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

Well, it seems clear that many women dont agree with you - I think he comes across as a serious author actually.

1000% agree. The British public are (mostly) not dumb and can now see the game that was being played. The palace can scrub the internet of all the pictures of K&W playing happy families with Andrew but we won’t forget.

As 1st in line, William would have known everything King Charles and the secret services have on his uncle, however, his first instinct was to protect the institution. Part of this strategy included permitting his people to promote the bullying of his brother and wife.

No hastily arranged outings featuring Kate grinning will make me not continue to heavily side eye Prince William. I think he’s a very ruthless man.

It seems many powerful/rich/not so powerful/less rich people have been involved in the Epstein events. Andrew seems to be the one the press and the public have rounded on so I would say that maybe being royal has made him a target. He has not been charged or convicted so remains innocent of acting illegally. I do think it’s time to stop the media attacks. He has lost an awful lot and I would be concerned about his mental health. Clearly he is retreating from public life, surely that should be the end unless their is any legal or police involvement.

Oh come one, she has had plenty of adulation for not doing very much.
Yes, she has received some public criticism and rightly so on some very very poorly made choices. Goodness knows what other choices she has made in her own or family’s self interest that we don’t know about.

He used his privilege to swerve the law at the time, so it is now a he said/she said, and it has now come out that he blatantly lied to Emily Maitlis (we have on tape the date he said he terminated his friendship with Epstein, which has now been contradicted by proof in the form of emails sent between the two after that timeframe). He has proven himself to be a liar and now it sits in the Court of Public Opinion, like it or not. It does not look good, and his undoing is down to himself and his poor choices. He’s just a mediocre man with with an inflated sense of himself, who thought he could outsmart us all. Problem is—he’s not as bright as he thinks he is, and none of the yes-people around him have had the courage to tell him so.

She hasn't had adulation for all of her reign. Not paying taxes was quite a big thing back in the day, for instance.

She was a contemporary of my parents, and my dad had just died when she died and, despite not being a monarchist, I was quite upset. When she graduated to being elderly I think she became a symbol of times past, an archetype rather than a person. She also symbolised an era that was well and truly gone. I think society latched onto this and it manifested in varying degrees of respect through to adulation.

I don't think Charles means something to society anything like what she represented, although his longevity as PoW gives him some background gravitas now he's king.

All this not withstanding the minority who adulate the monarchy just because they are the monarchy. Like the ones who camp out to see them, or are at church at 5am getting their places.

No, don’t agree with that assessment. Harry fucked things up spectacularly for himself - he’s a grown man, with full agency, and immense privileges, who lied and lied and threw it all away over a few petty grievances.

The Royal Family have covered up for Harry, too.

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.

The media is at it now trying to spin William as the one forcing Andrew out as if we haven't seen him drive him to church etc. And immediately bringing Harry into it, as if he is in anyway comparable to Andrew.

The royal family only care now because it was becoming too much of a scandal to ignore and chucking Harry under the bus doesn't get as much attention as it used to as a distraction.

As an institution they've protected him at every turn making it impossible for him ever to face a court of law (so they can then bleat that he's never been found guilty in a court of law).

Given the picture with Andrew and Virginia was taken 25 years ago and we’re only hearing much of the story now (and I bet there’s way more to come), I think they did a great job of covering it up. He’s now being thrown under the bus to protect the institution.

Virginia Guiffre said she was paid £15,000. As distasteful as we find it, he’s not been convicted of any crime - saying he ‘effectively’ raped her doesn’t cut it. We have a criminal justice system for a reason. There are proper procedures to follow. We can’t decide to throw all that out the window simply because we find him odious.

Yes, he knowingly associated with Epstein and lied about it. No one respects him or supports him, insofar as believing he’s entitled to due process. At this point, he has committed no crime. You might think he’s unworthy of the titles, which is your prerogative, but there’s a legal mechanism that has to be followed- it’s not as easy as just asking the King to strip them from him, and he can’t relinquish them. That’s the point I’m making.

When will the proper investigations into his dodgy real estate deals start? The one where the middle eastern guy paid millions over asking for Andrew’s house sounds like money laundering to me.

It’s clear The Palace launched a PR offensive against Harry to deflect from the late Queens favourite. I don’t believe for a second QE2 did not know all of this about Andrew.

Awful and ruthless family (plus key staff) who only care about their own survival.

Yes I also thought it was fitting he’s now named after a peado.

Because it won’t be just a ‘sole’ witness@HelenaWaiting .

Yes, no argument there. But in terms of a day in court to defend himself against the specific accusations in Virginia’s book, considering she’d been dead for six months when they were published, how would that even be possible? He could sue Andrew Lownie, I suppose, since some of the allegations in his book are allegedly baseless.

Whether I believe VG or not is neither her nor there (and I’ve never said I don’t). It’s whether there’s evidence to convict in a court of law, and is there, with the alleged incidents being over 20 years ago and her being dead and unable to give evidence?

Comparing it to Savile as someone did upthread is like comparing apples and oranges; allegations surfaced after his death not the accusers’, and hundreds of accusers came forward. He couldn’t defend himself, but the accusers could testify, which is clearly not the case here.

How can his non-criminal status be changed? A sole witness who cannot be questioned? Even in the USA he couldn't be charged now. In the UK there is no crime at all.

@Ukisgasliti hasn't ever read about the attempt to serve papers. That is disgraceful and the sort of thing I was asking for when I asked for evidence.

@MrsLeonFarrell

I don’t think you’ll accept any evidence that shows the Windsors for what they are .

I have seen former royalists admit that now want rid as a result of what they have learned over the last few years . Those people are to be admired - it’s hard to see that you’ve been taken for a fool .

However here is the short version re how Andrew was protected :

The palace used their ‘power’ to try to put a lid on it by smearing VG . Disgraceful. They already knew Andrew was attempting to pay internet trolls to smear VG and to ask the police to dig up dirt ( I’m sure the police would refuse this but how did Andrew get her National Ins number? )

When papers were attempted to be served Andrew hid behind the ( our!) gates at Windsor . When it got too hot - he fled to Balmoral and was protected from the law there .

Whe a judge in New York said that handing papers to a policeman was enough - suddenly a multimillion pay out appeared . Paid for by us .

The royal machine continued to show Elizabeth’s support for Andrew . William and Charles continued to use this quiet support approach until this week . Maybe it was the fact that Republic were garnering support for a private prosecution.

Members of the public shouted at Andrew when he showed his face . Remember Rory in Edinburgh? Hero !
Royalists on here tore him apart for his lack of ‘respect’
Similarly the man who clearly shouted questions Charles - Charles looked like an utter fool pretending he couldn’t hear !

More of this is needed .

If you still can’t grasp that Andrew was protected , I can’t help you

here is a link re the attempts to serve papers

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/13/new-york-court-pre-trial-civil-suit-prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre

The Queen having the money to settle does give them power to offer but it could have been refused and they would've have been able to stop the case. The statement denying the claims is what anyone can do, although of course it was given more weight because of the late Queen's reputation. But it didn't stop people going after him, that's what protection would achieve surely.

Discussing this i suppose i really feel that they didn't achieve anything except kicking the problem down the road. To me protection would have solved the problem.

If only he hadn’t instructed his security to intercept in 2021 when they continually tried to serve him papers…he’d have had his day in court. He used his security and his RF privilege to block the legal process, so has no grounds to complain that he didn’t have an opportunity to prove his innocence in a court of law.

The queen paying 12 million to settle it and avoid a trial and the palace stating the claims were false (which has to be taken in context that this was issued by the institution of the monarchy, that's soft power and there's the crown saying "you're a liar") both come to mind

I want to know how he was protected. People are saying he was but not how. As far as I'm aware no one stopped law enforcement from arresting him. 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.

I'm genuinely asking how he was protected.

Henry VIII set up the Church of England so he could get divorced !!