Epstein Victim Virginia Giuffre Was 'Forced to Sexually Service' Prince Andrew, Author Tells Piers Morgan
Source: MEDIAite
Oct 28th, 2025, 5:40 pm
Late Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was forced to sexually service Prince Andrew, according to author Amy Wallace, who helped Giuffre write her recently-published memoir, Nobodys Girl.
Wallace did not mince words during an interview on Piers Morgans Uncensored show on Tuesday. Morgan asked Wallace if she had any doubt that Giuffre had sex with the prince, and Wallace, while shaking her head, said she did not.
No, absolutely no doubt. Repeatedly, Wallace replied. And she didnt just have sex with him she was forced to sexually service him. Thats maybe a distinction without a difference to some, but theres a difference to me.
Her comment comes just a few weeks after Buckingham Palace announced 76-year-old Andrew would give up his remaining royal titles. That decision was made after an email emerged showing Andrew lied about cutting off contact with the convicted sex criminal in late 2010.
Read more: https://www.mediaite.com/media/epstein-victim-virginia-giuffre-was-forced-to-sexually-service-prince-andrew-author-tells-piers-morgan/
SunSeeker
(57,055 posts)Irish_Dem
(76,938 posts)lapfog_1
(31,366 posts)If she was under 18 at the time, it is/was a crime. Rape.
Not sure what the limitations are for child rape in the US Virgin Islands... but before 2020 it would likely have been 4 years in Florida.
If there was credible evidence that she presented herself as being over 18 then you would need to prove the claim on "forced into it". Evidence such as a fake ID... that might have gotten "randy andy" out of legal trouble at the time. Right now I don't think he faces any legal issues since so much time has passed.
That said, King Charles should completely strip him of all titles and monies from the monarchy, not just some and not just because he lied about the last time he corresponded with Epstein.
Irish_Dem
(76,938 posts)hlthe2b
(111,914 posts)I don't disagree with the need to strip him of all titles and financial benefits of a royal. I just empathize with Charles having to do so. William will be ruthless on this, no doubt. But for King Charles, I'm sure it causes him considerable inner conflict.
RIP, Virginia. You deserve to.
NNadir
(36,827 posts)Why should British taxpayers support these entitled brats at all? What value to any of them have in a stressed world, a dying planet?
JT45242
(3,705 posts)I used to think the same thing. But saw the tourism numbers and what the legitimate rental fees that the royal family could charge for the land they own.
They should shut the fuck up and try to live quiet lives doing charity work, but the economy of the UK is actually better with royals.
Floyd R. Turbo
(31,645 posts)hlthe2b
(111,914 posts)They have already been diminished to minimally more than ceremonial status, while a continuing boon to historical tourism and charity pursuits. So, while I get the reaction of the countries and island nations who suffered at the hands of England's monarchy and imperialism over the past centuries--and the racist policies through more recent times, as far as I'm concerned, America's right to criticize ended in 1783 with the winning end of the Revolutionary War. And if not then, with the inauguration (2x) of Donald Trump---the worst "thing" the US has unleashed on the world in its history. SO, imo, we in the US should just shut the f..k up about England and the UK's politics and government. We have more than LOST that moral high ground.
Hekate
(99,999 posts)colorado_ufo
(6,169 posts)The people were warm, polite and welcoming, and the food far exceeded my expectations - and I am originally from New Orleans!
Floyd R. Turbo
(31,645 posts)NNadir
(36,827 posts)It is difficult to ascertain how many tourists go to Britain hoping to see something about King Charles, but I would imagine that it would not likely that not having him would have a minor impact unless he dies.
I've been to the UK 3 or 4 times, I can't actually recall the number of times, as it was business travel. I did some tourism, the British Museum, where I was disinterested in anything about royalty.
I did see the piles of flowers in front of Kensington Palace connected with Diana's death, but only because my hotel was around the block. It's not like I was wandering around hoping to see some sign of the Queen and her not to bright Children.
Speaking for myself, I found the whole thing a little obscene.
I march for No Kings in the United States; I am not dissuaded that the British should do the same.
"Prince" Andrew's behavior gibes with what I've seen over my lifetime in connection with people raised into an elitist wealthy and sybaritic lifestyle.
Tourists can, if interested, look at artifacts of the Royal era, but in these times, again, in my opinion, it's obscene.
IbogaProject
(5,282 posts)The offense is reguardless of any "id" it's absolute liability.
NNadir
(36,827 posts)...White House, or what's left of the White House.
no_hypocrisy
(53,584 posts)being his beard for so long.
Repeatedly and publicly announcing that he was "true and real gentleman," a "great man with a great heart," and a "kind, good man". She has defended him during scandals, stated she would "do it all over again" in reference to their marriage, and highlighted their strong support for each other through personal and public struggles. Despite their divorce, she has maintained that their relationship has been defined by love, compassion, and a strong commitment to co-parenting their daughters.
Maybe she knew about Andrew's antics via Epstein; maybe she didn't.
But the fact that she asked for and accepted a ton of money for Epstein to maintain her luxurious lifestyle kind of makes it look quid pro quo. And her assistance allowed girls like Virginia to be used as a sexual toy for her ex-husband.
Ponietz
(4,110 posts)Deep state coverup.
MrsCheaplaugh
(256 posts)I'll never believe that woman committed suicide.
think4yourself
(866 posts)I shudder to think what they would find on the ocean floor.
AllyCat
(18,303 posts)Get to do whatever they want because of who they are. Unethical, deviant, criminal, violent behavior that they think they have a right to.
May he and the rest of them burn in hell if there is one.
Marthe48
(22,164 posts)If the poor soul were underage, and forced. What else? Jus primae noctis?
hamsterjill
(16,682 posts)Sorry. Inconsequential to the article, but I hate bad journalism. I believe hes 65.
yardwork
(68,432 posts)Clouds Passing
(6,322 posts)OMG! Im so over the word salad language regarding sexual assault.
evolves
(5,664 posts)She was RAPED by him.
Words matter. This needs to be called what it is. It is rape. He is a child rapist.
bluestarone
(20,611 posts)Even if it's proven that TSF DID the same thing (along with multi Billionaires) NOTHING will happen to him as well.