Categories: EDITORIAL

Money and language

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.


His Royal Highness The Duke of York


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:


    View Comments

      • And prince Andrew remind me of Clinton. I did not have sexual relations with this woman. [EDITED FOR LEGAL REASONS].

        • In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king is the thinking mode of the rich and powerful. We the common people are ignorant idiots........

    • A well written article that puts this matter into perspective Matthew. I couldn't agree more.

    • Good article but journalism is missing the point here.. Why do the Royals continuously accept money//freebies from all their rich/billionaire friends, they all (minus the queen) accept any lovely freebies thrown their way, the rich love to be associated with the Royals (why I have no idea) so all they do is lend them their homes/private jets/money and the Royals always accept, how on earth can Fergie accept £15k from the billionaire friend of Andrews/now pedophile, is Andrew so shamefully 'not a gent' that he accepts his friends giving his ex wife money, shame on him, Andrew I am afraid deserves all of this, he has been living a life off his rich friends and associating with some very dodgy people who are these rich people, what goes around come around, personally the Royals are outdated, I think we should stop fawning over this spoilt family and see what sadly most people don't see.

    • And I forgot to mention his house in Sunningdale, yet another [EDITED FOR LEGAL REASONS] deal done by Andrew with his mega rich Kazakhstan friends, it goes on and on and on.....

    • Yes. Prince Andrew is the victim here. He's the victim of his own decision making.

      I mean what was he thinking? Who in their right minds has friends like Jeffrey Epstein, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kaituni?

      Andrew has had friendships with bad, corrupt and evil men, not only in America but in Libya, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,Tunisia, wherever.

      Lets not mention that Saudi arms deal or Enviro Pacific Investments! No sir.

      This man is a fool of epic proportion. He redefines stupid, selfish and short sighted. His bumbling foolishness belies the fact that he's the patron of the Fight for Sight charity.

      Without his ridiculous royal status I doubt that Andrew would ever have flown a helicopter nor would he have been allowed to frighten the life out of every member of the crew aboard as Commander of HMS Whatever ship.

      Imagine, the Duke of Pork in charge of a man-o-war... no don't.

      Whilst I take your point re the dramatic use of language (in the tabloids) this rampant royal deserves all that's coming to him. If the girl wishes to 'write' her book then so be it. It's her story after all. She wouldn't be the first to put pen to paper and she won't be the last. Go for it I say.

      (I wish she'd asked me to ghost write it.)

      I agree with Anna and I also think that Hannah has made a good point re Monica Lewinsky.

      I have never forgotten the time that poor Monica gal burst into tears during her book launch at Harrods. I was there. My colleagues kept shouting rude things at her and making crude gestures instead of asking her pertinent and relevant questions.

      They insulted and humiliated her and eventually she ran from the room in floods of tears. I was ashamed of them.

      I've never forgotten that day and I don't suppose Monica has either. Shame on you Fleet Street.

      • Matthew hasn't suggested Prince Andrew IS a victim but your account of Monica Lewinsky did fascinate me given I met her at Heather Kerzner's Masterpiece party. I found Monica to be charming and intelligent and I told her that I wished her happiness and prosperity. Her stance last year was just what was required and yet again I salute her. Mrs Roberts would do well to follow her approach. Her father has put his foot in it but I bet that is, as Matthew points out, down to some foolish advisor who is after nothing but making cash out of her plight.

          • Michael Lohan shares part of the blame, the Hollywood producers and directors took the best part of the cake.

        • Will you please stop your tedious name dropping and cloying sycophancy. I am sure that we are all frightfully impressed that you know one of Sol's many ex's and equally that Monica was frightfully pleased to have your benediction. God, you sound an self obsessed bore.
          As for P. Andrew....anyone who is a friend of Ghislaine Maxwell deserves all he gets.

        • Fiona- Monica Lewinsky was a adult and had a good rounded education, when the Clinton Scandal broke. Monica had adequate coping and problem solving mechanisms and support systems. Roberts was a teenager lacking life skills, it is rather more complicated for Roberts to follow Monica's approach.

    • Prince Andrew should be ashamed not because of these allegations but instead due to having shown a lack of support for the Find Madeleine campaign. His might would have helped dear Gerry and Kate McCann in their quest to find their beloved daughter Madeleine. Instead he parades around with a convicted paedophile. He should redeem himself by supporting and donating time and money to Find Madeleine.

    • Miss Roberts is typical of her breed. This piece of "poor white trash" will go the same way as the Monicas: Coghlan and Lewinsky.

      • Smearing the alleged victims of child sexaul exploitation does not white wash the predators. A sexually exploited young person becomes a problematic adult. Low self esteem and no self worth coupled with bottled up anger makes them extremely difficult and sometimes they will stir up shit. What do they have to lose, they have no honour or reputation to defend.

      • Is Bob suggesting that poor white girls are a iinferior breed due to the lack of material wealth and prone to promiscuity due to inferior genes. I hope he is not in a advisory capacity, but he could be in public relations. (Spin)

        • Could not agree more. The girl was maniulated by the rich and powerful. She deserves her day in court. Extraordinary that Prince A and M. Thatcher were both the favourite sons...

      • She's certainly getting plenty of attention and her claims are getting far more publicity than the other young women in the lawsuit who said it never happened.

        Ultimately since there seems to be no proof of her claims, unless he has a clear alibi it's her word against his - and only one of them has a book deal...

        • Come and knock on our door, three can be company too, we have Epstein, Maxwell, and Disney's Prince charming, but the proof is still not in the pudding. They were all playing silly buggers.....

          • They were indeed playing silly buggers, however I do feel that one should be careful of accusing and condemning someone in the absence of proof. A shame to attribute guilt on the basis of media coverage - and this sadly does happen.

    • Prince Andrew is an embarrassment for the British Royal Family. I feel sorry for the Queen and Prince Philip. They should have reined on Andrew;s reckless behavior from early on.

  • This website uses cookies.