Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Jimmy Saville potential godfather to harry

158 replies

everetting · 09/10/2023 16:32

According to the daily mail, Charles put Jimmy Saville on a long list of names of potential godfathers for Harry.

OP posts:
FatherJackHackettsUnderpantsHamper · 13/10/2023 13:16

He was given an official role in a Broadmoor 'task force'.

Has anybody ever explained why this was? Did he have any relevant qualifications or experience in the required skills? Or did he just worm his way in, maybe with a threat to stop fundraising for them?

CesareBorgia · 13/10/2023 13:20

FatherJackHackettsUnderpantsHamper · 13/10/2023 13:16

He was given an official role in a Broadmoor 'task force'.

Has anybody ever explained why this was? Did he have any relevant qualifications or experience in the required skills? Or did he just worm his way in, maybe with a threat to stop fundraising for them?

He was in with the government of the time, and had a track record of fundraising. He had no relevant qualifications or experience. The task force was a complete failure, unsurprisingly.

FatherJackHackettsUnderpantsHamper · 13/10/2023 14:09

He was in with the government of the time, and had a track record of fundraising. He had no relevant qualifications or experience.

Not that different from a cabinet reshuffle, then, I suppose!

If you're an ordinary person and you have a background in one area of healthcare and want to move to a slightly different one, you will need to retrain and/or gain extra qualifications; yet if you've only ever worked in banking or law before becoming an MP, and then been in charge of Defence or Education since joining the cabinet, you can be moved to being right at the top in charge of Health in an afternoon.

It's the ultimate in 'fake it until you (don't) make it'.

Begsthequestion · 13/10/2023 15:12

royalwatchewr · 10/10/2023 18:15

As Saville targetted vulnerable kids I think Prince Charles didn’t care. There was an attitude at the time that poor working class girls / girls in care homes etc were ‘asking for it’ / not kids in the same way wealthy girls were.

@JustAMinutePleass Charles was stupid to get so close to such a cretin, but he certainly wasn't alone in being taken in by him - thousands of others were, too. And to suggest that Charles wouldn't have cared about young children being targeted is an outrageous slur.

It's not a slur if it's true.

Charles knew. He didn't care.

I don't know how you can say otherwise.

CesareBorgia · 13/10/2023 15:30

Begsthequestion · 13/10/2023 15:12

It's not a slur if it's true.

Charles knew. He didn't care.

I don't know how you can say otherwise.

You can bet your life Savile was on his best behaviour at Highgrove - he wouldn't have been trying to molest Diana, William and Harry.

I'm no admirer of Charles but in this case I think he was a fool but not a callous one - and he was far from the only person to be fooled by Savile.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 13/10/2023 15:35

I had a Jim'll Fix It annual as a child, which had a feature explaining how the team chose the fixes. It didn't sound as though Savile had personal involvement

Would it have mattered, when he appeared to regard those served up to him as an opportunity for further depravity and wouldn't necessarily mind who it was?

I'm always reminded of the head of Children in Need who said something along the lines of he'd rather shut the entire cause down than have Savile involved in it in any way, and have to wonder if he did actually approach them and was rejected

Iwantcakeeveryday · 13/10/2023 15:35

I'm no admirer of Charles but in this case I think he was a fool but not a callous one - and he was far from the only person to be fooled by Savile. If Saville was the only one I might agree, but its inconceivable for any one person to be so connected and close to so many persons who are guilty of child sex crimes.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 13/10/2023 15:40

Iwantcakeeveryday · 13/10/2023 15:35

I'm no admirer of Charles but in this case I think he was a fool but not a callous one - and he was far from the only person to be fooled by Savile. If Saville was the only one I might agree, but its inconceivable for any one person to be so connected and close to so many persons who are guilty of child sex crimes.

Precisely, Iwantcakeeveryday
As said earlier I honestly do get that high status people are vulnerable to approaches from these types, but if it really was only foolishness on Charles's part it was a pretty extreme example of it

And on the subject of Savile files going "missing", let's just hope - especially in view of Charles's proven lobbying over Peter Ball - that he didn't have something to do with that also

FatherJackHackettsUnderpantsHamper · 13/10/2023 16:20

I'm always reminded of the head of Children in Need who said something along the lines of he'd rather shut the entire cause down than have Savile involved in it in any way, and have to wonder if he did actually approach them and was rejected

I can't remember where it was, but I'm sure I read somewhere that he was frequently put under pressure to involve Savile, and he repeatedly refused. I don't think it was just Savile himself angling to put himself forward either - iirc, it was reasonably high-up BBC bods pushing for it.

CesareBorgia · 13/10/2023 16:26

Puzzledandpissedoff · 13/10/2023 15:35

I had a Jim'll Fix It annual as a child, which had a feature explaining how the team chose the fixes. It didn't sound as though Savile had personal involvement

Would it have mattered, when he appeared to regard those served up to him as an opportunity for further depravity and wouldn't necessarily mind who it was?

I'm always reminded of the head of Children in Need who said something along the lines of he'd rather shut the entire cause down than have Savile involved in it in any way, and have to wonder if he did actually approach them and was rejected

The incident with the scouts was clearly planned - giving a group fixit medal so he could use the promise of a personal medal as a lure. But he knew there would be a steady influx of young people through the fixits so I expect, as you say, he waited to see who was served up to him after the producers had done all the graft arranging the events.

CathyorClaire · 13/10/2023 20:28

You can bet your life Savile was on his best behaviour at Highgrove - he wouldn't have been trying to molest Diana, William and Harry.

He licked Diana's hand 😬

he was far from the only person to be fooled by Savile.

Yet again I'll point out Charles was surrounded by an entire team whose sole job was to act in his interests. The rumours surrounding Savile were an open secret and if you look at the link I posted above you'll see civil servants were jittery over honouring Savile in 1984 on the grounds of his own sordid public admissions.

It's inconceivable Charles wasn't briefed.

CathyorClaire · 13/10/2023 20:35

The incident with the scouts was clearly planned - giving a group fixit medal so he could use the promise of a personal medal as a lure.

You also have to wonder who pressed for the appearance of the vile Paul Gadd (Gary Glitter) on the show. Another predator hiding in plain sight:

Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter: What was the link between the two? (thetab.com)

Roussette · 13/10/2023 20:39

CathyorClaire · 13/10/2023 20:35

The incident with the scouts was clearly planned - giving a group fixit medal so he could use the promise of a personal medal as a lure.

You also have to wonder who pressed for the appearance of the vile Paul Gadd (Gary Glitter) on the show. Another predator hiding in plain sight:

Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter: What was the link between the two? (thetab.com)

I saw a video of this. They were in plain sight feeling up young girls.

StarlightLime · 13/10/2023 20:44

everetting · 09/10/2023 17:46

It was the long list.the article says others made sure he was not on the short list. So it would never have happened. But Charles considered Jimmy Saville as a possibility.

It's certainly possible. Charles wouldn't necessarily have known about Jimbo's religious inclinations.

FatherJackHackettsUnderpantsHamper · 14/10/2023 14:41

Yet again I'll point out Charles was surrounded by an entire team whose sole job was to act in his interests.

I don't think some people realise just what a ruthless, well-oiled machine the royals are. Nothing at all is left to chance - there are people to act and advise on even the most trivial of things in order to protect/promote them and their carefully-curated image.

If anybody doubts this and genuinely believes that the royals are a public-serving open-book, just doing their best to be good role models, ask yourself why so very few people have ever heard of Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon and what was done to them.

Even down to the police going out arresting and locking up people peacefully protesting that they didn't accept the unelected Charles as their king - including one foreign pro-monarchy visitor who had come especially to celebrate the coronation, but happened to be standing near to the protesters.

I don't know whether it was just about state dictatorial control/weight-throwing/crushing the plebs or if they were also considering the global royal 'brand', with the eyes of the world on London for the coronation; but to believe that the royals just bumble on hoping for the best, without hordes of people watching out for their every interest and consideration in life, really is laughable.

Roussette · 14/10/2023 14:49

@FatherJackHackettsUnderpantsHamper

Absolutely spot on.

That's why I always think the repeated faux pas are down to them....their entitlement, their superiority, their complete and utter ignorance about the real world, and not wanting to know.

They have the best sources at their fingertips so if they balls up, it's down to them.

bronkie · 14/10/2023 15:03

The Reckoning certainly shows how widespread Saville was and who came within his radar. It's unbelievable looking at it now.

FatherJackHackettsUnderpantsHamper · 14/10/2023 19:30

That's why I always think the repeated faux pas are down to them....their entitlement, their superiority, their complete and utter ignorance about the real world, and not wanting to know.

They have the best sources at their fingertips so if they balls up, it's down to them.

I completely agree.

When you look at Prince Philip and his many 'gaffs' that were laughed off good-naturedly as "Oooh, what is he like?!" - many of them were very hurtful and offensive comments that he made deliberately, knowing that he would get away with it because: A. the sycophants would refuse to believe that a royal would ever intend to be anything other than kind and charming; and B. who would ever have dared to complain or pull him up on it?

People laughed along in fear and in full knowledge of the extreme imbalance of power, not because they genuinely thought it was a hilarious good-natured jape that they'd just been insulted with. It was the worst kind of claimed 'banter' that is actually nothing more than hidden-in-plain-sight bullying; not like you could give as good as you get if your friends misjudge it and take it a little too far.

This is one thing that I hate so much about the idea that we are a true democracy and that the monarch is just a benign, powerless figurehead that is there to do whatever the elected government tell them. The fact is that we have a totally unelected, untouchable leader who usually does do what the government/electorate decide; but who could very easily indeed completely ignore it and do whatever they want. No law can be passed by government unless one unelected person agrees.

Of course, I'm not claiming that there aren't a huge number of less privileged, less relatively free and less pleasant countries in the world that we could live in; but can anybody convincingly explain to me how the UK monarch isn't effectively a 'benevolent dictator' in our so-called 'democracy'? Even our country's national anthem is all centred on them, their importance and their preservation, rather than about the country and all its people - which is traditionally wholly what the point of a national anthem is.

CathyorClaire · 14/10/2023 20:00

They have the best sources at their fingertips so if they balls up, it's down to them.

And even better when they do balls up and get found out they have endless staff willing to fall on their swords while the royals throw up their hands in horror, bat their eyelashes and claim total ignorance of the underhand
goings on 👑👼

CathyorClaire · 14/10/2023 20:04

No law can be passed by government unless one unelected person agrees.

Unelected monarch and heir also being free to cast their eyes over proposed government legislation and veto anything that adversely affects their own interests.

Roussette · 14/10/2023 21:04

CathyorClaire · 14/10/2023 20:00

They have the best sources at their fingertips so if they balls up, it's down to them.

And even better when they do balls up and get found out they have endless staff willing to fall on their swords while the royals throw up their hands in horror, bat their eyelashes and claim total ignorance of the underhand
goings on 👑👼

Yep.

Like Prince Andrew's Head of Comms quietly resigning when he strongly advised PA against his carcrash interview. He stood by his principles.

Roussette · 14/10/2023 21:10

People laughed along in fear and in full knowledge of the extreme imbalance of power, not because they genuinely thought it was a hilarious good-natured jape that they'd just been insulted with. It was the worst kind of claimed 'banter' that is actually nothing more than hidden-in-plain-sight bullying; not like you could give as good as you get if your friends misjudge it and take it a little too far

Yep. I remember saying on a thread years ago that PP was a bigot/racist and I was made to feel like I'd committed treason!

He could've learned what not to say. He didn't want to. The adoration of him was off the scale, it really was.

I didn't dislike him, I think he was brilliant at being the Queen's right hand man and obviously lent himself to supporting her... but come on... his stupid jokes were really really bad and he had the entitlement that proved he was determined not to change whatever anyone thought.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 14/10/2023 22:27

...Prince Andrew's Head of Comms quietly resigning when he strongly advised PA against his carcrash interview. He stood by his principles

He did indeed, Roussette, but realistically how long would he have been likely to keep his job, having proved to be inconveniently right when Andrew saw what the results of his interview really were?

I agree, though, that he did better to show some character and resign rather than waiting for the entitled fool to sack him

Roussette · 15/10/2023 13:14

Heck yes... Andrew could not have coped with an 'I told you so' working for him! It would damage his hugely inflated ego.
Well.... he has to live with the consequences now... serves him right.

Begsthequestion · 15/10/2023 14:26

CesareBorgia · 13/10/2023 15:30

You can bet your life Savile was on his best behaviour at Highgrove - he wouldn't have been trying to molest Diana, William and Harry.

I'm no admirer of Charles but in this case I think he was a fool but not a callous one - and he was far from the only person to be fooled by Savile.

The civil service, Margaret Thatcher, and the BBC all knew what he was doing.

The queen met with Thatcher every Wednesday throughout her term.

But then she also knew about her own son, I'm sure.

Let's not delude ourselves. The royal family are moral degenerates.