‘Throne out’: what the papers say about Prince Andrew’s royal removal

]

The Queen’s humiliating removal of Prince Andrew from military and royal roles over his sexual assault case dominates the front pages today.

Using a photograph of a grim-looking Duke of York being driven to Windsor Castle to face his defenestration, the Telegraph headline says “Queen freezes out Andrew”.

📰The front page of tomorrow’s Daily Telegraph:

‘Queen freezes out Andrew’#TomorrowsPapersToday

Sign up for the Front Page newsletterhttps://t.co/x8AV4Oomry pic.twitter.com/TSZ2P2u3CN — The Telegraph (@Telegraph) January 13, 2022

The Mail also goes with the same haunting picture and the headline “Driven out” after the showdown meeting at Windsor Castle, and claims that it was his older brother Prince Charles “who demanded his exile over US sex case”. Prince Andrew strongly denies the assault accusations brought by Virginia Giuffre.

The Guardian says “Queen strips Andrew of military and royal roles” alongside a large picture of the prince in full military garb.

Guardian front page, Friday 14 January 2022: Queen strips Andrew of military and royal roles pic.twitter.com/yK11s9cAsC — The Guardian (@guardian) January 13, 2022

The Times goes with “Andrew humiliated as Queen strips his titles” under a picture of the prince and his mother at a state occasion in happier times.

THE TIMES: Andrew humiliated as Queen strips his titles #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/Fr7QDPOUm0 — Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) January 13, 2022

In a drama that seems tailor-made for an episode of The Crown, the Express reckons that the Queen has acted to safeguard the wider interests of the royal family. “Queen casts Andrew adrift… for sake of the monarchy”, proclaims its headline.

Tomorrow’s front page: Queen casts Andrew adrift … for sake of the monarchy#TomorrowsPapersToday https://t.co/hjyj37dyrQ pic.twitter.com/FIvnuGyAZc — Daily Express (@Daily_Express) January 13, 2022

Never ones to see the chance for a good pun wasted, the Sun’s splash head is “Throne out”, and says that the Queen’s “favourite son” is now merely a private citizen.

Tomorrow’s front page: The Queen dramatically stripped Prince Andrew of all his royal and military titles after summoning him to Windsor Castlehttps://t.co/9ebsxmSAKp pic.twitter.com/MeYNDucKAo — The Sun (@TheSun) January 13, 2022

The Metro can’t resist the play on words either …

Tomorrow’s paper tonight

THRONE OUT

🔴SEX CASE DUKE IS STRIPPED OF HRH TITLE AND ALL HIS MILITARY ROLES#TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/dzJRCDoy8A — Metro (@MetroUK) January 13, 2022

The main head in the Scotsman is “Queen strips Prince of his titles as sex case looms”, while the i has “Prince Andrew cast out by the Queen”.

SCOTSMAN: Queen strips Prince of his titles as sex case looms #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/ofvrRCQEpq — Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) January 13, 2022

The Mirror does not lead with the Andrew story, relegating it to a picture tease on the front . However, its main story does have a royal angle, claiming “No 10 ‘parties on eve of Philip funeral’” while the Queen mourned the death of her husband alone last year.

Prince Andrew’s solicitor waits for 90 minutes outside Windsor Castle amid crisis talks

]

His influence on the Duke of York is such that solicitor Gary Bloxsome is said to have found himself in an ‘inner circle of one’.

Yet few could have predicted that Prince Andrew would insist on taking Mr Bloxsome to yesterday’s summit with the Queen.

The Mail can reveal that Mr Bloxsome, 48, accompanied the prince as he was driven from his Royal Lodge property in Windsor Great Park to meet his 95-year-old mother at Windsor Castle.

Mr Bloxsome’s involvement may indicate that the prince was aware of the seriousness of the unprecedented royal clash and had been taking legal advice. Or Mr Bloxsome could have been there intending to help Andrew explain to Her Majesty the machinations of his New York sex case.

However, it is understood that he was ultimately denied entry to the castle and instead had to wait outside in the car park during the 90-minute meeting.

Gary Bloxsome, the Duke’s trusted solicitor, whose insistence on telling Prince Andrew only the best case scenario has earned him the nickname ‘Good News Gary’

Mr Bloxsome is thought to have been appointed by Andrew in January 2020 to help with the potential legal fallout from his friendship with Epstein, including any potential FBI or Scotland Yard investigation

The lawyer, of London law firm Blackfords, is reportedly nicknamed ‘Good News Gary’ by detractors because of his insistence on only presenting the prince with the best case scenario.

He is now believed to be the prince’s closest adviser after his former private secretary Amanda Thirsk agreed to quit in 2020 when Andrew was forced to step back from royal duties over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Bloxsome, 48, accompanied the prince (pictured) as he was driven from his Royal Lodge property in Windsor Great Park to meet his 95-year-old mother at Windsor Castle

He has previously represented footballers facing charges over nightclub brawls and in 2019 defended former Tory party treasurer Simon Day when he was acquitted of election fraud.

Legal biographies say Mr Bloxsome specialises in helping ‘ultra-high-net worth individuals in international jurisdictions’.

The prince is also being advised by Clare Montgomery QC, who battled to save Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet from extradition after he was accused of human rights abuses. Other clients have included Shrien Dewani, who was charged with murdering his wife in South Africa in 2010 and was later acquitted.

Last year, she represented a former paratrooper accused of murdering an IRA commander in Belfast in 1972. The veteran, known as Soldier A, walked free when the trial collapsed.

Prince Andrew’s accuser’s lawyers demand unsealing of ‘information’ about Epstein and Maxwell

]

Ghislaine Maxwell has given up on her battle to keep ‘vast swathes of information’ about her ‘sex trafficking operation’ with Jeffrey Epstein sealed after alleged victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre requested they be made public.

Attorneys for Giuffre, who has accused Prince Andrew of sexual abuse, asked Judge Loretta Preska Wednesday to unseal material from her 2015 civil lawsuit against Maxwell that includes references to eight anonymous John Does.

The individuals are identified in court documents only as ‘Non-Parties 17, 53, 54, 55, 56, 73, 93 and 151’.

It is not clear if one of them is the Duke of York. Six have objected to the unsealing.

Maxwell, who last month was found guilty of procuring girls for the late pedophile, had also previously opposed making the documents public, but now appears to have had a change of heart.

In a letter to Judge Preska Wednesday, Maxwell’s attorney Laura Menninger said her client will ’leave it to the court’ to determine whether the names should be unsealed.

‘After careful review of the detailed objections submitted by [the eight Non-Party Does], counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell writes to inform the Court that she does not wish to further address those objections,’ the letter states.

‘Each of the listed Does has counsel who have ably asserted their own respective privacy rights. Ms. Maxwell therefore leaves it to this Court to conduct the appropriate review consistent with the Order and Protocol for Unsealing Decided Motions.’

Virginia Roberts Giuffre (pictured with lawyer David Boies in 2019) has asked a judge to unseal documents referencing eight anonymous ‘John Does’ in her civil suit against Ghislaine Maxwell

Prince Andrew is seen with his arm around Virginia Roberts while Ghislaine Maxwell stands in the background, in a now infamous photo from early 2001

According to the filings, John Doe 17 is among those wishing to keep their identity under wraps, arguing that being named in the case would cause him ‘annoyance and embarrassment.’

Another John Doe, number 151, claimed that he was ’trying to live a private life’ and that disclosure meant they would be ‘hounded’ by the media.

The request to make the documents public came on the day that Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Giuffre’s battery lawsuit against Prince Andrew, a separate case also filed at the federal court in New York, can move forward.

If Judge Preska decides to unseal the documents in Giuffre’s case, they could shed new light on the Duke’s dealings with Maxwell and Epstein.

Preska is the judge who presided over a defamation lawsuit that Giuffre filed against Maxwell in 2015 for calling her a liar.

The case was settled with confidential terms but the judge has slowly been approving the release of hundreds of documents in the case after applications from media organizations.

In her letter to the judge, Giuffre’s lawyer Sigrid McCawley said that they were following the court’s instructions to ‘streamline’ the process of making the documents public.

The numerous parties mentioned in the documents met in October and agreed to split the ‘objecting non-parties into groups’ and address the objections of the John Does first.

But upon review, McCawley said it is ‘apparent that their objections essentially mirror objections to unsealing that this Court has already rejected: that unsealing certain documents might be embarrassing, would expose non-parties to media attention, and could result in some unfortunate association between the non-parties and Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.’

In a letter to Judge Preska, Maxwell’s attorney Laura Menninger said her client will leave it to the court to determine whether the motions should be unsealed

‘In the face of extensive prior briefing on objections just like these, the court’s unsealing process has been quite consistent: with the exception of a narrow set of circumstances which are generally not present here, documents have been unsealed.’

McCawley added that ‘generalized aversion to embarrassment and negativity’ from being associated with the case was not enough to keep the documents private.

That was especially true given the ‘great public interest’ and the fact that Maxwell’s trial for recruiting and trafficking underage girls has now finished - she was found guilty and faces 65 years in jail.

McCawley wrote: ‘Now that Maxwell’s criminal trial has come and gone, there is little reason to retain protection over the vast swaths of information about Epstein and Maxwell’s sex-trafficking operation that were originally filed under seal in this case.’

The letter stated that people testified in court about matters which are under seal in the case at issue, the defamation matter.

McCawley wrote that the ‘abundance of public information now widely available about Epstein and Maxwell’s scheme through the thousands of pages of publicly available trial transcripts cuts against any continued sealing in this case.’

Turning to each of the John Does, the letter states that John Doe 17 is mentioned in four documents and objects to his name being made public.

Maxwell, who is said to have been Epstein’s madam as well as his one-time girlfriend, is seen posing with the pedophile in evidence photos shown in court

Virginia Giuffre has long claimed that she was a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and in 2015 sued Maxwell for defamation for calling her a liar

McCawley wrote that his objection is that ‘if (the material) is allowed to be made public, (it) will cause them, to say the least, annoyance and embarrassment.’

It would also cause the individual ‘severe anxiety and distress,’ and ’extreme personal, physical and reputational harm.’

McCawley said that the Doe did not cite any legal authority and the documents should be unsealed.

Does 53 and 54 do not oppose unsealing so the documents relating to them should be released, the letter stated.

Does 55 and 56 object to their names being made public because they claim a deposition in which they are mentioned is ‘unreliable’, the letter states.

McCawley argued this was not grounds to keep the material private.

John Doe 73 argues against unsealing because of a ‘general aversion’ to being associated with Maxwell and Epstein and disclosure could cause ‘substantial embarrassment.’

The individuals named in the lawsuit are identified in court documents only as ‘Non-Parties 17, 53, 54, 55, 56, 73, 93 and 151’ - it is not clear if one of them is the Duke of York

Giuffre’s lawyers argue that ’there is little reason to retain protection’ over the seal documents now that Maxwell’s criminal trial is over

Doe 93 claims that documents which mention them have ’no relevance’ to the matters at hand and could be seen as ‘salacious’.

Doe 141 is mentioned the most of all and appears in 47 documents.

According to McCawley’s letter, Doe claims they are ’trying to live a private life and do not want any attention stemming from disclosure.’

They claim they will be ‘hounded and pursued but he media for comment and elaboration.’

McCawley says this is not grounds for keeping the documents sealed and notes that the material has already been widely reported in the media and part has been unsealed.

The individual’s involvement in the case had also been reported already and they have already been contacted by the media and declined to comment.

In her battery lawsuit against Andrew, Giuffre claims that she was forced to have sex with him three times when she was 17 after Epstein told her to do so.

Andrew has strongly and repeatedly denied the claims, calling them ‘baseless’ in his response and that they are designed to get a ‘payday’ from him.

Six have objected to the unsealing including John Does 17, 55, 56, 73, 93, and 151

In his ruling allowing the case to continue, Judge Kaplan rejected Andrew’s argument that a settlement Giuffre signed with Epstein in 2009 to settle a civil case against him should be grounds for dismissal.

The case now moves into the discovery phase where each side exchanges documents and depositions are taken, including that of the Duke himself.

Judge Preska has been unsealing such material in the defamation case and it gives an insight into what is in store for the Duke in the coming months.

The documents include a deposition from Giuffre and Johanna Sjoberg who claims she was in the room when Andrew groped Giuffre’s breast at Epstein’s New York mansion in 2001.

The documents have also included emails that Andrew sent to Maxwell in January 2015 after Giuffre claimed for the first time that she had had sex with him.

The Duke messaged Maxwell: ‘Let me know when we can talk. Got some specific questions to ask you about Virginia Roberts,’ referring to Giuffre’s maiden name.

Maxwell responded: ‘Have some info. Call me when you have a moment.’

Prince Andrew Can Sell Swiss Chalet After Settling $9 Million Debt as He Faces Mounting Legal Bills

]

Switzerland has been a family ski destination for Prince Andrew, Fergie and their two daughters for many years

Prince Andrew Can Sell Swiss Chalet After Settling $9 Million Debt as He Faces Mounting Legal Bills

Prince Andrew has settled debt on a ski lodge in the Swiss resort of Verbier, making it possible for him to sell the property as he faces an ongoing civil sexual assault lawsuit.

Former owner Isabelle de Rouvre sold the home to Prince Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson in 2014, but there was a dispute regarding a final payment of their share, which totaled $9 million with accrued interest. According to de Rouvre, she sold the property to the couple and made an agreement in November.

Get push notifications with news, features and more.

“The war is finished. It is the end of the matter,” she told the Daily Mail. “I have nothing to do with it now. That’s all.”

de Rouvre became friends with the royals after they repeatedly rented her chalet and decided to sell it to them rather than put it on the market, according to The Daily Mail. She took the payment issue over the seven-bedroom home to court in 2020.

the wooden chalet Helora, owned since 2014 by Britain’s Prince Andrew, Duke of York Credit: FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images

Switzerland has been a family ski destination for Prince Andrew, Fergie and their two daughters for many years, since Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie — who both welcomed babies last year — were children themselves.

Fergie recently traveled to the country with her daughters and their husbands to ring in 2022.

The Duke & Duchess Of York And Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie Attend A Photocall In Verbier, Switzerland Sarah Ferguson, Princess Eugenie, Prince Andrew and Princess Beatrice | Credit: Antony Jones/UK Press via Getty Images

Now that the debt on the $24 million ski chalet is settled, Prince Andrew, 61, may sell the property to aid in mounting legal fees. On Wednesday, a judge rejected Prince Andrew’s attempt to have a sexual assault lawsuit against him thrown out, meaning Queen Elizabeth’s son could face a trial date between September and December 2022, according to CNN.

Prince Andrew’s attorneys argued last week to dismiss Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s civil sexual assault lawsuit after it was revealed that convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein reached a $500,000 settlement with Giuffre, in which she agreed not to sue any other “potential defendant.”

In the 2009 document, which does not name Prince Andrew, Giuffre agreed to “release, acquit, satisfy and forever discharge” Epstein and “any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant.”

Lawyers for Prince Andrew said the deal means she cannot sue him, but Giuffre’s attorneys retorted that the terms of the Florida settlement are irrelevant to her case against the royal.

Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts Prince Andrew; Virginia Roberts Giuffre | Credit: Alexander Koerner/Getty; Emily Michot/Miami Herald/Tribune News Service via Getty

In the lawsuit, Giuffre says she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew three times between 1999 and 2002 in London, New York and on a private Caribbean island owned by Epstein. Andrew has denied any wrongdoing.

Prince Andrew’s Bid to Have Virginia Giuffre’s Sex Abuse Lawsuit Dismissed Is Rejected by United States

]

A United States district judge rejected a motion by Britain’s Prince Andrew on Wednesday to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre that alleges he sexually abused her when she was 17. Andrew’s lawyers argued that the suit should be thrown out because of a 2009 deal that Guiffre signed with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Judge Lewis Kaplan said the 2009 deal “cannot be seen” to benefit Andrew.

“Independent of whether the release language applies to Prince Andrew, the agreement, at a minimum, is ‘reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation’ on the equally important question of whether this defendant may invoke it,” Judge Kaplan said.

Giuffre’s 2009 deal with Epstein

In 2009, Giuffre accepted $500,000 from Jeffrey Epstein to settle a lawsuit she had filed against him in Florida. Part of that agreement extends protection to “any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant (‘Other Potential Defendants’) from all, and all manner of [claims] that said First Parties ever had… or may have, against Jeffrey Epstein, or Other Potential Defendants.”

In an effort to get Giuffre’s suit dismissed, Andrew’s lawyers argued that he was among the “Other Potential Defendants” protected under that 2009 deal, and that he should therefore be released from any claims Giuffre might make against him.

Giuffre and her lawyers argued that Andrew was not among the “Other Potential Defendants” that the deal referred to. He was not named in the Florida lawsuit, though Giuffre did allege in that suit that she was flown around the world by Epstein to have sexual encounters with men, “including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen and/or professional and personal acquaintances.”

Giuffre filed the civil suit against Andrew in New York in August, saying she was coerced into sexual encounters with him 2001 by Epstein, who killed himself in a Manhattan jail in 2019, and his companion Ghislaine Maxwell, who was herself recently convicted of sex trafficking.

This story was originally published by CBS News on Jan. 12, 2021 at 9:49 a.m. ET.

If you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted, please contact the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673) or go to rainn.org.