In an email discovered in the Epstein Files, the financier complains to a royal employee about an anonymous quote concerning his friendship with Prince Andrew in the press — and the employee says that he’ll take care of it, inadvertently revealing that some “sources” and “friends” quoted in stories about the British monarchy are people working for the royal family.
Here’s the context:
On Jan. 2, 2015, news broke that the then-Prince Andrew (now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor1) had been named in a civil lawsuit filed in the state of Florida. (I’m not going to get into the specifics because it’s not relevant, but you can read more about it here.) The document contained claims that Epstein forced Jane Doe #3, who was underage at the time, to have “sexual relations” with Andrew from 1999 to 2002. (On Jan. 3, the Mail on Sunday correctly identified Jane Doe #3 as Virginia Roberts, née Virginia Giuffre.)
Buckingham Palace went into crisis mode and quickly issued an unprecedented two statements defending Andrew:
“This relates to long-standing and ongoing civil proceedings in the United States, to which the Duke of York is not a party. As such we would not comment in detail. However, for the avoidance of doubt, any suggestion of impropriety with under-age minors is categorically untrue". - Statement #1
“It is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with [the woman]. The allegations made are false and without any foundation.” - Statement #2.
Then, on Jan. 11, 2015, a story appeared in the Telegraph reporting that Andrew said he had been “foolish” to befriend and maintain a relationship with Epstein. It’s important to note that, according to the Telegraph, unlike the two previous statements, this wasn’t an official quote from the Palace — the Telegraph said that it got the quotes from “a source close to the Duke.” As often happens in the UK press, the story was immediately picked up by several outlets such as the Daily Mail, the Times, and the Daily Beast, to name a few.
Here’s exactly what the “source close to the Duke” told the Telegraph:
“It would be crass and disingenuous to suggest that he has been unaffected by this. He is watching the news and reading the headlines and even though the friendship with Jeffrey Epstein was acknowledged as being unwise back in 2011, the Duke has clearly had a long time this week for the consequences of that friendship to further sink in. More than ever, he can see how foolish it was.”
The Duke has also accepted he can never go to court to clear his name over the allegation that he had sex with Virginia Roberts, one of Epstein’s underage “sex slaves”, because such a legal action would do immense harm to the monarchy.
By comparison, Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s lawyer, who faces similar claims by Miss Roberts, is counter-suing and has also suggested the Duke do the same.
“Clearly there is frustration on the Duke’s part. There is no immediate legal channel through which he is required or able to respond to the claims. He hasn’t been accused by prosecutors of any crime, and of course, look at Alan Dershowitz, he is taking legal action against her lawyers and has petitioned to become a party in the case to say what he knows, but he isn’t the fifth in line to the throne of the UK.”
“What alternative does that leave him? He could come out and give an interview to fight it in the court of public opinion, but the denials have already been categorical and cover every detailed allegation that has been put to him.”
“He knows that anything he said would be picked apart and he is mindful that he has already got into unprecedented territory in terms of the statements made by Buckingham Palace [in which he denied having sex with Miss Roberts].”
“If a stream of allegations appear and are answered point by point through the media, he knows that will only prolong and amplify a story that has been deeply uncomfortable for the Royal family.”
But something happened when the news made its way to the United States – Epstein saw it and he didn’t like it. So he emailed David Stern, the middleman in his communications with Andrew and his ex-wife, Sarah, who at the time was the Duchess of York.
(Epstein often refers to Andrew as “PA” in his emails and messages.)
Here’s Epstein’s email of complaint and the reply:
So, more than four years after the friendship was allegedly severed, not only were Epstein and Andrew still in communication (via a third party, in this case), the email gives the impression that the financier was close enough to the then-prince to complain about press coverage… and expect that something would be done about it.
There’s a really key detail here: After reading the quotes from the anonymous source, Epstein knew to go straight to his connection to Andrew to complain. Then, Stern referred to a conversation between the Telegraph and an anonymous source as “issu[ing] a statement” — as if the story’s quotes are as official as a memo on Buckingham Palace stationary.
You can’t help but conclude that the Telegraph’s “source close to the Duke” wasn’t an employee gone rogue or a friend wanting to clear the air, and it wasn’t someone talking to the media out of the goodness of their heart. It was a person who was doing their job — a job that includes issuing statements, which implies it was a member of Andrew’s press team. (And it’s worth noting that at the time this went down, Andrew’s press office was still part of the wider royal media team under the umbrella of Buckingham Palace.)
You can’t help but wonder how many other anonymous sources quoted in articles about the royal family are actually Palace employees doing their jobs…
The other key detail in these emails concerns Stern’s true role in Andrew’s office. The exchange between Epstein and Stern implies that he’s much more than a director of the Pitch @ Palace initiative. Despite his job title, he’s apparently going to go talk to Andrew’s media team in order to find the person who talked to the Telegraph — he’s seemingly high enough in the hierarchy to be able to chastise the press officers who said something that Epstein didn’t like.
How do you even have that conversation? What reason do you give for not liking the statement? In the email, Epstein says he wants a heads-up about future stories — do you tell the press team to run everything Epstein-related by you? How do you explain that?
BONUS: If you search the Epstein Files for other communications from Jan. 12, 2015 you’ll find emails that imply that the financier was worried that the new quotes would reignite press interest in himself.
Here’s the other email:
I did not have “Epstein asks to speak to the manager” on my Epstein Files bingo card!
(As you’ll see in a future installment, this is not the only time Epstein complained about something a royal family member or spokesperson said about him in the press.)
1 A note for the pedantic: Since Mountbatten-Windsor was still Prince Andrew, Duke of York during the time relevant to this story, I’m going to style him as such.