By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Royal historian Andrew Lownie claims that Prince Andrew, during a “midlife crisis” in the early 2000s, used his taxpayer-funded role as Trade Envoy for personal trips. Lownie alleges Andrew often included private time on these trips, effectively using public funds for holidays. Notably, during a 2006 visit to Thailand, Andrew reportedly stayed in a five-star hotel and had 40 prostitutes brought in over four days. This information was allegedly verified by multiple sources, including a member of Thailand’s royal family.
Read the original article here
Andrew had ’40 prostitutes brought to five-star Thailand hotel room’ during four-day taxpayer funded trip, the author claims, and frankly, that’s quite a headline, isn’t it? The sheer audacity of the alleged act is almost as shocking as the potential implications. I mean, forty? That’s a number that forces you to pause and consider the scale of it all. It’s hard to wrap your head around, and certainly, it raises some serious questions about the nature of the allegations.
The immediate reaction is, of course, disbelief. Forty is a lot. For anyone, really. The idea of that many individuals involved in a single event is almost comical. However, as the claims begin to sink in, the details start to matter. Was it one after the other, a sort of conveyor belt of encounters? Or was it, as someone mused, a daily rotation of a smaller number? Or maybe, as another person suggested, it was spread out over the course of the four-day trip? The lack of clarity around those points adds a layer of uncertainty and, let’s be honest, fuels the speculation.
If it’s true, and that’s a big “if,” then the obvious follow-up is, how? How does one even orchestrate something like that? It raises all sorts of logistical questions. And then there’s the issue of the location itself – a five-star hotel. It conjures images of luxury, indulgence, and perhaps, a level of discretion that would be required for such a gathering. The fact that the trip was allegedly taxpayer funded just adds insult to injury, it stings a bit more. That’s a hefty sum of money, and it’s natural to wonder where it was going, and where it was ultimately spent.
The author’s claim also sparks a lot of discussion about the monarchy itself. Now referred to as just “Andrew”, his reduced status might actually bring more of these allegations to light. This incident allegedly occurred in Thailand. The location itself, known for its adult entertainment industry, immediately raises red flags for some. The likelihood of underage individuals being involved becomes a serious concern, especially given the history and reputation of certain establishments in the region. That’s an angle that can’t be ignored.
The details are also important. The implication of “bits of fluff on the side” makes a difference. The fact that this was reportedly “common knowledge” among staff, as one insider claims, is telling. That kind of environment fosters a culture where such behaviour can supposedly thrive. It begs the question, how many people knew, and who, if anyone, was trying to stop it?
The discussion also inevitably turns to the ethics of the situation, and to the morality of the alleged actions. Was anyone pressured? Were the participants consenting adults, or something else entirely? The implications for those allegedly involved are significant and the possibility of exploitation is a serious one. The focus shouldn’t just be on the number, but on the potential for harm and the exploitation of vulnerable individuals.
The claims immediately give rise to the idea that this is just the tip of the iceberg, that the situation is probably worse than the headlines suggest. It’s hard not to wonder what else might be out there. The idea that this is just a single instance, a one-off event, seems almost implausible. It feels like the beginning of a larger story, one that could be even more damaging.
It’s also interesting how the comments weave in and out of the seriousness of the issue. You see humor, attempts at sarcasm, and sometimes just pure shock. One person jokes about a “decent discount for quantity” while others focus on the absurdity. There’s a certain gallows humour, but the undercurrent is a serious one.
Ultimately, this whole situation is a reminder of the power dynamics at play. It shows how the powerful can use their positions for their own desires, and how money and status can seemingly allow one to get away with a lot. The alleged misappropriation of taxpayer funds and the potential for exploitation paint a picture that is at the very least disturbing, and a lot of people are right to feel angry at the idea of such blatant disregard for the public’s trust.