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!

Protecting the brand is clearly far more important than using his power and influence to publicly support victims.

The Crown Estate belongs to the Monarch, not the tax payer. The monarch gives the profits derived from the Crown Estate to the state in return for the sovereign grant. If you abolish the sovereign grant, the crown estate just reverts in totality to the monarch (this is why I’ve never really understood the line of argument that the tax payer funds the monarchy - that would only happen if the crown estate profits fell below the level of the sovereign grant, which as far as I am aware has never happened).

Today's arrest hasn't just happened out of the blue. They have known it was coming for a long time hence the new home, the stripping of titles and all the other actions, to steal a phrase, theyve been getting their ducks in a row.
Pathetic deflecting for a long time from some on here when some posters have raised the issue of Andrew. Dismissive and oh here we go again brigade, we all condemn Andrew so let's get back to the bitching about others. The behaviour of that sleazy, rotten piece of sh*t and his enablers is disgusting and those who tried to minimise it, shame on you all.
Charles has many questions to answer about his close relationships with other abusers. His defence of Peter Bell is not defensible as I have witnessed some on here try to do previously. A 44 year old man in his position writing a letter of support to a man who had just received a police caution for abusing young boys. RIP Neil Todd.

No it doesn't. It belongs to The Crown as Head of State. If we didn't have a Monarchy it would all revert to the State. That's why we have to pay for the renovations to Buckingham Palace. Its a State asset that we let the reigning Head of State have for the duration of their reign, as with the whole of the Crown Estate. We give the King a percentage of the profits from the Crown Estate to do Royal work on behalf of the State.

People are arrested all the time if they want to interview him as a suspect under caution.

Or perhaps he had specifically been told to leave it alone by the king, who will handle it himself.

I can imagine Charles doing that. Andrew is his responsibility now, not William's.

Yes, I think this is more likely.

Absolutely

Charles will have known about most of this as of last autumn, I have read and heard this to be the case.
They then had to work out how they would handle it.

And on very many threads on here I agree about posters being ridiculed for bringing up Andrew. And attacked and rounded on
It was far more important to count how many strawberries were in a pot of Meghan's jam.
Very many minimised Andrew's behaviour repeatedly usually with 'no one likes him, what's the point in talking about him'.

Well, we were right weren't we?

@Roadtripwithpretzels are you personally responsible for anything negative that a member of your family does?

Other famous people like sports stars, actors etc do this in their spare time. They don't do it as a full time job and expect to be paid for it by the State, and probably have more of an effect. They also pay tax on their earnings to help pay for things like mental health support, drug treatment facilities for the homeless etc etc etc. All things that cost money that the Royals are quite happy to encourage other people to pay for so they don't have to.

I find it interesting Harry and Meghan haven't spoke out about Andrew.

Of course people are not responsible for the direct actions of a family member BUT they are responsible for enabling and covering up.
RIP Virginia, RIP Neil and many more.

Politicians claim to know nothing of spouses activities (sturgeon) so not sure why William is expected to opine on an uncle.

No.

The Windsors do not own it
It is held ‘in right of the crown’ ie while we have ( endure / tolerate) a monarchy the concept of the crown owns it. Not the person.
No monarchy - it all reverts to the state.

I have no idea what my sibling or uncle might have got up to. William isn't responsible for his uncle's actions.

Husband / wife cannot testify against each other - your example is not relevant

Andrew hasn’t been arrested for anything to do with sexually abusing women. He has been arrested for potential misconduct in public office, ie passing confidential information to Epstein etc when he was trade ambassador

Because the Royal Household has over 1000 staff. Many of them are employed to keep an eye on things going on and to report and protect the family from anything that may cause issues for them. They are positively eagle eyed when it comes to threatening ex staff members, diplomats and journalists if there is a whiff of a story about any of the RF but apparently none of them knew anything about a global scandal that had been going on for over 20 years and the multiple court cases involved, or were completely incapable of informing 3 people ( the adult Monarch and 2 heirs) that this was going on. None of them knew anything despite their enormous operation? Its not the same as Nancy down the road not knowing her cousin was a nonce.

We all knew what his uncle had been accused of for years just like we all know about some friendships his father had.
William's grandmother bankrolled a huge payoff to Virginia as part of it all.
Where was he, in the desert with an ostrich brood?
Stop enabling and deflecting. #WilliamKnew

RIP Virginia, RIP Neil.

No but my family does not form the basis of an institution that represents Britain and is in part publically funded by the British taxpayer.

The RF can’t have it both ways and be private, separate individuals when things go wrong or they are trying to cover up a scandal and part of the monarchy when there is a wedding or some form of public celebration! Not when they are funded by the public purse.

So our upstanding politicians would control the assets instead?

Of course he’s not responsible for Andrew’s actions. But he knew about them, and presumably had an opinion. And it’s not like an ordinary family-William is the deputy CEO of BRF Ltd. And Andrew is a director.

But Charles had to confirm his willingness to surrender control of the Crown Estate’s revenues in exchange for the sovereign grant. What if he’d refused? (Aside from the revolution which would have swiftly followed!).

That's not the point. Are you responsible or even know? No you don't.

How do you know?