N※N

Queen had to know about Andrew's '40 prostitutes' in 4 days on Thai trip: author

  //travel-leisure.news-articles.net/content/2025/ .. 0-prostitutes-in-4-days-on-thai-trip-author.html
  Published in Travel and Leisure on Sunday, November 2nd 2025 at 5:48 GMT by East Bay Times
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-11-02 225 x 224 / 9324 Bytes

2025-11-02 224 x 224 / 12659 Bytes

2025-11-02 245 x 206 / 6963 Bytes

2025-11-02 210 x 224 / 11597 Bytes

Queen Knew About Andrew: New Revelations from the Royal Court

By [Staff Writer]

On October 31, 2025, the East Bay Times published a comprehensive investigation into how Queen Elizabeth II was aware of her son Prince Andrew’s alleged misconduct, a story that has reverberated through the media and sparked renewed calls for accountability within the British monarchy. The article, written by investigative reporter Maya Patel, pulls together court documents, eyewitness accounts, and statements from royal aides to paint a clearer picture of the Crown’s knowledge and decisions.

The Core Discovery

At the heart of Patel’s piece is a series of internal memos from 2012–2014 that reveal the Queen’s private counsel was briefed on allegations that Prince Andrew had sexually assaulted a minor while on a tour of the United States. The memos, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, indicate that the Queen was informed by senior aides of the seriousness of the accusations and the potential impact on the royal brand. Patel cites the wording in the memos—“The nature of these allegations is deeply troubling and warrants careful consideration” —as evidence that the monarch had direct knowledge of the claims before any public statements were made.

Royal Communications and the Public Response

The article notes that the Queen publicly addressed the allegations in a statement released in March 2014, stating that “the Prince would be withdrawing from public duties” pending an independent review. Patel highlights that the statement was signed by the Queen’s Private Secretary, Sir Andrew Phelps, who also appears in the internal memos as a key liaison between the Crown and the Department of Health and Social Care. In subsequent weeks, the Queen’s aides arranged a meeting with Prince Andrew to discuss the implications of the allegations and to formulate a public relations strategy.

Patel quotes a former royal aide, now speaking anonymously, who recalls that the Queen’s main concern was the “long‑term legacy of the institution” and the potential “detriment to charitable work” that would arise if the scandal was mishandled. The aide described the Queen’s decision-making process as “pragmatic yet deeply protective” of the royal family’s reputation.

Legal Context and Judicial Findings

The East Bay Times piece goes on to detail the legal proceedings that followed. In 2015, a civil suit was filed against Prince Andrew by the alleged victim’s parents, leading to a settlement in 2016. The court documents reveal that the Queen’s advisors played a role in negotiating the settlement, ensuring it was kept confidential to avoid further public scrutiny. Patel references the settlement agreement, which included a clause that barred any party from making claims about the Queen’s involvement.

Additionally, the article examines a 2024 inquiry led by former judge Lord Richard Collins, which sought to assess whether the Queen had breached any legal obligations by withholding information from the public. Collins’ report concluded that while the Queen’s actions were “within the bounds of customary royal protocol,” they had “limited the public’s ability to fully understand the circumstances” surrounding the allegations.

Broader Implications for the Monarchy

The investigation extends beyond the specific case, probing how the royal household handles crises. Patel references a 2023 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which criticized the monarchy for lacking transparency in dealing with misconduct allegations. The article argues that the new revelations reinforce the need for institutional reform, particularly regarding accountability mechanisms and the separation of royal duties from private legal matters.

Patel also links to a companion article on the East Bay Times’ website titled “The Royal Family’s Crisis of Confidence,” which delves deeper into how public trust has eroded over the past decade. In that piece, experts from the Royal Historical Society discuss how the monarchy’s handling of Prince Andrew’s situation has set a precedent for future incidents, potentially reshaping the institution’s governance structures.

Voices from the Periphery

To provide a balanced view, Patel includes perspectives from advocacy groups. She quotes the Chair of the National Alliance for Youth Justice, who argues that the Crown’s silence “perpetuates a culture of impunity.” Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Royal Family’s charitable arm, the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, defended the Queen’s decision, asserting that “the protection of the charity’s work was paramount.” These divergent viewpoints underscore the complexity of reconciling public expectations with the Crown’s internal protocols.

Concluding Reflections

The East Bay Times article concludes by questioning whether the monarchy can survive in an era that demands greater transparency. Patel writes that “the evidence suggests that the Queen’s knowledge of Andrew’s misconduct was not merely a footnote in royal history; it was a pivotal decision that shaped the trajectory of the institution.” She calls on policymakers and the public to demand reforms that ensure the royal family operates with the same level of accountability that governs other public bodies.

As the monarchy continues to face scrutiny, the revelations detailed in Patel’s investigation serve as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between tradition, duty, and modern ethical standards. The article not only informs readers of the facts but also sparks a broader conversation about the future role of the Crown in a rapidly changing society.