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?

Well yes, if we're talking about using Royal connections to personally profit, literally using Buckingham Palace to set up some organisation and skimming a load of money off the top of it really does put ' monogrammed table linen' into perspective!

I wonder if Andrew was told/forced not to get up to anything bad until Charles had children and he (Andrew) was safely out of a chance for the throne?

Or whether they were even keener to suppress news of anything that he did do before then?

They all use their royal connections for personal gain. Peter Phillips and the 2012 ‘Patron’s Lunch’ is a prime example.

The thing is, Andrew’s father was also a bit of a shit - the sort of man who would be described as “not suffering fools lightly”. He was notorious for being horrible to staff who couldn’t answer back without being sacked. If Andrew was horrible to groundskeepers and footmen, he wasn’t particularly unusual.

Society has changed enormously during my lifetime. Even reading older Jilly Cooper novels is quite jarring now - supposedly she based Rupert Campbell-Black on Andrew Parker-Bowles. RCB was a total shit who treated most women as semi- disposable.

This. ^ The Queen was NOT complicit @SpottyAardvark What a dreadful thing to say.

I dunno, bunging a few million quid towards your son’s accuser sounds pretty complicit.

But she paid off her son’s accuser…..

@Zov
Really? You don't think she covered up for him, protected him from legal papers being served on him? You're having a laugh!

According to some sources, Philip was actually one of the most popular royals among staff.

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/royals/surprising-most-popular-royal-among-staff/

I imagine she believed her favourite son and wanted all to go away. I don't support having a Royal family, but I can see why she may have done it.

Yes! That’s where the story originated I believe how diplomats brought evidence to her of his misdemeanours, which were ignored!

She was definitely complicit I’m
afraid. There are many instances in Lownie’s book if you look under “Queen Elizabeth protects” in the index… .

Certain people think that it’s because he was her most vulnerable child but what about protecting others from his actions?

I'm 75% of the way through Entitled, the Lownie book, and it is repulsive and jaw dropping.

Anyone who is deluded enough to think the Queen didn't know should read it. She knew and she was complicit.

There is a LANDSLIDE of evidence against him and aside from Virginia, he was a prolific user and abused of women. He went through them like water 😬

I'm glad that the forelock tugging feral royalist tide seems to be turning.

Why on earth do you say that?

Do you believe royalty to be above the law?

This issue is really important in the context of whether the RF are accountable for financial and sexual misdemeanours. And whether these are reported transparently. Or whether wealth and privilege and their influence are used to cover up allegedly illegal behaviours?

The RF have been allowed to police themselves for far too long! Why is it necessary in the first place for our Head of State in a modern democracy to have so many secrets and operate behind a wall of protection and privilege? And we accept it all so meekly like bamboozled sheep!

This from BBC is enlightening.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8vrzpgxnro

Hmm. Potentially dodgy charity stuff happening on that side of the family too. And current UAE connections….

Let’s hope William doesn’t get away with just stripping a few styles and titles, and is made to some light and clarity into the finances.

@SecretSantaz "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 quite sad how deluded and swayed by propoganda the general public seems to be. It never ceases to amaze me in this day and age. The Queen had a extraordinarily firm grip on everything that went on around her, especially in matters of the "The Firm". This is the woman who personally had 123 laws changed in her and her family's favour including employment rights, animal welfare, environmental issues and finance. The idea that she was some sort of sweet, simple soul is absolutely laughable. Her main objective, and that of all members of the RF, is to protect their literally unfathomable wealth and privilege at all costs. However, the net is closing in as we gradually peel away from the hitherto 1950's mindset of blind and slavish devotion. Andrew will only be the tip of the iceberg.

ginasevern very well said.

@ginasevernexactly!

She did a fantastic job... at a job that we don't need. I'll speak ill of the dead if i want, i used to say it when she was alive and i don't think i owe her any respect, dead or not. She was just a woman like any other, just with a lot more money.

We don't need a monarchy. We didn't need the queen. We don't need Charles or any of the other hangers on. We don't need to pay millions of pounds to these people because of nothing more than an accident of birth.

And i agree with @CurlewKate . You cant demand other people respect the royals just because you do.

Do you know what changed my mind on the royals from "meh" to disgust?

Paying to go on a tour of Buckingham Palace and seeing it absolutely stuffed to the brim with treasure, and know there are plenty of other properties across the country that are also filled with their treasure, while just outside the door, a stones throw away, are children in abject poverty. It's sickening.

And then good old queenie goes and pays £12 million to a woman her gross son says he never met. Yeah. Right. Totally innocent though? Not at all complicit?

@ginasevern I agree well said

I agree.

She was the woman whose motto was "Never complain, never explain" - the faux humility designed to make the arrogance more palatable imo.

Absolutely. But the public don't want to believe it. Years of brainwashing and propaganda from the establishment have sorted that one out nicely.

The Queen made it her life's work to carry out everything the monarchy is designed to do. One of the things it does is to obscure financial arrangements and cover up scandals. So of course she went along with that.

Surely the personal protection officers have some responsibility as they must have known what was going on

She is also from a class and time where women very much turned a blind eye to the bad behaviour of men.