It’s in many people’s interests to try and discredit Lownie. The bulk of what he wrote about in Entitled had already been reported in many different newspapers though; he just brought the information together in one place. So if you are saying that the majority of his findings are untrue, you also need to discredit all of those newspaper reports too. I don’t think you are saying that though?
And no I agree that Charles, QE2, the institutions of the FO and intelligence services and the Palace, are separate entities and non-interchangeable, but they each bear some responsibility in allowing AMW the leeway that he had, so let’s get to the nub of it…
How would you describe the Head of the FO going to the Head of State reporting AMW’s alleged nefarious deeds and being sent away with a flea in his ear?
Is it a cover up? Or a conspiracy? Or just a total abdication of responsibility by many in power? A right royal fuck up?
Either way, if AMW is proven to have made deals and gained financially off the back of his official position as trade envoy, then he should be brought to justice. Ditto allegedly giving away state secrets. Ditto alleged fraud and money laundering (the latter being an offence that legally one is required to report if discovered btw!) Ditto trafficking vulnerable women.
I am not an expert on the Constitution but the ruling Monarch cannot (conveniently) be prosecuted. The late Queen knew this, So where does responsibility lie? Does it fall to the Head of the FO for giving way to the Monarch?
Or does responsibility get passed to Charles who must have known eventually bc he was allegedly involved in paying off VG which took place only a few months before the late Queen’s death when many powers had already been transferred to the then Prince of Wales?
At this point in all fairness I should point out that Charles at least objected to AMW’s original appt as TE saying he would use the position to make deals and pursue women. But that is also proof that he had pretty good knowledge of AMW’s activities way back when.
Or does the responsibility lie with the MIGs at BP who once the facts were known, proceeded to cover Andrew’s back? Maybe a loyal lackey will take the fall as usual and then be rewarded in other ways?
Or does everyone who provided funds for VG’s pay off bear some responsibility too?
As I keep saying on these pages, remember that AMW would still be free to carry on doing god knows what, had the Epstein trial not taken place!
So it may not be a coordinated cover up exactly but AMW’s activities have still been, er, covered up for at least fifteen years, (can’t think of a better term) and so I would be interested in knowing who you think is responsible precisely?
Also, if you know that a member of your family, or anyone of your acquaintance had committed a crime, do you not think you are morally obliged to report them, particularly if you are head of the C of E?
The above scenario seems to me a convincing argument to support the Republican cause as our unwritten constitution assumes that our Head of State will always do the right thing! Most people agree though that QE2 was wrong to favour and protect AMW.
And before anyone points to Trump and the USA arguing that cover ups occur in Republics too; yes of course they do, but the USA president holds many more powers in their system than ours ever would, and he is about to face mid-terms when it is widely believed he will lose the support of both the Senate and Congress …hopefully democracy will prevail… .
If a Monarch commits a crime themselves or covers one up, they cannot be prosecuted, but ultimately, a President can be impeached.
And remember, theoretically, at one point in history, we were only one polo or helicopter accident away from AMW being king.
How anyone can support this system is baffling to me!