Queen Elizabeth

[Nono22972]

No disrespect to her but people and the media often talk about her sense of duty, her stability and professionalism but what would would say are some of the things in her last 15-20 years on the throne that you would criticise her for?

My obvious response is how she handled the Prince Andrew situation and staying on the throne as long as she did. She should've abdicated 10 or 20 years before her death, in my opinion

Thats lovely. He was another one with a very dysfunctional upbringing, so you can overcome these things.

Indeed. That was quite a childhood.

I do have a bit of sympathy for Charles when he's so often criticised for his friendship with Savile.

Charles was in the exceptionally privileged position of having lackeys people entirely dedicated to his interests.

Savile's activities are now widely acknowledged to have been an 'open secret'.

It stretches credulity to think he wasn't told.

I imagine Charles was very upset and angry when the evidence came to light and he'd been lied to

He lobbied Lambeth Palace on Ball's behalf and went on to buy a house for him after he'd been cautioned.

Allegedly (and again inexplicably given his access to top tier advice) he didn't realise that accepting a caution involved an admission of guilt.

I may have a unicorn to sell him...

@CathyorClaire It wasn't an open secret. That's an oxymoron. It wasn't openly discussed by the wider public and even in the media industry where he actually worked (an industry not shared by palace officials btw) it was just rumours, but not one's actually taken seriously. In the early part of his career it was common to assault women in the work place, and as he got older his manipulation and diversion via his charity work, had everyone looking where he directed them, and not at him. There was a really good documentary a while back on him showing how he conned so many people.

The rogue priest or whatever he was, equally manipulated and hid behind his church. Way back it was unthinkable to believe priests and clergy could abuse kids and even when things came to light it's easy to manipulate someone as naive as Charles.

Basically there are two suppositions. 1. Charles knew and condoned the behaviour of the bad people he came into contact with, or 2. he was gullible and easily manipulated. If you feel it was the former just say so, there's no middle option.

People are not responsible for the behaviour of others who come into their sphere, unless they do so knowing their crimes and condoning it.

(Peter Ball), well he was a member of the church, a very religious man really would have trouble believing such accusations if they were denied emphatically

That would make perfect sense but for the fact that Ball had already accepted a caution which carries with it also accepting guilt - so why wouldn't Charles get some lackey to at least look into what all the fuss was about?

I’m astonished that posters think of the RF members as being ‘naive.’

There is an assumption that among the many circles they move in there has been no such behaviour - no deviants.

All these terrible things happen at every level of society.

I read that Queen Victoria’s father was thought to be a sadist who was aroused by seeing soldiers being whipped.

Actually they’d be more aware - less naive than us - I would think. That’s probably a downside of being able to trace back your ancestors for over a thousand years and having access to many many records, diaries and being the focus of historians, also. By comparison we have no idea what our ancestors did.

Not to forget, for example, all the bed hopping that has gone on that is not deviant, but was okay for the ‘upper classes’ to indulge in discreetly, while similar behaviour from poorer classes were taken as a sign of inferiority.

I think it’s most of us who are the ‘naive’ ones.

Basically there are two suppositions. 1. Charles knew and condoned the behaviour of the bad people he came into contact with, or 2. he was gullible and easily manipulated. If you feel it was the former just say so, there's no middle option.

There are other options eg 3) Charles can’t be told. He goes about things believing he knows best. That his impressions of people are always the right ones. That he knows better than the police who cautioned Bell.

@Morestrangerthings1 Those first 2 additional options fall into my category one, and the last (almost) into category 2.

He either knew or he didn't.

Not listening to advice does not make his actions criminal or culpable. It makes him trusting and naive and the real criminal manipulative and cunning.

If he believed the accusations and still shielded him, then he is guilty.

A smear campaign consists of statements along the lines of ...he should have known...he didn't listen...his advisors said...and so on.

That's what so clever about smear campaigns. Completely innocent people who just happen to associate with criminals are guilty by association. Exactly the same smear campaign re the relationship with Jimmy saville.

yes its all rather desperate when people are trying to pass this off as naivety when theres absolutely no way the future King was unaware of what was entailed in a caution and that several young people had made accusations. I understand people support the monarchy, but the failure to hold them to account with regards to their very close associations with child abusers after its come to light, and in Epstein's case after a prison term, is really too much. The reason we have such problems with child abuse is because people are always so willing to disbelieve or minimise things. particularly when it involves famous people. It needs to stop.

Totally agree with you @Iwantcakeeveryday I hope many lessons have been learned from the Epstein and Saville scandals, and people are more questioning of these criminals. Hopefully victims will be believed and not shut down. Abusers court power and powerful people because it gives them legitimacy, and what can be more powerful than royalty, a prime minister and high ranking American politicians. We need to be more educated on how manipulators achieve their ends. The Palace, for all the level of education the courtiers have, are no match for unscrupulous media savvy abusers.

Stop the attempted dismissal of Charles friendship with Peter Ball. It is insulting to Ball's victims one of whom committed suicide in 2012 saying ' he had been portrayed as a liar and a “mischief-maker” by Ball’s friends in high places'

Charles did support Ball. He wrote a letter in 1995 supporting him, that was 2 years after his police caution. Charles was 49 years of age at that time. He didn't need advisors or any one else to tell him at that age what was right and what was wrong. Charles excuses to the inquiry are even more insulting.

Between him and his brother who it now seems lied to Emily Matis about his continued relationship with Epstein there are lots of questions that should be answered but of course won't. My sympathies are with the victims and never the apologists. Those who try to excuse their own behaviour and claim innocence while ignoring the victims of their 'friends' are despicable.

When you read the rubbish written here about H&M, most of it lies, how it is dissected and repeated again and again, and see the excuses made for Charles, you really have to wonder.

This was 28 years ago. 28 years. Not yesterday or last week. It doesn't minimise the trauma to victims but Charles didn't abuse them.

30 years ago people were far less knowledgeable.

If you wish to say Charles abused these victims then say it.
Manipulated individuals are not guilty of the crimes of the perpetrators.

That's the last I'm saying on the issue.

The reason we have such problems with child abuse is because people are always so willing to disbelieve or minimise things. particularly when it involves famous people. It needs to stop

Rarely was a truer word said

In fairness we shouldn't automatically believe every bit of tittle-tattle either, but the Charles/Peter Ball situation went way beyond that as identified in the IICSA report

Nobody suggests Charles is responsible for what Ball actually did, though it could be argued he enabled him to do even more of it, but to my mind Charles's position - and especially his all too convenient exemption from the law - confers an obligation to at least make sure you have all the facts before getting quite so heavily involved and shouting your mouth off to officialdom

I can only speak for myself but I hold the people who abused me responsible for their actions. It would have saved me if someone in a position of authority had stepped in - but those people were manipulated just like I was. Manipulative people exist and hindsight is 20/20.

I’m sorry to hear you suffered abuse as a child PrincessTigger. It is a dreadful thing to happen to a child. You have my empathy and understanding, as do the other members on this forum who have also told us they too have suffered this. It is a terrible terrible thing to happen to a child. 🌹🌷🌸

That’s weird. 2 of my posts did not post just now. Actually probably only one. I was cutting and pasting a second post and it disappeared. I thought I might have actually posted it, but neither are to be seen.

Here goes

@PrincessTigger I am very sorry to hear of your experience, and hope that you've been able to heal and find a happy life. 🌹
Please see my post at 17:43 yesterday. I had literally no idea about a colleague. Now, fortunately, Safeguarding and Child Protection training is far better. I CPOMS concerns, even on little evidence, rather than under report.

It wasn't an open secret.

Just two articles of many that disagree with you:

Terry Wogan on his hatred of Jimmy Savile and how his crimes were open secret at BBC - Mirror Online

Jimmy Savile Documentary — 18 Shocking Things I Learned (buzzfeed.com)

Obviously we have no idea and never will if Charles was advised of the rumours and decided he knew best but given he undoubtedly knew best when it came to accepting millions in cash in plastic bags it's not unreasonable to wonder.

Things are a lot better now , people are wiser, and I think Saville especially was a lesson for a lot of people

If Terry Wogan et al said Savile was an "open secret" why didn't he report him?

@PrincessTigger I'm so sorry this happened to you. It happens far more often than people think it does and the only thing to mitigate the effects are people believing you. More likely to happen today with safeguarding of children so prevalent and attitudes changing. I think we've learned an awful lot from historic cases but it's still very common

If Terry Wogan et al said Savile was an "open secret" why didn't he report him?

I've no idea.

Same can be said of Esther Rantzen who was a junior reporter at the time and apparently fearful of stirring the pot yet still did nothing when she later became famous in her own right as an investigative journalist and even founded Childline all within Savile's lifetime when he could have been held to account..

@Puzzledandpissedoff , @Iwantcakeeveryday ,@unbelieveable22

Thank you for your clear thinking posts.

Its so utterly dismaying to see royalists prostrating themselves again and again , scrambling to excuse ‘royals ‘. Pitiful .

For those saying Charles was fooled by Saville , set Charles’ deep ties to Saville aside . Charles has a much larger web to explain away. It is the number of associations that are damning . It says so much about the true nature of the ‘firm’
We know about :

1.His mentor ,father figure and relative Mountbatten has been linked to sex abuse carried out in children’s homes . Saville used hospitals . Both places with the most vulnerable children .

1. Lauren’s van der post , another mentor of Charles , impregnated a 14 year old girl .

3.Charles defended Peter Ball in writing and housed him after Ball had accepted a caution ( admitted guilt) 4.Andrew of course , in full regalia and taking part in ‘royal’ events . That is a FU to every sex abuse victim

But hey , that’s all fine with royalists - they just want to talk about (blood) diamonds

I personally blame the people who abused me for their actions, and the people in authority and other positions who turned a blind eye or ignored us and made excuses for him. Evil only occurs when so-called good people refuse to step it when they see it, there are some high profile UK cases where that happened as well. The church itself is another prime example of people turning their heads when it was brought tot heir attention or making excuses, Sinead O'Connor got cancelled for daring to call them out for that.

Giving a free pass to those who enable them, to me is not something we should do because it quite literally risks more abusive behaviour.

I was watching a reality show where a guy tried to take advantage of a drunk female, and another cast member stepped in, could see what was about to occur and protected the vulnerable woman. Sadly only because she was raped in a similar situation. The guy tried again later but because the woman had made a point of noticing and calling out what he was trying to do, he was being watched and the passed out female was saved from rape by production.