Andrew Lownie just said "We have to remember the royal family fought for a long time to protect Andrew and in fact tried to prevent investigations into him" on BBC news

[JacknDiane]

I think that's really revealing. Rather than the king being strong and dealing with this, he has done everything in his power to cover it up.

I'd like to hear what others, especially supporters of the monarchy, think of this.

While I have little time for the Monarchy, especially Andrew, I have to say my disdain for them grows. Their willingness to throw family members aside to protect their reputations is pretty poor in my book.

Absolutely, but at least it shows they eventually had to take notice.
The video footage of Andrew and Fergie surrounding the senior royals after the recent funeral was bizarre.The ethereal Kate even looked slightly shook at Fergie's behaviour.

Charles has been married to Camilla for much longer than he was married to Diana (and had he been permitted to marry her in the first place none of that sorry mess would ever have happened). He was not head of the Church of England when married to Diana.

To be clear, I don’t agree with what the Queen did in regards to Andrew.

But I don’t think that’s the reason he hasn’t been convicted. I mean, no one (except Maxwell) has been convicted. It’s not like the US have tirelessly investigated and charged the many men who they must know were involved and Andrew is the only one to get away with it because of the Queen.

I agree.

I think I kind of had more respect for them when they were protecting Andy. I mean still horriffic, obviously, but you could argue the strength of their family loyalty or whatnot, if you wanted to be charitable.

THIS...covering up abuse, paying people off, protecting Andrew for years UNTIL it looks like it might start backfiring on Charles, Willie and the rest and THEN they throw him under the bus only to save their own image...bleugh. The most weasley and pathetic of actions.

Who was unfaithful first in that marriage? Diana, by her own admission.

And the fact that Harry turned out to be a nasty character can’t be laid at Charles’ door. Are parents to be punished for the sins of their children now?

Anyway, all of this is irrelevant to the point I was making. Even the most despicable person is entitled to due process and not to be tried in the court of public opinion.

A lot of this at the start was the Queen protecting her favourite son.

I don't blame the King so much. He obviously feels quite differently about him and has done a lot more to exclude Andrew than the Queen ever did.

The question of who lives in the royal buildings is an important one, but accuracy is important.

They don't live in "grace and favour apartments". The live in rented apartments/cottages, like the Michaels of Kent and the Gloucesters.

Grace and favour has a specific meaning - it's free accommodation as part of job remuneration.

Certain aspects of the press seem to use Grace and favour in place of "rented from crown estates in places nobody else can rent" and it's not accurate.

The institution needs a really good shake up and I think there are some Royals who we believe to be morally capable of their roles but that's simply by accident.
No functioning adult should be jobless and purposeless in the way that we accept the royal family to be. What on earth is Fergie's role and why is she still hanging around.Can the King afford to fund all these fully grown people who can't function normally because they're brought up as Royals.

It seems like Andrew will have his day in court and fairly soon. So due process will be afforded to him.

There is a whole lot more about to come out that seems like it will be very bad for Andrew, so it looks like the King was trying to get ahead of events.

Andrew Lownie has talked a lot about more evidence that will be coming out and The Times are reporting on further Epstein email leaks that will be very bad for Andrew.

I think you'll get your wish that he gets to exercise his legal right to a fair trial.

I actually don't give a monkeys about the royals or what Andrew did compared to Trump. Everything needs to come out about about him and Epstein. He's the most powerful man in the world.

Hmmm

I don’t know, essentially he has lost his job, which happened to come with accommodation, for bringing the company into disrepute. He has a generous severance package which includes alternative accommodation. I don’t think in a corporate setting you would need a criminal basis for this so I don’t see this as any different.

@ShesTheAlbatross It’s not like the US have tirelessly investigated and charged the many men who they must know were involved and Andrew is the only one to get away with it because of the Queen

Totally. And as David Yelland (I think) pointed out on the Today programme on R4 this morning, at least Charles has now taken action and stripped Andrew of his princedom and the Royal Lodge. On the other side of the Atlantic, officialdom is still taking the view that there is nothing to see there.

Hmmm

It seems we’re agreed then, that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. You don’t have to like the person - you can actively dislike someone while still believing that due process needs to be followed, and people shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion.

They don’t seem to be doing a very good job of covering up for him. When you consider how many must have been involved and the fact that they are all continuing with their lives uncensored.

I don't agree we need it to be proven, for the royal family to continue to show they still have a place in the world they need to show they are relevant. If there is any suspicion of doubt given it is has been all over the papers for years then they do need to take action. And we the public can have our own opinions, even if its not proven the public are allowed to start to voting with their feet by pulling away from the Royals.

I’m not a monarchist or a republican one way or the other so I don’t really have a dog in this fight but through sheer morbid fascination I’ve watched a lot of interviews with Andrew Lownie in the last few weeks. There is something very off about him. Apparently he’s a very respected author and historian but the way he talks about Andrew’s sex life and the way he dives into it and likes to divulge the very specific details is odd, and his manner is creepy and makes for very uncomfortable viewing.

Maybe he just interviews badly, but it’s almost like he’s rubbing his hands together with glee while he’s imparting this information and it’s beginning to come across as some kind of vendetta. Let’s not forget that he, too, is just trying to sell his book.

Andrew Lownie is actually a friend of a friend of mine and is well respected by those who know him in real life. He was horribly bullied and threatened by the former Yorks for a long time but he ploughed on regardless. He's a very brave man given how much pressure he had to live with for 4 years.

I'm glad he's out there speaking truth to power and backing up Virginia Giuffre's account of what really goes on behind closed doors. It may be uncomfortable to hear but it doesn't make it less true.

I think it’s now because the uppity plebs are getting more and more concerned about the RF’s very shady wealth building and this is another bone to keep us happy.

It was only last week that many comments on MN were of the “oh no, we need an act of parliament/impossible constitutional powers to strip him of titles properly.” And here we are, it’s been done overnight!

I agree he shouldn't be tried in the court of opinion and the pending legal proceedings need to be brought against him so everyone can have their day in court, not just Andrew.

The problem is though, without the public anger that has erupted it would never have got to this point. It would have just been swept under the carpet again. So without the outrage against Andrew, he would probably still be sitting comfortably in Royal Lodge protected by the Monarchy.

Public anger is sometimes a good catalyst for change however uncomfortable it may be.

I’m sure he is respected and I said as much, but there’s something about the way he comes across when talking about this that doesn’t sit easily with me and it’s not that the content is uncomfortable, it’s that his apparent glee at what he’s “uncovered” is. He doesn’t talk about the Yorks as bullies in the interviews and he’s particularly complimentary about Fergie who he describes as a lovely person if not particularly bright.

I’d also point out that he doesn’t know what goes on behind closed doors since he wasn’t there either so nobody can definitively say whether what he’s saying is true or not; he’s relying on other peoples’ accounts as much as anyone else is. Virginia Giuffre undoubtedly went through awful things in her life and I feel terribly sorry for her, but that also doesn’t change the fact that individuals who are that damaged and traumatised by their pasts sometimes unfortunately have a bit of a tenuous grip on reality.

Nobody has any idea whether any of this is accurate, it’s all he said she said, and nobody gets a day in court because the accuser is dead.

I don’t know what the answer to that is. I’m not sure there is one.

I think it was obvious. I think the RF and their advisors have a lot of experience in covering things up. I imagine Andrew and Sarah also have a lot of beans they could spill if they wanted to. The deal with them will be absolutely water-tight, though.

I am a supporter of the RF and have read 'Entitled'. It has, sadly, made me feel differently towards them all.

But, ultimately I still support the monarchy. I think our country would be a lot less vibrant without them.

Andrew is an online mate of mine and he has been writing the book for years, not just the last few months!
His book suggests strongly that Beatrice and thingy are UP TO THEIR EARS in it - accepting as adults large amounts of money from dodgy politicians from the Stans