Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

What did Simon Case say to Angela Rayner?

114 replies

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 18:52

The Times published the following anecdote from a new book about the Royal Family. You need to read it first, but I wonder what Simon Case said to Angela Rayner?

"All but one aspect of the royal succession had been settled immediately: who would now deputise for the King, giving assent to legislation and representing him officially at state functions, if he were abroad or incapacitated? The Regency Acts of 1937 and 1953 decreed that the sovereign’s spouse and the next four adult royals in line to the throne would serve as counsellors of state: Camilla, now Queen, Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew and Princess Beatrice.
The press made much of the inclusion of Harry, brooding in Californian exile. But Rayner, who was the opposition’s Commons spokeswoman on questions relating to the constitution, was more exercised by Andrew. His desire to play an active role in public life was undimmed by allegations — which he has always denied — that he sexually abused a 17-year-old, his payment of a £12 million settlement to his accuser or the ongoing taint of his long association with Jeffrey Epstein, one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles.

Rayner thought that an outrage. “She was very actively reaching out to the Palace, the upper echelons of the civil service,” an adviser recalled, “and said she thought this was a huge problem, and that the government needed to address this, and that she would offer cross-party support to make sure it happened. That’s — to be stereotypical — her working-class view. She’s not anti-monarchist, but she doesn’t like a paedo.”

In those discussions, she offered the empathy of a mother who knew what it meant to raise a complicated family. Her message, according to her adviser, was: “I know how difficult it is to be in a big, dysfunctional family where you’ve got the black sheep, they’re really damaging to the rest of you but they’re still in your family.” She nonetheless advocated excluding Andrew from royal duties entirely.

That nuclear option proved too much for the Palace and Downing Street to take. Together with the cabinet secretary, the King’s private secretary Clive Alderton alighted on a diplomatic fix: the list would be expanded to include Princess Anne and Prince Edward, so that neither Harry nor Andrew would ever be required to act on the King’s behalf.

Doing so still required new legislation, setting in train an intricate waltz between royalty, government and parliament. Rayner would be required to deliver a statement on the new settlement on behalf of the opposition. Extending the list to add new counsellors of state, however strongly she agreed with the intended effect, would require her implicit endorsement of the existing cohort. That proved too much. With negotiations ongoing she walked indignantly into her office and told her team: “I’m not going to vote to keep that nonce on … I can’t go back to my constituency and say, yeah, I support that.”

After the deep state learnt of her disquiet, Rayner was summoned for a Zoom meeting with Simon Case, the cabinet secretary and former courtier to Prince William. She made her point with no less force but emerged from the meeting chastened. “After that conversation, she went quiet,” an adviser said. “She never, ever spoke about the royals like that again.”"

OP posts:
SiobhanSharpe · 15/02/2025 18:54

Shame. She's been gagged.

Oriunda · 15/02/2025 18:56

If this is meant to reflect badly on Rayner, it doesn't. It does however confirm my views about Case, and royal courtiers. I feel sorry for her; clearly whatever they had on her was serious enough to make her stay quiet.

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 19:00

@Oriunda I agree this reflects well on Angela Rayner. But generally she is not the kind of woman to be intimidated. So I wonder what the hell Simon Case threatened her with? It must have been an extremely serious threat that Angela Rayner believed he would carry out.

OP posts:
Serenster · 15/02/2025 20:55

Who knows? It could have been as simple as reminding her that referring to someone who had apparently slept with someone over the UK age of consent as a “nonce” and a “paedo” was defamatory.

jeffgoldblum · 15/02/2025 21:33

Factual as always @Serenster 👍

IAmATorturedPoet · 15/02/2025 21:40

I do recall reading about this earlier in the month. She was given a ticking off for using defamatory language I believe.

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 21:53

Angela Raynor is a strong woman. She would not care about a "ticking off" She may have cared if she was threatened with a palace lawsuit.

OP posts:
JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 21:55

Even then I am not convinced she would listen. She would have probably won the lawsuit. It must have been a much harsher threat.
After all the allegation is that Andrew raped a sex trafficked teenager. That does make him an alleged nonce. We all know Andrew lied in his TV interview. He would not make a good court witness.

OP posts:
IAmATorturedPoet · 15/02/2025 22:08

She can think he is a nonce but she can't call him one because that was never proven in a court of law.

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 15/02/2025 22:12

Andrew maybe an alleged rapist but he’s not a paedophile.

smilesy · 15/02/2025 22:18

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 15/02/2025 22:12

Andrew maybe an alleged rapist but he’s not a paedophile.

This. There is no point in having laws against defamation if they don’t apply to people that you happen not to like. If she said something defamatory then that cannot be tolerated. No matter how righteous some may believe her to be. Otherwise the law offers no
protection to anyone

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 22:26

IAmATorturedPoet · 15/02/2025 22:08

She can think he is a nonce but she can't call him one because that was never proven in a court of law.

You can call people what you like. If you are taken to court by the person, they have to prove what you said is wrong. Oscar Wilde is a pertinent case here.

Nonce is a slang term for a person who commits a crime involving sex, especially sex with a child.

OP posts:
JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 22:31

You do know other allegations have come out since?

"Prince Andrew was accused of participating in an “underage orgy” on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s private island, according to a newly-unsealed court document.
A 2014 court filing — included in the nearly 1,000 pages of documents that Manhattan federal Judge Loretta Preska ordered released last month — alleges an underage girl, only identified as “Jane Doe 3,” was “forced to have sexual relations with this Prince when she was a minor in three separate geographical locations.”
Those included Ghislaine Maxwell’s London apartment, an unspecified location in New York, and “on Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands (in an orgy with numerous other underaged girls).”
The filing also claims Epstein told the “sex slave” to “give the Prince whatever he demanded,” and alleges that Maxwell “facilitated Prince Andrew’s acts of sexual abuse by acting as a ‘madame’ for Epstein” and helping traffic the victim internationally."

https://nypost.com/2024/01/04/news/prince-andrew-accused-of-having-underage-orgy-on-jeffrey-epsteins-private-island/

OP posts:
IAmATorturedPoet · 15/02/2025 22:36

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 22:26

You can call people what you like. If you are taken to court by the person, they have to prove what you said is wrong. Oscar Wilde is a pertinent case here.

Nonce is a slang term for a person who commits a crime involving sex, especially sex with a child.

I’m quite clear on what a nonce is thank you.

I don’t disagree with what she was trying to achieve but she rightly got a ticking of for what she said as it was defamatory. End of.

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 22:38

IAmATorturedPoet · 15/02/2025 22:36

I’m quite clear on what a nonce is thank you.

I don’t disagree with what she was trying to achieve but she rightly got a ticking of for what she said as it was defamatory. End of.

It is only defamatory if it was wrong.
Oscar Wilde case is pertinent here.

OP posts:
IAmATorturedPoet · 15/02/2025 22:44

smilesy · 15/02/2025 22:18

This. There is no point in having laws against defamation if they don’t apply to people that you happen not to like. If she said something defamatory then that cannot be tolerated. No matter how righteous some may believe her to be. Otherwise the law offers no
protection to anyone

Exactly @smilesy

IdaGlossop · 15/02/2025 22:47

I am a big Angela Rayner fan and devote time to chastising Times' readers below
-the-line when they throw abuse at her. She's highly articulate and on top of her brief. I hope Simon Case talked to her not only about hurling allegations around when nothing has been proven in a court of law, but also about how language like 'nonce' from a person in a senior public role demeans her. There are dignified ways to talk about people in a work context.

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 22:50

Nonce demeaning term to use? Maybe being a nonce is the real issue?

OP posts:
IdaGlossop · 15/02/2025 22:54

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 22:50

Nonce demeaning term to use? Maybe being a nonce is the real issue?

It may be. It probably is. Still, Angela is deputy PM and will be perfectly capable of using the term 'convicted paedophile' in governmental cicles if and when the time comes and 'nonce' when she's at home.

smilesy · 15/02/2025 22:56

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 22:50

Nonce demeaning term to use? Maybe being a nonce is the real issue?

Well it would be. If it had been proven. You cannot on the one hand disapprove of bullying and disinformation on social media or the MSN and then loosely throw around potentially defamatory remarks just because you think the person deserves it. That constitutes bullying and misinformation too. Don’t get me wrong, I think Andrew is an entitled, arrogant arsehole who thinks he is so important that women should be falling at his feet and everyone should be at his beck and call, but using inaccurate words and defamatory language just gives him an excuse to fight back. Because then he will have legally been wronged. And government ministers should be going high with their behaviour

PullTheBricksDown · 15/02/2025 23:07

smilesy · 15/02/2025 22:18

This. There is no point in having laws against defamation if they don’t apply to people that you happen not to like. If she said something defamatory then that cannot be tolerated. No matter how righteous some may believe her to be. Otherwise the law offers no
protection to anyone

Except that the idea of the royals launching a defamation case against a senior member of a democratically elected government, for saying something that much of the general public believe to be true and justified, would be an absolute disaster. Prepared to go to court to defend Andrew's reputation? It would be unbelievably foolish and both Case and Rayner would surely recognise it as a threat that couldn't actually be used in practice.

Case is quite an unpleasant and mercenary operator as seen from his time working for the Johnson government and then his unfortunately timed period of sick leave that meant he wasn't able to testify at the Covid inquiry. I think it's much more likely that he threatened to pass dirt on Rayner to the press and she knew he'd do it.

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 23:13

@PullTheBricksDown That makes much more sense.

OP posts:
Serenster · 15/02/2025 23:14

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 22:26

You can call people what you like. If you are taken to court by the person, they have to prove what you said is wrong. Oscar Wilde is a pertinent case here.

Nonce is a slang term for a person who commits a crime involving sex, especially sex with a child.

Not true on the first part, actually. If you call someone a nonce and they sue you for defamation, you are the one who has to prove it was a justified comment. The easiest way to do that is to prove it’s true, but the burden of proof is on you, not the person bringing the claim.

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 23:14

@IdaGlossop Andrew will never be convicted no matter how many documents are released providing evidence against him. As a Royal he is totally protected.

OP posts:
crockofshite · 15/02/2025 23:16

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 21:53

Angela Raynor is a strong woman. She would not care about a "ticking off" She may have cared if she was threatened with a palace lawsuit.

Yes, I thought she could have been strongly reminded what she said was slander which could have career limiting consequences.