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.

Mounbatten and pedophila has been mentioned here over the years - and furiously denied by royalists .
They are v quiet on that topic now

18 Parachute Regiment troops were killed in a double ambush in Warrenpoint, Co Down on 27th August 1979 - the same day Mountbatten's boat was blown up in Co Sligo. The Warrenpoint attack was in revenge for Bloody Sunday.
There was a rhyme at the time '13 dead but not forgotten, we got 18 and Mountbatten'.

Yes her first known affair was with her protection officer when Harry was barely 2 years old. He died in a motorcycle accident. There were at least 6 relationships known about many with married men (so IMHO crushes her bleating about 3 in the marriage) and one (Khan?) where she had been found to be stalking his wife with hundreds of anonymous phone calls to her house.

It was a miserable marriage that should never have happened. It's one of those cases where obviously cheating is wrong and you shouldn't do it, but I don't think either of them were evil schemers for it. Charles was in love with someone else and that was awful both for him and of course for Diana, who married in good faith and had to deal with being unloved and used so badly. I guess it was felt that she was aware of the deal and the lifestyle of being a princess and, it was assumed, eventually queen was what she got out of it. For some people it would have been.

I only recall them being put outside to get some sunshine (at least in the coal mining community where I was brought up) but yes, the child would have have been in the care of a nanny.

I seem to recall that Mountbatten was simply a translation of Battenberg (in order to distance that family from its German roots in WW1) and that Windsor was brought in as the royal surname in order to stop the royal family becoming the House of Mountbatten after the Queen acceded to the throne.

I would like to see how it was covered up and who was protecting him.

Unless somebody is willing to come forward with credible evidence there doesnt seem much that can be done. Mountbatten is long dead and most "public enquiries" cost millions, drag on for years and change nothing

They could change the cover up

There is a court case in Belfast pending

Read this

I believe this journalist tried investigating Mountbatten earlier and faced obstruction but he has published this recently :

Chris Moore: Kincora : Britain’s Shame

Windsor was brought in as the royal surname in order to stop the royal family becoming the House of Mountbatten

Windsor was already the royal surname & I think QEll kept it.

Mountbatten was added some years later.

Men are still more likely to be raped than be falsely accused. False accusations are RARE. Rape, sadly, is common.

People have come forward. Arthur Smyth is one of the witnesses.

https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2022-10-19/man-who-claims-lord-mountbatten-abuse-launches-legal-action

That's making the assumption it's only Trump she has to worry about.

And let's not forget, this is a woman who was threatening to release her little black book not long ago, and a man who changes his mind more often than he farts.

That’s a good point.

I had thought she was safe now because she’s doing what Trump wants and giving up Andrew to distract from
him and others, which I don’t think she had any intention of doing originally. But yes, there are other powerful men involved, and Trump does change his mind and has no problem going back on a deal - or he could drop dead any day.

In prison or out with a Trump pardon - neither means safety for Ghislaine

You're correct about Mountbatten being a translation, WearyAuldWumman, but Windsor was actually coined by George V - also in 1917 - when they decided Saxe Coburg Gotha sounded rather too Germanic for the times

So both were inventions to cover up something thought to be poor optics, which as mentioned seems to be a habit among the RF

Friends in high places and I'll bet those children were passed around.

And if Andrew lost his virginity at 11 as claimed in latest book. Was he also a victim?

Someone somewhere is working hard to keep Andrew in the spotlight and the spotlight away from others.

Or at least thats how it seems to me. Something somewhere else is being covered up.

It doesn't say what the allegations are - well, it talks about some honours scandal - but I think I remember. Didn't Fawcett say he saw PC having sex with another member of staff, a man, or something? I can't remember exactly. I don't believe it, though. Charles has always seemed completely hetero and devoted to Camilla.

Yes he would indeed then be a victim of CSA.

However this doesn’t excuse his actions / behaviour / crimes.

Yawn.

That old diversionary trope.

Could it be the recent publication for the victim’s autobiography and the recent revelations from the Epstein emails implicating AMW?

The article also says: This newspaper is not publishing the actual allegations. Not only do they differ from the highly coloured rumours about royal affairs which have surfaced recently in the tabloids, but we also have no reason to believe the allegations are true.

It was George Smyth who told of the situation he allegedly saw Fawcett and Charles in, @Horsie, but then Smyth was also said to be a deeply damaged man - though how much of that's true and how much was the palace discrediting another of Fawcett's victims is unknowable

Interestingly though, and as a result of Fawcett's injunction, nobody really knew who the "RF member" was until Michael Peat delivered his verbal gymnastics, and I was surprised he did that

Why do you think it's a diversion?