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?

Don"t know why the pivot towards kicking W has started but I'd refer to my p p.of a few minutes ago - what happened there is the operator being shit, or their T&Cs being shit, not W or the RF.

I find the idea that the Queen advised prime ministers a bit scary. I thought that role had been removed over time and democracy. Does this mean the present king is advising Kier?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

I don’t think it’s a “pivot towards kicking W”. I just think people are looking a bit more closely at what’s going on and being horrified at the extraordinary privilege and entitlement of these unelected people. And the level of mythology that has kept it either hidden or justified for so long. I think the Shrodinger’s Queen is a perfect example-simultaneously a sweet innocent grandma to the nation who didn’t understand Andrew’s behaviour AND a knowledgeable, switched on, respected advisor to 15 Prime Ministers.

I think it's pivoted towards William because of your comment -

'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.'

Which opened the discussion to the fact that other Royals also seem to have had special treatment. Hence brining up William and the air ambulance.

The PM has a weekly meeting with the Monarch to discuss affairs of State/whatever.

Yeah I knew that but during this time she (and now he) makes suggestions?

it wasnt hushed up. the case was settled out of court. The Queen wanted it gone and her expensive legal advice would have advised that as the best solution for everyone.

Doubt it would be scone or victoria sponge PM? Earl Grey or Assam?

Good point.

@Aethelredtheunsteadythe lWs they vet often are the ones that affect themselves.

Often but not all. If you look at the list on the article there’s plenty where the only link seems to be along the lines of ‘this is about employment law and the royal family have staff’.

I’d also prefer if laws were vetted by elected officials, rather than the unelected. Arguably letting the royals vet laws which seek to govern their conduct, finances etc is a huge conflict of interest as the monarch is vetting in order to protect their own interests, rather than the interest of the nation - such as the Queen lobbying against laws that would have given more transparency to her finances…

@Aethelredtheunsteady
Agreed. I would like to know how she wangled an exemption in 2006 from an animal welfare law which meant inspectors couldn’t enter royal estates. What was she trying to hide?

This should be investigated. They shouldn’t be exempt from this and other laws. We do know that the royal family love killing animals and birds. Charles lobbied Tony Blair to try to bring back fox hunting because he and Camilla get enjoyment from seeing foxes being torn apart. Couple of weirdos IMO . I thought it ironic that Prince Philip was president of WWF when he used to go trophy hunting.

Absolutely agree

The fact that they ‘generously’ offer £1 entry to their palaces for Universal Credit recipients is super ironic.

@SecretSantaz

IHRTFT - it has just appeared on active .
You are clearly very ill informed I’m sorry to say .
Are you aware that Andrew was a ‘special trade envoy’ who cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands a year in expenses for a decade while being a globe trotting boor ?

There were reports of 40 prostitutes being ordered up to his floor ( he’d take a floor not a few rooms ) - I’m not clear if this was part of his time with Epstein or as a trade envoy but officials told Elizabeth Windsor .

She was told repeatedly. She ignored it all .

Andrew continued like this for 10 years - he was only removed when his involvement with Epstein was international news .

The Windsors knew all about Andrew and Epstein for over a decade ! They are ‘acting’ ( removing a few baubles is meaningless- let the law take its course ) now because of Virginia Guiffre’s book , the possibly that the Democrats will release the files and also because I suspect much worse is to follow

The files on Andrew’s time as a trade envoy have been sealed for 105 years. Was he using tax payer money to make deals for himself on the side ? We won’t know until the files are opened

But look over here sheep - Meghan is selling jam !

Elizabeth put her own family’s wealth first . The image you have believed was a lie .

It’s all done with a nod and a wink
A word in an ear
Nothing about it is transparent - the Windsors influence a bill - get their carve out - then can say they follow the law
Yeah - the law has been written to their specifications.
Why did they need to be exempted from animal welfare law for example ?
From racial discrimination law ?
From paying inheritance tax when the rest of us have to sell family homes to pay it ?

Also worth stating that Andrew’s punishment from his family is being relocated to Sandringham with a lump sum and ongoing allowance.

Yes - why are they being allowed to ‘police’ themselves .
They are head of state they should be setting an example - let the law take its course . Andrew insists he’s innocent- let him plead his case in court!

This is smoke and mirrors bullshit

I think the Queen thought she was put there by God and so immune from rules. I don't think charles thinks that.

I think they’re probably as all entitled as each other.

Charles also has form for interfering in government and gaining exemptions to benefit his own estates.

Charles is probably just more aware that he doesn’t have the cuddly nation’s grandmother image to hide behind.

Oh yes that’s definitely a factor . We are looking at pale male and stale for 3 generations

I wonder ( if we still have the Windsors ensconced that is) if they won’t come up with a story and replace George with Charlotte .
To try and drum up more interest .
I mean the current lot were once something like 66th in line - when we had to scour Europe for a Protestant - so it’s not like there isn’t precedent.

I doubt Charlotte would say yes. Awful life. Imagine having no agency at all.

Why wouldn’t she ?

Her mother actively sought it out . Charlotte has been born into it

For all the talk of no agency none of them leave
Well Harry and the Duchess of Kent left but the vast majority of them somehow tolerate the luxury

Come to think of it , what if George wants to exercise his agency ?
I assume he can abdicate .
Or can he ?
Does he have to leave the country because he doesn’t want the job?

William clearly won’t do the ‘job’ but he still wants the money - unfortunately for us . What can we do about that ?

He has stated in the past that he isn’t religious and he clearly isn’t a spiritual person so I assume he won’t have a coronation as that is a religious ceremony .
But if he does want to parade around and have a coronation despite rarely darkening a church door - he can stiff us for the bill .
Just for the fun of it .