[News] Prince Andrew interviewed about allegations

[Creaky]

Again very different circumstances, I would hope that is becoming a Republic wouldn’t be followed by genocide with a third of the nation being murdered.

You’ve had a number of replies to the question you posed in response to my original question - which of the World’s ‘presidents’ would you prefer to see as our Head of State in place of the Queen? - to which I’ve not seen any reply.

In reality if we were a republic the candidates for president would be chosen from members of the two major parties - I can’t think of a single one of that mob that I’d want to see replace the Queen. Can you?

 

[BadFish]

https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertai...-hidden-cousins-nerissa-katherine-bowes-lyon/

I guess that things were different in those times. Still nicely highlights the crown's desire to brush difficulties and embarrassments under the carpet in stead of deal with them transparently. (Excused as not airing ones dirty laundry in public).

Seems they are pressing on with their modus operandi with the prince Andrew problem.

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk

 

[BadFish]

You’ve had a number of replies to the question you posed in response to my original question - which of the World’s ‘presidents’ would you prefer to see as our Head of State in place of the Queen? - to which I’ve not seen any reply.

In reality if we were a republic the candidates for president would be chosen from members of the two major parties - I can’t think of a single one of that mob that I’d want to see replace the Queen. Can you?

It is a shame that this is your only option of governance . Surely the British people deserve a choice of how their democracy runs. Perhaps they could be compelled to agitate for and eventually vote for a government that offers such a choice.

The will of the people and all that.

Having said that, if your prime minister was also your head of state I do wonder, In real terms, what the difference in power would be. When was the last time the queen stepped in or influenced the policies of the government?


Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk

 

[ShandyH]

It wasn’t only in Ireland that the rumours are about.

A new book on Louis Mountbatten and Edwina Mountbatten provides a ‘scandalous’ account of their private lives. The Mountbattens: Their Lives & Loves authored by British historian Andrew Lownie, talks about Lord Mountbatten’s alleged paedophilia, his gay flings, the couple’s open marriage with a stream of extra-marital affairs, the royal family’s displeasure with the Mountbattens’ private lives and public spectacles about their tussle with the press.

Based on several sources such as interviews, news articles and a dossier on the Mountbattens by the US’ Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the book comes just ahead of the 40th anniversary of Lord Mountbatten’s assassination at the hands of the IRA.

Was Dickie Mountbatten a paedophile?

Since the release of the book, global press has hotly debated the possibility of Lord Mountbatten being a paedophile.

Mountbatten, who was referred to as Dickie by his close ones, seems to have allegedly been a serial offender when it came to child sexual abuse
While his paedophilia has been previously reported, this account by Lownie lists several sources to back its claim.

The book cites a 1987 article in the New Zealand’s tabloid Truth, which drew the testimony of Mountbatten’s then driver, Norman Nield. Back then, Mountbatten was the Admiral of the Royal Navy.

Nield reveals that he was ordered to “take young boys to Admiral’s official residence” in Dickie’s Hummer, and was paid 5 pounds per week for his silence. According to Nield, the Admiral used “brandy and lemonade” to seduce children and the boys ranged from the ages of eight to twelve.
Another published article by Irish writer Robin Bryans talks about Mountbatten being a part of an “old-boy networks that held orgies”. It also talked about his interest in “first year public school boys”, who must have been “10 to 14” year olds.

Lownie writes that while these accounts were denied by the Mountbatten family, more revelations have emerged since.

That’s revolting but entirely plausible.

There are and were more than one Admiral. Currently three but I’d imagine more in wartime.

However, this particular Mounting Batten was The First Sea Lord in the mid to late 1950s and he was in office for four years before becoming Chief of the Defence Staff. So, so many letters after his name.

NONCE should be added on Wiki.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[drew]

It is a shame that this is your only option of governance . Surely the British people deserve a choice of how their democracy runs. Perhaps they could be compelled to agitate for and eventually vote for a government that offers such a choice.

The will of the people and all that.

Having said that, if your prime minister was also your head of state I do wonder, In real terms, what the difference in power would be. When was the last time the queen stepped in or influenced the policies of the government?


Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk

You seem to assume the will of the people is to have a republic?

 

[BadFish]

You seem to assume the will of the people is to have a republic?

Not a bit of it. All about the will of the people.

The first step is a referendum.

They have never cause any harm

A well thought out referendum! Maybe one every 5 years or so

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Clive Walker]

That is disingenuous to say the least.

Meanwhile I argued with you a decade ago that the royal family should be binned off purely because they are above the law in a way nobody should be in a modern functioning democracy, and here we are with that appalling criminal, Nonce Andy, proving the point. What will happen is that he won't face justice, and he'll settle for a vast sum out of court leaving him out of pocket. What will then happen is that these funds will end up back with him as the tax payer is told the cost of propping up these chinless inbreds needs to rise markedly over the course of the decade. No accountability for this will be forth-coming, it will just happen.

You've been quiet on this whole appalling affair. No surprise there.

It is time to finish with these people, but it won't happen in my lifetime. Deference is alive and well here - you only have to see how the Tories appointed their 22nd Etonian prime minister for the evidence, and dismantling the class system really does need to start from the top. Slinging Andrew Windsor in jail where he clearly belongs would be a good start.

Maybe not above the law but certainly equal to it. Should the crown prosecute the crown it would be listed as Regina vs Regina.

 

[Clive Walker]

You seem to assume the will of the people is to have a republic?

I’d say that in reality the hardcore monarchists are around 20-25% of the British population at present. Republicans stand at about 10%. The vast majority of people are simply not bothered, never given it a moments thought etc. that 65/70% are obviously the swing and I think it’s much easier to convince them on the republic argument than the other. The RM are continually assisting in that effort too.

 

[Hugo Rune]

I’d say that in reality the hardcore monarchists are around 20-25% of the British population at present. Republicans stand at about 10%. The vast majority of people are simply not bothered, never given it a moments thought etc. that 65/70% are obviously the swing and I think it’s much easier to convince them on the republic argument than the other. The RM are continually assisting in that effort too.

The issue that republicans (like myself) have is that the Queen is very popular. It’s about keeping your powder dry. I think the Queen is great and that we’re lucky to have her but I’m also keen on her being the last monarch. I really have no time for any of her sons and whilst I relate more to her grandsons, perhaps William could run to be our first (non political party) President instead of king, I’d be open to voting for him.

 

[Silverhatch]

The issue that republicans (like myself) have is that the Queen is very popular. It’s about keeping your powder dry. I think the Queen is great and that we’re lucky to have her but I’m also keen on her being the last monarch. I really have no time for any of her sons and whilst I relate more to her grandsons, perhaps William could run to be our first (non political party) President instead of king, I’d be open to voting for him.

When the Queen dies there should be root & branch review of the monarchy and its place in a 21st Century Britain (if that entity survives). She is a literal connection to another time.

 

[Simster]

I have denounced Andrew and on this forum. You can search for it.

Yes, I am still a monarchist.

You have indeed. Apologies, I was being a little unfair suggesting you hadn't.

However, the frustration for me is that this Andrew story is precisely why we shouldn't have an unelected unaccountable head of state. Andrew won't be facing justice, there will simply be a huge payout which you and I will end up paying for. It is this reasoning that I feel you are ignoring because it blows a hole in the monarchist argument.

 

[Simster]

You’ve had a number of replies to the question you posed in response to my original question - which of the World’s ‘presidents’ would you prefer to see as our Head of State in place of the Queen? - to which I’ve not seen any reply.

In reality if we were a republic the candidates for president would be chosen from members of the two major parties - I can’t think of a single one of that mob that I’d want to see replace the Queen. Can you?

Yawn, let's have this discussion when she's gone and one of her repulsive sons are head of state.

The very idea that the people can't be trusted to elect their own head of state is absolutely laughable.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You have indeed. Apologies, I was being a little unfair suggesting you hadn't.

However, the frustration for me is that this Andrew story is precisely why we shouldn't have an unelected unaccountable head of state. Andrew won't be facing justice, there will simply be a huge payout which you and I will end up paying for. It is this reasoning that I feel you are ignoring because it blows a hole in the monarchist argument.

Least said soonest mended.

 

[Simster]

Least said soonest mended.

I know what that means obviously but don't understand the context you mean this.

Do you honestly mean things will get better if we don't talk about Andrew being a nonce?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I know what that means obviously but don't understand the context you mean this.

Do you honestly mean things will get better if we don't talk about Andrew being a nonce?

No, it means I’m not one to post a rant when it isn’t going to change anything.
I am disgusted but not surprised as I heard things about Andrew when he was serving from friends of mine who were still in.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

The issue that republicans (like myself) have is that the Queen is very popular. It’s about keeping your powder dry. I think the Queen is great and that we’re lucky to have her but I’m also keen on her being the last monarch. I really have no time for any of her sons and whilst I relate more to her grandsons, perhaps William could run to be our first (non political party) President instead of king, I’d be open to voting for him.

The queen is great, the queen is popular and we're lucky to have her, but you don't want another monarch? Why wouldn't Charles be able to follow in her footsteps? He's been in training for 70 odd years with the best possible role model. His eco credentials are impeccable. William will take over from him in due course. Why dismantle one system just to set up another with the same bloke. You seem to be a bit conflicted on this one. Luckily, the more our elected representatives behave badly, the more popular the Queen and her successors become.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Yawn, let's have this discussion when she's gone and one of her repulsive sons are head of state.

The very idea that the people can't be trusted to elect their own head of state is absolutely laughable.

Just out of interest, what have Charles, Edward and for that matter Anne done to be called repulsive? They all work harder for the UK than any elected head of state would.

 

[Simster]

Just out of interest, what have Charles, Edward and for that matter Anne done to be called repulsive? They all work harder for the UK than any elected head of state would.

Charles married Diana then spent two thirds of his married life banging Camilla. Don't forget, the monarch is also head of the Church of England.

Nothing wrong with Edward and as far as I know, Anne isn't actually one of the queen's sons. ;-)

 

[Clive Walker]

The issue that republicans (like myself) have is that the Queen is very popular. It’s about keeping your powder dry. I think the Queen is great and that we’re lucky to have her but I’m also keen on her being the last monarch. I really have no time for any of her sons and whilst I relate more to her grandsons, perhaps William could run to be our first (non political party) President instead of king, I’d be open to voting for him.

The notion that the Queen is great and has done a good job is something that I think is born from media spin and a little brain washing. She has actually done very little, some say that less is more but in my opinion she has done a fairly average job for simply a long long time. Now seeing as she has never been challenged for her position we can detract that the length of her reign isn't something she should be applauded for. As for her duty, I think she speaks to the nation once a year and has done it outside of that schedule on 6 other occasions (reluctantly). I can't think of anything else she has done for the British people that can't be classed os Royalist spin.

 

[Clive Walker]

Let’s not forget this is the same family (two generations) that did this.