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.

Not a supporter of the monarchy and would be happy if they all went but I find it a bit weird that people say "the royal family" as if they're some sort of hive mind who all share one opinion and have equal input in decision making.

In reality nobody other than the queen, and now king, would have had the power to do anything. I hardly doubt Zara or Sophie etc had much input into what was going on with Andrew. I imagine the Queen might have protected him for his own sake, but most of the others would have dropped him in it/cut ties much earlier if they werent aware that it would reflect back on them.

Charles is presumably also aware that if he cuts all of Andrews income and freebies he's not just going to get a job in Tesco-he'll want to earn money anyway possible to carry on his normal lifestyle....and as "spare" has proven the easiest way is to ghostwriter a tell all book. I'm sure Andrew has enough dirt on all of them (or could make it up) - threat of mutually assured destruction.

I also think that KC seemed to try to bring Andrew & Sarah back into the public eye a bit more once QEII had died. We saw them more often at family events, SF at Sandringham for the first time in decades, if I remember correctly. Most probably at A&S's request rather than by invitation, I should think.

But this (quite rightly) backfired with the release of 'Entitled'. It would have been better to have kept A&S away from the cameras, in the background as they had been under QEII reign.

Well you're entitled to your opinion but I would strongly disagree with you.

Its interesting how you yourself focus in on how things are said rather than what is actually being said. Your post is rather twisting in that it tries to say the right things on the surface but actually there's an unpleasant tone of victim blaming underneath.

It's sad that people are still trying to find sly ways to undermine what victims say when speaking out about their abusers.

I won't be responding to your posts further so there's no point in replying. I won't engage with posters who seek to undermine abuse survivors.

I’m not undermining anything, I’m looking at it objectively. I acknowledged that she’d obviously been through awful things. I’m pointing out that nobody knows the truth, there will never be a day in court for anyone and there can’t be because of the circumstances, and Andrew Lownie is trying to sell a book.

You need to google ‘victim blaming’ @TwinklyStork . Attributing a ‘tenuous view of reality’ to those who have gone through such trauma is the very definition of victim blaming. Please educate yourself.

Lots of people do look up to them unfortunately.

Exactly.

What is so sad is how many people with this view crawl out of the woodwork. It reinforces why victims don't come forward in the first place and why they feel they won't be believed.

💯

He should have been made to play ball with legal and investigative processes when it actually mattered and could have made a difference.

As it stands, he’s being stripped of titles not because he’s been actually found guilty of something but because he’s become an embarrassment and liability to them.

I don't think it's too much to expect someone who gains so much from their public position to behave appropriately; they don't need to be angels. You say he's been convicted of no crime; that's why he's not in jail (yet, who knows what is to come), but you conflate that with the removal of privileges most of us can't dream of, they have their own threshold, which he is through.

It's just weird to me. Why? Surely if you look up to someone it's because they've done something to warrant it, but what is there in this case?

Some of them do seem to work fairly hard, but then so do millions of other people who then don't have palaces and servants to go back to afterwards.

Just odd.

I said “sometimes”. Please learn to read.

There is no legal way to determine the truth of this situation, because she is dead. You can not assume that anyone’s account in this situation is true because it can not be tried with due legal process because the person making the accusations is no longer able to give evidence. I’m not saying it isn’t true, and I’m certainly not victim blaming, just that there’s no way to prove any of it.

Meanwhile, someone who has not been convicted of any crime is being publicly hounded out of his life in a trial by media. He may be a loathsome individual and probably is, but as things stand he is not a criminal, and there doesn’t seem to be any way of changing that.

Reflect on whether that’s right before you tell me to educate myself, please.

I prefer a monarchy to having a political head of state, keep the ceremonial separate and recognise the history and soft power.

I think that the King would not want a 'former Spare' type book from Andrew, and also the Royals are not the only institution wanting to keep scandal quiet.

I'd like to see two more things happen, Andrew taken out of the line of succession, and face criminal charges be it in the UK or US (I assume there are some to answer for).

As for Andrew's daughters, their parents are not their fault.

Agreed ,but they do i honestly have no idea why 🤷‍♀️

You are wrong in everything you say @TwinklyStork , not least of which the non criminal status of Andrew cannot be changed. It most certainly can. However, like a pp said it is difficult to discuss an issue like this with victim blamers so I, too, will withdraw from conversation with you.

Because the book is out and because you can control a few newspapers but it’s impossible to control all newspapers over the world, social media and the whole Internet.

Just to address the point of victim blaming, which has occurred on this thread, it's important to remember the following if you see it:

• Challenge the behavior:
• Directly but constructively challenge harmful stereotypes, assumptions, or jokes that place blame on the victim.

• Reframe the narrative:
• Ask questions that focus on the perpetrator's choices and behavior instead of the victim's. For example, instead of "What did they do to make it happen?" ask, "What tactics did the perpetrator use?".

• Explain the impact:
• Explain that victim blaming is harmful and can make the victim feel more guilt or self-blame, potentially worsening their experience and recovery.

• Hold the perpetrator accountable:
• Reinforce that the perpetrator is the one responsible for their actions.

Sending out support to all victims of abuse who made read this thread. People do believe you and stand with you.

He’s privileged, sure, but it’s not as easy as ‘stripping him of his titles’ - the King cannot just remove them, and Andrew himself cannot give them up - there’s no legal mechanism for him to do so even if he wanted to. The house at Windsor is large, but he signed a lease for it, and paid millions of pounds towards necessary repairs, a new roof, etc - again, it shouldn’t be easy to turf someone out of their home when they’ve signed a legal contract just because they’re in bad odour. This isn’t a route we should want to go down. We can’t have legal processes for some ‘deserving’ people and no process for the supposedly ‘undeserving’. Thats not how we do these things in the UK.

I feel that the frenzy is encouraging a baying mob, which I feel very uneasy about. Whilst there are unanswered questions, and clearly very poor judgment the fact remains that as far as the legal side is concerned no prosecution has occurred. Of course poor judgment itself can be morally wrong but not necessarily illegal. I don’t agree with the baying mob approach which is pursuing him as he remains innocent as far as the law is concerned. I find it abhorrent how there have been incidents concerning the public where some people have graffitied people’s housing accusing them of crimes, ostracised people and their because they believe them guilty and carried out hate campaigns locally etc I have seen that and feel that this is similar.

The problem is @attichoarder , discontent with the royals has been building for so long and Andrew, because he is so objectively tawdry, is, I believe, being thrown under the bus by them, encouraging a possible mob mentality. (Not for a second saying he shouldn’t be properly investigated.) The dodgy charity donations to Charles’ charities, the lack of tax paying transparency, the unknowable cost of security (there are so bloody many of them), the treatment of tenants on duchy estates…it just goes on and on. And this takes the heat off the rest of them somewhat. The edifice does seem to be crumbling a bit, though.

If they tried to cover it up they weren't very good at it. So far the only men to have any consequences at all from associating with Epstein are Andrew and Peter Mandelson. So either the English are terrible at cover ups or, and i think this is more likely, other powerful people are hiding behind Andrew's massive shadow.

Who is Andrew Lownie? Never heard of him.

Just googled. An historical writer/agent with books to sell.

QED.

Please, feel free to withdraw. I don’t particularly enjoy engaging in conversation with people who are incapable of assessing the possibilities of a situation from any angle other than the one that fits their own agenda.

And no, I am not wrong, thank you. Since the accuser can not give evidence in a court of law, nobody will ever know the truth from a legal standpoint.

Exactly that.

Andrew Lownie is not some benevolent altruistic figure desperate to get justice for a possible abuse victim who is no longer here to do so herself.

He’s a writer doing the press junket rounds trying to flog a book to make money, and his interview style, rather than the content, is more than a little disturbing.

It’s also more than a little disturbing that people, especially other women given the context, don’t realise that.

Well said and my thoughts exactly. Some of the accusations slung at him have been not only baseless but slanderous and by people who just want their pound of flesh. I'm no fan of Andrew, he's a spoiled and entitled fool but why are we not seeing the big names in US politics and business under investigation?

What a superficial response

Andrew has been protected by the Windsors for a decade at least ( he was emailing Elizabeth’s admin team telling them he’d instructed his protection team to dig up dirt on his accuser a decade ago)

They all knew and after his BBC interview the queen was careful to be photographed several times with Andrew , William too, and Charles had him at the Christmas pap walk and allowed Andrew to prance around in his curtains as a knight of the garter .
Andrew was protected . Why now are the Windsors actually doing something ?

As for the other men involved - I’m sure we all fervently hope that they are revealed and prosecuted . That they haven’t been does nothing to absolve Andrew Windsor

Will they now denounce Mountbatten I wonder ?