Europe

Prince Andrew urged to ‘go quietly in altruistic move’ to help Queen – expert warning

Prince Andrew: Expert discusses attempt to deliver legal papers

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

The author claims that Prince Andrew should step away from any position in the Royal Family, in a move that would help uphold the image of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II and the rest of the senior royals. The commentary comes following a civil lawsuit that is facing the Duke of York, as he faces allegations made by Virginia Giuffre, formally known as Virginia Roberts, who claims that the Duke sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager.

Ms Giufrre, 38 claims that she was forced by Andrew’s former friend, and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with the Duke, 61 on three separate occasions between 2000 and 2002 — while she was underage.

Andrew has always categorically denied her claims.

In response to the situation, Cele Otnes, co-author of Royal Fever, told Express.co.uk: “I think the most altruistic move Prince Andrew can offer Her Majesty and the royal brand is to step away completely from any visible role in the Royal Family.

“In agreeing to go quietly, perhaps he can negotiate with Prince Charles to grant his daughters meaningful roles and visibility within the Firm.”

Ms Otnes, who is an expert on the global branding of the Royal Family also claims that the damage caused to the royal image by the Duke of York is “irreparable”.

Prince Andrew had stepped back from public duties amid the fallout from his relationship with Epstein, and in this instance, Ms Otnes says more needs to be done as she claims that his daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie could be affected as “collateral damage” in the current scandal.

A pre-trial hearing took place in New York on Monday, September 13, for the civil sexual assault case currently facing the prince.

During the court hearing, the Duke’s lawyer, Andrew Brettler, argued that the royal had not been properly served the lawsuit.

However, Ms Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boise said that the complaint had been “delivered to the last known address of the defendant”, adding that the documents had been sent “by Royal Mail”.

In court documents filed on Friday, September 10, Ms Giuffre’s lawyers addressed the attempts they had made to serve the senior royal with papers.

The lawyers stated that the first attempt to serve the papers on the Duke was on August 26, when an agent went to Windsor Great Park.

DON’T MISS 
Inside secret royal crisis group that helped save the monarchy [INSIGHT] 
Prince Charles undermined Princess Diana’s decision on wedding cake [REVEAL] 
Kate ‘unfairly’ portrayed in Meghan & Harry film ‘Snooty and shallow’ [REPORT]

After a Metropolitan Police officer, serving as head of security, turned away the agent attempting to serve the papers, a second attempt was made the following day.

The officer reportedly told the agent how officers were not able to accept service of any court process, or let anyone trying to serve legal papers onto the property.

On August 27, the agent was told to leave the court process with a police officer manning the main gate, “and that this matter would then be forwarded on to the legal team” for the Duke.

Also at the pre-trial hearing Andrew Brettler, on behalf of Prince Andrew, said Ms Giuffre has previously entered into a “settlement agreement” that would nullify the current lawsuit.

Prince Andrew’s lawyers claim that this prior agreement Ms Giuffre has would see the “releasing [of] the Duke and others from any and all potential liability”.

Mr Brettler said: “We believe this is a baseless, unviable, and potentially unlawful lawsuit that the plaintiff has filed against the duke.

“There has been a settlement agreement that the plaintiff has entered into in a prior action that releases the Duke and others from any and all potential liability.”

The judge will hear further arguments on October 13.

Source: Read Full Article