Buckingham Palace went to extraordinary lengths to cover-up the involvement of Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, in the Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking scandal. The Royal was supplied with a 17-year-old-girl, Virginia Roberts (Giuffre), who was commanded to have sex with him three times, once in London. Palace officials threatened to blackball ABC, an American TV station which got hold of the story in 2015. The latest development is that Prince Andrew has sold his Swiss chalet which will provide him with millions with which to finance a settlement with Roberts. The case will proceed as the judge in the US has rejected his application to discontinue it. What if it is now to late to settle with his victim having branded her a liar? To make matters worse for the Duke, a witness has come forward who can confirm that Roberts spoke to her about her involvement with the Duke at the time of the abuse. The witness saw the infamous picture of the Duke with Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell shortly after it was taken. What will the Metropolitan Police do if he manages to settle the civil action by handing over five or six million – or even more – to Roberts? An innocent man would fight his corner rather than enrich a liar who has destroyed his reputation, especially to the extent of making her a multi millionairess. The Duke will hardly settle with Roberts without a guarantee from her that she will boycott any future criminal prosecution brought against him in London. A criminal prosecution would be doomed to failure without her full co-operation and testimony. Surely, Met. Comissioner Cressida Dick would have to resign if a deal on those terms Is concluded. She refused to investigate the case when Roberts was prepared to co-operate fully. The behaviour of the Royal Family has been a shambolic disaster thus far. In 2015 ABC was warned that Prince William and Kate would shun them in the future if they ran an interview they had recorded with Roberts. She was 17, he was 41. ABC backed down. More details can be found here: Judge a (future) king by his courtiers: Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge, pawns in the cover-up of a transatlantic paedophile network. A video of Amy Robach, the ABC reporter can be accessed via the video in the links below: Remember when @ABC dropped the ball on this investigation, because they were threatened by #PrinceAndrew family? #JeffreyEpstein #GhislaineMaxwell pic.twitter.com/SwDGUaAaDb — Resilient (@KaindeB) January 4, 2022 https://twitter.com/AliciaJ1985/status/1477687840473554944?t=B8z0BI8jD34n1oEQEfJUcA&s=19 In the wake of the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, the Palace is now trying to rewrite its sordid role in the cover-up. So-called ‘anonymous’ sources are pretending that there was no concealment, rather that matters got out of hand because of the arrogance of the Duke. The Duke has enjoyed the unwavering support and protection of his devoted mother, Queen Elizabeth. Clearly, he is now being thrown to the wolves by her courtiers. It is not fanciful to speculate that the monarch is viewed as a lame duck by her senior retainers as she battles ill health, fatigue and great old age. If the control of Buckingham Palace is indeed passing to Prince Charles, it can be inferred that he has decided that his brother’s sexual excesses are not going to ruin his forthcoming reign as king. The latest message from the Palace via The Daily Mail is that the Queen is refusing the bail out Prince Andrew, her reputed favourite child. It is more likely that she has had her elderly arm twisted than that she has abandoned Prince Andrew out of a sudden disgust at his behaviour. The Daily Mail was the conduit for the new PR line which the Palace began taking last week. It reported last week that: “Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior former royal adviser stressed that while there was no knowledge of the extent of the duke’s friendship with Epstein and Maxwell to anyone outside of the prince’s private office, the ‘Andrew problem’ was a long-running issue for the royal household in general. ‘Anyone who even dared to offer their professional advice that maybe his way wasn’t the right one was met with a decisive ‘f*** off out of my office’,’ the source said”. The account is backed up by other former royal staff, all of whom claim the prince acted as if he “didn’t have to answer to anyone” and was allowed to “go rogue”. Particularly troublesome, it was said, was Andrew’s role as a roving trade ‘ambassador’, which saw him repeatedly criticised for cosying up to highly controversial world leaders and businessmen. A former Buckingham Palace staff member recalled how it was an “impossible job” to persuade the prince or his advisers to take any instruction. “The duke made clear that the only person he answered to was the Queen”, they said. “He wouldn’t take advice from anyone. [He] acted with total impunity and staff were just too scared to stand up to him as a member of the Royal Family. Her Majesty almost always backed him and he fully exploited that. There’s an element of Buckingham Palace sleepwalking into his whole crisis. Andrew would tell his family that it was all untrue and it would all go away”. It would stretch credulity beyond breaking point to suggest that the Mail’s primary ‘source’ and the other ‘former’ courtiers have all emerged at the same time with the same deceptive story by coincidence. The sources also appear to have no fear of any repercussion for breaking their duty of silence to the Palace. There can only be a tiny pool of people with this background who have retired in the recent past. It would be easy to identify them. Would they all risk losing a pension just to vent some exasperation at the Duke? Or is this all part of a structured PR offensive? More importantly, why are the Mail’s sources concealing the true history of the Royal
