Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - you have blood on your hands

737 replies

Muffinmam · 26/04/2025 07:14

Am I being unreasonable to say that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - the Duke of York and member of the Royal Family has blood on his hands following the tragic suicide of Virginia Giuffre?

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has faced zero consequences for his role in Virginia Giuffre‘s sexual abuse and trafficking because he’s rich and his powerful mummy paid off the victim and the British police failed to pursue charges against him. To be clear, while the age of consent in the UK is 17 years old this does not apply to trafficking victims and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has never faced criminal charges.

He probably thinks he’s got away with it now she’s gone.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14649791/Virginia-Giuffre-suicide-perth-mansion.html

OP posts:
Canopies · 26/04/2025 13:32

Purplebunnie · 26/04/2025 12:43

This. We have no idea of what went on in this poor child's life. Andrew was not the only player but the only one who she named. Wonder why that was? Where the others far more dangerous to name? Andrew is particularly thick and had the RF to bail him out, so quite an easy target.

I hope she finds some peace and also the people she left behind

For years, she named that greasy lawyer guy, but retracted and said she made a mistake about him, he was very vocal about refuting her claims and that she was lying, he was adamant he would take it all the way through the courts, which would have meant her having to use the settlement from PA to fund it. I think he said something to the effect he would take every cent of her payoff from PA, he said PA was a fool for settling.

She was never called as a witness in the GM trial, as it was felt she wasn’t a reliable witness.

The RF were used to pay offs with NDA’s to bury bad stuff, but in PA case it only made things worse.

ginasevern · 26/04/2025 13:29

Tomatotater · 26/04/2025 13:06

Williams godfather Lauren s Van Der Post impregnated a 14 year old when he was well into his 50's. A child who had been entrusted into his care by her parents.

Oh yes indeed and there's plenty of other murky stuff. The RF are riddled with it and I'm talking recent history.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 26/04/2025 13:28

CowTown · 26/04/2025 13:25

The law is nothing to do with the legal age of consent when it comes to trafficked women.

Well no, but it would still need to have been proved that Andrew both did what he's been accused of and knew that she'd been trafficked, and unfortunately Virginia's acceptance of the payoff ended the legal case

And now with her death we'll never know ...

2dogsandabudgie · 26/04/2025 13:27

whippy1981 · 26/04/2025 13:21

So he had sex with a child and that is ok with you?

She was 17 at the time which is legal in the UK, whatever people think about it morally.

CowTown · 26/04/2025 13:25

JudgeJ · 26/04/2025 13:05

So you want the law changing to fit your beliefs? The age of consent is a matter of law, however that doesn't match your prejudices.

The law is nothing to do with the legal age of consent when it comes to trafficked women.

Grammarnut · 26/04/2025 13:25

The British police found no grounds to prosecute the Duke of York. I am sorry Ms Guiffre died but it is not Andrew's fault. He met her when she was 17 and he was c.42 (a not unusual age gap, men frequently marry women very much younger than themselves) and they had consensual sex on a couple of occasions. He's a sleaze ball and his mother must have despaired of him. I think Ms Guiffre was both victim and perpetrator of abuse (also a not unusual thing) and I am sorry for her. She monetized her abuse, which I am also fine with, but I also suspect that the mental toll such a view of how she had been used also made her miserable. Let her rest in peace but don't blame Andrew without blaming also Epstein, Clinton, Trump etc who also used her as a thing and the society we live in which allows such abuse to happen and makes it look 'normal'.

Sharptonguedwoman · 26/04/2025 13:23

Muffinmam · 26/04/2025 07:25

He never lost his home. He’s still living with that ginger woman in mansion.

I was a ginger woman in my youth. Please don't do that.

MagdaLenor · 26/04/2025 13:23

Turmerictolly · 26/04/2025 13:21

Agree, if he wasn’t culpable why the millions of pounds payout. I wonder what his daughters think of the whole debacle. Tragic really.

The daughters are demonstrably supportive. Always pictured with him. They had unsuccessfully lobbied both Charles and William for him to be brought back in, to some extent, and retain certain lost privileges.
They obviously believe him.

2dogsandabudgie · 26/04/2025 13:22

Zonder · 26/04/2025 13:05

I understand that view. But I would say it's immoral. Were the jubilee celebrations more important than justice and the life of any victims?

I suppose it depends on whether or not a person believes that VG was telling the truth about PA. I believe that she was and that she spent the evening with him, but I have no idea if he knew she was trafficked which is what her civil case was based on.

I suppose for the protection of the monarchy and the amount of revenue that the Jubilee would have made, plus the fear of what Prince Andrew could have been asked in court, for those at the top justice for victims wasn't important at all.

CowTown · 26/04/2025 13:22

JudgeJ · 26/04/2025 13:03

What 'rape'? What proof?

‘rape’ 🙄

Andrew Tate can sleep well tonight, knowing he doesn’t need to work so hard at ‘spreading the word’—so many on MN are happy to do it for him.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 26/04/2025 13:22

Tomatotater · 26/04/2025 13:06

Williams godfather Lauren s Van Der Post impregnated a 14 year old when he was well into his 50's. A child who had been entrusted into his care by her parents.

Yes, Tomatotater, and if memory serves it was long after that when Charles accompanied him on some ridiculous tented stargazing jaunt to the Kalahari, doubtless cooing over his Jungian ramblings and cementing his position as another elderly "spiritual adviser"

As a parent - never mind a Queen - would you tolerate your son going camping with such a man?

whippy1981 · 26/04/2025 13:21

Mondayblues2 · 26/04/2025 13:00

Virginia had consensual sex with him and made a huge fuss about it many years later. I am sorry she has died, but she made her own choices

So he had sex with a child and that is ok with you?

Turmerictolly · 26/04/2025 13:21

Agree, if he wasn’t culpable why the millions of pounds payout. I wonder what his daughters think of the whole debacle. Tragic really.

Zonder · 26/04/2025 13:19

Puzzledandpissedoff · 26/04/2025 13:13

You're very probably right, Zonder, but then for whatever reason Virginia also chose to accept the payoff which meant that the question of Andrew's guilt would never be properly examined - not that it would anyway of course, since there's simply no way the RF would have allowed him to enter a witness box

And on the question of "Were the jubilee celebrations more important than justice and the life of any victims?", I suspect that's exactly the RF's position, even though they pretend otherwise
After all why bother about "the little people" when they know their own situation's pretty well unassailable?

What a mess. It's tragic isn't it?

Puzzledandpissedoff · 26/04/2025 13:13

Zonder · 26/04/2025 13:03

Overall I'm not even sure what difference a conviction would have made to his image when we're already aware he was happy to go along with a convicted paedophile and lie about their continued connection, to say nothing of all the rest.

I think the difference would be vindication for his victim rather than any impact on him, unless he was incarcerated @Puzzledandpissedoff

You're very probably right, Zonder, but then for whatever reason Virginia also chose to accept the payoff which meant that the question of Andrew's guilt would never be properly examined - not that it would anyway of course, since there's simply no way the RF would have allowed him to enter a witness box

And on the question of "Were the jubilee celebrations more important than justice and the life of any victims?", I suspect that's exactly the RF's position, even though they pretend otherwise
After all why bother about "the little people" when they know their own situation's pretty well unassailable?

CuriousKangaroo · 26/04/2025 13:13

JudgeJ · 26/04/2025 13:01

'Allegations' is the word, that's all they were, she chose the make these 'allegations' to the most prominent person. In a court of law, rather than public opinion, one is innocent until proven guilty. It seems that the law is expected to work differently for certain types of allegations, equating an unsubstantiated allegation with proof.

Only 2.7% (approx) reports of rape result in charge, let alone conviction. Tell me, do you think that the other 97.3% of women and girls who reported rape are lying?

Puzzled4 · 26/04/2025 13:13

surreygirlzz · 26/04/2025 13:00

I do not think so
17 is legal age
You have no idea what happened
You have no idea what other issues this poor girl may have had

No one knows what truly happened, yes, but why would a 41 year old be hanging around with a 17 year old girl, just 5 years older than his oldest daughter? What was he thinking? Legal or not, at 17 you are still a child in so many ways. There is no doubt that this woman had many issues, no doubt caused by the fact that no one stood up for or protected her, throughout her life.

Viviennemary · 26/04/2025 13:10

2dogsandabudgie · 26/04/2025 12:58

The Royal Family wouldn't have wanted that hanging over them and putting a dampener on the Platimum Jubilee celebrations. Better to pay someone off and not have to deal with the press coverage of a court case.

I don't think it would have just been the Queen's decision, she would have been given advice by 'the men in grey suits'.

I bet it would have been put to VG's legal team about the Queen's age and health as well.

That's just my view anyway.

I think it was to avoid details. I don't know what the truth is here. But it is a sordid immoral business whatever side you are on.

Tomatotater · 26/04/2025 13:10

Chenecinquantecinq · 26/04/2025 13:04

There is no proof what happened. She may very likely have been mentally ill (she had her children taken away) and made the whole thing up. Who knows point is no one knows the facts bar she was obviously making stuff up in her last weeks of life due to mental illness!

Even if she did make everything up ( I don't believe she did) why did Andrew continue to hang out with Epstein after being given advice about his conviction for child sex trafficking? Shows how much the Royals care or take any notice of their patronages, when he was patron for the NSPCC!. Why did he stay with him for a week, being seen waving very young girls out of his house? He obviously spent a lot of time with him, invited him into the heart of the RF and spent a lot of time with him. He was not clandestine about his procilivities. he had pictures all over the place of naked young girls. He clearly couldn't care less about any of that.

Tomatotater · 26/04/2025 13:06

ginasevern · 26/04/2025 13:00

It's not the first time Charles "hasn't understood" either. People should be examining and questioning this indecently over privileged, and more to the point, untouchable institution.

Williams godfather Lauren s Van Der Post impregnated a 14 year old when he was well into his 50's. A child who had been entrusted into his care by her parents.

JudgeJ · 26/04/2025 13:05

BlueSpikeyPearls · 26/04/2025 09:31

She would never have done it, had she not been abused. It's one of the worst things that can happen to a child and, no, I do not care that the age of consent is 16. She was still a child and Andrew is a damn pedophile.

So you want the law changing to fit your beliefs? The age of consent is a matter of law, however that doesn't match your prejudices.

Zonder · 26/04/2025 13:05

2dogsandabudgie · 26/04/2025 12:58

The Royal Family wouldn't have wanted that hanging over them and putting a dampener on the Platimum Jubilee celebrations. Better to pay someone off and not have to deal with the press coverage of a court case.

I don't think it would have just been the Queen's decision, she would have been given advice by 'the men in grey suits'.

I bet it would have been put to VG's legal team about the Queen's age and health as well.

That's just my view anyway.

I understand that view. But I would say it's immoral. Were the jubilee celebrations more important than justice and the life of any victims?

Chenecinquantecinq · 26/04/2025 13:04

There is no proof what happened. She may very likely have been mentally ill (she had her children taken away) and made the whole thing up. Who knows point is no one knows the facts bar she was obviously making stuff up in her last weeks of life due to mental illness!

Zonder · 26/04/2025 13:03

Overall I'm not even sure what difference a conviction would have made to his image when we're already aware he was happy to go along with a convicted paedophile and lie about their continued connection, to say nothing of all the rest.

I think the difference would be vindication for his victim rather than any impact on him, unless he was incarcerated @Puzzledandpissedoff

surreygirlzz · 26/04/2025 13:03

Ukisgaslit · 26/04/2025 07:22

@HelenWheels

I assume I’m you are a supporter of the Windsors ?
Your post neatly sums up royalist attitudes to that family - deflecting and downplaying their crimes . How many years ago ?? As if that matters . You ought to be ashamed of yourself .

Thankfully attitudes like yours are in tiny minority

I support the royals
Have met Charles Camilla and Will
All charming