My thoughts?
1. Removal of the style ‘Prince’ and ejection from the Royal Lodge are more significant than at first may seem the case.
2. Giuffre is now dead. As Andrew’s only accuser, this may have brought an end to the likelihood of rekindled US criminal charges against Andrew.
3. The consequence of (2) may have been that Charles felt it was safe to remove from Andrew any and all Royal protection likely afforded by being a Prince and a resident on Crown lands.
4. Andrew Lownie’s book outlines all the ways that Andrew made money when he had no substantial regular income. It may be seedy. But, it is not the primary reason for Andrew’s further fall.
5. The latter is due to the devastating revelations in Giuffre’s posthumous memoir, and to the new information that Andrew remained in touch with Epstein.
6. I spent time in rehab (I am a recovering alcoholic — 31 years clean and sober) with folk who were horribly abused. We learned for the first time in Giuffre’s book the full extent to which she was sexually abused in childhood. It never stopped. Epstein and Andrew were merely the latest episodes.
7. Abuse and abandonment create an emotional void. Different people fill it in different ways. Vulnerable people fill it with an almost uncontrollable urge to be with people who ‘love’ them with further abuse, since it is all they can understand.
8. Epstein (poor family background; insecure) and Andrew (second Royal son, forever invisible) were, in their way, also abandoned (but not abused like Giuffre). Epstein defended himself with his intelligence. Andrew, with his Royal background. Andrew experienced the sort of endemic entitled and deviant sex that is often found in the British upper classes. Epstein met Ghislaine Maxwell through her father, Robert, British billionaire and arms dealer (for whom Hugh Simmonds, the subject of my book “Maggie’s Hammer,” laundered arms profits and kickbacks — maggieshammer.org), in the Eighties, in London. Ghislaine was close to Andrew, and this is how the three met.
9. It is my view that Andrew introduced Epstein to his sexual tastes, not the other way round.
10. There was no blackmail. Epstein and Andrew had, in their separate ways, responded to the emotional void in their lives with a development of sociopathy, which found them willing partners in abusing already-obvious victim-types (like Giuffre).
11. This shared sociopathy found expression also in shared business interests. Andrew needed money. According to Lownie, at least £4 million a year. Epstein wanted acceptance in the company of a Royal. A Royal who was also an official trade representative for a country the main international trade of which was arms sales. In which Epstein had become involved in the Eighties, in London (https://tinyurl.com/594m94z2). It is my opinion that, as repugnant as is and was their shared sexual deviance, more significant were their shared business and financial undertakings — pursued with the same secrecy and sociopathy as their sexual exploits.
12. Bottom line? Andrew is not a news distraction. He and Epstein are emblematic of a sociopathy, born of emotional distress, that they used to break vulnerable people and wide-open societies. They are not to be pitied. And my take is that Charles has acted the way that he has because he feels the same way.
Facebook version and comments here.
Maggie's Hammer 
Leave a comment