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

Then there is Andrew's aide - Dominic Hampshire played a key role in the development of Yang Tengbo's relationship with the Duke of York.

Good point @Puzzledandpissedoff
top job does get protected, often see that in all walks of life. I remember a safeguarding incident at dcs school, head should have gone. No. Deputy went, as was head of pastoral. Just moved on to another sideways job.

“Pursuing women” is quite a bit different than what we believe AMW did though?

Enabling paedophiles is wretched but also Andrew seems to have done far worse.

Knowingly having sex with trafficked underage women isn’t just enabling or pursuing.

Thank you
I’m back and have been able to read it. It must have been because I was abroad. Very interesting article.

I really don’t think we will have a monarchy in 20/30 years. As long as it’s gradual and well thought out (unlike Brexit), then I’m ok with that.

Im neither a royalist or a republican, a fence sitter with splinters, as my republican mama, calls me! I’m not sure it will be in my lifetime, but would be fascinating to watch from the sidelines.

Charles objected to the Trade Envoy job. I have always seen it explained as him being concerned about Andrew's financial judgement and tendency to try and get financial advantage for himself rather than anything about his dealings with women. At the time I first heard the story Andrew was still Randy Andy, times have very much changed.

That isn't too say that I believe Charles knew about his dealings with Epstein and what Epstein was involved in. I don't know. I think the safest thing I could say is that Charles knew trade envoy wasn't a job Andrew could do ethically.

Charles objected to the Trade Envoy job. I have always seen it explained as him being concerned about Andrew's financial judgement and tendency to try and get financial advantage for himself rather than anything about his dealings with women

Yes I've seen it "explained" the same way, @MrsLeonFarrell, but my point really was whether Charles is on record as objecting to Andrew's appointment, or if as mentioned it's simply more spin

And I agree completely that Andrew appears to have done much worse, @NotTalkinBoutTheLinen, but even allowing for there being so much that's hidden it's the complete difference in attitudes to the two which fascinates me

Oh blooming heck I see the irritating truncated post thing is back!!

I can't remember how the information got into the public domain. But it was long enough ago that I tend to think it was accurate rather than any distancing himself from Andrew revisionism.

my point really was whether Charles is on record as objecting to Andrew's appointment, or if as mentioned it's simply more spin

Excellent point, Puzzled.

While the collective RF appear to have gone to ground for the summer now, I hope Republic are ready to ramp up the demos when they have the chance in the Autumn.

Who knew what and when?

It seems to be a "palace source". Lownie wrote. “A palace source said that the Prince of Wales was extremely concerned about Andrew’s playboy image: ‘He thinks he won’t be able to resist the temptation of mixing business with pleasure. This is a high-profile appointment which demands tact and discretion.’”

I’m aghast at the suggestion that a man that abuses trafficked women is just a “playboy”.

I suppose we don't know how much Charles is aware. Mind you he, himself, thought it was fine to propose to teenagers 9-13 years younger.

@BrandiedAromatics
I think his grandmother and Ruth, Lady Fermoy (Diana’s grandmother) were the driving forces behind that engagement and marriage. It obviously should never have happened.

And, prompted by Louis Mountbatten to write to her mother about proposing to the 16 year old Amanda Knatchbull. He doesn't come over as a together character at all.

Yes. Louis Mountbatten. The serial child rapist.

Sorry for late response but I knew that I had seen something about it in addition to what Lownie had reported on, and as is often the case with these things, it was Private Eye who got hold of the story, but I can’t find a date for it,

“The appointment of Andrew to replace the Duke of Kent as Trade Envoy was vigorously promoted by none other than Peter Mandelsohn, then out of government after his second cabinet resignation, but still with the ear of Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair overruled the principal opponent of the plan - none other than Andrew’s big brother. Brian thought it wrongheaded as he suspected Andrew would use the post as an excuse to cultivate friendships with the wealthy, chase women and play golf. It would certainly be interesting to see the notes revealing why Blair ignored His Majesty’s sage advice at the time.”

NB Private Eye’s nickname for Charles is Brian

So to be fair to Charles it looks like he was overruled twice!

Are you now suggesting that proposing marriage to women over the age of consent is the same as abusing trafficked women and girls?

Thhanks for thhe clarifications, @BrandiedAromatics and @Ferrycrossingmakingwaves9

I genuinely didn't know either way, but it does now seem that Charles's alleged "objection" to Andrew's Trade Envoy role was just more "sources"

Eugenie has given birth in Portugal

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpq81pxw5gro

Some of the papers lead with "King's Neice" and omit AMW altogether

Is anyone else just completely done with "unnamed sources"?

It feels like media sourcing has lost its way. I always had the impression that it was meant to be to protect people exposing actual corruption. Now it’s routinely slapped onto celebrity gossip, political infighting, and pure speculation.

Start to wonder what is acutally true and what is just made up bs.