Prince Andrew is the real victim

We all know Prince Andrew is an obnoxious, entitled nob who deserves zero sympathy for bringing the Royal Family into disrepute but what illegal activities did he actually engage in?
His critics bandy about words like 'rape' and 'paedophilia' but he is guilty of neither. At the absolute worst, he may - if we choose to disbelieve his denials - have had sex three times with a 17-year-old girl.
Nobody has claimed this was anything but consensual. She may, perhaps, have been 'trafficked' but she was old enough to make up her own mind whether she wanted to jet around the world with millionaires. And by all accounts she boasted of having sex with the Prince.
So if it was consensual, and she was 17, where is the crime?
The Prince and Virginia Roberts allegedly had sex in London, New York and the US Virgin Islands (oh the irony).
It is quite legal to have sex with a 17-year-old, no matter what the age of the other participant, in London and New York. In the Virgin Islands, the age of consent varies from 13 to 18 but, supposing the latter applied in this case, the Prince might be guilty of statutory rape on that occasion.
However, Ms Roberts or Giuffre as she is these days, alleges their passionate embraces took place during an orgy involving nine other girls as well. Are we supposed to take her allegation seriously in such circumstances?
The hatred directed at Prince Andrew - much of it fomented by those who loathe and detest the Monarchy - is over-done, misplaced and unfair.
Now he and his mother are £12 million the poorer, it is difficult not to conclude that Prince Andrew, not Virginia Roberts, is the real victim.