Good lord. It felt like listening to a 5-year old boy denying that he had raided the candy jar, all while surreptitiously licking away the chocolate stains from around his mouth. The only difference is that, while the guilty child usually gives up quickly on his obvious ruse, Prince Andrew’s recent interview with the BBC lasted almost an hour, and he proclaimed his innocence right to the end.
I watched the whole thing, mainly because I was waiting for him to say a single credible thing that would give me the slightest reason to believe his outright claims that he knew nothing about Jeffrey Epstein’s penchant for young girls, and that he had nothing to do with Virginia Roberts Guiffre and in fact didn’t even know who she was.
Alas, I was not moved by a single word he said. I include the full interview below in case anyone wants to wade through it and fish out something credible to prove me wrong.
A New Era For Royalty
In a way, you can’t really blame Andrew for offering such unsubstantiated denials, which careened between flat statements that the events in question did not happen and rambling exhortations that he does not remember those same events. As a member of the Royal Family, he has never been forced to justify his actions his whole life (except perhaps in private to his mother the Queen). Out in public if he said something was so, then all those around him would take it to be gospel. And very much like official Royal Family proclamations, which effectively have been treated as the ‘last word’ on a given subject in society for centuries, he somehow still seems to feel that sense of entitlement, that if it comes out of his mouth then at least his loyalists will regard it as true.
We are, however, in a new era. This signs are now obvious. And credit interviewer Emily Maitlis with bringing this point up near the end of the interview:
EM: I know we have to bring this to a close because we’re running out of time. You’ve faced questions today on a very, very raw subject. There has never been an interview like this before, I wonder what that tells us about the way the Royal Family now confronts these difficult situations. Has there been a sea change?
PA: I think the problem that I’m… we face in the 21st Century is social media. There is a whole range of things that you face now that you didn’t face 25 years ago because it was just the print media.
I mean there are all sorts of things that are on the internet and out there in the public domain that we just sort of go, “Well, yeah,” but I’m afraid is… it just never happened.
There is probably something to what Prince Andrew is saying here. Social media and the internet in general, in which information such as the picture of him with his arm around Virginia Roberts’ waist with Ghislaine Maxwell in the background is able to widely proliferate, simply makes it more difficult for people who do bad things to hide the evidence and control the narrative than it was during earlier times with a complicit print-only media. When he says his problem is social media, he is implying it is easy for people to make stuff up. But what it really means is that he cannot as easily indulge in illegal and immoral activity in the era of social media.
But it isn’t just the internet. That picture and the knowledge of Prince Andrew’s chummy relationship with Jeff Epstein have been floating around the internet for over a decade. Suddenly, within the last year or two, we seem to have entered firmly into an era of accountability, in which the public has become more aware, conscious, and inquisitive about what is going on. Not the entire public, but a critical enough mass of people such that former ‘untouchables’ like Prince Andrew have to address rumors of wrongdoing that are no longer being swept away by the next news cycle. He almost admits as much himself when explaining his decision to speak out:
Choosing to, as it were, get out there and talk about these things, it’s almost… it’s almost a mental health issue to some extent for me in the sense that it’s been nagging at my mind for a great many years.
I could go on and poke holes in just about every response he gave to try to counter known facts, sworn affidavits and other witness testimony of where he was, when, and with who, but even mainstream media has gotten in on the incredulity of his argument, where he will often categorically say that he ‘was not there’ or ‘did not do that,’ but would not go so far as to say that the person who says he did is not telling the truth, like in this exchange:
EM: Another guest was John Brockman, the literary agent. Now, he described seeing you there getting a foot massage from a young Russian woman, did that happen?
EM: You’re absolutely sure or you can’t remember?
PA: Yeah, I’m absolutely sure.
EM: So John Brockman’s statement is false?
PA: I wouldn’t… I wouldn’t… I don’t know Mr Brockman so I don’t know what he’s talking about.
I have to put this last exchange up, simply because I found it so entertaining. In response to Virginia Roberts Guiffre’s vivid account of the evening of March 10th, 2001 which she said they spent together, Andrew spins a number of interesting reasons why her account just could not be so, including that he does not drink, that he suffered from a war injury that would have prevented him from sweating at that time, and that he specifically remembers taking his daughter Beatrice to a pizza party that day:
EM: Virginia Roberts has made allegations against you. She says she met you in 2001, she says she dined with you, danced with you at Tramp Nightclub in London. She went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell, your friend. Your response?
PA: I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever.
EM: You don’t remember meeting her?
EM: She says she met you in 2001, she dined with you, she danced with you, you bought her drinks, you were in Tramp Nightclub in London and she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell.
PA: It didn’t happen.
EM: Do you remember her?
PA: No, I’ve no recollection of ever meeting her, I’m almost, in fact I’m convinced that I was never in Tramps with her. There are a number of things that are wrong with that story, one of which is that I don’t know where the bar is in Tramps. I don’t drink, I don’t think I’ve ever bought a drink in Tramps whenever I was there.
EM: Do you remember dancing at Tramp?
PA: No, that couldn’t have happened because the date that’s being suggested I was at home with the children.
EM: You know that you were at home with the children, was it a memorable night?
PA: On that particular day that we now understand is the date which is the 10th of March, I was at home, I was with the children and I’d taken Beatrice to a Pizza Express in Woking for a party at I suppose sort of 4:00 or 5:00 in the afternoon. And then because the duchess was away, we have a simple rule in the family that when one is away the other one is there. I was on terminal leave at the time from the Royal Navy so therefore I was at home.
EM: Why would you remember that so specifically? Why would you remember a Pizza Express birthday and being at home?
PA: Because going to Pizza Express in Woking is an unusual thing for me to do, a very unusual thing for me to do. I’ve never been… I’ve only been to Woking a couple of times and I remember it weirdly distinctly. As soon as somebody reminded me of it, I went, “Oh yes, I remember that.” But I have no recollection of ever meeting or being in the company or the presence.
EM: So you’re absolutely sure that you were at home on the 10th March?
EM: She was very specific about that night, she described dancing with you.
EM: And you profusely sweating and that she went on to have a bath possibly.
PA: There’s a slight problem with the sweating because I have a peculiar medical condition which is that I don’t sweat or I didn’t sweat at the time and that was… was it… yes, I didn’t sweat at the time because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenalin in the Falkland’s War when I was shot at and I simply… it was almost impossible for me to sweat. And it’s only because I have done a number of things in the recent past that I am starting to be able to do that again. So I’m afraid to say that there’s a medical condition that says that I didn’t do it so therefore…
EM: Is it possible that you met Virginia Roberts, dined with her, danced with her in Tramp, had sex with her on another date?
EM: Do you remember meeting her at all?
EM: Do you know you didn’t meet her or do you just not remember meeting her?
PA: No, I have… I don’t know if I’ve met her but no, I have no recollection of meeting her.
EM: Because she was very specific, she described the dance that you had together in Tramp. She described meeting you, she was a 17-year-old girl meeting a senior member of the Royal Family.
PA: It never happened.
It’s just amazing that he claims to remember vivid details about his ‘exculpatory evidence’ of driving his daughter to a pizza party on a particular date, but claims not to remember a woman he was in a picture with and says he had sex with her on several occasions. One is left to ask why Prince Andrew would go ahead and attend this interview, given how lame and unsubstantial he must have known his denials would be.
The Real Purpose Of The Interview
There is only one reasonable explanation for Prince Andrew conducting the interview in the way that he did: he was ordered to do it by his mother Queen Elizabeth. As damaging as Prince Andrew’s behavior has been in terms of being an embarrassing rogue within the Royal Family, it has the potential to be far more damaging. There could be a fear that growing numbers of people will put the pieces together and conclude that the entire Royal Family, and by extension Royal Families and Nobility all around the world, have long been involved not only in the things that Prince Andrew appears to have been involved in. Worse, people might begin to give more credence to testimony that Royalty have long been involved not only in human trafficking and the rape of underaged girls, but also Satanic Ritual Abuses such as pedophilia, torture, human sacrifice, and cannibalism.
If you go through the interview, you will notice one thing that Andrew is careful to do is to deflect any sense of responsibility or blame away from the Royal Family, or any advisors, and puts the ‘blame’ squarely on himself–though his self-blame is limited to his 2010 visit to Epstein, during which he spent a number of days at the mansion of the known sex offender. He tried his best to frame that visit as an in-person break-up of the friendship that he alone decided to do, noting that it would have been ‘chicken’ of him to end the friendship over the phone.
EM: Who advised you then that it was a good idea to go and break up the friendship? Did that come from the palace, was Her Majesty, the Queen involved?
PA: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, that came from… so there were a number of people who… so some people from my staff, some people from friends and family I was talking to and I took the decision that it was I had to show leadership and I had to go and see him and I had to tell him, “That’s it.”
And he was clear to distinguish his own personal family’s struggles with this issue from the Royal Family’s:
EM: Has the episode been damaging to the Royal Family, to Her Majesty the Queen?
PA: I don’t believe it’s been damaging to the Queen at all.
It’s subtle, but the overall impact of the interview is that Prince Andrew appears as some kind of lying buffoon who is not willing to admit any of his embarrassing indiscretions. The Royal Family, on the other hand, while allegedly being supportive for the prince as a person, are preemptively seen in the guise of righteous, disapproving parents if any of these activities turn out to be true as the majority of the public suspect. The perception of the Royal Family as an institution that embodies proper moral conduct, then, is far more important here than public impressions of one wayward prince.
One of the prime strategies of all large power factions that operate in the world is to ‘prune’ the branches that reveal the inherent immorality of the whole so that the tree is preserved and not tainted by the sagging branch. Prince Andrew is the latest powerful scapegoat to be thrust out into the spotlight, and it appears to be a sign that we are getting ever closer to unveiling the heart of the beast itself, which would constitute a major step in our liberation.