The Plot Against The Monarchy

Now that the unremitting witch-hunt of Prince Andrew has resulted in him being stripped of all his titles, including that of Prince, the enemies of the Monarchy have widened their target area to include the entire Royal Family. Not that they are letting up on Andrew, who will continue to be referred to as Prince Andrew here if nowhere else.

Now, a so-called Republican group has called for his prosecution, claiming, inter alia, that he committed sexual assault or even rape. On their crowdfunding page they quote the late Virginia Giuffre who said “Prince Andrew believed having sex with me was his birthright”.

Let’s get a few facts straight, Virginia Giuffre was no sex trafficking victim and certainly no rape victim, rather she was a disgusting little prostitute, a serial false rape accuser and by her own admission a child sex trafficker/procuress of underage girls herself.

She was no victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, rather she was a trusted lieutenant, and if any prosecution was warranted here, it was of her; she should have stood trial with Ghislaine Maxwell. The American authorities decided not to prosecute her but they also rejected her testimony; she was not called as a witness at the New York trial and not one of her outrageous allegations has been proved to a criminal standard, to a civil standard, or any standard.

The facts about this odious woman have been in the public domain for over a decade but the mainstream media and much of social media continues to ignore them, parroting her lies uncritically. A number of pundits and others who have done their research have spoken out and/or published on this. They include the American journalist Michael Tracey who has done some amazing work on this serial liar; law professor Alan Dershowitz whom she falsely accused, wilfully, and Royal Insider Lady Colin Campbell, who is currently in hospital after a nasty accident – get well soon, Lady C.

Giuffre’s blatant admissions of illegality were excused – so she seemed to think – because of her youth. That doesn’t wash. She was 16 when she first met Jeffrey Epstein – not 15 as she claimed initially. There are women in prison in the United States and elsewhere serving lengthy prison sentences for serious crimes committed when they were younger than that. In October 2009, the 15 year old Alyssa Bustamante murdered a 9 year old girl; she is still in prison now. Okay, procuring slightly underage girls to give a middle aged pervert massages is a lot less serious than murdering a prepubescent one, but it is still a crime. Ghislaine Maxwell is serving 20 years for doing not much more than sweet Virginia.

Returning to Prince Andrew, in 2019, he sat down for an interview with Emily Maitlis, then a long time BBC hack. That interview has rightly been called a car crash, primarily because he claimed not to remember meeting the then 17 year old Virginia Roberts in March 2001.

The authenticity of the photograph below has been challenged, but it is almost certainly genuine, so we will assume it is.

The second photograph is definitely genuine. It was taken in May 1978, and in case you don’t recognise the two people therein, the woman was the First Lady of the United States at the time; Rosalynn Carter died two years ago at the age of 96. The man is the serial killer John Gacy who was executed in 1994. He was arrested 7 months after that photograph was taken. Gacy was active in Democrat politics at the local level.

That photograph does not implicate Mrs Carter in the crimes of John Gacy, although it must have been acutely embarrassing. By the same token, the first photograph does not implicate Prince Andrew in the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein (the man who took it) or either of the two child sex traffickers who appear in it with him.

So why did Andrew lie, and lie so clumsily? Almost certainly because he was poorly advised, and wilfully so. We will return to this shortly. Having said that, he was not the only person who lied, because at this time, Giuffre was accusing Andrew of sexual abuse, yet in 2011, when she sold that photograph and her fairy tale to the Daily Mail, she denied having sex with him at all. Her lengthy interview with Sharon Churcher was published in the Mail On Sunday, February 27, 2011. Not only was there no sex with Andrew but she wanted the photograph to show her mother.

She also claims Ghislaine Maxwell took her shopping, buying her a five thousand pound bag and designer clothes. As for Epstein, he gave her $15,000. Some sex slave.

She broke with Epstein only after meeting her husband in Thailand, where he had sent her to take a course in Thai massage. She was, she said, to bring a girl back with her. How much more of this sex slave piffle are we supposed to swallow?

It is notable that with rare exceptions, the mainstream media has not subjected this prostitute’s story to any critical examination, even though at times it has reported on claims that contradict it. For example, Carolyn Andriano, now deceased, said Virginia Roberts told her she was all right with meeting the Prince.

Prince Andrew denies ever having sex with this prostitute, and as she did initially, we should take his word in this instance, but even if he had, so what? The age of consent in England is 16, so a man in his early 40s can have sex with a teen of that age legally. The image below is about a story published the same month as Prince Andrew’s interview with Emily Maitlis. It reveals that the head teacher of a primary school in Wales, a man in his forties like the Prince, had been dismissed from his post because he had met two teenage boys through an app specifically for homosexuals, and they had had a threesome.

Andrew allegedly has sex with a 17 year old and receives only disgust. A man of the same age has perverted sex with two 17 year olds and receives seven hundred thousand pounds. How insane is that?

Now let us leave this disgusting, slandering prostitute and procuress to turn to why Andrew gave such a terrible interview. Members of the Royal Family have teams of PR people and advisers; they also have the best lawyers money can buy. Andrew should have been advised not to sit down with Emily Maitlis, but failing that, all he had to do when the question of his allegedly having sex with this prostitute arose, was to take out of his pocket a copy of that Mail On Sunday article and read from it.

Then he could have stood up and walked out of the room.

The interview wasn’t the only stupid thing he did. When this prostitute issued her writ, he tried to avoid service, which made him look guilty and then some. Again, where were his lawyers and advisers?

The bottom line is that he was sabotaged. These people should be sacked because they are obviously working against the Monarchy. And it is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to claim they were working in conjunction with the prostitute’s lawyers.

Virginia Giuffre sold her story for $160,000, which is a lot of money for most people, but it would soon be eaten up by a lawyer who charges $2,000+ per hour. Who paid the lawyers for this prostitute and why? The much maligned Lady Victoria Hervey has as good as suggested there is a high level conspiracy at work. How accurate is this thesis remains to be seen, but clearly the entire Monarchy rather than simply Prince Andrew is facing a concerted attack. If we want to retain this ancient and honourable institution, we need to hold fast against future attacks by both the mainstream media and the dark forces behind it.