ROYAL aides are said to fear “inconsistencies” and “credibility problems” in Prince Andrew’s version of events after a US lawsuit saw him accused of sexually abusing a teenager who says she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein.
Virginia Giuffre brought the lawsuit against the Duke of York, who has strenuously denied all the claims made against him, saying he has “no recollection” of meeting her.
A picture shows the two together with his arm around her waist – though friends of Prince Andrew have questioned whether it is real.
Now, the fears of royal aides have been revealed by The Times amid the civil lawsuit.
Prince Andrew’s camp have noted that Giuffre’s story changed over time, having not accused the Earl of Inverness of sexual assault in a 2011 newspaper interview.
READ MORE: Analysis: Taxpayer-funded royals retreat to Balmoral amid Prince Andrew lawsuit
A royal source told The Times: “However, there are inconsistencies in his own account and in the credibility of his own account.
“If it goes to trial in the MeToo era, it’s going to be challenging to swing a jury behind the duke.”
The paper also cited a "royal household" source as saying: “No one at the palace knows what to believe about what Prince Andrew is telling them. Some of it doesn’t stack up. The basic problem is that he’s a massive embarrassment, but you can’t sack him. There are also questions over some of the legal advice he has been getting.”
READ MORE: Prince Andrew scandal may finally destroy the Windsors
The legal action initiated by Giuffre accuses the prince of rape, sexual battery and sexual abuse.
She accuses Prince Andrew of abusing her at Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell's home near Knightsbridge, at Epstein's mansion in New York and on his private island.
She claims to have been trafficked to England by the prince’s former friend Jeffrey Epstein, who was found dead in a US prison after his arrest for sex crimes.
Andrew claims to have taken a young Princess Beatrice to a birthday party at Pizza Express in Woking at the time Giuffre alleges the acts were committed in 2001.
He also said he had been temporarily unable to sweat as a result of “an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War” when he was shot at. It came after Giuffre described him as having been “profusely sweating”.
The remarks came in a BBC interview with Emily Maitlis.
Professor Adam Taylor, director of the Clinical Anatomy Learning Centre at Lancaster University, has stated that “an excess or continual exposure to adrenaline is not widely recognised as causing a lack of sweating in humans” but that data on horses suggests exposure to extreme temperatures may damage the sweat glands that respond to adrenaline.
While Giuffre’s case is a civil lawsuit, it emerged this week that the claims against Andrew are the subject of a review by the Metropolitan Police.
Its head, Dame Cressida Dick, has said “no-one is above the law” and Scotland Yard has confirmed that it is “reviewing a document released in August 2021 as part of a US civil action”.
Giuffre’s lawyers say the duke’s team is “stonewalling” them.
Her lawyer David Boies has confirmed that Andrew is expected to be served court papers in person. He told the Telegraph: “We present him with a copy of the complaint in a formal way.
“Because he is a foreign citizen, we have to do this under the Hague Convention.”
In an interview with Channel 4 News, the lawyer added of the duke's team: “They have just totally stonewalled.
“They have refused to provide any explanation; they refuse to engage in any discussions.”
An initial court hearing has been scheduled for September 13 by Manhattan federal court judge Lewis Kaplan.
It’s unclear exactly what Andrew is worth, but estimates have put that at a taxpayer-funded £32.5m, and if he is eventually required to make a payment to Giuffre as a result of her claim, it’ll come at least in part from cash paid as part of the Sovereign Grant.
It’s understood that he’s no longer receiving the £250,000-a-year that grant used to bring him, after stepping down from royal duties, but it’s said that he is being supported by the Queen through income from her private Duchy of Lancaster estate.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel