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.

I'm not a lawyer

No, clearly not.

Its still in the Equality Act, I think?

Funny how the family members who were consistently seen with Andrew can be excused under the guise of ignorance but Harry and Meghan, whom their detractors are always quick to say are no longer members of the Firm, are expected to say something. They've been gone effectively since December 2019 and officially since March 2020. Andrew's scandal erupted in November 2019. What exactly would they have even been aware of?

Secondly, and again as their many detractors like to say and as one hastened to imply earlier, Harry and Meghan are not, were not and will never be the top dogs in the RF. No one would've reported Andrew's behaviour to him, as they would have to Elizabeth, Charles and William. So why are excuses being made for the people who were briefed for years but there's an expectation from the people who have been out of the loop for a minimum of 6+ years?

And again, let's not be disingenuous. If they said something, people would say this had nothing to do with them, they're trying to get attention, Willian and Kate didn't make an official statement so why are the Sussexes doing so? If they don't make a statement, and rightly so since I don't see what they can meaningfully add to the situation, they're criticised for not doing anything. They cannot win.

I cannot believe that despite the incredible revelations about Andrew in the past few months, that anyone can honestly think Harry and Meghan warrant a mention in this conversation.

Very well said PumpkinPieAlibi

Anyone continually referring to H and M while this crisis with AMW is going on, and trying to switch people’s focus back to them, needs their head examining frankly!

First it’s well known that both W and H loathe their uncle.

Second, H and M have now left, so they are not required to say anything.

Third, the RF seem to be imploding quite happily all by themselves without any outside input!

Trump is hardly a scapegotat. He has the most powerful job in the world, breaks the law and lies relentlessly, and shows no sign of facing consequences.

OP, you are clearly very anti-monarchy, and to describe Andrew as “the nonce” is both inaccurate and nasty - whatever he may or may not have done, no-one is accusing him of sleeping with under-age girls - seventeen is over the age of consent here, whatever you think of the optics. Of course his family stood up for him, most particularly his mother the late Queen. Wouldn’t you stand up for your children? What Andrew has done that is both reprehensible and indefensible is to pass on confidential information to Epstein - for that, he should absolutely be brought to book. Meanwhile, it’s very useful for those who want to keep the child grooming gangs out of the public eye to have Andrew to pillory.

I completely agree. It seems that the Harry and Meghan haters can never seem help themselves by bringing their name into this, despite the fact they haven't even lived in this country since late 2019 and stepped down from their roles in 2020.

Why are people on calling on Harry to make a statement and comment yet completely quiet about William making a statement when William being in a much more senior role and current 1st in line to the throne SHOULD be saying something about it all. What are people expecting Harry to make comment about?

There's so many double standards too. So many people on here trying to downplay or minimise what Andrew has done and going on about "family support" for Andrew. and how family should always be there etc etc yet seemingly have absolutely no problem with Charles treatment towards Harry his own son and how he now effectively doesn't even speak to him.

I mean don't get me wrong, I think Harry airing his problems in public was the right thing to do and was never going to result in a happy ending with his family. But it isn't even in the same realm or league as being friends with a child sex offender and being accused of having sex with a trafficked victim. Yet the same people saying it was ok as a family to support Andrew after these issues were known about seem to have absolutely no problem with the same family cutting off a brother and son for far less.

My mum made it clear to us that she loves us all but they are certain things that she would have given us absolutely no support or stood up for us for. Sexual assault being one of them.

I love my children but if they became friends with and stayed friends with a known child sexual abuser and trafficker, I can't imagine I'd be wanting to support or stick up for them. Nor would I be giving them any more to pay off a victim who had accused them of sexual assault which in my makes him guilty as charged.

And I think it's worth repeating the age of consent is irrelevant. We are speaking about girls who are trafficked.

I agree

Spot on - it's like getting the county lines bloke when the big wigs are sitting back laughing. But it makes some happy - those with a narrow capacity.

The actual overall situation is horrific - there is no denying that. I doubt there will ever be full accountability.

This response is so incredibly disturbing.

OP, you are clearly very anti-monarchy

That I am. You say this like it's a bad thing but I have absolutely no shame in not idolising a bunch of unintelligent grifters who are only there through virtue of birth.

to describe Andrew as “the nonce” is both inaccurate and nasty

Is it actually nasty? Sure, I'll own it. I don't have to mince words and play nice when I'm describing a man in a position of power raping a woman or GIRL.
You know what's nastier? Trying to defend said man on semantics. 😂

And for the last time - TRAFFICKED WOMEN CANNOT GIVE CONSENT!!!

It doesn't matter if they're 17 or 70.

Wouldn’t you stand up for your children?

If they behaved like Andrew? Are you joking right now? Is this how Royalists really think? Twisting themselves into knots to justify illegal activities?

What Andrew has done that is both reprehensible and indefensible is to pass on confidential information to Epstein

Now I know you MUST be joking. The passing of confidential information is what's bad, not the sex crimes? I'm not even going to dignify this comment with any further debate.

Meanwhile, it’s very useful for those who want to keep the child grooming gangs out of the public eye to have Andrew to pillory.

Ah, I see what you're about now. Let's distract the people and throw in a little anti-immigrant sentiment to boot. Nice way to get the usual suspects frothing at the mouth.
And btw, I think the UK has enough police forces to prosecute both the grooming gangs AND Andrew. It's not either/or and it certainly doesn't nullify, mitigate, justify or distract from what a senior member of the RF did for years.

The irony of this comment.

I think it's far safer to say that focusing on the grooming gangs in order to distract from Andrew and the cabal of billionaires surrounding Epstein is more akin to 'getting the county lines bloke when the big wigs are sitting back laughing'.

I don't think you've understood what I have said but no matter. As I said before..

And for the last time - TRAFFICKED WOMEN CANNOT GIVE CONSENT!!!
It doesn't matter if they're 17 or 70.

Honestly, people keep harping on about this point, no matter how any times they are corrected (and so vehemently too). This was not the legal position in 2001 when Virginia and Andrew had sex. Legally his culpability would be assessed based whether Andrew believed she had consented, and that is all.

Palace PR and royalists are pissing in the wind today.

It's funny that Andrew's defense was complete denial of ever having met Virginia. Now his supporters are debating the nuances of the law as it stood in 2001, as the Sexual Offences Act and the Modern Slavery Act were not yet in effect.

But I think you're misreading something Serenster. My argument was not a legal one because I have never pretended to have any legal knowledge. And I actually agree with you that Andrew's knowledge or lack thereof of Virginia's trafficked status will affect his culpability as that seems to be the case from what I've read on the matter.

And yet my response to that poster was not about Andrew's legal position but about her objection to my calling him a 'nonce'. Like I said, I do not care for semantics in this case. Andrew slept with a GIRL, she was legally a girl as she was not yet over the age of 18. Did he know she was trafficked? It's very likely he did considering his close relationship with Epstein and Maxwell, but it is difficult to prove. Was she over the age of consent in England where this happened? Yes, barely so. But this splitting of hairs, whilst important to a legal defense, does nothing to exonerate the man morally. He was in an unearned position of power and used that power imbalance to take sexual advantage of a girl. Why are sane people trying to defend his behaviour?

At this point, if anything comes of the allegations of him watching on while Maxwell tortured a 6-year old with a shock collar, I am fully expecting we'll have posters on here protesting his innocence as he was 'only watching'.

For goodness sake, someone who cares about the legal position being accurately stated is not the same thing as being a supporter of Andrew. You can put your pitchfork away. Inaccuracies and inflamed posts don't actually achieve anything here (well, not for those of us who refer facts to fictions).

For the record, while it would be nice to think that Andrew would face charges for the sexual offence allegations made against him, it is highly unlikely, and always has been. Firstly, because he could only be tried under the law as it stood in 2001. At that point in time it was irrelevant whether Virginia was trafficked. The legal questions to establish guilt would have been (a) did they have sexual intercourse?; and (b) did Andrew believe Virginia had consented to that? His belief had to be genuine, but at the time it also could have been an objectively unreasonable belief. Given Virginia’s own account of what took place, that is a very high bar for the prosecutor to pass. It was always going to be a “He said, she said” case - and now that Virginia is sadly no longer alive I cannot see any prosecutor thinking it would be appropriate to pursue the case.

That is not me taking sides, it’s just assessing the facts. I have never defended Andrew from a moral basis.

It's incredibly disingenuous to pretend Andrew's troubles only relate to Virginia Giuffre. "Randy Andy" was doing disturbing numbers before Epstein. There are potentially hundreds (thousands?) of "Mrs Windsors" in the UK alone before we get to what he called the foreign ones he ran through on his trips to Bangkok etc while representing the UK.
Lets not forget he's not just a nonce (potentially paedo) he's also more obviously a traitor. Is it worse being a traitor for financial gain as opposed to ideology? Probably.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3wl6vdgqw2o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d09qd6zn2o
There's a lot of info and it may be hard to keep up but you must realise we are beyond debating when trafficking laws were introduced.

I think Andrew has always been a sleaze. God knows what his family thought of his antics. And why they put up with it.

On a yacht with Epstein with lots of bare breasted women, there are pictures.
In Thailand with Epstein on a taxpayer funded trip... 40 prostitutes shared between them in four days. And this has been verified.

Could none of his family actually rein him in? Seriously?

Thank goodness states with elected Head of States hold people to account, unlike the bad old constitutional monarchies.

We definitely need to follow the USA, the ultimate anti monarcy country. No Kings! They hold their leaders to account in the way we... oh, sorry. Maybe not.

And i do think the rule of law is important, not rule by media. And innocent until proved guilty.

Is Andrew a disgusting sleazebag? Yes, that's a matter of opinion, and my opinion is that he is.

Has he broken the law? I have no inside information. I think it is very possible, but it needs to be proved in a court of law. Both on sexual offences and misconduct in public life.

There's a lot of info and it may be hard to keep up but you must realise we are beyond debating when trafficking laws were introduced.

Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster? I have been saying Andrew’s trade envoy actities needed to be investigated since the Epstein emails were first published. Ditto Mandelson’s possible market abuse.

I am glad the law eventually catches up. VG's activities in recruiting other girls, for example, needs to be seen in the context of her own abuse.

And trafficked women and girls cannot consent.

But the overall principle of laws not being retrospective is also important. Even when it let's obnoxious and damaging people off the hook.

For goodness sake, someone who cares about the legal position being accurately stated is not the same thing as being a supporter of Andrew. You can put your pitchfork away. Inaccuracies and inflamed posts don't actually achieve anything here (well, not for those of us who refer facts to fictions).

I never said you were a supporter of Andrew but I also wasn't speaking about the chances of him being convicted when you chose to bring the legal argument into it. Like I said I was responding to someone being concerned about him being called a 'nonce'. I completely understand that the chances of him being convicted are low. The legal argument is not the moral one, and my comments on this thread are about the latter.

That is not me taking sides, it’s just assessing the facts. I have never defended Andrew from a moral basis.

Happy to hear this. 💐

I agree Andrew is a disgusting human being. I also recognise that - with his sexual behaviour - he may be morally wrong without being illegal

I work with vulnerable adults, who have the legal capacity to make their own decisions about their sex life. I, along with colleagues, believe a couple of them are being exploited. But, legally, they can make their own decisions. It's uncomfortable.