IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
There's a biography out about Prince Andrew by Andrew Lownie. Despite the author's credentials, it sounds as if it's a hatchet job, with the author rating Virginia Giuffre as a source.
Have to say, though, that reports like these make me wonder if I'm right to believe that Virginia Giuffre was lying about Prince Andrew. I watched his Newsnight interview again recently and, for the first time, thought he seemed shifty. The famous photo has always looked genuine to me. If the public room was downstairs, what were they all doing upstairs, apparently on first the floor with a bathroom and guest bedrooms, the second floor being the one with the master bedroom and a shower room (floor plan)? If he was sex-obsessed and slept with thousands of women, as this biography apparently claims, could that explain why he gave a convoluted explanation of it not being possible to forget a positive act and didn't just say "I can remember all my sexual partners and she wasn't one of them"? Even Alan Dershowitz seems to think Prince Andrew may have had sex with Virginia Giuffre.
Epstein's sleazy and abusive world, with its mix of easy money and exploitative sex, was ultimately a form of blackmail operation, claims Lownie's book. It gave him something to hold over the many powerful people who came into his orbit.
Yet the Department of Justice and FBI say there was no evidence of a blackmail scheme. Wonder how reliable this book is. Prince Harry has also denied the book's claim that he had a physical fight with Prince Andrew and left him with a bloody nose.
From what the author has been saying in interviews, it sounds as if his book portrays Prince Andrew as extreme in every way: extremely rude, extremely bullying, extremely stupid, extremely sexually voracious, extremely financially dodgy. But perhaps no-one would buy it otherwise.
Fergie was photographed the other day wearing shoes that said "never complain, never explain", so it looks as if there's unlikely to be a response to the book from either her or Prince Andrew.
Jo wrote: There's a biography out about Prince Andrew by Andrew Lownie. Despite the author's credentials, it sounds as if it's a hatchet job, with the author rating Virginia Giuffre as a source.
Have to say, though, that reports like these make me wonder if I'm right to believe that Virginia Giuffre was lying about Prince Andrew. I watched his Newsnight interview again recently and, for the first time, thought he seemed shifty. The famous photo has always looked genuine to me. If the public room was downstairs, what were they all doing upstairs, apparently on first the floor with a bathroom and guest bedrooms, the second floor being the one with the master bedroom and a shower room (floor plan)? If he was sex-obsessed and slept with thousands of women, as this biography apparently claims, could that explain why he gave a convoluted explanation of it not being possible to forget a positive act and didn't just say "I can remember all my sexual partners and she wasn't one of them"? Even Alan Dershowitz seems to think Prince Andrew may have had sex with Virginia Giuffre.
The famous photo was thoroughly debunked when the house went on sale recently.
The space on the landing where they were supposedly standing was measured, and it was a teeny tiny space that one person couldn't fit in, let alone two.
Of course, the photo of them both could have been superimposed onto the landing shot, I suppose, but we still have the unsuitable and improbable clothing issue.
Andrew being rampant doesnt really have any bearing on him having sex with an underage girl.
We know that Harry is a repeated liar, and we know from his own account that he claims to batter people for no reason, and we saw how he bullied his family with proven lies.
Therefore, the thirty-something year old strong and fit soldier beating up his sixty year old uncle sounds exactly the sort of thing he might do.
However, I think the book sounds like a bunch of ridiculous lies, "possibly" funded by someone who needs a distraction and favourable comparison.
The claims the book "seals his fate" is publishers guff.
Not a scintilla of evidence Andrew is intending to "make a comeback" and highly doubtful such a thing would be planned.
I do not believe the ridiculous claims he a physical fight with Harry.
If he slept with "1000s" why has not a single other woman come forward?
Having lived in a Mews flat for over 20 years the very notion of having sex in a tiny bathroom with a small bath (as seen in other evidence in Maxwell's flat)seems preposterous when there would have been a bedroom on the first floor.
Andrew was with Koo Stark for years.
The claims about losing his virginity at 11 seem far fetched. I know the Royals generally have a few women of the same class hanging around them but this is pedophilia and a serious crime.
Another book on the Royals that will end up in the bargain bin in bookshops and outlet stores. No doubt charity shops will end up chucking a load of them out.
That Andrew, on the weight of evidence appears to be dim, lecherous and a-moral, only makes him an average exemplar of Royalty; who are not selected for their spiritual depth, but through an accident of birth.
hedda wrote: The claims the book "seals his fate" is publishers guff.
Not a scintilla of evidence Andrew is intending to "make a comeback" and highly doubtful such a thing would be planned.
I do not believe the ridiculous claims he a physical fight with Harry.
If he slept with "1000s" why has not a single other woman come forward?
Having lived in a Mews flat for over 20 years the very notion of having sex in a tiny bathroom with a small bath (as seen in other evidence in Maxwell's flat)seems preposterous when there would have been a bedroom on the first floor.
Andrew was with Koo Stark for years.
The claims about losing his virginity at 11 seem far fetched. I know the Royals generally have a few women of the same class hanging around them but this is pedophilia and a serious crime.
How would Dershowitz know?
I have noticed that it is usually a particular type of gay man who boast about childhood sexual exploits and thousands of women fawning over them.
Lester Pidgeon wrote: Wyot wrote: an accident of birth.
Not false allegations, with little evidence.
Or spurious allegations about old/unproven stories.
From 40 years ago?
Sorry Barney I don't understand your point.
I was making the general point that the monarchy is made up of (inevitably given how it is decided who is in it) average and flawed individuals. That's all.
I have no interest or knowledge of Andrew's moral failings or any wrongs committed against him.
Why would I? Why would anyone claim to have? How do you all arrive at an "opinion"?
Forums 
