AMW continuing his effort to end the monarchy part 4

[simpsonthecat]

New thread. This is not ending

The Lord Chamberlain is the most senior person outside of the Monarch and heir. As I said previously, the Palace did what it always does...try to bury anything negative. They do have form for this with their 'never explain' mantra they live by.

@Verityandsquab654 nailed it in her 00.29 post
The Lord Chamberlain was probably just hoping it all goes away but as in life stuff comes back to bite you on the arse!

I can quite see the LC burying it under a pile if it was one or two hoping it would go away. That many? How can you explain that. I don’t know.

Yes, and this huge archive trove of emails must have come with a covering note saying what it was, who it was from, why it was being sent etc.

Possibly not relevant to this, but was having a discussion with my mum, yesterday about Nicola Sturgeon and her husband.

My mum asked me if I’d realise if it was my dh and he’d come home, with a whole load of Rolexes and I said probably not, as I’m so unobservant. Cars, I said only if different colours, even if different models, same with campervans etc.

However it’s also not my job to realise. It is the LC’s job to realise and to know, so why didn’t he?

Sorry but it is simply not possible to argue with any credibility that the head of the royal household, the Lord Chamberlain, kept that volume of documents concerning such serious, potentially criminal matters, away from the monarch and heir (s) and their closest advisors

Of course it's not credible, @Verityandsquab654, which is why the "Can't comment about an ongoing investigation" is a handy placeholder for now

They'll doubtless think of something else in time, but investigations can be made to extend for years and they're probably hoping people will have mostly forgotten about it in the meantime - especially since, with this lot, another scandal may well have taken its place by then

Thanks for the article.

It's entirely credible as is the recent story circulating about his behaviour with a female member of aircrew. Looks like a long standing pattern is being established and it's yet another tentacle to his entitlement.

What a nauseating oaf this man is.

And it all comes back to one question- how was he allowed to get away with it for decades??

I agree and think we're also being softened up for a similar transition currently.

Reports now coming thick and fast about W throwing his weight around on MW and the Sussex duo along with what boils down to rather nebulous puff about his 'plans for the monarchy'.

This is the question that needs to be asked of Parliament and of Palace officials over and over again. The Late Queen and by virtue of her untrammelled and unquestioned power, her entire family clearly felt they were entitled to do what they liked. And why not, when every time they were pushing against an open door. Successive governments have behaved as if we have an Absolute Monarchy. We don't. Parliaments entire existence is based on the need and duty to hold the Monarchy to account yet they have failed to do so.

It sounds like they have been briefing against each other again, after the ' William contacted AMW as he was worried about his mental health' and the toing and froing about who was more determined to cut him off.

Realistically, the most likely thing for them to have done is to take legal advice. If they did so, that record will be in the files along with the emails.

It was reported in February that the King had ordered that police were to access all the palace files relating to AMW, so presumably they will already have these emails.

I agree, bluegreygreen, but if so it'll rather stand in the way of the usual claim that they "didn't know"

Unless I suppose they try to insist none of the advisers told them, which would be no more credible than the Queen's "last minute recollection"

Successive governments have behaved as if we have an Absolute Monarchy. We don't. Parliaments entire existence is based on the need and duty to hold the Monarchy to account yet they have failed to do so

Agree with this too, @Desperatelyseekinglazysusan, but with the situation pretty well stitched up in all their favours it's won't be easy to alter.
And that's if enough cared about it beyond an occasional "tut tut", but sadly the reality is that many don't

I think the biggest conversation that William will have to have with George isn't as simple as, 'One day, son, you'll be King. You'll run the monarchy. Rule wisely.'

It's going to more like,

'Son, there are three types of institutions in this world that affect the monarchy. One, those that are up our arses, like the government. Two, those with whom we have to play nice, with a bit of give and take involved, like the press. And three, those whose arses we are up, and those institutions are owned by billionaires.

'Now here's the important bit. We use One to get the maximum benefits out of Three. Got that? And we use Two to cover that up.'

They have been using 1 and 2 to cover up their behaviour with 3 by the looks of it. I can't believe no one in the press knew what AMW was up to. They were only too willing to cover it up in exchange for press exclusives, increased access to children and gongs.

That's not the point of my comment to the other poster. It was about what Simpson said which was a supposition. No one knows at this stage.

Don't worry about it, posters on here understand what I have been saying.

FYI we do know that 30,000 emails passed to the Lord Chamberlain were not brought to the public's attention in 2020
The Palace has form for cover-ups so if I want to use supposition, I will.
@Verityandsquab654 is totally correct.

I
want to know what the government who is elected knew? And if they knew anything damaging why they didn’t act. As I said I doubt previously AMW &PM acted in a vacuum. Time for our elected representatives to start to earn their dosh.

simpsonthecat · Yesterday 14:41

corblimeygvnr · Yesterday 13:53
That article states that there is no knowledge as to what happened to the emails. They could have been passed on to the Queen, the Police or could have been buried in a time capsule.
Show quote history

They were passed to the most senior member of the Royal Household, the Lord Chamberlain. And nothing happened.
Unless you know different?
-

Saying definitively 'nothing happened' when referring to facts related in an article is misleading.
No-one knows what happened to the emails after the Lord Chamberlain received them.

We know there was an archive of 30,000 emails, taken from Jonathan Rowlands' account, which was the subject of a legal dispute.
The emails date up to 2013, and a copy of the archive was sent to the Lord Chamberlain in 2020.

I've just reread the article to try to clarify something, and it's written very carefully.
What it does not say is that the archive of emails was sent to the Lord Chamberlain from the court.
It says that the court documents refer to the copy of the archive being sent to him.
Later on in the article it refers to a business rival of Jonathan Rowlands, Kevin Stanford, obtaining the emails from the person who originally took them. He then sent them to different places.
Court documents say that Stanford offered the archive of emails to the authorities in Monaco and Luxembourg, and shared them with a number of people, including the Lord Chamberlain...
Stanford also shared some of the emails with a journalist, the judgment says.

I wonder if the email archive, sent to the Lord Chamberlain from a random businessman who had no right to have it, was simply forwarded to the (then) Duke of York's office to sort out? Perhaps with some advice that he should ask the lawyers to look at it?

Smoke and mirrors as normal then!

And now 'no comment' because of an ongoing investigation. Will we ever find out, this could drag on for years

So agree with this..
York Central MP Rachael Maskell called for a public inquiry, telling the BBC's Today programme that "the system built around the Royal Household has to be reviewed".
She said: "The web grows ever darker and that is why we have got to address the issue of unaccountable power and also the abuse of power in high office."
Maskell said she believes a joint committee, made up of members of the House of Lords and House of Commons, should be set up to hold the Royal Household to account.

Will that ever happen I wonder?

There's an idea.

Maybe we should call it 'parliament'? With particularly responsible members being called 'government'?

We might even ensure they have powers, written down centuries ago, to hold the monarch to account?

Oh here we go. It's parliament's fault the monarchy are corrupt.

How's about your beloved monarchy actually live honest, decent lives and don't take advantage all the time?

Maybe in your world you're used to taking what you can until someone stops you, and blaming others for not doing so, and have a similar mindset to the Windsors, but I think a lot of people (I'd hope a majority but who knows) just don't have the notion to take advantage in the first place.

Its not Parliaments fault that the Monarchy are corrupt, but they are who they are. They are from a long, long line of people who are used to 'taking what they want until someone stops them'. They are born with adults running around after them, bowing and curtseying to them, providing them with everything they want on a silver platter, their 'subjects standing around to cheer and scream at them, throw gifts at them, tell them how special and amazing they are etc. They may do a bit of cosplaying 'poor people' by doing their own cooking now and again but essentially they are brought up with the idea that they are extra special beings. Parliament and the press, in a democracy are supposed to be making sure they don't go too far. They haven't done that.

This still doesn't answer the central and increasingly pressing question of who knew what and when.

I can't believe no one in the press knew what AMW was up to. They were only too willing to cover it up in exchange for press exclusives, increased access to children and gongs.

I don't doubt the press knew what MW was up to but I'm not convinced they covered it up in exchange for baubles.

Norman Baker references 'highly newsworthy' stories concerning W which apparently can't be aired due to legalities. We know the royals have access to the best legal advice and don't hesitate to use it.

I'd be more surprised to find the media's hands hadn't been tied somehow.

No they are not my beloved monarchy, as I’m not a bloody royalist. Just because I’m not a republican, does not mean I’m a monarchist. And yes I would like our parliamentary monarchy, to act as a check and balances system and make sure, that the powers at be are not corrupt or compromised. I don’t think that too much to ask actually.

I’ll reiterate that I don’t believe AMW & PM acted in a vacuum so I reckon there are maybe other politicos currently quaking.