Fact check: How have Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell responded to Virginia Giuffre's allegations?

1. How the denials line up with the legal record and public fallout

Both Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell issued denials of Virginia Giuffre’s allegations, yet the legal outcomes differ markedly. Maxwell was criminally convicted on charges tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking network and is serving a prison term; her defense in Department of Justice interviews included assertions that a widely circulated photo of her with Andrew and Giuffre was fabricated and that the alleged encounter could not have occurred at her London residence ^{[5] [1]}. Andrew has repeatedly denied any sexual activity with Giuffre, but he resolved a civil lawsuit via settlement in 2022, expressed regret for his association with Epstein, and in 2025 was publicly stripped of royal titles and the style “Prince,” a move his family announced amid reports he resisted signing statements supporting survivors ^{[2] [3]}. These contrasting outcomes—criminal conviction versus civil settlement—underscore a split between criminal accountability and reputational consequences in the public record ^{[1] [3]}.

2. What Virginia Giuffre and her family have said and how that shaped responses

Virginia Giuffre’s memoir and her family’s public statements have kept pressure on both accused figures and influenced public perception. Her posthumous memoir, Nobody’s Girl, recounts being trafficked to Andrew and describes manipulation by Maxwell, asserting she was prevented from testifying at Maxwell’s trial and lamenting the broader limits of accountability ^{[6] [7]}. Giuffre’s family characterized Prince Andrew’s loss of title as a vindication and pledged to continue pursuing accountability for those linked to Epstein; they celebrated the symbolic and practical implications of these developments while urging further action against other alleged abusers ^{[4] [8]}. These statements amplified calls for institutional and legal responses and framed the public narrative: survivor testimony and family advocacy have driven both legal scrutiny and reputational consequences, even where criminal prosecutions did not occur against all named individuals ^{[4] [7]}.

3. Maxwell’s courtroom posture and post‑conviction statements: denial meets conviction

Ghislaine Maxwell’s formal stance combined outright denials with legal defenses that questioned evidence and narrative coherence, yet a jury found her criminally responsible. She told DOJ interviewers that key material evidence could be fabricated and denied arranging encounters, asserting the allegations were “manufactured” and denying any role in setting Andrew up with Giuffre ^[5]. Despite those denials, prosecutors secured a conviction on sex‑trafficking and related counts, and Maxwell is serving a sentence—making her the primary criminally convicted actor among those named in Giuffre’s account ^[1]. The gap between Maxwell’s public denials and the jury’s decision highlights the distinct standards and outcomes of criminal trials versus public statements, and demonstrates how prosecutorial documentation and witness testimony carried legal weight independent of Maxwell’s assertions ^{[5] [1]}.

4. Prince Andrew’s strategy: denials, a civil settlement, and reputational penalties

Prince Andrew’s response combined categorical denials with legal settlement and later symbolic sanctions by his family institution. He has denied the sexual allegations, but in 2022 agreed to a civil settlement with Giuffre and publicly expressed regret about his association with Epstein, while maintaining he did not commit the acts alleged ^[2]. After continued public and media scrutiny, royal authorities announced in 2025 that he would be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and would no longer use the style “Prince,” with reports that he resisted certain statements backing survivors—reporting that underscores the tension between private legal resolution and public accountability measures ^[3]. The settlement resolved civil liability without a criminal conviction, and the later revocation of titles reflects institutional efforts to distance the monarchy from controversy while leaving unresolved questions about criminal culpability ^{[2] [3]}.

5. What remains contested and why different stakeholders emphasize different facts

Key factual disputes persist: the veracity of specific encounters, the interpretation of photographic and testimonial evidence, and choices by prosecutors about who could be tried. Giuffre’s exclusion from Maxwell’s trial, her posthumous book’s claims, Maxwell’s denials about specific evidence, and Andrew’s settlement but persistent denials create a complex mosaic of allegations, legal outcomes, and institutional responses ^{[7] [5] [2]}. Stakeholders emphasize different elements—survivors and family highlight moral and symbolic victories and ongoing advocacy; prosecutors point to conviction evidence against Maxwell; defenders stress legal standards and settled civil claims vs. criminal proof. These competing emphases reflect different burdens of proof, goals (criminal conviction versus reputational repair), and institutional incentives, which explain why responses vary and why the public record contains both denials and documented penalties ^{[4] [1]}.