Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Prince Andrew stands by 'car-crash' Jeffrey Epstein BBC interview

The Duke of York stands by his decision to take part in an interview about his links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, sources have told the BBC.

People close to Prince Andrew said he wanted to address the issues head-on and did so with "honesty and humility".

It came after the prince's interview with BBC Newsnight on Saturday was described as a "car crash".

In the interview, the prince denied having sex with a then 17-year-old girl - Virginia Giuffre.

Former Buckingham Palace press officer Dickie Arbiter described the interview as "excruciating".

The BBC's royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the prince was "very damaged" by the interview and the opportunity to clear his name had "failed, badly".

For several months the Duke of York had been facing questions over his ties to Epstein - an American financier who, at the age of 66, took his own life while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges.

Prince Andrew "categorically" denied having any sexual contact with Virginia Giuffre known at the time as Virginia Roberts.

The first occasion, she said, took place when she was aged 17.

A lawyer for some of Epstein's alleged victims urged the prince to talk under oath to the US authorities.

Asked about the prince's decision to be interviewed by BBC Newsnight's Emily Maitlis, Mr Arbiter said he thought many questions would be asked in Buckingham Palace.

He said: "They will be wondering: Was this the right decision? Was the right decision made? Who made the decision to put him on? Did he make it himself or did he seek advice within the Palace?

"My guess is that he bulldozed his way in and decided he was going to do it himself without any advice.

"Any sensible-thinking person in the PR business would have thrown their hands up in horror at the very suggestion that he puts himself up in front of a television camera to explain away his actions and his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein."

He added that the interview was "not so much a car crash but an articulated lorry crash".

Mr Arbiter said he believed the interview would have an impact on the Duke of York's relationships with various charities.

Ahead of Saturday's interview, Prince Andrew's ex-wife Sarah Ferguson wrote of her support for him on social media.

She said: "I am deeply supportive and proud of this giant of a principled man, [who] dares to put his shoulder to the wind and stands firm with his sense of honour and truth."

Sign of arrogance'

But other royal experts also questioned the prince's decision to speak so publicly about his relationship with Epstein.

Royal biographer Angela Levin said she was gripped by the interview but felt it was "ill-judged" to offer insights into his life with Epstein.

"Unfortunately it was a sign of his arrogance," she said. "He has always been arrogant.

"The Queen's motto is don't complain don't explain. I think in her heart she will be extremely embarrassed.

"I know for a fact Prince Andrew does not listen to his advisers.

"A very senior member of the press team left suddenly two weeks ago and the implication is he would not have approved of what Prince Andrew did."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20November 20, 2019 8:59 PM

Another royal biographer, Catharine Mayer, spent time with Prince Andrew in 2004 in China on a trade mission and said the interview was "terrible because it erased the victims of Epstein".

"It was as bad as I expected," she said. "Probably worse.

"He did not mention those women once."

Former BBC royal correspondent Jennie Bond said the interview reminded her of one Princess Diana gave to Panorama in 1995 where she "spilled her soul".

Mrs Bond added that Princes Andrew's lack of remorse in his interview was a "glaring hole".

'Speak to FBI'

Gloria Allred, who is representing some of the young women who say they were victims of Epstein said "there is so much truth that is yet to be revealed".

She added: "I would say to Prince Andrew: the charges made by [Virginia Giuffre] against you are very, very serious charges.

"I think the right and honourable thing to do would be for you to say unequivocally 'I will voluntarily speak to the FBI, I know it is the right thing to do, I have nothing to hide'."

In the lengthy interview, which UK viewers can watch in full on BBC iPlayer or on YouTube elsewhere in the world, the duke said that:

On the date Virginia Giuffre says he had sex with her - 10 March, 2001, he had taken his daughter to Pizza Express in Woking for a party before spending the night at home He dismissed claims he was sweating profusely because he had a "peculiar medical condition" meaning he cannot sweat, caused by an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War He had commissioned investigations into whether a photograph of him with Ms Giuffre had been faked, but they were inconclusive Speaking out about his relationship with the financier had become almost "a mental health issue" for him He would testify under oath about his relationship with Ms Giuffre if "push came to shove", and his lawyers advised him to He was unaware of an arrest warrant against Epstein when he invited the financier to Princess Beatrice's 18th birthday party at Windsor Castle He did not regret his friendship with Epstein because of "the opportunities I was given to learn" from him about trade and business

Car crash" and "disaster" are some of the kinder words that spring to mind about Prince Andrew's misbegotten foray into the long-form interview.

The reaction of the press and commentators is withering. Social media is burning with mockery, ridicule and a fair amount of anger.

To a fair number of people doubtful about the worth of the monarchy, Prince Andrew has emerged as an avatar of all that is wrong with the institution.

There is a reason the Royals don't do 'no-holds-barred' interviews. Unsurprisingly, given that they live in Palaces and have servants, they are somewhat out of touch.

Which is why Prince Andrew spoke of "a straightforward shooting weekend" and appeared to smirk at the idea of going for a pizza in Woking.

Neglecting to even mention the victims of his friend Jeffrey Epstein compounded the impression of a man who entirely fails to grasp the spirit of the times.

Defending his friendship with a convicted child sex offender on the grounds that he had met lots of interesting people because of him suggested a degree of self-absorption that would not survive exposure to the outside world.

Who in his staff thought this interview would be good idea and what does Prince Andrew do next?

He is very damaged. The interview was an opportunity to clear his name and rescue his reputation. It has failed, badly.

by Anonymousreply 1November 18, 2019 4:09 AM

Let's face it, the French knew what they were doing.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2November 18, 2019 4:16 AM

More shit

Prince Andrew makes craziest claim yet as he tells the Queen his car crash TV sex quiz was ‘a great success’

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3November 18, 2019 4:25 AM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4November 18, 2019 4:37 AM

Prince Andrew says he let down royal family by associating with Jeffrey Epstein

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5November 18, 2019 4:38 AM

Prince Andrew’s “no holds barred” interview

BBC Newsnight announced this morning that they’d landed an exclusive interview with Prince Andrew about his friend, the dead rapist pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. And they clearly have enough here to turn it into a one hour special on Saturday night.

The first advance clip from the interview will air on BBC tonight at 10pm. According to the Guardian, “the interview was a result of six months of negotiations with the royal household, with an agreement that there would not be any advance vetting of the questions”. It took place yesterday at Buckingham Palace and reporter Emily Maitlis has said that it was a “no holds barred” discussion. I am encouraged that it’s a female journalist who has the assignment. There’s a better chance for solid follow-up questions when there’s a woman’s perspective in the conversation.

But the fact that this is happening at all is a story in and of itself. As we’ve seen, it’s unusual for the royal family to have to “answer to” this kind of scandal. Their way is to ignore, to avoid. They consider themselves to be above questioning – and this may not be official investigative questioning from law enforcement but it is a form of questioning, because if they’re talking to Prince Andrew about his friendship with dead rapist pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, well, there are some f-cking questions. And he had to sit there and if not answer them then at least hear them. Can you imagine? Prince Andrew with his fancy airs and his privilege suffering what he’d consider to be the indignity of taking a line of questioning about SEX TRAFFICKING and MINORS and accusations from women, including Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claim that they were forced to perform SEX ACTS for him.

Remember, these are people who side-eye you when you use the wrong fork or curtsy without enough knee bend or wear nail polish that’s too dark or don’t wear hosiery with a dress. And now, one of their own, with centuries of noble blood coursing through his veins, is on television responding to allegations of having sex with girls while cavorting with a mysterious multimillionaire all over the world on private islands and private jets?!

The level of mortification, you know?

It’s MORTIFYING.

But also, it’s desperate. Because as mortifying as it is, the fact that they’ve already exhausted all other options, including his finger size, and have now come to this …

You know how they say that in a courtroom you should never put the defendant on the stand to be cross-examined unless it’s a last resort?

So if we’re talking about what’s considered not a good look and the shame of the royal family – is it really Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? Or is it this buffoon with the fat fingers who has to sit down with a journalist AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE (!) to talk about rape and billionaire orgies?!?

And further, how much coverage will this Prince Andrew interview get on Sunday and Monday? When Harry and Meghan’s documentary aired a few weeks ago and the two spoke about mental health and struggling with the British tabloid’s relentless attacks, it was front page for days and it was all over the morning news programmes too. Piers Morgan went apesh-t over it.

We can all agree that associating with a now dead rapist pedophile and being accused of participating is much worse than whatever it is they were mad at Harry and Meghan for, right? And so at the very least, there should be just as much reporting on this Prince Andrew interview – if not more? After all, he was hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein when he was a Registered Sex Offender, staying at his New York home after he was released from prison for solicitation of underage prostitution, answering the door when girls were coming and going, and getting foot massages from Russian girls. Surely that will warrant at least one mouth-foamy rant from Piers and many, many pages in the Daily Mail and the Sun?

by Anonymousreply 6November 18, 2019 4:49 AM

R6 link

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7November 18, 2019 4:49 AM

This man is just disgusting, needs to retire from public life and just go away.

by Anonymousreply 8November 18, 2019 2:09 PM

R8 I agree.

by Anonymousreply 9November 18, 2019 8:15 PM

The cover-up continues lol

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10November 19, 2019 6:33 PM

Jesus can the Sugars stop their bullshit momentarily? “At least Meg is better than a gross creepy prince!!” Is no defence whatsoever.

by Anonymousreply 11November 20, 2019 12:47 AM

R11 I agree.

by Anonymousreply 12November 20, 2019 1:20 AM

Will you ever stop your hateful obsession of Meghan, r11?

by Anonymousreply 13November 20, 2019 1:32 AM

I love that interviewer. Perfect choice.

by Anonymousreply 14November 20, 2019 1:53 AM

You don't say.

Worse than Hitler, etc.

by Anonymousreply 15November 20, 2019 1:56 AM

Enough. He’s a prince. He doesn’t have to answer to commoners. You’re all peasants. In the old days, the royals could’ve bought you and sold you.

by Anonymousreply 16November 20, 2019 2:20 AM

R16 well it’s 2019 now.

by Anonymousreply 17November 20, 2019 5:14 PM

I posted this in the other thread too. Should I make it a new thread?

Prince Andrew has withdrawn from his duties. From Wash Post

LONDON — Britain’s Prince Andrew announced Wednesday that he is stepping back from public duties following controversy over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who committed suicide in August.

“It has become clear to me over the last few days that the circumstances relating to my former association with Jeffrey Epstein has become a major disruption to my family’s work and the valuable work going on in the many organisations and charities that I am proud to support,” he said in a statement. “Therefore, I have asked Her Majesty if I may step back from public duties for the foreseeable future, and she has given her permission.”

He added: “I continue to unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein. His suicide has left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims, and I deeply sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure.”

The statement struck a different tone than Andrew’s widely panned interview with the BBC on Saturday, when he defended his friendship with Epstein and didn’t show sympathy for the victims.

Andrew’s ties to Epstein have dominated news in Britain for days — even amid a pivotal election campaign.

KPMG, Standard Chartered, Aon, the University of Huddersfield and Outward Bound were among the organizations that suggested they were distancing themselves from the prince, or reviewing their relationship with him.

On Tuesday, the “supporters” page on the prince’s flagship initiative brought up “page not found.”

Andrew’s ties with Epstein already cost him one job years ago. Andrew quit as a trade envoy for the United Kingdom in 2011, after a photo of him strolling with Epstein in Central Park caused a media furor and raised questions about his judgment.

Prince Andrew says he let down royal family by associating with Jeffrey Epstein

Prince Andrew’s Epstein interview roundly panned: ‘nuclear explosion level bad’

Organizations distance themselves from Prince Andrew after interview defending relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

Today’s coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

by Anonymousreply 18November 20, 2019 6:13 PM

I don't get how he can say he wasn't friends with Epstein after he asked for Sarah's debts to be paid off around 2010 or 2011 by Epstein, well after the original accusations of predatory behavior.

by Anonymousreply 19November 20, 2019 7:11 PM

R18 new thread that’s some interesting news

by Anonymousreply 20November 20, 2019 8:59 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!