Prince Andrew wants us to know that the Queen still has his back

Embed from Getty Images

These photos of the Duke of York in the car with Queen Elizabeth II are from this weekend, in Scotland. Prince Andrew was one of his mother’s first visitors to Balmoral, and he took his mom to church and of course they were photographed. It’s just another reminder that Andrew is her favorite, and that the Queen does the most to help him, to shield him and to protect his image. And seeing as how this was the first time we saw Andrew after Jeffrey Epstein’s mysterious in-custody death, well… it’s telling. Anyway, enjoy this Daily Beast piece which makes the argument that Epstein’s death actually hurts Andrew in the long-term, lol.

Jeffrey Epstein’s death could create a whole new raft of problems for Prince Andrew, who reportedly heard the news of Epstein’s death while holidaying at his mother’s Balmoral estate in Scotland. In court papers unsealed hours before the billionaire’s death, Andrew was accused of having sex with a 17-year old Epstein sex slave and groping the breast of another 21-year old victim of Epstein’s during a party.

Reports suggest that the investigation into Epstein will now focus with fresh intensity on Ghislaine Maxwell, who as The Daily Beast revealed, was a close pal of Andrew’s and a regular guest at his apartment in Buckingham Palace. Ghislaine sought to provide young women for Andrew to have sex with in London, our sources told us.

A legal source tells The Daily Mail: “Ghislaine is the key to all this now that Epstein will no longer face justice himself. The victims deserve answers and she was the person closest to Epstein. Far from being the end to Prince Andrew’s problems, Epstein’s suicide could put him under renewed scrutiny because of his close friendship with Ghislaine.” Andrew, Ghislaine and Maxwell were described to The Daily Beast by a guest at one of Epstein’s parties at his palatial Manhattan townhouse as “a trio, a little coterie, a party within the party, the insiders among the other guests.”

Prince Andrew’s ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson the Duchess of York, may also face renewed questions about accepting £15,000 from Epstein in 2010, when he was already a convicted pedophile on the sex offender’s register. She later apologized for what she termed “a gigantic error of judgment,” saying that she had been blinkered by financial desperation. She has, however, never said if or when the money was paid back.

Prince Andrew’s team have always said he denies any impropriety with underage females, yet have never been able to explain just why he was photographed walking with Epstein in Central Park in 2010 after Epstein was released from prison. Only two people knew what they were talking about that long ago day, and one of them is now dead. The chances of us ever finding out the truth of this episode in the life of the queen’s favorite son are getting closer to zero, but the questions facing him will not go away.

[From The Daily Beast]

Yeah, all of that is true – that there will still be speculation and Andrew will face some renewed criticism and examination, but… now it’s Andrew’s word against a dead man’s. Now Andrew is the one who gets to summarily deny everything. Granted, his victims will still tell their stories, but Andrew will say “no, she’s mistaken, it was ALL Epstein, not me.” Blame it all on the dead guy. Convenient.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

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

184 Responses to “Prince Andrew wants us to know that the Queen still has his back”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Maria says:

    But it’s okay, his daughter has an anti-slavery podcast so the whole situation with pedophilia and the RF protecting it should be turning around shortly.
    The whole family has protected this man and always will.
    The Queen will do whatever she can to try to cover it up.
    But we’re supposed to get angry over Meghan wanting to sit next to Harry at events…….if that’s even true….

    • boz says:

      I do wonder, though, if Charles will protect Andrew in the future. If the security of the BRF is everything, then I would think yes. But if emotional sibling rivalry gets into the mix, then I’m not so sure. Charles might try to quietly undermine Andrew either way with leaks, etc.

      • xo says:

        I suspect Andrew will become invisible once the Queen passes.

        Charles will protect the family. That may or may not mean protecting Andrew.

        Personally, I think they grossly underestimate how damaging he is.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Re: Charles protecting Andrew once The Queen passes. It depends on what comes out in the future. If proof is presented that he DID behave inappropriately to underage girls then Chuck will throw him to the wolves to protect the Monarchy for his (Charles) children – he won’t have a choice. It it comes down to the future of the Monarchy and Andrew, Chuck will pick the Monarchy. He will protect it for his line.

      • Redgrl says:

        I think Charles will do what he feels is best to preserve the monarchy – and if that means no longer protecting Andrew, I think he will do it. Andrew has always been dangerous – he’s entitled and knows he’s the Queen “favourite”. He has associated with unsavoury characters for years, many of whom have funded his and Fergie’s over the top lifestyle. It infuriates me and the Queen’s continued support of him upsets me greatly. There is no way she could not have known what was going on. It is a stain on a lifetime of duty and that is such a shame.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      The Queen and Charles will continue to cover this up. If any real facts ever came out, Andrew will have been visitng at the Queen’s behest, and be given immunity. After years of denial, deflection, and pictures of cute royal babies, the public will forget about it.

      • MrsBanjo says:

        The Queen, yes. Charles, not likely once the Queen dies. He’s not fond of Andrew as it is, and there’s no way he’s sacrificing the Monarchy as a whole for Andrew – especially if more proof about his paedophilia comes out.

  2. Myra says:

    Apparently the British people are more appalled about banana messages and Vogue covers.

    • Tina says:

      Will you ever stop? We. Do. Not. Care.

    • Sassy says:

      The Brits are currently clutching their pearls over Meghan’s preference of seating arrangement and not this.

      Andrew is such a smug bastard ugh

      • bamaborn says:

        Sassy…the picture of him and the queen riding and grinning was truly disgusting. If Brexit and a Commonwealth revolt brings that institution down, it will be well deserved.

      • xo says:


        I can’t believe that photograph. I just can’t believe they could be that stupid (or arrogant or. . . . ). It’s devastating.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Andrew has always been a smug git and he has always mugged for all its worth when he has PR events with him and Mummy.

        This is tone deaf PR from the Palace and it will bite them on the ass.

      • Megan says:

        That photo is vomit inducing. Pedo Andy’s smugness and HM’s capacity for denial are record setting.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Sassy, We must all make the effort to not confuse the “general” Brit with the commentariat of The Daily Fail.

        I make this mistake all the time when I post. According to my friends in Norfolk, Kent & Leicestershire, the “general” Brit does not give a fat-rat’s-clacker about the BRF.

    • himmiefan says:

      Not the British people but the garbage press.

    • Yami says:

      Right, because banana messages, that’s the true crime that will bring down the monarchy and what not!!! Haters really will use the flimsiest excuses.

    • grumpy says:

      I can assure you the majority neither know nor care about banana messages or vogue. In fact who even buys vogue apart from hairdressers for the salon – its just adverts for expensive things and filler.

  3. Joanna mitchell says:

    Is it just me or the phrasing “he denies impropriety with underage females” raises some eyebrows. What about underage males?

    • Lesanne says:

      This is what I had always heard about Andrew. He is a raging bisexual who naturally veers more toward men. These stories go back 35 + years and it is odd that no one now discusses this. His ex was well aware of his proclivities and their relationship made allowances for each other’s interests.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I have never heard that Randy Andy was bisexual. David Rocksavage and Prince Edward yes, but not Prince Andrew.

      • A says:

        Oof, this rumour. Andy was in the navy for a while, which is where the rumour is said to have started. Something about the dearth of female company in the navy and all that.

    • TQ says:

      Right. Very legalistic language in the denial. Doesn’t deny re: underage boys, adult females, adult males etc.

    • Bettyrose says:

      I think just the gender neutral “children” will suffice here.

    • Mignionette says:

      No I think he is saying ‘ yeah I shagged em, but they were grown…”

      Which is still (1) shameful and (2) stupid because he classifies 17 as being of age. That would have made Virginia about the same age as Eugenie/ Beatrice at the time.

      Also notice how 17 is just barely legal in NY/ Long Island, but corroborated and validated flight logs allegedly have him in the company of Virginia before her 17th b-day. So the real issue is what was his contact with her and other girls before this date?

      Also even BP knows we are past the ‘absolute denial’ stage because there are pictures of him with the girls in question either scantily clad or almost naked (as per London and yacht pictures).

      What makes me think he was so guilty was his absolute brazenness. That suggests a predilection that even he couldn’t control as we also saw with Epstein.

      Also even after Epstein was released from his first stint in Prison, Andy continued to associate with him and accept money from him as we saw from the disclosure bundles last week.

      • Becks1 says:

        And, even if the girls were “women” legally (ie 18 or older) there is still a LOT that indicates they weren’t there willingly. The age alone isn’t the only problem with what Epstein was doing.

      • OuiOkay says:

        I thought the same as mignonnette
        He doesn’t want to deny being around females becuase he doesn’t want to be caught in a lie. BUT he’s confident than there is no proof (whether he did it or not) about him and and an underage female so he’s making a statement about that specifically. Didn’t know there were I rumours though! Seriously Meghan is a gift to the royal family for the all the distracting her little (or made up) « mistakes » are doing this year alone!

      • Megan says:

        Andrew can make all the denials he wants, but he has yet to adequately explain why he he was partying with a minor from the US.

      • Megan says:

        Actually, it just occurred to be that maybe they flew Virginia Roberts to the UK because the age of consent is 16.

    • Chica71 says:

      The NDAs the girls and others signs are the most problematic. Im sure they spell out clearly what they cover. Epstein is dead so they are no longer valid.

      • Mignionette says:

        NDA’s are void for illegality. So if they were drawn up for the sole purpose of quashing the discovery of illegality in the future they could be set aside.

        I think the larger issue here is not NDA’s but rather girls wishing to live out their lives peacefully free of threat. Also likely by now they have been paid off and scared into silence, bc even if they are not around, their families and loved ones are.

      • Olenna says:

        Good point about the illegality, Mignionette. I assume this would apply if the girl’s were underage (according to where signed) and/or not emancipated (if applicable).

      • Mignionette says:

        @Olenna – alsothe girls would lack the necessary capacity to sign the NDA’s before the age of majority, and if the NDA were particularity onerous then there would need to be extensive evidence of them having sought legal advice.

        Given that Epstein would not want to ‘widen the circle of trust’, I doubt that extensive external legal advisors would have been privy to those NDA’s.

        There is a possibility however that some girls signed those NDA’s post the abuse when they reached the age of majority, however again they would fall foul of the illegality rule…

        That said I suspect that no Law enforcement agency would compel anyone to put themselves at risk if they felt real fear for themselves or loved ones. It would effectively be a second round of victimization by the state which is likely illegal, contrary to public policy and just horrible optics.

        I just hope these girls manage to find the peace they need now that the right to face their abuser and seek justice has been denied them.

      • UGH! says:

        I think it is current and former employees who are no longer held back by NDAs who will be able to do some damage by corroborating and reinforcing the credibility of the victims, as well as providing information which the victims may not have been privy to.

      • Olenna says:

        @Mignionette, thanks for the clarification and, yes, these girls deserve peace if justice is denied. I believe Epstein was “suicided” but can only hope that, someday, all of the sick people involved, male and female, get their just due before they depart this earth.

    • Betsy says:

      I assumed the specificity was because that’s what he’s been accused of here.

    • PointingScreaming says:

      I love the name Ghislaine, but she’s ruined it FOREVER. I found it interesting that barr never mentioned the implications of men of high standing who colluded in pedophilia. We all want justice for the victims- a giant part is speaking truth to power, which barr never will!!

      • Mignionette says:

        @PointScreaming agreed. Now more than ever people need to vote in a new administration who can get to the bottom of this.

        The recent US/UK State visit is now making more and more sense. Andy literally needs the Clown in the White House and his Henchmen to stay in power whilst this dies down.

  4. (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

    I am SO FURIOUS that these POS men get to slither back under their rocks, without being held accountable for their reprehensible actions. WHEN does karma kick in????

    • Ronaldinhio says:

      Dunno I feel terrible for the victims of Epstein as justice will be had to find.
      It will be difficult to make a case against Andrew due to the only corroborating evidence being his having an arm around a 17/18 yr old during a photograph
      If she were trafficked and underage we would need to prove he had some way of knowing this were the case and that there was sexual contact between them
      He is white male rich and the epicenter of privilege – nothing will happen to him

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Of course I feel extreme anger that all of those girls/now women won’t get their justice against Epstein. But he’s dead, whether “suicide” or murdered (which I tend to believe more: TOO many “important” names did NOT want the info coming out, esp. in court). My only hope is the “good guys” find Maxwell before anyone else does, get her under 24 hr. surveillance, and get her to spill it all out someway.

        I know, I’m being naive. Of course Old Man White Privilege will win out. Sigh…. It’s just infuriating!

    • bamaborn says:

      Theo, but the queen and andrew grinning like they had avoided some coup, was the most despicable graphic.

    • PointingScreaming says:

      Men? What about ghislaine? She’s no “madame” either, but a pedophile, the worst kind of manipulator.

  5. Loretta says:

    I’m disgusted.

  6. Maria says:

    And of course we all know he is a devoted church goer. Such hypocrisy!

  7. OuiOkay says:

    So …. who else can charges be pressed against ? Ghislaine? The other men that had sex with underage girls / molested them? This won’t just disappear right?!

    • Tina says:

      I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Ghislaine just disappeared.

      • Prairiegirl says:

        Odds are she’ll go overboard the side of a yacht, just like her father mysteriously did in the 1990s.

      • Jaded says:

        I wonder how her “good friend” Prince Andrew will react? He probably can’t get far enough away from her now. I imagine she’s got passports under assumed names like Epstein did and will high-tail it to some middle-eastern or Russian oligarch’s castle to continue the devil’s work.

    • A. says:

      The US District attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York says the investigation will continue as there is a conspiracy charge involved, and they say they are determined to finally get justice for the victims.

    • Tourmaline says:

      Ghislaine, and there were four other women who allegedly facilitated things for Epstein and who were given nonprosecution deals years ago that they are looking at

      Per the Washington Post today, federal prosecutors don’t really know where Ghislaine is now, rumored to be somewhere in Europe. They speculate she won’t set foot in the U.S. again unless she is extradited.

      • Mignionette says:

        The authorities know EXACTLY where Ghislane is, especially if she is in Europe. Also being of considerable wealth she is a sitting Duck who could face a shyt load of civil actions from the girls she procured and exploited.

        A good Lawyer would track down Ghislane and use her as the basis for Civil suits against the Epstein Estate. I suspect that in a bid to avoid total financial ruin she would assist in any suits by turning evidence against Epstein, thus allowing the survivors to seek compensation.

        So I am guessing Ghislane will be found very soon.

  8. Eyfalia says:

    French authorities are considering starting their own investigation of the Epstein case!

    • Erinn says:

      Lol. Are they investigating Macrons wife while they’re at it? Kind of talking out of both sides of their mouth there.

    • Mignionette says:

      Yes, until they find out that potentially Prince Albert is the ‘other Prince’ and then deals will be struck behind the closed doors of the Palace d’Elysee….

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        I think the “other” prince is the Saudi Prince, MSB. Word is swirling that Epstein was doing some money “moving” (ie: laundering) for him as well.

      • Mignionette says:

        Shame, I would have thought this kind of behaviour would be textbook Prince Albert…

  9. Zapp Brannigan says:

    A morally bankrupt, sexually incontinent and dishonest to a fault predator protected by mummy, the lot of them are disgusting.

    Maybe his daughter can interview him for her podcast about sexually exploited trafficking victims, maybe ask what is it like to violate someone else’s vulnerable daughter so he can feel like a big important man.

    • AnnaKist says:

      Yeah, Zapp, my mother had a favourite son, too, whom she supported and protected until the day she died. He also was/is a churchgoer. No impropriety of this nature, it has to stressed, but he was still an arsehole, and married an equally saintly, judgemental, churchgoing, back-stabbing hypocrite. Thank goodness I had three other wonderful siblings. I think people would be horrified if we knew a fraction of the BRF’s cover-ups.

    • bamaborn says:

      Zapp… really hope karma happens in my lifetime.

  10. raptor says:

    *insert middle finger emoji here*

  11. Piptopher says:

    I sobbed when I heard Epstein was dead, because as a rape survivor, I (unhealthily) cling to these kinds of public shamings/criminal charges that follow allegations like this. I’ve been following this case for a long time, nearly 10 years and I am devastated he will not serve time.

    When was the last day the world made sense to anyone?

    • AnnaKist says:

      Aw, Piptopher, I’m so sorry for your suffering. Please know that we support and stand beside you in your disgust at this coward’s action. You are more than a survivor. You are a victor. Stay strong. ❤️

    • VintageS says:

      I am so sorry Piptopher! I don’t think it is unhealthy AT ALL to want these men and women to swing for what they have done. Perhaps the circumstances around Epstein’s death with take the investigation to a new level.

    • MC2 says:

      I also cling to these stories but I am not sure about the unhealthy part. I too am a rape survivor & was raised in this society with blame, shame & false promises. I was told that “justice always prevails!” and I believed that…until I went to the cops with evidence of a pedophile who victimized many people and was told that this was a “private, family matter”. So I read these stories & remind myself that I am not crazy, that the world is like a series of funhouse mirrors for victims AND that there seems to be progress around these issues. I want change & it is slow but I do see it. Epstein got off ten years ago with nothing and now look….they saw he wouldn’t be cleared & killed him. Basically, I follow these stories for my own sanity, healing & to see that, as horrible as things are and have always been for women, there is at least hope that we are progressing & smashing those mirrors.
      Pip- I’m sorry that someone did that to you. I’m glad you have somewhere to tell your story & that you are open to admitting someone else’s sickness done to you without shame.

      • PointingScreaming says:

        Thanks for your share- the world changes, albeit slowly. Never thought I’d see a #metoo in my lifetime. Sigh. Waiting hoping.

  12. Citresse says:


  13. Eliza says:

    I doubt this royal family would. However Epstein’s Saudi Arabia passport and picture with “middle eastern” prince might connect him to the Saud Royal family – who have no problem making problems disappear if that connection is valid.

    Prince Andrew looks so happy. I hope he’s still implicated and charged. Wipe that grin right off.

  14. Chaine says:

    The way he is holding his hands there in the car, it looks so creepy.

  15. kerwood says:

    I never thought I would live to see the day when I would be ashamed for and of the Queen, but that day has come. She is throwing away her reputation and all her good works on a son that HAS NEVER BEEN WORTH IT.

    Thank God they have the Duchess of Sussex to use as a diversion. Because what could be worse than raping children? Why, asking to sit next to your husband at dinner, of course. Shame on all the people who even CONSIDER this bullshit when a true CRISIS in the monarchy is taking place.

    I can’t believe that there aren’t widespread calls for the Queen to abdicate over this but I guess what the Duchess of Sussex does matters more to the British people.

    • maya8 says:

      ”I never thought I would live to see the day when I would be ashamed for and of the Queen, but that day has come.”

    • Tina says:

      It would sure be nice if there were widespread calls for Trump (you know, an actual predator) to resign or be impeached over his multiple, admitted sexual assaults (in addition to everything else), too. (And yes, I know there have been some calls for impeachment, but it doesn’t seem like anything is actually being done about it). I guess the economy matters more to the American people.

      • Maria says:

        What does this have to do with the queen covering up pedophilia for 30 years?
        If he gets impeached, Pence becomes President which is even worse. But at least they’ll be gone in fewer than five years, hopefully even fewer. Quite a different situation to the Supreme Head of the Church of England caping for her son, without end.

      • Tina says:

        How do you know that the Queen has covered up paedophilia for 30 years?

      • Maria says:

        Between this and Jimmy Savile, that would make it around that many years.
        The Andrew business is even worse, though.

      • Tina says:

        There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that she covered up anything to do with Jimmy Savile. She’s covered for Andrew in the press, but there’s nothing to suggest that she is covering up for him with respect to the law.

      • Maria says:

        No, that would be difficult, since there’s no point in *visibly* covering up for someone legally, is there? But putting a stranglehold on the press will absolutely influence legal matters.
        You are strangely committed to defending her in this matter.

      • Becks1 says:

        There actually are widespread calls for trump to resign or be impeached. That was a weird way to deflect from extremely valid criticism of the queen.

      • Tina says:

        I find it very difficult to believe that the Queen using her influence with the UK press would have in any way influenced the US authorities’ decision to charge Andrew.

        The reason I’m defending her is because knowingly covering up for paedophilia is, let’s remember, a horrid and criminal thing to do. Do I believe the Queen is ostrich-like and blinkered and not critically evaluating the evidence? 100%. But I do not believe that she thinks her son is a paedophile and is knowingly covering up for him, no.

        @Becks1, I was responding to Kerwood’s question as to why we are not calling for the Queen to abdicate. She herself hasn’t done anything legally wrong, at least not that we know about. I was just pointing out that the US president, who has committed actual crimes, doesn’t appear to be going anywhere.

      • Maria says:

        Making sure that nobody can talk about it is a good way to sweep it under the rug in the UK, though.
        And she is still internationally powerful. It is naive to assume otherwise.

        Also, the President IS going somewhere, which is out of office, at the end of a specified time. I’m more alarmed at the idea of a lifelong head of state and head of the Church, there for half a century and passing on their legacy to their own questionable children.

      • Becks1 says:

        The President has actually not been convicted.

        So, while I think we all “know” that he is a criminal, he’s about par with Andrew in terms of allegations vs. convictions.

        And again, its a weird deflection in a thread about the Queen and Prince Andrew.

        ETA but Tina, I do get that you are often frustrated when people here lump in “British people” with what the tabloids etc are saying, and I get that. but I dont think this particular comment thread is making the point you want to make.

      • Tina says:

        Well, the president is on tape admitting to sexual assault (“grab em by the pussy”) so I do think we’re a bit ahead of Andrew there.

        I just get frustrated as you note. Yes, this is bad and I hope that Andrew is prosecuted. But I similarly hope that Dershowitz and Trump (And yes, if there is evidence, Bill Clinton) are all prosecuted too. From the tone of the comments today, you’d think that the Queen was the paedophile.

      • kerwood says:

        @TIna Not American.

        And I ask my American friends why they aren’t in the streets on a regular basis. If the people of Hong Kong can take on the government of China, known for slaughtering protesters (see Tiannamen Square), Americans could march against Trump.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        Trump’s already “joking” about serving well past 2 terms, has done nothing to ensure election security for 2020 — i.e. could lose and yet win a second term, and so we can’t be sure he will leave at a specified time. If he leaves he can face federal charges.

      • Maria says:

        I am not sure how the next election will play out. I am sure, for a number of reasons, he will be gone after a second term should he “win” one despite what posturings he may perform. Who knows what damage will be done by then. But thankfully, we won’t have to deal with him for a lifetime, nor his children, as with the Queen, which is my point, it’s not a proper comparison. Both situations are horrible, in *different* ways.

      • Wadsworth the Butler says:

        The media and politicians are now far too intimidated by the Queen to challenge her on this. Even Cameron backed off his criticism of Andrew once it was clear she was going to support him. Giving Andrew a new medal was enough to silence the press and the courtiers, and she knew it. In the 80’s or 90’s the media would have had a field day. Even Blair would have told her the facts of life. But now she’s seen as some sort of secular saint. It’s an overcorrection from 1997.

      • A says:

        @Tina, why are you so persistently defensive over this stuff? Who are the British royals to you? They do not serve to protect your interests at all. Why come out swinging for them so hard? Same with any criticism of the British press. There’s an element to all of this that you’re choosing to take enormously personally, and it’s baffling.

        The Queen doesn’t need to knowingly cover up for her son in order to aid and abet in a terrible, godawful situation. We all live in a society. What we say or do matters. She is choosing to support a son who, at best, decided that he is perfectly happy to be in the company of a man who was known to be a predator. Hundreds of people decided to turn a blind eye to Jeffrey Epstein, and this is why we still don’t have justice for his victims today. This is how people who abuse others get away with it. But good for you for coming around with your ridiculous whataboutism and demonstrating just how little you care for victims lol. Your behaviour right now reflects incredibly poorly on you.

      • PleaseAndThankYou says:

        @Tina – I think you need to get a grip – you’re consistently commenting, claiming to speak for “all British people”, and now you’re making an argument (well, actually, several) that has no place in this discussion. You’re defensive, contradicting yourself, and generally coming off as a troll. Ignoratio elenchi – and please do calm down.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “I was just pointing out that the US president, who has committed actual crimes, doesn’t appear to be going anywhere.”

      @Tina, Chump is not going anywhere because he WILL NOT get convicted by the current US Senate. I understand that it is the first law of prosecuting that you do not go to court with a case you cannot win. Hopefully some posters that are US Attorney’s or UK Solicitors/Barristers will chime in on this post.

      I think Ms. Nancy needs to keep on doing what she is doing right through the election in 2020 as it can only get worse from Trump.

      • Tina says:

        @Bay, did anyone think that there would be 67 votes in the Senate in favour of the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Sometimes you go to trial to make a point.

        And, when the president is as dangerous as this one is, I’d argue that anything that takes up time he could be spending on all of the other horrid things he’s doing would be time well spent.

        (And I don’t think the Queen is a secular saint, witness all the criticism of her gold piano at Christmas. I do believe that her staff will mention to her what an ill-advised idea these photos were. I would hope that she would take the advice and Andrew will disappear from sight).

      • Maria says:

        Tina -what makes you so sure Trump and Andrew aren’t buddies underneath all this, given how closely Trump and Epstein were connected? And if that needs to be investigated, why are you so sure the Queen doesn’t realize it?

      • Tina says:

        Maria, what in my comments has given you the impression that I think that Trump and Andrew weren’t mates? Andrew was essentially tasked with minding him during Trump’s recent visit. Of course they get along. They’re both teetotal, anti-intellectual, bombastic, golf-loving, probably paedophiles.

        I’m sure the Queen was and is aware that Andrew knew both Epstein and Trump. I’m equally sure that he will have told her that he did nothing wrong, and she will have believed him. Because she is his mother.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I think Andrew got the job as Trump’s minder because no else would do it.

      • A says:

        @Tina, no, the Queen CHOOSES to believe him if he told her he did nothing wrong. She doesn’t have to make that choice. Let’s not act like the Queen is some little old biddy who has been misled by her son. She is making a decision here, and she will have to answer for it, as does everyone else. Her actions have consequences.

    • Yami says:

      I agree with you 100% it’s truly appalling.

    • babyboo says:

      The thing we forget is that the British ( and not only) people are fed a lot of manipulation and lies through bought stories ( see brexit). We live in dark times where truth is smeared with a big poo of fake news, making it impossible to tell apart. So what British people discuss (aka what is bought to be headlines by Tabloids) is at mercy of those in power. It sadly reminds me of prewar Germany :( I wish I could say I am overdramatic rigth now 😣 Someone please tell me that I am?

  16. Becks1 says:

    Andrew and the Queen look so happy. It’s such a slap in the face to every one of Epstein’s victims.

    I wonder how this happened – the drive to church. Did no one consider how bad this would look? Did no one care? Did someone suggest that maybe this wasnt the best idea and the Queen and Andrew were like “meh its fine?” Was this very intentional to show the Queen supports Andrew? (that’s my guess right now.)

    Either way – the pictures really threw me off yesterday, and I was seeing so many comments on twitter about what a bad move it was on the queen’s part.

    • Erinn says:

      I would say the ENTIRE family seems to have an issue with how they make things look to the public. From the queen down through all the grandkids and spouses. They are all so insulated and never bothered to adapt to the changes with the media in the age of the internet. F-cking Eugenie or whichever grandkid with her stupid podcast is extra embarrassing though.

      • Becks1 says:

        They for sure need some sort of crash course in “optics.” This is just the most gross example I think.

    • Nic919 says:

      This photo needs to be framed so that it can be used the next time Meghan gets accused of bad optics.

    • xo says:

      Yes, I’d read this as an intentional show of support.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      This is a bad bad PR move by the palace, its going to blow up in their faces. Andrew’s smugness and posing with Mummy means he thinks that with Epstein’s death his involvement goes with him. It hasn’t but then again Andrew was never known for being the brightest spark in the fire.

      The Queen and the RF’s standing and good will from the taxpayer has been severely damaged by Andrew. Chuck has an upward struggle ahead to repair it when he takes the throne, esp if he son/DIL still refuse to get their asses in gear.

    • PlainJane says:

      @Becks! – I agree 100%, it’s a disgusting move, and the optics COULD NOT have been worse. It blows my mind that the BRF did not think about the blowback from this. It’s almost Trumpian in it’s idiocy.

      And the conspiracy theorist in me is expecting; 1. cute photos of the Cambridge kids, 2. an excellent reason for W & K to have another baby, 3. Meghan to get tore up from the floor up.

      These people aren’t just tone deaf, they are living in denial.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I ask this question because I am curious what my fellow posters at CB think and because I do not have an answer myself:

      If you were QEII how would you handle this mess?

      • PlainJane says:

        I like the question, but I am not giving a fair answer – I would have raised a child who was held responsible for his mistakes.

        In honesty, distancing herself from Andrew would be the right thing to do at this time.

        In thinking about how to handle this situation, it seems a symptom of a much larger mess, playing favorites with children, turning a blind eye to problems in her family/marriage, her childrens’ marriages, unwillingness to admit mistakes … there’s just SO MUCH.

      • Seraphina says:

        @BayTampaBay, very interesting question and I too am curious to responses by fellow commenters. I will start by saying the obvious, I would not show support in such a crass way: driving to church and laughing while doing so. I will also add I can legit see PC throwing Andrew to the wolves when he becomes King.

        I don’t know how to handle this if I were her. It’s just messy and dirty and she’s added a whole lot of mess with showing her support.

      • Yami says:

        I would let my son take his lumps. I don’t have children, so I don’t know mother love, but there is no way this is acceptable. I would also hoped to have raised him differently, but sometimes, no matter what parents do, kids go off the rails. I think it would be difficult for a person not to when you have all the privilege and no true sense of responsibility.

      • A says:

        I would have cut the apron strings years ago. And I would have made it clear to the press, in the way the Queen does, that I do not approve of his friendships and his behaviour, and that I am deeply unhappy with the choices he’s continuing to make in his life in terms of the company he keeps. And I would tell him, to his face, that he needs to shape tf up. After that, no more joint appearances, no more pap photos around the estates, a major downsizing of his role in the RF w/ no future prospects after the Queen passes, no more invitations for things from the Queen etc. Express a support for proper legal action, if it ever came down to it, with the understanding that no human being is ever above the law. Full co-operation if necessary, with the requisite legal institutions. No more hiding, no grey men in suits running around dousing fires. Total transparency and a commitment to see justice done, and then following that up with actions.

  17. UGH! says:

    One of the creepier things that happened was told by one of the victims, Johanna Sjoberg. She said there was puppet that looked like Prince Andrew which was used to grope Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s breast. Andrew — who was sitting beside her– then groped the breast of Sjoberg, who was sitting on his lap. While there may not be any concrete evidence, there may be enough corroborating witnesses so it’s not a ‘he said, she said’ situation, which is what finally brought Bill Cosby down. Also, there may be more employees able to speak up now that Epstein is dead because their NDAs are no longer in effect.

    • FrenchGirl says:

      If NY Times can do a cover with Epstein’s victims as they did with Bill Cosby’s victims ,that could help the victims

      • UGH! says:

        After I posted, I read in the Miami Herald that there was a photo of the puppet thing. So there is evidence. I think there are enough pissed off people and journalists (also people), who are outraged enough at the continual miscarriage of justice in this case, to keep hammering at it and not let the issue die.

      • Christin says:

        There are a couple of reporters who covered JE allegations for some or all of 15 or more years. I have no doubt they will keep their efforts going.

    • Mignionette says:

      I really wish Ronan Farrow would pick this up. I know he has just finished his book so is likely available now. Problem is who really want’s to take on these heavy weights ….?

  18. RoyalBlue says:

    The drive with the head of the Church of England is significant. surely it sends to churchgoers the signal that yea, all men can repent of their sins and move on.

    The queen knows how to use her power when necessary. Message to the commonwealth; do not abandon the royal family and make my son the head. Message to the public; I love my favorite son and will do all I can to protect him. He is the prodigal son after all.

  19. E says:

    Elizabeth disgusts me as much as him. Look at him clasping his hands with glee- mother dearest has cleaned his mess again. Hopefully this will be the beginning of the end for the BRF.

    • Kk2 says:

      Yea this is gross. Just when various blogs (including this one) had almost convinced me I should like the queen….. No. This is a great reminder that privileged colonialist assholes are exactly what they seem. I mean, I’m a mom. I don’t expect any mother to abandon her son, at any age. But this is beyond that.

      The conspiracy theories about Epstein’s death are entertaining. I think suicide and murder are both plausible here. I don’t think Epstein had any intention of spending the rest of his life in jail.

    • Bobby the K says:

      I think you’re right about that.

  20. OriginalLala says:

    What a disgusting show of support – I hope the investigations uncovers all about Rapist Andy and we can be done with this farce of a family once and for all.

  21. adastraperaspera says:

    His existence makes the best case for phasing out the monarchy.

    • OuiOkay says:

      They could act perfectly but I can’t rationalize subsidizing them! I don’t really care about it, but if you think about it deeply, there’s not really a rationale, even if they have perfect manners and morals and go to 5 charity events a day. They’ve been gone from France a while and the palaces still attract tourism

  22. Talie says:

    Well, you only need to look at Dickie Arbiter’s tweets to see inside the mind of the courtiers who advise the Queen. Those smiling photos were a disaster for most people outside their little world, but hey, at least he didn’t edit Vogue.

  23. Chimney says:

    The queen is disgusting for this. I know everyone is supposed to like her because she a little old lady and ww2 blah blah blah. Now one of the last things we’ll remember about her it that she is a pedophile apologist. Appalling

    • xo says:

      To be fair to her, I’m sure she finds it genuinely inconceivable that he could have done anything wrong. You know?

      But I think this is a devastating photograph.

      • Ladiabla says:

        That’s what it is, she doesn’t think her son is capable of such things. This doesn’t excuse her, and I’m not a mom, but from my experience, most women I know who are mothers would simply refuse to believe it. Until this changes, and men are held accountable, they’ll continue to get away with their crimes, big and small. How many of us here know spoiled, entitled men who are absolute aholes but are beloved by their mothers? I understand that we’re discussing criminal behavior here, but there are all kinds of things she could be telling herself to rationalize his behavior. None of which is ok, but that’s what it is. Hopefully, Charles has the sense and the gumption to kick his ass to the curb, if it means the future of the monarchy. Doubtful but we shall see.

  24. MeghanNotMarkle says:

    I have lost all respect for HM after this. Just look at their smiling faces. Disgusting.

  25. Morrissey says:

    Well, I wasn’t a fan of the royal family before, but this is the nail in the coffin of any respect I might have held for the queen.
    Wonder if charley boy will do anything about this when he gets the crown.

    • Samantha says:

      He defended a pedophile clergyman from the Church of England who abused boys. Wrote a letter in his support. I doubt he’ll do anything about this.

  26. TeddyPicker says:

    What on earth did Andrew do to become the Queen’s favourite in the first place? I’m hoping the next season of The Crown covers this….

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      From all I’ve read, Andrew was her “make-up” baby with Philandering Phil. (There was also gossip that Pedo Andy is the result of an affair TQ had with her racing master, “Porchie”, Lord Porchester, with some saying Andy even resembles him. This allegedly happened during a long rough spell with PP visiting all the “gentleman clubs” in London, having affairs left and right)..

      Charles was always TQM’s “fav”, Anne, at the time, her father’s. Pedo Andy is TQ’s.

      • Call_me_Al says:

        Thank you for clarifying these theories! I never could tell why he was the fave.

      • clairej says:

        Yes! It is apparently very well known in royal circles that Andrew is not Phillips. Therefore has always been given a bit of a free rein. Could marry whoever he wanted and party as much as he wanted since he isn’t all that important. Also there has been talk for years he is very much into men. He always looked like a total dickhead.

  27. Tiffany :) says:

    “Andrew, Ghislaine and Maxwell were described to The Daily Beast by a guest at one of Epstein’s parties at his palatial Manhattan townhouse as “a trio, a little coterie, a party within the party, the insiders among the other guests.”

    This makes no sense. Her name is Ghislaine Maxwell. They are naming 2 people here, not 3. Do they mean Epstein?

    • Nicegirl says:

      @tiffany, I know!! I’ve read the piece three times now and am baffled by the ‘trio’ which was a duo? Wondering if the 3rd party was likely Epstein? Hello where’s the editor???!🤦‍♀️🖖🏽

      My bad- it’s the Daily Beast.

    • EMF999 says:

      Maybe they mean Ghislaine’s father, Robert Maxwell? Which makes it even more disgusting. As an aside, her father’s death was highly suspicious.

    • UGH! says:

      They mean Epstein, from the context, but yes– no copyediting!

  28. Samantha says:

    Considering how many pedophiles Queen Elizabeth II has knighted throughout her reign, which included Jimmy Saville and many other high profile ones – convicted or protected, I doubt she cares what her son does with under-aged girls. People should stop worshipping this family. They’re rotten to the core.

    • A says:

      This is how people like Epstein continue to get away with things. Because supposedly “good” people turn a blind eye to this stuff.

  29. MellyMel says:

    I have lost all respect I’ve had for the Queen. I’m so disgusted by the whole thing and seeing Andrew smiling and clasping his hands like that makes me sick.

  30. Anna says:

    I always thought Prince Andrew look nothing like the Queen or Prince Phillip.

    • Samantha says:

      The rumour goes that he’s Lord Porchester’s son – a past generation earl of the real family who lives at the Downton Abbey manor who was in charge of the Queen’s race horses. Google Lord Porchester & Prince Andrew to see the resemblance.

    • dogmom says:

      He looks 100 percent pure Windsor to me. I checked out the side-by-side pics of him and Lord Porchester on Google and just don’t see it. But I also don’t think Diana and Jemima Khan look anything alike and there’s the conspiracy theory that they’re half-sisters, so …

  31. xo says:

    . . .to her own detriment.
    God help us.

    That photograph was an appalling error of judgment.
    Damn near unforgivable, actually.

    These people feel invulnerable.
    I don’t believe they are.

  32. Pixie says:

    Anybody that still supports the RF or the Monarchy in any capacity, needs to take a long hard look at themselves and feel nothing but shame. This is beyond inexcusable.

  33. Carey says:

    Richard Palmer of all people tweeted yesterday that royalists are very angry with the Queen over these photos. I think the RF badly miscalculated how this would land in light of Brexit and just a general rage over the elites getting away with literal murder. There’s also a rumor that one of the people caught in the web is David Cameron.

  34. Esme says:

    I know it’s not the main issue, but was Fergie willing to have a publicly recorded association (the loan) with a registered sex offender for a paltry 15k? How greedy and stupid can you be? How privileged, to think nothing of it?
    And the Firm should just lock him up in a palace somewhere and not let him out for a few years, instead of parading him on the way to Church. Have some shame.

    • Jaded says:

      Fergie would have taken money from Beelzebub given half a chance. That woman has the integrity of a rattlesnake.

    • Tourmaline says:

      @Esme I thought that too the amount seems so small for that loan. It’s suspicious. Just a few years later Andrew and Fergie splashed out and bought a Swiss chalet for 13 million pounds. They had that cash to buy the chalet–but not 15K available and needed to go to Epstein?

      It is very shady. Methinks there is much, much more to the Andrew/Fergie/Epstein connection than is known–and what is known is bad enough!

    • Mignionette says:

      I always get the sense that Andy get’s Fergie to implicate herself so he always ultimately retains control over her. This way she cannot turn on him.

  35. Mo says:

    The problem that Andrew faces is that Epstein was the only person with standing to challenge in court the legality of the seizure of items from his home and offices. This means that everything the prosecutors have can be used in any cases, against anyone that they want. These prosecutions were always going to hinge on the photographs, calendars, flight records and so on, with testimony being secondary. This now means anyone in the photographs is in very real jeopardy. Also, they don’t have to worry about risking their case against Epstein by losing a lesser case. which is another reason for all the “lesser” cases to not sleep easily.

    • Christin says:

      Add to this that the victims are still around to tell their stories. No way is this over.

      Those grinning photos will likely pop up in months and years to come, as more is uncovered. A little premature (IMO) to appear as if all is well just one day later.

  36. gingersnaps says:

    pedo andy grinning like the cat got the canary was just horrible to look at. The queen and the royal family protecting him are not any better. I hope one day that he & all the people who partook of Epstein’s services will go down.

  37. HELEN says:

    this picture is infuriating. a family that is rotten to the core, a monarchy that is rotten to the core, a system that is rotten to the core.

    just the sheer arrogance of it all… my blood is boiling.

  38. The Recluse says:

    I hope more victims come forward now and that those who exploited them suffer the consequences- and wipe that smile off Andrew’s face.
    I don’t think Charles will shield him when the Queen goes and if horrible stuff comes out, I suspect he will apply pressure. Gut feeling.

  39. Christin says:

    Immense credit to a reporter whose work led to uncovering the sweetheart deal. This is a great summary of how Julie Brown’s tenacity (and apparent support from her newspaper) led to this story finally getting traction:

  40. Raina says:

    Yes, all of this IS quite convenient. I had a feeling weeks ago that things would end up convenient for all parties involved.
    May the cloud of suspicion be ruination enough in that case.


  41. aquarius64 says:

    What makes Andrew and the BRF so sure Russia or any other enemy. This mess is blackmail material.

  42. pottymouth pup says:

    I bet the BRF is now, fondly, reminiscing about the days of Koo Stark

  43. Amelie says:

    I don’t know why people insist Andrew is the Queen’s favorite son? Where is there indication of this? I don’t think Andrew will escape all this scot free. While I don’t think he’ll be taken down while the Queen is alive, I think things could change after she passes. I dunno, I don’t think Charles is that fond of his younger brother. I don’t think he’ll throw Andrew to the wolves but I don’t think he’ll protect him either. Royal family members aren’t immune to being arrest/shunned by the rest of the family.

    • A says:

      Andrew is the Queen and Prince Philip’s ‘make up’ baby. He was conceived and born a little after the two of them got through their rough patch, in the early years of the Queen’s reign, and it’s said he was the first of the Queen’s children who she felt she could devote herself to fully as a mother, hence why he’s the favourite. Less savoury rumours say that Andrew is the son born out of the Queen having an affair with a friend of hers, the 7th Earl of Carnarvon.

    • Mignionette says:

      Actually they are immune. It’s called Sovereign Immunity. Now that Epstein is dead and the criminal case has collapsed with it. Andy is pretty much scott free as it would be almost impossible to bring a civil suit against him in his mother’s court….

      And that folks is why Epstein was never going to survive prison.

      As for the Charles point. I agree entirely. I think Charles cannot wait to cut off Andrew and his ‘ghastly’ wife Fergie. I get the sense he is fond of the York girls but has ZERO time for their parents. So in that sense Andy is living on borrowed time.

      I think Andy will be slowly retired over the coming years on health grounds and then almost completely disappear from public life once Charles ascends the throne…

      • BayTampaBay says:

        ” Andy is pretty much scott free as it would be almost impossible to bring a civil suit against him in his mother’s court….”

        What about a civil suit in a USA court?

  44. intheknow says:

    That fking grin Andy’s face makes my stomach turn. And it’s a genuine grin, like the weight of the world has been lifted off his shoulders. To clean up his image, I would not be surprised if he remarries very very quickly.

    In terms of the queen (I will no longer capitalize her title, fuck the queen and andy), knighting a bunch of paedoes; it’s not like she is going to lose her job for making such a colossal mistake. She didn’t read her background checks, she read what the grey tards in suits presented her. And what ever came to light and to her attention after, (like Saville), she did not do anything to undo the knighting (as far as I know).

    None of the tards in grey suits were fired either. Everyone walked away scott free.
    Time for the queen to go and for charles to take over. I can at least enjoy charles shunning him like what’s his face who married that Wallis Simpson and had to give up the throne.

    Any public funding andy is receiving should be terminated. In fact, they should have him under watch and I am talking deep cover watch to root him and his ilks out so he can no longer fester and ruin anymore lives.

    All the stuff about Meghan’s Vogue cover that went on for a couple of weeks…all the deep dive coverage so that they could misdirect peoples’ attention from epstein, Jizzlane and andy.

    • Mignionette says:

      I think Andy and Fergie remarrying is more likely a measure to protect Andy.

      Andy is a HRH so benefits to some degree from Sovereign Immunity. Fergie whilst still technically a Duchess is no longer a HRH / member of the family. So although she is tilted she is not protected .

      Also given that they are not married and she had extensive dealing with Epstein (to the point where he bankrolled her and paid off her debts, likely as a kickback/ favour to Andy), she is a sitting duck. This also likely explains why Andy has kept Fergie close all these years.

      The real danger now is the lack of marital privilege, which means that a smart prosecutor / Lawyer could question Fergie as a way of getting to Andy.

      I predict a wedding in 3,2,1……. and Philip will have absolutely ZERO say in any of this.

      My prediction, Andy and Fergie will get married. Andy’s duties will get cut down considerably and he will lay lower for the next few years…

  45. grumpy says:

    British members of parliament can breach NDAs and say whatever they want without fear of legal reprisal in the House of Commons, so if someone knows something about how the BRF is involved I hope they tell an MP who can tell the country

  46. Shazza27 says:

    @BAYTAMPABAY Leicester girl here and you’re ABSOLUTELY right. The general Brit couldn’t give a s*** about the BRF. What are they there for ANYWAY. Tbh, we’re slightly/kinda mildly bewildered/amused as to how much time and love the average North American has invested in them. It may have something to do with the fact that you’re all not the ones having to pay ALLLLL the taxes to keep the puppet show going on……