100 emails between Andrew and Epstein disproving dates

[Itcantbetrue]

So apparently this will make the mandleson debacle look like chicken feed.

I don't think this is specifically a monarchy issue though.

I think we (UK) need to deal with our own (increasingly urgent) royal issues first.

Monarchy has been hard sold to us, the paying dupes for decades if not centuries as a model of duty, country, family, and the rest. I think we now need to take a narrower perspective in our own interests if we're really expected to preserve this outdated model with any credibility.

A is demonstrably a sleazy buffoon and global laughing stock. Pointing elsewhere (and I absolutely don't doubt the involvement of top level co-conspirators and would love to see them taken to task) dilutes his and just his impact on the monarchy's credibility.

I agree that there needs, as far as is possible for someone who technically hasn't been found guilty of anything, to be sanctions for Andrew. I would like to see him removed from the roll of Garter knights, if that's possible. His title should go as well and he should stay out of public family occasions. I don't think he can legally be removed from his house which is frustrating.

Talking a wider view, I defjnitely think that there needs to be reforms of some aspects of the monarchy, particularly in areas of financial transparency. But at thread moment I still find constitutional monarchy to be a stable system and I'm certainly not going to vote to remove it as at the moment i see that as a leap in the dark.

But more widely let's get rid the droit de seigneur, whether the seigneur is royal, aristocratic, famous or simply rich. The focus is on headlines like Andrew but the rot runs deep.

I wouldn't have thought so in the 21st Century. I believe that it mostly died with the late Queen, and about time too. If she hasn't reigned for so long I think the over deference would have gone a decade ago.

Yes, you’re right. William knows he’s got to make changes/watch the optics.

This is all very, very odd. Surely in school he had 24 hour police protection. How on earth was someone allowed that level of access to the 8 year old child of the Monarch? It all becomes very murky when you think of the sheer number of paedophiles and suspected paedophiles who have been close to the RF. Mountbatten had an obsession with both Prince Philip and Charles. Im not saying they were involved but I wonder if it was normalised, so they didnt see anything untoward about what these people were doing. Staff can only report and advise the Royals. If they ignore the advice theres nothing else they can do.

Look at what happened to Charles Spencer at prep school too.

Yes true, but at the time he was just another kid of an Aristo. His mother had a left the family by then I think and their father had custody of 4 kids. I doubt he did that much checking on what was happening at boarding school. Andrew, I would have thought would have had far more protection and attention on him.

Unfortunately, in the 60s/70s there was a view sex - even underage - would ‘make a man’ of the boy & all a bit of fun. It’s obviously highly damaging & can lead to sex addiction/disorders IMO. If we believe only half of the Lownie book Andrew sexually insatiable. Early exposure/abuse doesn’t excuse but may explain some of his behaviour in this regard.

A well written article in my opinion apart from saying W&K's new abode is modest! I hardly think so....

King Charles now has a decision to make as to how far he can allow his brother’s past behaviour to tarnish the family’s image. That image is the essence of royalty. Monarchy has no other authentication

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/16/prince-andrew-abuse-claims-new-low-royal-family

I can't speak to what happened to Andrew specifically but I do know that many many boys at boarding schools in that era had similar experiences. Abusive behaviour and a tradition of introducing boys to sex using professionals was a pattern in certain circles of society, not an aberration.

Maybe Andrew had security in general rather than an individual shadowing him?

I see Andrew’s name has come up in the Chinese spy scandal. He was in China in his role as trade envoy at the same time as the 2 alleged spies meeting officials. I only briefly heard on times radio will try and find the article.

Here we go. It doesn’t look like PA is implicated in the spying allegations but the optics are not great.
Prince Andrew met key communist official in China spy case

https://www.thetimes.com/article/9d2d0ceb-cef9-4052-bc6d-b3e2dd20cdb0?shareToken=8a76dce4247f31598e81aadee6d9e127

This is very true re: ‘using professionals’, & some in ‘security’ may not have actively discouraged. They may even have done the opposite. It was 1971 approximately.

It’s comparatively modest

Yes this is what I was wondering. Whether at the time it was just something that was done to ' make a man' or some rubbish. It was just so normalised that they didnt see it as harmful in those circles. They certainly wouldn't have seen prostitutes as worth any kind of consideration. Andrew basically tried to use ' she was a slut' as a defence in his case against Guiffre and was forced to apologise as part of the settlement.

Compared to Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace I suppose you could say that. Only 300 acres of land too!

It's a forever home until they decide to move again!

Just read The Guardian article. A lot of words but not really saying anything new. It occurred to me though that one problem with articles like that is they concentrate on the here and now rather than looking long term. They mention times in the past when the monarchy was less popular but don't join the dots to realise that popularity rises and falls and the monarchy knows that. They plan long term whereas those who wish to remove them don't seem to have the same patience. Lots of sound and fury about a Republic but no concrete, well thought out plan is being consistently presented to the public so it's hard to gain traction.

With that in mind it's silly to expect William to release his children from all expectations when the likelihood is that George at least will succeed and needs to be prepared. I see the Forest Lodge plan as a hopeful indication that William really will downsize a few things in the way Charles spoke about but hasn't done. But time will tell.

Well... it's been about 30 years probably that the word downsizing was mentioned by Charles. It won't happen.

It occurred to me though that one problem with articles like that is they concentrate on the here and now rather than looking long term.

Yes @MrsLeonFarrell I think people forget that a monarchy timeline is very different to a celebrity timeline.

The story that makes me believe it won't happen was that I read, I think in The Times, that Charles wanted a much slimmed down Coronation but the Government wanted spectacle. That may not be true of course but if it is i can see Charles struggling to hold his own against entitled family or the courtiers who want to hold onto their own prestige. I can see Charles giving way in that situation but I suspect it would be harder to sway William.

That's interesting. The trouble is... no government will want to challenge anything about the Monarchy. Because any government clings onto power and talking about the Royals is a political hot potato that would effect their base. So nothing happens. Nothing changes. We are steeped in its history and it just rolls on as before.

Not weak people, evil people. I agree on this. Also, this has got twisted into a Protocols of the Elders of Zion - style anti Semitic conspiracy, which is horribly wrong- but it IS possible that Epstein was working for Mossad.

While I hate Netanyahu I support Israel's existence strongly. But I DO think that this whole terrible situation should make us demand some answers about Epstein, The royals & Mossad. If they were effectively encouraging the rape of teenage girls to compromise people, they the question is, who ultimately ordered that?

If Epstein was not Mossad, I wonder what he WAS. Where did he get his money & influence from?

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/if-youre-listening/was-jeffrey-epstein-a-mossad-agent/105591934

Mr Lownie I think has more info he wasn't able to get in about Andrew. He says a new edition may be able to include it, I think it concerned foreign countries at least partly.

But that young? Prince Philip's uncle & aunt George & Nada (George was Mountbatten's brither) sent their son to a brothel at 17 to lose his virginity (tbf they were an odd couple who collected pornography).

But Andrew was 11, not 17. He wasn't even a teenager. Had he even started puberty? 😢

Surely the Queen & Prince Philip's didn't think that was OK?

Honestly at this point I doubt nearly everything we were told to believe about the royals.

Tbf his parents didn't know about that & surely wouldn't have condoned it.