Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - you have blood on your hands

Yes, quite unnecessary rudeness.

I can't stand the guy but he's not on a level with Jimmy Savile.

I wonder if anyone in the US has questioned her parents to find out why they didn't seem concerned about where their 14 year old child was sleeping? When the PA situation first kicked off her father was saying that he intended suing PA and also wanted to meet HM to discuss it! This from the first man to let her down.

I agree @MagdaLenor that this issue should not be allowed to deflect from the thread .
My point is that RAVEC is not a legal body it is under ‘royal prerogative’ therefore Charles can overrule any decision they make. He is not bound by the law. I’m no fan of Patel but I believe her email was concerned with allowing proper scrutiny of decisions rather than calendars as you state .

The whole issue of royal security, finances etc. is linked to Andrew in the sense that we have no proper oversight over any of this . Hence we have apologists for Andrew saying ‘ he was never convicted!’ . Yes - no doubt he was protected by the Windsors and continues to be so . Any other man in his position would have been arrested .
We are simply expected to accept the crumbs we are thrown while being denied any proper oversight re most issues concerning the Windsors .

Anyway. I thought this thread was about how awful Andrew was, and how he had been culpable in the destruction of an innocent woman. His behaviour has been vile, and he seems to have paid little price for this.
Now it's gone on to defending Harry (no equivalency, but he is still at fault) then the thread ends for me.
I hope one day that Andrew - and other men - will be brought to justice for this.

Harry does not like ti accept that there are any limits to his status and privilege.
He is pursuing a case which is based less on security and more on celebrity.

At no point did Priti Patel suggest that KC or the PoW make security decisions.
What is reported in the Daily Mail is not always true. Harry and Meghan have a journalist friend there who seems to be putting out some.."misinformation".

Because she was requesting that the diaries were presented further in advance because of increased concerns at one point.
William and Charles do not make security decisions.
Harry is lying. He lies to make money. He lies to make himself look good, and worse: he lies to get limitless taxpayer funded security ar his whim.
The recent court proceedings were against
The Home Office.
Why? Because they make the decisions.

I think she was suggesting that proper scrutiny was needed re RAVEC decisions.

@MagdaLenor
If RAVEC is as completely uninfluenced by William and Charles as you believe , why then did a previous Home Secretary , Priti Patel, write to Charles’ via Charles’ permanent secretary then Clive Alderton I think, asking that Charles take another look at RAVEC procedures ?

Or does Harry know this? I'm now reflecting. Perhaps his folly and ignorance about RAVEC and security is just about trying to keep his celebrity status?
It certainly gave him the headlines.

Please. I know exactly what RAVEC does. I know how it works. We had a very good and detailed discussion on here a few weeks back. By "The Royal Household" it means the diary keepers and planners of KC and the PoW in particular. This is to enable effective and secure planning.
At no point would they ever get together and say "let's put Harry in mortal danger because he's a pain in the arse".
No. It is done according to very clear guidelines and in order to keep people safe.
Harry knows this, but what he wants is top level taxpayers' funded security, giving no notice and for whatever purposes.
That is the central argument.

Yabu. He didn't kill her. She killed herself

They don't have a say. That is one of the many lies spread by Harry.
Believe me, it's a very expensive process and is done properly and not at the whim of entitled aristocrats. The RF do not have a say on anyone's security level. That is a fact.

This.

@MagdaLenor
”RAVEC is a committee that includes representatives from the Home Office, Cabinet Office, Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, Metropolitan Police, and the Royal Household”

Yes I agree it is a distraction on this thread .

I do not believe it’s true to say the William and Charles have no say on security or for that matter on any other issue . They have representatives on the decision making committee .
There is plausible deniability as there is with every self interested decision that the Windsors have their fingers in .
” Oh the government has decided to give us an extra 45 million a year ! Why what a surprise ! Well if you insist …”

The difference with Andrew is he gave an interview etc so we have other lines of enquiry to explore

The security issue is a whole other matter. We know who decides security, RAVEC : the Home Office, Met Police and specialist services within. Neither KC nor any other individual has a say.
I think using Harry's security case as evidence against the RF is a mistake, because they have no say. Harry gets taxpayer funded security whenever he comes to the UK, for himself and his dependents. All this shows is Harry's entitlement, petulance and ignorance on a very large scale.
Harry has only "shone a light" on his own perceived discrimination, and to be honest, much of it is risible.
I think, truthfully, if those matters get discussed on here it will be a distraction.

This poor woman had an awful life before Andrew came on the scene.
Incidents as a small child, living on the streets at 14, involved with an older man then going to work on Donald trump's estate while still only 14.
This was in the 1990's or so - but it is still happening around the world - the rich exploiting the poor, men exploiting women and girls, exploiting the uneducated.
It is so sad for her children.

I agree @Extiainoiapeial - esp re parliament . That situation needs reformed immediately.
It’s all very murky . I believe the remaining royalist supporters blind themselves to the facts because to accept the truth would shake their worldview and / or they accept the facade the Windsor PR creates without question .
Yes parliament is sovereign but the laws are for the little people.
All of this is is part of the reason for the intense campaign against Harry . Like him or not, he’s shining some light on the workings . For example re security the line is an independent government committee decides on who gets security . But there is a sub committee for royals . Who is on that committee? Well Charles’ reps and William’s reps of course .Why ? Can we see how they make decisions ? No .

I don’t want to deviate from the OPs thread . Virginia Guiffree was a very brave woman . I am saddened by her death .
The posters desperately nitpicking to defend Andrew Windsor depress me .

There was a time when women couldn't vote. There was a time before equal pay. There was a time when the school leaving age was 14. Things change. Politicians make the laws, they can revise the Erskine ruling, they can put in more checks and balances. It's a Constitutional Monarchy. The King and the RF do not rule.

Totally agree. They cannot be questioned in parliament under Erskine May parliamentary procedure handbook so yes, they are untouchable.
Questions are tabled and rejected straight off.

Parliament is sovereign. Laws are passed by them, not the RF. They are only "untouchable" if the lawmakers are too craven.

I don’t think we understand how powerful the royal family are.

they are untouchable

I am sorry to read what you went through.@whippy1981

Yes, there are some people who will always side with a man whatever the circumstances. We see it on this thread. And that is why we must applaud from the rooftops a woman like Gisele Pelicot who shunned anonymity to show the world what some men are capable of... as she said - she wanted shame to swap sides. From the victim to the rapist