Uncle Dickie, Charles uncle

[Whatacircus]

Daily Mail and other 'media' coverage of the royal family are often quoted on here as being in the know. Their reporting is much discussed and taken as factual. Why have they failed to cover, along with other British media, the news of the past few days about Mountbatten? The allegations have been much talked about for years and now we hear first hand from those who suffered.
Perhaps this explains the reluctance to push Andrew too much?
What other skeletons are being hidden?
Have just read some of Andrew Smyths, one of those abused, story and it is truly heartbreaking.
I have tried to post a screenshot of Suzanne Breen's article in the Belfast Telegraph on here, not sure if it is posting but well worth checking out.
There are other articles posted elsewhere.

If it was monumental, why isn't there actionable evidence?

Because of who he is.

That's probably relevant, but he's long dead. I'm sure it's not impossible to investigate further?

Great post.

Out of all of this, the Bowes-Lyon cousins hidden away is one of the most heartbreaking and cruel. Their father was the Queen Mother's brother. QE2 and Margaret were their first cousins. The Bowes Lyon or royal family never visited them despite QM being Patron of Mencap, and they were institutionalised from 1941

One died in 1986, only staff of the hospital, no members of the royal family attended. The other cousin died as recent as 2014. It was only when media discovered the unmarked graves that grandchildren of their mother had gravestones made.

It won't happen. He is and was revered by the royal family. Charles had a very very close relationship with him as a mentor, an honorary grandfather, an advisor, he was a huge influence in Charles's life. I'm old, I can remember, they spent a lot of time together. He actually spoke at his funeral saying how much he 'adored' him.
I can't imagine that there will ever be any investigation given Charles is King and how close he was to Mountbatten

But there has been all sorts of evidence come out that has been embarrassing for the RF.

How has this been covered up, given the alleged numbers of abused children?

In Ireland as well, which isn't part of the UK. And if anything proof of British/RF abuse would be politically favourable.

Belfast is very much part of the UK!

It's been suggested it could have caused an escalation in the troubles of the truth was known.

Why would it be politically favourable for it to be established that the King of the UK had a very close relationship with someone who allegedly performed indecent acts (or even raped?) young boys? And in fact that person was related to the Monarch?

Absolutely agree that there is a hideously exploitative power imbalance connected with all of these crimes, that enabled and protected their perpetrators, and hushed the victims, and it’s disgusting how the victims have to struggle, or wait many years to be heard, or go unheard.

The elevated position of the perpetrators allow them to evade proper investigation for many years before being caught.

Another of Charles’s mentors, Laurens Van Der Post, who incidentally worked with Louis Mountbatten, was found to have seduced a fourteen year old girl and made her pregnant.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/04/uk.vanessathorpe

Then there is Bishop Peter Ball:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/14/friendship-with-prince-charles-made-paedophile-bishop-peter-ball-impregnable

It’s quite possible that

Charles in these instances was being used by people who were more manipulative but it’s not a very savoury picture is it?

And if you read to the end of the following article; royal intervention seemed to go above even the heads of church hierarchy,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2019/06/24/peter-ball-priest-feted-margaret-thatcher-royal-family-sent/

Just like Jimmy Saville, Peter Ball was feted by Thatcher who was also advised by Van der Post on Rhodesian affairs.

Who knows where the royals fit in or how much they knew about Uncle Dickie? But his alleged proclivities certainly explain why Lord Mountbatten was so tolerant, almost encouraging it is said in certain biographies, of his wife’s affairs.

At least one article about the accusations against Mountbatten came out in the DM in 2019. One of the survivors filed a lawsuit in 2022.

I read Andrew Lownie's bio of Mountbatten last year and was intrigued enough to do a Google search. I had read that two of the characters in Nancy Mitford's "Love in a Cold Climate" were based on the Mountbattens so decided to read the bio.

Laurens Van Der Post, who incidentally worked with Louis Mountbatten, was found to have seduced a fourteen year old girl and made her pregnant

I would use the word ‘raped’ not seduced @Reallyhowisthatthecase333

sorry wrong italics should read: I would use the word raped not ‘seduced’.

@Baital
Were you unaware that Kincora Boys Home was in Belfast?

Edit - this was meant to be on the Charles & Camilla lovechild thread

My grandfather gave away my uncle to his girlfriend(!) as he said he was not the father as he said my grandmother was cheating on him(!) in 1942

We may have found him, on My Heritage but if it is who I think it is, then he has already died

My apologies.

The Mountbattens had a holiday home in the Republic of Ireland (which is where he was killed) so I assumed it was local to that.

Either way, I am sceptical that there is still a cover up 40 years after the death of a supposed serial abuser.

It is easy to make allegations (see Carl Beech).

I know about Carl Beech.

However, given Mountbatten's history and closeness to our King, it will be hidden and any fall out won't happen. And of course time has gone on now

The thought that Charles took his 19-year old bride to Broadlands for the ritual deflowering is particularly repugnant, with hindsight. By then, she knew about Camilla. I hope she and Charles were both ignorant of the sexual desires of their host.

Affairs were fairly standard at that time, in that section of society, from what I have read. Marriage was about family, social status and money. Mountbatten was connected to the RF but didn't have any money, Edwina was an heiress.

It was a marriage that suited them both. I doubt either went into it expecting sexual fidelity, and I don't think much can be assumed about them based on tolerating affairs.

From what I have read, Dickie was initially distressed by Edwina's voracious exploits with many other men but realised he would have to get used to them. Very different times and a class with different rules to the rest of us.

The time period it happened in Northern Ireland and those who were reportedly involved it would have been even more complicated. Again no one was going to believe troubled teens from East Belfast over politicians, high ranking civil service, law, army, security forces, orange order etc. They totally controlled the country.

The fact Kincora was in NI made it doubly difficult the 70s were already brutal one more small spark could have set it off even more. It's probably difficult to understand unless you lived through it. I mean they still argue and fight here about 1690. Fifty years ago is nothing 😂

Exactly. And this is also why we are fed non stop negativity about the Sussexes and non stop positivity about the Wales. And why during the generation above's divorces Diana and Sarah were constantly slammed by the press and coverage of their husbands was far less critical (yes, there was some criticism of Charles, but nothing compared to what Diana went through once she escaped the Firm[.

Absolutely. I stand corrected and wasn’t inferring that the victim had any choice in the matter. It was rape.

Indeed @Baital

"The IRA murdered Mountbatten and his grandchildren because he was a British (he wasn’t) royal (he wasn’t).
Nothing about him being a paedo - I can’t think they’d have missed that out. "

Except Liam Adams- IRA member and brother of Gerry - was convicted of raping his own daughter, the abuse have happened in the late 70s/early 80s, when she was between 4 and 9 years old.

NI, ROI, GB, all over the world; Protestant, Catholic, Royals, terrorists, politicians of all stripes, media darlings, religious leaders, sports coaches, youth group leaders- have been raping wee boys and girls since ever.

Hopefully it's a bit less prevalent since the word and concept of "safeguarding" has been invented, and since "paedophilia" and "child sexual abuse" "predator, rapist, abuser" have been named for what they are, not silence, a sidelong glance or a delicately whispered "interfering with children" or the dismissive "kiddy fiddler" "kiddy porn" "Lolita".

There is still some way to go on calling abuses by their proper name. 'Grooming gangs' is being widely used currently. They are rape gangs, with the grooming happening so that rape can follow. Despite safeguarding, the Catholic Church and Church of England is still giving employment to men of God who are not able to act in the interest of the child when they see abuse happening. Both institutions could go some way to restoring trust in their current and would-be congregations by adopting a 'found out, thrown out' policy, rather than shuffling abusing clergy to some remote rural corner they imagine is devoid of children.

Agree powershower. Its only since the mid-80s that a vocabulary referring to child sexual abuse has developed. Prior to that, it was nudge nudge, dont say it out loud, stay away from that guy, he 'interferes' with children. It was not a matter of open public discussion and was something nobody wanted to hear about, children were regularly shushed, ignored or disbelieved. This allowed Savile and his fellow travellers to act as they liked. How did Savile, a rough and frankly odd creature make those royal and political connections and maintain them? They became very chummy. Ah. It was through his 'charity work' 😁of course it was.

I think one of the compounding factors in bringing daylight to such cases is that paedophilia is extensive and many high ranking, powerful and influential people are either sympathetic or compromised.