Print this post Print this post

Prince Andrew Officially Declared Upper Class Twit of the Century

3,400 words

Many of my readers will remember the “classic” Monty Python sketch in which a gaggle of impossibly stupid aristocrats, all with buckteeth and double-barreled names, gimp about an athletic field competing for the title of “Upper Class Twit of the Year.” A diehard monarchist, I always regarded this portrayal of the upper crust with the sort of skepticism of which my British friends tell me only an American is capable. But in the wake of Prince Andrew’s recent, disastrous BBC Newsnight interview about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, I now suspect that a profound and actually rather disturbing stupidity may lurk in the upper echelons of Society, like that madwoman in Mr. Rochester’s attic.

The Spectator has described Andrew’s interview with BBC 2’s Emily Maitlis as “a career-defining calamity for the Prince. Until now he has relied on silence . . . which works by starving the monster to death. But he hasn’t just thrown it a few meager scraps. This is a feast on which it will gorge for years.” As we shall see, this is just classic British understatement.

For days I avoided watching the actual interview, as I feared it would be too cringy to bear. I relied on reports in The Spectator and other sources. Then I forced myself to watch, eyelids held open with alligator clips like Alex in A Clockwork Orange. What I found was beyond cringe. At times I held my head in my hands or shielded my eyes. I took breaks and checked Facebook. But I kept returning, until the damned thing ended – not with a bang but a whimper. It should have ended with a BIG EXPLOSION! Or perhaps with the Prince dousing himself in brandy and setting himself on fire like a Victorian Christmas pudding. After all, I felt I had just witnessed the most humiliating, senseless, and bizarre self-immolation of a British public figure since Jeremy Thorpe applied Vaseline to Norman “Bunnies” Scott.

The Spectator called the interview “a glorious blend of the embarrassing, the questionable and the downright nutty.” But this barely begins to describe what transpired. In fact, the Prince’s interview is a monumental disaster that looks it will permanently end his career in public life, and could quite possibly damage the monarchy itself. In the course of the interview, Andrew is asked how his association with the pervert Epstein has affected the Royal Family. He responds, “It has been what I would describe as a constant sore in the family. We all knew him.” Egads. Surely some (further) revelation is at hand . . .

Reporter Emily Maitlis (dressed, curiously, like she had been costumed for the Sgt. Pepper cover) is polite to Prince Andrew, and allows him the face-saving pretense that he had been meaning to appear on Newsnight for months anyway, to discuss his charitable work. But she quickly turns the topic to Epstein. Andrew’s attempts to distance himself from the billionaire are comically inept. He first claims that his relationship with Epstein was one in which he stayed in Epstein’s houses when the latter wasn’t there. Then he admits to visiting Epstein himself regularly. At first, he adamantly denies that he and the man were close, even going so far as to imply that his real friendship was with Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, and that Epstein was a bit of a third wheel.

This is all belied minutes later by revelations of intimate dinners with Epstein, and long, heart-to-heart chats while walking in the park. Andrew even invited Epstein and Maxwell to Princess Beatrice’s eighteenth birthday party at Windsor Castle. (His excuse: the invitation was really intended for Maxwell; Epstein was merely the “plus one.”) Oh, and then there was the shooting weekend at Sandringham, possibly the most intimate of the Royal Family’s residences: Andrew and the great perv Epstein, banging away for two days at grouse or something. But remember, Andrew barely knew him.

After Epstein was imprisoned in 2008 for trafficking underage girls, Andrew stated, wisely, that he decided he needed to break off his friendship with the multi-billionaire (the source of whose fortune, by the way, has never been satisfactorily explained). However, the way in which he went about this was decidedly . . . odd. The Prince flew to New York in 2010 to personally inform Epstein that they could no longer be friends. “Doing it over the phone was the chicken’s way of doing it,” he explains in the interview, and attributes this to his sense of honor. So far so good. Here we see an old-fashioned, aristocratic ethos displaying itself. Epstein had been very generous with Andrew, allowing him the use of his houses and private jet (and more, it seems). Andrew felt he owed him something, and felt a gentleman would handle the breakup in person.

Of course, this utterly belies his earlier claim that the two were not close. Had Epstein been merely a generous acquaintance, the boyfriend of a friend, Andrew could have had an equerry handle the matter with an e-mail, as The Spectator points out. Instead, not only does Andrew fly to New York to sever ties with Epstein personally, he actually stays in Epstein’s house, with Epstein present, for four days. If he was so anxious to no longer be associated Epstein, couldn’t Andrew have stayed in a hotel and arranged a brief, private audience with Epstein to give him the bad news? Why did he stay at the man’s home? Andrew’s answer: “It was a convenient place to stay.”

But so is the Four Seasons. Has Andrew fallen on such hard times that he’s always needing to crash at a friend’s place? And why for four days? “I was doing other things whilst I was in New York,” he says. But if Andrew had realized that it was a liability to continue to be seen with Epstein, why did he give Epstein the kissoff (as he claims he was doing) while taking a walk with him through Central Park? A walk which was, infamously (and inevitably), photographed and spread across the world’s tabloids. Either Andrew is lying, or he is very stupid. Perhaps it’s a bit of both.

During the interview, Maitlis confronts Andrew with the fact that during his four-day visit with Epstein, witnesses reported seeing numerous young, possibly underage girls coming and going from Epstein’s house. There is even security camera video that shows this. But Andrew says that if girls were coming and going, “I didn’t see them.” Yet here is an image from one camera, showing Andrew himself apparently opening the door for one lucky Lolita.

Pizza delivery!

Andrew states that the Epstein home was like a railway station, with lots of people coming and going. Did he wonder who any of these people were? Andrew’s answer is classically, well . . . royal. “I don’t wish to appear grand . . . but as far as I was aware they were staff.” In other words, “I don’t notice staff unless I require a gin and tonic, and so it never occurred to me to wonder who all these attractive young girls were.” The interviewer responds cheekily, “But you’d notice if there were hundreds of underage girls in Buckingham Palace, wouldn’t you?” In response to which Andrew once more simply denies that he saw any girls there – again, despite evidence to the contrary. He also denies receiving a foot massage from one such “staff member,” a young Russian girl. Another guest at the same time, the literary agent John Brockman, says that he witnessed Andrew getting the massage. Again, the Prince denies any knowledge:

Maitlis: You’re absolutely sure or you can’t remember?

Andrew: Yeah, I’m absolutely sure.

Maitlis: So John Brockman’s statement is false?

Andrew: I wouldn’t . . . I wouldn’t . . . I don’t know Mr. Brockman, so I don’t know what he’s talking about.

Maitlis: But that definitely wasn’t you getting a foot massage from a Russian girl in Jeffrey Epstein’s house?

Andrew: No.

EM: It might seem a funny way to break off a friendship, a four-day house party of sorts with a dinner. It’s an odd way to break up a friendship.

PA: It’s a difficult way of put . . . that’s a very stark way of putting it, yes, you’re absolutely right. But actually, the truth of it is that I actually only saw him for about, what, the dinner party, the walk in the park, and probably passing in the passage.

Uh huh, right.

Maitlis asked Andrew about a party thrown during his December 2010 visit, to celebrate Epstein’s release from prison (notoriously, he served only thirteen months and was allowed to leave jail on a “work release” for up to twelve hours a day, for six days a week; basically, he only slept there). Andrew was supposed to have been invited to this party as “guest of honor.” At first he denies it: “I didn’t go.” But then he has a sudden, fortuitous recollection: “Oh, in 2010? That, there was, there certainly wasn’t a party to celebrate his release in December. Because it was a small dinner party. There only were only eight or ten of us.” Oh, well. That makes it all right then. Andrew didn’t go to a party in honor of Epstein’s release; he merely went to a small, exclusive, intimate dinner party in honor of Epstein’s release. I’m glad we cleared that up. Strange behavior from a man who wanted to distance himself from Epstein and his crimes. Strange behavior from a royal patron of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC).

Inevitably, Maitlis brings up the topic of Virginia Roberts, a young woman who claims she was forced to have sex with Andrew. A widely circulated photograph shows Andrew with his arm around Roberts.

The Prince denied ever even having met the girl. But what of the photograph? Here he had several responses, and it is hard to decide which is the least credible:

  1. It’s me in the photograph, but the photograph has been faked. I was never with Virginia Roberts.
  2. Or perhaps I did meet her, and the photo was taken, and I just don’t remember. But that’s not my hand around her waist. It’s a fake hand. I don’t do public displays of affection. I didn’t do this, for example:

And, by the way, I don’t party.

  1. Jeffrey Epstein didn’t carry a camera. (The relevance of this assertion to whether the photo is real is somewhat hard to see.) Maitlis helpfully pointed out that according to Roberts, the camera belonged to her.
  2. That picture was taken on the second floor of Ghislaine Maxwell’s house, and I’ve never seen the second floor of her house. But as The Spectator asked, “How does he recognize an area of the house he has yet to visit?” Elementary.

Roberts alleges she was forced to have sex with Andrew on a particular evening in 2001 when the two partied at a club with the unfortunate name “Tramps.” Impossible, responded the Prince. You see, he vividly remembers that on that particular evening in 2001 he had taken his daughter Beatrice, then thirteen, to Pizza Express in Woking. How is it possible that Andrew remembers what he was doing on that exact date? Is a visit to Pizza Express in Woking so memorable that its date becomes seared in the memory, like the day Pearl Harbor was attacked, or JFK was assassinated? Andrew’s answer: “Going to Pizza Express in Woking is an unusual thing for me to do, a very unusual thing for me to do.”

In other words: “I’m a Prince, you see. Normally I’m eating pheasant under glass, not slumming at the Pizza Express in God-forsaken Woking. So the date was positively burned into my royal memory.” As was Woking itself, it would seem: “I’ve never been . . . I’ve only been to Woking a couple of times and I remember it weirdly distinctly.” Well, I’ve never been to Woking at all, but a glance at its Wikipedia entry suggests that the only weirdly distinct thing about it, as English towns go, is that it’s about ninety percent white. All things considered, this is a safe place to take daddy’s little princess for a pizza party. If it even happened. As The Spectator observes ominously, “The palace security-log will confirm his whereabouts that afternoon. But it’s not inconceivable that the pizza banquet in Woking and the meeting at Tramps occurred sequentially on the same day.” Poor Prince Andrew. Oh, what a tangled web. Doesn’t he realize what “pizza” is a codeword for? Perhaps he has a cleverer sense of humor than we have given him credit for.

Virginia Roberts has provided a very detailed description of her evening at Tramps with Andrew, and subsequent sexual experience. It includes the detail that he was sweating profusely. When asked about this, Andrew responds with a defense that is both foolish and bizarre:

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 . . .

Since the Newsnight interview, legions of mischief-makers have been combing Internet archives for photos of Prince Andrew sweating and posting them online. Has a dumber alibi ever been conceived? Couldn’t he just have said that she’s making it up, that we never partied at Tramps, and left it at that? You have to say one thing for Phillip and Elizabeth: They did not teach their second son how to lie. And if Andrew simply had to tell this particular whopper, couldn’t he have done it with a bit more class, instead of blaming it on PTSD or something? Couldn’t he have said, “I’m a British Prince. We don’t sweat.” Or, “I’m so deucedly cool and intrepid I am physically incapable of sweating.” Or, “Sweating? What’s that? Oh, yes, it’s something the staff do when I scream at them.”

It is a disconcerting experience to watch a man – any man, even one who may have put his penis where he shouldn’t – self-destruct on television. Andrew never loses his temper with Maitlis and never becomes haughty. At a certain point, however, his voice betrays the unmistakable signs of a man who is becoming increasingly nervous, because he knows this is going badly and wishes he’d never agreed to it. (True to his word, he does not seem to sweat.) Still, as painful as this whole thing is, there is something charmingly British about it. There is Andrew’s mea culpa “I let the side down,” as well as his appeal to “honor” and his description of Epstein’s sexual crimes as “unbecoming.” To which Maitlis responds, incredulously, “Unbecoming? He was a sex offender.” “Yeah, I’m sorry, I’m being polite,” Andrew answers. Then there are all the little indications of the vast chasm that separates the royals from other folks: the memorable novelty of pizza in Woking, the invisibility of staff, the (alleged) allergy to public displays of affection, and so on.

Indeed, as I watched this slow train wreck, I could not help thinking that it had crossed the line into British comedy. So hilariously lame was Andrew’s performance, it reminded me of a segment from Christopher Morris’s parody newsmagazine Brasseye, in which a Naval officer at the center of a public scandal offers impossibly false and absurd answers to an interviewer’s questions (watch it here).

Not so amusing was this exchange:

Maitlis: You seem utterly convinced you’re telling the truth. Would you be willing to testify or give a statement under oath if you were asked?

Andrew: Well, I’m like everybody else, and I will have to take all the legal advice that there was before I was to do that sort of thing. But if push came to shove and the legal advice was to do so, then I would be duty bound to do so . . .

Maitlis: Virginia Roberts’ lawyers, legal team say that they’ve asked for a legal statement from you. There is an active FBI investigation. Would you be willing to provide that?

PA: Again, I’m bound by what my legal advice is . . . legal advisers tell me.

Many viewers were outraged by the fact that Andrew expressed no condemnation of Epstein, beyond describing his conduct as “unbecoming.” When asked if he regretted being friends with Epstein, Andrew said that he didn’t, as the friendship had opened a lot of doors for him. He also doesn’t regret visiting Epstein’s Palm Beach residence around four times a year – a figure which Maitlis revealed in the interview, and which Andrew claimed was perhaps a trifle exaggerated. (We suppose she is basing this on travel records – if so, then the Prince is foolish to make denials.) He is supposed to have received “massages” in Palm Beach. Maitlis points out near the end of the interview that the women Epstein abused “are now being heard.” “Quite rightly,” blurts Andrew, almost as an afterthought.

In the days following this debacle, practically every person or organization that ever had anything to do with Andrew has been scrambling to dissociate themselves from him. Just a couple of days ago, the Prince issued a statement announcing that he had asked the Queen for permission to step away from public engagements, and that she had granted it. The story that has emerged, however, is that it was she who took the initiative here, effectively “firing” Andrew from royal life (at least where public activities are concerned). Reportedly, his elder brother Prince Charles pushed for this, after watching the interview and doubtless being mortified by it. As I write this, it has just emerged that the Queen has even cancelled Andrew’s sixtieth birthday party.

The facts about Epstein are still trickling out, and the public rage directed at Andrew shows no signs of dying down. He may wind up a bigger royal black sheep than the Duke of Windsor. And if there are further revelations concerning him or other members of the Royal Family – and I think there will be – the monarchy itself could be in peril. We now know that the bedrooms at Epstein’s New Mexico ranch were fitted with hidden cameras and microphones. Did his other residences feature such optional extras? Epstein was obviously in the blackmail business. Either this was how he made his money, or he was set up in his lavish lifestyle by some sinister power that wanted the blackmail material he could provide.

Prince Andrew with some of the classy people he met through Jeffrey Epstein.

The likely culprit is Israel, seeking yet another means to manipulate the wealthy and powerful to do its bidding. Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, Robert Maxwell, a former MP, was very likely a Mossad agent. Six serving and former directors of Israeli intelligence were on hand for Maxwell’s funeral in Israel. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized him, stating, “He has done more for Israel than can today be said.” Hmmmmm. And what exactly was a pedo doing with a “girlfriend” in her fifties? My guess is that this was a professional, not a romantic, relationship.

Something seems to have tipped as of late. It’s like a thousand rocks have simultaneously been turned over. This supposedly civilized and progressive world is being ruled by sociopathic degenerates who have arrogantly supposed that they could hold onto power indefinitely and keep their crimes concealed. Everywhere they are now being exposed for what they are. Bill Clinton likely had his fingers in the same sticky pies Andrew did. Will the next revelations be about him? Ghislaine Maxwell must be sitting on a vast trove of incriminating evidence concerning many powerful men. And who killed Jeffrey Epstein? No one, and I mean no one believes that he committed suicide, which says a lot about the regard most people now have for the establishment. Did Mossad arrange his death?

All across the world, from Paris to Hong Kong, we are seeing the people rising against the corrupt elites. Further revelations coming from the Epstein affair will fuel this. And come they will.

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Alexandra O
    Posted November 25, 2019 at 8:00 am | Permalink

    The White Race definitely needs to have a lot more children, and a lot more aristocrats, but maybe not quite so inbred. Bad for the brain.

  2. Anglo Nationalist
    Posted November 25, 2019 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    Randy Andy’s appetites have been a not-so-secret secret for decades now among the British public, so it was only a question of time until all this became official. Even back in the ’80s Spitting Image did a long running series of gags based around his bedroom antics.

  3. Adrian Roberts
    Posted November 25, 2019 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    I’m not against the monarchy in principle, but the transformation of Britain into multicultural cesspit has happened on The Queen’s watch, without any apparent concern on her part. Add to that the heir apparrent being a closet Muslim, the next in line being as described above, and the less said about Prince Harry’s taste in women the better…Time for them to go.

    • Lord Shang
      Posted November 26, 2019 at 1:19 am | Permalink

      Agree 100%. Even in the 80s, I used to say, esp on a visit to England with a group, why in the hell didn’t the Queen SAY SOMETHING about what was already obviously an immigration invasion?

      The royals don’t exist for themselves, but as symbols of the continuity of their people. If they who stand above the fray will not speak openly in defense of the nation, what the hell good are they? Why are they allowed to continue living their lives of ease and privilege?

  4. Don
    Posted November 25, 2019 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Actually I kind of feel sorry for this guy. He was raised in a highly privileged protected environment in which almost every conseqential decision was either made for him or by him from rather limited options. He never really had to fend for himself, to support himself or a family. He was a privileged royal. I heard he was getting a “sovereign allowance” of $344,000 a year, which allowance has now been terminated. (Ouch!!)

    He never had a career, never a profession, never a real job. These are things that develop one’s character and one’s judgment. He never had them. Whose fault is that? He was always swept along by winds and currents over which he had little control.

    Why was a predator like Epstein allowed to run wild and damage our society? The license given to Epstein and Maxwell didn’t come from Prince Andrew. Far more worldly, far more important and powerful people than pathetic Prince Andrew are responsible for the liberties and the destruction inflicted by Epstein and his ilk. At one level, Andrew is as much a victim of Epstein as the teens who were used by both of them. A culture has a duty to protect not only its children, its teens from predators, but its adults as well.

    The culture failed Andrew more than Andrew failed the culture. However pathetic he may be, he was not responsible for the exercise of Jewish power that ultimately destroyed him and so many others.

    • James J. O'Meara
      Posted November 25, 2019 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

      Some good points, but consider this: one of the better features of the monarchy has been keeping the tradition of military service. Wikipedia says:

      “As of February 2015, he holds the rank of vice admiral in the Royal Navy, in which he served as an active-duty helicopter pilot and instructor and as the captain of a warship. He saw active service during the Falklands War, flying on multiple missions including anti-surface warfare, Exocet missile decoy, and casualty evacuation.”

      I suppose he might have been given cushier treatment than the average matey, but if this is true it sounds like more than enough character-building experience. For instance, the future Duke of Windsor seems a bit off:

      “Preparations for his future as king began in earnest. He was withdrawn from his naval course before his formal graduation, served as midshipman for three months aboard the battleship Hindustan, then immediately entered Magdalen College, Oxford, for which, in the opinion of his biographers, he was underprepared intellectually. A keen horseman, he learned how to play polo with the university club.[15] He left Oxford after eight terms, without any academic qualifications”

      Yet, in as far being “swept along,” even he had enough gumption to abdicate.

  5. Njord
    Posted November 25, 2019 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    Sure, Andrew is trying to hide something. Maybe it is just that he didn’t wish to lose the powerful connection Epstein was. Despite him being a disgusting pervert.
    Look at the evidence and there clearly isn’t enough to call him guilty yet, even given all the inconsistencies in his explanations.

    However, much more important to me, is the fact that the outrage of the Epstein case is being derailed into class war and revolt against the British monarchy. This is Marxist subversion 101. What ought to happen, is that the main stream media and everyone else should investigate the Israeli and mossad connections.
    The fact that Andrew is a pervert is so absolutely without importance compared to how much control such blackmailing operations could exert upon our elite.

    • Vauquelin
      Posted November 25, 2019 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

      I agree. When the tales of Hollywood sex abuse by fat rich Jews came to the fore, they turned it into #MeToo which changed the narrative from systemic semitic rape of young women in the entertainment industry to ALL rape committed by ALL men everywhere. It was no longer about stopping a specific trend with a specific kind of perpetrator working within a specific kind of system of abuse, but instead became an issue so universal it became impossible to tackle, causing it to inevitably peter out. Not only that, it begged the public response of “what are you gonna do? Stop all rape?” Knowing that this task is impossible one could only throw up their hands in defeat and decide that it’s just natural that rape sometimes happens. And just like that, they normalized what Weinstein did.

  6. Irena Uderska
    Posted November 26, 2019 at 6:09 am | Permalink

    I may be in a minority of one but, for the life of me, I cannot see what Prince Andrew has done wrong – even if it is morally distasteful.

    He is accused of having sex with a 17 year old but in the UK (and I am a British Subject) the age of consent is 16 years. Also the female in question was eager & willing and now, years later, when her looks & sex appeal have faded, she is bleating about how hard done by she is. A cynic might suspect a monetary motive added to a desire for media fame.

    But are these accusations even true??? Until ten years ago, when I was exiled to New York, I lived in the UK and the word on the street was that Andrew was actually gay. So who knows what the truth is???

    Also why is it that Andrew has to take all the blame and resign from public life when other Epstein groupies like the Clintons, for example, are still basking in the sun. No one has asked the Clintons and these others to resign from their patronages etc – no one has shunned them etc

    IMO the friendship between Andrew & Epstein was monetary – I go for the theory that Epstein paid Sarah Ferguson’s debts. While the pay off for Epstein was visits to Windsor Castle etc

    I am a Monarchist but the House of Windsor has failed – the Queen has permitted the declasse marriages of her grandsons, William & Harry. She has allowed Harry and his greedy grasping left wing trash wife MEgain to drag the Monarchy and the concept of the Blood Royal into the gutter and, if anyone should be removed from the Royal Family, it is these two with their incessant preaching and beyond lavish lifestyle. Also, as others have pointed out here, the Queen has failed to even lift a finger to defend her subjects against the unbridled immigration that has destroyed her realm. In fact, judging from the Queen’s Christmas Broadcasts, the impression is that she actually welcomes this multi-cultural disaster – that she is happy to preside over the destruction of the UK.

    Also the hasty way in which Andrew has been sidelined shows the hand of Prince Charles who has always wanted a streamlined Monarchy consisting of just him and his two sons – sons for whom the concept of duty is alien and who have both publicly stated that they would rather be living among the wild life in Africa and that they do not even like being Royal – though, of course, they like the perks. While Andrew’s two daughters have shown with their blue blooded marriages and their eagerness to take on patronages etc that they are truly Princesses of the Blood.

    • Njord
      Posted November 26, 2019 at 7:19 am | Permalink

      The distasteful part is, if these girls were trafficked and solicited. If Andrew partook in this knowingly he is beyond redemption. Or even if he just thought her a prostitute. If he was convinced she was there, of her own volition, I would say he is of questionable character, having sex like that with a 17 year old. If he wanted her as his wife then fine. The expectations of the aristocratic class is much greater than the rest of us, for good reasons. So even if it is legal, it is understandably not acceptable for a prince.

      However none of this has been ascertained, as you point out. Everything else you said, I wholeheartedly agree.

      We must not lose track of the real issue: Probably Sinister Blue Power blackmailing those who project our collective power. The possibility that a significant chunk of our elite might be comprised and blackmailed.

    • EpsteinObserver
      Posted November 26, 2019 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      @Irena Uderska

      He is accused of having sex with a 17 year old but in the UK (and I am a British Subject) the age of consent is 16 years. Also the female in question was eager & willing and now, years later, when her looks & sex appeal have faded, she is bleating about how hard done by she is. A cynic might suspect a monetary motive added to a desire for media fame.

      There was an accusation that Prince Andrew had an “orgy” with half a dozen teenage girls some of them younger than 16.

      Virginia Roberts did not “come forward.” She was tracked down by Jeffrey Epstein and his lawyer, threatened, tracked down by British tabloids, then ABC, then eventually told her story.

      This was a network of powerful Jews luring, enticing, and threatening young White girls. Epstein has been accused of “purchasing” a 14 year old girl from Eastern Europe and “purchasing” two 12 year old girls from Spain. That is international human trafficking. There’s obviously blackmail of powerful figures going on.

      Shifting the blame from the powerful onto white teenage girls, characterizing them as “willing” “prostitutes” “out for money” was of course Alan Dershowitz’ defense strategy. Increasingly this characterization is being promoted on various websites by “manosphere” type misogynists and right-wing Jews, the right-wing Jews invariably using stereotypes of “shiksas.”

      There is far more going on than just Prince Andrew having sex with a 17 year old.

      This case is nearly 20 years old, first exposed by Vicki Ward in Vanity Fair in 2002.

    • Stronza
      Posted November 26, 2019 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

      You aren’t too far off the mark. Anyone with 2 brains to rub together knows that royalty has been behaving this way for aeons. Take King Edward VII and his sex chair, specially designed so he could pork girls without crushing them. He was kind of fat and this contraption would supposedly protect the girls; some think that the device could somehow accommodate His Serene Majesty and 2 girls at once. Meh.,smart&width=280

      I suspect that homing in on Prince Andrew is all about deflecting attention away from that filthy rancid rednosed bastard Bill Clinton. Easier to get knickers in a twist over some prince 4,000 miles away. But no one has had any great expectations of leadership (moral or constitutional) from the British Royal fambly for some time now. If the Royal Family and/or Great Britain go down the tubes, this business with Andrew isn’t the cause, it’s only the straw that broke etc.

      This is 2019, folks. Little kids mostly boys saying they aren’t really boys at all, so the entire intelligentsia goes along with it and starts turning them into girls.

    • HungarianFashionista
      Posted November 27, 2019 at 6:10 am | Permalink

      What is your assesment of Princess Michael of Kent? Isn’t she our gal? She said the Prince Harry in Nazi costume scandal was about “the ownership structure of the press”. And “the English take the breeding of their horses and dogs more seriously than they do their children. God forbid that the wrong drop of blood should get into their labrador. But their children marry everywhere.”

      I must also admit I’m a fan of the Middleton woman. She’s hard as a nail. She wants to be queen, and in a crisis she will be the toughest defender of the monarchy against the left.

      • Gnome Chompsky
        Posted December 3, 2019 at 8:26 am | Permalink

        My impression from reading is that she is.

        Lady Renouff certainly is, she is only nobility by marriage, but has adapted well. Of course, unlike the incoherent and un-Lady-like mother of Steven Lawrence, she doesn’t have a vote in the House of Lords.

        She has done much good work, in particular in support of Irving, and also the heretical two, Simon Shepard and Luke (I forget the latter’s surname).

        She was also instrumental in keeping the site
        on-line during their inarceration. For CC readers who may never have read it, the site has much of interest.

        After a British NKVD raid, Simon and Luke crossed the Atlantic in the hope of claiming political asylum.

        Thanks to some minor procedural problem, they were both sent back to incarcation in the UK.

        Luke appears to have appeased officialdom at every step, so was soon ‘free’.

        The jerky thing here is that, while the most obscure legal arguments are applied to two white brits who are clearly fleeing serlous political oppression, it is open slather for anybody else.

        I repeat myself here, but re. andy, the pop song from Captain Sensible of the Damned is apt.

        Title is Royal Rave up.

    • Jef Costello
      Posted November 27, 2019 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

      You’ve answered your own question: If Andrew’s behavior is “morally distasteful” I take it you mean it is contrary to morality. If that is the case, then it is wrong. Immoral = wrong.

  7. Stronza
    Posted November 30, 2019 at 8:15 am | Permalink

    I don’t know how much of this article about Prince Andrew is true, but some of Taki’s opinions are worth noting.

  8. Posted December 2, 2019 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    RE: HUNGARIAN FASHIONISTA’s (love the name!!!) comments –

    I wholeheartedly agree with the opinion expressed about the absolutely splendid Princess Michael of Kent – she is indeed ‘our gal’!!! And it is entirely appropriate that she is mentioned here as she was persecuted by Robert Maxwell – Ghislaine Maxwell’s father – in the pages of his UK newspapers. Robert Maxwell hounded her remorselessly on the grounds that her father had been a member of the Nazi Party – so no one knows better than Marie Christine von Reibnitz who controls the Press.

    Incidentally IMO Prince & Princess Michael of Kent have also been badly treated by the Queen who reneged on her promise to provide them with life long rent free accommodation in Kensington Palace. The Kents are my favourite branch of the Royal Family – they have breeding & glamour and wide ranging interests & connections which probably explains why some people hate them.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace