• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

Is the Royal Family going to 'throw Andrew Mountbatten Windsor under the bus' ?

Bleaney

Bleaney

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
2,755
I've seen such speculation online, admittedly not from very reliable sources, one was a Daily Mail video and the other was 'the Daily Beast' but also 60 minutes Australia, which is slightly more trustworthy.

According to these sources, Prince William especially is said to be very keen to distance himself from Andrew, due to the reputational damage he's causing the Royal Family.

Reportedly, he wants things to go much further then merely having him stripped of his titles and palatial residence, with charges being bought against him for his alleged actions. and a proper investigation being conducted.

My only questions really are, why did this not happen years ago?

And can this be proven at this late stage?

(Even if it ever is proven, Andrew will almost certainly have fucked of to a country that does not extradite people facing criminal charges in the UK, by that point, if it comes to that.)

The above sources are also speculating that Donald Trump will be using his power to pressurise Ghislaine Maxwell to spill the beans on Andrew, so that she'll secure some kind of deal for herself and her own prison term, and thus won't have to potentially testify against Trump, if and when any allegations about him come to light. (I can't remember the exact reasoning that was used, and I don't think I have it quite right, but it's something along those lines.)

It seems more than possible that Trump also did some naughty things, considering his great friendship with Epstein, and something of his nature with women, due to some accusations made against him by other women, but due to his power, these may never come to light. Trump is also extremely keen for the "Epstein files" not be released.
 
Last edited:
Why didn't it happen years ago, well that's easy, why would it? No short term profit incentive which is the only reason anything happens ever in human society right now, at least when it concerns oligarchic, Royal, or even lower-key generational but still immense wealth and any event that might have significant impact on the flows of capital... Presumably it's been some time now that many of the Royal Family would have been aware of Prince Andrew's sketchy involvement with Epstein and thus probably "questionable behaviour" behind closed doors - to put it in an unnecessarily diplomatic way - but they didn't do anything about it because were it to be exposed publicly it would potentially damage perception of the Royal Family and thus, potentially, public support for maintaining their opulent, unearned lifestyles and possibly because it "wouldn't be in the national interest" because damage to the Royal Family's image might also affect tourism to the UK, or something like that.

It obviously says something - and nothing good - that they're only doing or saying anything about it now that the whole Epstein shitshow, depravity, successive cover-ups and such have been exposed to the point of being mostly undeniable, so now that equation is reversed and it would be financially (and consequentially, personally) disadvantageous to the rest of the Royal Family not to be seen to be doing something about it. Not that they're all just immoral profit-driven sociopaths or amoral clowns (although they might be), I wouldn't find it hard to believe that behind the scenes some of them perhaps felt uneasy about it at least for some time and now that stuff is happening a bunch of them see it as their moral duty to do something about it. But humans don't do anything in a vacuum and such is the massive cultural inertia that keeps an actual aristocratic monarchy going in 2025 - even if no longer an autocratic one - there will have been a shit ton of capital-driven systems behind the scenes, some in the form of organisations, wealth management companies for the super rich and such, and some in the form of individual advisors, who will have been drilling into these people all their lives in the importance of thinking about protecting the family's image, because it's in the "national interest" or some synonym of that sentiment, probably... And as such for all their best efforts, to take the most optimistic viewpoint of their individual moral character (excluding Andrew, of course) they will have hopelessly compartmentalised the fact that everything they do essentially boils down to protecting the family money and their individual lifestyles, and if it was brought up before that they should do something earlier out of pure moral duty (say Harry said something, for purposes of argument) it would have been very quickly shutdown and a roomful of coddled toffs will have told each other and themselves that of course, they simply cannot, it's regretful but it just wouldn't be in the national interest right now, best to stay quiet.

This is just how capitalism works, large concentrations of money become self-sustaining organisms by leveraging basic human weaknesses - which is how it's always worked, of course, because that's the only way a human society can evolve in the first place. And this is not to excuse the moral failings of the individuals involved of course, adults are responsible for their actions, better late than never of course but as long as there's a moral calculus to be had involving massive amounts of money with any ethical decision, and as long as human society has no higher ideals to aspire to beyond GDP and economic metrics, this kinda shit is going to keep happening.

Can anything Andrew did be proven, well, I'm not a lawyer obviously so not sure what kinda standard of proof would be sufficient for a real criminal conviction for rape and connection to human trafficking but I'd imagine probably no, now that Virginia Giuffre has died and Epstein has died and Ghislaine Maxwell obviously is a totally tainted and unreliable witness, I'd imagine no, nothing can be proven. I mean, apparently despite the fact that Andrew Tate literally made videos talking about how he did human trafficking, and how you can start too, it still hasn't been possible to prove any wrongdoing to a significant enough extent to actually charge him with any crimes beyond some frustratingly inconsequential minor financial misdeeds relating to unpaid tax or something... so based on that I'd say the chances of proving Andrew Mountbatten's involvement to a sufficient degree that he'd face justice via the same justice system that all us peasants would have to go through for possessing a few grams of some random chemical in the wrong place and the wrong time are near zero, unfortunately.

On Trump - probably a worse offender than Andrew. Hadn't heard that particular angle about pressuring Ghislaine to say something or other about Andrew but tbh doesn't seem important to me if it's really happening or it's just more bullshit from a media machine hopelessly captured by the idea that they need to keep trying to derive some sense and meaning from the incomprehensible gibberings of an incontinent orange goblin.
 
Great post!

Yeah a lot of the content in the videos was obviously purely made up speculation, with nothing to back it up.

But they did raise some interesting points and observations.
 
The biographer Andrew Lownie was used as the main source and guest on all of these videos. Not sure if he may be an Albert Goldman type of biographer, painting the worst and most controversial sides of people, as he did in his character assassination of John Lennon in 'The Lives of John Lennon.'

But a couple of things emerged that I've heard before, and some not, came to light which did seem believable.

Apparently Harry and Andrew came to blows at one point, with Harry clocking Andrew when he was apparently lecturing him about his behaviour. And Harry said something along the lines of 'you're a fine one to talk about my behaviour' and conked Andrew a firm punch on the nose :ROFLMAO:

Also one I've heard several times is that Andrew was a total over-privileged arsehole and despised by the palace staff. He'd have servants called from great distances to come and open his curtains for him, and would go nuts if his 28 teddy bears weren't arranged precisely in the correct order on his bed, after cleaning it or changing the sheets etc. Not when he was a child, but when he was well into his adulthood. This is according to Lownie, who went on to speculate that Andrew may be Autistic.

I mean, yes it is an Autistic trait to like order and for things to be done the same way, but it doesn't mean the person is going to behave like a complete arsehole if they are not. Maybe if combined with extreme over-priviledge that could happen. But I find it unlikely, there is very large hereditary component to all forms of neuro divergence, and there has never been any suggestion that any of the other royals before him, after him, or that any of his royal contemporaries may also be neurodivergent in any form. So I do call bullshit on that one. Did Elizabeth II or Prince Phillip ever display any autistic traits? Did they fuck! A couple of Autistic-like traits does not make a person Autistic lol. If the stories are true, Andrew was just being an almost unbelievable level of areshole.

Obviously all this is entirely separate to what he's accused of doing with a 17 year old girl trafficked into prostitution. But it just says a lot about his character, if true.
 
Last edited:
It seems like Prince Andrew looks a lot like that old guy that was the queen's horse trainer or friend in horse breeding or something. Liz chased after Philp. I am an American, he ain't a prince or a king or anything. All of those inbreed bags of shit. The whole lot of them.

Women cheat also. Most of the British royal family are serial cheaters. Harry and william are probably half brothers also. Hairlines, jaw structure and basic features compared. Also, did camilia really make any moves too put her very special needs son as a contender for the crown? That was obviously rubbish.lol

I can't stand them so much I almost want to be a fan queen camilia, just because they all hate her. But I have kind heart. I hope both Chuckie and his Rottweiler live to be 120 just to piss off the other royals!
 
It's abit suspect that Vrgina giuffre just happened to kill herself as well. Also didnt another girl kill herself to? Smells like a cover up to me
 
Jnowhere said:
Women cheat also. Most of the British royal family are serial cheaters. Harry and william are probably half brothers also. Hairlines, jaw structure and basic features compared. Also, did camilia really make any moves too put her very special needs son as a contender for the crown? That was obviously rubbish.lol
Click to expand...

Not a royalist by any means, but even if the entire royal family was killed tomorrow, Camilla's son could never be in line as he isn't a direct and legitimate son of a monarch.
 
Jnowhere said:
It seems like Prince Andrew looks a lot like that old guy that was the queen's horse trainer or friend in horse breeding or something. Liz chased after Philp. I am an American, he ain't a prince or a king or anything. All of those inbreed bags of shit. The whole lot of them.

Women cheat also. Most of the British royal family are serial cheaters. Harry and william are probably half brothers also. Hairlines, jaw structure and basic features compared. Also, did camilia really make any moves too put her very special needs son as a contender for the crown? That was obviously rubbish.lol

I can't stand them so much I almost want to be a fan queen camilia, just because they all hate her. But I have kind heart. I hope both Chuckie and his Rottweiler live to be 120 just to piss off the other royals!
Click to expand...
I've always liked Charles. Ever since I was old enough to form a proper opinion. Bob Geldof spoke very highly of him in his own autobiography "Is That It?" as a very intelligent man who genuinely cared about a lot of important issues. I got the same impression after hearing him talk about issues like the environment and hideous architecture, with those being a couple of the topics he's spoken most about. He's not really allowed to say anything that could be remotely political now that he's King though.

I'll never forget that hilarious clip where he was heard accidentally / on purpose? muttering to William under his breath while on microphone as the BBC's Royal Correspondent Nicholas Witchell approached "Eugghh! I cannot bear that man!" :ROFLMAO:

Also that clip on You Tube of Charles stopping for some time for a polite and friendly chat with some mountain bikers he met on the way on one of his walks. (4:23)

 
Last edited:
I don't get why Liz had to hold on for so long.

Did she / they really distrust Charles that much?

(As 'loose cannons' go in this day and age, he doesn't even make it onto the bottom of any such list imo.)

I wonder what the real reasons were.

Not just her 'sense of duty' surely?
 
Yeah. But why? She didn't have to.

Charles would have been perfectly capable and fit for the responsibilities of taking over much sooner.
 
She could have enjoyed some years of retirement from public duties for a start. There's nothing to say they have to stay on the crown / throne until death is there?
 
If anyone wants to throw the 'Andrew formally known as Prince' under a bus (or more likely, a horse and carriage), it'sTrump. Trump is balls deep in this shit, mark my words. Luckily for him, Randy Andy is providing a convenient distraction - for the time being.
 
Perkins : Reborn said:
He holds the record for being an heir to the throne. Seventy years and 214 days!

So he had a lot of time to hone and justify his views.
Click to expand...
Actually I never hated Prince Charles. His wacky Architecture ideas were dicussed on a biography of him.lol Still they were much better looking than many areas with bland boring lifeless houses.

My issues with Prince Charles, is he is a Globalist who is part of what is going wrong with this world. He, has been to several Bilderberg meetings. Global elites are trying to create a one world government. Trump is against them. They hate him. They fear what they can't control.

It is sad, kind of; that Kate has visably aged a lot from being stuck with that lot lot.

Oh no, A man was spotted with a pocket knife; help call in the Specialist Firearms command.lol

No guns, no resistance to tyranny. It is spreading. The forces that will someday enslave those who are left.

You can't speak as freely. I hear people are getting arrested for their opinions over there.

Mean while the cops look the other way at gangs of illegals raping British girls and women. Your country has sold out. My country is a mess also. Do you see hope inyour country, seriously.

You live there and should know the basic political climate in The UK; is this a rough time or the beginning of much worse.

I am going to say America will unfortunately crumble. Division from within and an economic collapse.

What do you see in The UK's future?
 
Kate has had a cancer diagnosis as has Charles. I'm not sure of the latest updates.

Charles has been very stoic when asked about his case by the media, just replying "It's just one of those things." Or something along those lines.

Either he just didn't want to talk about it, or that really is his outlook on it.
 
Bleaney said:
I've always liked Charles.
Click to expand...
Kinda like we loved Prins Claus [husband of the Queen and father of the soon to be king. Willem Alexander. All inbred but Willem-pie married a daughter of one of Jorge Rafael Videla accomplishes. Maxima Zorreguieta of Argentina. She distanced herself from her father s dark past ! So that makes it OK, i guess when your high up the chain.

https://www.deseret.com/1998/12/15/19418050/dutch-prince-sheds-tie-sparks-netherlands-revolution/

And his view on re-creative drug s. He normalised it imo.
Not easy found the actual interview doing the cutting of the tie,
or his outstanding view on recreational use of drugs.
Had a sweet spot for Charles too, and Diana the under-dog !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top