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?

His denial means nothing, he is a liar.

That's a bit contradictory.

If she believed he was innocent, there would no victim.

If I'd been her without the evidence that's now available, I'd have thought 'He may be lying, this may be true, but there is no proof and as my son he's sworn he's not done anything wrong. But just in case he's lying, I'll pay anyway.'

I agree.

I’m in my 20s but growing up there was definitely more of an attitude that sexual encounters like this were not predatory but almost like part and parcel. Attitudes have since shifted. That, more than anything else was the undoing of Andrew. If these allegations came out at the time, they never would have attracted such an uproar due to the culture at the time.

I said “valid victim”. She would have seen this victim as being from a “lesser” family overseas, she wouldn’t have necessarily thought she was a valid victim. Maybe she thought, Andrew was targeted due to his bloodline for example. She definitely would not have thought this woman was going to pose a valid threat to her monarchy.

The Queen was his mother, by all accounts, rightly or wrongly, he was her favourite child, wouldn’t most people, short of knowing their child had murdered someone, protect them. To taint her memory in such a way is sad. As others said, Andrew is only one of Epstein many known associates, but none seems concerned about them, just open season by the anti monarchy crowd. Let’s hear people demanding Trump says what he knew, Bill Clinton, David Copperfield, etc

I've been banging the drum about Clinton for years.

Most people, faced with allegations they know categorically to be untrue with evidence to back them up to boot, would fight to clear their name. That would have been the right thing to do. The RF think they are above the law and that includes what the late Queen did for her son. She paid for him to side step the law.

I'd like to think, if it were me, even with all that privilege and divine right bollocks, I'd far rather see my son be exonerated and to hell with my diamond jubilee if, IF, he were completely innocent and could prove it.

This move Charles has made now is because he was left with very little choice and the threat of contagion is too great. After all, princes hosting paedophiles is not a great look, is it Charles?

This and she might actually have believed his denials of any wrong doing

There was a thread here the other week where everyone flocked in to say that, if their DS was a paedo, serial killer or whatever, they would still love them, support them and do whatever they could for them. Those of us who said we would not were basically termed abnormal monsters. But, seemingly when it came med to the queen things are different?

You are not the first person to observe this and be told about it.

I have always suspected that the reason Andrew is being treated this way is because either the allegations are worse than has been reported (and the courts have covered up a lot) or that there are allegations about Charles / Philip that have been smothered in exchange for Andrew

Of course she knew. She holds a lot of power and with that comes information. It remains amoral that we continue to put these criminals on a pedestal and pay them for the privilege.

Did I say I was?👹

I’d of been 22 when this happened. I remember going to work and the best T&A (tits and arse) of the day was pinned to the board above the coffee machine. She’d be chosen from an ample selection from that days Sun/ Star newspapers.

Women were expected to be “good sports”. Definitely an attitude that boys will be boys and that was indulged. I had my arse grabbed once by a colleague who’d been drinking at lunch and complained. I believe the conversation between him and my boss was well she does have a nice arse and I’d fuck her too but hands off.

There are no allegations relating to pre pubescent children as far as I’m aware?

I think she believed him. He's gross but I find the some of the so-called evidence rather dubious. The disappearing photo for one.

That poor woman was abused and trafficked by Epstein and then yet more abusive men used her to line their pockets. I find the lawyers involved every bit as vile as Epstein himself. They had no compassion for G just used her to earn money.

During her last months her family turned against her and her children sided with their father. She faked injuries in a desperate attempt to get them back. That poor woman was never given any peace from those who wanted to use her and encouraged her to exaggerate or even lie.

I agree with this 100%. she was careful what public image she showed but behind the scenes, I suspect she was as calculating and careful as she needed to be to keep the firm' running. There is no way she didn't know about the louche ways of her favourite son. Not a chance. I suspect she just hoped he wouldn't go too far.

As for C and C being against abuse in all it's forms, I think their treatment of Diana amounted to psychological torture. I think they are all an absolute disgrace and we all know a tiny percent of it.

He was and always has been the golden child. In effect there are two sets of siblings, the older two born before she was Queen and those after and she was a very different mother to both.

The dynamics of that are why she always stood by him and why his older brother has not

I think people are underestimating how much public perception of this sort of thing has changed over the years. The number of men who slept with underaged girls without any real consequences was huge and it was seen as being a jack the lad, see your wild oats thing (think of David Bowie, John Peel etc). Consent was seen in far more
black and white terms. A rapist was the man who jumps out of the bushes and drags you in, not a man you dance with at a nightclub.

This was how things were for the vast majority of the queen’s life. I imagine she didn’t understand what all the fuss was about and thought least said soonest mended.

VG was trafficked! So wasn’t able to ‘consent! 🙄

Anyone else remember Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith? It seemed to be perfectly acceptable at the time.

The Queen was brought up in, and perpeutatued, the belief that the monarch and their family had special rights and responsibilities.

She exercised Royal Consent to ensure that they were exempt from certain rules around tax, for example, saving them millions and millions of pounds.

It should be a surprise to noone that she funded the £ settlement between her favourite child and the only woman in Epstein's control who had photographic evidence of meeting him.

No idea and she can't answer. What would you like to see happen if there is evidence?

No fan of the Queen or the royals in general, but wasn't it the case that she just didn't believe it for a second? Who knows what she would have done had she believed it.

I suspect the Queen believed what her son told her - as I would probably believe what my daughters told me in similar circumstances.

I agree with others that Andrew probably didn’t think he was doing anything wrong. He had sex with a 17 year old who he presumably thought was perfectly willing. I haven’t read her book but I haven’t seen any suggestion that Virginia Roberts told him she had been trafficked or asked for his help.

No doubt he simply assumed that she, like many others, was happy - even excited - to have sex with a prince. Arrogant? Of course, but I imagine also an assumption born of experience. It’s perhaps hard for younger people to understand this now, but back in the 1980s he was considered a bit of a heart throb - especially after the Falklands War.

I imagine that like countless footballers, pop stars and other celebrities he was used to meeting many young women, including teenage girls, who were perfectly happy to have sex with him, and he had no reason to suspect that anything was different in this case.

She only finally took action when 130 armed forces veterans wrote to her and told her to do something.