Prince Andrew has given an interview about Jeffrey Epstein, it will air on the BBC


Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II leads the royal family out on the balcony to view the flypast by the RAF at Trooping the Colour on Saturday 8 June 2019

Princess Beatrice still has not announced her wedding date. We discussed it in the most recent Gossip With Celebitchy podcast, and I shared my theory that Beatrice and Edo were waiting until all of the stories about her dad, the Duke of York, died down. The stories have not died down. Even with the Buckingham Palace courtiers doing the most to throw the Duke and Duchess of Sussex under the bus to deflect from Andrew’s participation in Jeffrey Epstein’s human trafficking ring, the stories have not died down. Even with the Queen regularly trotting out to shield her favorite son from criticism, the stories have not died down. And so now… Prince Andrew is going on-camera for a BBC interview about Jeffrey Epstein.

Prince Andrew has agreed to speak publicly about his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein for the first time, in a “no holds barred” interview with the BBC’s Newsnight programme to be broadcast on Saturday night. The prince has been the subject of fierce speculation over his relationship with the financier, who was found dead in his New York jail cell three months ago.

Epstein’s accuser Virginia Giuffre claims Prince Andrew was “an abuser, a participant” in her exploitation as a teenager and says she was coerced to have sex with him. The prince has previously strongly denied any inappropriate behaviour or of being aware of any such behaviour from Epstein. But he has struggled to stop the flow of damaging claims, including newly released footage showing him at Epstein’s home in 2011 after the financier was released from jail.

Newsnight sources said the interview was a result of six months of negotiations with the royal household, with an agreement that there would not be any advance vetting of the questions. The interview was conducted on Thursday at Buckingham Palace and the BBC has decided to broadcast a special edition of the show at 9pm on Saturday. It was conducted by the lead Newsnight presenter, Emily Maitlis, who promised it will be “no holds barred”.

The palace has until now relied on issuing strongly worded press statements, while some newspapers have reported “sources close to Prince Andrew” saying that a photo of him with Giuffre is fake because his fingers are “much chubbier” in real life.

[From The Guardian]

Personally, I feel like the fact that he felt the need to go on-camera to answer questions about Epstein is proof enough that Andrew was into some really shady, criminal sh-t. Play this game with me: let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Andrew had been telling the truth about everything up to this point, that he never touched Virginia, that the photo was Photoshopped, that his fingers are fatter in real life, that he only ever took trips on the Lolita Express (Epstein’s plane) a few times for business, that he really only met up with Epstein in 2011 to break up with him as friends, even though they were merely vague acquaintances. Let’s say all of that was the truth. Then why in God’s name would Andrew need to say anything else, especially on camera? That’s not the way royals operate, remember? So the fact that Andrew is still trying to talk his way out of this means (to me) that it’s a lot worse than what is even being reported.

Never Forget that this was how Andrew looked 24 hours after Epstein’s mysterious jail cell death:

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN, Getty.

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

161 Responses to “Prince Andrew has given an interview about Jeffrey Epstein, it will air on the BBC”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. JanetFerber says:

    Lies, lies and more lies, huh Andrew? Carefully curated lies by your royal handlers. You suck, Andrew. Go to jail and directly to jail.

    • Mego says:

      That’s the thing. I highly doubt there are many people who seriously believe He is telling the truth. He isn’t sympathetic or believable in the least and it shows the extent of his self delusion.

    • escondista says:

      Child rapist says what?

    • Anners says:

      I was listening to RCP’s forensically deconstructing Jeffrey Epstein (fascinating) and one of the hosts says that new Scotland Yard is definitely investigating Prince Andrew for his involvement in human trafficking (age of consent is 16 in England, so can’t get him there, but moving underage girls and women across the world for the purpose of having sex with them is still very much illegal). I’m really really really hoping he does some time, or at the very least hast to go to court. I think the BRF’s star is waning and there is a real public desire for answers and accountability.

      • minx says:

        That would be great, but I just don’t see TQ allowIng her precious son to go to prison or even to court. She will do everything to protect him.

      • Anners says:

        You’re probably right, minx. But that protection will only last for her lifetime. I don’t see Charles risking the continuation of the monarchy for his brother’s benefit. Who knows…I’m going to just keep hoping anyway.

    • Abena Asantewaa says:

      What happened to the so called; ‘Stiff upper lip’ It’s all down the ditch, I see. Meghan you are right, this tradition should be dumped in the dustbin of History where it belongs.

  2. Rapunzel says:

    Good. Every time this prick opens his mouth, he makes it worse. Let him talk himself into criminal charges.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      Let’s hope he is stupid enough to incriminate himself. After all, he’s known to be both pompous and stupid.

      • Rhys says:

        They all are. Their policy of never giving interviews is a self preserving mechanism, because nobody in the family ever put any effort into cultivating their intellect.

      • Mego says:

        Rhys they seem to break that so called policy rather a lot. Except for the Queen but she always manages to be above reproach.

      • minx says:

        The whole family is useless and corrupt.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        One thing that I love about the Danish RF is that they actually give interviews, the Queen even does press conferences sometimes without vetted questions (hence why she sometimes has to answer some very stupid questions). They have also released a 7 part documentary 10 years ago about the workings behind the scenes – both the royal and senior courtiers participated. It really gave you a good idea how much work is involved in State Visits, official visits as well as gala dinners – both on the part of the staff and the royals themselves. Fx the documentary crew followed the preparations for an official dinner the Queen hosted for an international climate summit, where the political negotiations broke down at one point – and guests just kept cancelling and then later confirming attendance again. I was really impressed by the royal staff because the situation made their work hard, constantly having to shuffle the seating chart around until the very last minute. The Danish court is really professional.

        Queen Margrethe has also participated in documentaries about the royal castles. Just this week I watched one about Gråsteen Castle, which is their summer residence and was very much connected to her mother, the late Queen Ingrid – so there was a lot of focus on her memories of her mother. Of course, QMII is witty and intelligent – she is just a delight to watch.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I hope those end up posted on YouTube. I enjoyed other interviews with her, like the royal jewels documentary and Queen Margrethe’s Red Thread. Didn’t they do one with Mary a few years ago, following her for year? It might have been for the anniversary of her Foundation.

        Their staff does seem to understand modern communications. The BRF are hopeless, and the Lux royal court only started fixing up their website and getting social media accounts this year or last.

    • Coco says:

      Even if he admits everything on camera, it’s not going to be live, is it? Some royal representative is probably in the editing room.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      QEII never gave interviews as Princess Elizabeth of York so I can see why she does not give them as Queen Elizabeth II. However, she was “interviewed” on a special about the Crown Jewels.

      Charles, on the other hand, gives interviews as the Prince of Wales and I am sure will continue to give interviews as King Charles III.

  3. Kittycat says:

    Huge mistake

  4. Zapp Brannigan says:

    “No questions vetted. There’s the first lie right there”

    ^^This was the top rated comment on this story on the daily mail this morning and when commentators at the DM think you are full of it you know you have an image problem.

    Cue another story about how Meghan Markle is breaking the poor innocent Nanna Queen Elizabeth’s heart by snubbing chutney but unflappable, regal Kate will come through with many home made pots of Cambridge Choice Chutney.

    • Iknow says:

      Well, there was one about how the Stella McCartney coat she wore on remembrance day was made in a Hungarian sweatshop where the workers barely makes 2.60 pounds a day… So Meghan causes climate change by eating avocados and she has she’s exploiting impoverished women.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “when commentators at the DM think you are full of it you know you have an image problem.”

      No Schitt Sherlock! Believe it or not the the Daily Fail commentariat have their knives out for Piers Morgan. Piers wrote and story on Meghan and it was published online yesterday. I read most of the 675 comments and they were negative but not towards Meghan; the comments were negative towards Piers Morgan and very hilarious to boot.

      • Moose says:

        Awesome!! Lets hope the tide is turning and people at last see Piss Moron as the obsessive stalker he really is….

        Prof Kate Williams also keeps calling out DF on twitter about the paper twisting H&M comments she’s made to fit their narrative.

        There;s also an excellent Byline article tonight about meghan’s claim against DF.

  5. Lucylee says:

    Is he copying you know who? Because I thought they never complained or explained.
    SMH

  6. Digital Unicorn says:

    To me this interview confirms everything and show how complicit Mummy and her gov are/were in covering up for Prince Porky Fingers.

    Here Andrew, a new spade to keep digging with.

    • Gabby says:

      Dying laughing at “Prince porky fingers!”
      Since Andrew will never face real justice, i.e. a jail cell, I’m happy to see his feet continually held to the firestorm of bad publicity. I hope he strokes right out, with anger that mummy can’t seem to make it go away.

    • Moose says:

      He is a pompous idiot, this interview will do him no favours whatsoever and will probably only cause more publicity about his shadiness…

  7. Arizona says:

    absolutely uninterested in this unless it’s him coming clean, which he obviously won’t be. I’m not interested in giving pedophiles a platform.

  8. S808 says:

    all this tells me is that he’s guilty of something and whatever it is, it’s big.

  9. Kittycat says:

    This is straight out of the 90s

  10. Erinn says:

    ” Let’s say all of that was the truth. Then why in God’s name would Andrew need to say anything else, especially on camera?”

    Do we think he’s an especially smart man, though? I mean everything points to him being involved in or adjacent to some shady shit as the BEST case scenario, worst case he’s a rapist, which I think is probably the most likely scenario.

    But we KNOW this family is for the most part terrible with PR. I could see him GENUINELY believing he’s being smart by doing an interview. If we were to believe in the small chance that he is in fact innocent of what he’s been accused of (again, not my belief) – I do think the RF would be idiotic enough to parade him out for a tv interview. These are the same people who thought a pap stroll with the queen was smart.

    • emmy says:

      I don’t think that family is particularly smart, no. I guess with the exception of Chuck and Philip maybe. But it’s hard to say when someone has THIS much privilege and hubris. You never know if it’s lack of intelligence or simply arrogance. It’s probably why they don’t know what to do with Meghan, who truly is very intelligent and educated. Kate might even be smarter than most of them, she does know how to play to their vanity.

      This is going to be a trainwreck and I’m here for it. What a horrid idea when you cannot be sure how much cold, hard evidence of your crimes is out there.

      • Erinn says:

        I think you’re right. None of them are especially smart, though there are a few who seem to definitely be more intellectually inclined, or at the very least more interested in learning in areas where they may lack. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being just ‘average’ in intelligence, but I think the problem usually boils down to arrogance, like you said. You can be an idiot, but when you’re arrogant and surrounded by people who only build up that ego, that’s when it becomes dangerous. I don’t think Kate is as uneducated as some people would like to think. But I do agree that her interest or work ethic (or both) just isn’t there a lot of the time. Intelligence can show its self in a lot of different ways, though, and the fact that she’s so far survived this family shows she at the very least can adapt. I’m not saying that she deserves a gold star for that, but I do think she’s a bit more people savvy than she lets on.

        But I do think that’s a good chunk of why nobody seems to know what to ‘do’ with Meghan. If they want to come out on top of things, I think they’d be better off trusting and letting MEGHAN do Meghan, you know? She’s proven herself to be motivated, to want to help others, and to be capable of keeping huge initiatives quiet until ready for launch. These are all hugely desirable traits in their circle.

        I’m kind of here for it, too! I truly truly hope that these poor women get at least some semblance of justice for their bravery in coming forward – I want nothing but the best for them, and it breaks my heart that they had to go through this. But I do enjoy being able to sit back and watch awful awful humans squirm because their actions are finally catching up to them.

      • Iknow says:

        @Errin, but I think the problem is letting Meghan do Meghan is counter-intuitive to the goals of the monarchy. They don’t want her to shine. They want her to dim herself, like Kate has done. You’ve mentioned a very true thing, Kate doesn’t rock the royal boat because she is a blank canvass that any British woman, young or old, can project themselves onto. The only thing I may take issue with is that I don’t believe this is Kate’s innate’s survival intelligence. The true intellect , in my opinion, is one Carole Middleton. I think Carole knew her daughter and understood, with Kate’s personality, that she would be able to survive that viper’s nest. The thing with Meghan is that she is vibrant, she is curious, and she is not willing to step back. I do think she knows her place – that she isn’t the future queen consort. But she knows her worth and what she can do for the Crown, and that’s what the courtiers can’t understand.

      • emmy says:

        Honestly, I don’t like wild conspiracy theories because it makes me lose faith in my ability to judge reality. But mostly because I know it’s often worse than us non-billionaires, non-powerful people without connections can imagine. So on the one hand I want to believe some people in this family are truly good human beings but on the other hand I know some average people who grew up sheltered and solid middle class, never having worked particularly hard for their rather nice lives. And I see how that alone can breed some disgusting people. So no, I don’t see how someone growing up like THAT had a great chance of becoming a good person.

        Kate went to school with these people. She knew them at least. Meghan probably didn’t know what hit her although you hire people who will tell you.

        I want to see Andrew burn.

    • Mignionette says:

      Everything points to him being HEAVILY involved.

      Notice that Epstein was at some point the doyen of bringing together the rich and powerful. The photos we have seen thus far are littered with the glitterati of the 90′s and 00′s. Yet two/ three names repeatedly pop up…. (Andrew, Clinton and Trump). Of course there are many more which crop up more than once, but flight logs, video evidence, photos, written evidence, audit trails etc all put Andrew at the epicentre of Epstein’s paedo ring. More alarmingly that support did not waiver once Epstein had been convicted and was registered as a known paedophile. Something that BP would have been aware of and which led to Andrew being sacked as UK Trade Envoy.

      SO the question is why if senior aides (who are on record to be ticked off with Meghan not wearing a hat), not more concerned with whom Andrew associates with, especially when there is an issue of soft diplomacy at stake ?

      Putting on my tin foil hat I am going to go out on a limb and say that Andrew could not shake off Epstein because Epstein viewed him as an insurance policy. A policy which passed it’s sell by date earlier this year after Trump’s state visit. I am going to guess that the UK Foreign office called in a favour from the Orange cheeto whom had just as much to loose.

      Meghan not attending a banquet 1 month post partum was just the perfect cover for what was really going on, saving Andrew’s bacon.

      • Erinn says:

        I think you’ve got a pretty good theory there tin-foil or not, Mignionette. I never used to be someone who leaned into conspiracy, but it seems like the current state of the world is really shifting that view in a lot of ways, and quite frankly a lot of conspiracy makes much more sense than a lot of the ‘reality’ we’re seeing unfold.

        I think the insurance policy thing is probably a very likely scenario. He knows rich and powerful people are a good shield – and what better institute to get protection from than a monarchy? There’s just so much for them to want to protect, that if he could get his claws in with that group, it’s a whole extra level of insurance that he wouldn’t necessarily find in independently wealthy people.

        And of course the fact that both he and Epstein are rich white guys plays into the treatment from the RRs. They’d literally rather protect an alleged rapist than some ‘no-hat-wearing-biatch’ (what I’m sure they think – not MY feelings on Meg who I think is quite lovely).

        There’s a lot of people in the world who despise nothing more than they despise progress. They hang on to outdated rules and protocols in the name of tradition when in fact it’s pretty much just a mix of racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. I’m sure there’s the odd one who genuinely likes the traditions that have been in place for exactly what they are – traditions. But I would be willing to bet that the vast vast majority of them drag their feet because they hate that a) they’re being shown as less special than they think they are and b) they know that any meaningful change would mean that they’re no longer necessary and c) they’re just shit humans.

      • emmy says:

        My reply above was supposed to go here 😁

      • A says:

        @Erinn, a good rule of thumb when it comes to conspiracies, for me, has been to just stop viewing them as some kind of grand unifying theory of all the disgusting things in the world, and to start seeing them as moral failures on part of individual systems and people.

        People are bad, and they do awful things. The systems and institutions that exist right now serve to protect the powerful from ever having to deal with consequences for their behaviour. This is not a conspiracy. This is not some grand hidden truth about the world. This is simply something that happens in plain sight. People lie, people steal, people cover up illicit activities. That is the norm in this world. It’s only a conspiracy if we believe that the world is set up to be fair. As of this moment, it’s not.

  11. Mignionette says:

    The BBC (and in particular Emily Maitliss) have shown themselves to be increasingly partisan.

    This interview will be no different. Despite the protestations of ‘nothing being off limits’ this is a PR exercise in power shake down. I’m guessing that a few favours were called in for access to other family members (*cough* Cambridge’s) to make this interview happen because it’s essentially a sh*t show.

    I am still keeping my fingers crossed for a smoking gun that will implicate Andrew conclusively once and for all. This interview will go down in history as the day the BBC aided and abetted with a paedophile to ‘rehabilitate his image’. Something they have a history of doing i.e. Jimmy Saville.

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      In 1978 John Lydon gave an interview to Radio 1 in which he called Saville a “hypocrite… into all kinds of seediness… that we’re not allowed to talk about” The BBC refused to air the interview and banned his band The Sex Pistols from being broadcast. In 1978 they knew and colluded and covered up abuse and nothing has changed. It is maddening.

      • Mignionette says:

        I remember reading about that Zapp. They then covered over the banning by saying they banned them bc Johnny told the queen to f*ck off or something to that effect.

        They set about destroying the sex pistols for that ‘alleged’ smear.

        The BBC is nothing more than state propaganda and I wish they’d pull the licence fee already….

    • Polly says:

      There’s no way the interview won’t be edited in Andrew’s favour. If he says anything stupid or incriminating, displays any obviously guilty body language, it will simply be cut. The BBC sadly are not to be trusted anymore, they have proven that over and over again in the last few years. This whole thing is an awful idea.

  12. STRIPE says:

    I’m guessing this will in no way be “no holds barred” No way he would agree to or continue with an actual hard hitting interview.

  13. aquarius64 says:

    The only interview that counts is the one with the Feds.

    I think this is another reasons the Sussexes ducked out of the royal Christmas. They don’t want to be seen tied to Andrew in any way.

    • Mignionette says:

      I agree 100%

      I think this is part of what is causing the rift.

      Meghan strikes me as a hugely idealistic person. Institutions like the RF are littered with all sorts of power abuse including paedophilia (aka Mountbatten).

      I am guessing that Meghan and Harry refused to play ball in some of the cover ups and this is all part of it.

    • Tigerlily says:

      Yes This. I find it amusing that BBC actually said that the questions haven’t been vetted….BS. Questions have been vetted and the interview will be edited in Andrew’s favor

      Not sure how smart Harry is but I do think Meghan is very intelligent. It’s obvious they’ve been thrown to the wolves in order to distract from Uncle Criminal Pedo. Why in the world would they want to be present at a Christmas celebration where all the family will be expected to show their support of said Pedo?

      So very disappointed in QEII, that photo of her with Andrew after Epstein’s death says everything. Her “legacy” is totally besmirched now in my eyes.

  14. Livvers says:

    He’ll sit down with the BBC but will he sit down with Giuffre’s legal team who want to interview him? Hmmm.

    • Pearlime says:

      Yeah, he is doing the TV interview as a preemtive measure so he can weasel out of any interview under oath. Word is that the french police is pushing BP to get to interrogate him. Come sunday BP can just say: he said what he has to say in that interview.
      Really disappointed that the BBC agreed to do this. Its pre-recorded, so if the questions haven’t been vetted, surely the editing is favourable.

      • Nic919 says:

        This interview will be included in the motion materials by Giuffre’s lawyers pointing to Andrew simply avoiding being deposed for the civil case. If he can speak to the press he can speak to them.

  15. Rapunzel says:

    I just want to know: will the interview included a segment where his “chubby” fingers are measured and compared to that picture of him and Virginia G.?

  16. Jumpingthesnark says:

    Wow. Just wow. yet another good reason for team Sussex to skip Sandringham Xmas. They are smart to avoid involvement with the Christmas pap walk and whitewashing of pedo Andy. Because that is what it will be.

  17. Purplehazeforever says:

    It’s a lot worse. That’s why Buckingham Palace has been throwing the Sussexes under the bus to protect him. What I don’t understand is why Prince Charles allows this to continue. He will be King one day & he’s going to be shrinking the monarchy. He’s not fond of Andrew & I imagine this makes it worse. I’m wondering when Prince Charles was supposed to take over & if it was pushed back because of Prince Andrew.

    • Mignionette says:

      Because it’s all about saving the Crown, even if that means saving Andy.

      The problem is the RF are in too deep now. The recent ABC expose show’s they have been aware of Andy’s actions for nearly a decade but chose to cover it up. They chose a (destructive) path and now have to stick to it.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        ABC=Australian Broadcasting Corporation
        or
        ABC=American Broadcasting Corporation

        I do not remember seeing this advertised on the Yank ABC network.

    • Elisa says:

      TQ is still the most senior royal, so IMO she told Charles to suck it up and not go against Andrew. And I agree, this would be a really tricky time for Charles to take over.
      Also, there are so many good theories on this thread, I’m loving it! :)

    • PrincessK says:

      Charles is interested only in his own profile and avoiding anything that may prevent him being crowned King of England!

      • notasugarhere says:

        That’s the thing though. He might end up as only King of England and Wales, with the 15 other Commonwealth countries leaving when HM passes away. Depending on Brexit, he may lose Scotland and Northern Ireland to independence movements.

  18. Becks1 says:

    I agree Kaiser. If he was “just acquaintances” with Epstein, and there really wasn’t anything there besides a business relationship that verged slightly towards friendship, why do this interview? Let the truth come out, and if what you say IS true, then you should be fine.

    This interview tells me the truth is worse than we suspect, and this is BP’s way of heading it off at the pass. Nothing earth shattering is going to come out of this, its going to be a lot of Andrew whining about being unfairly tarnished in the media, etc.

    I wonder if this is part of the reason the “fixer” left – he didn’t want him to do this interview.

    • Jumpingthesnark says:

      I think the reason the vaunted spin doctor left after a month is because what we know is barely the tip of the iceberg and he didn’t want to be associated with another Jimmy saville situation.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah, I think that’s probably a big part of it – he found out exactly what had been going on and was like, “peace, I’m out.”

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Or maybe Andrew would not listen to advice from the hired-gun spin doctor.

        The same thing happened with Diana after the Martin Bashir-Panorama-BBC One interview, which none of her staff new about.

        Her privates secretary and I believe one PR person left because they were not consulted and if they had been consulted, Diana would have ignored their advice.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Bay, new gossipy book from society tracker Kenneth Rose coming out in 2020. It mentions Diana taking 17 hours to film the Panorama interview, re-filming certain sections to get her expressions just right.

  19. Ash. says:

    The fact that the palace is letting him conduct the interview in buckingham palace and further connect themselves to him is mind boggling to me.

    Go do the interviews in your own home, or literally anywhere else while you answer questions about why you’re friends with a pedo.

    • Becks1 says:

      Right??? You want the imagery of the crown and the Queen around you while you answer those types of questions??? I mean, we all know that HE wants that, because he’s been hiding behind that for years, but it seems to me that someone at the palace may have said, “nah.”

      Someone said here a few days ago – for people whose lives are based on PR, they are astoundingly bad at PR.

      • Rapunzel says:

        The crown will be forever tarnished by this pedo’s gross sh–. Yet the media would have us believe Meg and Harry are worse or as bad for visiting her mom in LA for Christmas. The saddest thing: QEII probably is more distraught over H&M. And that’s her downfall.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Let’s hope Andrew conducts the interview in front of the solid gold piano as the piano looks really good on TV.

    • Elisa says:

      the interview taking place in buckingham palace is further proof that the queen is doing everything to protect Andrew.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Having it at Buckingham House is such a bad look for the Crown. I’m astounded that they are that stupid. This isn’t some run-of-the-mill scandal of an extra-marital affair or some such. This is a scandal of criminal proportions, crimes of the very worst kind: trafficking as well as the sexual slavery and abuse of minors. It is utterly stupid to continually let this scandal touch the monarchy by association.

  20. The Long-suffering Sequin says:

    He makes my skin crawl.

  21. yuck says:

    I’m not surprised by this. After all, unless he is prepared to retire from public life right now, he and his handlers have to do something to try to mitigate the damage. People have stopped coming out to his “events,” and I’m sure invitations for him to be involved in charities or causes have all but stopped. I doubt this will solve the problem, but I think they are just out of options.

    • Lorelei says:

      I don’t understand why he doesn’t just retire from public life. He’s old enough, and it would solve some of his problems. And probably make the lives of his daughters a bit easier.
      But nope, his giant ego keeps him out there, front and center.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Andrew is stupid and arrogant. Not a good combination. He was literally called His Buffoon Highness by the British diplomatic corps in the Middle East at one point. This is a man who doesn’t listen to good advice.

  22. RoyalBlue says:

    He is desperate to rehab his image but this is a trap. The more you talk the more likely you can slip up.

    I am speculating but I think his brand image has plummeted and people are requesting he not attend events, and in cases where he does attend the response has been lukewarm at best. It is no longer 1990 so Ignoring it means it is not going away. He probably feels desperately backed into a corner to do this by Charles who has threatened to make him live a life banished to the countryside somewhere.

    There. My tinfoil hat is off.

    • Mignionette says:

      @RoyalBlue I agree. He is so entitled that this interview is really about rehabbing his image so he can get back to Royal life as he is a pariah right now.

      I am glad this is sticking to him. The survivors of Epstein’s abuse deserve justice and all he cares about is how his life is being affected.

    • Gabby says:

      I can’t help but remember the interview with Charles, in the aftermath of the separation from Diana. The one in which he admitted to adultery.
      And if course the interview with Diana as well, I wonder if Charles looks back on his interview as a wise decision.

      • xo says:

        I always remember the skill Diana demonstrated in that interview.

        MB: “Were you unfaithful?”
        D: “Yes, I adored him. Yes, I was in love with him.”

        Perfect answer.

      • notasugarhere says:

        As I wrote above, new gossip book coming out claiming Diana took 17 hours to film that interview. Re-doing certain bits to get just the right wording or expression on her face.

    • Prairiegirl says:

      Perhaps Charles and his advisors are passive-aggressively encouraging Andrew to do the interview, knowing it’ll come off badly, so that when he (Charles) ascends the throne he can more easily push his brother out. “I’d love to keep you on the Civil List, my dear brother, but I simply can’t justify it given the state of the economy and your terrible public profile. So terribly sorry.” Any protection Andrew gets right now comes from the Queen’s courtiers, not Charles’. The Sussexes figure in mostly to deflect unseemly interest in the Cambridges, since William and George are higher up the line of succession than Harry (and Archie) who is less consequential, now that Kate’s had three children, than he was 5 years ago. To paraphrase Diana: the men in grey decide who’s a nonstarter.

      *removes tinfoil hat*

      • Elisa says:

        that actually makes a lot of sense. IMO Charles is the smartest one of the bunch, so I can totally see him planning far ahead…

  23. Rogue says:

    There’s obviously something the palace is trying to get ahead of- possibly linked to FBI investigations or Epstein victims ongoing legal action. Anyone located Ghislaine yet?

    The BBC will do the establishment heavy lifting of making It look like Andrew has faced the public& answered questions on his relationship with Epstein- so no need to talk to the police to clear his name. I’m guessing he will admit to poor judgement and that’s it.

    I wonder if this is why Sussexes being away from Sandringham was leaked this week.

    • Mignionette says:

      I get they’re trying to get ahead of something. But this stinks to high heaven of desperation. If Andy’s gonna get busted, then he’s gonna get busted.

      You can’t charm your way out of pedophilia. The public will not magically side with you just because you’re a Prince, if anything this will give the naysayers more ammunition. A truly innocent man submits himself to what ever questioning by the legitimate crime agencies and then we know he’s squeaky clean. Problem is …. he can’t….

    • Tourmaline says:

      It has been reported that neither the UK or US law enforcement has indicated that they want to speak to Andrew about this. Yes Virginia Giuffre’s attorneys want to speak with him but that is civil not criminal.
      And I rather believe that he is not a target of law enforcement at least in the US because there is quite a slow pace at law enforcement getting to people who are actually top Epstein associates who helped run his criminal activities. Most of which have been known to law enforcement since at least 2005. Number one would be Ghislaine Maxwell, she is still free, and there has been no indication that she is on any kind of most wanted list.

  24. bub244 says:

    The only people who should be interviewing this guy are the police.

  25. Aimee says:

    I understand that the Queen can’t just abandon her son but I am also really disappointed in the way she is handling this. Going out with him, all smiles, as if this is nothing. It’s not nothing. The best thing to do is to banish him to some remote outpost. Then when Charles is King he can deal with him.

  26. MEL says:

    Announced while the first in line is on tour. Where are the pearl clutchers and resident hypocrites.

  27. Belli says:

    We know that ABC blocked the story years ago to keep open access to the rest of the Royal Family.

    Why should we believe this time will be different?

    And does anyone genuinely believe that the questions won’t have been vetted? How stupid do they think we are??

    The BBC has a heavy pro-establishment bias and the idea of upsetting the Queen will be out of the question to them. This will be a soft interview, but any questions afterwards will be met with “He did this no-holds barred interview with the BBC, what more do you want? Stop asking!”

    I agree, the truth is worse than anything that had been mentioned so far and that Andrew is heavily involved.

  28. Pearlime says:

    Does this count as an official engagement though? ;-)

  29. heygingersnaps says:

    He is utterly disgusting! I have no doubt that the BBC is going to whitewash this.

  30. My3cents says:

    Crash and burn. That’s all I’m hoping for, and take along your damn entitled, racist family with you.

  31. OriginalLala says:

    wow, so instead of actually investigating this asshole like good journalists should they are giving him a cushy platform to lie on TV?! #AbolishTheMonarchy

  32. carmen says:

    I hope the interview will be available to those of us outside the UK.

  33. lanne says:

    Let’s see if the BBC asks the following questions:

    1) Why did Fergie approach Epstein for a loan?
    2) What was the nature of the conversation during the “walk in the park?”
    3) please account for each one of your trips on his plane. Here are the receipts of your travel. explain the purpose of each trip, please?
    4) Why did you continue you association with Epstein AFTER his conviction on pedophelia charges?
    5) Why did you stay at his house AFTER said conviction (show receipts of pics of him at the house)
    6) Why does your story about Virginia Guiffre keep changing? Why did you claim not to know her and that the pictures were doctored?
    7) Did you have a sexual relationship with Guiffre? What was the nature of that relationship?
    8)Did you have a sexual relationship with any other of Epstein’s girls?
    9) Why did you invite Epstein to Balmoral and Sandringham on x dates?
    10) What was the nature of your business relationship with Epstein?
    11) Epstein’s homes contained a lot of “erotic art” that many would find disturbing. What did you make of this artwork?
    12) What did you make of the fact that there were always young girls around? How can you claim you didn’t know about Epstein’s proclivities?
    13) You recently hired a new PR officer who quit after a month. Why did this person leave?
    14) You are a member of a highly public institution. How damaging have these allegations been to your role within this institution? Should you have given more consideration to your role in the Royal Family before choosing to continue your relationship with Epstein?
    15) How has this controversy affected your relationship with the Queen? With your daughters?
    16) Do you see yourself as a victim in this situation? To what extent do you bear responsibility for the situation you now find yourself in?

    Did I miss anything guys? What other/better questions would you ask? How many of these type of questions do you think the BBC will ask? A softball interview could really backfire on Pedo Andy

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      Why both Epstein and Harvey Weinstein were invited to and attended Princess Beatrice’s 18th birthday party?

      Has he reflected on why so many of his associates were later revealed to be involved in the exploitation and abuse of minors and women?

      If his association with Epstein was only sporadic and not friends (as originally claimed) why was he photographed opening the front door of Epstein’s home to admit young women to the premises?

      How often does he act as doorman in his own home or does he allow staff to carry out that duty?

      How exactly was the relationship between the Prince and Epstein first established?

      Did he feel it was inappropriate that he ex-wife received payment from a distant acquaintance that was known to be involved in the sexual exploitation and abuse of minors?

      Why did the palace negotiate with an American news network to block the release of this information and what was exchanged for that coverup?

      Does he feel it is appropriate for the palace to use it’s influence and the funds of the British taxpayers to deal with a scandal that involves the abuse of minors that were trafficked into sex slavery?

    • Ainsley7 says:

      Fergie didn’t approach Epstein for a loan. Andrew got the “loan” in exchange for being seen publicly with him after he was released from jail. Epstein thought it would clean up his image. There were articles about it at the time. Will and Kate’s marriage covered up a lot of this stuff, but it was still a pretty big deal back then. Fergie even apologized for taking money from a pedophile. So, the blame ended up on her rather than Andrew. I’m not saying that she isn’t shady, but it was Andrew who was actively trying to clean up Epstein’s image.

  34. Mego says:

    This will not end well.

    Also
    I wonder if other members will concern troll him like they did Harry and Meghan after the documentary.

    And
    Will the rr’s lambaste him for violating the never complain never explain unwritten rule of royal protocol and decorum?

  35. adastraperaspera says:

    If it’s true that he’s had favors from Epstein (taken in trafficking or cash), then he’s owned by the mob and is probably being forced to do this interview by forces far more powerful than the monarchy (Semion Mogilevich for one). This is at the point where UK national security is threatened.

    • Mignionette says:

      I suspect that Epstein kept a lot of dirt on his ‘Insurance policies’. Note he also had ‘extensive sessions’ with his Lawyers just before his death and ‘tidied up his affairs’. I am guessing he left just enough evidence for those brave enough to find it, to take people down some very powerful people posthumously. I also saw a recent article where his family are terrified of reprisals from those in power.

      Granted he cannot testify from the grave, but if I knew I was being whacked off to save a couple of high powered men around the world, then I’d be sure to leave them lovely Xmas, Hanukkah or Eid presents…

      • RoyalBlue says:

        Mignonette and I hope those sessions with his lawyers were recorded. I would love to see Andrew’ face when Epstein speaks from the grave.

  36. Maria says:

    If Bea and Edo wait until this mess sorts itself out, they might be waiting forever!

    • A says:

      I’m thinking maybe they don’t actually get married. I can totally see them waiting for a time to announce a date, and that time never happening, and then they quietly break off the engagement a couple years from now. I definitely think they only got engaged to save their dad’s face, and it’s not working in the slightest.

  37. Middle of the road says:

    You mean a “lie-terview”

  38. Powermoonchrystal says:

    Now this is gonna destroy the monarchy. In all seriousness, if this is anything like the finger defense, they are toast.

    • Jumpingthesnark says:

      Yes. The BRF is more and more a sinking ship. I suspect that TW and PC and their courtiers do not realize this, or at least the seriousness of all this. The total reporters however, that’s another story. They know and realize that without the BRF they gave no jobs and no skills. They have 2 reasons for the frantic peddling of toxic and racist stories about Megan — gain favor with the courtiers and file stories/click bait before the BRF goes down and they have no more jobs.

  39. JV says:

    I don’t care to give this man even one minute of my time. The past year has seen me lose all respect for The Queen, as she has done nothing to stop the vilifying of Meghan, yet actively protects an accused rapist. Disgusting.

  40. Jaded says:

    Well Charles’s interview with Jonathan Dimbleby made him look a total wanker and tarnished his reputation for decades so you’d think Andrew would have learned that “opening up to the public” is not necessarily the way to look innocent. I’d like to see him take a lie detector test on TV or at least have an expert on facial expression monitor his responses and prove what a lying sack of sh*t he is.

  41. Le4Frimaire says:

    They should have had Gayle King do the interview. Can see her calming intoning “ Andrew, Andrew, your Highness” as he stalks around the room ranting and crying. Seriously, why is he doing this? Is a lawsuit about to drop on him? Does he have a handler or attorney lurking in the background?

  42. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    The thing is, Andrew has nothing to lose. He probably thinks people’s fondness for their monarchy will make them believe him, and his granting “access” to a member of the royal family will make them like him. And if not . . . . he’s no worse off than he is before the interview. Even IF he slipped up and said something incriminating, it’s not like the royal family will ever allow him to be arrested. Whatever his slip-up is, he will have been acting as the Queen’s emissary at the time, so “diplomatic immunity.” Other people involved with Epstein may eventually face charges, but Andrew won’t. Not even after the Queen dies. Charles will continue to protect Andrew, not for Andrew’s own sake, but to protect the infallibility/untouch-ability of the royal family in general.

  43. Rogue says:

    According to Chris Ship the interview is ‘candid’ and Andrew comes across as ‘humble’.

    • Sunshine says:

      Didn’t Kate just announce she is also working with the BBC? Quid Pro Quo?

      • A says:

        I’m not quite sure how that’s quid pro quo tbh, but it irritates me that the royal family is choosing to use the BBC as their outlet for good coverage recently. And the BBC is complicit in propping up this idiotic family’s PR. They’re a public corporation, they’re answerable to the people, they should not be sitting around giving a platform to these ingrates for anything.

  44. Sunshine says:

    Isn’t Kate now working with the BBC?

  45. Tourmaline says:

    If you want to laugh uncontrollably or perhaps scream, check out Fergie’s Twitter now (Sarah The Duchess is her handle), she’s just tweeted out her support for Andy “honesty” “pure truth” “steadfast and strong” “true and real gentleman”…I could go on.

    Oh and postscript: she did go on Instagram as well and among other things “It is time for Andrew to stand firm now”, “We are the best examples of joint parenting”, and “We have always walked tall and strong, he for me and me for him” (walked tall and strong right towards oligarchs and human traffickers, hands outstretched).

    • heygingersnaps says:

      Fergie is delusional and only cares about herself and the gravy train.

      • PrincessK says:

        Daily Mail is still heavily moderating every Andrew article.

      • PrincessK says:

        She is not delusional she is quite a power player in all this she knows all of Andrew’s secrets and the Royal family and she can play the game whichever way she wants.

  46. SJR says:

    If Andrew had any brains at all….he would quietly pack his bags and head for the farthest corner of the Empire, shut up and try to be invisible, as far off the radar as possible.

    Of course, his ego and complete lack of smarts will not let him.

    If actual criminal charges were brought against PA..the entire monarchy would shut down in record time, IMO.
    Trying to protect/cover up this vile, criminal behavior is sickening.

    I am certain I will not waste a second of my time, watching PA straight out lie.

  47. A says:

    The BBC choosing to side with a boorish pedophile and sex-traffic supporter? And giving him a chance to clear his name? Who would have thunk it. They’re really showing their colours and their loyalties with this stunt, and they should be fcking ashamed of themselves.

  48. Rogue says:

    This interview looks a disaster already even as soft as the questioning seems from clips so far. Andrew now denies any memory of Virginia& talks nonchalantly about “letting the side down” by continuing contact with Epstein after his jail time. Couldn’t make this up. This is really a terrible year for the monarchy.

    The BBC presenter Emily said they have been negotiating a sit down with Andrew for a year and the interview was approved by the Queen just this week. Now hearing that Kate will do a cooking special with Mary Berry& William has his mental health series with BBC makes me think the courtiers have been very busy BTS.

  49. carmen says:

    Funny how the Fail’s coverage of the Pedo Andy interview mainly seems to generate comments that are either pro Andy or neutral. Unlike Meghan articles, all comments on Prince Pedo must go through the Fail’s preapproval process prior to publication. Voila, nothing negative.

    • Carmen says:

      Not the article I just read. The comments about Andrew are 99% negative. Nobody believes a word he said in that interview.

  50. Dorothy says:

    The age of consent in the UK is 16 ?!?! holy sh!t that’s disgusting!!!!!! How can women allow children to be treated like that how is no one advocating for laws against that wow that’s seriously abhorrent is it still like that anywhere here in the US ?!?! am I ignorant in this topic??!😢 so sad seriously let girls grow up

    • carmen says:

      There is no age of consent for sex trafficking though…

    • Guest says:

      Child brides are a common occurrence in the United States, in several states. Shocking that people in the USA don’t want to change those laws, which allow grown men to marry teens & barely teens.

    • Pip says:

      Blimey, that’s quite a reaction. Might be worth doing a bit of research into the age of consent in various European countries before you rant at the Brits.

      • banana bread says:

        lol, agreed Pip. Funnily enough, making something illegal (especially when it comes to teenage sex) doesn’t stop it happening.

        Oh no wait, silly me, I forgot that nobody in the USA or UK takes illegal drugs, drinks underage, steals from people, assaults anyone, crosses the road when there’s no green man…

        My bad.

    • Eulalia says:

      The age of consent is 16 in most states in Australia (where I live) as well.

      I think it’s a little naive to think teenagers aren’t going at it like rabbits around that age.

  51. Molly says:

    Oh Kaiser, the Brits don’t really care about a pedophile Prince. However, Archie not spending his first Christmas with the Queen now that’s a real crime.

  52. blunt talker says:

    A reporter with honest credentials should show how every time Andrew’s name hits the news media, the dishonest reporters put a hit out on the Sussexes. I read how Meghan and Harry’s holiday plans were leaked to the media yesterday and today we find out Andrew is giving an interview to clean up his reputation. This was all approved by the Queen. The Queen is doing everything she can to protect Andy and allowing the Sussexes to be thrown to the wolves without lifting a finger to help.

  53. Skippy says:

    I remember hearing the rumors about Andrew hooking up with teenage girls years and years ago. This guy is rich, a member of the Royal family. He is forever shielded by the money and the family. This is truly the way it is, however unjust.

  54. MeghanNotMarkle says:

    *sigh* This was really unnecessary. Pedo Andy is dumb as a bag of rocks and so is HM if she thinks that this is going to make him look better.

  55. Jen says:

    I’m wondering if he’ll damn himself with his own words, or if he’s been well-coached enough to be able to avoid that?

    • Jaded says:

      He strikes me as far too arrogant to take “coaching” from anyone. His PR spin doctor quit after only a month on the job so that says a lot about how difficult he is to work with. I lean more into damning himself with his own words and phony humility.

    • Jen says:

      I think we got our answer to that one then…

  56. banana bread says:

    Ugh, this is horrible. Have seen the initial news stories (am in UK) and basically he is ashamed of ‘letting down’ the Royal Family (never mind the victims), and of ‘being too honourable’ in sticking by known sex-offender Jeffrey Eppstein.

    From Fergie – obvs what the actual fuck

    https://twitter.com/SarahTheDuchess?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    But the majority of the UK press/social media commentators – even the gross, right wing ones – are calling it right. Just google ‘Prince Andrew UK’ and you’ll get a lot of mostly good analyses.

  57. Miriam says:

    So much for that ”never complain never explain”🙄

  58. Nic919 says:

    My twitter timeline is full of car crash gifs and pizza as the Interview is airing in the UK.

  59. L4frimaire says:

    I have no interest in watching this buffoon lie to the British public. Apparently this disaster of an interview was the reason his new PR advisor quit. Anyway, I hope no one is complaining about the bad strategy of the Sussexes spending Christmas with Meghans mother, because there is no way I’d want to be in the same orbit as these arrogant fools. What were they thinking. He would have been better off as a witness against Epstein, given secret testimony, and looked somewhat redeemed. What a jerk, and Fergie fawning all over him on Twitter shows just how messy those two are and have always been. Total dumpster fire 🔥.

  60. MemphisMe says:

    People Magazine has bits of the interview. It’s AWFUL! He sunk himself further as we knew he would. I’ve had my kids come up with better stories to explain why they can’t clean their rooms. Seriously, my three-year-old could come off sounding smarter. Pathetic. Stick a fork in him!

  61. RoyalBlue says:

    Wonderful. Hubris will lead to the end of the monarchy.

  62. A says:

    So, to recap: the Sussexs publicly talking about their feelings regarding the media continually behaving disgustingly towards them is bad, wrong, they’re whining and should just “get on with it” and shut the whole fck up.

    Prince Andrew von FckHoltz “I Have Sex With Underage Girls Who Were Sex Trafficked While Defending My Friendship To Epstein” using the publicly funded British broadcasting company, an entity that is supposed to be above politics, which has continually shown it’s own g-ddamn ass these last few years by covering for Conservative politicians and slapping on a rusty veneer of civility over buffoons like Johnson to bolster their sh-tty public image, all in service of a disgusting right wing narrative, to lie about himself and his behaviour is all right, not worthy of discussion, let alone outrage of any type, whatsoever.

    Am I getting this right?

  63. Silas says:

    After this shitshow of an interview, the Sussexes are pr geniuses for staying away from Balmoral and the royals’ Christmas.

    And what does it say about the Queen that this buffoon is her favorite child. Maybe he really is the product of an affair and the Queen feels that any criticism of him is a criticism of her. Andrew is the only kid who doesn’t have that thin particular kind of face the other three siblings have.

    • Carmen says:

      And he looks nothing like the Queen either. Makes you go “hmmm…”

    • PrincessK says:

      Exactly my thoughts, they are keeping well away because they know that more must be coming out. Why would Andrew talk now. I wonder if Ghislaine Maxwell is about to surface .

      Yes well done to the Sussexes, they will be out of the public eye but the gutter press will still be writing stories about them, exposing further the double standards. The Andrew interview is far more damaging than the Diana interview because it is likely that his lies in a criminal case will be exposed.

  64. PrincessK says:

    For anyone who interested the interview is going to be aired again in less than one hour on BBC News 11.00 GMT.

  65. Miriam says:

    The courtiers and palace officials are DESPERATE to leak the Sussexs location to bury this disaster