AMW continuing his effort to end the monarchy part 4

[simpsonthecat]

New thread. This is not ending

Thanks for posting.

I think Lownie's right.

We've already seen the lengths they went to to keep him out of a civil court let alone a criminal one.

And to add to this - it may well be that the press had their hands tied legally.

Norman Baker's book mentions apparently well known stories about W which would be of public interest but which can't be printed due to legalities.

I agree. If the Epstein files had not gone nuclear, he would still be ensconsed in the bosom of his family I'm sure.
Look at the pathetic criss crossing up and down the country with 3 Range rovers in tow whilst he was trying to avoid being served papers by US justice department. It was laughable. There were multiple attempts to even leave papers but it got to the point that Security would not allow anyone on the grounds of royal residences to serve these papers. In the end the papers were given to a Met Officer who passed them on.
Why didn't Mummy dearest say to him "just accept the bloody papers"!

Maybe I am naive but I do think there will be legal consequences.
KC and W know that the public are watching and people are not as deferential as they used to be with the Late Queen .

As I've said so often, Cathy, there's never been the least chance of Andrew being brought to court ... given the mess he made of the Newsnight interview an appearance in front of a barrister's unthinkable ... but with Lownie's latest book having just hit the shelves I expect the police felt they had to say something to make it look as if it's really being pursued

KC and W know that the public are watching and people are not as deferential as they used to be with the Late Queen

Edited to add this is probably true, @Mylovelygreendress, but it's really quite simple in that all they have to do is get a tame doctor to sign Andrew off as "unfit to stand trial"

That’s while Mummy was alive.
I also wonder why Sarah Ferguson was kept on side so to speak. They still lived under the same roof. Together or separately I wonder? Big enough to be separate I suppose.

Norman Baker's book mentions apparently well known stories about W which would be of public interest but which can't be printed due to legalities.

Well, that's an easy and convenient smear to make about anyone in public life.

Thanks for that article. This sums it up
There is a deep suspicion that the royal family has known and been containing this story for years.
Of course they have! The excuses used to circumvent the FOI requests are pathetic. I feel they have shot themselves in the foot with this massive cover up because I think a lot of the population have got to the point of barely believing anything they say now. I certainly don't!

His entitlement in that article is beyond comprehension. Why was he not forced to stay at Embassies instead of millions spent on luxury hotel. Are we so in deference to the royal family that they can literally do anything they want without scrutiny?

Why is that a smear? He actually hasn't said what the well known stories are, surely.

I bet there is far far more of what Andrew got up to that can't be printed because of legal threats.
Shame.

Well, that's an easy and convenient smear to make about anyone in public life.

Very possibly although his book is very well researched and meticulously put together. I'd be surprised if he deliberately included something without merit.

That’s while Mummy was alive.

There are reports of a family whip round to make up the millions paid to settle with Virginia Giuffre which suggests living relatives also donated to the pot.

We really do need to know what they all knew, when and who did what.

We really do need to know what they all knew, when and who did what

I don't disagree, @CathyorClaire, but the trouble is that the family need us not to know, and they're the ones able to manipulate our supine parliament

We "little people" can carry on as much as we like, but despite the careful PR never underestimate their contempt for those whose interests threaten their positions, or the lengths they'll go to in order to hang onto them

Thanks for your recommendation too bluegreygreen

I know exactly what you mean about the new police announcement. It’s a bit ambiguous but possibly deliberately so? I think they want to let people know that investigations are ongoing and to encourage witnesses to come forward? A way of managing public and press interest and pressure? Or maybe there is something new that they know and can’t yet talk about?

Ah yes I had forgotten about that possibility and of course the Palace PR machine have already laid the ground for an “unfit to stand trial” loophole by leaking the stories about Edward and Anne being concerned about their brother and other concerns about removing guns from his former home etc. They could be partly true stories of course but others have said he has very little understanding of the gravity of potential charges and is still wholly unrepentant and bombastic. Hard to know where the truth lies as ever.

I doubt Andrew will be cross examined in court.

Mainly because the rest of the Windsor mob will not want to risk what he’ll give away about them all.

Remember Paul Burrell - just about to take the stand - then suddenly lizzie ‘remembers’ and Burrell is free to go.

Why is that a smear? He actually hasn't said what the well known stories are

My point is that anyone can refer to 'well known stories which would be of public interest but which can't be printed due to legalities' about any other person.

It's an easy smear because it can't be challenged. You haven't actually said anything if true, and if untrue can't be asked to prove a negative.

I’m very pleased that Sir Vince Cable will be giving a statement. And I hope he drops that massive wanker David Cameron right in it about how hard it was for him (Vince Cable) to get rid of Andrew as trade envoy.

unrelated and slightly off topic…but unfortunately I can’t help but think that Vince cable sounds like the name of an adult entertainer! 🤷‍♀️

Remember Paul Burrell - just about to take the stand - then suddenly lizzie ‘remembers’ and Burrell is free to go

Only too well, @Ukisgaslit

Here we were, with a story which had been all over the papers for weeks and a monarch who we were told enjoyed a selection each morning and besides that had access to the best information ... and still we were expected to believe the story spun and then conveniently forget all about it?

Expected to believe the story spun is a neat summary of the history of monarchy

I find this really interesting if true, that QE2 and all her Queen’s Grey Men couldn’t throw £12 million together in a few weeks or possibly months after they knew they were going to settle civilly.

So was the whip-round about establishing a collective guilt among the inner royal family? Why?

Intriguing.

Re the rumours swirling around the Windsors we have no idea what is true and what isn’t .

But from the family that released that statement calling VG a liar , that eventually paid off VG and tried to rehabilitate Andrew’s image ( William being photographed several times with Andrew , Kate laughing it up in the back ‘united family’ headlines etc) and are still protecting Andrew ( toe dipping stories about his mental health ) - I’ll take all their PR with a ‘Siberian mine of salt’ as per Norman Baker .

If the story about the whip-round was true at all then I'd plump for your second paragraph, MyAutumnCrow

First because spreading things maake it easier for any individual to avoid responsibility, and second because if it's almost impossible to get just one in the frame, can you imagine the process if it involved several?

What was at the back of the Paul Burrell story ?
Why did the Queen suddenly remember ?
What might have come out ?

Was it not stuff about Diana that the RF were concerned would smear her reputation and upset W and H?