Kenneth Glad
He denied the allegations and insisted there was nothing to answer. Even so, the dispute concluded with a substantial financial settlement, raising enduring questions about why.
Virginia Giuffre became one of the most recognisable figures in the long aftermath of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. She alleged that, as a teenager, she had been trafficked and abused within a network that connected wealth and influence at the highest levels.
Over time, her claims reached into Britain’s Royal Family and shifted from personal accusation to an international legal confrontation.
Among those she accused, according to The Daily Mail, was Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Giuffre said she was forced into sexual encounters with him on three occasions when she was 17.
A photograph taken in 2001, later posted by media organisations around the world, showed Andrew with his arm around her waist. The image resurfaced repeatedly as the case unfolded.
The Civil Case and the Decision to Settle
Andrew denied the allegations. In his 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, he said he had “no recollection” of meeting Giuffre and disputed aspects of her account.
The response was immediate. Within days he stepped back from public duties. He later relinquished his honorary military titles and royal patronages. The distancing was visible, and it was formal.
The lawsuit, however, continued in New York. Giuffre filed a civil claim under U.S. law, where the pre-trial phase can involve sworn depositions, document disclosure and the possibility of a jury hearing evidence in open court. For high-profile defendants, that prospect alone can be consequential. Even a strong legal defence does not eliminate unpredictability.
In February 2022, Andrew reached a settlement with Giuffre. The agreement was confirmed in a joint statement submitted to the U.S. District Court and reported by The Daily Mail and other newspapers that reported the figure at approximately £12million. The settlement contained no admission of liability.
Funding and Royal Finances
Attention quickly turned to how the payment would be funded. Several publications, including the Daily Mail, cited private royal resources, reporting that financial support came from the late Queen and from the estate of the Duke of Edinburgh, while noting that King Charles did not contribute.
Buckingham Palace did not release a detailed accounting. Official reports outline the Sovereign Grant and estate income, but they do not itemise personal legal costs, leaving much of the detail to background briefings rather than formal disclosure.
Not everyone was persuaded that the financial mechanics were beside the point. One former palace adviser told reporters at the time that the priority was speed – to prevent months of testimony in an American courtroom.
Others argued privately that whatever the source of the funds, the optics were inescapable. The cheque was written. The headlines followed.
Aftermath and Continuing Scrutiny
Giuffre remained a public figure in the years after the settlement, speaking about the toll of prolonged litigation and media scrutiny.
In early 2025, Western Australian court records showed that her husband was fined for failing to store ammunition in a locked cabinet at their rural property.
Around the same period, police were called to a domestic incident involving the couple while they were on holiday; no charges were laid. The episodes drew coverage, though the legal matters were limited in scope.
Then, on April 25, 2025, Giuffre was found dead at her home in Neergabby, north of Perth. She was 41.
Authorities have not issued a final public determination of the cause of death. Documents that were briefly accessible in the Epstein case files — and later withdrawn from public access — included an email from fellow Epstein survivor Maria Farmer stating that Giuffre had died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Police said the circumstances were not considered suspicious and declined to provide further detail pending formal processes.
For Andrew, the settlement effectively ended any realistic prospect of a return to frontline royal duties.
For the Royal Family, the agreement drew a line under a volatile legal battle, but not under the reputational damage. The case illustrates how, in matters of public trust, a settlement can close a courtroom door while leaving wider questions unresolved.
Sources: The Daily Mail, BBC Newsnight
