AIVD] to look into the then fiancé of his granddaughter Pss Margarita of Bourbon-Parma. It is not something they could just order.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

It seems the poisoned chalice is not yet empty. If they start digging more in his finances I am sure more will be found, not only related to Epstein.

Is BP allowed to lead investigations into friends of friends of a member of the royal family? I imagine they may not have any legal right to do so. In The Netherlands f.e. there were problems when it became clear that the chef of the cabinet of the Queen asked the secret service [AIVD] to look into the then fiancé of his granddaughter Pss Margarita of Bourbon-Parma. It is not something they could just order.

Yes, but in this case it seems to have been the other way around. According to Andrew Lownie, Buckingham Palace was approached by MI6 and also diplomats about issues with Andrew (not just Epstein, but also potential corruption, financially profiting off of his government role) and they didn't do anything about it for years until finally, he had to leave the role.

I think Andrew really was Queen Elizabeth's blind spot.

Yes, I think there is probably a lot to be found in his finances, not only Epstein-related.

 

[Durham]

According to this article from 2011 AMW was appointed trade envoy against the advice of the then PofW:

Prince Andrew: useful envoy or liability?

The Duke of York is attracting increasingly bad publicity in his role as trade envoy. But should we have expected this from the start?

www.theguardian.com

He was appointed with the support of the then pm Blair & a certain Peter Mandelson!

I think the reality is that successive British governments turned a blind eye to AMW's behaviour because he was useful to them. In certain places, & with particular individuals, his status created opportunites for the government.

 

[Angela Cliffe - Stuarts]

According to this article from 2011 AMW was appointed trade envoy against the advice of the then PofW:

Prince Andrew: useful envoy or liability?

The Duke of York is attracting increasingly bad publicity in his role as trade envoy. But should we have expected this from the start?

www.theguardian.com

He was appointed with the support of the then pm Blair & a certain Peter Mandelson!

That sounds like a ring then of vested interests and not ours! (Us being the British people and taxpayers).
Utterly shameful.

 

[tommy100]

One think the Epstein files shows IMO is that the notion the communications of royals (emails and other messages etc) are seemingly much less monitored that many people seem to think.
If they were monitored as much as they thought to be I doubt things would have got this far for many royals.

The interesting point about that is the BBC said somewhere that the private team now representing Andrew still retains a royal.uk email address "for security reasons" - interesting to know what the security reasons are. Presumably more related to hacking into the emails rather than monitoring what those with accounts are writing in them.

 

[Angela Cliffe - Stuarts]

I believe we should have a monarchy but one where a person is potentially allowed to be involved in very seriously concerning or potentially law breaking activity is very wrong. What I can't understand is how HLM Queen Elizabeth seems to have allowed someone(s) in her close family to damage the institution so much or leave it open to risk thereof.

As I've mentioned in a previous note here a while ago, I know of someone very well who met Epstein and Maxwell briefly and seperately but wonders in hindsight with other things that happened if she was a target. She had a very busy life and didn't make connections of events at the time in the 2010's. Her place of work where Epstein visited for a meeting (that she did not attend) in about 2015 could be easily found by anyone seeing LinkedIn and a colleague she worked with referred to a 'Jeffrey' that he wanted to introduce her to. She also thinks they looked at her wider social media, Instagram and back then Twitter but doesn't think it tracable now. She had a lot of accounts pretending to be Andrew and Pitch at the Palace follow then unfollow her or she would block them.

When you see the access to circles where people where not held to account or stopped it's understandable how some of victims of trafficking and abuse felt that they would not have been believed if they spoke up.