New allegations against Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

[Muffinmam]

Last night an episode of 60 Minutes (Australia) aired and an allegation was
made that it wasn’t just girls who were trafficked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor by Ghislane and Epstein - there were also young boys.

I’ve included the link below:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-9SfptZlU&pp=0gcJCR4Bo7VqN5tD

This allegation never made it into the book because the writer never had a second witness to concur. However, he revealed it in the 60 Minutes interview last night and 60 Minutes aired what is a defamatory allegation - which makes me think that 60 Minutes felt confident it was true (otherwise their lawyers would have killed the story). It was a very short reference but British Police need to interview Ghislane as to Andrew’s other victims.

Further, AIBU to think that the Royal Protection officers should be made to answer questions as to criminality involving Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor?

Also, how can Beatrice & Eugenie still support their disgusting father after everything we know? Do they not care about their own children? Particularly Beatrice’s young step son. Hopefully Andrew is not allowed anywhere near this boy.

Society weddings are very costly. Vintage champers & Mummy may have ordered multiple banquets & made a decision on the day. Seriously, that sort of spend for jewellery on day, food, entertainment, alcohol. Possible. Poss with extra for trousseau & start in first home.

Yes she was married in a small church / chapel at Windsor with I think it was 20 guests max, inc her DGPs, there were few photos released but their is one that included her and new DH socially distanced from her DGP.

I think she was planning a big wedding, but the stuff about Andrew had come out, plus covid, she went with a small family wedding as was allowed at the time.

I doubt it cost anything like £750k

This is correct, though AMW may have committed offences in other jurisdictions, notably the US where in many places the age of consent is 18 not 16. Regarding sex though, AMW's activities in the UK were very very sleazy but not actually criminal.

The most the King can do is remove his titles and duties (done) and give him the cold shoulder, which is no one's business but his.

It's not lawful any longer to send princes of the realm to the Tower, or have them beheaded and their head put on a spike on London Bridge because they've offended against morals.

The criminality is more likely to be financial stuff and that should be investigated.

Are you in the habit of discussing your sex life with your close family members?

They were sealed. Would take a Court Order. I doubt you'll find The Crown doing that.

@Catullus5

What exactly are you implying?

You are making a fool of yourself - twisting yourself like a pretzel desperate to find excuses for the Windsors .

Utterly shameful .

The incidents I referred to are in the public domain .

The Windsors don't need excuses. Boris said they were beyond reproach.

Maybe it was ostensibly given as a wedding gift but in reality the majority was laundered? Just like the money that was paid for Sunninghill.

I am sure that William is planning reforms to limit what RF members can do commercially and make their finances more transparent.

Can you explain why you are sure of this when the commercial activities of his private estate are touted as an 'imperative' and while he refuses to reveal the tax (if any we have to ask) he pays on said estate revenues?

He will pay tax on the Cornwall estate but if/when he becomes King he gets the Lancaster estate, anything his father bequeathes him eg Castle of May, High grove etc and no IHT. Plus the continuation of Monarchs Consent. He isn't going to change anything.

Castle of Mey is in a charitable trust natch. Although that doesn't preclude C3 from claiming a couple of weeks a year sole occupation.

Highgrove is owned by DoC and C3 rather comically now has to pay the rent he was previously trousering to no.1 son.

We don't know what W pays on Cornwall because he declines to tell us😡

We don't know yet if he'll reveal all on Lancaster but I'm not holding my breath on current form,

But yep. He's in line for a huge win on IHT and it's a near given he's not going to change anything impacting his unearned income.

They are now, but the real question is what was known at the time. It's a pity that my previous comment was deleted because it was on point.

Yes everyone is somehow sure William, despite all evidence to the contrary is going to modernize the Monarchy, make them more transparent etc when he could be making his own finances more transparent now, but has chosen not to. He has chosen to ' forgive' fees paid by charities to the tune of a few thousand £, but only when the publicity forced him. The only thing he'll change is trousering more cash for less work.

The corruption and shoring up of his own position are a given.

But it'll be interesting to see whether, when the time comes, an aged William as limply allows his younger son or possibly the daughter to be sacrificed to the baying press, just as Charles has allowed Harry to be ostracised and relentlessly smeared. All in the name of protecting other members of the twattish so-called Windsor family.

Exactly

Yes we were told exactly the same thing about Charles . It was trumpeted that he’d ’slim down ‘ the monarchy once Elizabeth was gone ( note though they never said he’d take less money from us - Charles has better PR than William )
Of course now he’s ensconced he’s taking more than ever from the hard pressed tax payer

So the bread crumbing of ‘ don’t worry - the NEXT leech , sorry, Windsor, will be different .

William will be worse.
He has high handedly refused to confirm what little tax he will offer on his Duchy haul ( it’s entirely voluntary for him you see)
He’s an empty suit who cares only for his own obscene wealth . That’s why his PR always falls flat. People can sense insincerity in others.

He was paid by the government . They are government files .

Why can’t they unseal the documents ?
So what if it takes a court order ? Aren’t we always told that the Windsors have no power and are mere figureheads ( lies )

Personal information held by the government is usually closed for 100 years from the subject's date of birth. It is reported that the files relating to Andrew will be closed until 2065. If that is correct, that means they will be closed for 5 years longer than normal. They are available to law enforcement and other relevant authorities and the courts can force disclosure if necessary, but you and I have no right to see them.

I would love to know what power you think the Windsors have, i.e. real power they can actually use as opposed to notional power where, for example, Charles in theory has the power to appoint anyone he wants as Prime Minister but, in practice, he will always appoint whoever the House of Commons wants.

I would love to know what power you think the Windsors have
They seem to have the power to spend money like water with very little accountability!

I would love to know what power you think the Windsors have,

Charles was a notorious meddler in government matters before acceding to the throne, and only a huge and lengthy battle by the Guardian brought his letters to six successive governments to light. Are we supposed to believe he has had a sudden sense of the unconstitutionality of this and stopped trying to wield political power now?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2015/may/13/read-the-prince-charles-black-spider-memos-in-full

@prh47bridge

You’d love to know what power the royals have?
Are you seriously unaware of the 1000s of laws that Elizabeth was given a look at first - she then decided if she’d follow them
or not. She exempted herself and family from 1000s of laws as a result . Laws the rest of us follow .
Of course Charles will be doing the same - in fact I wonder if he was doing so even with Elizabeth was in situ. A de facto regent without parliament approval or public knowledge is also power

You mention ‘personal information’ being withheld . Medical details etc - of course they should be .

But your excuse doesn’t apply here .

I’m talking about about details of Andrew’s time as ‘trade envoy’ . In one year he charged the taxpayer over £350 000 in travel expenses alone ! That was as long ago as 2011 I think so certainly a lot more in today’s money . It was noted at the time that his trips often included golf club visits and 5 star hotels .It was also noted that he was rude and boorish . He held that position for 10 years .

Why were the files covering his time sealed for over 100 years ? This was public money not personal information .

Is add that the fact that Philip’s will was automatically sealed for 100 years too . He wasn’t the monarch - of course theirs must be sealed as the population would become even more outraged if we saw their bloated wealth
But Philips was sealed - so as not to embarrass the queen was the hilariously transparent reason given at the time ! Who got that through !

An interesting contemporaneous article re Andrew’s behaviour as a trade envoy

Look at the comments - this was from over 10 years ago ! People had a similar low opinion of Andrew then . Yet on he paraded until 2025, protected by the Windsors
That is power and it is the most corrupt form of power - it’s hidden.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/07/downing-street-prince-andrew-role#comments

Are you seriously unaware of the 1000s of laws that Elizabeth was given a look at first - she then decided if she’d follow them or not. She exempted herself and family from 1000s of laws as a result . Laws the rest of us follow .

I imagine you've read about this in the press. The information that has appeared is based on a series of articles in the Guardian. Unfortunately, the Guardian did not get their journalism fact checked by an actual lawyer. Had they done so, much of what they wrote would not have seen the light of day as it is rubbish. For example, they claimed that the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 was altered to exempt specific properties in the Isles of Scilly and Dartmoor. The Act does not contain any such exemption. They also claimed that the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021 was amended to exempt the Queen's private estates from compulsory purchase, whereas the amendment to which they refer had the reverse effect - it enabled compulsory purchase of the Queen's private estates. Without the modification, no compulsory purchase would have been possible.

The journalists also seem to have failed to understand that the Crown Estates include all land belonging to the government, and the government likes to exempt itself from laws that apply to other landlords. At least some of the amendments they attributed to Queen's Consent may have had nothing to do with the monarch at all, as they were standard clauses that should have been there to protect the government but had clearly been overlooked by those drafting the bill.

I’m talking about about details of Andrew’s time as ‘trade envoy’

I am aware of what you are talking about. The Civil Service classifies all the information to which you refer as personal information, in line with GDPR. It doesn't matter whether it is a member of the royal family or a humble civil servant. They would not release this information until 100 years after the birth of the subject. You seem to have no idea what is classed as personal information under GDPR since you describe it as public information. It is not.

Is add that the fact that Philip’s will was automatically sealed for 100 years too

No, it was not automatically sealed. The High Court agreed it should be sealed for 90 years without knowing the contents. This is normal for senior royals, not just the monarch, but it is not confined to the royals. The will of Michael Johnson, a member of the IRA who may also have been a British spy, was similarly sealed earlier this year.