How come William chose to ignore the massive elephant in the room and no one challenged him on it?

[Roadtripwithpretzels]

Prince William spoke about the very important subject of mh yesterday on Radio One and while it’s a subject that should be highlighted, does no one else think that his credibility on this issue has now been damaged by the AMW case?

He may not have been personally responsible for the alleged cover up, and he may well loathe Uncle Andrew, but he is still a central player in the institution that helped to pay off and cover up the voices of AMW’s alleged victims? Virginia Giuffre took her own life fhs! He can’t just ignore it!

To me this interview came across as incredibly unintelligent and insensitive in current circumstances. And proof that William himself just doesn’t “get it”.

Why on earth did he not say that in the light of current circumstances and out of respect for victims; the interview couldn’t go ahead?

Or why did his new ex crisis manager PR person not advise this?

And why was he allowed to sit there by the BBC and not address this?

And what about the mh of the Palace staff who have suffered because of AMW’s boorish and inappropriate behaviour for years? The nanny who allegedly left because of AMW being inappropriate and the policeman whose arm was hurt by AMW’s speeding at Windsor? The maids who were screamed at? What about the mental health of the police protection offices who quite recently were, according to Lownie, reminded about their NDAs and the safety of their pensions if they spoke out?

I don’t think it’s good enough any longer for a senior member of the RF to sit there and say yet again in a rather generic way “we all need to talk about our mental health” while ignoring what their own institution has covered up for years and is still allegedly trying to suppress?

And the BBC should hold some accountability about this too!

We see things from our own perspective of course.....but what did they think he was doing? did nobody think " Hang on a minute , some of this doesn't add up"

My posts are to do with whether PW should have cancelled his recording on MH. I don’t and I’m glad he did it.

I’m not really that interested in discussing PW declared salary or if he pays enough tax, although credit to you for managing to shoehorn that in and get another ✅ off your PW list😁

You would be amazed how little people notice about family members and how many signs they miss. I have some experience in this area and the most common reaction is shock and disbelief. I think it's because normal, decent people find it hard to accept that someone they know, or are related to, has behaved in such a heinous way.

Its relevant because the problem is people accessing mental health services. Once they hear William talking about MH, what then? They go on a 3 year waiting list? His family's avoidance ( and that of his other aristo mates);means less money for MH services. So raining awareness is pointless really.

Normal families don't have 1000 staff, not do they have 24 hour access to police officers!

Families don’t usually have a ton of police protection officers…..

Charles was greeted by supportive cheers at London Fashion week, if the public are supportive of Charles, you can be sure they will be even more supportive of William.

I think the more William is used as a whipping boy by anti monarchists, the more likely it is to backfire and his reputation will be bolstered by what seems to be baseless and extraneous vilification.

Yes I kind of get that. But did they really think he was a decent bloke, divorced and so on. perhaps he'd meet somebody and remarry?

You misquoted my post in which I stated that they were 'potentially implicated in covering up for and protecting him'. There is no absolute proof of it at least atm; but plenty of evidence of the RF supporting him much of which we have seen with our own eyes. So no there is nothing libellous in my statement, that is nonsense.

How many families shop their own relatives?

And with all those staff and police he was still able to do things.

And most of the influential men involved with Epstein would have staff and possibly security. Why didn’t they do anything about the people they were involved with, why didn’t their families. Especially if some people are saying the police weren’t able to do anything about Andrew because RF blocked them. Even if that were true RF wouldn’t have that influence over other security/staff

Are close protection officers allowed to chat about their protectees? I'm admittedly going by a scene in The West Wing when I say I don't think they are so I'm happy to be corrected, but I don't think they would be allowed to gossip about Andrew to the family.

I doubt it. I'm pretty sure they thought he was entitled, arrogant, money hungry, rude and knew his nickname in the press used to be Randy Andy. But there is a vast difference between being an unpleasant person and what he is being investigated for.

A lot of people knew a lot. Money, power. It's sickening.

What did Charles think his brother was doing? Dating ? Seeing Fergie? Gay?

If they knew he was " arrogant" woudl they not assume that would spill over into any relationships he might have?

It's always important to remember that the vast majority of peole aren't on social media and aren't seeing some of the more speculative things about Charles. His statement was good and they are probably responding to that

Arrogance in relationships isn't criminal as far as I'm aware. There are plenty of arrogant people out there who haven't done what Andrew is accused of. I don't think them knowing his character is evidence of knowing about his alleged crimes.

I quite agree with all of your points MrsLeonFarrell

(Two of the major issues preventing full transparency and accountability are the ambivalence over what constitutes, precisely, the Royal Family, and as you say, the muddy waters which cover the divisions between private and public wealth. )

The systems of scrutiny that we implement are only effective if the RF are somehow forced to be being completely open, compliant and transparent.

They have a register of gifts now for example that isn’t working particularly well.

And I do agree with your point that the people in charge of scrutiny and accountability cannot be former advisors or connected to the RF in any way; another reason why the honours system needs to be completely reformed too.

All of the above very good reasons you have given above, are why I think an elected head of state would be a far better system. But in the absence of that, the balance of power needs to be redressed, so that criminality within the RF cannot be hidden, and they are subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens.

I do think there is something a little cloth eared about going on to the radio to talk about men’s mental health on a day when the media is full of one of the most horrific examples of the abuse of women and girls we have seen….

I've just gone backnto.the post I was replying to, and may have misunderstood what was being proposed.

I'm all for MPs being able to debate stuff relating to the RF. But I would not want individual MPs placed in any role where they have a say in what the RF can and cannot do. There would be too much potential for corruption.

Let's assume they all knew he was arrogant and difficult. Would they not assume it would spill over into any relationships? That seems reasonable. Would they not think I wonder how he is with his latest girlfriend, how's that working out?

Andrew being arrested is a sign that criminality cannot be hidden though. In the US the media are full of how here an actual royal can be arrested whereas there no one is being held to account at all in the US. I don't think it's perfect but i don't think that things are quite a bad as we think they are, judging by other countries. Still room for more transparency though.

It's not ' gossip' to go to your superiors if you see something potentially criminal or to go to the head of the family you are meant to protect and raise concerns. If they have done that and been ignored then that goes right back to the culpability of the Head of State. If no one knows what's going on they clearly cannot manage the levels of staffing and property they have.

The timing isn't great but unless William demanded that the interview be aired at that exact moment I feel it is unfortunate rather than malicious and not something that he can be blamed for. If we insist he is blamed then the others involved in that decision and interview should also be getting the same flack.

If close protection officers reported to their superiors and were ignored culpability surely lies with those senior officers, not the King. For the King to be culpable he needs to have been told and I still see no evidence he was.

I'm not sure the lines of report and responsibility are where you are assuming they are. They don't ultimately end with the monarch in many areas.

Waht did the King think his brother was doing? being some sort of ambassador? Traveling about? A family man?