Loading

wait a moment

Queen actually consented to Prince Andrew’s worse-than-‘train wreck’ BBC interview

It’s often been said that Prince Andrew is Queen Elizabeth II’s favorite son. Perhaps this adoration explains why the 93-year-old monarch could ever believe her son capable of coming across as anything other than smug, clueless or worse — somehow complicit — in Jeffrey Epstein’s corrupt world of high-stakes influence peddling and high-level sex trafficking of underage girls.

The Guardian reports that the queen earlier this week signed off on Andrew sitting down for an interview with the BBC. The “no holds barred” interview, as BBC described it, covered Andrew’s controversial friendship with Epstein.

News host Emily Maitlis pressed Andrew to address allegations about whether he knew about the late financier’s abuse of girls. She also gave him the chance to yet again deny he had sex with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, one of the convicted pedophiles teenage “sex slaves.”

But after the interview aired Saturday night in the U.K., the reviews coming from royal observers, legal and media experts and people on social media were pretty scathing. It looks like Andrew did himself and the royal family no favors by talking to the BBC.

Across the board, people said Andrew, 59, came across as dishonest when he denied having sex with Giuffre and when he insisted he doesn’t recall ever meeting her or being photographed with her. People also said he made no sense and derided his efforts to downplay his friendship with Epstein by insisting that he only stayed at the sex offender’s Manhattan mansion in December 2010 because it was “convenient” and because it was “honorable” to tell him in person that they could no longer hang out together.

Maitlis, who aggressively questioned Andrew during the interview, was visibly taken aback when Andrew acknowledged it was “wrong” to go see Epstein in 2010 because he had “quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming… “

Maitlis interrupted to say:  “Unbecoming? He was a sex offender.”

Epstein was first investigated for sex trafficking in 2006 and convicted in 2008 of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution. He was arrested again in July on new sex trafficking charges but died in a Manhattan jail, reportedly by suicide though this finding is being disputed.

Charlie Proctor, editor of the Royal Central website, summed up Andrew’s interview as worse than a “track wreck,” according to The Guardian.

“That was a plane crashing into an oil tanker, causing a tsunami, triggering a nuclear explosion level bad,” Proctor said.

Top U.K. lawyer Mark Stephens told The Guardian that it was “catastrophic” for Andrew to agree to the interview, an unprecedented move for a member of the royal family.

The duke did so, apparently hoping that telling his version of events in a TV interview would stop the negative headlines that have been been relentlessly flowing since Epstein’s death.

“This strategy only works if you’ve got a complete and full answer to every possible question, and here there are too many loose ends,” said Stephens, who represented James Hewitt. But Stephens wasn’t just saying Andrew imperiled himself P.R.-wise. Stephens added that there could be serious legal implications, as the FBI reportedly is still investigating his sex trafficking operation.

“If he’d kept his silence he’d have been able to remain outside of the case, as he’s a witness and is entitled to diplomatic immunity,” Stephens added. “He was a private individual and now he’s waived that privacy.”

Mark Borkowski, a PR agent with a number of high-profile celebrity clients, described the interview as “extraordinary,” in part because Andrew has a reputation for being arrogant and has never had a friendly relationship with the media.

“Doing something so public is a high-risk strategy, and likely just to draw more attention to the issue without changing any minds,” Borkowski told The Guardian.

The interview definitely drew attention on social media, becoming a top trending topic on Twitter Saturday evening. People had no end of things to say about about what The Guardian called the duke’s more “bizarre” defenses, especially to Giuffre’s charges.

For instance, there is now the Pizza Express defense.

Andrew said he could not have met and had sex with Giuffre, then 17, on a night in March 2001.

That’s because, Andrew insisted, he was at home that night with his daughters, the princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, while his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, was away. He also said he had taken Beatrice to a party at a Pizza Express in the London surburb of Woking.

When Maitlis pressed him on his being able to remember going to a Pizza Express on a night 18 years ago, Andrew said, “Going to Pizza Express in Woking is an unusual thing for me to do. … I’ve only been to Woking a couple of times and I remember it weirdly distinctly.”

Giuffre has said in a lawsuit and interviews that she met Andrew through socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend who allegedly became his “madam” and helped procure girls and young women for him and his friends to have sex with.

One of the more curious things Andrew revealed in the interview is that Maxwell was his longtime friend. He also said he had been in contact with her as recently as earlier this year — before Epstein’s arrest.

Giuffre said Maxwell had directed her to have sex with Andrew that night. Giuffre claims that she dined with Andrew, went dancing with him at a London nightclub and returned to Maxwell’s London townhouse where they had sex.

During the interview, Andrew also tried to counter Giuffre’s account of that night by disputing her description that he had been sweating profusely. Andrew said he had a medical condition at the time that prevented him from sweating.

In addition, Andrew also suggested he had been in league with anonymous friends who went to the U.K. media in late August to claim that an infamous photo of Andrew and Giuffre, showing them together that night, must have been faked.

The friends claimed in interviews that Andrew’s fingers in real life are “quite small and chubby” while the fingers in the photo, where Andrew has his arm around Giuffre’s bare waist, “appear quite slender.”

These same friends have since told some media outlets that they had hired a forensic expert to prove that the photo was the result of digital trickery.

Andrew acknowledged that “investigations” had been done on the photo — which he insisted he doesn’t remember ever posing for.

“You can’t prove whether or not that photograph is faked or not because it is a photograph of a photograph of a photograph,” Andrew said. “So it’s very difficult to be able to prove it but I don’t remember that photograph ever being taken.”


Source: East Bay Queen actually consented to Prince Andrew’s worse-than-‘train wreck’ BBC interview

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *