Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Prince Andrew

134 replies

meccacos2 · 20/09/2019 17:55

In circumstances wherein no one can actually say how Epstein made his money... could it possibly be that this news.com article sheds some light on this?

www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/virginia-roberts-reveals-details-of-three-sexual-encounters-she-claims-she-had-with-prince-andrew/news-story/91885ffd2595498dabf290116aa6544d

This woman is saying she was trafficked.

She’s been saying it for years.

Why is this a conversation no one is having?

Why is the palace waiting for it to blow over?

OP posts:
MissEliza · 20/09/2019 18:04

It's definitely at the point now where you'd think the palace would be considering legal action.

DriftingLeaves · 20/09/2019 18:45

"This woman is saying she was trafficked.

She’s been saying it for years.

Why is this a conversation no one is having?"

Because people don't believe her.

FromEden · 20/09/2019 18:47

People have been having this conversation though? For years now I've been reading about it. It's pretty widely accepted that Epstein was a sex trafficker. I haven't seen or heard anyone claiming that they dont believe the victims. Its because of who is involved that in the past the press haven't touched it with a barge pole and honestly, I dont know if they'll be "allowed" to do so now either. There have been many articles of late about it though so maybe things are changing.

SleepyKat · 20/09/2019 18:48

I don’t think the palace will sue her at all. Even if it’s not true (I have no idea) they would say they wouldn’t want such details discussed in public. Guess they can say they think she has “issues” and therefore they don’t want to prosecute/sue her.

I assume she’s not a reliable enough witness or there isn’t enough evidence for a prosecution against Andrew to be brought?

Maybe she will take legal action against him?

colourlessgreenidea · 20/09/2019 18:50

Why is this a conversation no one is having?

It’s a conversation loads of people are having Confused

Passthecherrycoke · 20/09/2019 18:52

I don’t see how the article sheds light on how he made his money?

Pretty much everyone is talking about this. I do think Andrew will stay low and weather the storm though, I just have a feeling. It’s the way the queen deals with things

Splodgetastic · 20/09/2019 18:58

Even if he did do something she wasn’t underage in the UK so don’t see what he’d be prosecuted for really.

AutumnFabreeze · 20/09/2019 19:06

Yep legally I don't think there is much that can be done.

I think for PrinceA it is much more a case of the massive damage this will do to the royal family. They are only still here by our pleasure, not their own. Every article I read people are commenting on how the monarchy has run its course and it's time to get rid.

Passthecherrycoke · 20/09/2019 19:09

It’s the trafficking that he could potentially be prosecuted for (depending on when they had sex- the law was passed in 2003) but she lives and resides on the other side of the world, sexual assault cases have tiny conviction rates anyway so this one has no chance. It will never be in court

Fluffycloudland77 · 20/09/2019 19:30

Favourite child always lets you down.

Rachelover60 · 20/09/2019 19:43

I think she probably was trafficked by Epstein, more and more has been coming out about his unsavoury doings. There's no reason to think Prince Andrew knew at the time he saw her, or any other of Epstein's guests.

DriftingLeaves · 20/09/2019 20:03

I don't get what the fuss is about. I doubt very much that he knew the background even if he did have sex with her. Which I'm far from convinced he did.

tillytrotter1 · 20/09/2019 20:09

I find it interesting and telling that she is concentrating her efforts on just one person. Whatever one thinks about PA there is no evidence for anything she claims.

BarbariansMum · 20/09/2019 20:15

What sort of evidence would you expect to see tilly?

MythicalBiologicalFennel · 20/09/2019 20:21

It’s the way the queen deals with things

She was quick to let her displeasure known about some pointless, irrelevant, harmless bollocks that Cameron said. That was all over the BBC website and all the printed press. I wonder if this shows our priorities as a society.

Splodgetastic · 20/09/2019 21:02

@Passthecherrycoke, I get what the law is as I haven’t been living under a stone for the past twenty years, but there is no suggestion that he would even have known she was trafficked (if she was) let alone that he was involved in it! Presumably (if he even did anything) he just thought she was a friend or acquaintance of the family.

Splodgetastic · 20/09/2019 21:04

And to be honest if we are that bothered about this, why hasn’t the age of consent been raised to 18? Because at 17 a woman knows full well what she’s doing.

Splodgetastic · 20/09/2019 21:06

What might shock even more is that in some Western European countries the age is still as low as 14.

MyShinyWhiteTeeth · 20/09/2019 21:13

Isn't it prostitution of a 17 year old rather than trafficking though?

She got paid for it, didn't she?

Did Andrew know there was money involved?

Tellmetruth4 · 21/09/2019 04:32

I shouldn’t be so surprised by the minimising and defence of this man but I am. He knew Epstein was a creep and remained BFFs. Birds of a feather.

Passthecherrycoke · 21/09/2019 04:35

@Splodgetastic it doesn’t matter whether he knew or not, the law says you can be prosecuted regardless and not knowing isn’t a defence

JenniR29 · 21/09/2019 04:54

He remained close friends with Epstein even after he was convicted. No way he didn’t know what was going on. Can’t believe people are defending him instead of calling for a full police investigation into this.

beluga425 · 21/09/2019 05:47

Some of the comments here are chilling. Remember how everyone kept saying that people accusing Michael Jackson were not to be believed and there was no evidence.

Ok, I understand that this girl was much older, but why would anyone choose to doubt her claims? What is in it for her? If it were untrue she'd have been sued by now.

Yes, she was "old enough to know what she was doing" but she was in a situation of horribly unbalanced power. Anyone see the Harvey Weinstein documentary? She has also said that he was abusive. Nobody keeps banging on about something like this for years just to get attention. We all know desperate attention seekers. They do not just stay on one track like this.

It was all going to come out at Epstein's trial, however, unfortunately he appears to have strangled himself in his cell. oops!

Prince Andrew has, so far, been been untouchable.

Pitterpatterpettysteps · 21/09/2019 05:56

Regarding how he made his money, I gather he was involved in a Madoff-style ponzi scheme, and lost of investors lost all their money?

QualCheckBot · 21/09/2019 06:03

The RF have teams that scour the press before it is even printed for harmful comments, and fire off lawyer's letters threatening legal action before its done.

(We know this because of Prince Harry's Statement to the Press, where he helpfully if somewhat unwisely put it in writing for us - "the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers").

If they thought it was untrue, anyone reporting this story would have been subject to legal threats of injunction and defamation action, with massive damages. They wouldn't just ignore it.

Instead, the RF have resorted to their other technique, of ignoring people who challenge them. As with Meghan Markle's immediate family. Its fairly successful - a lot of people will assume the RF is all good and any accuser is all bad/mad/must be lying.

You will note that the Palace makes no comment about how important it is to protect young girls from predatory men. Nothing at all. But plenty to say on press intusion into their lives.

The RF are ruthless. That's their practised mode of survival as a firm.