In spite of all honourable commentators stating innocent until proven guilty they have unanimously condemned him

What did Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor also often referred to as Randy Andy do wrong?

"This article questions whether Prince Andrew's public dismantling has been driven more by media narrative than by proven fact."

Was Andrew's downfall justice or theatre? A reckoning, or a royal sacrifice to modern virtue?"

According to many reports we have seen he is accused of having been a friend of Jeffrey Epstein, a man who had been convicted of abusing under-age girls, who had admitted guilt and while serving sentence committed suicide.

Epstein is by no means a man with reputable character. It was reported that he organised trips for wealthy friends to his retreat in the Caribbean and that one of those friends was "Prince" Andrew who as from now will be named Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor.

There is also a photograph of Andrew with his arm round a woman called Virginia Giuffre and Andy claims to have no recollection either of her, or logically this meeting and resulting Photo.

Is he telling the truth? Who are we to judge. Incidentally going by the photo, Virginia, who has stated she is in the picture, doesn't look too unhappy.

Our opinion on the photo? The position and angle of the "Andy's" hand looks wrong. He would have to have the arm of an Orang-utan to have held her like that. Andy says it is the photo of photo of a photo and therefore impossible to prove it is a fake.

It should be remembered too that collective punishment or guilt by association is legally not admissible in most democratic judiciaries.

Andy allowed himself to be interviewed by BBC's Emily Maitlis. Now if that wasn't a mistake?

The press claim the interview was a catastrophe for him. Why? He refuted any claim of wrong doing. What more could one expect. But he did state that he had broken off any contact with Jeffry which it is now claimed is not the case.

It is always assumed, that people keep a meticulous diary of their whereabouts and even when they called somebody and what exactly was said. So Andrew needs to be forgiven for not knowing many details.

I haven't a clue where I was or what I said on a specific day in 2010. Why should Andy who has a lot more going on be damned to knowing exactly what was going on, on what date or time?

According to Wikipedia Epstein cultivated an elite social circle and procured many women and children whom he and his associates sexually abused.

No matter it seems that Andy, like many other well known politicians and personalities, who we wish to refrain from naming, took part in Jeffry Epstein's parties, some of which involved flying on private aircraft to an island in the Caribbean.

Were they all with him with the intention of mis-using underage girls? Hardly.

One side note, Woody Allen and his wife evidently often had dinner at Epstein's flat in New York and found him a charming host. Never any signs of evil intentions.

He did plead guilty to procuring a child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court.

He served almost 13 months in custody.

Virgina Giuffre, was according to her own accounts seventeen years old. So hold on.

Andy is a British citizen (I am not sure if princes are citizens) and the age of consent is clearly defined. Whether prince or not you can sleep with a seventeen year old as long as she (or possibly he) consents.

What's the problem?

Of course the people on the woke side of politics might claim that sleeping with anybody not your own age is immoral.

Just a resumé of what the BBC - who is duty bound to remain unbiased - have published this evening. (30.10.2025)

January 2025: In his Newsnight interview, Andrew said he had severed all links with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein after they were pictured together in New York in December 2010. But in January 2025, emails emerged that appeared to show contact beyond this point. One sent in February 2011, believed to be from Prince Andrew to Epstein, said: "Keep in close touch and we'll play some more soon!!!!"

October 2025: The February 2011 email to Epstein re-emerges, with the Mail on Sunday saying it was from Andrew and printing more details. "It would seem we are in this together and will have to rise above it," the prince reportedly wrote.

October 2025: Andrew voluntarily gave up most of his titles. He remained a prince but would no longer use the Duke of York title

October 2025: Virginia Giuffre's posthumous memoir is published with further details of her allegations against Prince Andrew - including that they had sex on three separate occasions when she was a teenager. He denies all the claims.

So Virginias Posthumous memoirs are above scrutiny? Where the hell are we?

It seems that willingly or unwillingly we are duty bound to follow the accusations of a person who had worked for Jeffry Epstein as a masseuse. Giuffre claims to have been coerced into this role and probably now she has died never provable.

Add to this the voice messages from her brother, dripping in remorse. Possibly laughing all the way to the bank where 12 million are waiting to be spent.

But for some reason Charles III has decided enough is enough and presumably like his mother, who did nothing more than preserving the status quo (defending herself and the monarchy for 70 odd years), will be doing his utmost not to rock the Royal Yacht.

The press now, lead by the BBC, are running around drumming up stories as to why the King suddenly decided to remove Andrew's titles.

Friends tell us they believe more sordid details are on the way and that the King wanted to preempt them.

It could be of course that TTK (aka Sir Keir Starmer, PM of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) was planning to take action. He has now stated that there are no plans to enact a change to Royal lineage but who knows? After all TTK has an extremely dubious background as a possible ultra left-winger.

Various websites including: https://ayetv.substack.com/p/keir-starmer-declassified claim that "at the height of the Cold War he edited a Trotskyite magazine and spent a summer at a Czechoslovakian work camp. Starmer was on the other side in the Cold War. He wanted the communists to win".

Trotsky followers would not be known for being royalists.