The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022

[ACO]

His request to unseal Ms Giuffre's agreement with Mr Epstein was granted by the judge.

Yes but her team also wants it revealed. It doesn’t exactly hurt her because how would Andrew know these details unless he spoke with Esptein about it?! But he didn’t know what he was up to, right? All he doing is proving her case more and more. I truly don’t understand his strategy here.

Andrew can’t remember if he met her but if he did she was legal and it of course was consensual but he also didn’t meet her… or go to pizza express…, or sweat… or whatever;

 

[Denville]

He did go to Pizza Express. He never denied that, it is in fact part of his defence. He says he does not remember meeting her but given how many people he meets, and his indifferent attitude to most people I think its quite possible that he met her and slept with her and forgot about it...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes but her team also wants it revealed.

My mistake, I should have written that his request for the judge to consider the agreement was granted (refer to the article in message #4571). But the point stands: There is no reason to think that the requests made by the Duke of York are not being afforded a fair hearing by the judge.

It doesn’t exactly hurt her because how would Andrew know these details unless he spoke with Esptein about it?! But he didn’t know what he was up to, right? All he doing is proving her case more and more.

I haven't read anything to suggest that the Duke of York spoke with Jeffrey Epstein about the settlement agreements. The existence of settlements between Mr. Epstein and some of his victims, and the fact that the settlements also covered at least some other individuals associated with Mr. Epstein, are obviously public knowledge as they have been discussed in the media coverage of Mr. Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and even on this forum.

Andrew can’t remember if he met her but if he did she was legal and it of course was consensual but he also didn’t meet her… or go to pizza express…, or sweat… or whatever;

The proceedings have not yet reached the merits of the case, so we will have to wait and see what legal defenses he will raise at that point. But it is the norm for both the defendant and the claimant to mount multiple arguments in support of their case, as we saw in the Duchess of Sussex's litigation against Associated Newspapers (true, that was in an English civil court, but there are many commonalities between the English and American legal systems).


The judge denied a request from the Duke of York's counsel to question Virginia Giuffre on matters relating to her domicile. From media reports, it seems the jurisdiction of the US federal court relies on Ms. Giuffre's domicile, and the Duke's lawyers argue that she is domiciled outside the United States.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17189115/prince-andrew-judge-denies-bid-crush-sex-assault-lawsuit/

 

[padams2359]

What about all the hard drives from the PCs in Epstein’s houses? We’re they removed by the FBI, or by someone with Epstein? If the Justice Dept has them, they could just be letting him hang himself. Also, no one ever stated what was actually found with Maxwell, or in her possession and hidden after her arrest.

 

[Alison H]

He did go to Pizza Express. He never denied that, it is in fact part of his defence. He says he does not remember meeting her but given how many people he meets, and his indifferent attitude to most people I think its quite possible that he met her and slept with her and forgot about it...

He was known as Randy Andy in his early 20s, and I don't know that he's changed much. Stereotypical sailor! It wouldn't surprise me. Who knows?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Anonymous courtiers spoke to Tim Shipman of The Times to discuss ideas for steps to be taken by the Duke of York if he goes on to lose the court case. Their suggestions include stopping the use of his title (which title is not specified, but they compare it to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex giving up the use of their HRHs), renouncing his remaining charity patronages, and scaling back his housing.

The courtiers also urge the Duke of York to make a public statement acknowledging his errors in associating with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and to stop bringing the Queen's name into the matter by having his friends brief the media about the Duke's concern that the case will damage the Queen.

Buckingham Palace called the courtiers' comments "without foundation", while the Duke of York's legal team declined to comment.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-he-loses-virginia-giuffre-sex-case-h2fngbdr9


Last August, Richard Palmer of the Express contacted charities of which the Duke of York was still listed as patron on the royal family's website and found that some had in fact already cut ties with him. Palace officials acknowledged that the website was out of date, and said they lacked sufficient staffing to keep it up to date.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1476810/Prince-Andrew-patron-charities-dropped

 

[victor1319]

The courtiers also urge the Duke of York to make a public statement acknowledging his errors in associating with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and to stop bringing the Queen's name into the matter by having his friends brief the media about the Duke's concern that the case will damage the Queen.

Well, it might be a little bit late for any sorrows about damaging Monarchy and Queen!

There were scandals of this sort before like the Jimmy Saville thing, but they were all treated and closed on British soil by friendly British authorities and a cooperating press.

This affair about Prince Andrew is different, since it has an international aspect through the perhaps soon starting court case in the US about the Giuffre girl.

And the Americans lack in wide parts any respect for Royals... - out of historic reasons.

And now the British see, how the Americans deal with such affairs and might ask themselves, why Britain is doing otherwise - in the end the jolly Royals are just human too. And this would be the damage: The demystification of Royalty and Monarchy alltogether - just human beings with a crown and titles after all... no Royal Touch, no Hail, nothing special!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

That has already happened....LONG before Epstein in fact.

 

[Denville]

He was known as Randy Andy in his early 20s, and I don't know that he's changed much. Stereotypical sailor! It wouldn't surprise me. Who knows?

I dont see why he shouldn't sleep around if he wants to, but the girls should be legal age and not procured by some sleaze like Epstein. But I think its veyr possible since he meets loads of people all the time, he may have met her and not remembered it. He may not have slept with her but he may have done so nad not remembered it.

 

[Alison H]

Well, it might be a little bit late for any sorrows about damaging Monarchy and Queen!

There were scandals of this sort before like the Jimmy Saville thing, but they were all treated and closed on British soil by friendly British authorities and a cooperating press.

Would you explain what Jimmy Savile has to do with the monarchy, please? And how exactly was his appalling behaviour "treated and closed by friendly British authorities and a co-operating press"? The press and the authorities were absolutely horrified when this came to light.

And what other scandals? There have been some horrific child abuse scandals, tragically, but in which of them are you claiming that the Royal Family were involved? I don't see the comparison.

 

[Denville]

That has already happened....LONG before Epstein in fact.

I'd say that it is the opposite, that the British publc are well aware that royals are just ordinary people and do stupid and wrong things.. and they accept it and live with it.... it doesn't mean that they dont expect a certain level of behavour from their royals but they can cope with a certain degree of imperfection

 

[Claire]

I think what was been conveyed is that many royals have been friends with people that have later been find guilty of many different crimes - in this case pedophilia. Prince Charles & Princess Margaret's relationship with Jimmy Saville been the one shown here.

It is just while I can look at this and say - while the royals meet and befriend hundreds of high profile people over the years. Statically some of them will be criminals, yep even celebrities can be criminals. The media lumps them up all together and make the royal concerned appear like a co- conspirator. Charles was an admire of the Goon Show - all of them and many of the BBC comedian group, but it is the relationship with Jimmy Saville that they harp on about. And I think that reference was made to the priest that was on Charles estate that was also a pedophile, there is no evidence that Charles knew anything about that and honestly what role does Charles actually play in the appointing of clergy on his estates.

Now I am not saying that Epstein was not a closer friendship that shouldn't have happened. But you cant pull out three examples and declare a significant problem. When one government member is found guilt of fraud - do you dissolve parliament. If one doctor is has a case of malpractice - are all other doctors suspected of the same crime by proxy? I am concerned that this is been used as a tar brush on all male members of the royal family. It is just the twitterification of public opinion - that it is common place among royals, among upper class English men or in rich white men. This is all just nonsense, gossip and stirring.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I'd say that it is the opposite, that the British publc are well aware that royals are just ordinary people and do stupid and wrong things.. and they accept it and live with it.... it doesn't mean that they dont expect a certain level of behavour from their royals but they can cope with a certain degree of imperfection

To use my favourite quote, once stated by a Dutch MP during a debate:

"My ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing the royal family, not the Holy Family".

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I'd say that it is the opposite, that the British publc are well aware that royals are just ordinary people and do stupid and wrong things.. and they accept it and live with it.... it doesn't mean that they dont expect a certain level of behavour from their royals but they can cope with a certain degree of imperfection

I was assuming that the poster was referring to the non British American perception of British Royalty or any type of royalty whatsoever.

They are thought of as celebrities here...celebrities with titles that 90% of people( even journalists who should know better) get wrong.

There is absolutely no sense of "mystique" whatsoever about William and Kate here..as popular as they are.

The one exception is perhaps HMQ. She is from another era.

 

[sophie25]

I dont see why he shouldn't sleep around if he wants to, but the girls should be legal age and not procured by some sleaze like Epstein. But I think its veyr possible since he meets loads of people all the time, he may have met her and not remembered it. He may not have slept with her but he may have done so nad not remembered it.

I know what you mean but in the Newsnight interview he went from saying he couldn't remember to saying it absolutely didn't happen. It can't be both and it was one of many significant contradictions from him.

 

[Denville]

I was assuming that the poster was referring to the non British American perception of British Royalty or any type of royalty whatsoever.

They are thought of as celebrities here...celebrities with titles that 90% of people( even journalists who should know better) get wrong.

There is absolutely no sense of "mystique" whatsoever about William and Kate here..as popular as they are.

The one exception is perhaps HMQ. She is from another era.

well to judge by the way some Non UK people seem to expect the RF in the UK to be angels and attack them vehmently for any sort of flaw real or imagined, I would say that even if some older Brits see the RF as a special body, most of the UK think that they are just ordinary people who do an unusual job, and dont expect them to show extraordinary virtue

 

[Denville]

I know what you mean but in the Newsnight interview he went from saying he couldn't remember to saying it absolutely didn't happen. It can't be both and it was one of many significant contradictions from him.

Did he? I can't remembe exactly now, but I thought that he ssaid he had no recollection of meeting her.. but that he felt that because having sex is a "positive act" for a man, he coudl absolutely deny a sexual relationship.

 

[victor1319]

Would you explain what Jimmy Savile has to do with the monarchy, please?

Well, if you ask... Here a little take-out from an article in the British news outlet "Mirror":

"He (Savile) licked Princess Diana's hand and she recoiled from that. As she told me, it was something very creepy."

"...he (Savile) was pretty well established in government circles, with prime ministers of the day. And by being pretty well established, he was fairly untouchable."

"In 1990, despite resistance from Whitehall, Savile finally got what he craved when he was given a knighthood. It was a gi-normous relief when I got the knighthood," said Savile at the time. "Because it got me off the hook."

"And Charles, paying homage to Jimmy Savile at his home in Glencoe. It was an utterly bizarre situation. Savile had these women dressed up in waitress pinafores to serve them tea."

"Charles reportedly wrote: "Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that."

"Meirion Jones, a journalist who investigated Savile's crimes shortly after his death, says: "If you're a friend of the Royal Family, a chief constable is going to think twice about putting a team on an investigation of you."

And so on and so forth...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jimmy-savile-manipulated-gullible-prince-25162410

Until now Andrew is not proven guilty, what means, he is to be seen innocent. But when it comes to "guilty by association", Prince Andrew can line up right behind Prince Charles!

And you ask for other examples, at least one?

Well:

"An FBI dossier on Mountbatten, released in 2019, thanks to a Freedom of Information request, reveals shocking information about the royal who was a mentor to his grand-nephew Prince Charles. The 75-year-old intelligence files describe Louis Mountbatten, the 1st Earl of Burma, and his wife Edwina as "persons of extremely low morals" and contain information suggesting that Lord Mountbatten was a pedophile with "a perversion for young boys."
https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/lord-mountbatten-pedophile-allegations

I don't want to open further barrels, it is all nasty enough...

 

[Alison H]

well to judge by the way some Non UK people seem to expect the RF in the UK to be angels and attack them vehmently for any sort of flaw real or imagined, I would say that even if some older Brits see the RF as a special body, most of the UK think that they are just ordinary people who do an unusual job, and dont expect them to show extraordinary virtue

It's a very recent thing. Look at the way Edward VII carried on. Or indeed Edward VIII, in his bachelor days. If Joe Bloggs down the street had been running around having umpteen different mistresses, having affairs with married women, and so on, people in working class and middle class communities would have been horrified. There are stories of people in strict Nonconformist communities being publicly denounced for their immoral behaviour - usually young girls who'd got into trouble, whilst their boyfriends got off scot free. But it was always accepted that the upper classes did things differently. I'm not sure how much mystique there was about "Tum Tum", popular as he was!

And, yes, there've been rumours about Mountbatten, and about the Duke of Clarence. They may or may not be true: no-one knows. But Jimmy Savile was hardly a close friend of Prince Charles, just someone whom Charles knew, in the same way that he knows many other famous people. I don't see that that's comparable to this. Everyone thought Jimmy Savile was wonderful. When I was little, I wrote to ask if I could go on his TV show. Most kids did, in those days - Jim'll Fix It was one of those TV programmes which everyone watched. He was a popular TV personality and charity fundraiser - that's what Charles saw. How could Charles possibly have suspected that someone who raised money for children's hospitals was doing so in order to get access to children for horrible crimes? It all came as a huge shock. Hardly the same as this.

 

[Denville]

yes middle class people had a stricter sexual code, but I dont think that working class people were all that stringent, at least not the urban working class. And Ed VII's affairs were known by those who wanted to know but there was deniability. People who wanted to believe that it was all gossip or just flirtation had no definite knowledge of the affairs, and there were no long distance cameras or tapes or mobile phones that could provide more concrete proof.
I agree about Charles and Jimmy Saville. LOTS Of people liked Saville (not sure why to be honest but they did) and his charity work was massive, so that kind of covered up his misdeeds, Having said that, I am sure there were other people among the BBC etc who saw a lot more of Jimmy than Charles would have done and they apparently had no idea or didn't want to believe ill of him.

 

[Claire]

okay - another thing that should be noted here - especially when it comes to Mountbatten is that during his time. Homosexuality was considered a crime, amoral and right up there if not worse then pedophilia.
I believe the homosexual aspects of his life as I befriended a man who dated him in the 1950's. That been said - it was made very clear to me that all homosexual men at that time were considered pedophiles and that they were actively after young men. It was just a common representation of gay men at the time and was used in the criminality of it. There are hundreds of repressed gay men in England whose reputation suffered the same - Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing. Gay = Pedophile before attitudes changed.

 

[Denville]

I agree. I think that years ago, before the change of law, even if in private, the upper classes were relativley tolerant of promiscuity and homosexual relations, the public official attitude would be that a gay man or a woman with several lovers (Like Edwina) were people of low morals. So an intelligence report might well say that the Mountbattens were "bad people" based on their sex lives....

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I know what you mean but in the Newsnight interview he went from saying he couldn't remember to saying it absolutely didn't happen. It can't be both and it was one of many significant contradictions from him.

Did he? I can't remembe exactly now, but I thought that he ssaid he had no recollection of meeting her.. but that he felt that because having sex is a "positive act" for a man, he coudl absolutely deny a sexual relationship.

Denville is correct. Gawin's post from the last time this claim was discussed is appropriate to post again:

Do you have a source to back that up?

According to the transcript of the BBC interview, he said he didn't *remember* or had no *recollection* of meeting her.

But he denied her allegations (they didn't dance together, have drinks, or have sex).

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50449339


EM: … has made allegations against you. She says she met you in 2001, she says she dined with you, danced with you at Tramp Nightclub in London. She went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell, your friend. Your response?

PA: I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever.

EM: You don't remember meeting her?

PA: No.


EM: She says she met you in 2001, she dined with you, she danced with you, you bought her drinks, you were in Tramp Nightclub in London and she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell.

PA: It didn't happen.

EM: Do you remember her?

PA: No, I've no recollection of ever meeting her, I'm almost, in fact I'm convinced that I was never in Tramps with her. There are a number of things that are wrong with that story, one of which is that I don't know where the bar is in Tramps. I don't drink, I don't think I've ever bought a drink in Tramps whenever I was there.

 

[Alison H]

It was very odd. He was always involved in raising money for hospitals, and he did the TV programme making dreams come true for children ... he was the last person that Joe Public would have suspected of doing anything wrong, which is frightening.

But, to go back to Prince Andrew, if he's found guilty of anything then obviously steps will have to be taken. If he's not, then presumably things will just go on as they are.

 

[Denville]

It was very odd. He was always involved in raising money for hospitals, and he did the TV programme making dreams come true for children ... he was the last person that Joe Public would have suspected of doing anything wrong, which is frightening.

But, to go back to Prince Andrew, if he's found guilty of anything then obviously steps will have to be taken. If he's not, then presumably things will just go on as they are.

Well Andrew's relationship with Epstein was clearly at lest in part to get girls and to make money... so it is different to being friendly with someone who seems on the face of it, to be just a rather vulgar but well meaning person who does a lot of charity work. Saville had loads of rich friends and friends in the media, some of whom seem to have suspected he was not what he seemed.

 

[sophie25]

Denville is correct. Gawin's post from the last time this claim was discussed is appropriate to post again:

When EM returned to asking him about having sex with VR later on in the interview he said,

"I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened", not that he couldn't remember.

It's in the transcript if anyone is interested.

 

[Denville]

When EM returned to asking him about having sex with VR later on in the interview he said,

"I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened", not that he couldn't remember.

It's in the transcript if anyone is interested.

He said that he could not remember MEETING her. Ie he might have met her and had a photo taken but then he meets loads of people. But he definitely felt sure that he had not had sex with her or bought her drinks.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

When EM returned to asking him about having sex with VR later on in the interview he said,

"I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened", not that he couldn't remember.

It's in the transcript if anyone is interested.

Yes, that's exactly the point I was making. I was responding to your post

I know what you mean but in the Newsnight interview he went from saying he couldn't remember to saying it absolutely didn't happen. It can't be both and it was one of many significant contradictions from him.

Although his answers were frequently muddled, they were not necessarily contradictory. He may only have intended his absolute denial to apply to the alleged sexual activity, not the alleged meeting. From the linked transcript:

EM: But you can say categorically that you don't recall meeting Virginia Roberts, dining with her?

PA: Yep.

EM: Dancing with her at Tramp?

PA: Yep.

EM: Or going on to have sex with her…

PA: Yes.

EM: …in a bedroom in a house in Belgravia?

PA: I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened.

EM: Do you recall any kind of sexual contact with Virginia Roberts then or any other time?

PA: None whatsoever.

 

[tommy100]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713.32.1.pdf

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant", a 2009 settlement of her Florida damages claim against the sex offender shows.

The document, disclosed by a New York court, reveals the financier paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim.

Ms Giuffre is suing the Duke of York in a civil case for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.

He has consistently denied the claims.

Ms Giuffre claims that 20 years ago she was trafficked to the prince by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

 

[Mbruno]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713.32.1.pdf

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant", a 2009 settlement of her Florida damages claim against the sex offender shows.

The document, disclosed by a New York court, reveals the financier paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim.

Ms Giuffre is suing the Duke of York in a civil case for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.

He has consistently denied the claims.

Ms Giuffre claims that 20 years ago she was trafficked to the prince by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Virginia Giuffre's lawyers apparently are arguing that the 2009 settlement only applies to potential defendants in the context of her Florida damages claim.