Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Andrew in bid to clear his name

336 replies

Viviennemary · 22/01/2023 01:10

Daily Mail is reporting this, I heard it on Sky News press preview. He is going to try to get her to retract her statement, apologise and pay back the money. It's hard to know what to think. But apparently, she dropped the case against another man after saying it was a case of mistaken identity. Prince Andrew said he can't recall meeting her. Very stramge.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
ThighMistress · 28/01/2023 22:14

ye-es, I know all that, but the bit leading up to the financial adviser was odd. I gather she was a bit of a go-er… She and Andrew just about make a pair; I wonder if they will remarry now.

vera99 · 28/01/2023 23:15

To all those that have been punting the theory that the photo is a fake hold your heads in shame here is a slam dunk witness that says it's not and has the evidence that only a crazed nutjob could refute.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687313/Proof-Prince-Andrew-photo-not-fake-Evidence-image-royal-Virginia-Giuffre-real.html

Everydayitsgettingcloser · 29/01/2023 06:47

I have never understood why all the focus on the photo - it doesn't prove anything either way. If it's a fake, if doesn't mean VG is lying, if it's not a fake, if doesn't prove they had sex, it certainly doesn't show he knew that she was trafficked.

I feel the same way about the pizza express in Woking - if it's true, it doesn't mean he didn't go to the club afterwards.

I wish VG hadn't taken the settlement, then we might actually have heard the real points discussed in court

vera99 · 29/01/2023 07:01

That settlement expires next month and her memoir 20 years in the writing is rumoured to be coming out in the next few months. The photo which is true, there's no getting way from that, puts Andrew with VG ,GM and the photographer reputed to be Epstein in a small mews house. With 2 convicted sex traffickers and a victim of sex trafficking what was Andrew doing there - playing Monopoly ? What would the fabled legal entity "a reasonable person" given her testimony be expected to believe ?

TaRaDeBumDeAy · 29/01/2023 08:01

vera99 · 22/01/2023 15:09

If it could be proved that he knew that she was under 18 and had been paid to have sex with him then that looks like an offence has been committed. Since Epstein is dead and Maxwell says it never happened and in the probable absence of physical evidence then that's looking like a non starter.

If you had been made to shag PA, and were savvy enough to keep the photo as evidence, you'd also keep the other 'evidence' he produced as absolute proof. Or be able to quote their procedures whereby said 'evidence' was removed from you/your clothing/etc.

TaRaDeBumDeAy · 29/01/2023 08:05

AttentionAll · 22/01/2023 15:34

@ThighMistress And it is bleeding obvious VG did not have someone responsible looking out for her. Because as you say, no decent parents would allow their daughter to go ahead with that scenario.

She lived with her bf who would sometimes go on the trips with her. I read an article where he said she knew what she was doing and loved the money, and picked and chose which trips she went on as and when she needed money.

billysboy · 29/01/2023 08:16

Andrew is still a Nonce he can dress it up how he likes!

Roussette · 29/01/2023 08:29

TaRaDeBumDeAy · 29/01/2023 08:05

She lived with her bf who would sometimes go on the trips with her. I read an article where he said she knew what she was doing and loved the money, and picked and chose which trips she went on as and when she needed money.

What article?

Would you like to link to that? And do you know anything about coercion and trafficking of young and vulnerable girls?

In all that I've read, and I've read a lot... I have never heard about a boyfriend who went on Epstein trips with her, so I would be very interested in reading your article.

vera99 · 29/01/2023 08:37

Times saying seemingly authoritatively that Charles isn't supportive indeed the opposite with this latest 'push'.

Prince Andrew’s bath bombshell gives Charles the coronation shivers

A staged photo of ‘the prince and Virginia Giuffre’ in a tub has been published in a bizarre attempt to prove his innocence

Sunday January 29 2023, 12.01am GMT, The Sunday Times
A Harvard law professor who once acted for Jeffrey Epstein and a photograph of Ghislaine Maxwell’s bathtub may not seem the most obvious means of rehabilitating one’s image.
However, supporters of the Duke of York believe they could prove to be crucial elements in a campaign to help clear his name.
A year after he paid Virginia Giuffre an estimated £10 million to settle a US lawsuit accusing him of rape, Prince Andrew is said to be consulting lawyers in an attempt to get her to retract her allegations.
Yesterday, a staged photo of Maxwell’s bath from her former Belgravia home was released by her older brother, Ian, in an apparent effort to discredit Giuffre’s claim that it had been used for “frolicking” with the duke when she was 17.
Two family friends were pictured in the tub — wearing masks showing the faces of the alleged protagonists — in what appeared to be an attempt to demonstrate that the bath was too small for any sexual activity.
Last night, Alan Dershowitz, an American lawyer and academic who Guiffre accused of abuse before admitting she may have made a “mistake”, also gave Andrew his support.
“I hope he fights back in an effort to uncover the truth,” he said.
A fightback from the disgraced duke, however, is not something that will be welcomed by King Charles in the run-up to his coronation in May.
“The King still loves his brother very much,” said a source close to the monarch. “But in terms of secretly supporting a campaign for him to come out of the freezer, it’s rather the opposite.”
Royal aides have made it clear that Charles believes “a way back for the duke is demonstrably not possible”.
Andrew, 62, has been permanently booted out of his apartment at Buckingham Palace, in addition to being stripped of his public duties and royal patronages following his disastrous Newsnight interview in 2019.

Although he has always denied any wrongdoing, he settled his sex abuse case with Giuffre, 39, last February.
Interest in the scandal, however, has been reignited by the fact that a year-long “gagging clause” forbidding both parties from repeating any of the allegations will soon expire. Giuffre, it is claimed, is preparing to publish a tell-all memoir later this year.
The prospect of Andrew seeking to overturn the settlement — and potentially to extract an apology from his accuser — appears to have been fuelled by Giuffre’s recent decision to end a separate legal action involving Dershowitz. Giuffre had repeatedly claimed that she had been trafficked by Epstein, the late paedophile financier, to be abused as a teenager by the emeritus Harvard law professor.
However, in November she said she had suffered a “traumatic” youth and conceded: “I now recognise I may have made a mistake in identifying Mr Dershowitz.”
Dershowitz, 84, who agreed to drop a counter-claim against Giuffre, has represented a series of controversial figures.
His clients have included OJ Simpson, the former American footballer accused of murder; Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood producer jailed for rape and abuse, and Donald Trump, whom he defended during a presidential impeachment trial.
In 2008, Dershowitz also helped to negotiate a deal which led to Epstein swerving charges of child sex abuse and being jailed instead for only 18 months for a lesser offence. This weekend Dershowitz said he had not been in direct contact with Andrew. However, he admitted discussing the duke’s case with Blair Berk, one of the prince’s US lawyers.
“Blair Berk and I are friends,” he said. “She’s my former student and we’ve discussed lots of cases together, including Prince Andrew’s. We both have the same interest to get to the truth.”
He fondly recalled meeting the duke in 1999 when Andrew attended one of his lectures at Harvard Law School in Massachusetts during a royal visit: “I still have a letter from the prince, thanking me for my class.”
Legal experts believe that Andrew’s settlement with Giuffre can be “undone” if there is evidence of fraud, coercion or any other wrongdoing.
One possible line of attack that might be re-examined is whether Giuffre was a genuine US resident when she originally filed her lawsuit against the duke.
She stated at the time that she was a resident of Colorado, but Andrew’s lawyers pointed out that she had lived in Australia for all but two of the last 19 years.
Last night Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boies, said he had not been contacted by anyone in the duke’s camp. “If his lawyers wanted to pursue this, they certainly have my telephone number,” he said.
Boies accused Andrew’s supporters of “casting innuendos from the shadows” and pointed out that Dershowitz had conceded in the past that Giuffre was being “honest and truthful” to the best of her recollection.
Ian Maxwell, however, said the Dershowitz outcome is likely to benefit the duke and could have a bearing on his sister’s impending appeal against child sex trafficking offences, for which she is serving a 20-year sentence in a Florida jail. “If Andrew goes to court, my hunch is he would prevail or at least obtain a retraction,” he said.

Yesterday, The Daily Telegraph published the image of Ghislaine Maxwell’s bathroom — where Giuffre claimed she had been forced to seduce Andrew in 2001 — under the headline: “The photo that ‘clears duke’ over bath sex”.
Ian Maxwell, 66, told the Telegraph: “I am releasing my photographs now because the truth needs to come out. They show conclusively that the bath is too small for any sort of sex frolicking . . . if that helps Prince Andrew then so be it.” The move, however, could backfire, with many commentators on social media either ridiculing or criticising the image.
If Andrew does choose to pursue some form of legal redress from Giuffre it is a move that is likely to be supported by his ex-wife, Sarah, the Duchess of York.
“Sarah and the two girls [Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie] have been collateral damage in all of this,” a friend said.
The King, however, fears the “Andrew problem” will not be solved by another round of legal wrangling.
It is a view shared by his son, the Prince of Wales, who considers his uncle a reputational “risk” and “threat” to the monarchy.
Charles is understood to have helped Andrew financially in recent years, and to have agreed to foot the bill for additional private security guards for his brother, whose publicly-funded Metropolitan police protection is being reduced. The King has also shown the disgraced duke public support, allowing him to accompany the royal family to church at Sandringham on Christmas Day.
However, Andrew will not be given new apartments at Buckingham Palace when its £369 million refurbishment is complete. He continues to live at Royal Lodge, Windsor, with his ex-wife,who remains staunchly loyal to her former husband.
Charles’s largesse and inclination to include Andrew in “family events” is meant to be on the understanding that the pariah prince keeps a low profile.
Last June, as the ink dried on his settlement with Giuffre, Buckingham Palace let it be known that “thought will have to be given to how to support the duke as, away from the public gaze, he seeks to slowly rebuild his life in a different direction”.
A Palace spokesman aired the royal family’s view that “the task of starting to support him as he begins to rebuild his life will be the first step on a long road and one that should not be played out every day in the glare of the public spotlight”.
There will, therefore, be dismay in royal circles that Andrew is back in the spotlight, hogging the headlines just as the Princess of Wales launches a new early years campaign this week and as the King hopes for a “clear run” to the coronation on May 6.
A Covid diagnosis conveniently kept Andrew away from all Platinum Jubilee events last year.
The duke will be hoping he can stay fit and well to take up his seat in Westminster Abbey for the coronation. Many in royal circles will take a different view.

ThePoshUns · 29/01/2023 10:13

Prince Andrew’s bath bombshell gives Charles the coronation shivers

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5ab4e246-9f48-11ed-833f-9bc13ef7c75b?shareToken=22f20a48c7fae7e1bd5e6326fd387ae1

Hopefully the share token works.
The whole story is bizarre and the staged photo laughable and desperate.

I really hope Charles stands firm on this as I am still generally supportive of the Royals but if Andrew is brought back into the fold, I won't be.

There's an interesting article in the Mail as well about the authenticity of the photograph. I'll link that too.

ThePoshUns · 29/01/2023 10:14

Ah can see @vera99 has already linked the DM article.
I don't believe the photo is fake at all.

queenofarles · 29/01/2023 10:27

who are these supporters of Andrew? It’s just A supporter , Victoria Harvey.

I don’t believe it’s a fake either , but also I don’t believe VG is truthful.

Roussette · 29/01/2023 10:32

On that article, it claims Andrew has been 'booted out' of Buckingham Palace. That is just spin. With the massive renovations and building work, he has had to vacate the rooms he held there so the work can take place. So if anyone thinks Charles is taking a hard line, that is not the case, he hasn't booted PA out of anywhere.

CathyorClaire · 29/01/2023 11:04

Charles is supposed to have booted Andrew out of his BP office but it does beg the question of why, after three years as a non-working royal he still had one.

vera99 · 29/01/2023 11:10

CathyorClaire · 29/01/2023 11:04

Charles is supposed to have booted Andrew out of his BP office but it does beg the question of why, after three years as a non-working royal he still had one.

That will have been the Queen for sure, plus out of sight out of mind. £369 million renovation btw . Remember that when you next get the builders in and go "how much ?!". And not good enough for Charles apparently.

CathyorClaire · 29/01/2023 11:18

That will have been the Queen for sure

Very true.

Bolstering her favourite's ego with make believe.

And £369m when Chuck has a cosy pad just down the road?

Ludicrous. I'm calling now he'll never live in it.

ManyNameChanges · 29/01/2023 11:18

vera99 · 29/01/2023 07:01

That settlement expires next month and her memoir 20 years in the writing is rumoured to be coming out in the next few months. The photo which is true, there's no getting way from that, puts Andrew with VG ,GM and the photographer reputed to be Epstein in a small mews house. With 2 convicted sex traffickers and a victim of sex trafficking what was Andrew doing there - playing Monopoly ? What would the fabled legal entity "a reasonable person" given her testimony be expected to believe ?

Yep.

And I think he is worried she will talk very soon so is goig in the attack instead.
Im sure all the PR from The Palace will be there behind him too.

And then in the normal world, people expect people to cut out from their life, anyone who is is paedophile/rapist, incl their own children, brother etc.... rather than supporting them

ManyNameChanges · 29/01/2023 11:21

CathyorClaire · 29/01/2023 11:04

Charles is supposed to have booted Andrew out of his BP office but it does beg the question of why, after three years as a non-working royal he still had one.

Im sure that if it had been the case, it would have been making big news. The same way the concentrate on Hary when he stepped down from his duties, right??

Yay, maybe not....

vera99 · 29/01/2023 11:45

The Telegraph story has got me asking why - why this nonsense what are they trying to get over here ?

What people pay attention to will be largely determined by what they already think. From Prince Andrew's point of view, if he wants to salvage his image, then who does he want to salvage it with?

There are lots of people who have already decided he's guilty of the worst, based on various things including his reputation, and his completely bizzare interview performance, but not on any conclusive evidence. There's not really anything that would change their minds.

But there must also be a fair few people, quite likely to be Telegraph readers and royalists to boot who would agree everything looks very weird, but don't think wrongdoing has been proven. They will have their own explanations for the bizarre interview, they may think he is simply naive or is trapped in a strange bubble where his view of "normal" has become distorted. They will probably accept the idea that he settled in order to avoid distraction and trouble during the jubilee - that's not an implausible explanation if you are starting out with some sort of sympathy for him. They will read this article, they will probably think the photo is bizarre, but it's something produced by the Maxwells not Prince Andrew. They will pick up on the suggestions of inconsistency in Guiffre's story, they will note the other thing mentioned in the article, that she has dropped her accusations against someone else and decided that she mistook his identity.

The bath photo is unquestionably bizzare - I'm pretty sure the Telegraph editors will know this - and they will know that it will attract a lot of attention to the story attached to it, which contains some information that might not be unhelpful to Prince Andrew in the eyes of those already willing to give him some benefit of the doubt.

Or am I just thinking too much down the conspiratorial rabbit hole - the Maxwell's have gone collectively mad that seems obvious, but the ludicrous alibi and story they have constructed was just too bizarre and whattheactualfuckery that they couldn't turn it down - exclusive and all, as well.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 29/01/2023 12:17

There must also be a fair few people, quite likely to be Telegraph readers and royalists to boot who would agree everything looks very weird, but don't think wrongdoing has been proven

Not sure where that leaves me, as a republican who doesn't read the Torygraph, but who also accepts none of the criminal allegations against Andrew have been proven. Right now it's all personal views from folk who weren't there, and since Andrew will never enter a witness box that's not likely to change

That said, from the POV of his reputation it hardly matters; we already know he's repulsive based on his known behaviour and especially the company he chooses to keep.
Unfortunately much the same can be said about Charles, so again as a republican it suits me just fine if his coronation's overshadowed by a tawdry mess which he could easily shut down if only he had the moral authority to do so

Roussette · 29/01/2023 12:26

Totally agree Puzzled. I don't agree with calling him names like paedo or nonce. He is not one and labelling him one just muddys the waters.

There is absolutely nothing at all he can do to rehabilitate himself in the public's eye. Apart f,rom the Epstein affair, he has been sailing close to the wire with his behaviour for decades and if he tries to exonerate himself, it will come back to bite him on the arse because far more will be uncovered, it will be open season to look into the whole of his dodgy behaviour.

To me, he has damaged the RF worldwide far more than H&M. Because it highlights the fact that the RF will do anything and pay anything to cover up possible sexual crimes, let alone his financial dodgy dealings.

Mythicalmol · 29/01/2023 13:21

Charles has to play it very carefully - just remember how much Andrew knows about him and what he has got up to in the shadows. He can’t afford Andrew to write his own ‘Spare’ as he could tell some very juicy stories. It is a bit like when Bojo couldn’t see off some of his ministers because they knew where the bodies were buried 😂

vera99 · 29/01/2023 13:44

Mythicalmol · 29/01/2023 13:21

Charles has to play it very carefully - just remember how much Andrew knows about him and what he has got up to in the shadows. He can’t afford Andrew to write his own ‘Spare’ as he could tell some very juicy stories. It is a bit like when Bojo couldn’t see off some of his ministers because they knew where the bodies were buried 😂

Andrew would be a pariah out in the wild for the rest of his naturals he won't go rogue. He will after a brief hiatus keep his head down and end up partying with royal mates probably discretely in say the Gulf States, with a touch of falconry chucked in for good measure. Women will be provided no doubt along with private jets and a discrete backdoor to the King. He will be grateful for these regal handouts.

www.ndtv.com/world-news/prince-andrew-makes-secret-visit-to-bahrain-with-a-mission-report-3539316

Puzzledandpissedoff · 29/01/2023 15:06

Charles has to play it very carefully - just remember how much Andrew knows about him and what he has got up to in the shadows. He can’t afford Andrew to write his own ‘Spare’ as he could tell some very juicy stories

I've been saying the same for years
Obviously I'm not aware of what Andrew knows or doesn't, but as you suggest I very much doubt Charles could afford for his brother to write a tell-all of his own

For someone who'd gladly get rid of the whole lot it's actually quite entertaining to watch them all damaging each other - all grist to the mill as they say