Oh good, Prince Andrew hosted Jeffrey Epstein at Windsor Castle & Balmoral

Embed from Getty Images

The Daily Mail has coverage from a UK documentary called William & Harry: Princes At War?. In the documentary, royal expert Ingrid Seward says that Prince William “might condemn” Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan’s protocol-snubbing behavior and that William believes the Sussexes’ actions may be “detrimental to the monarchy.” Because, you know, Archie’s christening wasn’t open to the public or because Meghan guest-edited a magazine. Anyway, I’m not going to do coverage of Seward’s comments because they are in stark juxtaposition to this story about how Prince Andrew actually spent years damaging the monarchy by associating so closely with Jeffrey Epstein. How closely? Andrew hosted Epstein and some of Epstein’s trafficked women and girls at Balmoral and Windsor Castle:

Prince Andrew’s efforts to distance himself from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal were thrown into turmoil last night as details emerged of how he hosted the paedophile and his entourage at Balmoral. One of the young women on the trip told the Daily Mail how the prince personally welcomed the party to the castle in mid-1999 – after the disgraced US financier had already begun recruiting dozens of underage girls as sex slaves.

Speaking on condition of anonymity yesterday, the woman who joined Epstein at Balmoral 20 years ago recalled making ‘chitchat’ with the prince. ‘He was really nice. He was very polite. [He had his] guard up,’ said the woman, who was then a model in her 20s. She told how the group stayed overnight at the 52-bedroom castle, and spent the following day being entertained in the grounds. The visit is thought to have taken place in late summer or early autumn – when the Queen is likely to have been in residence.

Epstein and his entourage visited the Scottish estate as part of a week-long trip to the UK, during which they also stayed at the London home of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-partner who has been accused of lining up underage girls for him to have sex with. The woman who joined them on the trip – not long after she had started giving sexual massages to Epstein – recalled how she had felt like she was in a ‘fairytale’, brushing with royalty. But now she says she had no idea why she was ever included in the visit.

‘Why was I really there?’ she said. ‘Did [Epstein] really enjoy my company all that much or was I being prepped to end up being sent out like a gift to some people?’ She avoided any plans Epstein may have had for her that evening by retiring to bed early.

Nearly a year later, in June 2000, Epstein and Miss Maxwell attended a party at Windsor Castle hosted by the Queen to mark Andrew’s 40th birthday, Princess Anne’s 50th, Princess Margaret’s 70th and Prince William’s 18th. In 2001, Andrew met another member of Epstein’s entourage, Virginia Roberts, who claims she was on a trip to London with the financier when she met Andrew and had sex with him in a bath. Miss Roberts claims she slept with Andrew three times – in London and New York – when she was 17.

[From The Daily Mail]

These trips to Balmoral (the Queen’s private residence) and Windsor Castle (a publicly owned residence) came before Epstein’s arrest and plea deal in 2008. But still… Andrew knew who Epstein was and what he did. Andrew even spent time with Epstein AFTER the plea deal. Epstein and Maxwell were both procuring trafficked girls and women for Andrew and he was paying them back with trips to Balmoral and Windsor Castle. But sure, Meghan and Harry are the ones who are detrimental to the monarchy, right?

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

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

127 Responses to “Oh good, Prince Andrew hosted Jeffrey Epstein at Windsor Castle & Balmoral”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Ana Maria says:

    of all the people involved in this mess, he is the one I most hope goes down in flames, just because of his smugness

    • Ib says:

      Same. Disgusting horrific lying privileged pig

      • bamaborn says:

        Really hope they are not able to paper over this. Underaged girls used by privileged men is disgusting. Just keep hoping karma can work some of her magic, starting at the top.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      The fact alone that Epstein was (most likely), murdered in jail after one previously failed attempt shows the absolute desperation of his accomplices to bury this asap.

      This is just the tip of the iceberg…..there’s much, much more to this story than we already know.

      • bamaborn says:

        …and BP issuing a second statement defending this pedo and not one word concerning the vile treatment of Duchess Meghan. Come on Karma, please please don’t let us down!!

  2. Emeraldeyes says:

    Good old Andy bringing down the monarchy.

    In 1999 he may have just been a stupid grifter. After 2008 he was treading onto criminal territory.

    • Pearlime says:

      I wonder how big a dent this would put into the BRF. If someone can proove that Andrew was involved with underage girls and that Buckingham Palace (and TQ) has ‘covered’ for him, denying all the rumors, that would be huge on its own. But all that on top of all the dirty stories and lies the press put out about Megs, Will’s cheating scandal? If some journalist digs out the stories about Charles and Jimmy Saville too, they won’t recover.

    • Ronaldinhio says:

      I think Andrew definitely knew about Epstein’s preferences and felt that as long as he didn’t become involved or partake that it was nothing to do with him.
      Lots of men behave in this way. They might themselves be ‘good guys’ but they don’t rock the boat by calling others out for being perverts, rapists or sexual deviants.
      I think this will get a lot worse

      • Darla says:

        What on earth would make you think he didn’t partake?

      • marjiscott says:

        Are YOU KIDDING ME?
        Andrew has been linked to Epstein, with The Queens knowledge, for over two Decades!
        Its NOT some “gossip”
        Its M-6, the British Secret Service “warning’ they had hard information on him. Not once. Several times with The Queens , if not “approval”, but certainly was aware of his liaisons.
        Fergie “knew” as well. That’s how she has been able to stay in the Royal Fold.

      • PointingScreaming says:

        This was likely both a financial & dehumanizing arrangement, not just an occasional bridge nt w jeffry & ghislaine. Please.

      • dlc says:

        Yes, I am starting to think Andrew was friends with Epstein BECAUSE he had access to underage girls…

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

        Some boarding schools of the past were terrible, abusive and perverse. A lot of that ‘f-cked up-ness’ (for lack of a better term) carried over and lingered in society for a long time, making other abuses easier to accept as well. 🙁

  3. Becks1 says:

    So….does this mean the Queen has met Epstein? It seems like the article is trying to imply that, right?

    I don’t know how these royal events work (I mean, I’ve never been invited, lol) but I assume the guest list for that birthday party was probably vetted ahead of time. even though it was pre conviction, haven’t rumors about Epstein been around for a long time? I cant remember when I first heard of Epstein but it was ALWAYS with the understanding that he was a sexual predator.

    • Mia4s says:

      That’s what I was wondering! And oh s**t if that comes out.

      I’m not saying they would have dined or anything, but wouldn’t it make sense that if you are there while she is you’d have to stop in and “pay respects” or something? Ohhhhhhh s**t. Quick Meghan, breath the wrong way or something! Where’s Rose Hanbury?!?

      Charles is going to BURY Andrew once mummy is gone. Damn.

      • Megan says:

        If Epstein had met HM you can bet a photo of her would have been on his brag wall. Of all the famous faces mentioned in coverage of him, I have not read that HM is one of them. BUT I find it hard to believe someone who has always been seen as sketchy would have made it through the BP vetting process. HM’s blind devotion to Andrew has once again brought massive embarrassment on the family.

      • Betsy says:

        I hope Charles throws Andrew to the wolves. There’s just no – I’m getting so mad and deflated and annoyed. Like I think the way they’re throwing Meghan and Harry under the bus is horrible, but they’re big kids. But if Andrew gets to skate on rape???

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      Even if she didn’t PERSONALLY MEET Epstein, you KNOW her people vet any/everyone who comes to the castle. There’s no way anyone just gets in, even “friends” of her kids. Her kids can’t just stop by the castle with friends to raid the fridge, so to speak. EVERYTHING is scheduled. So, IMO, she had to know. FULL STOP.

      And even if we give her the benefit of the doubt, and she didn’t “know”, she sure as hell knew about Epstein after his conviction, when Pedo’s pics with Epstein in NY came out. It was right after that she gave Pedo that new title and heaped all those fake medals on his chest, and shut down/wiped out all “talk” on the net about the connection.

      So yeah… she KNOWS about the connections. And she sanctioned it. More than once. SHE KNOWS AND DOESN’T CARE.

    • aaa says:

      The Queen has hosted numerous dubious people. There were supposedly rumors about Jimmy Savile prior to his death and yet he was knighted by the Queen and was a good friend of Prince Charles and was a guest in his home.

      • Eliza says:

        Thank you AAA. The queen is no saint. She’s met, for political and social reasons, many horrible horrible people. She needed her 98 year old husband to step in to tell her it’s not a good look to be smiling holding hands with your pedophile son the day after his friend/procurer/financier was found dead in jail escaping a sentencing he should have gotten years ago??? She’s a cute old lady who knows when to smile and how to wave. But she’s not innocent.

      • Becks1 says:

        Well, I never said she was a saint or innocent. But I think there’s something creepy about a son bringing his sex offender of a friend (even if he wasn’t convicted yet, Andrew knew what he was doing) to meet your mum, the Queen. It just adds another level to the whole mess/scandal.

      • PointingScreaming says:

        Look at the history of the RF & rampant dilletante behavior. What must “Birdy” have gotten up to in his day, and the horrors Queen Victoria had to bury? We fought against royalty for a “free democracy”, yet there seems a tenderness to protect the latest British royal matron? Please. She’s heard @ known @ and tolerates IT ALL> The royals remain a giant gilded money pit.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      It is implied and TBH I would NOT be surprised if Andrew did introduce his friends to Mummy.

      The palace are digging themselves into a big hole here and its only going to getting deeper.

      Epstein and Maxwell having direct access to the RF is NOT a good look. If Chuck is serious about preserving the Monarchy he needs to step in and tell Mummy some truths about her favourite son.

    • Bunny says:

      I read somewhere in the days leading up to Harry and Meghan’s wedding that all guests are vetted to one degree of another.

      I’m not sure if that would have always been the case, though, because think about it – Andrew was once able to hang with s convicted pedophile without fear.

  4. Melissa says:

    He is a deviant. I have no respect for the Queen and everyone who covered up this mess for years. I don’t want to read another petty story about Harry and Meghan’s vacations while Prince Andrew is walking around freely without any consequences for his behavior and connection to Epstein.

    • bamaborn says:

      Yes, Melissa…they all, minus the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and baby Archie, need some kind of reckoning. They are the only ones trying to do good.

    • marjiscott says:

      Yes. Prince Andrew will totally walk off Scot-free. TQ has already made it so.
      They all are so totally clueless.

  5. Lala11_7 says:

    Seriously…after the Jimmy Saville….HORROR!!!!!!!!! And THIS?

    I will FOREVA side-eye…A WHOLE BUNCH OF ROYALS!!!

    • Emeraldeyes says:

      I know right? Epstein is just one of the long lists of pedophiles and terrorists theQueen has entertained.

      I’d lay money on the fact that he’s far from the worst of them.

      Epstein was friendly with presidents and politicians. He was everywhere.

      • Becks1 says:

        So, I think that’s a fair point – the Queen has met and entertained a lot of horrible people. But I do think its different concerning Andrew’s actual involvement with Epstein. Even if the Queen was completely ignorant of Esptein at the time and he was just one of Andrew’s friends – it adds another layer to the mess, IMO.

        (of course, that’s if the Queen met him, she might not have, I’m just assuming she did.)

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Saville, that Laurence van der Post (the “mentor” of Charles’ whom he wrote to for “advice” on dealing with Diana)… I’m sure there are plenty more that a blind eye was turned from.

      • grumpy says:

        To be fair to her she does a lot of that entertaining because she is expected to. She has had to shake hands and speak to someone who was instrumental in the murder of her own relatives, and she did it in the name of peace.

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:


  6. Himmiefan says:

    Seward is a bonafide fool. H&M have done nothing that’s detrimental to the monarchy. Is she paid (by whom?) to deflect from Andrew and from whatever the Cambridges are not doing?

    • Hermione says:

      Yeah, that crap Seward is spouting makes her sound old and foolish. These dinosaur RRs are out of their element in the age of social media.

  7. Hermione says:

    So Andrew and Epstein have been friends for over 20 years. Yet, Andrew wasn’t aware of Epstein’s affairs with young children. Sure…

  8. Peg says:

    Frowsy Ingrid Seward, when last did she write any thing for the 21 Century?
    All I have to say to William🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹
    His parents did more that was detrimental to the Monarchy.

  9. Arnk says:

    This whole family is garbage. The queen included.

    • Yasmine says:

      @Arnk totally! The Queen is still leading an institution that made profit and promoted from slavery, colonialism, etc… Until they pay reparations back to all the countries and societies they stole from, hard pass from me.

    • Lowrider says:

      I will post it again, the rot starts at the top.
      That family is total trash.

  10. M. says:

    I’m laughing at all the delusional people who like to believe that the Royal Family are role models. That family is involved in an insane amount of scandals. They just can’t hide and bury stories anymore because of social media.

    It’s time to stop putting people on pedestals because they are wealthy and have expensive PR strategists to clean up their image.

    • Eliza says:

      I always think that royalty are just grifters. I mean the idea that one family has the devine right to live in privilege and rule the masses with inequality is ridiculous. Look at all the “God” selected rulers past and present. Surely a devine being couldn’t make that many errors that many times??

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Complete grifters (see Johnny Hon story, showing Freeloading Fergie, Bea, Zara, Anne and others taking BIG $$$$$ as “non-voting directors” of his various companies, bought and paid for for access/connections).

      • PrincessK says:

        At times I really do think that Fergie is taking all the blame on behalf of Andrew and her daughters. It is always said that Fergie is extravagant but I do not see what she is spending the money on, it is certainly not clothes. Most of her trips abroad and vacations are freebies paid by others, she is a freeloader extraordinaire.

        I read that it is Andrew who lives beyond his means and the allowance he gets for being a royal. He must be supporting his daughters on it because whatever office jobs they do certainly cannot cover their lifestyles. So I think Fergie is the one diving here and there looking for money to patch the holes. Whatever trust fund the York girls have is not a bottomless pit and will not keep them going forever.

      • Dee Kay says:

        To be fair to monarchy: democracy has *also* given us many grifters and voters in many countries have often chosen truly horrendous, sometimes extremely evil, people. The difference is that most of the time in democracies, the elected official’s term ends, and their children do not automatically inherit their position.

    • Tigerlily says:

      M. I think the sense that the Royal Family are role models is a holdover from George V & George VI. They definitely pushed that PR and the current Queen has seemed to promote that they are a “normal” family etc with the film from years ago showing Prince Philip barbequing and them being a “normal” family. Even Diana pushed that idea, as if taking her boys to Disneyland and blowing by the lineups was normal. Obviously it’s all BS but I think some people like to cling to old ideals.

  11. Darla says:

    I just feel like all of this is a really good reason to shut the whole damn thing down. But I’m not English so I have no say. This monarchy thing if you ask me, is perverted, and inbred, and corrupt beyond the telling of it. Sure deposit it all in this fat windbag pedo, but the whole thing is sick. Like the Queen is so innocent. Please. Listen, the pedo andy had a PUPPET MADE OF HIMSELF to fondle girls with. This is the depravity of the world’s 1 percent.

    • Sunnee says:

      This family has been powerful for more than 1200 years. They are all descended from Alfred the Great. Not to defend them, but I seriously want to ask about the desire to strip their land and holdings. The title can be stripped, sure; if the people vote for that. So no more Queens or Kings of UK. But to my mind their wealth is theirs. It’s been acquired over centuries. It seems to go against laws of heredity to try to take it away. Everyday people leave money and property for their children and they in turn do the same for theirs. Would we talk about stripping money from the Rothschilds? The Rockefellers? The Kennedys? QE2 gave up a sizable chunk, (really most of of her estate) way back to appease anti-monarchists, didn’t she? They are basically living on the interest of that. If there is any British historian out there? Any estate lawyers? I’d love to hear their take on it.

      • Anatha A. says:

        It isn’t theirs. They haven’t worked for it. They haven’t acquired it. They only got it from being in power. So it is part of the state. They are only allowed to use it as long as they are representatives of the state.
        Abolige the monarchy. Let the senior royals live on Windsor castle as long as they live and pay them a small appanage to sustain a nice lifestyle. The rest should be fall back to the UK.
        The younger ones will still be able to make a lot of money of being former princes and princesses. They have a lot of celebrity and won’t have to worry about ending up in the streets.

      • grumpy says:

        It isn’t theirs. It is all stolen. I’m probably descended from Alfred The great, along with many other Brits, why not give it to me. That family is not even the direct line of descendants, it is an artificially created right to the thronw. But more than that, England was invaded in 1066 by people whose families have ruled it ever since. Those same people invaded Ireland via England. We hear about the English invading Ireland, but in reality, it is the people who invaded England that invaded Ireland. In Ireland, they can be seen for what they are, which is invaders, but in England, we are brainwashed to think we (I say we, my family is Welsh and Irish, I’m not responsible for those buggers) are the same people as them,, when we are not, they are still invaders.

      • Lou says:

        Heaps of it is owned by the state, not by the family.

        They do have some privately-owned land, but not all.

  12. Pineapple says:

    I just …. I don’t even know what to say. Seventeen. Wow. Humans are garbage sometimes. Abuse of power kills me. I am having so much ethical and moral anger with this one.

  13. Kittycat says:


  14. xo says:

    Original article has a previously unseen image of Andrew, in Epstein’s NY home, opening the door to a young woman, if anyone is interested.


    (Edit: “waving her off,” apparently.)

    • DM2 says:

      The CBC was all over this story this morning – showing the video of Epstein leaving the house with a (very) young blonde, and Andrew waving a cheery goodbye to a brunette leaving the mansion. And then looking almost directly into the camera filming this. It doesn’t look good. And who was taking the video, I wonder? But he’s APALLED today, for sure. Appalled.

      • Becks1 says:

        I actually cant believe the video has been hidden for almost a decade.

      • Nic919 says:

        It is interesting that the video has been kept under wraps until now and suggests the press has more waiting to be used.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        10:30 AM EST and can’t see the video on (Canada) CBC News site. Will have to find it somewhere else. Did they pull it?

      • Lulu says:

        There are literally thousands of video and photo evidence of all these high powered people with young girls on Epsteins properties and at his parties. It’s rumored that he made his millions via blackmail. He Mr. Ripleyed his way into high society then started getting as much dirt on the wealthy as he could to extort them. We will be seeing. much much more now that he’s gone. Whoever suicided him was a fool if they thought him being gone meant evidence was gone as well.
        His neighbor that wrote a book on him really did his research. It’s an excellent book with info I couldn’t believe at first.

      • DM2 says:

        @ Who Are…I’ve been watching it on the tube, but it should be online at some time, you would think.

      • Mego says:

        I was struck by how freezing cold that girl was and Epstein saunters out in a warm parka like he didn’t have a care in the world – certainly no concern for the girl. It was bizarre.

      • Redgrl says:

        The Globe & Mail website has an interesting article about Ghislaine Maxwell – worth a read. Very disturbing. Andrew always struck me as spoiled, entitled and somewhat dumb – one of those doughy-thinks-he’s-handsome-because-of-family-money guys who laughs too loudly and doesn’t buy a round when it’s his turn. But over time, his repeated connections to shady and immoral people kept popping up only to die down almost immediately. He has rubbed shoulders with dictators and pedophiiles to fund his lifestyle and tastes. Turns out he wasn’t just dumb and spoiled – he is a disgusting evil human being who needs to be fully investigated and, if sufficient evidence, prosecuted and booted out of the BRF.

      • Trashaddict says:

        Andrew reeks of upper class TWIT.

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      It was out here, in the US, as well. He waves her goodbye, then looks around to see if anyone is watching. Another girl actually walks in, too.

    • Svetlana says:

      In Canada up until just a few years ago, 14 was the age of consent. Now, that’s appalling.

      • Dee Kay says:


      • Redgrl says:

        The age of consent in Canada in criminal law was – and is – complicated. Up until 2008 (so actually 11 years ago) the age of consent was 14 (which was ridiculous). Between 14 and 16 it was also illegal if the adult was in a position of trust or authority – so teacher, coach, adult family friends, employer etc. Because 14 was ridiculously outdated and too young, and the 14-16 category for exploitation offences was too, there was an uptick in human trafficking and online sexual exploitation of teenagers in Canada – both within the country and internationally. So the federal government increased the age of consent in both categories. Since 2008 the age of consent increased to 16. and it is illegal for those in positions of trust to sexually exploit those between 16 and 18. There are exceptions for like-aged teenagers – so a 15 and 16 year old aren’t going to get charged if they’re consensually fooling around.

  15. TeddyPicker says:

    Fair enough that the focus is rightly being pulled towards Andrew’s disgusting complicity in this entire mess. But from a lot of the comments, ‘this whole family is cancelled’, surely H&M are implicated in some consequential ways?

    Can you ever see a scenario where either of them would publicly disown Andrew or even acknowledge this situation? Meghan married into the Firm and part of that is protecting the Firm. I don’t assign any sort of blame to her, but she is aligned with a family who condones that sort of behaviour. I wonder how she must feel privately about that – in the same way I wonder how she manages to deal with the fact the entire monarchy is built on racism, imperialism and slavery.

    • Smices says:

      I think H&M are the last ones to be implicated by this. Considering Meghan is being thrown under the bus to protect PA. Considering that from all accounts Andrew is a complete snot to Meghan and doesn’t hide that he doesn’t think she’s good enough for his precious family (I believe the 3year wife comment was him.) The Queen, Eugenie (with her slavery podcast), Bea and maybe Charles are implicated but I think Meghan hardly needs to be called to account for anything Andrew does.

      • TeddyPicker says:

        Definitely agree with you that Meghan shouldn’t/doesn’t have to answer for any of his horrible behaviour (especially given his attitude towards her) but my point was that as a member of the Royal Family, she has to by design. Seeing as TQ insists on protecting him, Meghan will be expected to continue to treat him like a member of her family. She may take steps to avoid him/never do events with him, etc. But unlike Thomas Markle who she could neutralise with that letter, she’s obliged to play nice with Andrew in the context of the BRF.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        Wouldn’t implicate his daughters, and wonder if Eugenie is in her own way trying to compensate for her father’s deficiencies. Poor optics though. Wonder how he’s explained this away to his own girls? They must be so confused.

    • Meg says:

      Sorry but it’s ridiculous to think Meghan has any responsibility just because she married into the family. If you think that way you need to hold Catherine responsible too, what about Eugene’s husband?! He married in knowing this about his father in law??
      I can’t believe what standards people hold Megan too but don’t hold those standards up for the other members of the family!!!

      • Smices says:

        Exactly! Let Jack make a statement. By that logic, Tim Lawrence is his brother in law— let him put out a statement. What’s Camilla got to say?

      • TeddyPicker says:

        I do think that the DoC is implicated in the exact same way Meg is. Yes, of course, a family is infinitely large if you start naming every single relation. But the ‘streamlined’ Family: TQ, Cambridges, Sussexes, York daughters, Charles and Camilla should absolutely be held to account for protecting Andrew with their silence or cosy photo-ops. They’re the ones in the media spotlight and actually make a difference if they spoke out. But they won’t.

    • Mego says:

      This has nothing to do with Harry and most certainly nothing to do with Meghan 🙄

    • Beach Dreams says:

      LOL nice try. You claimed that everyone in the family should be held responsible for interacting with Andrew, yet you took your time to focus exclusively on Meghan in your initial comment.

    • Tigerlily says:

      Really not agreeing that Harry or Meghan can be held accountable for Prince Andrew’s actions. WTF?

  16. Call_me_al says:

    So glad this is coming out! Thanks for covering it, Kaiser! I know I can count on you not to let this die.

  17. MeghanNotMarkle says:

    I’m side-eyeing this whole family right now. Pedo Andy has got to be shaking in his boots right about now. I hope he is brought down along with any others who had ties to Epstein.

  18. 10KTurtle says:

    He sure didn’t look “appalled” in that video of him in the front door of Epstein’s NYC home. He looked like he was checking out the young blond’s behind.

  19. Talie says:

    I do remember the British press covering this story a lot back in the day and that’s how he supposedly ended up losing his trade position. But if they were able to just pull that video from the archives, it means that they have a lot more they never used.

    The next phase will be if a photo exists of Epstein or Maxwell with the Queen. And if it does…it will hit the fan.

    • Mignionette says:

      I think they are trying to ‘check-mate’ him, albeit slowly. Also notice the video is controlled owned and released by the Mail on Sunday which is a separate entity.

      They knew Andy’s BP denial / falling on sword was coming out and so were ready.

      Next stop, more chattering from BP/ Andy = more evidence to impeach him….

      This is going to be death by 1,000 cuts….

  20. Burdzeye View says:

    He is disgusting…and covering up for him is appalling. I doubt the police will be knocking at the door anytime soon, even in the 21st century there is no true accountability for the rich and royal. But I hope when the Queen goes that Charles does a Duke of Windsor on him and his leeching wife and throws their fat arses out the country never to return.

  21. Nic919 says:

    It is really creepy to read that Andy brought Epstein and Maxwell to William’s 18th birthday because there would have been plenty of underaged guests available to be targeted by those predators.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Ugh. That’s why he brought them.

    • olive says:

      wasn’t the party also celebrating andrew’s 40th and anne’s 50th and someone else’s 70th? i don’t know why they included an 18 year old in this shared birthday party for people so much older than him to begin with.

  22. Maria says:

    I’d like to think Charles will do something but I doubt he will. He is as good at hiding his head in the sand as his mother.

    • Molly says:

      King Charles won’t kick him out in any satisfying way, but I’ve always understood his “slim the monarchy” to be a direct precursor to getting rid of Andrew specifically. That’s my hope, anyway.

    • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

      Constitutionally, he’s limited as to what he can do. I agree with your interpretation Molly.

  23. TheOriginalMia says:

    While the Queen was in residence…wow. No amount of smearing and otherizing of Meghan is going to make this story go away. Andrew is in too deep. His secrets are going to be exposed.

  24. Sof says:

    Maybe someone in the Royal family is tired of the Queen always protecting Andrew and is letting the press publish more details and proofs.
    Also, I wonder if they used William’s 18th birthday as an excuse to take the girls? Disgusting.

  25. celialarson12 says:

    At this point I am hoping that somebody decides to throw Andrew under the bus and do it so spectacularly that the internet will be awash with videos. One thing is for sure, Andrew will never face justice but at least both him and thr Queen will be giving people the middle finger with the evidence all out there.

    On that note I am interested in knowing which members of the British press have been hosted and availed themselves of Epstein`s and Ghislaine`s services.

    • Tigerlily says:

      Interesting point regarding British press potentially availing themselves of Epstein’s “services”. Unfortunately I doubt that anything incriminating will ever come to light.

  26. kerwood says:

    Of course, Andrew entertained Epstein at Balmoral and Windsor. That was his form of payment for Epstein providing the girls. Imagine being a disadvantaged girl from Florida who suddenly finds herself hanging out with a REAL LIVE PRINCE. Epstein new he wasn’t enough. He had to use his rich and famous friends to lure girls.

  27. sands says:

    With all what is going on regarding P Andrew and those pictures and videos of him at Epstein’s home in NYC i have a couple of questions:
    1 Does Andrew travel with protection officers
    2 If he does where were they and what do they know, have they been interviewed and is this why the Met Police are refusing to look in to what’s going on

    can anyone help?

  28. Anya says:

    Gross. Just gross.

  29. Syd says:

    So gross. He just seems like a really nasty person.
    I thought this even before I knew about all the disgusting criminal activity in his life.

    Have you read the interview with Epstein’s former security guy? What did you guys think of it?

  30. rmcgrudiva says:

    Kaiser, I really appreciate you and Lainey highlighting the hypocrisy of the British press when it comes to this story. If it was up to them and the royal family, things could be business as usual. Y’all are about the only ones pushing this into the light. Thanks.

    • Tigerlily says:

      rmc….Totally agree. Looking forward to more coming out. I’m done with all the pearl clutching over Harry and Meghan’s travels in the DM while they ignore Andrew’s criminal connections.

      • Darla says:

        You couldn’t pay me to visit the daily male site. I suppose that’s why I am utterly clueless about all of these relentless claims of hypocrisy in the royal coverage. I only see stories about them here. To my ears this constant complaining is very shrill and annoying. But I guess that’s because I don’t read the DM.

  31. Elisa says:

    I hope he will take them all down!

  32. OriginalLala says:

    Wow, This is insane, I wonder how many members of the BRF will be found to have social ties to Epstein..I hope this brings down the BRF frankly.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      It won’t however it will expedite Chuck’s desire to stream line it as I think Andrew and his line will be cut out the succession, esp as the Fail has just published a piece about how another friend of his reportedly called him and told him to stop being friends with Epstein after the photo’s of them walking in that NY park. Apparently Andrew and the friend argued with Andy saying that Epstein ‘was his friend and he was going to be loyal to him’. Am not going to link to the Fail (i refuse to give me clicks like that). It relates to a VF article from years ago.

      Drip, drip, drip, drip…….

  33. BeGoneOrangeCheeto says:

    Randy Andy is gross. He knew about Epstein and went along with it. There’s not enough good PR that’s going to cover this up. And shame on the Queen for so obviously protecting him.

  34. Sarabe says:

    NOW can we please get rid of the whole pathetic lot of them?!?

  35. ala says:

    The age of consent (the legal age to have sex) in the UK is 16 years old. So if there was no extortion, and it was voluntary, it might be disgusting, but that’s it.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      I am over people using the UK age of consent to normalise and excuse this behaviour. One of the instances that Virginia Roberts says she had sex with Andrew was in Florida where the AGE OF CONSENT IS 18 – in her lawsuit she clearly states she was 17 at the time of the incident in Florida which makes it STATUTORY RAPE on top of the fact that she was trafficked. If the UK courts won’t do anything about Andrew, Virginia can take her complaint to the UN under The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child under its trafficking regulations (as lets face it she was taken from her home country and sold for sex in another country) – which the UK has ratified. There are legal avenues for her to explore for justice. Sex trafficking is a crime in the UK regardless of the persons age.

      • JustBitchy says:

        @DigitalUnicorn- you are 100% right. Have you read Filthy Rich about Epstein? It’s incredible and detailed.

      • Alexandra says:

        I fully agree that these people should be hold accountable.
        But perhaps Virginia is just content to have gotten her life back together? As far as I know she has a family today. I doubt she would want to see them getting dragged through the tabloids.
        The people that should be sued are mighty and powerful. One phone call by one of them and she and her family will get trashed in tabloids on three continents.
        I fully understand she might not want that.

    • Nic919 says:

      The victims have sued civilly and there were criminal charges laid against Epstein so none of this shit was on consent. I don’t know how many more times I need to say this. It’s pretty damn gross to be victim blaming sex trafficking victims based on everything we have been told to date. None of the fools posting these comments are going to be Andrew’s criminal defence lawyer if it even gets to that point so please shut the hell up about legal terms of which you have no frickin clue and which makes you look like a pedo sympathizer.

      If we can’t believe sex trafficking victims then who the hell are we ever going to believe when they say it wasn’t on consent?

    • Call_me_al says:

      Um, the video was shot in New York.

  36. kerwood says:

    Where are all the “British taxpayers’ who’ve been so concerned about the kind of toilet paper used in the Sussex home? No shrieks of outrage over how much they had to pay to entertain a pedophile?

  37. Alexandra says:

    Perhaps the conclusion should be that a monarchy (constitutional or not) isn’t an ideal type of state in the modern age? Unchecked unbalanced power just doesn’t mix well with many aspects of human rights and equality? Basically the Queen tries to protect Andrew by putting him in the car next to him and by seen next to him. Unchecked and unbalanced power which isn’t even legally justified. Is there a law that says that people sitting next to the Queen in a car can get away with crimes? Basically the law in Britain is that every person must stand trial for his/her crimes. What you have done is what you have to pay for. The law is that every person can be criticised and hold accountable for his/her crimes. So? What about Prince Andrew? Are his rapist sex crimes being talked about in the open? And what about other Royals? Fergie’s money dealings? What about the crimes of the Royal Family? Is it acceptable that Prince Andrew gets away by sitting next to the Queen in a car? And now! It is astonishing how the Royal Family operates. Anything to elevate one’s position. Anything to improve the family. For example: Is it funny that Prince Andrew is now being used to excuse and elevate Meghan’s behaviour? That can’t just be explained away by pointing a finger at Andrew. Yes, what Andrew has done is horrible and he should rot in jail for a long time and stripped of his titles and his money should be used to compensate his and Epstein’s victims. But Andrew’s crimes are not going to make me forget that Meghan basically ignored how the British state works. Both did do wrong. Andrew is just much much much worse than most. Meghan did make a political statement by refusing to meet Trump by pretenting “maternity leave” while she rode in a bumpy carriage the next day. The Royal Family must be bipartisan and must not refuse to meet politicians when the government invites them.

    And last: you don’t support democracy by forgetting to hold people in power accountable for their behaviour. No matter who these people are they all must be hold accountable. That is an idealistic view, I know, but it is what we should strive for. Or not?

  38. Jessica says:

    Old, white, rich/powerful men hung out with Epstein for one reason and one reason only PERIOD!

  39. Meg says:

    It’s time to disband British monarchy.