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

[Tirilschatz]

The weirdest thing to me remains that lots of people go somewhere to watch people go to church - it's not an official royal event: just a family attending church on Christmas day (as many (but not all) of them do every week). Nonetheless it isn't a smart thing for Andrew to engage with the people in that way.

To be honest, that's the only way for many people to see them in person, and if that is what floats ones boat, I am fine with it.

 

[Sister Morphine]

If Andrew had any brains, he'd disappear. Not permanently, I don't mean like that, but disappear from public life. How many people do *you* know are pedophiles and sex traffickers? I don't know anyone like that. Andrew knew at least one. That alone should bar him from ever participating in any royal event ever again, at least publicly. He can sit in the back, out of view, and leave before everyone else does.

Part of me thinks he just doesn't give a flying you-know-what about all of this and that to me is unconscionable.

 

[Granada]

Yes, Sister Morphine yes, TWO depraved individuals, Ghislaine Maxwell, also.

Andrew's lack of judgement is appalling. Just alarming.
When Emily Maitlis, during The Interview, THREW him a life line and asked "if he regretted his relationship with Epstein".

Andrew said "NO. Because the People he met and the opportunities that I WAS GIVEN TO LEARN either by him or because of him, were actually very useful ".

I mean, what can you say about that ? Wow.

And remember, Andrew was so pleased afterwards that he took Emily on a short tour around Buckingham Palace.
Then actually bragged to Queen Elizabeth how well it went.

The part I find most confounding is two things. Beatrice was pivotal in securing the Interview, sat in on early discussions. AND that it got the go ahead to begin with.
Both amaze me.

 

[caethi]

By many reports, Andrew is arrogant and entitled. He says what he says because he seems to have no ability to "read the room". It's pretty hard for people with that personality type to actually change, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it. He seems unable to own up to his mistakes and all aspects of the Epstein connection were huge mistakes. He is, however, the King's brother. He should go to church with his family if he is so moved to do so. The "church walk" has become a bit of a dog and pony show however, and frankly I think that they need to rethink allowing the public to stand and wait and give flowers. A few press to capture the moment would be sufficient to publicize the occasion. As long as there are "fans" waiting to see the family, it will look like a public occasion, and it will look like Andrew is taking part in a public occasion. Frankly, I thought Fergie behaved more inappropriately than Andrew on Christmas Day itself.

 

[Winnie]

I truly believe that Beatrice believed every word her father told her about his friendship with Epstein and sincerely thought telling his side would actually clear his name. We all want our parents to be well thought-of. Shame she certainly became disillusioned. JMO

 

[changemysoul]

I wouldn’t say it’s about remaining angry. It’s more so about, I don’t want to be around a family member who chooses to actively hang out and around a man that was convicted of trafficking women, being pedophile and other crimes.

It wasn’t like this was something Andrew found out and then cut off all contact. He went and saw the man after and it wasn’t a goodbye and hello. They were hanging out, they were accepting women at the apartment. This isn’t my uncle having a friend who’s into hard drugs and only ruining his own life…this is my uncle staying all of those I listed are okay. Or at least, okay enough for me to be around them.

It wasn’t poor judgment. He just didn’t care because he didn’t think he’d get caught. And then he defended it, after having ample time to cut Jeff off.

I would be more disappointed than angry but our contact would have to end because what you’re telling me is, you didn’t mind that. And if Andrew did do exactly what he was accused of, I’d side eye the RF for letting him be around. Especially around kids.

But for me, just him being okay with being close friends with someone like that is enough to say, I really can’t deal with you.

At the very least, he should’ve be publicly spotted with the family. If the family isn’t going to say anything about it from the chest (disapproving it). It’s always talked about how it’s about optics and the optics right now are, we’re happy to spend time with someone who thought it was okay to hang with someone who committed the crimes Jeffery did, after it was made public.

 

[Alison H]

People come from miles away to wait outside the church on Christmas Day. Some people even come from abroad. Some people go every year. It's a nice tradition. There's no way that it's going to be stopped because of Andrew.

Today's Telegraph had an article entitled "How do you solve a problem like Prince Andrew?", which was quite apt. It's a very difficult situation for the King.

 

[ladongas]

I was watching episode 9 (I think) of the last season of The Crown last evening. It’s mainly about the relationship between the Queen and her sister in the period before Margaret’s death. I admit I got a bit choked up, which I’m ordinarily not the type to do so, probably because my own sister (and only sibling) died suddenly six months ago.

I was thinking how important it was for the Queen to maintain and cherish that relationship, and how glad I was to have been completely peaceful and reconciled with my own sister.

Perhaps Andrew is a bit of a jerk, and likely did something very wrong 20-odd years ago. Assuming Charles loves his brother, he may feel that he can love, and forget, and forgive the turmoil Andrew caused his family and Virginia. One can’t undo an imperfect past, but one can move forward with a kind heart.

“PS The Crown included a charming episode, seemingly true, of the VE night when the two sisters went out on the town. There’s a movie called A Royal Night Out.”

 

[Hallo girl]

By many reports, Andrew is arrogant and entitled. He says what he says because he seems to have no ability to "read the room". It's pretty hard for people with that personality type to actually change, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it. He seems unable to own up to his mistakes and all aspects of the Epstein connection were huge mistakes. He is, however, the King's brother. He should go to church with his family if he is so moved to do so. The "church walk" has become a bit of a dog and pony show however, and frankly I think that they need to rethink allowing the public to stand and wait and give flowers. A few press to capture the moment would be sufficient to publicize the occasion. As long as there are "fans" waiting to see the family, it will look like a public occasion, and it will look like Andrew is taking part in a public occasion. Frankly, I thought Fergie behaved more inappropriately than Andrew on Christmas Day itself.

If members of the public wish to spend the Christmas morning watching the royals going to church why should they be stopped.

The queen always said she had to be seen. It is part of the heritage, if people from other countries do not agree fair enough, but if the British want to do it so be it.

 

[Somebody]

If members of the public wish to spend the Christmas morning watching the royals going to church why should they be stopped.

The queen always said she had to be seen. It is part of the heritage, if people from other countries do not agree fair enough, but if the British want to do it so be it.

It's a peculiar tradition but as long as people don't start complaining that Andrew shouldn't attend church because people make it into a tourist attraction, I'm fine with it (although I would love for the family that it would be different). However, complaining that he is attending church with his family on Christmas day and that he shouldn't do so because he should be out of sight, is turning it upside down imho.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Did anyone see this video of Andrew while going to church in Sandringham and asking people why they have their cameras on?

I think it is a little bizarre, ever since people have mobile phones they have made pictures of the royals walk to church, that is one of the reasons why they are there. Nobody so far has forbidden them to take pics.
Why does he get so exited about that? Maybe his nerves are strained at the moment.. still it would have been wiser not to engage in such conversations with the public IMO

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ing-Sandringham-crowds-cameras-video-him.html

Well, that was "unhelpful" as the late QEII would have probably described it. PA is quite frankly a seriously unlikable person. He makes it very difficult for the small handful of people who want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If he would prefer not to be filmed why not just leave the Christmas Day church walk...which he knows very well will always include Royal watchers with cell phone cameras..to his daughters and their families?

He would actually be helping not only himself but his brother the king if he did.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There doesn't seem to be a private entrance to the church at Sandringham and the surrounding churches are part of the same group with service only held at one of them at any one time. So the choice for Andrew is to either go or not go. Personally I'd be very happy if he chose not to attend to save his family and his brother the bother but, equally, I don't think he should be forced into not going to Church.

In the CoE there are two compulsory days to attend church - Easter Sunday and Christmas Day. He therefore would have to go to a church away from the estate or go with his family.

 

[Somebody]

In the CoE there are two compulsory days to attend church - Easter Sunday and Christmas Day. He therefore would have to go to a church away from the estate or go with his family.

I am not aware of this rule. Where is it written that these two days are compulsory and (apparently) all other services are optional? And what happens if member of the Church of England don't comply?

 

[MARG]

No, Christmas and Easter are merely predictable private family events that will see all members of the BRF going to church together and so the public can be assured that they will be seen.

As to Epstein, nothing further has been definitively exposed so this all just means a re-tread of the outrage and endless demands that King Charles should do as he is told by all these nameless, faceless, voices on the internet and overpaid hacks in the legacy media.

I personally am glad to see that while Andrew will never be called to act for the crown again, he is still a loved member of his family, so much so that Charles even invited Sarah to join them for Christmas.

Christmas is a time for reflection and what closer subject is the members of their own family. Charles seemed to have invited a large number of his extended family to join them at Sandringham and the presence of the entire York family is wonderful to see. It has nothing to do with gossip and accusations about the late Mr Epstein and everything to do with drawing the family closer which I for one admire.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am not aware of this rule. Where is it written that these two days are compulsory and (apparently) all other services are optional? And what happens if member of the Church of England don't comply?

Nothing happens but they are compulsory days for committed CoE - my minister reminds us throughout the services leading up to both services, as have all my ministers since I was a child and it was stressed as part of my confirmation classes.

 

[Somebody]

Nothing happens but they are compulsory days for committed CoE - my minister reminds us throughout the services leading up to both services, as have all my ministers since I was a child and it was stressed as part of my confirmation classes.

I would expect committed members to attend church weekly, not just 2 times a year. However, this discussion is getting off-topic, so let's conclude that Andrew might reasonably be expected to attend church on Christmas day.

 

[duchesschicana]

I truly believe that Beatrice believed every word her father told her about his friendship with Epstein and sincerely thought telling his side would actually clear his name. We all want our parents to be well thought-of. Shame she certainly became disillusioned. JMO

Well let’s think for a moment that the allegations are %100 true without a doubt.I get it though in that scenario; they’re Andy’s family, and they don’t see him as a monster. I think psychologically, as family, especially his daughters, they don’t want to admit they are related to trash. So, even if they saw evidence of this, they are going to live in denial as a coping mechanism. No one normal can emotionally come to terms with what they think they know of a person they love versus an ugly dark truth without having a psychotic meltdown. It’s hard for the loved ones of monsters to come to an understanding of everything. This is common when you look at criminals and their crimes; often times family will believe the criminal even after they’ve been convicted and are sitting in jail, rotting away. Josh Duggar and his wife come to mind. Lady knows how to live in denial. What’s worse if we are going with this thought he is guilty , Andy never was taken to court and never got served justice whatever that looks like, other than making a deal. So his daughters who have both shown support and the rest of the family can most certainly live in denial as it is a he said, she said thing at the end of the day.


We got to remember in that dark scenario his family and friends are most certainly are a type of victims as well, even if they don’t view themselves as such. They most certainly feel the ripple effects despite living in denial. I vaguely remember it being reported about Bea’s wedding reception dinner (it was her engagement party) or something along those lines and how her famous friends didn’t want to be a part of it if Andy was involved or she worried about photographers or something. I ’m not saying anything as fact either just pointing out in worse case scenario that his family would be a type of victim, if he truly led a double life.I have a tendency to slide with the alleged victims myself, don’t fancy to argue with people over it.

 

[Susan D]

I am stunned how bad Pirnce Andrew's judgement is. He is all wrong for government service. So, it doesn't look good for Prince Andrew to live in a government-owned mansion.

 

[tommy100]

State owned really, not government owned. It is part of the Crown Estate and could be leased to anyone - being fit or not for government office is not part of the decision over who can or can not lease Royal Lodge or other properties owned by the Crown Estate. A large number of "ordinary" / civilian people live in Crown property. You could even decide to rent one of their available properties
https://www.windsorgreatpark.co.uk/...es-to-rent-in-windsor-and-the-windsor-estate/

 

[Ripley]

That's why I have always said that Andrew should never have settled the case!
Once someone does that, the public automatically assumes guilt.

Yes, I understand the RF wanted it to go away, so as not to cast a damper on the Queen's Jubilee.

Still, I feel it was a huge mistake.

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

 

[Ripley]

Well let’s think for a moment that the allegations are %100 true without a doubt.I get it though in that scenario; they’re Andy’s family, and they don’t see him as a monster. I think psychologically, as family, especially his daughters, they don’t want to admit they are related to trash. So, even if they saw evidence of this, they are going to live in denial as a coping mechanism. No one normal can emotionally come to terms with what they think they know of a person they love versus an ugly dark truth without having a psychotic meltdown. It’s hard for the loved ones of monsters to come to an understanding of everything. This is common when you look at criminals and their crimes; often times family will believe the criminal even after they’ve been convicted and are sitting in jail, rotting away. Josh Duggar and his wife come to mind. Lady knows how to live in denial. What’s worse if we are going with this thought he is guilty , Andy never was taken to court and never got served justice whatever that looks like, other than making a deal. So his daughters who have both shown support and the rest of the family can most certainly live in denial as it is a he said, she said thing at the end of the day.

[Mods. removed speculative medical diagnosis]

We got to remember in that dark scenario his family and friends are most certainly are a type of victims as well, even if they don’t view themselves as such. They most certainly feel the ripple effects despite living in denial. I vaguely remember it being reported about Bea’s wedding reception dinner (it was her engagement party) or something along those lines and how her famous friends didn’t want to be a part of it if Andy was involved or she worried about photographers or something. I ’m not saying anything as fact either just pointing out in worse case scenario that his family would be a type of victim, if he truly led a double life.I have a tendency to slide with the alleged victims myself, don’t fancy to argue with people over it.

I'm not sure what the evidence is supposed to be for describing Prince Andrew as a monster.

 

[Hallo girl]

Well let’s think for a moment that the allegations are %100 true without a doubt.I get it though in that scenario; they’re Andy’s family, and they don’t see him as a monster. I think psychologically, as family, especially his daughters, they don’t want to admit they are related to trash. So, even if they saw evidence of this, they are going to live in denial as a coping mechanism. No one normal can emotionally come to terms with what they think they know of a person they love versus an ugly dark truth without having a psychotic meltdown. It’s hard for the loved ones of monsters to come to an understanding of everything. This is common when you look at criminals and their crimes; often times family will believe the criminal even after they’ve been convicted and are sitting in jail, rotting away. Josh Duggar and his wife come to mind. Lady knows how to live in denial. What’s worse if we are going with this thought he is guilty , Andy never was taken to court and never got served justice whatever that looks like, other than making a deal. So his daughters who have both shown support and the rest of the family can most certainly live in denial as it is a he said, she said thing at the end of the day. [...]

Bea had a Covid wedding. No reception or wedding dinner that friends would be included in.

 

[MARG]

Well let’s think for a moment that the allegations are %100 true without a doubt.I get it though in that scenario; they’re Andy’s family, and they don’t see him as a monster. I think psychologically, as family, especially his daughters, they don’t want to admit they are related to trash. So, even if they saw evidence of this, they are going to live in denial as a coping mechanism. No one normal can emotionally come to terms with what they think they know of a person they love versus an ugly dark truth without having a psychotic meltdown. It’s hard for the loved ones of monsters to come to an understanding of everything. This is common when you look at criminals and their crimes; often times family will believe the criminal even after they’ve been convicted and are sitting in jail, rotting away. Josh Duggar and his wife come to mind. Lady knows how to live in denial. What’s worse if we are going with this thought he is guilty , Andy never was taken to court and never got served justice whatever that looks like, other than making a deal. So his daughters who have both shown support and the rest of the family can most certainly live in denial as it is a he said, she said thing at the end of the day.

[...]

Just a note of some importance! Andrew's case was a civil case so, the only outcome would be a financial settlement if the the judgement was for the Plaintiff. Settlement was merely a way to avoid an ugly, drawn out and very public Court Case during the Queen's Platinum Jubilee which is why Andrew was persuaded, very intensely, to settle and why that much money was available for the settlement. Andrew wanted his day in Court and was forced to forgo both it and what little was left of his reputation on the altar of family and the Crown.

I'm not sure what the evidence is supposed to be for describing Prince Andrew as a monster and a sociopath.

He was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, largely formed by legacy and social media outlets. Basically, anyone with an axe to grind and so the verdict was never in doubt. Neither truth nor evidence are necessary in such trials but anyone unwise enough to to quibble publically ran the risk of being 'Cancelled' and accused of being morally bankrupt.

The British Royal Family (on advice from all their courtiers) found it expedient to throw Andrew under a bus and probably thought that was the end of it. HM and the rest of the actual family were aware as well which is why IMHO Charles is trying to redress the situation and is being hammered just as before. Let's hope he stays the course and puts family first.

One thing bothers me though. Is it legal to accuse Andrew of crimes of which there is not evidence whatsever?

 

[Mirabel]

I don't believe settlement (of court cases) should be permitted.
It does save time (and frequently money) but it is frequently exploited by those who know it is often cheaper for the defendant to settle than to fight the case in court.

There are actually people who make a living by filing cases and accepting a settlement.
It perverts the course of justice, imo.

 

[shastalucie]

I’ve always thought that Andrew’s role as a roving ambassador led to him accepting money from very shady people. Financial crimes leave a paper trail. I suspect Charles and William (and the late queen) have seen that evidence and agreed to banish him from public life in exchange for no charges being brought. Epstein crimes are just the smokescreen for activity that could truly impact the monarchy. He’s greedy and stupid, logically it wouldn’t
end with sex.

 

[Zonk]

At this time, I would like to remind everyone of the following TRF rule that we all agreed to abide by when we joined TRF:

• Insulting comments about other posters and royals are not permitted. Criticism is acceptable; insults and flames are not. We expect our members to treat each other with respect.

I realize that this is an emotional topic, but the speculative and insinuative posts and the name calling needs to stop.

Additional posts that disregard this warning, will be deleted without notice.

If you have any questions, please PM a British moderator or TRF Administrator.

 

[duchesschicana]

Bea had a Covid wedding. No reception or wedding dinner that friends would be included in.

Sorry got things mixed, I believe it was her engagement party where she was allegedly worried about being photographed etc

I'm not sure what the evidence is supposed to be for describing Prince Andrew as a monster [...]

Just a note of some importance! Andrew's case was a civil case so, the only outcome would be a financial settlement if the the judgement was for the Plaintiff. Settlement was merely a way to avoid an ugly, drawn out and very public Court Case during the Queen's Platinum Jubilee which is why Andrew was persuaded, very intensely, to settle and why that much money was available for the settlement. Andrew wanted his day in Court and was forced to forgo both it and what little was left of his reputation on the altar of family and the Crown.He was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, largely formed by legacy and social media outlets. Basically, anyone with an axe to grind and so the verdict was never in doubt. Neither truth nor evidence are necessary in such trials but anyone unwise enough to to quibble publically ran the risk of being 'Cancelled' and accused of being morally bankrupt.

The British Royal Family (on advice from all their courtiers) found it expedient to throw Andrew under a bus and probably thought that was the end of it. HM and the rest of the actual family were aware as well which is why IMHO Charles is trying to redress the situation and is being hammered just as before. Let's hope he stays the course and puts family first.

One thing bothers me though. Is it legal to accuse Andrew of crimes of which there is not evidence whatsever?

I have a tendency to slide with the alleged victims myself, don’t fancy to argue with people over it. But I did rewrite my post as a more like personal musing/allegation than fact.

 

[Alisa]

State owned really, not government owned. It is part of the Crown Estate and could be leased to anyone - being fit or not for government office is not part of the decision over who can or can not lease Royal Lodge or other properties owned by the Crown Estate. A large number of "ordinary" / civilian people live in Crown property. You could even decide to rent one of their available properties
https://www.windsorgreatpark.co.uk/...es-to-rent-in-windsor-and-the-windsor-estate/

Hardly. If the Duke of York was just an average Joe Schmoe was linked to a very high profile sex trafficking he wouldn't be living there. Let's keep it real.

 

[tommy100]

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

 

[EllieCat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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