Prince Andrew in jep?

On tv3 news it said prince Andrew WOULD ALSO be making a substantial donation to the fund to help trafficked girls....so Roberts looks like she did get her own settlement award from Andrew

It almost certainly speaks about her arrangement with her lawyers.

First point to note is that the huge majority of civil cases settle. For a civil case to go to trial is very much the exception, not the norm. This case was always likely to settle.

The real question was what kind of admission by Prince Andrew was the settlement going to contain?

What Giuffre would ideally have liked was an admission by Andrew that he had sex with her, knowing that she had been trafficked to London for that purpose.

But that was never very likely because - as Giuffre's lawyers will have pointed out to her - such an admission, in court proceedings, would leave Andrew exposed to criminal proceedings. Having sex with a trafficked child is a crime. And Andrew was never likely to settle the civil proceedings on terms that could later be used as evidence against him in criminal proceedings.

So, if Giuffre's bottom line was "there must be an admission or a finding that Andrew had sex with me, knowing me to have been trafficked" then the case was never going to settle. It was always going to trial.

And this is where the lawyers come in. Because, of course, to take this case at all, and certainly to take it to trial, Giuffre needs lawyers. She needs lawyers who would cost far more than she could ever hope to pay out of her own resources.

So, what she has is what is normal in US civil litigation; she has lawyers who work for her on the basis of a contingency fee agreement. That is, she has agreed with them that they will get a percentage (normally 33%, but I have no idea what has been agreed in this instance) of whatever she recovers from Andrew. If she recovers nothing, they get nothing.

And here we have the beginnings of a tension. Because, while Giuffre may be primarily interested in an admission or finding of Andrew's guilt, the lawyers aren't interested in that at all. 33% of an admission of guilt is useless to them. They are interested in the award of compensation.

The lawyers, being experienced at this kind of thing, will have foreseen the problem and will have addressed it in their contingency fee agreement with Giuffre. The agreement will contain a section that says something like: "If we are offered a settlement of $3 million or more with an admission of liability, you agree that you will take it. If we are offered a settlement of $7.5 million or more, with or without an admission of liability, you agree that you will take it."

I'm picking these figures out of the air, but something of this kind will have been included in the contingency fee agreement. If the settlement is generous enough, and approaches what might be secured in a trial, the lawyers very strongly want to accept it, for obvious reasons. And there will have been discussions beforehand, and a prior agreement with Giuffre, about the parameters within which the case might settle. Which mean that, if Andrew offered enough money, plus a statement that vindicated Giuffre while falling short of a direct admission of anything that would be criminal, Giuffre had no choice but to accept it. If she hadn't agreed in advance to accept such a settlement, she couldn't have brought the case at all.

Andrew came up with the money, and was willing to affirm Giuffre in coded terms that did not include an admission of criminality. So the case settled.

Also bear in mind that, while it has long been widely understood that Andrew will sleep with anyone and often does, it hasn't been suggested that he has a general predilection for underage people or sex workers. He has a number of advantages - wealth (or at least a wealthy lifestyle), fame, the glamour of royalty. It probably hasn't been all that difficult for him to capitalise on those advantages to chalk up quite a number of notches on the bedpost, but there's no reason to think that most of these notches won't represent willing adult partners, who don't have any legal action against him arising out of their, um, encounters. I think whatever happened with Giuffre happened because Epstein put Giuffre in Andrew's way, 'cause that was Epstein's thing, but I wouldn't assume that that relationship is generally characteristic of Andrew's sex life.

Tl;dr: the guy could have slept around a lot without thereby exposing himself to a bunch of lawsuits.

And yet I'm sure The Sun and Daily Mail will still blame Harry & Meghan if there's a single photo of the Queen not cracking a Joker-wide smile during her Jubilee.