At first, when Prince Andrew’s name kept on cropping up alongside Jeffrey Epstein’s, many just thought he was a poor judge of character.

You know how those royals can be, living in their ivory towers and unaware of certain things.

Well, I think it’s now safe to say that Prince Andrew’s ties with Epstein are the biggest royal scandal in recent history, and the British public is beginning to see through the excuses and bluster of those covering up just how cosy that relationship was.

First, it was the photos and video that showed Andrew peeping out from the door of Epstein’s New York apartment, as girls who looked underage exited.

Then the flight logs from Epstein’s private jet emerged, showing that the then-underage girl who accused Andrew of sleeping with her just happened to be in the same place as him on a number of important dates.

Throughout it all, Andrew’s statements to the public have spoken about how “appalled” he is with what he has now learnt about Epstein, but fewer and fewer people are buying it.

Over on the Guardian, journalist Marina Hyde hasn’t minced her words, with a few ‘bullshits’ thrown in for good measure.

It’s worth reading her article in full, but here’s a taster:

…Buckingham Palace finally put it in a statement denying any impropriety on behalf of the prince: “The Duke of York has been appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes.”

I’m slightly sorry for the royal flunkies who had to issue this line, given that most of us are suffering eyeball strain from all the rolling we’re doing. Even so, I do feel we need further clarification on what precisely the Duke is appalled by. Is it just the “recent reports”? Because if we’re meant to believe that Prince Andrew is appalled by ALL of the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein – both the ones alleged and the ones he served actual jail time for – then allow me to treat this statement with all the dignity it deserves. To wit: BULL. SHIT.

Bullshit Prince Andrew didn’t know what sort of guy his friend was when he was snapped walking with the Tier 1 sex offender, after he got out of jail, in a photo the New York Post headlined “PRINCE & PERV”. Bullshit he didn’t know why his close friend WENT TO PRISON FOR A YEAR, but kept hanging out with him anyway.

Bullshit if, as [literary agent John] Brockman recounts, he lay on his back in that guy’s house, with a Russian attending to his feet, talking over her head to men of the world about the nocturnal licence afforded to minor European royals, and he didn’t know roughly what he was swimming in. Bullshit.

I get we have to pay for Andrew’s lifetime of jollies; but we don’t have to have our intelligence insulted by him.

Yes, how could Andrew be expected to know that Epstein was a bad man when he had just come out of prison a convicted paedophile?

What a royal embarrassment.

You can read the rest of the Guardian article here, but let’s move along to another stinging takedown.

There are hundreds out there, but this time it’s royal author Angela Levin on the Daily Mail, who says that “Prince Andrew’s weasel words to ‘clarify’ his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein are an insult to our intelligence and staggeringly arrogant”.

You may well have seen the word-vomit statement Andrew released over the weekend, but it’s worth revisiting:

Who wrote that utter shite?

OK, back to the fired-up royal author:

Who is advising him on such appalling PR? Under close examination, the claims in his statement are palpable nonsense.

In the first paragraph, Andrew says that he had an ‘association or friendship with Mr Epstein’. Well, which one is it? Because it can’t be both.

Would he invite someone who was a mere associate to the June 2000 Dance Of The Decades party at Windsor Castle?

This event was hosted by the Queen to mark Andrew’s 40th, Princess Anne’s 50th, Princess Margaret’s 70th and Prince William’s 18th birthday. It seems odd that you would invite someone to such an occasion if you merely had an ‘association’.

Ask yourself this: How many associates do you have at your significant birthday celebrations and family events? But it gets worse. In the autumn of that year, Andrew flew to New York and attended a Halloween ‘hookers and bondage’ party in Manhattan hosted by Epstein.

I was certain that the theme ‘hookers and bondage’ was something that ended when you graduated from university, but Epstein clearly lived in an alternate reality.

Back to the blatant lies in Andrew’s statement:

Regardless of how he wants to term their relationship, one thing is clear: The Duke and Epstein met at least four times in 2000.

Strange, then, that the Duke’s statement yesterday reads: ‘During the time I knew him, I saw him infrequently and probably no more than only once or twice a year.’

Besides expecting our Royals not to hang around with paedophiles, we also expect them to be honest. This whole statement reeks.

Does Andrew really expect us to believe that someone he did not know well and only saw infrequently was invited into the Royals’ inner sanctum?

…Andrew simply cannot escape the fact that he stayed with Epstein once he was already on the sex offender register after serving time inside for sexual abuse.

As The Mail on Sunday reports today, he stayed for six days and enjoyed a party thrown in his honour…

The statement ends: ‘This is a difficult time for everyone involved and I am at a loss to be able to understand or explain Mr Epstein’s lifestyle.’

The authorities involved in investigating Epstein do not want Andrew to offer a psychological explanation of his friend’s depravity.

Nor do they care if he doesn’t understand it. What they want is the unvarnished truth from the Prince about what he does know. It is about time we heard it.

I doubt that will ever happen, but Prince Andrew’s reputation, and by association Buckingham Palace’s reputation, has well and truly been dragged through the mud.

Perhaps now, people will look at the follies of Harry and Meghan and realise that they are nowhere near the Royal Family’s biggest PR concern.

Thanks, Rory

[sources:guardian&dailymail]