The Unspeakable in pursuit of the Prince

Take a look at ‘that’ photo of Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre the seventeen-year-old girl with whom he might have slept.

What do you see?

You see a handsome young man and an ecstatically glowing young woman.  The girl is grinning from cheek to cheek and looks absolutely delighted that a member of the British Royal family is with her. She is perfectly relaxed at having his arm around her bare waist and presumably likes it. If anything she looks rather keener to be in the photo than he does. He looks slightly surprised; tentative and camera shy.  They make a wonderfully attractive couple, comfortable in each other’s company.  

‘Pop over here and have a photo with Virginia,’ Perhaps that is what  Ghislaine Maxwell, standing in the back of the photo, had just said to Andrew.

‘Oh, alright then!’ says Andrew.

Maybe Virginia said. ‘Come on Andrew.  One photo before you leave. Put your arm around me so I can show my friends.’

Or maybe the photo was as is claimed doctored but that seems unlikely ?

Maybe he did have sex with her.

If he did – so what ? They were two adults.

She was seventeen. If any sleeping together was done, it would appear to have been done in New York: the age of consent in New York State is seventeen. 

What young girl of seventeen would not be happy to sleep with a handsome young prince?  She might have hoped that she could seduce him, that he would fall in love with her and she would become the next Meghan Markle – a worldwide celebrity with her fortune and fame made forever.

Sadly that was not to be.

So perhaps now instead, wanting to catch her five minutes of fame, Ms. Waters thinks she might like to make some money with her little story of sex with a prince.

Has anyone asked if she was paid by the media?  Maybe we will find that she soon has a book advance?  A little film money perhaps?

Did the BBC ever ask that question?

Subscribe To Quarterly Digital Edition

Liked this Blog ? Why not post it to a friend ?

Subscribe To Quarterly Traditional Print Magazine (delivered to your door)

33 Comments on The Unspeakable in pursuit of the Prince

  1. Come off it Catherine. As you admit, being royal gives a lothario an advantage but her age is only one factor here.
    The evidence is that Epstein was in a disreputable trade aside from his criminal conviction. Andrew should have behaved better. Paedophiles are devious but Epstein’s tastes seem to have been widely known if not condoned.

    Your other point about the low-lifes in pursuit is not relevant. The moon shines at night even if the Guardian says so.

    • Does anyone these days actually bother to understand what “paedophile” means? Or is it, like the way Leftists use “fascist,” just a catch-all term for something one doesn’t approve of?

      Whatever crimes Epstein may have committed, pedophilia doesn’t appear to be one of them. To throw around that term doesn’t help the case against him, it just sensationalizes it and displays one’s own ignorance of basic language usage.

      • I don’t know what point you are making. Obviously ‘philia’ is not appropriate for rape but words mean what people make them mean.
        Perhaps you would prefer trumps graceless phrasing – that Epstein likes his women on the young side?

        • No, words don’t “mean what people make them.” Paedophilia is, by definition, sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.

          In all the accounts of Epstein that I’ve read, the youngest age of the girls I’ve seen reference to is 14 (the age range is usually about 14-17), which would be under the age of consent in most cases, but post-pubescent and hence not paedophilia.

          Epstein may have committed any number of crimes, including statutory rape, sex-trafikking, etc., but paedophilia does not appear to be one of them.

          • You’re adhering to the medical/DSM definition I think, so I concede its current usage is incorrect assuming the law agrees – but languages evolve. We’ve had to accept disinterested, for example, as meaning uninterested. A good chunk of Shakespeare’s vocabulary has changed too – you and I might have been described as curious men 400 years ago without the present implication that we are weirdos. (‘Present’ has changed too: to attend to someone presently used to mean pronto – now it means in a while.)

        • For some reason there is no reply button available to your post below. But, you are going through a lot of tortuous nonsense to justify your misunderstanding and misuse of a word that is actually not very difficult to understand (This was also evidenced by your bizarre attempt above to make it seem as if the definition hinged on whether “philia” part of the word is “appropriate for rape”). Have a good day.

          • Dear me Dennis, you are a menace. Philia means love so is not really suitable in a compound that describes abusive assault. That’s what I meant. Humpty Dumpty was not wholly wrong in what he said about the meanings of words.
            Beware of philology Dennis. Being professor of philology may have been one factor in driving poor Nietzsche out of his mind.

  2. This is a similar kind of smear that was aimed at President Trump. It’s a coordinated attack on anyone who does not subscribe to the ‘holier than thou’ P.C. lberal-left despite their noisy demands for casual sex, abortion, approval of sexual perversions, and the consumption of illegal mind-altering drugs for themselves. We should occasionally remind these outraged hypocrites that their darling hero – President John F. Kennedy – was a vigorous womaniser and his ‘Olympic swimming capable’ brother drowned his girl-for-the-night – Mary Jo Kopechne – in his car which he ran off the bridge at Chappaquiddick.

    • With respect Derek, that the accusers are humbugs is not relevant to the moral/legal issues arising from this matter. In any case, there is a more glaring inconsistency and that is the massive attention given to Andrew but the blanket ban on reporting the far more serious and extensive abuses by gangs of Muslim men around the country.

      We judge people by the company they keep do we not?

      • She was 17. That is not a minor in either NY or Britain.
        I am sorry but lots of 17-year-old girls would have loved to have slept with a young prince.
        It’s like these girls have no sex drive, no hormones – that sex is awful only for women. That sex is somehow always awful with a handsome prince? Come off it.
        I have two teenage girls and they are raging at that age. I bet if William or Harry came along and liked them they probably would not say no.
        I do not think Andrew was even married at the time.

        People need to stop being so prudish and accept that girls and women also can willingly go to bed with people and if they are given meals and money and flights, even better.

        • I’m not intending to be prudish. We are told that exploitation was involved of young vulnerable females by older powerful men. If those allegations are ever tested in court, which seems unlikely with the principal dead, and found to be true then that would modify your view would it not? I agree the age of consent is a side issue in this case.

          I have a suspicious mind and think the worst of men in their relations with younger women based on having had to deal with two paedophiles in my professional role many years ago. They were devious and plausible and in both cases I failed to get support from my employer or the relevant government department.

          • There, Mr McManus, lies what may be fascinating tale. I hope you will enlarge on your direct experience of paedophiles at some stage. We, the general public, do not know enough about how they operate. Cases of paedophilia as reported in the MSM are so clouded by moral outrage that all finer detail is obscured.

            What did strike me about the celebrity paedophile cases of recent years is that the perpetrators, Jimmy Saville, Cyril Smith, Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall, all had big, clownish and genial personalities. Very disarming.

          • McManus is prudish and anti-rich and powerful people. Fair enough. But why are our courts not permanently trying “paedophiles” round-the-clock, sevven days a week? Well the NHS, teachers, social-workers, and suchlike are constantly encouraging girls to have sex as soon as possible (you should see the posters in secondary schools) and thousands of them become pregnant because they didn’t take the conception prevention pill, the morning-after pill (available in all good schools) or get the male to use a prophylactic (also avasilable in schools). Most abort the baby, some deliver them and are even allowed to take them to school. Who are the males impregnating them? Why aren’t the Police arresting them? Pure hypocrisy.

      • For once I tend to disagree with you Michael, invaluable though your excellent contributions invariably are. All on this site know that pedophilia means “love of children” in an unhealthy, abnormal way. But I think that it should remain restricted to those who are physically attracted to pre-pubescent children. To call Epstein a pedophile is too loose a use of the term in my view, and diminishes the danger of perverts, for that is what they are (whether they can help it or not), to small children. Being attracted to teenage girls past the age of puberty is not abnormal biologically. Teenage girls past puberty are capable of getting pregnant and having children. As it used to be said rather crudely: “old enough to bleed, old enough to butcher”. In fact, before the advent of widespread secondary education for girls it was common for teenagers to get married and start having children and families. This was true here in Asia throughout its history. It was of course partly because life expectancy in the pre-modern era was so low – an early start had to be made; choosing a teenage woman for a wife in an age when all labor was manual (so youth was at a premium) was a healthy option.
        HOWEVER (and it is a big HOWEVER), there is the crucial matter in our modern, more enlightened world of informed consent. A teenage girl may be biologically mature, but it is doubtful whether she is emotionally or cerebrally mature enough to understand that she might be being manipulated or abused or misled. And this relates to a secondary point: the gap in ages between the “victim” and the abuser. Clearly, a 16-year-old girl having sex with a 16-year-old classmate is less likely to be a case of manipulation of the girl, particularly as girls generally are more mature at that age than boys. However, older men are much more likely to be able to manipulate young teenage women, so evidence of deception or manipulation or coercion should be considered aggravating factors which vitiate any perceived or alleged consent.

        So Epstein should not be called a pedophile by the media – that should be reserved for those monsters in society who rape babies etc. who we universally condemn as beyond the Pale. Epstein was guilty of predatory and manipulative behavior, and reportedly possibly rape. Of Andrew, all we know so far is that he’s a poor liar: if you don’t sweat, you die; adrenalin makes you sweat more.
        The investigation into Epstein should also look at his financial dealings – he had far too much money for someone who knew diddly squat about finance and had no clients and whom no Wall Street investment bankers had ever heard of…

        • Thanks for this. It’s a complex business and I admit my feelings are coloured by trying to get a couple of men in their 30s thrown off a teacher-training course where there was overwhelming evidence gathered by the schools they were placed in (and their incriminating responses to interview) that they had been trying to exploit teenage girls. I agree with your bio point but although the age gap was not massive in my cases it was a sordid experience: I really felt I was in the presence of predatory evil.

  3. I must draw back somewhat on my initial comment and admit that a 17 year-old is at an impressionable age and not able to make a responsible decision and why it’s immoral to suggest lowering the voting age from an already too low 18. Wealth and power can be a corrupting force and it behoves us to be vigilant against those who would abuse it but also vigilant against those who traduce for political gain.

  4. A good rule to follow is not to defend the indefensible. Certainly don’t attempt to defend the indefensible with a long list of suppositions.

    Other VIPs, celebrities and pop stars have crashed and burned on account of their sexual behaviour, despite living in a permissive society. Back in the 1970s they might have thought that they were unassailable.

    Aside from the consequences of his association with Epstein, what is overblown is the other allegation that has been made. A prince allegedly made rude comments about Arab people! Quick! Someone declare a republic!

  5. The operative word in Ms Blaiklock’s piece is ‘consent’.

    How much free consent worth the name could these young women and teenage girls have given if they had been groomed and manipulated by Epstein?

    However, the contrast between the attention given to this by the media is stark compared to the limited coverage given by them of the activities of the grooming gangs in British cities.

    • On the last point, I thought it was curious that Corbyn mentioned the victims with such vehemence and to applause. Labour and the labour councils who ignored the rape gangs on their patches have done nothing for those victims, quite the reverse in colluding with the continued cover ups..

    • Consent means repeatedly going to someones property and having sex with them, leaving and then going back again. Repeatedly. Does this not describe the girl in question?

      • It’s more complicated than that. People who deal with abused children and women know that dependency and control can be exercised at a distance – there’s a gravitational aspect not just a mechanical one (if that makes any sense). For example, it’s not uncommon for severly beaten women to be given a place of safety and to immediately disclose it to their abuser.

    • So much pontificating and so many opinions based upon what? Based upon media reporting with little, very little real information – just words: paedophile, power, pressure by Epstein.

      I have yet to hear anything from any source which helps me understand what really happened and who is to be blamed and for what.

  6. He slept with her – so what? He is an idiot for not just admitting it – publish and be damned. We should be more concerned about the 15 year olds on the estates being made pregnant by the local Romeos. 17 year olds are yesterday’s 25 year olds.

    • Say nowt and sure enough the mob will lose interest and find something else to gawp at. The latest seems to be someone north of the border who seems to have been lifting his kilt once or twice too often.

  7. Famous men, especially film stars and rock stars, sleep with lots of young women. Lots of young women sleep with famous men. As long as they are above the age of consent this may not be morally good but it is certainly not evil and wicked. The British State is engaged in telling VERY YOUNG CHILDREN about the joys of all sorts of sexual shenanigans so quite why some people think it is dreadful that consent aged girls act on this advice is quite beyond me. Why are the likes of Mick Jagger and co tacitly admired for doing exactly the same thing that Prince Andrew MIGHT have done? I think Andrew is appalling, but not because he might or might not actually engage in sex with girls. What a strange world we live in today, sex is everywhere but to engage in it is dreadful apparently, depending on who is actually engaged in the sex it would it seem. Strange times indeed.

  8. Wow, perhaps the less said about this odious piece of drivel the better. The most relevant word you use in the whole thing is “presumably”.

    Yes, I bet Andrew was certainly camera shy, knowing the background to it that we do now.

    P.S. Has any member of the royal family ever actually broken sweat? I should have thought heads would roll if that were allowed.

  9. Richard Arnold – first off, I’m neither prudish nor anti-rich – whatever they have to do with this matter.

    I can disabuse you of one claim that our courts are not trying paedophiles round the clock. Come up and tour the Crown Courts of Yorkshire. I can’t speak for the rest of the country as IPSO has banned reporting.

    I would like to see evidence of your other claims about what teachers and nurses are up to and the posters you say exist. I won’t hold my breath. maybe you need to double your medication. I’ll have to double mine if I read any more wild claims like that.

  10. I had assumed this to be the case too (17 years, perfectly legal) if one did not also think the difference in status and obligation was also relevant.

    But not knowing the US law I’m advised (who knows) that as she was ‘groomed’ from 16 in a state Florida (Mar El Largo) that has 18 as its statutory rape guideline, then he could be questioned for sex with a minor by this state and also potentially for taking a minor across state borders for immoral purposes. I’m obviously not a US lawyer, holes will be seen, but worth considering.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


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