Prince Andrew’s ‘MeToo’ Accuser
A judge has given the green light to a lawsuit by an American woman who says Prince Andrew sexually abused her when she was 17. …
U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan rejected an argument by Andrew’s lawyers that Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit should be thrown out at an early stage because of an old legal settlement she had with Jeffrey Epstein, the financier she claims set up sexual encounters with the prince.
(Associated Press, January 12, 2022)
The BBC reports this ruling shocked Andrew’s lawyers. It shouldn’t have. After all, even I telegraphed this outcome. The queen should have ordered Andrew to settle this case from the onset.
I recommended a timely settlement. That would have spared the royal family all the reputational damage it has suffered.
Of course, the queen ordered Charles and Diana to divorce to limit similar damage. Yet she ignored the precedent that scandal set. As a result, the damage continues.
But the court’s dismissal of Andrew’s short-sighted defense was all too predictable. It reeked of Clintonian evasion. “I did not have sex with that woman, [Ms. Giuffre].” Ha!
Reputational and Financial Consequences
This ruling will now make settling a lot more challenging and costly. After all, Andrew has belittled her claims and damaged her reputation. Thus, Giuffre may now believe only a legal verdict can repair the damage.
Moreover, her lawyers know Buckingham Palace will soon order Andrew to settle. And he will do so, at any cost necessary.
The Palace has a “full line-up of celebrations to mark the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee this year.” And the Palace will be anxious to avoid this case raining on her jubilee.
Indeed, Andrew has finally found a sucker, er, buyer for his $22 million Swiss chalet. The queen should confiscate that entire amount.
Because, to induce Giuffre to settle, she might have to dip into the royal coffers for many millions more. For it’s bound to take a queen’s ransom and a groveling (public) apology to do so…
Recall how Andrew mooted his defense during his car-crash BBC interview. He insisted he didn’t do it because he has a condition that prevents him from sweating.
Well, this court ruling might’ve acted as a miracle cure. Because, upon hearing it, I’m sure he began sweating bullets.
Legacy Note: With over 5,600 posts spanning 20 years, I am easily the most prolific blogger on the most eclectic array of topics on the web. That makes The iPINIONS Journal an unparalleled archive of informed political and cultural commentary. Visit the ARCHIVES section in the sidebar or search by topic. You won’t find a more consistent, independent voice on world affairs.