Gransnet forums

News & politics

Is Prince Andrew's protestation too little too late?

(293 Posts)
Tillybelle Tue 20-Aug-19 15:43:30

I think the Palace would have been wiser to have kept silent. It's short statement, filled with all with all the strong emotional words describing what any decent person feels concerning child abuse, only begs the question;

Why now?

Why so strong, now? Everyone knew this a decade ago. Andrew knew his friend had made a deal to avoid these kinds of charges in 2008. Why become so appalled now when he, Andrew, stood by Epstein even after some of his offending came to light?

Epstein died in a New York prison cell on 10 August as he awaited, without the chance of bail, his trial on sex trafficking charges.

In the announcement made on Sunday 18th August, Prince Andrew has said how appalled he is about the sexual behaviour with young girls his former friend Jefferey Epstein is accused of.

Yet he kept in contact with the billionaire sex offender after his 2008 conviction. He knew then that Epstein was on the Sex Offenders Register (USA). The photo of the two men walking in Central Park in 2010 led to serious criticism of the prince concerning his judgement about spending time with a sex offender and staying at his house. He was himself photographed with his arm around 17 year old scantily clad Virginia Roberts at Epstien's house, where he is also filmed smiling and waving through the door at young girls leaving.
To quote Jonny Dymond, BBC Royal Reporter:
"But to see him inside Epstein's house, as young women come and go, looking for all the world as if he was a happy house-guest, is a disturbing sight. And strong though the palace statement may be it, it fails to answer the central question.
Just what was Prince Andrew doing visiting the house of a convicted paedophile?"

It seems far too late, for me, that the Palace issue this statement after the death of Epstein. Why did not the Prince dissociate himself from this man's vile behaviour in 2008?
This was when he received an 18-month prison sentence, after a controversial secret plea deal, when he avoided up to 45 years in prison if convicted of sex trafficking and conspiracy charges, to which he pleaded not guilty, by instead pleading guilty to a lesser charge of soliciting a minor for prostitution.

It is too striking that this public protest of revulsion about the depravity of his erstwhile friend's activities has been made suddenly after that man's death.

Could it be that while Jefferey Epstein was still alive, there was a reason why he could not say, "the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent." ? Would his erstwhile friend, perhaps, have testified with evidence to suggest otherwise?

Day6 Tue 20-Aug-19 15:59:15

It does make you wonder, doesn't it

Prince Andrew is implicated in this, even though he tries to deny it. It was known a while ago that Andrew was a friend of a sex offender, as you mentioned Tillybelle, so why didn't he cut all ties then? It would have been a easy easy thing for a Prince to do.

I thought the suggestion on a thread yesterday about Epstein's death was pertinent. Cannot remember who it was who wrote it, but they thought the spotlight would now fall on Epsteins' associates, Andrew being one of them, and a famous one too. This is exactly what has happened. That can of worms has opened and I feel the Palace is trying to shut the door on the face of investigation into a royal's activities.

He doesn't come out of this well. Andrew knew of Epstein's vile trade in sex slaves. It's annoying that he'll probably have the trail leading to his royal door swept clean.

MawB Tue 20-Aug-19 16:09:12

Is this the longest OP e Er?
We already have a thread in this subject.
Life is too short.....

MawB Tue 20-Aug-19 16:10:33


GrannyGravy13 Tue 20-Aug-19 16:13:08

I think if anything PA is guilty by association.

One young women who was under the age of consent (17 yr old at the time in Florida where the age of consent is 18) has already implicated PA by accusing him of having a sexual relationship with her at one of Epsteins house parties.

It will be interesting to see if Epsteins little black book" is ever found, it is thought to have detailed high profile men and the services that Epstein provided, dates, locations, witnesses etc.

Anniebach Tue 20-Aug-19 16:32:16

If it’s ever found GrannyGravy

We are concentrating on Andrew, could be American politicians, statesmen from other countries ,Celebrities involved.

Pantglas1 Tue 20-Aug-19 16:39:39

So difficult to prove a negative......

suziewoozie Tue 20-Aug-19 17:24:19

PA’s involvement is relevant to the UK because he’s a senior royal - let the USA worry about whoever of their grubby rich and famous are involved. For me there’s enough guilt that he stayed at the house of a convicted registered sex offender when we know young women were also staying there. Just say that again slowly - he stayed at the house of a convicted registered sex offender. Not a good look is it ?

M0nica Tue 20-Aug-19 17:26:43

The Queen's offspring seem far too eager to accept favours from wealthy people that offer them, and not to ask questions and Prince Harry and spouse are following in the steps of Prince Andrew.

I cast no aspersions at all on Elton John. As the papers have said, he was a close friend of Princess Diana, but should the Sussexes have been accepting free flights from him when they make a private visit, surely they can afford to pay for themselves.

Prince Andrew knew Epstein had a very doubtful reputation from the start and I am sure his advisors made sure he knew. He took the risk because Epstein picked up the bills. DSid he never ask himself why?

Prince Charles has had a few dodgy moments in the past, although he is getting wiser and, lets face it, when Princess Diana had her fatal crash she was dallying with Mohamed Al Fayed's son - and we know who was footing all the bills then - and he would definitely have an ulterior motive.

paddyann Tue 20-Aug-19 17:40:50

Anyone else remember the pictures of Charlie getting off a helicopter in Glencoe be met by Jimmy Saville and two girls dressed as "sexy waitresses"? Charlie might have managed to escape a huge scandal simply because Saville died too concidence ?
Part of the problem is that the royals have been allowed to get away with things the average jo/joe wouldn't simply because the public..or some of them still think these clowns should be respected...

Anniebach Tue 20-Aug-19 17:49:06

Latest reports, the dark haired woman seen leaving the house with Andrew standing in the doorway is the daughter of
Paul Keating . Mr Keating will not be making any comment

Anniebach Tue 20-Aug-19 17:59:52

I do know Andrew is a member of the royal family. I was referring to the names which may be in ‘the alleged little book’. No need to be repeated slowly.

Callistemon Tue 20-Aug-19 19:10:08

That is interesting Anniebach
She did not look young or in any way intimidated or nervous.
That would explain why. Perhaps she is as at ease with the Royals as her father!
For anyone who is wondering, Paul Keating is the former Australian PM who put his arm round the Queen.

Tillybelle Wed 21-Aug-19 10:43:19

Many thanks for your thoughts and insights.

My main issue is the timing of this announcement and the question of whether it is for the best to make it just after Epstein's death.

Does anyone feel that the timing of this announcement of Prince Andrew's position regarding Epstein, made safely after the man's death, is more damaging to the Prince than if they had kept a dignified silence?

For me it has only raised the doubts about his behaviour even higher. Why wait until the man is dead to say you find paedophilia appalling? Why could he not say; "the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent." when Epstein was still alive? When he was first being investigated?
He has had years to explicitly distance himself from Epstein's practices. He could have condemned them openly and clearly years ago. Why did he wait until the man was dead?
What was he doing when he was with Epstein at his house with those young girls? Why was he so pally with him when he came out of prison? He had to have knowledge of Epstein's vast and highly organised sex trafficking of young girls. Epstein was keeping them in specially created apartments in New York and London. Andrew was staying with him, he must have known about the young girls Epstein had in his house.

Had the Palace not made this extreme announcement of denial of any desire to be part of the crimes for which Epstein was on trial, I do not think P. Andrew's previous involvement with the man or his attitude towards the man's prodigious involvement with under-age girls would have become such an issue. All they needed to do was to remind everyone of Prince Andrew's previous statement, that he regretted his involvement with this man.

The timing has made me very concerned about what Epstein knew about Andrew and the hold he had over him.

Tillybelle Wed 21-Aug-19 10:47:29

paddyann. I think you make a very good point. There are other examples of children disappearing after being introduced to senior male royals on tour in the past. The history is terrifying.

Anniebach Wed 21-Aug-19 10:59:42

Who are the senior Male royals ?

Tillybelle Wed 21-Aug-19 12:24:51

AnniebachAs I have some connections I am scared to say - I know that sounds utterly crazy but that's it, I won't say more. You can try Youtube. Perhaps type into the search bar something relevant.

gillybob Wed 21-Aug-19 12:31:50

I wouldn't want to be "the person" who knows more than they should about pA's involvement.

I wonder what the price of getting someone bumped off is these days ? hmm

gillybob Wed 21-Aug-19 12:34:59

Is it just me but all this "the prince of , the princess of, the duchess of , the duke of ….." is starting to make me feel sick to the stomach.

Who the hell are these people? Rogues, liars, cheats, hypocrites and god knows what else and we are supposed to respect them?

Tillybelle Wed 21-Aug-19 12:35:40

Anniebach Actually, the Youtube idea wasn't a good one - sorry! I just tried it and the trash that came up just horrified me so I don't recommend it. There may be some old newspaper reports. The trouble is it gets "edited" over time.

Tillybelle Wed 21-Aug-19 12:38:23

gillybob. I award you the golden hammer! For the "Nail on the Head Champion 2019".

gillybob Wed 21-Aug-19 12:42:12

I hereby accept the award Tillybelle , assuming I don't have to pick it up at Buck House that is grin

MawB Wed 21-Aug-19 12:59:14

Anniebach as I have some connections I am scared to say
Should we be curtsying to you * Tillybelle* ? tcrhmm
Surely who the “ senior male* royals are is a mere matter of fact, age and seniority?
DofE, Charles, I would think, and maybe Kent and Gloucester?
Does it matter?

Anniebach Wed 21-Aug-19 13:09:38

Tillybelle no I will not google. you have ‘connections’!
and am too scared to say ? Do you think you will be murdered or abducted .

Senior Male royals ? The queens husband, sons, grandsons,cousins, or her late father or late uncles, or her granfather, g grandfather, or perhaps Prince Albert.

Sorry but I will not take part in ‘wink,wink’ gossip.

gillybob Wed 21-Aug-19 13:12:59

Do you think you will be murdered or abducted

I for one wouldn't want to be taking a chance Anniebach

I am starting to seriously think that the current lot are not a lot different from their very questionable ancestors and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could pick them up and throw them.