Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Do you think Andrew will face any criminal charges?

185 replies

LotsInCommon · 25/09/2026 15:04

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
CathyorClaire · 28/09/2026 21:39

On the subject of whether he emailed confidential information to someone (was it Epstein?), you would have to understand all kinds of things, such as what training did Andrew have for the position of trade envoy?; Did he know the information was confidential and not to be passed on?

He was apparently able to understand the confidentiality involved in hiding his own share holdings.

Why do you think he wouldn't have had an extended understanding of confidentiality?

Constantrunner · 28/09/2026 21:40

And it's interesting. Whenever there is a new big damning revelation about Andrew there are always claims that no one on MN defends Andrew. But once stories die down the support appears.

Constantrunner · 28/09/2026 21:42

CathyorClaire · 28/09/2026 21:39

On the subject of whether he emailed confidential information to someone (was it Epstein?), you would have to understand all kinds of things, such as what training did Andrew have for the position of trade envoy?; Did he know the information was confidential and not to be passed on?

He was apparently able to understand the confidentiality involved in hiding his own share holdings.

Why do you think he wouldn't have had an extended understanding of confidentiality?

It was made clear the information was confidential.
Interesting that Andrews defence appears to be he was stupid and thick.

AlwaysRightISwear · 28/09/2026 21:45

Constantrunner · 28/09/2026 21:40

And it's interesting. Whenever there is a new big damning revelation about Andrew there are always claims that no one on MN defends Andrew. But once stories die down the support appears.

I don't think it's actual support is it? Just caution about the prospects of a successful conviction.

Constantrunner · 28/09/2026 21:54

AlwaysRightISwear · 28/09/2026 21:45

I don't think it's actual support is it? Just caution about the prospects of a successful conviction.

Really?? By repeating untrue things such as if someone is dead you can't get a conviction?

If this was a legal discussion then fine, but it is not. It is variations on there is no evidence to convict Andrew. This is a variation on he is innocent, as that no longer flies in public as an argument

AlwaysRightISwear · 28/09/2026 22:00

But you know how had it is to get convictions in sex cases generally, right?

I think there is more hope with the corruption accusations.

Constantrunner · 28/09/2026 22:01

chirrupybird · 28/09/2026 05:48

I read her book and thought it very odd, she didn't say which family member(s) raped her as a child, ran off with some random man at a very young age was 'rescued' by her father, then went off with Epstein doesn't name any of the other important men she slept with for Epstein, was living with Epstein more or less as a wealthy, dysfunctional family with other girls, while also having a rather horrible boyfriend on the outside all of the time. There seem to be at least a few unnamed people who should be prosecuted well before Andrew.

I still think Andrew thought she was happy to sleep with him and wasn't being forced to, he was always a vain womaniser who thought he was god's gift. Not a nice man but I don't think he had to rape anyone to get all the sex he wanted.

You see this is a defence of Andrew.

Why should it be odd that a woman writing a book does not name the family member who raped her as a child? No one needs to know that. She is explaining the background that made her vulnerable to sex trafficking.

The things you are describing as odd with Epstein and other men is called sex trafficking and rape. Please read up on it as you obviously don't understand the crime or law around it one bit.

And you repeat rape myths. Men don't rape just because it's the only way they can get sex. Lots of famous rich men who could get all the sex they wanted have raped women.

I think the constant repeating of rape myths and pretending a description of sex trafficking is just odd behaviour by a teenager, is actually pretty reprehensible.

Constantrunner · 28/09/2026 22:03

AlwaysRightISwear · 28/09/2026 22:00

But you know how had it is to get convictions in sex cases generally, right?

I think there is more hope with the corruption accusations.

I agree lots of men get away with rape and of raping sex trafficked teenagers. And yes Andrew will get away with it.

The corruption accusations will have a very clear email trail and be relatively easy to prove, so yes I agree easier to get a conviction. I still don't think it will happen though as Andrew is so protected by the royal family.

SpottyAlpaca · 28/09/2026 22:06

Of course not. Let’s not be naive about this. The King’s younger brother isn’t going to face a criminal trial.

Andrew has been stripped of his role, his titles & his status. He has banished to ‘Siberia’ & publicly humiliated. There is no way back for him and he will live out the rest of his life as a discredited internal exile. That’s his punishment for fucking kids.

The government won’t want criminal proceedings against Andrew to embarrass the King, especially as he is living with cancer. They definitely won’t want a trial which would inevitably become a media circus. So there will be some sort of whitewash along the lines of ‘not enough evidence to charge’ blah blah.

Constantrunner · 28/09/2026 22:10

It's not much of a punishment for being a nonce. Andrew lives on a mansion supplied by his brother. He travels to France and the middle east to meet up with friends. He has not been banished at all. He has simply been made to withdraw from public life. Privately his life is fine.

NewspaperTaxis · 28/09/2026 22:43

Constantrunner · 28/09/2026 21:42

It was made clear the information was confidential.
Interesting that Andrews defence appears to be he was stupid and thick.

The usual get-me-out-of-jail defence - being 'incompetent'. Works for state operators, less so for civilians I think.

yourSUGAMAMA · 28/09/2026 22:44

Nah I think it's done with

He deserves it though

Newname26 · 30/09/2026 00:40

SpottyAlpaca · 28/09/2026 22:06

Of course not. Let’s not be naive about this. The King’s younger brother isn’t going to face a criminal trial.

Andrew has been stripped of his role, his titles & his status. He has banished to ‘Siberia’ & publicly humiliated. There is no way back for him and he will live out the rest of his life as a discredited internal exile. That’s his punishment for fucking kids.

The government won’t want criminal proceedings against Andrew to embarrass the King, especially as he is living with cancer. They definitely won’t want a trial which would inevitably become a media circus. So there will be some sort of whitewash along the lines of ‘not enough evidence to charge’ blah blah.

Even if he wasn't the King brother, I don't think they have enough evidence to secure a conviction beyond all reasonable doubt.

His defence would be she was a good time party girl, enjoying lavish parties etc. She never said no.

Which means it comes down to proving he knew the girls were being forced by Epstien?

Was trafficking something people spoke about 20 years ago? Probably not

Did he know she was trafficked? Probably not.
Even if he did know how do you prove it? Great difficulty

Desperatelyseekinglazysusan · 01/10/2026 08:11

Newname26 · 30/09/2026 00:40

Even if he wasn't the King brother, I don't think they have enough evidence to secure a conviction beyond all reasonable doubt.

His defence would be she was a good time party girl, enjoying lavish parties etc. She never said no.

Which means it comes down to proving he knew the girls were being forced by Epstien?

Was trafficking something people spoke about 20 years ago? Probably not

Did he know she was trafficked? Probably not.
Even if he did know how do you prove it? Great difficulty

I mean Epstein had a conviction for it. I doubt the legion of Royal advisors didn't know that. I suspect the truth of it is that he simply couldn't care less. That he just felt everyone not rich or Royal was there to serve him. She was just another servant. Some run up the stairs to close his curtains, some give him somewhere to stick his dick. The man is disgusting but he was enabled by his mother and the entire Royal household, and too many other people, from the police to the security services to the government did their bidding for this ever to go to court.

Newname26 · 01/10/2026 09:57

Desperatelyseekinglazysusan · 01/10/2026 08:11

I mean Epstein had a conviction for it. I doubt the legion of Royal advisors didn't know that. I suspect the truth of it is that he simply couldn't care less. That he just felt everyone not rich or Royal was there to serve him. She was just another servant. Some run up the stairs to close his curtains, some give him somewhere to stick his dick. The man is disgusting but he was enabled by his mother and the entire Royal household, and too many other people, from the police to the security services to the government did their bidding for this ever to go to court.

He had a conviction in 2007
Guilty Plea: Epstein pleaded guilty in a Florida state court to two charges: soliciting prostitution and procuring a person under 18 for prostitution.

2019 he was arrested and held awaiting trial.
New Arrest: Federal prosecutors in New York arrested Epstein in July 2019 on new charges of sex trafficking minors and conspiracy.

But Andrew and Virginia was about 2000, so it would be very difficult to actually prove what he and the palace knew.
Keeping in mind he first met her in a nightclub, Tramps.

He may have been told they were just tramps, good time girls up for anything.
Or he may well have believed Epstien was paying them as prostitutes.

But I still think it would be very very difficult to prove Andrew knew or didn't know they were actually being trafficked and controlled.

My guess is Andrew & Epstein had that meeting in a public park to reduce the chances of the conversation being recorded, either by hidden recording equipment or by phones being tapped or emails being hacked.

Chocolatethumbprints · 05/10/2026 04:55

Constantrunner · 28/09/2026 22:03

I agree lots of men get away with rape and of raping sex trafficked teenagers. And yes Andrew will get away with it.

The corruption accusations will have a very clear email trail and be relatively easy to prove, so yes I agree easier to get a conviction. I still don't think it will happen though as Andrew is so protected by the royal family.

Yes. There is a paper trail and Lownie’s findings were backed up by what the published Epstein e-mails revealed too.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cddn6yyr66yo

Prince Andrew in a top hat at Ascot in 2011

Andrew facing claim he shared Treasury document with banking contact

Reports suggest the former prince shared a Treasury document when he was serving as trade envoy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cddn6yyr66yo

ElanaohElana · 05/10/2026 05:01

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 25/09/2026 15:43

He’s a total shit. I’d be very surprised if he has committed a criminal offence- at least one they can back up.

The misconduct stuff might be easier to get him on.

Yeah, I agree. I don’t doubt he is not a good person. But I’d be suprised if he has done something that there is enough evidence to prosecute on other than the confidential info thing.

SmolTiny · 05/10/2026 05:08

No.

valeriy2 · 05/10/2026 05:41

NewspaperTaxis · 27/09/2026 02:11

It's a State ruse common enough - when there is a scandal story, the papers report that 'the police are looking into it' - so the public thinks, okay, this is in the right hands! Say no more! Then, lo and behold, nothing comes of it. Surrey Police used to do that with care homes that came to the press's attention.

Andrew's arrest sort of took the heat off him. And, as has been pointed out, was nothing to do with Epstein and his sex ring.

Andrew Lownie had another book about the Royals, Lord Mountbatten, published some years ago and it was well received and reviewed in the mainstream press. A chapter near the end is 20 pages of credible rumours about his rampant homosexuality and also his sexual abuse of minors in a Northern Ireland care home. It's reported in a very non-judgemental, non salacious way and is more damning because of it. It's like we're allowed to know half a century later - but even then a lot of info is still kept under wraps by the Royals.

It is even hinted that the IRA were allowed to get on with targeting him because his paedophile activities were known; his special protection officer was made to stand down 24 hours before it happened, and there are other such oddities.

Actually, having young women arranged for Andrew at Buckingham Palace is really not that scandalous or unusual in itself; pop stars had young fans or groupies directed to their dressing rooms of course, it's just that's 'okay' because they're said to be so sexually magnetic etc. You could argue that women who are actually prostitutes are at least less vulnerable than teenage fans - and as for them being taken to Buck Palace - shock horror - well, where else? It makes him less vulnerable to blackmail if it's on home turf.

We have seen public displays of support. Remember when William drove Andrew home with Kate in the car? That was before the stink became so toxic that William later had to perform the whole public “ignoring Andrew” routine at the funeral for the cameras.

Behind closed doors, I’m convinced they probably think he’s been stitched up by some trollop or opportunistic pleb. But the optics of openly supporting him are now so utterly disastrous for the Royal Family that they have no choice but to keep their distance and perform the minimum amount of public distancing necessary to protect the institution.

And this deflection of the government should never had made him a trade envoy the monarch was breathing down the necks of civil servants to archieve that outcome that’s the point. The fact that Charles also had continued support for a convicted paedophile Bishop Peter Ball after he was found guilty show their real feelings towards CSA. They are nothings they simply don't matter in their moral universe such as it is.

TheAutumnCrow · 05/10/2026 05:47

@valeriy2 what do you think about AMW’s judicial review this week? That’s directly challenging the Police and indirectly Charles III. Curious development and unexpected, in my view.

Cross-posted (I think!?)

valeriy2 · 05/10/2026 05:47

TheAutumnCrow · 05/10/2026 05:29

Andrew NW is mounting his own legal challenge this week. A clever strike - or an act of arrogance that will bring him down through disclosure of hitherto unknown documents and materials?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/andrew-legal-challenge-arrest-search-37734309

(Mirror lifting from the Telegraph.)

My view is that Andrew remains utterly unrepentant. This latest legal challenge looks less like genuine accountability and more like an attempt to shift the focus onto procedural and technical questions surrounding the police investigation. Whatever happens with the warrants, none of that addresses the central issue: his own conduct and his longstanding association with Epstein.

And if the monarch is allowing this to drag on rather than telling Andrew to back down from further embarrassing the Royal Family, then frankly, more fool him. At some point, the King has to decide whether protecting his brother is worth allowing the damage to the monarchy to continue.

TheAutumnCrow · 05/10/2026 05:50

More jeopardy for Charles, then?

valeriy2 · 05/10/2026 05:55

TheAutumnCrow · 05/10/2026 05:50

More jeopardy for Charles, then?

There’s a real double jeopardy here for Charles. If Andrew wins, it could make the police investigation and potentially the treatment of Andrew look seriously flawed. If Andrew loses, the court proceedings could validate the police case and expose even more about what they believe he did. Either way, Charles risks being dragged back into the Andrew scandal.I suspect Andrew is on his own with this. The Palace must have hoped he just kept his head down and out of sight. He has other plans.

Recklessismymiddlename · 05/10/2026 06:00

valeriy2 · 05/10/2026 05:41

We have seen public displays of support. Remember when William drove Andrew home with Kate in the car? That was before the stink became so toxic that William later had to perform the whole public “ignoring Andrew” routine at the funeral for the cameras.

Behind closed doors, I’m convinced they probably think he’s been stitched up by some trollop or opportunistic pleb. But the optics of openly supporting him are now so utterly disastrous for the Royal Family that they have no choice but to keep their distance and perform the minimum amount of public distancing necessary to protect the institution.

And this deflection of the government should never had made him a trade envoy the monarch was breathing down the necks of civil servants to archieve that outcome that’s the point. The fact that Charles also had continued support for a convicted paedophile Bishop Peter Ball after he was found guilty show their real feelings towards CSA. They are nothings they simply don't matter in their moral universe such as it is.

Similar to the Norwegian royals, openly supporting the new kings stepson and he has been found guilty, in a court of law. The new queen having to go on tv to apologise, for her association with Epstein, how far did those man’s tentacles go?

Id be amazed if there was any procedural irregularities with AMW (unless deliberate) , as I’m sure it would have been checked at the highest levels.

KC will need to rein him in sharpish and tell him to not embarrass him further.

Swipe left for the next trending thread