I don’t believe the lie that all the Windsors were fooled by Andrews protestations of innocence . Who would fall for that ? There were decades of reports on Andrew. They knew . That statement was the old playbook of pit the whole weight of the institution against an individual and try to crush them.
I’m more interested in how being HRH protects the whole lot of them. Even sovereign immunity is an embarrassment- that needs urgent reform . No other head of state in a so called democracy has such protection- ie it doesn’t cover serious criminality and it ends when they leave office.
Royal immunity is complete and for life - as it’s for life it should be stripped back to as little immunity as possible .
The question as to whether the term ‘household’ covered Andrew etc has not been tested in court . But I’ve also read that HRH adds protection as the CPS then have an additional barrier to reach in order to prosecute - public interest. Then there’s the layers of secrecy, no FOI , security etc to get through . So it is not the whole story to say only the monarch has immunity. Charles has ( medieval levels of ) immunity but the rest of them have more protection than the rest of us - for no reason. William has more immunity again - why? He’s not head of state .
So it’s not just Charles who has additional protection from the law- that’s not the whole story. It never is with the Windsors is it ? Once you look beyond the surface .