Do you think Andrew will face any criminal charges?

[LotsInCommon]

I’m only now reading Virginias book and it’s a very difficult read.

It’s 7 months on from Andrews arrest for misconduct in public office. Do you think he will be charged with anything to do with that? Do you think he’ll be charged with sexual abuse and rape?

"They didn't know" has been trotted out so often that it's getting ridiculous, Constantrunner, but considering the 30,000 records handed to the Lord Chamberlain - something I've only recently become aware of - it defeats me how the palace can pretend with a straight face that they're not still involved in this up to their ears

I don't know if many of Mumsnet's staunch monarchists are missing from the thread because they find these things are unpalatable or because there seems no answer which paints the RF in a good light, but it's nevertheless very noticeable

Edited to add that Andrew/Epstein being all over the media and some claiming the RF still "didn't know" is right up there with the Queen "not knowing" the details of the Burrell trial and suddenly remembering a conversation - and I don't know anyone with sense who believed that either

I think you make some really, really interesting points here Ukisgaslit which yet again hark back to Peter Hennessy’s theory on the success of our unwritten constitution depending on the main players being “jolly good chaps”! And I think we have reached the point where we can’t quite depend on that any longer.

There is little scrutiny for a start, and then no official mechanism for ousting the wrong ‘uns!

As to your argument about symbolic power v something much more , this was demonstrated to the point of of absurdity when QE2 was able to interfere and suddenly stop the Paul Burrell trial mid-way through! I remember it sparking intense debate over whether the sovereign is above the law and how executive or royal influence interacts with the justice system. Or how it should interact with it … .

Also, to go back to the 30,000 emails sent to the Lord Chamberlain; I’ve found this article which touches on the legal issues surrounding them. It states, as you say, that the Palace has been in receipt of the documents since May 2020.

The emails had been the subject of a legal dispute and documents from a High Court judgment in April 2021 show that a "copy of the archive" had been provided for the "Lord Chamberlain in May 2020".

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy02j5pl98no

Snap and x-posts Puzzledandpissedoff!

😀

We could do with a website that has all the details of what Prince Andrews has got up to in one place

I remember (the Burrell situation) sparking intense debate over whether the sovereign is above the law ...

There's no debate about it, @Chocolatethumbprints; the monarch is quite literally above the law, in that they're immune from prosecution if they break it, and unfortunately this has been extended to anyone they happen to favour

It's usually around now that someone trots out "it's a matter for parliament", and while that's strictly true it fails when parliament in their turn insist that unwelcome issues are "a matter for the family" and even disallow debate about the worst aspects

In the end they're all in each others' pockets, the fundamental problem for some of us being that politicians can be voted out and the RF can't

Exactly so! In effect the elites police the elite ie they don’t!

And yes, just with the shiftiness over public or private wealth; we also have the highly convenient “private family matter”!

But is it a matter for parliament when Angela Raynor was slapped down for robustly asking questions about legislation re Andrew being kept in the line of succession?
That was a disgrace .

Is it really a matter for parliament when recently an MP who said he did not want to swear allegiance to Charles but would use another form of words - was told to swear or he’d have no right to speak in the commons ? Could he even continue as an MP without swearing to Charles ?

So much for being a powerless figurehead

We need more MPs like those above .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9xn0x6ge3o

Case law has confirmed again and again that the monarch is immune from the law legally.

Totally agree!

“Speaking to the BBC, Mr Lewis said the obligation to swear an oath to the monarch's heirs showed "the institutional power they have is real".

So an MP can be elected by thousands of people, but nonetheless that strong mandate can be overturned in an instant if they refuse to swear allegiance to the Crown.

Highly democratic it is not!

I agree it is telling that the usual royal supporters are absent from this thread.

I think swearing allegiance to the Crown should not be mandatory, it should be personal choice surely, in a democracy

@simpsonthecat it should really be to the U.K. as the country, not the crown as the reigning monarch, imo.

After Brexit I’m wary of a fast change, but I think the change is inevitable and I’ve said before, I don’t think we will have a monarchy, in 20/30 years.

I’m a constitutional monarchist, where parliament is sovereign, but AMW, Johnson’s proroguing of parliament, really had me questioning that and the late Queen went along with it.

I just hope it’s gradual and not the shitshow that was Brexit.

Andrew is STILL in the line of succession.

He's also been allowed to spin discontinuing the use of his nonsensical titles and honorifics as his own decision but lied about that too, still using the HRH privately and making his unfortunate staff address him as 'sir'.

I think 'Entitled' has a very good handle on that.

I read it and where MW is concerned there wasn't much that hadn't already been reported (Ferg was the real eye-opener for me) but seeing it all finally collated in one place was shocking.

Norman Baker has also done a sterling job in an appendix to 'Royal Mint : National Debt' in outlining various of the TE visits. It's not complete because MW's activities were quietly removed (who'd a thought?) from Court Circular records before he could gather all the info but it gives a very good flavour of the amount of gadding MW was able to get in.

I think an oath of allegiance to the nation would be more appropriate.

Swearing allegiance to the crown does though put me in mind of the (fortunately quickly dropped) suggestion of a Homage Of The People forming part of the Coro.

As if 😂

Thames Valley Police have accepted the warrants were unlawful. What a mess.

Thames Valley Police statement on here..

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/breaking-ex-prince-andrew-search-37750349?int_source=breaking-news

Quelle surprise about the "unlawful warrants", and quite remarkable that this has been cleared so quickly considering what's said to be a huge court backlog

As we say on here IANAL, but suppose this invalidates any evidence gathered during the searches? If so, how very convenient

I don't know what IANAL is!

As for the materials taken during the search, it's not a done deal that they would be invalid, because there is still an ongoing investigation.

I agree, no surprise at all. And rushed through a closed court in days

I didn't know what IANAL was either.

I googled and this came up
"IANAL is an internet initialism that stands for "I am not a lawyer" "

IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer

This admission by the police that the search warrants were unlawful does not automatically invalidate any evidence they have found. It would in the USA, but in the UK it is at the discretion of the court. It does, however, give Andrew a potential civil claim for compensation from the police.

"I am not a lawyer", @simpsonthecat

I must correct myself over the "rush" since it turns out the warrant was actually deemed illegal on 22 July and that this has only just been revealed, but it still seems so very convenient

... It does, however, give Andrew a potential civil claim for compensation from the police

Edited to add that's what I was afraid of, @prh47bridge

"Some royal supporters have claimed the royal family knew nothing about Andrew at a point where I was reading about Andrew being friends with Maxwell and Epstein in the media.
It still amazes me just how much some of them will lie to defend members of the royal family."

It's not about supporting the royal family but I doubt they knew anything much about Epstein. He was 'friends' with all sorts of high profile people, internationally. Knowing him as an acquaintance or doing some business with him in itself means nothing.

I remember when Epstein had his first conviction and things started to come out about him, all sorts of people just didn't believe it and were prepared to vouch for his character. He had that sort of effect on those around him.

I'm glad I never crossed paths with the man and I don't judge those who did. Anybody can be taken in by a charmismatic personality.

Thanks, @prh47bridge.

This is feeling a bit parallel universe again.