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?

@billysboy
Do you really think they would be listened to?

Like I said - vile.

I'm always a bit dubious of these types of books. Is it actual fact or is it alleged. Does he state who the sources are?

I would guess there's got to be some truth in it otherwise the palace would have surely put a statement out or even tried to stop publication before it hit the shelves. I'm sure there are laws that means people can't just write any old bollocks they like about someone.

I’m looking forward to the paperback edition due for release next summer. Lownie has said many more people have come forward with information relating to the Yorks and their doings.

By then some of the billionaires in the States plus various presidents might have been exposed more completely. So it will be interesting.

2dogsandabudgie it was four years of research, using Freedom of Information requests and over 100 interviews.

As others have said, these books need to be watertight. The yorks themselves tried desperately to get the book stopped but couldn't.

The detail on the financials alone is mind boggling. They are both grifters of the highest order.

I highly recommend it.

There are laws about slander and libel but to disprove them the RF would have to go into a courtroom. Who amongst them would do that? The Monarch can't (it's in law) and having Andrew in court explaining the finances is NOT going to happen. They want this media intrusion away from them asap. For personal and financial reasons.

I’m sure I read somewhere that Lownie had to take out 20 pages? I do wonder what was in them!

Exactly. She was either Head of State or she wasnt. As she was, she had a responsibility to listen to people telling her things and to put a stop to it. She didnt.

Dont Princess Margarets children, and to some extent the cousins do ' posh peoples jobs'- carpentry, art galleries, horsey stuff etc'? Im sure there are plenty of jobs they could do. If we have to have a Monarchy, why do they need all their family to help them with the ribbon cutting and opening of fetes? Why do they need so many houses and why do they need a massive art collection apparently ' kept for the nation', most of which ' the nation' never gets to see?

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.

Why do they need so many houses and why do they need a massive art collection apparently ' kept for the nation', most of which ' the nation' never gets to see?

Yes, this is it entirely. The way they live in obscene opulence and try to justify it that they don't actually own any of it, but it belongs to the nation... yet coincidentally, which particular members of the nation enjoy almost exclusive rights to enjoy it?

Even more shocking when you consider that the monarch is the head of the Church of England, which supposedly has at least a passing interest in following the teachings of Jesus to care about and look after the poor. Same with William and his supposed passion for the homeless: it's all just so hollow when you think about the profligacy in which his family lives.

The ownership thing is just semantics too. None of us own anything forever; we lose everything that we owned during our life the moment that we die. People only really care about actually owning things for their own security, for that of their children and other family after they are gone, and so that nobody else can order them about, take it away from them, turf them out of their homes etc.

Without any fear of somebody telling you what you and your family in perpetuity can or can't do - with you being at the very top of the tree - and even any change to those rules would have to be agreed and ratified by you yourself (or one of your heirs), what difference does it actually make if you technically own something or not?

We once looked at buying a flat in a big old house which had been converted into four flats. The lease was owned equally by whoever owned the flats, split four ways, and lasted for 999 years. We didn't buy it in the end for entirely unrelated reasons, but would never technically owning the flat have put us off at all? Not in the slightest.

Bit more than bad behaviour!

I think Andrew’s goose is well and truly cooked. The RF know that more is to come and they’re shoving him in a dark room and hoping the world will forget about him.

I definitely think he's also being used as the fall guy - not that he doesn't thoroughly deserve everything that's coming to him and more - to cover up seriously murky goings on that the other royals may be involved in.

If they can put out the narrative that they don't tolerate behaviour like this, by showing how they punished Andrew, enough people might thus assume that, if no other royals get the same treatment, they must be innocent.

Yes, she played a blinder by keeping up the sweet, innocent, little old grandma act in her later years - whilst also wielding immense power and wealth and exploiting it for all it's worth to benefit herself and her family.

Her mother did the same in her later life: playing the exact same defenceless, dotty old character whilst knowing exactly what she was doing with great determination.

The Queen spent most of her adult life in a position of immense wealth and power, as she had been brought up since childhood to expect. She enjoyed what she saw as her right to rule and influence/dictate for decades; why would she suddenly leave all of that behind and become a helpless, unworldly, sweet old granny, just because she got old?

It's a shame that he couldn't bring out a separate 'fiction' novella with those 20 pages, whereby some entirely imaginary characters with slightly different names get up to all kinds of shocking things... with readers left horrified at the thought of what could have happened had those 'characters' been real-life people.

Even without that, if I were Lownie, I'd seriously watch my back now. It's very noble exposing the truth to the public, but you never know what the consequences might be. Rich and/or powerful megalomaniacs often don't take kindly to those who tell their secrets. David Kelly, anybody?

It’s Shrodinger's Head of State again. TLQ was simultaneously an incredibly knowledgeable, well informed,indispensable confidential advisor to 15 Prime Ministers AND at the same time a sweet, innocent old lady who couldn’t possibly understand, or even be told about, things like trafficking and sexual abuse and only wanted the best for her son like any other mother.

It's quite misogynistic to assume that the queen didn't know what was going on because she was a little old lady.

If she was male, nobody would doubt her complicity in the cover up.

It’s also quite telling that Andrew’s father’s role is not being examined.

I agree. So many die-hard royalists want it both ways, though: somebody to be allowed huge responsibility and power, but not to be expected to be able to take any responsibility for what they do with it.

I suppose there are some vague parallels with Biden towards the end of his tenure, as he was clearly getting more vulnerable (although not without suggestions of links to scandal) but an elected HoS can always be changed, deputised for and strategically 'wound down' in the meantime.

According to others, Princess Diana told her sons to never shout at people who couldn’t shout back “like Prince Philip did”, he made a few adult male members of staff cry and he got on well with Sophie Wessex because she wouldn’t let him bully her.

According to others there is plenty of scandal to emerge about Philip…I’m actually old enough to have been aware of some at the time.

What on earth do you mean?

I imagine: that it is quite common to blame the mother if the son turns out badly, but not to blame the father.