Harry & Meghan

[Idayatatime]

I'ts wonderful to see Harry & Meghan happy & smiling & back in the UK supporting their charities.

Regardless whether people agree or disagree with their return, like all families we may not always agree,we may even fall out for long periods of time. The important thing is finding it in our hearts to forgive while leaving bitterness in the past. Above all we must consider the unforgiving legacy we may leave behind & the children who can never be happy & fulfilled being brought up within a fueding family.

Isn't that just the case @TheOvertGardener!

Aware of accusations not evidenced proof and the police informed her it was being investigated. She was already distanxed from her Dad due to his antics surrounding the wedding anyway, if she theb decided thats it 100% done and she was pregnant at the time then any mother would do the same and keep the kids away from him. Her saying she knew is in relation to the accusations made back then thay doesnt equate to knowing 100% he had done it.

Posters so keen to sow sympathy for Meghan have been devoid of any toward the RF.

Twisting themselves into all manner of shapes to say whatever Meghan did or didn’t do, said or didn’t say is to be excused. All while unable to fathom the position they were in with respect to Andrew being accused in the media, denying all allegations and never actually charged with anything.

I supposed they expect that Andrew should have been kidnapped, hog tied, and deposited in the US for the civil hearing and if he lost, left penniless on the street there while any victim remuneration awarded went into collections, never to be paid.

Meanwhile, Meghan should not be expected to make any inquiries over 8 long years into the status of the investigation of her father. She perhaps could have simply ensured the state department was notified and potentially prevented her father from renewing his US passport which may have prevented him from moving to a country that has fewer protections for children. But it’s unfair to expect her to have lifted a finger.

I think the only reply to “What about Andrew” going forward must be “What about Thomas Markle?”

Hmmm?

😉

Hardly the same though TheOvertGardener

The then Prince Andrew was not paid a wage as such but was being supported by the British tax payer for his expenses to fufill a formal role as trade representative.

Taxpayers covered his extensive travel, hotels, and operational expenses through the UK Trade & Investment agency and royal travel accounts, which totalled over £2 million during his final years.

AMW was also duty bound to represent the UK to the best of his ability while abroad, to not endanger state or trade security, and to abide by the professional code expected of all trade representatives:

Under UK government guidelines, trade envoys are bound by the same confidentiality obligations as government ministers fhs!

He was required to handle sensitive information securely, such as, commercial, or political information, concerning foreign markets and state visits. His access to privileged state data meant he was bound by the Official Secrets Act, making the unauthorised sharing of government reports unlawful.

As well as being strictly forbidden from making private financial deals on the side, the
rules dictated that he could not allow private contacts or financial donors to "shoehorn" their personal commercial meetings into his official, state-sponsored trade hours.

He was expected to stick to a pre-approved budget and utilise resources strictly for official trade promotion.

Government guidelines forbid charging personal leisure or non-trade activities to the public purse.

He was required to coordinate his activities directly with the Foreign Office and the trade department, adhering to strict briefings and pre-planned agendas designed to boost UK exports. And lastly, communications required him to follow a strict, carefully managed media and public relations strategy during his overseas deployments.

The Royal Family therefore had a responsibility and duty to the public to step in and stop his allegedly fraudulent activities and flouting of the rules as soon as it was reported to them by senior civil servants, diplomats and intelligence sources, in particular that he was financially exploiting his appointment for private financial gain, allegedly exploiting vulnerable young women too and sharing sensitive trade information to unauthorised parties.

The fact that the RF didn’t do that, covered AMW’s activities up for over a decade, and paid off his accuser and alleged victim, is a huge scandal which should by rights bring down the monarchy.

Meghan making a private decision about how she handles accusations about her dad, and the subsequent police investigations, is not remotely similar, because it doesn’t involve the public purse or the responsibility that the head of state owes to her, or his, people.

It certainly was not required of Meghan that she should involve herself in an ongoing police investigation.

I’m actually shocked that posters don’t understand this and are attempting to compare the two.

What? Are you seriously suggesting that Meghan should have taken it upon herself unilaterally to inform international authorities about the letter received by the Met that detailed accusations about her father, when the Met themselves, the Royalty and Specialist Protection unit no less, with all of their experience in handling matters of this nature, chose not do this? Sorry but that doesn’t make sense to me.

Meghan was still a member of the RF then and the entire purpose of the specialist protection unit is to keep their charges safe and away from anyone with criminal tendencies. Not that they seemed to do that very well in AMW’s case but that is their expertise and their job!

The most likely scenario is that the Met thought the accusations were not solid enough to act on, or share with the FBI, and Meghan, then pregnant, decided to go lc or nc with her dad and keep her children away as a very sensible precaution, until the matter had been proved one way or the other.

You seem on the one hand to expect AMW (no longer a Prince, let’s not give him the respect of the title) to be treated as an employee and on the other as a family member fully under the control of the monarch.

You really don’t seem to have looked at the actual options the Queen had as an employer nor as a mother, though. You’ve not assessed and followed those down the path of dissecting potential outcomes for anyone and most especially not for the alleged victim. The Firm will have fully done that.

You also do not know what information they held and therefore do not know what was withheld.

But in terms of protecting potential victims after the initial allegations were made, it’s Markle that had the most potential to do further harm.
If it transpires that Markle victimised children within the past 8 years, that should have and could have been prevented with a few phone calls.

International authorities, no. Authorities in US where they are both citizens, absolutely. If she thought the allegations were credible, which she has now indicated to the world she did and does believe it to be. Ensuring it was properly reported should have been imperative.

Meghan had no problem getting the phone numbers of two US senators and cold calling them. Why is this more difficult? There are even anonymous hotlines and citizens call them all the time. As a member of the Royal Family she would have multiple avenues of handling this directly or via staff, MiG, a multitude of others.

Please don’t treat her like she’s some poor dumb little woman that had no choice but to follow orders and then put her head in the sand for 8 years.

By the way, Rosarito Beach where Markle lived in Mexico is about 20 km from the US border.

He would have been crossing back and forth regularly. Do you think they just let Americans with these types of allegations freely cross back and forth? Mexico is quite strict with respect to allowing Americans to live there.

Here’s some AI on the topic:
“Had these allegations been reported directly to Mexican authorities or the FBI while he was physically residing in Rosarito, Mexican authorities would have been obligated to investigate under local laws, which could have jeopardized his legal status or led to deportation. However, because the claims were completely unknown to Mexican officials during his residency, his stay in the country was never legally challenged.”

You seem on the one hand to expect AMW (no longer a Prince, let’s not give him the respect of the title) to be treated as an employee and on the other as a family member fully under the control of the monarch

Yes I certainly do because that is the nature of the institution that so many monarchists support.

AMW is a member of what is a private family which also undertakes a public role. And in AMW’s case, he literally signed up to the duties, responsibilities and codes of conduct involved in carrying out the professional role of trade representative to the UK.

Our then head of state, QE2, lobbied for AMW’s appointment . Lownie describes in Entitled how senior foreign office officials and diplomats spent a decade complaining about Andrew’s highly dubious behaviour, high expenses, and questionable associations to the late Queen, only for their concerns to be dismissed. So she did have the power to remove him but actively blocked this course of action.

Other accounts and government insiders have similarly noted that figures like then-PM, David Cameron, and government trade officials, also quietly informed the palace that the prince's position had become entirely untenable.

You really don’t seem to have looked at the actual options the Queen had as an employer nor as a mother, though

Even after the late Queen was informed by her prime minister that AMW was up to no good, it took the Epstein scandal and the hero of this scandal, Christopher Geidt, the late QE2’s private secretary, to successfully navigate palace machinery to restrict AMW’s activities and ensure his resignation following the public outcry. This could have happened ten years earlier and protected many of his alleged victims from harm.

Btw, according to Lownie, Geidt later lost his job for doing this when Charles and AMW allegedly ganged up on him!

You’ve not assessed and followed those down the path of dissecting potential outcomes for anyone and most especially not for the alleged victim. The Firm will have fully done that.

You truly believe that The Firm had the victim’s wellbeing first and foremost in their sights? What evidence do you have for that? Have you read Entitled? Lownie describes in detail in the book how AMW and the RF engaged in a multi-layered campaign over two decades to discredit and dismiss Virginia Giuffre. This effort allegedly included coordinating smear campaigns, using non-disclosure agreements to silence palace staff, and issuing legal threats against the press.

Lownie’s Substack on this subject is very enlightening. He describes the convincing evidence about the famous photograph of AMW with his arm around VG and how all of the known travel dates and locations in VG’s accounts tie in with the official records that were in the public domain about AMW’s diary of engagements.

But in terms of protecting potential victims after the initial allegations were made, it’s Markle that had the most potential to do further harm. If it transpires that Markle victimised children within the past 8 years, that should have and could have been prevented with a few phone calls.

This is frankly ridiculous! The question is, why didn’t the Met follow it up with the authorities?

Again, why was it MM’s responsibility to tip off other police authorities when her own police protection unit, trained in these matters, who had all the right contacts, for reasons we don’t know, did not choose to do this?

And we know very little about the letter except that it allegedly came from Markle’s former wife. Presumably her credibility and motives were put under scrutiny by the Met? Or if they didn’t do that themselves why did they not inform the FBI? We don’t know. Evidential proof is required to charge someone with a crime.

Meghan has explained that she was assured that the authorities were dealing with the case and she was told not to intervene in an active investigation and that she had been threatened with legal action had she done so.

If the above course of action was so straightforward and obvious, then why didn’t the Met VIP protection unit who are trained in allegations and assessing potential threats, from wierdo crackpots to credible witnesses, do what you think was necessary?

The point is we don’t know enough about the details and circumstances of these allegations, for example, there may have been proof that they were historic, but you and others posters are obviously intent on using some of the most horrible circumstances that can befall a family, to once again bash Meghan for no sound reason. It’s pretty despicable imho.

It’s obvious enough that it took me a couple of days to realise it as exactly what I would have chosen to do.

I am not terribly surprised that you find the suggestion despicable. Many people choose to sit on their arses and make excuses when something terrible happens. Others take action. I’m the latter type.

In that case I bow to your superior skills and instincts in relation to a case we hardly know anything about. You obviously know better than the Met VIP protection unit!

What is the mission of the Met VIP protection unit?

Hint: the answer is in the name.

I suppose we can lend some grace to Meghan and Harry though, since they thought it made sense to go to Palace HR when they needed medical help.

And? Sorry I genuinely don’t understand your point.

As previously discussed, protecting VIPs includes assessing threats to their security and separating them from anyone who is allegedly indulging in criminal behaviour?

I presume that involves liaising with their international police counterparts too? For example this occurs regularly prior to when their charges go on foreign tours.

But @TheOvertGardener…what does it mean?? 😁

You are on the path, though.

Their job is to protect VIPs, in this case Meghan, not to investigate alleged crimes and threats against others, particularly in other countries.

Just like HRs job relates to employees of an organisation, not the wider public.

The PPOs investigate all sorts of potential threats to their charges, and Meghan was literally under their protection when these allegations appeared in the form of a letter.

If anyone close to one of their charges is accused of criminality they would, yes, usually investigate. And if that person lived overseas, I am sure it would be normal practice to liaise with police forces. In fact I have read Ken Wharfe’s book about his time protecting Diana in which he describes numerous occasions where he liaised with foreign police counterparts to gain intelligence about potential threats. It’s standard practice.

So why did the Met not do this in this instance? We really don’t know!

If you must criticise someone it should be the Met not Meghan, but even then I would urge caution until more details about this case come to light. We know so little about it as yet and I am sure highly trained professional policemen have good reason for acting the way they did unless they were negligent in some way?

Meghan wasn’t at risk. Ergo they stopped investigating. All the examples you give of collaboration involve protecting their charges.

I can’t even with the lengthy word salad posts right now. Just to boil it down.

Nobody expects Meghan to have been a crime fighter, detective, sleuth or whatever dismissive terms have been flung about over the last few days. Whatever way you break it down, it’s really quite simple.

Point 1 - Meghan was told something so awful 7/8 years ago and she cut contact with TM (I’m keeping it simple here and ignoring the fact that she’d already cut contact with him). She’s told it’s being investigated. In the following years there’s the “leaked” letter to her dad (which involved a court case), many interviews/tv shows that I cba to list, H taking the blame for the rift, direct quotes blaming the media. Yes, she got flak over time for the perceived treatment of him - that flak was a result of the narrative that both HaM had put out there themselves. The worst part, if this is true why she cut him off then (note, months after she’d already cut him off), then it is absolutely shocking that she seemingly never followed up/politely asked/however else you want to phrase it ANYONE re how the assured investigation was proceeding. Eight fucking years. Eight years of zilch, nada, nothing. Honestly, I keep reading with incredulity the people saying along the lines of investigations take time/can’t insert herself into an investigation/these things are complicated. No. You do not shrug your shoulders for eight years and not query wtaf is going on with regards to an accusation serious enough to cut your father out of your life (months after you’ve already cut him out of your life, but I’m going with her timeline here!).

Point 2 - For some reason, M decided to writer her Dec 2025 letter to TM. Maybe because of media commentary re her being a tad heartless to her father who yes, had behaved like a shit with some of his interviews. But people were looking at it with the narrative that HaM had fed over the years re cutting him off for colluding with the media. In the light of ALL the public trashing the two of them had done towards the WRF, it obviously looked hypocritical. So, performative delivery of said letter to TM in hospital, by someone from the consulate no less, with the delivery filmed and TM signing a receipt of delivery also filmed. Very OTT and a fair amount of effort on M’s part for this. In that letter M informs him she knows he’s an abuser and he’ll never see her children. So, even if Point One above is completely erased, M put in writing over 10 months ago that he was an abuser. What did she do about it? Because it doesn’t appear she alerted any appropriate agencies/forces/whatever. But it’s now in the public domain that she knew/suspected, at the very least, 10 months ago. And still seems to have done fuck all - apart from a performative, filmed (gosh, shocker), delivery of said letter to TM in hospital having just had his leg amputated. Colour me cynical, but that was a receipt for a “shock” reveal once TM died. Unfortunately, her press clap back last week has fucked things up. So keen to say “and now you know why I don’t speak to him so up yours to the press and public’. She’s invited a whole different level of scrutiny by bring up the 2018/19 letter - no one had a clue about its existence.

Whichever way you spin it, she either knew/suspected for 8/7 years or for 10 months. To seemingly have no interest, beyond “I was told it was being handled” is beyond words. That shit doesn’t fly when you position yourself as [insert long list of everything they’ve called themselves over the years]?

Is M responsible for what her father may have done? No. But she’s totally responsible for her seemingly not bothered/wash her hands of it attitude, whether that was for 8/7 years or 10 months (god, I’m getting tired of trying to cover all the timeline possibilities, fuck knows what it’s like trying to keep on top of it in real time for (HaM).

The above is not even attempting to put into context everything that has come out of their mouths in the intervening years - because it would take hours to to do that 😂. They have offloaded many grievances. The fact that they have, apparently, been silent re possible CSA is beyond words. And by silent, I don’t mean doing what they normally do re their grievances. I mean by, seemingly, not following up with any relevant authority to even ask if there is any progress in a supposed investigation. Everything they’ve done before was shitty - but it was against an institution that has been around forever and has a lot of support and resources. This situation potentially is regarding some of the most vulnerable in society.

TLDR : for the foreseeable, I don’t think there will be any lengthy, pretzel-type post that will dissuade me from thinking that they are awful people and only interested in themselves.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the PPOs investigate themselves in another country. Although we know AMW asked his taxpayer funded PPO to try and dig up dirt on Virgina Giuffre.

I am saying that PPOs would hand over accusations to the authorities in another country to investigate. Indeed I assume there would be a duty to report to authorities abroad if the accusations were credible.

Why did they not do this? There could be a number of reasons! It’s not really our business.

Nor do we know about the detail of the legal threats that Meghan faced.

You are desperately trying to blame MM for the alleged sins of her father when you know almost nothing about the details of the case.

Respectfully, before accusing others of lengthy pretzel word salad posts, you should perhaps look at your own?

Point one: how do you know she never followed up in the eight years? We don’t.

Point two: how she chose to deal with a devastating and complex family matter is none of our business once the police had been informed about it.

It’s ridiculous to try and suggest that MM is somehow responsible for what her father has allegedly done, or that she has been negligent over it. We don’t even know what the accusatory letter said fhs! And we don’t know who threatened legal action against her.

Only TM is responsible and the police once they were informed.

Finally, I’m pretty sure that security teams for VIPs in this situation where a father abroad was accused of something, they would evaluate if “foreign actors, hostile states, or criminal networks” or whatever the phrase is, could use the father's situation to blackmail, or compromise, the VIP or the royal family. That is also what police protection involves.

And I am pretty sure that if a royal VIP’s father was accused of a crime abroad, there would be some rumblings in foreign diplomatic circles.

This would normally be taken completely out of the VIP’s hands.

Point 1 - I mean, we obviously don’t know 100%. But M’s statement on Friday seemed to leave it at being told it would be investigated. And since then, there’s been quotes from sources or friends (can’t remember which right now) saying that she’s disappointed/upset etc that things weren’t followed up. Which indicates that she’s disappointed made no attempt to enquire herself and is only now finding out that a supposed investigation, started 8/7 years ago, never happened.

Point 2 - you are really missing the point here. “Once the police had been informed” is kind of a moot point. Because, if you go by point 1 then it was 8 years ago. Yet she only writes to him, with a performative delivery service, 7 years later. If you include point 1 then that’s a long time to not query how an investigation was going. If you exclude point 1 and assume she’d only recently known, and therefore wrote to him, that’s still 10 months where she did sweet FA about it with regards to alerting anyone - because the point 1 police knowledge is null and void.

And, as the start of my prior post stated - I am not trying to suggest that MM is responsible for what TM may or may not have done. But she sure is responsible for the mixed narratives, lack of curiosity (if 8/7 years ago) or lack of reporting to someone (if 10 months ago).