Former Prince Andrew has just been arrested in Norfolk

The late Queen and now the King as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth, recognise that the institution as a whole is greater than any individual member of the family.
And the importance of State, Commonwealth and their duty towards both is more important than any individual member of the family.

(Sorry, got interrupted.)

They are like other families in protecting their own but also have to protect the institution.

25Avalon

I think the queen probably stumped up the £12 million to protect the institution as a whole. She seemed to care about that more than anything else. Duty came first. Although it’s widely perceived that Andrew was her favourite other reports suggest it was not necessarily so.

The late Queen and now the King as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth, recognise that the institution as a whole is greater than any individual member of the family.

But as some of us have said, they are not like any other families

25Avalon

I think the queen probably stumped up the £12 million to protect the institution as a whole. She seemed to care about that more than anything else. Duty came first. Although it’s widely perceived that Andrew was her favourite other reports suggest it was not necessarily so.

I agree, but no amount of money would have protected the institution.
You only have to look at the title of this thread, and every news report, AMW cannot be separated from the institution, he will always be Fromer Prince Andrew, or Former Duke of York.

I think the Queen and other members of the family would have had words with Andrew if they knew something of what was going on.

Like most families they would try to keep it within the family hoping that he would heed their warnings. We don't know if they knew of the full extent of what went on with Epstein.

Andrew is the guilty party and I don't think blaming others is entirely fair.

You keep referring to the Queen, (actually the late Queen) then broadening the reference to include 'The Palace' and 'The Family.' They may well have had suspicions and expressed concerns, but I doubt very much if they could over-ride the late Queen's authority or even influence her; one of her failings towards the end of her reign.

Charles has acted promptly now that the release of the Epstein files has exposed the whole tawdry business.

I think the queen probably stumped up the £12 million to protect the institution as a whole. She seemed to care about that more than anything else. Duty came first. Although it’s widely perceived that Andrew was her favourite other reports suggest it was not necessarily so.

I totally agree Casdon.

I’m not speculating, I am trying to find as much factual evidence as I can.

I would like to say that I am firmly on the fence with this one, in fact I have been impressed with Charles since his ascendency, but honestly just as when I first started looking at Epstein years ago and which has proven to be absolutely on the ball, the more convinced I am becoming at culpability.

Whitewavemark2

So what did the Queen think she was dishing out £12million for?

Why did the palace refuse to give various information to parliamentary committees?

What about the many ambassadors who complained about Windsors behaviour at the various receptions etc?

When it was suggested that Windsor give up his role as trade envoy, why did the palace dismiss the suggestion out of hand?

Why did the Queen stonewall in 2005 when it was suggested that Windsor was misappropriating public money.

There is so much evidence that the whole family knew that it simply cannot be avoided.

It depends entirely on what you mean by ‘knew’ doesn’t it. It also depends very much on who knew what. They are not guilty by association before we know what they individually knew, just as we wouldn’t be if a member of our family was found guilty of criminal activity. How can we possibly know that the same rules of personal privacy don’t apply to them? There are so many assumptions, so many who choose to believe what best fits their own narrative about this. I refuse to speculate one way or another.

People are saying that Harry is not so bad. Online there’s many mentions of him being abusive to animals and women and of Markle being part of the Epstein set, on a boat with Epstein long term girlfriend not once but several times. Not reported in UK papers of course, hushed up. It took many many years for Andrew to be exposed. In ten years time we could well be reading a similar story again.

We are not talking about a normal family though, we are talking about a family, whose every move is recorded and who will live or die by their behaviour. As a result everything every member does is vitally important for the continuation of the monarchy.

25Avalon

Could Andrew not just stand down and “abdicate” his position in the line of succession? But then I guess that would be doing the decent thing which he doesn’t seem capable of. He looked shell shocked in the back of the police car - maybe the reality finally entering home that he is not above the law and “being the Queen’s second son” isn’t going let him off.

It's got to a stage now where if he doesnt "go" (abdicate the royal bit) of himself he'll be shoved over the cliff - as a last ditch attempt to keep a royal family at all.

Not sure how successful that will be - as apparently Charles got told rather a lot about him years ago - and did precisely nothing. By now I'm laying bets with myself so to say whether Charles will keep his position. My feeling is that - one way or another - Charles will be pushed out of place too on the balance of probabilities. Whether he jumps - and says "Sorry all - ill health problems" or is pushed and this will all be affecting his health.

My suspicion is that - due to health or supposed health considerations = an excuse will be made of it and he will either die (from that ill health) or abdicate. Either way - there is a "clean sweep" and cue for William and the daughter of that Middleton couple (errrm.....) taking over. Kate's mother is more than a little "determined" (wonder what happened to that "was it a bankruptcy or did it not get quite so far?" situation she is in) and it's pretty obvious her daughter is too.

I think it's rather "last ditch time" as to whether Britain keeps a monarchy or no - and, as someone who isn't a royalist, then I'm hoping it doesnt. I'm not a fan of one family hoarding so much money to themselves and I dislike the whole concept of "celebrities - royal or otherwise". "A person is a person....end of" and I regard it as an outdated institution - and conveys a message that Person A is more important etc etc than Person B just because they were "born in the right bed" basically.

So what did the Queen think she was dishing out £12million for?

Why did the palace refuse to give various information to parliamentary committees?

What about the many ambassadors who complained about Windsors behaviour at the various receptions etc?

When it was suggested that Windsor give up his role as trade envoy, why did the palace dismiss the suggestion out of hand?

Why did the Queen stonewall in 2005 when it was suggested that Windsor was misappropriating public money.

There is so much evidence that the whole family knew that it simply cannot be avoided.

Iam64

Comparing Harry and AMW is wide of any serious mark. So far as we know, Harry hasn’t given our country’s financial secrets to corrupt individuals. He isn’t mixed up in a significant friendship/dependant relationship with a convicted sex offender. He hasn’t been challenged and denied these things.

100%.
But the comparison wasn't Harry with AMW though.
It was imagining the reaction or response of the elder royal sibling when the troublesome younger brother causes a loss of respect and trust in the institution. As said, a badly behaved spare is unwelcome and not to be entertained in the family. William now has even more experience in this situation from observing his father's dilemma with AMW.

Casdon

Whitewavemark2

Casdon

It depends what you mean by absolute discretion, and who the whistleblow would be to I think Whitewavemark2. If palace officials were not informing the late Queen of everything they knew they are culpable, if they were then she was culpable. It’s a risky strategy for the King, but ultimately I think it’s the right one.

Oh I have no doubt that the buck stops with the late Queen and her children.

There is no doubt that they all knew exactly what was going on. Countless media reports, government enquiries etc all blocked by the palace. Where even stuff requested by parliamentary committees was never forthcoming.

I don’t believe you’re right actually. I doubt if any of them knew everything, including her. Access to all Buckingham Palace records will no doubt reveal more,

I suspect (though without any evidence) that the late Queen was very good at making it clear what she didn't want to be told. She would hardly be the first parent to want to avoid hearing the truth about her child.
I also think that it is unfair to assume that the whole wider family knew what was going on with Andrew and Epstein.
I know families who have been completely shocked and surprised by finding out about rogue family members.

Whitewavemark2

Casdon

It depends what you mean by absolute discretion, and who the whistleblow would be to I think Whitewavemark2. If palace officials were not informing the late Queen of everything they knew they are culpable, if they were then she was culpable. It’s a risky strategy for the King, but ultimately I think it’s the right one.

Oh I have no doubt that the buck stops with the late Queen and her children.

There is no doubt that they all knew exactly what was going on. Countless media reports, government enquiries etc all blocked by the palace. Where even stuff requested by parliamentary committees was never forthcoming.

I don’t believe you’re right actually. I doubt if any of them knew everything, including her. Access to all Buckingham Palace records will no doubt reveal more,

Could Andrew not just stand down and “abdicate” his position in the line of succession? But then I guess that would be doing the decent thing which he doesn’t seem capable of. He looked shell shocked in the back of the police car - maybe the reality finally entering home that he is not above the law and “being the Queen’s second son” isn’t going let him off.

David49

Voluntary, well yes they are promised nice jobs in the west and having incurred debt to pay for travel, those jobs don't exist. So men and women are forced into illegal work under threat of violence

There are over 50,000 recorded migrants that have vanished, a great many unrecorded in addition all living by illegal means. Small boat arrivals are the smaller part of illegal arrivals, they all disappear into the black economy, 10% of the UK economy, trafficked or smuggled they all end up exploited.

Wrong thread.

Casdon

It depends what you mean by absolute discretion, and who the whistleblow would be to I think Whitewavemark2. If palace officials were not informing the late Queen of everything they knew they are culpable, if they were then she was culpable. It’s a risky strategy for the King, but ultimately I think it’s the right one.

Oh I have no doubt that the buck stops with the late Queen and her children.

There is no doubt that they all knew exactly what was going on. Countless media reports, government enquiries etc all blocked by the palace. Where even stuff requested by parliamentary committees was never forthcoming.

What a nightmare for the King.

Voluntary, well yes they are promised nice jobs in the west and having incurred debt to pay for travel, those jobs don't exist. So men and women are forced into illegal work under threat of violence

There are over 50,000 recorded migrants that have vanished, a great many unrecorded in addition all living by illegal means. Small boat arrivals are the smaller part of illegal arrivals, they all disappear into the black economy, 10% of the UK economy, trafficked or smuggled they all end up exploited.

It depends what you mean by absolute discretion, and who the whistleblow would be to I think Whitewavemark2. If palace officials were not informing the late Queen of everything they knew they are culpable, if they were then she was culpable. It’s a risky strategy for the King, but ultimately I think it’s the right one.

Comparing Harry and AMW is wide of any serious mark. So far as we know, Harry hasn’t given our country’s financial secrets to corrupt individuals. He isn’t mixed up in a significant friendship/dependant relationship with a convicted sex offender. He hasn’t been challenged and denied these things.