Anti-monarchy group Republic reported Prince Andrew to the police

The Jeffrey Epstein files are being released in batches, and with each new document dump this week, there are even more mentions of Prince Andrew. Remember Andrew’s 2019 BBC interview, where he insisted that he wasn’t even that close to Epstein, that Ghislaine Maxwell was his friend but he barely associated with Epstein? Yeah. Andrew was constantly catching rides on Epstein’s Lolita Express and Andrew visited Epstein’s New York mansion and private island frequently. All of which has led to another round of “why isn’t Andrew under police investigation again?” To be fair, the FBI has wanted to interview Andrew for years, but the British police have shrugged off every attempt to get a thorough investigation into Andrew’s domestic and international crimes. That didn’t stop Republic, the anti-monarchy group, from reporting Andrew yet again:

Prince Andrew has been reported to London’s Metropolitan Police by anti-monarchy group Republic over an allegation he took part in a sexual assault of a minor—believed to be Virginia Giuffre—while in London. The allegation was made public in a huge trove of court papers released by U.S courts Wednesday naming associates of Jeffrey Epstein, and was first reported by U.K. tabloid The Sun. Andrew was also alleged to have participated in an orgy with “numerous” “under-aged girls” at Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

“The document is clear that while in London, an individual was forced to have sexual relations with Andrew when she was a minor,” Republic posted on their Instagram account. “That’s why today Republic are reporting Andrew to the police, demanding that the Met investigate these accusations. It’s simple—the royals should not be above the law. Accusations of criminality should always be investigated thoroughly. THAT’S WHY THE MET MUST ACT.”

The Met has so far declined to comment on calls to launch a fresh investigation into Andrew, whose name appears more than 70 times in nearly 1,000 pages of interviews and transcripts unsealed in the U.S. on Thursday.

In 2021, the Met announced it had completed its investigation of Giuffre’s claims in her US civil action—alleging Andrew had sexually assaulted her when she was a minor and being trafficked by Epstein—stating that they would take no further action. However, it said it would continue to “liaise with other law enforcement agencies who lead the investigation into matters related to Jeffrey Epstein.” Andrew has denied all accusations of wrongdoing and claims to have no memory of meeting Giuffre, but settled Guiffre’s civil claim in 2022 for a reputed $14 million.

In a statement, Graham Smith, Republic’s CEO, said: “I have reported Andrew to the police, well aware that the Met claims to have looked into this before. To date there appears to have been no serious criminal investigation, no interview of the accused or other witnesses and no clear justification for taking no action.

“I am calling on the Met police to re-open this case, I am calling on MPs to debate this affair in parliament, and I am calling on Charles to make a public statement—in front of the press and taking questions—to respond to these allegations and what they say about the monarchy. How can we not expect a response from the government and head of state? At the time of the alleged offences Andrew was a government trade ambassador and an active member of the royal family. They fudged and obfuscated for 11 years before taking any definitive action.”

“The government, police and palace all have questions to answer. Now is the time to start answering them. The question many people will be asking is simple: if the accused were anyone else, do we believe they wouldn’t have been investigated and prosecuted.”

[From The Daily Beast]

Nothing will happen, but I’m glad that someone is at least attempting to hold Andrew’s feet to the proverbial fire. The lack of outrage from the British media has been notable this week, and it’s perfectly clear that not only does Andrew have the support of his family, but the royal establishment is doing the most to protect him at every level as well.

They got Labour leader Keir Starmer on the record about Andrew too – Starmer said that the police should “look at” any and all claims made by victims: “Wherever there’s a complaint made, it’s inevitable that it should be looked at. We have to start with the victims here, and look at what allegations have been made.” Meaning, Andrew’s victims would have to come forward, in England, and file police reports. Which would then be ignored.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

46 Responses to “Anti-monarchy group Republic reported Prince Andrew to the police”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Newt says:

    Agree that nothing will happen. Consequences never touch these people.

    • Smart&Messy says:

      How is there no bigger outrage from the brits?? Charles had Andrew at the churchwalk knowing this was coming to light and he, because he knew there won’t be much of a reaction from people. But why not?? You can be a monarchist and demand the brf be put into their place and be told that their subjects expect a certain moral standard from them. And they should have to oblige!

      • AlpineWitch says:

        None of us in UK wants to end up in a jail just to protest against Andrew. Our right to protest is heavily limited now, thanks to 14 years of Tory rule.

        I’m a republican but the last thing I want is for me to lose my job and my family affected by me protesting against that *enter an insult here*.

    • Proud Mary says:

      AlpineWitch, on the one hand, I empathize with your situation, yet I can’t help but be thankful that the leaders of the American revolution did not have your attitude, or Charles would be our head of state. And I’m sure African Americans are glad that Rosa Parks was willing to risk her job as a seamstress and sit on a bus in a manner that landed her in jail. Anything worth having requires a bit of risk taking and sacrifice. It’s a question of how important it is to you. Just saying.

      • HillaryIsAlwaysRight says:

        The Brits have a different system than the U.S. No Bill of Rights (fist 10 Amendments to our Constitution). No Right to Assembly in protest.

      • Anna Luc says:

        @ProudMary, I respectfully disagree. I see no equivalency between the sacrifices a person will make to liberate a country or guarantee the rights of citizenship to millions of people and protesting the police refusal to make one criminal arrest. If you do, perhaps you should make your way to the UK and offer up your freedom and livelihood to the cause. Otherwise, don’t disparage others for not doing what you will not do. Just saying.

      • Proud Mary says:

        I really don’t want to turn the tread into a back and forth between us so this will be my last point, if allowed by CB: Have you guys heard of the civil rights movement in a America? What Bill of Right’s were available to African American’s then? And I don’t know what you mean in distinguishing “the sacrifice a person makes to liberate a country” and what is required to create a republic. ITS THE SAME THING. It requires blood, sweat, and tears. When the British people come to the conclusion that it’s liberty or death, they will rise up and revolt. In other words, a revolution. They’ve done it before. I think most Brit’s are simply happy with the pomp and circumstances, and that’s fine too. And, moreover, given the highly conservative state of their media, I just don’t see things changing anytime soon.

      • MichaelaCat says:

        Why is there still police brutality in the US?
        Why are there so many shootings and why does nobody do anything about guns being so easily sold to so many crazies?

        Most poignantly, since we’re talking about heads of state: why do you still allow an election system to be in place that has repeatedly allowed people to become president that did not win the popular vote? Why is gerrymandering possible?

        Do I blame the average American for not solving this? No. I therefore wonder why some people blame the average Brit for theirs. People on this website are very likely agreeing with you anyway, so no need to pile on them.

        How would you feel if you went abroad and people constantly blamed you for Trump even if you didn’t vote for him?

      • AlpineWitch says:

        Proud Mary, the UK never really had a revolution… that you think an individual (moreso a migrant, given that I’m a naturalised Brit) has the power to overturn 1700 years of monarchy by herself makes you seem a little naive and not informed correctly about how revolutions happen.

        Count that many Brits, 50 % at least, are also monarchists…

  2. Nothing will happen the cult is in bed with more than the press and their evil tentacles reach deep into places of power to keep anything from being done. Abolish the monarchy and vote out those in government who are obstructing justice. Easier said then done but get started.

  3. SAS says:

    So scary for any victims of the Royals to ever approach police. Isn’t there a myth that royals actually can’t break the law (i.e. are above the law)?

    Also, as a frontline public servant I know it would be frustrating as hell for the regular ass detectives who might be more than happy to do the job but would get blocked for political reasons.

    Abolish.

    • Jaded says:

      The Monarch is the only member of the BaRF who cannot be convicted of a crime, the rest are fair game but are definitely protected by the Met and Tory government, as we have seen with Andrew’s crimes that have been covered up or brushed aside.

    • CC730 says:

      It’s no myth if it’s the truth….and it’s happening right now.

  4. SarahCS says:

    Of course nothing will happen and Republic know this but it gets more coverage for the story that most of the press here is trying to ignore. They got the (very likely) next prime minister to comment on the matter. That’s the point.

  5. Brassy Rebel says:

    My favorite part of Graham Smith’s statement is when he says he wants Charles to make a public statement and take questions on this matter. In other words, have a press conference. LOL! 😆😂🤣

    • Smart&Messy says:

      I don’t understand how the British people are just willing to accept that the head of state won’t ever hold a press conference only because he thinks he is above it.

      • AlpineWitch says:

        We’re not accepting anything, we’re really powerless in this instance. It’s like asking British people to start a revolution.

      • Proud Mary says:

        AlpineWitch, sorry for seemingly harassing you, but why is it that you Brits recognize your traditions, such as curtseying to the King and his spawns, but you ignore others such has your history of revolution? Where do you think Americans learned to boot your King out? Have you heard of the peasant’s revolt? How about Oliver Cromwell? Why do you think the current monarchs are not direct descendants of James II? You are not helpless, y’all are a generation that simply choose to give up and shout about futball. I’m way too often baffled about how little Brits seem to care about been kicked in the teeth over and over again. For example, why isn’t there more outrage over Michelle Mone? How about the Daily Mail’s decision to hand over a lucrative column to Boris Johnson? Does anything bother you guys at all? The s h i t in your water? Oh, I forgot, something does bother y’all: Harry and Meghan.

      • ncboudicca says:

        @Proud Mary: Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but your response reads as overly harsh to me. God knows every country’s citizens have issues – as an American, I’m not throwing any stones at citizens anywhere else while (for example) we sit on our hands as children are routinely shot in schools…

      • HillaryIsAlwaysRight says:

        Charles is only a figurehead. He has no real political power. Which as an American, only makes me wonder more why any British people continue to support these relics of feudalism. They’re irrelevant. Their only purpose is to sell tabloids.

    • Proud Mary says:

      (1) Nbdoudicca, I meant every word, and I’m disappointed that in response, you choose what I would kindly label as the last refuge of scoundrels: “You’re too mean, we have problems too, that’s why I will not criticize others.” Yes, we do have problems, and that too is a problem. But at least we had the presence of mind to create a republic, when we did not like the monarchy. The poster agrees that the monarchy is bad, but I respectfully quiver with the claim that there’s nothing he can do about it. (2) Especially given the Crown’s relationship with the Tory’s, the British monarch has more power than you think, HillaryIsAlwaysRight. The Queen (and now Charles) have used the thrown to exempt its palaces from among other things, employment discrimination and environmental laws. The anti-discrimination aspect has been tested in court. Years ago, a lawsuit by Charles’ then Black British secretary was dismissed because of the discrimination exemption. The woman pleaded that she had been harassed and verbally abused, called an N, by Charles’ henchman, Michael Fawcett. The question for me remains, why do the British people not seem to care?

      • ExpatInTheUK says:

        @Proud Mary, I am not British but I live in England at the moment. My sense is that when there are a thousand things to worry about day-to-day (mortgage rates, energy bills, food prices, tube strikes, etc), people are simply apathetic to issues that don’t directly impact them.
        You say, “We had the presence of mind to create a republic when we did not like the monarchy.” I disagree that the situation is in any way comparable. America was a colony and was being heavily taxed by the empire at that time. There is no colonizer in this situation. There is no obvious oppressor and, more importantly, there is an illusion of freedom among the oppressed – you don’t have a critical mass that makes revolution possible.
        I also spent time living in the US and I’d say that your points are equally applicable to Americans in terms of apathy. In my opinion, the US is in an even worse state with how the Republicans are brazenly destroying all tenets of democracy yet people continue to vote against their own self interest. The monarchy is a benign tumour in comparison.

  6. Flower says:

    Up until recently I also agreed that nothing would happen to Andrew, but a few Politicians have ‘piped up’ today including Starmer who is likely going to be our next PM.

    I think there will be an investigation, but the key to Andrew facing justice is whether;
    1. The UK hand him over to the US (Chuck’s hands may be tied if the tapes are handed over as part of collateral for some other political bargaining)
    2. Dershowitz himself is indicted

    I think there is a chance now that Andrew will lose any protections or immunities from protection because most of these crimes were committed whilst he was effectively a UK Brand Ambassador and they may wish to distance themselves from him, especially as these crimes were committed with tax payer money and Royal protection officers around.

    • Macky says:

      I think the fix is in. I don’t think labor will be allowed to win. Are British elections tamper proof? Are they more cut and dry than other places. Cause we see how the Tories operate. They are trying their best to completely bankrupt England. I don’t think they will leave quietly.

      • Lisa says:

        Baring complete disaster, Starmer will win but what he’s saying is that victims would have to come forward and not many can withstand the heat of the British tabloids trying to destroy you. Additionally people complaining that the Brits won’t protest, there has been a crackdown on that in recent years and you could be fined until bankruptcy and beyond and also spend 10 years in prison. This is too high a price for many people. Look at the current UK scandal regarding postmasters where completely innocent people were persecuted until bankruptcy and jailed.

  7. Bumblebee says:

    I imagine UK police trying to investigate this have very short careers. The Republic is reminding the BRF and the ROTA that this will never go away.

  8. Mslove says:

    We can now add British Royal Family to the list of dangerous people to keep children away from. It seems as if raping teenagers was Pedo’s favorite hobby. I hope the entire family gets taken down.

  9. sevenblue says:

    Please he didn’t go to these places without his secret service protections. They all know what he did, when he did. He is under King’s protection now, legally they couldn’t do anything to him, that’s what Charles made it clear with family church walks.

    • BlueNailsBetty says:

      Exactly. Andrew’s predations did not happen on the sly. There are many people who knew and *made no attempt* to prevent/stop his actions.

      Elizabeth and Philip knew. Charles knew. Anne knew. Edward knew. William probably even knew. Powerful Tories knew. Powerful law enforcement knew. Powerful people in the media knew.

      None of them tried to stop him. Some of them probably joined him in his activities.

  10. ML says:

    While it’s not clear as to why Paedrew has been voraciously protected up to now, Republic’s move is at the very least generating some headlines about it.

  11. Lau says:

    We shouldn’t expect some genius words from Starmer as it is (probably) election year, he’ll tell whatever will make people stop asking questions.

    • Mary Pester says:

      @LAU, sorry your very wrong about Starmer. He is a decent honourable man and will push as much as he can for this.

      • Lau says:

        I’m sorry but Starmer is not pushing nearly hard enough, and not just on that subject. He litteraly just said that the matter should be looked at and we know it will never be. Starmer has a tendency to do that because he’s always trying to not appear too radical and scare some parts of the electorate away.

  12. Amy Bee says:

    The Met Police has already announced that they won’t be launching an investigating into Andrew’s criminal behaviour.

    • ML says:

      General question based on the fact that the Met isn’t going to look into PA’s behavior unless new facts come to light.

      Let’s say PA were just a regular citizen. For a years-old rape, when does the Met normally get involved? Did they follow their own protocol or have they buried this due to it being PA? Lots of information (like guardsmen and his diary that was supposed to exonerate him with, for instance, the Woking pizzeria story) was missing—why did the Met not feel like that was important??!

  13. Mary Pester says:

    Andrew should be in the doc NOW, And if as Amy Bee says the met say they won’t investigate, then people will be calling for the head of the met to go. She was trafficked to THE UK, a crime was commited by this disgusting slug IN THE UK. Andrew the perv was acting as a representative of the UK at the time, so Andrew the perv WASN’T just a fking prince then, he was a public servant. Either get Andrew in the dock or get rid of the whole bloody useless perverted family, preferably do BOTH

    • ML says:

      👏👏👏

    • Macky says:

      Queen Liz 2 should’ve put him on house arrest. Of course it wouldn’t be normal house arrest but it would be something. He wouldn’t have to admit wrong doing. Just start serving a sentence. That’s what they did back in the day.

  14. Eowyn says:

    Bravo to Republic.

  15. Saucy&Sassy says:

    History will have a lot to say about this. None of it will be good. KFC needs to keep Pedrew out of the public eye at all times if crimes are not going to be investigated (the FBI would be happy to do that with a little cooperation from the necessary parties in the UK).

    What has always annoyed me is the fact that the bm keeps perpetuating the amount that Pedrew paid in the CONFIDENTIAL settlement agreement. Either this is a made-up amount or Pedrew talked to the bm about the amount he paid. If he talked, that would violate the settlement agreement. The bm needs to determine how they go forward. Saying the word ‘reported’ does not cut it–in fact, it sounds like Pedrew is giving them this info.

  16. Flower says:

    “STRIP PRINCE ANDREW” is trending on twitter.

  17. JaneS says:

    Chuck should have packed Andrew off to the farthest corner of the world right away.

    IRL, I truly hate to say this but IMO, none of the Big Dogs will go to prison.
    Gates, Andrew, Clinton have all sent in their cleaners or bribed officials.

    I’m so cynical now, I keep hoping the tide will turn and the wicked, vile people involved will all be charged and serve prison time.
    I won’t hold my breath tho.

  18. Libra says:

    I sympathize with @alpinewitch. She has too much to lose by sticking her neck out to protest. My daughter, in her early post college first job years, was filmed by a tv crew protesting and carrying a placard on her weekend day off. The protest was not related to her employment, yet she was let go on that next Monday due to” downsizing ” and restructuring. Was there a relationship ship there? Can’t prove yes or no and there was no recourse for her. Took her a long time to find another anf but she learned a lesson there.

  19. Spike says:

    The royal family has vilified Prince Harry and Meg