Split Thread Virginia Guiffre v Duke of York

The Andrew formerly known as Prince. Has quite a ring to it.

I wish we could opt out of the monarchy, the way we could opt out of the Swedish church, back when it was a state church. I dislike having to pay them to swan around the world, getting to meet loads of interesting people, pretending to do something serious and important, and representing Sweden. I wish they would at least misbehave, the way yours do, so we could de-crown them somehow. As it is, I think people here are just not annoyed enough by them, since they are too boring for anyone to get worked up about them. Bring on a monarchy gone rouge, that would be the end of them here! Give us an Andrew or a Harry, or a Nowegian Märta-Louise who talks to angels and is married to a shaman, and we'd roll out the barricades and start braying for royal böood and heads! Maybe. Unless it's spring, we have to build decks in spring, so we're resdy for summer. Can't do summer without good decking. But otherwise; vive la République!
 
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.
I disagree, partly. It is for his behaviour, though as much for being found out as for what he did. And while the punishment may not matter to the man in the street, I'm certain it matters an awful lot to him.
 
I disagree, partly. It is for his behaviour, though as much for being found out as for what he did. And while the punishment may not matter to the man in the street, I'm certain it matters an awful lot to him.

In the upper classes, being found out is the only crime.
 
Where did that £12 million come from? And why would you pay that much if you hadn't done anything? And how is he paying for his residence?


It came from the Queen didn't it? And who hasn't given £12million to a complete stranger they've never met shutupaboutthatphoto...
 
Where did that £12 million come from? And why would you pay that much if you hadn't done anything? And how is he paying for his residence?

Paying people off to go away has always been the way. We the taxpayers funded Prince Andrew's £12m. Prince Charles himself was a close friend of Jimmy Savile and Rev. Ball. He likely can't see what the fuss is about. They are all degenerate incl. the ghastly Sarah Ferguson. William has his eye on the crown so has to be super proper and discreet.
 
Plus perfect timing on that lawsuit.

Alan Dershowitz wasn't budging. The window for the New York Child Victim's Act was about to close. Time to drag Andrew through the mud as hard as possible months before the Queen's Platinum Jubilee. Apparently he wanted to fight it but he didn't have much of a say.

By the way what did Virginia's "anti-sex trafficking" charity actually do?
 
Plus perfect timing on that lawsuit.

Alan Dershowitz wasn't budging. The window for the New York Child Victim's Act was about to close. Time to drag Andrew through the mud as hard as possible months before the Queen's Platinum Jubilee. Apparently he wanted to fight it but he didn't have much of a say.
So you're denying the abuse took place?
By the way what did Virginia's "anti-sex trafficking" charity actually do?
Quite a lot actually, mostly educational.
 
So you're denying the abuse took place?
I’m skeptical they ever had sex. Abuse? Was she even presented to him as a “sex slave” as she later styled herself? She was legal in the U.K. Given reports about Andrew’s personal life I’m not discounting that the encounter took place. But I struggle to accept it given her and her lawyers’ history of flipflopping and fabrications.

To this day we still have no original of that photo. She claimed in a draft of her memoir that she had sex with Andrew a fourth time in New Mexico (p. 105), then retracted it in her Nov 2016 deposition, claiming Sharon Churcher mistakenly put the story in her article. The memoir deserve a thread of its own. Her lawyers eventually admitted her "memoirs" were a work of fiction she wrote "as an act of empowerment" (doc 281, p. 60) even though she had been actively trying profit off of it for years. On top off all of that, emails between Virginia and Churcher seem to suggest Churcher coached her on how to present the Andrew allegations (p. 8). I am wondering what Churcher revealed in her 2021 deposition that they were so desperate to keep a secret.

Quite a lot actually, mostly educational.
Of course.
 
Andrew dragged himself through the mud. Others just showed how dirty he was.
I may have missed something, but I am missing what Andrew did that was scandalous. He had entirely legal sex (allegedly) with a younger woman. This is nothing new*. He didn't pay her, force her etc. There is no evidence that he knew that she was forced, paid, etc. to do so. She then extorted money from him, (and many others). It seems entirely reasonable that he should alert his protection officer he was being blackmailed.

I may have missed something but what has Andrew done that he should be punished for?

*Elvis Presley, Bill Wyman, John Peel, any number of students and their supervisors, partners at law firms and accountancy firms and juniors/ trainees. The truth is (I know because I was once one), young women are attracted to older men in positions of power. We all have regrets for the indiscretions of youth, not many of us monetise it.
 
I have also been a teenage girl, and I was seriously stupid at times, as nearly all teenage girls are (and I would not call 16-17 year old girls young women). But that does not excuse the stupidity, lack of maturity and empathy, and crude and utter lack if self control of men twice their age, or more, with teenage daughters of their own. "She made me do it, she was coming on to me" is not an excuse.

But most of us are lucky enough not to meet people intent on grooming and using us, and/or lucky enough not to be vulnerable to such attempts.

And Andrew knew Epstein and Maxwell. No, he doesn't seem very bright, but I cannot believe that anyone who spent time with them, and was offered services from the girls, did not have any inkling of what was going on.
 
I’m skeptical they ever had sex. Abuse? Was she even presented to him as a “sex slave” as she later styled herself? She was legal in the U.K. Given reports about Andrew’s personal life I’m not discounting that the encounter took place. But I struggle to accept it given her and her lawyers’ history of flipflopping and fabrications.

To this day we still have no original of that photo. She claimed in a draft of her memoir that she had sex with Andrew a fourth time in New Mexico (p. 105), then retracted it in her Nov 2016 deposition, claiming Sharon Churcher mistakenly put the story in her article. The memoir deserve a thread of its own. Her lawyers eventually admitted her "memoirs" were a work of fiction she wrote "as an act of empowerment" (doc 281, p. 60) even though she had been actively trying profit off of it for years. On top off all of that, emails between Virginia and Churcher seem to suggest Churcher coached her on how to present the Andrew allegations (p. 8). I am wondering what Churcher revealed in her 2021 deposition that they were so desperate to keep a secret.


Of course.

I think we need to separate individual identities from it. So, prostitution, now re-labelled 'sex work' is said to be the 'oldest profession'. Men lust after women and are willing to pay for sex, or men lust after other men and are willing to pay for sex. Where you have demand, you have supply. So the poorest in society - those without qualifications or experience to earn a 'proper' living - can get rich quite quickly if they are reasonably young and attractive (cf 'Bonnie Blue' sleeping with 'a thousand men' claiming she is aiming to be a millionaire out of it, and men are willing to pay her). But then we have the issue of pimps and organised grooming gangs. These are often controlled by cynical older persons, or even career criminals. For example, the IRA ran prostitution rackets to raise money for their political aims. As prostitution or sex work is actually dangerous for the sex worker, especially if they work the streets or bars, it is no surprise many of them have to be drugged or drunk in order to operate, either supplied by themself or by the pimp, or the john. So, enter drug dealing on top of sex worker racketeering.

Now, take Virginia Roberts, as she was then known. Lived in a campervan trailer park with her father, who seems to have a murky background himself. Has a beautiful young blonde daughter who equates to money in his eyes. AIUI Virginia was working for another pornographer before she crossed paths with predator Maxwell, with her father's blessing. This other guy was convicted of sex crimes. All of this before Virginia even started work at Mar-A- Lago as an assistant who went on to have ambitions as a masseuse. So, she is young, unworldly, finds she is attractive to men, left school early, hard up for cash. Just has layabout dodgy Dad as her protector and mentor.

Then take, Prince Andrew. Known as a lothario. Literally 'laid' thousands of women merely by dint of being a young relatively handsome prince and extremely wealthy, with Mum, the world's richest person. Money no object. What Andrew wants, Andrew gets. Maxwell procures him (yet another?) young woman to hang out at a posh nightclub and have a 'romantic' encounter to end in sex, as is Prince Andrew's usual expectation.

So, Giuffre claims there was a transaction involved in which her air fares were paid for and for her services, given £15K via intermediary, Maxwell. Why else would she fly into London from the US except as some kind of luxury commodity as supplied by Prince Andrew's close pal, Epstein, special massages thrown in, discretion assured. She's over 17 age of consent in the UK. You could say it is a straightforward transaction: goods offered, goods paid for. Transaction complete. Except when a sex worker hooks someone famous and in the public eye, there is always the threat of blackmail and 'selling your story to the papers' (cf Mellor and Beckham, whose claimed extra-marital affair partners went to the press for money). 'Twas e'er the way.

From Guiffre's POV, she is rightly outraged at having been cynically exploited from a young age and traumatised from her experience as a sex object in a social mores wherein the buyer has more protection than the seller. The terms of the sex worker transaction is you get paid and the rules of discretion entails you (a) do not blackmail the rich and famous john and (b) you do not name and shame or tell his wife or girlfriend. Those are the rules.

But Giuffre having understood her position - as a poor nobody from a trailer park who thought a few lousy dollars for giving sex work was a lot of money - from a vantage point, knew she had leverage in her photo of her with Prnce Andrew and Maxwell smirking in the background. She knew there would be tremendous press interest given Robert Maxwell's notoriety and the various scandals that have beset the Yorks over the years (Fergie's toe-sucking lover and ringing up £5m in debts, together with Prince Andrew's cash for endorsements with dodgy foreign characters, his yachting venture and Swiss chalet, etc). So, if you are a crusading former sex worker looking for justice from a perceived injustice, well, of course, the picture of you with Andrew is going to be your hand grenade, sex worker's revenge or plain pay-day bingo lottery prize.

But did Prince Andrew actually do anything wrong morally or legally in allegedly paying for sexual services? Or is the big scandal his close friendship with known sex exploiter and pimp, Epstein and his high society enabler, Maxwell?
 
Last edited:
A plausible scenario.

Reframing prostitution/sex work, or even an agreement to go somewhere together to have sex, as "trafficking" has become common in the United States.

Speaking of toe-sucking, in Roberts' draft of her memoir (p. 78, 79) she describes Andrew licking her feet. As Jay Beecher suggested in his now-defunct website The Maxwell Files, this scene might have been inspired by that Sarah Ferguson foot fetish scandal. And perhaps Roberts or whoever helped her with her book was unaware that that wasn't Andrew. Fascinating lol.
 
Last edited:
The King is now removing all of Andrew's titles, and he will have to move out of his house. Still no admission that Andrew has done anything wrong, of course.

 

Back
Top Bottom