By John Q. Hosedrinker 
King Charles has expressed his “profound concern” over allegations that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor shared confidential trade reports with Jeffrey Epstein and stated he would “stand ready to support” police if approached. Thames Valley Police are assessing claims that Mountbatten-Windsor forwarded official reports from his trade envoy role regarding trips to Asia to Epstein in 2010 and 2011. These allegations emerged following the release of emails by the US Department of Justice, which also indicate a separate claim of a woman being sent for a sexual encounter with the then-prince. The Prince and Princess of Wales are also “deeply concerned” by the continuing revelations, with their thoughts remaining with the victims.
Read the original article here
It sounds like King Charles is signaling a willingness to cooperate with law enforcement regarding the allegations surrounding his brother, Prince Andrew. This move appears to be a significant step, indicating that the monarchy is no longer prioritizing shielding Andrew from scrutiny, a stark contrast to perhaps how things might have been handled in the past. The notion is that Charles is ready to support the police’s efforts, even if it means Prince Andrew faces serious consequences.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that Prince Andrew should, by all accounts, be the one to bring forth all the information and details he possesses. The idea is that if there’s any shred of decency left, he should be proactive in exposing everything currently hidden, especially any evidence that might be held by American authorities. The feeling is that his own reputation is already tarnished, so he might as well go down fighting and take anyone else involved with him.
This approach is seen by some as a necessary, albeit difficult, action that his late mother might not have been able to undertake. The argument is that if he’s facing the twilight of his public life, this is his chance to salvage some form of positive legacy by revealing the truth. Some even provocatively suggest that if Prince Andrew is cooperating, his brother, King Charles, should perhaps be the one facing consequences, referencing a humorous line from *The Crown* where Charles called Andrew a “fringe member” of the family.
This situation is being interpreted by many as a classic case of someone being designated as the “Duke of Scapegoat.” The underlying belief is that in order for the wider Royal Family to avoid further damage and intense public questioning, someone had to be offered up as a sacrifice. There’s a strong conviction that the senior members of the family, including Charles, were aware of Andrew’s alleged activities all along and chose not to intervene.
The question of whether Charles dislikes Andrew seems to be a prevalent one. Some speculate that Charles might be intentionally delaying the formal disownment of Andrew to maintain an image of a responsible monarch while simultaneously ensuring Andrew is ostracized. It’s seen as a calculated move where Charles is more than willing to let Andrew face the public’s anger, thereby positioning himself as the principled figure and emerging from the situation unscathed.
The Royal Family’s relationship with law enforcement is also being brought into question. There’s an underlying, perhaps cynical, suggestion that the police, in a way, already “work for the palace.” However, the current stance suggests a shift, with Charles potentially looking to reform the system so that individuals like his brother cannot exploit it.
The developments are happening at a time when the US Department of Justice has explicitly stated that they have withheld the most disturbing information, particularly anything involving deaths. This implication is that the allegations are far more serious than initially understood, suggesting potential involvement in homicides or other grave offenses. The anticipation is high for a whistleblower to release the full, unvarnished truth.
The credibility of Prince Andrew is undeniably a major issue. Given his past statements and the infamous interview he gave, any attempt now to do the “right thing” is likely to be viewed not as genuine remorse or a desire for justice, but as an act of self-preservation. This is particularly highlighted when considering the perceived favoritism towards Andrew by his mother compared to Charles, and the contrasting dynamic between Charles and his brother.
The idea of Prince Andrew being a scapegoat is being debated, with some arguing that the term doesn’t quite fit given the gravity of the allegations. There are mentions of murder allegations against multiple parties, implying a wider conspiracy or complicity. The historical context of past royal family dynamics, where Charles might have been critical of Andrew’s actions while his mother appeared more lenient, is also being revisited.
The implications of the ongoing revelations are expected to significantly erode public trust, not just in the monarchy but across the entire “free world.” There’s a sense of foreboding that things may not return to how they were before this saga unfolded. The censorship of names of perpetrators and accomplices in official statements is seen as particularly unsettling.
The notion that Charles might be recognizing the “perversion of Andrew” is presented as a positive development, contrasting with the idea that familial dynamics, like those between William and Harry, have unfortunately mirrored the strained relationship between Charles and Andrew. However, the argument is also made that William and Harry are adults capable of managing their own relationships.
The discussion also touches upon the distinction between a scapegoat and a sacrificial lamb. While Andrew is undeniably implicated, the idea of him being a “fall guy” rather than a true scapegoat is explored, suggesting he might not be the *only* guilty party. The complexities of accountability are debated, with some positing that while others may have turned a blind eye, the individual committing the crime bears the most guilt.
Ultimately, the sentiment is that Prince Andrew is a highly flawed individual, and his current predicament is a direct result of his actions. The idea of a “new free world” that is more just and equitable is viewed with skepticism, given the current global political landscape. The discussion circles back to the current situation, with King Charles’s stated support for the police being seen as a strategic move to distance the Crown from Andrew’s troubles and to project an image of adherence to justice, even if it means the downfall of his own brother.