British Royal Officials Weighing Prince Andrew's Legal Options

[Limabeany]

British Royal Officials Weigh Prince Andrew's Legal Options

The controversy relating to the disgraced U.S. financier Jeffrey Epstein shows no signs of dying down any time soon, no matter that Andrew is "incredibly clear" in the words of a royal source that he has done nothing wrong. A legal process against Epstein in the U.S. must take its course and Virginia Roberts, one of the litigants, is reported to be mulling a tell-all book. The palace usually refuses to comment on matters relating to the private lives of the royals but has been bounced into making two extraordinary statements, the first on Jan. 2 rejecting "any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors" by the Prince as "categorically untrue"; the second on Jan. 4 referring to Andrew by his official title. "It is emphatically denied," said the palace, "that HRH The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. The allegations made are false and without any foundation."

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who has vigorously denied the claims and used an interview with the BBC to accuse Roberts of lying. In a second BBC interview, Dershowitz said he hoped for the opportunity to test Roberts' allegations in court and urged Prince Andrew to "take whatever legal action is available." Lawyers consulting with palace officials have indicated that the options for such action appear limited. Even if a case could be brought, palace sources are aware that such a course would be fraught with risk, at very least dragging back into the public eye the messy backstory that brought Andrew into Epstein's orbit.

It's at very least a tale of money and poor judgment. The Prince is by no means the only senior royal to seek out wealthy company, lured by the apparent protection such company affords — the secluded retreats, the private security, the largesse. Andrew, like his big brother Charles, often seeks to raise money for his own charitable ventures. But in 2010, when Andrew's ex-wife Sarah Ferguson — "Fergie" — came close to bankruptcy, charity began closer to home with Epstein helping to pay off her debts.

[Kate]

I only have to wonder why this young lady, at this time, is bringing "her sex slave" life out! She left the scene and moved to Australia, married, had three children, then came back to the States, 10 years later - her father is obviously much into her life... What's it all about? Morality issues or money?
IMO, she and her people are taking on people in high places, not only Prince Andrew. What is the possible outcome, after all is said and done? Jail for the ones who used her and then for her, fading back into her married family life?

[HistoryGirl]

I'm not sure if this woman's story is fully factual, but if it is, I fail to see why she would need a reason to reveal the truth about the people that used her like a she was a piece of furniture.

[Canuck]

Agreed, HistoryGirl.  We've seen in a number of high profile cases in recent months that there are many reasons women do not go to authorities immediately after a sex crime is committed, but some find the courage to speak out later and should be applauded for doing so.  They have already verified that this girl was in fact on Epstein's jet at various times and other women have corroborated much of her story, and Epstein has been convicted of related offenses and numerous other women have accused him of similar things.  Her larger story isn't something she's making up, even if the specific allegations about Andrew are never proved one way or the other.

[Kate]

What I may be suggesting is, her own young reputation is going to be scutinized beyond belief. Somewhere I read from her , that she was not a virgin at 15, so she had knowing ways. She was also having sex when on call from Epstein, with "a boyfriend" at the same time, and asked the bf if he were ok that...
Also, she is naming high powered men and her own safety may be at risk.
I feel sorry she had to go through this, so very young, but I feel this young lady was more sophisticated then what is coming out. Lots of part of the puzzle are not connected IMV and in my opinion!

[Kate]

I agree under aged girls should  not be exploited in any way. However, considering the age of consent , is different from on state to the other and one country to another, and these may even have changed in the past 10 that this girl was involved, it is simply not a clear cut case IMO.
I truly am curious , at 10 years, what her motivation may be.. There are also 15 year old girls going on 21 and at the same time 15 year old girls going on 13.  I'm only looking at issues from another angle. AGAIN, these are questions and situation and circumstances I am wondering about, IMV. :flower:

[Canuck]

Yes, different states have different age of consent laws.  But she and other women have accused Epstein of exploiting them when they were 100% below the age of consent in Florida, where the acts were taking place.  That means they were crimes.

As for this:

There are also 15 year old girls going on 21 and at the same time 15 year old girls going on 13.  I'm only looking at issues from another angle.

I don't really see the relevance.  We have laws against statutory rape.  It doesn't matter if the underage girl looks older, or isn't a virgin, or seems like she's into it.  She's a minor, she can't consent.  Period.

[wannable]

Unrelated?! to Andrew, but has BP solved this case?
VIP paedophile ring 'abused teenage boy INSIDE Buckingham Palace and Balmoral Castle' - Mirror Online
They shouldn't wait for this to explode in their face. Grave accusation.

[Curryong]

Unrelated?! to Andrew, but has BP solved this case?
VIP paedophile ring 'abused teenage boy INSIDE Buckingham Palace and Balmoral Castle' - Mirror Online
They shouldn't wait for this to explode in their face. Grave accusation.

This must be investigated. The Home Secretary of the time was so wrong to give the boy's parents a brush off. I think it's pretty clear from things that have been disclosed over the years that there was  a pedophile ring (perhaps more than one) operating for a long time and involving  Government figures, MP's, diplomats, courtiers etc.

[cate1949]

In the midst of all this sleaze which is so disturbing I am glad to see that people here realize that the past of any of the accusers is not a relevant issue.  Pedophiles target troubled young people - boys and girls - because they are more vulnerable to the seduction and often their families are in crisis so the young person is not being protected.  Virginia Roberts - in the interview she did in 2010 - admitted she was a "pedophiles dream" because she was so messed up at that time.  She also admits during her time with Epstein she was taking heavy doses of Xanax which essentially kept her numb.

Please do keep in mind that there are four claimants in this case - Ms. Roberts is the only one who has chosen to go public.  Also keep in mind that the attorneys representing these women are very reputable and working for free.  A case like this is not brought to court by reputable attorneys unless their is reasonable evidence to back up their claims.  And the two attorneys have now stated that there is evidence which will be revealed as the case is heard.  So they are not just making this claim  about Andrew up without some justification.  It seems apparent Andrew has a worrisome time ahead of him.  As he should have.

The tendency of some to look at the past behavior of the accuser is one of the reasons these rings flourish.  The intimidation tactics employed by the accused as well as deference to their influential status are other reasons.  This was very apparent in the Rotherham case - and of course those people who let that horror go on for so many years are not suffering consequences.

The same with these allegations about powerful men in Parliament and the Police etc and their alleged pedo rings - how could this have gone on for so long with people who did try to stop it - yet even now there is no active investigation?  Why do the British people tolerate this?  Cameron has now said they won't do anything til after the 2015 elections - that should be unacceptable.

What all of these gross situations have in common is the use of power to subvert justice - the use of influence and wealth to protect the powerful instead of protecting the innocent and weak.  It is a rot which much be scoured from our institutions.  Andrew's wrongs actually pale in comparison to this larger issue.  Although personally I believe that Andrew's record of  associating with shady characters should now absolutely require he retire from public life.

[Canuck]

Dershowitz is a well known blowhard in legal circles.  I would take anything he says with a heaping dose of salt.  He is threatening to sue as a PR tactic -- it doesn't mean he is right, or that he would ever win such a suit. 

In all likelihood, Andrew will never be a party to a legal proceeding about this case so we will never get a definitive resolution like him being convicted of a crime.  To me, that doesn't matter.  Even if he never broke the law, the appalling judgment he has shown time and time again makes him wholly unsuitable to be a public representative of the BRF and the UK.  I suspect he will be pushed into a lower profile role by the Queen in response to this, and that Charles' streamlining of the family will take care of the rest of it.  But actual consequences -- not really, no. 

[Curryong]

I can't link it because I can't find it but apparently The Times (British) put out a strong editorial today calling for a 'slimmed-down monarchy' and stating that 'no royal family is permanent or indispensable'. Does anyone know anything about this? Is The Times republican, it used to be fairly pro Establishment and monarchy?

[cate1949]

annoying - the Times article is behind a paywall - so I cannot access it either but apparently it calls for a slimmed down monarchy.  I thought that although the  Times is owned by Murdoch who is assumed to be a republican that it normally caters to its somewhat more conservative readers.  So I would say this signals how serious this incident is.  "No royal family is indispensable" should send chills up their spines - they had best not think this will just blow over.

Here is another in the same vein that also speaks about the Times article

STEPHEN GLOVER: Even if falsely accused, Andrew's an unguided missile who has done the monarchy grave harm  | Daily Mail Online//

I would say a slimmed down monarchy will come sooner than perhaps the RF had planned.  Andrew has played right into Charles hand - calls for Andrew to retire from public life - calls for slimmed down monarchy.  Plus it has taken  attention away from Charles foolish miscall on that documentary.  Charles might be thinking there is a silver lining to every cloud.

How foolish was Charles attempt to censor the BBC docu is made apparent by events in France - Charles can hardly speak right now about the defense of freedom of speech since he has been on the wrong side of that discussion.  So he won't be joining the crowds in Trafalgar Square. 

Re: Dershowitz - his intimidation and bullying tactics have been applied outside the law too - in his role as defender of Israel.  And people have gotten tired of such tactics on his part.  Even the famous and powerful wear out their welcome - Dershowitz may finally have done that.  Plus he also has characterized the woman as a serial prostitute - no no - seems he does not know the law - a minor cannot commit prostitution. 

Re: out of court settlement.  Doubt it - what they are suing for is to have the plea bargain and the prosecution immunity  rescinded.   Unless the fed prosecutors office is willing to admit - we were wrong and voluntarily rescind the plea bargain - I do not see what the out of court settlement could be.  They are not looking for damages - they want the Victim's Rights Act to have real teeth.   

[PaulaB]

I only have to wonder why this young lady, at this time, is bringing "her sex slave" life out! She left the scene and moved to Australia, married, had three children, then came back to the States, 10 years later - her father is obviously much into her life... What's it all about? Morality issues or money?
IMO, she and her people are taking on people in high places, not only Prince Andrew. What is the possible outcome, after all is said and done? Jail for the ones who used her and then for her, fading back into her married family life?

She is writing a book that is why, having a royal angle increases the chances of selling the book.
Double post auto-merged: January 08, 2015, 06:20:07 AM

[cate1949]

Curryong - someone kindly sent me the Times article.  Summary - people get in trouble because they do not work - they should forget about their royal lineage and make their way in life by getting a career. Even Andrew has done well when he had a full time job in the RN.  They are all at their best when working.   Work not royal engagements.  They note the BRF has 18 working members but the European royals have between 9 - 5.  They also say the House of Windsor needs a "clearer vision of itself not as a crisis prone family business but a family led by the Head of State".  Clear distinctions among representative royals and the rest.  Only those in direct line of succession - siblings and cousins out.

Article is balanced and calm - gives credit where it is due.  But makes the point that they are too crisis prone and that damages the institution.

[Curryong]

Curryong - someone kindly sent me the Times article.  Summary - people get in trouble because they do not work - they should forget about their royal lineage and make their way in life by getting a career. Even Andrew has done well when he had a full time job in the RN.  They are all at their best when working.   Work not royal engagements.  They note the BRF has 18 working members but the European royals have between 9 - 5.  They also say the House of Windsor needs a "clearer vision of itself not as a crisis prone family business but a family led by the Head of State".  Clear distinctions among representative royals and the rest.  Only those in direct line of succession - siblings and cousins out.

Article is balanced and calm - gives credit where it is due.  But makes the point that they are too crisis prone and that damages the institution.

Terrific, thanks for that. Yes, on the whole I agree with those points. However, it's hard to imagine the 88 year old Queen changing her point of view with regard to her cousins and offspring performing royal duties. If she began with Andrew and pensioned off the Kents, Gloucesters and Princess Alexandra, it would be a start. Then Charles could come in with a new broom.

[amabel]

why would the queen "pension off" her perfectly respectable cousins who have spent a lot of their lives performing royal duties?? Unless they want to go

[Curryong]

why would the queen "pension off" her perfectly respectable cousins who have spent a lot of their lives performing royal duties?? Unless they want to go

I agree it seems unfair, but the whittling down of numbers has to begin somewhere. It needn't be presented as harsh, a rest after a long life of royal duties. After all these are people in their seventies and eighties.

Anne works extremely hard at her charities and could continue to do so, so could the Wessexes, just not as core members of the royal family, which will be Charles and Camilla, William and Kate and George (with new baby as spare.) Similarly, Harry could continue in his army career and helping service wounded, as a Prince, just not a member of the direct line. I think Harry would welcome it.

[Eri]

Personally I don't think The Duke is guilty of anything but being friendly with the wrong people ... it's difficult being the spare and leads to a troubled life like any fan of Princess Margaret will tell you ... you are irrelevant but used to a certain lifestyle and you see your bigger brother/sister get it all just because they were born first while you get practically nothing and that is why usually the spare gets help from the wrong people just like Margaret ...

[amabel]

why would the queen "pension off" her perfectly respectable cousins who have spent a lot of their lives performing royal duties?? Unless they want to go

I agree it seems unfair, but the whittling down of numbers has to begin somewhere. It needn't be presented as harsh, a rest after a long life of royal duties. After all these are people in their seventies and eighties.

Anne works extremely hard at her charities and could continue to do so, so could the Wessexes, just not as core members of the royal family, which will be Charles and Camilla, William and Kate and George (with new baby as spare.) Similarly, Harry could continue in his army career and helping service wounded, as a Prince, just not a member of the direct line. I think Harry would welcome it.

this is a Long way in the future before George etc will be of any use...and I think that in a slimmed down RF Harry will be needed as a full time member
Double post auto-merged: January 08, 2015, 10:37:12 AM

Dershowitz is a well known blowhard in legal circles.   I suspect he will be pushed into a lower profile role by the Queen in response to this, and that Charles' streamlining of the family will take care of the rest of it.  But actual consequences -- not really, no. 

AGREE about Dershowitz.. he seems to be a publicitiy lawyer.. re Andy, I think he will have to give up any royal duties and take a  back seat and I agree that he is pretty stupid...

[Curryong]

I think The Times and Glover's article were suggesting a very radical new way for the BRF. A great deal would have to change and many charities and organisations would have to do without royal patrons.

In other words, as in Continental Europe, the sovereign will perform the ceremonial role, which would encompass investitures, etc. His consort would be supportive in this and also undertake charitable work.

The heir to the throne would, as in Continental Europe and Scandinavia, deputise for the sovereign when he's unavailable and the Princess of Wales would also perform a programme of charitable and public duties with her husband.

I don't think anyone is suggesting putting little George to work, and of course other members of the 'outer' royal family would continue with some public engagements and their own charities if they wish.That would include Harry, Anne and the Wessexes.

Continental European royal families like Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium do not get involved in being patron of dozens of charities as British royals do. Their roles are pared down as are their numbers.

[DaFluffs]

Great post @Curryong! 

However, I don't see the BRF scaling down any charitable work as there is a significant freebie/financial incentive for the royals to continue especially as BRF money gets tighter & tighter:
1.  Charitable dinners - "the Prince & I will go anywhere for a hot meal"  said Princess Michael of Kent sometime in the late 80's.
2.  Charitable trips - peruse books detailing Sarah Duchess of York's involvement in Children in Crisis charity.  How much of the charity is funding its main goal and how much is funding Sarah?  (For the record, thousands of charities are like this.  Celebrities do it too.  My point is that it is a source of perks & revenue for the royals).
3.  Access to charitable contributors - this is how anyone w/o funds meets one w/funds and the quiet gifts, perks, holidays & private jets begins......

[Canuck]

Being "the spare" doesn't require you to be friends with criminals or enter into shady business deals.  Andrew has plenty of his own money and isn't required to accept luxury vacations from a man who is exploiting teenage girls. 

[Windsor]

[admin]Several posts have been removed - please ensure all posts conform to our Forum Rules - thank you.[/admin]

[wannable]

^^Canuck I agree, related, I'm seeing more articles with an added friendly warning dedicated to Harry, his daddy, and enablers.