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?

I think it was probably common knowledge, and they all turned a deaf ear.

In Andrew Lownie’s book he comments on how many of the jobs needed to Andrew to be promoted into in order to increase in rank were created for him. He might have jumped the hoops but he jumped special hoops created just for him (presumably not very far off the ground).

Maybe.

I don't know the RN rotary world that well but posts and positions in the mil in general do end up being established/disestablished over time (usually down to the Treasury) and as best I can see at least at times A M-W did hold down what looked like legit flying and flying related management roles. It's maybe also worth being aware that "being popular across the ranks" wasn't and probably still isn't a requirement for promotion in the mil..

Certainly a handful of decades later the Army weren't willing to give another younger Prince a shot at senior officer rank, let alone create a special role for him, so you can't assume being Royal in the forces always equals accelerated promotion whilst serving.

WIlliam got specially tailored accelerated flight training at vast public expense, before giving up flying about 16 months later.

They were apparently created because he wasn’t considered suitable or competent for the positions that were available. They may not have done the for another royal but I’m sure we can agree they 100% wouldn’t have done it for a random service member who’s mum worked in Tesco, rather than ruled the country.

I suppose it’s obvious I’m a republican but this is one of the things the that winds me up the most. The propaganda that they’re just like us and get no special treatment when time and time again it’s obviously not the case. And somehow people lap it up?!

They were apparently created because he wasn’t considered suitable or competent for the positions that were available.

Possibly, but out of interest did the author have sight of A M-W's annual appraisals?

Absolutely agree with this post! Very well said!

If the Epstein debacle hadn’t come to light we would probably still be in the dark! And given the opposition that Lownie came up against from BP and the Foreign office when writing the book; it’s pretty obvious that the cover up was deliberate!

Extraordinary really in that a lot of what Lownie put in his book had already been reported in the papers years before, but no one took action. It shows how privilege protects! Until the protector dies that is.

I think it’s logical to assume that if the RF paid out circa £12 million to prevent a court happening; then QE2 and KC3 would have asked some pretty piercing questions about the extent of Andrew’s activities! There is no way the late Queen was not aware!

And all of those arguing that the late Queen, as an elderly lady, didn’t know, or didn’t want to know, about Andrew’s sexual proclivities , what about his financial misdemeanours?

Lownie states in his book, that diplomats and politicians brought proof of Andrew’s nefarious financial misdemeanours to the Queen , while Andrew was acting as trade envoy for UK, and as such, was being supported by the British tax payer, and no action was ever taken!

The late Queen, while a doting mother, had a clear duty as head of state, to ensure that when a member of her family had potentially committed fraud or malfeasance, that this was brought to light and dealt with and not covered up.

And you know what, even now, very few commentators are talking about this! It’s still being glossed over because no one wants to besmirch the reputation of the late Queen.

Well sorry, she may have had lots of good qualities, but if she covered up her son’s financial corruption while in office, that is a very serious matter, and one that should be treated seriously, or how will we know that it can’t happen again?

He does reference poor appraisals where whilst he scored highly for technical skills (e.g. the actual flying part) he was poor in other domains, or others where he was given a low score which then magically was adjusted up. I'm afraid I'm listening to it as an audiobook so can't look up the exact details but it doesn't paint a picture of a person who was where he was entirely on his own merit.

Whaaat? This is crazy! 😦

I have just read this article by Associated Press:

https://apnews.com/article/germany-britain-royal-visit-queen-elizabeth-charles-7e1edcad174ae955584734de9642c1f7#

How embarrassing!

They were all at it!

This is sheer speculation on my part but having read the Lownie book, I think that they didn’t investigate Andrew too much because what he was doing was at the extreme end of how they all operate!

Free services and free gifts! Nothing declared on a register! Murky lines between a donation given to charity to enable someone to sit next to a member of the RF at dinner confused with payments to charities for the potential purpose of circumventing citizenship laws? Who is overseeing all of this to ensure that probity is maintained? The RF have not done a very good job of policing themselves to date imho.

There was all of the furore about Charles and Michael Fawcett’s activities weren’t there, about cash for honours etc and carrier bags of cash? No criminal wrongdoing ever found apparently! 😁. But Fawcett resigned; was it twice or three times?

The difference with Andrew is that he didn’t have the whit to be as discreet and calculating as the others so he has become a scape goat for all of them! Not that he doesn’t deserve it!

Interesting that he got that detail...hope my annuals never see the light of day....

I should have added that where I was (not RN) your report went up the chain (your boss>their boss>etc) who each got a go to put the boot in.

As a result it wasn't that unusual to see the odd mark for a particular factor being changed, i.e. adjusted down or up, even if you didn't have connections in the right places.

No one paid millions in legal claims because VG never made a legal case against PA she only filed a civil suit.

Also it’s pure speculation as too how much was given and who by; this information has never been disclosed or verified. HTH

I agree. She was trying to shut it down
Not an admission of guilt at all.

The Times said something about him not being allowed to use the hyphen. Does anyone know anything about that?

He also caused others to lose their shift pay when he decided to turn up for a shift with the air ambulance meaning someone else had to stand down. Happened several times to a friend’s son.

Does it matter how much it was? Monies were still paid to hush it up, regardless of whether it was 2 million of 12 million.

All the news sources I’ve read put the payment between £10 and £12 million.

And Virginia could hardly file a criminal case? That’s for the authorities. After an investigation of course. As I see it, Virginia did what she could to hold him accountable.

If we are talking about William going into his air ambulance role, it's true that converting military experience into a civilian commercial ticket, especially in the helicopter world isn't going to be cheap but it would be interesting to hear how "vast" the expense was...

As for William displacing people and costing them pay, it"s a valid gripe TBF but that's not his fault, that's down to T&Cs at the operator.

Can't talk for the air ambulance world but some employers in the aviation industry protect an employee's pay if that employee ends up being displaced from a flying duty to facilitate another individual's need to fly..

There’s a hello article about it, but it doesn’t say why the hyphen was dropped. Just that the form announced is the form agreed upon.
^^
“However, there was one discrepancy in the statement that may have caught the eye of royal watchers – the spelling of Andrew's new surname Mountbatten Windsor.
^^
Curiously, in the statement, the double-barrel surname is not hyphenated, whereas in all other instances where the surname has been used by the royal family, it is.
^^
When asked about the lack of hyphen, a Buckingham Palace spokesperson confirmed: "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was the name agreed."

To hyphenate or not to hyphenate

Monarchists are always keen to point out how the Queen was a great stateswoman and advisor to many prime ministers etc etc. I therefore find it baffling that she wasn't savvy enough to realise that paying a settlement to a woman accusing your son of rape might come across as an admission of guilt.

If we're using the 'she was just his mum' argument then I'd personally want my son to have justice if I genuinely believed he was innocent - although perhaps she was savvy enough to realise how much muck would come out (although that doesn't help the denying a cover up argument).

The Queen died in 2022. Andrew met Epstein in the 90s. Virginia Giuffre first made her allegation agains Andrew in 2001. Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl in 2008. Andrew continued to visit Epstein in 2009 despite his conviction and the Central Park pictures were in 2010. Epstein's housekeeper testifies that Andrew was staying with Epstein in 2010 and receiving daily massages. Andrew and Fergie were in contact with him in 2011 (when he sent her money to pay her debts) - Andrew emails him telling him 'we are in this together' and to 'keep in touch' wanting to 'play some more soon'. Giuffre filed in 2015. Epstein is arrested and dies in 2019. Giuffre went to court again in 2021 and the settlement was paid out in 2022.

The Queen had decades to 'shut it down'.

If Andrew genuinely had no idea what Epstein etc was up to then why not cooperate with the legal system - he refused to corporate with the FBI investigation into Epstein despite publicly saying he would. Surely he'd have helpful evidence for them if he genuinely was remorseful or had any drive to help achieve justice for Epstein's victims?

Those saying that Giuffre only launched a civil suit so implying it doesn't count ( @JoeSikoraTommysStory ) - would you say the same of E Jean Carroll's allegation against Trump or is it only sex crimes in the Royal family you're willing to defend on technicalities?

There are many, many problems with the monarchy. There's been a very successful propaganda campaign about how little they cost us (along with the propaganda that they don't get any special treatment or that they bring in any sort of significant tourist income/charitable donations to organisations they're patrons of). The interference with laws that might affect them. The hypocrisy of taking roles in talking about climate change whilst owning multiple residences each, using helicopters to fly short distances, endless foreign travel or talking about homelessness whilst being a slum landlord. That's setting aside the concept of how ridiculous a hereditary monarchy is in 2025. It is not 1325, a hereditary monarchy isn't useful to prevent endless civil wars over succession. Whilst I enjoy the history of the monarchy (hence my username) I just don't see what role it has in a modern democracy where we are theoretically equal. It especially baffles me that so many people are willing to defend them, especially when it comes to them covering up sexual abuse.

All the news sources I’ve read put the payment between £10 and £12 million.

My understanding is the Sun claimed £12m and everyone else reported what the Sun said.

That’s a bit shit. I do think the Royal Family have to start being a bit smarter about things like this.

Those saying that Giuffre only launched a civil suit so implying it doesn't count

I don’t think that is the implication of those posts. I see them as clarifying the nature of the claim.

It could be that.

I hope she got a big amount.

I do too.