Split Thread Virginia Guiffre v Duke of York

Umm I believe many are missing the true driving force behind this (relatively) quick settlement, once the motion to dismiss was denied.

The hidden hand behind all of Andrew's legal difficulties in this case has been the Queen. She (and her advisers, and Charles and William) have an overriding instinct to protect the monarchy at almost any cost - they truly do fear the rise of republicanism (once the Queen dies, of course) if sufficient mud-dragging of the RF takes place.

They were prepared to allow Andrew to try to get the Giuffre case thrown out in January. However, once that didn't happen, Plan B immediately swung into action.

And Plan B was: 1) immediately strip Andrew of patronages and his (external) HRH status, in a pre-agreed and choreographed manner; 2) put the mechanism in play for Andrew to pay whatever it took to settle this matter out of court, as soon as possible. The Queen (I believe) has funded almost all of the settlement (which, incidentally, is actually likely to run to multiple tens of millions - everyone's still forgetting both sides' legal costs, and the quanta being mentioned for Giuffre and the charity stuff are very probably too low as well.

Simply put, the Queen and Charles/William wanted to put a stop to all further controversy on this matter as soon as possible, once they knew it was otherwise destined to proceed to trial. That would have been the case in any "ordinary" year. But 2022 is not an ordinary year: it's the Queen's Diamond Jubilee year. The RF see this (probably correctly) as a mechanism for engendering love and respect - not only for the Queen herself, but also for the Monarchy as an institution.

And they simply were not prepared to have - between now and October - the media running parallel stories on 1) the latest instalment of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, and 2) the latest sleazy details on Andrew's court case.

THIS is what the settlement has always been about. Nothing whatsoever to do with Andrew himself - he would have had zero choice in the matter. And it doesn't matter whether or not Andrew and his lawyers expected to win in court (or, indeed, whether or not the Queen and her advisers/lawyers expected Andrew to win in court): the very fact that there was going to be a tawdry sex-based trial of one of the Queen's sons - plus all the build-up to that trial (the depositions, the leaks...) made it inconceivable to HMQ and the RF that the case could continue going forward towards trial, once the motion to dismiss was denied.
 
LondonJohn said:
Umm I believe many are missing the true driving force behind this (relatively) quick settlement, once the motion to dismiss was denied.

The hidden hand behind all of Andrew's legal difficulties in this case has been the Queen. She (and her advisers, and Charles and William) have an overriding instinct to protect the monarchy at almost any cost - they truly do fear the rise of republicanism (once the Queen dies, of course) if sufficient mud-dragging of the RF takes place.

They were prepared to allow Andrew to try to get the Giuffre case thrown out in January. However, once that didn't happen, Plan B immediately swung into action.

And Plan B was: 1) immediately strip Andrew of patronages and his (external) HRH status, in a pre-agreed and choreographed manner; 2) put the mechanism in play for Andrew to pay whatever it took to settle this matter out of court, as soon as possible. The Queen (I believe) has funded almost all of the settlement (which, incidentally, is actually likely to run to multiple tens of millions - everyone's still forgetting both sides' legal costs, and the quanta being mentioned for Giuffre and the charity stuff are very probably too low as well.

Simply put, the Queen and Charles/William wanted to put a stop to all further controversy on this matter as soon as possible, once they knew it was otherwise destined to proceed to trial. That would have been the case in any "ordinary" year. But 2022 is not an ordinary year: it's the Queen's Diamond Jubilee year. The RF see this (probably correctly) as a mechanism for engendering love and respect - not only for the Queen herself, but also for the Monarchy as an institution.

And they simply were not prepared to have - between now and October - the media running parallel stories on 1) the latest instalment of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, and 2) the latest sleazy details on Andrew's court case.

THIS is what the settlement has always been about. Nothing whatsoever to do with Andrew himself - he would have had zero choice in the matter. And it doesn't matter whether or not Andrew and his lawyers expected to win in court (or, indeed, whether or not the Queen and her advisers/lawyers expected Andrew to win in court): the very fact that there was going to be a tawdry sex-based trial of one of the Queen's sons - plus all the build-up to that trial (the depositions, the leaks...) made it inconceivable to HMQ and the RF that the case could continue going forward towards trial, once the motion to dismiss was denied.
Click to expand...

Nope, I disagree with much of this

Firstly, he pretty much ignored the Queen and Prince Philip's advice by marrying Sarah Ferguson. He did his obligatory time in the military and after that, he adopted the rich, privileged, playboy lifestyle for the next 35 years, partying and nightclubbing with his elite pals and plenty of fast women. He essentially did exactly what he pleased, when he pleased. What on earth makes you think he would suddenly take any notice of mummy now?

Secondly, if the Queen was so worried about the reputation of the Royal Family, and Andrew does what mummy says as you suggest, why didn't she tell him to end his friendship with Epstein and Maxwell when Epstein became a convicted sex offender. I mean, that damaged his reputation more than anything else until 2015 when the Virginia Roberts scandal hit

Thirdly, if the damage wasn't already done by 16/11/2019 (the day the BBC Newsnight interview was aired), it certainly was on that date. Why didn't mummy instruct him to settle then?

Lastly, I do not believe for one minute that she would not have allowed the lawsuit to proceed if there was a very good chance of winning, because that would be vindication for Andrew, and by proxy, for the Royal Family itself.

No, I think that while the Queen may ultimately have had an influence on the decision, she would have listened to Andrew's lawyers, who would have advised her that her son would get utterly ripped to shreds in the deposition, and if he still wanted to proceed, she could expect a repeat performance or worse on the witness stand. I think it was no co-incidence that the abrupt volte-face settlement came just days before that deposition.
 
smartcooky said:
A tie is where both teams finish with the same score (very rare).
Click to expand...

Thirty-five years on, the people I used to play village cricket with don't let me forget it! The scores were level, numbers 10 and 11 (me) batting. My call, from the bowlers end; I got 3/4 of the way to the striker's end, and was sent back. I was run out but only be a foot or two. An easy single. Meh...
 
Last edited:
The Common Potato said:
Thirty-five years on, the people I used to play village cricket with don't let me forget it! The scores were level, numbers 10 and 11 (me) batting. My call, from the bowlers end; I got 3/4 of the way to the striker's end, and was sent back. I was run out but only be a foot or two. An easy single. Meh...
Click to expand...

Off topic
Its rare....in 145 years of test cricket, over 2000 test matches have been played between 13 teams... about 25% of test matches have been drawn... but only two have been tied... 1960 and 1986
 
Remember that time Meghan Markle dragged down the reputation of the Royal Family by guest editing Vogue?
 
Samson said:
What does "avoid going down" mean in this context?
Click to expand...

Its a something of a double-entendre. "Going down" is a slang term with sexual connotations, but of course, since Gary Lineker is a former English Premier League and International soccer player (and now a commentator) so he is also using it in the context of relegation from a higher league to a lower league. A team near the bottom of the league table is often said to at risk of "going down" at the end of the season.

You could interpret what is happening to Mr Windsor as "relegation".
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Its a something of a double-entendre. "Going down" is a slang term with sexual connotations, but of course, since Gary Lineker is a former English Premier League and International soccer player (and now a commentator) so he is also using it in the context of relegation from a higher league to a lower league. A team near the bottom of the league table is often said to at risk of "going down" at the end of the season.

You could interpret what is happening to Mr Windsor as "relegation".
Click to expand...

Going down does have a sexual connotation but in this case it is another meaning :- Going to prison that Mr Lineker is using for the Double entendre.

So it could be

Crystal palace being relegated
Or
Andrew going to prison
 
This slightly unsafe for work video was suggested by YouTube

 
jimbob said:
A more serious Twitter thread on this and why a lot of the very credible accusations were supported by testimony of people who couldn't put their names on the record

https://twitter.com/adamdavidson/status/1533082314321842179?s=20&t=wbJ3wHaA23SY3AOr2P_j8g
Click to expand...

That is really difficult to read and follow from a grammatical perspective (thanks Twitter for the godawful formatting you use) so here is what he said so that it will save you from doing what I had to do; copypasta each Tweet into a notebook document and clean up the spelling and grammar so that I could some make actual sense out if it.


Adam Davidson https://twitter.com/adamdavidson

Firstly, just about everything I know has been published somewhere. It's in books or articles or interviews with victims or revealed in depositions. I think, our podcast, Broken, https://adamd.cc/broken went further than many in revealing scumbaggery, but yes, there are things I believe, with good evidence, to be true that I feel I cannot publish.

Secondly, protecting the victims [the first circle of sources]. We spoke to dozens of Epstein's victims and dozens of their lawyers. Many are, simply, terrified and don't want to talk at all. Others are willing to talk off the record and will confirm things others said, but begged us not to reveal their names/info. Others are represented by lawyers who want to win settlements and don't let them talk. We chose to respect any victim's decision. We had to rely on the very few victims who were willing to talk publicly. This is why [Virginia Giuffre] is so brave. Pretty much every thing she told us was confirmed by others, off the record, but she is rare in being public. The biggest issue is the victims we never spoke with. Epstein reportedly raped up to three girls a day for years. Most came once or just a few times. Their names are not known by anyone, that's thousands of victims who are invisible.

The next circle of sources are the enablers. Over the decades of abuse, Epstein had hundreds of staffers; pilots, house staff, chefs, assistants. The vast majority will never speak or will offer weak denials or will only speak through lawyers. We covered one of those enablers, Adam Perry Lang, quite well, I thought: he was Epstein's chef for years and has become a Hollywood celeb chef, best friend of Jimmy Kimmel. A few of these enablers would confirm details off the record.

Then there is a huge group of people; those who witnessed Epstein at fancy functions. They saw him with teenagers at scientific conferences or sitting on his knee at dinner parties. There are countless people like this. A few did talk to us - totally off the record.

Lastly, there are the people who (allegedly!) either had sex with children or were around when others were doing so. They are all rich and powerful and simply deny and refer to their lawyers often with clear insistence that they will sue.

The result of all of this is that for most of the claims, there is one witness willing to go on record. That witness, more often than not, is [Virginia Giuffre]. I have full confidence in her recollections. We spent about two years checking everything she said and never found a lie, but courts and the public are not kind to single-source he-said/she-said cases. Virginia has already faced down and won against some very powerful people, but this is an absurd amount of weight to put on one person's shoulders.

So, I am not protecting the men who (I feel fairly confident) raped children or watched as others did so. **** those guys, I am honoring their victims' requests. Like all of you, I have hoped it would all come out by now. I'm shocked it hasn't, but here is what I feel confident in saying:

If someone spent any amount of time with Jeffrey Epstein, at a minimum they saw him physically touching girls in provocative ways and rather gleefully showing off his ability to do so. More than likely, they were offered sex with whatever their preference was (Epstein did employ, abuse, and traffic women who weren't underage). And many did have sex with girls or women. So, ALL the people who spent real time with Epstein were, at best, witnesses to the almost certain rape of children, and had a high likelihood that they engaged in illegal sex acts.

Courts can presume innocence - we all should presume guilt. Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Bill Richardson, Ehud Barak, George Mitchell, George Church, George Ito--and a lot of others at MIT and Harvard. There is an enormous likelihood that, at the very best, they spent a lot of time with a man they knew to be raping children. They saw him with those children, they saw naked photos on his walls and many saw naked children around his pool. They knew. Yes, of course, many participated, but ALL knew.

I am not able to say the names of people I think participated without betraying victims. But these men should not be invited into polite society. They should not be celebrated on TV shows as experts on Covid or international relations or whatever.​
 
Last edited:
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall for that 'discussion'.

www.theguardian.com

Prince Andrew gives up royal titles including Duke of York after ‘discussion with king’

In statement released by Buckingham Palace, Andrew says he will give up titles and honours
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

In a statement he said: “In discussion with the king, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the royal family. I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life.

“With His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me. As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me.”
Click to expand...
 
This has nothing to do with punishing the Duke of York for his past behaviour with friends such as Epstein. And note he is STILL the Duke of York, he just won't "use" that title. This is to do with the jealousy of one brother for another. This is a "punishment" which only means anything to their family and sycophants, sorry friends. This is about who has to bow to whom when first meeting, who gets announced first, who gets to sit where at the table, who gets mentioned in the CofE prayers and so on. It reminds me of that glorious moment in my lifetime when we might have have become a republic and it was floated that the old Queen could restore "HRH" to the King's first wife after she had died as a means of pacifying the population as the royal family couldn't see what all the fuss was about that someone without a HRH had died, as if that meant anything to anyone but their dysfunctional family. The royal family only does what they want, when they want for their own motives, if that can be spun and framed as if it is a noble duty it will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom