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!

Apparently he’s thinking of writing a book about h and m too .

You have completely misunderstood my point - whether deliberately or not I don’t know.
I’ll try to be clearer for you :

1. We can reasonably assume William has known about the horrors in the files re Andrew and Epstein for much longer than the rest of us. When did William learn that one of the co founders of Earthshot was also sending torture videos to Epstein ? I feel sick even writing that . William has said nothing ( the weak word salad issued at the last minute by a spokesperson does not qualify) and done nothing. Oh except hire a crisis PR expert
2. Charles doing ribbon cutting etc as he did was not my main objection if you re read my post. What else was he doing and when was my question. So we have an unelected unaccountable head of state and when they are no longer able for the job a relative takes over in secret ? That was my question,

There are many posts explaining this over many threads MrsLeonFarrell but anything they do now is far too little, too late.

I welcome books from Lownie about any of the Royals. I’m presuming he’ll works in the same way in that he’ll be able to back up anything he writes and it will all go through lawyers.

Believe it or not, I hope there are good things to report on, it’s just hard to imagine there is.

No one is deifying Lownie.

There is no need.

He simply writes about what he finds in his research.

I am sure that Prince Philip had very good points and very bad points and Lownie will no doubt write about both.

@BoxingHare

My wondering something about the queen well over three years ago is hardly important in anyone's world, I'd hope.

Of course it isn't, any more than anyone of our anonymous opinions on here are. Although personally I set more store by some posters' opinions than others as I'm sure we all do.
However, this is a message board where people are free to debate so, just because your opinion isn't that "important in anyone's world", you can't expect it not to be challenged.
Especially if you initially seem to back it up with something you present as an actual occurrence.
Although I accept now that you were more hoping someone might remember the occasion, too, so I had more info to go and find a clip of it.
That didn't quite come across initially.

Yes I heard that as well, be interesting to see how that goes down on here with some posters.

Exactly. It would be very obvious if he didn’t write about the very bad parts of Philip just because he is a great admirer of him. We all know bad things already so they can hardly be ignored if he wants credibility, which I’m sure he does.

I really can’t imagine any book on the Royals that is produced in the same way Entitled was will show any Royal in a good light, so I think republicans will welcome anything he has to offer.

Didn’t Andrew Lownie claim Harry had punched Andrew and Harry released a statement saying he hadn’t and threatened legal action? So who is telling the truth?

A lot of the posts, and I haven't read everything there are so many threads now, base what they are saying on recent assumptions eg William knew what was in the Epstein files, that are not based in fact and, as I say, are recent ideas. There are lots of things being thrown around based on whether people support the monarchy or not rather than looking at what is being said, and not being said. Of course it's all more complicated now there is a potential court case.

If we accept that the institution is a mix of family and large business, I think a lot of confusion goes away. Think about a largish organisation with different offices and incompetent HR/CEO. What happens in one office isn't necessarily known about in the other and if those in charge aren't acting a local manager has limited power.

The late Queen and her advisers pushed to pay off Virginua Guiffre because they didn't want the court case interfering with the Platinum Jubilee, which seems staggering now. The current King wants the law to take its course and it's making clear he won't interfere. That is a massive difference in the way Andrew is being handled. I don't think we yet know to what extent pressure was put on the family by the late Queen to stay in line and not interfere.

It's all a mess and we need a new structure in which a family member can't hide behind their mum when they behave appallingly. But judging William and Charles by the old structure, in which that was clearly possible, isn't really fair.

Unless it has been removed from the paperback, I'm guessing Lownie. Harry has form for punching people after all and didn't actually sue.

Now you have opened up the thread to wider matters, can any of you explain please

Jeffgoldblum
BigWillyLittleTodger
berthasbloomers
MrsLeonFarrell
and others …

the point made by UKisgaslit and me and others, as to why King Charles when he was Prince of Wales was so involved in state matters that he wrote hundreds of so-called “spidery letters” about farming and architecture and other issues to ministers, that it raised some questions about crossing constitutional boundaries…

… and yet he was seemingly unable to flag up, ask for advice, or intervene to prevent AMW’s nefarious exploits?

He did flag up the unwisdom of appointing Andrew as a trade envoy. No one listened. It will be interesting to see, if files are unsealed, whether he tried to raise other financial issues and was equally unsuccessful. I'm not saying he did, I think it's more likely the late Queen was protecting Andrew in the financial stuff at least.

Anyone can write to the government about anything. Where I think the mistake came in was the government giving more weight than was appropriate under the "constitution" (in quotes because it's mainly precedent) to Charles' memos. If some of them crossed the line into being political (and honestly even though I read all The Guardian stuff at the time I can't remember the detail) then a politician should have told him to stop and stay in his lane. (A side bar many of the things people want William to say about homelessness would also stray into the political which may be why he doesn't say them).

The main issue for me is once again politicians and the civil service behaving as if the royals are part of an absolute monarchy when they aren't. The solution to Charles was to tell him he was out of his lane and to stop. We need this deference to end and for each part of the establishment and the government to take responsibility for the probity and health of the other.

“Deification”? Or accepting that he wrote a well researched, heavily lawyered book with a ton of references. I’m looking forward to his Philip book-st one stage in my life I heard a lot of gossip about him and I’d love to know what of it was true.

The use of that word is quite ironic on this board, with so many posters who have their heads up the many arseholes in the RF. 😅

The main issue for me is once again politicians and the civil service behaving as if the royals are part of an absolute monarchy when they aren't. The solution to Charles was to tell him he was out of his lane and to stop. We need this deference to end and for each part of the establishment and the government to take responsibility for the probity and health of the other.

This would be a good start.

Government and parliament to lay out (without deference) what a constitutional monarchy is going to be moving forward, and the monarchy streamlining and modernising.

I think we totally agree on the points in your third and fourth paras which is always refreshing on these pages! 😀

I am a Republican but I have been trying to keep this thread fair and polite - and believe it or not fair to William - so thank you for your measured and detailed reply MrsLeonFarrell which is very welcome.

I think where we differ is this paragraph:

If we accept that the institution is a mix of family and large business, I think a lot of confusion goes away. Think about a largish organisation with different offices and incompetent HR/CEO. What happens in one office isn't necessarily known about in the other and if those in charge aren't acting a local manager has limited power.

^^ I take your point about the structure, but obviously I don’t really accept that the institution should be a mix of family and business.

I understand that this is precisely what attracts some people to the monarchy though! But I see the familial aspects as both a distraction from what is important to the UK and a barrier to efficiency and transparency.

I think this AMW scandal is a strong example of that.

Fwiw, I favour a very boring elected head of state, with a very clear remit, and clear funding, and a clear role for their spouse or partner, thus eliminating the constant push and pull of divided loyalties between duty and family.

And it would also eliminate the rivalry between the individuals and their staff in separate offices briefing against one another.

And most importantly it would eliminate the ambivalence between public and private funds which imho doesn’t allow for sufficient scrutiny.

You have quoted the wrong poster.

Do quote a post of mine that you feel has opened up the thread to wider issues!
I will happily clarify anything I have personally posted but certainly will not answer the questions of others!

I think those are all very fair points MrsLeonFarrell

Lownie reports that Charles was indeed the only one to speak up against AMW’s appointment as Trade Envoy as he said something to the effect that he would use the role to chase women and make deals on the side! Not the exact words but he was pretty accurate in his assessment!

I agree it will be interesting if records can be found proving that Charles also wrote some spidery letters about Andrew to the Foreign Office or Department of Trade … .

Obviously I don’t think any member of the RF should be interfering in political matters … but I was questioning the disparity in Charles’s keen interest in his pet projects and apparent lack of interest in stopping AMW but maybe only one set of letters was leaked?

Very much agree with you and BoxingHare
about the balance of power and the end of political deference.

And referring back to your previous post MrsLeonFarrell I forgot to say that I think an enquiry in to how much pressure the late Queen did put on Charles and William to suppress their objections to AMW would be very welcome.

I agree that mixing family and business isn't working. We need reform that creates a very clear structure of duties and conduct, makes clear the tangled finances and has an external system in place for dealing with anyone who steps out of line of the code of conduct.

I remain a constitutional monarchist, until I see a clear and comprehensive model for a republic. (I can actually see this emerging when William is King and him working with the government to bring everything to an end). This doesn't mean I'm blindly supporting everything individuals do though. I am cutting William and Charles some slack because, in the absence of the late Queen moving to discipline Andrew, the old system and the deference surrounding her made it quite hard to step in I think. Look at what happened when we were told he wouldn't attend a service as an official member of the family and he walked her right into the front row. Unfortunately they couldn't really tackle him to the ground, although that would have been awesome. I find it interesting in all this that Lownie keeps saying he wants reform not an end to monarchy.

No, I meant to address you and BigWillyLittleTodger who commented on Lownie.

The only comment I made was that I heard he was writing a book about h and m next , what more clarification would you like?

Agree that a rugby tackle to AMW’s ankles in the aisles of Westminster Abbey or wherever would have been a fine sight MrsLeonFarrell!

I wonder if Mike Tindall would have obliged?

😆😆

I don’t think rapid change would be best for the UK after the last turbulent years so I would also welcome some sort of symposium where William worked with appropriate government figures to carefully bring everything to an end and replace what we have now with an elected President, while carefully preserving as much of our tradition, history and heritage as possible.

But I suppose, like a stately home, no one wants to see it fall apart on their watch?

But maybe W would be genuinely relieved for his dc if things changed?

Yes, Lownie is very much a monarchist believe it or not! But as Trustee of the Campaign for Freedom of Information and a historian who has observed the concealment, redaction, obfuscation and destruction of historic documents in the UK over decades, he very much favours an open, transparent and accountable model of monarchy that acts with probity and trustworthiness, not the current Ruritania!

I can see it starting and ending with a William. Modern thoughts on psychology show the harm of the hereditary system, even for ordinary nepo babies.

What Andrew has revealed, is the same as Trump has shown, and Boris come to that. Systems whose checks and balances on people having morals and a sense of duty and responsibility are open to abuse by individuals with none of those things.