Proof that the Palace protected Andrew while pretending not to

[PumpkinPieAlibi]

The truth is simpler than the Palace spin - Andrew was never truly expelled from the BRF. Despite public condemnation, he remained inside the family's inner circle, protected by silence and proximity, whilst Harry was pushed out entirely for daring to speak out against the system.

The monarchy did not act out of any sort of moral compulsion...it acted late, reluctantly and only when the OPTICS became indefensible, in an act of self-preservation.

Here's a short timeline of the BRF signalling their show of support and 'family unity' as well as examples of how they continued to protect Andrew:

• Aug 2019 – The Queen and Andrew were seen attending church together at Crathie Kirk, Balmoral the day after Epstein’s death. Her decision to sit with Andrew on Sunday was described as a "show of support" by The Daily Telegraph on Sunday, while other British newspapers featured headlines on a similar theme. Robert Jobson, royal editor at the Evening Standard, told INSIDER that the royals used their appearance together to "send a clear message" to the public.

• Nov 2019 – After his disastrous Newsnight interview, the Queen showed her open support for Andrew by being spotted horseback riding together in Windsor two days later .On Friday, the Queen was spotted horse riding with Prince Andrew in the grounds of Windsor in what one royal expert said was an apparent show of support to her second son. (Ingrid Seward, The Guardian)

• Jan 2020 – The Queen and Andrew attended Sunday church service at Sandringham. “He remains a member of the royal family,” a royal source said. “As a royal colonel and a war veteran, you can expect to see him at Remembrance Sunday. You can expect to see him on the balcony at Trooping the Colour too.” (People)

• Mar 2022 – The Queen chose Andrew as her main supporter to attend Phillip’s memorial service. This came just one month after Andrew’s £12 million settlement to Virginia Giuffre. Former BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt said he was surprised to see the role Andrew was given at the service, noting that it would not have happened “by chance” and risked overshadowing the memorial and generating controversy around the world. “He could have sat in the congregation with others, with his relatives, but they actively decided that he would have this role of supporting her. So she has chosen, in essence, to remind people that he hasn’t admitted any wrongdoing, he’s not guilty of anything, he’s innocent. And she’s very clearly stating that he has a role at family occasions,” he said. (The Guardian)

• Sep 2022 – William, together with the Wessexes and Andrew flew to Scotland together and then drove to Balmoral the day QE died. Reminder that no one waited on Harry to join them. Andrew also held vigil in full military uniform with QE’s other children at Westminster Hall, despite being stripped of his military titles.

• Mar 2023 – A royal source states that the Waleses would prefer Andrew as a neighbor to Harry & Meghan.

• May 2023 - Andrew attended Charles’ coronation on May 6, 2023 at Westminster Abbey wearing formal robes of the Order of the Garter.

• Aug 2023 – William, together with Kate, is seen driving Andrew to church at Balmoral. Prince Andrew has attended church in Balmoral with senior royals in an apparent show of unity which insiders say marks an end to any talk of a “family divided”. (The Telegraph) | Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams told MailOnline the photographs of Prince Andrew travelling to church with the Waleses were 'clearly intended to send a message of family unity\'.\ (Daily Mail)

• Christmas - Dec 2022 & Dec 2023 – Andrew joined the BRF in both 2022 & 2023 at the Christmas church service at Sandringham.

• Easter - Apr 2023, Mar 2024 & Apr 2025 – Andrew joined the Royal family for the Easter Mattins service at Windsor in 2023 – 2025. Re: his 2025 appearance, On this occasion, Royal expert Phil Dampier said it is now “only a matter of time” before he fully welcomed back into the fold. He said Charles still loves his brother “and he doesn’t want him to be completely outcast”. He added: “It was very much a show of family unity”. Mr. Dampier believes Kate and William’s decision to stay away was not linked to Andrew. (The Sun)

• Order of the Garter Ceremony – 2022 – 2025 – Despite not allowed to be part of the public procession, as William and Charles are concerned with the optics of his public attendance, Andrew has been allowed to attend the private lunch and investiture ceremony since 2022, in what has been called a 'compromise' with Charles.

• Armed Protection & Subsequent Financial Support - 2022 – 2024 – Although he officially 'stepped down' from royal duties in November 2019, Andrew was allowed to keep his armed police protection as a member of the RF. It was only in 2022 when Andrew lost his HRH title due to his settlement with Virginia that he lost his taxpayer-funded armed police protection. Following this, Charles personally funded a private security team for his brother at Royal Lodge, a cost estimated to be around £3 million ($4 million) annually.

• Military Titles – 2019 – 2022/ 2025 – Again, despite being persona non grata since late 2019, Andrew was allowed to keep his military titles until they were stripped by QE in January 2022. Even then, he was still allowed to keep his title of Vice Admiral, typically representing the second-highest active rank in the Navy, until December 2025 when he lost the use of his Princely title.

• Housing – Andrew was allowed to keep Royal Lodge despite wave after subsequent wave of accusations against him, and again, in contrast to Harry and Meghan who were forced to give up Frogmore Cottage upon their exit from the RF. Despite reassurances of him vacating the property in 2025, this was only expedited on January 31^(st) 2026 after the most damning evidence to date was published in the most recent release of the Epstein files.

That is not how the legal system works works though. If you have evidence, actual evidence, that other members of the Royal family aided and abetted, or were knowingly involved in Andrew’s (possible) criminal activities, yes, there is a case for those members to answer. But criminal liability is specific, not general. No family is liable for the actions of their other members, just because they continued to involve them in family events.

(The “faked canoe death” case of John Darwin is a good example here. He faked his death to claim on his life insurance policy: this is obtaining cash by deception a nd is a crime. His wife Anne at some stage realised he had done this and perpetuated the deception by allowing him to live in the bedsit next door: she became an accessory to his crimes. Their two sons were ignorant however, and despite knowing that their mother was acting strangely - taking foreign holidays, selling the family home to go to Panama and transferring lots of cash abroad - they didn’t know what their parents were up to. They weren’t liable for anything).

They have all got to go NOW. I am Irish, but if I was British I would be mass protesting and stiking now outside the palace gates. They should be evicted tonight,.their huge wealth redistributed to the poor, and the victims of this sicko Andrew and his ilk.

Sounds realistic .

Trump certainly isn't a scapegoat. His name is mentioned 38,000 times in the Epstein files and is he being held to account? Nope
He has the awful Pam Bondi, his hand picked Attorney General seeing to that

Yeah as realistic as rich white criminals and their protectors sitting on thrones with jewels on their heads, all at public expense, in the 21st century

White? Criminals?

Yes they are white. Yes they are criminals, one proven so far, more to come. Time for them to go.

Apart from the fact that this is clearly your opinion and has no actual basis in fact, bringing skintone into your argument is the reason that people are divided.

Have you completely missed the actual photos of the family with the nonce in their car or walking to church? That is not Press spin.

Or the actual quotes from reporters who were happy to go on record and whom we all know the RF communicate through via their infamous 'Royal sources'?

Or are you actually trying to imply that the Press is lying when it comes to the Epstein files and the persons involved?

The royal family are known racists and colonialists, who over decades have stolen and plundered from every corner of the earth. And now they are found to be pedophiles and pedophile protectors as well. They have subjugated people of colour for decades and centuries and gotten away with it, in fact, have been rewarded for it, and have divided entire nations, including my own. So yes, I'll call them white, rich criminals, as that's exactly what they are.

Have you completely missed the actual photos of the family with the nonce in their car or walking to church? That is not Press spin

That is also not evidence that the family aided and abetted, or were knowingly involved in Andrew’s criminal activities, though. Much as you want it to be the case, no-one under UK law is guilty just by association.

No words.

Much like the royals themselves then.
Let's all just pretend this is normal. But its rotten at its core.

As you wish.

Absolutely this

That is also not evidence that the family aided and abetted, or were knowingly involved in Andrew’s criminal activities, though.

Who said anything anything about aiding and abetting? I certainly haven't. If that were the case, we'd be calling for the whole lot of them to be arrested.

But they very much protected and enabled his behaviour. They sent very clear messages of family support and unity, which is telling coming from a family obsessed with optics.

And let's not be disingenuous. This is no ordinary family - this is an institution. If a C-Level employee at a corporation was accused of what Andrew has been accused of (as a previously-Senior member of the RF), then that employee would be forced to resign and out in the cold promptly.

Much as you want it to be the case, no-one under UK law is guilty just by association.

No, they aren't. They can be unethical enabling grifters by association though.

He's there alright, but there are others too. The media just plays the Trump and andy card to deflect attention

But they very much protected and enabled his behaviour. They sent very clear messages of family support and unity, which is telling coming from a family obsessed with optics.

Whats the difference between aid and abetting and protect and enabled?

sounds the same to me. I think the focus should be on AMW, and what he did as trade envoy.

Epstein was convicted of child solicitation in 2008

Epstein was emailing Andrews aides to complain about the wording of the palace statement attempting to distance Andrew from Epstein in 2019

The Windsors are acting now because of international revelations that they can no longer ignore .
They ignored the issue for 17 years though . Where was their ‘deep concern’ for victims then ?

Yes, where was it. Re Virginia Guiffre...

AMW more or less called her a liar in his infamous interview. Sarah called her a salacious liar. The Palace repeatedly denied he had done anything wrong.

Those poor survivors.

I mean, again I'll say let's not be disingenuous but I'll take your bait.

Aiding and abetting = actively helping wrongdoing
Protecting and enabling = shielding someone from consequences after the wrongdoing

With Andrew, there’s no public proof the RF helped him commit crimes obviously but there’s sufficient evidence they protected and enabled him by allowing him to keep his titles, status, security and money

This entire debacle casts the entire family in a very negative light to anyone who isn't obsequious to them and their actions hint at them knowing there's more to be released, so yes, I think it's very important people keep an eye on them too as they're not just the nonce's brother/nephew etc but the supposed leaders of Britain.

Protecting and enabling = shielding someone from consequences after the wrongdoing

Shielding someone from consequences with actual knowledge of the wrongdoing, I presume you mean there?

Ah yes, I see.

I guess that means Charles was had no knowledge of Andrew's involvement with Epstein until 2022 hence why he allowed him to have RPO protection until Jan 2022 and keep his titles until Nov 2025.

It has been established by the courts - thanks to Prince Harry’s lawsuits against the Home Office - that it is the Home Office RAVEC committee that makes all decisions about RPO protection and the Monarch has no involvement in their decisions. Why you think the first in line to the throne would have sway that the Queen herself did not have is unclear.

So RAVEC decided to discontinue Andrew's RPO protection (which was an easy out for Charles in that case) but then beneficent Charles took it upon himself to personally finance Andrew's security to the tune of 3 million annually until 2024?

And the titles - was that not in Charles and previously Elizabeth's remit to remove? Recent events demonstrate it obviously was.

And we clearly saw that, despite the lease on Royal Lodge, Charles could have gotten Andrew out sooner if he wanted to.

I mean the entire opening post of this thread is about all the ways Andrew faced little to no consequences despite his family knowing what he was up to. I don't see the point in rehashing it here as I doubt anything I say can change the mind of someone who is eager to minimise their involvement.