Page 22 | Fergie Epstein email

elprup · 2025-09-21T07:48:48+00:00

Yet more damaging revelations for the Yorks. How did the Daily Mail manage to get hold of the email I wonder? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15118055/Fergie-Epstein-lies-exposed-bombshell-email-Andrew.html

jumpingthehighjump · 29/09/2025 15:00

Alicealig · 29/09/2025 14:20

I do have sympathy fir Andrew, he hasn't committed a crime himself. He's been dragged over the coals for literally knowing someone who committed a crime, by the cancel culture gang. It's simply the fact people don't like other people who've got more than they have and they'll use anything to see them with nothing.

You are having a laugh

Who are the cancel culture gang? Are they people who think it is wrong for a member of the royal family to have sex with a trafficked vulnerable girl?

Of course he has not got a criminal record but he did pay off millions to someone who he supposedly had never met

Do you honestly honestly think people are disgusted by him because they are jealous of the fact is supposedly rich?

I am sure Andrew will be very pleased with your support on here, because you are the first person to give it

Inotherwordspleasebetrue · 29/09/2025 15:11

Alicealig · 29/09/2025 14:20

I do have sympathy fir Andrew, he hasn't committed a crime himself. He's been dragged over the coals for literally knowing someone who committed a crime, by the cancel culture gang. It's simply the fact people don't like other people who've got more than they have and they'll use anything to see them with nothing.

Trafficked girls can’t consent!
What about his alleged financial crimes while acting as trade envoy for the. UK? Corruption is illegal.

deeahgwitch · 29/09/2025 15:26

I was at the hairdressers the other day and was flicking through the September 2025 issue of Woman and Home and, lo and behold there was an article about Sarah Ferguson titled “Fergie The Comeback Queen”.
Not anymore !!!
(The September issue is sold in August)

Merrymouse · 29/09/2025 15:30

deeahgwitch · 29/09/2025 15:26

I was at the hairdressers the other day and was flicking through the September 2025 issue of Woman and Home and, lo and behold there was an article about Sarah Ferguson titled “Fergie The Comeback Queen”.
Not anymore !!!
(The September issue is sold in August)

The thing is Royal stories do sell, so I wouldn't bet on this being the last we hear of her. The Times seemed to feature her about once a month before this latest scandal.

If you are a Royal who can't make a go of things with the family, 'monetise ongoing toxic relationship with then press' is still a possibility.

MrsLeonFarrell · 29/09/2025 16:27

I know several families who have had to deal with the realisation that one of their members has done something similar to Andrew. They have all struggled to accept that knowledge and to find a way forward as a family. Some cut the person off, some didn't. I believe that the late Queen should have acted far more decisively and far more quickly to ensure that Andrew was not linked to the family in public. I used to believe that him attending church with the family was fine but that was before he took every opportunity to push himself front and centre.

The type of crime he is accused of, more than any other crime, carries lifelong consequences in terms of reputation and future employment,for anyone let alone a royal. I find his refusal to abate his arrogance and entitlement unbelievable. He can't behave appropriately so needs to be restricted to side doors from now on.

Mind you if only the wealthy and powerful were made to face the consequences of their actions he and many others would not be able to attempt to carry on as usual.

Inotherwordspleasebetrue · 29/09/2025 17:24

MrsLeonFarrell · 29/09/2025 16:27

I know several families who have had to deal with the realisation that one of their members has done something similar to Andrew. They have all struggled to accept that knowledge and to find a way forward as a family. Some cut the person off, some didn't. I believe that the late Queen should have acted far more decisively and far more quickly to ensure that Andrew was not linked to the family in public. I used to believe that him attending church with the family was fine but that was before he took every opportunity to push himself front and centre.

The type of crime he is accused of, more than any other crime, carries lifelong consequences in terms of reputation and future employment,for anyone let alone a royal. I find his refusal to abate his arrogance and entitlement unbelievable. He can't behave appropriately so needs to be restricted to side doors from now on.

Mind you if only the wealthy and powerful were made to face the consequences of their actions he and many others would not be able to attempt to carry on as usual.

Completely agree MrsLeonFarrell

Very well said. 👏

He can’t be trusted to behave with humility or with any acknowledgment that he has erred badly; he still pushes himself forward with that pompously furrowed brow as though everyone else is at fault! Therefore he has to forego any chance that Charles has given him to live behind the scenes in a quiet way.

justasking111 · 29/09/2025 18:09

We've seen the names of some on the flight lists. From around the world. We've read of allegations of crimes . Not one country, one government has the will to extradite, interview one of them. No-one wants to unearth that truth. It's only use that I can see is leverage. Which would be lost if everyone knew the truth.

Whatacircus · 29/09/2025 18:46

Charlie is being careful as to how far he should go in dealing with Andrew.
There is a possibility if Andrew is completely buried questions may be asked his own behaviour. Why in 1995 as a 44 year old man did Charles support Peter Ball who had received a police caution for child sexual offences in 1993. Charlie wrote 'i feel desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated ' Charlie bought a house which Ball and his brother rented. Yet despite all his security he claims to have known nothing until 'maybe 2009'. His version of events has more holes than a sieve. Then of course there is Mountbatten.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 29/09/2025 19:11

Charlie is being careful as to how far he should go in dealing with Andrew.
There is a possibility if Andrew is completely buried questions may be asked his own behaviour

Very likely, @Whatacircus, and with good reason

There's a lot said about Andrew visiting the middle east, but even a brief glance at a list of Charles's foreign visits shows there's hardly been a year since 1999 when he's not done the same - though interestingly it was as if he'd hardly heard of the area prior to then

Of course these nations have a lot of money to spend and doubtless it'll be said that they support his charities, but I wouldn't want to assume that this is where it stops - and especially not when his henchman was caught flogging citizenship and honours, which predictably Charles denied knowing anything about

jumpingthehighjump · 29/09/2025 19:54

Whatacircus · 29/09/2025 18:46

Charlie is being careful as to how far he should go in dealing with Andrew.
There is a possibility if Andrew is completely buried questions may be asked his own behaviour. Why in 1995 as a 44 year old man did Charles support Peter Ball who had received a police caution for child sexual offences in 1993. Charlie wrote 'i feel desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated ' Charlie bought a house which Ball and his brother rented. Yet despite all his security he claims to have known nothing until 'maybe 2009'. His version of events has more holes than a sieve. Then of course there is Mountbatten.

You ought to read the Lownie book on the Mountbatten's

Seriously they were the Yorks of their time but more in a sexual way than a financial way. They were totally debauched but, given he was shipped off with a lot of money per year, they didn't embarrass themselves financially. She had 17 lovers on the go at one point 😮

jumpingthehighjump · 29/09/2025 19:58

Puzzledandpissedoff · 29/09/2025 19:11

Charlie is being careful as to how far he should go in dealing with Andrew.
There is a possibility if Andrew is completely buried questions may be asked his own behaviour

Very likely, @Whatacircus, and with good reason

There's a lot said about Andrew visiting the middle east, but even a brief glance at a list of Charles's foreign visits shows there's hardly been a year since 1999 when he's not done the same - though interestingly it was as if he'd hardly heard of the area prior to then

Of course these nations have a lot of money to spend and doubtless it'll be said that they support his charities, but I wouldn't want to assume that this is where it stops - and especially not when his henchman was caught flogging citizenship and honours, which predictably Charles denied knowing anything about

Well yes, his sidekick Fawcett the Fence who was sacked multiple times but just coming back cash for honours etc

Puzzledandpissedoff · 29/09/2025 20:08

jumpingthehighjump · 29/09/2025 19:58

Well yes, his sidekick Fawcett the Fence who was sacked multiple times but just coming back cash for honours etc

Show quote history

Remembering that Charles said "I can do without anyone except Michael" I sometimes wonder if they're still involved ...

jumpingthehighjump · 29/09/2025 20:13

Me too

CathyorClaire · 29/09/2025 20:53

I do have sympathy fir Andrew, he hasn't committed a crime himself

Gotta wonder then why he or someone he knew paid a reported £12m to someone he'd never met.

CarpeVitam · 29/09/2025 21:00

MrsLeonFarrell · 29/09/2025 16:27

I know several families who have had to deal with the realisation that one of their members has done something similar to Andrew. They have all struggled to accept that knowledge and to find a way forward as a family. Some cut the person off, some didn't. I believe that the late Queen should have acted far more decisively and far more quickly to ensure that Andrew was not linked to the family in public. I used to believe that him attending church with the family was fine but that was before he took every opportunity to push himself front and centre.

The type of crime he is accused of, more than any other crime, carries lifelong consequences in terms of reputation and future employment,for anyone let alone a royal. I find his refusal to abate his arrogance and entitlement unbelievable. He can't behave appropriately so needs to be restricted to side doors from now on.

Mind you if only the wealthy and powerful were made to face the consequences of their actions he and many others would not be able to attempt to carry on as usual.

@MrsLeonFarrell

Very well articulated!

CathyorClaire · 29/09/2025 21:01

He can't behave appropriately so needs to be restricted to side doors from now on.

His lack of decorum and consideration of the wider royal good have been noted by some of us for years despite some ridiculous excuses posited.

Just sayin' 😎

CathyorClaire · 29/09/2025 21:05

jumpingthehighjump · 29/09/2025 19:58

Well yes, his sidekick Fawcett the Fence who was sacked multiple times but just coming back cash for honours etc

Show quote history

Rubber sword Mick...

MrsLeonFarrell · 29/09/2025 21:25

CathyorClaire · 29/09/2025 21:01

He can't behave appropriately so needs to be restricted to side doors from now on.

His lack of decorum and consideration of the wider royal good have been noted by some of us for years despite some ridiculous excuses posited.

Just sayin' 😎

@CathyorClaire yes and I fully admit I used to think that him attending church with the family was fine. But I've changed my mind on that.

BemusedAmerican · 29/09/2025 23:36

Or you could always hope for an Act of God during a church visit. 😁

Inotherwordspleasebetrue · 30/09/2025 03:44

jumpingthehighjump · 28/09/2025 05:31

More docs released by House Oversight Committee.

One heavily redacted ledger records two references of payments for massages for an "Andrew" in February and May 2000.

While Palace records, photographs and press reports from the time indicate Prince Andrew had travelled to the US around the time of the dates recorded in the newly released document, it is not clear who the "Andrew" referred to in the ledger is.

On 11 May 2000, Buckingham Palace said on its website that Prince Andrew had flown to New York to attend a reception there for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Andrew returned to the UK on 15 May, a later entry said.

The name Andrew
Dates fit
He travels to NY

How revolting to think he is in NY to attend a reception for the NSPCC , Prevention of Cruelty to Children whilst getting massages from trafficked girls, possibly underage. Too much of a coincidence not be him

My God. Horrifying. You couldn’t make it up.

NewAgeNewMe · 30/09/2025 05:13

MrsLeonFarrell · 29/09/2025 21:25

@CathyorClaire yes and I fully admit I used to think that him attending church with the family was fine. But I've changed my mind on that.

Show quote history

Yes I’m beginning to agree.

jumpingthehighjump · 30/09/2025 05:29

Inotherwordspleasebetrue · 30/09/2025 03:44

My God. Horrifying. You couldn’t make it up.

Show quote history

I guessed it was him and of course it was.

The NSPCC speaks out. An article from Telegraph behind a paywall so the link is for access

^NSPCC disavows Prince Andrew after revelation he met Epstein on charity trip.
Duke of York flew on paedophile’s private jet while in US promoting work of child protection group^

https://archive.ph/g26IC

Inotherwordspleasebetrue · 30/09/2025 07:39

jumpingthehighjump · 30/09/2025 05:29

I guessed it was him and of course it was.

The NSPCC speaks out. An article from Telegraph behind a paywall so the link is for access

^NSPCC disavows Prince Andrew after revelation he met Epstein on charity trip.
Duke of York flew on paedophile’s private jet while in US promoting work of child protection group^

https://archive.ph/g26IC

Edited

Show quote history

That’s totally shocking. It’s so blatant,

BadDinner · 30/09/2025 08:13

jumpingthehighjump · 29/09/2025 19:54

You ought to read the Lownie book on the Mountbatten's

Seriously they were the Yorks of their time but more in a sexual way than a financial way. They were totally debauched but, given he was shipped off with a lot of money per year, they didn't embarrass themselves financially. She had 17 lovers on the go at one point 😮

Show quote history

I haven't read any of Lownies' books save the excerpts posted here. So I remain somewhat ignorant.

But what from parts quoted, they seem to have a tone of sensationalism. Those familiar with his work, how reliable a biographer is he? I have a seen a few interviews with him on the House of York book and each one seems to consist of him dropping one horrible shocking fact, after horrible shocking fact.

I don't see balance. Of course perhaps all these powerful people and Royals are just way more odious than I realised.

Still 17 lovers at one time seems...Borgias level extreme. Even for a very sexually liberal woman with privilege, prestige and a certain amount of authority.

jumpingthehighjump · 30/09/2025 08:40

BadDinner · 30/09/2025 08:13

I haven't read any of Lownies' books save the excerpts posted here. So I remain somewhat ignorant.

But what from parts quoted, they seem to have a tone of sensationalism. Those familiar with his work, how reliable a biographer is he? I have a seen a few interviews with him on the House of York book and each one seems to consist of him dropping one horrible shocking fact, after horrible shocking fact.

I don't see balance. Of course perhaps all these powerful people and Royals are just way more odious than I realised.

Still 17 lovers at one time seems...Borgias level extreme. Even for a very sexually liberal woman with privilege, prestige and a certain amount of authority.

Show quote history

I wouldn't call the Mountbatten book sensationalist at all. It is quite heavy going actually and a lot of it cover his rise upwards in his naval career. It is carefully researched given he shows his sources

Ditto the York book. Very many pages at the beginning of the book names all the sources, the people who were happy to be quoted. Again well researched.

I think it comes across as shocking because it was shocking.