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?

Yes, exactly what I said

First poster said it

She's his mother.

It would be the same on a council estate: Jimmy likes young girls but the fam turn a blind eye

We all know Clinton is a wrong un, come on. It's everyone else on that list that we need to know about

Is he a paedophile?

Not that I’ve ever heard of. Having sex with a 17yo, even if that 17yo is trafficked does not make him a paedophile. Yes, it’s wrong, totally awful and I believe illegal as she was traiffcked even if he didn’t know. Not knowing isn’t a defence in law? But doesn’t make him a paedophile.

He wouldn't have been tried in the UK because sleeping with a 17-year-old is legal and the Modern Slavery act wasn't brought in until years after he met VG and that's the law that covers trafficking.

Obviously things might have been different if he'd been tried overseas.

Like most mothers they thjnk the sun shines out their sons arse.

I don't think she'll find out about the thread

This.

Andrew is not some hard done by scapegoat. He is being punished by his family. They don't have any remit to punish the other people involved, particularly the 42nd or current presidents.

These but what about.... posts frankly do my head in, but if we're going down this route then what about Gislaine Maxwell? Why is she not naming anyone involved? Theoretically she shouldn't have much to lose by doing so.

The callous way she treated her cousins Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon was appalling too.

It wasn't the Queen (or the Queen Mother) who had Nerissa and Katherine committed to an asylum - it was the Queen Mother's SIL, Fenella (to note, Fenella's sister also had three DDs with severe learning difficulties).

Fenella's husband Jock B-L died when Nerissa and Katherine were 11 and 4, or so, and Fenella's father arranged for - and initially funded - all 5 of his DGDs to be sent to Earlswood Institution in 1941.

What do you think QEII should have done?

AnAlpacaForChristmas - Maybe GM is too scared to say anything. Some people think that GE didn't commit suicide.

She would have been guided by legal advice and any case may have been held in the US in full view of TV and the Press. No chance of influencing the US Court and her son testifying in a US court was not going to happen so it was better to settle the case.

Maybe you need to be reminded what the definition of pedophilia is.
By diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, a pedophile is an individual who fantasizes about, is sexually aroused by, or experiences sexual urges toward prepubescent children (generally <13 years) for a period of at least 6 months

Whatever the queen knew or didn’t, I’m glad that VG got some money, given the awful things she went through.

I agree but no one cared about her when she was abused by her own family, it's a very sad case for all those girls involved..

Sorry but I fundamentally disagree that it’s poor taste to question what the Queen did/did not know or do with regards to Andrew.

Yes she was his mother but she had a hell of a lot more resources than your average woman whose son has been accused of similar. Andrew hid on royal property to avoid being served with legal papers. She helped fund the settlement to Giuffre. Andrew contacted the met police and her senior aides to try to get dirt for a smear campaign. It’s astonishingly naive to think she knew nothing about it.

We are allowed to question the actions of the monarch regardless of how old, sick or grandmotherly they are. If they are too old or sick to be responsible for their actions (and the actions of the wider family who live off the public purse) then they should abdicate.

Is there actual proof that the Queen funded it. I read at the time that she "reportedly gave £2 million towards the settlement" but haven't read anything to say it's fact?

She paid our money to try and make it go away. Her husband and Lord Mountbatten had their scandals too
I hate how the queen is portrayed as a Saint. She enabled her son. She brought him up. So I can't praise or revere her.

Well said. We do not have to doff our cap to the royals. We can say whatever the hell we like about them, dead or alive. We didn't consent to having a monarchy.

@SpottyAardvark as a staunch republican,I have no skin in this game. But I look at this as some kind of awful game. So I think she was thinking strategically.

before Charles did this, the msm said that only an act of parliament could remove titles such as Prince and Duke. Turns out, the King can do it.

it sets a precedent that I think Elizabeth didn't want to set, especially after witnessing the fallout from the abdication.

it kind of begs the question, who next? And what for?

I think it was morally the right thing to do, but if your job breaks down to "protect the firm at all costs", I'm not sure its right, strategically.

though well done that man

I’m fairly certain, given the terrible optics, if it were untrue the palace would have denied it.

The Queen ❤️ Don’t blame a woman for a man’s faults.

I read today that in diplomatic circles he was known as His Buffoon Highness.

Oh, of course she was complicit. How could she not be?

I don’t blame him for his behaviour. I blame her for hers.