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

Andrew is more than welcome to tell all he knows about Epstein and Maxwell’s other friends, clients and ‘marks’; and Harry is welcome to tell all he knows about Andrew, Sarah and the York set-up.

The silence is uncomfortable.

Don't think he was that well liked generally, even before all these revelations came to light.

How erudite.

No need to think, or engage the lonely brain cell. Just dumb things down to this dreary level and shout abusive epithets.

So Chrimbo is coming soon and the pap walk will be interesting. I think I'd be mortified parading up the church path to the noise of adoring fans, while down the road and in people's houses howls of derision can be heard. I wonder if the King's speech has already been recorded, it might need a revision now with sorrowful tales of another Annus Horribilis of illness, estrangement, swift house moves, hidden brothers, wayward ex DILs and a fabulous homage to "The ties of family" with a big pic of H,M and kids on the piano.

Then there's the next gambit. Oyez, Oyez, Harry and Meghan and the kids will be returning for a close family visit at Christmas, OMG, the frenzy and the heat is immediately off the A situ. It can be cancelled a day before due to Covid inf or something, but the online battles about it will not feature A +S at all. Perfect there son! And before that a full on fluff piece about W+K new house, kids frolicking on Grandad's rocking horse in the cosy drawing room (too cold outside you see), with a backdrop of leafless trees and winter landscape offset by a roaring fire. You get the picture. Deflect, deflect, deflect. Positive spins incoming.

But maybe they'll all keep their heads down and do and say nothing. Never complain, never explain.

I'm getting the word...NONCE

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

That was an odd one. I can't see the late Queen committing perjury so I wonder what was happening behind the scenes for her to need to step in. She only stopped the case in the sense that the case was apparently brought under a misaprehension and she corrected it. Can't any of us do the same?

The late Queen paid off the court case but it had to be agreed. She couldn't stop a case if it had gone ahead

But she did, @MrsLeonFarrell - remember Paul Burrell and the incredible story of her asking what was going on when driving past the Old Bailey, then suddenly "remembering a conversation" which halted the trial and kept him from giving evidence?

And this despite the case being all over the papers in the preceding week ... papers which we're told the Queen was always interested in reading?

Again, what exactly do you think Charles can do to anyone else who has been accused? What do you think the royal family can actually do about that?

The Epstein case was an FBI case, in America. It isn’t in the UK. The files also have not been released. No one can look into anything.

Charles can take stuff away from his brother. The British press will talk a lot about Andrew because he is such an odious figure within the royal family. What do you think Charles can do about the rest of the Epstein files? Or the press for that matter, while the files have not been released.

The discussion about removing him from the line of succession to me just highlights how ridiculous a monarchy is in this day and age. They have their power due to accident of birth. They have been born into a family that believes it has a divine right to rule. If you start chopping and changing because somebody is unsuitable then it isn’t a hereditary monarchy. And if it isn’t a hereditary monarchy then why can’t somebody else have a crack at it.

I think its time to look into all these "other men" who have allegedly been involved with Epstein and co. Why are they focusing only on Andrew?

The problem now surely is, if there was a trial, how could you ever find an unbiased jury? Who has not become aware of these allegations, and is not more or less sure of his guilt? Any lawyer would pounce on that.

I agree with the PP who said he must now be officially removed from the LOS. It might be only symbolic given the number ahead of him, but tbh it’s more important than a title. If William and family were wiped out in a car crash and Harry said thanks but no thanks, there would be nothing to stop King Andrew. It might prompt a republic, but that would take time.

Yes they did. They’ve only acted when they started feeling the impact. 🤷‍♀️

I do think it’s time to stop the media attacks.

I think it's time to start a criminal investigation.

Agreed.

There’s a (sourced) passage in Lownie’s book about Andrew in Thailand ‘entertaining’ ‘forty prostitutes’ and ‘sending’ a large number of ‘prostitutes’ to an man involved in his sordid world.

I have said before that this places Andrew firmly in sex trafficking territory, as in Andrew himself being a sex trafficker, should it be proven to be true, possibly of girls as well as young adult women.

ETA: And China spies, of course £££

I think there is something much worse to come out about Andrew, given what has happened in the last few days. I imagine it will be something that is quite obviously illegal.

That was what her statement said when she dropped the claim, yes. She “may have made a mistake in identifying him”.
Hard to ”make a mistake” with someone like PA, though.

Who are those who got away with worse than Andrew?

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

That's true. Didn't she "make a mistake" when she accused Dershowitz (hope that's how you spell it). Pretty horrendous thing to wrongly accuse someone of.

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.

JE’s island comes under the jurisdiction of the US Virgin Islands - age of consent is 18. Paying for sex is also illegal. A child becomes an adult at 18, so Andrew had sex with a minor, paid for sex where the child was trafficked
he likely would be tried in the USA, and would be guilty of the above, however he refused to go and face the court.
yes he’s odious, he’s also a criminal, effectively in abeyance, until the US law catch up with him

Maybe they don’t but that doesn’t mean my opinion of him is any less valid. Maybe they haven’t watched as many of his interviews as I have (I went down a rabbit hole last week). He’s like a dog with a bone, even when an interviewer corrects him on an obviously false claim, and not in a good way.