In the annals of elite scandals, few rival the Jeffrey Epstein saga for its web of power, predation, and protection. New leaked emails from February 2011, obtained from a redacted PDF document, paint a damning picture of Prince Andrew’s entanglement—not as a passive acquaintance, but as an active collaborator in Epstein’s operations. These exchanges reveal a “joint defense” pact, financial routing to evade scrutiny, and a stark declaration of solidarity: “We are in this together.”
“We Are In This Together”
Three months after Epstein’s initial arrest fallout, the relationship between Andrew and Epstein escalated from intelligence sharing and logistics to joint operations.
On February 28, 2011, amid a fresh wave of Daily Mail articles scrutinizing Andrew’s ties to Epstein, the Duke emailed Epstein with a briefing on damage control: “We have had a discussion this morning and we are somewhat at a loss as to how to deal with this as it is now innuendo rather than substantive allegations, notwithstanding anything false they have said about you or Ghislaine.”
Note the phrasing: “you or Ghislaine.”
Andrew treated himself, Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell as a unit—a joint defense.
He continued: “We are having discreet discussions with the Press Complaints Commission… We will be writing a lawyers letter to the Mail Group (again)… No one else has even sparked at the story over here, which is a good thing.”
Then the solidarity declaration: “It would seem we are in this together and will have to rise above it!”
Epstein replied: “The press is piling on me in the states.. nothing to do. just want to make sure you’re ok.”
Andrew: “I’m just as concerned for you! Don’t worry about me!”
Then came the operational request that transforms this from loyalty into coordination.
Epstein needed to pay someone identified only as “J”—later context points to Jes Staley, the former Barclays CEO—the sum of $60,000. But he told Andrew:
“He said he would take 60k in wages, pay tax and be done.. I don’t trust him at all, and a payment from me at the moment if disclosed to the press would look like a payoff for the little shit.”
Andrew immediately volunteered to handle the payment. His reply:
“I have an email I sent to [REDACTED] with his bank details that are his personal account. I can transfer the money as money for back wages presumably? Anything else I need to be aware of. Oh I assume it could come from any legal firm to protect?”
A member of the British Royal Family was offering to facilitate the transfer of funds on Epstein’s behalf—routing a payment that Epstein himself acknowledged would “look like a payoff” if traced to him. Andrew proposed disguising it as “back wages” and routing it through a law firm to obscure the origin.
In the same email chain, Epstein brokered yet another London meeting between Andrew and Jes Staley: “jes staley will be in london on next tues afternoon, if you have time.”
This was not friendship. This was a coordinated response—joint press strategy, coordinated media management involving Ghislaine Maxwell, financial routing with discussion of intermediaries, and continued brokering of meetings with senior bankers. All signed “HRH The Duke of York KG.”
The emails expose a mechanism of IOUs that fueled Epstein’s network: deferred favors, disguised payments, and elite intermediaries ensuring impunity. Here, we have a concrete example laid bare.
Echoes of the Giuffre Settlement: A Pattern of Royal Protection
This revelation echoes the request for assistance in the matter of material witness by the Central Authority of the US to the Central Authority of the UK under the 1994 Treaty of Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the UK and the US.
The offenses investigated included “sex trafficking of minors and, by force, fraud and coercion, transportation of minors, coercion and enticement and conspiracy involving Price Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell and Peter Nygard.
Prince Andrew’s 2022 settlement with Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of sexual assault when she was 17, tied to Epstein’s trafficking ring. The out-of-court agreement totaled 12 million pounds (about $16 million), avoiding a trial that could have unraveled more secrets.
Andrew, financially strained, reportedly drew 7 million pounds from Queen Elizabeth II’s personal funds, with the rest from Prince Philip’s inheritance and King Charles III’s private resources. Officially, Andrew denied the allegations, but the monarchy’s strategy was containment: strip him of titles, evict him from Royal Lodge in February 2026 per Charles’s decree, and relocate him to a modest Sandringham property.
Yet, the settlement exposed dynastic solidarity over transparency. What else did they know as part of the settlement that was hidden to the public? As one insider reportedly told the press, internal lies about Andrew’s Epstein ties compounded the issue, turning it from a moral failing to institutional crisis. In a modern democracy, can reputation be bought in the days and ages of opacity replacing the needed transparency required to rebuild trust?
Macron’s Blind Spot: Epstein Wasn’t Just American
French President Emmanuel Macron once dismissed the Epstein affair as “mainly concerning the Americans,” seemingly overlooking its global tentacles—including the British Crown’s scandal and France’s own elite entanglements. He conveniently omitted the role of Jack Lang, a former culture minister and darling of the French republican establishment. Lang who appeared in Epstein’s flight logs and faced whispers of involvement in dubious parties, has long been a media fixture. After years of public defenses, he resigned as president of the Institut du Monde Arabe amid scandals, including lavish trips funded by the state—essentially at French taxpayers’ expense. The reason for what looked like a love affair hiding significant vices was questioned off the record by several observers for many years – all these silent voices are now coming out with their stories on Lang, who has gone from hero to zero in less than a week.
The Quai d’Orsay (French Foreign Ministry) was also implicated, having knowledge of the Fabrice Aidan’s link to Epstein. The “Aidan problem” was known from French ambassador Gérard Araud, as in 2013 he was the target of an FBI & UN investigation on alleged consultation of child pornography websites. Aidan had to rapidly leave the US without any investigation by his own administration. He was conveniently placed for a time alongside Audrey Azoulay (former culture minister, now UNESCO director-general), “awaiting a UN post that would grant diplomatic immunity”—shielding him from scrutiny in the Epstein orbit.
While Epstein’s Little St. James island grabs headlines for its horrors, much of this nauseating thriller unfolded on British soil. But contrary to Macron’s minimization, Epstein resided in the Île-de-France region—specifically within Paris’s périphérique belt—where he maintained an opulent apartment and networked with the tout-Paris elite.
The question looms: Why has Yaël Braun-Pivet, president of the French National Assembly, resisted opening a parliamentary inquiry into this affair that stains the establishment? If Andrew facilitated payoffs and cover-ups, what did French figures like Lang, Jean-Luc Brunel (the modeling agent who died in custody amid Epstein-linked charges), Aidan, and their cohorts do? And why the pervasive omerta—the code of silence—among those who knew what was transpiring in Epstein’s Parisian lair?
Faced with mounting popular pressure and the sheer scale of the dossier, despite President Macron’s earlier statements downplaying the affair, the Paris prosecutor’s office has now designated dedicated magistrates to analyze potential offenses linked to French nationals such as Fabrice Aidan, Frédéric Chaslin, Daniel Siad, and Jean-Luc Brunel—following an earlier review involving the Lang family—for elements likely to characterize offenses under applicable French law. French justice has also decided to “proceed to an integral re-analysis of the investigation file in which Mr. Brunel had been indicted in order to extract any piece likely to be usefully reused in a new investigation framework.”
These emails aren’t relics; they’re a call for accountability. As Epstein’s network unravels further, from Windsor to the Élysée, the elite’s protective mechanisms stand exposed. The public deserves answers, not more deflections.
