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.

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

Andrew wasn’t booted out of the Royal Lodge by his landlord. He as the tenant voluntarily surrendered his lease. There’s a difference, legally. It was under immense pressure to do so I am sure, but would Andrew have felt he had no other choice at an earlier point in time? I am doubtful of that.

Thanks to the OP for this detailed breakdown, it's clear they've been aware of what AMW did and still protected him for years. The whole organisation is corrupt and needs replacing.

No to the last one.

As it turned out, it was not only possible but it actually happened that Andrew's lease was terminated.

Who abused him. What was that about ?

It’s in Lownies book. I can’t remember the exact details though.

Out of interest, what law would you be quoting to evict them legally?

It's awful isn't it.

So much focus on H and M, yet this stuff on Andy gets worse every day.

I feel sorry for Andrew's daughters. What an embarrassment he has turned out to be. Very sad indeed.

Harry is still family - the kings son but plenty of posters hope he’s cast out.

He’s been arrested on suspicion of sharing confidential information. That’s not to say more is not to come, but so far the police don’t appear to have grounds to arrest him for anything else.

The royal family have been gradually moving him to the sidelines, especially as more information has come out, and have made big changes to his status in the last few months especially, even getting him to (clearly very reluctantly) move out of his house before his tenancy had ended.

Whether you agree with it or not, the principle in this country is innocent until proven guilty.

Andrew as the tenant surrendered the lease (doubtless under massive pressure to do so). That’s different.

Harry wasn't pushed out, he chose to leave, and I don't think Charles ever protected Andrew, I think there is deep-rooted hatred between Charles and Andrew that has been going on a lot longer than the Epstein scandal

I don't agree with that. After him knowingly being friendly with a known sex trafficker of a young girl, Charles and the rest of them did everything they could slowly bring him back into the fold. Would you not call that protecting him?

It’s definitely worth repeating that Harry had a lease for Frogmore - and had already advance paid the rent for another year. Harry had met the terms of the lease by carrying out repairs. It was still taken from him.

Now perhaps taking Frogmore from Harry was legally dubious and Harry just rolled over and accepted it where as Andrew made it clear he’d put up a legal fight, but the fact remains that if they could do it to Harry they could do it to Andrew, it’s just Charles clearly believes what Harry has done is worse than what he know Andrew had done.

I couldn't agree more . I'm not Irish, I'm Scottish but I had Irish grandparents who couldn't abide the Royals. Said they needed to do a few hard shifts.

Harry wasnt pushed out of the RF
His wife wasnt happy that she was way down the Royal pecking order. She wanted to be number one. This was not ever going to happen so off they popped to the States and aired all their "grievances" to Oprah Winfrey.
Unfortunately backfired spectacularly and now they want to come back.
They might get lucky now there is an opportunity with Andy out of the show 😅

What? @Espresso1's analysis is spot on. Or do you think the Royals got all their wealth through being lovely people throughout the centuries? History graduate here. HTH.

What is also interesting is that Charles was apparently against the appointment of Andrew as an envoy - this was in the press at the time. He was 💯 right, as Andrew really does come across as a self important buffoon at the very least, with zero self awareness or interest beyond his own royal status.

It was reported in the press that Harry was asked to vacate Frogmore after Spare was published, and he and Meghan agreed to do so. So they were in exactly the same position as Andrew, in that as a tenant they agreed to surrender their lease. If either Harry or Andrew had resisted (and who knows how much pressure was being applied behind the scenes - in Andrew’s case I suspect quite a bit) there would have been nothing the landlord could have done.

I made this exact point up thread. AMW has done so much harm, why would the RF want to protect him? I suspect they, like the rest of us have only just seen the full extent of the horror within the Epstein files. AMW has always said he has done nothing wrong and I can well imagine he has tried to charm and manipulate his family into beleving him.

Harry and Meghan are very quiet on this, if the OP is so sure the family knew what AMW was up to, wouldnt this also include Harry? If they really want to distance themselves from the rest of the family maybe they should stop using their titles.

I think his siblings must have started to get fed up a long time ago but didnt dare do anything because of the queen. They started to make a move on him after she died. Also.i dont imagine the 4.children of the queen actually physically see each other that much as they are so busy so.maybe he isnt on their radar as much as we think.

Didn't the Queen secure an exemption for them from the equality laws - so they wouldn't be forced to treat those dreadful non-white people as equals when it came to offering employment?

I don't even know if it is pure racism as much as the fact that there's such a small gene pool in their privileged circles that it was a handy short-cut to getting some of the obviously-different frightful commoners out of the way?

You cannot expel someone from a family they were born into! He is the kings brother and that’s that. QE2 did protect him and no one found a role for him. Same with Harry. So they end up doing what they want with little supervision. We need to move to them having jobs. It needs slimming down. As a private person he can do things we can all do, but how he can do that is the issue. Can he go for a pub lunch with his family? Or even have a holiday? It’s difficult to see him as anything but under house arrest. He’s a product of the RF and the Queen not modernising.

That’s not quite true. Prior to the passing of the Race Relations Act 1968, Buckingham Palace, along with most other UK employers, had a policy of not hiring people of colour into middle or senior roles. The Race Relations Act was passed because there was rampant discrimination against people of colour across the UK.

Folliwing the passing of various acts protecting the rights of minorities (the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act for example) the palace had an exemption meaning grievances did not go to the (public) Employment Tribunal but rather to the Home Ofgice for determination. That was removed when the Equality Act was passed in 2010, which consolidated the previous patchwork of protective statutes.

Siezing of assets gained through criminal activity, including, but not limited to, historical theft, mass violence, murder, slavery and most recently being slum landlords and sexual abusers. I'm not a lawyer, but seems like more than enough to go on there. Their hoarding of wealth is revolting and you shouldn't stand for it. They are a self perpetuating sham, they have no place in the modern world.