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.

Why can we not just leave it alone now?

Because this useless yet advantageously related Pos's sexy times and shady networking were being funded on our dime.

AMB will never not deserve being hauled over the coals.

A law and a bill are two different things. They are not interchangeable. A Bill is something that is proposed. It is not law until it has gone through the Parliamentary process. Monarchs interfere in bills then say they comply with the law.

This

People are determined to drag us right back into ‘nothing to see here’.

The spin is spinning. I think most of us see it now.

You accused me of using words selectively to say that the monarch did not change things once they have become law. I used law purely because a previous poster had used the term. I now make it clear that you can change law to bill in my post and you are still not happy. The reality is that the Guardian's allegations that the late queen repeatedly used Queen's Consent to get bills changed do not stand up to examination. The Acts of Parliament they claim contain specific clauses to please her or her son do not in fact contain the claimed clauses.

Did the Queen ever lobby to have a proposed law altered? It wouldn't surprise me if she did. Many people lobby the government for changes in proposed laws, and I would expect the monarch's household to be paying closer attention than the average citizen.

Did she ever get the government to alter a proposed law in a way that protected her interests? Possibly, but the Guardian does not appear to have turned up any solid evidence of her doing so. I have yet to find a single one of their examples that actually stands up to scrutiny. And if she ever threatened to use Queen's Consent to block a proposed law unless it was changed, that would have provoked a constitutional crisis as there is a long standing convention that Queen's Consent is always exercised in line with advice from the government.

Did she ever have a proposed law altered to exclude her? Absolutely not, if for no other reason that the long standing principle in UK law is that no law binds the Crown (which includes ministers and civil servants - it isn't just the monarch) unless it is stated to do so, either expressly or by necessary implication.

An excellent series of posts by @prh47bridge who actually knows that they're talking about. Whether one is in favour of the monarchy or not isn't the point: people should be accurate about specifics.

I wasn't asking you to name the sources, I was asking you to provide some evidence - a link perhaps? - that what you claim is true. Because, frankly, I don't believe you. And the fact that you prefer to obscure my challenge with a thinly-veiled slur rather than just provide a link, speaks volumes. People are not responsible for the behaviour of their parents. You may want to see his daughters pilloried for his actions, but most people would disagree.

Of course they are. get him behind those gates or the ones at Balmoral and he can live a quiet life. Holiday abroad once in a while with his family but the intention now is to get everything out of sight so the Royal way of life can resume.

@prh47bridge

You claim that the sealing of files relating to Andrew’s time as trade envoy (on our dime)
was completely normal and applies to everyone via GDPR.
I disagreed as I believe this sealing of files was purely to cover up for the Windsors .

This is from the Tatler

“Andrew Lownie, who is writing a book on the Duke of York, submitted Freedom of Information requests to both the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade regarding the royal’s position as the UK’s Special Representative for International Trade and Investment between 2001 and 2011.

“Normal rules state that government department records transferred to The National Archives at Kew are kept secret for 20 years. However, separate rules govern missives relating to the Royal Family. Files relating to the sovereign (King Charles III), heir apparent (Prince William) and second-in-line to the throne (Prince George) are exempt from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Other senior working royals including the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh and the Duke of York are subject to a qualified restriction: files must remain sealed until 105 years after the individual’s birth. This means files pertaining to Prince Andrew will not be made public until 2065.”

So it looks like another coverup purely because Andrew is a Windsor and nothing to do with whatever obfuscation you were busy spinning

These files re Andrew’s jaunts on the taxpayers dime must be opened - it is in the public interest

We’ve heard the disturbing stories of 40 prostitutes - was this Epstein related or was Andrew doing any of this while representing the UK?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/28/dubious-use-of-the-freedom-of-information-act-stopping-access-to-files-on-prince-andrew-researchers-say

Andrew Lownie would similarly be refused access if he asked for files relating to, say, Peter Mandelson. It is personal information under GDPR and cannot be released in response to an FoI request.

It is true that files relating to the royal family are not released for 5 years longer than files relating to the rest of us. It is also true that files related to the sovereign, etc. were protected by rules that pre-existed GDPR. But even if you took away those rules, Lownie still would not get what he wants. It is personal information under GDPR and cannot be released whilst the subject is alive unless one of the exemptions under GDPR applies.

Public interest and the Royal family are 2 seperate things that will never meet. these rules re the RF and wills/documents etc were in place well before GDPR was even an idea.

https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/the-unsealing-of-royal-wills-in-the-united-kingdom-a-contrast-to-public-probate-wills/

the game was won years ago and the public would never have known (or cared I suppose)

I agree. It’s absolutely shocking that Andrew’s activities were known about for so long and covered up by the RF and others.

Lownie has said that a lot of what appears in the book had already been reported on in the press, or wouldn’t have taken a lot of investigation to find out. All he did was put it together in one place, And he came up against a lot of opposition from Buckingham Palace and the Foreign Office when writing the book, so they were still trying to cover it up as recently as four years ago!

I think all of this proves that the RF should not be left to police themselves any longer. We have put far too much trust in them to handle their own affairs and they have come up short. Even when external enquiries have been made in certain instances, eg matters related to some of the Michael Fawcett incidences, no one is ever found to be at fault.

They should have to have a register of gifts similar to that used by MPs. And their activities should be monitored by an external independent body, made up of ordinary people, much like a jury, and perhaps guided by an independent judge.

And if a member of the royal family is found to be involved in illegal activity, or even activities unbecoming, they should be held accountable. But this can only happen effectively in an environment where their finances are much more transparent and where the line between public and private wealth is not so blurred.

And it all will be. In the fullness of time and at the appropriate juncture and after careful consideration and discussions with the RF. Maybe a Steering Group to suggest proposals to the Govt of the day

this from the link above tells you all you need to know about any enquiry into the RF

In the 2021 ruling on Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh’s will, Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division of the High Court, emphasised the importance of protecting the dignity and privacy of the late Queen Elizabeth II and her family. He also acknowledged the unique position of the monarchy and the necessity to maintain confidentiality to preserve the institution’s integrity.

@prh47bridge

What on earth are you talking about ?Government files are normally released within 20 years as per the Public records Act and the Freedom of Information Act

No doubt personal information can be redacted . This looks like another coverup.

All likely to be far too true! 🙈

Not in the case of the RF it would seem. But Govt files are always subject to review. Thats the ace card since the files can be kept under lock and key for longer. Weren't some Thatcher era files put under a longer release time?

They should have to have a register of gifts similar to that used by MPs.

While they do have a register of gifts it has somehow slipped their minds to update it for four years:

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/morning-star/20241014/281582361081416

Yet more shit you couldn't make up 🙄

@Pedallleur

Yes the sealing of Philip’s will ….

Wills are public documents- not for Windsors however . I know individuals can apply to the court to have their will sealed but it’s very rare and v expensive.
What was in that will that needed hidden ?

@Pedallleur

What exactly is meant by - confidentiality needs to be preserved to maintain the monarchy’s integrity ?

Secrets must be kept or the whole facade falls apart ?

re the gifts there will be someone in the entourage who will receive and register them. Perhaps it's a long process. not as though anyone is going to pay a visit to the 'Gift Room', wherever that might be.

It has been long established that the will of the monarch does not require a grant of probate, but this does not apply to any other member of the British Royal Family.
As such, it has been convention for the executors of the Will of a member of the Royal Family to privately ask the court to seal the Will and such applications have invariably been granted without any records or reasons been made. This means that these documents are not made public, and their contents remain confidential. The primary reasons include:

• 1. Privacy and Dignity: Royal Wills often contain sensitive personal information and financial details that the Royal Family wishes to keep private. Maintaining the dignity and privacy of the monarchy is deemed paramount.
• 2. Security Concerns: Given the high profile of Royal Family members, revealing the contents of their Wills could pose security risks, such as exposing the locations of valuable assets.
• 3. Public Interest: There is a belief that the details of royal inheritances do not fall under the same public interest considerations as those of ordinary citizens. The monarchy’s unique status justifies this departure from standard practice.

Got everything covered there and we nosey oiks can move along please.

Yes - that looks like the two main reasons for the importance of keeping the Windsor wills secret :

1. The true obscene wealth of the Windsors would be revealed and this wealth was not earned - it was taken
2. Secret children / extra marital relationships. In my opinion the Windsors in general present a false ‘happy family’ facade for the remaining wretches who seek a parasocial relationship with the idea of a ‘royal family’

Yes, government files are normally released within 20 years. However, what Lownie fails to mention is that civil service practice is that records relating to individuals are not released until 100 years after that individual's birth, unless the individual is a member of the royal family in which case it is 105 years after their birth.

Anything relating to Andrew's position is clearly personal information under the definition in GDPR as it is information relating to an identifiable living individual. ANY information relating to an individual is personal information regardless of whether it is sensitive. Any memo sent to Andrew or about Andrew is personal information. His expenses claims are personal information. And so on. Therefore, even if you strip away the normal civil service practice, it cannot be released whilst Andrew is alive unless one of the GDPR exemptions applies. An author wanting to dig for dirt does not qualify for any of the exemptions. Lownie's request would have been refused regardless of whether he was asking for information about Andrew or any non-royal who has worked for the government.

I know you think the records should be released but, under GDPR as it stands, they cannot be. Yes, you can redact any personal information but, in respect of what Lownie wants, that's all of it. There would be nothing left.

@prh47bridge

Thats a wall of text saying very little

I’ve already shown that the Windsors are exempt from The FOI .
It looks like a cover up , walks like a cover up, sounds like a cover up

Other government officials and MPs are scrutinised over their expenses but friend of Epstein Andrew is exempt and that is fine by you. Got it

I repeat it is in the public interest that these files or even parts of these files be released

It was said that Andrew would take an entire floor of a hotel during his trade envoy trips . On the tax payer dime . Oh no doubt you’ll say he needed to because of security

Where were the security concerns when Andrew was skulking in and out of Epsteins house in New York ( he stayed there because it was ‘convenient’ but not at the embassy ) or on Epstein’s island ?

How did he behave on these trips ? Were the 40 prostitutes part of his ‘play’ with Epstein or did those activities happen on his tax payer funded trade envoy trips ?
Did Andrew do side deals to enrich himself on these trips ?
We have a right to know .

And aside from all this - is this really how you expend effort - long posts defending Andrew Windsor ? Really? That’s who you choose to defend ?