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!

For me the whole situation highlights the dichotomy at the heart of monarchy. They are a family, but they are also an institution. Some relationships between family members are close, some are not, just like any large family, they get on or fall out with each other. Then on top of that you have the institution, like any large organisation with many managers there are tensions and rival agendas with different branches looking for attention simultaneously. Meanwhile the staff are each wanting attention for their manager.

It probably worked better when the late Queen was younger and more in control of it all, or at least the staff were. But then into that you add the fact that the CEO is also a mum with a favourite son and a massive blind spot about his behaviour.

I don't think it is possible to say conclusively who knew what and when. It is also important to remember that power is very much concentrated in the monarch and their staff and the institution is structured so that, until recently when the Queen aged, the Heir and other members didn't have much of a final say if the Queen disagreed.

I'm not saying any of this is good, it needs a good restructure to bring it into the 21st century. But I don't personally think there is evidence to suggest that any one individual knew exactly what was going on and was covering up for Andrew (I do think evidence might emerge and is possibly emerging about the late Queen). The closest evidence we have at the moment is Charles suggesting that Andrew would make a bad trade envoy. Whether other people in the wider establishment knew is also something to be looked at.

Life isn't neat and tidy with everyone being a hero or a villian. Most often people are muddling through, making mistakes and missing things. The important thing for me now is what happens next.

I honestly do not want or deserve a lecture from you.

To repeat for the third time, I said IF they covered anything up.

AMW has been released from custody

If you don’t report at least the establishment concerned then yes you are.

I think if you are a republican you should definitely be trying to use this latest incident to make the most of a push to get rid of the constitutional monarchy - it's the biggest opportunity since the abdication.

However, no matter how much hyperbole is spilled on here about how the monarch can have things hushed up, hidden, jobs threatened etc. In reality they don't have that personal power.

It's not deference which has helped cover up what Andrew was doing whether that's the sexual predator incidents or the leaking of government files, consorting with Chinese spies etc, it's that no one in the know wanted it to come out.

Do we really believe that MI5 and MI6 and The Met's royal protection team didn't know about any of this?

Do we really think Mandelson operated in a vaccum?

Do we really think the foreign office has hidden the data around Andrew's trade envoy years to protect just Andrew?

There will have been multiple prime ministers and other senior politicians across decades who have been briefed by the security services.

It's interesting that Gordon Brown is sending the police files now about flights focusing on the potential sexual trafficking because he was the prime minister who brought Mandelson back into the government and made him business secretary.

That was 2008, the year that Epstein went to prison for soliciting a child for prostitution, a heavily reduced plea deal granted by the man Alexander Acosta who would later be appointed by Trump as Secretary of Labor.

The powerful connections seem to span all governments and all areas of industry.

Andrew wasn't being protected because of the late Queen. Or because we have a constitutional monarchy. He was being protected alongside all the powerful men in several countries who wanted to continue doing what they wanted whenever they wanted to without any consequences.

I'm so angry but feel powerless. It's particularly bad living in the US right now anyway but the more you see of how things work underneath the surface, the more you see that the rest of us have no real power or influence in the way our societies are structured.

Perhaps consider which word to bold in future.

For the millionth and one-th time, the law in the UK was changed in 2003 to make that the case. Andrew and Virginia has sex in London in 2001. The law isn’t retrospective. At the time they had sex Virginia’s status as a trafficked woman was not legally relevant. In 2001, if Andrew had a genuine belief she had consented, even if that belief was objectively unreasonable, no crime was committed.

Your "IF" reminded me of the following story which I've always liked:

"The story goes that Philip II of Macedon once called on the Spartans to surrender, sending them the following message: 'If I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city'. The Spartans, in typical laconic style, sent a reply containing just one word: 'If' "

Oh just stop it will you. I will post what I like within talk guidelines and I don't need lectures from you on how to phrase my posts.

Move on to someone else now.

Yes that was an excellent story 😁

As you wish .

I heard tonight that all of the RF have found approval ratings drop, even W&K, although they are still really high overall. And that 1 year ago 47% of people thought the UK would be worse off without the RF and that this week its 37%.

I read yesterday that not all of the money for Andrew came from the queen, that Charles gave a significant number of millions and the the rest of the family kicked in 2 million between them. So that would seem like they all have some culpability.

a spokesman for Charles has denied that already.

Where did you read this?

The Queen Mother had a big reputation for burying her head in.the sand apparently.. And I get the impression the late Queen very much took her lead from her parents and probably developed the same habit of ignoring things....for self preservation.

Possibly In last week’s news .

Thanks. There is so much unfounded gossip and unlikely claims now. It's getting impossible to work out the truth.

I know it must be a nightmare to work through it all for the police investigators.

People were asking why was Andrew but not Mandelson charged yet, I imagine it's because Mandelson's reach into the murky political influencing work is much more complicated than Andrew's case, and has implicating factors for many rich and powerful people.

The connections are crazy. Mandelson claims one of his best friends is Nat Rothschild who is super rich and connected to both Labour and Conservative politicians and Russian oligarchs and Epstein. Rothchild's former wife had several emails revealed to Epstein where she was offering to find him various young and beautiful rich English girls to be his 'PA'.

Back in 2005 the press tried to connect Rothschild and Mandelson (who was an EU trade commissioner at the time) to dodgy trade dealings on a yacht party with a Russian billionaire but couldn't make it stick. George Osbourne was at the same party. He lost a libel case against the Mail in 2012 though after they called him a 'puppet master' in his dealings with Mandelson.

Thank you, @wordler . It's a tangled web. I've seen emails naming all sorts of people. I've seen photos of people on yachts, at parties etc. are they all equally involved? Will it ever be unpicked?
Someone says, "oh yes, KC paid off VG it cost him x amount". No evidence.
All sorts of wild claims on another thread. It's difficult to work out who has exactly done what.

There are going to be all sorts of new stories circulating on social media. Most seem to be trying to pin things on Charles and William rather than just the late Queen. It's a new emphasis, historically news reports indicated that they were trying to get the Queen to act rather than help her pay things off. The truth will come out eventually.

It will, @MrsLeonFarrell . In the meantime I suspect we'll have many threads with false information and ever wilder claims. You're right about William and KC, though. They're definitely in certain people's sights.

Thank you @wordler

I agree with so much in your post but especially this:

The powerful connections seem to span all governments and all areas of industry.
Andrew wasn't being protected because of the late Queen. Or because we have a constitutional monarchy. He was being protected alongside all the powerful men in several countries who wanted to continue doing what they wanted whenever they wanted to without any consequences.

I have been saying this for months.

Some have taken this as me trying to excuse AMW. I haven't been; I think he should account for anything he has done.
I also think there are many much more powerful men who are nowhere near being held to account.

There's a lot of rewriting history going on.

The connections are crazy @wordler - and that's the ones we know, the ones in public life. There are also the wealthy business men and financiers who fly under the radar.