Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

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
Chocolatethumbprints · 05/10/2026 06:04

BunnyBunbunbun · 28/09/2026 14:07

I can't see the text of the review properly. I'm not sure to what extent it matters, anyway. Lownie chooses easy targets with sketchy reputations (or, in Mountbatten's case, are dead) and can write about them however he chooses, whether it's complete nonsense or not, as long as he says there are "rumours" and "sources say".

As you point out, that chapter is literally called "Rumours". The Mountbatten book came out in 2019 so Lownie must have had the idea of writing it a few years earlier - perhaps around the time of the fabricated Carl Beech allegations, when Beech made up total lies about a VIP sex ring primarily involving the military but also politicians and and said he and other boys had been abused by senior officers over a period of several years when he was a child. A major inquiry was even established, but it collapsed because Beech's allegations were all a bunch of lies. But, when Lownie decided to write the Mountbatten book such allegations, however spurious, were in vogue.

Lownie is fairly supportive of Charles Spencer. I'm wondering what he makes of Spencer's claim that his father, John Spencer, and the then Princess Elizabeth had a romance but Mountbatten put a stop to it.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-35867177

Show quote history

There is so much that is, bluntly, incorrect and ignorant in this post that I don’t know quite where to start!

First of all, Lownie is interested in hidden lives. People in the public eye that present one side of themselves to the world, when the reality behind the facade is very different. He came to write about the royals through writing a biography of Guy Burgess, someone with a notorious hidden life, an aristocrat and member of the Cambridge Five spy ring, who defected to the Soviet Union.

This subject matter ties in with Lownie’s main obsession as a historian which is the accurate preservation of state records and his role as trustee of the Campaign for Freedom of Information.

Second, if you think Mountbatten was an “easy” target BunnyBunbunbun, then I urge you to think again!

Mountbatten was very much a protected establishment figure and as such, Lownie faced a series of intense archival, editorial, financial, and legal challenges when writing the book, which involved trying to gain access to the Broadlands Archive, which holds Lord and Lady Mountbatten’s private diaries and letters, which had been acquired by the University of Southampton using public funds!

Lownie submitted hundreds of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests over several years regarding Lord Mountbatten and royal finances and they produced in his words "absolutely nothing" of substance because officials used every available exemption to block disclosure.

https://www.politico.eu/article/freedom-of-information-united-kingdom-national-security-culture-secrecy-obstruct-britain-history/

Lownie was told that relevant government files and records regarding official duties would remain locked away until 2065 in defiance of standard release rules.

Lownie’s research also caused his own activities to be monitored by the state:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/03/mountbattens-biographer-claims-he-has-been-spied-on-by-the-british-state

Anyway, Lownie’s now famous legal battle cost him roughly £450,000 to £500,000, with officials still attempting to redact innocuous references that were already public.
Lownie had to remortgage his house fhs in his bid to access information that should, by law, have been openly available!

This article details what happened and what he went through:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03064220221144908

And you make in your post BunnyBunbunbun
a completely ridiculous and unsubstantiated leap between Lownie’s book and the allegations of Carl Beech about a VIP sex ring, simply because, according to you, these two things happened roughly at the same time?

That is a totally absurd and unsubstantiated claim which you are using to discredit Lownie when there is absolutely no basis for that assumption or connection in the first place! Utterly pathetic attempt to discredit the author if I may say so! And it’s pretty obvious why!

Finally, it has already been commented upon in several biographies, including one about Diana’s mother, called Frances, by Riddington and Navan, that the late Queen Elizabeth as a teenager, before she was married, used to write occasional letters to Johnnie Spencer while he was away serving in his regiment during WW2, and that he had been considered by some as a potential suitor for her. So you are wrong on that point too.

A culture of secrecy is obstructing British historians

If our history is to be written accurately, we need to have all records made available – not just those a government department sees fit.

https://www.politico.eu/article/freedom-of-information-united-kingdom-national-security-culture-secrecy-obstruct-britain-history/

TheAutumnCrow · 05/10/2026 06:15

I’m surprised AMW has the spare cash handy to bring a JR. They’re what, £100k+ a pop? And the High Court doesn’t accept Klarna.

valeriy2 · 05/10/2026 06:24

Chocolatethumbprints · 05/10/2026 06:04

There is so much that is, bluntly, incorrect and ignorant in this post that I don’t know quite where to start!

First of all, Lownie is interested in hidden lives. People in the public eye that present one side of themselves to the world, when the reality behind the facade is very different. He came to write about the royals through writing a biography of Guy Burgess, someone with a notorious hidden life, an aristocrat and member of the Cambridge Five spy ring, who defected to the Soviet Union.

This subject matter ties in with Lownie’s main obsession as a historian which is the accurate preservation of state records and his role as trustee of the Campaign for Freedom of Information.

Second, if you think Mountbatten was an “easy” target BunnyBunbunbun, then I urge you to think again!

Mountbatten was very much a protected establishment figure and as such, Lownie faced a series of intense archival, editorial, financial, and legal challenges when writing the book, which involved trying to gain access to the Broadlands Archive, which holds Lord and Lady Mountbatten’s private diaries and letters, which had been acquired by the University of Southampton using public funds!

Lownie submitted hundreds of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests over several years regarding Lord Mountbatten and royal finances and they produced in his words "absolutely nothing" of substance because officials used every available exemption to block disclosure.

https://www.politico.eu/article/freedom-of-information-united-kingdom-national-security-culture-secrecy-obstruct-britain-history/

Lownie was told that relevant government files and records regarding official duties would remain locked away until 2065 in defiance of standard release rules.

Lownie’s research also caused his own activities to be monitored by the state:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/03/mountbattens-biographer-claims-he-has-been-spied-on-by-the-british-state

Anyway, Lownie’s now famous legal battle cost him roughly £450,000 to £500,000, with officials still attempting to redact innocuous references that were already public.
Lownie had to remortgage his house fhs in his bid to access information that should, by law, have been openly available!

This article details what happened and what he went through:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03064220221144908

And you make in your post BunnyBunbunbun
a completely ridiculous and unsubstantiated leap between Lownie’s book and the allegations of Carl Beech about a VIP sex ring, simply because, according to you, these two things happened roughly at the same time?

That is a totally absurd and unsubstantiated claim which you are using to discredit Lownie when there is absolutely no basis for that assumption or connection in the first place! Utterly pathetic attempt to discredit the author if I may say so! And it’s pretty obvious why!

Finally, it has already been commented upon in several biographies, including one about Diana’s mother, called Frances, by Riddington and Navan, that the late Queen Elizabeth as a teenager, before she was married, used to write occasional letters to Johnnie Spencer while he was away serving in his regiment during WW2, and that he had been considered by some as a potential suitor for her. So you are wrong on that point too.

Show quote history

The loathsome Steve Bannon - also a friend of Epstein incidentally used to love the phrase "flood the zone with shit" so that it would be very difficult to discern what was true and what was fabricated. A brillaint and factual rebuttal. Thanks.

valeriy2 · 05/10/2026 06:27

TheAutumnCrow · 05/10/2026 06:15

I’m surprised AMW has the spare cash handy to bring a JR. They’re what, £100k+ a pop? And the High Court doesn’t accept Klarna.

His arrest will have been wargamed at the highest levels and lawyered to within an inch of it's life I can't imagine them making a mistake that would be significant enough to throw shade on his arrest.

NewspaperTaxis · 05/10/2026 06:32

Yeah, the State doesn't investigate the State - it investigates people who investigate the State.
I got this when I started exposing euthanasia in Surrey care homes. Some very odd stuff going on - though as you can see with Covid, they got away with it. But it's the same with everyone - Hillsborough families, Post Office Scandal victims, Stephen Lawrence's family... if it turns out you have dirt on the State, in terms of exposing its corruption or incompetence, they will turn their guns on you and see what you can find out about you to invalidate your comments.
Any dirt on Lownie - say it turned out he'd gone to some sex party 20 years ago (he hasn't, I just made that suggestion tbc) - and immediately it could be used to muddy the waters and cast doubt.

Chocolatethumbprints · 05/10/2026 06:40

TheAutumnCrow · Today 07:15
I’m surprised AMW has the spare cash handy to bring a JR. They’re what, £100k+ a pop? And the High Court doesn’t accept Klarna.

Is it that unexpected? Newspaper reports have suggested that AMW was utterly unrepentant.

This legal action, I assume, results from his own sense of entitlement and conviction that he is immune from prosecution thanks to being protected by the RF for fifteen years or more!

And, according to Lownie, AMW has always allegedly had pots of cash stashed away in unmonitored offshore accounts; a Chinese bank account, and Normandy accounts that bypass proper auditing.

Lownie also highlighted via the National Audit Office, that AMW allegedly sub-let three properties tied to Royal Lodge, for which he was paying a peppercorn rent anyway, and allegedly kept the payments himself.

And of course there are all of the alleged deals he made on the side, as laid out in Lownie’s book, Entitled, to allegedly profit himself, while working as a UK Trade Envoy.

Chocolatethumbprints · 05/10/2026 06:56

Thinking about this, rather than someone claiming high moral ground about breach of legal procedure, could this be about AMW trying to rule the search as illegal, therefore stopping the authorities from using the evidence obtained?

In other words, AMW is possibly very keen indeed for certain evidence not to come to light?

It’s quite a clever legal move in that case. Sadly.

simpsonthecat · 05/10/2026 07:13

Chocolatethumbprints · 05/10/2026 06:04

There is so much that is, bluntly, incorrect and ignorant in this post that I don’t know quite where to start!

First of all, Lownie is interested in hidden lives. People in the public eye that present one side of themselves to the world, when the reality behind the facade is very different. He came to write about the royals through writing a biography of Guy Burgess, someone with a notorious hidden life, an aristocrat and member of the Cambridge Five spy ring, who defected to the Soviet Union.

This subject matter ties in with Lownie’s main obsession as a historian which is the accurate preservation of state records and his role as trustee of the Campaign for Freedom of Information.

Second, if you think Mountbatten was an “easy” target BunnyBunbunbun, then I urge you to think again!

Mountbatten was very much a protected establishment figure and as such, Lownie faced a series of intense archival, editorial, financial, and legal challenges when writing the book, which involved trying to gain access to the Broadlands Archive, which holds Lord and Lady Mountbatten’s private diaries and letters, which had been acquired by the University of Southampton using public funds!

Lownie submitted hundreds of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests over several years regarding Lord Mountbatten and royal finances and they produced in his words "absolutely nothing" of substance because officials used every available exemption to block disclosure.

https://www.politico.eu/article/freedom-of-information-united-kingdom-national-security-culture-secrecy-obstruct-britain-history/

Lownie was told that relevant government files and records regarding official duties would remain locked away until 2065 in defiance of standard release rules.

Lownie’s research also caused his own activities to be monitored by the state:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/03/mountbattens-biographer-claims-he-has-been-spied-on-by-the-british-state

Anyway, Lownie’s now famous legal battle cost him roughly £450,000 to £500,000, with officials still attempting to redact innocuous references that were already public.
Lownie had to remortgage his house fhs in his bid to access information that should, by law, have been openly available!

This article details what happened and what he went through:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03064220221144908

And you make in your post BunnyBunbunbun
a completely ridiculous and unsubstantiated leap between Lownie’s book and the allegations of Carl Beech about a VIP sex ring, simply because, according to you, these two things happened roughly at the same time?

That is a totally absurd and unsubstantiated claim which you are using to discredit Lownie when there is absolutely no basis for that assumption or connection in the first place! Utterly pathetic attempt to discredit the author if I may say so! And it’s pretty obvious why!

Finally, it has already been commented upon in several biographies, including one about Diana’s mother, called Frances, by Riddington and Navan, that the late Queen Elizabeth as a teenager, before she was married, used to write occasional letters to Johnnie Spencer while he was away serving in his regiment during WW2, and that he had been considered by some as a potential suitor for her. So you are wrong on that point too.

Show quote history

Well said. Lownie is attacked on here for all sorts of reasons, none of them valid

And this is often from people who haven't even attempted to read any of his books.

valeriy2 · 05/10/2026 07:15

NewspaperTaxis · 05/10/2026 06:32

Yeah, the State doesn't investigate the State - it investigates people who investigate the State.
I got this when I started exposing euthanasia in Surrey care homes. Some very odd stuff going on - though as you can see with Covid, they got away with it. But it's the same with everyone - Hillsborough families, Post Office Scandal victims, Stephen Lawrence's family... if it turns out you have dirt on the State, in terms of exposing its corruption or incompetence, they will turn their guns on you and see what you can find out about you to invalidate your comments.
Any dirt on Lownie - say it turned out he'd gone to some sex party 20 years ago (he hasn't, I just made that suggestion tbc) - and immediately it could be used to muddy the waters and cast doubt.

The classic example is the Birmingham Six. When the case came before the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls, rejected the men's attempt to pursue their allegations against the police. His reasoning was extraordinary.

He said that if the men won, it would mean that police officers had committed perjury, violence and threats, that confessions had been fabricated and that the convictions were erroneous. He concluded that this was “such an appalling vista” that it could not be right for the case to go any further.
Even more remarkably, Denning later expressed the principle in stark terms: “It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English Judicial System be impugned.”

AlwaysRightISwear · 05/10/2026 07:24

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.

Show quote history

I'm sure initially they thought VG's accusations were a money grab. I suspect a lot of the public did too.

Probably as his mother QE2 continued to think that to the end.

But it would be hard for the rest of them to cling to that now.

Chocolatethumbprints · 05/10/2026 07:32

valeriy2 · 05/10/2026 07:15

The classic example is the Birmingham Six. When the case came before the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls, rejected the men's attempt to pursue their allegations against the police. His reasoning was extraordinary.

He said that if the men won, it would mean that police officers had committed perjury, violence and threats, that confessions had been fabricated and that the convictions were erroneous. He concluded that this was “such an appalling vista” that it could not be right for the case to go any further.
Even more remarkably, Denning later expressed the principle in stark terms: “It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English Judicial System be impugned.”

Show quote history

That is utterly shocking and appalling in equal measure!

Chocolatethumbprints · 05/10/2026 08:15

Chocolatethumbprints · 05/10/2026 06:56

Thinking about this, rather than someone claiming high moral ground about breach of legal procedure, could this be about AMW trying to rule the search as illegal, therefore stopping the authorities from using the evidence obtained?

In other words, AMW is possibly very keen indeed for certain evidence not to come to light?

It’s quite a clever legal move in that case. Sadly.

Sorry, this thread is moving fast; quoting my own post as I just realised that valeriy2 said the same thing but explained it all a lot better much earlier this morning at 06:47:

Valery2
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 08:31

Mylovelygreendress · 05/10/2026 07:36

Apologies if this has steady been posted

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/2254406/andrew-mountbatten-windsor-bombshell-ex-prince-drags/amp

The one we don’t have is a gift share for the original Telegraph article or an archive version, I’m afraid.

Recklessismymiddlename · 05/10/2026 08:51

valeriy2 · 05/10/2026 07:15

The classic example is the Birmingham Six. When the case came before the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls, rejected the men's attempt to pursue their allegations against the police. His reasoning was extraordinary.

He said that if the men won, it would mean that police officers had committed perjury, violence and threats, that confessions had been fabricated and that the convictions were erroneous. He concluded that this was “such an appalling vista” that it could not be right for the case to go any further.
Even more remarkably, Denning later expressed the principle in stark terms: “It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English Judicial System be impugned.”

Show quote history

And goes against what we were taught in law school, that it is better, for a hundred guilty people to go free, than one innocent person, to be in prison.

I hope that makes sense my head is a tad scrambled today.

TheAutumnCrow · 05/10/2026 09:26

jeffgoldblum · 05/10/2026 08:44

Does this work? https://apple.news/Aqrisi7XKRVu5qZj2kP6YNg

Thanks, it works!

Mr Mountbatten-Windsor asked for permission to judicially review the decision earlier this year and his application was subsequently granted by a High Court judge.

So AMW had something that persuaded a High Court judge to let this proceed to full (expensive) Judicial Review. Something procedural or administrative.

I wonder when Charles found out this was happening.

Chocolatethumbprints · 05/10/2026 10:04

Recklessismymiddlename · 05/10/2026 08:51

And goes against what we were taught in law school, that it is better, for a hundred guilty people to go free, than one innocent person, to be in prison.

I hope that makes sense my head is a tad scrambled today.

Show quote history

It makes absolute sense!

Recklessismymiddlename · 05/10/2026 10:08

Thank you!

CathyorClaire · 05/10/2026 10:15

Chocolatethumbprints · 05/10/2026 06:56

Thinking about this, rather than someone claiming high moral ground about breach of legal procedure, could this be about AMW trying to rule the search as illegal, therefore stopping the authorities from using the evidence obtained?

In other words, AMW is possibly very keen indeed for certain evidence not to come to light?

It’s quite a clever legal move in that case. Sadly.

Agreed.

I've said on the other thread that if he can get a result on this he may well then think he has grounds to complain that the charges against him are trumped up.

I think this is a first move to get everything officially dropped even though it seems to have all but stalled anyway.

simpsonthecat · 05/10/2026 10:22

I wonder who advised him this would be a good idea. Maybe the Palace's Solicitors?
Perhaps it's the start of everything against him being dropped. I am sure the royal family would want that. Especially as I'm not sure that they actually think he did anything wrong

Recklessismymiddlename · 05/10/2026 10:26

The palace would be foolish if that’s the case. And I don’t think they are.

They may not think he’s done anything wrong, but if sources are to be believed, KC didn’t want him to have the trade envoy role, so I don’t think there is any love lost there.

But then no one really knows.

BunnyBunbunbun · 05/10/2026 10:37

Chocolatethumbprints · 05/10/2026 06:04

There is so much that is, bluntly, incorrect and ignorant in this post that I don’t know quite where to start!

First of all, Lownie is interested in hidden lives. People in the public eye that present one side of themselves to the world, when the reality behind the facade is very different. He came to write about the royals through writing a biography of Guy Burgess, someone with a notorious hidden life, an aristocrat and member of the Cambridge Five spy ring, who defected to the Soviet Union.

This subject matter ties in with Lownie’s main obsession as a historian which is the accurate preservation of state records and his role as trustee of the Campaign for Freedom of Information.

Second, if you think Mountbatten was an “easy” target BunnyBunbunbun, then I urge you to think again!

Mountbatten was very much a protected establishment figure and as such, Lownie faced a series of intense archival, editorial, financial, and legal challenges when writing the book, which involved trying to gain access to the Broadlands Archive, which holds Lord and Lady Mountbatten’s private diaries and letters, which had been acquired by the University of Southampton using public funds!

Lownie submitted hundreds of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests over several years regarding Lord Mountbatten and royal finances and they produced in his words "absolutely nothing" of substance because officials used every available exemption to block disclosure.

https://www.politico.eu/article/freedom-of-information-united-kingdom-national-security-culture-secrecy-obstruct-britain-history/

Lownie was told that relevant government files and records regarding official duties would remain locked away until 2065 in defiance of standard release rules.

Lownie’s research also caused his own activities to be monitored by the state:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/03/mountbattens-biographer-claims-he-has-been-spied-on-by-the-british-state

Anyway, Lownie’s now famous legal battle cost him roughly £450,000 to £500,000, with officials still attempting to redact innocuous references that were already public.
Lownie had to remortgage his house fhs in his bid to access information that should, by law, have been openly available!

This article details what happened and what he went through:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03064220221144908

And you make in your post BunnyBunbunbun
a completely ridiculous and unsubstantiated leap between Lownie’s book and the allegations of Carl Beech about a VIP sex ring, simply because, according to you, these two things happened roughly at the same time?

That is a totally absurd and unsubstantiated claim which you are using to discredit Lownie when there is absolutely no basis for that assumption or connection in the first place! Utterly pathetic attempt to discredit the author if I may say so! And it’s pretty obvious why!

Finally, it has already been commented upon in several biographies, including one about Diana’s mother, called Frances, by Riddington and Navan, that the late Queen Elizabeth as a teenager, before she was married, used to write occasional letters to Johnnie Spencer while he was away serving in his regiment during WW2, and that he had been considered by some as a potential suitor for her. So you are wrong on that point too.

Show quote history

All these links are Lownie talking about himself. The Politico piece he wrote even comes under the category title of "Commentary" - it wasn't a news report but an opinion piece. The Guardian headlined its article "Mountbattens’ biographer claims he has been spied on by the British state".

Even Lownie admits that 99% of the Mountbatten archives are now publicly available (the 1% still redacted being sometimes just a word redacted for national security reasons), so if he ever does a new edition of his biography then he can easily use all the material he believes he couldn't access before. Much of it is online, so he can do it from the comfort of his own sofa.

Perhaps the University of Southampton was digitising the Mountbatten material when Lownie wanted to use it and that's why it apparently wasn't available.

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/archives/mountbattendigitisationproject/mountbattendigitisationlordmountbatten.page

The Carl Beech affair shows how easy it is to fabricate certain allegations and to be believed. And, yes, the idea of a "VIP ring" was very much in vogue at that time.

Looking at these articles by Lownie just confirms my opinion that he's a grandstander.

Mountbatten Digitisation Project | Special Collections | University of Southampton

Broadlands archive digitisation project making available private papers of Lord and Lady Mountbatten

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/archives/mountbattendigitisationproject/mountbattendigitisationlordmountbatten.page

Swipe left for the next trending thread