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:
whippy1981 · 26/04/2025 19:32

queenofthesuburbs · 26/04/2025 19:13

Yes but not a child in the sense of him being a paedophile. The age of consent is 16 in the UK.

For what it's worth I think he did sleep with her but didn't question it/remember specifically because he was sleeping around with so many young women who wanted it on their tick list that they'd slept with a royal.

I don't condone this sort of behaviour, but I don't think whether she was 17 or 18 makes much difference. She was a "young woman" and he assumed she wanted to because he had such a big ego.

But that doesn't make him a paedophile.

She was still a child not a woman which was the comment made that I corrected.

The age of consent is 16 but if you cannot say no then yes isn't giving consent no matter what age you are over 16.

I never said he was a paedophile. Not sure where you got that from. I said she was a child and that he had sex with a child.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 26/04/2025 19:30

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 26/04/2025 19:06

What makes me sick is all of the allegations being dressed up as fact. I've a huge problem with people doing that - I can't abide injustice.

Andrew's behaviour has been a disgrace, that he even associated with Epstein is reprehensible, and for that alone he deserves to have essentially lost his job.

However, the only 'facts' are that VG accused him of sleeping with her (I don't believe she said he raped her?) and PA denied it. She then accused him of sleeping with her knowing that she had been trafficked. We don't know what the veracity is of this. That's it.

We don't know who Andrew associated with other than Maxwell and Epstein.

Literally nobody supports Andrew, other than perhaps family or friends. Some of us just happen to believe that truth and justice apply to both participants in this legal action.

Beautifully put, mainecooncatonahottinroof, and perhaps the real irony here is that Andrew doesn't even need to have done the various things he's accused of for us to (rightly) call him repulsive

Just the things which are known about are quite enough for that ...

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 26/04/2025 19:30

JandamiHash · 26/04/2025 17:07

DH thinks it could be dodgy, in the way Epstein’s “suicide” was dodgy.

Oh well I'm sure your DH must be right! Some kind of expert is he?

FFS! Hilarious.

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 26/04/2025 19:28

JandamiHash · 26/04/2025 17:05

But this isn’t employment law, it’s a v rich member of the RF vs the woman he so obviously raped. He likely settled because he was guilty and made a huge fuck up of coming across as the world’s biggest liar on TV when asked about it

Settlements work in exactly the same way in employment law as they do in civil law. Same principle.

I don't think even VG accused PA of rape?! How do you know "he so obviously raped her"? That's utterly ridiculous. You don't know what happened!

You simply can't extrapolate guilt from a settlement. You just hate the man and want him to be guilty and that is not the same thing!

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 26/04/2025 19:24

JandamiHash · 26/04/2025 17:03

Dramatic to want a sex offender to be accountable for his actions? Ok.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to “go after” people who’ve raped you without proof? Men are denying they never even knew Epstein. Virginia had a photograph however which made things much easier

You have no evidence that he is in fact a sex offender. He has been accused of being one, and he has denied it. Those are the facts.

The provenance of the photo is questionable. Even if it was genuine, it does nothing to support the allegation that he had sex with her, nor the allegation that he knew she was trafficked.

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 26/04/2025 19:21

BlueSpikeyPearls · 26/04/2025 16:58

People don´t just take their life because their life suddenly got hard. Taking your own life is a last resort. You would only do it because you gave up hope.

Can I be a 100% certain that only reason she felt like she couldn't living? No, there might have been contributing factors, but I am 99% certain that without this trauma, other problems would be a lot easier to handle.

You really don't know why she did it. It most likely was not for any single reason. Her personal life appears to have been very troubled recently and I don't think speculation is helpful.

afig · 26/04/2025 19:14

I think that because of his actions decades ago, he bears some of the blame for her poor mental health even as an adult, so yes, that counts as blood on his hands, imo. He won't have been the only factor in her tragic life, but he certainly didn't help matters!

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 26/04/2025 19:13

Extiainoiapeial · 26/04/2025 16:45

So the pictures in the paper with a closed eye cuts and bruises all over her face was just make up was it?
I find it very distasteful but you are talking like this about someone who has literally just committed suicide

It was proven that no such incident happened!!

Extiainoiapeial · 26/04/2025 19:13

@Chipsahoy

Yes, it can destroy people
💐 To you

queenofthesuburbs · 26/04/2025 19:13

whippy1981 · 26/04/2025 18:55

She was not a woman. She was a child. She was 17.

Yes but not a child in the sense of him being a paedophile. The age of consent is 16 in the UK.

For what it's worth I think he did sleep with her but didn't question it/remember specifically because he was sleeping around with so many young women who wanted it on their tick list that they'd slept with a royal.

I don't condone this sort of behaviour, but I don't think whether she was 17 or 18 makes much difference. She was a "young woman" and he assumed she wanted to because he had such a big ego.

But that doesn't make him a paedophile.

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 26/04/2025 19:12

ThatLimeCat · 26/04/2025 16:35

He's a pig of a man and will rot in hell alongside Epstein. That poor woman had her life destroyed.

He wasn't the one who destroyed it.

And what about all the others? There must have been a lot of them. Why haven't they ever been investigated?

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 26/04/2025 19:10

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 26/04/2025 16:33

London's Metropolitan Police said they were not conducting any new investigations into Prince Andrew after a 2016 deposition accusing him of groping a woman's breast was released this week. The deposition was among hundreds of pages of mostly unredacted documents related to Jeffrey Epstein unsealed this week under the order of a judge in a now-settled defamation case brought by Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein's victims.

In the deposition, Johanna Sjoberg alleges she was groped by Prince Andrew in 2001, when she was 21. The allegation is not new, and BBC News reports Buckingham Palace previously called her allegations "categorically untrue."

Sjoberg says she met Andrew when she was brought to Epstein's home in New York in 2001 by Ghislaine Maxwell. Virginia Giuffre, whose lawsuit accusing Prince Andrew of sexual abuse was settled out of court in 2022, was also at the house at the time.

Sjoberg said she initially didn't know who the British royal was, until Maxwell took her to get a caricature puppet of him from a BBC show. Then, she said, she sat on Andrew's lap, while Giuffre sat beside him on the couch with the puppet in her own lap. The group took a photo with the Prince Andrew puppet groping Giuffre's breast, and Andrew himself groping Sjoberg's.

In an excerpted transcript from a deposition of Maxwell released among the documents unsealed this week, she seemingly confirmed the existence of the puppet — which she called "Not a puppet. I don't know how you would describe it. A caricature of Prince Andrew that was in Jeffrey's home." When asked about the incident Sjoberg described, she said, "I don't recollect. I recollect the puppet but I don't recollect anything around the puppet," before saying again it was a "characterization of Andrew."

I've heard that before but wouldn't you think there would be more?

Nominative · 26/04/2025 19:06

JustSawJohnny · 26/04/2025 19:01

He was at the coronation.

I have no interest in when and where these people go to church 🙄

Which was a religious ceremony rather closely involving his brother. He wasn't there by virtue of any sort of official status.

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 26/04/2025 19:06

Extiainoiapeial · 26/04/2025 16:11

This this this

I haven't got the stomach to read this thread to be honest but I do know because it has happened in the past, there will be Andrew apologists there will be posters saying she knew what she was doing, there will be posters saying she was 17 so she did what she did of her own free will. And there will be plenty of posters saying endlessly Andrew wasn't proven to have slept with her. Without going into great detail because I could go on forever, he knew where he was, he knew what he was doing by just being that among very very young girls, and anyone who supports him really should take a long hard look in the mirror.

It makes me sick. People really need to read up about trafficking. You can be 30 and be a trafficked victim.

What makes me sick is all of the allegations being dressed up as fact. I've a huge problem with people doing that - I can't abide injustice.

Andrew's behaviour has been a disgrace, that he even associated with Epstein is reprehensible, and for that alone he deserves to have essentially lost his job.

However, the only 'facts' are that VG accused him of sleeping with her (I don't believe she said he raped her?) and PA denied it. She then accused him of sleeping with her knowing that she had been trafficked. We don't know what the veracity is of this. That's it.

We don't know who Andrew associated with other than Maxwell and Epstein.

Literally nobody supports Andrew, other than perhaps family or friends. Some of us just happen to believe that truth and justice apply to both participants in this legal action.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 26/04/2025 19:05

It is not as though the RF don't have form for ruthlessly distancing family members when they want to

Actually that's a very fair point, @Futurehappiness, though perhaps those it's happened to haven't been privy to quite so much the RF would rather wasn't revealed?

And while I didn't know it had been reporrted that there was no NDA attached to Virginia's payout, @myrtleWilson, I honestly find that very surprising if it's true

mydogisthebest · 26/04/2025 19:03

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.

You can't possibly know that. Lots of people commit suicide and most of them have not been abused.

Maybe splitting up with her husband and her children not wanting anything to do with her had more to do with it. Her husband had a restraining order against her so there was obviously more going on than we know

JustSawJohnny · 26/04/2025 19:01

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 26/04/2025 18:47

Church on Easter Sunday was not a "state event".

He was at the coronation.

I have no interest in when and where these people go to church 🙄

Chipsahoy · 26/04/2025 19:00

Poor woman. I’d imagine legal battles and media attention made it so she could never heal. I was groomed as a teen and abused by men. It went on for years.
One of the other girls is now dead. Another is in an awful abusive marriage. Another is a drug addict. I was fortunate.
I am safe now and free. I have children and a lovely husband and a home. Still, I have weekly therapy and have done for over a decade. I am not working and have all but withdrawn from “normal” life. We live remotely and I stay home a lot of the time. Because that kinda shit is a deep wound that never ever completely goes away. And I’d imagine her wound stayed open and became infected the more media and legal battles continued. Worse still for her with an awful early childhood too.

Nominative · 26/04/2025 18:59

Futurehappiness · 26/04/2025 18:25

Most 'ordinary' families don't claim to represent their country, and these are public events that Andrew is attending; so it is very very different. It is not as though the RF don't have form for ruthlessly distancing family members when they want to.

He isn't attending public events in a public capacity or representing the royal family.

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 26/04/2025 18:59

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 26/04/2025 15:53

Unlike us less intelligent folk. Still thanks for letting me know, I can sleep easily now.

Edited

You're welcome.

Extiainoiapeial · 26/04/2025 18:57

The actual facts are he mixed with a sex offender and trafficker even when he knew that person had been convicted, said he had cut all contact, when he hadn't and tried to make contact again way after when he said at the interview he had cut contact.
And he was regularly at the New York mansion and Epstein's Island.

Nominative · 26/04/2025 18:57

LBFseBrom · 26/04/2025 18:38

I would not trust anything from the Daily Mail. They are now having a field day, by way of a change. I am going to wait and see what comes out now, especially if her husband has anything to say.

I don't seem to be able to get 'Surviving Jeffrey Epstein' here in the UK.

Given that her husband had a no-contact order in place, that could certainly be interesting.

whippy1981 · 26/04/2025 18:55

queenofthesuburbs · 26/04/2025 16:45

At that time Andrew was (believe it or not) a heartthrob and a player. Lots of girls would have slept with him; he was used to all this adulation so probably didn't think anything of it.
I also think he's sleazy BUT that doesn't make him a paedophile. I honestly don't think he's interested then or now in little kids. She was 17, at the lower end, but still within the "groupie" age which was probably under 25. She was a woman, not a little girl.
I also honestly don't think his own daughters would support him if they for one moment thought he was interested in children.

She was not a woman. She was a child. She was 17.

mainecooncatonahottinroof · 26/04/2025 18:55

GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples · 26/04/2025 14:29

I see.

Well LVH can say whatever she wants privately, and she can say whatever she wants publicly too, it's a free country.

But it comes across as incredibly crass, haughty, and removed from reality. I think if she felt pushed into making a seemingly supportive statement to show she was onside with PA, there were lesser cruel ways of saying it. Many on this thread support him whilst still acknowledging that what has happened is unfortunate. That said, I can imagine the social pressures on one are hard at that level of society and maybe I myself would be desperately denying that PA was anything but a true gent if I had had the misfortune to date him.

I don't think anyone is "supporting" him but some of us prefer to stick to the actual facts.

Tomatotater · 26/04/2025 18:54

Arraminta · 26/04/2025 17:06

I cannot bear the odious moron, but he wasn't a paedophile. VG was over the age of consent and was a fully developed woman (physically at least).

Sadly, very sadly, I think PA genuinely can't remember having sex with her because she would have just been one of many pretty, but anonymous young women provided for his amusement.

Knowing what a hugely conceited oaf that he is, he probably genuinely believed these young women were thrilled to have sex with a real, actual prince of the realm.

I think PA was completely speaking the truth when he admitted that he 'just didn't notice people like that' i.e. VG. He'd spent his life being serviced and pandered to buy an endless stream of faceless enablers. She was just one among hundreds.

It's the casual callousness that is heartbreaking.

Agree. I think he just didnt notice, or if he did, he simply didn't care enough about these young girls to even think it enough for him not to engage with Epstein, or be his friend. Its very sad for the girls that they were seen as staff to people like Andrew- there to service these disgusting men's every need- fill up my drink, sex, all the same thing. I suspect the reason he has had his name dragged into this when others haven't is because others did wrong and knew they were sleazy bastards that had done something that needed many layers of covering up, whereas Andrew just thought being a Royal Prince was enough, and he was entitled to do what he liked, so didn't even bother. He must have had close protection officers who either couldn't care less either or couldn't stop him.

Swipe left for the next trending thread