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

Hmmm

I actually don't give a monkeys about the royals or what Andrew did compared to Trump. Everything needs to come out about about him and Epstein. He's the most powerful man in the world.

It seems like Andrew will have his day in court and fairly soon. So due process will be afforded to him.

There is a whole lot more about to come out that seems like it will be very bad for Andrew, so it looks like the King was trying to get ahead of events.

Andrew Lownie has talked a lot about more evidence that will be coming out and The Times are reporting on further Epstein email leaks that will be very bad for Andrew.

I think you'll get your wish that he gets to exercise his legal right to a fair trial.

The institution needs a really good shake up and I think there are some Royals who we believe to be morally capable of their roles but that's simply by accident.
No functioning adult should be jobless and purposeless in the way that we accept the royal family to be. What on earth is Fergie's role and why is she still hanging around.Can the King afford to fund all these fully grown people who can't function normally because they're brought up as Royals.

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.

A lot of this at the start was the Queen protecting her favourite son.

I don't blame the King so much. He obviously feels quite differently about him and has done a lot more to exclude Andrew than the Queen ever did.

Who was unfaithful first in that marriage? Diana, by her own admission.

And the fact that Harry turned out to be a nasty character can’t be laid at Charles’ door. Are parents to be punished for the sins of their children now?

Anyway, all of this is irrelevant to the point I was making. Even the most despicable person is entitled to due process and not to be tried in the court of public opinion.

I agree.

I think I kind of had more respect for them when they were protecting Andy. I mean still horriffic, obviously, but you could argue the strength of their family loyalty or whatnot, if you wanted to be charitable.

THIS...covering up abuse, paying people off, protecting Andrew for years UNTIL it looks like it might start backfiring on Charles, Willie and the rest and THEN they throw him under the bus only to save their own image...bleugh. The most weasley and pathetic of actions.

To be clear, I don’t agree with what the Queen did in regards to Andrew.

But I don’t think that’s the reason he hasn’t been convicted. I mean, no one (except Maxwell) has been convicted. 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.

Charles has been married to Camilla for much longer than he was married to Diana (and had he been permitted to marry her in the first place none of that sorry mess would ever have happened). He was not head of the Church of England when married to Diana.

Absolutely, but at least it shows they eventually had to take notice.
The video footage of Andrew and Fergie surrounding the senior royals after the recent funeral was bizarre.The ethereal Kate even looked slightly shook at Fergie's behaviour.

While I have little time for the Monarchy, especially Andrew, I have to say my disdain for them grows. Their willingness to throw family members aside to protect their reputations is pretty poor in my book.

Can we not just bin them all at this point? The monarchy and the whole aristocratic structure is a ridiculous anachronism that should have been torn out decades ago.

Does anyone look up to these people any more? Why on earth would you?

Oh, but Trump apparently does - says it all really.

It is

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.

He's not been convicted of a crime because he hid behind his mother who wouldn't let US investigators interview him.

Charles is an embarrassment, head of the Church of England but unfaithful in his marriage, long term friend of Jimmy Saville. Has raised sons who hate each other and has grandchildren who will never even know each other.
He is only acting now, in response to public opinion, to save face.

No one would argue it’s ’totally fine’ - the man’s an unpleasant character, as I said, and a liar to boot. But we live in a society governed by law and order and due process. Everyone is entitled to it, no matter how despicable they are.

His titles can only be removed by parliament

This is what I’d thought, but the news today says the king will send a royal warrant (I think) to David Lammy as Lord Chancellor, for him to formally remove the Duke and Prince titles.
Maybe it’s just removal from succession that can only be done by parliament? Andrew is remaining in the line of succession but I suppose that’s because that doesn’t matter in any practical sense because short of a complete tragedy involving William and all his children, and Harry and both his children, it’s not going to happen.

I agree with you. Enough now.

You’re perfectly entitled to think he’s ‘loathsome scum’ - I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you. The point is that we live in a society governed by law and order. There are legal processes to follow, procedures that must be adhered to. He can’t be stripped of his titles and all his worldly possessions because you think he’s an unpleasant character. He’s not a convicted criminal, and cannot be treated like one. It’s easy to see how witch hunts began centuries ago - the mob mentality is in full display here.

Yes, spot on @1apenny2apenny . I wonder also if the timing here is to shut down the discussion about where the money comes from - because I would bet Andrew is not the only family member who may have dodgy or murky financials.

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.

Do you mean it's totally fine to go on TV and declare you cut contact with Epstein as soon as you heard about his crimes but really in secret you carried on sending emails of support thinking no one would find out?

And yet unfortunately for him the emails have now been exposed as has he. Is that what you really think anyone should be doing let alone a member of the royal family, communicating with a sex offender?

To me it obvious what’s been going on. The objective of the rf is to preserve their status at all costs. In the past they have been able to cover things up due to no sm, now they use injunctions and negotiate with the press to keep things quiet for a few ribbon cutting pictures. They have been forced into making these changes having done the minimum at every step hoping it would go away whilst we are fed lines about William being outraged.

I hope the momentum on this continues and people start pressing for more changes.

Well, we all know that not being convicted of a crime does not necessarily mean you are innocent. And by avoiding going to court or speak to the FBI, Andrew has not done himself any favours.

As for a witch hunt - this is what the RF do. Carry on as usual until public outrage gets to a point which is unsustainable, then throw someone to the wolves to make it look like they are doing something. We have seen it, albeit less dramatically, many times - one person or the institution is protected at the expense of another.

And really, he is getting a free house in a lovely place. Its hardly the worst punishment in the world.