In 2022, it came to light that what looks to be a legally binding and enforceable court Order, may qualify as legal estoppel, where having already been paid to stay all claims, Ms Robert seeks to avoid the consequences of a previous agreement, by making further claims to damages. Ms Roberts may have set a case precedent valuing her sexual ordeal with Jeffrey Epstein (and/or others) @ $500,000 dollars.

Prince Andrew's ex-maid has no regrets about condemnation of 'horrible, nasty' Duke

Ex-Buckingham Palace maid Charlotte Briggs, 47, said she has no regrets about speaking out against Prince Andrew, who she claimed often acted like a "spoiled brat"

A former Buckingham Palace maid says she has no regrets about speaking out against Prince Andrew and described him as a "horrible man".

Charlotte Briggs claimed the Duke of York often erupted into "demanding and entitled" foul-mouthed rants which left her in tears.

The 47-year-old, who lives in Halifax, West Yorkshire, made front-page news this week when she revealed her experiences doing the job "nobody wanted" six months after starting work for the royals in January 1996.

She described the Queen's second son as a "spoiled brat" who once allegedly - after noticing she'd left a gap in the curtains - fumed: "Can’t you f***ing do anything right?"

Charlotte says since then she has been ridiculed in her hometown and accused of selling out.

But believes she is "entitled to speak about what happened to me even though it was years ago".

Charlotte has also been keen to point out while she considered Prince Andrew's attitude poor, she never witnessed any inappropriate behaviour.

The Duke is facing a civil trial after being accused of sexual abuse by a trafficking victim of his late paedophile pal billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Virginia Giuffre is suing Andrew for allegedly having sex with her in the US when she was 17.

He vehemently denies her allegations and has not been charged with any criminal offence.

Speaking to the Daily Mail outside her home on Friday, Charlotte said: "I don't give a toss what Prince Andrew feels…he is a horrible, nasty man."

She explained she had signed a privacy agreement under the Official Secrets Act not to divulge any accounts of her time at the Palace.

But on seeing ITV's documentary this week - which included claims by another ex-staff member that Andrew had a map for exactly where his cuddly toys needed to be on the bed - she decided to breach it.

The mum-of-two said: "I am not sorry at all. But I have been hurt by some of the remarks against me."

In her original interview, she said Andrew's brothers Prince Charles and Prince Edward, as well as all other royals she encountered, were "wonderful".

She was just 21 when she started work at the Palace and started working for Andrew when he was 36 - at a time when he had recently divorced from Sarah Ferguson.

Charlotte was paid £600 a month and was pictured on the royal balcony ahead of the Trooping the Colour ceremony the same year.

It comes as the Queen stripped the Duke of his royal titles and patronages ahead of his trial in New York and he is facing eviction from the Royal Lodge in Windsor.

Buckingham Palace declined to comment on Charlotte Briggs' accusations when approached by the Mirror.

“It was sexual intercourse,” the judge said [4 Jan 2022], according to Newsweek reporter Jack Royston. “Involuntary sexual intercourse. There isn’t any doubt about what that means, at least not since someone else was in the White House.”

As anyone who has been in front of a Judge in a courtroom will know, the law may be interpreted one way by one court, and another way on appeal, and so on. Buckingham Palace will be well aware of that. With Queen Elizabeth II footing Andrew's legal bills, we are sure that Her Majesty is following progress of the case with much interest.

BALMORAL OR IMMORAL - You would be persuaded by this picture, that Epstein and Ms Maxwell, were good friends of the Duke. On the other hand, Prince Andrew was always entertaining big business, in promoting Great Britain Ltd. Much the same as Queen Elizabeth brokered foreign deals on HMY Britannia.

The Prince may not remember the 17 year old Virginia Roberts, but unless this photograph is a fake (doubtful - it must have been checked out) he did meet the young lady at some point - even if only posing at a drinks party, and Ghislaine Maxwell was at this meeting. One question we would ask is how do we know the age of the claimant from this picture? She could easily be 18 or older. Or she may have claimed to be over 18, for Ghislaine to have allowed Virginia to have been photographed with the Duke. No doubt, testimony from Ms Maxwell will clear that up. And where and when was the picture taken, and by whom? You can imagine that with US State laws varying, and this picture looking for all the world like London, where the age of consent is 16, the precise details relating to the taking of this picture are extremely important. It might be worth checking passports, etc. Not that we are saying anything did or did not happen between the Prince and Ms Roberts. For the sake of argument, if some did take place (that the Duke cannot recall) and it was in London, then no crime had been committed. You can marry a girl in Spain and Tahiti at 13 (we think). Hence, any prosecution would need to be very sure of dates and places to begin mounting an investigation. It would not be fair to even interview the Prince, until the facts had been established, for fear of trying to trick him into something he could not possibly remember.

We know of a case where penetration had been alleged during a police interview, but the evidence told only of natural marks and a hymen that could not be opened [even] with labial traction. During this interview, the police officer told the defendant that she had been penetrated, leaving the defendant believing that was true. When it was not, as we suspect the interviewing officer knew full well. It was an attempt at entrapment. A so-called child specialist gave evidence at trial, that the natural marks could only be explained by penetration. Legal Aid restrictions prevented the defendant in that case from instructing a specialist. Sussex police allowed the jury to hear misleading evidence, and the man was convicted on naturally occurring marks, found in females of all ages. British justice is such that despite other discrepancies being identified, such as a diary being attributed by the trial judge to the defendant, when it belonged to a psychiatric nurse, an appeal has never made it back to the Courts. Europe sent back a claim after 4 years, suggesting the wrongly convicted man had a domestic remedy. On that basis, good luck to anyone facing trial in the UK. At least you have unlimited funds for your legal team in the USA.

NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE - Under the present system where the Head of State is a royal, and there is no written constitution, politicians like David Cameron and Boris Johnson can lie with impunity - even to Queen Elizabeth - and not face penalties. Police officers can shoot unarmed civilians and not be sent to prison, and planning officers can deceive the Secretaries of State and High Court judges, and not be prosecuted. In effect, it is alleged that there is little justice in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We aver that such machinations are costing the ordinary taxpayer, Treasury and the Crown (being the state) significant sums of money, while adding to the UK's carbon footprint. Hence, the country is not being run effectively by the at present; defective administration, not to serve its citizens, but to sustain and profit itself. Unlike the US Constitution of 1791 that exists to serve the people. Some people advocate abolition of the honours system, where it is alleged that some awards are in connection with preserving the status quo, as in whitewashing statistics and the like, to mask the level of corruption in UK courts.

LINKS & REFERENCE

https://www.

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site