I keep seeing my name in the headlines. It's something to do with being called Andrew. 40 years ago I found myself in quite a bit of trouble and attempted to get myself out of trouble by agreeing to be interviewed by the BBC, first on Radio 4 and then in a TV programme. Instead of helping me and focussing on the real baddies, all that I succeeded in doing was making everything worse and wishing I had kept quiet. Prince Andrew, as he was then, has not done himself any favours either and many see him now as as much a bad person as the person who was at the centre of all the events we are now reading about every day, Jeffery Epstein.
When the photo first appeared of Andrew looking quite young and cheerful, with his arm around a young a cheerful-looking Virginia, I don't think anyone was particular surprised and certainly not 'horrified' or concerned in any particularly dramatic way. We knew he liked girls and, although he probably was married to Fergie at the time, his lack of faithfulness to her was no big deal. As I recall, at that time the story was all about Andrew having a bit of a romp with a girl and we didn't pay much attention to who or what the other people were. It then began to emerge that he'd been at parties with Epstein who we then began to learn had shipped in a number of young girls to accompany partygoers at various locations around the world. Still no big deal, as far as I could tell but we then get stories from some of the young girls and things get a bit darker.
The girl in the photo with Andrew tells the world that she was obliged to have sex with him and that Epstein effectively forced whole loads of girls to do things they didn't want to do with men three or four times their age. Then we start to be told that many of the girls were 'young', inferring that they were under age, whatever that means. In the USA, I believe, it is against the law to have sex with a girl who is under 18 in some states, 16 in most. Virginia looks like 20 something in the photo the whole world had seen. I don't think anyone at that point was of the opinion that Andrew was sleeping with very young girls. There began to be stories about Epstein gathering lots of schoolgirls and abusing 14-year-olds and that's what he went to jail for but we weren't calling Andrew a paedophile or particularly bothered about what he had or hadn't done with Virginia.
If he had simply accepted that he'd had a brief relationship with her then things may well have turned out differently. Instead, he denied ever having met her and decided to let the BBC interview him about it all as, by now, Virginia was asking for lots of money and making a scene. Quite why she had been quiet before the photo emerged I am not sure I understand. But now everyone watched Andrew trying to explain how he hadn't met her and should really have dropped his friendship with Epstein far earlier than he did. And things have pretty much exploded ever since. Virginia gets a huge amount of money as some sort of 'out of court settlement' but Andrew remains on the ropes. Now everyone is talking about Epstein and he's killed in his prison cell and then some new investigation by the FBI gets under way and, heavens, everyone you've ever heard of and not liked very much is in the frame for having not only been to Epstein's parties but maybe also enjoying the company of young or very young girls in times past.
It becomes pretty obvious that Andrew really did know Virginia and did have sex with her a few times here and there and, probably, with several other girls too, although so far we have not been given anything to suggest any of his girls were 'under age' or that he broke any laws in that respect. So he starts to appear really rather stupid and even those of us who felt a bit sorry for him at first started to feel a bit frustrated that he could be so badly advised. Basically he looks foolish and very bad now and deserved to be dumped by the family, although I question the removal of his Prince title and his military honours. I thought that a son of a King or Queen was entitled to be called a prince, regardless of their character and he did serve and was respected at the time for his action in the Navy.
If Andrew had owned up at the start to being with the girl he could have defended any wrongdoing or accusations regarding whether she or any other girl was forced to be with him without too much trouble. There would have been publicity and we might have laughed at his randiness and questioned why he would associate with the leary Epstein but that would largely have been that. Instead we have this circus of documents and commentators and girls who now wish they hadn't been involved and seek compensation. Some may deserve it but I am really not sure many would not have seen the whole thing as some sort of chance to lie back, think of Armenia or wherever and make some money quickly. If we do discover some girls were forced into all this then I accept it is all worth all the trouble of the investigation but one has to wonder why they stayed so long and made no effort to seek help from any of the people they encountered. Surely some of them would have helped if they had seen or been told about forced sex or compliance. It seems to me that those doing most of the commentating on all of this are forgetting that sex and the high life with a bunch of rich, maybe old, but probably clean and harmless men was a small price to pay for the returns they could receive. How many girls would jump at the chance of joining a rich group on a yacht for a few months, knowing full well what was expected by way of services other than some cleaning and cooking. Who wouldn't resist some fun times even if the blokes seemed a bit pervy, in comparison to whatever life they had at home. OK, many might run a mile but I still maintain that a good number would see it as an opportunity or adventure and I still make the point that, unless they really were physically restrained in properties and threatened with violence if they didn't perform as requested, escape if things went wrong should always have been an option. Looking at all the names of people with whom the girls were to be associated or, if not sexually, as company or decoration in the rooms, surely some of these men would have been willing to help any who needed to get away.
If it does transpire that some of these men were asked for help but ignored the requests then I am all for their being taken properly to task for that. But if they enjoyed sex with seemingly willing and cheerful girls who appeared to be older than some minimum legal age of consent then I am not going to be too bothered. whether president, ex-president, minister or prince, that's no big deal. I have to admit to being surprised at some of the names and smile at the rebuttal or assertions of innocence but that's all really.
What does trouble me, though, is the story we are now finding about where men have shared business or financial knowledge with Epstein inappropriately. By that I mean where the men have had access to information which they were duty bound not to disclose, either by law or honour. In the former camp one would place government members who knew when a new regulation or change in subsidy, for instance, might be being introduced but which was yet to become public knowledge. In the latter camp could be business people who had knowledge of forthcoming acquisitions, deals or products which a competitor might usefully benefit from knowing about. Andrew got himself embroiled in this as did several others we have read about. His involvement, though, is going to be his second most significant downfall. The first has to be the way he lied in the BBC interview, At least I was honest in mine and admitted to being foolish and trusting too much some American. He should have done the same.
So I can see Andrew's sharing of business and government information causing more trouble and outrage. He was for some time the Business Envoy for the Department of Trade. And here lies the rub; my brother Rupert travelled with the then Prince Andrew on several trips abroad. I learned of all kind of enjoyable times they had on these trips and I am sure my brother would have been more than happy with the company of some young girls had they been arranged to keep them company from time to time.
So I am now waiting to see if Rupert appears in the headlines one day! And then will my name reappear once again? I don't think I'll agree to be interviewed this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment