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
Chocolatethumbprints · Yesterday 12:51

simpsonthecat · Yesterday 11:34

Agree @Chocolatethumbprints

On this...
And I’ve said it before too, that it’s my guess that, maybe not all, but many, of the RF operate in the same way, to a greater or lesser extent. AMW was just too crass in his dealings to cover it up entirely

Yes. I think AMW and Sarah were just too greedy. And QE2 let them get away with it. She bailed Sarah out of bankruptcy twice remember. With any normal person that would be a huge warning sign, but no, Sarah carried on in an even worse way, 100 times worse.

They are all like it... every one of them trades off their royal connections in some way.

I think AMW is taking advice from the Palace on what to do about his public office charges and how to bury this.

I think AMW is taking advice from the Palace on what to do about his public office charges and how to bury this

I hope not simpsonthecat

but I think it would not be beyond the realms of possibility that BP have been looking for some time how to crisis manage this whole debacle and AMW, is being briefed indirectly?

Maybe?

Or maybe it is a more blatant strategy than that?

Lownie is reporting that Edward is visiting AMW and AMW has been smuggled to stay with Princess Anne at Gatcombe, possibly in a horse box, and I mention this not because they are not allowed to enjoy family relationships still, but because it rather speaks to the family’s view of AMW. He is still accepted in their midst.

Would we support a sibling who had been accused of something appalling, including sexual misconduct? Maybe we would to the extent that we would do our duty and not see them starved or homeless or whatever. But would we entertain them in our home?

Chocolatethumbprints · Yesterday 13:04

Cielovista · Yesterday 11:58

Really well summed up Chocolatethumbprints! Thank you!

Thank you!

I wish more people would read it because so much of it is irrefutable, including evidence from a court case and legal proceedings , and information already available in the public domain such as newspaper reports and memos between diplomats and foreign office personnel … and yet… silence.

More silence following the publication of the Epstein files which backed up Lownie’s findings.

And Lownie says he has spoken to several people in the National Crime Agency and, as he puts it, “there is no will from the top” to pursue it.

simpsonthecat · Yesterday 13:47

I hope not too @Chocolatethumbprints
Maybe I am a bit jaded with them all because I have got to the point, I take everything they say with a bucketload of salt!

I just think it is in ALL their best interests that this gets buried and they probably think AMW has had punishment enough
Personally, I think that his blatant passing on of confidential government papers to JE is absolutely treasonous (OK I'm being dramatic here!) but it is a case of... if you can't trust a brother/son of a monarch, who can you trust?

Chocolatethumbprints · Yesterday 14:15

simpsonthecat · Yesterday 13:47

I hope not too @Chocolatethumbprints
Maybe I am a bit jaded with them all because I have got to the point, I take everything they say with a bucketload of salt!

I just think it is in ALL their best interests that this gets buried and they probably think AMW has had punishment enough
Personally, I think that his blatant passing on of confidential government papers to JE is absolutely treasonous (OK I'm being dramatic here!) but it is a case of... if you can't trust a brother/son of a monarch, who can you trust?

I share your weariness Simpsonthecat

Oh it’s so difficult to prove sexual abuse cases! Oh it’s virtually impossible to get a conviction on malfeasance in public office!

You would think that the latter would be relatively straightforward if they have the evidence. I’ve been looking it up… forgive the use of AI:

The Four Legal Elements required to prove misconduct in public office according to CPS guidances and established case law, are:

  • Public Officer Status: The individual must hold a recognised public office and be acting in their official capacity (not merely acting while holding office, but actively discharging official public duties).
  • Wilful Misconduct or Neglect: The person must have deliberately done something wrong knowing it was wrong, or acted with reckless indifference to whether it was wrong. Simple carelessness or an honest mistake does not count.
  • High Threshold of Seriousness: The conduct must fall so far below acceptable standards that it represents a serious abuse of the public's trust in that office.
  • No Reasonable Excuse: The action must have been committed without any reasonable excuse or justification.

I reckon all of the above elements are in place as far as AMW’s alleged activities go?

But proving these elements requires robust, contemporaneous evidence:

  • Official Records: Written documentation, emails, or policy guidelines showing the official duties and powers attached to the role.
  • Proof of Intent or Recklessness: Evidence demonstrating that the official knew their conduct breached their duty or that they showed reckless indifference.
  • Documentation of Harm: Records establishing the extent to which the public interest or public trust was harmed.

The latter group of requirements is less straightforward.

The contemporaneous evidence for example? What does that mean specifically?

And, as Lownie suggests, the records and documentation have been hidden or gone missing in a lot of instances.

simpsonthecat · Yesterday 15:27

I agree, in that I don't hold out much hope for sexual allegations of any sort.

But the rest? The Public Office offences? It should be cut and dried. Yes. of course he showed reckless indifference!

Chocolatethumbprints · Yesterday 16:29

simpsonthecat · Yesterday 15:27

I agree, in that I don't hold out much hope for sexual allegations of any sort.

But the rest? The Public Office offences? It should be cut and dried. Yes. of course he showed reckless indifference!

Yes; two words which describe him perfectly!

cheapskatemum · Yesterday 16:58

MaggieBsBoat · 25/09/2026 16:01

Nope. People in his position get protected their whole lives.

Yes, I’m reminded of Edward Vlll. From what I’ve read he was also a loathsome individual. Yet, even after his abdication he was able to pull strings and lead a gilded life. The royals have friends in high places. This includes former royals who also have criminal friends.

CathyorClaire · Yesterday 19:50

And I’ve said it before too, that it’s my guess that, maybe not all, but many, of the RF operate in the same way, to a greater or lesser extent. AMW was just too crass in his dealings to cover it up entirely.

I agree entirely.

Far too many with their snouts stuck deep in questionable troughs :

www.dailymail.com/news/article-7342629/Wealthy-Hong-Kong-socialite-bankrolls-royals.html

Far too many too with rather sweet in-family deals that never seem to go though a transparent tendering process. Peter Phillips, Edoardo Mappelli Mozzi and Annabel Elliot spring to mind.

One big cartel but hey! frocks!

CathyorClaire · Yesterday 19:58

I think AMW is taking advice from the Palace on what to do about his public office charges and how to bury this.

I wonder if we'll find out who his lawyers are on Thursday and whether they're the usual royal run-tos.

Anyone remember how he engaged a shit hot legal team including a £1k an hour extradition expert when he was hiding under Mummy's skirt to dodge the frighty nasty men trying to serve papers on him?

Constantrunner · Yesterday 23:51

Chocolatethumbprints · Yesterday 10:21

Entitled is an eye-opener for sure but I think you must be on the opening chapter as that is the very least of it!

Do not read the rest of this post Cielovista
as it constitutes a spoiler!

The book goes on to eviscerate, with great precision, how AMW allegedly engaged in financial corruption, alleged systemic commercial exploitation of his royal status and public office, and opaque commercial ventures.

For example, aside from the tax-payer funded golf jollies when, according to Lownie, AMW’s massages were allegedly listed as official routine expenses, as trade envoy, supposedly representing British business interests, AMW also allegedly routinely used taxpayer-funded official trips to line his own pockets integrating unofficial, private business advisors, such as billionaire David Rowland, in to formal diplomatic meetings to help them establish lucrative commercial ventures.

He allegedly participated in questionable financial deals in China and elsewhere, including receiving massive loans from commercial interests that he was never expected to repay.

He also allegedly used royal properties and access to support "Pitch at the Palace" an entity which was supposedly a charity but was heavily scrutinised for allegedly serving private commercial interests.

Entitled also exposes how AMW was allegedly involved with suspicious offshore money transfers, illicit funding sources, and a pattern of hiding financial assets eg the alleged Nebahat Isbilen payment, his transactional financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which lasted longer than he admitted, in which AMW allegedly profited financially and from receiving business advice and tip offs, while allegedly providing Epstein with contacts and respectability, the hush money for VG and the way AMW allegedly used the protective machinery of the royal household to block FOI requests, aggressively hiding receipts, funding details for the Royal Lodge etc.

And that’s just the financial aspects, leaving aside AMW’s alleged wholly sexually inappropriate behaviour, which is a whole other part of the book, eg the nanny who left because AMW allegedly behaved inappropriately towards her. And the bullying and screaming at staff and the mad driving around the Windsor estate, crashing in to gates and hurting a policeman.

This summary leaves out Sarah Ferguson’s alleged activities too!

And, one of my own personal horrors, Lownie recounts how AMW caused a major public relations disaster after his visit to Lockerbie, following the terrorist incident when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up and the remnants crashed down on to the village, he deeply offended and shocked grieving residents by saying that,

‘… the Americans had it "much worse" and that it had only been a matter of time before a plane fell out of the sky.´

For me though, the outrage is that this behaviour was allowed to continue for eleven years minimum (in reality it went on much longer) during the time AMW served as trade envoy, with seemingly no outside official scrutiny. How was this allowed to happen?

And when the head of the Foreign Office, intelligence sources and diplomats complained to the late QE2, they were sent away with a flea in their ears! In fact, the worse he got, the more the late Queen awarded him with new honours!

Lownie says that some senior FO personnel who were willing to talk to him for the book, won’t talk openly now, presumably due to pressure from above?

Former PPOs have allegedly been silenced by legal letters. Flight logs have allegedly disappeared.

And it wasn’t just the late Queen who knew, because allegedly she, Prince Philip and the then Prince Charles, contributed to the £12 million pay off to Giuffre.

And then after all that, Charles, or someone, was allegedly responsible for a failed PR attempt to rehabilitate AMW back in to the family too eg when William was seen driving him to church.

Just why after Charles had been the only one who had strongly objected to AMW’s appointment as trade envoy in the first place, which proved he had at least some idea in advance of how AMW would behave in the role?

Thank you for all of this. I remember when Prince Andrew was stripped of his official duties as a working royal and royal patronages. I looked at the court circular and patronages he no longer had, it was mainly visiting top golf courses and having dinners at top golf clubs. It was so obviously a jolly.

I didn't know prince Andrew said that to Lockerbie residents. Shockingly cold and stupid as well.

I see as usual there are comments defending Andrew claiming sex with a 17 year old is legal. That is true. But prince Andrew is accused of raping sex trafficked teenagers and being present at an "orgy" of minors. They are illegal acts.

The aim seems to be to paint prince Andrew as a bit sleazy, but not a criminal . But the public rightly are not buying it.

By the way you can prosecute someone when the victim is dead. How else do you think murderers are prosecuted?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread