The man formerly known as Prince can fall no further....

Mountbatten is known to have been bisexual, with interest in boys
The allegations made on Australia were new to me and are allegations I think from one individual

As for Epstein and Maxwell, her conviction stands as evidence for their behaviour.

Smileless2012

Yes, I've heard about it in relation to Louis Mountbatten eazybee but this is the first time I've seen it alleged about Andrew.

Really? Try the Australian documentary on YouTube.

We'll have to agree to differ, Smileless or risk going round in circles till the cows come home. I do understand the worry about someone being convicted on not enough evidence, but my point is that until the evidence goes to court (and can't be bought off) all there is to go on is circumstantial evidence. If there are limits on what can be discussed then there will be no chance of getting a trial when it comes to people rich enough to pay huge sums of money to prevent it. It has taken 20 years for things to get this far, and that is because public opinion will not be silenced.

Just as you would be happy to condemn Andrew if he is found guilty, I would be happy to accept he is innocent if he is given a fair trial and that is the result. It is the fact that this is unlikely to happen that annoys me. I have nothing against the RF, and no personal dislike of Andrew himself - it is the allegations against him (and others) that are awful, and the fact that it comes across as powerful men getting away with abusing vulnerable women, with tacit approval from members of the public.

Doodledog the allegations will give a fair trial ?

Doodledog

Smileless2012

Yes, I've heard about it in relation to Louis Mountbatten eazybee but this is the first time I've seen it alleged about Andrew.

Really? Try the Australian documentary on YouTube.

We'll have to agree to differ, Smileless or risk going round in circles till the cows come home. I do understand the worry about someone being convicted on not enough evidence, but my point is that until the evidence goes to court (and can't be bought off) all there is to go on is circumstantial evidence. If there are limits on what can be discussed then there will be no chance of getting a trial when it comes to people rich enough to pay huge sums of money to prevent it. It has taken 20 years for things to get this far, and that is because public opinion will not be silenced.

Just as you would be happy to condemn Andrew if he is found guilty, I would be happy to accept he is innocent if he is given a fair trial and that is the result. It is the fact that this is unlikely to happen that annoys me. I have nothing against the RF, and no personal dislike of Andrew himself - it is the allegations against him (and others) that are awful, and the fact that it comes across as powerful men getting away with abusing vulnerable women, with tacit approval from members of the public.

Which Australian documentary? It has been quoted as being said on the Australian 60 minute documentary, but it wasn't.
Do you have a link? Thanks

If there are limits on what can be discussed then there will be no chance of getting a trial when it comes to people rich enough to pay huge sums of money to prevent it.

We were not allowed to mention the case or ask anyone if they had been assaulted by the defendant when we were involved as a family in a case of paedophilia, even though the police had a full confession from the defendant. We were disconcerted because at 80 years old we really felt that it was unlikely to be the first offence. After the trial, it turned out that this person had assaulted others but they didn't want to go to court or had died. The police were very strict about keeping everything quiet so I don't see how there can be a fair trial for Andrew taking into account what we were told. That isn't to say I don't want to see Andrew go to court. I do and he certainly hasn't got my tacit approval.

I'm happy to agree to differ Doodledog . As for a fair trial I think that would be impossible now

Anniebach

Doodledog the allegations will give a fair trial ?

Anniebach, the jury will, as I pointed out on page 21, be told to what to disregard.
Just reading all the stuff on SM would I trust any of them, if chosen to be on a jury to follow those instructions, when they’ve already found him guilty?
🤣🤣🤣

I would find it hard to disregard anything I had previously heard about a defendant in a trial. You cannot dis-remember.
That, I think, is one reason these rumours appear.

Coming to this only today I haven't read all the posts (but will do) but my own take on this is that some of the RF are really not that bright - and that Andrew is the least bright of them. So not surprising therefore that he is easily led and it is well-reported that he is verbally abusive to some of his staff and other contacts. Maybe he is just a prat, sadly unable to distinguish between a true friendship and those trying (and suceeding) to con him.

Although the saying goes "no smoke without fire" I just think he has a screw loose, as have lots of members of the RF throughout history. Sadly those with loose screws and tons of power/money are easily abused themselves.

I'm probably totally wrong, he is a real demon and a man to be hated, which is how he has ended up. Yes, he might have deserved all the venom meted out to him, but I sti1ll feel sorry for him.

My sympathy is with the girls and young women groomed and sexually exploited by Epstein and Maxwell. Many of them have been interviewed by the congressional committee. Their stories are so similar.
They allege as did VG that they were picked up by Maxwell, offered training as a masseur , seduced groomed then sexually exploited. They were given to friends of Epstein, like the girls in our so called grooming gangs they were stuck

Did not VG say when she first made the allegations, her father took her to Trumps hotel, she was sitting reading about Massage when Maxwell approached her, no, not did she not say but she did say, I though her father strange .

My deepest sympathy is with them too Iam and I'm not suggesting that VG wasn't groomed and exploited by them, but that doesn't mean that the allegations against A are true.

She must have been in contact with a lot of rich and powerful men, so why did she only name A, and why did she keep that photograph?

She didn’t only name Andrew Smileless2012, she named a number of others too. He is just the one that grabbed the most media attention.

Smiles, her explanation was she wanted to show her mum. Yes we know their relationship was poor but we are looking at an immature girl with a desperately sad childhood. Being in London, entertaining a Prince was probably exciting. It’s a pattern seen in many girls and boys in similar circumstances.

Quote Casdon Sun 09-Nov-25 08:34:28
She didn’t only name Andrew Smileless2012, she named a number of others too. He is just the one that grabbed the most media attention.

Who did else did VG name when she first made allegations ?

AI Overview

Before her memoir Nobody's Girl was published posthumously in October 2025, Virginia Giuffre had publicly named several individuals in legal filings, court documents, and media interviews as part of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal.
The main individuals she publicly named and pursued legal action against before the book's release included:
Jeffrey Epstein: Giuffre was the first victim to come forward publicly, providing details of abuse and sex trafficking by Epstein to law enforcement and the media long before her book.
Ghislaine Maxwell: Giuffre filed a defamation lawsuit against Maxwell in 2015 and also named her repeatedly in civil lawsuits and media interviews as a key enabler, recruiter, and active participant in the abuse.
Prince Andrew: Giuffre's allegations against Prince Andrew first appeared in a 2014 court filing and were detailed in a high-profile 2019 BBC Panorama interview. She later filed a civil lawsuit against him in 2021, which was settled out of court in 2022.
Alan Dershowitz: Giuffre claimed in a 2014 court filing that she was trafficked to the lawyer, leading to a series of defamation lawsuits between them that were eventually dismissed in 2022.
Other individuals in court documents: In various court documents unsealed over the years (especially around 2019 and 2024), Giuffre named other men she was allegedly trafficked to, including hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, MIT scientist Marvin Minsky, and model agent Jean-Luc Brunel.
Giuffre did not name all her alleged abusers publicly before her book, specifically referring to one man only as a "well-known former Prime Minister" in legal filings and her book due to fear of safety and litigation.

Thank you, no talk of going to court with others ?

why would someone want to show their mum a photograph of themselves posing with a man who they say abused them? How could that encounter have been exciting baring in mind how she later described it in her book?

Thank you for that informative post Casdon. Are any of these other men who've been named being called upon to share everything they know as well as A?

Yes it was more than talk, as it says in the AI summary she did file against Epstein, Maxwell and Dershowitz, and named other abusers in court documents.

Nauseating now, an allegation of Andrew and boys on the royal yacht and Mountbatten springs up, can Andrew have inherited his weakness ? did Charles, Edward, Mark Phillips ?

What awful unfounded allegations.

Yes they are awful,

The Royal yacht was decommissioned 1997, unless Andrew has his own yacht someone suddenly recalls boys were on a yacht with him over 28 years ago,

Anniebach

Nauseating now, an allegation of Andrew and boys on the royal yacht and Mountbatten springs up, can Andrew have inherited his weakness ? did Charles, Edward, Mark Phillips ?

Nothing has happened in the Royal family that is not repeated in most families year after year, marriage, divorce, adultery, unreasonable or unpleasant activity, bad company, dodgy friends.

We see plenty described on GN much more on MN, the Royals get all the publicity because it sell the media, we just suffer it mostly in private. That’s the price they pay for living in a gilded cage, no price or privilege would induce me to change places with any of them.

Anniebach

The Royal yacht was decommissioned 1997, unless Andrew has his own yacht someone suddenly recalls boys were on a yacht with him over 28 years ago,

If the Royal yacht was decommissioned in 97 Andrew would have been 37 or so, I’ve no idea what any allegations are about but he certainly could have been involved