Prince Andrew released a new statement about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

Duke of York Pitch@Palace event

The day after Jeffrey Epstein died under mysterious circumstances in a Manhattan jail cell, the Duke of York went to church with his mother, the Queen. Both were photographed with sh-t-eating grins that morning, and why not? Perhaps they believed the worst was over. Perhaps they were even right about that. The problem was that questions still persisted, and old stories kept coming out about Andrew’s association with Epstein, to the point where Andrew looked like a conspirator in the human trafficking crimes. So Andrew’s office issued a lukewarm statement, a blanket denial. The stories kept coming – stories about Virginia Roberts and flight logs and stories about Andrew hosting Epstein at Balmoral and Windsor Castle, and stories about “foot massages” (hork). Even though the palace courtiers happily threw the Sussexes under the bus for jolly old Andy, reporters are still digging around. So… he released yet another statement:

Prince Andrew is continuing to speak out about the sex abuse claims surrounding his former friend Jeffrey Epstein. Less than a week after Buckingham Palace released a statement about how the Duke of York, 59, was “appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes,” the royal released a second statement.

“It is apparent to me since the suicide of Mr. Epstein that there has been an immense amount of media speculation about so much in his life. This is particularly the case in relation to my former association or friendship with Mr. Epstein. Therefore I am eager to clarify the facts to avoid further speculation,” he wrote.

“I met Mr. Epstein in 1999. During the time I knew him, I saw him infrequently and probably no more than only once or twice a year. I have stayed in a number of his residences. At no stage during the limited time I spent with him did I see, witness or suspect any behavior of the sort that subsequently led to his arrest and conviction. I had said previously that it was a mistake and an error to see him after his release in 2010 and I can only reiterate my regret that I was mistaken to think that what I thought I know of him was evidently not the real person, given what we now know. I have tremendous sympathy for all those affected by his actions and behaviour.”

In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to a felony charge of solicitation of a minor and was sentenced to 18 months in jail. After serving 13 months, he was granted work release and registered as a sex offender.

The royal added: “His suicide has left many unanswered questions and I acknowledge and sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure. This is a difficult time for everyone involved and I am at a loss to be able to understand or explain Mr. Epstein’s lifestyle. I deplore the exploitation of any human being and would not condone, participate in, or encourage any such behavior.”

[From People]

“I have stayed in a number of his residences. At no stage during the limited time I spent with him did I see, witness or suspect any behavior of the sort that subsequently led to his arrest and conviction.” Ah, that clears everything up! Sure, he only saw Epstein once or twice a year from 1999 to 2008, and yet… Andrew stayed in a number of Epstein’s residences. Which ones? The New York house, the Florida compound, the pedophile island too, one would assume. And Andrew NEVER saw anything. That’s not even why he would stay over at Epstein’s residences, this man he barely knew, the man whom he only saw a couple of times a year. He was staying at Epstein’s homes for completely different reasons! And notice what Andrew doesn’t say, like how many times he might have hosted Epstein at one of the royal residences.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red and Getty.

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

83 Responses to “Prince Andrew released a new statement about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Bella DuPont says:

    It’s interesting that he doesn’t or hasn’t directly refuted Virginias allegations….(as far as I’ve seen in the press so far).

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Indeed, he’s making a great effort to avoid ANY reference to Virginia and her allegations. He has something to hide and is desperately trying to cover his fat ass by taking a leaf out of Dump’s book (I didn’t really know him that well, I only saw him a few times a year).

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        I commented on Twitter yesterday, in a response to a RR who dropped this, if Pedo Andy was “just an acquaintance”, why was he answering the door? Also, if he was inside, staying IN the residence(s), Randy Andy MUST’VE seen the pornographic art and statues the Feds said were lining Epstein’s home(s). He would’ve seen the girls going in and out (esp. as Epstein said himself he “needed” at least 3 girls a day (ugh.. I need another shower just typing this!).

        Sure Pedo… keep pumping out the lame “statements”. You might convince your blinded Mummy, you may convince your devoted daughters, you may even convince your arrogant piggish self if you say it often enough. BUT YOU ABUSED YOUNG GIRLS FOR SEX AND YOUR OWN GRATIFICATION! YOU ARE A POS! (sorry for shouting, but his smirking and entitlement, this abuse of innocent girls… it just enrages me)

    • marjorie says:

      Bella, he did. I was wondering the same thing myself, thinking he’d brushed her claims under the carpet. One of the statements drafted and issued by his people (does this guy even wipe his own bum?) did address Virginia’s claims. It stated something along the lines that it wasn’t true or was there was no basis for the statement. I was so angered when I read this, as I saw the pages and pages of her statement on the news and the news reporter specifically made reference to Andy and having sex with this underage minor.

      Virginia went into detail about what happened with Andy too.

    • Rogue says:

      I believe Andrew disputed Virginia’s claims when they first emerged years ago and think this week BP officials referred to CC entries to “prove” he was in Boston not New York when rape was alleged to have occurred.

      The press definitely have something on him. Look at that video that suddenly emerged last Sunday which they must have sat on for years. Plus Andrew claims emerged around time UK papers were phone hacking, bribing police etc so bet they have some illegally obtained evidence. And Andrew knows it. I agree with Digital Unicorn- there will be another statement about sexual relations with one of the victims but will be claimed she was of age etc. Wonder if that’s why they put out that disgusting image of him having 1000 lovers- preparing the idea he’s been with loads so not very discerning.

      Marina Hyde’s article was amazing and seen lots of people disparaging this latest statement. This story is not going away and I’m delighted with those pressing it. The current Daily Mail editor was in Epstein’s black book and not surprisingly him and likes of Rupert Murdoch, Piers Morgan etc have been pictured with Ghislaine Maxwell so assumed some complicity and most tabloids would bury news about Epstein to protect themselves.

  2. LadyT says:

    That super-smiling picture of the queen and Andrew headed to church is burned into my brain. Such a bad, bad move. Sorry Queen. I feel bad but just NO.

  3. Gil says:

    What is he gonna say about the picture with Virginia? Didn’t know she was a minor? He is nasty af but the royals prefer to throw under the bus a black woman who has not done anything wrong but marrying an ex-party boy. Racists af.

    • Nic919 says:

      If he wasn’t a royal that picture would have been enough for the police to conduct a serious investigation and likely charges. Her statements accuse him of sexual assault. For anyone else that would have lead to charges.

      It is really sick how the rich and powerful get away with so much.

      That statement is a mess because he’s lying and it’s obvious. I assume a lawyer reviewed it to ensure there were no admissions, but it’s disingenuous and no one is going to believe it.

      • Some chick says:

        “It is really sick how the rich and powerful get away with so much.”

        This is the real story here. Now that the peasants have internet, it’s becoming trickier for at least the most egregious among them to get away with it.

        But don’t imagine that because Epstein is dead, that it’s not still happening, right now.

    • jules says:

      Forget the picture with Virginia – what about what he did to her? She was underage at the time. Her very descriptive play by play detail on one of their encounters is pretty damning. So I suppose he just brushes it under the carpet and that’s it.

      Needless to say Meghan’s “crimes” are less newsworthy but for some reason the tabloids persist..

  4. Dana says:

    Funny he doesnt say anything about staying at his NY mansion for 6 days. After Epstein was released from prison for having sex
    with underage girls.Fergie introduced them and Epstein paid off some of her debt. You would need to blind not see anything during a 6 day visit. I think there will be other stories.

    • Trashaddict says:

      He doesn’t do anything to truly refute his own behavior. He shifts it over to Epstein. Would be wonderful if there was more video in addition to him being at Epstein’s door in NYC. The interesting question is, who was filming that?

  5. Rapunzel says:

    There was a story alleging he’s had 1000 lovers, but “no teenagers.” This is not a good look. At all. And these denials are milquetoast. He didn’t know him well but stayed at his house, opening the door to girls? Sure Jan.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Andrew, having 1000 lovers! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA *takes deep breathe* HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry but that is funny, esp as Andrew never was much of a looker nor was he particularly charming.

      Andrew is a boor, always has been and yeah he got his nickname as he liked to put it around when younger. Thou saying that am not sure how he got the nickname, it might have had something to do with Koo Stark (who if you look at early photo’s of her, you can see that Katie Keen cosplayed her look).

    • Mego says:

      My eyes rolled at that one. Utter nonsense and makes him look like the pig he is.

  6. minx says:


  7. Guest says:

    The royal family deserves every bit of karma. With social media they cant hide behind the wall of silence any more.

  8. Lolo86lf says:

    With Epstein’s suicide or murder the world will never know what happened. Prince Andrew’s reputation will not be affected in any way.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      All the victims know what happened. Their statements are evidence. It is likely corroborating evidence will continue to come out. To be continued…

  9. Kittycat says:

    Never complain, never explain eh ?

    Three statements on this issue and the last one is the worst out of the bunch.

    Andrew is truly the favourite because how else could he get away with this crap.

    I smell a fourth statement.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Yeah, there will be more ‘statements’ as more comes out and the more the press question what is being said. He has a nerve to now try and say that Epstein was some sort of vague acquaintance when the evidence and his past comments have said otherwise. I think he’s made statements that called Epstein a ‘close friend’ in the past – I hope they come back to torch his ass. You don’t invite acquaintances to Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, Sandringham and Balmoral, not do you visit them for long periods of time, fly to their private island on their private jet regularly.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        He even brought Freeloader and his two young daughters WITH HIM on one trip to the island!!! How astonishingly, arrogantly, entitled is that??? He actually left them in one area, and went off with Epstein to “indulge” in another area of the island!!

    • Rapunzel says:

      Kittycat- I thought this was the second statement?

      • Kittycat says:

        Sorry but if you read the press releases on Twitter you would know it’s the third…….

        I guess you are giving Andrew the benefit of the doubt like the Cambridges…..

  10. Talie says:

    I mean, he invited Epstein and Maxwell to stay at two of the Queen’s private residences…that sounds like a very close friendship where you would be aware of who these people are. Also, he stayed at Epstein’s townhouse which sounds like a freakshow. He would’ve seen enough.

  11. Maria says:

    No one, but no one who has an any intelligence at all would believe his story. It’d be much better if he said nothing. This makes him look even guiltier.

  12. Bookworm says:

    Say what you will about the Daily Fail, they are GOING for him on this! Good.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      The Fail have always hated Andrew, they’ve always had it in for him, his ex-wife and his daughters.

      The Fail smell blood and given Andrews recent statements he is clearly bricking it. Proof is slowly being leaked, the press are allowing Andrew and the RF to set themselves up for a few own goals. This is not over for him, not by a long shot. Personally I think its only a matter of time before Andrew is forced to admit to having sex with the young ‘guests’ of Epstein’s but claiming he didn’t know they were being trafficked or were underage. The Fail are backing him into that corner.

      • Other Renee says:

        Either the Fail is blocking comments or very few people are commenting on articles relating to Andrew. I’ve had about a dozen comments blocked. I’ve even tested my theory by writing something totally innocuous like, “Why so few comments?” Still blocked. All my comments on other articles get posted without a problem. Yet the articles on Meghan and Harry generate thousands of nasty comments. So that being said, I’m not sure how much the Fail really hates Andrew. Or perhaps the British readers really don’t care how awful Andrew is?

      • marjorie says:

        Other Renee – I noticed that comments on Andrew comments are moderated. Translation: they only print what fits their agenda.

      • Nic919 says:

        There are photos of one of the Fail editors with Maxwell, so they are being careful that the comments don’t point that out.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Comments on Pedo are “moderated”. Comments on M&H are not. YET, when I try to go on straight to the comments, and defend or say something positive about M&H, my comments are NEVER posted.

      • Other Renee says:

        TheOG, Elizabeth Day wrote a pro Meghan article under the “You” section of the Fail. I wrote a comment commending her and tried to add something about Andrew and the lack of comments. I didn’t mention his name, just prince or son of the Queen. It got blocked. I wrote it again and removed the part about Andrew and it got posted this time. So when they say comments are not moderated (as they do in this column), they’re lying. There’s something so insidious about this.

        I know I should stop reading that stupid paper. But sometimes they have amazing historical articles, which I love. The rest is like watching an accident and not being able to turn away.

  13. Shelley says:

    Hopefully the prince of denial will be called to account and have to answer fir himself instead of relying on a legal & pr team to issue word salad statements. As a royal he has gone through life never having to do anything himself and getting everything he wants – including at least one underage girl! I hope he gets the rude awakening he deserves.

  14. Marty says:

    With his statement, does it means he can avoid investigation or court? How immune is he as a royal? Smh

    • Bookworm says:

      I think if he stays out of the US, he can’t be forced to answer anything. But if he shows up here and is subpoenaed, he has to respond, I believe.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Ah, this is helpful as the Fail had a story about how Randy Andy was scared to go back to the US and that its unlikely he would ever return there due to the various cases the victims have filed against Epstein and Virginia’s lawsuit against Maxwell.

        As he no longer works for the UK gov (as a ‘trade ambassador’) he has no diplomatic immunity – am not sure him being a royal on a private trip means he is entitled to it. And there is NO WAY the British gov and RF would send him there in an official capacity – not after all this.

    • Jaded says:

      The legal case vis-a-vs Andrew is very murky. Andrew may be entitled to diplomatic immunity against questioning in any criminal inquiry because some of the allegations relate to when he was a Whitehall-sanctioned business envoy.

      Diplomatic immunity provides foreign diplomats protection from legal action in the countries where they work. It is granted depending on an individual’s rank and the level of immunity they need to carry out their duties. However he was never formally designated as a diplomat, his title was merely Special Representative for Trade and Investment. However he was still expected to follow the laws of his host countries. In the US, several levels of immunity protecting foreign diplomats from legal action are granted, i.e. he could simply ignore any request to give evidence. If proceedings are civil, extradition law does not apply, so he can just refuse to go. He could be compelled to give evidence only in criminal proceedings. If he refused to co-operate, however, the prince could be banned from ever entering the US. However it’s not known whether Andrew might be covered by legal immunity simply by being a royal because this has never been tested in international law.

      There’s a TON of lawyers beavering away on this right now and it will be a long and tedious process before any of this results in a deposition.

      • Some chick says:

        Thanks for your informed perspective. Much appreciated!

        The Law always seems to be a long and tedious process. Fascinating, tho! I guess we’ll see what happens.

  15. Mego says:

    I think I am done. I am officially no longer a fan or supporter of the BRF. I will remain a fan of Meghan and her work but that’s all for me. The Queen supporting her appalling son and the treachery of William and Kate have been a complete turn off for me. They serve no good purpose anymore as it is 😡

    • marjorie says:

      Great comment – my only fear is that Meghan’s work will gradually take a back seat to what the royals want and she will become a mere puppet who shows up to shake hands and cut ribbons. A far cry from what she’s all about but for the most part, that’s what they do.

    • Zut alors says:

      The fact that the Queen is the head of the Church of England and is clearly condoning and shielding her son’s despicable and immoral behavior is particularly galling. What a hypocrite she is! Brits need start calling her out.

      • Elisa says:

        yes, I’m glad I’m not the only one anymore pointing out what an awful person the Queen is!

  16. Gail says:

    “Prince Andrew is continuing to speak….” , no that’s not accurate. It should say he’s feeling desperate and forced to say something, the palace insists.
    I don’t give a damn how many private or budget flights any of the rest of them take. We are not amused.

  17. Harla says:

    I have to wonder who at BP thought releasing this statement, with all of its contradictions, would be a good idea.

    • AnnaKist says:

      Yes, I wondered the same. Whatever happened to the BRF motto, “Never Complain. Never Exolain.”? I never could stand this lying drongo.

  18. Leyton says:

    Andrew must truly believe we are stupid. If these are the people trying to “advise” Harry and Meghan, I can see why they supposedly aren’t listening to them.

    This statement was a mistake and made it worse, imo.

    Epstein was a convicted Sex Offender in two states in 2010 when Andrew was spotted at his home and spent time with him in NYC. Andrew literally was one of the guest of honor at a party celebrating his release from Jail!

    Everyone around Epstein knew who he was. He never hid the girls, his abuse and exploitation of them. There were multiple around Andrew and at Royal Residences. Did he think they were his daughters?

    This makes me so angry because not only are those young girls, now women being robbed of their justice but IDIOTS like Andrew who clearly participated in this are getting off scots free.

  19. Mika says:

    Weird that he did not “see, witness or suspect any behavior of the sort that subsequently led to his arrest and conviction” when there are photos of Andrew with his arms around teenagers and video of him poking his nose outside the house while teenagers ere coming and going.

    • jules says:

      He didn’t “see, witness or suspect…” because he was too busy misbehaving with an underage girl himself.

  20. Pearlime says:

    Where is Wikileaks when you need them? It just needs one good piece of evidence to finally lift the lid of this shitshow.

    • Olenna says:

      I think Epstein’s blackmailing business showed Wikileaks a thing or two. When you’ve got “clients” as high up and varied in wealth and politics as he did, who’s gonna leak anything but his young victims (whom no one wanted to believe)?

  21. line says:

    He must stop publishing official communiques because they are so ridiculous. He remained a friend with Esptein after his first trial where he was officially recognized as a pedophile.

    Then now he published this: “I saw him only rarely and probably not more than once or twice a year.I have stayed in many of his residences.” people who agree to live in billionaire residences are people when who have a interest or advantages with billionaire person. And we already know that Esptein gave money to Fergie, consequently he could very well provide other things to Andrew like providing him very young girls, because this was a specialty of Esptein and the reason why people frequent him.

    He just has to shut up and to withdraw from his royal duties.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Agreed. Must be a ‘royal’ thing, staying in the homes—year after year–of people you really don’t know. Andrew needs to keep his trap shut; on the other hand, I’m waiting for the next communique because you know it’s coming & he will really seal his own fate.

  22. Real Housewife says:

    It infuriated me that the original statement called them “alleged crimes.” The are no longer “alleged” once the pedophile has plead guilty and served a jail sentence. They are verifiable, copped-to crimes.

    • Tourmaline says:

      Marina Hyde the Guardian columnist has been on fire with her critiques of crap like this –she had great tweets on it yesterday. Clearly the goal,of Andrews statement was to distance and minimize everything and it was a spectacular failure.

  23. bonobochick says:

    Bad statement full of holes and avoidance. Not surprising, though.

    Has he been asked directly about Virginia Roberts?

  24. LuLuLu says:

    The gentleman (Sarcasm) doth protest too much, methinks.

  25. Bookworm says:

    With all the swirling about Bea probably getting engaged, which would have happened anyway, I don’t think she will get a Eugenie type wedding at Windsor. Andy and Fergie aren’t going to be center stage like that again soon (hopefully never).

    • Tourmaline says:

      I think this is a huge impetus for the Yorks to try to sweep this under the rug ASAP and part of what motivated that crap statement–horribly written, calling what Epstein did ‘his lifestyle’ etc.

      Just this week Ingrid Seward was saying that Bea discussed her plans with the Queen at Balmoral because they needed to clear dates for the wedding.

      Even if Bea would be happy having a small wedding or eloping it will be paramount to Andrew and Fergie that she have a big Royal Wedding at Windsor like Eugenie did.

      So this shall be interesting. Given the Queen was pleased as punch to ride smirking with Andrew and to let BP release that awful statement yesterday I don’t see her denying her granddaughter her dream wedding….

  26. My3cents says:

    Goodness, just going by today’s headlines (William &Andrew) these royals do not have a brain cell combined.
    Andrew would have really thrived a couple centuries ago where he could just walk into any village and pick and molest children without any ramifications.

  27. Bea says:

    Did anyone see the amazing takedown article in the guardian by marina hyde? it was so good, I feel this statement might be a response to that

  28. Tourmaline says:

    @Bea re the Marina Hyde column in the Guardian–yes!

    I agree and it must have ENRAGED Andrew as it drew a devastating contrast between girls like his daughters who are protected princesses given royal weddings and girls like Epstein’s victims who are treated like trash.

  29. bamaborn says:

    Don’t understand why he keeps releasing statements. His mum and the British intelligence agencies are going to make sure he gets no where close to a court.

  30. Lindy says:

    Some days it’s hard to avoid feeling waves of despair about whether Andrew and the other powerful men will ever be punished or held accountable.

  31. OriginalLala says:

    What a disgusting man trying to distance himself from his crimes. Ì hope the truth comes out

  32. Ty says:

    This is so disgusting. What is mind blowing is the queen protecting her son. Why not just have him go away quietly and lay low. But yet, when it comes to the press against Meghan the Queen is quiet and doesn’t comment. Fine if she doesn’t want to comment why not show solidarity and have Meghan riding in the car to church with her. As much as the Cambridge are throwing the Sussex under the bus, I also believe the queen and Charles do the same. It’s like you will protect a pedophile, but won’t stand up to racism.

    • Bookworm says:

      I don’t think Meghan and Harry have arrived there yet, so there hasn’t been the opportunity.

  33. HK9 says:

    I don’t believe a word of Andrew’s statement. Not a f-king word. He’s in this up to his neck and pics with his mum aren’t going to get him out of this.

  34. SM says:

    Funny enough, I never even knew the Queen had this son. This is how much interest in the monarchs I have. Zero. Zero interest in all the current drama around Charles’s sons and their wives. And that drama gets coverage every day. Now this however, deserves all the attention and more. And how is anyone surprised? This is how monarchy worked for centuries, it remains strong by basically running over peasants. And this is why the Palace is sure and rightly so, that whatever crimes he committed and no matter how much evidence of these crimes there is, he is going to survive this and be fine. It is obvious from that shambolic statement, so detached and so apathetic that it almost feels like they think it is more important to display coldness and detachment than actually express some genuine remorse or compassion towards the victims.

  35. Dee Kay says:

    One thing I have learned is that some people, British or American or any nationality, really want to worship the upper classes. They really want to believe that the people who claim to be better than everyone else by birthright really are better than everyone else. One thing I hope this scandal accomplishes is opening up more people’s eyes to the fact that people with a lot of power, money, position, and privilege often don’t deserve it, and far from deserving it, they use all of their advantages to take advantage of others.