Was Epstein "famous"/"known" at the time

[topcat2014]

There seems to be no end to the rich/famous that Epstein seems to have known. Was he "famous" and in the news back when these offences took place?

I'm trying to feel sorry for Sarah Ferguson a bit here - was she being "conned" along with so many others?

Mandelson - not quite as much sympathy but maybe a bit?

I don't recall hearing about him until after all these offences

Well in that case, you don't want a Constitutional Monarchy, you want something akin to that which existed before The Glorious Revolution.
Parliament is, subsequent to that, Sovereign.
If you think that the King should have more power than Parliament, that's your opinion of course. I personally think an elected Parliament should make the decisions, not an unelected Head of State.
The government wants to keep the USA as an ally, they want to avoid tariffs, they want military cooperation. They invite the President. That's how it works, in all countries.

Yes, @Baital . My points exactly. All governments do this. What's more, Trump is there as the result of an election, there's nothing the UK government can do about that.
I seem to remember the late Queen hosting Idi Amin. I can't imagine that was pleasurable.

Thanks for the really informative comments

I totally understand that, but him having no power makes it even worse. He SHOULD have power. I totally get what you are saying, but it is hypocritical and so wrong on so many levels. As basic human beings, the Royals should be able to take a stand and tell him to f right off. It's happened to his own brother and now Kate has had to sit and smile at someone who would no doubt feel up her 9 year old daughter. It's nauseating. It's my own personal opinion, but I just think the world and people who can do this are sickening. It's so so wrong and gives Trump more power than he deserves. Meet him if they have to. The banquet - tell him to f right off and have a night out with Andy instead. None of them have any principles whatsoever.

If you are the Monarch, you represent the principles of the government, as chosen by the electorate.
Kate talked to the President of the USA. It could have been Kamala Harris, in that chair. It wasn't. Not her choice, the choice of the American people. The USA is our ally, these are unsettling and dangerous times. The Foreign Office, directed by the PM, invite the President.
If KC or any of the others refused, they would be betraying the terms of a Constitutional Monarchy. So it would be up to Parliament. Remove KC, as happened with James III and Edward VIII?
If you object to Trump being invited, the blame lies with Starmer and his advisers in the FO. They're trying to avoid tariffs and keep an ally on side. Blame them.

Totally get it, just going by what I saw, but yes Starmer is guilty too. But again, if the principles of the government are to host sex offenders, then....ugh, no wonder so many are sick of the UK government.

They are all in the same gang.

I completely understand what you're saying, @YourBrickTiger . I watched the proceedings from Windsor Castle, and it made my skin crawl. I think the main point is that KC is not making the decision and the second point is that Trump is an elected president, so how do you proceed?
Perhaps the Foreign Secretary and PM should review the banquetting invitations!

Errrr, no.

He shouldn't have power.

The government elected by the people should have power.

You may not agree with their decisions - fair enough. You have the chance to change them every general election.

As all of us do.

Our elected government, on our behalf, invited Trump. NOT as a 'distraction' from Andrew or SF (that hadn't emerged when the invitation was given) but to try to reduce tarifs.

I think he should have power. What's his point exactly???

I'm not saying they invited him to distract from Fergie and Andrew - but the fact that a spectacle is being made of the two of them, and not Trump completely says to me 'oh look look I'm doing something about this awful situation, that way when Dickhead gets here you won't think I'm so bad'. There is NOTHING that Charles does, that doesn't benefit himself.

Pmsl that you actually think she didn’t want to sit there. If she hadn’t wanted to be there then she’s a million excuses. They all looked delighted and enjoyed every second.

He does have power - its soft power - the fact that he is king means that people want to meet him and people like Trump are flattered to be invited for a state visit. But it is soft power that he must wield in accordance with the instructions of the government. He may very well not want to meet Trump but it is his job (and he is exceptionally well rewarded for doing it) - there will be staff at the Foreign Office who probably would prefer not to meet the ginger tom cat either but again, its their job so they do.

Its very unfair to say that he doesn't do anything unless it benefits him. The Prince's Trust has done invaluable work over the years - he set it up and has devoted time to it - it wasn't to benefit him, it was to help with a problem where he thought he could have an impact. It probably didn't benefit him at the time to be such an early campaigner on environmental issues - he was widely ridiculed for being a plant botherer for years.

I can't stand the man. I don't think he should be king. He's an adulterer, divorcee and massive man child. Princes Trust fair enough but I'm still not convinced he does anything other than that. He is a selfish, spineless man and it's my belief he would have more respect if he just said no. Make history and stop being a bloody government puppet.

different world up there. crown prince of saudi has a journalist chopped up and the Crown Prince is welcomed around the world. Epstein? he had money/influence etc and people want to be in there (as long as the public dont know). i could be a mad mass murderer but I become President of a country and I assume Diplomatic immunity. no one was interested in chasing Epstein because lots of people had been indulged

You think Charles should take control?
Like Charles I?!
Parliament is Sovereign.

Good points, @Londonmummy66 .

The only people who didn’t know about Savile were the general public who had him foisted onto their TV screens . He was known to the police from the 1950s . I ( as a professional who worked with children & treated one of his 10 year old victims ) reported him to both the police and BBC in 1991. So did many , many others .

So to answer the op. Yes he was known in all the right circles but could facilitate power meets and business trips for the rich and powerful and give loans out eg the Yorks who were/are no strangers to financial irregularities. Read about their house Southyork which was sold for 15 million

Thanks again.

I remain astonished at the number of famous or high profile people who seem so absolutely determined to implicate themselves by putting everything down on paper in such candid and evidential ways when they are knowingly (surely) behaving somewhere on the spectrum of "eyebrow raising" to "massively illegal".

Are they really THAT stupid?
Or arrogant?
Or being blackmailed into it?

This was pre internet and pre jail. The 50th birthday book was supposedly private so it was prob all an in joke the 'wonderful secret' and 'child' references. Stupid? No, arrogant/entitled yes. Look at the recent case about Diddy or Kanye. It was a select club for VIP only and no one was going to tell on each other.

I’ve watched a few of them! I think there was some indication that intelligence agencies were involved in the financing.

www.axios.com/2025/07/31/epstein-files-documentary-stream-watch-virginia-giuffre

Filthy Rich and Surviving Epstein are two of them.

Yeah but there were still tabloids and masses of sting operations - remember all the sleaze exposes in the redtops? I guess arrogance begets stupidity though...