What did the Royal Family know and when?

[LifeIsTooShort247]

With everything that has emerged about Andrew and Epstein, and now the allegations concerning Thomas Markle, I think there are some much bigger questions about what the Royal Family and Palace officials knew, when they knew it, and what they did with that information.

We are looking at two very different situations involving serious allegations of sexual abuse. One concerns a member of the Royal Family itself, Andrew, and the other concerns the father of someone who married into it, Thomas Markle.
In Andrew's case, there are still so many unanswered questions about the extent of the late Queen's knowledge, the protection he received over the years and the role played by senior courtiers. Who knew what, how far back did that knowledge go, and who made the decisions about how matters were handled?

Now with Thomas Markle. What I find particularly interesting is that the Metropolitan Police have confirmed the letter was passed to the office of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in January 2019, rather than simply being handed privately to Meghan. At that time, Harry and Meghan were still part of the Kensington Palace household structure, which they shared with William and Catherine. Jason Knauf was communications secretary for both couples.

Given the seriousness and sensitivity of the allegations, surely it is reasonable to question whether the matter was discussed with senior Palace officials or brought to the attention of senior members of the Royal Family?

Who within the office received the correspondence? Who handled it? Was Jason Knauf aware? Were William and Catherine briefed? Did the Queen or her private secretary know anything about it?

We don't know the answers, and I'm not suggesting that everyone necessarily knew. But that is precisely the point.

The circumstances involving Andrew are different, but both situations raise questions about how sensitive information was handled within the royal institution.

What did the Royal Family know, when did they know it, and what did they do with that knowledge?

Surely these are questions worth asking of the institution with regards to both situations.

Did you not read any of her statements or the linked articles at all?
meghan has been very clear herself who knew ! , why don’t you believe her .

Meghan does not know who else the letter me at have been passed to by the Met Royal Protection Force. Why would she. Do you think they report to her everything they do?

The desperation to absolve Meghan is getting very tiresome, I’m sorry the truth doesn’t fit in with your view of Meghan but the truth is it was shared with Meghan and Meghan only.

The Met have said who they passed it onto in their statement, so you don’t believe Meghan and you don’t believe the met? As I said desperation.

So you have a statement that Meghan said this ?
because I can’t find anything at all!
and I assume you think the met statement is also untrue then!

Yes I think it's best to believe Meghan on this issue, you're right.

I actually agree ( which may surprise some!) , she has been clear in her statements .

It’s always everyone else and never Megan despite proof indicating otherwise

The super-fans have to sustain their belief in St Meghan. She is infallible.

Who are the super fans?

I still think the police at the time just didn’t believe the letter writer was credible enough to take the letter seriously in terms of thinking it would be enough to start any investigation by a USA or Mexican police force.

I think they shared the letter with Meghan as a warning that her father’s first wife was a potential problem in terms of becoming another ‘Markle’ going to the press with gossip about Meghan and the Markle
family.

Then as the ex wife didn’t do anything else - like going to the press in either country, they considered the matter closed.

But it again another messy timeline and odd story surrounding something connected to H&M.

Funny that there is such eagerness to publicly establish that they knew absolutely nothing about the allegations concerning Thomas Markle, yet there is no comparable rush to clarify precisely who knew what about Andrew and Epstein? Why the difference? Surely, if transparency and accountability are genuinely the priorities, the same urgency should apply in both cases, particularly when the allegations concerning Andrew are so much more serious - now we have Epstein at Balmoral and allegationsthat women were trafficked to Balmoral?

We know the late Queen was aware of the allegations against Andrew. BP publicly responded to them, she supported his withdrawal from royal duties in 2019, and subsequently removed his military affiliations and patronages. We also know Andrew continued to receive family support long after his association with Epstein and the allegations against him became public.

These are hardly insignificant questions, particularly when the institution continued to accommodate Andrew for years rather than immediately distancing itself from him. Noone cut him off immediately.

So what did Charles, William and other senior royals know, and when? Who knew about Andrew's continued association with Epstein after his conviction? Who was consulted about the financial settlement with Virginia Giuffre, and who contributed towards it? Who knew about Epstein's visits to royal residences?

Meanwhile, Meghan has acknowledged knowing about the allegations concerning her father and was reportedly advised that an investigation was already taking place. She wasn't responsible for conducting it, yet some seem determined to hold her accountable for what happened next.

So why is Meghan's knowledge treated as evidence of responsibility, while the actual decisions made by those surrounding Andrew receive nothing like the same scrutiny?

Perhaps The Times could devote the same investigative enthusiasm to establishing precisely what senior royals knew about Andrew and Epstein, rather than documenting everyone's eagerness to establish what they didn't know about Meghan's father.

If knowing creates an obligation to act, surely that applies even more strongly to those who actually had the authority and influence to do something?

You cannot demand accountability from Meghan for an investigation she didn't control while overlooking years of decisions made by those who had the power to act over Andrew.

Either accountability applies to everyone, or this isn't really about accountability at all.

@wordler and how could the Met Royal Protection Force make that assessment without an investigation? Or is it just crazy ex wife syndrome again? A man says his ex wife is crazy so everyone just ignores whatever she says.

The SS - like those posting on Celebitchy.

Okay so anyone posting on celebitchy is a super fan?

You’ve got to consider the attention that H&M were getting at the time - Meghan’s father, sister and brother had been constantly in the press criticizing Meghan and saying awful things. Her brother wrote a letter to the royal family saying they shouldn’t let Meghan near children or animals.

There were right wing nut cases threatening them.

I’m sure the police were assessing an enormous amount of intel and all sorts of odd and threatening things being sent to the palace etc.

On the face of it you have a vexatious ex wife who sends a ‘rambling’ (according to press who say they’ve seen the letter) seven page hand written letter to the UK police - it ends up with the fixated person department because the immediate danger looks like it’s coming from the letter writer.

It’s an accusation of something heard 40 years ago from someone who is likely to be holding a grudge with no proof of anything just hearsay.

At the point they showed Meghan I believe it was to warn her that there might be trouble coming from the ex wife.

Now - it wouldn’t have taken a lot of effort to redirect the letter to US authorities - and I bet they wished they wished they had now - but I think they dismissed the letter as a smear attempt.

Seems so, yes.

Interestingly she gave an exclusive interview to the Mirror in May 2019 - lots of allegations about him being a terrible husband and father but mention of CSA.

I wonder if she told the Mirror and they couldn’t substantiate it enough for print.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markles-dad-must-never-15026800

The only communication from Meghan about who she knew who knew was in Hello today. She was not very clear at all. She mentioned PH - then ‘some people close to them’ also knew and have been shouldering this with her.

No idea who these people are because she hasn’t clarified.

Of course we can all speculate - QE2, Doria, Prince Phillip, Eugenie, Marcus, Zara Phillips. It’s been left very muddy as ever.

A paper would not publish that without speaking to victims or having clear evidence. The allegations can still be true. A newspaper are not the police and simply can't investigate in the way the police can e.g. search a house for photos.

I’m a former journalist - I know they wouldn't just print it on her say so but this is a major tabloid - they would have investigated this and been on it for as long as it took.

Of course the allegations can be true but people say all sorts of untrue stuff about other people all the time - particularly potentially bitter exes.

The police have to make a decision on what seems credible and what doesn’t when they are deciding how to commit their resources.

But as I said in a previous post it wouldn't have taken a huge amount to manpower to forward the letter to US or Mexican authorities.

The royal protection force should have forwarded the letter as you state.
Thomas was in the US and then the Philippines. I don't see how the paper could have investigated whether Thomas had photos of child abuse in his house abroad.

So when harry said in his book or documentary or whatever that Meghan was going through a bad time and asked for professional help and he said he was too shamed to ask for help, was he actually referencing this incident ? Did he not want this matter to be known to anyone?

But a few years earlier was singing his praises

Doria.