AMW continuing his effort to end the Monarchy part 5

[simpsonthecat]

This will carry on... so new thread !

Link to old one below

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5527311-amw-continuing-his-effort-to-end-the-monarchy-part-4?page=20&reply=153382872

Who else are you referring to in your cryptic comment?

Queen Elizabeth and Charles have supported Andrew. Charles gave a convicted paedophile a free house and wrote a letter of support for him.

OK. I think Charles has been incredibly clear in his communications - probably more clear than I have ever seen royal communications be - that he supports the victims. He hasn't "enabled abuse and rape of teenagers and children". [And teenagers and children - we know about VG (teenager at the time) - are you suggesting that AMW has been involved with more than this?].

He has supported his brother with accommodation, privately funded - I think this was a great way for the Royal Family to free up Royal Lodge - so opportunistic - yes. Why not? Kills multiple birds with one blow. Gets AMW away from Windsor. I don't blame Charles for wanting to get AMW away out of sight. I think we all want that. I mean he can't be murdered so where does he go?

But your comment "I am not just talking about Andrew here" - are you implying that other royals have abused and raped? I do think your post is full of hyperbole.

Many have suspected he never left the royal fold (shooting parties with Anne and Ed. Luxury pre-coro dinners and the like).

Desperately suggesting he was on the outs was just more BP bullshit puff.

From the Daily Express

William wants his uncle, AMW, to abandon legal action against Thames Valley Police. Author Rob Shuter claims a "Palace insider" told him: "William has had enough. He wants Andrew to stop fighting, stay out of sight and stop putting Epstein and the Royal Family back into the headlines." The source is quoted in Shuter's Naughty But Nice Substack newsletter as saying that for the prince "every new legal battle damages the Crown".

Shuter's source claimed the royals appear divided over Andrew's legal action.

AMW was never going to go quietly was he? He no doubt feels aggrieved, hard done by, wronged... but the public have the last laugh, we will never ever see him again in ridiculous velvet, curtain tie backs and hats with feathers sticking up!

I think Charles has been incredibly clear in his communications - probably more clear than I have ever seen royal communications be - that he supports the victims

He said the law should take its course too, @socialdilemmawhattodo - from a PR angle he probably had little choice, given the animus swirling around the institution - but I'd have thought it obvious that there's a huge difference between these "communications" and what actually happens

For people said to have "no power" they have a surprising ability to shut down whatever's unwelcome, and I honestly don't expect that to change any time soon

Did William ( or unnamed palace sources - same thing really) actually say that?

If he did he’s even more stupid than I thought.

That is the exact opposite of what William should be saying.

This is Rob Shuter who, on another thread, says the palace is worried about Tom Cruise's friendship with William and Catherine.

The same Rob Shuter who is currently selling a novel about Lilibet becoming Queen after the rest of the family die in a helicopter crash.

Possibly not the most reliable source of information.

Breaking news, Thames Valley Police have accepted the warrants were unlawful.

What a mess, I am interested in why and who mucked up.

Oh no - was really hoping that wouldn't be the case.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has won his legal case over police raids on his homes, the High Court has ruled.

A judge found the search warrants had not been lawfully issued when granted by an Old Bailey judge in February and therefore should be quashed.
Mr Justice Hilliard said Thames Valley Police had accepted the warrants had not been correctly granted when they were issued the day before the former Duke was arrested.

On Tuesday, The Telegraph revealed Mr Mountbatten-Windsor launched the legal case after accusing officers of seizing personal items during the raids.
He instructed lawyers after discovering detectives had allegedly removed private and confidential material unconnected to the criminal investigation.

The judge said his ruling does not mean material taken from Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s properties has to be returned immediately as it is still the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation.

A Thames Valley Police spokesperson said: “On July 22, the High Court quashed search warrants granted on 18 February 2026 for two properties in Norfolk and Berkshire that were searched as part of Thames Valley Police’s ongoing investigation into misconduct in public office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk.

“The agreement that led to the quashing of the warrants relates specifically to a decision made by the court regarding the legal basis for these and is not a judgement on our ongoing investigation.
“We ensured the court was presented with all the necessary information and paperwork to inform their decision, following the correct legal processes throughout.

“We accept the position that the initial court’s decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect and therefore these must be legally quashed.
“Legal proceedings are currently ongoing to decide how material seized during the searches will be managed and whether we can lawfully retain it in support of our ongoing investigation.
“Our investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk remains ongoing, and we continue to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry to effectively and fairly progress this investigation.

Bottom line.... can they keep what they found in the search.

It all sounds 'very convenient' to me.

Archive link to DM report https://archive.is/FcnIF

"Our investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk remains ongoing, and we continue to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry to effectively and fairly progress this investigation"

In light of how quickly this has been resolved, not to mention the countless other issues, I wonder if there's anyone left who actually believes this - or, come to that, is surprised by this outcome?

The news does rather remind me of when, I think, the same police force raided Cliff Richard's house. Not in terms of innocence or guilt but in terms of not being able to carry out their job correctly.

It sounds incompetent to me.

From the Mail article: The spokesperson added: 'Legal proceedings are currently ongoing to decide how material seized during the searches will be managed and whether we can lawfully retain it in support of our ongoing investigation"

So another opportunity to kick the can further down the road

Guess we'd better hope that the next thing won't be Andrew suing for unlawful arrest ...

It was South Yorkshire Police.

Sir Cliff later successfully sued both the police force and the BBC.

On the "Will Andrew face criminal charges" thread, a poster who isa lawyer just confirmed that this presents Andrew with the opportunity to bring a civil case against the police for compensation

Here we go

A novel is not information as you well know. So not sure why you included that.

And he won his case because the press were there. Not because his house was searched.

Almost makes you wonder if it was deliberate