Lord Mountbatten abuse allegations

[beatrice14]

uk.news.yahoo.com/abused-lord-mountbatten-claims-former-184401740.html

Andrew Lownie's joint bio 'The Mountbattens' quotes multiple accounts of Mountbatten abusing children and teenagers. One source is one of the Queen Mother's ladies-in-waiting, Lady Decies, who told the FBI that Mountbatten was thought of as a 'person of very low morals' with 'a perversion for young boys'. If Mr Smythe wins the case, would it damage the monarchy? Charles would have been too young to know about it while Mountbatten was alive, but it does put him and the others in an uncomfortable light now, especially since Prince William named Louis after Mountbatten.

Of course it’s true. This information has been easily accessible for a long time. One reason Why I struggle to accept the current monarchy is their apparent habit of hanging around sex offenders. You can’t tell me they don’t know.

Roussette · Yesterday 20:50
I'm old, I remember Mountbatten very well
Charles adored him.

Yes, he did. Called him his "honorary grandfather", his actual grandfather having died when Charles was a baby.
Are we supposed to take that to mean Charles knew about Mountbatten's evil behaviour?

The long list of pedophiles associated with the royals is deeply damaging .
How can you possibly think otherwise ?

@BadgerB
I don't know if you are unaware of the details or are deliberately skating over them - I've seen plenty of that re Andrew from royalists

Setting aside Charles brother , great uncle and mentor, spiritual guide ( van der Post ) - all of whom you say have nothing to do with Charles .
Look at Peter Ball. You say Charles was 'trusting ' . What you don't say is that Charles defended Ball ( it was stated in his trial )
And AFTER Ball was CONVICTED of abusing children Charles gave him a house on his estate .

www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/world/europe/prince-charles-peter-ball.amp.html

Just a generation before Earl Mountbatten was the Duke of Clarence, the heir to the throne as the oldest son of Edward VII. Engaged to marry Mary of Teck, who became Queen Mary He has been openly speculated to have been Jack the Ripper. No fall out whatsoever there, despite him being at the heart of the Royal Family

Speculation being exactly what it was. Did the people who named the Duke of Clarence as the Ripper explain where he got his advanced skills in dismembering women? because from what I've read about the DoC he was spectacularly dim.

This is what is indefensible, he had been convicted.

I have to correct myself here:

Ball had admitted guilt and accepted a caution .
It was then that he was given a house on Charles estate .

His conviction and imprisonment was subsequent to the above .

This has been completely debunked. The speculation started in the 1960s from a book. But there's plenty of evidence proving where the Duke was on these different days, including photos, letters, court documents, etc. At the time of one murder he was 500 miles away in Scotland at a Royal function, attended by an assortment of guests. But people write books and scandal, even proven rubbish, sells.

This has been completely debunked. The speculation started in the 1960s from a book.

Interesting thanks - and it supports my point - when this story was first published the Prince had died within living memory. And the 1960s were far more socially conservative than today. But, self-evidently, speculation that there was a vicious serial killer in the Royal Family (which would have been quite a scandal - understatement!) didn’t damage the monarchy.

Novella4 ·
Setting aside Charles brother , great uncle and mentor, spiritual guide ( van der Post ) - all of whom you say have nothing to do with Charles .
Look at Peter Ball. You say Charles was 'trusting ' . What you don't say is that Charles defended Ball ( it was stated in his trial )
And AFTER Ball was CONVICTED of abusing children Charles gave him a house on his estate .

I didn't know about Van der Post.
Do you think we should get rid of the Royal Family (except H&M, of course) because Charles is a lousy judge of character?

Buying a house for a paedophile to live in is called having a lousy judge of character? He knew what he was doing.

If these were members of our own family doing these things I doubt we would be so 'oh well' about it.

I agree that Charles knew what he was doing. Just as the Queen knew what she was doing when she gave Andrew £12 million to settle his court case.

👏 No doubt Andrew put the Queen in an impossible situation. I've always thought the monarchy should end with the Queen. I refuse to refer to charlie as a king. He once said he wished to be a tampon so he could be inside camilla. That's not where I'd be putting him.

Buying a house for a paedophile to live in is called having a lousy judge of character? He knew what he was doing

I'd have to check the exact wording again, but I believe the claim was that he didn't realise accepting a caution was an admission of guilt

So how odd that he cared enough to write repeatedly with remarks about "seeing off" the victim if he got up to any more of his "dastardly tricks", but with all the staff at his disposal he allegedly couldn't check what Ball had provably done

I think you're right @Puzzledandpissedoff. Unfortunately for them the world with social media is now a completely different place. People can scrutinise timelines etc.

Either he is devious or astoundingly gullible. Neither qualities fit for a king.

@BadgerB

I could write a book about why the 'royals' ( royalty is a scam ) should be gotten rid of .

Oh wait ! An MP has !
www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/and-what-do-you-do

@Novella4 ·

.....and i raise you

The Monarchy and the Constitution; Vernon Bogdanor | 12 Feb 1998.

A bit old, I know

People do not care. I do, but most people really do not. They would rather complain about Harry and Meghan than care about children being abused and links with the Royal Family.

When you accept a caution it is explained to you that it means you are guilty and are admitting this. It reminds me of a million threads on here where a woman posting claims her new boyfriend who has a caution for sex offences did not realise the implications when accepting a caution. Some people are that gullible.

Agree wholeheartedly @antelopevalley with both your comments.

@BadgerB

A bit old is right

A proper constitution is part of this discussion

@BadgerB

Has Vernon any suggestions about Andrew being the stand in for Charles ?

@Novella4

I doubt it.
Would hope it might be Anne, if Charles could arrange it