UK - (Former prince) Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor accused of underage sexual relationship, 1999-2002 *settled* #2

[otto]

I feel uncomfortable with some people posting here defending Prince Charles. Do I think the British press can be over the top? Yes. Do I think other Epstein victims should be named and investigated, no matter who they are? Yes.

I found this video to be interesting. It's with Amy Wallace (Virginia's ghostwriter). Amy says that Virginia didn't feel responsible to release a list of names as she gave those names to authorities. Every time she was asked to name names in public, she was revictimized. The authorities are the ones who should be pursuing the investigation to determine who was involved. Of course we know that politics will likely crimp that investigation....particularly in the USA.

Should that be King Charles? If so, I'm not aware of anything he has done that does not uphold the values of the monarchy.

If Giuffre was uncomfortable naming people that victimized her since grade school, why does she discuss Andrew in her book?

 

[Warwick7]

Should that be King Charles? If so, I'm not aware of anything he has done that does not uphold the values of the monarchy.

If Giuffre was uncomfortable naming people that victimized her since grade school, why does she discuss Andrew in her book?

I'm not Snoopster so I'm going on a guess right now.

In M00 she didn't state he was not upholding the values of the monarchy. She stated it bothered her that others were defending Charles.

In M00, in the media, critics point out that Charles's most decisive actions came only after years of controversy and increased public and parliamentary pressure....especially following new revelations from Virginia's book.

This has led to what Ive read in the media as accusations of "dithering" and that the action was "too little too late."

Some media both UK and US suggest that while the Queen was alive, Andrew was somewhat shielded, and even after Andrew was forced to step down from public duties in 2019, Charles may have provided him with a private allowance, which could be seen as a continued, albeit private, support that did not fully uphold a standard of full accountability.

Then thete is that non full transparency little bug. I've read in the media the claims that the monarchy's actions have been primarily "institutional distancing" rather than a push for an independent investigation into Andrew's conduct.

Which in M00 did nothing more than lead anti-monarchy groups to call for what they called "a proper inquiry" and criticize the government's position that Andrew should be "policed by his own brother."

Just all my own opinion...

 

[otto]

My interpretation of the situation with Andrew today is not that he has been stripped of status because Giuffre alleges that he abused her in New York, but because Andrew and Sarah dishonoured the values of the monarchy.

Specifically, Andrew and Sarah each publicly stated in 2010-11 that they had terminated all contact with Epstein. Emails that have surfaced since January this year contradict those public statements. Andrew and Sarah, individually, contacted Epstein in 2011 stating that they wanted to continue the friendship even though they knew that he was a convicted pedophile.

Andrew and Sarah's failing is to choose friendship with a pedophile over upholding the values of the monarchy. They deceived the public by making false statements that they would terminate contact with the pedophile, privately they pursued contact. On that basis, they can no longer represent the monarchy in any capacity.

The Prince of Wales has a brother who made false statements against the Queen. Specifically, that Commonwealth Nations are "empire 2.0", and that King Charles and the Princess of Wales are "racists". Neither claims have any basis in reality, and both damage the reputation of the Royal Family. In making those statements, notably while both the King and the Princess were undergoing cancer treatment, the brother does not uphold the values of the monarchy.

 

[maamager]

My interpretation of the situation with Andrew today is not that he has been stripped of status because Giuffre alleges that he abused her in New York, but because Andrew and Sarah dishonoured the values of the monarchy.

Specifically, Andrew and Sarah each publicly stated in 2010-11 that they had terminated all contact with Epstein. Emails that have surfaced since January this year contradict those public statements. Andrew and Sarah, individually, contacted Epstein in 2011 stating that they wanted to continue the friendship even though they knew that he was a convicted pedophile.

Andrew and Sarah's failing is to choose friendship with a pedophile over upholding the values of the monarchy. They deceived the public by making false statements that they would terminate contact with the pedophile, privately they pursued contact. On that basis, they can no longer represent the monarchy in any capacity.

The Prince of Wales has a brother who made false statements against the Queen. Specifically, that Commonwealth Nations are "empire 2.0", and that King Charles and the Princess of Wales are "racists". Neither claims have any basis in reality, and both damage the reputation of the Royal Family. In making those statements, notably while both the King and the Princess were undergoing cancer treatment, the brother does not uphold the values of the monarchy.

thank you very much for this context! i see the gist of the statement now while there are some things i may disagree with that you’ve detailed, i’m not sure it matters as i’m American with zero stake in the game!

 

[otto]

thank you very much for this context! i see the gist of the statement now while there are some things i may disagree with that you’ve detailed, i’m not sure it matters as i’m American with zero stake in the game!

Andrew and Sarah have been associated with Epstein since 1999. Giuffre has accused Andrew for years.

The only new information is the release of 2011 emails from Andrew and Sarah, separately, to Epstein declaring that they wish to remain friends. This was after they knew that Epstein is a pedophile, and after they publicly announced that they would terminate contact.

Some prefer to interpret the change in Andrew's status as King Charles taking a long time to take action, rather than to recognize that new information resulted in this change.

Allegations about something in New York City is not the reason that Andrew is stripped of status. Those allegations are old news. Andrew and Sarah wanting to retain contact with a convicted pedophile is new information.

 

[tedtink]

Just adding to the timeline.

In November 2019, following the disastrous Newsnight interview AMW agreed to withdraw from public duties indefinitely.



Published 20 November 2019

It has become clear to me over the last few days that the circumstances relating to my former association with Jeffrey Epstein has become a major disruption to my family’s work and the valuable work going on in the many organisations and charities that I am proud to support.

Therefore, I have asked Her Majesty if I may step back from public duties for the foreseeable future, and she has given her permission.

I continue to unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein. His suicide has left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims, and I deeply sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure. I can only hope that, in time, they will be able to rebuild their lives. Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required.

https://www.royal.uk/statement-his-royal-highness-duke-york?page=19&mod=article_inline

 

[otto]

Just adding to the timeline.

In November 2019, following the disastrous Newsnight interview AMW agreed to withdraw from public duties indefinitely.



Published 20 November 2019

It has become clear to me over the last few days that the circumstances relating to my former association with Jeffrey Epstein has become a major disruption to my family’s work and the valuable work going on in the many organisations and charities that I am proud to support.

Therefore, I have asked Her Majesty if I may step back from public duties for the foreseeable future, and she has given her permission.

I continue to unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein. His suicide has left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims, and I deeply sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure. I can only hope that, in time, they will be able to rebuild their lives. Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required.

https://www.royal.uk/statement-his-royal-highness-duke-york?page=19&mod=article_inline

Thanks!
Andrew stated in 2019 that he ceased contact with Epstein in 2006, except for the NYC photo in 2010. He claimed that he met with Epstein in 2010 to terminate the friendship and cease all contact.

In January, 2025 we learned that Andrew kept in closes touch with Epstein, and that Andrew told Epstein "we'll play some more soon" in 2011.

The 2019 interview was the first demotion, discovery that Andrew lied about ceasing contact was the most recent stripping of all royal affiliation.

"The Duke of York was in contact with the US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein longer than he had previously admitted, emails published in court documents appear to show.

"Keep in close touch and we'll play some more soon!!!!" said an email sent to Epstein from a "member of the British Royal Family", believed to be Prince Andrew in February 2011.
...

The prince said that he had ceased contact with Epstein "after I was aware that he was under investigation and that was later in 2006 and I wasn't in touch with him again until 2010".

A photographer had captured Prince Andrew and Epstein walking together in New York's Central Park in December 2010, while the prince stayed at Epstein's house.

"Was that visit, December of 2010, the only time you saw him after he was convicted?" interviewer Emily Maitlis had asked the royal.

Prince Andrew replied "yes". Maitlis then asked: "Did you see him or speak to him again?", to which Andrew responded: "No."

31 January 2025

Andrew emails show contact with Epstein lasted longer

Court documents suggest the two remained in touch beyond when the Duke of York said they stopped communicating.

www.bbc.com

 

[otto]

Then there's the problem of Sarah. She did the exact what Andrew did. Publicly she stated that involvement with Epstein was a "gigantic error in judgment". A short while later, she sent Epstein an email declaring Epstein to be a "steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family."

Andrew and Sarah are the same, both publicly denying a relationship with a convicted pedophile while privately pursuing that relationship. In 2025, both Andrew and Sarah were exposed as deceptive, and eager to pursue a friendship with a pedophile. That's the reason they are both disgraced and expelled from the Royal Family.

"Two newspapers have published an email said to have been sent by the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, calling him a "supreme friend" - despite his conviction for sex offences.
...

The email, from 2011, was sent weeks after the duchess had publicly distanced herself from the disgraced financier.

In an interview in 2011, the duchess said her involvement with Epstein had been a "gigantic error of judgment". The duchess also promised she would never have anything to do with Epstein again, saying: "I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children."

She added: "I cannot state more strongly that I know a terrible, terrible error of judgement was made, my having anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein. What he did was wrong and for which he was rightly jailed."

Epstein had been jailed three years earlier for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

Shortly after giving the interview in 2011, the duchess emailed Epstein to say she had not used the word "paedophilia" in reference to him.

"As you know, I did not, absolutely not, say the 'P word' about you but understand it was reported that I did," she wrote. "I know you feel hellaciously let down by me. You have always been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family."

September 2025

Duchess of York calls Epstein a 'supreme friend' in resurfaced email

A spokesperson for the duchess says the message was sent to counter a threat Epstein had made to sue her for defamation.

www.bbc.com

 

[tedtink]

US House panel requests interview with Andrew in Jeffrey Epstein investigation​

Robert Garcia, top Democrat on House oversight panel, makes formal request in letter published Thursday

US House panel requests interview with Andrew in Jeffrey Epstein investigation

Robert Garcia, top Democrat on House oversight panel, makes formal request in letter published Thursday

www.theguardian.com

 

[tedtink]

Ranking Member Robert Garcia, Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, Oversight Democrats, Demand Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Answer Questions on Jeffrey Epstein​

November 6, 2025
•
Press Release
Washington, D.C. — Today, Rep. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, and 14 other Committee Oversight Democrats wrote to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, the former Prince Andrew, Duke of York, to request that he submit to questioning by the Oversight Committee as part of the ongoing probe into Jeffrey Epstein, his accomplices, and enablers. The Oversight Committee will investigate allegations of abuse by Mountbatten Windsor, and will seek information on Epstein’s operations, network, and associates based on the men’s longstanding and well-documented friendship. Last month, Mountbatten Windsor announced he would give up his royal titles following accusations of his involvement with sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and abuse allegations made by Virginia Giuffre. His decision came just weeks after House Democrats released records listing Prince Andrew as passenger on Epstein’s aircraft, with financial disclosures providing possible evidence of payments from Epstein for “massages for Andrew.”

“Rich and powerful men have evaded justice for far too long. Now, former Prince Andrew has the opportunity to come clean and provide justice for the survivors. Oversight Democrats will not stop fighting for accountability and transparency for survivors of Epstein and his gang of co-conspirators,” said Ranking Member Robert Garcia.

“After hearing from Epstein’s victims and public reporting of leaked documents, it is vital that Andrew cooperates with the ongoing investigation. If he is innocent, then he can clear his name. And if not, our investigation will show that, and the victims will receive long overdue justice. The Royal Family’s actions stripping Andrew of his titles show there is more to this story. Ranking Member Garcia and I will not stop pushing for answers and accountability,” said Congressman Subramanyam.

In the letter to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, the lawmakers wrote, “It has been publicly reported that your friendship with Mr. Epstein began in 1999 and that you remained close through and after his 2008 conviction for procuring minors for prostitution. It has also been reported that you traveled with Epstein to his New York residence, the Queen’s residence at Balmoral, and to Mr. Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where you have been accused of abusing minors. This close relationship with Mr. Epstein, coupled with the recently revealed 2011 email exchange in which you wrote to him “we are in this together,” further confirms our suspicion that you may have valuable information about the crimes committed by Mr. Epstein and his co-conspirators.”

 

[RichardKimble]

Andrew ordered to appear?

Andrew ordered to appear at Congress to explain links to Epstein

Democratics in the House Oversight Committee sent the disgraced royal a letter on Thursday saying they believe he possesses important information about people with links to Epstein's crimes.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[JDG]

I’m no lawyer but I think he can ignore these ‘requests’.

Go after the American ‘friends of JE’, lots of rich and famous amongst your own crowd.

 

[Skigh]

Have the Democrats requested an interview with Clinton and Trump? If not, why not? What's the obsession with Andrew?

There are ,in my opinion,some people with an agenda who wish to use Andrew to bring down the whole Royal family.

 

[Stunned]

There are some people with an agenda who wish to use Andrew to bring down the whole Royal family.

Instead of sexual predators? They need to re-examine their priorities.

 

[tedtink]

Have the Democrats requested an interview with Clinton and Trump? If not, why not? What's the obsession with Andrew?

Re. Clintons.....

Chairman Comer Subpoenas Bill and Hillary Clinton, Former U.S. Attorneys General and FBI Directors, and Records Related to Jeffrey Epstein - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

oversight.house.gov

Congressional Subpoena Compels Bill Clinton To Testify An...

Key Developments In early August, the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed former President Bill Clinton for a deposition on October 14, 2025, concerning his ties to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter cites four flights on Epstein’s private jet, a photo of Clinton receiving a...

usaherald.com

As for Trump, he has immunity as a sitting President, right?

 

[Bekind89]

Again ... where are the demands that Bill Clinton appear and answer questions? Do the Democrats view Andrew as an easy target, while Bill Clinton requires more effort? Why are the Democrats hyper-focused on one man, and not the many others who live in the US?

Why Bill Clinton and not Epstein's BFF for nearly two decades, the POTUS?
BILL Clinton is no longer in power or in the White House, Trump is.
I sincerely don't understand.

 

[Stunned]

Why Bill Clinton and not Epstein's BFF for nearly two decades, the POTUS?
BILL Clinton is no longer in power or in the White House, Trump is.
I sincerely don't understand.

Everyone on the list needs to be called in, no matter their importance. IMO

 

[SouthAussie]

I found this video to be interesting. It's with Amy Wallace (Virginia's ghostwriter). Amy says that Virginia didn't feel responsible to release a list of names as she gave those names to authorities. Every time she was asked to name names in public, she was revictimized. The authorities are the ones who should be pursuing the investigation to determine who was involved. Of course we know that politics will likely crimp that investigation....particularly in the USA.

And sometimes Virginia didn't know the names of the people who participated in the under-age sex.
There was a run of scientific academics who also were involved. Virginia looked at photos of some academics but couldn't positively identify some of those who she had been made to perform 'services' for.
Apparently Epstein (at least at one point) revered being close to scientific brains, and offered young girls during their times spent with him.

Source: Nobody's Girl by Virginia Roberts Giuffre

I am approaching the halfway mark of the book now. It is very slow reading because the whole lifestyle was so darn sad and disgusting that I can only read it in spurts - the use of many, many young girls by these grown men.

imo

 

[Bekind89]

Everyone on the list needs to be called in, no matter their importance. IMO

I agree that everyone on this list should have to answer questions, but shouldn't it start with those in a position of power?

 

[Stunned]

I agree that everyone on this list should have to answer questions, but shouldn't it start with those in a position of power?

I guess they're all just the same to me.