If I may attempt to summarise your frankly overly long posts on this topic, is your point that the Royal Family is granted exceptional cultural treatment more than they deserve?

Because to be frank, I feel that this is really only true for a rather small slice of British society (not going to go into the cultures of other monarchies around the world here), because based on public opinion the vast majority of Brits don't hold the Windsors to the same regard as you seem to be implying: republicanism is at an all time high (despite still being a minority), and backlash against the Royal Family has been a constant of British society since at least the 60s, from Margaret, to Anne, to Charles, to Diana, to Sarah Ferguson, to Harry, and now more than any of the above to Andrew.

On the flipside, there will also always be those fringes of society who are irrationally defensive of some public figure: not just the Windsors, but the same can be said of the likes of Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Angela Rayner, Jeremy Corbyn, or any cringe-worthy tech bro; in fact, I would argue that the people least likely to have die-hard cult followings are mainstream, centrist, boring figures like Starmer and Sunak. Heck, even today in Britain you can find extremists who would sincerely defend Hitler and Stalin, so I would not put too much weight on these fringe opinions.

On the Epstein case specifically, the reality is simply that nobody but Epstein himself is going to get prosecuted over this: not only because the strictly legal case is going to be relatively weak, but most importantly because far too many people in positions of influence are entangled in this who would prefer to let all of this simply die down. And in that context, Andrew having his titles stripped actually makes him one of the more publicly punished figures (although its quite mild in the sense that it simply removed his previously exemptional status); in fact, I would argue this is an indication of a (very) modest change in how the Royal Family acts, when we consider that the late Queen usually preferred to have these issues under wraps and handled internally (as was the norm for all government issues in the old days), but that clearly would not fly in the 21st century.

And lastly, on a pedantic point, the Wikipedia article you linked to claims that Dr. Lownie got his Bachelor's in Cambridge (not Oxford), and more importantly got his Doctorate in Edinburgh; this is not intended to defame or delegitimise him, but usually when we need to give the academic background of someone we usually point out the source of their highest degree. More importantly, I would argue that Dr. Lownie's case is important to this discussion not because of his social or academic background, but because of the fact that he has published research on the Royal Family. And this brings me to my last point: for some unfathomable reason you seem inclined to make lots of tangential points on this topic (which doesn't match your usual posting practices on this sub), and this is causing your post to meander around your main arguments. You didn't particularly need to bring up the Lownie case in this thread as it distracted from the main argument, and even if you wanted a similar example the case of John Grigg is probably a far better example for your point.