Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Show all posts
Dr John Coulter ✍ The bitter medicine which we Royalists have to swallow is that the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor situation has landed the entire institution of the British Monarchy into a crisis. 

It has all become tarred with the same brush.

Those folk in society who want the United Kingdom to become a republic with a president rather than a king to be a head of state are having a field day with the debacle which has enveloped the former Prince Andrew, the younger brother of King Charles III.

Could it be a case of history repeating itself on a number of fronts? Previous monarchs called Charles have had a poor history. Charles the First was executed following the bloody English Civil War when Britain became a commonwealth.

Following the Restoration of the Monarchy a few decades later, Charles II was such a poor king, he sowed the seeds of doom in terms of English succession, and paved the way for King William III, aka King Billy, to come from Holland and restore order.

While the current King Charles III is doing his level best to wash his hands of any alleged activities or scandal caused by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the bitter reality which the Royal Family must face, is that the entire institution of the Monarchy has become tainted by the Epstein saga.

Whilst there has been much talk in Northern Ireland of the need to reform the Stormont institutions, could this atmosphere of reforming seep across the Irish Sea to mainland Britain with a growing desire to see the Monarchy itself reformed?

The United Kingdom boasts one of the most high profile Monarchies in the world compared to the profile and position of other Royal Families across the globe.

Put bluntly, perhaps the time has come for the Royals to take urgent action and for King Charles III to break the supposed ‘curse of the Charles’ and abdicate to make way for his eldest son, Prince William, to ascend to the Throne with the latter’s wife, as Queen Catherine, alongside him?

I don’t have much time politically for former Labour PM Tony Blair, but he has to be given credit for calling William’s mother, Diana, the ‘People’s Princess’ after her tragic death in the Paris road crash in the late 1990s.

As a life-long Royalist, I have always remained a so-called ‘Diana Loyalist’, believing she was the Queen we never had.

Granted, since Diana’s tragic death, public relations gurus have burned the midnight oil to rebrand the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles as a future queen.

Since the death of Queen Elizabeth II, that campaign has been in hyper-drive to ensure that the concept of ‘Queen Camilla’ becomes part of the Royal furniture at Buckingham Palace.

Whilst ardent republicans want to see an end to the Monarchy, some of us so-called ‘Diana Loyalists’ want to see ‘Queen Camilla’ replaced as soon as possible by a Queen Catherine.

The Royal brand of William and Kate has stood the test of time. They have three wonderful children, and Kate has coped admirably with her cancer challenge. They are the future of the Monarchy and the sooner they are given that opportunity to reign, the better.

I don’t wish the current King Charles III any harm, but if he is blessed with the same longevity as his late mother and grandmother, the late Queen Mother, William - like his dad Charles - could be near pension age before he is crowned in the aftermath of Charles’ death.

Put equally bluntly, William should not be waiting on dead man’s shoes before he is handed the Royal crown.

Like it or not, the alleged activities and notoriety of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have placed the Monarchy in a 1930s-style abdication scenario when the then King Edward VIII abdicated to allow him to marry his American divorcee lover Wallis Simpson.

The Royal Family simply cannot afford to hide away in their homes, palaces and castles and pretend to carry on as if nothing has happened. The Firm, as it is affectionately known, needs to take drastic action before any current Labour administration at Westminster passes legislation which reforms the Monarchy into a European-style, lowkey institution.

A King Billy saved the British Monarchy from disaster in the late 17th century. A new King Billy is urgently needed to perform the same saving manoeuvre in the latter years of this decade.  

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
John is a Director for Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. 

King Billy Needed To Save The Monarchy!

Caoimhin O’Muraile  ☭ ‘Wara load of crap’ (my terminology) the Irish Daily Mirror and other pathetic gutter rags print. 

Beaten only by social media in garbage which passes for content the everyday press continues to put our minds at rest by telling us, those gullible enough to believe, that this great society we live in is really one of equality and freedom! It is not!! 

When we were growing up our lives were dominated by bourgeois lies, Parental lies, media lies, educational lies, and governmental lies. Our parents could be forgiven because they too had been brought up on a diet of bullshit and lies by their own parents, our grandparents, and they themselves prior to that. Educational lies tell working-class kids how to be obedient, do as we are told, and how to find a job never mentioning organisations like trade unions. Ruling-class kids are taught how to dictate and be the future ‘captains of industry’ and be tomorrow's masters over the proletariat. 

Some of us were lucky enough to have a trade union activist in our parents who would dilute some of the educational crap by advising always question teachers and future employers and make sure to join a trade union. Our parents would often tell us if we were in trouble tell a policeman, a good bit of advice for children aged five, six, seven, and eight, but as life passes us by it soon appears that these policemen, once considered saviours by the very young, are perhaps not the guardian angels of the pre-adolescents they were once cracked up to be. Some are, or try to be impartial and good at their jobs, and some Gardai and Constables do set out to police without ‘fear nor favour’ but they usually retire at the same rank where they started work, a Garda or a Constable. Others, more corrupt, climb the greasy pole and become ‘Chief Inspectors’, or even ‘Chief Superintendents’ depending how many innocent men they have stitched up. The furthest an honest copper might go; is; ‘Desk Sergeant’. During the 1960s it was reported many ‘senior officers in the Metropolitan Police, were in the pay of either the Krays or the Richardsons’. Some of these officers would during the 1950s have been the men young children would have been encouraged to go to if in trouble. How society changes people!! Bent policemen are to be expected, after all, the system they police, capitalism, is corrupt.

The discrepancies in the law are no more highlighted than in the educational system of both Britain and the Twenty-Six-Counties. if a student in Britain attending a comprehensive school is charged and found guilty of a crime the chances are a borstal term may await. If, on the other hand, a student attending Eton Public School with titled parents commits a similar or worse offence the chances are the student irrespective of evidence will walk free perhaps with an apology. The same applies in the Twenty-Six-Counties; if a student attending BlackRock College commits a crime, is found guilty, that student will either walk free because the parents have money or receive a meaningless fine. On the other hand, if a working-class student from a national school commits the same then a custodial sentence in all probability awaits. These are just some of the legal inequalities within capitalist society before the law.

Ever so often the bourgeoisie and even the British aristocracy will make an example of one of their own thus proving ‘we are all equal before the law’. On this theme of supposed equality before the law the Irish Daily Mirror 20th February could triumphantly headline; “At Last … No One Is Above The Law”, referencing the arrest on his 66th birthday of a fella called Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. It may well be true that the international bourgeoisie, and particularly the US business classes, will sacrifice high fliers like Mountbatten-Windsor and former British Cabinet Minister and Lord, Peter Mandelson arrested on 23rd February, to protect US President Trump. It is true Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson had dealings with disgraced pervert and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein, himself a billionaire and best mate of Trump, was found dead in his cell before the case went to trial. Technically Epstein was guilty of nothing but the facts tell us something different, a lot different. Nevertheless the presumption of innocence must be maintained even for people like Epstein. “innocent till proved guilty” is the law and if we ever lose this theoretical cornerstone (supposed equality before the law for everybody rich and poor?) we are on a slippery slope towards Hitlerite laws under Judge Roland Freisler. 

Mountbatten-Windsor is one of the latest big names to be arrested but not, surprisingly, for anything to do with the ‘Epstein Files’ in their sexual capacity. Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on his 66th birthday for ‘Misconduct while in Public Office’ which can carry a life sentence, though this is unlikely as it is a former Prince being charged. Another high-profile man to be sacrificed in the protect Donald campaign is Senator George Mitchell, remember him, the saviour of the Six-Counties with the Good Friday Agreement. Old George has gone from hero to villain almost overnight just for being mentioned in the Epstein files a couple of times. Mountbatten-Windsor, Mandelson, and Mitchell  - the first two definitely having cases to answer it appears, both arrested on suspicion of ‘misconduct in public office’. George Mitchell  may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. I’m surprised the DUP do not want a renegotiation of the Good Friday Agreement on the grounds one of Epstein’s men had something to do with it!! A bit slow there eh lads!!!

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was pictured regularly with a victim of Epstein; Virginia Giuffre who died by suicide so much were her experiences with Epstein and Mountbatten-Windsor and yet, Mountbatten-Windsor’s questioning was about ‘misconduct while in public office.’ The concerns of the British bourgeois security are about him passing on files while in office to Jeffrey Epstein and not about the hell these two put poor Virginia through. British bourgeois security far outweighs the fate of poor Virginia or any other victims of the former Prince and Epstein. 

The fact Epstein committed suicide would suggest guilt just as Virginias death tells us a lot about the trauma suffered by the girl after her experiences with these men. As well as being a former Prince, Mountbatten-Windsor was also the ‘Duke of York’ - another title he was stripped of. He did not even get to the top of the hill let alone march down again! There is a myth going around he is the first Royal to be arrested since the 17th century: referring to Charles I losing his head at the hands of Cromwell ending the Monarchy in England for some years to come as Oliver Cromwell assumed power. The arrest of Mountbatten-Windsor is not the same. The truth is he isn’t even a Royal any more, Mountbatten-Windsor is a member of the Royal Family but not a Royal. If he had been this arrest would not have happened, no chance. This once again disproves the rubbish we are ‘all equal before the law’, as we were taught as children. The British Monarch is above the law and cannot be arrested. Princes and Princesses are very, very difficult to arrest and charge - and if Mountbatten-Windsor had still held the title of Prince Andrew this arrest would not have happened! It would have proved too problematic!! Even as the Duke of York an arrest would have proved very, very difficult but couple that title with that of Prince and forget it!

For the Irish Daily Mirror to claim “At Last …. No One Is Above the Law’ is an insult to anybody’s intelligence. The President of the USA, similar though not quite as watertight as the British Monarch, enjoys certain immunities from prosecution, so long as he/she remains President. This might be Trump's big fear about leaving office and why he may try to suspend presidential elections for the foreseeable future in the US. Either that or do what that other criminal in Israel, Netanyahu, is doing, trying to secure a pardon for himself. Could Trump try that one? The truth appears to me, many big names like George Mitchell, Peter Mandelson, (who is a Homosexual), and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, arrested for passing information to Epstein while he, then Prince Andrew, was the UK's Trade Envoy. He was not arrested for paedophilia or jointly causing Virginia Giuffre to take her own life on 25th April 2025 – a former Royal Paedo, no, never, never? – he, Mountbatten-Windsor could well be part of a high wall of high-flying people to protect President Trump? This is not to say Mountbatten-Windsor should not have been arrested, notably not charged yet, but perhaps the charge sheet should be longer to include sexual offences with his passing on sensitive information to Epstein. As it stands, at the moment, there is not even a charge sheet just a lot of headlines about “no one” been ”above the law”!

As for the headlines in the Irish Daily Mirror: Wara Load of crap to be read and believed by gullible readers and half-wits. This does not prove “at last no one … is above the law” as people are supposed to think. Not at all, it in fact it proves the opposite because anybody else would have been arrested, charged and tried by now and thrown in the Tower!!! Alas the headline in the newspaper, as with many editorials, when it comes to politics are believed by many otherwise normal, sane, people! 

There is no equality in bourgeois law and that is the only certainty.
 
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

“At Last . . . No One Is Above The Law”

Jim Duffy ✍ Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is in deep deep trouble with the revelation that he leaked confidential information from his trade envoy role. 

That is something that is relatively easy to provide - based on his emails. Conviction for breaching UK Official Secrets Acts involves severe penalties, with espionage carrying up to 14 years in prison and unauthorized disclosures under the 1989 Act risking up to two years, say UK Parliamentary documents. Prosecutions are rare (less than one a year) and require Attorney General approval, targeting the mishandling or leaking of sensitive national security information, as reported by The House of Commons Library.
 
He escaped any prosecution over allegations by Virginia Giuffre because US prosecutors deemed her evidence too tainted to be relied on it court - with good reason. A criminal conviction requires proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but her evidence was deemed unlikely to reach that standard.
 
Firstly, fellow victims disputed her claims in a host of areas - blaming her use of drink and drugs. That she used them was entirely understandable given what she went though - but it meant there was a significant doubt over her memories.
 
Secondly, she had accused one person of abusing her, only to have to admit in court in a defamation case that she was wrong.

Both those would leave jurors unable to reach the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold in a case where she was a witness. Jurors might even believe that the allegation was true, meeting the civil standard of "balance of probabilities", but that wouldn't be enough. They would have to have no reasonable doubt, and questions over her memory and reliability, and the fact that she admitted in one allegation she had named the wrong person, would leave jurors with a "reasonable doubt" - meaning they must acquit. (In percentage terms, "balance of probabilities" is akin to 51% likelihood, whereas "beyond reasonable doubt" is akin to 85-90% certainty.)
 
DAs as a result decided her reliability was not strong enough to win a case with her.
 
Nor would the fact that someone paid her money be evidence. Firstly, it could not be used as evidence. Secondly, prominent people are always advised to pay off a person making allegations even if the allegations are 100% false, as their reputation would be damaged just by the allegation. Charlie Chaplin's reputation was badly damaged by allegations in court by his second wife. She admitted decades later that the allegations were entirely false.
 
Fatty Arbuckle was found not guilty of the allegation that he had murdered actress Virginia Rappe. She had died from peritonitis caused by a ruptured bladder. She also had suffered from chronic urinary tract infections, and the alcohol she took at the party in his house, reacting to the infections, led to her death. However his reputation never recovered from having been tried for her murder, even though it was shown that he had nothing to do with her death. But the allegations alone destroyed his reputation.
 
Since then, all prominent people are told to pay off someone making allegations - no matter how untrue they are. Their reputation would be destroyed if the false allegations were made public. So every prominent person is told to pay off the person making the allegation to avoid the reputational damage of the allegations being made public.
 
So the Giuffre allegations were never likely to go to court as no DA thought she was a reliable witness who would deliver a guilty verdict. However the leaking of highly classified information is easily provable if he sent an email sending such documents to Epstein. That is why it is a far more dangerous allegation from the point of view of prosecution, and would lead to a very long prison sentence. It would not hinge on the reliability of a witness's memory, but on a simple paper trail in emails.
 
As to he giving evidence to Congress, that is extremely unlikely. Legally Congress cannot summon him. Given his disastrous interview with the BBC, and how disastrously he handled it, I cannot imagine any lawyer advising him ever to appear before Congress. A bit like Trump's lawyers' determination never to let him into the witness box, as they know he is incapable of telling the truth or controlling his temper, Mountbatten-Windsor's lawyers would move heaven and earth to stop him ever answering questions, whether in Congress or in court.
 
They will be more worried that he may have broken the Official Secrets Act. That is where the big danger is, though the Epstein files may contain other devastating allegations.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Deep Deep Trouble

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)