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!

"Oh I love Norman Baker" 😉

Do you? That's great!

If true-that’s bonkers, not decorum!

I caught tale end of a program with Jeremy vine ( on 4 or 5) last night that Lownie was on. Someone ( I think) Lownie said royals can come back from this if they make changes. I’ll try and download to watch during the week.

Don’t think Diana thought a lot of Sophie from what I remember.

It’s The Gospel According to Lownie 😉

Those were very odd times, though.

Why on earth would you say this unless you were trying to defend AMW’s activities in some way?

Which part of Lownie’s book are you disputing in particular?

Everyone is upset simply because we can all now see the actual evidence that the RF have been sitting on for years!

Read the evidence that was gathered from Epstein’s office by the USA Department of Justice if you object to Lownie himself? But it makes little difference because the e-mails verify everything Lownie has said!

They even verify the evidence that Lownie was not allowed to put in the book for legal reasons about Mandelsohn fhs!

If it wasn’t for Lownie’s dogged, forensic research and the Epstein case being investigated in the USA, the RF would still be hushing up AMW’s alleged criminality even now!

So too right, we are singing the Gospel of Lownie! He has been right all along!

Do you realise how serious this situation is?

We all as ordinary citizens are obliged to report crimes to the police when we become aware of them, never mind the head of state!

Criminality and sexual deviancy at the heart of the royal family, covered up for years, is an issue that could potentially bring down the monarch. The cover up is almost as bad as the crime.

Hasn’t Harry complained about something in Lownie’s book?

Have to wonder why the police haven’t done such an amazing job as him

I can’t keep up with this thread as it’s moving very fast and posters have been filling it up with posts about the funeral of the late Duchess of Kent!

One might almost suspect a strategised deflection! 😁

It would be interesting if so, as it would show that monarchists are very interested in defending William! I guess he is their last hope in the light of current events!

Anyway, I wanted to address this one post from down thread by bluegreygreen about Erskine May…

I think we all realise by now how the conventions around the monarchy work.

The problem is, that they are based on the expectation, or condition, that the monarchy is behaving well and is not engaging in criminal activity.

In other words, the Erskine May principles need to be supplemented in order to deal with the current situation.

Well she wouldn't, would she? She was a jealous woman and didn't like the limelight taken off her. Sophie was compared, looks wise, to Diana quite often.

I'm curious. Can you post link to some of these photos?

Because if you're not referring to the supposed yacht photo with Karyna Shuliak that was clearly photoshopped and confirmed to be false, then what are you referring to?

You couldn't possibly be falling for the obviously photoshopped pictures peddled by the hatemongers like according2taz and MurkyMeg right?

Right?

Yes I saw that too.

Hello Bertha, I see you're back.

Still awaiting any pictures you might have of Meghan in the Epstein files or in his circles. That's a pretty bold (and libellous) claim to make and since it appears you've seen them, I'm sure the rest of us would be grateful if you can share.

Anyway, I wanted to address this one post from down thread by bluegreygreen about Erskine May…
I think we all realise by now how the conventions around the monarchy work.
The problem is, that they are based on the expectation, or condition, that the monarchy is behaving well and is not engaging in criminal activity.
In other words, the Erskine May principles need to be supplemented in order to deal with the current situation.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

The point of my post was my ongoing frustration with successive governments who have allowed the myth to take hold that 'Erskine May'* prevents them form discussing the Royals in parliament - meaning they can therefore easily avoid their responsibilities.

It doesn't - and never has. What it says is that discussing the conduct of the Royal family (and certain other public figures such as judges) must be done properly in a formal motion, not incidentally in another discussion.
The only thing that prevents this discussion is that governments don't want to give up parliamentary time to do so. They may not take their responsibilities seriously, or they may wish to avoid the discussion for fear of what else may come to light.

This was clarified in public by the Speaker on the floor of the House in October, when there were calls for AMW's behaviour to be discussed.

In a statement to the Commons, Sir Lindsay said: “I know there has been some commentary on what members of this House may or may not discuss in the chamber in relation to Prince Andrew, some of which is inaccurate.
“There is understandably great interest from members and from the public on this matter. For the benefit of the House, I would like to be clear that there are ways for the House to properly consider this matter.
“Any discussions about the conduct or reflections on members of the royal family can be properly discussed on the substantive motions. And I know some members have already tabled such a motion. I am not able to allocate time for a debate on such a motion, but others are able to do so, if wishing to do that.
“But on questions, the long-standing practice of the House, as set out in Erskine May, is that criticism of members of the royal family cannot be made as part of questions. I hope this is helpful clarification, as there is lots of online speculation.” (My emphasis).
Reported by the Independent https://archive.is/pg1F6

There doesn't need to be any 'supplement' to Erskine May - people simply need to stop pretending it says something that it doesn't.

Link to Erskine May text: Incidental criticism of conduct of certain persons not permitted

*Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice, for anyone who doesn't know, is the definitive work on parliamentary procedure, currently in its 25th edition, and is available free online for anyone to consult.

Oh you're trying to trap me, aren't you? 😳

How are they trying to trap you? They’re just asking you to show them the photos you’re talking about.

Maybe you could attach the ones you have seen from those hate sites you have told us about (although why you'd want to spend any time on there I don't know 🤷‍♀️) and that poster can then tell you if they are the same ones. 😁

Anyway we digress, this thread is not about the Cali couple, it's about William and elephants.

Why? The Sheikh stuff was awful but ever since she's seemed nice as far as we know

No need for to me to do that. You made a pretty bold claim and I asked you what was the proof. No trap if you're telling the truth right?

@GottaKeepItClassy - No hate site. There're loads of Meghan fanatics on Twitter/ X and interestingly enough, the Venn diagram of biggest MM hate accounts, Brexit supporters and MAGA are almost a perfect circle... Anyway, I'm not in the habit of spreading blatant lies about people so I'll pass.

***
Back to William and mental health, to be fair to him, anything he said in that interview was going to be criticized but I suppose people are responding to the fact that it seems like a bit of intentional distraction and I think that's true.

Talking about distractions, I wonder if the Waleses will be attending the BAFTAs on Sunday. Put Kate in a sparkly dress, William in a velvet smoking jacket and the loyal subjects will be screaming, crying and throwing up in awe at their resilience and faith in the future of Britain 😂

Any respect I had for any of them has gone.

I agree.

I havent read Lownie. Did the RF know of the apparent extreme depravity or only that AMW associated with Epstein ?

How did Baker and Lownie get their information ? Does anyone know. Because it would be interesting to get a sense of how this kind of information actually finds its way out. Could be useful in relation to future prosecutions. Because quite clearly ' official' channels of communication do not yield the kinds of sensitive and relevant information which is necessary to properly expose serious wrongdoing.

Talking about distractions, I wonder if the Waleses will be attending the BAFTAs on Sunday. Put Kate in a sparkly dress, William in a velvet smoking jacket and the loyal subjects will be screaming, crying and throwing up in awe at their resilience and faith in the future of Britain

@PumpkinPieAlibi I have absolutely no idea if they will be at the BAFTAS, its not something I have given any thought to.
If they do go I expect they will get the usual positive reception,
They remain very popular and I wouldn't be surprised if Charles stepped aside off the back of this current scandal. 🤴 👸