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.

I wouldn't engage @Tutorpuzzle however tempting it is.

I absolutely agree with you and hope more people see victim blaming for what it is. Trying to frame it as critical thinking is disingenuous to say the least.

Thankfully it looks like Virginia will have her day in court soon, just so tragic she won't get to see it but hopefully it brings comfort to the other victims.

On the one hand she was a racist paedophile protector but on the other hand after she died people have decided she could possibly have liked paddington... So lots of light and shade there

How did that protect Andrew?

Yes, it's clearly just a matter of long-delayed damage control, given that the scandal broke years ago.

Andrew is doubtless aware that his brother is just cynically re-arranging the showroom windows.

"Don't worry old chap, we'll still look after you, but they're baying for some sort of "action" so it can't really be helped. I'm sure you understand..."

Charles and Camilla mentioned victims in their statement - who is more vulnerable than a child in a care home ?

Will the Windsors now condemn Mountbatten?
Andrew Lownie had been researching a book about Mountbatten and had every obstacle put in his way . Another journalist had a similar story .

@MrsLeonFarrell

What exactly is it that you do not understand ?

He's a member of the RF, with that massive amount of privilege comes the responsibility to others.

He knowingly associated with a convicted sex offender, and lied about it many times.

He's worthy of no respect, no titles and no support.

I'm unsure as to what practical protection Andrew has received. He was allowed at family events, not saying I agree with that but i don't think walking to church with the Queen protected him. I'm trying to understand what posters mean by protection and how they think that worked.

The journalist was Chris Moore

And @MrsLeonFarrell are you seriously trying to suggest that Andrew wasn’t protected by the Windsors ?

They protected him until the balance tipped and then they do their usual smoke and mirrors . No one is a prince . They’ve taken nothing.
If they had let Andrew be interviewed by the police ( as he swore he would do) they
wouldn’t be facing this mess

But of course that would never happen .

I don’t agree with this. Andrew was requested to appear in the USA but didn’t, and hasn’t been on trial, he swerved that ! However, Virgina was not only a child, she was also trafficked, this is illegal, essentially a slave. Imagine if she had said she didn’t want to go/do anything … she’d likely have met with violence or worse. Effectively he raped her.
also, would you say the likes of Fred West, who has never been on trial, would be innocent? Or Jimmy Saville? Again died before he was caught/arrested - is he innocent?
andrew has been too slippery to be brought to account, so the country has taken that into their hands.

I don’t think this is fair. This was the Queens own SON after all. He’s not just a RF member. Now she’s gone and obviously Charles and William don’t have the same unconditional love towards him they’re able to boot him out.

@MrsLeonFarrell

Perhaps you could read up on how Andrew dodged the police and FBI ?
He hid on royal estates .
Buckingham palace issued a statement stating - based on no evidence whatsoever - that Virginia Guiffre’s claim was false and without foundation . How dare they ? They smeared her because it suited them . That was 2019 I think .

Never mind the repeated rehabilitation attempts - you know - let the photographers take a snap of William driving Andrew with Kate grinning away in the back .
At the height of the Harry hate campaign W and K let it be known that they’d rather have Andrew as a neighbour than Harry .
There are multiple examples of how Andre was protected .

They then enabled Andrew with a multi million pay off to this accuser who they’d previously tried to smear

They are still protecting him now . Kicked off to Sandringham is a nonsense

When he’s being questioned by the police I’ll maybe believe Andrew is not protected

Henry VIII set up the Church of England so he could get divorced !!

I want to know how he was protected. People are saying he was but not how. As far as I'm aware no one stopped law enforcement from arresting him. The late Queen paid off the court case but it had to be agreed. She couldn't stop a case if it had gone ahead.

I'm genuinely asking how he was protected.

The queen paying 12 million to settle it and avoid a trial and the palace stating the claims were false (which has to be taken in context that this was issued by the institution of the monarchy, that's soft power and there's the crown saying "you're a liar") both come to mind

If only he hadn’t instructed his security to intercept in 2021 when they continually tried to serve him papers…he’d have had his day in court. He used his security and his RF privilege to block the legal process, so has no grounds to complain that he didn’t have an opportunity to prove his innocence in a court of law.

The Queen having the money to settle does give them power to offer but it could have been refused and they would've have been able to stop the case. The statement denying the claims is what anyone can do, although of course it was given more weight because of the late Queen's reputation. But it didn't stop people going after him, that's what protection would achieve surely.

Discussing this i suppose i really feel that they didn't achieve anything except kicking the problem down the road. To me protection would have solved the problem.

@MrsLeonFarrell

I don’t think you’ll accept any evidence that shows the Windsors for what they are .

I have seen former royalists admit that now want rid as a result of what they have learned over the last few years . Those people are to be admired - it’s hard to see that you’ve been taken for a fool .

However here is the short version re how Andrew was protected :

The palace used their ‘power’ to try to put a lid on it by smearing VG . Disgraceful. They already knew Andrew was attempting to pay internet trolls to smear VG and to ask the police to dig up dirt ( I’m sure the police would refuse this but how did Andrew get her National Ins number? )

When papers were attempted to be served Andrew hid behind the ( our!) gates at Windsor . When it got too hot - he fled to Balmoral and was protected from the law there .

Whe a judge in New York said that handing papers to a policeman was enough - suddenly a multimillion pay out appeared . Paid for by us .

The royal machine continued to show Elizabeth’s support for Andrew . William and Charles continued to use this quiet support approach until this week . Maybe it was the fact that Republic were garnering support for a private prosecution.

Members of the public shouted at Andrew when he showed his face . Remember Rory in Edinburgh? Hero !
Royalists on here tore him apart for his lack of ‘respect’
Similarly the man who clearly shouted questions Charles - Charles looked like an utter fool pretending he couldn’t hear !

More of this is needed .

If you still can’t grasp that Andrew was protected , I can’t help you

here is a link re the attempts to serve papers

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/13/new-york-court-pre-trial-civil-suit-prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre

@Ukisgasliti hasn't ever read about the attempt to serve papers. That is disgraceful and the sort of thing I was asking for when I asked for evidence.

How can his non-criminal status be changed? A sole witness who cannot be questioned? Even in the USA he couldn't be charged now. In the UK there is no crime at all.

Yes, no argument there. But in terms of a day in court to defend himself against the specific accusations in Virginia’s book, considering she’d been dead for six months when they were published, how would that even be possible? He could sue Andrew Lownie, I suppose, since some of the allegations in his book are allegedly baseless.

Whether I believe VG or not is neither her nor there (and I’ve never said I don’t). It’s whether there’s evidence to convict in a court of law, and is there, with the alleged incidents being over 20 years ago and her being dead and unable to give evidence?

Comparing it to Savile as someone did upthread is like comparing apples and oranges; allegations surfaced after his death not the accusers’, and hundreds of accusers came forward. He couldn’t defend himself, but the accusers could testify, which is clearly not the case here.

Because it won’t be just a ‘sole’ witness@HelenaWaiting .

Yes I also thought it was fitting he’s now named after a peado.

It’s clear The Palace launched a PR offensive against Harry to deflect from the late Queens favourite. I don’t believe for a second QE2 did not know all of this about Andrew.

Awful and ruthless family (plus key staff) who only care about their own survival.

When will the proper investigations into his dodgy real estate deals start? The one where the middle eastern guy paid millions over asking for Andrew’s house sounds like money laundering to me.