I suppose we have to be careful how we phrase these things but when and if, hypothetically speaking, 30,000 e-mails came in to the possession of the Lord Chamberlain at the time, a volume of documents that presumably would have been difficult to ignore, presumably he and his team, or whoever allegedly was responsible for assessing them, would have been circa 85% certain that they would never see the light of day, given that the Epstein trial is the only reason they were published. It would have seemed like a safe bet anyway?
If AMW’s behaviours were well known within palace walls then they may not have even been particularly surprised by them?
So their collective main criteria for assessment back then would presumably have been, will this damage the monarchy or not if the public get to hear about this?
When imho, the criteria should have been, will the best interests of the public, who the monarchy serves, be served best by keeping this all hidden? What are the potential consequences of doing so? Are we morally and legally obliged to report?
And who assesses whether or not the officials working for the palace were put under pressure, or “persuaded” or not, to keep them allegedly hidden and, if so, to what possible degree?
Without the case going to court we will probably never know whether a legal opinion was sought at the time but it presumably was? And the lawyers are covered by lawyer-client privilege presumably?
Where do the public servants working for the monarch stand legally in terms of potentially covering up a crime or allegedly not reporting alleged illegality? If they work for the monarch directly, who is exempt from criminal and civil laws, does the usual standard required of an ordinary citizen to report potentially apply to them too or not?
For supposed constitutional balance, the monarch alone stands above all civil and criminal liability, which assumes they are of good character.
But apparently all other members of the royal family are fully subject to the law and can be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of crimes such as fraud “just like any other citizen”. And therefore presumably AMW’s aides and colleagues were not exempt either?
However one potential loophole is that the extended family members enjoy diplomatic immunity when working abroad on state business as I understand it?
The only positive is that I heard on the radio that the relatively new Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 targets institutional fraud which presumably covers the monarchy?
Lownie has already concluded that there won’t be a trial for all of the reasons previously discussed and more, because apart from anything else, if I understand him correctly, it would potentially expose too many senior public officials , and according to him, there definitely will not be a trial in this current reign.
So we have a “show boat” arrest followed by a long period of investigation leading to nothing or perhaps the eventual prosecution of some small technical misdemeanour?
Owing to the Burrell case and the surprising results of some past enquiries, some of which involved Sir Michael Peat and a former prominent equerry, the alleged “fence” accusations, and the alleged cash for passport scandal, and the alleged Fortnum and Mason bags of cash incident, which were investigated and all came to nothing apart from the equerry taking the falls, and reports of some PPOs allegedly getting too close to their employers, and others allegedly coming under pressure not to speak out, I don’t trust the police to be fully independent either, but maybe that’s unfair on the TVP given the amount of resources and the top brass they’ve apparently invested in this enquiry? That’s what Neil Basu, former assistant Met police Commissioner and former head of counter terrorist policing said in his Crime Agent podcast anyway! Who knows?
Lownie reports on police logs allegedly being changed, missing logs, pensions allegedly threatened.
And what is the position of Peter Loughborough in all of this? Are we to believe that his latest appointment is a coincidence?
As has been said, maybe this is all part of a carefully calculated strategy to kick the can even further down the road until William’s children occupy the headlines? Five to seven years maybe when AMW will be in his seventies if they can stretch it that far?
I’m not sure that’s sufficiently old enough to qualify AMW in the public’s mind as “too frail” to see justice done in some form or another though? And being thoroughly unpleasant doesn’t leave you with many friends in high places except your immediate family.
At the same time, I think what has been revealed so far about the Andrew problem is too brazen and extensive for the public to be fully satisfied with AMW losing his titles and moving to Sandringham and perhaps admitting to a separate minor technical matter, because no other ordinary person could get away with what he has done, or enjoy the “privileged scaffolding” that allows it to prevail, and the British public are strong on fairness and they are beginning to gain a more accurate picture of the wider alleged corrupt practices. So the institution will take a hit imho.
So what is the solution between those two positions? I am almost beginning to feel sorry for William! But as a Republican I hope it will result in popularity for the institution falling way below 50%.
It’s has long been my view, and this is speculation on my part, that it has always been pretty standard for many but not all members of the royal family and some of the senior staff and civil servants associated with them, to have potentially been doing private deals on the side, or possibly manoeuvring things to perhaps benefit each other, with the outward appearance of doing what is best for the country. But that AMW potentially didn’t have the wit or restraint to keep it under wraps. So he was possibly doing an extreme version of what many of them have potentially been doing for centuries , and that’s why it’s all been covered up for so long. That and of course the fact that in some closed institutions, it’s always been possible to inflate your salary and perks, and extend your career, by keeping secrets. And that substantial wealth can solve all manner of inconvenient problems, small and large.
I would encourage any of you still believing BP PR, to read Lownie’s updated paperback and listen to his latest interview with him on the The Vintage Reads podcast! Even I was shocked by that!
This story, depressingly, is as old as the hills, an alleged establishment stitch up, and nothing will change unless we support the people like Lownie who have been brave enough to stick their heads above the parapets and insist on significant change, transparency and accountability.
What all of this demonstrates, without a doubt in my mind, is that closed institutions are absolutely no good for the country. Absolutely no one should be above the law, including the Head of State or their family members. Secrecy, wealth and power at many levels of state agencies and institutions are the perfect recipe for malfeasance in public office, as Andrew Lownie states, so many otherwise honest people are allegedly “terrified” to speak out; terrified of losing their jobs, terrified of losing their pensions, terrified of losing their privileges, terrified of losing their status, terrified of losing the ear and protection of the inner circle.
It’s a closed shop essentially and only a Parliamentary Enquiry might come close to exposing the worst of it, but yet again, Rosie Foulkes and others like Rachel Maskall, who are trying to submit further, very reasonable, questions to Parliament right now are being given the run around by the government.
I would respectfully urge every monarchist on here who doesn’t benefit from the privileged position of being in the inner circle, to read Lownie’s updated book without bias, and ask themselves if they truly believe that the current iteration of the institution of the monarchy is doing the very best it can for the country and is operating with the highest standards possible? And if the answer is “no”, ask yourselves why you are still content to support them? Or at least explain it on here please!
So to answer your question finally Jeffgoldblum; it’s simply no longer credible to lay the blame entirely on AMW and the late Queen. Records, e-mails and witness testimonies are starting to emerge which entirely contradict that position. Lownie is making it clear that he knows certain people in relatively high public office have lied to him and that imho puts them in a dangerous situation. This scandal isn't going away, even without a trial. Especially as I have just read that sexual impropriety can sometimes fall under the umbrella of poor conduct in public office too.
And if this really serious state of affairs rumbles on as much as this post 😄, then the BP strategy of remaining silent and separating KC3 from AMW and isolating him from this scandal could yet, as indicated so perceptively by a journalist whose article was linked on here recently, could backfire and potentially serve to separate him from his people too. At this rate it’s likely to infect William’s reign as well!