Thoughts on Beatrice & Eugenie re the Epstein scandal?

[TheRealGossipGirl]

For a long time, I felt sorry for Beatrice and Eugenie. I thought they were just caught up in their parents’ mess, paying the price for Andrew and Sarah’s awful judgement. Poor girls, wrong family, wrong parents, etc.

But new reports have really shifted that for me. Leaked emails suggest Sarah Ferguson was “the first to celebrate” Jeffrey Epstein’s release from prison, and apparently did so with both daughters in tow. At the time, Beatrice was around 20 and Eugenie 19 - not children. Fully grown young adults.

And this wasn’t before everything came out. Epstein had already been to prison by then. They would have known who he was, why he was jailed, and what sort of man he was. He wasn’t some vague family friend with rumours - he was a convicted sex offender. Many of his victims were the same age as them.

I’m finding it hard to buy the idea that they were completely clueless or had no understanding of what was going on. Yes, parental pressure is real, and Fergie’s judgement is notoriously dreadful - but at 19 and 20, you’re old enough to know that celebrating a paedophile’s release is deeply wrong.

So are they really as innocent as they’re often portrayed?

I take your word for it about the laughter footage, which I cannot find. A social nicety laugh, I imagine.

I didn't say William and Catherine had trained their children to hug strangers. I said that I expect they have been trained not to accept hugs if they don't want them. A person doggedly present at every public royal event is not a stalker. A stalker would be waiting outside Anmer Hall, Forest Lodge and Lambrook School every day. No, it's not normal, because those children have abnormal lives. Fortunately, they have parents applying intelligent thought to how to raise them under their particular circumstances.

Ah, that is a little different than I thought was being claimed. It is Epstein that claimed she was the first to celebrate his release, there is in fact no evidence of this released anywhere.

She still has the connection, and was happy to use him for her own ends and be friendly after his release and this is not good.

But the OPs claim that Sarah celebrated is a dubious one from the media to phrase it like that. The claim "and apparently did so with both daughters in tow" is entirely invented as far as I can tell.

Found it! Not that it matters but it was bugging me!

From Wikipedia;

A small fire in the bathroom at Dolphin House in 2008 led her to vacate the property and move into Royal Lodge with her former husband. In 2015, Ferguson was reported to have moved out of Royal Lodge and taken up residence in Verbier, Switzerland, where she and Andrew owned a £13 million chalet.

Perhaps. But it is then strange that none of them are denying it. If someone was writing that about me I'd be shouting about it not being true as loudly as I could. Or getting my very expensive lawyers on the case for a retraction, apology and compensation. Shouldn't be that hard to do, particularly as Epstein isn't here anymore to dispute their version.

So their silence is rather odd. In my opinion.

Who paid for the mansions though? There’s a lot of evidence that for decades the money that Andrew and Sarah have grifted/obtained through corruption has been funnelled away in B and E’s names. There’s less evidence that the husbands, whilst from
families that you or I would consider very wealthy, earn or come from the sort of money that sustains a burning through millions every year lifestyle.

according to Google Beatrices husbands company runs / manages /owns a 700 million property portfolio
Eugenies husband's company account show a profit of some 500K last year with cash reserves of 700k so not really in the same ball park but definitely not scrapping along

Not defending Andrew here, but didn’t Lownie say that he was sexually molested at boarding school at the age of 8? So, if that’s true nobody stepped in to protect him either, did they? This doesn’t excuse anything he’s done btw but it does cast the Royal Family in an even worse light.

according to Google Beatrices husbands company runs / manages /owns a 700 million property portfolio

The accounts (filed under small business exemptions) say otherwise.

And if that's really the case I wonder then why she's so hell bent on schmoozing in the Middle East.

In the files Sofia is mentioned as ‘soon to be Princess Sofia’ so her contact with him dates from before her marriage.

It’s not known when or how Mette-Marit met Epstein but judging from the emails she was happy to hang out and even flirt with him so she was not forced into contact with him. Her husband and kids holidayed with the Gates family in 2013 so she seems to have been a happy participant in the scene.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2013080513944/norwegian-royals-holiday-bill-gates/

We should really set the Royal Family free and replace them with a nominated constitutional head

They're not chained to radiators in the labyrinthine palaces. Nothing stops any or all walking away any time they choose (see Harold).

The fact they mainly don't tells us all we need to know about the costs v. benefits of the lifestyle.

If thats true it might explain why the inner RF have kept B and E in the fold, having witnessed what they endured from their parents as youngsters.

But they are adults now and have the power and agency to make better choices. Its staggering that Beatrice attended THAT interview, witnessed all the lies and yet somehow knew nothing of what was coming and was playing doting daddy/grandpa with him last week!

Not defending Andrew here, but didn’t Lownie say that he was sexually molested at boarding school at the age of 8? So, if that’s true nobody stepped in to protect him either, did they? This doesn’t excuse anything he’s done btw but it does cast the Royal Family in an even worse light.

This is actually something that puts me off Lownie a bit.

Nobody has the right to publicise someone else's sexual assault or abuse. Victims have the lifelong right to anonymity and nobody has the right to out them or their history publicly.

Not even someone as awful as AMW.

I think Harry knew about Uncle Andrew.

She went to visit them in Royal Lodge after the first batch of files were released despite knowing the place was crawling with press at the time, who would and did capture a photo of her supportive visit.

SF clearly knew far too much and the RF have let her stay to keep the peace and QE2 paid off her debts to protect her favourite DS.

He did used to be very close to Eugenie but you never see anything about them being together now.

I saw a clip on the news of Edward being asked about this and he said how sorry he feels for the victims. All the victims. I was thinking please don't be including your brother in that tally.

I very much agree that the royal family including the direct heir and his family are struggling for relevance. They have to sort their shit out in this year, which includes the weird pandering to those few nutters on the Christmas walk who shout the children’s names and shove presents at them.

Wouldn’t that make the fact when he and Meghan told the story about her meeting the Queen for the first time it was when they were going to lunch at Royal Lodge with the Yorks mean he was as complicit as the rest in ignoring the behaviour? Rather than any “he left because he was disgusted” type scenario that seems to oft get suggested.

Lownie said he agonised back and forth about whether to put that detail in, and did so in the end because he felt it was fair to do so, inasmuch as it provided, not an excuse for AMW’s later sexual wrongdoings, but a context in which they occurred. And if he had not included it, and it was uncovered later, he would have been accused of not being fair anyway.

Also, it was one out of perhaps three facts in the entire book that elicited any sympathy for its subject, so in the interests of balance, it was important that it was included.

Lownie said he agonised back and forth about whether to put that detail in, and did so in the end because he felt it was fair to do so, inasmuch as it provided, not an excuse for AMW’s later sexual wrongdoings, but a context in which they occurred. And if he had not included it, and it was uncovered later, he would have been accused of not being fair anyway.

Also, it was one out of perhaps three facts in the entire book that elicited any sympathy for its subject, so in the interests of balance, it was important that it was included.

I just completely disagree he had any right to include it.

You never have the right to put someone's sexual abuse in a book like that. He's not a prosecutor presenting evidence and facts to a court or in a situation where it is necessary to announce your belief about such an incident or incidents. He's a writer writing a book to make money and there is no excuse to announce that a named person was, as a child, the victim of sexual assault.

There are no circumstances in which it would be acceptable for Lownie to announce that a female royal had been raped or sexually assaulted in a book without their consent, it's not different for a male royal who was sexually abused as a child.

AMW has abominable behaviour standards, but that doesn't make outing sexual abuse against him as a child ok imo.

Hear hear, I think it’s despicable he is making money from writing about Andrew’s abuse as a child, it’s indefensible.

I also agree with you and @JustAnotherWhinger .

Well, to be fair, there are thousands of other facts in the book too, it was mentioned very discreetly and was certainly not the sole focus of the book,

Oh that’s alright then 🙄 just fine and dandy to announce someone’s sexual abuse as a child, for money, so long as it wasn’t the sole focus of the book.

I don't think that either of B or E's husbands are 'that' wealthy. Certainly not wealthy enough to keep them in a RF adjacent lifestyle without some serious cash/property coming from elsewhere.

I remember when it used to be reported how many holidays they had a year whilst apparently maintaining jobs. I only wish I had a job like that in my 20's with limitless annual leave.

The RF need to rip the plaster off and get ahead of the news - release all the files regarding Andrew when he was trade envoy. And details of all grace and favour properties.

The only way I think the RF will survive is on a much reduced level in terms of size/titles/perceived wealth. So Balmoral etc should be handed over to the state and all the dodgy jewels/art that I am sure are lurking around the royal properties.

I actually think William and Catherine would prefer a much lower key style of royalty. I mean they are still going to be obscenely wealthy . . .