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!

And? I commented on Lownie so don’t know why you are asking my opinion on letters Charles wrote years ago.

Hear hear to that! 👏👏👏

https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/andrew-former-prince-epstein-aides-87bb09xl6

@Roadtripwithpretzels re Charles reaching out to government departments re Andrew - one of the problems was Mandelson inside the government was advocating for Andrew in the envoy role. I’m sure it stretched beyond him too.

And as I said before there’s no way that our security service didn’t know something about what was going on across all these years so several Prime Ministers both Labour and Tory were being briefed about Epstein, the networks of rich and powerful people like the Rothschilds, their connections to Russian oligarchs etc.

So who are they really protecting by not releasing the trade envoy records?

No I haven't misunderstood your question and I don't need you to sarcastically make it clearer for me. My point remains.

Thought that was defecation 😂😂😂

Mandelsohn may have been an issue occasionally Wordler. but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call it the main problem.

Peter Mandelson held several senior positions within the UK government across two main periods and then was an MP and briefly an Ambassador but he was in and out like a revolving door because of various alleged improprieties as I recall.

So while he was involved in AMW’s appointment I doubt he could be held solely responsible for keeping him in the TE job for a decade. I don’t have time to check the dates right now but will try and do so later.

I agree with you that police and intelligence services knew a lot too and that the TE papers are being held back for a number of reasons! All the more reason why they should be published!

I still would have thought that being one of them, the RF was primarily responsible for keeping tabs on Andrew’s expenditure and behaviour in office though.

I think it’s clear that one of the issues was that no one knows who was supposed to be in charge of oversight of the trade envoy role expenditure or AMW’s demands in the role.

But separately, for me Mandelson’s reach goes way beyond his official Cabinet positions - he seems to have been shored up by his association with the likes of the Rothschilds and their money, and Epstein and his network but was also not operating in a vacuum in the UK - there are definitely some worried former colleagues right now.

Re Mandelson - we've been discussing his role on the other thread. I don't usually cross-post but the information is there so hope no-one minds.

Mandelson was in and out of the cabinet from the general election in 1997.
Minister without Portfolio 1997, then S/S for Trade & Industry in 1998 then out of cabinet Dec 98 - Oct 99 (home loan scandal) then back in.

He was out of cabinet 2001-2004 (accused of using his position to influence a passport application - later exonerated).

He pushed for AMW to be appointed as trade envoy in 2001.

During that time (2001-11) Mandelson was Britain's European Commissioner for Trade (2004-8), Business Secretary (2008-9), Secretary of State for Business/Trade/Industry (2009/10).

Mandelson has always been a clever person, working behind the scenes; he was renowned for it in the days of 'New Labour'. He will know a lot about a lot of people.
He was also known from at least 2023 to be at least as close to Epstein as AMW. https://archive.is/19g6R

Thank you very much for this info! Very interesting!

I’ve no doubt he was a very influential figure and we don’t yet know entirely how the triangle between him, Epstein and AMW functioned, but if Mandy and Andy were so chummy, that must have got back to Palace staff surely?

I take your point that he was a smooth operator though.

Sorry to wang on but I stand by my point too that the freedom from scrutiny and transparency accorded the RF, allows these allegedly corrupt relationships to thrive in the first place.

Yes I can see how the ambivalence over who was in charge - plus an unhealthy dash of deference - allowed certain AMW issues to slip through the cracks.

Agree also that Mandy had fingers in many pies!

Rothschilds, founder of Microsoft, wealthy Italian and Russian businessmen whose companies benefited from his decisions on tariffs as European trade commissioner ...

Interesting snippets from The News Agents. A potential interview with William banned talk of Epstein and yet we are fed a drip drip drip from various sources saying all sorts about William's feelings about his uncle. Yet he won't say out loud what he supposedly thinks.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/184Att9rdU/

Also about how the RF are perceived, and the lack of democracy in how we treat them, from Erskine May to William's generic comments about mental health.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1GFy9BPdwz/

Emily Maitliss made a good point there about Williams ( and actually Kate does the same thing) He talks about things, gets overly praised by the press, all the Royalist say 'How wonderful' and he gets away with it, when actually, what has he said? Hes said 'Its important to talk about mental health' which he has done over and over again. Kate says 'Early childhood is important' and everyone acts as if no one has ever thought of that, despite the reams of research into the subject. The problem with both of those issues is not a lack of awareness but a lack of resource. I would say the older Royals actually you can see the tangible things they have done., but William clearly doesnt want to bother with much of that because its too boring or difficult.

Would you say though that the attention brought to things is beneficial? Eg Harry is in Jordan currently - is he a refugee specialist? What is he doing other than taking part in discussions? Is his name bringing attention to the event? Is this a good thing overall?

I would say the older Royals actually you can see the tangible things they have done., but William clearly doesnt want to bother with much of that because its too boring or difficult.

As always, it depends whether you want to look, or just make easy points.

The Royal Foundation website is there, where you can look at what he's done recently with the National Suicide Prevention Network, or check the yearly reports for other 'tangible things'.

@berthasbloomers
A separate thread re Harry’s trip to Jordan might attract more attention.
The majority of posters on this thread are focused on William’s approach to the scandal engulfing the RF.

I've looked at the Royal Foundation website, thanks @bluegreygreen

I noted either on this thread or elsewhere that it was funded by other people and in the news section William had talked to footballers about mental health and Catherine said ( I think) being in nature was important.

It's no great gotcha moment when you tell people to go there and it will reveal all.

When dealing with a couple intent on presenting themselves as great ambassadors, it's no surprise that they word things in a way that makes them look like whatever it is is their lives' work and consumes a great deal of their time.

Look at W and the 24 homeless homes. Oh what a great man he is. Then look at the thousands of homes for non homeless people. Surely he could have gone for more of the former?

If William were to answer questions on Andrew, the media flood gates would open and he will be hounded relentlessly about nothing else.
William is not his Uncle's keeper. The Police are following Epstein leads. The less said casually and unofficially the better.

We don't want trial by media; we want a strong legal investigation and a court case that can run without mistrial, if charges are laid.

We don't want trial by media
No absolutely not. But if it was not for the media - and in fairness to the Mail on Sunday in particular - very little of this would have been uncovered back in 2011.

Oh I think it has a place on here.

@berthasbloomers
Apart from a couple of posters it's not getting many replies. That's what I mean.

Edited to say: apologies this wasn’t meant to be attached to a quote and I don’t know how to unattach it!

I agree with MidWayThruJanuary´s
point about the press.

We of course want a full and fair trial but I think the way that the RF interact with the press has to be far more transparent in future.

The way it’s done at the moment is archaic and far too deferential.

I know there have been discussions on the RF board before about the efficacy of the Royal Rota system and how that operates, and I think it’s clear it has to go, as they have been far too deferential, and it was all set up so that they only really report propaganda.

This AMW debacle has shone a spotlight on the failure of journalistic rigour!

To try and be balanced about it though, Lownie says that many stories about AMW’s financial wrongdoings appeared once in the papers and then disappeared for good. So many stories have obviously been sat on by the Palace

Eg the sale of AMW’s former home, Sunninghill, for £3 million over the original asking price of £12 million took place in 2007 and I know there were stories about it in the press at the time.

The late Queen was rarely, if ever interviewed. Prince William in this day and age is expected to be far more transparent and “available”.

His radio interview on mh was pre-recorded so AMW hadn’t been arrested at that point but he had had titles removed. Not that it matters because the BBC would never have asked him about it!

It’s this combination of deference from the press and deference from MPs that has allowed alleged deviancy and financial corruption to thrive for years at the heart of one of the UK’s foremost institutions intended to project stability, probity and high standards!

There has to be radical change and yet still tame journalists are writing stories aimed to soften the blow of this latest debacle … .

Boxinghare and others have made the same points about the press too.