Prince Andrew is not the world’s worst Prince. That title must go to Saudi sadist Mohammed Bin Salman, aka MBS, aka Mohammed Bone Saw, who personally oversaw the dismembering of Jamal Khashoggi while he was alive.
But Andrew is the worst British Prince, worse even than Prince Michael of Kent, who married a racist and who attempted to sell his royal influence to our enemy, Russia. He’s a million times worse than Prince Harry, who is a lying narcissist, a selfish whinger and complainer, and a sad sack with no sense of duty, but that’s about all Harry is.
Somewhere between the golden uplands of “Ginger Whiner” and the pitch-black hell of “Literally Tortured an Innocent Man to Death” sits “Randy Andy”, previously just known as a pompous oaf whom everyone disliked. The Duke of York is financially corrupt, for sale to the highest bidder, and the notorious friend of arms dealers and human traffickers. He’s known to have abused a trafficked girl, one he lied about seeing even when a picture exists of the poor kid in the company of himself and of Ghislaine Maxwell, the sub-human madam who terrorized, raped and abused underage kids with Jeffrey Epstein. Rumors have it that, when the FBI siezed a cache of photos and videos from Epstein’s townhouse, Prince Andrew was heavily featured. As I’ve pointed out before, Audrey Strauss of the Southern District of New York more or less said that Andrew was a suspect in her investigation and not wanted simply as a witness. As a reminder, Bill Barr fired Geoff Berman partly because Barr falsely stated that Prince Andrew was wanted only as a witness, and Berman then contradicted Barr.
But the twilight world in which Andrew sits gets murkier because of the jurisdictional issues. Let’s take the civil case of Virginia Giuffre, one she was forced into bringing because, quite simply, her window was about to run out. As I have pointed out before, she would have a hard time winning this case in a British court, because of the difference in the age of consent. In Britain, the age of consent is 16. Giuffre was 17 when trafficked to Andrew, and she was an American girl in Britain; her past statements indicate nothing that shows he would have known she was trafficked. Giuffre’s case is going to rest, civilly, on what Andrew knew about Epstein. Win or lose, it’s going to be an utter disaster for the British crown. Andrew has already lied through his teeth on national television; nobody will put him on the stand. The best option for him is to settle with Ms. Giuffre. He cannot defend himself, because if he comes to the United States the FBI will sieze him. And if he remains in the UK he loses by default, and a financial judgement against him can be enforced. No wonder he’s hired a crisis PR firm.
However, Giuffre’s lawsuit also makes things awkward for the United States. It’s possible that the Biden administration asks, or asked, SDNY to kill the case on the grounds of national security, which they are entitled to do. National security meaning that a prosecution would drive a wedge between the UK and USA and therefore be bad for business; furthermore, that it would expose the Crown and cause turmoil in the UK, weakening America’s closest ally. Prosecution is up to the Executive. There’s no constitutional requirement to prosecute a crime you find. Trump telling SDNY not to prosecute because it raises tough issues for Russia and himself is a corrupt motive, and illegal; but Biden asking SDNY not to prosecute for natsec reasons would be lawful.
However, those excuses are going to look pretty weak when Virginia Giuffre is trying a case against Prince Andrew in absentia. Not only will the American - and British - public ask “Why is this man still an HRH when he hung out with a convicted sex trafficker?” and “If Meghan Markle is not an HRH because she’s not a working royal, why is non-working royal Andrew still an HRH?” and other such awkward questions for the Palace, they may also ask awkward questions for the White House, like “why is Andrew being allowed to dodge the FBI?” “Was Andrew under investigation?” “Did Biden kill charges against Andrew?” and so forth.
Her Majesty the Queen is 95 years old and, no doubt, tired. A recent widow, dealing with two narcissists in Montecino, she may find her reserves of steely control have simply run out when it comes to punishing her beloved son. But, and I am sorry to have to say it to my sovereign, Andrew York’s “ostrich strategy” has been given a solid go, as we say in Blighty, and it hasn’t worked. The charges are still there, the facts are still there, and the bad publicity is not going away.
Her Majesty should make urgent enquiries through her Crown Servants as to the nature of the criminal investigation into the Duke of York. Here, again, she should reflect on the dread conclusions that logic must offer her. In the UK, the age of consent is 16 - it’s 17 in New York state - and yet Audrey Strauss has suggested a criminal investigation is happening. UK law is clear that no UK citizen can be extradited anywhere for something that would not also be a crime in the UK. So, for example, if the FBI had a video of Andrew having sex with a sixteen year old New Yorker that looked consensual to a UK eye, in New York, this could be prosecuted as statutory rape, but in the UK, it would be a legal act. Therefore, no extradition under UK law. Therefore, no point in Strauss pursuing a criminal inquiry; a total waste of resources. But she made it clear that she is, indeed, pursuing Andrew criminally.
Logic says, therefore, that Audrey Strauss and SDNY must have incontrovertible evidence that Prince Andrew committed an extraditable crime in New York. That means, therefore, that she must have seen evidence of His Royal Highness the Prince Andrew, Duke of York, sexually abusing a girl aged fifteen years old or younger.
Let me say that again louder for the courtiers in the back.
If SDNY are pursuing Andrew criminally, they must have evidence of him abusing a girl aged 15 or under.
That’s something that would be equally terrible for the Palace and the White House if any effort were made to stop a prosecution. Her Majesty should take immediate steps to remove Andrew’s right to use the HRH and she should make it clear to him that she will not fight an attempt at extradition. Truly it is a terrible, brutal, painful thing for a mother to have to do. But Her Majesty was placed into this position by her criminal son. Like Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson, she’s not responsible for her worthless offspring, only for defending him - which, at all costs, she should avoid.
Honestly, it all sounds baffling to this American. If he committed a crime, and it looks like he did, keeping his royal title seems like the least of anyone's problems. The victim deserves more in the way of justice obviously, and so does the perp, though in the opposite direction. Biden ought to let the chips fall where they may. Nobody on this side of the ocean cares about royals. We have our own Plutes to worry about.
As always, a brilliant writing style. More importantly, very important legal insights regarding the legal and Nat security implications. While we can agree to disagree about Harry - I believe he wanted out of the RF long before he met Meghan. My guess it’s only Meghan who has regrets. My heart does go out to the Queen who clearly abided by her obligations with true dedication. However, at 95 she has to look back on her life as a mother with some regret. No one deserves that. Andrew should have dealt with this ages ago but you are correct - the HRH needs to be rescinded.
Honestly, it all sounds baffling to this American. If he committed a crime, and it looks like he did, keeping his royal title seems like the least of anyone's problems. The victim deserves more in the way of justice obviously, and so does the perp, though in the opposite direction. Biden ought to let the chips fall where they may. Nobody on this side of the ocean cares about royals. We have our own Plutes to worry about.
As always, a brilliant writing style. More importantly, very important legal insights regarding the legal and Nat security implications. While we can agree to disagree about Harry - I believe he wanted out of the RF long before he met Meghan. My guess it’s only Meghan who has regrets. My heart does go out to the Queen who clearly abided by her obligations with true dedication. However, at 95 she has to look back on her life as a mother with some regret. No one deserves that. Andrew should have dealt with this ages ago but you are correct - the HRH needs to be rescinded.