‘Inconsistencies’ in Prince Andrew’s story, royal aides admit
‘Doubts’ about Prince Andrew’s account of his dealings with Virginia Giuffre as it’s revealed his legal bills are being underwritten by the Queen.
Aides to the British royal family believe there are “inconsistencies” in Prince Andrew’s account of his dealings with Virginia Giuffre, who has accused him in a US lawsuit of underage rape, as it emerged that his legal bills are being underwritten by Queen Elizabeth.
Lawyers for Prince Andrew are desperate to prevent the case from going to trial in America because they fear jurors may not believe him over an alleged victim of sexual abuse.
Although the prince strenuously denies Giuffre’s claims, palace insiders believe there are “credibility” problems with his version of events.
Andrew, 61, has said he has “no recollection” of meeting Giuffre, despite the existence of a photograph that shows him smiling with his arm around her waist.
Giuffre, who was previously known by her maiden name, Roberts, filed a civil lawsuit in New York last week, accusing the prince of abusing her on three occasions in 2001 when she was 17, including an assault at the London home of the British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell.
Giuffre alleges that the duke knew at the time that she was a minor under US law and had been trafficked for sex by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile financier and former friend of Andrew, who died in jail two years ago. Maxwell, who is facing separate child sex trafficking charges in New York, denies wrongdoing.
Giuffre, now 38, is suing the prince for “punitive damages”, which could amount to millions of pounds if she wins her case. She has requested a jury trial.
Andrew’s defence is understood to be funded by payments he receives from his mother’s private Duchy of Lancaster estate after he was forced to step down from his royal duties and stopped receiving British taxpayers’ money.
His supporters point out that Giuffre’s story has changed and that in an interview with a British newspaper in 2011 she never accused the prince of rape or sexual assault.
“However, there are inconsistencies in his own account and in the credibility of his own account,” a royal source said. “If it goes to trial in the MeToo era, it’s going to be challenging to swing a jury behind the duke.”
Giuffre alleges in her lawsuit that she was first made to “have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew against her will” on March 10, 2001 at Maxwell’s mews home near Knightsbridge.
The duke is accused of later abusing her at Epstein’s New York mansion and on the financier’s private island in the Caribbean.
In a disastrous interview with BBC Newsnight in 2019, Andrew denied that anything untoward had happened in London. He sought to use a trip to Pizza Express in Woking as his alibi.
However, an analysis of the day’s events does not rule out the possibility of the prince meeting Giuffre in the evening, when the infamous image of Andrew and the teenager is said to have been taken. Friends of the duke have questioned the authenticity of the photograph, but no evidence has been produced to prove it is a fake.
A source close to the royal household said: “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.”
The duke’s solicitor is Gary Bloxsome, a partner at Blackfords law firm. He also retains Clare Montgomery, a QC at Matrix, the chambers co-founded by Cherie Blair.
Bloxsome is said to have advised Andrew to remain silent on the lawsuit and failed to respond to Giuffre’s lawyers when they wrote to the duke last month threatening legal action.
Andrew’s legal team may now attempt to get the case thrown out, arguing that the New York court has no jurisdiction in the UK.
Spokeswomen for the duke and the Queen declined to comment.
THE SUNDAY TIMES
