The More I See of People The More I Love My Cat - If She Attacks Me I Deserved it

"Off with his head!" (The Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland)

When Prince William married Catherine Middleton in 2011 I was living in the USA. I had several interesting conversations with people at the time, once being asked if I had an invitation to the wedding and the other, more lengthy, where an elderly woman insisted that the wedding marked the beginning of Prince Charles being ousted from the Royal Family, and that the Late Queen had plans in place to abdicate and place Prince William on the throne now he had a wife. She had full control of her faculties, and was not delusional in any way but she insisted that she was correct and that I was stupid for not knowing this, especially as a Brit. I asked how she knew this and she told me that she read it somewhere. I mention this anecdote only to demonstrate that there are people the world over who think they know the most intimate details of the lives of British royalty, but in truth we know little to nothing.

Social media has been in superdrive ever since the book by Virginia Guiffre was published last week, culminating in the stripping and banishment of the late Queen’s second son, Andrew.

Tabloids have been screaming for ‘something to be done’ about him for a long time, and the King finally bowed to pressure, earlier this week stripping him of all his titles, including his birthright ‘Prince’ and evicting him from the Royal Lodge where he has lived for the last 20 years – and still the public demand more, bemoaning the fact that he will be looked after financially by his older brother. ‘It’s OUR money’, they shriek (it’s not) and ‘living in a mansion is no punishment’, they moan (wealth is relative). What exactly do they think he should be punished for?

He has been neither charged nor convicted of nothing. While clearly guilty of a number of poor decisions, and perhaps character flaws – only a tiny proportion of those commenting have ever met him, so what do they know? – none of those things are crimes.

The most chilling thing I have read so far is part of the statement from Their Majesties:

‘These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.’

So, even Princes must admit guilt on the say-so of others? The concept of ‘innocent until PROVEN guilty is truly, completely and frighteningly out of the British judicial window. Trial by media and trial by family set on maintaining a public image is fully in place it would seem. The screechings of the media, anti-royalists and the public at large have become risible, if they did not have such serious consequences, and some of them will, I fear, not be what the King envisages.

The details of the accusations are immaterial at this stage and the minutae of the nonsense now being published and even now growing in absurdity is worthy of nothing but contempt, but several facts deserve to be stated and restated often and with emphasis, lest they are further lost in the midst of hysteria.

The FBI investigation into Andrew’s involvement with Jeffrey Epstein was dropped earlier this year, finding that there was no evidence to warrant an investigation into ‘uncharged third parties’. Further, it appears that Pam Bondi, the US Attorney General, lied about the existence of a list of names, citing ‘misunderstandings’ about what she was actually talking about. Much was made of Andrew’s apparent refusal to co-operate with the FBI in 2020, but he had every right not to, and moreover, claimed/s that he never received a request to do so from them. So many lies and so few consequences. Whom to believe? It seems as though Andrew will not be believed as a matter of principle, even though he is arguably a victim here. And whatever happened to his right to silence? Legal experts are often divided on when it is best to stay silent and when best to speak. That Andrew potentially took advice that backfired for him seems to escape everyone’s notice. Andrew and Diana alike were foolish to serve themselves up to the media vultures in interviews, but advisors put them on the platter.

Much is made of his mother’s out-of-court settlement (of an undisclosed but widely speculated sum) to Ms Guiffre, many insisting that this is proof of guilt but it is nothing of the sort, and would not have happened without advice from experts who a) know how these things work, and, b) should have had Andrew’s and the Royal Family’s best interests at heart. Settlements of this kind are often made and Ms Guiffre pursued several, for reasons that invite speculation.

Little is currently being said about Ms Guiffre’s history of fabrication, making accusations against people later withdrawn. I make no comment regarding her family’s sudden appearance in the media and support for her, except to say that their pride in her ‘taking down a prince’ as stated by her brother is goulish. Has he forgotten that she accused their father of sexual abuse, also denied? That she changed her mind about her accusations against Alan Dershowitz? That she wasn’t interested in assisting the FBI with their case against Jeffrey Epstein until she realised that there was potentially money involved for her? That some of the other women involved with Jeffrey Epstein have nothing good to say about her and consider her a predator as much as they say he was?

Anti-Royalists have singled out Andrew as an easy target, and unfortunately, it’s difficult to argue against the view that he has, perhaps unwittingly, played into their hands. It was undeniably foolish at best to continue with a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction, and even more foolish to lie about it, but there are two sides to that too. Must we drop our friends on the say-so of others? I can imagine a defiant Andrew telling his family ‘you WON’T dictate my friends to me!’ like a petulant teenager but who knows – and that’s the point. We, the public, don’t know what went on and are drawing conclusions and demanding actions when we have no right to do so.

I’m reminded of the memoir ‘A Million Little Pieces’, written by James Frey in 2004 and later outed as an exaggeration at best and a fabrication at worst, with settlements being made and Oprah Winfrey shaming him publicly. To take a memoir or even an auto/biography at face value is, I believe, a mistake. It is at best, a perspective, and given Ms Guiffre’s propensity for living, shall we say, a colourful life, I would not be at all surprised to find that in due course, it requires a second reading.

Her focus on Andrew, her inability/unwillingness to name other individuals in anything other than the most vague of terms and her suicide before publication, rendering her unavailable for comment or scrutiny, all deserve to be, at least privately, questioned. Perhaps a bigger question for now, and one that should be aired, is the state of Britain and the continued demise of its justice system.

Not only do we have men jailed on the basis of a statement, and unable to bring forward all the evidence that they believe will exonerate them, we have a Prince de-Princed and de-titled  on the basis of an accusation that the world chooses to believe and his family failing to pressure him to confess to. We have a country up in arms because a King bows to media pressure to strip his brother of his birthright but doesn’t throw him out on the streets. We have calls for Andrew to be put before a court and jailed, with no thought for the fact that a jury might acquit him. Such is the stigma of a sexual crime accusation and the vitriol of those who see unwarranted privilege in every fibre and cell of the Royal family.

What next? Not only ‘trial by media’ but now ‘sentence by media’ as a standard? Followed by ‘Sentence first, verdict second’ and then ‘Off with his head!’?

Even Alice, a child, knew that was nonsense.

By Felicity Stryjak

Felicity Stryjak is retired having worn many hats in her life so far, teacher and paralegal among them. She was born in Torquay in 1953 and has lived in a variety of interesting places both in the UK and abroad. She intends Scotland to be her final place of abode. More recently Felicity created Falsely Accused Database to challenge the myth that false allegations are 'vanishingly rare'.

Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.