Virginia Giuffre signed a gag order so QEII’s Jubbly wouldn’t have distractions

I remember a lot of the details around Virginia Giuffre’s civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew. She filed in 2021, and the lawsuit was due to go to trial in early 2022. Andrew made a lot of noise (through sources) about how he would fight Virginia tooth and nail, because they had never met and she had never been trafficked to him. His lawyers immediately began attacking Virginia’s character, referring to her as the “head bitch” who recruited for Jeffrey Epstein, leading everyone to wonder how and why Andrew and his lawyers would know that. Just days before the trial was set to begin, Andrew folded like a cheap suit. He refused to fly to America, and his lawyers quickly negotiated a settlement with Virginia. Andrew “borrowed” money from his mother to pay Virginia, a woman he still swore he never met. As part of the settlement, his lawyers attached a one-year gag order. We knew that at the time, and we also knew that Virginia planned to write a book after the gag order lapsed. Now, just days before Virginia’s posthumous memoir’s publication, Andrew has suddenly “given up” his titles and honors. Obviously, most people believe that Virginia’s book is going to do even further damage to Andrew and the Windsors. Well, in a new excerpt from Nobody’s Girl, Virginia wrote about the gag order.

Prince Andrew insisted Virginia Giuffre sign a gagging order so he did not embarrass Queen Elizabeth during her Platinum Jubilee celebrations. The bombshell claim is set to be revealed in Ms Giuffre’s tell-all memoir from beyond the grave, which will be published on Tuesday.

In her book, Ms Giuffre describes the details of her legal battle and eventual settlement with Prince Andrew, which have so far been closely guarded. She tells how Andrew’s disastrous Newsnight was like an ‘injection of jet fuel’ for her legal team, and it raised the possibility of ‘subpoenaing’ his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, and daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and drawing them into the legal case.

Ms Giuffre filed a lawsuit against the royal in August 2021, seeking unspecified damages for battery, including rape, and the infliction of emotional distress. She alleged that she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew three times when she was just 17 years old under the orders of late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

The case was settled outside of court on February 15, 2022, for a reported £12 million, with £2 million thought to have been donated to her sex trafficking charity. Prince Andrew did not admit wrongdoing and has consistently and vehemently denied the claims. However, in her new book Ms Giuffre exposes the details of the gagging order she was reportedly asked to sign by the prince.

She writes: ‘I agreed to a one-year gag order, which seemed important to the Prince because it ensured that his mother’s Platinum Jubilee would not be tarnished any more than it already had been.’

The agreement meant Ms Giuffre was barred from discussing her abuse at the hands of Epstein during the 70th year of the late Queen’s reign.

[From The Daily Mail]

As I said, this isn’t new information (although the Mail presents it as such). We knew that there was a temporary gag order at the time. Sources close to Virginia also openly discussed her plans to write a book post-gag order. What few people remember is that there was a secondary part to the deal. While QEII “gave” the money to Andrew to settle the lawsuit, then-Prince Charles had to give his permission for the settlement money too. By this time, QEII was so frail and she was being heavily manipulated by everyone, and Charles was the one to make the call on the money. In exchange for agreeing to give the money to Andrew, Charles got something in return: QEII suddenly agreed that Camilla should be called “Queen Consort” and not Princess Consort. Charles extracted that from QEII and her courtiers as part of this rotten f–king deal (the two things, the settlement and QEII’s letter, were nine days apart). Meanwhile, the Mail also had this story:

Prince Andrew embroiled the Metropolitan Police and one of Queen Elizabeth’s most senior aides in a campaign to smear his teenage sex accuser, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. A bombshell email obtained by this newspaper exposes how Andrew asked his taxpayer-funded Met bodyguard to investigate Virginia Giuffre and passed him her date of birth and confidential social security number.

Astonishingly, Andrew then told Ed Perkins, Queen Elizabeth’s deputy press secretary, that he had asked one of his personal protection officers – part of the Met’s elite SO14 Royal Protection Group – to dig up information about Ms Giuffre. He emailed Perkins hours before this newspaper first published the infamous picture of the duke with 17-year-old Ms Giuffre, which would ultimately bring about his downfall.

‘It would also seem she has a criminal record in the [United] States,’ he wrote. ‘I have given her DoB [date of birth] and social security number for investigation with XXX, the on duty ppo [personal protection officer].’

It is not suggested that the officer complied with the prince’s request, or that she did, in fact, have a criminal record.

[From The Daily Mail]

Yeah, I believe this. I believe that some Establishment figures have helped Andrew along the way as well, and I’m not surprised at all with this.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Instar, Cover Images.

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

44 Responses to “Virginia Giuffre signed a gag order so QEII’s Jubbly wouldn’t have distractions”

  1. Yes the pedo who used a trafficked young girl didn’t want said young girl to tarnish the Queens jubilee like it was the young girls, who was now an adult and wanted her side of he story put there, fault. I’m sure this book is going to do more major damage as it should!!

    • mightymolly says:

      I’m so glad she wrote a book. It all needs to be out there. Maybe this will empower more of Epstein’s survivors.

      • Smart&Messy says:

        Yes it should be out there because, god knows, the british press will saw of their right arm before digging into and report on the criminal dealings of this maffia family. And I keep asking why??? Why do they all, the press, judiciary system, police, rpos, act like it’s their best interest to protect them. And exposing them must be avoided at all cost, why??? The rpos sound complicit AF. Pls, don’t tell me they had no idea about all this. Like the one who must have accompanied him to the private island. Did they not see what that place was about?

  2. Hypocrisy says:

    So C&C who needed Princess Diana to conveniently die so Chuck could marry his mistress, used a victim of child sex trafficking so Camilla could nullify her original promise and be queen.. there is no redeeming any of these left overs in my eyes. This is truly disgusting.

    • mightymolly says:

      The thing is that it all seems so shocking in the bright light of day in the modern world, but this is who the Windsors are. This is who they’ve always been throughout history.

  3. Eurydice says:

    What a cesspit.

    • jais says:

      pretty much. All the lies and secrecy. Harry is stripped of his security and yet Andrew still had a tax-funded RPO that he wanted to do side-investigations on Virginia. GMAFB with these people.

  4. Amy Bee says:

    I’m not surprised about this either and I suspect that the press knew a lot more about Andrew than what they’ve reported. The Royal Family is not an innocent bystander in this case and did everything they could to protect Andrew.

  5. Me at home says:

    I ventured into the Fail’s comments and they’re truly shocking. Tons of Brits defending Andrew and blaming Virginia. One common thread is the whataboutism argument that “Virginia must have slept with other men, so why is she only blaming Andrew, therefore she must have been a terrible person who was after his money.” Which, all of Epstein’s clients were rich. Is this a bot farm script, or are there really that many Brits and Americans who think there’s any possible way to defend this pedo?

    • Hypocrisy says:

      I would love to be confident in saying it’s all paid for bots, but look who got elected in the US by hateful angry people..

    • Elly says:

      It makes me ill to read any comments defending Andrew. Yes, other high powered men were involved but that doesn’t make Andrew innocent. In an excerpt from Virginia’s book, she says that the third time she had sex with Andrew it was an orgy with seven other under age girls. I do wish all the other men involved would be exposed.

    • Smatone99 says:

      I’m. Sure most of it is bots. The fail have always manipulated /made up top comments right from the get go, pre bots, like 20 years ago. I saw them do it in real time.

  6. Nikki (Toronto) says:

    Most of the family was complicit with this because they don’t care about the victims. They think they’re entitled. Lady Harvey was calling these children and teens “prostitutes” on their behalf. And let’s face it, William and Kate named their youngest after the family’s most prolific p-file. What kind of sickos would do that?

  7. Brassy Rebel says:

    Narrator: Andrew Windsor couldn’t possibly get any sleazier.

    Andrew Windsor: Hold my beer!

  8. Harla says:

    I am positively appalled that all that family and their minions thought/cared about was that stupid Jubbly. Not one thought about the victims of SA, not one thought about the heinous behavior of the queen’s second son, nope, just that ridiculous celebration. I don’t know if my opinion of this family, including the late queen, can get any lower but they certainly seem intent on pushing it into the gutter.

  9. Inge says:

    Isnt the ppo there for his protection & not someone to use as a personal vendetta?

    Also how did he get her social security number?

    • DK says:

      Exactly. Should this not trigger an investigation of some sort? (A real one, not an in-house palace one).
      This is clear abuse of tax-payer money (they are not funding PPOs to do hit jobs on women); I hope if there is some British equivalent of the ACLU or the like, the organization sues on behalf of taxpayers.
      Or that The Republic jumps on this and pursues it.
      Such gross corruption.

    • BeanieBean says:

      SSN from Epstein, when he was still alive. She would have been on his books as an employee of whatever pretend organization he had–or he got it from trump, because she had been an employee of his at Mar-a-Lago.

  10. Hopey says:

    Kaiser I don’t want to thread-Jack but just wanted to say I hope you cover the Beatrice/Eugenie angle on the coming days, too. I read a detail in the past few days that Fergie brought them both to visit with Epstein when he got out of jail/house arrest circa 2011 and they were already adults. They should have to account/answer for why they agreed to go on that trip and what happened. :/

  11. Miranda says:

    Related question: pardon my ignorance, but can someone please explain the whole Queen/Princess Consort thing to me? Am I missing something about a real difference in terms of order of precedence, privileges, etc. associated with the titles? Is it just based on public sentimentality about all things Diana?

    • Moondust says:

      When Charles married Camilla, they promised the public she wouldn’t be queen and wouldn’t use the title princess of Wales (because of Diana). No letter of patent was issued, it was just a promise. So, it doesn’t really matter whether QEII asked that Camilla be called queen consort. The minute Elisabeth died, Charles became king and Camilla as his wife was queen consort. The princess consort thing was an empty gesture from the beginning.

      Philipp was a prince consort because he was the spouse of the monarch. The title of king is superior to the title of queen therefore can’t be used in case the queen is the monarch.

    • Eurydice says:

      I don’t understand this controversy, either – or why Charles would make a “deal” with Elizabeth about what to call Camilla. Camilla would never be the Queen Regnant, who is the reigning monarch as a result of inheritance. Queen Consort just means the wife of the reigning king and she has the same privileges as the king. She would be called “Queen” even though people know she’s technically Queen Consort.

      The only reason to be specific about what to call a Queen is if there are two or more of them alive at the same time. So, Elizabeth was the Queen Regnant and her mother was the Queen Mother (the mother of the monarch). If Camilla survives Charles, she would become Queen Dowager (widow of the monarch) and Kate would become Queen Consort. When George becomes king, his wife (if he has one) will be the Queen Consort and Kate would become Queen Mother.

      • Bum says:

        I think it’s more about public perception and tolerance for Camilla. The public, when they remember her, loathe her. And the term “Queen” was associated with a beloved figure. Charles may have been hedging his bets. He’s been fighting a PR war on her behalf for decades now.

      • Eurydice says:

        @Bum – Well, that’s the thing. You can call a sow’s ear a silk purse, but it will always be a sow’s ear.

        Perhaps it’s because I’m not a royal, but I don’t see how paying $12 million to the victim of your son’s pedophilia in exchange for “sincerely wishing” that Camilla be called Queen Consort makes any sense at all. It’s an insulting equivalence. Plus, there was no historical precedence for calling Camilla “Princess Consort” after Charles took the throne anyway. She was always going to be called Queen Consort, not matter what they fed the public.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Because ‘Princess’ is ‘lower’ in their eyes. Princess Camilla does not sound as good to Charles as Queen Camilla. These people focus on the dumbest things.

  12. Elizabeth K. Mahon says:

    My question is, how did Prince Andrew get her social security number?

  13. aquarius64 says:

    This is disgusting. Not meaning to bring them in this mess, but Harry and Meghan look smart for distancing themselves and their kids from the House of Windsor. You know if they stayed with the BRF they would have been expected to co sign on the Andrew propaganda. I think that’s why the BM and the palaces put Andrew and Harru in the same boat.

  14. ParkRunMum says:

    In Kitty Kelley’s book, about the royals, she observes, of QEII, “it’s the mother who’s failed.” …she was talking about Charles, and at the time I read it, it struck me as over-harsh. Diana was a fascinating character and a compelling personality. But arguably the worst possible bride for Charles, who gave red flags in profusion about his attitude to marriage, and should have just been allowed to be a bachelor king, a role in which he might have been equally compelling. Camilla was just an enabler, a user, a sad sack shoulder to cry on. That all reflects more on the people involved in the Wales’ marriage than on QEII. But Andrew? My god. Kitty Kelley was spot on.

  15. QuiteContrary says:

    This is all the BRF care about: displays of lavish unearned wealth, ceremony, gold carriages and tiaras. Of course they’d discard a trafficked girl for the sake of the Jubilee.

    They needed to celebrate the farce that is the monarchy, an institution built on savagery and looted riches.
    Pageantry before humanity.

  16. Over it says:

    Yeah but Hurry and his black wife leaving this , well I don’t know what to call it, is the biggest scandal and crisis these people have ever had. Gmafb.
    when karma knocks, it’s going to be loud

  17. Qtpi says:

    One concern I have about the book is that it appears she was still not naming names. Mentions a former Prime Minister but says she is afraid and can’t name him. Fingers crossed we are going to see new information especially about Americans.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment