Andrew - continuing his effort to end the Monarchy

[TheHaplessWit]

Another new story on Andrew today. Photo's have emerged showing that on Epstein's desk, there were emails regarding Epstein paying debts owed by Andrew/Sarah to staff:

https://people.com/epstein-had-emails-staff-ex-prince-andrew-sarah-ferguson-new-photos-show-11880419

Why on Earth was a Prince of England having his staff paid by a sex trafficker?
Doesn't seem "too honourable" to me.

Really? You don’t agree that decent people want accountability from the Windsors?
I would have thought that was a basic expectation ( not that we will ever get it)

Other things the RF could do:

Disclose everything that they know about the allegations and admit everything they have done to cover up the truth.

State publicly that AMBW needs to cooperate fully with authorities in establishing the facts.

If they are not prepared to do any of this (they won't be), then they need to expect to be asked tough questions by the public - as the UK media aren't prepared to do it - when out and about. And it would be nice if they could desist from looking irritated and embarrassed when such questions were asked (as P Edward did last week), let alone allowing those members of the public to be threatened with arrest.

@serenster I always look for your responses on these threads, because they are well-informed, clear and balanced. Whilst these topics are difficult, emotion gets us nowhere. We are talking about real people's lives, for good or ill, after all. Please do keep contributing.

@Miranda65

That post was ‘talking ‘ about PR

There is no place for such a cynical approach in my opinion .
This scandal is disturbing.
The Windsors are unaccountable

I don’t get why you feel you can blithely determine that there is no place for PR here, ukisgaslit. Nor why you think that people in such a position would be expected to not carefully consider all their options (or worse - not allowed to, seemingly)

Again, you are holding the Windsors to an unjustifiably higher standard than the rest of the world. What do you think Keir Starmer and the Foreign office are doing right now?

One further point.

I often see Windsor defenders say ‘we don’t apply this standard to other people’ ( ie trying to separate Andrew out from the rest of them)

That is not a legitimate point .
The Windsors are above the law, no FOI allowed, no accountability.

Trying to equate them to ‘everyone else’ is void .

Again, not true, ukisgaslit.

Anne has been prosecuted for offences (having a dog out of control and speeding), so clearly not above the law.

Members of Parliament are also exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (along with the security and intelligence services, the Courts and Public Service broadcasters in relation to their journalism). So the Royal family’s status is not unique.

Not the Anne dog fine again

That should not be allowed in the same paragraph as Epstein and the Windsors

Why shouldn’t the government have restrictions on FOI?
Fairly nornal

Why the hell though should the Windsors ? Aren’t we told they are apolitical?
Andrew remains above the law and hasn’t even been questioned !

Actually @Serenster
you’ve missed something there . Easily done.

MPs as individuals are exempt from FOI but not the information. Very different from the Windsors .

Facts are very inconvenient, aren’t they! But, self evidently I can’t show you instances of royal family’s members being prosecuted for serious criminal offences because until Andrew I can’t think of an instance where one of them has been so directly involved in potentially criminal conduct.

The stepson of the Crown Prince of Norway is currently facing trial for several counts of rape and violent offences however - I presume that’s allowed in the same a paragraph as Epstein?

And as for the FOIA exemptions, I would have thought it was self-evident. As the Windsors are the family that provides our head of state, and there has been an oppressive press interest in both their private and public lives for decades now, the law is balancing their right to privacy when they have such public lives. It’s excatly the same reason the emeption is extended to MPs. You see that as normal - exemptions or the head of state is also normal. If we had a republic, any head of state in that would also have exemption from FOIA.

Totally agree gaslit. The windsors want the perks of royalty ? They bloody well should be held to at least the same standard as the rest of us - if not higher.

It’s simple

Both the Windsors and Mandelson are involved with Epstein
Look at the treatment of each.

Mandelson’s house has been searched by the police - quite rightly

Andrew hadn’t been touched.

No words needed

This editorial is spot on

The disgraced royal was sheltered by silence. Accountability to victims must mean testimony abroad and scrutiny at home, not palace containment tactics

"Palace containment tactics" sums it up, doesn't it?

AMW proposed Buckingham Palace as a discreet place to meet Epstein
He had warm very regular exchanges with Epstein following his assertion he had cut him off
He asked JE how to dodge personal investment restrictions
As a Trade Envoy (on our payroll) he lobbied foreign states on Epstein's behalf (according to emails released in the files)

Surely all this is just as bad as what Mandelson has been up to???

But the Epstein files reveal where entitlement without restraint, and privilege without responsibility, can lead. Parliament could act to reintroduce accountability and demand transparency of royal activity if it chose to. It should not take Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s failings to see that deference is a choice; impunity is its consequence.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/06/the-guardian-view-on-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-driven-by-a-belief-that-his-status-made-him-untouchable

You can’t rely on ChatGPT for this! It’s very technical.

• All MPs and the Royal family members are exempt from disclosing personal data under FOIA - they have exactly the same protection there.
• the Royal family then have some additional protection in that communications with them are exempt from disclosure (but this is not an absolute right - remember Charles “black spider” memos were ultimately released).
• MPs than have parliamentary privilege protected - this is very wide ranging - essentially you can’t ask them any questions about what they say in the House of Commons
• There’s then an exemption around formulating policy - MPs can’t be asked about that either.
• There’s also general exemptions for legal professional privilege, national security, health and safety etc that will apply to both of them.

So no, I don’t believe it’s true that the Windsors have more rights under FOIA than other public figures actually.I think their protection is equivalent, and the law reflects their different roles.

my god, are you sure you are not one of the royal family? You sound like one of them with your 'other opinions are available' 😒

Surely all this is just as bad as what Mandelson has been up to???

Just a reminder, Mandelson’s appears to have breached the Official Secrets Act and committed the criminal offence of market abuse (which people regularly get jailed for) more than once.

@Serenster

I dont have time for this today - I’m sure you will be relieved to hear - but cut and paste will not do here
eg you mention Charles black spider memos. Yes they were released after a long legal battle. But you haven’t mentioned what happened next
The rules were then tightened so Windsor interference could not be revealed again

The Windsors have ‘royal exemption’
We all know it and Andrew’s treatment has it written large.
Andrews envoy files were sealed.
Why? Well we know why .

Agree.

And I have written to my MP for clarification on this and asking her to contact the Dept of Trade and Industry (Andrew represented them for ten years) and ask them what legal basis there is to seal the trade envoy records. We deserve to know how AMW represented our national interests abroad.
I don't hold out much hope but I had to write.

I think that’s a perfectly appropriate thing to do, simpsonthecat. The court has the power to unseal sealed public records if there are grounds to do so. I have said upthread I think Andrew’s performance of his Trade Envoy role should be investigated. I just believe that should be done in accordance with due process.

I was wondering when serenster would descend on this thread to deflect and contain

Sorry? Am I not allowed to share my thoughts in a discussion on a public discussion board? How odd.

On another thread, someone had written a statement that Edward should have said and it was effing fantastic. I just wonder what their PR people, their Crisis managers, their Private Secretaries actually DO. Edward just stumbled over some rubbishy words.
For a random member of the public to write on here a statement that even I, as a complete cynic about the royals, would have accepted and understood, yet the palace people seem completely unable to manage anything.

I shall have to see if I can go and find it, I don't think it will break TG to C&P it here.

I thought Edward's first sentence or two was a classic example of using empty words to give someone time to think. Which is interesting in itself because surely he should have been prepared to answer that question. It seems that, unlike politicians and celebrities, members of the RF are not sent out with a specific PR line to get across. In some ways that's refreshing but in situations that are a serious as this one it's dangerously amateur. Every working member of the family needs to be prepared for these questions and have something of substance to say in answer.