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.

As we are all aware, it's extremely difficult to get these cases to court let alone get a guilty verdict.
I was part of a historical abuse case and we did get to court but the judge ruled as 'an abuse of process' because so many witnesses were now dead and so the defendant wouldn't get a fair trial.

Prince George has Louis as one of his names. And of course Prince Louis.
At the time George's name was announced it was thought that Louis was included as a way of honouring Mountbatten. Presumably even more so when Louis was born.

It probably was after Mountbatten, but it is a recurring name in Philip's family.

His maternal grandfather was Louis, Marquess of Milford Haven (previously Prince of Battenberg), and in turn his grandfather was Louis II, Grand Duke of Hesse. He was the son, grandson, great grandson of further Louis

I think as much to do with Philip, and including his side, as anything to do with Mountbatten as he died before William was even born.

Possibly was*

Yep, it's a stretch to assume raking any of this over would be politically favourable to the Irish government. There may be more than one skeleton stuffed into this particular closet. It's not just the potential sexual abuse plus any deliberate coverups, it's the assassination itself and how those things might have interacted with collusion, turning blind eyes, ongoing management of both the Troubles and the governmental relationships between the two countries.

I too wondered why the mainstream British media haven’t covered the Mountbatten allegations. ☹️

Feudal deference. Nauseating. And we don't know which other establishment figures might be involved. Meanwhile, the right is currently whipping up outrage against 'Pakistani rape gangs', a huge and complex issue long ignored, as if paedophilia perpetrated by white men hasn't long been a stain on the UK's history.

Edited to manage site glitch

When Harry' s book was coming out, reports by favorable press like the DM were saying the Palace was wargaming up to 100 secrets they were worried Harry would reveal! The problem with having an elected Monarchy is not only the obvious undemocratic nature but the absolutely ridiculous culture of deference and patronage involved, particularly it seems in the UK ( not sure if Swedish and Danish Royals are allowed to demand exemptions from legislation or have documents that may embarrass them he hidden for 100 years) They basically have the press, Parliament and the courts doing their bidding when all of those institutions are meant to be holding the powerful to account. Not kowtowing to an unelected Monarch.

.

I've read Lownie's biography of Mountbatten & the evidence seems credible to me, there was also more that he was not allowed to publish. Unluckily I am not sure I'd there IS enough for w court of law though.. but in my mind I'm 99.% certain he was a paedophile. I hope the RF didn't know...

Lwt's not forget that after Mr Lownie wrote the bio, the intelligence agencies began keeping tabs on him. I will find a link.

If he published then isn't it a civil level of proof? It is balance of probabilities about whether it is true?

Plus, you can't libel the dead? So Lownie could write whatever he wanted in safety?

What action could be taken if he went ahead and published, now that Mountbatten is dead?

Good points - I need to check the Irish article where Lownie wrote about this.

Here's a link to the article, a letter Lownie sent to the Independent on Sunday, but interestingly they refused to publish.

https://villagemagazine.ie/mountbatten-child-abuse-scandal-no-right-of-reply-afforded-by-the-sunday-independent/

Because perpetrators pick their victims carefully. Children in homes, living on the street, playing hooky from school.

And abuse leaves scars, often victims self medicate with alcohol and / or drugs, so they often do not make a reliable witness.

Also it wasn't seen as 'that bad'. It was, "Oh so and so has a bit of a problem with a couple of boys" and things would be done to sweep it under the carpet.

Then there is the class system, rich powerful men seem to abuse working class children, children who are seen as 'lesser', not the ruling class.

I agree with all of that.

And still believe that claims need to be tested in court before they are accepted as definitive.

After Carl Beech I think we need to accept that it can be impossible to prove a negative, that someone accused may not be able to prove their innocence, even if they are innocent.

While also recognising that in the vast majority of cases victims are telling the truth but unable to prove it.

I am not sure why the media - given their take down of many members of the RF - wouldn't publish evidence of Mountbatten being a child abuser. I can understand that at the time, when there was far more deference. But not today, unless the evidence didn't stack up?

The Royals maintain their place by saying nothing. True or not, such allegations would never be publicly acknowledged. Commenting on this might open the door to the many other nasties lurking beneath the ermine. "Never apologise. Never explain".

I am not sure why the media - given their take down of many members of the RF - wouldn't publish evidence of Mountbatten being a child abuser. I can understand that at the time, when there was far more deference. But not today, unless the evidence didn't stack up?
The Royals and the media are co dependent. The media will take down the lower ranking Royals ( Andrew, Harry) because their disgrace doesn't affect the succession. Taking down Mountbatten would have firstly affected Prince Philip and The late Queen, and now Charles. The Royals will close ranks if the Monarch or heir are exposed to a scandal they cannot solve by blaming one of the lower down ones. No cooperation, no cosy dinners at the Palace for editors, no inside scoops, no pictures of cute children frolicking in the woods.

I don't actually think the issue with going after Mountbatten in the media is about the royal family.

The focus is often on him being close to them, but he was incredibly close to many politicians.

He wasn't just "Prince Phillip's uncle" he was the longest serving Chief of the defence staff the country has ever had.

He was the viceroy of India and was heavily involved in the partition of India and Pakistan. There's the rumours about his involvement in plots against Harold Wilson.

He was a heavily political man who was friends with, and socialised with, all of the big politicians of the day. And if he was involved in dodgy dealings (to put it mildly) you can be sure that some of those friends were also involved, or at the very least aware.

He served as chief of defence under three different prime ministers. He was first sea lord under another. Viceroy under another. That's five different prime ministers associated with him at the times around the allegations.

He's not someone who could simply cause the royal family trouble if the media went to town on him, but he's someone who could destroy the reputations and legacies of politicians, media big wigs, and other establishment folks. That's why he's being protected imo - they're protecting themselves and others. Not simply the RF.

Partism caused a great loss of life h. And his wife swinger so

Yes there are rumours he was unhappy about his wife having an affair with Jinnah and basically withdrew from India as a rush job to get her away from him, causing an absolute disaster and loss of life just because his wife was shagging a Brown man!

I think that's going a bit far. The UK having finally agreed to Indian independence (freedom) the pressure was on from India to leave ASAP. It's difficult to see how staying longer would have changed partition?

After all, communal tensions and violence still exist, 80 or so years on

Precisely this - plus, as ARichtGoodDram just mentioned, all of the other powerful people he was associated with

Given Charles's known closeness with Mountbatten, and his willing connections - some would say almost obsessional interest in - a number of other known paedophiles, it seems hardly likely that we'll see any candour on the subject

That's not altogether true, unless you are calling Charles a lower ranking royal. I'm pretty sure Charles didn't want to be hacked or his private conversations aired, his privacy violated. The same with William and his wife being hacked the most. It also doesn't stop media abroad taking action independently as in Andrew.