Is Prince Andrew Guilty As Charged… And Is Virginia Giuffre Really An Innocent Victim?editor
Normally when a jury returns a verdict, that’s the end of it. But not in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. If anything, when it comes to this extraordinary tale of power and perversion, the plot appears to be thickening.
The latest revelations come from a key witness in the recent trial, Carolyn Andriano, whose testimony helped secure four of the five guilty verdicts against Maxwell.
This weekend she gave an exclusive interview to The Mail on Sunday’s sister paper, the Daily Mail, in which she threw light on Virginia Giuffre’s allegations of battery and sexual assault against Prince Andrew.
She claims that not only did Giuffre text her excitedly from London in March 2001 to say she was having dinner with the Prince, she also claims that when she got back to Florida she showed Andriano that snap of her with him and gushed: ‘I got to sleep with him.’
According to Andriano, Giuffre didn’t seem remotely upset about the experience. On the contrary, ‘she thought it was pretty cool’ … Read more here
Never condoning sexual activity outside of marriage – a grave sin – but these days, with children in nursery school being effectively groomed by the State for future sexual activity (as long as it’s their “choice”) I’m taken aback at the alleged public outcry over this case where Prince Andrew is accused of sexual involvement with a 17 year old girl. There are very important facts reported in the above Mail Online report – information which I’ve not heard in all the TV babble in news segments for days on end. It’s reinforced my gut reaction to Giuffre’s allegations which is to query whether or not this really is a case of “trafficking” and/or “sex abuse of a minor” – or is there something else going on here?
In any event, is it fair to expect people who have been raised in a Godless environment to keep to Christian standards of sexual morality when all around them they are being brainwashed with permissiveness? Having thus brainwashed people, including those in high places, is it then right to destroy their lives by demanding those same Christian moral imperatives which “society” has long rejected? It seems clear to me: if there is no God (and by definition, a secular state is one in which Godlessness reigns, excuse the pun) then why would anyone have to abide by Christian morality – sexual or otherwise? It’s only God’s moral law which requires us to cherish sexual intercourse for the purpose He intended – marriage and procreation. Ditch that moral imperative, and anything goes. Just ask Prince Andrew.
We live in confusing times, that’s for sure. But what’s the answer unless to restore Christian sexual morality and make sex outside marriage totally socially unacceptable again. Then the Prince definitely would have a case to answer. But right now, based on society’s sexually permissive standards, does he, do you think, have a case to answer?
A very good Topic Ed and what you have written is of course an Honest Assessment of the Times. First off am a Man and am certainly not going to throw Mud at Andy for something I most probably would have done myself given the chance.
Not that I have any love for the Royal Mob but one also has to ask . What Else are they to do . As for the 17 Year Old She just certainly sees many $ Signs in all of this and was Definitely not Pressured in anyway to have Sexual Relations with Andy. In fact when you see the Photo of them together they seem to make a Happy Couple .
I once ( when I had a TV ) listened to some Royal many years ago about how hard Her life was . The interview was done at Royal Ascot when I used to take an interest in Horse Racing. This Woman went on about how Hard and How Hectic Her life was around this time of the year. Her comments went something like this. “People just don’t understand the Pressure we are under.” I mean we have to Shop for different outfits all of the Week Royal Ascot is on . Phoning around and making sure our outfits which costs £1000s don’t clash with anyone else. Then after Royal Ascot there is Wimbles again we have to Shop around and make sure our outfits don’t clash. I should of course have mentioned the Boat Race and all the Parties around that time. I mean ordinary People just don’t understand and this more or less goes on all throughout the Height of Summer. The pressure we are under is intense.”
So more or less looking at the Pressure Andy would also have been under. A couple of Months on Epstein Island every Year am sure relieved lots of the strains in life He would have been under.
As a PS. I read Andy was thinking of selling some of His property to pay for Expensive Lawyers. Is there any chance that We on Here could do the Christian Good and set up a Go Fund Me Page For Him ?
You have hit quite a few nails on the head there, and I find myself agreeing with you – except about the Go Fund Me page 😀
It’s a difficult one isn’t it? I have no regard for Prince Andrew but I can’t help feeling that he is being judged as guilty (by withdrawing his military positions and HRH title) before any trial, if one ever takes place. Clearly the royal family do not accept his protestations of innocence but are concerned to protect themselves. Prince Charles has been active in all this but his own history is not exactly Snow White. And again, Miss Guiffre was not actually a child at the age of 17 though she could of course have been influenced by powerful men and money.
It’s a mess.
Christian moral teaching seems to be less and less relevant these days and we can all see the sad results of this in society: family breakdown, corruption of children, free and unnatural sex etc etc
However while we have a royal family who claim certain standards, and expect to be revered, then it is right to expect them to uphold these standards. And so I think Andrew must step back into the obscurity that is appropriate for him.
Well, it’s only difficult, really, because the media (and the US lawyers) are pursuing Prince Andrew on the assumption that he is guilty, and poor Mzzzz Giuffre is an innocent victim. I do not believe for a second that she is victim, let alone “innocent”.
It’s not just money either, in my view. This girl seems to enjoy being in the limelight, playing the “mental health” card (which is increasing “yawn yawn” stuff… I literally groan when I see it coming.) In one report, for example, we read: “Now 38, she says the three alleged instances of abuse by Andrew continue to cause her ‘significant emotional and psychological distress and harm’.”
Gimme a break.
I agree that Prince Andrew is being judged as guilty already and that is unjust. I wish the Queen hadn’t done that, removing his military positions and HRH title, as it smacks of weakness in her, actually, as if she is trying to appease the media mob.
17 year old girls these days are not shy little innocents – certainly Giuffre was able to look after herself so I think the critics who argue that she has dollar signs in her eyes, just might be right. I don’t know.
One thing is for sure IMHO and it is that the Prince won’t get a fair trial.
I agree about the Queen – it’s hammered an important nail into her son’s coffin, that she appears to assume his guilt, or even the legitimacy of the forthcoming trial. Yet, Virginia Giuffre’s credibility is highly questionable. Here’s another man accused by her – a top lawyer in the USA…
Alan Dershowitz is confident that Giuffre will go to prison for perjury.
I just hope Prince Andrew doesn’t agree to a financial settlement.
It’s a pity he did that Newsnight interview, it didn’t show him in a good light, seemed to be dodging giving truthful answers, but if he hadn’t done that, I doubt if she’d be confident enough to go forward, given that her allegations against Dershowitz were shown to be false.
I do actually feel sorry for Prince Andrew. His behaviour and party-going reputation are not admirable but he isn’t that much different from others in public life. If 17 wasn’t under the age of consent in the USA (which amazes me), we wouldn’t be hearing about this at all. I hope his lawyers can discredit his accuser because she’s definitely no innocent.
Yes, you are right – you’d think the Prince had done something unheard of in the civilised world! it’s galling to listen to the holier-than-thou commentators weighing in on this matter. They don’t seem to understand that it is – to say the very least – distasteful to take pleasure in the downfall of others, or in this case, another – Prince Andrew.
It says somewhere in the bible that we should not gloat over the misfortune of other people, because then God will turn his wrath away from them, and on to the gloaters.
Again av no Love For Andy but to be Brutally Honest at least it was Women and not Homosexuality.
As for Jims comments to me below. It would take a Very Holy MAN not to be severely Tempted to go on Free Sunshine Holidays with all the Free Booze Free best of Food , plus all the Young Women being after your body.
And to me thats the Key in these sordid stories.
It’s more like She was after Andy rather than the other way around.
Also Lizzie has a short Memory and should cast Her mind Back to Her Sisters very many Romps on the Island of Mustique.
Am also sure that both Charles and Andy were only following in You Know Who’s Footsteps.
Lizzie kept Mum about His many little Holidays.
The age of consents varies by states. The age range is between 16-18. In Florida, it is 18.
“I most probably would have done myself given the chance”
“you’d think the Prince had done something unheard of in the civilised world”
“17 year old girls these days are not shy little innocents”
Yuck! Even by this blog’s very low moral standards, this is horrible stuff.
Why do you say that. The first comment is one of the male bloggers being very honest, so you can rant at him for being a sinner, I suppose, but what about the other two things you’ve said. Has the prince done something unheard of in the civilised world? Are 17 year old girls these days shy little innocents? An awful lot of them are on the pill. In fact, I went off to find some stats and stopped when I read this article – here’s an extract:
Pediatricians start talking about sexual behaviors, birth control, and ways to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs) at about the 11-year-old checkup. They can provide or prescribe contraception in the office or give referrals to other resources in the community.
I’d like to know why you think the statements you quote show “very low moral standards”. How are they “horrible stuff”.
If you don’t have answers, then I’ll be assuming you are the latest troll on this excellent blog.
Good luck with getting those answers. You won’t! Trolls are easily spotted, they only criticise the blog and disappear. Lunatics.
Michaela and Josephine,
Trolls are very sad people with nothing much to do in their lives. I really do feel sorry for them. I’d avoid name-calling, especially “lunatics” as there is probably a genuine mental illness there, in most cases.
Here in the States, Planned Parenthood offers its educational assistance in the American public schools as early at 1st grade (age 6). At that stage, they want their advisors to see perceived as kindly and helpful friends by teachers, administrators, and students, generous souls who want to help young people grow into mature, confident adults ho are well-informed and confident about their bodies.
These thoughtful advisors continue to offer help of one kind or another all the way through high school, revealing more detailed and helpful age-appropriate information and assistance as needed. Getting students accustomed to the kind of help they offer is just one goal; ultimately, they have as their objective to assist *all* female students with their first termination decision by the time they graduate.
At the university, these advisors continue their particular services, with the aim to help *all* female students successfully with their second termination decision.
After graduation, these women are adamant supporters of the Panned Parenthood way of life – naturally, because changing course at that point would be unthinkable. The strategy is a multi-year effort, with many well-considered and well-funded initiatives and programs in support of the overall objectives that pays life-long dividends for servant-leaders of Planned Parenthood.
I’m just thinking about how different it would all be if we had a genuinely Catholic monarch and royal family. It would be wonderful to see such a wholesome example being set to the country. Maybe once the consecration of Russia has been done and the promised peace brought to the world for a while, at least, we might see that happening, somehow. As it is, the only Catholic who married into the royal family in recent years gave up her faith to become Anglican. Now she’s divorced!
A truly Catholic royal family would be fantastic. However, there’s not much chance of that happening now and the memory of King Henry VIII is still raw – Prince Andrew and him would get on perfectly! LOL!
It would be great if we had a Catholic Pope sitting in the Chair of Peter, as well – rather than an Oliver Cromwell who is busy hunting down and destroying Tradition.
Well said – who, apart from Oliver Cromwell, could disagree with that!
I’m not sure why the age of this young lady is so important. In medieval England and beyond, girls could marry at age 12 and boys at age 14, so I’m not sure where the 18-year-old cutoff point came from.
And Our Lady Ever Virgin was what, 13 when she married Chaste St. Joseph?
(I know, we’re not talking about marriage, but illicit sexual activity…)
As for the immoral act itself, I have a suspicion that Prince Andrew was involved in a lot worse than an affair with a 17-year-old. After all, Epstein’s Satanic Island, complete with temple, was the venue for various Satanic rituals, in addition to child abuse. In other words, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if this relationship is being singled out to cover up things much more repulsive, in order to protect the rest of the elites who were customers at Pedophile Island. Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial, after all, was nothing more than a dog-and-pony-show cover-up.
Throw Prince Andrew under the bus with a silly charge that the media megaphone can bombard us with, and that – so their reasoning goes – will distract attention from far more serious crimes.
Who knows, maybe he’ll do penance by worshipping at the altar of Greta Thunberg….
I think Our Lady was more like 15 when she became betrothed to Joseph, i.e. completed the first part of the wedding ceremony. I’m not sure, but that’s what I think we were taught at school.
I’d not heard about the Satanic rituals or that Epstein had a temple on his island so that is terrible. However, I don’t know about the cover up part of your comment since this has been hidden for years and they really didn’t need to use it, just keep on covering everything up.
Your last sentence – LOL!
I think the reason this story has emerged is because the behavior of the elitist pedophile network is all over the alternate media, thus putting pressure on the fake news media to divert attention from the filthiest details. In other words, the cover-up is no longer working.
Thanks for that information – I didn’t know that news of “the elitist pedophile network” was all over the alternate media so that would explain the sudden push to “get Andrew”. I can see that, now.
> I’m not sure where the 18-year-old cutoff point came from.
I suspect it’s in recognition of the prolonged adolescence of the moderns.
Barely more than a generation ago, the Church used to have pre-seminaries all over the world. Boys were formed in such a way that one could meaningfully discern whether a youngster had a vocation. There is no way a pre-seminary could work today; these days, a young man who has a genuine vocation would easily be in his mid-twenties before he had the maturity to enter seminary.
We called them junior seminaries but I think they were a very bad thing. It was too easy for young lads to drift through and eventually drift into ordination.
I agree. I’m sure there were some sound vocations as a result of junior seminary but overall I think they may have done more harm than good, in a number of ways.
Given the state of both seminaries and priesthood these days, I’m not sure how to respond to your views about adolescence and “mature” age for entry into seminary.
The seminaries are not doing at all well, in my humble view – none of them.
Once the diabolical disorientation is fixed (i.e. after the Consecration of Russia) then good order and fidelity to the Church’s seminary requirements, will be restored. Not before, sadly…
I’ve always had my doubts about the veracity of Virginia’s claim. She looks quite happy in that photo and she’s 17, hardly a child! My granny was married at 15 years old and one of my sisters at 17. I’m not defending Prince Andrew whom I’ve never liked. RCAVictor has another view altogether so perhaps he could elaborate on the “satanic” angle? People in high positions have always used scandals to deflect the public’s attention from their misdemeanours. Look at the present crop of cabinet ministers in Westminster!
I’ve always had my doubts about the veracity of Virginia’s claim. She looks quite happy in that photo and she’s 17, hardly a child! My granny was married at 15 years old and one of my sisters at 17. I’m not defending Prince Andrew whom I’ve never liked. RCAVictor has another view altogether so perhaps he could elaborate on the “satanic” angle? People in high positions have always used scanals to deflect the public’s attention from their misdemeanours. Look at the present crop of cabinet ministers in Westminster!
One of the things Andrew’s legal team is challenging is that photo.
I was pleased to see on the news that Andrew is asking for a jury trial – they are going to test Giuffre’s claims in court, so it’s good that the prince is fighting back, even in open court. He has nothing to lose, IMHO, and it might get him cleared and returned to royal duties.
Comments are closed.