Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor : Why did the Queen protect him & was she complicit?

[SpottyAardvark]

Queen Elizabeth was very well aware of the seriousness of the allegations against Andrew, and of the testimony of his victim. She very likely knew there were more allegations against him by more victims. Yet she still protected him. She refused to take any action, other than bailing him out by paying paid out millions of pounds to settle legal claims against him by his victim.

Queen Elizabeth was part of the culture of denial & cover-up of serious crimes. Is this a serious stain on her reputation as monarch, and should there now be an enquiry into what she knew, and when, before we start putting up statues to this woman?

She was his mother.

Noone else has been named so it's seemingly open season on the royals. Maybe rather than dissecting every inch of andrew and his choices we should be demanding further investigation and disclosure around the countless others we are told were involved In some way and are currently getting away with it ccompletely scot free - there's one sat in the white house for a start.
Andrew is a small part of a much wider story when will the rest of it be told??

What I thought was interesting in last night’s statement was that it said “his majesty” was starting the process (presumably because he is monarch and has the constitutional power to do so) but that “their majesties” sent sympathy to victims.

I made me wonder if Camilla had been instrumental in pushing the king to do this. She has been very vocal about campaigning against violence against women and girls.

I find this constitutionally fascinating.

i am very glad this has happened and hope It leads to criminal charges.

Queen Elizabeth was part of the culture of denial & cover-up of serious crimes. Is this a serious stain on her reputation as monarch, and should there now be an enquiry into what she knew, and when, before we start putting up statues to this woman?

No.

I think this is in bad taste. Overall, the late Queen didn't put much of a foot wrong. We don't know what she knew and what she didn't. Maybe she was protected from much of it by the courtiers and her family. It's only since her death that the lies he told have been exposed (emails etc.)

She's not here to ask and speculating is just that.

I imagine that at 95 or whatever, paying the money was partly to try to close it all down and also give herself a break. She was ill and dying at the time.

No one will ever know the answer to your question.

Good points. Also, we don't know how much Andrew paid VG,, or where he got the money from.
It's all speculation.

This is in very poor taste.

Rightly or wrongly, mothers tend to support their offspring. He most likely hoodwinked her along with everyone else.

It's also worth noting that even today Andrew is denying the claims. Why that is we don't know- a fantasist, a personality disorder, in denial etc.

The point being that if, as a mother and also a Queen, you implored your son to tell the truth, hand on heart to you, and he swore he WAS telling the truth- where do you go from there?

If you still had doubts you'd pay up and hope that would shut it all down. Not to suggest he was guilty but because you were 95, dying, hoped to shut it down before your elderly son became King, and protecting the Crown from more damage.

I'm not a royalist but even I can see that the late Queen may not have been fully aware.

Andrew would have denied it all and he was clearly lying to himself and everyone else. Perhaps because he couldn't see anything wrong with his behaviour.

He didn't tell the Queen he was taking part in the interview so why do you believe he would have told her the sordid truth?

I also think the couriers would not have been open about rumours/speculation for Andrews behaviour. In any company it's also common that people protect the boss from bad news...especially if it's involves a family member and the boss is elderly and towards end of life

The person responsible is Andrew.

I also agree that other names need to come out. The FBI are releasing only emails from UK citizens as was "look over there" distraction.

Like a lot of rich people, they think money can solve everything and throwing enough at a pleb will make them shut up and go away.

Obviously the Queen came up with the cash for someone who her son claims never to have met for something he didn’t do. You don’t pay that kind of money without knowing he’s done something wrong.

I do think there’s been a massive shift on sex abuse over the years, it’s widely thought that MI5 were involved in a cover up with her cousin Lord Mountbatten who sexually abused boys. I suspect in days gone by having sexual privileges over your “lessers” was a perk of rank/ position/peerage. Lots of people believed they were untouchable/ above reproach so they could do whatever they wanted without consequence.

@Pleasealexa I agree, other names need to come out. Surely there are more emails from Epstein to other people?

@SecretSantaz I think this is in bad taste. Overall, the late Queen didn't put much of a foot wrong.

I think you're ascribing her far more benevolence than she deserved. Off the top of my head, only started paying taxes when realised that public opinion had finally turned on the issue, had oversight of all our proposed laws to ensure they didn't detrimentally affect the RF in any way and to that end ensured that the RF were exempt from the Equality Act. I could go on, but she was not the cuddly grandmother far too many still see her as. She was ruthless and solely focused on maintaining the privilege of that family.

@Tiredofwhataboutery Read my post before you posted.

It wasn't an admission of guilt - it was to try to shut it down.

HE doesn't believe he did wrong. He's still saying it's all lies.

At the time of her death, what we know now was not available.

I expect she thought 'You may be guilty or you may not be - there's no absolute proof yet- but I'll pay anyway in case you are.'

I actually think, in light of the ambiguity at the time, it was an honourable thing to do.

She was his mother and it's extremely likely his behaviour was kept from her much of the time anyway.

I think it's very tasteless and a horrible suggestion to think its appropriate to go after the late Queen for activities committed by her son. Leave her in peace and look for the other scum that used and abused children.

We will have to agree to disagree on all of that.

I think she was not focused on privilege, because by all accounts she never wanted to be Queen and wanted a simple, private life out of the limelight. In private, they were very frugal.

I think you underestimate the processes of the Court. They take a very long time to make changes. Many of her advisors have (with hindsight) been criticised for the advice they gave across all aspects of 'Royal life'.

The fact is she did start paying taxes and you can't know if it was because of public opinion OR because SHE felt it the right thing to do and had been prevented from doing so by her advisors. Contrary to your opinion, I think she modernised the RF far more than you give her credit for and often to the dismay of the 'old school' advisors.

Ultimately, she was a human being. None of us get it right 100% in our lives and being swayed with conflicting advice within an 'establishment' make it harder.

Yes, I’m aware of that. The question is did she knowingly protect a paedophile?

Look over there!

Just because others are also guilty, doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate the Royal Family.

Why bring this up now? She died at 96 and is not here to answer your questions.

It's in bad taste. Under UK law he was not a paedophile- VG was 17. I'm not defending his behaviour, but stop slinging terms around without being accurate.

@SecretSantaz I think she was not focused on privilege, because by all accounts she never wanted to be Queen and wanted a simple, private life out of the limelight. In private, they were very frugal.

You're right. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Why should we? Andrew is implicated only. He's not been charged with a crime and denies the allegations despite losing everything. And despite what some on this thread have said he's not a paedophile either.

@SecretSantaz I’m sure he doesn’t believe he’s done anything wrong. I suspect he’s been raised with the attitude that he could do no wrong. I’m quite sure he’s affronted by all the allegations as utterly beneath him. The idea that he should be held accountable is ridiculous (to him).

Very often families are also groomed by groomers to not question the dynamics.

Maybe she did turn a blind eye. She wasn't the one at fault though. If she used her power to prevent an investigation into him then I think she can be criticised but if all she did was love him and believe him I think it is just an indication that she was human!

Andrew was involved in the sexual assault and trafficking of children. He is a disgrace. I don't think he was the king pin or the most powerful though. I image there is a whole murky world where privileged and powerful (mostly) men do all sorts of horrible things and get away with it because of the privilege and power they have.

As a society we need to do what we can to stop it - would trying for a more equal society help? Could preventing inherited privilege help?

I agree with this. I'm in my 50s and when I started work senior managers could make sexual approaches to women, in the open, without sanction.

My guess is Andrew believed and still believes he didn't do anything wrong as the girls were over 16 and the concept of trafficking/grooming was unknown. You only have to look at the scandals in Rotherham to realise how widespread it was and everyone turned a blind eye.

My guess is the Andrew admitted to being at parties with Epstein but claimed he was innocence of anything else. I really doubt he told his mother the whole sordid truth.

He's not very bright.

I know people in RL who have worked closely with him and he's not the sharpest tool in the tool box.

Is this a serious question?

The Royal family are not above anyone in terms of morality. At the end of the day, she was human, he is her son and her entire bloodline had too much to lose. Of course, covering up allegations was on the table. She did that to protect her time as monarch and not have it be tainted by him.

Plus beyond that, many people including women, don’t see sexual harassment or abuse as that serious. She probably had a “boys will be boys” attitude and didn’t see the victim as being a valid victim. She likely totally bought into his version of events.