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:
JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 23:16

Serenster · 15/02/2025 23:14

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.

I think that could be proven.
And as pullthebricksdown, such a case would be a disaster for Andrew. He has lied multiple times in his TV interview. New documents have also since been released - I posted a link about this.

OP posts:
friskybivalves · 15/02/2025 23:19

@PullTheBricksDown Simon Case did testify at the Covid Inquiry. He simply had to postpone his appearance owing to the neurological condition which in fact necessitated his early retirement on medical grounds. Have a biscuit Biscuit

Serenster · 15/02/2025 23:26

I think that could be proven.

it would be very difficult given the facts here. Both Laurence Fox and Jeremy Vine’s recent defamation cases have established that the terms paedophile and nonce specifically mean someone with a sexual interest in children.

Sunholidays · 15/02/2025 23:26

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.

what dirt do you have in mind?

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 23:34

Serenster · 15/02/2025 23:26

I think that could be proven.

it would be very difficult given the facts here. Both Laurence Fox and Jeremy Vine’s recent defamation cases have established that the terms paedophile and nonce specifically mean someone with a sexual interest in children.

"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:
Serenster · 15/02/2025 23:35

And you’d have to prove that allegation was true. Good luck.

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 23:41

Serenster · 15/02/2025 23:35

And you’d have to prove that allegation was true. Good luck.

False. To be defamatory, the statement must have been false and have caused or intended to cause, others to think worse of the subject.

You really think the public could think worse of Andrew? His reputation has already been destroyed/

OP posts:
JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 23:42

For individuals, injury to feelings is not sufficient harm. Lasting damage to personal reputation must be shown.

OP posts:
JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 23:44

The decision on whether the element of serious harm is present in each individual case will be down to the court to decide but situations where it may be difficult to prove serious harm include, but are not limited to:

  • where the individual affected already has a ‘bad’ reputation
  • where the reach of the defamatory statement was very limited
  • where the statement criticises services or goods
  • where the statement was withdrawn, corrected or an apology was made

Angela Raynor was never under any serious risk of defamation.
However, she could have been threatened with a PR campaign against her through the media.

OP posts:
spanieleyes · 15/02/2025 23:51

Well, she could have been threatened with being hung, drawn and quartered too! You have absolutely no idea what was said other than she thought better of her actions and words. Whatever she might think and say in private, as with anyone else, what she says in public has to be within the law.

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 23:57

@spanieleyes It was within the law

OP posts:
Onlyonekenobe · 16/02/2025 00:12

It needn't have been anything to do with her calling him this or that. It could have been Simon Case giving her information she didn't previously have, which made her rethink. That information may have been to do with Andrew, or the wider Epstein problem, or something else entirely.

It's not checkers with that lot. It's chess.

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 00:20

@Onlyonekenobe Information about Andrew? You really think Simon said something like trust me Andrew is innocent, now just drop it, and Angela Raynor did?

OP posts:
Reetpetitenot · 16/02/2025 00:23

Do you really think Angela Raayner would allow herself to be 'gagged' if she had proof?

Hortus · 16/02/2025 00:24

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 23:41

False. To be defamatory, the statement must have been false and have caused or intended to cause, others to think worse of the subject.

You really think the public could think worse of Andrew? His reputation has already been destroyed/

I actually do think in Britain his reputation could get worse if he actually was shown to be a paedophile/nonce, ie he did have sex with a girl under the age of consent in the UK, which is 16.
Of course his behaviour was disgusting in every way, and he seems to be a vile individual, but there is no evidence to show that he did have sex with anyone under 16. The girls may not have been 18 ie not adults but it isn't against the law to have sex with girls below adult age but above 16, however distasteful the circumstances were of him doing it.
So calling him a nonce is not true and therefore she cannot go round saying it.

Onlyonekenobe · 16/02/2025 00:27

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 00:20

@Onlyonekenobe Information about Andrew? You really think Simon said something like trust me Andrew is innocent, now just drop it, and Angela Raynor did?

No, I don't think that.

You only have to read a small handful of political memoirs to know the sorts of things that go down. For example, it's entirely possible that far from Andrew being innocent, it's actually so much worse than the public knows that allowing for even a hint of that to get out could do serious and irreparable damage. This may be the best option.

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 00:34

Hortus · 16/02/2025 00:24

I actually do think in Britain his reputation could get worse if he actually was shown to be a paedophile/nonce, ie he did have sex with a girl under the age of consent in the UK, which is 16.
Of course his behaviour was disgusting in every way, and he seems to be a vile individual, but there is no evidence to show that he did have sex with anyone under 16. The girls may not have been 18 ie not adults but it isn't against the law to have sex with girls below adult age but above 16, however distasteful the circumstances were of him doing it.
So calling him a nonce is not true and therefore she cannot go round saying it.

But Angela Raynor calling him a nonce to Parliamentary colleagues is very unlikely to have had any impact on Andrew's reputation. That is what any court case would look at.

OP posts:
JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 00:37

Onlyonekenobe · 16/02/2025 00:27

No, I don't think that.

You only have to read a small handful of political memoirs to know the sorts of things that go down. For example, it's entirely possible that far from Andrew being innocent, it's actually so much worse than the public knows that allowing for even a hint of that to get out could do serious and irreparable damage. This may be the best option.

Actually I agree that could well be the case with Andrew. He has been shown to lie again and again. The latest being his message to Epstein long after he had said publicly that he had ceased all contact with him, looking forward to them playing again.

The girls around Epstein seem to have been from 12 years old up.

OP posts:
Hortus · 16/02/2025 00:40

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 00:34

But Angela Raynor calling him a nonce to Parliamentary colleagues is very unlikely to have had any impact on Andrew's reputation. That is what any court case would look at.

I think many of them would think the same as I do, that however distasteful they think his behaviour is, calling him a nonce or a paedophile, when he isn't one, does not befit someone in Angela Raynor's position, is wrong, and yes, would further damage his reputation.

Hortus · 16/02/2025 00:44

The thing is, we can speculate as much as we like, but we're never going to find out what was said between them.

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 00:45

Hortus · 16/02/2025 00:40

I think many of them would think the same as I do, that however distasteful they think his behaviour is, calling him a nonce or a paedophile, when he isn't one, does not befit someone in Angela Raynor's position, is wrong, and yes, would further damage his reputation.

You are simply ignoring the article I posted twice about an underage "orgy" that Prince Andrew is alleged to have taken part in.

Most of the public think he is guilty. That is why any attempt by the Royal family to have him appear at any public event, always leads to a massive public backlash. So that just leaves the idea that using words like nonce is unbefitting for the Deputy Prime Minister. I do not think for a minute that Angela Raynor would believe that. What I do think is the idea that words like nonce are unbefitting is tied up with the idea that it is worse to be called a rapist than actually be raped. The idea that terrible crimes should be described in sanitary formal language that erases the reality.

OP posts:
Reetpetitenot · 16/02/2025 00:47

'latest being his message to Epstein long after he had said publicly that he had ceased all contact with him, looking forward to them playing again.'

It was 2 months, not 'long after.'

No doubt PA is a sleazy creep, but if you're going to make a cogent argument against him you can't rely on hyperbole and flim-flam.

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 00:56

@Reetpetitenot Andrew lies and continues to lie. His reputation is terrible. And I do believe there is a lot more to come out.

OP posts:
Reetpetitenot · 16/02/2025 00:58

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 00:56

@Reetpetitenot Andrew lies and continues to lie. His reputation is terrible. And I do believe there is a lot more to come out.

Quite possibly. But you exaggerating for effect doesn't help your case.

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 01:03

Just checked the timeline. Andrew claimed last time he had spoken to Epstein was December 2010, when the email was sent in February 2011. That is "long after" Andrew claimed contact had ceased.

The exact message was:

"Keep in close touch and we'll play some more soon!!!!

OP posts: