Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Andrew Lownie just said "We have to remember the royal family fought for a long time to protect Andrew and in fact tried to prevent investigations into him" on BBC news

162 replies

JacknDiane · 31/10/2025 07:42

I think that's really revealing. Rather than the king being strong and dealing with this, he has done everything in his power to cover it up.

I'd like to hear what others, especially supporters of the monarchy, think of this.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
U53rName · 22/02/2026 16:30

I don’t believe for one minute that he will be sent to prison. I’m putting my money on a suspended sentence (if convicted).

And a Trump pardon for Ghislaine.

Ukefluke · 21/02/2026 02:01

TwinklyStork · 31/10/2025 08:47

I agree. Morals aside the legal position is not clear cut. He’s an awful loathsome excuse for a man but as it stands currently he’s been convicted of no crime. Virginia Giuffre was an extremely damaged individual (unsurprisingly) and yet everything said in the book is taken as face value with apparently no due diligence and no legal process. Which of course is impossible because she’s dead.

Clearly Queenie took it at face value as it was worth 12 million to her to cover it up .
An innocent man would be gagging for his day in court to get the truth out.
He would have pursued VG through every court in the land for telling lies about him .

But no
Mummy paid 12 million to make it go away. Not that Andrew ever met her of course,🙄

AutumnalCrows · 21/02/2026 00:47

LamourdesTrois · 31/10/2025 23:33

At the time it was not an offence to have sex with a trafficked woman. It is now, but it was not then.

There were equivalent offences then, but with old-fashioned names. The trafficking legislation brought them all together under one statute and disposed of much archaic language and quite a few outmoded concepts.

JacknDiane · 20/02/2026 21:51

Eggdilemma · 20/02/2026 11:39

Really wouldn’t surprise me if he committed suicide. I don’t like him and think he’s sleazy and clearly a nasty person but I think the press and public will push and push and he will end up doing something else rather than go to prison .

If only.

Though id rather see him brought to justice and spend time in prison.

OP posts:
Eggdilemma · 20/02/2026 11:39

Really wouldn’t surprise me if he committed suicide. I don’t like him and think he’s sleazy and clearly a nasty person but I think the press and public will push and push and he will end up doing something else rather than go to prison .

PaperTyger · 20/02/2026 11:36

@MrsLeonFarrell apparently burrel hinted at letting out very private revelations so that's when she stood in

PaperTyger · 20/02/2026 11:32

@Giddykiddy he's been on the radar for so long I do hope they can find deleted files but if you were andews wouldn't you buy the best forsenic computer people to delete everything ? I'm sure places like Saudi could without moral ties happily provide him with such services ?

LiveLuvLaugh · 20/02/2026 11:24

HedwigEliza · 31/10/2025 08:36

This is a witch-hunt, really.

There is no satisfying people’s demands. He’s convicted of no crime - even by Virginia Guiffre’s account, committed no crime. But he’s so loathed and despised people won’t be satisfied unless he’s in the gutter somewhere. He’s an unpleasant character, but so many people seem to forget due process and the law when speaking about him. He has a lease on his home - he can’t be forced to leave it. His titles can only be removed by parliament- the King cannot do it, and Andrew himself cannot relinquish them, there’s no mechanism for him to do so.

No sooner did he announce he wouldn’t be using his title of Duke of York, calls were made to take away the title of Prince and his home. Now that’s happened, and it’s still not enough - now he apparently belongs behind bars. There’s so satisfying this baying mob and it demonstrates how little we’ve actually advanced over the centuries.

I agree. By many accounts he has deeply serious character flaws and reprehensible behaviour. But he is being baited like a bear in a pit and I think some people will not be happy until he’s dead or even more humiliated. People are getting off on it.

LeedsLoiner · 20/02/2026 10:51

MannersAreAll · 31/10/2025 09:13

The question of who lives in the royal buildings is an important one, but accuracy is important.

They don't live in "grace and favour apartments". The live in rented apartments/cottages, like the Michaels of Kent and the Gloucesters.

Grace and favour has a specific meaning - it's free accommodation as part of job remuneration.

Certain aspects of the press seem to use Grace and favour in place of "rented from crown estates in places nobody else can rent" and it's not accurate.

Any idea what the rent is ? The cheapest three bedroom flat in Westminster according to Zoopla is £3000 a month and in Kensington it's £7300 a month.
Does anyone think they are paying the market rate for it ?

Giddykiddy · 20/02/2026 10:39

Just wait till they examine the contents of his computers, phones and burners. He's probably deleted loads of stuff but digital forensics will be able to see the deleted photos and emails. Gawd knows what's on there. Just finished Lownie's book - Entitled- besides all the sexual ( 40 hookers in 4 days to his rooms in Thailand while on tax payer business) stuff, the untold millions that went to him through his trade representative double dealing and the steps he took to launder those funds through Sarah and his daughters

accounts and foreign jurisdictions could see him on corruption and money laundering charges as well as misconduct. The scale of his sexual perversion ( Epstein said he made him look like an innocent) makes me shudder to think what they'll find.

Bertiebiscuit · 20/02/2026 09:54

The RF stumped up 15 million to shut her up. Mostly taxpayers money no doubt since that bunch of grifters never do a proper days work and they get given everything for free.

Bertiebiscuit · 20/02/2026 09:51

No. A "witch hunt" is when someone innocent is accused and punished. And usually a woman.

LamourdesTrois · 01/11/2025 16:05

lemonraspberry · 01/11/2025 11:03

Ok, so maybe he has not committed a crime (to be debated) but his behaviour is not the standard expected by the member of the UK royal family. Whilst they have all had their affairs etc, having sex with teen girls, facilitated and organised by convicted sex offenders, orgies and hiring of prostitutes (probably using public money), and reputation as a sex pest is not deemed acceptable and crossing the line.

He is not in prison. He will have a very comfy house in a very nice estate but as a normal person where he can have all the women he wants as a member of the public and keep a low profile. He has essentially been fired from the royal family and all it stands for. Bearing in mind two of the working royal family members are trying to continue on whilst having cancer treatment I can see how Andrew and his mid life crisis antics have come to this conclusion.

I agree with you.

LamourdesTrois · 01/11/2025 16:04

chunkyBoo · 01/11/2025 10:33

What are you talking about?! Of course it’s illegal, for a start, if this was at JE’s island it comes under the US Virgin Islands laws … 18 is the legal age. Also he paid her money, apparently according to her book someone mentioned up thread - also illegal to pay for sex. She was also trafficked, so was under duress so he raped her!!
thats 3 counts in my head

In the UK at that time it was not illegal to have sex with a 17 year old trafficked woman (or a 17 year old prostitute). Maybe in the US he could be charged, but not here.

lemonraspberry · 01/11/2025 11:03

LamourdesTrois · 31/10/2025 23:26

What crime has he committed? I am sure he did have sex with Virginia Giuffre just like she said and it was a disgraceful, immoral thing to do. However, it was not illegal to have sex with a trafficked 17 year old at that time so what he did was not illegal.

Ok, so maybe he has not committed a crime (to be debated) but his behaviour is not the standard expected by the member of the UK royal family. Whilst they have all had their affairs etc, having sex with teen girls, facilitated and organised by convicted sex offenders, orgies and hiring of prostitutes (probably using public money), and reputation as a sex pest is not deemed acceptable and crossing the line.

He is not in prison. He will have a very comfy house in a very nice estate but as a normal person where he can have all the women he wants as a member of the public and keep a low profile. He has essentially been fired from the royal family and all it stands for. Bearing in mind two of the working royal family members are trying to continue on whilst having cancer treatment I can see how Andrew and his mid life crisis antics have come to this conclusion.

TheignT · 01/11/2025 10:48

chunkyBoo · 01/11/2025 10:33

What are you talking about?! Of course it’s illegal, for a start, if this was at JE’s island it comes under the US Virgin Islands laws … 18 is the legal age. Also he paid her money, apparently according to her book someone mentioned up thread - also illegal to pay for sex. She was also trafficked, so was under duress so he raped her!!
thats 3 counts in my head

I thought her allegations were about something that happened in London?

Paying for sex is not illegal.

chunkyBoo · 01/11/2025 10:33

LamourdesTrois · 31/10/2025 23:26

What crime has he committed? I am sure he did have sex with Virginia Giuffre just like she said and it was a disgraceful, immoral thing to do. However, it was not illegal to have sex with a trafficked 17 year old at that time so what he did was not illegal.

What are you talking about?! Of course it’s illegal, for a start, if this was at JE’s island it comes under the US Virgin Islands laws … 18 is the legal age. Also he paid her money, apparently according to her book someone mentioned up thread - also illegal to pay for sex. She was also trafficked, so was under duress so he raped her!!
thats 3 counts in my head

U53rName · 01/11/2025 10:25

Joeninety · 31/10/2025 21:07

Wonder if he'll spill all the beans, now he has nothing to lose ?

He may do. But since he’s a serial liar, how will we differentiate between the truth and the gaslighting?

Crispynoodle · 31/10/2025 23:49

noworklifebalance · 31/10/2025 14:14

I never understood to adulation of QEII (the person not the ship). She has been rather self serving and shown either pretty shocking judgement or is as loathsome as the people she protected, including her favourite child.

Tbf I rather think in later life the Queen had become rather senile I doubt she had her full faculties no doubt Charles was making some decisions as William is now

LamourdesTrois · 31/10/2025 23:48

TheignT · 31/10/2025 15:51

Didn't the law change? Was it a crime at the time or was it an age thing.

The law changed - rightly so, but it was not a crime at the time.

LamourdesTrois · 31/10/2025 23:46

LlynTegid · 31/10/2025 10:55

I prefer a monarchy to having a political head of state, keep the ceremonial separate and recognise the history and soft power.

I think that the King would not want a 'former Spare' type book from Andrew, and also the Royals are not the only institution wanting to keep scandal quiet.

I'd like to see two more things happen, Andrew taken out of the line of succession, and face criminal charges be it in the UK or US (I assume there are some to answer for).

As for Andrew's daughters, their parents are not their fault.

Until something else comes to light I’m not sure there are any criminal charges to answer for - at the time when Andrew had sex with Virginia Giuffre it was not illegal to have sex with a trafficked 17 year old. It was not illegal to have sex with a 17 year old prostitute either so I’m not sure what charge could be brought.

Crispynoodle · 31/10/2025 23:40

I read on Twitter (X) which is obvs very reliable…NOT that King C 111 wouldn’t sign off on the 12M his mum was paying VG until she (The Queen) was prepared to announce that she wanted Camilla to become Queen/Queen consort when she passed away. Interesting

LamourdesTrois · 31/10/2025 23:33

Bobiverse · 31/10/2025 15:48

He is guilty is rape, if he had sex with her. She was trafficked. She cannot consent. Having sex with a trafficked woman is a crime, doesn’t matter what age she was or whether or not she said no.

If he did it, he is a rapist. That’s is a crime. And we all know he did it.

At the time it was not an offence to have sex with a trafficked woman. It is now, but it was not then.

AutumnalCrows · 31/10/2025 23:31

LamourdesTrois · 31/10/2025 23:26

What crime has he committed? I am sure he did have sex with Virginia Giuffre just like she said and it was a disgraceful, immoral thing to do. However, it was not illegal to have sex with a trafficked 17 year old at that time so what he did was not illegal.

It was if he was conspiring. IMO Andrew needs investigating for his potential involvement in sex trafficking and conspiracy to engage in such activities in various countries, including Thailand, the UK and the US over many decades.

And the Chinese spy issues.

LamourdesTrois · 31/10/2025 23:26

lemonraspberry · 31/10/2025 08:57

The cover up seemed to be under the late Queen's watch. I suspect the rest of the family have a different opinion on him and now feel, after giving Andy every opportunity to go quietly, have booted him out.

No he has not been convicted of any crime (yet) but it appears highly unlikely that he is innocent.

What crime has he committed? I am sure he did have sex with Virginia Giuffre just like she said and it was a disgraceful, immoral thing to do. However, it was not illegal to have sex with a trafficked 17 year old at that time so what he did was not illegal.