AMW continuing his effort to end the monarchy part 4

[simpsonthecat]

New thread. This is not ending

Yes, the Queen was apparently playing some kind of game of bluff, either under advice or on her own initiative.

When Burrell didn’t plead guilty (which would conveniently have averted a trial during which either Burrell or anyone else could say any old claptrap in the witness box while enjoying protection from defamation action), the Queen had to switch to Plan B which was to ‘remember’ giving Burrell implied permission to be in possession of Diana’s possessions.

It also saved an awkward legal argument about the Queen being called as a necessary witness by the defendant.

It was quite the farce.

Who knows what the messy truth really was?

ETA: as far as I remember!!

Paul Burrell is an awful man who has been profiting off of Diana’s memory for years ! I have no doubt he is in possession of things he shouldn’t have.

They may feel that they need to do what they can to protect Andrew because he knows a good many secrets. He may even be implying to his family that he’d spill the beans about x, y and z on the witness stand. Ferguson might write an explosive memoir. It’s in the RF’s interests to make this go away. But if zero charges are brought it’ll harm the RF in other ways. It’s a conundrum for Charles and William.

He actually took hundreds and hundreds of her possessions. I agree he's dreadful

No idea how true it is but I am reading today that Sarah has agreed a book deal with an American publisher for many millions

A grifter, indeed.

I think there are alleged to be tape recording(s) made by Diana?

I think a Fergie book would have the RF in flitters !!

Thanks for the podcast recommendation @bluegreygreen

He is indeed awful, jeff, and I especially agree he'll have hung onto stuff which wasn't his to keep - Diana's missing tapes probably among them, which would explain his smirk every time he's wheeled out to talk about the family on some programme

I admit though that, after all they try to cover up, part of me enjoys seeing them having to twist and lie because for once they've found someone they can't control; I just wish it wasn't him

She’s just another proven liar though.

He actually took hundreds and hundreds of her possessions. I agree he's dreadful

I think there's still some mystery over a locked box which had contained explosive tapes recorded by Diana alleging a valet was raped by a senior aide to Charles but which was returned empty to her family after the trial.

Burrell is an appalling creature but there's no doubt he knows stuff.

I suspect the same applies to MW and it's why they haven't and won't cut him adrift completely while making every effort to convince us he's a pariah.

She's apparently been touting one to US publishers who have all turned her down as none want to be seen to enable her to cash in after the Epstein debacle.

I do think she'll find a publisher eventually though. Maybe a smaller one with fewer principles and a beady eye on the main chance who'll pay her commission on sales rather than a hefty upfront fee.

AMW has even made it to the Guardian re the alleged Ascot 2002 sexual assault. (Lifted from the Sunday Times.)

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor faces police investigation into ‘alleged inappropriate behaviour at Royal Ascot’
**
Incident said to have happened at racing event in 2002, year of queen’s Golden Jubilee, according to Sunday Times

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/24/andrew-mountbatten-windsor-faces-police-investigation-into-alleged-inappropriate-behaviour-at-royal-ascot-says-report

Hard to know how she could write a book where she doesn’t mention all the terrible grifting she herself took part in - and if she did leave all that out she’d be slaughtered on the promotional book tours.

A question.

If further victims of AMW come forward.

And sue for damage, and win.

Leaving aside the legal mechanics by which it comes to pass that AMW is ordered to pay a woman, say, £10m.

If AMW hasn't got the money, and has no assetts.

Should the RF pony up the money, and then be accused of supporting AMW?

Or should the RF refuse to chip in, and be accused of being e.g. uncaring?

In the UK the awards at the end of a civil trial would be much much smaller - think double digit thousands - no where near millions. So Andrew would be able to pay that probably with what he has.

If someone managed to sue in the US it could be more.

I think the royal family / ‘the palace’ might look into setting up some sort of compensation fund, and then pass it over to a respected charity to administer? It seems to be one of the better types of established arms-length model.

I think, if he really was Diana's 'rock' she must have been exceedingly lonely in that family. He is such a disgusting fantasist/creep he probably took full advantage of it too.

I don’t know as much about Paul Burrell as a person as the rest of you do but I do know that he refused to plead guilty . That he was about to take the stand and say his piece freely and unfettered and at that moment Elizabeth suddenly remembered that yes she had given him permission . This after weeks of it being all over the news . I imagine people then as now could draw their own conclusions .

The trial was immediately stopped.

Diana had interviewed George Smith ( who claimed that he had been raped by a senior aide , he also made claims about Charles ) and kept the tape in a locked box .

When Burrell was charged with theft , the police searched his house for the box and the tape but didn’t find it.

He looks like the double of a young Porchy here.

Sorry I see Cathyor Claire has already mentioned this .

Yes, I think in fact she was really lonely; I remember reading the accounts of a journalist, or it may have been a charity worker, who met her at Kensington Palace on several occasions and their overriding impression was of her living alone in this vast apartment and hearing her footsteps along the hall, and there literally being no other noise and of how isolated she appeared to be.

Going off on a bit of a tangent, according to early years development, what children require - put very simply - is the ability to explore the world and then return to a safe, loving home. And so many aristocratic children, especially of Diana’s era, were essentially raised by a succession of nannies, sent to boarding school, as she was aged nine, or even younger, and in the holidays shuttled between divorced parents and were constantly off on skiing trips or holidaying. They essentially live out of a suitcase. They know many people but don’t form strong primary attachments and this leaves them vulnerable to anyone who shows them loyalty or pretends to do so. Hence the reliance on butlers, bodyguards, kooky gurus, or therapists for emotional support.

Diana had interviewed George Smith ( who claimed that he had been raped by a senior aide , he also made claims about Charles ) and kept the tape in a locked box

Please correct me if I'm wrong, @Ukisgaslit, but I didn't think Charles was said to have been named directly in the tapes?

IIRC George Smith claimed he'd seen the staff member who allegedly raped him engaged in a sexual act with a senior member of the RF, and that Charles only became the focus after Michael Peat's disastrous intervention:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/nov/07/privacy.themonarchy

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Maybe you are right . We haven’t heard the tapes - I thought Charles was mentioned , I don’t know in what context . Diana recorded many tapes describing her own experiences and views maybe that was the link with Charles ?

I read Charles had a statement issued refuting claims - was that in response to a different tape ?

No doubt future generations will have access to it all , and the Windsors long gone .