Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

[anjulibai]

I don't think he should never be seen in public again, but when he is at events, he needs to be in the background, not escorting the Queen. She has other children and grandchildren that could do that for her. Even if logistics make it easier, Andrew should not be in any prominent position. 

The man is a rapist and far more damaging to the monarchy than anything any of the other royals have done. 

But then again I'm of the position that Prince Michael and his racist wife shouldn't be at any public events for a host of reasons, not least of which is the most recent refusal to give up ties with Russia, however symbolic. 

It will be interesting to see how where Andrew shows up next. I would hope he'd be absent from the Trooping of the Color. 

[Coconut Flan]

I could see Andrew at his father's memorial.  I could even see him riding over from Windsor with the Queen.  He was the Queen's only child there without a spouse so in that way it made sense for him to walk with the Queen.  She looks like she needs someone there just in case.  I would rather it had been someone else, but for a memorial it wasn't extremely egregious to me.  if he's in the Queen's carriage for an event, then that's a step too far for me.  The Jubilee, if he's there he needs to be just on the fringes.  

[nokidsmom]

On 3/31/2022 at 6:57 PM, Coconut Flan said:

She looks like she needs someone there just in case.  I would rather it had been someone else, but for a memorial it wasn't extremely egregious to me.  if he's in the Queen's carriage for an event, then that's a step too far for me.  The Jubilee, if he's there he needs to be just on the fringes.  

Agree, she looked liked she needed someone to walk her to her seat in any case.  Yes, I wish she had someone else do it but given the occasion I wasn't real surprised to see him escort her.   Let's see what happens with future events like the Jubilee that's coming up. 

[formergothardite]

He should be in jail, but realistically the royal family was always going to circle the wagons to protect the predator prince. So since he isn’t locked up, I think it is pretty understandable that he would attend his fathers funeral. 

[EmCatlyn]

58 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

He should be in jail, but realistically the royal family was always going to circle the wagons to protect the predator prince. So since he isn’t locked up, I think it is pretty understandable that he would attend his fathers funeral. 

I think this isn’t “the royal family” circling “the wagons.”  This seems to have been the Queen’s doing.  The rest of the family is not too thrilled.

I read that the original plan was that Andrew and the Queen would ride down together (because they both were coming from Windsor) but that Andrew would enter like everyone else and the Queen would be escorted into the building and to her seat by the Dean.  The Queen apparently said that she wanted Andrew to escort her instead.  Supposedly Charles was furious.  But she is the Queen. 

His having a front row seat at the memorial service was because he is Phillip’s son. (Children sat in the front row with spouses. Grandchildren and spouses and kids sat in the second row.)  Escorting the Queen was another matter, and the word is Charles and William are strongly opposed to having Andrew appear in any of the Jubilee events. 

[tabitha2]

Could be the Queen has given  in as much as she is going to about Andrew because she had no choice but she now refuses to exclude him from her life and family anymore and will actually keep him even closer to make up for what she had to do. And Charles and William can like it or lump it. 
 

[Coconut Flan]

If she does that, see how fast Andrew is excised and exiled the minute she is no longer with us or no longer able to stay in control.  A little prudence here might benefit Andrew in the long run.  She doesn't look like she's going to be doing public outings much longer.  

[samurai_sarah]

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

If she does that, see how fast Andrew is excised and exiled the minute she is no longer with us or no longer able to stay in control.  A little prudence here might benefit Andrew in the long run.  She doesn't look like she's going to be doing public outings much longer.  

So, in his mind, he's probably trying to make himself relevant while he can. Never minding that he's selfishly making everyone else look bad by association.

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

If she does that, see how fast Andrew is excised and exiled the minute she is no longer with us or no longer able to stay in control.  A little prudence here might benefit Andrew in the long run.  She doesn't look like she's going to be doing public outings much longer.  

I think she knows that she is not going to be around much longer.  I think she is trying to juggle support for Charles and her duty to the crown with what as a mother she sees as a duty to support her black sheep son. She probably felt that Andrew should not be marginalized on what was essentially a family event.

Of course, she is reading the situation wrong, but one can understand her feelings.  I don’t think she will go further than include Andrew in what she regards as family events.  Unfortunately, as you point out, this is not going to do much for Charles’s readiness to forgive Andrew and welcome him into some semi-public role after she is gone.

31 minutes ago, samurai_sarah said:

So, in his mind, he's probably trying to make himself relevant while he can. Never minding that he's selfishly making everyone else look bad by association.

Yeah, if Andrew hadn’t already shown himself to be extremely tone-deaf and self-deluded, one would wonder why he doesn’t make things easier for everyone and just step discretely away from public attention.   However, he seems to have hopes that he may rehabilitate himself.   The way he chose to post about how the Falkland War had changed him on Fergie’s social media suggests he may have been trying for sympathy or at least to remain relevant.

 

[formergothardite]

10 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I think this isn’t “the royal family” circling “the wagons.”  This seems to have been the Queen’s doing.  The rest of the family is not too thrilled.

I read that the original plan was that Andrew and the Queen would ride down together (because they both were coming from Windsor) but that Andrew would enter like everyone else and the Queen would be escorted into the building and to her seat by the Dean.  The Queen apparently said that she wanted Andrew to escort her instead.  Supposedly Charles was furious.  But she is the Queen. 

His having a front row seat at the memorial service was because he is Phillip’s son. (Children sat in the front row with spouses. Grandchildren and spouses and kids sat in the second row.)  Escorting the Queen was another matter, and the word is Charles and William are strongly opposed to having Andrew appear in any of the Jubilee events. 

By circling the wagons I meant making sure this predator never had to see the inside of a jail. Realistically no matter how many child sex trafficking victims he raped, none of the royals were going to let him be locked up. I don’t even see Charles and William tossing him to the wolves and letting him be treated like a regular person who committed a terrible crime. 
 

Hopefully he won’t be at the Jubilee. 

[prayawaythefundie]

32 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

By circling the wagons I meant making sure this predator never had to see the inside of a jail. Realistically no matter how many child sex trafficking victims he raped, none of the royals were going to let him be locked up.

Him not ending up in jail has nothing to do with his family. He could not be criminally charged for anything he has been accused of to this day simply because the statute of limitations would have run out. At least that ist my understanding.

[AmazonGrace]

On 1/27/2022 at 10:29 PM, wotdancer said:

The youtube algorithm led me to this channel that does nonverbal analysis, and I think FJ might appreciate this upload from a few days ago! It's the first of 3 videos where Observe/Logan analyses an interview with prince voldemort from 2019.

 

Well that makes great sense...  "I don't always want to stop meeting sex offenders but when I do I want to go meet them."

"I associate with sex offenders because I'm too honorable..."

[EmCatlyn]

7 hours ago, formergothardite said:

By circling the wagons I meant making sure this predator never had to see the inside of a jail. Realistically no matter how many child sex trafficking victims he raped, none of the royals were going to let him be locked up. I don’t even see Charles and William tossing him to the wolves and letting him be treated like a regular person who committed a terrible crime. 
 

Hopefully he won’t be at the Jubilee. 

I dislike Andrew.  I never paid much attention to him in the past, but what I have learned and seen since the Epstein stuff hit the press leads me to see him as a really stupid, entitled, hedonistic person.  I am particularly upset that he is trying to push himself into the public eye at the expense of his mother’s credibility and his family’s position.  I have no patience with that sort of person.

That being said, I have very mixed feelings about the accusations of “rape” in connection to the women he met through Epstein.  And if I have “mixed feelings” I expect the RF, and particularly the Queen, do also.

While I agree completely that he should not have availed himself of sexual “favors” from these women, I think he may not have known or understood that these women were being coerced. He may have believed them to be willing.  And, as far as I know, he has not been accused of “statutory rape,” because the age of consent in GB and many states at the time was 16.

Let me be clear: even if he didn’t know the girls were being trafficked, he could be legally responsible, just as he could be responsible if he had sex with a minor whom he believed to be of age.  However, legal responsibility and moral responsibility are not always the same.

Andrew is morally responsible for having hung out with Epstein and for participating in what was a questionable “community” of rich male privilege.  We know that Epstein was a child molester and worse.  If Andrew was too stupid to see the signs, he is still to blame for his blindness and support of Epstein.

However, if you don’t know that your partner is unwilling and/or see her as a minor, your moral responsibility is less. It’s like the difference between not seeing a red light  seeing a red light and deliberately running it.  In both cases the resulting crash is your fault and you are responsible for the damage, but it is less bad than if you deliberately ran the red light.

Where I am going with this is to “defend” the Queen, not Andrew.  For a mother, it must be important to find the best in her child.  To her, he is not a “rapist,” or a “child molester.” (He is not those things in the eyes of the law either.) He is just a fool who hung out with the wrong people and who has been singled out for it.  (Epstein facilitated a lot of other encounters between even younger girls and influential men, but only Andrew is being called on it.)

The queen may feel that Andrew is vulnerable to lawsuits and condemnation not so much for what he did but for his position as a senior royal.  This doesn’t excuse Andrew, but it does suggest why the queen may be inclined to  give him a chance.

Let me conclude by saying that I know relatively little about Andrew and don’t know if you are calling him a “predator” for reasons other than his association with Epstein and the young women Epstein collected.  He may or may not be a “predator,” but I can see why his mother won’t see him that way.

Edited April 4, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Clarify a point.

[AmazonGrace]

This may be an unpopular opinion but I am not opposed to Andrew attending public events as long as it's always with an asterisk to his name... "Queen Elizabeth is wearing royal blue, and she is being escorted by her  favorite son, prince Andrew. Andrew is wearing his deep dark guilt, and utterly oblivious that it's not a good look on him... This looks to be a wonderful event, and what a beautiful reminder that these are all terrible people..."

[WiseGirl]

Wait! Hold the presses! What the...?

A fraud case?

https://people.com/royals/princess-beatrice-princess-eugenie-named-fraud-case-tied-prince-andrew/

And using the HRH on Fergie's Instagram. 

https://people.com/royals/prince-andrew-sends-message-via-fergie-instagram-using-banned-hrh-title/

[hoipolloi]

17 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

If she does that, see how fast Andrew is excised and exiled the minute she is no longer with us or no longer able to stay in control.  A little prudence here might benefit Andrew in the long run.  She doesn't look like she's going to be doing public outings much longer.  

I agree.

Disgraced or not, Andrew's attendance at the memorial was not inappropriate, IMO. Philip was his father, after all.

The error in judgement came in putting him in the spotlight as her escort. Nonetheless, Iʻd guess that if the Queen still has a say, she will insist that he also be included in or at least be present for Jubilee events with his siblings & other family. He is still part of the family unless they publicly repudiate him -- something that might happen when Charles is king but not before.

 

41 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

Wait! Hold the presses! What the...?

A fraud case?

https://people.com/royals/princess-beatrice-princess-eugenie-named-fraud-case-tied-prince-andrew/

A "gift" for Fergieʻsʻ 60th birthday bash? What a crock of shit.

Fergie & Andrew are fucking grifters and so are their daughters. It never ends with them.

Edited April 4, 2022 by hoipolloi
Clarity

[viii]

Ew, I thought we were done having to listen to @EmCatlyn victim shame and excuse Andrew. 

[formergothardite]

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I dislike Andrew.  I never paid much attention to him in the past, but what I have learned and seen since the Epstein stuff hit the press leads me to see him as a really stupid, entitled, hedonistic person.  I am particularly upset that he is trying to push himself into the public eye at the expense of his mother’s credibility and his family’s position.  I have no patience with that sort of person.

That being said, I have very mixed feelings about the accusations of “rape” in connection to the women he met through Epstein.  And if I have “mixed feelings” I expect the RF, and particularly the Queen, do also.

While I agree completely that he should not have availed himself of sexual “favors” from these women, I think he may not have known or understood that these women were being coerced. He may have believed them to be willing.  And, as far as I know, he has not been accused of “statutory rape,” because the age of consent in GB and many states at the time was 16.

Let me be clear: even if he didn’t know the girls were being trafficked, he could be legally responsible, just as he could be responsible if he had sex with a minor whom he believed to be of age.  However, legal responsibility and moral responsibility are not always the same.

Andrew is morally responsible for having hung out with Epstein and for participating in what was a questionable “community” of rich male privilege.  We know that Epstein was a child molester and worse.  If Andrew was too stupid to see the signs, he is still to blame for his blindness and support of Epstein.

However, if you don’t know that your partner is unwilling and/or see her as a minor, your moral responsibility is less. It’s like the difference between not seeing a red light  seeing a red light and deliberately running it.  In both cases the resulting crash is your fault and you are responsible for the damage, but it is less bad than if you deliberately ran the red light.

Where I am going with this is to “defend” the Queen, not Andrew.  For a mother, it must be important to find the best in her child.  To her, he is not a “rapist,” or a “child molester.” (He is not those things in the eyes of the law either.) He is just a fool who hung out with the wrong people and who has been singled out for it.  (Epstein facilitated a lot of other encounters between even younger girls and influential men, but only Andrew is being called on it.)

The queen may feel that Andrew is vulnerable to lawsuits and condemnation not so much for what he did but for his position as a senior royal.  This doesn’t excuse Andrew, but it does suggest why the queen may be inclined to  give him a chance.

Let me conclude by saying that I know relatively little about Andrew and don’t know if you are calling him a “predator” for reasons other than his association with Epstein and the young women Epstein collected.  He may or may not be a “predator,” but I can see why his mother won’t see him that way.

I can’t believe you are going with “that man was just too dumb to know that the the young girl given to him three times to have sex with by a well known child sex trafficker was a child trafficking victim.” defense. What Jeff Epstein did was hardly some secret. At best Andrew turned a blind eye because he would have rather had sex than show concern for sex trafficking victims. Which means he is morally responsible for his actions.
 

But in the end, there is no real debate over if he knew because the victim says Andrew absolutely knew she was a child sex trafficking victim. Why would you take the word of a guy who was a long time friend of a sex trafficker over the statement of the victim? Rapists who hang out with child sex traffickers aren’t exactly known for being honest about their actions. And since she says he knew she was being trafficked and she was threatened if she didn’t do what he wanted, it is rape. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, viii said:

Ew, I thought we were done having to listen to @EmCatlyn victim shame and excuse Andrew. 

I have not “shamed” any victims or “excused” Andrew in this last or any other post. Are you reading what I wrote? 

 As I explained several times in my last two posts, I am addressing why the Queen (or some other members of the family) might not see Andrew as a sexual deviant or a monster, just a selfish person with extremely bad judgment.

The thing you need to understand about my position (in this and most other matters) is that I try to look at events through different perspectives and weigh different sides.  I have real problems with binary (either/or) thinking and all forms of polarization. 

I am happy to agree to disagree on this or any other matter.  However, I strongly object to your mischaracterizing what I wrote simply because you can’t read it carefully.  

[EmCatlyn]

11 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

I can’t believe you are going with “that man was just too dumb to know that the the young girl given to him three times to have sex with by a well known child sex trafficker was a child trafficking victim.” defense. What Jeff Epstein did was hardly some secret. At best Andrew turned a blind eye because he would have rather had sex than show concern for sex trafficking victims. Which means he is morally responsible for his actions.

But in the end, there is no real debate over if he knew because the victim says Andrew absolutely knew she was a child sex trafficking victim. Why would you take the word of a guy who was a long time friend of a sex trafficker over the statement of the victim? Rapists who hang out with child sex traffickers aren’t exactly known for being honest about their actions. And since she says he knew she was being trafficked and she was threatened if she didn’t do what he wanted, it is rape. 

What I was trying to address in my message was not whether Andrew knew or not but how it was possible that he didn’t know and that this possibility (among other things) would lead the Queen and other members of the family to look at Andrew as a problem but not a monster.

Regarding the victim’s certainty that “he knew,” I don’t find it conclusive.  Memory is a strange thing. (I have knowledge of instances of false memory involving people I know well and trust absolutely.) Further, I know of many instances where people in dependent/insecure situations attribute greater knowledge to others than others have.  I figure she is probably right, but I can also see that she might be mistaken.  (More importantly, I think Andrew’s family might think she is either lying or mistaken. Remember, what I have been exploring is how people might think Andrew was not entirely at fault.)

I do hold Andrew responsible.  If he did not know, he should have known. He should not have engaged in sex with any young woman “introduced” by Epstein, even if he thought they were “willing.”  Hell, I don’t think he should have socialized with Epstein or stayed at his house, etc.

However, I am much more certain that Andrew is stupid than I am about anything else concerning him.  He seems to have really poor judgment about a lot of things.  It is not an excuse for anything, but stupidity would explain a lot.

Really, I find the man disgusting because he seems so self-deluded.  The attempt to talk about his war experiences on Fergie’s Facebook account was really pathetic.  Even now he doesn’t seem to understand or accept that for his family’s sake he should lie low.

[viii]

@EmCatlyn I read exactly what you said and it’s fucking bullshit. I don’t know why you seem to have a hard on for Andrew but you constantly defend him in this thread and act like he was some poor clueless little boy who didn’t know any better and I, for one, am sick of it. Shut up already. 

@formergothardite thank you times a million. You’re doing the lords work. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by viii

[formergothardite]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

Regarding the victim’s certainty that “he knew,” I don’t find it conclusive.  Memory is a strange thing. (I have knowledge of instances of false memory involving people I know well and trust absolutely.) Further, I know of many instances where people in dependent/insecure situations attribute greater knowledge to others than others have.  I figure she is probably right, but I can also see that she might be mistaken.  

The narrative of saying things like “the victim isn’t remembering correctly” especially in the context of creating a loophole so the man who is accused of abuse is somehow “less to blame” is extremely offensive. And is a type of victim shaming. Do you have any idea what it is like for victims to be told they “might” be mistaken and in this case you seem to be saying that her “misremembering” means Andrew didn’t actually rape her. She accused him of sexually assault and battery. She says he was aware she was a child sex trafficking victim and instead of doing the decent thing, he forced her to have sex three times. That makes him a rapist. There is no reason to dismiss the victim and say she probably doesn’t remember her assault correctly. Or claim that Andrew for some reason couldn’t figure out that the girl provided by the sex trafficker was not there willingly.
 

It is crushing to finally get up the nerve to speak out against past abuse only to be met by people saying that you are probably right, but they will still question your memory and maybe things weren’t as bad as you remember.  Maybe it wasn’t rape because the guy was convinced no one would turn him down, so he just couldn’t grasp what he was doing. There is just no point in creating excuses for people  accused of abusing others.
 

Yeah, his family might be concocting fantastical stories to make Andrew less of a terrible human, just like Anna Duggar seems to be doing. Downplaying the actions of a predator by family might be common, but doesn’t reflect well on the people who decide to go down that road.
 

And people who hang out with well known sex traffickers and then have sex with young girls given to them by the sex traffickers are predators. There should be zero excuses given or saying maybe he didn’t know exactly what he was doing. Or excuses given for the family who wants to turn a blind eye to the monster living in their midsts. And for the sake of all that is good in this world please don’t try to claim that hanging out with sex traffickers for years and then saying he doesn’t regret it one bit because the relationship benefited him a lot isn’t monstrous behavior. He didn’t even end the relationship after Epstein was convicted! Public pressure seems to be the only thing that made him quit the child sex trafficker. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, viii said:

@EmCatlyn I read exactly what you said and it’s fucking bullshit. I don’t know why you seem to have a hard on for Andrew but you constantly defend him in this thread and act like he was some poor clueless little boy who didn’t know any better and I, for one, am sick of it. Shut up already. 

This is so ridiculous.  I dislike Andrew. I have stated this many times.  I am not “defending” him.  I am trying to discuss a fairly complex situation with some balance and objectivity.

I don’t plan to “shut up” so long as I have something to say —any more than you plan to “shut up.”  However, you can just skip my posts.  

[viii]

Word choice matters. You can say you dislike Andrew all you please but you keep excusing his behaviour when you talk about him. 

“What he did was wrong BUT…”

”Andrew is so gross BUT…”

Enough with the buts. What he did was wrong and he is gross. End of story. Enough victim shaming. It’s such a bad look for FJ. The kind of attitude you display in these threads when you talk about this “complex situation” go against everything FJ strives to be.

Also newsflash: it’s not fucking complex. It’s a 100% straight forward situation. Andrew is wrong and should be in jail. End of story. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

The narrative of saying things like “the victim isn’t remembering correctly” especially in the context of creating a loophole so the man who is accused of abuse is somehow “less to blame” is extremely offensive. And is a type of victim shaming. Do you have any idea what it is like for victims to be told they “might” be mistaken and in this case you seem to be saying that her “misremembering” means Andrew didn’t actually rape her. She accused him of sexually assault and battery. She says he was aware she was a child sex trafficking victim and instead of doing the decent thing, he forced her to have sex three times. That makes him a rapist. There is no reason to dismiss the victim and say she probably doesn’t remember her assault correctly. Or claim that Andrew for some reason couldn’t figure out that the girl provided by the sex trafficker was not there willingly.
[snipped]  

The fact that some people have false or confused memories doesn’t mean that victims shouldn’t be taken seriously.  I would never say -to a victim- that her memories were not reliable.  Whether something really happened or not, a “false” memory has a certain truth to it.

However, I was not talking to Andrew’s victim (as far as I know).  And I was not challenging her assertion that she had sex with Andrew, only her claim that he knew that she was being “trafficked.” (How did he know?  How did she know that he knew? Was this true only with Andrew or with other men she was trafficked to? There are a lot of questions there.  None of them are meant to provide Andrew with “a loophole” or to “blame the victim.”  Andrew isn’t being judged here, and neither is she.)

Look, I think the Andrew’s situation is complex.  I don’t have anything good to say about Andrew and I am certainly not trying to “defend” him.  I am only trying to encourage a more balanced perspective, especially as it relates to how his family deals with him.

Bottom line, I don’t like simplistic assessments of situations or individuals.  I believe that if we analyze things and try to understand even people we dislike we become more likely to be fair and just.