Page 5 | 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

HedwigEliza · 31/10/2025 13:43

DisforDarkChocolate · 31/10/2025 12:29

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.

Show quote history

Yes, he knowingly associated with Epstein and lied about it. No one respects him or supports him, insofar as believing he’s entitled to due process. At this point, he has committed no crime. You might think he’s unworthy of the titles, which is your prerogative, but there’s a legal mechanism that has to be followed- it’s not as easy as just asking the King to strip them from him, and he can’t relinquish them. That’s the point I’m making.

HedwigEliza · 31/10/2025 13:46

chunkyBoo · 31/10/2025 12:39

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.

Show quote history

Virginia Guiffre said she was paid £15,000. As distasteful as we find it, he’s not been convicted of any crime - saying he ‘effectively’ raped her doesn’t cut it. We have a criminal justice system for a reason. There are proper procedures to follow. We can’t decide to throw all that out the window simply because we find him odious.

Coolasfeck · 31/10/2025 13:57

MrsLeonFarrell · 31/10/2025 11:24

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.

Given the picture with Andrew and Virginia was taken 25 years ago and we’re only hearing much of the story now (and I bet there’s way more to come), I think they did a great job of covering it up. He’s now being thrown under the bus to protect the institution.

Aethelredtheunsteady · 31/10/2025 14:07

The media is at it now trying to spin William as the one forcing Andrew out as if we haven't seen him drive him to church etc. And immediately bringing Harry into it, as if he is in anyway comparable to Andrew.

The royal family only care now because it was becoming too much of a scandal to ignore and chucking Harry under the bus doesn't get as much attention as it used to as a distraction.

As an institution they've protected him at every turn making it impossible for him ever to face a court of law (so they can then bleat that he's never been found guilty in a court of law).

noworklifebalance · 31/10/2025 14:14

lemonraspberry · 31/10/2025 08:57

The cover up seemed to be under the late Queen's watch. I suspect the rest of the family have a different opinion on him and now feel, after giving Andy every opportunity to go quietly, have booted him out.

No he has not been convicted of any crime (yet) but it appears highly unlikely that he is innocent.

I never understood to adulation of QEII (the person not the ship). She has been rather self serving and shown either pretty shocking judgement or is as loathsome as the people she protected, including her favourite child.

AutumnalCrows · 31/10/2025 14:18

Tistheseason17 · 31/10/2025 07:47

IMHO, they tried to cover it up. Getting the press to hate on Harry, whilst providing nice inside stories about Charles, Camilla,William and Kate was part of the bargain for media silence. Unfortunately, the release of the Epstein files and everything else was always going to come out. Some media outlets will support the, "strong Charles" rhetoric for more future stories.

No, don’t agree with that assessment. Harry fucked things up spectacularly for himself - he’s a grown man, with full agency, and immense privileges, who lied and lied and threw it all away over a few petty grievances.

The Royal Family have covered up for Harry, too.

CrimsonStoat · 31/10/2025 14:28

noworklifebalance · 31/10/2025 14:14

I never understood to adulation of QEII (the person not the ship). She has been rather self serving and shown either pretty shocking judgement or is as loathsome as the people she protected, including her favourite child.

Show quote history

She hasn't had adulation for all of her reign. Not paying taxes was quite a big thing back in the day, for instance.

She was a contemporary of my parents, and my dad had just died when she died and, despite not being a monarchist, I was quite upset. When she graduated to being elderly I think she became a symbol of times past, an archetype rather than a person. She also symbolised an era that was well and truly gone. I think society latched onto this and it manifested in varying degrees of respect through to adulation.

I don't think Charles means something to society anything like what she represented, although his longevity as PoW gives him some background gravitas now he's king.

All this not withstanding the minority who adulate the monarchy just because they are the monarchy. Like the ones who camp out to see them, or are at church at 5am getting their places.

U53rName · 31/10/2025 14:37

TwinklyStork · 31/10/2025 13:33

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.

Show quote history

He used his privilege to swerve the law at the time, so it is now a he said/she said, and it has now come out that he blatantly lied to Emily Maitlis (we have on tape the date he said he terminated his friendship with Epstein, which has now been contradicted by proof in the form of emails sent between the two after that timeframe). He has proven himself to be a liar and now it sits in the Court of Public Opinion, like it or not. It does not look good, and his undoing is down to himself and his poor choices. He’s just a mediocre man with with an inflated sense of himself, who thought he could outsmart us all. Problem is—he’s not as bright as he thinks he is, and none of the yes-people around him have had the courage to tell him so.

noworklifebalance · 31/10/2025 14:50

CrimsonStoat · 31/10/2025 14:28

She hasn't had adulation for all of her reign. Not paying taxes was quite a big thing back in the day, for instance.

She was a contemporary of my parents, and my dad had just died when she died and, despite not being a monarchist, I was quite upset. When she graduated to being elderly I think she became a symbol of times past, an archetype rather than a person. She also symbolised an era that was well and truly gone. I think society latched onto this and it manifested in varying degrees of respect through to adulation.

I don't think Charles means something to society anything like what she represented, although his longevity as PoW gives him some background gravitas now he's king.

All this not withstanding the minority who adulate the monarchy just because they are the monarchy. Like the ones who camp out to see them, or are at church at 5am getting their places.

Show quote history

Oh come one, she has had plenty of adulation for not doing very much.
Yes, she has received some public criticism and rightly so on some very very poorly made choices. Goodness knows what other choices she has made in her own or family’s self interest that we don’t know about.

attichoarder · 31/10/2025 15:03

It seems many powerful/rich/not so powerful/less rich people have been involved in the Epstein events. Andrew seems to be the one the press and the public have rounded on so I would say that maybe being royal has made him a target. He has not been charged or convicted so remains innocent of acting illegally. I do think it’s time to stop the media attacks. He has lost an awful lot and I would be concerned about his mental health. Clearly he is retreating from public life, surely that should be the end unless their is any legal or police involvement.

Coolasfeck · 31/10/2025 15:32

Aethelredtheunsteady · 31/10/2025 14:07

The media is at it now trying to spin William as the one forcing Andrew out as if we haven't seen him drive him to church etc. And immediately bringing Harry into it, as if he is in anyway comparable to Andrew.

The royal family only care now because it was becoming too much of a scandal to ignore and chucking Harry under the bus doesn't get as much attention as it used to as a distraction.

As an institution they've protected him at every turn making it impossible for him ever to face a court of law (so they can then bleat that he's never been found guilty in a court of law).

1000% agree. The British public are (mostly) not dumb and can now see the game that was being played. The palace can scrub the internet of all the pictures of K&W playing happy families with Andrew but we won’t forget.

As 1st in line, William would have known everything King Charles and the secret services have on his uncle, however, his first instinct was to protect the institution. Part of this strategy included permitting his people to promote the bullying of his brother and wife.

No hastily arranged outings featuring Kate grinning will make me not continue to heavily side eye Prince William. I think he’s a very ruthless man.

Hotflushesandchilblains · 31/10/2025 15:33

TwinklyStork · 31/10/2025 12:10

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.

Edited

Show quote history

Well, it seems clear that many women dont agree with you - I think he comes across as a serious author actually.

TwinklyStork · 31/10/2025 15:41

Hotflushesandchilblains · 31/10/2025 15:33

Well, it seems clear that many women dont agree with you - I think he comes across as a serious author actually.

Show quote history

Maybe they don’t but that doesn’t mean my opinion of him is any less valid. Maybe they haven’t watched as many of his interviews as I have (I went down a rabbit hole last week). He’s like a dog with a bone, even when an interviewer corrects him on an obviously false claim, and not in a good way.

chunkyBoo · 31/10/2025 15:44

HedwigEliza · 31/10/2025 13:46

Virginia Guiffre said she was paid £15,000. As distasteful as we find it, he’s not been convicted of any crime - saying he ‘effectively’ raped her doesn’t cut it. We have a criminal justice system for a reason. There are proper procedures to follow. We can’t decide to throw all that out the window simply because we find him odious.

Show quote history

JE’s island comes under the jurisdiction of the US Virgin Islands - age of consent is 18. Paying for sex is also illegal. A child becomes an adult at 18, so Andrew had sex with a minor, paid for sex where the child was trafficked
he likely would be tried in the USA, and would be guilty of the above, however he refused to go and face the court.
yes he’s odious, he’s also a criminal, effectively in abeyance, until the US law catch up with him

Bobiverse · 31/10/2025 15:48

HedwigEliza · 31/10/2025 08:36

This is a witch-hunt, really.

There is no satisfying people’s demands. He’s convicted of no crime - even by Virginia Guiffre’s account, committed no crime. But he’s so loathed and despised people won’t be satisfied unless he’s in the gutter somewhere. He’s an unpleasant character, but so many people seem to forget due process and the law when speaking about him. He has a lease on his home - he can’t be forced to leave it. His titles can only be removed by parliament- the King cannot do it, and Andrew himself cannot relinquish them, there’s no mechanism for him to do so.

No sooner did he announce he wouldn’t be using his title of Duke of York, calls were made to take away the title of Prince and his home. Now that’s happened, and it’s still not enough - now he apparently belongs behind bars. There’s so satisfying this baying mob and it demonstrates how little we’ve actually advanced over the centuries.

He is guilty is rape, if he had sex with her. She was trafficked. She cannot consent. Having sex with a trafficked woman is a crime, doesn’t matter what age she was or whether or not she said no.

If he did it, he is a rapist. That’s is a crime. And we all know he did it.

TheignT · 31/10/2025 15:50

TwinklyStork · 31/10/2025 08:47

I agree. Morals aside the legal position is not clear cut. He’s an awful loathsome excuse for a man but as it stands currently he’s been convicted of no crime. Virginia Giuffre was an extremely damaged individual (unsurprisingly) and yet everything said in the book is taken as face value with apparently no due diligence and no legal process. Which of course is impossible because she’s dead.

Show quote history

That's true. Didn't she "make a mistake" when she accused Dershowitz (hope that's how you spell it). Pretty horrendous thing to wrongly accuse someone of.

TheignT · 31/10/2025 15:51

Bobiverse · 31/10/2025 15:48

He is guilty is rape, if he had sex with her. She was trafficked. She cannot consent. Having sex with a trafficked woman is a crime, doesn’t matter what age she was or whether or not she said no.

If he did it, he is a rapist. That’s is a crime. And we all know he did it.

Show quote history

Didn't the law change? Was it a crime at the time or was it an age thing.

Dollymylove · 31/10/2025 15:53

MyOtherCarIsAPorsche · 31/10/2025 08:22

The Royal Family have covered up worse.

Andrew must be incandescent with rage - others got away with it.

Who are those who got away with worse than Andrew?

TwinklyStork · 31/10/2025 15:56

TheignT · 31/10/2025 15:50

That's true. Didn't she "make a mistake" when she accused Dershowitz (hope that's how you spell it). Pretty horrendous thing to wrongly accuse someone of.

Show quote history

That was what her statement said when she dropped the claim, yes. She “may have made a mistake in identifying him”.
Hard to ”make a mistake” with someone like PA, though.

MonGrainDeSel · 31/10/2025 15:59

I think there is something much worse to come out about Andrew, given what has happened in the last few days. I imagine it will be something that is quite obviously illegal.

AutumnalCrows · 31/10/2025 16:36

MonGrainDeSel · 31/10/2025 15:59

I think there is something much worse to come out about Andrew, given what has happened in the last few days. I imagine it will be something that is quite obviously illegal.

Agreed.

There’s a (sourced) passage in Lownie’s book about Andrew in Thailand ‘entertaining’ ‘forty prostitutes’ and ‘sending’ a large number of ‘prostitutes’ to an man involved in his sordid world.

I have said before that this places Andrew firmly in sex trafficking territory, as in Andrew himself being a sex trafficker, should it be proven to be true, possibly of girls as well as young adult women.

ETA: And China spies, of course £££

Shinyandnew1 · 31/10/2025 16:38

I do think it’s time to stop the media attacks.

I think it's time to start a criminal investigation.

Boomer55 · 31/10/2025 16:40

JacknDiane · 31/10/2025 07:42

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.

Yes they did. They’ve only acted when they started feeling the impact. 🤷‍♀️

OccasionalHope · 31/10/2025 17:41

The problem now surely is, if there was a trial, how could you ever find an unbiased jury? Who has not become aware of these allegations, and is not more or less sure of his guilt? Any lawyer would pounce on that.

I agree with the PP who said he must now be officially removed from the LOS. It might be only symbolic given the number ahead of him, but tbh it’s more important than a title. If William and family were wiped out in a car crash and Harry said thanks but no thanks, there would be nothing to stop King Andrew. It might prompt a republic, but that would take time.

Dollymylove · 31/10/2025 18:37

I think its time to look into all these "other men" who have allegedly been involved with Epstein and co. Why are they focusing only on Andrew?