Matthew Steeples suggests that the true root of ‘Andrew-gate’ is money and language
Though I think it best to leave the Mail Online and others to rake over the allegations of what Prince Andrew may or may not have got up to with Virginia Roberts, I do believe this case has two simple roots that deserve to be discussed: The first is money and the second is the interpretation of the English language.
Miss Roberts, in documents lodged with a Florida court by her legal advisors, has been portrayed as a “sex slave” (despite admitting never to have actually been held prisoner) whilst the crooked tycoon Robert “Bouncing Bob” Maxwell’s daughter, Ghislaine, has been termed a “madame” and “primary co-conspirator in [Epstein’s] sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme”. This fruity language set the stage for what is yet to come and that this was submitted at a time when there was so little other news was plainly orchestrated for maximum effect.
Prince Andrew’s statements thus far, equally, have been telling and his three denials have gradually risen the stakes in terms of their wording. From a simple: “We would not comment on the detail” last Friday to the Palace’s: “It is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts” on Saturday evening, the shift in emphasis has been telling.
Miss Roberts, whether a “sex slave” or not – it unsurprisingly turns out – is writing a “tell-all” book about her time “working” for Jeffrey Epstein and now, in the fashion of Bienvenida Buck, those around her have guaranteed maximum returns from it. The acres of publicity her story has already generated will reel in the cash and the returns she and her new puppet masters – her publishers and agents – will generate will undoubtedly be significant. They, in fact, it could be argued, will turn out to be her true abusers.
That Roberts’ father put out a statement suggesting that his daughter met the Queen in London was a sure sign that this family are indeed being exploited. Behind the scenes, some Max Clifford-like figure must have thought: “Let’s drop someone a bit more senior into this to spice things up” but given this joke of a bombshell was so quickly exposed, the Palace scored its first PR victory in this tawdry tale. Mr Roberts’ retraction, itself, spoke volumes:
“I want to clear up that many years ago Virginia stated to me she was to meet the Queen’s son Prince Andrew and not the Queen herself. I’m sorry for any misunderstanding”.
Money may be the guiding force behind why this case has been brought but interpretation of the meanings of elements of the English language will certainly be what decides how it actually plays out.
Subscribe to our free once daily email newsletter here:[wysija_form id=”1″]