Money for old rape

Well, perhaps not any old rape but just the statutory variety. You know, when it’s all consensual, but one participant is below the age of consent. Let’s call it sexual assault, to be on the safe side – even if there was no violence involved.

That’s what the lawyers acting for Virginia Giuffre, née Roberts, called it. They brought a civil case, which the defendant, Prince Andrew, has just settled for something like £12 million.

Before we go on, let’s get one stipulation out of the way. Prince Andrew is a louche, not particularly bright man covered head to toe with Jeffrey Epstein’s sleaze, plus some of his own. His close friendship with the likes of Jeffrey and Ghislaine is in itself enough to drum him out of the royal family even if he kept his mitts off Virginia’s body.

Yet he wasn’t charged with befriending wrong people for wrong reasons. He was charged with sexual assault, albeit only in the civil courts. And my contention is that, had the case gone to trial, Andrew’s legal team would have walked it.

One fact currently in the public domain is that young Virginia was, not to cut too fine a point, a prostitute. This precise, stylistically neutral term describes a woman who exchanges sex for payment. I could also think of a few words that are less stylistically neutral, but the gentleman in me won’t allow it.

At the time in question, she was flown by private jet from one mansion to another to have sex with Jeffrey, his guests, possibly Ghislaine and, for all I know, household pets. The jets, mansions, clothes, expensive food and drink, possibly jewellery, probably cash were payments for the sexual services rendered.

Andrew was allegedly one guest entertained by Virginia, and she says Epstein ordered her to make herself available. As someone who strives to use words precisely, I’d like to offer a row of verbs all describing encouragement to action in an ascending sequence of imperativeness: suggest, ask, request, demand, order.

One word, order, stands out of this row. A suggestion may be ignored, a request denied, a demand resisted, but an order must be obeyed on pain of punishment. Whoever issues one must be in a position of institutional authority that enables him to enforce the order and punish non-compliance.

So what would have happened had young Virginia told Jeffrey, in what was probably her natural idiom, to stick his order where the sun don’t shine? How could he enforce and punish?

Virginia wasn’t a soldier who could be tried by military tribunal and shot before the ranks. The only punishment she could have suffered was dismissal from her job as prostitute in Epstein’s employ. She could have been held in breach of an unwritten contract she had entered of her own free will.

Since there was no coercion involved, the only thing that could be held against Andrew is that our daisy-fresh Virginia was at the time a few months short of the age of consent, 18 at that time and in that place.

Thus having sex with her was then against the law. However, that law was manifestly unjust – witness the fact that it was changed soon thereafter. And, as the Romans used to say, “lex iniusta non est lex”, an unjust law is no law.

Only 17 per cent of American girls bring an intact hymen to their eighteenth birthday, which isn’t surprising, considering they (and their British counterparts) have been educated since infancy in contraceptive techniques and sexual ballistics. Let’s put it this way: because sex has lost a moral dimension, Virginia and her coevals couldn’t be confused with Jane Austen’s debutantes.

But did Andrew actually defile young Virginia? Her word apart, the only piece of hard evidence is that notorious photograph, which proves that Andrew did know Virginia, though not necessarily carnally.

Andrew, on the other hand, denies having known her, carnally or otherwise, and claims the photo is a fake. Anyone familiar with Photoshop will know that faking an image in that fashion is a matter of minutes, so the claim is plausible.

However, when the photo first began to make the rounds in 2015, Andrew asked Ghislaine what she thought of it. In response, she sent him an e-mail, saying: “It looks real. I think it is.”

“Looks”? “Think”? Hardly a statement of certainty, is it? If I were Virginia’s solicitor, I’d be much happier with something like “Of course it’s real, don’t you remember, Andy? It was taken just after you bonked her the first time.”

One way to prove the photograph is genuine would be to present the original. However, Virginia claimed she had lost it, and I can’t help thinking that this piece of evidence lacks the strength to convince or convict.

The case against the Duke of York looks so weak that one may wonder why he chose to settle it, rather than going to trial, as was his stated intention. The answer seems obvious.

Dragging the case through public hearings would expose the royal family to even more humiliation than it has suffered already. The rumour has it that Prince Charles leaned on his wayward younger brother to settle, and this rings true. The Queen didn’t want this sleaze to rub off on her Jubilee, and she was understandably eager to draw the line under the whole sordid affair.

As it is, republican noises are getting louder, and I’m worried about the future of our monarchy. Those who think Britain could walk away from it whistling a merry tune are ignorant of the catastrophic constitutional implications.

The monarch is the ganglion on which every constitutional synapse of Britain converges. Tony Blair couldn’t even get rid of the post of Lord Chancellor, hard as he tried. He found, against his subversive instincts, that our ancient constitution would have become well-nigh inoperable as a result.

Removing the monarch would destroy every fibre of Britain’s body politic, which is another way of saying Britain would no longer be British. That’s why Andrew, Harry and all other culprits who jeopardise the dignity and grandeur of our central institution deserve whatever punishment they suffer.

If Andrew lives out his life penniless and friendless, I won’t shed a tear. But that doesn’t make him guilty of sexual assault any more than it makes Virginia the innocent victim of it. That £12 million is payment in the form of pay-off, and its size only means she is a great success in her chosen occupation.  

9 thoughts on “Money for old rape”

  1. Can we please just have a popular uprising to make Princess Anne the next monarch? None of the other adult royals is even tolerable, and their children and grandchildren have presumably been thoroughly indoctrinated in idiocy. But Princess Anne’s children may have been indoctrinated in the common sense she inherited from her magnificent father. She could found a glorious dynasty!

      1. I had that article in mind when replying to today’s article. I remember rejoicing in the discovery that I wasn’t the UK’s only advocate of Queen Anne II.

        1. Here’s a conspiracy theory, before I go and listen to you talking to Knowland: Charles wants to take his money and his noblesse off to the principate of Davos, and Andrew is the petrol to burn the old place down. Why is A’s the only photo from the vast Epstein archive to see light of day?

    1. Hear, hear! The most professional and low profile of them all. Charles and William will be the end of the monarchy as they become just more woke scolds.

  2. Another win for the Metoo movement. No fan of Andrew but feel he is the sacrificial lamb here, and i have questions ; where were her parents in all this as she jet-setted around the globe? Why wait so long to complain? She certainly doesn’t look under duress in the photo, and given the amount of people the royals meet yearly Andrew may well not remember her. I read somewhere that she actually bragged about bedding the Prince, poor abused thing! Slick Willy Clinton slithers out of trouble yet again.

  3. How was I to know she was thirteen. She looked to be about fourteen. Ghislaine and Jeffrey asssured me about all this. Go ask him.

  4. I’m trying to remember any incident from 21 years ago that could serve as my path forward to such a lucrative lawsuit. I’ve got nothing.

    With royals marrying commoners for the sake of “love”, instead of marrying according to their station and for the good of the country and the crown, I fear the monarchy will not last two more generations. One of these woke idiots will declare that monarchy violates basic human rights (what right has one animal to rule over another?) and dissolve it. No outside interference will be required. Perhaps Prince Charles will abdicate in favor of Gaia and there the line of succession will end.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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