Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Hortus · 16/02/2025 01:09

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 00:45

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.

I'm not defending Andrew's behaviour at all but I do defend someone's right not to be referred to by an incorrect defamatory name. He is not a nonce or paedophile.
The article you linked to referring to an underage orgy is an American publication and in certain parts of America the age of consent is 18. So they refer to 17 year olds as underage. In the UK that is not underage and we are talking here about Angela Raynor in the UK. That is why I have ignored that article because the terms it uses are not relevant to the UK.
If you're talking about guilt and law you have to deal with facts and use clear language. People in the UK rightly think his behaviour is sordid and disgusting, but I don't think anyone with a brain thinks he is an actual paedophile. It's disgusting for a 40odd year old man to be having sex with a 17 year old but it's not paedophilic. The people that go round saying that, like Angela Raynor, have read too much American reporting and jumped on the underage thing without understanding what is actually being said.

mathanxiety · 16/02/2025 01:18

PullTheBricksDown · 15/02/2025 23:07

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.

Agree. And now a lot of people are wondering what that dirt is.

They circle the wagons, don't they. And she has found out the hard way that the RF are loyal only to the RF - not that there could possibly have been any doubt about that, but many Britons have a quaint idea that the RF care about them.

mathanxiety · 16/02/2025 01:21

Hortus · 16/02/2025 01:09

I'm not defending Andrew's behaviour at all but I do defend someone's right not to be referred to by an incorrect defamatory name. He is not a nonce or paedophile.
The article you linked to referring to an underage orgy is an American publication and in certain parts of America the age of consent is 18. So they refer to 17 year olds as underage. In the UK that is not underage and we are talking here about Angela Raynor in the UK. That is why I have ignored that article because the terms it uses are not relevant to the UK.
If you're talking about guilt and law you have to deal with facts and use clear language. People in the UK rightly think his behaviour is sordid and disgusting, but I don't think anyone with a brain thinks he is an actual paedophile. It's disgusting for a 40odd year old man to be having sex with a 17 year old but it's not paedophilic. The people that go round saying that, like Angela Raynor, have read too much American reporting and jumped on the underage thing without understanding what is actually being said.

Where did the alleged offenses take place? If in the US, then he is what Rayner said he was if he did what his accuser said he did, because you can't do that in the US any more than you can drive on the left.

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 01:22

@Hortus The documents that allege Prince Andrew was present at an underage "orgy" do not talk publicly about the age of the children. We know children as young as 12 were present at Epstein's "parties". I wonder why you automatically assume these children were 17 years old in that case? It just seems like an attempt to minimise.

I have already posted the definition of nonce. It refers to children. 12 year olds are children.

OP posts:
JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 01:23

mathanxiety · 16/02/2025 01:18

Agree. And now a lot of people are wondering what that dirt is.

They circle the wagons, don't they. And she has found out the hard way that the RF are loyal only to the RF - not that there could possibly have been any doubt about that, but many Britons have a quaint idea that the RF care about them.

It is quite clear they only care about themselves and the institution of Royalty. That is why Andrew must be defended by them at all costs.

OP posts:
Hortus · 16/02/2025 01:46

@JoyousGreyOrca
You have no evidence whatsoever that Andrew has had sex with a 12 year old, nothing has ever been suggested that he did so.
I'm not minimising his behaviour, it's dreadful enough without accusing him of something without a shred of evidence.
Saying something like that just makes you look like you enjoy some salacious gossip.
I'm of course prepared to eat my words if any actual evidence comes out that he had sex with 12 year olds. I seriously doubt it will.
@mathanxiety
Angela Raynor was referring to him as a nonce/paedo in the UK though, so she needs to go by what that term means in the UK.
Just because something is lawful/ illegal in one country doesn't mean that it is so in other countries eg in some countries the age of consent is 12 but no one in Britain would think it was acceptable for a British man to be doing that even if it was legal; or in some middle eastern countries there are very different ideas on legality regarding sexual behaviour and British people don't go round saying that, for example, a British person found guilty of public indecency because she held hands with her boyfriend in Dubai should be treated in the UK as if she had committed that crime.
It's the same with America, just because we speak the same language doesn't always mean that what's legal in the two countries is exactly the same.

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 01:51

@Hortus And you have no evidence that the children at the alleged "orgy" were 17. We know there were children present at Epsteins "parties" aged from 12 to 17 years of age.

Are you really suggesting that another countries laws do not matter?

OP posts:
Hortus · 16/02/2025 02:38

@Hortus
My comments have always been regarding whether it is correct to call Andrew a nonce or paedophile. He had sex with a 17 year old, that does not make him a paedophile. While there may have been 12 year olds at parties, there has never been any evidence, hint or suggestion whatsoever that Andrew had sex with a 12 year old.
As to whether some other countries' laws matter in the UK, that cannot be answered by a blanket yes or no.It completely depends on the particular country, and the particular law.
Angela Raynor is in the UK, and irrespective of whether the girl was above or below the age of consent in the US, she was above the age of consent in the UK.
Paedophilia refers to someone who enjoys sex with children and I doubt you could find many people who think that it should also refer to sex with a 17 year old. Of course it's distasteful and disgusting for a middle aged man to have sex with a young woman of that age, but she was not a child nor did she look like a child. He is not a paedophile.
I am no longer going to engage further with someone who can't discuss things logically.

Downbythequay48789 · 16/02/2025 04:00

IdaGlossop · 15/02/2025 22:54

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.

Surely the overall principle is more important than semantics? Andrew is either a working member of the Royal family or he is not!

I’m outraged that A R was silenced! She was doing her job and going it well. The public do not want someone of ill repute representing the UK.

I’m also slightly surprised that Camilla is included in the list as well as Andrew!

Downbythequay48789 · 16/02/2025 04:05

A statement from Buckingham Palace regarding The Duke of York
Published 13 January 2022
With The Queen's approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to The Queen.
The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen.

Being a potential Counsellor of State does not qualify as a public duty then?

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 16/02/2025 04:39

Andrew is a most likely a liar (as seen is his interview, I don’t sweat), an alleged rapist, a slimy toad etc however allegations that he attended underage orgies are just allegations. Until proven or convicted in a court of law (bloody unlikely unfortunately) they will remain allegations. Allegations are not facts so could possibly be open to a defamation case.

Reetpetitenot · 16/02/2025 07:38

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!!!!

2 months is not 'long after'. 5 years is 'long after', not 2 months. You also, with no proof, seem to be claiming Prince Andrew had sex with 12 year olds , is that correct?

He's undoubtedly an arrogant sleazy individual but claiming things as facts when they're not weakens your arguments.

Tomatotater · 16/02/2025 07:39

mathanxiety · 16/02/2025 01:18

Agree. And now a lot of people are wondering what that dirt is.

They circle the wagons, don't they. And she has found out the hard way that the RF are loyal only to the RF - not that there could possibly have been any doubt about that, but many Britons have a quaint idea that the RF care about them.

This part, imo wasn't the worst thing. There was an event at the Palace that Leaders and Deputy leaders of the government and opposition were invited to. She was excluded, no reasons given. It doesn’t show them in a good light if they are telling Rayner to behave professionally but if any of them are challenged by anyone in government, even if the issue is dealt with you, are blacklisted forevermore out of petty revenge. Andrew is still very much supported by them in private. All of them. Case has gone back to work for the RF hasn't he?

Tomatotater · 16/02/2025 07:43

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 16/02/2025 04:39

Andrew is a most likely a liar (as seen is his interview, I don’t sweat), an alleged rapist, a slimy toad etc however allegations that he attended underage orgies are just allegations. Until proven or convicted in a court of law (bloody unlikely unfortunately) they will remain allegations. Allegations are not facts so could possibly be open to a defamation case.

He didn't even speak to the FBI about his friends cases, despite being a material witness. Or defend himself in a civil case against his own accuser. The chances of him going to court to sue someone for defamation are zero.

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 16/02/2025 08:13

Tomatotater · 16/02/2025 07:43

He didn't even speak to the FBI about his friends cases, despite being a material witness. Or defend himself in a civil case against his own accuser. The chances of him going to court to sue someone for defamation are zero.

To be fair I don’t think I’d put myself at the mercy of the FBI or American judicial system unless I was forced to. I’d probably settle also purely on the basis of legal fees alone.

Also he wasn’t the only high profile man there and it still pisses me off that the only person convicted of any crimes relating to the odious individual Epstein is a woman.

All those men and only a woman convicted. That’s a crime in itself imo.

elessar · 16/02/2025 08:18

@JoyousGreyOrca the article makes no reference to the girl's age other than to say she was "underage", but then does specifically make this point:

"The age of consent in the US Virgin Islands is 18, but is lower in the UK, at 16."

Why would you mention that if the girl was 12?

and indeed would that information not have been shared from the court documents if it were the allegation? Far more damning to have a headline saying Prince Andrew has sex with a 12 year old child, if that were the case.

It seems most likely to me that the girl was 16 or 17, which makes Andrew a disgusting sex offender and rapist, but not a paedophile (which is defined as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children).

I think it's gross by the way that Andrew is still protected by the RF, he's a despicable human being. But I also don't think it does our country any favours if a prominent MP is throwing around defamatory remarks - if anything it just undermines her position.

Tomatotater · 16/02/2025 08:19

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 16/02/2025 08:13

To be fair I don’t think I’d put myself at the mercy of the FBI or American judicial system unless I was forced to. I’d probably settle also purely on the basis of legal fees alone.

Also he wasn’t the only high profile man there and it still pisses me off that the only person convicted of any crimes relating to the odious individual Epstein is a woman.

All those men and only a woman convicted. That’s a crime in itself imo.

But an ordinary person who can't spend their entire life on a Royal Estate will be forced to.
It is outrageous that only a woman has been convicted of this. Much, much more is being covered up. Probably what happened was the other people knew what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway, but made sure they were involved with the right people to cover it up, including Epstein. From Andrews interview and his subsequent behaviour during the Guiffre lawsuit Andrew just thought those girls were staff, there to serve him in any way he wanted- drinks, sex, whatever. He is a Royal Prince. Why would he have to show them any consideration at all or wonder why these very young girls were there? He even invited them to his similar aged daughters birthday party. Unfortunately and entirely coincidentally inviting Harvey Weinstein too?

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 16/02/2025 08:27

I think it’s alleged the both Trump and Clinton were ‘guests’ of Epstein. I don’t know how true that is. If it is, what the hell did they see?

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. The only thing I can think if Andrew didn’t realise and I’m not sure he’s bright enough to, why didn’t his advisors/security team get him the hell out of there. The whole thing is the grimmest of grim and those poor poor girls.

Serenster · 16/02/2025 08:31

Are you really suggesting that another countries laws do not matter?

Against my better judgment since it seems you aren’t really interested in listening to posters on this thread, but laws in other countries will not be determinative of these issues in the UK.. A judge sitting in the UK is only competent to determine the law in the UK. Which means he or she will have to apply the ordinary meaning of a peadophile under UK law, and assess whether the defendant has been able to prove that the description was true.

If Andrew had a foreign conviction or civil finding against him in an overseas jurisdiction that demonstrated he had a sexual interest in minors, that would be relevant to a defamation case because it is aligns with UK law. If he had a conviction in another country, where for some reason the age of consent was 21, and the sexual partner was in the age range 17-21, it would not be relevant to the defamation case because it doesn’t align with the UK law.

And this is discussing convictions or civil findings. A mere unproven allegation in a foreign jurisdiction is not going to get you anywhere, because a UK judge cannot possibly determine whether or not that is likely to be proven if eventually tried in court. And given the legal approach is that innocence is presumed until proved otherwise, the allegations you’ve quoted would not be any use as a defence in a hypothetical defamation case in the UK.

And it is a trite point, but of course a conviction for sexual abuse of a minor would negatively impact Andrew’s reputation. Poor as his reputation is currently, I genuinely don’t think that is an arguable position.

elessar · 16/02/2025 08:38

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 16/02/2025 08:27

I think it’s alleged the both Trump and Clinton were ‘guests’ of Epstein. I don’t know how true that is. If it is, what the hell did they see?

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. The only thing I can think if Andrew didn’t realise and I’m not sure he’s bright enough to, why didn’t his advisors/security team get him the hell out of there. The whole thing is the grimmest of grim and those poor poor girls.

That's a great point. Did he have 24/7 RPOs with him at this point?

If so, they must have been privy to an awful lot. Although I assume they'd be stationed outside when any of the real action took place.

smilesy · 16/02/2025 08:42

elessar · 16/02/2025 08:38

That's a great point. Did he have 24/7 RPOs with him at this point?

If so, they must have been privy to an awful lot. Although I assume they'd be stationed outside when any of the real action took place.

It also begs the question as to what Trump and Clinton were up to. As pp said, there has been a lot of stuff swept under carpets about a lot of men here. The whole situation is disgusting

Jacquettes · 16/02/2025 08:52

I have read that Maxwell was found guilty of a number of crimes including grooming and sex trafficking.

Virginia Guiffre was brought to the UK by Maxwell and Epstein and that would constitute trafficking wouldn’t it?

Jacquettes · 16/02/2025 08:54

smilesy · 16/02/2025 08:42

It also begs the question as to what Trump and Clinton were up to. As pp said, there has been a lot of stuff swept under carpets about a lot of men here. The whole situation is disgusting

Who in their right mind gets on a plane known as ‘The Lolita Express’? The careless thoughtless regard for other people is mind boggling.

myrtleWilson · 16/02/2025 09:26

@Tomatotater no, Case hasn’t gone back to work for the RF.,He’s working in Barrow now

Tomatotater · 16/02/2025 09:54

My mistake. I haven't been keeping track, I just keep hearing his name being mentioned. He does seem like a nasty piece of work.

Swipe left for the next trending thread