Ultimate Resource On Duke of York’s Prince Andrew And His Sex Scandal
Prince Andrew Was Notified of sex abuse suit at Royal Lodge, Filing Shows. Ultimate Resource On Duke of York’s Prince Andrew And His Sex Scandal
* Agent Left Papers With Police At Gate Of His Residence Aug. 27
* Prince Andrew Was Not Handed Details Of Lawsuit Directly
Prince Andrew was served with legal papers at his English home with the U.S. suit by a woman who claims she was recruited by Jeffrey Epstein as a teenager and “lent out” to powerful men, including the second son of Queen Elizabeth II, for sexual purposes.
The Duke of York was served with papers at the Royal Lodge, Windsor on the morning of Aug. 27, according to a witness statement filed in Manhattan federal court. An agent left the details of the suit at the gates of the luxury property with a member of the London Metropolitan Police Service, according to the filing.
The agent didn’t hand the documents to Prince Andrew directly, but dropping off the papers with the officer on duty meets the requirements for service in England and Wales, according to the filing.
The agent attempted to deliver the papers the previous day but was denied access by police officers as they had been “instructed not to allow anyone attending for the purposes of serving court process onto the grounds of the property,” according to the statement.
A spokeswoman for the Prince declined to comment. His lawyer didn’t immediately respond to an email requesting comment. He has 21 days from the date of service to respond to the suit or face a default judgment. Prince Andrew has previously denied having ever had sex with Giuffre.
Virginia Giuffre claimed in the suit filed in August that the British royal sexually abused her at Epstein’s home in New York, on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands and in the London home of Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite who is in jail awaiting trial on charges she helped Epstein traffic underage girls for sex.
According to Giuffre, Prince Andrew is liable for battery and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. “Prince Andrew committed sexual assault and battery upon plaintiff when she was 17 years old,” she claimed in the complaint.
The case is Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, 1:21-cv-06702, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Judge In Prince Andrew Suit Says Secret Epstein Settlement Should Be Unsealed
A secret 2008 settlement that a lawyer for Prince Andrew says would protect him against a lawsuit claiming he sexually abused an American when she was 17 should be made public, a judge said Tuesday.
The agreement was reached between Virginia Giuffre and financier Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in 2019 while awaiting a sex trafficking trial in New York City. Giuffre was among many women who said Epstein sexually abused them when they were underage.
Attorney Andrew Brettler has argued that the deal also shields Andrew from a separate claim brought against the prince by Giuffre this year.
In a brief order issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska said that absent any valid objection by Epstein’s estate, the document should be made public on or before Dec. 22 as part of Andrew’s case.
Preska said the court questions “whether any proper purpose would be served by the continued secrecy of the document save, perhaps, the dollar amount the settlement provided it for.”
In the August lawsuit, Virginia Giuffre claims that the prince abused her on multiple occasions in 2001. Andrew has said he never had sex with her.
Brettler has previously called the lawsuit “baseless.”
Prince Andrew Says U.S. Sex-Assault Accuser Is An Australia Resident
* Virginia Giuffre’s Residency Could Affect Court’s Jurisdiction
* Her August Suit Claimed Jeffrey Epstein ‘Lent’ Her To Andrew
Prince Andrew says a U.S. lawsuit accusing him of sexual assault may need to be thrown out because the alleged victim probably lives in Australia.
In a filing Tuesday in Manhattan federal court, Andrew said a finding that Virginia Giuffre was domiciled in Australia would remove the court’s jurisdiction over the case. He asked U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan to force Giuffre to answer questions about her residency under oath.
Giuffre sued Andrew in New York in August, claiming he sexually abused her on multiple occasions when she was 17, after Jeffrey Epstein “lent” her out to the British royal and other powerful men. Andrew has denied her allegations.
In Tuesday’s filing, Andrew said recently discovered evidence shows that Giuffre has lived in Australia for all but two of the last 19 years, despite claiming in her suit that she was a resident of Colorado.
Giuffre hasn’t lived in Colorado since at least 2019, Andrew said, and had an Australian driver’s license and lived in a $1.16 million West Perth home with her family when she filed the suit.
‘Her Mother’s Address’
“It appears that prior to filing this action, but well after she returned to Australia, Ms. Giuffre registered to vote for the first time in Colorado using her mother’s home address in Penrose,” Andrew said.
“The timing of Ms. Giuffre’s voter registration is suspicious and appears to be a calculated move in an effort to support her specious claim of citizenship in Colorado despite having moved to Australia at least a year (if not four years) earlier.”
Sigrid McCawley, a lawyer for Giuffre, called Andrew’s filing “another in a series of tired attempts by Prince Andrew to duck and dodge the legal merits of the case Virginia Giuffre has brought against him.”
“All parties in litigation are subject to discovery and Prince Andrew is no exception,” McCawley said in a statement.
Giuffre has said she was recruited by Epstein and his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell as a teenager and subject to years of abuse.
Though she did not testify at Maxwell’s sex-trafficking trial, prosecutors described Giuffre to the jury as another victim, and one of the accusers who took the stand said Maxwell asked Giuffre to “show her what to do” in Epstein’s Palm Beach, Florida, massage room.
The jury in Maxwell’s case is now on it fifth day of deliberations.
The most vocal of Epstein’s alleged victims, Giuffre has also accused other men linked to Epstein of sexually abusing her, including Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, who has denied the claim and filed his own suit against Giuffre. She also sued Maxwell for defamation after the British socialite called her a liar.
That suit was settled out of court, but Maxwell now faces perjury charges over her deposition testimony denying knowledge of Epstein’s interactions with underage girls.
Giuffre sued Andrew in New York under so-called “diversity jurisdiction,” which allows U.S. residents to sue residents of other U.S. states or foreign nationals in federal court. But a U.S. citizen who has permanent residency abroad can’t use such jurisdiction to pursue claims in federal court.
Andrew has made several other arguments to have the suit tossed. In late October, he asked Kaplan to throw out the case, saying it was barred by a 2009 settlement agreement she reached with Epstein and that she had pleaded insufficient facts to support her claim.
Earlier this month, Andrew also said a New York law that gave victims of sexual abuse more time to sue is unconstitutional and can’t be used to allow Giuffre’s claims.
Kaplan is set to hear arguments on Andrew’s October motion on Jan. 4. The judge last month said the case could go to trial as soon as next fall.
The case is Giuffre v Prince Andrew, 21-cv-6702, U.S. District Court, Southern District Of New York.
Prince Andrew Loses Bid To Question Accuser On Australia Residency
* Judge Says Virginia Giuffre Already Promised To Address Issue
* She Says Andrew Is Just Trying To Delay Handing Over Evidence
A judge denied Prince Andrew’s request to question a woman suing him for sexual assault about whether she’s a resident of Australia instead of the U.S., an issue that could affect the court’s jurisdiction in the case.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan on Friday said Andrew’s accuser, Virginia Giuffre, had already promised to provide documents supporting her claim of residency in Colorado, making his request for a special two-hour deposition on the topic unnecessary.
In the suit Giuffre filed in August, she claimed Andrew sexually abused her on multiple occasions when she was 17, after Jeffrey Epstein “lent” her out to the British royal and other powerful men.
Though a U.S. citizen, Giuffre can’t sue a British national in U.S. federal court if her own legal residence is in an foreign country. Andrew claimed in a Tuesday filing that recently discovered evidence showed that Giuffre has lived in Australia for all but two of the last 19 years and hasn’t lived in Colorado since 2019.
Giuffre said in a Thursday court filing that she lives in Australia, but that her residence for legal purposes is Colorado, where she’s registered to vote, her mother lives and to which she plans to return. She said she testified in 2016 that she and her husband left the U.S. to care for his elderly father in Australia.
In her filing, she suggested Prince Andrew was merely trying to delay handing over evidence in the case and referenced the controversial 2019 BBC interview in which he discussed his friendship with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted on Thursday of sex-trafficking.
“If Prince Andrew truly has no documents concerning his communications with Maxwell or Epstein, his travel to Florida, New York, or various locations in London, his alleged medical inability to sweat, or anything that would support the alibis he gave during his BBC interview, then continuing with discovery will not be burdensome to him at all,” Giuffre said.
The case is Giuffre v Prince Andrew, 21-cv-6702, U.S. District Court, Southern District Of New York.
Prince Andrew Calls New York Child Victim Act Unconstitutional
Prince Andrew said a New York law that gave victims of child sex abuse more time to sue is unconstitutional and can’t be used to allow the claims by an alleged former recruit of Jeffrey Epstein to take the British Royal to trial.
Virginia Giuffre sued the prince in August, claiming he sexually abused her on several occasions when she was 17, including at Epstein’s New York home and in the London home of Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite who is on trial for sex-trafficking children. Epstein killed himself while in jail.
Giuffre sued five days before New York’s Child Victims Act expired. The law allowed victims of child sexual abuse to sue until the age of 55, as opposed to the standard statute of limitations that gave them one to five years to sue.
But in a court filing Monday, urging a judge to throw out Giuffre’s lawsuit, Andrew argued the law is vague because it allows those who were under 18 years of age when they were abused to rely on it, even though the age of consent in New York is 17.
“The issue of consent is unsettled with regard to those — like Giuffre — who were between the ages of 17 and 18,” Andrew said in the filing.
While Giuffre claims she didn’t consent to sex with Andrew, the prince said that claim can’t be verified.
“The only witnesses to the purported implied threats under which Giuffre allegedly engaged in unconsented sex acts with Prince Andrew are Epstein (deceased), Maxwell (incarcerated), Prince Andrew (the accused) and Giuffre herself,” Andrew’s lawyers said in the filing.
Jeffrey Epstein Paid Prince Andrew Accuser $500,000 In 2009 Settlement
* Virginia Giuffre Gave Broad Release In $500,000 Settlement
* Issue Will Be Argued Before Manhattan Federal Judge On Tuesday
A woman suing Prince Andrew for sexual assault agreed in a confidential 2009 settlement with Jeffrey Epstein to release “any other person” involved in the case from litigation in exchange for $500,000.
Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit against Queen Elizabeth’s second son is barred by that language, newly revealed in documents unsealed on Monday, Andrew claims. But her lawyer, David Boies, says it’s a red herring.
“The release is irrelevant to Ms. Giuffre’s claim against Prince Andrew,” said Boies. “The release does not mention Prince Andrew.”
The issue will be aired in Manhattan federal court on Tuesday, when U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan hears arguments on Andrew’s motion to dismiss the suit. Giuffre claims the British royal was one of several powerful men to whom Epstein “lent” her for sexual abuse when she was a teenager. Andrew has denied her allegations.
A litigation release in the November 2009 deal says it applies to Epstein and “any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant” in the suit Giuffre filed against Epstein in federal court in Florida earlier that year.
Boies said Andrew could not have been a “potential defendant” covered by the settlement, because he wasn’t subject to jurisdiction in Florida and that case involved federal claims of which the British royal wasn’t a part. Andrew was also unaware of the release at the time it was signed, Boies said.
The settlement was also raised in a suit by Giuffre against Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, with whom she also claims she had underage sex.
She sued him for defamation in 2019 after he repeatedly denied her claims and called her a liar. Dershowitz, who counter-sued Giuffre for defamation and infliction of emotional distress, also said the 2009 deal barred her claims.
The nine-page agreement includes a requirement that the amount of the settlement remain confidential. The parties also agreed that the deal “should not in any way be construed as an admission by Jeffrey Epstein” that he violated any federal or state laws.
Epstein’s former longtime girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty last week of sex trafficking. While Giuffre didn’t testify in that trial, prosecutors told jurors she was a victim of the couple’s abuse, and she was mentioned by name by two witnesses.
Federal prosecutors put Epstein’s net worth at more than $500 million and said he had an income of more than $10 million a year when he was arrested in 2019.
Epstein, who was found dead in his jail cell before he could go on trial for sex-trafficking, left an estate that included about $194 million in hedge fund and private equity investments, $113 million held in equities and $57 million in cash, according to a court filing.
Before he died, Epstein used high-pressure litigation tactics and secret settlements to keep details of his sexual behavior out of the public eye.
Some settlements exceeded $1 million, with three women agreeing to drop their suits for a total of $5.5 million. After Epstein died, his estate set up a compensation fund that distributed about $125 million to 135 victims.
Maxwell’s lawyers aggressively questioned the women who testified against her about amounts they received in lawsuits and the fund. “Jane” said on the stand that she received $5 million. Prosecutors pointed out that Maxwell received some $30 million from Epstein.
Andrew’s lawyers said in his motion to dismiss Giuffre’s suit that she was looking for “another payday” by accusing “a member of the world’s best known royal family of serious misconduct.”
The case is Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, 21-cv-06702, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Prince Andrew Bid To Toss Sex Assault Suit Meets Skeptical Judge
* Judge Mocks Argument That Complaint Isn’t Sufficiently Clear
* Andrew’s Claim Of Epstein Deal Shield Also Greeted Skeptically
Prince Andrew’s arguments to dismiss Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit accusing him of sexual abusing her when she was a teenager were greeted skeptically by a U.S. judge.
In a Tuesday hearing in Manhattan federal court, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan expressed doubt that Andrew was protected by a confidential 2009 settlement between Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein. The British royal argued that a broad litigation release contained in that deal covered him.
The judge was even blunter when Andrew’s lawyer tried to argue that Giuffre’s claims were insufficiently clear.
“That is not a dog that’s going to hunt here,” Kaplan said.
Giuffre claims Andrew was one of several powerful men to whom Epstein “lent” her for sexual abuse as a teenager.
Andrew has denied her allegations. The judge read a section from the lawsuit that described an alleged encounter in London during which Epstein, his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell and Andrew forced an underage Giuffre to have sexual intercourse.
“It was sexual intercourse. Involuntary sexual intercourse,” said Kaplan. “There’s no doubt about what that means, at least since somebody else was in the White House,” an apparent reference to Bill Clinton, who appointed him to the federal bench.
The judge said he’d make a decision on Andrew’s motion “pretty soon” but did not set a specific time for a ruling. He declined to delay the pretrial exchange of evidence, a sign he may allow the suit to go forward.
Giuffre signed the $500,000 settlement with Epstein in November 2009 after suing him earlier that year.
The release covers Epstein, his lawyers, employees and “any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant” in her suit.
But Kaplan questioned how Epstein could have expected the agreement, which was intended to remain secret, to be used by Andrew to protect himself. Kaplan further suggested that only Epstein and Giuffre — not Andrew — had authority to enforce the release.
The nine-page agreement, which was made public on Monday, includes a requirement that the amount of the settlement remain confidential. The parties also agreed that the deal “should not in any way be construed as an admission by Jeffrey Epstein” that he violated any federal or state laws.
The settlement was also raised by Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, with whom Giuffre claims Epstein forced her to have sex.
She sued Dershowitz for defamation in 2019 after he repeatedly denied her claims and called her a liar. Dershowitz, who previously represented Epstein, counter-sued Giuffre for defamation and infliction of emotional distress.
Andrew, Queen Elizabeth’s second son, stepped aside from representing the royal family publicly after a disastrous 2019 interview with the BBC in which he sought unsuccessfully to lay to rest suspicions tied to his friendship with Epstein and Maxwell.
The case is Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, 21-cv-06702, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Prince Andrew And The Monarchy’s Royal Mess
The queen is immensely popular in Britain, but a younger generation is unlikely to look kindly on the crown as scandal engulfs her favorite son.
The British monarchy can be ruthless and decisive when it thinks its survival is at stake.
For many years the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, advocated a slimmed down royal family — keeping official duties to a select core of the clan.
But he found himself blocked by his mother, the Queen, who protected the status of his younger brother Andrew, the Duke of York. That is until the duke’s behavior became a live issue in the 2019 general election.
In a televised debate between Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, the audience applauded as the Labour Party leader criticized the royal family.
Fresh in everyone’s minds was media coverage of Andrew’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the New York financier who had committed suicide in prison earlier that year after being charged with sexual offences. Johnson’s blanket defense of the royals was heard in silence.
Corbyn would be trounced at the polls but the Queen moved swiftly to protect the institution of the monarchy. The Duke of York is often referred to as “her favorite son” but she stripped him of all his official public duties and the shutters came down at his private office at Buckingham Palace.
Prince Andrew is now the subject of a civil suit in a New York court alleging sexual assault against a minor, brought by Virginia Guiffre, now 38. The Duke of York categorically denies the accusations.
Excruciating embarrassment aside, why are the royals so nervous that one black sheep could damage the popularity of the entire fold?
After all, opinion polls show the British approve of their monarchy by a wide margin — republicans don’t even dare attack the universally respected 95-year old woman who heads it. Other trends also favor hereditary heads of state.
An influential new book, Corruptible, by the Washington Post columnist Brian Klaas, argues that, in the modern era, a diminishing number of normal people are attracted to leadership roles in politics. The intrusion of social media and the 24-hour news cycle demand unacceptable personal sacrifices.
Democratic societies are therefore increasingly governed by power-hungry “oddballs.” That development favors a wholesome royal family which stands above the tainted political class and takes its ceremonial obeisance.
As they make no promises, the royals can’t lose popularity by breaking them either — unlike their prime ministers.
Those favorable opinion polls, however, have a sting in the tail. Younger British people in the 18-24 age group are least likely to support the monarchy’s retention. The Palace, always on the alert to danger, knows it cannot afford to rest on its laurels.
Prince Charles will inherit the throne at an advanced age and he already expects a younger generation to share his duties.
In Katherine, the wife of his level-headed eldest son Prince William, the monarchy has a star in the making. The Duchess of Cambridge is not an aristocrat but a commoner who looks like a prettier version of the girl next door.
However, The Firm, as the royal family calls itself, found it could not contain the talents of a real superstar, Kate’s American sister-in-law, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, who decamped with her husband Prince Harry to California in disgust at royal protocol and press hostility.
Last week Meghan won her legal costs for a bitterly fought privacy action against a London newspaper. She received a derisory 1 pound ($1.35) in damages and she had to apologize to the judge for discrepancies in her testimony.
Meghan’s departure was a loss: She appealed to young, diverse Britain but Kate’s ordinary glamour in the long run will serve the Royal Family’s interests better.
Prince Andrew can neither fit in with this younger monarchy nor, to the palace’s dismay, can he be removed from the limelight. The ramifications of his friendship with Epstein won’t go away.
Nowadays The Firm can take divorce, dynastic rows and disputes over money in its stride — these are storylines familiar to every family soap opera — but tales of Epstein’s circle of rich, powerful men and underage women are beyond relatable experience for most Britons.
And in the age of #MeToo, the Duke of York’s links to Epstein nauseate the youthful demographic that the monarchy is trying to woo.
Prince Andrew’s legal team — his mum is picking up the tab — is now involved in increasingly desperate legal manuevers to close down Guiffre’s civil suit.
She claims that when she was 17, she was offered for sexual services to the Duke of York by Epstein and his former girlfriend and associate Ghislaine Maxwell, recently convicted by a New York jury for sex trafficking (she is looking for a retrial).
Prince Andrew’s bizarre explanations for events given in a disastrous BBC interview have only made matters worse. The Duke can’t recall having met Guiffre despite the evidence of a photograph taken at Maxwell’s house which shows him with his arm around her (his friends say it must be a fake).
He also claims that Guiffre’s testimony of his perspiring must be wrong because, while serving as a pilot in the 1982 campaign to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina, his sweat glands were permanently damaged.
Prince Andrew’s service in that war was genuinely heroic: He flew his helicopter as a decoy to attract enemy missiles away from British ships. He is also innocent unless proven guilty.
That said, the court of public opinion in the U.K. is against him and is unlikely to change its mind. Speculation is mounting that Andrew’s team will be forced to settle with Guiffre — without an admission of liability — in order to spare him the humiliation of a trial.
All the while Buckingham Palace can only look on in horror. All royals must live a life less ordinary but the Duke of York is embroiled in a scandal beyond ordinary experience.
Judge Denies Prince Andrew’s Request To Dismiss Sexual Abuse Case
The ruling sets the stage for a possible civil trial in a federal court in New York in the fall involving the British royal’s alleged ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
A U.S. federal judge denied Prince Andrew’s request to dismiss a lawsuit accusing him of sexually abusing a teenager, dealing a blow to the royal’s efforts to stop litigation alleging his ties to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell.
The ruling, which came late Tuesday, means the litigation can proceed and sets the stage for a possible civil trial in a federal court in New York in the fall.
Virginia Giuffre filed the lawsuit against Prince Andrew last year, alleging Epstein and Ms. Maxwell forced her into having sex with the British royal in the early 2000s.
A lawyer for Prince Andrew didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Ms. Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boies, said in a statement that she was pleased with the ruling allowing the case to proceed.
The lawsuit is among the most prominent litigation related to Epstein’s alleged sex crimes.
Last month, Ms. Maxwell was convicted of sex-trafficking charges for recruiting and grooming underage teens to perform sex acts on Epstein. During the three-week trial, Prince Andrew’s name was mentioned as one of several prominent figures to fly on Epstein’s private jet.
Ms. Maxwell’s attorneys have said they plan to appeal the verdict. Epstein died in 2019 in a federal jail while awaiting trial on his own sex-trafficking charges. The New York City medical examiner ruled his death a suicide.
The prospect of a highly publicized trial involving Prince Andrew in the year that Queen Elizabeth is due to celebrate her 70 years on the British throne is causing consternation in Buckingham Palace, officials say.
After stepping back from royal duties in 2019 over his links to Epstein, Prince Andrew, the queen’s second son who holds the title of Duke of York, has largely been relegated to appearing in long-lens paparazzi shots driving to and from his home on the Windsor estate.
Still, a deep dive into his private life in a New York court would generate a swath of negative headlines just as the palace looks to highlight the service of Britain’s longest-serving monarch.
Buckingham Palace declined to comment.
Ms. Giuffre previously settled a lawsuit with Epstein in 2009 that accused him of trafficking her for sex.
Earlier this month, Prince Andrew’s lawyers argued in court that he was protected from litigation by Ms. Giuffre under the settlement between her and Epstein. The agreement prohibited her from suing Epstein, his employees and other “potential defendants.”
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan said in his ruling on Tuesday that the language in the settlement was too ambiguous as to whom it protected from litigation.
“Of course, we don’t know what, if anything, went through the parties’ minds with respect to the specific terms of the 2009 agreement,” the judge said in his ruling.
Queen Strips Prince Andrew of Military Titles And Royal Patronages
* Duke Of York Can No Longer Be Called His Royal Highness
* Andrew Faces Civil Case In Us Over Claims Of Sexual Abuse
Queen Elizabeth II stripped her son Prince Andrew of all his military titles and royal patronages as he prepares to face a civil case over claims of sexual assault, saying he must defend himself as a private citizen.
“With The Queen’s approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and royal patronages have been returned to The Queen,” according to a statement from Buckingham Palace, which said the third of her four children will continue not to undertake any public duties.
Andrew will also no longer use the style His Royal Highness, or HRH, in any official capacity, a person familiar with the matter said.
Andrew’s dramatic downfall comes after a New York judge this week allowed a trial over sexual-abuse claims to go ahead against the ninth in line to the throne.
Virginia Giuffre claims that the British royal was one of several powerful men to whom Jeffrey Epstein “lent” her for abuse as a teenager. Andrew has consistently denied the allegations.
The ruling means that Andrew, Queen Elizabeth’s second son, will have to provide evidence demanded by Giuffre’s team if he continues to defend the case, a process that could take months or even years.
The prince stepped aside from representing the royal family publicly after a disastrous 2019 interview with the BBC in which he sought unsuccessfully to lay to rest suspicions tied to his friendship with the late Epstein and his partner, Ghislaine Maxwell.
UK: Prince Andrew Loses Military Titles & Patronages
Prince Andrew’s military titles and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen, Buckingham Palace has announced.
The move cames after more than 150 veterans requested that he be stipped of the titles amid the US sexual abuse lawsuit in the US linked to the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
A statement from the Palace read:
“With The Queen’s approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to The Queen“
“The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen.”
A statement from Buckingham Palace regarding The Duke of York: pic.twitter.com/OCeSqzCP38
— The Royal Family (@RoyalFamily) January 13, 2022
A royal source also added that Prince Andrew will also stop using the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity.
Prince Andrew And His Accuser In A Sex-Abuse Lawsuit Agree To Keep Some Evidence Secret
* Virginia Giuffre Says It Backs Up Her Claim Of Abuse In London
* Parties Also Agree To Keep Certain Evidence Confidential
The woman accusing Prince Andrew of sexually abusing her as teenager is seeking the testimony of a woman who claimed to see the British royal with a young girl at a London nightclub two decades ago.
Virginia Giuffre on Friday asked for the testimony of Shukri Walker concerning what she saw at the Tramp nightclub in London in 2001. In her lawsuit against Andrew, Giuffre said she danced with him at a club after being taken there by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell when she was 17. Giuffre claims she was later sexually abused by Andrew.
“Because Prince Andrew has denied ever meeting plaintiff or being at Tramp Nightclub during the relevant time period, Ms. Walker’s testimony is highly relevant,” Giuffre’s lawyer Sigrid McCawley wrote in a letter to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan.
Giuffre, alleged in a lawsuit last year that the prince was one of the powerful men to whom Epstein “lent” her out for sexual abuse.
Andrew has consistently denied the allegations, but Kaplan earlier this week allowed the lawsuit to go ahead. The judge declined to rule on Andrew’s argument that he was shielded by a 2009 settlement agreement between Giuffre and Epstein.
The day after Kaplan’s ruling, Andrew — ninth in line to the British throne — was stripped of his military affiliations and royal patronages. They were returned to his mother, Queen Elizabeth II.
Giuffre also seeks the testimony of Robert Olney, the prince’s former assistant, whose name was found in one of Epstein’s so-called Black Books.
“Mr. Olney thus likely has relevant information about defendant’s travel to and from Jeffrey Epstein’s various properties during the relevant period, and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, who Plaintiff alleges procured her for sex trafficking and forced her to engage in sex acts with defendant,” McCawley wrote.
Giuffre seeks to take the testimony from Olney and Walker by April 29, 2022, according to the request.
Andrew and Giuffre on Friday also agreed to keep some evidence confidential in the case.
That evidence may include medical or other health care records, social security numbers, personal phone numbers, banking information, names of alleged minor victims of abuse, and any other information given confidential status by the court.
The case is Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, 21-cv-06702, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Shadow of Prince Andrew Scandal Looms Over Buckingham Palace
As Britain’s monarchy seeks to insulate itself from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, it may prove difficult to insulate itself from Queen Elizabeth’s second son.
On Thursday, British tabloids published a grainy photograph of Prince Andrew riding in the back of a Range Rover on his way to see his mother, Queen Elizabeth.
It was a rare image of a royal who has largely disappeared from public view. Hours after the photo appeared, Buckingham Palace announced the 61-year-old prince was stripped of his patronages and titles—including that of High Royal Highness—as the British monarchy looks to insulate itself from the reputational damage caused by a continuing legal case alleging the prince sexually abused a 17-year-old girl.
Prince Andrew has denied all the allegations.
For the royal family, however, Prince Andrew—who is facing a possible civil trial later this year on the allegations—isn’t going away.
“This hasn’t nipped it in the bud,” said David McClure, author of the Queen’s True Worth. “But it is a sensible move and maybe it is a slightly overdue move.”
Firing a royal isn’t the same as dismissing an errant employee. Despite stepping back from royal duties, the queen’s second son is still a prince, the Duke of York and ninth in line to the throne.
Acts of parliament are required to remove those final royal vestiges, said Bob Morris, a research associate for University College London’s Constitution Unit.
The queen will also likely have to offer financial support to her son, said Mr. McClure, much like she did when her eldest son Prince Charles divorced his first wife Diana.
The process is proving an extreme test of an age-old conundrum for the monarchy: how to distance itself from extraneous members.
Prince Andrew isn’t alone in being stripped of the HRH title, which is given at the queen’s discretion. Prince Andrew’s ex-wife Sarah Ferguson lost her HRH title, as did Princess Diana when she divorced Prince Charles.
Queen Elizabeth’s grandson Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Duchess of Sussex agreed not to use their HRH titles when they acrimoniously quit as working royals.
Exiting royals have always exposed the palace to the risk they will exploit their regal connections for profit and tarnish the monarchy’s image. Prince Andrew, however, has taken this threat to another level, royal watchers say.
By stripping Prince Andrew of his title the queen hopes to achieve two things, according to a person close to the family.
First, it shows that she understands the public dismay toward Prince Andrew’s alleged behavior. It also seeks to shield the royal institution. Prince Andrew is no longer an official working royal, so any criticism would be focused on him as a private citizen rather than as a member of the U.K.-taxpayer-backed monarchy.
The prospect looms of a trial stemming from the prince’s old friendship with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who was recently convicted of sex trafficking minors.
One of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre, filed the lawsuit against Prince Andrew last year, alleging she was forced to have sex with the British royal when she was a teenager.
Prince Andrew has already spent over two years in a sort of internal exile, barred from public engagements following a clumsy attempt to clear his name with a 2019 televised interview. A poll by YouGov shows that 12% of Brits currently have a positive view of him.
However, salacious revelations in a New York court risk shaking a core and carefully curated tenet of the House of Windsor: that it is a force for good in society.
As a result, the prince should settle the matter out of court with Ms. Giuffre, said Nick Goldstone, head of dispute resolution at law firm Ince Gordon Dadds LLP in London.
“The least worst outcome is to end this process as quickly as possible, even if that means saying sorry,” he said. He estimates it would cost the royal family less than £10 million, or $13.7 million, to do so.
A New York trial is penciled in for the fall. If the litigation proceeds, Prince Andrew must turn over requested information to Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers as part of the discovery phase of the litigation.
He also faces the possibility of an hourslong videotaped deposition, where her lawyers can grill him on questions related to the allegations in the lawsuit. Prince Andrew could refuse to answer some questions under the Fifth Amendment, which protects an individual’s rights to self-incrimination.
That deposition could unearth details about private conversations with other members of the royal family or new evidence that federal prosecutors could use to request the prince be extradited, said Mr. Goldstone.
In a worst-case scenario, it could also see Prince Andrew’s two daughters Eugenie and Beatrice being questioned since they form part of the prince’s alibi, said Mr. Goldstone. The prince said in a BBC interview that he was with his daughters at home on the day Ms. Giuffre alleges she was sexual abused in London.
On Thursday, lawyers for Prince Andrew and Ms. Giuffre filed a proposed agreement in court making some exchanged material confidential, including medical records and the names of sex-abuse accusers. A judge still must approve the agreement.
For years Prince Andrew held out for a royal rehabilitation, officials say. In 2019 the palace announced the prince was stepping back for the foreseeable future, leaving the door ajar for his return.
Public pressure mounted, however. This week, more than 100 British military veterans wrote to the queen demanding that Prince Andrew be stripped of his military positions.
Buckingham Palace also wanted to close a chapter on the affair before the queen marks her 70 years on the throne next month. Even if he clears his name in court, the fact that he was close to Epstein and Ms. Maxwell will continue to hang over him, said Mr. McClure.
And so the palace “has gone quite a long way to giving him the heave-ho,” he said.