Was it £12 million? Or just a measly £8 million? Was it all Royal money? Personal money? Our money?
No one entirely called it “hush money” at the time. But what was it – if not monetised silence? A grand payment to make a story – a person – go away?
In writing about ‘the facts’ in the legal payment Prince Andrew made to Virginia Giuffre, the first thing that strikes me is how little we actually know. So here are the bare bones of what is public. We will get to the holes later – where the real story lies.
In February of 2022, exactly four years ago, Virginia Giuffre – the young woman whose voice has arguably done more than anyone else to reveal the scale and depth of Jeffrey Epstein’s evil – reached an out of court settlement with the then Prince Andrew. It was the product of a lawsuit filed in a US federal court under New York Child Victims Act, after she alleged she was forced to have several sexual encounters at the age of 17. They are encounters Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor “unequivocally denies”. Indeed, in October 2021, Andrew’s lawyers filed a response calling Giuffre’s claims “a baseless lawsuit” – then later accused her of profiting from her claims at Andrew’s expense.
The sequence of events then gets murkier.
His lawyers petitioned the judge to dismiss the lawsuit because of an earlier settlement between Giuffre and Epstein which they argued would absolve not just Epstein but “any potential defendant”…. “from any and all liability”. They even asked to keep that document sealed. Presumably because it was utter legal garbage.
The judge refused. Andrew’s arguments were dismissed. And by January the lawsuit was set to proceed. Both Giuffre and Andrew were set to give evidence under oath in a two day deposition in March in London. Royal Protection officers and other Royal family members were expecting to be called. As preparations took shape, Sky News reported that Andrew’s lawyers wanted to interview those around Giuffre to try and prove she was fighting from “false memories”. They even requested her mental health records.
The trial, it seemed, was very much on.
Until suddenly, it wasn’t.
On 15 February – four months before the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee would celebrate her 70 years on the throne – the parties reached an out of court settlement.
The amount was never disclosed. The origin of the money was never disclosed. Both parties – it seemed – had signed an agreement to remain silent about the deal for the coming 12 months. (Giuffre’s lawyer denied she had signed an NDA as part of the settlement).
Put the legal jargon to one side for a moment, and understand the implication of what happened: a case that would have gone to trial with a jury on 10 March 2022 was suddenly disappeared. A vast undisclosed sum was used to deliver a solution. And it appears no one was allowed to talk. It followed all the rules of a private civil case. The deal did not imply guilt – but neither – as Giuffre’s lawyers made clear – did it insulate Andrew from any criminal liability in future.
But why was it deemed a private matter? How did we ever accept it could be?
A senior royal – publicly accused – had paid vast sums of money to a victim of sexual abuse. And yet we were made to feel grubby for asking questions. As if it somehow broke the rules of decorum in a Jubilee year. Even the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson refused to tell the BBC whether public money should be used to pay that settlement. (The Treasury said in 2022 that “No public money has been used to pay legal or settlement fees.”) Why was that so hard to say?
Yes, the Queen’s favourite son denied all wrongdoing. Did she believe him? Or did she not dare ask? Did she understand what she was doing when she covered the yawning gap between the money he owed and the sum he ended up paying? Because the trouble with any discussion of private money is we are no longer sure what that means. Is the Royal money their money? Or our money? The fact we don’t even know lies at the heart of this whole mess.
As the King signed off so eloquently in his statement on Thursday after the arrest of his brother “my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all.” I believe the King when he says that. I believe he has spent his life in duty to this country – often in drafty halls, dull recitals, a rictus of feigned delight at dreary dinners with dictators. It’s not a life many of us would choose.
And I believe his son and heir when he tells us that things must change. Now show us what that means.
The monarchy has sought to present itself as a bedrock of stability amid political upheaval. As a symbol of unrivalled diplomacy on international affairs. As a source of social cohesion for a fractured nation. But the monarchy and the Royal Family are not the same thing. We need to understand who is working for the interests of this country and who is getting a free ride. No business would survive 2026 with so little accountability or transparency. No institution would be left unmodernised with so much scandal behind its doors.
Let us in. Let us ask questions. Let us see where the country’s cash is going. Let us believe that if money is being spent in lavish ways it’s to expand our reach on the world stage – not to shut up women and stop justice in its tracks.
Start by telling us how much money was paid to a victim of sexual abuse.
Was it £3 million? £8 million? £12 million? If we were getting all these facts wrong, it’s not our fault.
We’re constantly coming up against a wall of silence.
Hence then, the article about emily maitlis after andrew the royals must now tell us exactly where our money has gone was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Emily Maitlis: After Andrew, the royals must now tell us exactly where our money has gone )
Also on site :
- Sheikh Sabri: Israeli enemy seeks to change reality of al-Aqsa Mosque as prelude to seizing control of it
- Putin has always been ‘straight with me’ – Witkoff
- At 61, this major insurance CEO works out 6 days a week with his 23-year-old son—he picks his brain for a Gen Z perspective while lifting weights