Prince Andrew BACK in the royal fold

[tatalan]

How do you feel about this development?

Rousette, you are preaching to the converted 🙂 I don't think anyone can forget the crap he was allowed to get away with for years, not least of all milking that Trade Envoy job for all it was worth, and 'selling' his house to some dodgy Kazak. The breakup with Epstein was so ludicrous it was as laughable as it was unbelievable.

Despite VG being paid off and the civil suit being dropped as a result, I honestly don't know how anyone would support him ever again in a public role.

Pinkmont. He'll never ever be back in any sort of public role. Look at the furore when he walked the Queen up the aisle for PP's memorial service, there was an outcry. (I know you know this, and we are in total agreement! )

He might think he'll be back but he won't. Every time he shows his face people/media/social media start talking again about the car crash interview, the payoff to VG, it just dies down when we don't see him, but never goes away. The Monarchy itself comes before everything... family relationships, brotherly love, even children. So both C & W know he can't come back. Now... as to whether Andrew has accepted it... who knows!

And this was his downfall. Why the hell he needed to be so friendly with JE, god alone knows. He didn't need his friendship, and when questioned on it, he talked of 'the opportunities it afforded him'.

Epstein was clearly an extremely gifted manipulator. Just yesterday the UK’s financial regulator banned the former CEO of Barclays, American banker Jes Staley, from ever holding a position in the UK financial industry again, and have fined him a few million pounds. He’s also losing £18m in bonuses from Barclays.

This is all because Staley considered Epstein as a friend, and continued contact with him up to at least 2015 (long after even Andrew wised up).

The FCA’s was concerned about Staley’s relationship with Epstein when he was about to take on the role of CEO at Barclays, and asked for information about it. Staley approved a letter that claimed he did not have a close relationship with Epstein and had ceased contact with him long before he joined Barclays.

In fact, in emails between the two men, Staley described Epstein as one of his “deepest” and “most cherished” friends. And he was still in contact with him when he approved the letter.

Unlike Andrew, Jes Staley is an independently very wealthy, smart and powerful man. He had no reason to be in Epstein’s thrall, and could certainly have seen that the relationship would be a risk to him. Yet he also didn’t cut him off when Epstein was convicted in 2008. It really is an extraordinary story.

It’s interesting too that by emphasising how even very smart, independently wealthy and wordly men were taken in by Epstein, or accepted him for who he was, it might almost be construed that you are trying to make PA look less culpable Serenster? Or is that an incorrect or unfair assumption?

I’m reporting the news, itstimeforlunch. Take your ludicrous insinuations elsewhere.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/oct/12/ex-barclays-boss-jes-staley-faces-potential-fine-uk-over-jeffrey-epstein-ties

If you say so 😁

To be honest I think PA shows far more stupidity than this Barclays guy.

PA is party to security services, aides, media personnel, private secretaries... he has the full force of advice at his fingertips. But ignored it.

When he travelled to NY for 4 days to break up with Epstein, he was very strongly advised to stay at the Consulate. He ignored the advice.

Yes, Epstein was manipulative but surely that's why members of the RF have access to the very best in the business to advise and help them

No excuses for Andrew.

Sources told the paper that since his initial denials, Andrew now recalls staying at the late pedophile’s pad to “save taxpayers’ money.”

Arse.

I think to be honest, that is the problem with all of the RF. They have the best advisors in the world yet if they don't want to do something or to listen to the advice they just won't do it. Then when it comes back to bite them onnthe hum, the advisor or some courtier or other takes the fall. Inflated sense of their own intelligence after a lifetime of having smoke blown up their assets and no-one telling them they are wrong.

I think any implication that Andrew is just stupid and easily taken in, is itself a little naive. He is wealthy, he is in a powerful family and he had protection from any repercussions for his actions. All of which he is clearly very aware of. He and Jes Staley were both knowingly associating with a convicted child sex offender.
The following does indeed appear to set Andrew apart from Jes Staley, by saying 'unlike him' and 'he had no reason-' suggesting Andrew did:
Unlike Andrew, Jes Staley is an independently very wealthy, smart and powerful man. He had no reason to be in Epstein’s thrall, and could certainly have seen that the relationship would be a risk to him.

I don't think that he is easily taken in by Epstein in the sense of poor Andrew. It's that he knew exactly what he was doing and was too stupid to cover his tracks the way that the other very wealthy and likely influential men did. He provided access to whole world of elite connections to Epstein and others. His arrogance made him a useful idiot to have around.

It always amazes me that it's known that Epstein had so many high profile contacts and friends in high places, but almost all of them seem untouched by the events. It makes me wonder if Andrew is, like pp said, a useful fall guy.

Yes, Lolasmiles. If you are not pondering why it’s the UK FCA that is investigating Staley’s links to and communications with Epstein, but not the SEC or FBI, maybe you should be.

@pinkmont , re 'his connections to the whole sordid affair will never be forgotten though, that is his real sentence', I have wondered for a while what the TV programmes (or equivalent) will say about him in 100 years time.

I imagine Andrew will be largely forgotten in 100 years time! There’s not much coverage now, or interest in George V- the king in 1923’s - siblings even though they were obviously big news in their day. Most people couldn’t even name them now.

Sources told the paper that since his initial denials, Andrew now recalls staying at the late pedophile’s pad to “save taxpayers’ money.”

You've got to laugh ... after all if you didn't you'd cry

Isn't that because there isn't the media like there is now?

People have access to far more than they did back then.

I don’t think so Roussette. There was huge press interest in their lives (and deaths) and scandals around them.

I don't actually agree. News is now instant, we have social media, we have google, we can research and find out more. We have more sources.

Very different to 1923, and 100 years ago!

More sources of news means more dilution now though. There was probably more interest in the Royal Family then than now.

I think Andrew is arrogant and entitled and never once thought that his association with Epstein would cause him any difficulties.

My impression of him is that he is also very greedy and I imagine the lure of a luxury Caribbean island, young attractive women and help for his wife to pay off her debts was a major incentive.

The only reason he has ended up involved in a legal action is because of his own arrogance and stupidity. If he had never done the Emily Maitlis interview I wonder how things would have panned out.

I am also deeply cynical about the lack of prosecution of those in Epstein's black book. I imagine most of those in the US are pretty well protected by their connections and the involvement of others.

Look what happened to the Attorney General of the US Virgin Islands when she brought a case against some of Epstein's associates.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jeffrey-epstein-jp-morgan-us-virgin-islands-lawsuit-b2253153.html

There’s not much coverage now, or interest in George V- the king in 1923’s

I blame George V for the allowing the deaths of his Romanov cousins and their children. The Bolsheviks offered to let them come to England, but George refused for fear of arousing revolutionary feeling in the U.K.
They were massacred. The U.K govt took the blame to shield the King.

Not really relevant... Except maybe "always protect the Monarchy"

I did not know this! Daughter will find this interesting. She has a fascination with the Romanovs since listening to a podcast.

To be fair to George, he wasn't to know that it would end like that and no doubt he felt horrendous guilt afterwards. I don't think there was any indication at the time that they would all be executed as the Bolsheviks hadn't yet seized power.

@feellikeanalien Interesting post. I knew JPM were tied up in this but not to that extent.

Andrew was a fool. He thought he did well in the interview straight after, whilst I remember watching it with my mouth hanging open in total disbelief. And his Comms Director or PR top person resigned when Andrew wouldn't listen to him saying not to do the interview.
He deserves the shame now. And how it must rankle that he was singled out for this. It must've been pretty obvious to everyone what a naive and stupid man he was...easy pickings. Others would've taken advice. He didn't.

Yes, Lolasmiles. If you are not pondering why it’s the UK FCA that is investigating Staley’s links to and communications with Epstein, but not the SEC or FBI, maybe you should be.
Exactly this. It's an area I feel more ignorant about than I'd like because there's definitely some big questions and I find it unbelievable that Andrew is the only one they can pin anything on.

I have wondered for a while what the TV programmes (or equivalent) will say about him in 100 years time.

I hope the analysis is that the Epstein scandal was one of the major turning points in the public's perception of the monarchy leading to its eventual abolition.