Jeffrey Epstein used Prince Andrew to lure even more girls & women to his home

Duke of York Pitch@Palace event

I have a feeling that the Duke of York’s years-long connection to Jeffrey Epstein will play out in the media much the same way Prince William’s alleged affair with Rose Hanbury played out in the British media. Which is to say, the British media will largely ignore the giant, smelly elephant in the room – all while continuing to attack the Duchess of Sussex for breathing – and the story will live on social media and partly through the American media. To be fair, I think the American media will do a much better job of reporting on Prince Andrew’s connection to Epstein than they did with the Rose Hanbury situation, but that’s because they’re very different scandals. Epstein is due in court on Monday for a bail hearing, and we continue to learn more about his years-long association and friendship with the Duke of York. The Daily Beast’s Tom Sykes had a lengthy (paywalled) story about why the two gross losers came together, and how Epstein basically used Andrew to lure young girls to his home, and then… well, you get it. You can read the full story here. Some highlights:

Why Andrew & Epstein first got together: Epstein was able to loan Andrew the jet-set lifestyle he always craved. It is a matter of pubic record that Andrew holidayed with Epstein in Thailand and St. Tropez. It was also on Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands where alleged underage sex slave Virginia Roberts claims that she was passed around men, including Prince Andrew, for sex. Prince Andrew’s ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson the Duchess of York, also benefited form Epstein’s largesse, accepting £15,000 from Epstein in 2010, when he was already a convicted pedophile on the sex offender’s register.

It went beyond money though: Sources tell The Daily Beast that Andrew and Epstein also shared an insatiable appetite for young women. Sources tell The Daily Beast that when Andrew was visiting New York in the late 90s and early 00s, he was a frequent guest at Epstein’s massive Upper East Side home. Epstein would host drinks or dinner parties at which Andrew was feted as a guest of honor, and used to draw in a crowd of young society women, usually in their 20s, via his former girlfriend and alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, who was closely connected to New York City’s and London’s more glamorous sets.

One guest remembers, Part 1: “Everyone in New York had heard the rumors that Ghislaine’s job was to provide a stream of pretty women for Epstein. However, we were under the impression that this was about 20-something girls, not 12-year-olds. Ghislaine’s role, it was therefore understood, was about improving his social life and social standing and making sure there was a parade of hot young women at his house all the time. My girlfriend and I had been invited a few times before and not gone, but when Ghislaine said Prince Andrew was coming, we thought, ‘Why not?’, and we accepted an invitation to dinner. Andrew was divorced by this time and pretending to be a global trade ambassador, and Epstein was this famously creepy, wildly rich and rather mysterious financier, so it was kind of an appealing invite.”

The same guest remembers, Part 2: “It was quite an intimate dinner; there were maybe 16 of us, in his house that took up a quarter of a whole block on the Upper East Side. Epstein and Andrew were not there to begin with, and then the doors were flung open and they made their entrance. They were both charmless, they looked like bored people who wanted to be entertained. Ghislaine I actually liked. She ran around, making sure everyone was OK like a super hostess. She was gossipy, a little bit inappropriate, a social provocateur, but good fun. Epstein was clearly confident in Andrew’s presence, and was trading off him, basking in the reflected glory of having a prince at his table. He very obviously was not sucking up to him, and showing off by calling him Andy. ‘Hey Andy, did you see this….’ He wanted to show how comfortable he was in his presence, and make clear that while he was a guest of honor, he was a regular, routine and repeat guest. Epstein, Andrew and Ghislaine were a trio, a little coterie, a party within the party, the insiders among the other guests. The story was that Ghislaine did all this for Epstein because he was a father figure to her after her father dies in mysterious circumstances, and also because when she stopped being his girlfriend, he put her on the payroll. She was his meal ticket and sugar daddy.”

[From The Daily Beast]

That’s not all – once Andrew got to know Ghislaine Maxwell, he used her to “procure” young women for him in London, without Epstein around. Andrew would contact Maxwell, and she would call up her contacts and find pretty young things and take them over to Buckingham Palace. The Daily Beast also spoke to someone from one of those evenings:

One then-friend of Ghislaine recalls being invited to an intimate dinner for four at Buckingham Palace comprising Andrew, our source, Ghislaine and another woman who was also a friend of our source. “My car drove in the front gates of Buckingham Palace, stopped round the back and I was escorted up to his apartment. Ghislaine was there, and it was clear immediately that I had been brought to the dinner as a sex object. Andrew sat next to me on the sofa and kept reaching over to hold my hand. I said as a joke, ‘I’d love to go on a tour of this place’ and next thing I knew, I was walking hand in hand with Prince Andrew through Buckingham Palace. As a joke, he took me out on the balcony and I waved to the non-existent crowd. We went back to the apartment and he was like, ‘OK, let’s all go to a club,’ and I said, ‘Er, look, I have to go to work in the morning’ and left with my friend. Ghislaine procured women like me for Andrew. It was a network. She was on the party circuit and she was bringing Andrew around, meeting young women.”

[From The Daily Beast]

Was Ghislaine a madam? Or was it something else, which seems to be what the New York source makes it seem like – Ghislaine dated Epstein, she got too old for him, but they were still close so she helped procure women and girls for him. To be completely clear – these sources make it sound like both Epstein and the Duke of York just had a taste for women in their early ‘20s. Which makes them gross and pathetic, but that’s not criminal behavior. It’s entirely different when we’re talking about 14-year-olds or 15-year-olds. Which… also happened, people just aren’t talking about that so much with regards to the Duke of York.

This is Epstein and Ghislaine in 2005:

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red, Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

138 Responses to “Jeffrey Epstein used Prince Andrew to lure even more girls & women to his home”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. A random commenter says:

    Fingers crossed his involvement doesn’t get swept under the rug. I’m hopeful he’ll be arrested but I would also love to see him stripped of his HRH and place in succession since thats so precious to him.

    • otaku fairy... says:


    • Millenial says:

      YES. Charles please come through.

      • Gerard Kennelly 1986 says:

        oh yeah Charles who was friends with Jimmy Savile and the Dunblane shooter

      • Tina says:

        What rot. Half of British entertainment was friendly with Jimmy Savile, and Charles most certainly was not friends with the Dunblane shooter.

    • Char says:

      They are going to bury it under hundreds of news of Meghan being a horrible person.

      • Spritzness says:

        I don’t understand this conspiracy theory when they’ve actually been attempting to bury it under endless stories about BFFs Meghan and Kate and the adorable kids going to events AND ALSO movie premiere AND ALSO look!! tennis!! and so on.

    • Megan says:

      A pedophile prince is definitely a bad look for the BRF.

      • Spritzness says:

        They’re deflecting so much and so obviously I’m almost wondering if someone else in the BRF is involved too.

    • C says:

      The media will attack Meghan….again. I bet there will be something negative after she goes to Wimbledon with Kate.

      • SparkinggFlint says:

        They’ll both get positive and negative stories, as usual .

      • Sally says:

        You are so right!! ex. How DARE that woman breathe the same air as precious Kate. I can just see it now. hahaha I like both women, but the media are so mean to Meghan.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Elizabeth controls whether Andrew loses the HRH title, and she’s not likely to do that, as it would imply that she thinks the allegations are true. And I’m sure she and Andrew will go to their graves denying it.

      So what if he’s convicted, can she and Andrew still deny it? Yes, because he will never be convicted. The Queen will give him sovereign immunity. She can say he was in (whatever country the crimes happened in) doing official duties as her representative, and Andrew won’t be prosecuted.

      Nothing will come of this, folks. That’s just the price of having a monarchy.

      • A random commenter says:

        Elizabeth won’t be around forever, and Charles doesn’t seem to have any great love or affection for Andrew. If she doesn’t do it, maybe he will. Add to that, in the current age, allowing someone to keep titles and making people bow and call them “highness” when they are rapers of children is not a good look.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        @ random — Yes, it looks really bad. But stripping Andrew of his title is the same as admitting the rumors are true, which looks even worse. So I think the royal family will deny it until the cows come home, and after new, cute, royal babies are born, the public will forget all about it.

    • Alex Schuster says:

      A bit of noise but NOTHING will happen to the untouchables. Everything is just manufactured when it comes to the law and the super wealthy.

    • Marjiscott says:

      HM The Queen already made sure That Would Nevah Happen some years ago. Andrew has been made legally untouchable some years ago. Yeah, they’ve always known.Charles won’t cover for him.

  2. Lulu says:

    “Pretending to be a global trade ambassador”
    Lol, the shade.

    But seriously, anyone who’s been paying the tiniest bit of attention knows that Andrew is a revolting scumbag who deserves to go down for this.

    • Monicack says:

      The article literally says “it was a matter of pubic record”. Even thpos throw shade. Day made.

    • sunny says:

      Chef’s kiss to that trade ambassador line. Andrew has been scummy for years but I doubt anything will come of this save to keep him more on a leash.

      This who;e story is horrifying

    • Trashaddict says:

      He’s “a lure”? Sort of akin to fly fishing perhaps? Where one uses a grub or a worm?

  3. Becks1 says:

    Buckingham Palace? yikes.

    I think these stories are being very careful. This makes Andrew sound like a huge #metoo issue, but it doesn’t come out and say that he was doing anything wrong or illegal. But I have a feeling this is just laying the groundwork and more details are coming.

  4. Seraphina says:

    I don’t know a great deal in regards to the RF but I can now see why Charles wants to streamline the BRF. Why would you want THIS representing you. And I fear he will be protected because not only does he have money but he has the Royal titles to help.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      I think part of the reason that Charles wants to streamline the BRF is because he knows that the Monarchy as it is won’t last if it doesn’t change itself. Plus many of the ones who do the work are all past retirement age but it begs the question of his eldest son – will he actually step up and do what his father needs him to do.

      Charles is ruthless and if it comes down to protecting the Monarchy or his brother, Chuck will pick the Monarchy. He will not protect his brother and The Queen would be stupid to considering what is coming out about what really went on.

      • Emeraldeyes says:

        I think this is absolutely true. Charles would leave his brother in a ditch to die before sacrificing the monarchy. Others may protect him but I think Charles would throw him off the boat.

        Andy has been disgusting since early middle age but nothing described in that article is illegal. Epstein’s crimes are still ascribed only to him. We’ll see what rolls out. The left is talking about the Trump connection, the right is all about Clinton and gossip blogs are talking about Andrew.

        But nothing that has come out yet is enough to prosecute any of those people. Middle aged men and young, consensual women (over 18) is an old story and if it were enough to bring down powerful men, there would be a lot fewer of them left, conservative or progressive. We’ll see what happens but in my experience it’s a rare sight to see the fall of the rich and connected.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        ” Plus many of the ones who do the work are all past retirement age but it begs the question of his eldest son – will he actually step up and do what his father needs him to do.”

        DU, I think one of the reasons that Chucky seems so close to Megan is that he knows Meghan is a worker and she will compel Harry to work.

        At some point, someone must be ready to fill Anne’s shoes and take over her work load. It is my understanding that David Linley appears to be the one who will take over The Prince’s Trust when Chuck hops on the throne. I cannot understand why William is not interested in his father’s legacy. I may be totally wrong but this is my gut feeling.

        Does anyone know what type of relationship Cathy & Chucky have? Inquiring Minds Want To Know!

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        They all have their various scummy connections. Weren’t Phil AND Charles good friend with that pedo Jimmy Saville (isn’t that his name, British CBers?). While I don’t think Charles partook of underaged girls, I wouldn’t be surprised about PP.

      • TeamAwesome says:

        Charles has never been an Andrew fan, full stop. If it was Andy or the Monarchy, I don’t think the choice to chuck him out would even give him pause.

        I’ve come around on Prince William or Harry not wanting to take over the Prince’s Trust. Charles has done absolutely amazing things with it, but they are all very distinctly Charles. I understand wanting to strike out and form something that they can be remembered for, like Harry and Invictus. If David can keep on keeping on, then fantastic.

      • Megan says:

        The Prince’s Trust is a mature foundation. All Charles needs to do is hire a competent director and his work will continue.

    • Jellybean says:

      Do not accuse Charles and Phillip based on an association with Saville. He was a massive figure in charity work in the UK and a family favourite on TV; I grew up watching him and, like many people, I was utterly shocked when I found out what he was. Plus, if it is true that Andrew was sleeping with children then I genuinely hope Charles does turn his back on his brother, not because he is protecting the monarchy, but because it is what he would deserve. I found out someone I had worked closely with for many years was a paedophile. I went into neutral until he was found guilty, but after that I didn’t have an ounce of pity for the b**tard. However, I am not going to waste my time getting judgemental about anyone sleeping around with consenting adults.

      • Gerard Kennelly 1986 says:

        a shooting deflected Dunblane national school and a bomb defected Kincora boys home i honestly don’t know what will deflect Epstein if he starts naming names. They’d need something historical to deflect that .. another 9/11

      • Tina says:

        I had hoped that we would be able to avoid insane conspiracy theories here.

  5. Michael says:

    This sort of thing is likely happening a Thousand times over with the super wealthy around the world who see other people as things to be used and disposed. Epstein is just the guy who got caught.

    • Mumbles says:

      Yes one of the things that has given me chills is that idea – that this is happening a lot. Also chilling is that powerful people, like the son of the Queen of England, a Harvard Law professor, and a former president, may be involved. I don’t expect those people to be particularly good…..but I do expect them not to be evil pedophiles. When Harvey Weinstein broke, it was news, but not news – Hollywood producers in general have a rep of being predatory. But a former president? You would think the fact that he got away with what he did with an intern would scare him straight….he has some serious sociopathy.

      • Spritzness says:

        There is no Queen of England…

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Clinton is at this point known to have had at least one affair with a consenting adult (though his being in a position of power likely exerted the same force it has throughout history for all the other cheating men in power).

        The current president has been accused of sexual assault by several dozen women, including the rapes of his first wife, a journalist, and a young teenage girl who gave a deposition.

        In terms of presidents, would reserve the term sociopath for him. Would also like to see more concern about this because he has never been held to account, and his government policies reflect his hostility towards women, whereas Clinton gave us the Family Leave Act.

      • Emeraldeyes says:

        Bill Clinton has been accused of using his position of power and having sex with literally dozens of women during his marriage (and during his political career)with one accusation of forcible sexual assault that was documented during a legal deposition. Google Kathleen Willey.

        Look, I voted for him. Twice. I don’t have a political ax to grind. I am not sure I would do so today, knowing what I know now. But we can’t dismiss his personality issues while we are talking about this type of thing, either. As far as his relationships with women, he and Donald Trump are not far apart. I will say that Clinton, at least, has always had a respectful and appropriate relationship with his own daughter and Trump has not.

      • Starkiller says:

        @Spritzness, don’t be such a pedant. You know very well what they meant.

      • noway says:

        You forgot the current US President who call Epstein a good man, even after his slap on the wrist conviction which put him on the sex offenders list. Let’s prioritize after we get all the people who started and profited from this pedophilia, let’s investigate the one’s in power who affect our everyday lives, like Trump, then lets get the others. Sure it’s possible Trump, Andrew, Clinton didn’t know exactly what was going on, just maybe young woman wanting to be with older powerful men, not really a novel thing. (cause even the person at one party stated they didn’t see young girls there) However, if it was going on as much as they say, even if they didn’t actually see it you feel like they should have known if they had a lot of dealings with them. So at the very least they are really stupid, and honestly I would believe that about Trump and it’s obvious Andrew and Clinton at certain points in their lives are very stupid when it comes to their pecker. Still they should be investigated, but lets prioritize. I’m going to be totally pissed if they only get Andrew or Clinton. For one thing they just don’t do anything now. Plus, you all know Mr. grab them by the pussy and stalking at Miss Teen USA pageant while grabbing their breasts was at one of these things. It has his m.o. written all over it. Have we just come to expect this of our current President? I’m just so frustrated.

      • Tigerlily says:

        I find the nattering back and forth from Drumpf supporters (but Clinton was on the island!) and the opposing view (Drumpf is a pig and an accused rapist) ridiculous. I’m a Canadian so neither republican or democrat but it’s obvious to me that both men were/are buddies with Epstein. I believe that all those involved with Epstein and his abuse of children need to be charged regardless of party affiliation.

      • Kitten says:

        Yeah exactly. I mean, everyone in the comments above is right and I agree completely with the characterization of Clinton as a manipulative philanderer and yes, he’s been accused of rape. If it’s revealed that he had sex with a minor then he needs to suffer the consequences.

        But it’s starting to feel like people are overcompensating a bit. This forum is full of empathetic, caring people who know right from wrong. We don’t need the obligatory “Bill is a pig, too” every time we’re discussing Trump’s connection to Epstein because it starts to feel like a level of both sideserism after a while. Trump is our current POTUS and he has been accused of raping over a dozen women. He objectifies his own daughter FFS. I wish we could keep the focus on him as much as possible and leave the “But Bill” stuff for the Trumpsters.

        Maybe we can just issue a blanket “Bill Clinton is a pig and if he’s found guilty of raping an underage girl he needs to go to jail” that will automatically apply to all our Epstein-related comments going forward?

      • Emeraldeyes says:

        I think anyone who has been found guilty of raping underage children should go to jail. Aiding and abetting it is just as bad. I think Ghislaine should be as closely scrutinized as the men.

        Unfortunately, Clinton inserted himself into the Epstein conversation by his own actions. As did Trump. As did Andrew and Sarah – good lord she imay be the worst, she admitted accepting money from the man. I’d line her up there with the worst of them, but it isn’t my call. We don’t get to prioritize guilt. That is up to the justice system, like it or not.

        All of them will be talked about during the investigation, although they may be culpable on different levels and in different ways. We’ll see what comes of it. I don’t think we should try to police this conversation even though this is a liberal leaning site. If we are believing victims, all Epstein’s associates are open to discussion. Repressing conversation is dangerous.

      • Alexis37 says:

        It’s actually whataboutism, an old soviet tactic, and one that trump excels at. That’s why i don’t talk about bill. i sure am on the same page as kitten, but to me it goes without saying. The spotlight needs to be on the current occupant of the oval, the master of whataboutism, donald trump. He is what is dangerous.

  6. Megan says:

    Pretty sure we won’t be hearing any engagement news from Bea. A royal connection that is PNG is worthless.

  7. Purplehazeforever says:

    I don’t know another article said there was a party in the Virgin Islands where a young woman was passed around & Prince Andrew was an active participant. She was underage. This was a part of the 2008 indictment against Epstein. I don’t doubt the victim’s accounts so either Prince Andrew became more discreet, paid off victims or the other shoe is about to drop. You don’t decide to just stop. Or oh I didn’t know. This is ingrained in these predators, so I think either more is coming or we are going to see more stories like this. But that first account is still out there. He had sex with an underage girl. So, I don’t believe this.

    • Becks1 says:

      I don’t think you need to “not believe” this story to still believe the 2008 story. I only read the excerpts here, but I don’t see anything saying Andrew NEVER was at parties with underage girls. Only these particular stories are about girls/women in their early 20s. Like I said, I think these stories are being very careful and laying the groundwork.

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        What I mean is that you can’t discount the sex with the underage girl…where there’s smoke there’s fire. It’s never just one, there’s always multiples. This isn’t normal behavior for middle aged men. He was what? Late 40s then? I’m sorry but I know when I see a 15 year old girl, even if she’s seems older. I just feel this account is trying to put a spin out there that Prince Andrew liked young women but they weren’t underage. Maybe I’m wrong. I hope I am.

      • Spritzness says:

        Lot of men telling on themselves this week with “well sometimes you don’t even know a girl is 14 or 16”.

        Lollllll no mate, you can tell right away.

        Women know. Men know. A certain type of man pretends not to know.

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        Exactly Spritzness. They know. They just don’t care. A friend of mine told me once what an ex said about a girl waiting at the bus stop…he said he turned to him & said, that’s my daughter’s best friend, you creep, she’s 16. He told me he almost threw him out of the car. I said you should have. Granted there was no indication he ever did anything with underage girls but to even say anything was gross. I’m happy he was called out for it by another guy.

    • Amy Too says:

      If she was underage, she was a girl, not a young woman. I think we should all be extra careful to say “girl” and not “underage woman” or “young woman.” I know people do it without even thinking about it and they don’t mean anything sinister by it, but it’s something I’ve been more careful about for myself lately. Because the words we hear and read and repeat and say, can all subtly start to change the way we process a story and picture it in our heads.

      ETA: I’m talking about the first bit of your comment where you talked about a young woman who was underage. I do see that you started referring to her as a girl later on.

      • Kitten says:

        I agree. It’s something we ALL have to be conscious of because that is a distinction that very much matters.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Once it was pointed out to me, it’s crazy how many news stories call the victims “underage women”. It’s so important that we recognize and change these habits of the patriarchy.

    • Gerard Kennelly 1986 says:

      People like Epstein are so twisted it kinda takes my breath away , they offer each other kids same as we’d offer each other a coffee

    • Stephanie Hawkins says:

      I don’t know about Britain 🇬🇧 law but in the us someone is innocent until proven guilty. We need proof that Andrew slept with underage children. Brett kavanaugh is still on the Supreme Court because of lack of proof . He says she says . The proof is on the state to prove that someone is guilty

  8. Hermione says:

    Question for the legal minds. Can the victims (charges?) from the 2008 indictment be used again in this new indictment? Or would that be considered double jeopardy?

    Hopefully more victims will come forward. There are probably many victims still silent.

    • Spritzness says:

      It’s complicated but let me try and answer in short form:

      The NPA (non-prosecution agreement) in 2008 applied only to the SDFL (Southern District of Florida).
      First off, it (disgustingly) only charged Epstein with, more or less, using a prostitute (just in case you wonder what the legal system thinks of paying children for sex – it can be used to call them “prostitutes” instead of what normal people call them, “children who have been raped”). So, these charges are different anyway.

      Second, the weirdly sloppily written NPA binds only the SDFL. It does not stop the SDNY from charging Epstein related to these activities.

      Third, there have been *dozens* – as in, close to 100 – girls who have come forward to different authorities since about 2002.

      To your last point, the SDNY has announced that even more women have come forward since the press conference.

      Finally, justice may be served here.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        I wish I could “like” that last sentence of yours a million times, Spritzness!

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Also, the SCOTUS just ruled on the dual sovereignty issue. If you are charged with a state crime for 1 act, you can also be charged with violating federal laws for committing that same act. Technically, they are 2 separate law violations so it isn’t double jeopardy.

  9. Mego says:

    No wonder the Queen was so grumpy at the tree planting the other day. I bet she is beside herself over this.

    • Spritzness says:

      She’s only upset he’s been caught. She’s been protecting him for a long time.

      If she hadn’t have done so, he wouldn’t have been able to do this for as long as he had.

      Save your sympathy for those who were children when he raped them, not for a woman who enabled him with diplomatic immunity and protection from the press.

      • Alexis37 says:

        I agree, I am so tired of hearing about the queen. I have zero interest or sympathy for her.

      • Spritzness says:

        Alexis37 – I guess it’s just because she’s an old lady? But the way she treated her sister, the way she treated Diana… it’s not hard to see what kind of person she is.
        It’s hard to buy now the notions of her nastiness towards Margaret as such concern for the reputation of the monarchy if she wasn’t concerned about letting a child molester continue to molest children.

      • Lady D says:

        Maybe this will speed up her retirement.

      • SparkinggFlint says:

        We can only hope, Lady D!
        I’m seeing so many wives being blamed on Twitter (and here) for their husbands’ involvement with Epstein, and yet the Queen literally helping Andrew get away with doing this is apparently fine.

        I should hope it shames her into retiring. Those children – now women – will never get back what was taken from them.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I didn’t read that comment as expressing sympathy for the Queen. Mego didn’t say that at all.

    • Mego says:

      Excuse me but you are reading into my comment big time. What I said was not an expression of sympathy for the Queen – just speculation she is really bothered by this based on her behaviour at an engagement. I’m not going to excuse her covering up Andrew’s actions although it’s a pretty typical thing (not right) for a parent to do. Who knows she may naively think he is innocent. It just may come back to bite her – we shall see.

    • Mego says:

      Also, not only is the Queen covering for him but His ex wife is too which is really odd.

      • Spritzness says:

        Not odd at all – Fergie Ferg had some of her debts paid off by Epstein. A lot of wives are being blamed (Melania, Hillary) for their husband’s behaviour which is misogynistic nonsense, but Fergie is the only one who knew what her husband was doing and was fine with it if the money was coming in.

      • Jaded says:

        Fergie knows what side her bread is buttered on. Andrew’s bailed her out financially more times than a leaky canoe.

      • Tourmaline says:

        In 2015 when Andrew was first accused of these things Fergie came out stridently proclaiming he is the most wonderful man in the world and how DARE anyone question him. I don’t think she has much integrity she would likely kill to keep her connection to Andrew and cover up anything he does for the money and vicarious status she enjoys.

        I also wonder what the hell is up with the amount Epstein supposedly gave her to help clear her debts which is reported to be fifteen thousand pounds– it seems such a low amount. Couldn’t Andrew have given her that amount? She really had to go to a man who was then a convicted sex offender for that money? It’s also mysterious that in the few years after she and Andrew had enough money to purchase a lavish chalet in Switzerland.

        Not to inject a note of levity but if anyone has watched the comedy series The Windsors on Netflix, the whole bizarre York family is quite on point there.

      • Mego says:

        It doesn’t speak well for her character but then she has certainly had her shady moments throughout the years. I remember the staunch defence in 2015 as well – I think the comment about her knowing which side her bread is buttered is on target.

        Tourmaline I agree about the amount Epstein gave her being rather low. Makes me think Andrew gets most of his cash from Mummy and Mummy stopped paying for Sarah.

      • Strath23 says:

        Fergie and Andy’s and their “ongoing love for each other” has always been a cover for him.

    • Gerard Kennelly 1986 says:

      it used to be give them a car crash and move along now nothing to see her

  10. Millenial says:

    There’s already been a (former) 17 year old who came out and said she had sex with Prince Andrew. So many of these stories really gloss that over.

  11. Who ARE These People? says:

    It’s just so … sick sick sick sick sick.

    And, Ghislaine Maxwell needing a father figure? And aren’t there stories that her late father was connected to the head of the Russian mob?

    So many tentacles to this story.

    • Spritzness says:

      Her father’s story is so strange it reads like a bad spy novel, including literally dying mysteriously on a yacht.

      It’s wild.

      • Deering24 says:

        Heh. The villain in TOMORROW NEVER DIES was a very thinly-disguised Maxwell, right down to the mysterious yacht death.

      • Gerard Kennelly 1986 says:

        @ Deering24

        . Pierce Brosnan has since worked with Polanski

    • choupette says:

      Is there somewhere to read up on his story?

  12. adastraperaspera says:

    Ghislaine Maxwell’s father was the nefarious Robert Maxwell, who worked for FBI’s most-wanted Semion Mogilevich (one of the shady figures financing Putin, Trump and Brexit right now). Robert mysteriously fell off of his yacht and drowned one night in 1991. Ghislaine might want to watch her back. Oh, by the way, just google “Donald Trump and Robert Maxwell” to see pics of Trump hanging out with their family from the late 1980s to now. All these mob figures are connected, and Trump is one of them. That’s the most important story right now. Of course the powerful men who rape all these children need to go down too, but they’re just the craven customers of modern-day slavers–who will have to be put out of business for this to actually stop.

    P.S. Human traffickers need their dirty money laundered. Real estate and construction are easy ways to do this, if you have a friend like Trump.

  13. duchess of hazard says:

    Well, if this scandal played out, I really think it would hit the Queen badly. Supposedly Prince Andrew is her favourite child, to the point where she’s paid off his debts with her own money over the years. I really need this scandal to blow up, with Andrew in its lights.

  14. deb says:

    He seems disgusting. I hope there is some princely version of Me Too fallout heading his way.

  15. Cee says:

    Off with his head.
    I’d like to see him lose his title. That would be the greatest punishment.

  16. Lightpurple says:

    Meanwhile, Twitter is buzzing that Acosta will resign today

  17. MeghanNotMarkle says:

    I’ve been trying to avoid the stories as they bring up too much trauma I’m still processing. I hope that if Prince Andrew is indeed involved in this, that he burns in hell. That’s all I’ve gotta say about that.

    • SparkinggFlint says:

      I hope you’re doing okay and I truly mean that.

      • MeghanNotMarkle says:

        Thank you. I’m getting better every day. It’s a slow process but at least I’m moving forward.

    • Some chick says:

      I’m sorry that horrible ish happened to you. Self care is important, and I definitely filter my news. Be kind to you, you deserve it. I appreciate your voice here.

  18. Jb says:

    I wish I was shocked to know rich white men with power were disgusting behind closed doors but I’m not. I’m hoping that all involved get what’s coming to them including the royal pedo. If these girls get justice, that’s when I’ll be shocked.

    • MeghanNotMarkle says:

      My jaw would hit the floor if these girls get justice. I’m still waiting for something to happen from my rape when I was 8 but I’ll never see it.

      • ravynrobyn says:

        @ MEGHANNOTMARKLE-I too am so very sorry you’re going through this hell. Please try to take good care of yourself, whatever that looks like 💔

      • MeghanNotMarkle says:

        Thank you, ravynrobyn. It’s been a long, hard slog but I’m getting better.

    • grumpy says:

      What has the colour of their skin got to do with it? I’m sure we can find some disgusting rich men of colour too

    • JennyJenny says:

      Remember Bill Cosby???

    • Gerard Kennelly 1986 says:

      playing the joker was going to make Heath Ledger an incredibly huge star, as big as DiCaprio was after ‘Titanic’ . i think hollywood saw that status coming his way and they invited him into their parties and he was so disturbed by what he saw he overdosed by accident

  19. Smalltown Girl says:

    Andrew has had his behaviour covered up for him since he was a teenager. I had a professor who taught at the private school Andrew went to in Canada and she commented that even then he was sneaking local girls in to his bedroom, against school rules and there was nothing the school could do about it because of pressure from the royal family, so even then, he learned he could get away with whatever he wanted.

    • Anance says:

      Interesting he went to private school in Canada. Hmm…

      • Smalltown Girl says:

        He did a semester in Canada as an exchange and to encourage Commonwealth relations. Prince Edward did two semesters in New Zealand.

  20. Ms Lib says:

    Excellent story – Thanks!

  21. Seri says:

    It is quite disgusting to see a father of to girls to be such a pervert…Ew

    • SparkinggFlint says:

      Why would it matter if the person was a father, to girls or at all? Human beings don’t need to know female children to know it’s bad to molest female children.

      Empathy is pretty simple.

      • Seri says:

        That is right. It feels though that at least he could relate, as father of daughters.

      • MeghanNotMarkle says:

        I think it’s just even more repulsive and horrifying when someone IS a father of daughters. But I absolutely get that it’s horrifying no matter what. I just see what Seri is saying. If that makes sense.

      • Stephanie Hawkins says:

        For a good number of men if you aren’t their mothers wives sisters daughters or other relatives if you are a woman you can screw off. They don’t care

  22. Rapunzel says:

    It’s on the Fail about Andy now… surprised to see them mention it.

  23. Fluffy Princess says:

    Let’s just say I’ll be surprised if any justice is actually served.

  24. Myra says:

    Where is the outrage from the British Media, RR and the British People! Where is Piers Morgan and Loose Women…where is all the outrage!! Surely it the British People could show outrage over Christening and clothes at Wimbelton the outrage here should be out of control!

    • SparkinggFlint says:

      Myra – hold on for the Piers connection here. I’ve been told his previous cozying up to Epstein and Branson is making GMB panic right now.

    • Tina says:

      There was no outrage from the British people over Wimbledon. Or the christening. No one cares. And yes, this is not being reported in much detail here but as far as I am aware, there are no new allegations against Andrew. The libel laws are strict, and the royals have good lawyers. I’m sure reporters are working on it, but a story would need to be airtight to get published.

    • Gerard Kennelly 1986 says:

      remember the fake photos Piers Morgan printed? Well Piers was set up . the British establishment teached him a lesson after he participated in a documentary about Princess Diana called ‘UnLawful Killing’ where he clearly stated she was murdered

      • Some chick says:

        This is possibly the only point upon which I agree with Piers Morgan. It was absolutely a setup.

  25. Tourmaline says:

    Some seem to be missing that the Andrew and Epstein story came out years ago — around January 2015. That is when the accuser named Virginia went public and the photo of her and Andrew came out. The picture of Andrew and Epstein talking on the street in NYC and the Fergie money angle was all reported then too. There were plenty of stories about it then including in outlets such as the DM, all those stories are still available online.

    So the idea that the press is downplaying the Andrew angle now – the Andrew accusations are not new. And he really got away with it with no repercussions when it all came out years ago and I predict he will continue to…

  26. Sure says:

    I hate to say this, but I look at QE so differently now (and not in a good way) since Meghan joined this lousy family. QE is complicit as hell.

  27. A Finn says:

    “Andrew was divorced by this time and pretending to be a global trade ambassador, and Epstein was this famously creepy, wildly rich and rather mysterious financier, so it was kind of an appealing invite.”

    Appealing invite?!? Really 🤮🤮🤮

    • ravynrobyn says:

      @ A FINN-IKR?!?!?!?! I couldn’t believe it, I had to reread the statement several times 🤮🤮🤮

  28. Sherry says:

    I think Vanity Fair reported on the Prince Andrew connection extensively around the time of Epstein’s first arrest, but it seemed to go nowhere.

  29. Elizabeth says:

    I wonder what the BRF would do if Epstein or someone like him had molested royal children?

    • Some chick says:

      These creeps know who to target. They’d never touch a royal child, because they know the blowback would be intense. they go for the shy kids. the ones already at a disadvantage. who won’t tell or at least won’t be believed if they do.

      i’ve seen this stuff go down (not always underage, but sex predator behavior) and they totally choose to target the vulnerable. like any predator.

  30. Bunny says:

    It seems that the BRF has two choices, ultimately: strip Andrew of his title, access, and money now; or wait until after witnesses and possibly Epstein himself start talking.

    One is proactive, the other reactive. If they wait, and defend Andrew, they’ll be making a huge mistake.

    If the BRF underestimates the disgust and revulsion felt by the public, and waits until they’re hip deep in the muck before acting, it won’t surprise me if there simply isn’t a monarchy to ascend to when it is finally Charles’ “turn”.

  31. A.Key says:

    Why does Ghislaine Maxwell get a pass in all of this?!?! She’s a disgusting horrible human being just like the other two!

  32. Sass says:

    I believe victims. There has been at least one who has come forward who was 15 at the time Andrew assaulted her. Repeatedly. One is too many. And “people” – the media, including this site – should be VERY loud about making it known.

    • marjorie says:

      I read about her – the gist of it was that Epstein “supplied” her to Andrew. Andrew cannot escape from this unscathed!