Prince Andrew's interview to those that had the patience to watch

[nimnarb]

Well, what do you think? Foot massages, bonking orgy sessions galore in glorious surroundings from 5th Ave NY, Palm Beach to private islands, personal jet planes(air miles Andy) sex slaves plus bad relationships with people in general. He did it(home comforts, nicer than a comfort inn) to better himself he said and meet important people, but has no memory of much else? Gossip, some truth there, all lies(errr), or just who gives a flying F...andy?

[paulnumbers]

The interview (I think)

https://youtu.be/Vk-rwZkc7B4

[todthedog]

We no longer operate the feudal system why do we give these people the time of day.
This is a criminal accusation of rape of a minor and not a media opportunity.
Another pointer that the badly needed reform of our electoral system should start at the top an elected head of state (can be removed) on the death of the current incumbent .

[bungeejumper]

Bizarre situation, really. He denies any recollection of ever meeting the complainant, despite the existence of all the photos, including the one with Ghislaine Maxwell, whose profession (ahem) was already more than widely known.

Nor should the story have come as a surprise to readers of Private Eye, who have been reading about Randy Andy's exploits for the last thirty years. So why couldn't he just say, like Princess Diana, sorry, I was under pressure at the time, and I strayed? The public would have excused it years ago. (Well, possibly not the under-age-in-America bit.) I mean, he's only eighth in line to the throne anyway.

What's really screwed it for Andy is the Palace's absolute denial of any truth in the whole story - a line which is looking palpably false, and which would make the Buck House establishment look like liars in retrospect. They've burnt his bridges, good and proper.

On the plus side, in these dark political days it's good to have something to laugh at.

BJ

[panamagold]

I did not see the interview as we were watching 'Engrenages/Spiral'. Much better choice.

However, the new's clips this morning would appear to portray the hour as a cringeworthy experience for those who tuned in.

Ultimately aloofness from reality and arrogance can and will, generally, come around and bite you on the ass.

[sg31]

I am not a royalist. I pay very little attention to anything royal. I'm not interested in the weddings, anniversaries, births, gossip or anything else.

If you put people on a pedestal and tell them they are special, give them everything they want and could ever need, it is inevitable that some will believe the laws don't apply to them and they can do whatever they desire and get away with it. I think that is a weakness of human nature.

I think there is a lot to be said for disbanding the royal family as an institution. I don't deny some members do some good but they are a hang over from a different age. There must be a better way.

[Lootman]

I am not a royalist. I pay very little attention to anything royal. I'm not interested in the weddings, anniversaries, births, gossip or anything else.

If you put people on a pedestal and tell them they are special, give them everything they want and could ever need, it is inevitable that some will believe the laws don't apply to them and they can do whatever they desire and get away with it. I think that is a weakness of human nature.

I think there is a lot to be said for disbanding the royal family as an institution. I don't deny some members do some good but they are a hang over from a different age. There must be a better way.

I'm not a royalist either but do they behave any worse than any other class of celebrities, say, professional footballers, pop/rock musicians, top models or TV stars? In each case there is wealth, fame, privilege and a detachment from real life that could be deemed as similarly undeserved. If you are paid primarily for your genes and good fortune then it may be easier to go astray.

Didn't see the interview but evidently it backfired.

[Rhyd6]

I didn't see the interview but like others have read the reports in the papers and online. I am a Royalist, the idea that someone like Tony Blair, Boris Johnson et al could become President doesn't fill me with any confidence. I do however think that after the heir the spares should be encouraged to earn a living. If people are willing to give them jobs because of who they are fair enough, after all Facebook employ Nick Clegg and I don't think it's for his massive brain power. In the event of the heir not succeeding then one of the spares can be brought into play.

R6

[zico]

I actually watched the full interview, and it was quite extraordinary. The main thing that came across was Andrew's complete and utter self-absorbment and lack of awareness of the effect of his remarks. By his account, Epstein was a useful person to know because he gave him lots of contacts, and it was damnably unfortunate that he turned out to be a convicted sex offender because that meant he had to break off his friendship, and Andrew was guilty of being "too honourable" in visiting Epstein personally to break the news, rather than doing it by letter, phone or text. The only shred of sympathy he showed for the many girls and women who have had their lives affected by Epstein was when Maitlis said about their stories being heard and he said "quite right" - that was it, not another word of sympathy or empathy. Maitlis gave him a chance at the end of the interview to add anything he wanted, but he just said words to the effect of she'd dragged pretty much everything out of him.

On the specifics of his denials, there's an awful lot that sounded just odd. He said it was Ghislane Maxwell that was really Andrew's friend, and Epstein was just a Plus One when invited to Sandringham and elsewhere. So he wasn't really a friend of Andrew's. He stopped contact in 2006 when the police charges were first made (not going over in person at that point to say he couldn't see him anymore) but after Epstein's release, he went over in person to say he couldn't see him anymore, and also stopped at his house for about 4 days afterwards "because it was convenient". He also said that being in Epstein's house gave him a better chance of running into Epstein. Stretches credulity that Prince Andrew ouldn't have been introduced to lots of movers and shakers in US society through normal diplomatic channels, but had to use Epstein as a go-between. Also that Prince Andrew would need to cadge accommodation for a few days in New York at the home of a convicted criminal he was severing all ties with, rather than being put up at the British Embassy or a 5-star hotel.

The photo with his arm around a 17-year old's waist is obviously a big problem for him. Anonymous friends of Prince Andrew have suggested recently it's a fake, but none of his friends will stand up publicly and say this. The photo has been in circulation for a few years, but the "fake" idea is comparatively recent. Andrew said the photo was taken upstairs at Epstein's but he'd never gone upstairs there - so how did he know the photo was taken upstairs?

[bungeejumper]

The photo has been in circulation for a few years, but the "fake" idea is comparatively recent. Andrew said the photo was taken upstairs at Epstein's but he'd never gone upstairs there - so how did he know the photo was taken upstairs?

Yes, I'd wondered about that one. Bit of a dead giveaway, wasn't it? Holmes or Poirot would have had the handcuffs on him by the end of the interview. (So would Columbo.)

Good work from Emily Maitlis, though. Kept up the pressure and homed in on every little contradiction. Plenty of other interviewers would have let him off the hook by not following through the way she did.

BJ

[scrumpyjack]

Yes can't get remotely interested in airmiles Andy or Randy Andy, but you would think he would be better advised than to do an interview like this. If he was going to do it he should at least have been coached to gush sympathy for the poor victims - not word on that I understand.

I would not be at all surprised if the photo was fake - apparently their relative heights are wrong, and various other claimed inconsistencies have been alleged. The holders of the original photo have refused to release it to enable scientific appraisal and the whole thing is manna from heaven to dodgy US lawyers out to make a name.

He would have been better advised to simply deny it, gush sympathy for Epstein's victims and shut up.

If there is evidence of his guilt then prosecute him, otherwise innocent until proven guilty.

[oldapple]

Not wishing to deflate any aspiring Columbos here, but re the question of how Andrew knew the photo was taken upstairs - from the photo which I'm sure Prince Andrew has looked at once or twice, you can clearly see a bannister to Andrew's left, plus the frame of a picture to help place the stairway. Maybe that's how he knows. Just saying

[PinkDalek]

Additionally, the photo wasn’t set at Epstein’s. It is said to be at Ms G. Maxwell’s London abode.

Haven’t watched the interview come what may.

[bungeejumper]

I see that much merriment has been caused at the FT by a commenter's claim that there was a photo showing Andrew with his arm draped around the poor girl's waste. Too much information.

BJ

[bungeejumper]

Word is that this year's Christmas limerick competition - beginning "The talk of the household at Buckingham..." - has been cancelled until further notice.

BJ

[flopski2]

He seems to have ignored some of his advisors' advice ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylF53eJZniw