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

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.

I said “sometimes”. Please learn to read.

There is no legal way to determine the truth of this situation, because she is dead. You can not assume that anyone’s account in this situation is true because it can not be tried with due legal process because the person making the accusations is no longer able to give evidence. I’m not saying it isn’t true, and I’m certainly not victim blaming, just that there’s no way to prove any of it.

Meanwhile, someone who has not been convicted of any crime is being publicly hounded out of his life in a trial by media. He may be a loathsome individual and probably is, but as things stand he is not a criminal, and there doesn’t seem to be any way of changing that.

Reflect on whether that’s right before you tell me to educate myself, please.

It's just weird to me. Why? Surely if you look up to someone it's because they've done something to warrant it, but what is there in this case?

Some of them do seem to work fairly hard, but then so do millions of other people who then don't have palaces and servants to go back to afterwards.

Just odd.

I don't think it's too much to expect someone who gains so much from their public position to behave appropriately; they don't need to be angels. You say he's been convicted of no crime; that's why he's not in jail (yet, who knows what is to come), but you conflate that with the removal of privileges most of us can't dream of, they have their own threshold, which he is through.

💯

He should have been made to play ball with legal and investigative processes when it actually mattered and could have made a difference.

As it stands, he’s being stripped of titles not because he’s been actually found guilty of something but because he’s become an embarrassment and liability to them.

Exactly.

What is so sad is how many people with this view crawl out of the woodwork. It reinforces why victims don't come forward in the first place and why they feel they won't be believed.

Lots of people do look up to them unfortunately.

You need to google ‘victim blaming’ @TwinklyStork . Attributing a ‘tenuous view of reality’ to those who have gone through such trauma is the very definition of victim blaming. Please educate yourself.

I’m not undermining anything, I’m looking at it objectively. I acknowledged that she’d obviously been through awful things. I’m pointing out that nobody knows the truth, there will never be a day in court for anyone and there can’t be because of the circumstances, and Andrew Lownie is trying to sell a book.

Well you're entitled to your opinion but I would strongly disagree with you.

Its interesting how you yourself focus in on how things are said rather than what is actually being said. Your post is rather twisting in that it tries to say the right things on the surface but actually there's an unpleasant tone of victim blaming underneath.

It's sad that people are still trying to find sly ways to undermine what victims say when speaking out about their abusers.

I won't be responding to your posts further so there's no point in replying. I won't engage with posters who seek to undermine abuse survivors.

I also think that KC seemed to try to bring Andrew & Sarah back into the public eye a bit more once QEII had died. We saw them more often at family events, SF at Sandringham for the first time in decades, if I remember correctly. Most probably at A&S's request rather than by invitation, I should think.

But this (quite rightly) backfired with the release of 'Entitled'. It would have been better to have kept A&S away from the cameras, in the background as they had been under QEII reign.

Not a supporter of the monarchy and would be happy if they all went but I find it a bit weird that people say "the royal family" as if they're some sort of hive mind who all share one opinion and have equal input in decision making.

In reality nobody other than the queen, and now king, would have had the power to do anything. I hardly doubt Zara or Sophie etc had much input into what was going on with Andrew. I imagine the Queen might have protected him for his own sake, but most of the others would have dropped him in it/cut ties much earlier if they werent aware that it would reflect back on them.

Charles is presumably also aware that if he cuts all of Andrews income and freebies he's not just going to get a job in Tesco-he'll want to earn money anyway possible to carry on his normal lifestyle....and as "spare" has proven the easiest way is to ghostwriter a tell all book. I'm sure Andrew has enough dirt on all of them (or could make it up) - threat of mutually assured destruction.

Andrew is an online mate of mine and he has been writing the book for years, not just the last few months!
His book suggests strongly that Beatrice and thingy are UP TO THEIR EARS in it - accepting as adults large amounts of money from dodgy politicians from the Stans

I think it was obvious. I think the RF and their advisors have a lot of experience in covering things up. I imagine Andrew and Sarah also have a lot of beans they could spill if they wanted to. The deal with them will be absolutely water-tight, though.

I am a supporter of the RF and have read 'Entitled'. It has, sadly, made me feel differently towards them all.

But, ultimately I still support the monarchy. I think our country would be a lot less vibrant without them.

I’m sure he is respected and I said as much, but there’s something about the way he comes across when talking about this that doesn’t sit easily with me and it’s not that the content is uncomfortable, it’s that his apparent glee at what he’s “uncovered” is. He doesn’t talk about the Yorks as bullies in the interviews and he’s particularly complimentary about Fergie who he describes as a lovely person if not particularly bright.

I’d also point out that he doesn’t know what goes on behind closed doors since he wasn’t there either so nobody can definitively say whether what he’s saying is true or not; he’s relying on other peoples’ accounts as much as anyone else is. Virginia Giuffre undoubtedly went through awful things in her life and I feel terribly sorry for her, but that also doesn’t change the fact that individuals who are that damaged and traumatised by their pasts sometimes unfortunately have a bit of a tenuous grip on reality.

Nobody has any idea whether any of this is accurate, it’s all he said she said, and nobody gets a day in court because the accuser is dead.

I don’t know what the answer to that is. I’m not sure there is one.

I agree he shouldn't be tried in the court of opinion and the pending legal proceedings need to be brought against him so everyone can have their day in court, not just Andrew.

The problem is though, without the public anger that has erupted it would never have got to this point. It would have just been swept under the carpet again. So without the outrage against Andrew, he would probably still be sitting comfortably in Royal Lodge protected by the Monarchy.

Public anger is sometimes a good catalyst for change however uncomfortable it may be.

I think it’s now because the uppity plebs are getting more and more concerned about the RF’s very shady wealth building and this is another bone to keep us happy.

It was only last week that many comments on MN were of the “oh no, we need an act of parliament/impossible constitutional powers to strip him of titles properly.” And here we are, it’s been done overnight!

Andrew Lownie is actually a friend of a friend of mine and is well respected by those who know him in real life. He was horribly bullied and threatened by the former Yorks for a long time but he ploughed on regardless. He's a very brave man given how much pressure he had to live with for 4 years.

I'm glad he's out there speaking truth to power and backing up Virginia Giuffre's account of what really goes on behind closed doors. It may be uncomfortable to hear but it doesn't make it less true.

I’m not a monarchist or a republican one way or the other so I don’t really have a dog in this fight but through sheer morbid fascination I’ve watched a lot of interviews with Andrew Lownie in the last few weeks. There is something very off about him. Apparently he’s a very respected author and historian but the way he talks about Andrew’s sex life and the way he dives into it and likes to divulge the very specific details is odd, and his manner is creepy and makes for very uncomfortable viewing.

Maybe he just interviews badly, but it’s almost like he’s rubbing his hands together with glee while he’s imparting this information and it’s beginning to come across as some kind of vendetta. Let’s not forget that he, too, is just trying to sell his book.

I don't agree we need it to be proven, for the royal family to continue to show they still have a place in the world they need to show they are relevant. If there is any suspicion of doubt given it is has been all over the papers for years then they do need to take action. And we the public can have our own opinions, even if its not proven the public are allowed to start to voting with their feet by pulling away from the Royals.

They don’t seem to be doing a very good job of covering up for him. When you consider how many must have been involved and the fact that they are all continuing with their lives uncensored.

It seems we’re agreed then, that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. You don’t have to like the person - you can actively dislike someone while still believing that due process needs to be followed, and people shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion.

Hmmm

@ShesTheAlbatross It’s not like the US have tirelessly investigated and charged the many men who they must know were involved and Andrew is the only one to get away with it because of the Queen

Totally. And as David Yelland (I think) pointed out on the Today programme on R4 this morning, at least Charles has now taken action and stripped Andrew of his princedom and the Royal Lodge. On the other side of the Atlantic, officialdom is still taking the view that there is nothing to see there.

I don’t know, essentially he has lost his job, which happened to come with accommodation, for bringing the company into disrepute. He has a generous severance package which includes alternative accommodation. I don’t think in a corporate setting you would need a criminal basis for this so I don’t see this as any different.